|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 9:14:12 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1903
Status: offline
|
quote:
The point is: There are no passages that teach Eternal Security in context.
Tychicus:
I notice that you continue to dispute eternal security, and the above quotation is really a statement of your position.
But the fact is that the entire New Testament teaches eternal security (in context). Therefore your above statement is quite misleading. It is in fact completely false.
Let's take the Gospels as the widest context, the Gospel of John as the relevant context, John chapter 11 as the immediate context. This chapter describes everything pertaining to the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus and his two sisters had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and loved Him. He loved them. And He came specifically to raise Lazarus from the dead.
The resurrection of every believer is guaranteed in Scripture, and if that is not a sufficient evidence of eternal security, then nothing is. That is why the words of the Lord Jesus in this context must be taken literally and at face value as proof that the salvation of the one who believes on Him is eternally secure. So let's look at John 11: 25,26:
"Jesus said unto her, I am the Resurrection and the Life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me SHALL NEVER DIE. Believest thou this?"
Shall never die = shall live forever
Shall live forever = shall have eternal life
Shall have eternal life = shall be eternally with and in Christ
Shall be eternally with and in Christ = shall be eternally secure.
< Message edited by Ezra -- 6/19/2008 9:21:07 PM >
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/21/2008 4:38:49 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
The point is: There are no passages that teach Eternal Security in context.
I notice that you continue to dispute eternal security, and the above quotation is really a statement of your position.
Hi Ezra,
Yes, I have made the above statement. There are no passages that teach Eternal Security in context. Yes, I do think that is a very significant fact.
But, to be clear, as I said back in post 3440, I don't "dispute" Eternal Security as a teaching from Scripture. It's a very insightful teaching, and can be very useful for the encouragement of believers. I am not really "anti Eternal Security". My concern is that it should be understood more as a scriptural application instead of a direct scriptural teaching. It needs to be applied correctly, and not to every situation we can think of.
For example, I do not think it makes sense to apply it to anyone who:
- Used to have faith in the past, but no longer shows evidence of faith.
- Is currently losing their faith, or falling into sin, or becoming lukewarm.
--
There are direct scriptural teachings in context concerning these situations, e.g. in chapters 1 Cor 10, Heb 3, 6, 10, Rev 2, 3, and several others. And in each of these passages there is only talk of judgment; there is no mention of anyone's salvation being secured on the basis of their past faith.
But I mention all this just to assure anyone concerned that I am not "anti Eternal Security". If the topic ever comes up in conversation I usually take a neutral position.
The reason I joined in this forum was to ask the basic question: Was Eternal Security ever directly taught in the Bible? Now, by "directly taught" I mean a teaching in context, where the writer was intending to teach on that topic. In some ways this is an historical question; it is not so much, "What does this verse mean to you or to me?", but rather "What did Mark or John or Paul, etc. mean when they wrote this passage?" And the related questions, "Did Mark or John or Paul intend to teach Eternal Security", or "Is there any evidence the early church believed in the doctrine of Eternal Security?"
quote:
But the fact is that the entire New Testament teaches eternal security (in context). Therefore your above statement is quite misleading. It is in fact completely false.
Let's take the Gospels as the widest context, the Gospel of John as the relevant context, John chapter 11 as the immediate context. This chapter describes everything pertaining to the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
With all due respect, it seems your last sentence illustrates the point: "This chapter describes everything pertaining to the raising of Lazarus from the dead." The context is raising Lazarus, not a teaching about Eternal Security. There is no talk about whether anyone can lose their salvation or not, or anyone turning away from God, and so on. The topic is Christ's power over death.
quote:
The resurrection of every believer is guaranteed in Scripture, and if that is not a sufficient evidence of eternal security, then nothing is.
If what you mean by Eternal Security is that every believer will be resurrected, then I agree with you. I think that all Christians will believe in Eternal Security, given that definition.
Now, if you mean that resurrection to life will be given to anyone who was a believer at one time in their life, but then lost their faith, then I would not agree. The term "believer" normally means someone who keeps on believing, not someone who just believed at some time in the past.
quote:
So let's look at John 11: 25,26:
"Jesus said unto her, I am the Resurrection and the Life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me SHALL NEVER DIE. Believest thou this?"
Shall never die = shall live forever
Shall live forever = shall have eternal life
Shall have eternal life = shall be eternally with and in Christ
Shall be eternally with and in Christ = shall be eternally secure.
I think I agree with you here. Note that the word believes is present continuative (in Greek as in English), and can be translated "continues to believe". It cannot mean just "believed at some point during their life". So, yes, I would agree with your statement.
< Message edited by Tychicus -- 6/21/2008 4:52:48 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/21/2008 6:28:16 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
So, based on wording in the Bible, or what you think was language used in the 1st century, how do you think they would have worded their answer?
Or might it be possible that they never taught on this topic?
I think they would have worded it precisely as they did. And, in doing so taught that those who are truly born again, and have savingly believed in Christ as their Savior as he offers himself to sinners in the Gospel, cannot be finally lost but will be kept by God's power so that they persevere to the end and are infallibly saved. I'm sure we're both familiar with the verses which teach the above.
quote:
The verses and concepts and principles are there if you see them. If you don't believe in Eternal Security in the first place you won't see them. The point is: There are no passages that teach Eternal Security in context. If you just go by "verses" and "concepts" and "principles", without looking at the surrounding context, you can prove most any doctrine that's held by any church. Still, the same is true of many doctrines taught "in context". Many churches having varying doctrines concerning, the Eucharist, Water Baptism, Baptism by the Holy Spirit, etc. My goodness, salvation itself is widely misunderstood by most churches today.
quote:
Are you saying that the apostles didn't understand or recognize Eternal Security? Or just the "1st century theologians" that followed them? In any case, those "1st century theologians" would have been taught directly by the apostles, and it is surprising they would have missed an important concept like this (supposing that it actually was taught to them). I don't limit my understanding of the Bible based on first century teaching. Some actually thought it best to delay water baptism until one was on their death bed...afterall, water, they thought, washed away all sins.
The first, actually second, century theologians were mainly concerned with the heresies which were rearing their ugly heads. So, it's not surprising they didn't teach specifically on eternal security. In his letter to the Philippians Polycarp referenced many biblical passages. The closest I found to "security" was those who persevere will be raised by Christ.
Polycarp 5:2 "For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also, according as He promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him, if indeed we have faith."
This is the very excellent point I see you were making with Ezra. Eternal Security has morphed into a belief that one need not have faith to be saved. To be sure, at some point they must have had it; but, currently?...no, that's optional.
Just as first century theologians had their hands full with the heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, etc., so do the 21century theologians with this heresy. There seems to be no shortage of modern day theologians whose doctrines make a mockery of saving faith.
Still, one shouldn't be shy about making a case for any part of Scripture even if some have been led astray. If we did that, we'd have nothing left of Scripture to proclaim.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/23/2008 5:05:50 PM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 754
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
I recomend a book titled "Life in the Son" by Robert Shank.
_____________________________
Bill Cotton
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/25/2008 1:25:19 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
So, based on wording in the Bible, or what you think was language used in the 1st century, how do you think [the Bible writers] would have worded their answer? [If you asked them if they believed in Eternal Security?]
Or might it be possible that they never taught on this topic?
I think they would have worded it precisely as they did. And, in doing so taught that those who are truly born again, and have savingly believed in Christ as their Savior as he offers himself to sinners in the Gospel, cannot be finally lost but will be kept by God's power so that they persevere to the end and are infallibly saved.
Hi kelman,
I am not clear what you mean here. Of course they worded the scriptures as they did. But were they intending to answer a question about Eternal Security when they wrote those verses? Nothing in the context of those verses indicates they were answering such a question, as far as I can see.
Or are you saying the apostles would have used expressions such as "truly born again", "have savingly believed in Christ", "are infallibly saved"?
There is no evidence that such precise logical definitions existed in the first century for terms such as "truly born again", "savingly believed", "infallibly saved", etc. Furthermore, these terms give the impression that being saved refers to a precise event in the past (in each individual's life) that secured salvation as a "done deal". I am not sure which scripture verses you have in mind that carry this kind of impression.
quote:
quote:
The verses and concepts and principles are there if you see them. If you don't believe in Eternal Security in the first place you won't see them. The point is: There are no passages that teach Eternal Security in context. If you just go by "verses" and "concepts" and "principles", without looking at the surrounding context, you can prove most any doctrine that's held by any church.
Still, the same is true of many doctrines taught "in context". Many churches having varying doctrines concerning, the Eucharist, Water Baptism, Baptism by the Holy Spirit, etc. My goodness, salvation itself is widely misunderstood by most churches today.
I am not sure I get your point here. Are you claiming that nothing in scripture can be understood clearly?
Perhaps one of the reasons that there is so much debate about the details of the Eucharist, Water Baptism, etc., is that some churches/people build up their beliefs on proof texts. If you stuck with the clear passages, interpreting them in context, you would have fewer disagreements. Would that not be a good thing?
quote:
quote:
quote:
kelman:
. . .I'm not sure it's even very important if 1st century theologians understood or even recognized eternal security . . .
Tychicus:
Are you saying that the apostles didn't understand or recognize Eternal Security? Or just the "1st century theologians" that followed them? In any case, those "1st century theologians" would have been taught directly by the apostles, and it is surprising they would have missed an important concept like this (supposing that it actually was taught to them).
I don't limit my understanding of the Bible based on first century teaching. Some actually thought it best to delay water baptism until one was on their death bed...afterall, water, they thought, washed away all sins.
Well, I think the delaying baptism stuff occurred a bit later, but I'll agree that not everything said in the first century was perfect.
But the point of my question is: Are you saying that the apostles didn't understand or recognize Eternal Security? Or are you saying that they did understand it, but somehow the teaching never got through to anyone else in the first century?
quote:
Polycarp 5:2 "For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also, according as He promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him, if indeed we have faith."
Right, we have security as long as we have faith. There is the "if" there, just as in, for example, Col 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith". The Early Church Fathers, just like Paul, were not bothered by putting in the "if".
Okay, to be fair, I just noticed that Polycarp 5:2 does not say "if you continue"; but the idea is there in 5:3 as he goes on to urge the young men to keep themselves pure, because fornicators, etc. will not "inherit the kingdom of God". Shades of Gal 5:21.
Actually, just by looking at 5:2 you also get the idea that "faith" implies an ongoing obedience to the Lord, not just a one-time thing.
And also note the phrase: "For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also". This is totally different from the idea that we get a guarantee of Eternal Security during this life, before this life is over.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/25/2008 11:39:19 PM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
Hi wacotton,
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good definition of Eternal Security. There's "eternal life" and there's "security" in Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/26/2008 3:58:05 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman I think they would have worded it precisely as they did. And, in doing so taught that those who are truly born again, and have savingly believed in Christ as their Savior as he offers himself to sinners in the Gospel, cannot be finally lost but will be kept by God's power so that they persevere to the end and are infallibly saved.
Hi kelman,
I am not clear what you mean here. Of course they worded the scriptures as they did. But were they intending to answer a question about Eternal Security when they wrote those verses? Nothing in the context of those verses indicates they were answering such a question, as far as I can see. I didn't mean to imply the Apostles were answering any questions on eternal security. What I meant is that I find the remarks they did make to be transparent and without ambiguity.
quote:
There is no evidence that such precise logical definitions existed in the first century for terms such as "truly born again", "savingly believed", "infallibly saved", etc. Furthermore, these terms give the impression that being saved refers to a precise event in the past (in each individual's life) that secured salvation as a "done deal". I am not sure which scripture verses you have in mind that carry this kind of impression. The same verses we've been discussing carry the meaning of a "done deal"...being given eternal life. Isn't that the idea behind eternal security?
quote:
quote:
Still, the same is true of many doctrines taught "in context". Many churches having varying doctrines concerning, the Eucharist, Water Baptism, Baptism by the Holy Spirit, etc. My goodness, salvation itself is widely misunderstood by most churches today.
I am not sure I get your point here. Are you claiming that nothing in scripture can be understood clearly? Not that it can't be; but, that it isn't. I've often read how everything necessary for salvation is perspicuous; but, I have my doubts. If it were, would there be churches teaching a libertarian free will and others teaching God's predetermination?
quote:
Perhaps one of the reasons that there is so much debate about the details of the Eucharist, Water Baptism, etc., is that some churches/people build up their beliefs on proof texts. If you stuck with the clear passages, interpreting them in context, you would have fewer disagreements. Would that not be a good thing? It sounds very inviting, I'll tell you that. But, actually, I think the opposite is true. Unless, we consult ALL of Scripture on a related issue, I don't think we can find truth. Almost any dontrinal position, however wrong it may be, can be supported by many verses in the Bible. Only by examining doctrines in the light of the whole Bible will truth be found and then we will find a harmonious relationship with all the Bible teaches in the Gospel message. I find this "harmonious relationship" concerning eternal security.
quote:
But the point of my question is: Are you saying that the apostles didn't understand or recognize Eternal Security? Or are you saying that they did understand it, but somehow the teaching never got through to anyone else in the first century?
From my limited reading I don't think anything was ever written specifically on eternal security in the first century. The primitive church had much greater concerns. But, surely they taught that the one who preseveres in the faith is assured of eternal life.
quote:
Right, we have security as long as we have faith. There is the "if" there, just as in, for example, Col 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith". The Early Church Fathers, just like Paul, were not bothered by putting in the "if". Yes, of course, as long as we have faith we have security. This is precisely why we need go to the rest of Scripture to learn that it is God who "keeps us", that it is God who has "begun a good work in us", that it is God who says nothing "shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.", God who says "we have eternal life", who also says we have been "risen with Christ", it is God who says we "shall never perish" and that the Holy Spirit is "our guarantee".
quote:
Actually, just by looking at 5:2 you also get the idea that "faith" implies an ongoing obedience to the Lord, not just a one-time thing. I don't disagree in the slightest. If faith and obedience is not an ongoing situation in our lives, we'd be foolish to think we are saved. When God regenerates it is a "one-time thing"; but, a life of ongoing obedience is the evidence of that regeneration.
quote:
And also note the phrase: "For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also". This is totally different from the idea that we get a guarantee of Eternal Security during this life, before this life is over. We also don't see him saying we cannot know we eternal security. Still, it is what I'm saying. A life of ongoing obedience is evidence of pleasing God.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/26/2008 11:17:54 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6683
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
Hi wacotton,
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good definition of Eternal Security. There's "eternal life" and there's "security" in Christ.
A point needs to be made here. How does one be "in Christ"? Does man himself do it? Of course not. God does it. When does God do it? When a person believes the gospel. So, once God places us in Christ, the believer IS eternally secure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/27/2008 11:02:58 AM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 754
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
Hi wacotton,
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good definition of Eternal Security. There's "eternal life" and there's "security" in Christ.
A point needs to be made here. How does one be "in Christ"? Does man himself do it? Of course not. God does it. When does God do it? When a person believes the gospel. So, once God places us in Christ, the believer IS eternally secure.
This is where we disagree. Jesus, John and Paul all spoke of the importance of abiding in Christ. Also the writer of Hebrews gives strong warnings to those he calls "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" to not depart from God. In Hebrews 4 the writer tells us to labor to enter the rest. Paul also spoke of fighting the good fight of faith.
1 John 2:28
And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
John 15:1-8
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
Hebrews 3
1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. 3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. 5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) 12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Hebrews 4:1-11
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
_____________________________
Bill Cotton
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/27/2008 8:49:13 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6683
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
Hi wacotton,
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good definition of Eternal Security. There's "eternal life" and there's "security" in Christ.
A point needs to be made here. How does one be "in Christ"? Does man himself do it? Of course not. God does it. When does God do it? When a person believes the gospel. So, once God places us in Christ, the believer IS eternally secure.
This is where we disagree. Jesus, John and Paul all spoke of the importance of abiding in Christ. Also the writer of Hebrews gives strong warnings to those he calls "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" to not depart from God. In Hebrews 4 the writer tells us to labor to enter the rest. Paul also spoke of fighting the good fight of faith.
There is a difference between being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ". God places us in Christ, whereas the believer may "abide" or not, which is an issue of fellowship and obedience. The believer who isn't obedient to Christ cannot be "abiding" in Him, though God keeps him in Christ.
When that is understood, there should be no problem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/28/2008 1:17:30 AM
|
|
|
wacotton
Posts: 754
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
Hi wacotton,
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good definition of Eternal Security. There's "eternal life" and there's "security" in Christ.
A point needs to be made here. How does one be "in Christ"? Does man himself do it? Of course not. God does it. When does God do it? When a person believes the gospel. So, once God places us in Christ, the believer IS eternally secure.
This is where we disagree. Jesus, John and Paul all spoke of the importance of abiding in Christ. Also the writer of Hebrews gives strong warnings to those he calls "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" to not depart from God. In Hebrews 4 the writer tells us to labor to enter the rest. Paul also spoke of fighting the good fight of faith.
There is a difference between being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ". God places us in Christ, whereas the believer may "abide" or not, which is an issue of fellowship and obedience. The believer who isn't obedient to Christ cannot be "abiding" in Him, though God keeps him in Christ.
When that is understood, there should be no problem.
There is nothing to support what you've just said except your doctrine.
_____________________________
Bill Cotton
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/28/2008 2:19:49 AM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1903
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
quote:
There is a difference between being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ". God places us in Christ, whereas the believer may "abide" or not, which is an issue of fellowship and obedience. The believer who isn't obedient to Christ cannot be "abiding" in Him, though God keeps him in Christ.
When that is understood, there should be no problem.
There is nothing to support what you've just said except your doctrine
Actually, this is Bible doctrine. The Holy Spirit places us in Christ, and this is permanent and eternal, since we also become children of God at the same time. This is a supernatural work of God.
However, abiding in Christ is obedience to His Word. This requires daily submission by the child of God.
I could provide numerous Scriptures, but will leave it at that.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/28/2008 3:26:21 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
But were [the Apostles] intending to answer a question about Eternal Security when they wrote those verses? Nothing in the context of those verses indicates they were answering such a question, as far as I can see.
I didn't mean to imply the Apostles were answering any questions on eternal security.
Hi kelman,
Ok, it seems you are agreeing that the Apostles were not answering any question on eternal security. I think you also would agree that they were not consciously intending to teach on eternal security when they wrote those verses; you can tell me if that is right.
So, for example, when John wrote 10:27-29 (re no one can pluck the sheep out of my hand), this is part of a long dialogue with the Pharisees concerning the nature of Jesus's authority, and whether he really was sent from God, and in fact who was he in relation to God his father. Actually it is right at the climax, right before Jesus says "I and the Father are one", and the religious leaders are about to stone him.
And John 10:27-29 fits into the dialogue since it is showing his identity with the Father: "My Father . . . has given the sheep to me", "no one can snatch them out of my hand", "no one can snatch them out of the Father's hand".
So the purpose of these verses is to lead up to Jesus's final statement: "I and the Father are one".
Now, you are claiming there was another purpose to these verses (besides the main purpose), and that was to teach Eternal Security. So, right at the height of the discussion, as the Pharisees were getting angrier and angrier, and were about to stone him, Jesus just slipped in this other teaching. Was he aware that he had just uttered the chief proof text on Eternal Security in the heat of this encounter? Did he do it on purpose? And how about John, as he was writing all this down perhaps 50 years later? What did he see as the story unfolded? I am curious how you would answer these questions.
quote:
What I meant is that I find the remarks they did make to be transparent and without ambiguity.
So you are saying that John's remarks in 10:27-29 were transparent and without ambiguity, and were clearly meant to teach us Eternal Security. And you maintain this, in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the surrounding context to indicate that John (or Jesus) had this in mind. It is just the words themselves that clearly and unambiguously teach us Eternal Security, irrespective of what Jesus (or John) consciously meant to teach. I hope I am stating your position correctly; please clarify if necessary.
Now concerning the transparency and (un)ambiguity of the words: Plenty was said in posts 3426-3438, and I will not rehash that here. I will just refer back to the illustration of the word give:
A. I gave the cat some tuna.
B. I gave the cat her medicine.
A) means essentially "freely offered". B) means (quite literally) force it down her throat. The same exact word, but two different meanings. In A), even if the cat chose not to eat the tuna, it is still true that you gave it to her. In B) she will swallow the pill, even if you are minus two fingers in the process.
So, in John 10:28, which meaning of "give" is in mind? Or something in between?
quote:
The same verses we've been discussing carry the meaning of a "done deal"...being given eternal life. Isn't that the idea behind eternal security?
I think here you are seeing the term "eternal life" and are automatically translating it to "eternal security". I do not think a first century reader would read the term this way; there is certainly no evidence that anyone did.
quote:
quote:
I am not sure I get your point here. Are you claiming that nothing in scripture can be understood clearly? Not that it can't be; but, that it isn't. I've often read how everything necessary for salvation is perspicuous; but, I have my doubts. If it were, would there be churches teaching a libertarian free will and others teaching God's predetermination?
I do not believe that having a correct understanding of "libertarian free will" vs. "God's predetermination" is necessary to be saved.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps one of the reasons that there is so much debate about the details of the Eucharist, Water Baptism, etc., is that some churches/people build up their beliefs on proof texts. If you stuck with the clear passages, interpreting them in context, you would have fewer disagreements. Would that not be a good thing? It sounds very inviting, I'll tell you that. But, actually, I think the opposite is true. Unless, we consult ALL of Scripture on a related issue, I don't think we can find truth.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should consult ALL of Scripture, but that is not contrary to the idea that we should interpret Scripture IN CONTEXT.
I would think that the truest or most certain meaning of any verse, would be the meaning the author had in mind, which can be best determined from looking at the context. And then you look at other scriptures for comparison, also looking carefully at their contexts. You do get to all of Scripture that way, but you do not get into an argument over "proof texts". As I am sure you are aware, there are lots of debates that boil down to "proof text" arguments, and I do not think these are very profitable.
quote:
From my limited reading I don't think anything was ever written specifically on eternal security in the first century. The primitive church had much greater concerns. But, surely they taught that the one who preseveres in the faith is assured of eternal life.
I totally agree with you here.
quote:
quote:
Right, we have security as long as we have faith. There is the "if" there, just as in, for example, Col 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith". The Early Church Fathers, just like Paul, were not bothered by putting in the "if".
Yes, of course, as long as we have faith we have security. This is precisely why we need go to the rest of Scripture to learn that it is God who "keeps us", that it is God who has "begun a good work in us", that it is God who says nothing "shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.", God who says "we have eternal life", who also says we have been "risen with Christ", it is God who says we "shall never perish" and that the Holy Spirit is "our guarantee".
Yes, and I totally agree with you here also. I very much like the teaching on Eternal Security when it is presented this way.
quote:
quote:
And also note the phrase: "For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also". This is totally different from the idea that we get a guarantee of Eternal Security during this life, before this life is over.
We also don't see him saying we cannot know we eternal security. Still, it is what I'm saying. A life of ongoing obedience is evidence of pleasing God.
Well, we can know we have eternal security. I really don't have any problem about that either. That is, as long as we don't hold this "knowledge" in a presumptive or cocksure manner. Otherwise we run up against scriptures like Phil 3:12 ("not that I have already obtained this") and 1 Cor 10:12 ("let anyone who thnks he stands take heed lest he fall"). We need to fully embrace all of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/28/2008 9:25:42 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6683
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: wacotton
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
quote:
I believe that eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ and in Christ alone. If one is in Christ they are secure. If one is not in Christ they are lost.
Hi wacotton,
Actually, this sounds like a pretty good definition of Eternal Security. There's "eternal life" and there's "security" in Christ.
A point needs to be made here. How does one be "in Christ"? Does man himself do it? Of course not. God does it. When does God do it? When a person believes the gospel. So, once God places us in Christ, the believer IS eternally secure.
This is where we disagree. Jesus, John and Paul all spoke of the importance of abiding in Christ. Also the writer of Hebrews gives strong warnings to those he calls "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" to not depart from God. In Hebrews 4 the writer tells us to labor to enter the rest. Paul also spoke of fighting the good fight of faith.
There is a difference between being "in Christ" and "abiding in Christ". God places us in Christ, whereas the believer may "abide" or not, which is an issue of fellowship and obedience. The believer who isn't obedient to Christ cannot be "abiding" in Him, though God keeps him in Christ.
When that is understood, there should be no problem.
There is nothing to support what you've just said except your doctrine.
There are commands for believers to abide in Christ. No one is commanded to "be in Christ". Do you see the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/29/2008 10:43:47 PM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are commands for believers to abide in Christ. No one is commanded to "be in Christ". Do you see the difference?
Hi FreeGrace,
Which commands to "abide in Christ" are you referring to?
In John 15:4, the word for "abide" (KJV) is translated "remain" in the NIV.
So, if you do not "remain in Christ", then you will no longer "be in Christ". Isn't that true (in plain English)?
Or do you think that "abide" has a meaning different from "remain"? If so, what is the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/30/2008 2:46:00 AM
|
|
|
doublecross
Posts: 121
Joined: 6/30/2008
Status: offline
|
Remaining in Christ is the natural thing for believers - commanded or not. Even if it is a command, it is something that the true believer will do anyway.
It is interesting to notice that what is being debated is whether one is commanded or not and using it to point to the possibility of a son of God falling into eternal punishment. Has he not received a new heart from God. Does this mean that the heart of flesh can be turned to a heart of stone again by the very actions of the professing person?
Of course there will be times when a believer will sin. You do it, I do it, we do it all. David sinned but was that sin a mark of someone belonging to hell? Did he abide in sin or walked with God?
Does the son of God (having the DNA of God in him as an illustration + having the protection of the most powerful being) slip from the grasp of God? If there is no surety with God, what then is our assurance based on?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/30/2008 2:57:32 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tychicus
Ok, it seems you are agreeing that the Apostles were not answering any question on eternal security. I think you also would agree that they were not consciously intending to teach on eternal security when they wrote those verses; you can tell me if that is right.
The way I look at it is that whether or not they were consciously intending to teach eternal security they, in fact, did. I place God very much in the thick of each passage. It was God's intention to place those exact words and, if sincerely looked at, teach that a true believer can never lose his salvation. Again, the real difficulty is that many churches today teach an aberrant salvation.
quote:
Now, you are claiming there was another purpose to these verses (besides the main purpose), and that was to teach Eternal Security. Since it is clearly taught in these passages, Christ meant to do exactly as He did.
quote:
So, right at the height of the discussion, as the Pharisees were getting angrier and angrier, and were about to stone him, Jesus just slipped in this other teaching. That isn't precisely so. Christ began teaching eternal security well before vv 27-29. Very early on in vv 4,5 we're told "the sheep follow him: for they know his voice" and "they know not the voice of strangers". And again in vs 14 "..and am known of mine". Still again in vs 16 "...and they shall hear my voice..."
quote:
Was he aware that he had just uttered the chief proof text on Eternal Security in the heat of this encounter? From the evidence of ALL that Christ mentioned concerning eternal security in John 10, it appears that that was indeed one of the purposes of this encounter. There is nothing that Christ is not "aware" of. We can have no doubt Christ said what He said and meant what He said.
quote:
Did he do it on purpose? And how about John, as he was writing all this down perhaps 50 years later? What did he see as the story unfolded? I am curious how you would answer these questions. God does nothing by accident. Did John understand Christ to be teaching eternal security?...I have no idea nor do I think it important. What John, and every other penman of Scripture, wrote down was specifically what God intended them to write. In Jeremiah 36:2, we see just how specific the writing of Scripture is.
quote:
So you are saying that John's remarks in 10:27-29 were transparent and without ambiguity, and were clearly meant to teach us Eternal Security. And you maintain this, in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the surrounding context to indicate that John (or Jesus) had this in mind. Well, now we know this not to be the case, correct? The surrounding context also teaches eternal security.
Do you not see Christ also giving us insights into His upcoming Atonement in vv 11, 15,17, 18? Are we not to look at these verses as teaching us something about the Atonement simply because it was not the main thrust of the chapter? I hope not.
quote:
It is just the words themselves that clearly and unambiguously teach us Eternal Security, irrespective of what Jesus (or John) consciously meant to teach. I hope I am stating your position correctly; please clarify if necessary. No, as you can see from the above you are not stating my position correctly. Christ knew precisely what He was teaching.
quote:
A. I gave the cat some tuna.
B. I gave the cat her medicine.
A) means essentially "freely offered". B) means (quite literally) force it down her throat. The same exact word, but two different meanings. In A), even if the cat chose not to eat the tuna, it is still true that you gave it to her. In B) she will swallow the pill, even if you are minus two fingers in the process.
So, in John 10:28, which meaning of "give" is in mind? Or something in between?
Surely, you agree the cat owner places the pill into a very tasty piece of tuna? Since the cat is not inclined to accept the pill, because of their ornery natures, the cat owner makes the pill not only acceptable to the cat but desireous to him. Therefore, the cat owner accomplishes what he set out to do - heal the cat.
quote:
I think here you are seeing the term "eternal life" and are automatically translating it to "eternal security". I do not think a first century reader would read the term this way; there is certainly no evidence that anyone did. How can the two be separated? If someone is truly saved, he has eternal life. Eternal means: without end, never to cease, everlasting.
quote:
I do not believe that having a correct understanding of "libertarian free will" vs. "God's predetermination" is necessary to be saved. I didn't say that it was. I said those who teach the incorrect doctrine, i.e., some churches, are not clear on salvation. Both cannot be true.
quote:
I wholeheartedly agree that we should consult ALL of Scripture, but that is not contrary to the idea that we should interpret Scripture IN CONTEXT.
I agree, not contrary to it at all. Nor is it contrary to interpret a passage in light of its larger context.
quote:
I would think that the truest or most certain meaning of any verse, would be the meaning the author had in mind, which can be best determined from looking at the context. And then you look at other scriptures for comparison, also looking carefully at their contexts. You do get to all of Scripture that way, but you do not get into an argument over "proof texts". As I am sure you are aware, there are lots of debates that boil down to "proof text" arguments, and I do not think these are very profitable. I think this "proof text" business is somewhat of a strawman. It is not as if there weren't many other verses carrying similar messages throughout both the OT and NT. The problem arises when nothing else in Scripture will harmonize with the "proof text". And, in the case of eternal security that is most definitely not the case.
quote:
Well, we can know we have eternal security. I really don't have any problem about that either. That is, as long as we don't hold this "knowledge" in a presumptive or cocksure manner. Otherwise we run up against scriptures like Phil 3:12 ("not that I have already obtained this") and 1 Cor 10:12 ("let anyone who thnks he stands take heed lest he fall"). We need to fully embrace all of scripture. It's true presumptiousness is a very real problem. So many think that salvation is a decision for Christ which stops at the intellectual level. And, often it is these who are the loudest proclaimers of eternal security.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/30/2008 3:35:44 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
There are commands for believers to abide in Christ. No one is commanded to "be in Christ". Do you see the difference? There really is no difference. To be "in Christ" is to be saved 2Cor 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
And to "abide in Christ" is also to be saved as we see in John 15:4 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me." It is clear from this verse that Christ abides in us, we abide in Christ.
To abide with Christ is to be in the position of being "in Christ". The word abide means the following:
in reference to state or condition
1. to remain as one, not to become another or different
If we do not "abide in Christ", we are eternally damned as John 15:6 says "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Eternal Security - One Stop Thread - 6/30/2008 3:46:29 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is interesting to notice that what is being debated is whether one is commanded or not and using it to point to the possibility of a son of God falling into eternal punishment. Has he not received a new heart from God. Does this mean that the heart of flesh can be turned to a heart of stone again by the very actions of the professing person?
Hi doublecross,
That is a great question. If we receive a new heart from God, does that mean we cannot sin? And if we do sin, what happens to that new heart? What does it mean in Heb 3:7-19, esp 3:12?quote:
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
