Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Can Someone really loose their Salvation?

Forum Quick Jump

44 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/10/2002 10:32 AM (GMT -6)

First off guys, the question about Angels, Adam and Eve and infants were only questions. Not to make a big theological treatise out of these to decide the complexity of eternal security on these. Though it does seem to me that if only one example of apostasy can be shown that eternal security falls.

But let me say just this. It seems to me that Marty’s quote on infants is more in line (morally speaking) than the answer that Payaso had to offer. The death of Christ is provisional for them until they reach the age of accountability.

Marty says that if they die before they reach the age of accountabilty, they will have the opportunity to exercise faith in heaven. This, by the way presumes that they will have eternal life as he explicitly states in his next sentence. Basically, Marty believes that infants are given assurance of eternal life. Morally speaking, it would seem to be reprehensible otherwise. I don’t want to hear what I’ve read by Modes on this board about the "suspension of the ethical" or something like it either. That is, "We can't hold God to our standard of justice. It could be that God's standard has many more sides than we can see." Cause it’s all mental gymnasitics see.

My point in asking the question is that some Calvinists believe that only the elect infants go to heaven without a profession of ”faith alone” in Christ. The opposite of that is that the unelect go to the fires of hell. The problem is, what happens to those elect when they reach the age of accountability? Do they fall from a state of grace? Do they retain their forgiveness even without having accepted Christ and the "faith alone" requirement that is demanded of those over the age of accountability?

On Adam and Eve Payaso says:

quote:
Instead of saying that they lost their salvation, could we not say that they did not even require such salvation until the point that they disobeyed God? If such is the case, then they did not lose something which they formerly possessed, but rather, they now required something which they did not previously require.

Seems twisted, sister.

They had a relationship with God. They lost that. So we could say they had salvation, (or were in a state of grace) but then they lost it. In order to get that back, (salvation, relationship, state of grace, whatever you want to call it, though some metaphors might be restrictive) God would have to provide a way (salvation). Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 that "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin." So here we have human beings falling from a state of God's grace. Therefore, they did lose something that they formerly possessed. Relationship or sonship as Marty would say. In fact, Paul warns modern Christians that they can fall in just the same way Eve did, telling them in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3:

2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

So, like Eve, you as modern Christians, can be a pure bride of Christ and yet be deceived by the serpent and fall from grace.

Marty says:

quote:
Fallen Angels—please note that the appeal to fallen angels results not only in denial of eternal security temporally but eternally. The question that often comes up is, How do we know that once we reach heaven, we will never sin and be rejected as the angels in heaven were? If perfect heavenly angels can sin and be rejected from heaven, then why can not perfect heavenly saints sin and be rejected from heaven?

and

quote:
Quite frankly, if we do not have eternal security now, we will not have it then. We will never be secure.

Actually, that is not my question at all. Your second quote is circular and assumes it’s conclusion for it’s premise. Though it is a good hypothetical eschatological question. Still, the question doesn’t cancel out the fact of those angels which were in a state of grace but fell. My point was, at one time all of the angels were in a state of grace, of righteous union with God, but then many of them fell out of that state, leaving only what Paul refers to in 1 Tim. 5:21 as "the elect angels." So individuals can fall out of a state of God's righteous grace.

Marty says:

quote:
However, our daily experience of salvation over the power of sin can fluctuate. Daily confession is required for daily victory (i.e., salvation from the power of sin) and fellowship (e.g., 1Jn 1:9). Relationship is permanent; fellowship is not. Present dynamic salvation should be a growing experience (1Pet 2:2). But it may wither instead. But even if it withers, it does not strip the static component of salvation from its regenerative force (nor its judicial victory over the penalty of sin).

and

quote:
Sonship in this dimension would suggest sonship by birth. In birth God imparts His life to us. This life is denoted as eternal life. Just as my parents have imparted their genetic code to me in giving me life so God has imparted His type of life as well.

and

quote:
Basically, I am an Arminian who believes in the eternal security of all believers and the eternal punishment of unfaithful believers.

It looks like once saved always saved, feels like once save always saved, smells like once saved always saved and tastes like once saved always saved. But then claims Arminianism???

Marty you truly do take the sonship metaphor WAY TO FAR It proves too much!

There is such a thing you know?

Scripture also indicates that we were all born children of the devil. According to the above argument, we cannot lose our son-ship because genetics cannot be changed. All this proves is that no one can ever become a child of God! Besides, we are adopted into the family of God aren’t we? Look at what foolish lengths this logic will take us if we apply these images too far! There is nothing Biblical about the above quotation, but people buy into these arguments every day, even the absurdity of being "sexed" into salvation! We must be careful not to get carried away in the application of these thoughts. They were never intended to be used to build extensive theories and systems of theology.

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

Edited by - BBBCanada on 05/10/2002 3:54:56 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/10/2002 11:38 AM (GMT -6)

One more thing. Marty says:

quote:
Fallen Angels—please note that the appeal to fallen angels results not only in denial of eternal security temporally but eternally. The question that often comes up is, How do we know that once we reach heaven, we will never sin and be rejected as the angels in heaven were? If perfect heavenly angels can sin and be rejected from heaven, then why can not perfect heavenly saints sin and be rejected from heaven?

and

quote:
Quite frankly, if we do not have eternal security now, we will not have it then. We will never be secure.

Now this is really interesting logic. It is the same as asking, “If eternal life can be lost, how can it be eternal?” My contention thus far, is that our continuous sinning puts us out of right relationship with God. I mean, how can one have eternal life and the possibility of sinning? If angels can, then so can humans. And so the question is asked that if this is the case, “…then why can’t perfect heavenly saints sin in heaven and be rejected?”

The answer lies in the definition of eternal. “Eternal” goes both ways. It can be past as well as future. Let me ask this. There is a point in time where one who believes receives eternal life. If this life is "eternal" then it has no beginning or ending, but yet we admit that we do not possess it until we believe! Does this mean that it is not "eternal" since there has to be a beginning? Are you willing to admit that what you have in affect done is take away the basis for “faith?”

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

Marty Cauley
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 5/11/2002 6:22 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Brandon,

Scripture does draw parallels between what happens to fallen angles and fallen men (Mt 25:41; 2Pet 2:4), and it does teach that the lost are children of the devil (1Jn 3:10). Unredeemed men will experience the same fate as unredeemed angles. But this does not prove that redeemed men can suffer the same fate. Your assumption that the angles had a relationship based on grace (based on election in 1Tim 5:21) is unwarranted. Are you a Calvinist? I’m not. I do not believe that God’s election determines who will be saved and who will be lost.

Are you thinking that God elected certain angles to perdition and certain angles to salvation? Without scriptural basis, you assume that all angles were in a state of grace, then you conclude that only those elected will be saved? You are way too Calvinistic for me. What are you, a one point Calvinist? I reject all 5 points of Calvinism including unconditional election. I do not believe the God unconditionally elected certain angles or people to preserve and be saved. Do you?

I assume conditional election in 1Tim 5:21. Those who persevered were elected, not those who were elected preserved. Their election was conditioned on their perseverance. Are you thinking that fallen angles only experienced common grace and the elect angles were recipients of irresistible grace? Maybe you’re a two point Calvinist?

Enough of this Calvinistic nonsense! Let’s get back to the text. As creatures created by God, men and angles are accountable to God. Those who rebel are subject to the same fate. They have the relationship of creature to Creator. They sinned, and you say they lost their relationship. WHAT? Did they stop being creatures when they sinned? Not hardly. They had the same relationship of creature to Creator after they sinned as they had before. Sin did not destroy that relationship in the sense that God remained their Creator. But it did change the results of that relationship.

Now, you seem to think that Eve got back the same thing that she lost. I don’t. I think she got back a lot more. She now had a new relationship based on redemption. This new relationship was based on grace. Your premise that she and Satan fell from grace and then she got the same thing back is false. I have already stated that I believe that Christians can fall from grace. So I’m not going over that again. But your assumption that this must have soteriological dimensions is not justified. Neither Satan nor Eve were saved by grace before redemption, and redemption was not offered to Satan afterward. Salvation by grace was a new relationship.

As to your attempt to avoid the implications or regeneration by claiming that it is a sexed based theology, shall we say that calling God our “Father” is sexed based? Do you not know that the word for “born” in 1Jn 3:9 is that used of the father’s role in bringing forth an offspring and is the same word used in the genealogies for Abraham “begot” Isaac. Isaac was not born of a virgin. Begot is not a sexless word. Further, the word for “seed” in 1Jn 3:9 is sperma. That’s right, male seed, sperm. The Bible uses male sexual imagery to convey the reality that takes place in spiritual generation. I feel like I am having to go back and explain the birds and the bees.

Your argue that since we are born children of the devil and that genetic impartation is not permanent so it is not permanent when we are born of God. However, you have failed to notice that John carefully avoids saying that we are born of the devil. The devil is not a genitor. He cannot impart life. He does not beget children. He imparts death rather than life.

Contrary to your statement, scripture does make a big deal of the birth/born/regeneration concept. Peter uses the concept of plant seed (spora) in 1Pet 1:23 to make the same point. He states that this seed that has given us life is imperishable.and abides (meno), i.e., remains. This is the same word that John uses in connection with male seed in 1Jn 3:9 to say that God’s seed (sperm) abides/lives/remains in us. This indestructible life remains in us and cannot be contaminated by sin. The doctrine of regeneration strongly supports eternal security. Sure, I believe in once saved always saved, but you seem to think that Calvinists are the only ones who believe this biblical doctrine. Not so.

Your questioning that I have taken away the need for faith because I believe eternal life is eternal leaves so much to be desired that it is difficult to even bother to answer. We are elected before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Of course I am aware that eternal goes forward and backward. But faith is the point in time in which we enter that timeless dimension in our own temporal experience. We are plugged into an eternal source of life at that temporal moment. Plunged in may be a better description.

You claim that I take the metaphor of sonship way too far, and yet you have responded with nothing but speculation and failed to deal with the Galatians’ material. How about dealing with the text next time.
Marty

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/12/2002 1:42 PM (GMT -6)

Marty said:

quote:
I have already stated that I believe that Christians can fall from grace.

and

quote:
This indestructible life remains in us and cannot be contaminated by sin. The doctrine of regeneration strongly supports eternal security. Sure, I believe in once saved always saved...

Marty,

OK. Let's put the Angels, Adam and Eve and Infants on the back burner for a while. It was just a question, not meant to make thourough going case against eternal security. We can deal with Galatians in a little bit as well. I like what you had to say regarding seed and begotten and all that. Cool. I don't think it nullifies my point, but anyhoo...

Now, I am confused. On the one hand you seem to be saying that we will retain being "sons" and on the other hand you seem to be saying that we can fall from grace. No, seriously, I'm confused. Don't take this as sarcastic. Can you clarify this for me again? Seriously. Can a person apostisize (sp?) from the faith? Can there be a point where they stop being "sons?"

Tomorrow, I will deal with what you and Payaso talked about with regard to Esau.

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/13/2002 1:33 PM (GMT -6)

OK, McFly. Mind if I call you McFly?

If I am correct, when you say that you believe that Christians can “fall from grace” you mean that their life (here and now) can be so contaminated by sin but they will still be eternally secure in their salvation. They will actually perservre. As you say they are the “living dead” so to speak.

You’re whacked!

Juuuusssstttt joooooking!

It seems to me that the death that Paul speaks of is not, in it’s totality, in reference to this life, but a future eschatological one. Paul says,

“…either of sin leading to death or of obedience leading to righteousness?” Rom 6:16

These verses should be understood in light of the more explicit teachings on the warnings against apostasy. Apostasy meaning that one can be outside of the faith. That is, they are no longer “sons.”

For example you mentioned Heb. 6 You say that the Arminian interpretation is far superior to that of the Calvinist interpretation but then you say that what this is “really” talking about is rewards and then to “prove” this, you reference Esau in chapter 12.

Now I have got to say that what the writer is talking about in Heb 6 means to be outside of the faith. That’s pretty explicit. These genuine Christians were in danger of:

a) not so much going forward, but if they apostasize the faith (meaning being outside the faith, not being “sons”) they cannot go forward even to the point of not being able to receive elementary teachings, for it would be impossible.
b) they would not be restored, and there is no reason to believe that God would intervene to restore those whom men can’t.
c) total renunciation of Christianity.
d) shaming Christ by the disgracing him, by rejecting him through a metaphorical repeat act of crucifying him again. And in so doing, the writer is saying that nothing can be more shameful than that!

Pretty strong language I’d say. Now you seem to be able to say that Christians can do all of this, because, after all, they are the “living dead.” And then to nullify such strong language you refer to Esau in chapter 12. You say that,

quote:
“However, I would content that rewards are what are at stake. In this book we also encounter a son who lost his inheritance (e.g., Esau, Heb 12:16-17).

Now if Esau can be interpreted differently then your proposal (in otherwords, if I can nullify your interpretation of chapter 12), it is more than reasonable to assume that what the writer in chapter 6 is talking about is apostasy (being outside of the faith, no longer being “sons).”

In point form of Hebrews 12:
a) the writer charges his audience to submit to discipline, which they are enduring.
b) they should strive after peace with all men and holiness, which is the condition for seeing God.

Verse 15 says:

See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no root of bitterness springs up, causing trouble and by it, defiling many.

This verse can mean as some have pointed out:
a) ceasing to attend church.
b) an allusion to “drawing back from the Lord” mentioned in Deut 29:18 which is more than preferrable.
c) the form of the phrase refers to a genuine Christian. And the verb here refers to “falling away” NOT “falling short” As a matter of fact, the verb for “falling back” in Hebrews 10:39 refers to falling back where it results in destruction. Again, I don’t know how to bring up Greek/Arabic on my ‘puter or else I’d bring it up.
d) no malignant member is to grow up in the church that will defile others. Again, the imagery is from Deut 29:18 which speaks of the punishment of:

i) man who leads the covenant people of God into idolatry. Such a person is a root bearing bitter and poisonous fruit.
ii) He is stubborn and has contempt for God’s covenant and God’s anger and jealousy will smoke against him.
iii) the curses of the book would settle against him.
iv) The Lord will blot out his name from under Heaven.

Secondly, back to Hebrews 12. Care must be taken lest an immoral person like Esau rise up. There is a close connection between immorality and idolatry pertaining to Deut 29:18. But what is stressed here in Chapter 12 is Esau’s irreligion. Esau refused his birthright, which entitled him to the leadership of the family for a meal. Later, he realizes what he has done and after Jacob secured it by trickery, the Bible says, “he was rejected.” Issac could not withdraw what he had given to Jacob. The KJV says, “he found no opportunity to repent.” As some scholars point out, the phrase is a stereotyped one and it is therefore unlikely to mean that Esau found no chance of making Issac change his mind. Rather what what it means is that God did not give Esau the opportunity or the chance or possibility of changing Issac’s mind and gaining back what he had forfeited. The author intends for his readers to apply this story to themselves and their salvation. Which means...

Just as Esau was rejected by God, so they can be rejected if they spurn their spiritual birthright.

The Bible says that this all happened although Esau, “sought it with tears.” Some scholars think that “it” is a reference to repentance. But it is strange to speak of this as meaning repentance where one would have expected the antecedent to be “opportunity” which would have required a different form. Again, I cannot bring up the Greek. What is preferrable is to regard “it” as referring to “the blessing.” So that what this means is that no matter how much Esau cried (was sorry, repented(?)), his tears were of no avail in securing the blessing which he forfeited.

The implication here, is that it is possible for one to go so far in sin that he can miss the blessing which he might once have received. God may not permit an opportunity for repentance. Not all may go this far, but it is possible to stretch the mercy of God to it’s limit so that one cannot return. And this correlates perfectly with what Greg talks about when he talks about “character solidification.”

Lastly, the warning is back up by comparing the old covenant and the giving of the law at Sinai with the new and gracious covenant associated with the heavenly mountain and city. That is, if men feared to transgress the law and did not escape punishment, how much worse will it be for them to trangress his new covenant and to ignore his gracious word which precedes his judgement. Therefore Christians should serve God with fear lest they find themselves consumed by his fire.

While none of this states the point at which a person crosses the limit so that there is no room for repentance-therefore we can not be judgers of who's in and who's out? All that is sufficient is to know that there is a limit, and the only way to avoid crossing it is by pressing on instead of falling back.

Later...

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

Edited by - BBBCanada on 05/13/2002 6:46:38 PM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/17/2002 1:19 AM (GMT -6)

Psa 51:10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Eze 36:26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Rom 6:22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Rom 7:4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Rom 7:18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

Eph 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Jam 1:16Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Marty Cauley
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 5/17/2002 3:45 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Brandon,

Haven’t been able to get back to this site till tonight. Had to watch Dinotopia, etc. Appears we both like Back to the Future.

Enjoyed your post on Heb. For the most part it is a solid interaction with the text, and I agree with most of it. I agree with you that the language of Hebrews does not rule out complete apostasy. A believer can abandon the faith. You mistakenly assume that I attempt to water down apostasy. I don’t. I believe a believer can reach a point where repentance can become impossible. Kendall’s defense of eternal security takes the same position. (See Kedall “Once Saved Always Saved.”) Esau’s case is an example of the fact that tears at the bema are too late—misthological tardiness has eternal results.

Where you and I disagree is the result of the apostasy. Since believers call fall from grace, it is not surprising to find that they can fall short of grace too. Heb 12:15 is probably misthological grace. Many believers will fail to earn such grace. It is a rare NT usage, but not unique. Seeing the Lord in Heb 12:15 is probably also misthological (cp. Mt 5:8). And I believe Heb 10:39 refers to the misthological destruction of believers. You take such results soteriologically, whereas I take them misthologically.

You are correct that Esau lost his “leadership” position. Precisely, you overstate the results in assuming that Esau was no longer considered a son. He lost his leadership, not his sonship. As I stated before: “He still received an inheritance as a son, but not the inheritance that he could have had as a first-born son.” The first-born got twice as much, etc. He lost his birth right as the first-born and had to settle with what was left. Isaac did not kick him out and disown him or say that you are no longer my son.

Your assumption that you refute my argument from Thess and Gal about permanent sonship because you can find examples of sons who commit apostasy is faulty. Again, I showed in Gal that they committed apostasy and remained sons. We see the same basic idea with Esau.

The writer of Hebrews has an interesting way of representing the same truth. He says that God has two types of children: illegitimate and legal (Heb 12:8). Both are given life by their father but the latter gets the inheritance. Again, I find this a contrast of static versus dynamic sonship and resulting mistholic sonship.

Paul used a similar contrast in Rom 8:17, heirs versus co-heirs. You stated your confusion, but it seems to be due to your definition. You were implicitly defining apostasy as loss of sonship. But that is not what apostasy means. Apostasy means to abandon the faith. Believers who commit apostasy are God’s children. As such they well receive glory rather than co-glory as their inheritance (Rom 8:17). They will not receive the inheritance that is pictured by legal sonship. Instead, like Esau, they will get far less than what their birthright would otherwise entitle them.

They have been sanctified perfectly and permanently (Heb 10:10,14). They remain “His people” even if they apostatize (Heb 10:30).
Marty

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/20/2002 5:07 PM (GMT -6)

A couple things jumped out when I was reading Hebrews recently.

1. We have a High Priest that intercedes for us. The reason we can come to God is because of our High Priest. The reason we can continue to come before God is because of our High Priest.

Nothing in all creation can hide from him. Everything is naked and exposed before his eyes. This is the God to whom we must explain all that we have done.
Christ Is Our High Priest

That is why we have a great High Priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God. Let us cling to him and never stop trusting him. Heb. 4:13-14 (NLT)

Our High Priest makes up for what we lack.

Once for all time he took blood into that Most Holy Place, but not the blood of goats and calves. He took his own blood, and with it he secured our salvation forever. Heb. 9:12 (NLT)

But we are not like those who turn their backs on God and seal their fate. We have faith that assures our salvation.
Heb. 10:39 (NLT)

2. Hebrews contrasts those that have faith and those that have no faith. The problematic verse Heb 6:4-6 is set in context with those that walked in unbelief in the desert, never really came to believe. They continued to grumble and to test God. (Read the account in Exodus.)

3. Again, our assurance is not found in our abiltiy to walk a sinless life, or to never waver in our faith. (Remember, many of the heros of faith had moments of sin, despair, and uncertainty.) Our assurance is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ, our high priest.

Without comparing Hebrews to other tests, such as 1 Cor 3:15, I do not see a way of interpreting Hebrews as loosing rewards, but staying saved, as through by fire. However, we need to weigh problem texts with the rest of scripture, especially the writings by the same author. The author of Hebrews appears to be spending the bulk of their time emphasising our assurance and Him who we should put our faith. It is a book that ties the OT foundation of the Gospel with the NT revelation of Jesus Christ. Its emphasis is the assurance and finality of salvation, not the opposite message that one or two verses hint toward. Yes, we are warned to not be like that unbelieving generation, but we are given reason to hope in the new covenant.

One other observation. Texts like Hebrews are one of the reasons I cannot buy into the idea that God "arbitrarily" or for some "unknown reason" chooses us for eternal life. The whole book, along with the rest of scripture provides us with clear basis by which we can confidently come before God. If we know nothing else, we can know this. It also makes it clear that the only work God recognizes is Christ's, as our High Priest, and the Lamb of God. The only thing God condemns us for is not embracing, through faith, Jesus Christ and the salvation we can recieve through Him.

Then Jesus said to them, "You are such foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. Wasn’t it clearly predicted by the prophets that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his time of glory?" Then Jesus quoted passages from the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining what all the Scriptures said about himself. Luke 24:25-27 (NLT)

Yours in Christ,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Marty Cauley
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 5/21/2002 1:58 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Winghead,

This approach is typcial of reformed defenses of eternal security:

quote:

Hebrews contrasts those that have faith and those that have no faith. The problematic verse Heb 6:4-6 is set in context with those that walked in unbelief in the desert, never really came to believe.

There are quite a few problems with it. One, the writer is warning genuine believers about a genuine danger--apostasy. Second, I think it was Brandon who has already stated very well the reasons for considering those who are described in this passage as genuine believers based on the context. Third, other passages teach believers can commit apostasy. Forth, many of the Galatian believers had already committed apostasy. Heb describes potential apostasy. Gal describes actual apostasy. And so on.
Marty

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/21/2002 5:01 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Marty,

Marty referring to my above statement:

quote:

This approach is typical of reformed defenses of eternal security

It’s just the "Open Calminian" in me.

See what you can do with this....

Marty:

quote:
There are quite a few problems with it. One, the writer is warning genuine believers about a genuine danger--apostasy. Second, I think it was Brandon who has already stated very well the reasons for considering those who are described in this passage as genuine believers based on the context.

I agree, the writer of Hebrews is addressing genuine believers. As the writer says:

Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation. Heb. 6:9 (NRSVA)

However, is he warning of apostasy or is he illustrating to these "milk" Christians, who need to beyond the basics, how ridiculous it is to revisit the same issues again. Christ's work, the writer says repeatedly later, was once, for all, and did not need to be repeated as was the case with the blood of animals, which did not have the power to save in the first place.

Marty:

quote:
Third, other passages teach believers can commit apostasy. Forth, many of the Galatian believers had already committed apostasy. Heb describes potential apostasy. Gal describes actual apostasy. And so on.

I’m sorry Marty, I read all of Galatians, because I did not know to which verse you were referring. Paul does not say that the Galatian believers committed apostasy. He is writing to the believers, to not following certain false teachers (Gal 4:17, cf. 5:12) who were teaching works of the law instead of the grace of Christ.

Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don’t want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save. Gal. 6:12 (NLT)

Their actions show they do not belong to Christ.

You quote the end of Gal 5:4, but that is qualified with a big IF. Paul, still speaking to the Galatian believers "If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ cannot help you." BUT there is a BUT following the IF in the context of this text.

But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive everything promised to us who are right with God through faith. Gal. 5:5 (NLT)

He goes on to teach typical Pauline teachings on walking in the Spirit.

So I advise you to live according to your new life in the Holy Spirit. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. Gal. 5:16 (NLT)

One cannot come to Christ by doing works. At some point, a person has to get their hearts around the idea of receiving His grace by faith. Legalistic religion is dead, and has always been so. The Lord condemned it and so does Paul. Second, there are plenty of people in the church that have not grasped this point. Like the Pharisees and the false teachers among the Galatians, they are washing the outside of the cup. That said, I am not promoting of "cheap grace", where we condone a fleshly life. Paul makes it clear that a fleshly life is inconsistent with life in the Spirit.

That said, I will give you that genuine faith must preserve, will be tested by fire, will not deny Christ in the face of persecution. (cf. Matt 13, parable of the sower, Matt 10:33, Heb 10:33)

I agree Marty, there are several places such as Heb 6:4 that come with warnings. We need to take these seriously. However, like most of scripture's warnings, they come with directions on the "way out".

YBIC,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/22/2002 2:03 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Guys.

I would like to enter your conversation as undecided; however, I have definite leanings against OSAS and will bring up those Scriptures, which causes this somewhat double mind in me, on the subject. I have read many excellent arguments of both views, each quoting Scripture, which appears to support their view precisely. This precise support of Scripture is why I believe, my faith or lack thereof, might be the key to unraveling the mystery, of such opposing views, both in me and among others. Be patient with me on this, please; I will start with Hebrews, since that is where some of the questions arise in my mind.

Hbr 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];

Hbr 2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hbr 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

1) How will I escape what, if I make light of; regard not; be negligent; or careless of such a great salvation (Hbr 2:3)?
2) Does the author of eternal salvation, require certain obedience, of a sort, to obtain such (Hbr 5:9)?
3) What things should accompany salvation, to be persuaded what better things of me (Hbr 6:9)?
4) What if I start, then stop or neglect looking for Christ return, where I will be without sin unto salvation (Hbr 9:28)?

In God’s Love,

Tim

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/22/2002 4:43 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Hey Brandon,
Haven’t been able to get back to this site till tonight. Had to watch Dinotopia, etc. Appears we both like Back to the Future.

McFly! I can’t believe that! I can’t believe you would prefer Dinotopia to moi??? To our conversation??? Dawg!

I haven’t forgot about you!? Though, I am busy with my kiddies as well. Plus I work midnights and it makes it hard for me to get to the boards sometimes. It’s like the whole day is filled before I make it to the ‘puter here at the U which closes at 10 pm. Anyhoo, hopefully will be back later on today or tmw to discuss some more of this. Haven’t been here for a while, so will try to start anew or where we left off. Anyhoo…

Let me say this much though, McFly.
1. Thanks for the compliments about interacting with the text. Preciate that.

2. Thanks for backing me up on the Heb 6 deal. I think it’s a pretty solid case. Still, it is not talking about “rewards.” This portion of scripture is talking ‘bout those who abandon the faith or fall away to the point of “no return.” You have to import “rewards” from Heb 12
3. Galatians is a letter concerning “warnings” not “condemnation.” Hence, I don’t accept your conclusion:

quote:
Conclusion, Paul does indeed intend to affirm the eternal security of the believer's relationship with God with the word son in these passages.

4. Your conclusion is based on your view of “permanent sonship” which is faulty. Anyhoo, I’ll get a little more indepth about all of this later today or tmw.

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/22/2002 12:35 PM (GMT -6)

Just another quick thought. In Galatians it talks about us be ADOPTED children. I was told once that in the Jewish culture, it was possible to "disown" your child by blood, but adoption could not be broken.

YBIC,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Marty Cauley
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 5/25/2002 2:44 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Winghead,

quote:

You state: “I read all of Galatians, because I did not know to which verse you were referring. Paul does not say that the Galatian believers committed apostasy. He is writing to the believers, to not following certain false teachers.”

I had assumed that my comment would have bee read in context of my earlier post were I said:

quote:

We find the same truth stated again by Paul: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:26). Paul again applies this affirmation to the entire readership. This is astonishing! These believers were apostates (Gal 1:6-9; 3:1; 4:21; 5:4,7). They are disserting Christ for a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Yet Paul assures them that they are still indeed God’s sons.

You are all sons of God (Gal 2:26).
You have been severed from Christ… (Gal 5:4)
You have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)

They all remain God’s sons even though they have been severed from Christ and fallen from grace. Theological defection does not nullify static sonship.

You said that you had read Galatians and failed to see their apostasy. Part the problem is that you evidently read it in the NLT which distorts Gal 5:4. But even the NLT demonstrates that you have misunderstood the supposed “if.”

The NLT states: “You are already following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ” (Gal 1:6-7).

NLT Galatians 3:1 Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has cast an evil spell on you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ's death as clearly as though I had shown you a signboard with a picture of Christ dying on the cross.

NLT Gal 4:21 Listen to me, you who want to live under the law . Do you know what the law really say?

NLT Gal 5:7 You were getting along so well. Who has interfered with you to hold you back from following the truth?

The tenses of the passages I had cited demonstrate that many in Gal had indeed fallen from grace into the legalism of the false teachers. Now as to NLT on Gal 5:4. It is a bad translation. There is no “if” in Greek. None. If you cannot consult the Greek text, then at least please consult a translation rather than a (Calvinistic?) paraphrase.

Your appeal to parable of sower to defend Calvinistic perseverance is rather amusing. In Lk 8:12-13, Luke tells us that the faith which results in germination (i.e., regeneration) in the soil does not necessarily persevere.

Calvinistic security is insecurity since it is based on perseverance. Arminian security is not based on perseverance and is thus secure. I thus prefer an Arminian based eternal security.

Marty

Marty Cauley
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 11

Posted 5/25/2002 3:47 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Tim,
Too little time to run through Heb demonstrating why I take a rewards interpretation. To sum, those believers who commit apostasy will fail to earn eternal salvation. I understand this to be talking about eternal rewards (i.e., eternal inheritance, Heb 9:15) which can be forfeited.

For some reason, Brandon thought rewards motif had to be imported from Heb 12. Puzzling, since rewards are explicitly referenced in Heb 2:2, 10:35; 11:26. Further, the conditional inheritance motif is a reward theme in NT (Col 3:24). And Heb 1:14; 6:12; 9:15; 11:8; 12:17 describe the blessing of salvation as a promised reward to those believers who earn. Not all believers will earn this misthological salvation.

You said you have read defenses of eternal security, but if those defenses are based on Calvinistic perseverance, then in my opinion they don’t count.

I would suggest non-perseverance based interactions with the text. For example, R.T. Kendall has written and entire book on just the warning in Heb 6 called “Rediscovering God.” Great book.

Zane Hodges’ commentary on Hebrews in Bible Knowledge Commentary is good. Although some places he sees temporal rewards whereas I would see eternal rewards. For an example of temporal rewards, see: http://faithalone.org/news/y1992/92july3.html and http://faithalone.org/news/y1992/92sep3.html.

For eternal rewards compare: http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/heb2.html. You might also want to compare the articles by Lang, http://www.inthebeginning.org/newtestament/nt.htm.

Oh well, that’s a sampling. I know Hebrews is a lot of fun. I’m planning to go back and memorize it again later this year. But I don’t have time to reinvent the wheel on basic discussion so I may just need to bow out for now. I’ve got a book on rewards I’m trying to finish this summer.

I normally hang out at a chat site at www.faithalone.org since they are considered the leaders in this type of theology. Maybe, I’ll see you there sometime.

Been fun,
Marty

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/26/2002 3:31 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Marty,

Marty:

quote:
You said that you had read Galatians and failed to see their apostasy. Part the problem is that you evidently read it in the NLT which distorts Gal 5:4. But even the NLT demonstrates that you have misunderstood the supposed “if.”

Admittedly, the NLT is a thought for thought translation, but it is a translation, not a paraphrase. I have started using it with caution, but am enjoying it. I have found few situations where it communicates something different from a word for word translation.

That said, I will try to be more careful about how I quote scripture.

.

Now to your point. I still hold that the people Paul is addressing in Gal 5:4 appear to be the same people he is addressing in Gal 5:10.

I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. Gal. 5:10 (NRSVA)

This appears to be reassuring them, with the goal of getting them to renew their embrace of:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. Gal. 5:6 (NRSVA)

I agree, Paul is chastising them for their error, and condemning the false teachers that are "deceiving them", but I just don't see the potential apostasy you do.

Marty:

quote:
Your appeal to parable of sower to defend Calvinistic perseverance is rather amusing. In Lk 8:12-13, Luke tells us that the faith which results in germination (i.e., regeneration) in the soil does not necessarily persevere.

"Laugh it up, fuzzball."

v.12 devil takes seed before it takes root.
v.13 word is received, they "believe for a season", but there is no "root".
v.14 they hear, but the seed is choked out.
v.15 seed lands on an "honest and good" heart, holds fast, and endures.

Whle this can be interpreted as a lost of faith, or falling away, it can also be interpreted as never reaching a mature saving faith. I take the position I do, not because I am a Calvinist (I am not), but because this reconciles the better (IMHO) with other verses that suggest our security rests in God, not us. Also, there clearly appears to be a differnt sort of heart in the v.15 case. THIS distinction should not be lost.

Marty:

quote:
Calvinistic security is insecurity since it is based on perseverance.

Since I reject many of the points Calvinists base their security on (as I understand their position), I would agree.

Marty:

quote:
Arminian security is not based on perseverance and is thus secure. I thus prefer an Arminian based eternal security.

Marty, what is "Arminian based eternal security?"

YBIC,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/27/2002 2:18 AM (GMT -6)

Howdy Marty,

Marty: …why I take a reward interpretation. To sum, those believers who commit apostasy will fail to earn eternal salvation. I understand this to be talking about eternal rewards (i.e., eternal inheritance, Heb 9:15) which can be forfeited.

TIM: Could not tell if you are expressing two separate thoughts or one. That is to say, are the term’s salvation and inheritance synonymous, in your mind?

Marty: …if those defenses are based on Calvinistic perseverance, then in my opinion they do not count.

TIM: I have been trying to discount the Calvinistic argument, on many subjects.

I will also visit you at the other site sometime, after I check out everything that you offer, thanks.

In God’s Love,

Tim

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/27/2002 2:27 AM (GMT -6)

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/27/2002 11:07 AM (GMT -6)

Sorry 'bout taking time to get back to this. I find that I can really only concentrate on one subject at a time. I'm am not like others here who can hit fifty-thousand subjects all at once. So McFly, you should stick around. Anyhoo...

So I went to the States this past week and I flipped through "Across the Spectrum". I look in the section on eternal security and what the hey! They talk aboot a guy name Marty. Thought that was interesting.

I was doing some thinking on this. I have to still agree with Tom and POW on the nature of the new birth. Us three view the new birth as both reception and sustained. For i.e. POW quotes from an Orthodox site.

quote:
For Orthodox Christians, salvation is a process, not a once-and-done event. It is because of the understanding of some Protestant bodies which hold that one is saved at a precise moment -- when one makes a commitment to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or at some other moment in time -- that much confusion arises. Orthodox Christianity understands that we are "being saved," not "already saved."

and Tom says:

quote:
God does not give us life that we possess apart from herself, apart from all abiding life-connections. Eternal life, unlike the physical life we receive from our earthly parents, is conditioned upon the continued connectedness of the relationship. The umbilical cord is NOT severed. This is why, I’d argue, spiritual sonship is forfeitable.

in opposition, payaso says,

quote:
I have a strong suspicion that his view of 'continuous' faith relies heavily on an understanding of the present tense of the verb 'believe' in John's gospel. But this view of the Greek tenses is highly questionable and, in general, is no longer accepted. The 'present tense' is simply not able to convey a sense of 'continuousness' all by itself.

Marty speaks in literal terms,conveying an absolute correlation says,

quote:
As to your attempt to avoid the implications or regeneration by claiming that it is a sexed based theology, shall we say that calling God our "Father" is sexed based? Do you not know that the word for "born" in 1Jn 3:9 is that used of the father’s role in bringing forth an offspring and is the same word used in the genealogies for Abraham "begot" Isaac. Isaac was not born of a virgin. Begot is not a sexless word. Further, the word for "seed" in 1Jn 3:9 is sperma. That’s right, male seed, sperm.

then he seems to not be so literal, but metaphorical,

quote:
The Bible uses male sexual imagery to convey the reality that takes place in spiritual generation. I feel like I am having to go back and explain the birds and the bees.

It seems to me that Marty flips between categories of literalness and imagery (metaphors) without justification. See, POW's and Tom's and my point is to show the difference between physical and spiritual birth. Marty wants to not simply likened them (metaphorically), he wants to show them as if they are the exact same thing or equal to each other. As if it God somehow, in some metaphysical sense does actually have children.

Marty says that the Bible uses male sexual imagery to convey a reality. POW, Tom and I don't have a problem with that. But Marty, this doesn't show "equalness" but rather "realness." That is that physical birth and spiritual birth are equally real but essentially different. We would say this about those who have been "adopted" into the family of God.

Even so, Marty's quote of 1 John 3:9 says,

"No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God."

This obviously doesn't mean that it is an impossibility to sin. That is, one will never sin whatsoever again. The word "hamartanein" means to "not go on sinning." That is to practice sinning. So that one could read the verse such that because one has God's nature in them they cannot continue sinning in the sense of it being impossible. But this doesn't make sense. Apostasy is real. Even Marty admits this (though we may differ on what apostasy means). Therefore, since this is not an "absolute impossibility" it means that it is a "relative" impossibility. 1 John 3:9's "cannot sin" is not a "consequence of the new birth" but a "condition."

Also, Marty used mentioned “sperma.” But "sperma" and "sporos" are used interchangeably in 2 Cor 9:10 to talk aboot plant seeds and not male sexual imagery (Mark 4:31, 1 Cor 15:38, Matt 13:24). As a matter of fact, “his seed” can mean Jesus who is the “seed of the woman” is also the seed of Abraham, David and is the “only begotten of the Father” who said, “Remain in me, and I in you.”

The “seed” can also refer to the “Word of God” Mark 4, hidden in our hearts Ps 119, to keep us from sinning or to Christ himself as the “Word made flesh” who again would say, “Remain in me, and I in you.”

Lastly, Marty says, trying to show liternalness or absolute correlation,

quote:
Your argue that since we are born children of the devil and that genetic impartation is not permanent so it is not permanent when we are born of God. However, you have failed to notice that John carefully avoids saying that we are born of the devil. The devil is not a genitor. He cannot impart life. He does not beget children. He imparts death rather than life.

Regardless, in what meaningful sense would, using the term “children” serve if in fact they are not children? Why call them children? On the basis of logic alone, if it is true that a relationship with God cannot be broken, then consistency would demand that children of the devil always remain children of the devil.

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

Edited by - BBBCanada on 05/27/2002 4:12:05 PM

44 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:57 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual