That’s a good attempt at skating from responsibility from the claims you’ve made here, but I’m not letting you off the hook that easily…
Here’s why it’s an important question and one you must answer if your claims are to be taken seriously: you’re making the claim that it’s possible for someone to believe in Christ, be baptized, receive Christ’s grace, act in accordance with that grace (i.e., do good works), and yet not be saved. If that’s an exception to the normal course of things, then your argument doesn’t hold up. (It’s like saying that the rule is wrong because of one exception, and then describing the situation in terms of the one exception rather than in terms of the 99,999 normative cases).
On the other hand, if it’s the normative case, then we’ve got a real problem, which is where your next comment comes into play…
No, you didn’t make that argument explicitly – but it’s the logical inference from your argument. Look at your claim, again. We’re not talking about an instance of an ‘Ananias and Sapphira’, where two Christians fail to accept the grace God’s given them, and therefore, fail to do good works (and, in fact, do evil works). No… your claim is the opposite: you’re claiming that there are Christians out there indistinguishable from any others – that is, Christians who have (and I’ll repeat myself here, for the sake of emphasis)
- believed in Christ
- accepted him in their hearts as their Lord and Savior
- been baptized
- received grace from Christ
cooperated with that grace, and performed acts of supernatural virtue
BUT… you claim that although they’ve done all these things, they’re not saved.
There are only two possible conclusions we can draw:
- there is no such thing as ‘security’: if we have faith, do all we’re commanded to do, and yet be condemned, then there’s nothing we can look to in order to assure ourselves we’re on the path of salvation
- Jesus lied when He told us how we could attain to heaven.
You can see the problem here in your claims, can’t you? Either your claims are incidental – and therefore, don’t describe soteriology accurately – or, your claims are normative – and therefore, tear down the edifice of Christ’s teaching.
There’s one other possibility, of course: your claims are in error. (In all charity, that’s the one I’ll take as my conclusion, if you don’t mind. )