A Christian can not lose salvation

Thanks to my opponent for his reply. I stated “that your position …” (a saved person cannot become an unbeliever) “… demands continuous miracles. I trust that an explanation will be forthcoming.” Here’s the explanation: “Unbelievably as a Christian she does not believe miracles happens.” That’s it. Of course, the truth of the matter is that neither my opponent nor anyone else can dream up a plausible explanation for this mysterious inability to quit believing in Jesus Christ. There is no logical explanation. Thus, does not his position entail, or rather demand, a continual series of miracles on each saved person lest he be tempted and drawn back into atheism – or Judaism – or some other “ism”? This “explanation” has turned out to be an “assertion”: just explain it away as a miracle and move on. Well, I believe that miracles were performed to confirm the now-completed, all-sufficient revelation and to attest to the veracity of the speaker. Miracles were to last until early Christians - without the completed Word - attained the unity of the faith (Eph 4: 8-14). Since we have the complete, authoritative, all-sufficient and confirmed Word of God today, there is no need for miracles now – and that’s that. The Bible stands confirmed. That was the purpose of miracles: confirmation of the Word. "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." (Mark 16: 20) *** “She is suggesting that there are so many 'ifs and buts' in the policy of salvation that it simply means that it is conditional.” I sure am, and my opponent takes a passage like “if we walk in the light, as He is in the light …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin", and says that the blood will cleanse you whether you walk in the light or not. Or he says you’re forced to walk in the light, and there's no such thing as not walking in the light. Which is it? Again: “If you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” (II Chron 15: 2) Does my opponent say that if you forsake Him, He will not forsake you? If so, that's a big difference! And if “forsaking Him” is impossible, why waste time on an impossibility? Why all these warnings over impossible, unfathomable scenarios? *** “The passages you have supplied still circle around the wonderful grace of this undeserved, freely given, and secure salvation of Christ.” They do not “circle around.” They very plainly warn against certain things such as “forsaking God” and “forgetting God.” By the way, can a person forget God? I’d say so: “So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish.” (Job 8: 13) “Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.” (Jer 2: 32) And what is God’s response? Hear it: “Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence: and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.” (Jer 23: 39, 40) Now you say that can’t happen. Why on earth the repeated warnings, dozens ofthem, over an impossibility? That makes no sense to me. *** “These verses supply free grace and eternal salvation. (John 10:25-29;Heb. 13:5-7; 1 John 2:19-25; Rom. 8:33-39; 1 John 5:7-21; Heb. 5:1-9; 2 Tim 2:1-13).” Not a one of them talks about an unconditional salvation. *** “We all have a freedom of choice of course and we can exercise it. But the real question is, what prevents the saved from walking away forever from God if one chooses? Our salvation in Christ does.” So the explanation is that our salvation in Christ forces us to not choose to walk away from God forever? Pardon me, but when a passage plainly says, “If thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off forever.” (I Chron 28: 9), it just seems to me that forsaking God is a possibility or again the words have no meaning at all. *** John 10:28-29, "I give unto them eternal life; they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” He assumes that the passage refers to literal eternal life right now – not the kind Paul had. Paul was a “sheep” who followed Christ, and what did he say about it? Paul was still "in hope of eternal life, which God ... promised before the world began." (Titus 1: 2). My opponent thinks he has it right now, actually and literally – and that’s just one difference between him and Paul. Truth is that the passage doesn’t fit my opponent’s doctrine at all. Why? Because it has the “eternal life” given after the “following.” His position, although incorrect, is that eternal life is given as a “free gift” before the “following.” If he puts it after the “following”, he concludes that he’s “earning” something. Don’t you think that “eternal life” might refer to heaven in this passage? Is that why Paul was "In hope of eternal life, which God promised before the world began?" Thus, the “eternal life” here coincides with the “end of your faith” – not the beginning: “receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” (I Pet 1: 9) *** “When we are given a present or gift did we work to receive it?” My opponent answers, “No, we did not.” Now watch. He’s not done. After telling you that you do nothing – or else he thinks you’re trying to earn salvation, he proceeds to tell you what you absolutely must do. Here it is: “All we must do is open our hearts to receive it and it is ours forever.” See it? “All we must do”. We do it. If we “do” it, it is a work. And watch again: he thus disproves his own contention because he contends that we do nothing to be saved, thus we do nothing to stay saved. Then he disproves his conjectures by telling us “all we must do” to receive salvation. Blatant contradiction. And next he’ll be telling us that although we “must do” it, and we do it, and we did it, we really didn’t do it, so what we did (but really didn’t do) doesn’t count as a work. Every time he starts explaining salvation, it will seem unconditional - you’ll hear words like “free gift” alot - until the very end: then he’ll slip in a vague disclaimer like “you must open your hearts to receive it.” Let's be specific. Does “opening your hearts” include repentance? Does it include belief? Does it include love? By the time we’re done, I surmise it’ll be a lot more than “nothing”. It always is. *** “One cannot be severed from that to which he was not joined.” Absolutely not. I’ve said the same thing many times. “Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.” (Gal 5: 4, ASV) The “Ye” could not be severed from that to which they were not joined. We know that much because you just said it. And the “ye” in that passage is the “us” in Gal 5: 1: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” So they were joined to Christ – saved. Now they are severed and fallen away from grace. Is your position that a man who is severed from Christ and fallen away from grace is still saved? If so, I wish you’d explain it because it looks to me like those folks were saved, then severed … cut off … due to 1. Becoming entangled again with the yoke of bondage, which is 2. Synonymous with a return to Judaism, which is 3. Synonymous with a denial that Jesus is the Son of God, which is 4. Synonymous with a believer becoming an unbeliever, which5. You have repeatedly told us could not happen. Could you please explain that again, step by step?*** I shall quickly introduce King Saul - he is an interesting character: chosen of God, anointed, given another heart, Spirit came upon him, prophesied, prayed, worshipped. He had every appearance of a saved man. Then the Spirit left him, the Lord left him, he became God's enemy. I'll mention him further, but I wanted to briefly introduce his story. Thanks. Back to the affirmative.