Are there any scriptures that state by necessary inference or in any way imply that Solomon was lost?  My understanding is yes, he did disobey God in a most blatant manner, but the book of Ecclesiastes was his repentance.  I had a sister tell me last nite after our ladies' class she agrees, the book may have been, but repentance means nothing if you don't DO something.  She went on to say that all the idols erected during Solomon's reign were not torn down until King Josiah, and if Solomon had repented in the biblical sense, he would have had them torn down. ~ Marilyn

The sins of Solomon are acknowledged in Scripture. Various sources conclude from the biblical text that Solomon was ultimately lost. "He died disillusioned and spiritually insensible" (Unger's). "Near the end of his life, the king lost the ideals of his youth, becoming restless and unsatisfied. ...Eventually he approved of, and even participated in, these idolatrous acts" (Nelson's).

Other commentators presume that Solomon repented at the last. "Solomon probably repented in the end; for Chronicles make no mention of his fall" (Fausset's). Matthew Henry assumes that Solomon' soul was recovered for God:

The account we have of Solomon's apostasy from God, in the latter end of his reign 1 Kings 11:1, is the tragical part of his story; we may suppose that he spoke his Proverbs in the prime of his time, while he kept his integrity, but delivered his Ecclesiastes when he had grown old (for of the burdens and decays of age he speaks feelingly ch. 12), and was, by the grace of God, recovered from his backslidings.

Yet, when all is said and done, we must concur with the following remarks:

We may not enter into the things within the veil, or answer either way the doubting question, Is there any hope? Others have not shrunk from debating that question, deciding, according to their formulae, that he did or did not fulfil the conditions of salvation so as to satisfy them, were they to be placed upon the judgment seat. ...The teaching of the New Test. adds nothing to the materials for a life of Solomon. (McClintock and Strong)

The salvation of some Old Testament Bible characters who appear in New Testament passages can be confidently affirmed (Hebrews 11). Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus Christ at the Transfiguration, whereby even Moses who was forbidden entrance to Canaan because of sin seems to have enjoyed ultimate salvation (Matthew 17:3). However, it is not the prerogative of mere mortals to pronounce eternal judgment (damnation or salvation) upon any soul (James 4:11-12). As fruit inspectors, though, we can offer righteous judgment that souls with whom we are contemporary need to bring themselves into compliance with God's Word or face the prospect of eternal loss (Matthew 7:1-5, 16-20). Still, we cannot guarantee (though the truth may seem obvious to us and we may be correct) that any soul is saved or lost--that's not our job as Christians.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary. CD-ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 1998.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. New modern ed. CD-ROM. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 2000.

Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary. CD-ROM. Nashville: Nelson, 1986.

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. CD-ROM. Chicago: Moody, 1988.

...one stumbling block I have always had trouble overcoming is the Eucharist.  Wasn't Our Lord clear about His actual Body and Blood being consumed?  Those who could not bear to hear such talk walked no more with Him.  He did not correct any "misunderstanding."

The passage of Scripture to which you refer is:

I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:48-66).

First, it is far from certain that the context has any reference to the Lord's Supper, as Jesus neither instituted nor announced ahead that he would institute the Lord's Supper when he spoke in the context of John 6:48-66. Another year passed before Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper (Clarke's).

Even if one can correctly make some correlation between this context and the Lord's Supper that was instituted much later, the doctrine that the bread turns into the literal body of Jesus Christ and that the fruit of the vine turns into the literal blood of Jesus Christ did not originate with Jesus, was not practiced the evening of the Supper's institution, was not practiced by the first-century church, but was adopted much later, well beyond the first century and extrabiblically, at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and a part of the Council of Trent in 1545.

He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man-his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are "changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord." So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.

Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord's Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death-his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin-he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. (Barnes')