RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Salvation Issues



Message

Tychicus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/16/2008 12:44:17 AM)

quote:

quote:

Your proof of Eternal Security is not based on any Bible teaching in context. Your argument is based purely on the existence of these words or terms that you think must mean Eternal Security.

Tychicus. You are continuing to repeat your fallacy ad nauseum. The "context" of eternal security is (1) the character of God Himself and (2) the perfection of the finished redemptive work of Christ.

Hi Ezra,

With all due respect, I do not think you give proper respect to God's character. If He wants to blow you away, or blow me away, because of our sins, he has a perfect right to do this.

We need to be in pure humility before him. We can't tell Him what to do. Nor is it wise to say "his character" requires him to act according to our version of Eternal Security -- as if we can dictate what "his character" requires Him to do.



Ezra -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/16/2008 1:58:42 AM)

quote:

With all due respect, I do not think you give proper respect to God's character. If He wants to blow you away, or blow me away, because of our sins, he has a perfect right to do this.


Tychicus:

It is those who keep harping on the insecurity of salvation who fail to give proper respect to the character of God and the perfect finished work of Christ. The point is not whether God wants to blow anyone away, but that because He made a perfect provision for our eternal salvation in Christ, it is impossible for a child of God to lose his or her salvation.

Those who continue to harp on insecurity denigrate the character of God by suggesting that God's plan of salvation is fundamentally defective -- that those whom Christ saves do not remain eternally secure, even though it is God Himself who has given to us the record of eternal life and that this life is IN His Son. Those who have the Son have life. And those who do not have the Son do not have life, but the wrath of God abides on them.

The theory of insecurity is based upon the fallacy that fallen sinners can do something to either merit salvation or demerit salvation. This is so totally false that it must be rejected at all costs. Salvation is purely a gift of God's grace, and because it is the gift of the Lord God Almighty it is unalterable. It has nothing whatsoever to do with our sinfulness, but everything to do with the perfection of Christ and of His finished work on the Cross and in His resurrection. Therefore the theory of insecurity is a very serious attempt to undermine the Gospel. And guess who is behind undermining the Gospel?



Theophile2 -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/17/2008 10:15:34 PM)

The technical answer from a Reformed Theology POV to the main question in this post follows. I wouldn't presume to think that I could actually change someone's mind who has set on a particular Theological POV, assuming that person has fully researched his or her position to their own satisfaction.

Q. 79. May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace?
A. True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God,[Jeremiah 31:3] and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance,[2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 13:20-21; 2 Samuel 23:5] their inseparable union with Christ,[1 Corinthians 1:8-9] his continual intercession for them,[Hebrews 7:25; Luke 22:32] and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them,[1 John 3:9; 1 John 2:27] can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace,[Jeremiah 32:40; John 10:28] but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.[1 Peter 1:5]

Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[1 John 2:3] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 John 3:14, 18-19, 21, 24; 1 John 4:13, 16; Hebrews 6:11-12] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[Romans 8:16] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[1 John 5:13]

Q. 81. Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
A. Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith,[Ephesians 1:13] true believers may wait long before they obtain it;[Isaiah 50:10; Psalm 88:1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15] and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions;[Psalm 77:1-12; Song of Solomon 5:2-3, 6; Psalm 51:8, 12; Psalm 31:22; Psalm 22:1] yet they are never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.[1 John 3:9; Psalm 73:15, 23; Isaiah 54:7-10]
(Westminster Large Catechism)

Blessings ...[sm=smile.gif]


[sm=icon_smile_fish.gif]



Tychicus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/18/2008 1:10:55 AM)

quote:

quote:

In all this, you do not discuss John 10:7-18. Because clearly the context of John 10 is not about the character of the sheep, but the character of the Shepherd.

Of course, it's about the character of the Shepherd; we are not kept safe by our faith but by the character of Christ. I understand your point that Christ is comparing Himself to the "bad shepherds" of the Jewish leaders; but, how does that serve to negate all the rest He says?

quote:

Christ gets his authority from God -- in fact "I and the Father are one". This passage is not attempting to give some precise theological exposition of the belief structure of the sheep, and it certainly does not specify whether the sheep can rebel or not.

You seem to read Scripture as if the only ones it is applicable to are those to whom it was spoken or written. While I understand that is important, it still does not negate the plain words that Christ is speaking.

Hi kelman,

Well, the Scripture is applicable to everyone, but you can best understand it if you look at the original audience. It is written in the idiom of first century Koine Greek, and the readers understood it based on what the words meant at that time. They would also understand the words in the context of the passage. And, of course it is applicable today, but in order to apply it correctly we need to understand what it meant when it was written.

quote:

While I understand that [the context] is important, it still does not negate the plain words that Christ is speaking. Because 10:7-18 is not speaking specifically to eternal security is no reason to conclude that much of John 10 is not.

Well, once you take out 10:7-18 there isn't very much left. If you have a red-letter Bible, you see that this is the bulk of Jesus's teaching. The black letters (10:6, 10:19-24) are certainly not about the "sheep" or Eternal Security. Nor is the end of the chapter (10:30-42).

The only verses that could potentially support any doctrine about the "sheep" are 10:3-5 and 10:27-29. I assume that is where you are finding "the plain words that Christ is speaking". If you are thoroughly convinced that these verses mean Eternal Security, then fine. Most Calvinists believe that; most everyone else does not. Anyone can take what they want out of Bible verses.

But, leaving aside the six verses, you will be hard-pressed to see anything in the context of John 10 that would lead you to think any doctrine like Eternal Security is even on anyone's radar. The chapter (including those six verses) is all about Christ versus the religious leaders, and Christ's special relationship with God. So, in context, those six verses are part of the overall story about the reliability of the Shepherd. They have a perfectly legitimate and understandable meaning in context which has nothing to do with Eternal Security.

However, you see Eternal Security in these verses as an “additional meaning” based on the “clear words”. And you are perfectly comfortable building doctrines on these “additional meanings”. That’s fine; I guess we all have our way of looking at things. As you have succinctly said:
quote:

I just can't agree with your method of hermeneutics.

This is the gist of the issue. My understanding of hermeneutics is that God inspired the thoughts of the Bible writers as well as their words. So they understood what they were writing, and they wrote with the purpose of having the readers understand God's message. They were conveying God's truth in understandable language, and were conveying thoughts that the original readers would understand. They did not normally try to teach God's truth by slipping in isolated verses that would have to be pieced together later after extensive theological study. In other words, they were not writing Bible verses as "puzzle pieces" to be weaved together at a later time by serious Bible students.

From post #3415 it seems you believe in the hermeneutic of treating the Scripture as "puzzle pieces". On the contrary I believe in the hermeneutic of reading the Bible primarily as messages given by God, written in context. And that would explain our difference.

quote:

quote:

Tychicus: There is no evidence that anyone in the first three centuries of the church (native Greek speakers) understood [these words] to mean Eternal Security. The first person who interpreted them in any way like that was Augustine, and he did not know Greek well. Even then, hardly anyone accepted that kind of interpretation until the time of Calvin (16th century).

kelman: Did they understand the purpose of water baptism in the first three centuries? Did they not already begin to pray to spirits other than God in the first three centuries? Did not some in the first three centuries believe they were consuming the "literal" body and blood of Jesus Christ? So, I do not consider your argument of "first three centuries" very convincing.

You make a good point here. The early Christian writers were not infallable, and so you can find some mistakes.

However, in this case, your case for Eternal Security is based on the claim that you (a 20th century English speaker) are perfectly sure you understand the exact nuances of these 1st century Koine Greek words. That's an extremely difficult job, as any linguist will understand. So, I wouldn't totally dismiss the Koine Greek ability of these Koine Greek speakers just because they made some theological mistakes along the way. After all, Augustine made some serious theological mistakes too, as I'm sure you are well aware.



Tychicus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/18/2008 1:48:02 AM)

quote:

I agree that some of Romans is addressed to the Jewish Christian. Paul is chastising them for despising the Gentiles in 2:1-3. Rom 2 includes Jews and Gentiles, we see this in vs 10-12 - that God is no respecter of persons. Then back specifically to the Jews in vs 17. Rom 3 is demonstrating to the Jews that they are no better than the Gentiles "There is none righteous, no, not one." Paul has proved that all are under sin.

Hi kelman,

I agree with all of the above.

quote:

The term "O man" is not always specifically for the Jew. It's not referencing Jews in 1Cor 7:16.

I agree here too: the "O man" does not always mean a Jew. But in the context of Romans that is the most sensible interpretation (IMO). That is, up to Rom 11:13, where Paul says "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles", and there is a shift in his audience for several verses following that.

quote:

quote:

Tychicus: It (the beginning of Rom 9) does not say, “Ok, now I Paul am going to explain to you how it came about that Jacob went to heaven and Esau went to hell. It was all because of God’s decision made at the beginning of time, before Jacob and Esau were ever born. . . .” Nothing like that is said; and the reason is that Paul had no intention of ever discussing such a topic.

But, in fact, something like that is discussed. The fact that he speaks of individuals is clear since he mentions Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Pharoah and how God dealt with them "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Well, he still doesn't talk about anyone going to heaven or hell. And he doesn't say Jacob is a type for all the individuals of the "elect" while Esau is a type of all the individuals of the "reprobate". In fact, Rom 9:13: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is a quote of Mal 1:2-3, which is referring to the nations Israel and Edom. And the Genesis account of their birth (25:23) also talks of nations: "Two nations are in your womb . . ."

So, treating these individuals as type of nations makes perfect sense, and also fits in the context of the chapter (9:1-5, 9:30-32). There is no reason to think that Esau is a type for "all the individuals of the reprobate who are destined to go to hell because of God's sovereign choice before the foundation of the world." Nothing in the passage would remotely support that kind of interpretation.

Well I'll leave off here. You make good points below, and as much as I'd like to get into it, I suspect it would be off-topic in this forum, and besides I have limited time right now. Maybe some time I'll get into the other forum, but that's not for now.



Tychicus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/19/2008 4:52:55 AM)

quote:

It is those who keep harping on the insecurity of salvation who fail to give proper respect to the character of God and the perfect finished work of Christ. The point is not whether God wants to blow anyone away, but that because He made a perfect provision for our eternal salvation in Christ, it is impossible for a child of God to lose his or her salvation.

Hi Ezra,

Well, this is all a fine sounding argument, but it has nothing to do with anything taught in Scripture.

And, anyway, who is "harping on the insecurity of salvation"?

quote:

Those who continue to harp on insecurity denigrate the character of God by suggesting that God's plan of salvation is fundamentally defective -- that those whom Christ saves do not remain eternally secure

God's plan of salvation is not "fundamentally defective". If someone turns away and rebels against God, He is perfectly within his rights to pronounce whatever judgment He wants. God is good; just because he doesn't act the way you think he should, it does not mean that He is defective.

quote:

Salvation is purely a gift of God's grace, and because it is the gift of the Lord God Almighty it is unalterable. It has nothing whatsoever to do with our sinfulness, but everything to do with the perfection of Christ and of His finished work on the Cross and in His resurrection.


Salvation is a gift of God, and does have to do with the perfection of Christ. But it also has to do with our sinfulness, repentance and trust in Christ. Your comment conveys a flippant attitude toward sin.

Apparently you believe that you have reached some status of privilege. Now that you are a "child of God" you can sin all you want, and God is incapable of sending you to hell. I suggest you read Phil 2:12 and "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" if you care about being a real child of God.



kelman -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/19/2008 5:58:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Well, the Scripture is applicable to everyone, but you can best understand it if you look at the original audience. It is written in the idiom of first century Koine Greek, and the readers understood it based on what the words meant at that time. They would also understand the words in the context of the passage. And, of course it is applicable today, but in order to apply it correctly we need to understand what it meant when it was written.
While historical and cultural context of passages are of interest, I believe Scripture is best understood when we make conclusions based upon all the material contained in the Bible. This must be the case since God is writing for all men of all ages.

quote:

Well, once you take out 10:7-18 there isn't very much left. If you have a red-letter Bible, you see that this is the bulk of Jesus's teaching. The black letters (10:6, 10:19-24) are certainly not about the "sheep" or Eternal Security. Nor is the end of the chapter (10:30-42).
I disagree. Verses 3 thru 9 are applicable as are 25 thru 30. Also we have vs 12 which implies Christ will never leave His sheep. And, vs 16 which says the other sheep will also hear His voice and there will be one Shepherd and one fold.

quote:

The only verses that could potentially support any doctrine about the "sheep" are 10:3-5 and 10:27-29. I assume that is where you are finding "the plain words that Christ is speaking". If you are thoroughly convinced that these verses mean Eternal Security, then fine. Most Calvinists believe that; most everyone else does not. Anyone can take what they want out of Bible verses.
I find the plain words of Christ throughout John 10 and because they are so plain and because they present harmony with the rest of Scripture, it seems one would be shortsighted to miss it. And while it's true anyone can take what they want out of the Bible - they shouldn't. We test our conclusion by finding other passages in the Bible that teach the same thing.

quote:

But, leaving aside the six verses, you will be hard-pressed to see anything in the context of John 10 that would lead you to think any doctrine like Eternal Security is even on anyone's radar. The chapter (including those six verses) is all about Christ versus the religious leaders, and Christ's special relationship with God. So, in context, those six verses are part of the overall story about the reliability of the Shepherd. They have a perfectly legitimate and understandable meaning in context which has nothing to do with Eternal Security.

However, you see Eternal Security in these verses as an “additional meaning” based on the “clear words”. And you are perfectly comfortable building doctrines on these “additional meanings”. That’s fine; I guess we all have our way of looking at things. As you have succinctly said:
No, not as an "additional" meaning but the primary teaching of Christ. It is hard to understand the rationale which can conclude that the following words of Christ are not speaking to eternal security: "26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 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. 30 I and my Father are one."

quote:

quote:

I just can't agree with your method of hermeneutics.
This is the gist of the issue. My understanding of hermeneutics is that God inspired the thoughts of the Bible writers as well as their words. So they understood what they were writing, and they wrote with the purpose of having the readers understand God's message. They were conveying God's truth in understandable language, and were conveying thoughts that the original readers would understand.
I agree God inspired the words and thoughts of the penman and that generally they understood what they wrote. I agree it was language that the original audience could understand; but, not necessarily did understand. I believe it takes a saved heart to understand Scripture. I believe that an honest investigation of Scripture produces truth. Although, God does have a specific time for revealing truth to us.

As much as the OT religious leaders poured over Scripture they didn't understand God was to include the Gentile nations even though it was plainly written. Paul too was ignorant of this fact until God enlightened him as we see in Ephesians. Even Daniel was ignorant of some portions which he wrote. Even though Daniel asked, God didn't give him the understanding and told him it was for a later time.

quote:

kelman: Did they understand the purpose of water baptism in the first three centuries? Did they not already begin to pray to spirits other than God in the first three centuries? Did not some in the first three centuries believe they were consuming the "literal" body and blood of Jesus Christ? So, I do not consider your argument of "first three centuries" very convincing.

You make a good point here. The early Christian writers were not infallable, and so you can find some mistakes.

However, in this case, your case for Eternal Security is based on the claim that you (a 20th century English speaker) are perfectly sure you understand the exact nuances of these 1st century Koine Greek words. That's an extremely difficult job, as any linguist will understand. So, I wouldn't totally dismiss the Koine Greek ability of these Koine Greek speakers just because they made some theological mistakes along the way. After all, Augustine made some serious theological mistakes too, as I'm sure you are well aware.
Nor would I dismiss the very real possibility that God simply did not reveal these truths to them at that time. Just as God did not reveal some truths to the OT scholars.



Tychicus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/20/2008 5:20:29 AM)

quote:

quote:

Tychicus: Well, the Scripture is applicable to everyone, but you can best understand it if you look at the original audience. It is written in the idiom of first century Koine Greek, and the readers understood it based on what the words meant at that time. They would also understand the words in the context of the passage. And, of course it is applicable today, but in order to apply it correctly we need to understand what it meant when it was written.

kelman: While historical and cultural context of passages are of interest, I believe Scripture is best understood when we make conclusions based upon all the material contained in the Bible. This must be the case since God is writing for all men of all ages.

Hi kelman,

Yes, I think you have described perfectly our difference in hermeneutics.

Both of us agree that: A) "context is important"; and also that we should B) "make conclusions based upon all the material contained in the Bible". The difference seems to be that I would start with A and then move to B, whereas you would go the opposite way.

And that's fine; perhaps God just makes people different. I very much appreciate your zeal to understand the truth of Scripture, and find that more important than our difference in method.

quote:

quote:

Tychicus: Well, once you take out 10:7-18 there isn't very much left. If you have a red-letter Bible, you see that this is the bulk of Jesus's teaching. The black letters (10:6, 10:19-24) are certainly not about the "sheep" or Eternal Security. Nor is the end of the chapter (10:30-42).

kelman: I disagree. Verses 3 thru 9 are applicable as are 25 thru 30. Also we have vs 12 which implies Christ will never leave His sheep. And verse 16 . . .
. . .
I find the plain words of Christ throughout John 10 and because they are so plain and because they present harmony with the rest of Scripture, it seems one would be shortsighted to miss it. . . ..

Well, since you included 10:12 in the list, lets look at the "plain words" there:
quote:

(John 10:12) The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attackes the flock and scatters it.

Now I admit to being very shortsighted here. I am trying hard to find the "plain words" that teach Eternal Security in this verse. Of course, I do see the implication that the Good Shepherd will not abandon the flock of sheep when the wolf shows up, but will protect them from the wolf. But to draw Eternal Security out of this verse seems quite a stretch.

Perhaps this comes down to your understanding of the word "sheep". If you follow Calvin then you would equate each individual "sheep" with one of the "Elect" who was chosen before the creation of the world. And so, of course, whenever you see the word "sheep" you will understand that this is one of Christ's "own", who will never depart, because it was decreed that way before the beginning of the world. And if this is true, then of course John 10:12 proves Eternal Security because the word "sheep" in fact is there.

But I should stop trying to read your mind. So you tell me: What are the real "plain words" in John 10:12 that prove Eternal Security?

quote:

It is hard to understand the rationale which can conclude that the following words of Christ are not speaking to eternal security: "26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 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. 30 I and my Father are one."


The overall context is about Christ the Good Shepherd vs. the Religious Leaders as the Bad Shepherds. The sheep are following Jesus because God is sending them, not because Jesus is luring them in by himself or by Satan's power. 10:28 and 10:29 are parallels, showing that what Jesus does is identical to what the Father does: "I and my Father are one." The "eternal life" and "never perish" is showing the overwhelmingly good care the sheep get when they listen to Christ.

This is all consistent with the point of the chapter, and with the fact that the religious leaders try to stone him. It is all about the Shepherd. Whether it is possible for any particular sheep to rebel and run away is just not relevant here. Nothing in the passage states that, and nothing in the context gives any indication that that topic is on anyone's mind.

Remember, if a sheep decides to stop listening to the Shepherd, and rebels and runs away, it is not the Shepherd that failed. It is the sheep that failed.

Regarding a detailed study of the words of John 10:27-29, we have already (IMO) gone over this enough, e.g. around post #3426 at the top of page 138. So I'll refrain from going any deeper into this for now. I'm sure you still think there are "clear words" in this passage that prove Eternal Security, and that's fine.

quote:

quote:

quote:

kelman: I just can't agree with your method of hermeneutics.

This is the gist of the issue. My understanding of hermeneutics is that God inspired the thoughts of the Bible writers as well as their words. So they understood what they were writing, and they wrote with the purpose of having the readers understand God's message. They were conveying God's truth in understandable language, and were conveying thoughts that the original readers would understand.

I agree God inspired the words and thoughts of the penman and that generally they understood what they wrote.

Right. And if they understood what they wrote, then in most cases they would understand it without reference to other scriptures, i.e. NT writers (and readers) would not have access to other NT books. The passage would have to be understandable on its own. (Of course, for some of the later books there might be earlier context available, so it would be valid to factor that in. But, even then you must realize that there was no "official" NT until a few centuries later.)

IMO the best way to understand scripture is to understand all of these books on their own; that is, only assume what would have been understood by the readers. That was the historical context God used as He inspired the penmen to write the messages. And that is what we need to understand, as far as possible. With that as a basis, we can much better do comparative Scripture study.

It is much more edifying to study the Scriptures for what they are saying in context (God's message to the readers), then to do verse by verse comparisons trying to prove or disprove doctrines developed in the middle ages. Now maybe that's just me. If you believe differently, that's fine. Do your study as you think best, and let God be glorified.



gmc4Jesus -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/20/2008 4:53:57 PM)

Forgive me if I haven't read all of the comments in this thread. This is a topic worthy of some thought and discussion, but prayerfully in a respectful and loving manner.

Once saved - Always saved??
It depends on your definitions and reference points. Unfortunately and embarrassingly, I spent way too much time "arguing" my views while in college in the 70's. I would pray that I have come to better understand both sides of the issue because there are areas where both sides have valid points. I have also come to realize that neither viewpoint will keep you out of heaven. God's salvation is not dependent upon our perfect understanding of doctrine, but on whether we believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.

Now, regarding the issue of discussion more directly.
Jesus died once for all sinners, not over and over. We only have to confess Him as our Lord once and be immersed because of our faith in Him (whether you are saved before you are immersed in Jesus name or after is probably being discussed elsewhere). That should be followed by living a life that reflects repentance of sin that separated us from God (although God saves us by grace, not by our perfect sinless life after we are saved). If we do that, God, by His mercy and grace, will never kick us out of heaven.

However, if we somewhere after having chosen Christ (like Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11) and then slip back into sin and reject God, freedom means that God does not force Himself on those who decide that they don't want Him. Some will argue that they were never saved in the first place, but that contradicts the Scriptures that deal with backsliding, hypocrisy and even Jesus' parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-9; Mark 4:1-9; Luke 8:4-8). All of the seed was planted in good soil, but some allowed weeds in to kill the fruit. Others were so full of rocks that the seed never got deep roots. The seed that fell on the path got eaten up before it could even take root and that is another matter. But the seeds in the rocks and weeds had taken root, they just didn't get established enough to stick.

From God's perspective, He never takes away what He gives. However, we can (and some do) reject Him after having found that first love (cf. Hebrews 10:26-27). God does not force us to remain in His grace. If we choose to return to the world, it doesn't mean that we weren't saved at one time, but only that we have backslidden. Some will contend that this means they were never "truly saved" in the first place.

It doesn't matter as much how we run the race as how we finish. There will be some who are walking with Jesus in faith one day and rejecting Him the next. If, by the grace of God, they die while walking in faith, they have eternal life. If they have totally rejected God, we will look for hope that God knows their heart and saves them, but that is beyond our wishful thinking.

Even a sinner who repents moments before death is saved because he finished with Jesus.

Whether you agree or disagree with my thoughts, know this: God is the final judge, not you or me. God will be just and fair regardless of what we think about the situation.

May God's and Jesus' love, and your love for Him, keep you always close to Him and walking in the power and grace of salvation until He grants you escape from this earth to dwell in His eternal Kingdom.



kelman -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (8/21/2008 4:13:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tychicus
(John 10:12) The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attackes the flock and scatters it.

Now I admit to being very shortsighted here. I am trying hard to find the "plain words" that teach Eternal Security in this verse.
Guess my glasses must be stronger :)

quote:

Of course, I do see the implication that the Good Shepherd will not abandon the flock of sheep when the wolf shows up, but will protect them from the wolf. But to draw Eternal Security out of this verse seems quite a stretch.
That was the point I was making that the Shepherd owns the sheep and will not abandon them. There is reason to infer eternal security when God says He owns us and will never abandon us. He doesn't qualify it by attributing anything to the sheep.

quote:

Perhaps this comes down to your understanding of the word "sheep". If you follow Calvin then you would equate each individual "sheep" with one of the "Elect" who was chosen before the creation of the world.
It is from Scripture, not Calvin, that we see the "sheep" are Christ's own because Christ says precisely this as we just saw in vs 12. And if these sheep have been given eternal life and can never be taken from Christ which is precisely what Christ says in vs 28 how can you conclude that these sheep are not those who: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

As for Calvin, I've read practically nothing of him and certainly none of his commentary on John 10.

quote:

And so, of course, whenever you see the word "sheep" you will understand that this is one of Christ's "own"...
Since this is what Christ taught why should I not understand it? Since you disagree, please present the verses indicating which sheep are said NOT to be Christ's "own"? Last I looked if you aren't a sheep you're a goat. I don't see anything about "former" sheep, do you?

quote:

quote:

It is hard to understand the rationale which can conclude that the following words of Christ are not speaking to eternal security: "26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 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. 30 I and my Father are one."
The overall context is about Christ the Good Shepherd vs. the Religious Leaders as the Bad Shepherds. The sheep are following Jesus because God is sending them, not because Jesus is luring them in by himself or by Satan's power. 10:28 and 10:29 are parallels, showing that what Jesus does is identical to what the Father does: "I and my Father are one." The "eternal life" and "never perish" is showing the overwhelmingly good care the sheep get when they listen to Christ.
I didn't say Christ is "luring" the sheep. Of course, the sheep are given to Christ by the Father. The verses say that Christ knows His sheep, they hear His voice and follow Him. The verses say nothing at all about the possibility of the sheep NOT listening. You've simply added that.

quote:

It is all about the Shepherd. Whether it is possible for any particular sheep to rebel and run away is just not relevant here. Nothing in the passage states that, and nothing in the context gives any indication that that topic is on anyone's mind.
Yes, it is all about the Shepherd and also about how these Jews were not His sheep - because they did not "hear" His voice. And, you're correct there is nothing about any sheep rebelling - nothing whatsoever. There is plenty, though, about the fact these believers, these sheep, are given eternal life and will never perish. Do you not understand the complete certainty of being in the "hand" of God?...there is no place more certain, sure and secure. And if they will never perish, and that is what God says, then it is not possible for them to rebel ultimately.

quote:

Remember, if a sheep decides to stop listening to the Shepherd, and rebels and runs away, it is not the Shepherd that failed. It is the sheep that failed.
Rather, I'll be quick to "forget" such a thing since we do not see that taught here - at all. Of course, the Shepherd would have failed if He lost even one of those given to Him by the Father. But, praise be to God that can never happen for Christ declares: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.".

quote:

quote:

I agree God inspired the words and thoughts of the penman and that generally they understood what they wrote.
Right. And if they understood what they wrote, then in most cases they would understand it without reference to other scriptures, i.e. NT writers (and readers) would not have access to other NT books.
Well, they would have had access to other NT penman and they certainly had access to the OT. The Bereans compared what Paul taught to the OT Scripture. I would even suggest they "puzzled" about it and "pieced" it together.

quote:

The passage would have to be understandable on its own. (Of course, for some of the later books there might be earlier context available, so it would be valid to factor that in. But, even then you must realize that there was no "official" NT until a few centuries later.)
Exactly, it is "valid", nay, more than valid to factor other books when attempting to understand a verse. As for an "official" NT, that is irrelevant. By 340 Eusebius chronicles all the books of Scripture which he says have been widely circulated and read.

quote:

IMO the best way to understand scripture is to understand all of these books on their own; that is, only assume what would have been understood by the readers. That was the historical context God used as He inspired the penmen to write the messages. And that is what we need to understand, as far as possible. With that as a basis, we can much better do comparative Scripture study.
Obviously, I see it much differently. One cannot even completely understand the OT without the NT and vice versa. The Bible is comprised of 66 books; but, it is one Book, one cohesive whole, written by God over a period of more than 3,000 years. So, while it goes without saying the immediate context is of utmost importance, still, we cannot ignore the extended context. Both are needed; we are simply gathering all the data when we use both.



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/17/2008 3:04:40 PM)

quote:

1. Reformed Arminian I - A Christian can forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing in Christ as Savior (Apostasy). Having done so, he cannot again trust in Christ as Savior. Works are not involved in retaining salvation. [Free-Will Baptist].

2. Reformed Arminian II - - A Christian can forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing in Christ as Savior (Apostasy). Having done so, he can repent and continue trusting Christ as before. Works are not involved in retaining salvation. [Lutheran].

3. Wesleyan Arminian - In addition to Belief #2 above, A Christian should confess, repent and be remorseful for known sins to ensure retention of his salvation. [United Methodist].

I hate these "One-Stop" threads but because you asked specifically for comment from a Holiness denomination adherent, I will throw in my 2 cents worth. I would disagree that all W/A theologians agree that true apostasy is reversible. Indeed, if someone does return to saving faith after rejecting Christ, I would consider that evidence that the earlier rejection was NOT true apostasy!

The relevant statement regarding "eternal security" from the Articles of Faith of the largest Holiness denomination points out the possibility of Believers "falling from grace and into apostasy" or "grace itself frustrated and ultimately lost". This may happen only by willful, deliberate disobedience:
quote:

We believe that all persons, though in the possession of the experience of regeneration and entire sanctification, may fall from grace and apostatize and, unless they repent of their sins, be hopelessly and eternally lost.
quote:

We believe that the grace of entire sanctification includes the impulse to grow in grace. However, this impulse must be consciously nurtured, and careful attention given to the requisites and processes of spiritual development and improvement in Christlikeness of character and personality. Without such purposeful endeavor one’s witness may be impaired and the grace itself frustrated and ultimately lost.



Sammy_S -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 2:28:58 PM)

"My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them and they follow me.

28 "I am giving them eternal life, and they shall never perish, nor shall any one snatch them out of my hand.

29 "My Father who has given them to me is stronger than all, and no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
John 10:27-29 (MontgomeryNT)

Why is this even a topic of discussion among believers?Do we not believe in Jesus? Just because false converts "fall' from the faith doesn't mean that true believers can fall out of the Grace of God.

This is why we must study and understand the importance of the fact that it was not the blood of goats that saved us,we were not bought by silver and gold.We were bought by that which is most precious in the world World and that is the blood of Jesus Christ himself!

Are the schemes of men,Satan and the power of sin greater than the blood of Christ?

If so,you do not know what a mighty thing the Lord has done in you.



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 2:47:29 PM)

quote:

Why is this even a topic of discussion among believers?
Apparently the topic is not as resolved as your dogmatic doctrine makes it!

quote:

Do we not believe in Jesus?
And many do not, Sammy! You call it predeterminism, I call it free will.

quote:

Are the schemes of men,Satan and the power of sin greater than the blood of Christ?
Is the Love of God greater than Him creating mindless robots who can never choose to disobey?

quote:

If so,you do not know what a mighty thing the Lord has done in you.
I praise the Lord every day for the free grace He gives me to choose His Will. That is a mighty thing indeed!



Sammy_S -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 2:51:50 PM)

quote:

Is the Love of God greater than Him creating mindless robots who can never choose to disobey?


And I would(Gen.65) had not the powerful/precious blood of Christ washed me cleaner than snow.

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ezek 36:25-27 (KJV)



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 2:55:32 PM)

A wonderful holiness passage, Sammy! And it shows exactly why we are eternally secure in God's Love as long as we accept and live in His grace and power. Thank you for sharing.



FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 3:02:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:

1. Reformed Arminian I - A Christian can forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing in Christ as Savior (Apostasy). Having done so, he cannot again trust in Christ as Savior. Works are not involved in retaining salvation. [Free-Will Baptist].
2. Reformed Arminian II - - A Christian can forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing in Christ as Savior (Apostasy). Having done so, he can repent and continue trusting Christ as before. Works are not involved in retaining salvation. [Lutheran].
3. Wesleyan Arminian - In addition to Belief #2 above, A Christian should confess, repent and be remorseful for known sins to ensure retention of his salvation. [United Methodist].

I hate these "One-Stop" threads but because you asked specifically for comment from a Holiness denomination adherent, I will throw in my 2 cents worth. I would disagree that all W/A theologians agree that true apostasy is reversible. Indeed, if someone does return to saving faith after rejecting Christ, I would consider that evidence that the earlier rejection was NOT true apostasy!

How do any of the positions explain what happens to the believer's regeneration, adoption as sons, etc?



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 3:54:14 PM)

I'm not sure I understand your question, FG. Do you believe that regeneration and adoption are distinct steps or events separate from the salvation event?



FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 4:16:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
I'm not sure I understand your question, FG. Do you believe that regeneration and adoption are distinct steps or events separate from the salvation event?

Absolutely. They occur as a result of believing. Eph 1:4 says "just as He chose us IN HIM...(and) predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ".

Eph 1:12,13 "to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. IN Him, ou also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also bleieved, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 5:07:56 PM)

quote:

Absolutely. They occur as a result of believing. Eph 1:4 says "just as He chose us IN HIM...(and) predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ".
Well, it makes no sense to me to separate salvation into distincts steps. That strongly suggests that someone could be regenerated before they are adopted or justified after they are saved. No, I will stick with the doctrine of my Holiness denomination as exerpted here:
quote:

We believe that justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous in the experience of seekers after God and are obtained upon the condition of faith, preceded by repentance; and that to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness.



FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 6:34:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Absolutely. They occur as a result of believing. Eph 1:4 says "just as He chose us IN HIM...(and) predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ".
Well, it makes no sense to me to separate salvation into distincts steps. That strongly suggests that someone could be regenerated before they are adopted or justified after they are saved. No, I will stick with the doctrine of my Holiness denomination as exerpted here:
quote:

We believe that justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous in the experience of seekers after God and are obtained upon the condition of faith, preceded by repentance; and that to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness.

Actually, I believe they occur simultaneously. I just happen to think that the "catalyst" is believing, as opposed to calvinism, which claims that God must regenerate the person in order for them to be able to believe.

The question remains, however. If our salvation can be lost, what happens to our new birth, the fact of regeneration, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, our adoption as sons, and everything else that is associated with our eternal life.

Which brings up a very interesting question. Jesus was clear that one has eternal life when they believe. So, if salvation can be lost, how can one lose what is called eternal life?

Doesn't seem very "eternal", does it.



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/23/2008 10:10:25 PM)

quote:

Actually, I believe they occur simultaneously. I just happen to think that the "catalyst" is believing
I doubt you "just happen to think" that, FG. I've read enough of your posts to admire your reasoned understanding of Scriptural doctrine. The only thing needed for the unregenerate to be able to believe is free grace!

quote:

If our salvation can be lost, what happens to our new birth, the fact of regeneration, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, our adoption as sons, and everything else that is associated with our eternal life.
So true apostasy is impossible with this belief system. How do you interpret Hebr 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 if apsotasy is impossible, FG?

quote:

Jesus was clear that one has eternal life when they believe. So, if salvation can be lost, how can one lose what is called eternal life?
I have a lifetime guarantee against breakage on my flashlight. If I carelessly lose it in the woods, do I still have the lifetime guarantee? If so, what good is the guarantee now?



rwe2156 -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/24/2008 7:39:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
So true apostasy is impossible with this belief system.
How do you interpret Heb 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 if apsotasy is impossible, FG?

One cannot lose what they never had, drmark.

quote:

I have a lifetime guarantee against breakage on my flashlight.
If I carelessly lose it in the woods, do I still have the lifetime guarantee?
If so, what good is the guarantee now?

You didn't lose it.

God is holding it for you, shining the light on the path to guide you.

We possess a hope, a promise, not a ticket.

We are not the managers of our eternity.

We do not hold our eternity in trust for ourselves, God does.

I once believe this Arminian position, but came to realize that
a true believer cannot fall away, but perseveres. Phil 1:6.

Our eternity is secure not because we believe, but because he promised.

But only for the true believer.



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/24/2008 8:47:20 AM)

quote:

One cannot lose what they never had, drmark.
So you are saying, rwe, that "having once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, or tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" has nothing to do with being saved as a Christian. Sorry, rwe, but you'll have to come up with a better interpretation of Hebr 6:4-6 than that!



FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/24/2008 9:03:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:

Actually, I believe they occur simultaneously. I just happen to think that the "catalyst" is believing
I doubt you "just happen to think" that, FG. I've read enough of your posts to admire your reasoned understanding of Scriptural doctrine. The only thing needed for the unregenerate to be able to believe is free grace!

Amen.

quote:

quote:

If our salvation can be lost, what happens to our new birth, the fact of regeneration, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, our adoption as sons, and everything else that is associated with our eternal life.
So true apostasy is impossible with this belief system. How do you interpret Hebr 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 if apsotasy is impossible, FG?

Actually, I think a believer can apostatize. iow, they can become rebellious to the point of fully turning their backs on God, as Charles Templeton did. He was the evangelist who helped Billy Graham when he was just starting out. CT became "disillusioned" over some doctrines that he couldn't answer, and became an "atheist". But, just because man turns from God, where do we read that God turns from His own children?

To answer your questions regarding Heb, those passages deal with discipline for the apostatizing believer, imho.

quote:

quote:

Jesus was clear that one has eternal life when they believe. So, if salvation can be lost, how can one lose what is called eternal life?
I have a lifetime guarantee against breakage on my flashlight. If I carelessly lose it in the woods, do I still have the lifetime guarantee? If so, what good is the guarantee now?

How do you "lose" DNA? Flashlights are one thing, but our regeneration and adoption as sons are completely different. You can't put them in a bag and lose them in the woods.

And, how would/could you actually "lose" your eternal life, as you describe losing a flashlight? It isn't something material that we handle, lose, break, etc.



drmark -> RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread (9/24/2008 9:09:32 AM)

quote:

To answer your questions regarding Heb, those passages deal with discipline for the apostatizing believer, imho.
So where does the "apostasizing believer" (isn't that an oxymoron) spend eternity?



Page: <<   < prev  142 143 [144] 145 146   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI