|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/2/2008 3:04:44 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
The way I look at it is that whether or not they were consciously intending to teach eternal security they, in fact, did. I place God very much in the thick of each passage. It was God's intention to place those exact words and, if sincerely looked at, teach that a true believer can never lose his salvation.
Ok, the Apostles didn't consciously teach Eternal Security, or it doesn't matter if they did. What matters is how God placed the exact words. In other words, I think you are saying that the literal words themselves are more important than the meaning of the words as the Apostles understood them. Nope, I didn't say the Apostles did not consciously teach eternal security. But, yes, it's irrelevant either way. What I said was that God is responsible for those words being there; but, what I did not say is the Apostles didn't know what they were teaching. Funny, isn't it, how you confused the two?
quote:
So your idea of Biblical inspiration is not so much that God inspired the thoughts and understanding of the Bible writers, as they were writing the text. It is more that God used his miraculous powers to make the words come out in just the right places, so that later theologians could come along and figure out how all the words fit together.
Yep, God used His "miraculous powers" to have His Word written precisely as He wanted while maintaining the style of the penman. How is it possible you could think otherwise? It is only your assumption that the immediate recipients were not able to "figure out how all the words fit together."
quote:
quote:
That isn't precisely so. Christ began teaching eternal security well before vv 27-29. Very early on in vv 4,5 we're told "the sheep follow him: for they know his voice" and "they know not the voice of strangers". And again in vs 14 "..and am known of mine". Still again in vs 16 "...and they shall hear my voice..."
Ok, so Jesus slipped in a few other teachings of Eternal Security earlier on in this discourse; he didn't just suddenly spring it on them in 10:27.
Which adds validity that Christ intended to do exactly as He did - teach eternal security.
quote:
I'll have to admit that I don't quite see Eternal Security in these verses. It's not totally obvious to me why "Jesus knows his sheep" and "sheep hear his voice" should mean Eternal Security. Well, you may not "see" it; but, "it" is there. Surprising really, that you don't see eternal security in Christ calling "His own" sheep especially since we know Christ also said "and I will lose none of them"....sounds emminently secure to me.
quote:
However, from what was said above, I do not feel too bad, because the Apostle John was probably just as clueless as I am. Perhaps more attention to both Scripure and the post might be in order.
quote:
quote:
God does nothing by accident. Did John understand Christ to be teaching eternal security?...I have no idea nor do I think it important.
As above, you are saying that John may well have been clueless that Eternal Security was being taught here. Ditto..more attention. I never said the Apostles didn't know what they were teaching. I said and I quote "The way I look at it is that whether or not they were consciously intending to teach eternal security they, in fact, did."
So, let me set the record straight so we can dispense with your oft repeated error. Since the Apostles did in fact teach eternal security and since the OT did in fact teach eternal security, the Apostles understood precisely that they were in fact teaching eternal security. Okay?
quote:
quote:
What John, and every other penman of Scripture, wrote down was specifically what God intended them to write. In Jeremiah 36:2, we see just how specific the writing of Scripture is.
So, are you saying that Jeremiah went into a trance, or his mind went blank, or something like that, so that he didn't understand what he was saying? So, are you saying you never bothered to read Jer 36:2? Apparently that must be the case, since had you actually done so, you would be aware it never mentions anything about a "trance".
quote:
quote:
Do you not see Christ also giving us insights into His upcoming Atonement in (John 10) vv 11, 15,17, 18? Are we not to look at these verses as teaching us something about the Atonement simply because it was not the main thrust of the chapter? I hope not.
Yes, we should understand that Jesus was going to die for "his sheep". That doesn't mean we should use one of these verses as the chief proof text for some particular theory of the Atonement. We should read the verses for what they say, not for what they don't say.
Why say "yes" when you really mean "no"? Christ gave us insights into the Atonement in John 10 just as He gave us insights into eternal security. Now, you are more than entitled to ignore His plainly stated words; but, I prefer not to.
Seems you don't actually believe what you wrote: "read the verses for what they say, not for what they don't say.". If you did, you'd read the verses for what Christ is plainly saying: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
quote:
quote:
Surely, you agree the cat owner places the pill into a very tasty piece of tuna? Since the cat is not inclined to accept the pill, because of their ornery natures, the cat owner makes the pill not only acceptable to the cat but desireous to him. Therefore, the cat owner accomplishes what he set out to do - heal the cat. Well, in real life the cat eats the tuna and spits out the pill. Cats are quite crafty, you know.
Actually, I've found liverwurst works best. Just as any good pet owner would do, God works His will on each of us individually...whether by use of tuna, liverwurst or bologna.
quote:
Now, if you are saying that the meaning of "give" in John 10:28 is like sneaking the pill inside the tuna, that is quite interesting. Is God sneaking us the gift of Eternal Security in such a way that we don't even know that we swallowed it? (or obtained it?)
Perhaps you might furnish some passages which use the word "give" as you do ...seemingly something "forced"? Generally, from what I've seen, it is not used the way you propose rather more like the following:
# to give something to someone
1. of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage
1. to bestow a gift
2. to grant, give to one asking, let have
3. to supply, furnish, necessary things
4. to give over, deliver
1. to reach out, extend, present
2. of a writing
3. to give over to one's care, intrust, commit
1. something to be administered
2. to give or commit to some one something to be religiously observed
5. to give what is due or obligatory, to pay: wages or reward
6. to furnish, endue
# to give
1. to cause, profuse, give forth from one's self
1. to give, hand out lots
2. to appoint to an office
3. to cause to come forth, i.e. as the sea, death and Hell are said to give up the dead who have been engulfed or received by them
4. to give one to someone as his own
1. as an object of his saving care
2. to give one to someone, to follow him as a leader and master
3. to give one to someone to care for his interests
4. to give one to someone to whom he already belonged, to return
# to grant or permit one
1. to commission
quote:
quote:
How can the two be separated? If someone is truly saved, he has eternal life. Eternal means: without end, never to cease, everlasting.
So, it is definite that the term "eternal life" means "eternal security"? Yep, it's definite. The moment one is regenerated or "born from above" that individual HAS eternal life in his spirit. For this reason, upon death, a believer can immediately enter heaven because his spirit had been "made alive" while here on this earth.
quote:
And yet, as noted above, the Apostle John likely didn't realize this fact. LOL...nope what you "noted" above, in fact, was only something you thought you read - not what you read.
quote:
Is that, perhaps, because he didn't have such good Greek lexicons as we have today? What good would they do him any way? Well, maybe when he came out of his "trance" he could have consulted them...since apparently, according to you, Jesus didn't know what He intended to say either.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/2/2008 10:09:52 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
quote:
So, if you do not "remain in Christ", then you will no longer "be in Christ". Isn't that true (in plain English)?
No. To be "in Christ" is something that God does. We can't do that, just as we cannot regenerate ourselves, nor can we save ourselves. To remain or abide in Christ is to remain faithful to Him in obedience to His Word and service.
Hi FreeGrace,
Ok, let me get this straight. Here's a person: let's call him Bob. At some point Bob gets "in Christ". But then, for whatever reason, Bob doesn't remain in Christ. And yet you say that Bob is still in Christ.
Now where I come from, the way they speak English here, this does not make sense (and I've lived in several cities of the US, and it would not make sense anywhere I have been; I've also done substantial reading from British authors).
What part of the English speaking world do you come from? Does that kind of statement make sense to your neighbors?
You are not distinguishing between the position of being in Christ, which God does for all believers, and the relationship of abiding in Him. They are different, but you seem not to see it.
Are you aware of the many verses that speak of believers who fall away from the faith? For example, Luke 8:13, 1 Tim 1:19, 5:8,11,15, 6:10, and 21. Those are no longer "abiding in Christ", though still saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/2/2008 10:17:58 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
There really is no difference. To be "in Christ" is to be saved 2Cor 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Your first statement is false. There is a huge difference. Your second statement is true.
No, FG, there is essentially no difference because it is not possible to be one without the other....just as it is impossible to believe but not repent. If one is "in Christ", that means Christ dwells within his heart. And, that Christian WILL "abide in" Christ else he never had Christ dwelling in his heart to begin with....sort of like that second soil.
See post 3477 for my explanation. btw, what is your view of the verses I provided?
quote:
quote:
quote:
And to "abide in Christ" is also to be saved as we see in John 15:4 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me." It is clear from this verse that Christ abides in us, we abide in Christ.
Have you considered the context, kelman? Jesus was speaking to His saved disciples. Do you really think He was trying to evangelize them?
You've got a thing about Christ explaining the Gospel. He wasn't "evangelizing" His Apostles; but, He was explaining to them the necessity of holding fast to Him, explaining that it is from Him we get our spiritual nourishment.
That's my point. He was telling them the necessity of holding fast (which is abiding) for spiritual nourishment. If they "fall away", they are no longer being nourished and will spiritually wither (like the second soil).
quote:
quote:
quote:
If we do not "abide in Christ", we are eternally damned as John 15:6 says "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
The verse has nothing to do with damnation, kelman. Jesus was speaking metaphorically about being either useful or useless. Those who are useless are not going to be used by God.
You're correct Christ is using a metaphor; but, you are incorrect as to its meaning.
Since you agree it is a metaphor, your interpretation is wrong, because you are taking it literally. Just as a withered branch is useless except for a fire, Jesus is saying believers who don't abide in Him are useless for service. At least you admit it is a metaphor. Which disproves your view of the passage.
quote:
You have no scriptural support for your view that "cast them into the fire, and they are burned" is simply to not be used by God. Rather, Scripture is clear on the meaning of the words Christ used. Being cast, fire and burning is almost always associated with damnation.
You just "shot yourself in the foot" with the phrase "is almost always". You have admitted that it isn't always used that way.
quote:
The following are a few examples of how those words are to be understood.
Mat 5:29 ...and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 18:9 rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Rev 19:20 These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Mat 13:30 Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Yes, "almost always", as you note. Still, your statement supports my view. John 16:5 is one of those verses that doesn't refer to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 3:26:27 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
I'll have to admit that I don't quite see Eternal Security in these verses [in John 10]. It's not totally obvious to me why "Jesus knows his sheep" and "sheep hear his voice" should mean Eternal Security.
Well, you may not "see" it; but, "it" is there. Surprising really, that you don't see eternal security in Christ calling "His own" sheep especially since we know Christ also said "and I will lose none of them"....sounds emminently secure to me.
Hi kelman,
Well, I need to clarify. I have noted before, and I think you agreed, that the passage in John 10 is about Jesus's authority vis a vis the religious leaders. He claimed he was from God; the others said elsewise. This was a long discussion, which climaxed as the religious leaders got angrier and angrier and began to stone him.
This is the context of the passage.
Now I am going to agree with you that there are several verses in there that talk about Jesus being a shepherd, and that his sheep listen to him, and that the Father is giving the sheep to Jesus. And, if you will, you can call that "another teaching" in the main passage.
But you have to ask: Why are those verses there? Are they there because Jesus is trying to teach a secondary message, totally out of context with the main point? I think not.
The reason those verses are there is because Jesus is claiming he is a better shepherd than the religious leaders. They are claiming Jesus is a fraud, or worse yet a tool of the devil (e.g. John 10:20). In fact, they were supposed to be the shepherds, but they have proven to be bad shepherds (e.g. as in Ezekiel 34). So God is leading the sheep to Jesus. He is the good shepherd.
So, yes, part of Jesus's message is that he is the good shepherd, and he will keep his sheep secure, and he will lay down his life for them. You may call it a "secondary message", but really it is supporting the main message. It fits within the context.
And if you want to call that aspect of the teaching "Eternal Security", that is fine with me. I agree with you that this passage also teaches Eternal Security, if you define it that way.
However this passage does not say anything on the question of whether any particular sheep can stop listening, or run away, or anything like this (i.e. the usual point of issue in the "Eternal Security debate"). Even with the best of shepherds, a sheep can still decide to rebel or run away. That question is totally irrelevant to the context of the passage, and there is no reason to think Jesus had this issue in mind as he was speaking. (Or that John had it in mind when he was writing it down.)
quote:
quote:
quote:
kelman: God does nothing by accident. Did John understand Christ to be teaching eternal security?...I have no idea nor do I think it important.
Tychicus: As above, you are saying that John may well have been clueless that Eternal Security was being taught here.
kelman: Ditto..more attention. I never said the Apostles didn't know what they were teaching. I said and I quote "The way I look at it is that whether or not they were consciously intending to teach eternal security they, in fact, did."
So, let me set the record straight so we can dispense with your oft repeated error. Since the Apostles did in fact teach eternal security and since the OT did in fact teach eternal security, the Apostles understood precisely that they were in fact teaching eternal security. Okay?
Ok, I see here: "Did John understand Christ to be teaching eternal security?...I have no idea nor do I think it important." And then, "the Apostles understood precisely that they were in fact teaching eternal security."
I'm not sure I can totally put these two statements together. I see you saying that the Apostles were teaching Eternal Security, and they even understood they were teaching it, but there still seems to be some waffling.
Were the Apostles "consciously intending" to teach Eternal Security?
I'm sure you can see the problem. Because if they were consciously intending to teach Eternal Security, they did a pretty poor job of it. As you acknowledged in post #3457:
quote:
quote:
Tychicus: But the point of my question is: Are you saying that the apostles didn't understand or recognize Eternal Security? Or are you saying that they did understand it, but somehow the teaching never got through to anyone else in the first century?
kelman: From my limited reading I don't think anything was ever written specifically on eternal security in the first century.
Right, Eternal Security never really came up until the time of John Calvin in the 1500's (with due respect to Augustine's influence on Calvin, as you mentioned earlier.)
And there is still that nagging question as to why it is never taught in context. If the Apostles were "consciously intending" to teach Eternal Security it would not be hard to say it somewhere in context. This issue has been gone over in several posts around #3450.
Actually, for John 10, a little verse of explanation would go a long way, as John was known to do (e.g. John 2:21, 7:39). Clearly John must have realized that sprinking phrases like "know my sheep", and "sheep listen to me", and "they will never perish" around in various verses, is not a particularly effective way of teaching a doctrine, even if he actually thought those phrases had something to do with Eternal Security.
Now, perhaps your view is that the Apostles were not "consciously intending" to teach Eternal Security, and weren't concerned how clearly it was expressed. They just let God guide their hand, and saw that God was teaching Eternal Security in a round-about way in various verses. Although they understood that Eternal Security was being taught in these verses, they must have figured that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, chose not to teach it in context. And that was okay with them.
That's just my wild guess (as to what your view might be). I'm sure you can explain it better. 
quote:
quote:
Well, in real life the cat eats the tuna and spits out the pill. Cats are quite crafty, you know.
Actually, I've found liverwurst works best.
Thanks for the hint.
quote:
quote:
Now, if you are saying that the meaning of "give" in John 10:28 is like sneaking the pill inside the tuna, that is quite interesting. Is God sneaking us the gift of Eternal Security in such a way that we don't even know that we swallowed it? (or obtained it?)
Perhaps you might furnish some passages which use the word "give" as you do ...seemingly something "forced"? Generally, from what I've seen, it is not used the way you propose rather more like the following:
# to give something to someone
1. of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage
1. to bestow a gift
2. to grant, give to one asking, let have
. . .
No, I didn't think Jesus used the word "give" that way. I thought maybe you were proposing that meaning, since you originally gave the illustration of slipping the pill in the meat.
But I'm glad you are seeing all these nuances of the word "give". Now, if you'll go on to "eternal", "born", "seal", . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 3:55:35 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Tychicus: So, if you do not "remain in Christ", then you will no longer "be in Christ". Isn't that true (in plain English)?
FreeGrace: No. To be "in Christ" is something that God does. We can't do that, just as we cannot regenerate ourselves, nor can we save ourselves. To remain or abide in Christ is to remain faithful to Him in obedience to His Word and service.
Tychicus: Ok, let me get this straight. Here's a person: let's call him Bob. At some point Bob gets "in Christ". But then, for whatever reason, Bob doesn't remain in Christ. And yet you say that Bob is still in Christ.
Now where I come from, the way they speak English here, this does not make sense (and I've lived in several cities of the US, and it would not make sense anywhere I have been; I've also done substantial reading from British authors).
What part of the English speaking world do you come from? Does that kind of statement make sense to your neighbors?
FreeGrace: You are not distinguishing between the position of being in Christ, which God does for all believers, and the relationship of abiding in Him. They are different, but you seem not to see it.
No. I was just asking about poor Bob.
What language were you using when you said that Bob could still be in Christ when he didn't remain in Christ?
(Of course, you didn't literally say "Bob", but I hope you get the point. You said this concept would apply generally.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 10:08:35 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Actually, for John 10, a little verse of explanation would go a long way, as John was known to do (e.g. John 2:21, 7:39). Clearly John must have realized that sprinking phrases like "know my sheep", and "sheep listen to me", and "they will never perish" around in various verses, is not a particularly effective way of teaching a doctrine, even if he actually thought those phrases had something to do with Eternal Security.
Why do you not consider John 10:28 and 29 not "specific" regarding eternal security? Please elaborate.
Also, why don't you think Rom 8:35-39 is "specific" about ES?
Also, Eph 4:30?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 5:02:34 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
See post 3477 for my explanation. btw, what is your view of the verses I provided? You're not seriously asking my view of Luke 8:13 are you? I answered concerning 1Tim 5:8 on C/A.
I also pointed out there that you are incorrect when you say the following: "When the Bible speaks of believing or faith, it always means faith in Christ, which is saving faith."
I explained that "faith" does not always mean "faith in Christ". It can mean the faith OF Christ, it can mean the body of doctrines, it can mean saving faith and it can mean a non-saving faith.
And this is precisely the case in 1Tim 1:19.
As for 5:11, 15, Paul is talking about young widows who made a commitment to remain unmarried and in the service of the church. Apparently, some wanted out of that commitment and desired to marry again so Paul advises Timothy to refuse widows under sixty. From the sense of the context, I doubt this is talking about these widows losing their salvation or walking away from the faith. Rather, that they would incur guilt for renouncing their commitment.
The ones in 6:10 sound like the second soil of Luke 8:13. And 6:21 is talking about the particular "doctrines" of the faith that some are in error about, see 1:6,7.
So, your conclusion that "Those are no longer "abiding in Christ", though still saved." is not true.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And to "abide in Christ" is also to be saved as we see in John 15:4 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me." It is clear from this verse that Christ abides in us, we abide in Christ.
Have you considered the context, kelman? Jesus was speaking to His saved disciples. Do you really think He was trying to evangelize them?
You've got a thing about Christ explaining the Gospel. He wasn't "evangelizing" His Apostles; but, He was explaining to them the necessity of holding fast to Him, explaining that it is from Him we get our spiritual nourishment.
That's my point. He was telling them the necessity of holding fast (which is abiding) for spiritual nourishment. If they "fall away", they are no longer being nourished and will spiritually wither (like the second soil). While it may "sound" like that's what it is teaching, we know it is not. Verse 6 makes it very clear that unless we abide in Christ we are cast into the fire - meaning the Lake of Fire.
quote:
Since you agree it is a metaphor, your interpretation is wrong, because you are taking it literally. Just as a withered branch is useless except for a fire, Jesus is saying believers who don't abide in Him are useless for service. At least you admit it is a metaphor. Which disproves your view of the passage. That settles it then.... since you also accept it as a metaphor that also disproves your view of the passage. Well, there you go...we made quick work of that one, didn't we?
quote:
quote:
You have no scriptural support for your view that "cast them into the fire, and they are burned" is simply to not be used by God. Rather, Scripture is clear on the meaning of the words Christ used. Being cast, fire and burning is almost always associated with damnation.
You just "shot yourself in the foot" with the phrase "is almost always". You have admitted that it isn't always used that way. Nope, my foot's fine; but, you might have trouble getting your's out of your mouth.
I said "almost always" because sometimes a fire is just a fire. Try to be a little realistic here, FG, will ya? Just like today, sometimes people in Scripture used a "fire" to warm themselves(John 18:18). There are probably at least a dozen or more usages, though, of fire, hell, cast which indicate eternal damnation. One of those 'dozen or more' would be John 15:4-6
quote:
quote:
The following are a few examples of how those words are to be understood.
Mat 5:29 ...and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 18:9 rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Rev 19:20 These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Mat 13:30 Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Yes, "almost always", as you note. Still, your statement supports my view. John 16:5 is one of those verses that doesn't refer to hell. Not a chance that John 15:4-6 doesn't mean eternal damnation. Those that do not abide in Christ are gathered and cast into the fire and burned. Haven't you ever read about what happens to the "tares"?....the same thing(Mat 13:40). Or will you now suggest 'tares' are simply those without 'fruit'?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 5:15:16 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
Tychicus,
No time to get to your post right now. It's late and I'm tired...still complaining :) ....will get to it tomorrow, though.
Happy 4th of July!
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 5:43:42 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why do you not consider John 10:28 and 29 not "specific" regarding eternal security? Please elaborate.
Also, why don't you think Rom 8:35-39 is "specific" about ES?
Also, Eph 4:30?
Hi FreeGrace,
I do not see the term "Eternal Security" in these passages.
In a discussion on "Eternal Security" the usual point at issue is how to explain the situation when someone appears to be a believer in Christ, but then later on turns away from Christ.
Neither John 10:28-29 nor Rom 8:35-39 involves this issue.
In Eph 4:30 you have a command to not "grieve the Holy Spirit". It is within a list of several commands (Eph 4:25-32). The scripture does not say what would be the consequence of grieving the Holy Spirit.
As you have noted before, the term "sealed" is in Eph 4:30. Whether that means one seal for the whole Ephesian church, or separate seals for each believer, is a matter of debate. But either way, if you grieve the Holy Spirit, God can respond in any way he wishes. The fact that one is "sealed" does not limit what God can do.
In fact, just a few verses later, the Scripture says that if you fall into certain sinful behavior you "will not enter the kingdom of God or of Christ" (Eph 5:5)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 7:50:43 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
Why do you not consider John 10:28 and 29 not "specific" regarding eternal security? Please elaborate.
Also, why don't you think Rom 8:35-39 is "specific" about ES?
Also, Eph 4:30?
Hi FreeGrace,
I do not see the term "Eternal Security" in these passages.
Right. But that wasn't my question. You indicated that you didn't see anything "specific" regarding ES. Do you only mean to say if the words "eternal security" aren't there, it isn't "specific"? Again, what do these verses say to you?
[quoe]In a discussion on "Eternal Security" the usual point at issue is how to explain the situation when someone appears to be a believer in Christ, but then later on turns away from Christ.
What's difficult to explain? Who does the saving in the first place? Is it God, or is it our own faith that saves? Scripture is clear that God is the One who saves, by grace, through faith.
So, since God does the saving, the "length of time" that one believes has no relevance to God's saving power, since it isn't dependent upon man's continuation of believing.
If man's continuation of faith was a factor in being saved, then we would all have to agree that man saves himself by his own doing. But I strongly reject that line of thinking. God applies His saving power at the moment of initial faith. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that indicates that one's salvation is dependent upon continal faith. If that were so, man would absolutely be saving himself.
quote:
Neither John 10:28-29 nor Rom 8:35-39 involves this issue.
But that's not my question. What do those verses say to you?
quote:
In Eph 4:30 you have a command to not "grieve the Holy Spirit". It is within a list of several commands (Eph 4:25-32). The scripture does not say what would be the consequence of grieving the Holy Spirit.
What does the phrase "with whom you [n]were sealed until the day of redemption" mean to you?
quote:
As you have noted before, the term "sealed" is in Eph 4:30. Whether that means one seal for the whole Ephesian church, or separate seals for each believer, is a matter of debate. But either way, if you grieve the Holy Spirit, God can respond in any way he wishes. The fact that one is "sealed" does not limit what God can do.
Do you have any verses that speak of God ever "breaking" this seal? If you do not, I don't think you have a point.
quote:
In fact, just a few verses later, the Scripture says that if you fall into certain sinful behavior you "will not enter the kingdom of God or of Christ" (Eph 5:5)
Actually, it doesn't say "will not enter the kingdom". It says "has any inheritance in the kingdom".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 7:54:11 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Just for the record, kelman, because of your refusal to maintain an honest debate with me on the other thread, I am no longer responding to your posts.
There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who deliberately mischaracterizes what I say.
I am applying the principle of Titus 3:10.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 7:32:14 PM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
I do not see the term "Eternal Security" in these passages [John 10:28-29, Rom 8:35-39].
Right. But that wasn't my question. You indicated that you didn't see anything "specific" regarding ES. Do you only mean to say if the words "eternal security" aren't there, it isn't "specific"? Again, what do these verses say to you?
Hi FreeGrace,
I see God's eternal power to keep us. If that is what you mean by Eternal Security, then yes, I see Eternal Security in these passages.
However I do not see any promise in those passages that he will keep us if we reject him. Nor that God will absolutely stop us from rejecting him if we foolishly decide to do so. Do you see anything like that in those two passages?
quote:
quote:
In a discussion on "Eternal Security" the usual point at issue is how to explain the situation when someone appears to be a believer in Christ, but then later on turns away from Christ.
What's difficult to explain? Who does the saving in the first place? Is it God, or is it our own faith that saves? Scripture is clear that God is the One who saves, by grace, through faith.
So, since God does the saving, the "length of time" that one believes has no relevance to God's saving power, since it isn't dependent upon man's continuation of believing.
Since God does the saving, He will decide what counts as "faith", or whether "length of time" matters.
In normal English usage, the word "faith" does not mean some transitory profession of faith. Any normal English speaker will understand that kind of "faith" to be useless and have no lasting value.
Why are you so dogmatically insistent that God must be using this definition of "faith"? It sounds to me that you are using a very contorted understanding of the English language to make your theological point.
(And if you know anything about the Greek word pistis you will see that the contortion is even worse than appears in English.)
quote:
quote:
In fact, just a few verses later, the Scripture says that if you fall into certain sinful behavior you "will not enter the kingdom of God or of Christ" (Eph 5:5)
Actually, it doesn't say "will not enter the kingdom". It says "has any inheritance in the kingdom".
Ok, you are correct here. I was using the terminology of Gal 5:21, which looks like it is making a similar point. I was also understanding the word "inheritance" to have a similar meaning to Eph 1:14, 18.
Do you see roughly the same teaching in both Eph: 5-3-5 and Gal 5:19-21, or do you see totally different teachings?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 8:44:31 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
quote:
I do not see the term "Eternal Security" in these passages [John 10:28-29, Rom 8:35-39].
Right. But that wasn't my question. You indicated that you didn't see anything "specific" regarding ES. Do you only mean to say if the words "eternal security" aren't there, it isn't "specific"? Again, what do these verses say to you?
Hi FreeGrace,
I see God's eternal power to keep us. If that is what you mean by Eternal Security, then yes, I see Eternal Security in these passages.
However I do not see any promise in those passages that he will keep us if we reject him.
As a matter of principle, then you put God into the same "fickle" pot as man. Kind of like: "I'll like you as long as you like me". The other problem created by your view is that one's ultimate salvation is really dependent upon one's continuing faith. We just don't see that in Scripture.
On the contrary, Jesus equated believing with being saved in Luke 8:12 and in the very next verse tells us that the second soil believed. That makes them saved. While they believed only for a while and then fell away, there is no mention or hint that they "lost" their salvation.
quote:
Nor that God will absolutely stop us from rejecting him if we foolishly decide to do so. Do you see anything like that in those two passages?
No. But that doesn't disprove my point.
quote:
quote:
quote:
In a discussion on "Eternal Security" the usual point at issue is how to explain the situation when someone appears to be a believer in Christ, but then later on turns away from Christ.
What's difficult to explain? Who does the saving in the first place? Is it God, or is it our own faith that saves? Scripture is clear that God is the One who saves, by grace, through faith.
So, since God does the saving, the "length of time" that one believes has no relevance to God's saving power, since it isn't dependent upon man's continuation of believing.
Since God does the saving, He will decide what counts as "faith", or whether "length of time" matters.
On what basis do you make this statement? We already know what "counts as faith". That would be trust in His Son as Savior who died personally for the one believing. Where in Scripture is there any connection between "length of time" becoming an issue for EL?
quote:
In normal English usage, the word "faith" does not mean some transitory profession of faith. Any normal English speaker will understand that kind of "faith" to be useless and have no lasting value.
Faith is a noun, as we know. What about "believe", which is a verb? Where do we read that our faith or believing must continue for our salvation to continue?
quote:
Why are you so dogmatically insistent that God must be using this definition of "faith"? It sounds to me that you are using a very contorted understanding of the English language to make your theological point.
Please elaborate. I don't know what you mean here. Thanks.
quote:
(And if you know anything about the Greek word pistis you will see that the contortion is even worse than appears in English.)
What I know of pistis is that it means "to believe". Please explain this distortion you are accusing me of. Thanks.
quote:
Do you see roughly the same teaching in both Eph: 5-3-5 and Gal 5:19-21, or do you see totally different teachings?
I see the same teaching, neither of which speak of loss of salvation for sins of a believer. I think "inheritance" refers to rewards for obedient service. Those who persist in carnal lifestyles will not receive any rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 10:43:38 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1786
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not see the term "Eternal Security" in these passages.
Anyone who is determined not to see something in Scripture will not see it.
The JWs do not see the Deity of Christ. The Mormons do not see the sufficiency of the Bible. The Catholics do not see the sufficiency of Christ. And the list goes on.
But there are also genuine believers who -- because of exposure to man-made doctrines -- refuse to see what is plain to see. And that is the most tragic blindness of all, because it is wilful.
If we want to see God's truth without distortion, we must ask the Holy Spirit to show it to us in the context of the entire Bible. And we must be prepared to repent of our own foolish and humanistic notions. And the Holy Spirit bears witness throughout the New Testament that the child of God has eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13). That fact in itself implies and ensures eternal security.
God's salvation is a free gift of His grace. Man can to nothing to earn it and nothing to keep it. And salvation -- by definition -- is eternal. You will not find people in Scripture going through an endless cycle of saved-lost-saved-lost-saved-lost. That is pure foolishness.
Therefore this is not a matter of endless debate. One is either in Christ or without Christ. One is either saved or lost. One is either eternally a child of God or eternally a child of wrath.
God the Holy Spirit is surely and greatly grieved when the fundamental truths of God are questioned. It is God Himself who has given to us the gift of His Son (Jn. 3:16), and it is God Himself who has given to us the record of His Son (1 Jn. 5:7-12).
< Message edited by Ezra -- 7/4/2008 10:54:38 PM >
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 2:20:41 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Now I am going to agree with you that there are several verses in there that talk about Jesus being a shepherd, and that his sheep listen to him, and that the Father is giving the sheep to Jesus. And, if you will, you can call that "another teaching" in the main passage.
But you have to ask: Why are those verses there? Are they there because Jesus is trying to teach a secondary message, totally out of context with the main point? I think not.
Since these passages do, in fact, give us additional information, how can you say Christ is not 'purposely' teaching this message? Don't you think that is somewhat presumptious?
quote:
The reason those verses are there is because Jesus is claiming he is a better shepherd than the religious leaders. They are claiming Jesus is a fraud, or worse yet a tool of the devil (e.g. John 10:20). In fact, they were supposed to be the shepherds, but they have proven to be bad shepherds (e.g. as in Ezekiel 34). So God is leading the sheep to Jesus. He is the good shepherd. The reason for the verses being there doesn't change the truth of the statements or somehow make what they are teaching less meaningful. I'm not at all sure why you think God cannot teach two principles at the same time. I think He does that all the time. Do you see God teaching nothing else other than the safe passage of Ancient Israel through the Red Sea?
quote:
And if you want to call that aspect of the teaching "Eternal Security", that is fine with me. I agree with you that this passage also teaches Eternal Security, if you define it that way. Good, I think :)
quote:
However this passage does not say anything on the question of whether any particular sheep can stop listening, or run away, or anything like this (i.e. the usual point of issue in the "Eternal Security debate"). But it does, quite clearly speak to that issue in the following verses:
John 10:28-29
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
quote:
Even with the best of shepherds, a sheep can still decide to rebel or run away. That question is totally irrelevant to the context of the passage, and there is no reason to think Jesus had this issue in mind as he was speaking. (Or that John had it in mind when he was writing it down.) Frankly, it is hard to understand your statements here in light of verses 28-29. Never perish means precisely what it says. And, why would you think that "no man" is able to "pluck" them out of the Father's hand means that some men can?
quote:
Ok, I see here: "Did John understand Christ to be teaching eternal security?...I have no idea nor do I think it important." And then, "the Apostles understood precisely that they were in fact teaching eternal security."
I'm not sure I can totally put these two statements together. I see you saying that the Apostles were teaching Eternal Security, and they even understood they were teaching it, but there still seems to be some waffling. I don't see it as 'waffling' at all. I see it as my not 'knowing' what John 'knew'. I surmise that he DID know; but, do I have absolute proof of this?...no. But, I do know what he wrote is evidence of eternal security.
quote:
Were the Apostles "consciously intending" to teach Eternal Security?
I'm sure you can see the problem. Because if they were consciously intending to teach Eternal Security, they did a pretty poor job of it. As you acknowledged in post #3457: No, I did not acknowledge that in post #3457. I'll repost the relevant statements where I replied to your remark with regard to whether the Apostles' teaching was in response to questions about eternal security.
Tychicus said:
I am not clear what you mean here. Of course they worded the scriptures as they did. But were they intending to answer a question about Eternal Security when they wrote those verses? Nothing in the context of those verses indicates they were answering such a question, as far as I can see.
kelman replied:
I didn't mean to imply the Apostles were answering any questions on eternal security. What I meant is that I find the remarks they did make to be transparent and without ambiguity.
quote:
quote:
kelman: From my limited reading I don't think anything was ever written specifically on eternal security in the first century.
Right, Eternal Security never really came up until the time of John Calvin in the 1500's (with due respect to Augustine's influence on Calvin, as you mentioned earlier.)
Then again, I really don't know for sure, do you? In any event, 400AD is very early on when it was, in fact, raised.
quote:
Actually, for John 10, a little verse of explanation would go a long way, as John was known to do (e.g. John 2:21, 7:39). Clearly John must have realized that sprinking phrases like "know my sheep", and "sheep listen to me", and "they will never perish" around in various verses, is not a particularly effective way of teaching a doctrine, even if he actually thought those phrases had something to do with Eternal Security. Neither was John effectively teaching on the Atonement; but, he sprinkled a verse or two about it in chapter 10.
quote:
Now, perhaps your view is that the Apostles were not "consciously intending" to teach Eternal Security, and weren't concerned how clearly it was expressed. IF John was not 'consciously intending' to teach eternal security, he, nonetheless, did an excellent job of it. Again, his remarks were 'transparent and without ambiguity'.
quote:
They just let God guide their hand, and saw that God was teaching Eternal Security in a round-about way in various verses. Well, if God intended to guide their hand, they wouldn't have much choice, now would they? Perhaps, in order to find truth God made it necessary to consult all of Scripture to come to it? Although, even without the rest, John would be more than enough for me to know God was teaching eternal security.
The real problem, the really big problem is 'what is salvation'. It's obvious even from some posts on this thread that faith and salvation are totally misunderstood and very incorrectly taught.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Now, if you are saying that the meaning of "give" in John 10:28 is like sneaking the pill inside the tuna, that is quite interesting. Is God sneaking us the gift of Eternal Security in such a way that we don't even know that we swallowed it? (or obtained it?)
Perhaps you might furnish some passages which use the word "give" as you do ...seemingly something "forced"? Generally, from what I've seen, it is not used the way you propose rather more like the following:
# to give something to someone
1. of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage
1. to bestow a gift
2. to grant, give to one asking, let have
. . .
No, I didn't think Jesus used the word "give" that way. I thought maybe you were proposing that meaning, since you originally gave the illustration of slipping the pill in the meat.
You brought up the example of the cat and the pill not me. It was you indicating some type of force - not me; and that's precisely why I asked you for passages which use "give" in the manner you were suggesting - force. In fact, in post #3473 the following was your example - not mine:
quote:
A. I gave the cat some tuna.
B. I gave the cat her medicine.
A) means essentially "freely offered". B) means (quite literally) force it down her throat.
In any event, I'm glad we can agree that when Christ "gives" there is no force involved.
quote:
But I'm glad you are seeing all these nuances of the word "give". Now, if you'll go on to "eternal", "born", "seal", . . . I would say the word give is self-explantory as is eternal, born and seal.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 2:54:33 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Just for the record, kelman, because of your refusal to maintain an honest debate with me on the other thread, I am no longer responding to your posts.
There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone who deliberately mischaracterizes what I say. Dishonest?....really? Nope, I don’t think so, FG,…not me anyway. HERE IS THE POST where I used the precise terminology you demanded so obviously the only reason you don't answer is because you have no answers.
quote:
I am applying the principle of Titus 3:10.
LOL..yeah, sure you’re applying Titus…nope, the only thing you’re applying is a defense..a rather weak one at that , but, a defense nonetheless. It is your religion which is so far outside the scope of orthodoxy, FG, that it is not me who is the candidate for heresy.
It is only in your extraordinarily unorthodox theology where a "former believer" or a "no longer a believer" or a "not a believer, now" or a "past believer but, now a God-hating Atheist" are safe and secure in the arms of Jesus.
See FG, I get your unorthdox theological lingo just fine.
And just for the record, FG, it’s clear why you can’t engage me even in this thread. Why?...because in order to maintain your unorthodox theology you must declare that the words "gathered, casting, into the fire" mean nothing but a lack of fruit. And this in the face of the fact that anyone with a Bible knows these words indicate eternal damnation.
Yeah, sure Titus 3:10....lol..
Oh, and btw, I take it as a very great compliment to be thought a heretic by anyone who ascribes to one of the most outrageously unorthodox theologies around such as yours where you actually teach God-hating Atheists safe and secure in the arms of Jesus in heaven…..
Scripture attests to your unorthodoxy. UNbelievers, whether Atheists, "former" or "not now believers" will not enter the Kingdom of God.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. -Revelation 21:8
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Good luck, FG.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 7:01:48 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
However I do not see any promise in those passages [John 10:28-29, Rom 8:35-39] that he will keep us if we reject him.
As a matter of principle, then you put God into the same "fickle" pot as man. Kind of like: "I'll like you as long as you like me". The other problem created by your view is that one's ultimate salvation is really dependent upon one's continuing faith. We just don't see that in Scripture.
I said, "However I do not see any promise in those passages [John 10:28-29, Rom 8:35-39] that he will keep us if we reject him."
How in the world does your response relate at all to what I said? I was speaking of two specific Scripture passages (as you had asked me to do). Do you see anything in these passages about what would happen if we reject God?
Your "matter of principle" is just your opinion, unrelated to those two passages.
quote:
quote:
quote:
FreeGrace: . . . So, since God does the saving, the "length of time" that one believes has no relevance to God's saving power, since it isn't dependent upon man's continuation of believing.
Tychicus: Since God does the saving, He will decide what counts as "faith", or whether "length of time" matters.
FreeGrace: On what basis do you make this statement?
Because God makes the rules; not you or me.
quote:
We already know what "counts as faith". That would be trust in His Son as Savior who died personally for the one believing. Where in Scripture is there any connection between "length of time" becoming an issue for EL?
Since the Scripture doesn't talk of "length of time", why are you so dogmatically sure that you know how long is required?
As a matter of fact, your view that only one nanosecond of faith is required would be viewed as ridiculous by most people. You need to understand that no one understands "faith" to have that meaning, except perhaps for people who go to your church.
Do you really think Jesus meant "one second of faith" whe | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
