|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/28/2008 2:30:38 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
It's interesting that right within John 1 there is evidence of eternal security. Vs 13 says believers are "born of God". Since it also says it is not of "our will" we have no input in this "new birth". It is the spiritual work of God. How does anyone "undo" the spiritual work of God?
Well, here again, we see that the doctrine depends on a special meaning of the word "born". As noted above, people who are born will die. Even if you are born to live forever (e.g. Adam) you can still die. Just because the word "born" is used, it doesn't mean that you won't die. There is no "special" secret meaning of the word "born". God is very clear what He means by it. If one is "born of God", of course it means he will never die. Why?....because Christ has also promised..."And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish."
quote:
If someone is "born" spiritually by God, then God will ultimately decide if they die or not. God has ultimately decided if they will die or not by bringing them from death to life.
quote:
Just because the word "born" is used, it does not mean it is logically impossible for them to die. It is precisely what it means because logically Christ cannot fail in the "work" He has begun.
quote:
If they rebel against God, and get sent to hell, it doesn't mean they "undo" God's spiritual work. God did his spiritual work, and they rejected it. What else can it mean but they "undid" God's spiritual work? God made them spiritually alive when they were spiritually dead; and, now they "undo" what God did and make themselves spiritually dead again? Now that's something I find illogical.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/28/2008 2:33:51 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
As for the "seal", I agree, it cannot be broken. It is parabolic language indicating to whom we belong. We even see that Christ was "sealed" in John 6:27 "...for him hath God the Father sealed." This is the same word used of believers in Rom 15:28; 2Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30. So, if Christ's seal cannot be broken neither can that of the believer's.
Hi kelman,
I find Rom 15:28 a most interesting passage: "When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." (KJV) This is actually a pretty literal reading of the Greek. The NIV, in contrast, does not use the word "seal". No doubt the NIV is the easier of the two to understand; but, "sealed" holds the meaning of "security". So Paul is simply saying he will come to then after he has "securely" delivered the money to the Jerusalem church.
quote:
Anyway, since seals cannot be broken, do you take this passage to mean that the Jerusalem believers never digested the fruit. Or that they never spent the money. No, I take it to mean that Paul "securely" delivered the money to Jerusalem.
quote:
Or do you take it that, since this is parabolic language, it is unwise to make grand conclusions, or build doctrinal beliefs, based on whether seals can be broken or not?
I would agree if we were looking at one islolated passage; but, we are looking at many passages which indicate security. No one is making "grand conclusions" based on seals alone; but, only as we compare scripture with scripture can we dare to come to the conclusion these seals cannot be broken - eternal security.
If we discount parabolic language, then we must discount "the Lamb of God". The study of the rest of Scripture helps us to understand and harmonize God's parabolic language.
God "seals" believers in much the same way in Rev 14:1 where the Father's name is written on the forehead. It is a sign of security, authentication, being set apart for eternal life.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/28/2008 3:31:35 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
You are assuming that "the principle of eternal security is seen throughout the Bible". The whole point of this forum section is to have a (friendly) debate on this question, not to assume it is true right from the get go!
All things being equal, then neither should you assume it is "wrong" from the get go.
Hi kelman,
I think you are hitting a basic point here. I am not assuming Eternal Security is wrong. I am using the common sense principle that you don't assume anything unless you see evidence.
From that standpoint, in order to demonstrate any claim you need to have positive evidence. Otherwise you must assume it is false, or at least unproven. You can't just assume it is true right up front, and then put the burden of proof on your adversary to give negative evidence.
For example, take the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary herself was born of a virgin. From the silence of Scripture you would have to say this doctrine is false or at least unproven. But suppose you took the other approach and assumed the Immaculate Conception was true, requiring negative evidence from the Bible to the contrary. Since you will find no scripture on this topic, you then claim that the Immaculate Conception is true. You see how this sequence is backwards?
Now, as it looks to me, your next paragraph is an example of this kind of reasoning:
quote:
Apparently, we have a different method of determining biblical truth. When I read that the Father has given certain ones to Christ, that Christ gives these certain ones eternal life and that these certain ones shall never perish, I simply believe what it says and don't look for ways to disprove what it says.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think you are assuming these phrases have something to do with Eternal Security, and in fact are interpreting them to be proof for the doctrine. Since you are not looking for ways to "disprove" it, you likely believe that is should count as "established doctrine" unless, of course, someone else can "disprove" it.
So it is true that "we have a different method of determining biblical truth". I do not interpret these phrases to be proof for Eternal Security. First of all, you are piecing together three phrases that don't go together like this in context. Secondly you are using the term "certain ones" which sounds very Calvinistic and individualistic and has very different connotations from the usual Bible terms "all", "those", "whoever", etc. Thirdly you are assuming "gives" is something that is done in the past, rather than something that is ongoing or might be given in the future. Fourth, you are totally assuming that these "gives" are unconditional, whereas these scriptures say nothing on that topic. Fifth, you are ignoring the fact that these are Greek words, and ought to be looked up in a lexicon before making dogmatic conclusions as to what they mean.
So, together with you, I "simply believe" what the Bible says. But I do not "simply believe" that these phrases are proof for Eternal Security and feel I can put the burden of proof on someone else to "disprove what it says". You have to do a better job demonstrating these verses (whichever ones you are referring to) are actually talking about Eternal Security.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/28/2008 4:51:38 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Re "the Trinity", that is a whole other discussion that needs to be handled a different way. I already went into the "Jesus is God" issue above. I would like to say a few things on this issue as well, but I am afraid it will throw us into a deep rabbit trail. Maybe some day in another forum. . .
It is not my intention to change the topic. I am making the point that all theological doctrines are not given "extended passages of teaching". Nor did I indicate Scripture does not teach that "Jesus is God". I said that "Jesus" never said He is God.
Well, I showed in post 3365 that there are lots of extended passages on "Jesus is God", and really much of the discussion on the Trinity will also use those passages. So there are extended passages on those topics. Now, sure, if you are talking about someone's detailed description of some aspect of the Trinity there might not be much scripture to work with. Maybe those things are not so important as the ones actually spelled out in scripture. But as I said, that is for another forum.
However, in general, I don't think it is true that major Christian doctrines are established without direct scriptural teaching and/or extended passages. The doctrine of Eternal Security has a real problem here, which I don't think you can avoid by bringing up the Trinity.
I think you are in agreement that, for example, that the surrounding context of John 10:27-29 and Heb 7:24-25 are really not about Eternal Security. (John 10 is about Jesus' authority, and Heb 7 is about Jesus's eternal priesthood). All you have claimed is that there are "secondary teachings" about Eternal Security in those verses, additional teachings to the main point of the passage. From your comments above I think you are conceding that there are no extended passages on Eternal Security.
I think this is a bigger problem than you are admitting. There are no passages in Scripture that intentionally teach Eternal Security. You are taking the view that this major doctrine must be arrived at by taking small passages or verses with secondary meanings (e.g. not the main point of the context), and piecing them together to arrive at the doctrine.
As noted earlier, Eternal Security is a very unusual doctrine. It is not held by any religion except a few traditions within part of the Christian church. It is common in some Evangelical churches in America in recent times, but very rare throughout most of church history. It is a view that does not make sense to most people; the idea that your fate with God is "secure" somehow based on some "faith decision" in the past, before your whole life is played out before God. Specifically, there is no evidence that this idea was believed nor understood by any first century readers of the Bible.
It simply does not makes sense that God would expect the first century church to believe this unusual doctrine by piecing together scripture with scripture, with no direct teaching. First of all, no one had the whole Bible in the first century, so it would be impossible to do. Secondly, none of these "scripture passages" will seem to have anything to do with Eternal Security unless you are familiar with that doctrine in the first place. Just go around and ask people (those not familiar with Eternal Security teaching) what these passages mean, and see if they come up with this doctrine on its own.
The only way this doctrine could be understood is if it were directly taught. And if it were taught, it would likely show up in Scripture somewhere as an actual teaching.
For example we have 1 Cor 10:1-13, which is a long passage about what happens when people fall away from God. And yet there are no allusions to Eternal Security in that passage. Why is there nothing there if Eternal Security was true. Was Paul trying to fool the Corinthians?
So I ask, Why did God not see to it that this doctrine were actually taught and explained somewhere? Did he expect us all the be ignorant until John Calvin came along 1500 years later to put all the pieces together?
And is there really any other generally accepted doctrine with such little support? You mentioned the Trinity, which is not really the same issue. Is there anything else?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/28/2008 11:53:09 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1827
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are no passages in Scripture that intentionally teach Eternal Security.
This to me is one of the most misleading statements I have ever read about this doctrine.
It might be wise for you to say nothing more, go back through the Scriptures, and revise your ill-conceived statement.
Obviously, it would be pointles to give you any Scripture at this stage. God must show you from His own Word how mistaken you are.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/29/2008 2:40:46 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
I think you are hitting a basic point here. I am not assuming Eternal Security is wrong. Well, you could'a fooled me :)
quote:
I am using the common sense principle that you don't assume anything unless you see evidence.
Just because you do not recognize the evidence Scripture presents for eternal security does not mean that I am assuming it. To me, the only common sense approach is not to ignore plainly worded statements that are found throughout the Bible…..I mean why would anyone?
quote:
From that standpoint, in order to demonstrate any claim you need to have positive evidence. Clearly, I and others have done exactly that - demonstrated "positive evidence".
quote:
You can't just assume it is true right up front, and then put the burden of proof on your adversary to give negative evidence.
Again, I haven't assumed anything. I and others have given you what we consider positive proof. You've yet to offer anything which disproves the "positive proof". Given that you disagree, I think this is a reasonable burden for you to assume.
quote:
For example, take the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary herself was born of a virgin. From the silence of Scripture you would have to say this doctrine is false or at least unproven. Actually, it is exactly because Scripture is not silent on the issue that we know the doctrine is false. But with your method of hermeneutics you are forced into “limbo” on the subject. I, otoh, simply point to the passages which say only Christ is without sin.
quote:
But suppose you took the other approach and assumed the Immaculate Conception was true, requiring negative evidence from the Bible to the contrary. Since you will find no scripture on this topic, you then claim that the Immaculate Conception is true. You see how this sequence is backwards? Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, I'm not assuming anything. Because of the evidence from Scripture, I believe it does, in fact, teach eternal security. I don't think I'm asking for "negative evidence" when you are asked to explain why you think these passages are not teaching eternal security. It seems to me that is the basis of debate.
Btw, your point would have fared better had it been the doctrine of the Assumption, on this the Bible truly is silent. In any event, we do not conclude a doctrine is true because the Bible is silent. We do so when the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine or it can be reasonably deduced from Scripture.
quote:
quote:
Apparently, we have a different method of determining biblical truth. When I read that the Father has given certain ones to Christ, that Christ gives these certain ones eternal life and that these certain ones shall never perish, I simply believe what it says and don't look for ways to disprove what it says. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think you are assuming these phrases have something to do with Eternal Security, and in fact are interpreting them to be proof for the doctrine. Again, I need “assume” nothing because these passages speak for themselves. They are set in the context of who Christ says He is and why the Jews could not believe Him. They could not believe Christ because they were not of His sheep. Christ then goes on to explain who these sheep are and their condition - that of being eternally saved.
quote:
Since you are not looking for ways to "disprove" it, you likely believe that is should count as "established doctrine" unless, of course, someone else can "disprove" it. It counts as established doctrine because it states the premise of eternal security, because there are many many similar passages, because nothing else disproves it and because it can be harmonized with the rest of Scripture. Apparently, you are looking for ways to “disprove” it. If so, that's fine; but, so far at least, you haven’t been successful.
quote:
So it is true that "we have a different method of determining biblical truth". I do not interpret these phrases to be proof for Eternal Security. First of all, you are piecing together three phrases that don't go together like this in context. Actually nothing is pieced together. The “give eternal life and shall not perish” of John 10 is neither ambiguous or pieced together. Besides, it is precisely what we are to do - compare scripture with scripture. We see a passage such as this which certainly seems to be teaching eternal security; so, we look for other passages which do the same. And, when we do, we find Scripture is replete with "security" passages; and, we are then able to conclude the doctrine of Perverance of the Saints with certainty.
quote:
Secondly you are using the term "certain ones" which sounds very Calvinistic and individualistic and has very different connotations from the usual Bible terms "all", "those", "whoever", etc. Please, John 10 does NOT use “whoever and all”. I simply used “certain ones” so as not to continually type out the specific ones the Father gave to Christ who are: “the sheep who here His voice, these being the ones given to Christ by the Father”. All of which, btw, have nothing to do with Calvin.
quote:
Thirdly you are assuming "gives" is something that is done in the past, rather than something that is ongoing or might be given in the future. I'm not sure why precisely; but, it seems you hope to give the impression my beliefs come only from “assumptions” and not study of the Word.
We find God teaching the doctrine of salvation under three tenses - past, present and future. We can, if you like, look at each “tense”. In John 10, “Give eternal life” – the word “give” is the present tense representing a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time.
quote:
Fourth, you are totally assuming that these "gives" are unconditional, whereas these scriptures say nothing on that topic. It doesn’t get more “unconditional” than “neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Why do you assume it does?
quote:
Fifth, you are ignoring the fact that these are Greek words, and ought to be looked up in a lexicon before making dogmatic conclusions as to what they mean.
Already done that with “give”. Do we really need to check out a lexicon for “eternal life”? Okay…..
Eternal - without end, never to cease, everlasting
Life, in this context - life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever.
Should I continue on to “perish” and “pluck”? Those words, along with eternal and life, should be self-evident, though.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/29/2008 3:31:28 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
I think you are in agreement that, for example, that the surrounding context of John 10:27-29 and Heb 7:24-25 are really not about Eternal Security. (John 10 is about Jesus' authority, and Heb 7 is about Jesus's eternal priesthood). It is precisely because these passages are about Jesus' authority and priesthood that they clearly teach eternal security. Christ has the power and authority to "give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,". And, by virtue of His duties as the eternal High Priest "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.". Christ did not fail as the Sacrifice and He cannot fail as the High Priest.
quote:
All you have claimed is that there are "secondary teachings" about Eternal Security in those verses, additional teachings to the main point of the passage. Scripture always presents truth whether the teachings are primary or secondary. Actually, I don't see anything in Scripture as "secondary". We cannot disregard evidence of a doctrine wherever it may be found since all of Scripture is true and trustworthy.
quote:
I think this is a bigger problem than you are admitting. There are no passages in Scripture that intentionally teach Eternal Security. So, Scripture unintentionally teaches eternal security? In fact, it is no problem for me whatsoever because in the case of eternal security Scripture is replete with passages that teach the doctrine.
As I see it, you are left with the insurmountable problem of having to intentionally ignore such statements of Christ as: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Martin Luther wrote: "in the end there are only two religions in the world: the religion of Grace and the religion of works." And, if salvation is solely by grace, and it is, then: "The truth of eternal security is inherent to the nature of salvation itself."
quote:
As noted earlier, Eternal Security is a very unusual doctrine. It is not held by any religion except a few traditions within part of the Christian church. It is common in some Evangelical churches in America in recent times, but very rare throughout most of church history. Eternal Security was taught earlier on than you would have us believe. Beginning with Augustine who laid the groundwork upon which eternal security is based, on through Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox. Regardless of who did or did not teach Perseverance of the Saints, evidence of it is found throughout both the NT and the OT. In fact, in my opinion it is overwhelmingly taught throughout Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/29/2008 4:32:03 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
There are no passages in Scripture that intentionally teach Eternal Security.
This to me is one of the most misleading statements I have ever read about this doctrine.
It might be wise for you to say nothing more, go back through the Scriptures, and revise your ill-conceived statement.
Obviously, it would be pointles to give you any Scripture at this stage. God must show you from His own Word how mistaken you are.
Hi Ezra,
Don't get excited, bro. People give misleading statements around here all the time. After all, if no one ever made a misleading statement, then there would be no point in the rest of us hanging around here to correct them. 
Now, I admit it could be taken as a provocative statement. But in fact there are no such passages that have come forth here. In other words, no passages where the writer was intentionally teaching this doctrine in context.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/29/2008 6:13:08 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
From that standpoint, in order to demonstrate any claim you need to have positive evidence.
Clearly, I and others have done exactly that - demonstrated "positive evidence".
Hi kelman,
Well, to be sure, you believe there is positive evidence. And from what is below you believe the positive evidence is in John 10:27-29. And, of course, elsewhere, but we'll stick to John 10 here.
quote:
quote:
Secondly you are using the term "certain ones" which sounds very Calvinistic and individualistic and has very different connotations from the usual Bible terms "all", "those", "whoever", etc.
Please, John 10 does NOT use “whoever and all”. I simply used “certain ones” so as not to continually type out the specific ones the Father gave to Christ who are: “the sheep who here His voice, these being the ones given to Christ by the Father”. All of which, btw, have nothing to do with Calvin.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but the term "certain ones" seems to imply a fixed set of specific people. However, a sheep can be obedient and follow the shepherd one day, but run away the next day. Another sheep can wander away one day, but come back later. (See Matt 21:28). This illustration of sheep and the shepherd in no way implies Eternal Security. The term "my father has given them to me" refers to the concept that the believers are believing Christ because God wants them to believe, not because, as the Pharisees claimed, Jesus lured them in as a false prophet. I understand that this interpretation may sound strange to you, but it is the best interpretation from the context of chapters 6-10. But even if you disagree with me here, as I'm sure you will, please try to understand that there is more than one way to look at this passage.
And, please understand, that I am not being dogmatic about this interpretation. I am not building a big doctrine based on this interpretation. I am not claiming it is self-evident. I am not saying that you must accept it; that the burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong.
quote:
quote:
Thirdly you are assuming "gives" is something that is done in the past, rather than something that is ongoing or might be given in the future. I'm not sure why precisely; but, it seems you hope to give the impression my beliefs come only from “assumptions” and not study of the Word.
We find God teaching the doctrine of salvation under three tenses - past, present and future. We can, if you like, look at each “tense”. In John 10, “Give eternal life” – the word “give” is the present tense representing a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time.
I don't quite grasp what you are saying here. Yes, "give" is in the present tense. That does not imply a past event. Technically it's a "continuous aspect", which can be translated "keeps on giving". I suppose I can use that as an argument against the Eternal Security view here. But Greek tenses can be flexible in their use, so I wouldn't want to make too much of what the tense is.
quote:
quote:
Fourth, you are totally assuming that these "gives" are unconditional, whereas these scriptures say nothing on that topic.
It doesn’t get more “unconditional” than “neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Why do you assume it does?
The words "pluck" or "snatch" imply an outside force taking them out. In plain English "snatch" usually connotes "against your will". For example, a kidnapper snatches the child out of his father's grip. You normally wouldn't use that word for someone just walking away. The Greek arpazw has a similar meaning.
Your "unconditional" interpretation would require much different language from this. E.g. "once my sheep come into the fold I lock the door so that they are unable to leave."
Again, please note that I am not dogmatically saying that the word "snatch" prooves my interpretation here. I am just saying that your interpretation is far from obvious.
quote:
quote:
Fifth, you are ignoring the fact that these are Greek words, and ought to be looked up in a lexicon before making dogmatic conclusions as to what they mean.
Already done that with “give”. Do we really need to check out a lexicon for “eternal life”? Okay…..
Eternal - without end, never to cease, everlasting
Life, in this context - life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever.
Well, the "life" definition is obviously an interpretation, not a lexicon definition.
The "eternal" definition is okay. However there is no indication here as to when the "eternity" begins. I think it would be commonly understood at that time that "eternal life" is something that occurs in the next life, not something that begins at some point during this life. In other words, sort of a synonym for "at the resurrection". I am not 100% sure of this, but I think it would be well to study first century usage of this term before making any dogmatic assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/29/2008 10:16:47 AM
|
|
|
acontriteheart
Posts: 27
Joined: 3/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I have been coming to this site for several months now. And just about every time I view these discussions it sinks me further into despair. Everyone has their "own" interpretations on salvation, theology, etc., etc. This is fine, but I just see a lot of back and forth and it's extremely confusing to me. I only want the truth, but what is the truth really? According to many of the posts here, it seems it is still unknown?
Hi Melanie,
The truth is definitely known. If you come back to God in repentance he will certainly forgive you. The scripture is clear on this (e.g. 1 John 1:9). For all of our discussions here I think everyone in this forum will agree on this point, as do all of the scriptures.
God bless.
Even I agree on that point and I'm pretty much a fence-sitter on OSAS.
Thank you for the responses. I clearly have been misunderstanding some of the points made here, thinking that some were saying that repentance is impossible for someone as myself. I have been under extreme oppression from the enemy since repenting and turning back to the Lord undoubtely. It's been a hard long road back but, I am assured now that I am forgiven and can once again find joy and peace in my relationship with Christ. Thank you!
_____________________________
~Melanie~
Even though my leg is broke and my knees are bruised, I will kneel at the foot of the cross because I know that the only one who can heal this brokeness is Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/29/2008 11:04:39 AM
|
|
|
Roberta_
Posts: 7427
Joined: 9/28/2007
From: East Bay Area
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: acontriteheart
quote:
ORIGINAL: DenimDiva
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I have been coming to this site for several months now. And just about every time I view these discussions it sinks me further into despair. Everyone has their "own" interpretations on salvation, theology, etc., etc. This is fine, but I just see a lot of back and forth and it's extremely confusing to me. I only want the truth, but what is the truth really? According to many of the posts here, it seems it is still unknown?
Hi Melanie,
The truth is definitely known. If you come back to God in repentance he will certainly forgive you. The scripture is clear on this (e.g. 1 John 1:9). For all of our discussions here I think everyone in this forum will agree on this point, as do all of the scriptures.
God bless.
Even I agree on that point and I'm pretty much a fence-sitter on OSAS.
Thank you for the responses. I clearly have been misunderstanding some of the points made here, thinking that some were saying that repentance is impossible for someone as myself. I have been under extreme oppression from the enemy since repenting and turning back to the Lord undoubtely. It's been a hard long road back but, I am assured now that I am forgiven and can once again find joy and peace in my relationship with Christ. Thank you!
All are in need of repentence!
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/30/2008 1:54:50 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Please, John 10 does NOT use “whoever and all”. I simply used “certain ones” so as not to continually type out the specific ones the Father gave to Christ who are: “the sheep who here His voice, these being the ones given to Christ by the Father”. All of which, btw, have nothing to do with Calvin.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but the term "certain ones" seems to imply a fixed set of specific people. That would be the fixed set of specific people the passage speaks of “the sheep who here His voice, these being the ones given to Christ by the Father”. You seem to be implying that it is somehow incorrect to use the specific set of people the passage refers to.
quote:
However, a sheep can be obedient and follow the shepherd one day, but run away the next day. Another sheep can wander away one day, but come back later. (See Matt 21:28). This illustration of sheep and the shepherd in no way implies Eternal Security. It does more than "imply" it specifically states the fact of eternal security because it continues on with: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
quote:
he term "my father has given them to me" refers to the concept that the believers are believing Christ because God wants them to believe, not because, as the Pharisees claimed, Jesus lured them in as a false prophet. Of course, that's what it means, I've never said otherwise. Believers believe ONLY because the Father has given them to Christ. It should be obvious if the Father "wants" these people to believe - they will. If these particular people believe because the Father wants them to, I don't think you can find a stronger statement for eternal security. And, because of the efficacy of the Atonement and Christ's advocacy, Christ will lose none.
quote:
And, please understand, that I am not being dogmatic about this interpretation. I am not building a big doctrine based on this interpretation. I am not claiming it is self-evident. I am not saying that you must accept it; that the burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong. As I said, I agree that believers are believers because they've been given by the Father to Christ. The problem is with the rest of the passage. I believe the burden of proof is on you to somehow explain away the very clear wording of vs 28.
quote:
quote:
We find God teaching the doctrine of salvation under three tenses - past, present and future. We can, if you like, look at each “tense”. In John 10, “Give eternal life” – the word “give” is the present tense representing a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. I don't quite grasp what you are saying here. I'm simply saying salvation is presented in three tenses.
quote:
The words "pluck" or "snatch" imply an outside force taking them out. Which harmonizes perfectly with the concept of "snatched" by the "wicked one". Compare Mat 13:19; John 10:12.
quote:
Your "unconditional" interpretation would require much different language from this. E.g. "once my sheep come into the fold I lock the door so that they are unable to leave." I might be able to agree with you; but, cannot because of vs 28. And, because when we compare scripture with scripture, we find what can be considered similar language, perhaps not "locked in" but certainly "held". Psalm 18:35; 73:23 "thou hast holden me by my right hand." or Psalm 37:24 "Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand. "
quote:
quote:
Eternal - without end, never to cease, everlasting
The "eternal" definition is okay. However there is no indication here as to when the "eternity" begins. I think it would be commonly understood at that time that "eternal life" is something that occurs in the next life, not something that begins at some point during this life. That could only be "commonly understood" by those who do not compare scripture with scripture.
Eternal life begins at the moment of regeneration when we are given a new resurrected spirit. The believer becomes a new creature in Christ. He experienced a spiritual resurrection and was, at that time, given eternal life in his spirit(Eph 2:6). This is why at the moment of death the believer goes to be with Christ. His body, of course, awaits the resurrection of the last day.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/30/2008 6:15:13 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
I think you are in agreement that, for example, that the surrounding context of John 10:27-29 and Heb 7:24-25 are really not about Eternal Security. (John 10 is about Jesus' authority, and Heb 7 is about Jesus's eternal priesthood).
It is precisely because these passages are about Jesus' authority and priesthood that they clearly teach eternal security. Christ has the power and authority to "give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,". And, by virtue of His duties as the eternal High Priest "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.". Christ did not fail as the Sacrifice and He cannot fail as the High Priest.
quote:
All you have claimed is that there are "secondary teachings" about Eternal Security in those verses, additional teachings to the main point of the passage.
Scripture always presents truth whether the teachings are primary or secondary. Actually, I don't see anything in Scripture as "secondary". We cannot disregard evidence of a doctrine wherever it may be found since all of Scripture is true and trustworthy.
Hi kelman,
To avoid arguing in a circle, let me take a different tack. It may be that our methods of Bible interpretation are quite different here. Let's take the book of Hebrews, for example, which contains the passage Heb 7:24-25 mentioned above.
Now, my contention is: The book of Hebrews does not teach Eternal Security. Let me explain why.
I'll start with the overall purpose of the book. I'll quote from the NIV Study Bible: "The letter was addressed primarily to Jewish converts who were familiar with the OT and who were being tempted to revert to Judaism or to Judaize the gospel." And what the book does is show how, in every way, Jesus is superior to all that is good in the OT. So, for example, Jesus is superior to angels, superior to Moses, superior to the OT priests, and his sacrifice was superior to the OT sacrifices.
As far as I can tell, this description is generally accepted by everyone. It is based on a factual study of the book and on generally accepted church history. It is not based on any particular doctrinal point of view. I'm quite sure you will agree with me here.
So the writer of Hebrews clearly had an important task: to persuade the Hebrew believers to stay faithful to Christ. And this he did, by showing Christ's superiority to the older Jewish ways. This was his message.
And so, when we come to chapter 7 we see how Christ's sacrifice was so superior to that of the Levitical priests; and the reason given is that he only had to do it once, whereas the others had to do it over and over; also, those priests died, but Jesus lives forever, and has a permanent priesthood. (7:24) So, in verse 25, he says (in literal Greek) "therefore even to save into the panteles he is able", where panteles can be translated "uttermost", "complete", "forever", etc. But, however you translate that word, the flow of the passage dictates that this is describing Jesus's sacrifice. It was more complete than that of the Levitcial priests; it was forever, whereas theirs was temporary. In other words, it was telling them: Why go back and rely on the Levitical priests, you see that Jesus is so much better than they are, since "he always lives to intercede for them".
Now, if I understand correctly you agreed to all this. And yet you said that there was a another meaning in this passage, where the word "uttermost" (panteles) taught Eternal Security. This is not the primary meaning from the context, but a "secondary" meaning. I acknowledge that you indicated above that "secondary" meanings are just as important as "primary" meanings, and you gave a very good explanation of how you arrived at this other meaning, based on Jesus being a perfect High Priest and Advocate.
But while these "secondary" meanings might be important, they are harder to see. I'll give a personal illustration. A few years ago I looked at a list of 4 or 5 texts supporting Eternal Security, including this one, and John 10:27-29, etc. For all of the others I easily saw why they were being used. But for this passage I recall being utterly mystified. I just didn't see it. I read the passage, and saw the word "uttermost" or "complete" and just saw it describing what Christ did compared to the Levitical priests. I was trying to understand why this text was being used for Eternal Security, and concluded it must have been a misprint. Finally I was told that the word "complete" meant a complete salvation in the sense of Eternal Security, and so I understood why the text was on the list.
Now I might be quite dense, but at least I was familiar with the doctrine of Eternal Security, and was purposefully looking for it; but still I didn't see it at first.
So, just think about the first century readers of this book. Do you think the writer, under the inspiration of the Spirit, was actually expecting the readers to learn the doctrine this way, by finding a meaning in the text that is off topic. Wouldn't it be obvious that the readers would pick up the primary reading, per the flow of the passage, and not necessary think they must pick up some secondary meaning in every verse they read?
And consider one more thing. Suppose in fact that the Hebrew Christians actually had heard of the concept of Eternal Security. Let's assume that for a moment, and that as they read this book they were seeing if anything were being said on the subject. (Perhaps their good friend was on the verge of reverting back to Judaism, and they were concerned.) And so they came to the passage 6:4-12, which gives grave warnings about leaving the faith. Might there be something said about Eternal Security in that passage? Or the passage in 10:26-31? Here again, a substantial section about believers falling away, or so it seems. These passages, on the face of it, don't appear to be supporting Eternal Security; in fact, many think they teach quite the opposite. So why didn't the writer, if in fact he really wanted to teach Eternal Security, put in the teaching among one of those passages? It would sure clarify a lot of confusion.
So, in summary, I'll agree that there may be "secondary meanings" that show up once in a while in scripture, and that they could be as important as the "primary meanings". I doubt if they are as common as you seem to think. But if God really wants his people to get a message he will say it plainly, and in context.
Otherwise you have to treat Scripture as a puzzle, looking around for verses that can be interpreted to support this doctrine or refute some other doctrine, and piecing them all together into an elaborate theology. I do not think God intended the Scriptures to be read like this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/30/2008 3:22:33 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
We find God teaching the doctrine of salvation under three tenses - past, present and future. We can, if you like, look at each “tense”. In John 10, “Give eternal life” – the word “give” is the present tense representing a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. I don't quite grasp what you are saying here. I'm simply saying salvation is presented in three tenses.
kelman, here's an excellent link for explaining the three tenses. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/31/2008 3:31:59 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Now, if I understand correctly you agreed to all this. And yet you said that there was a another meaning in this passage, where the word "uttermost" (panteles) taught Eternal Security. This is not the primary meaning from the context, but a "secondary" meaning. I acknowledge that you indicated above that "secondary" meanings are just as important as "primary" meanings, and you gave a very good explanation of how you arrived at this other meaning, based on Jesus being a perfect High Priest and Advocate.
But while these "secondary" meanings might be important, they are harder to see. Actually, I don't agree those meanings are harder to see; but, even if they were, it makes them no less true. I think it’s a superficial way of studying Scripture if we ignore what is written because someone says it’s not the stated intent of the passage.
quote:
A few years ago I looked at a list of 4 or 5 texts supporting Eternal Security, including this one, and John 10:27-29, etc. For all of the others I easily saw why they were being used. But for this passage I recall being utterly mystified. I just didn't see it. I read the passage, and saw the word "uttermost" or "complete" and just saw it describing what Christ did compared to the Levitical priests. I was trying to understand why this text was being used for Eternal Security, and concluded it must have been a misprint. Finally I was told that the word "complete" meant a complete salvation in the sense of Eternal Security, and so I understood why the text was on the list. The explanation given to you was incomplete. It is precisely because Christ is the perfect High Priest which includes His role as Advocate that makes this an evidentiary passage for "eternal security".
quote:
So, just think about the first century readers of this book. Do you think the writer, under the inspiration of the Spirit, was actually expecting the readers to learn the doctrine this way, by finding a meaning in the text that is off topic. Wouldn't it be obvious that the readers would pick up the primary reading, per the flow of the passage, and not necessary think they must pick up some secondary meaning in every verse they read? God is the Author of Scripture and it is written for all men everywhere. We must never think of it only in terms of “what did it mean to those to whom it was written”. In addition, I see no reason why the Jews to whom it was originally addressed would not relate this to OT passages where eternal security is taught.
quote:
So, in summary, I'll agree that there may be "secondary meanings" that show up once in a while in scripture, and that they could be as important as the "primary meanings". I doubt if they are as common as you seem to think. But if God really wants his people to get a message he will say it plainly, and in context. So why ignore what you admit "could" be important? As for saying everything plainly, God certainly didn’t follow that plan. We could list doctrine after doctrine where there is apparent ambiguity.
quote:
Otherwise you have to treat Scripture as a puzzle, looking around for verses that can be interpreted to support this doctrine or refute some other doctrine, and piecing them all together into an elaborate theology. I do not think God intended the Scriptures to be read like this. I believe it is exactly how God intends Scripture to be studied. Do you think the Bereans searched only for an "extended teaching" when Paul preached the Gospel to them?....I don't. We’re told they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things be true." No, they compared scripture with scripture....the only way we can come to the truth of God's Word. With your method a truth found in a passage must be ignored because it doesn’t meet someone’s stated purpose.
There is so much in Scripture that we cannot possibly understand unless we “piece” together ALL that is applicable. In fact, unless we do that, we might conclude we may not “kill” even so much as a fly(Deut 5:17). Or we may conclude that the only way to salvation is to forgive those who have injured us(Mat 6:14-15).
So, though, you may deny it, in certain ways you study scripture in much the same way as I do. By "piecing together scripture" you found out that, yes, it is permissible to kill that pesky fly. But, it seems this method somehow falls short, possibly because you’ve reached a prior conclusion?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/31/2008 3:35:56 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
We find God teaching the doctrine of salvation under three tenses - past, present and future. We can, if you like, look at each “tense”. In John 10, “Give eternal life” – the word “give” is the present tense representing a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. I don't quite grasp what you are saying here. I'm simply saying salvation is presented in three tenses.
kelman, here's an excellent link for explaining the three tenses. Enjoy!
Thank’s for what looks to be excellent info. I just glanced rather quickly so I'll go back to it as time permits. Here’s hoping we can “play nice” :)
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 5/31/2008 6:28:41 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
That would be the fixed set of specific people the passage speaks of “the sheep who here His voice, these being the ones given to Christ by the Father”. You seem to be implying that it is somehow incorrect to use the specific set of people the passage refers to.
Hi kelman,
Right, I do not think the passage necessarily speaks about "a specific set of people" as if that set could never change. For example, on the following day some new people might believe. The sheep represents "whoever believes".
At least, that's another way to understand who "the sheep" are. Back in the first century people thought more in terms of groups than individuals, and I would think that this interpretation is more consistent with their thought patterns. But I wouldn't want to insist that someone must take this point of view; I only ask that you consider it as a possibility.
quote:
It does more than "imply" it specifically states the fact of eternal security because it continues on with: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
I can see that you believe this "states the fact of eternal security", and I suspect you are mystified that not everyone can just see this like you do. The problem lies in how the words are defined.
The term "eternal life" does not automatically mean "eternal security". It means life that is of the quality of being eternal. Ultimately, "eternal life" starts in the next life (e.g., Mark 10:30, Jude 1:21). To be fair, sometimes "eternal life" can be understood to begin in this life; other times it is treated as if it begins in the next life. You can't pin down a phrase like this as if it always has the same exact meaning every time it is used.
The term "never perish" is interesting. Actually there is no word "never" there; it says "not perish into the ages". The idea is that this kind of life is one from which you never die, even way out to the future. Now this language is somewhat figurative, so please understand I am not being dogmatic; I am just trying to convey that there is more than one way to understand this phrase.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
