PDA

View Full Version : Knowing for sure one is going to heaven



Pages : [1] 2

37818
03-11-2014, 12:03 PM
The reason I accepted Christ, was on the premise one can know for sure. If one cannot, then Christianity is no different in the end than any other religion.

phat8594
03-11-2014, 12:18 PM
this poll doesn't really make sense, IMO.

37818
03-11-2014, 12:22 PM
this poll doesn't really make sense, IMO.What is it that does not make sense to you? No one knows when they will die. In my view the only way one can know for sure one can go to heaven (rest) is if God who saves is the God who keeps those whom He saves. Does that help?

Bill the Cat
03-11-2014, 12:32 PM
Both are scripturally stated as necessary for our inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Teallaura
03-11-2014, 12:40 PM
He seems to be asking is the work of remaining saved that of God or of Man.

My answer is that God provides the means and the grace of salvation. If it is possible to lose salvation, it isn't a matter of mere error but a conscious, willful decision to reject God altogether - and I'm not sure it is even possible (seems unlikely one truly saved would make that decision - but that opens yet another can of theological worms). As far as 'maintaining' or, more precisely, working out one's salvation, it's Man's will but God's grace - we have a part but only in the choosing. God does all the actual work. Face it, humans don't do those kinds of work well at all. As a result, I don't think it would even be possible to 'stay' saved without God's intervention and grace.

One Bad Pig
03-11-2014, 12:41 PM
I don't think God gives out "get out of hell free" cards.

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

We can be confident that God is working in us, but that doesn't mean we can assume salvation without putting in any effort of our own.

37 Blessed are those servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, and will come and serve them. 38 And if he should come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

We can't just assume God will keep us ready, or Jesus' words here have little meaning. We need to make sure we are vigilant and prepared for His return (or our death).

RBerman
03-11-2014, 12:51 PM
this poll doesn't really make sense, IMO.

I must agree. The two choices are not mutually exclusive, and the issue of having eternal life (which is what the answers address) is different from the issue of knowing whether you have it (which is what the question asks about).

KingsGambit
03-11-2014, 01:03 PM
One of the paradoxes of Scripture is that we are to be ever vigilant about where we stand (2 Corinthians 13:5, along with many other verses) but at the same time, there is an expectation that we feel confident about our own salvation (1 John 5:13-14). Trying to "smooth this out" misses the point, in my view - both stances are true but represent different emphases.

Obsidian
03-11-2014, 01:20 PM
If it is possible to lose salvation, it isn't a matter of mere error but a conscious, willful decision to reject God altogether - and I'm not sure it is even possible (seems unlikely one truly saved would make that decision - but that opens yet another can of theological worms).

If you aren't sure it's possible, then what makes you even suggest it? All the people who twist verses to teach that you can lose your "eternal" life also teach that it is possible to lose it accidentally, or through strong temptation. No church has ever taught that the only people who can lose their "eternal" life are those who willfully and freely chose to forfeit it. And there is no Bible verse that even comes remotely close to teaching such a concept.

This concept -- intentionally choosing to go to hell -- is basically just a philosophical idea that you thought up.


I don't think God gives out "get out of hell free" cards.

Revelation 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Obsidian
03-11-2014, 01:26 PM
The two choices are not mutually exclusive, and the issue of having eternal life (which is what the answers address) is different from the issue of knowing whether you have it (which is what the question asks about).

John 11
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, [I am not really sure, Lord; I don't want to be overly confident and later turn out not to be one of God's fraudulent elect]

Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is [possibly] a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

1 John 5
11 And this is the record, that God hath [probably but not necessarily] given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that [think that you] believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may [hope that, but not be sure about whether,] ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

seanD
03-11-2014, 01:51 PM
Those who endure to the end shall be saved, which is indicative that enduring is not guaranteed.

Teallaura
03-11-2014, 02:23 PM
If you aren't sure it's possible, then what makes you even suggest it? All the people who twist verses to teach that you can lose your "eternal" life also teach that it is possible to lose it accidentally, or through strong temptation. No church has ever taught that the only people who can lose their "eternal" life are those who willfully and freely chose to forfeit it. And there is no Bible verse that even comes remotely close to teaching such a concept.

This concept -- intentionally choosing to go to hell -- is basically just a philosophical idea that you thought up.



Revelation 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Did you totally miss the OP? Jesus says that He doesn't lose what the Father gives Him - so 'oops' seems extremely illogical as a means of losing salvation. OBP cited a couple verses that may mean salvation can be lost (I don't agree but it can legitimately be read that way) so the concept of losing salvation is derived from Scripture - and the two together would indicate that it tain't an easy thing to do.

Theology - not just for breakfast.

Obsidian
03-11-2014, 02:56 PM
One Bad Pig believes in salvation by works. Do you really think he would agree with the theory that it is difficult to lose salvation? SeanD sure didn't make it sound very difficult to lose. My point is that you can potentially read the Bible to teach that salvation is impossible to lose, or that it is fairly easy to lose. To claim that it is possible, but extremely difficult, seems like a terribly unrealistic view. It is a view based more on philosophy ("How can God take away my freedom to prevent me from going to hell if I really want to?") as opposed to scripture.

KingsGambit
03-11-2014, 05:38 PM
I believe salvation can be lost (and no, this does not equate to works salvation), but I disagree with the notion that this is difficult, and I think Obsidian is right to point out that this is not a tenable position. It could be lost through gradual apathy over time (the parable of the foolish virgins), with quite literally no effort. It can be easy to allow oneself to be dulled by the allures of the world if one does not continually feed their faith (again, this feeding of the faith is NOT the means by which salvation is earned).

Truthseeker
03-11-2014, 06:09 PM
means by which salvation is earned).1) You think we must earn salvation. 2) Possibly you think not just any way to earn salvation will do.

KingsGambit
03-11-2014, 06:28 PM
1) You think we must earn salvation.

No I don't.

Paprika
03-12-2014, 01:43 AM
Salvation, like justification/judgment, has past, present and future tenses; the three are distinct and conflation can only result in confusion and error.

One Bad Pig
03-12-2014, 06:02 AM
One Bad Pig believes in salvation by works.I believe in salvation by grace, through faith. However, faith without works is dead:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I agree with St. James. Do you?


Do you really think he would agree with the theory that it is difficult to lose salvation? SeanD sure didn't make it sound very difficult to lose. My point is that you can potentially read the Bible to teach that salvation is impossible to lose, or that it is fairly easy to lose. To claim that it is possible, but extremely difficult, seems like a terribly unrealistic view. It is a view based more on philosophy ("How can God take away my freedom to prevent me from going to hell if I really want to?") as opposed to scripture.

I believe salvation, once gained, is impossible to lose. On the other hand, salvation is a process which is not complete until at least our deaths, and it is quite possible to stop before the end is attained. One of the weaknesses of the English language is its lack of ability to succinctly express the Greek perfect tense, in which salvation tends to be stated in the scriptures.

phat8594
03-12-2014, 09:10 AM
I must agree. The two choices are not mutually exclusive, and the issue of having eternal life (which is what the answers address) is different from the issue of knowing whether you have it (which is what the question asks about).

Exactly. It seems that the poll is trying to set up the two as mutually exclusive, yet they don't have to be. And as you stated, the answers don't seem to address the question.


Per

The Remonstrant
03-12-2014, 09:15 AM
I find 1 Peter 1:5 to be quite fitting here:


[B]y God's power [you/we] are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (ESV)

It's a case of both/and. Salvation is ultimately of the Lord, but he requires continued faith in him in order to attain final salvation.

37818
03-12-2014, 11:59 AM
Those who endure to the end shall be saved, which is indicative that enduring is not guaranteed.That is an interpretation. Not one I hold.

". . . if any man love God, the same is known of him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:3.

" . . . every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." -- 1 John 4:7.
"[love] . . . endureth all things." -- 1 Corinthians 13:7.

KingsGambit
03-12-2014, 12:01 PM
That is an interpretation. Not one I hold.

". . . if any man love God, the same is known of him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:3.

" . . . every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." -- 1 John 4:7.
"[love] . . . endureth all things." -- 1 Corinthians 13:7.

I don't see how these verses negate the principle Sean is implying.

37818
03-12-2014, 12:02 PM
I don't think God gives out "get out of hell free" cards.

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.It is a matter of, again, interpretation. Emphasis to be noted.

37818
03-12-2014, 12:05 PM
I don't see how these verses negate the principle Sean is implying.It is by the love of God that we can love and so endure. As I hold the view God does the keeping. The disagreement is a matter of interpretation, is it not?

37818
03-12-2014, 12:10 PM
I must agree. The two choices are not mutually exclusive, and the issue of having eternal life (which is what the answers address) is different from the issue of knowing whether you have it (which is what the question asks about).So it is some interprent the latter disallows God doing the keeping.

37818
03-12-2014, 12:22 PM
I believe in salvation by grace, through faith. However, faith without works is dead:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I agree with St. James. Do you?

I believe salvation, once gained, is impossible to lose. On the other hand, salvation is a process which is not complete until at least our deaths, and it is quite possible to stop before the end is attained. One of the weaknesses of the English language is its lack of ability to succinctly express the Greek perfect tense, in which salvation tends to be stated in the scriptures.

Salvation is a current possession. "For by grace you have been saved, . . ." -- Ephesians 2:8. NKJV And "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." v.10

And the works James gave an example of (Genesis 22:) took place years later after the cited promise (Genesis 15:6).

KingsGambit
03-12-2014, 12:23 PM
It is by the love of God that we can love and so endure. As I hold the view God does the keeping. The disagreement is a matter of interpretation, is it not?

So does this interpretation mean that God simply did not keep people who initially profess faith but walk away?

37818
03-12-2014, 01:52 PM
So does this interpretation mean that God simply did not keep people who initially profess faith but walk away?

How do you interpret "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," and context?

KingsGambit
03-12-2014, 02:18 PM
How do you interpret "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," and context?

This would appear to say that in effect, only those who were truly in Christ persevered. (And I have posted elsewhere that I personally find this to be the single most difficult verse for Arminianism.)

phat8594
03-12-2014, 03:11 PM
How do you interpret "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," and context?

First off, the context of this verse is not dealing with salvation, but with antichrists / false teachers.


Secondly, all this basically shows is at the time of the leaving, 'they were not of us'. It doesn't tell you about their state of fellowship prior to leaving (and this is even assuming that they even had 'genuine' fellowhip with the apostles)

So to reiterate:

Context shows that this verse is not dealing with salvation, but antichrists...and it only talks about their state of fellowship at the time of leaving. (this of course makes much more sense given the cultural and textual context of 1 John as a whole...i.e. false teachers, and antichrists are in view - not soteriology).


Remember:

'A text without a context is a pretext to make the text say whatever you want'

phat8594
03-12-2014, 03:19 PM
This would appear to say that in effect, only those who were truly in Christ persevered. (And I have posted elsewhere that I personally find this to be the single most difficult verse for Arminianism.)

What in the text makes you think that this verse is dealing with perserverance????? :huh:

RBerman
03-12-2014, 03:27 PM
What in the text makes you think that this verse is dealing with perserverance????? :huh:

We've discussed it previously, on the old board. Surely the prospect of a connection is not that much of a head-scratcher, even if you ultimately discount the connection.

phat8594
03-12-2014, 03:47 PM
We've discussed it previously, on the old board. Surely the prospect of a connection is not that much of a head-scratcher, even if you ultimately discount the connection.

I am perfectly aware that many people use this verse as referendum on perserverance...and that people read it in light of particular theological ideas...but that doesn't make it any less of a head scratcher of what in context of 1 John makes people think that John is talking about perserverance or salvation.


Every 'verse' needs to be read in light of its surrounding context. And in the context of John 2, I am still confused at where John is referring to perserverance or even salvation...


IMO, this verse has more to do with those like Charles Taze Russell than it does with salvation.

KingsGambit
03-12-2014, 04:16 PM
IMO, this verse has more to do with those like Charles Taze Russell than it does with salvation.

I agree with you that the immediate context does seem to refer more to these types of people (false teachers in general), but the reason I still see it as connected with perseverance in general is because John seems to link it to an initial state of belonging to Christ, and he (at least according to my attempt to read it at face value) seems to say this as a general statement and not merely limited to the context of false teachers.

Obsidian
03-12-2014, 05:03 PM
For what it's worth:

@Bad Pig

James 2 is not talking about how to get to heaven, the subject of this thread. It is explicitly talking about how to be judged righteous by the law.

James 2
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Further, your concept that salvation is largely meaningless and insecure until it is complete (at death), is rebutted by the multitude of verses that declare eternal life a present possession, teach that we have already been glorified in the past-tense, teach that Christians are seated in heaven, teach that Christians will never hunger or thirst again after taking one serving of food/water, etc. Your view is incorrect.

@Sean

Matthew 24 is explicitly talking about being killed, hated, and deceived. It is not talking about getting to heaven either.

Matthew 24
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

@Remonstrant

1 Peter 1 does not state that we have to continue believing. It just says that faith is required (at some point). Your interpretation -- that we have to keep ourselves by continuing to believe -- would make the phrase "kept by the power of God" essentially meaningless.

Further, although it isn't needed to accept my theology (and none of the versions seems to translate it this way), I wonder if the word "faith" there might actually be referring to God's faithfulness.

@KingsGambit


So does this interpretation mean that God simply did not keep people who initially profess faith but walk away?

Good point.

One Bad Pig
03-12-2014, 07:17 PM
It is a matter of, again, interpretation. Emphasis to be noted.
Did you read the rest of my post? I freely acknowledged that God works in us. However, that does not make the first verse of no import.


Salvation is a current possession. "For by grace you have been saved, . . ." -- Ephesians 2:8.
Again, you seem to have missed the rest of my post. A fuller translation would be, "For by grace you are being saved/have been saved/will be saved. . ." (perfect tense). Salvation is not a point - it is a process.


NKJV And "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." v.10

And the works James gave an example of (Genesis 22:) took place years later after the cited promise (Genesis 15:6).
:huh: What does that have to do with how James is interpreted?

One Bad Pig
03-12-2014, 07:37 PM
For what it's worth:

@Bad Pig

James 2 is not talking about how to get to heaven, the subject of this thread. It is explicitly talking about how to be judged righteous by the law.
The subjects are not unrelated, as you pretend.


James 2
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
The two passages are separated by a single verse.


Further, your concept that salvation is largely meaningless and insecure until it is complete (at death), is rebutted by the multitude of verses that declare eternal life a present possession, teach that we have already been glorified in the past-tense, teach that Christians are seated in heaven, teach that Christians will never hunger or thirst again after taking one serving of food/water, etc. Your view is incorrect.
I'm afraid you've misapprehended my view. I find it highly meaningful that I am being saved, and am secure in the knowledge that the adversary cannot take me from the Savior's hand. We probably disagree on how to interpret whatever verses you have in mind (the Samaritan woman certainly misinterpreted Jesus' statement when she first responded).

Obsidian
03-13-2014, 12:38 AM
The subjects are not unrelated, as you pretend.

So now you admit that you believe we gain eternal life by law-keeping.

The Remonstrant
03-13-2014, 01:50 AM
I must agree. The two choices are not mutually exclusive, and the issue of having eternal life (which is what the answers address) is different from the issue of knowing whether you have it (which is what the question asks about).

I would agree that assurance of salvation ought not be conflated with salvation itself. One may believe he or she is saved and not be. Conversely, one may actually be reconciled to God through Christ though entertaining doubts of his or present salvation.

Here is an interesting quote from Arminius in his Declaration of Sentiments (1608):


With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe, that it is possible for such a person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and his mercy in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear or terrific dread: and yet this person should constantly pray, "O lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant!"

But, since "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things," and since a man judges not his own self—yea, though a man know nothing by himself, yet is he not thereby justified, but he who judgeth him is the Lord, (1 John iii. 19; 1 Cor. iv. 3,) I dare not [on this account] place this assurance [or certainty] on an equality with that by which we know there is a God, and that Christ is the saviour of the world. Yet it will be proper to make the extent of the boundaries of this assurance, a subject of inquiry in our convention. [Emphasis added]1

Note

1 http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius12.htm

The Remonstrant
03-13-2014, 01:52 AM
So now you admit that you believe we gain eternal life by law-keeping.

Oh, no; not this again.

The Remonstrant
03-13-2014, 02:09 AM
This would appear to say that in effect, only those who were truly in Christ persevered. (And I have posted elsewhere that I personally find this to be the single most difficult verse [1 John 2:19 for Arminianism.)

KG:

I can appreciate your attempting to seriously grapple with a verse you perceive to be in some way out of alignment with Arminian thought, but I honestly do not share your reservations. I have previously explained in some depth why I believe 1 John 2:19 comports better with Arminianism than Calvinism, so I will not revisit the issue here. The crux of the matter is this: theological method. If you have one or two texts which seem to throw a monkey wrench in your overall understanding of Scripture, by all means wrestle with the one or two texts and do not ignore them. But in the end, it must come down to a cumulative case. In my judgement, a cumulative case for the doctrine of necessary perseverance/infallible divine preservation in the New Testament is nowhere to be found (i.e., non-existent). I simply do not understand how or why 1 John 2:19 should pose such an insurmountable problem for you. E.g., would you allow Revelation 20:10 to throw your understanding of final punishment as annihilation into complete disarray? I'm inclined to think not. That would be ridiculous, and at an intuitive level I believe you understand this. Your understanding of Scripture will be completely schizophrenic if you do not at some point seek to synthesize or harmonize the evidence (and I am saying this as one who has certain reservations as to how systematic theology may be misused or abused).1

Lastly, I commend the following excellent "counter-points" volume to you (if you haven't read it already): Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007).2 I trust you'll discover Gareth L. Cockerill and Grant R. Osborne's essays to be most faithful to the biblical text. That said, I will say no more on this topic on this thread.


Notes

1 I tend to find James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries to be a prime example of a recent theologian who almost invariably seeks to resolve any and all scriptural tensions or uneasiness by employing his infallible Reformed-Calvinistic systematic theological grid to come to the rescue.

2 http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Warning-Passages-Hebrews/dp/0825421322

Leonhard
03-13-2014, 05:15 AM
If you aren't sure it's possible, then what makes you even suggest it? All the people who twist verses to teach that you can lose your "eternal" life also teach that it is possible to lose it accidentally, or through strong temptation.

You cannot accidentally commit a sin, especially not a mortal sin, its always an act of the will.


This concept -- intentionally choosing to go to hell -- is basically just a philosophical idea that you thought up.

Actually Teal is onboard with most of the theologians going up the middle ages. We choose to go to hell, in as much as we choose to do the things that imply that we don't love God.

Leonhard
03-13-2014, 05:21 AM
So now you admit that you believe we gain eternal life by law-keeping.

Yes. No one who sins against the law unrepentantly can enter Heaven. A Lutheran would say that their Faith is dead, since the person doesn't perform the works of faith. If you're a Catholic (like I'm becoming) then you'd say that the person has lost his grace having willfully committed mortal sin, and until he repents appropriately he won't be forgiven.

One Bad Pig
03-13-2014, 06:00 AM
So now you admit that you believe we gain eternal life by law-keeping.
You have, once again, misapprehended my beliefs. Care to try again? Try reading James for comprehension this time, instead of forcing the text into the straitjacket of your preconceived notions.

Leonhard
03-13-2014, 07:22 AM
It should be noted that the sense that we 'earn' salvation isn't in the strict sense of getting paid for a job done. Whatever grace we get is completely up to God and is undeserved. However its also true that without demonstrating certain works, at the very least a contrite heart, we can't enter Heaven. All the things necessary for these things are given as a grace to us, but God doesn't force us to do it, he just makes it possible for us to attain if we want to.

phat8594
03-13-2014, 10:48 AM
I agree with you that the immediate context does seem to refer more to these types of people (false teachers in general), but the reason I still see it as connected with perseverance in general is because John seems to link it to an initial state of belonging to Christ, and he (at least according to my attempt to read it at face value) seems to say this as a general statement and not merely limited to the context of false teachers.

Firstly, you have to realize that the verse does not say:

'they were never of us' rather they 'were not of us' at they time 'they went out from us'



Secondly, you also must realize that 'from us' could either mean:

(a) they heard the initial teaching of the apostles but did their own thing
(b) they were actual believers who at some point apostasized to do their own thing



Thirdly, I can see why it is tempting to think that John is pulling a general statement regarding salvation to back up his argument. However, we must ask ourselves:

(1) where is the idea of an initial state of belonging to Christ brought into the idea here
(2) how would a general principle of salvation (in this case: once saved, always saved) actually work within John's point?
(3) also...could it be that John is brining in another general principle to make his point....one that doesn't have to do with salvation?

#2 is the big one. Because if that principle is what John is bringing in to make his point, the text doesn't make sense when we paraphrase it that way:


18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 [They might have looked like they were saved, but they really weren't; if they were really saved, they would still be saved. In fact they weren't saved, that it might become plain that they all are not saved]. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

In other words, brining in a general principle about 'once saved, always saved' doesn't comport with the text. Rather, John is making a point, not about salvation, but rather about one way in which they might spot the antichrists and false teachers. In fact, 1 John has a lot of these principles throughout the text as a whole.

Now if we paraphrase it the way it should be read (IMO), it does make sense:


18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19[They might have come out from us, but they weren't part of our group. For if they actually had been true apostles, they would have kept fellowship. Rather, they broke fellowship and went off on their own so that there would be no doubt in your mind that they are ALL teachers of a false gospel]. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.



It is important that all three of these areas are places where we automatically assume a meaning without digging further into the text. As always, we need to ask 'how does my interpretation of this text actually work within the text itself? How does it work within the author's original intent?'

The Remonstrant
03-13-2014, 11:37 AM
I have recently become convinced that 1 John 2:19 completely overthrows Arminianism.

37818
03-13-2014, 11:55 AM
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," -- 1 John 2:19.



First off, the context of this verse is not dealing with salvation, but with antichrists / false teachers.
Explain what you mean and how anti-christs and false teachers can be saved, if it "is not dealing with salvation" "if they had been of us?"

37818
03-13-2014, 12:11 PM
Jesus had warned, " Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; . . ." And then cites how they are trusting in "have we not . . . in thy name done many wonderful works?" For which Jesus says He will profess, " I never knew you: . . . ." -- from Matthew 7:21-23.

Now Jesus also taught, " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, . . ." and "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand." -- from John 10:27, 28. And the "any" is understood by me to include one's self. v.28-30 shows that God does the keeping.

37818
03-13-2014, 12:35 PM
Did you read the rest of my post? I freely acknowledged that God works in us. However, that does not make the first verse of no import.

Again, you seem to have missed the rest of my post. A fuller translation would be, "For by grace you are being saved/have been saved/will be saved. . ." (perfect tense). Salvation is not a point - it is a process.

:huh: What does that have to do with how James is interpreted?

Your view, I think was well stated. And is well stated. It is my view, that "works" is to be the result of being saved, not a requirement in order to. see Romans 4:5, a parallel teaching on this. I referenced Ephesians 2:10.

Teallaura
03-13-2014, 12:49 PM
One Bad Pig believes in salvation by works. Do you really think he would agree with the theory that it is difficult to lose salvation? SeanD sure didn't make it sound very difficult to lose. My point is that you can potentially read the Bible to teach that salvation is impossible to lose, or that it is fairly easy to lose. To claim that it is possible, but extremely difficult, seems like a terribly unrealistic view. It is a view based more on philosophy ("How can God take away my freedom to prevent me from going to hell if I really want to?") as opposed to scripture.

Was the big 'IF' in front of the premise too confusing for you? The premise is based on the possibility found in Scripture, based on one's understanding of the relevant passages, not on philosophy. It is a reasonable reading - that doesn't make it a correct reading. I lean away from the 'losing salvation' idea as it seems to me to conflict with some of what Christ Himself taught about salvation. However, I cannot make an airtight case for its impossibility - so it would be silly not to consider the possibility at all. Given the assurances about salvation, it is irrational to assume that if it can actually be lost that doing so would be an easy, let alone inadvertent, thing to do.

Mentioning that OBP cited something isn't the same thing as agreeing with his entire theology - which you misrepresent, by the way. I happen to disagree with him on that point - but he isn't arguing for salvation by works. Pay attention, please.

Obsidian
03-13-2014, 12:54 PM
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19[They might have come out from us, but they weren't part of our group. For if they actually had been true apostles, they would have kept fellowship. Rather, they broke fellowship and went off on their own so that there would be no doubt in your mind that they are ALL teachers of a false gospel]. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

This is a reasonable interpretation.

However, I think it is quite possible that the antichrists never broke fellowship at all. John may be saying that the antichrists left Jerusalem (or wherever John and the apostles were) and claimed to be sent by the apostles. But they were lying, because their doctrine did not abide in the truth.

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I think it could reasonably be argued that throughout the book, the "we" always applies to the apostles and the "ye" always applies to the children. Obviously, many of the truths about the apostles could also apply to the children by implication.

One Bad Pig
03-13-2014, 07:25 PM
Your view, I think was well stated. And is well stated. It is my view, that "works" is to be the result of being saved, not a requirement in order to.
IMO works are necessary, but not dispositive, evidence of our being saved. Our works do not save, per se; it is the faith that drives our works which does. On the other hand, faith which does not produce works is empty and vain.

see Romans 4:5, a parallel teaching on this. I referenced Ephesians 2:10.
Yes, those are quite appropriate.

Teallaura
03-14-2014, 08:21 AM
IMO works are necessary, but not dispositive, evidence of our being saved. Our works do not save, per se; it is the faith that drives our works which does. On the other hand, faith which does not produce works is empty and vain.

....

Okay, so maybe I don't disagree... :huh: I probably misread something earlier - I definitely agree with the above.

37818
03-14-2014, 09:00 AM
Okay, so maybe I don't disagree... :huh: I probably misread something earlier - I definitely agree with the above.I do disagree. It is my understanding that works and grace are mutually exclusive. ". . . if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." -- Romans 11:6.




IMO works are necessary, but not dispositive, evidence of our being saved. Our works do not save, per se; it is the faith that drives our works which does. On the other hand, faith which does not produce works is empty and vain.
[Emphases added]
It is my understanding that where "works" are taught to be any kind of requirement in order to be saved, it is a counterfeit gospel. ". . . Not of works, . . ." -- Ephesians 2:9.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 09:14 AM
James 2:12 specifically says that people are judged based on the law. So if you want to read James 2 as teaching people how to get to heaven (the subject of this thread), then heaven is clearly merited by works. However, James does not claim to be discussing how to get to heaven.

I don't believe that you can honestly read James to teach that faith inevitably produces works. In fact, he explicitly teaches the opposite -- that you can have a "dead" faith that lacks works.

One Bad Pig
03-14-2014, 10:45 AM
I do disagree. It is my understanding that works and grace are mutually exclusive. ". . . if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." -- Romans 11:6.



[Emphases added]
It is my understanding that where "works" are taught to be any kind of requirement in order to be saved, it is a counterfeit gospel. ". . . Not of works, . . ." -- Ephesians 2:9.
:hrm: It looks like you misunderstood my post. "Which does" refers back to "faith," not "works."

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 10:47 AM
I don't believe that you can honestly read James to teach that faith inevitably produces works. In fact, he explicitly teaches the opposite -- that you can have a "dead" faith that lacks works.

The implication of this would be that such a "faith" would not be a genuine faith.

One Bad Pig
03-14-2014, 10:49 AM
James 2:12 specifically says that people are judged based on the law.
No, it doesn't. It says we should act as if we are.

So if you want to read James 2 as teaching people how to get to heaven (the subject of this thread), then heaven is clearly merited by works. However, James does not claim to be discussing how to get to heaven.
Is James 2:14 missing from your Bible?


I don't believe that you can honestly read James to teach that faith inevitably produces works. In fact, he explicitly teaches the opposite -- that you can have a "dead" faith that lacks works.
:sigh: Faith which is not dead inevitably produces works. Is that so hard to understand?

The Remonstrant
03-14-2014, 10:52 AM
The reason I accepted Christ, was on the premise one can know for sure. If one cannot, then Christianity is no different in the end than any other religion.

It appears this thread has completely derailed from the opening post.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 10:56 AM
@KingsGambit

How can a faith exist, but not be "genuine"? James never says that the faith is not genuine. The term "genuine faith" is an extrabiblical term. And in the context of James 2, the word genuine has no relevance. If you walked into a funeral and witnessed a corpse lying dead, would the corpse be genuine? Or would the corpse simply be make-believe, since it wasn't walking around? The only real problem with a corpse is that it has no spirit. Similarly, if a person has faith but is not continuously filled with the Holy Spirit, his lifestyle will be consistent with the old man of the flesh.

Once it is conceded that faith can exist but still be dead, it invalidates the view that faith automatically produces a good lifestyle. Of course, one can always do what the Roman Catholics do, and just argue that faith is insufficient for eternal life. But that blatantly contradicts other clear scriptures. James definitively eliminates the possibility that all faith automatically produces good works.

One Bad Pig
03-14-2014, 11:00 AM
:twitch: I give up.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 11:01 AM
Faith which is not dead inevitably produces works. Is that so hard to understand?

In describing how to gain eternal life, no where in the Bible does Jesus (or the apostles) distinguish between "faith" and "dead faith." To place additional restrictions on Jesus's promise, after the fact, would make him a liar.

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 11:02 AM
@KingsGambit

How can a faith exist, but not be "genuine"? James never says that the faith is not genuine. The term "genuine faith" is an extrabiblical term. And in the context of James 2, the word genuine has no relevance. If you walked into a funeral and witnessed a corpse lying dead, would the corpse be genuine? Or would the corpse simply be make-believe, since it wasn't walking around? The only real problem with a corpse is that it has no spirit. Similarly, if a person has faith but is not continuously filled with the Holy Spirit, his lifestyle will be consistent with the old man of the flesh.

Once it is conceded that faith can exist but still be dead, it invalidates the view that faith automatically produces a good lifestyle. Of course, one can always do what the Roman Catholics do, and just argue that faith is insufficient for eternal life. But that blatantly contradicts other clear scriptures. James definitively eliminates the possibility that all faith automatically produces good works.

Or perhaps James is simply saying that some people improperly define faith as mere mental assent, rather than the true definition which can only be understood in terms of the Semitic Totality Concept. http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.php

One Bad Pig
03-14-2014, 11:09 AM
In describing how to gain eternal life, no where in the Bible does Jesus (or the apostles) distinguish between "faith" and "dead faith." To place additional restrictions on Jesus's promise, after the fact, would make him a liar.
In the context of saving faith (2:14), James says three times (vv. 17, 20, 26) that faith without works is dead. Is James placing additional restrictions on Jesus' promise?

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 11:31 AM
If he were describing how to gain eternal life, then yes he would be making Jesus a liar. That is my point. But he is not describing how to gain eternal life. He is describing how to be judged under the law, and how to have an active faith.


Or perhaps James is simply saying that some people improperly define faith as mere mental assent

He uses the word "faith" himself. And he applies the word "faith" to someone who has no works. That doesn't sound whatsoever like he is employing a totality concept. If he were employing a totality concept, he would say, "The person who has no works has no faith" (which is what the Calvinists wish that he said).


No, it doesn't [say that we will be judged by the law]. It says we should act as if we are.

James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 11:38 AM
If he were describing how to gain eternal life, then yes he would be making Jesus a liar. That is my point. But he is not describing how to gain eternal life. He is describing how to be judged under the law, and how to have an active faith.



He uses the word "faith" himself. And he applies the word "faith" to someone who has no works. That doesn't sound whatsoever like he is employing a totality concept. If he were employing a totality concept, he would say, "The person who has no works has no faith" (which is what the Calvinists wish that he said).



James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

First of all, he doesn't use the word "faith", he isn't speaking in English, so we need to be careful not to import any connotations from our own language into the meaning.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 11:56 AM
If you want to amend your argument to say that bad translation is causing the confusion, or that bad translation somehow alters my analysis, then please explain what about the translation is wrong. James says that faith without works is dead. He does not say that faith without works is non-faith.

37818
03-14-2014, 11:56 AM
:hrm: It looks like you misunderstood my post. "Which does" refers back to "faith," not "works."You phrased it, ". . . it is the faith that drives our works which does." Our "works which does?" Could you clarify this? Did you mean our "works which does faith?" James in his example the works which does faith (Genesis 15:6) came years latter (Genesis 22:). I agree that dead faith can save no one. Yet it is that faith which produces the works of God, without those works by which one is saved and justified. Would you not agree?

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 12:03 PM
If you want to amend your argument to say that bad translation is causing the confusion, or that bad translation somehow alters my analysis, then please explain what about the translation is wrong. James says that faith without works is dead. He does not say that faith without works is non-faith.

:argh:

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state my stance - that the word for "faith", while accurately translated, in the original language had a meaning closer to that in the article I linked above, and that James is refuting a false understanding of what that word means when he uses it.

37818
03-14-2014, 12:10 PM
:twitch: I give up.Ask what is meant by what is said. Set the apparent two differing understandings side by said. Then ask an appropriate question for clarification as what is meant. If there cannot be an agreement on what is to be believed, there should be at the very minimum an agreement on what is disagreed.

37818
03-14-2014, 12:21 PM
It appears this thread has completely derailed from the opening post.The opening post gives my personal reason for the poll. And I think it is good to discuss what we agree and disagree on, this matter and why. What we believe about our own salvation is important to one's own belief in that matter.

The lost that perish, from my understanding were never actually saved. If they thought they were, I for one, would like them to truly in this life find salvation, and not be of those who perish. ". . . if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . ."

Teallaura
03-14-2014, 12:29 PM
It appears this thread has completely derailed from the opening post.
Which makes it a pretty normal thread for this place... :teeth:

Teallaura
03-14-2014, 12:33 PM
Faith without works is only good for keeping the pew warm.

The Remonstrant
03-14-2014, 12:39 PM
Faith without works is only good for keeping the pew warm.

Done.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 12:41 PM
I wonder how many people would have even chosen to become "Christians" in the first place, if they had both 1) understood the full law of God, and 2) believed that salvation were contingent on keeping the law. Further, I don't think the unregenerate can understand the full law of God, so premise #1 is impossible.

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 12:50 PM
I wonder how many people would have even chosen to become "Christians" in the first place, if they had both 1) understood the full law of God, and 2) believed that salvation were contingent on keeping the law. Further, I don't think the unregenerate can understand the full law of God, so premise #1 is impossible.

Just to be clear, you're not equating the necessity for a faith to come with action to a full keeping of the OT law, right?

Chrawnus
03-14-2014, 12:53 PM
You phrased it, ". . . it is the faith that drives our works which does." Our "works which does?" Could you clarify this? Did you mean our "works which does faith?" James in his example the works which does faith (Genesis 15:6) came years latter (Genesis 22:). I agree that dead faith can save no one. Yet it is that faith which produces the works of God, without those works by which one is saved and justified. Would you not agree?

OBP wrote: "Our works do not save, per se; it is the faith that drives our works which does".

It's obvious to me that what he means is that genuine work-producing faith is what saves, not the works that are produced from that faith. I'm having a hard time understanding what's so confusing about OBP's phrasing. It's completely clear, atleast to me. In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding how it could be parsed any other way than the way I'm parsing it. :shrug:

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 12:54 PM
Just to be clear, you're not equating the necessity for a faith to come with action to a full keeping of the OT law, right?

I don't know; I'm not the one who claims that we gain eternal life by keeping the law. But Bad Pig apparently believes that Christians are judged by the law. Since no one can keep the law fully (especially given that the temple is destroyed), I would imagine that he probably gives Christians some considerable latitude in keeping it. Maybe they have to keep it 50% in order to get to heaven.

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 12:55 PM
I don't know; I'm not the one who claims that we gain eternal life by keeping the law.

Nobody in this thread is claiming that.

Chrawnus
03-14-2014, 12:57 PM
I don't know; I'm not the one who claims that we gain eternal life by keeping the law. But Bad Pig apparently believes that Christians are judged by the law. Since no one can keep the law fully (especially given that the temple is destroyed), I would imagine that he probably gives Christians some considerable latitude in keeping it. Maybe they have to keep it 50% in order to get to heaven.

I have never seen OBP claiming anywhere on these forums that we gain eternal life by keeping the law. Quite the contrary in fact, if what he wrote in #53 is to be taken seriously. :shrug:

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 12:58 PM
So we're judged by it, and if we don't keep it then we are damned, but we don't inherit eternal life by it. I see.

KingsGambit
03-14-2014, 12:59 PM
So we're judged by it, and if we don't keep it then we are damned, but we don't inherit eternal life by it. I see.

How do you interpret Romans 7:7?

Truthseeker
03-14-2014, 01:02 PM
Obsidian, what do you think "false faith" means? "Faith that is not really faith at all"? Or just bad grammar?

Chrawnus
03-14-2014, 01:05 PM
So we're judged by it, and if we don't keep it then we are damned, but we don't inherit eternal life by it. I see.

Please refrain from being snarky until after you've provided the necessary evidence that OPB does indeed hold to the position you're trying to force upon him. Or you could refrain from being snarky altogether, given how badly you fail at it.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 01:16 PM
I should correct myself. Bad Pig did explicitly deny that we are judged by the law. He denied it, in direct contradiction of scripture (James 2:13) that says that we are judged by the law.

@Truthseeker

The Bible never uses the term "false faith." As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't mean anything.

The Remonstrant
03-14-2014, 01:34 PM
Personally I believe salvation is by intellectual assent only. Genuine repentance and faith are extraneous and may potentially lead to damnation if one is not careful.

37818
03-14-2014, 01:49 PM
OBP wrote: "Our works do not save, per se; it is the faith that drives our works which does".

It's obvious to me that what he means is that genuine work-producing faith is what saves, not the works that are produced from that faith. I'm having a hard time understanding what's so confusing about OBP's phrasing. It's completely clear, atleast to me. In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding how it could be parsed any other way than the way I'm parsing it. :shrug:Well, thank you.

37818
03-14-2014, 01:57 PM
I wonder how many people would have even chosen to become "Christians" in the first place, if they had both 1) understood the full law of God, and 2) believed that salvation were contingent on keeping the law. Further, I don't think the unregenerate can understand the full law of God, so premise #1 is impossible.The first time I read a short gospel message (age 12). It was in back of a Gidion NT my dad gave me, which he had gotten in WWII. I asked him about signing the back. And from what I understood if I did that I would have to keep all of God's laws. Which I understood, I knew I could not. It was not until about 2 years later, at a baptist church where we were invited, before the main service, two adults came and asked me, if "I knew for sure if I died, if I would go to heaven?" I did not. And then asked me if I would like to know, I did. And they lead me to Christ. That was an exciting moment in my life. The very idea that I can know for sure.

Obsidian
03-14-2014, 05:13 PM
two adults came and asked me, if "I knew for sure if I died, if I would go to heaven?" I did not. And then asked me if I would like to know, I did. And they lead me to Christ. That was an exciting moment in my life. The very idea that I can know for sure.

I honestly feel like that's the main point of the gospel. A person can't go out and fight for the kingdom if he isn't even sure he belongs to the kingdom. A person can't go out and try to store up treasure in heaven, if he is still worried about going to hell. You need to know that your diligence in doing good will actually amount to something, that it won't be erased later on because you commit a sin.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.



Genuine repentance and faith are extraneous and may potentially lead to damnation if one is not careful.

I don't understand what you mean.

Paprika
03-14-2014, 09:53 PM
James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Future judgment is not the same as present judgment.

The Remonstrant
03-15-2014, 01:51 AM
I don't understand what you mean.

Irony.

One Bad Pig
03-15-2014, 08:55 AM
I should correct myself. Bad Pig did explicitly deny that we are judged by the law. He denied it, in direct contradiction of scripture (James 2:13) that says that we are judged by the law.

:argh: James does not say that.

phat8594
03-18-2014, 01:49 PM
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," -- 1 John 2:19.


Explain what you mean and how anti-christs and false teachers can be saved, if it "is not dealing with salvation" "if they had been of us?"

I am a little lost as to what you are asking....


As for what I was saying...I was saying that John is NOT dealing with the idea of salvation, or perserverance anywhere in the context. So to take a verse from one context (one dealing with admonishing believers against anti-christs...and who they are) and to say its in another (discussing the issue of perserverance) is intellectually dishonest. In other words, its making the Bible back up a theology...rather than just reading the text and letting it speak for itself.

However, I am always open to be incorrect...so perhaps you can show me where in 1 John 2 (in context), John is discussing the issue of 'once saved always saved'. ?


In other words, show me how the surrounding context of 1 John 2 shows that the interpretation of 1 John 2:19 should be considered to be dealing with 'once saved always saved'

phat8594
03-18-2014, 02:02 PM
@KingsGambit

How can a faith exist, but not be "genuine"? James never says that the faith is not genuine. The term "genuine faith" is an extrabiblical term. And in the context of James 2, the word genuine has no relevance. If you walked into a funeral and witnessed a corpse lying dead, would the corpse be genuine? Or would the corpse simply be make-believe, since it wasn't walking around? The only real problem with a corpse is that it has no spirit. Similarly, if a person has faith but is not continuously filled with the Holy Spirit, his lifestyle will be consistent with the old man of the flesh.

Once it is conceded that faith can exist but still be dead, it invalidates the view that faith automatically produces a good lifestyle. Of course, one can always do what the Roman Catholics do, and just argue that faith is insufficient for eternal life. But that blatantly contradicts other clear scriptures. James definitively eliminates the possibility that all faith automatically produces good works.

That is like saying that 'trinity' is an extra-biblical concept because the word 'trinity' isn't found in the Bible.

What you need to realize about James 2, is that James says this:


James 2:14

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?


And I don't know if you know anything about Koine Greek or context....but the important part here is that:

(1) James talks about a 'type of faith' (on that does not have works)
(2) James specifies 'that' particular concept of faith.

In other words, James uses an article before 'faith' [ ἡ πίστις ] and therefore is not just referring to 'faith' in general, but a VERY SPECIFIC faith...as in the one he just mentioned (one that doesn't produce works). Koine Greek doesn't use articles like English, because it is articular by nature. Generally speaking, when an article is used it is used to be very specific. When it isn't used, it is generally understood to be bringing up the notion of 'all the qualities and attributes of'...IOW, its more general.

So really, in actuality, it seems that James is actually speaking against the very point that you are trying to make. Its not an issue of whether 'faith' as decribed elsewhere in the Bible is sufficient --- but rather, it is an issue of understanding the very nature of faith. A 'faith' that does not produce works, is no different from the 'faith' that demons have.

RBerman
03-18-2014, 02:05 PM
And I don't know if you know anything about Koine Greek or context....but the important part here is that:

(1) James talks about a 'type of faith' (on that does not have works)
(2) James specifies 'that' particular concept of faith.

In other words, James uses an article before 'faith' [ ἡ πίστις ] and therefore is not just referring to 'faith' in general, but a VERY SPECIFIC faith...as in the one he just mentioned (one that doesn't produce works). Koine Greek doesn't use articles like English, because it is articular by nature. Generally speaking, when an article is used it is used to be very specific. When it isn't used, it is generally understood to be bringing up the notion of 'all the qualities and attributes of'...IOW, its more general.

So really, in actuality, it seems that James is actually speaking against the very point that you are trying to make. Its not an issue of whether 'faith' as decribed elsewhere in the Bible is sufficient --- but rather, it is an issue of understanding the very nature of faith. A 'faith' that does not produce works, is no different from the 'faith' that demons have.

Phat, it's times like these that make me miss the "amen" button. Excellent explanation of a somewhat technical but highly important topic.

Obsidian
03-18-2014, 02:10 PM
And I don't know if you know anything about Koine Greek or context....

He uses the same article in James 2:1, where it mentions the faith of the Lord Jesus. It just means "the faith."


----------------------edit
ho <3588>

Reference: -

In NET: the 102, The 7, those 4, King of kings 1, or 1, Lord of 1
In AV: which 413, who 79, the things 11, the son 8, misc 32
Count: 543

Definition: 1) this, that, these, etc.

Only significant renderings other than "the" counted

Teallaura
03-18-2014, 02:11 PM
Phat, it's times like these that make me miss the "amen" button. Excellent explanation of a somewhat technical but highly important topic.

^ What he said.

phat8594
03-18-2014, 05:11 PM
He uses the same article in James 2:1, where it mentions the faith of the Lord Jesus. It just means "the faith."


----------------------edit
ho <3588>

Reference: -

In NET: the 102, The 7, those 4, King of kings 1, or 1, Lord of 1
In AV: which 413, who 79, the things 11, the son 8, misc 32
Count: 543

Definition: 1) this, that, these, etc.

Only significant renderings other than "the" counted

I am not quite sure what your point is...but it seems erroneous. You must understand the Greek uses articles differently than English. You seem to be importing your English understanding of how articles are used into Greek. This, of course, is pure exegetical fallacy.

Greek needs to be understood/interpreted within its own set of grammatical rules (not that of another language...like English)...and remember, context is king.

phat8594
03-18-2014, 05:17 PM
Phat, it's times like these that make me miss the "amen" button. Excellent explanation of a somewhat technical but highly important topic.

Thanks for the kind words. I too, have actually missed the 'Amen' button...and believe it or not, many times on your posts. :thumb:

Obsidian
03-18-2014, 06:29 PM
When you say that my point is "erroneous," are you denying that the same phrase is used to describe the Christian faith in general, in verse 2:1? When you say that the "context" matters, are you denying that the same word is mostly just translated "the"? Was the context different all those other times?

Paprika
03-19-2014, 12:01 AM
In other words, James uses an article before 'faith' [ ἡ πίστις ] and therefore is not just referring to 'faith' in general, but a VERY SPECIFIC faith...as in the one he just mentioned (one that doesn't produce works). Koine Greek doesn't use articles like English, because it is articular by nature. Generally speaking, when an article is used it is used to be very specific. When it isn't used, it is generally understood to be bringing up the notion of 'all the qualities and attributes of'...IOW, its more general.

From what I understand, this is not necessarily so for abstract concepts. For example, in 1 Cor 13 we have "Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη", which is rendered "Love is patient, love is kind" and not "The love is patient, the love is kind."

phat8594
03-19-2014, 10:12 AM
When you say that my point is "erroneous," are you denying that the same phrase is used to describe the Christian faith in general, in verse 2:1? When you say that the "context" matters, are you denying that the same word is mostly just translated "the"? Was the context different all those other times?

I am saying that the context of the word, and the surrounding language absolutely matters. There is a concept called 'semantic range' - from my knowledge, all languages have it. That means that certain words or phrases change meaning depending on the context in which they are used.

A good example of this in English is:

1. And then we saw the meadow. I went out and played in the field.
2. That was my first sight of the mound, and bases..what a sight. That's when I went out and played in the field.

Both 'phrases' (I went out and played in the field) are 'identical' but have radically different connotations and meanings based on the surrounding context. Furthermore, the word 'field' in general has many other meanings depending on context. Identical word: different meanings -- this is semantic range. (e.g. think of this one: 'The field is wide open')

Now to make matters more complex - each language has a different semantic range for their own words. This means that always translating the same word in Greek for the same word in English isn't correct (this is the fallacy many pastors and lay people fall into -- i.e. I know how to look up a word in a concordance, but I have no idea how to actually ready Greek sentences, so I am just going to pick the word that suits my theology)

Now of course, that is just words or phrases in general. How articles are used in each language is a whole other ball game. (I will get more into this in reply to Paprika).


But to get to your point more directly --

1. I am not denying that an article is also used in James 2:1 (however, the sentence structure is different, thus the different cases of the words - James 2:1 is in the accusative, James 2:14 is in the nominative)

2. James 1 is not talking about a 'general' faith. It is also not trying to conjure up the idea of the qualities and attributes of 'faith'. Rather, it is talking about 'the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Not just any old faith...its THAT one...the one of our Lord Jesus Christ. (it is VERY particular)

3. Every sentence in the Bible has its 'own context'. We don't interpret / translate a word / phrase based solely how it was used in a few other contexts.

phat8594
03-19-2014, 10:30 AM
From what I understand, this is not necessarily so for abstract concepts. For example, in 1 Cor 13 we have "Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη", which is rendered "Love is patient, love is kind" and not "The love is patient, the love is kind."

This is not a matter of 'abstract' concepts, but a matter of how articles are used grammatically in English and in Greek. Articles are used differently, and using them every place in English that we find them in Greek would make for some awkward sentence constructions; likewise, we often find articles inserted into the English that aren't there in the Greek.

This is why the JW's make a whole to do about John 1:1 and how even though the phrase:


the Word was God.

is anarthrous (no definite article), they still try to put an article in front of it to read 'and the word was a god'.

Of course, the beauty of John 1:1-2 is the construction -- one that is incredibly Trinitarian in nature, as can be seen by inserting the definite articles where they appear in Greek:


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with [the] God.

In other words:

John 1:1-2 Paraphrase (by understanding the concept of how Greek uses articles [generally speaking])

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was all the qualities and attributes of God the Father. 2 He was in the beginning with God the Father.

This shows that:

1. Jesus shares the nature with the Father. (stating His divinity)
2. Jesus is not the same as the Father. (stating His uniqueness)
3. Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. (stating His eternality)

Of course, we miss this in English due to the different grammatical constraints of English vs. those of Koine Greek with respect to articles.

Paprika
03-19-2014, 10:40 AM
This is not a matter of 'abstract' concepts, but a matter of how articles are used grammatically in English and in Greek. Articles are used differently, and using them every place in English that we find them in Greek would make for some awkward sentence constructions; likewise, we often find articles inserted into the English that aren't there in the Greek.

My point is that the article with an abstract noun doesn't necessarily have the specificity that it tends to have with non-abstract nouns, in terms of distinguishing an object belonging to another class.

phat8594
03-19-2014, 11:06 AM
My point is that the article with an abstract noun doesn't necessarily have the specificity that it tends to have with non-abstract nouns, in terms of distinguishing an object belonging to another class.

I can appreciate what you are saying, but I am going to stick to my guns here. It still has a specificity to it if the author put in the article (however, the way we translate it changes because 'the love' is an awkward construction and is more confusing than helpful).

So in this case, Paul is not wanting you to think about just some abstract idea of love...or all the qualities and attributes that love has (at least not in this verse). Rather Paul wants you to focus on the love he is talking about when he is defining it. If you notice, Paul doesn't use articles earlier in 1 Corinthians 13 when talking about 'love'. So Paul is drawing you from generality to specificity.

He does this by making love specific (thus the article), and then actually rattles off all the qualities and attributes of what real love looks like. When you think about it...it is an absolutely brilliant construction of a paragraph.

So a simple paraphrase would be like such:


13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but [do it without all the qualites and attributes of] love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but [do so without all the qualities and attributes of] love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but [do so without the qualities and attributes of] love, I gain nothing.

[so what qualities does love have?]

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends.


See, the beauty is that Paul is basically saying that everything you need to do needs to have all the qualites and attributes of love. And then he goes out and actually defines those qualities and attributes as something specific....just in case you didn't know what the qualities and attributes of real love are.

So that would mean: when you prophecy you must not do it in 'an arrogant or rude, or prideful, or impatient..etc etc. way'. (and you can carry that on)

IOW, when you excercise your gifts, or do a good work, you must do so with ALL the qualities of love...not just some. I don't know about you...but that is definitely a gut check to me! :teeth:

Does that help?




P.S. I just wanted to say that your statement really shows that you are trying to grapple with how this all works. That is VERY admirable....especially cause it can be tough to really understand how it all comes together. :thumb:

Paprika
03-19-2014, 11:20 AM
I can appreciate what you are saying, but I am going to stick to my guns here. It still has a specificity to it if the author put in the article (however, the way we translate it changes because 'the love' is an awkward construction and is more confusing than helpful).
Agreed. I read your post as arguing that the article of ἡ πίστις was distinguishing one member of a class, which I agree with, but I disagreed somewhat with the reasoning because my textbook mentioned that the usage of the article with abstract nouns is sometimes different.


He does this by making love specific (thus the article), and then actually rattles off all the qualities and attributes of what real love looks like. When you think about it...it is an absolutely brilliant construction of a paragraph.
Indeed. And thanks for the help!

phat8594
03-19-2014, 11:31 AM
Agreed. I read your post as arguing that the article of ἡ πίστις was distinguishing one member of a class, which I agree with, but I disagreed somewhat with the reasoning because my textbook mentioned that the usage of the article with abstract nouns is sometimes different.


Oops! Sorry for the confusion. That is definitely not what I was trying to imply! (and I think we should all note that general rules are frequently broken!...so thank God for scholars who have done so much footwork for us).




Indeed. And thanks for the help!

Thanks for making me clarify! I was greatly enriched by doing so! :thumb:

37818
03-19-2014, 12:17 PM
I am a little lost as to what you are asking....


As for what I was saying...I was saying that John is NOT dealing with the idea of salvation, or perserverance anywhere in the context. So to take a verse from one context (one dealing with admonishing believers against anti-christs...and who they are) and to say its in another (discussing the issue of perserverance) is intellectually dishonest. In other words, its making the Bible back up a theology...rather than just reading the text and letting it speak for itself.

However, I am always open to be incorrect...so perhaps you can show me where in 1 John 2 (in context), John is discussing the issue of 'once saved always saved'. ?


In other words, show me how the surrounding context of 1 John 2 shows that the interpretation of 1 John 2:19 should be considered to be dealing with 'once saved always saved'

It comes down to who "us" refers to: Saved believers or not. [Those who believe Jesus is the Christ are born of God (1 John 5:1).] And from the following context (1 John 2:22) those who do not are called liars and anti-christs. So to me your argument does not make sense.

phat8594
03-19-2014, 12:41 PM
It comes down to who "us" refers to: Saved believers or not. [Those who believe Jesus is the Christ are born of God (1 John 5:1).] And from the following context (1 John 2:22) those who do not are called liars and anti-christs. So to me your argument does not make sense.

1. What in context makes you think that 'us' refers to all saved believers? (notice how John talks about 'them' 'us' and 'you' - this alone should show that 'us' doesn't refer to saved believer in general, but rather the true teachers - the apostles)

2. The idea of 'anti-christs' being the ones who deny the Father and Son is absolutely there. However, once again this is not speaking about 'once saved always saved' but rather a description of the 'anti-christs'.


So again, can you show why it makes sense for John to bring up the idea of 'once saved always saved' to show his readers who the anti-christs are? Remember, 1 John is dealing with real issues at the time and real people. IOW the 'doctrinal' points that John makes have to do with real life situations that the believers are dealing with. How does the idea of 'they were never saved' (which the text explicitly DOES NOT SAY) add anything to the context of John's idea of the anti-christs?


(perhaps you can try to paraphrase John 2:19 with your interpretation of once saved always saved to show why it makes more sense?)

37818
03-19-2014, 02:08 PM
1. What in context makes you think that 'us' refers to all saved believers? (notice how John talks about 'them' 'us' and 'you' - this alone should show that 'us' doesn't refer to saved believer in general, but rather the true teachers - the apostles)

2. The idea of 'anti-christs' being the ones who deny the Father and Son is absolutely there. However, once again this is not speaking about 'once saved always saved' but rather a description of the 'anti-christs'.


So again, can you show why it makes sense for John to bring up the idea of 'once saved always saved' to show his readers who the anti-christs are? Remember, 1 John is dealing with real issues at the time and real people. IOW the 'doctrinal' points that John makes have to do with real life situations that the believers are dealing with. How does the idea of 'they were never saved' (which the text explicitly DOES NOT SAY) add anything to the context of John's idea of the anti-christs?


(perhaps you can try to paraphrase John 2:19 with your interpretation of once saved always saved to show why it makes more sense?)

Actually, "we," "you [ye]," "us," "all (whosoever)" and "they" are used in the letter. The "you" is addressing [spiritual, church] "fathers" and "little children" believers (2:12, 13).

"They went out from us[the Apostle John, fathers, little children (believers)], but they were not of us[the Apostle John, fathers, little children (believers)]; for if they had been of us[the Apostle John, fathers, little children (believers)], they would [no doubt] have continued with us[the Apostle John, fathers, little children (believers)]: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us[the Apostle John, fathers, little children (believers)]."

It is my view that the saved know [for sure] (1 John 5:13) that they have eternal life. It is God who gives the new birth (John 1:12, 13; 1 John 5:1).

Obsidian
03-19-2014, 03:03 PM
2. James 1 is not talking about a 'general' faith. It is also not trying to conjure up the idea of the qualities and attributes of 'faith'. Rather, it is talking about 'the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Not just any old faith...its THAT one...the one of our Lord Jesus Christ. (it is VERY particular)

"The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" refers to the Christian faith in general.

phat8594
03-19-2014, 03:19 PM
Actually, "we," "you [ye]," "us," "all (whosoever)" and "they" are used in the letter. The "you" is addressing [spiritual, church] "fathers" and "little children" believers (2:12, 13).


Actually the 'you' is a specific group of believers. 1 John was not written in a vacuum to the whole church, but rather in a specific setting. It's of utmost importance to understand the Sitz Im Leben (the setting) behind the letter - if we don't consider the setting in which it is written, we essentially affirm that the letter can mean something different now, then it did originally. And this, it seems is what you are doing.

The 'you', 'us', and 'they' aren't people in general, but a specific group of people. The issue in this verse is that John differentiates between 'us' and 'you' and 'them'. So it seems to be a strained interpretation to make the 'you' synononmous with 'us' and to make the two synonomous with all believers for all times.

John also differentiates between 'you' and 'us' in the opening of the letter:


That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

He does so again in John 2


John 2:18-20

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.[


And the context here is to point out who the anti-christs are. They are:

1. The ones who were not in fellowship with the apostles
2. The ones that deny the Father and the Son


And this is important, because the anti-christs are trying to deceive this church:

John 2:26

26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.


So again, the question is how does 'once saved always saved' serve John's greater point, which is to point out to a specific congregation who the anti-christs are?



The other thing to point out is that even if I were to affirm your idea of who the 'us' is (which I don't due to the differentation in the text itself)...you are still left with the fact that the verse does not say:

'they were never a part of us' or 'if they are a part of us, they will continue forever'.

IOW, it is talking about a very specific incident in time. The verb tenses do not portray never, or forever. Rather, they only portray the reality at a very specific point in time (the time of the incident).

It would be like me saying:

"Lebron James went on the plane with the Miami Heat. He went on the plane with the Heat, rather than the Cavaliers because he wasn't part of the Cavaliers. If he were a part of the Cavaliers he would have gone on the plane with them. However, he went on the plane with the Miami Heat, so it is evident that he is not part of the Cavaliers."

(of course, we know that Lebron James, at one time was part of the Cavaliers...my sentence speaks to the reality at the time of the incident [the 'went on the plane'] -- likewise the sentence in 1 John 2 speaks of the reality at the time of the incident [they went out from us])

Teallaura
03-20-2014, 07:48 AM
Um, who is Lebron James?



:outtie:

Truthseeker
03-20-2014, 10:32 AM
Um, who is Lebron James?



:outtie:You're kidding? If not, here's the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeBron_James

37818
03-20-2014, 02:03 PM
Ah, my favorite pastime. Straining at nats and swallowing camels. Little did I know our friend phat8594 can strain at smaller nats and swallow bigger camels than I can. :tongue:

KingsGambit
03-20-2014, 06:44 PM
Put that way, it makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the elucidation.

Truthseeker
03-20-2014, 06:58 PM
Put that way, it makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the elucidation.Is that for phat8594's posts? Anyway, thank you, phat, too.

Teallaura
03-21-2014, 09:54 AM
^ Yeah, that.

37818
03-25-2014, 12:13 PM
". . .that ye may know that ye have eternal life, . . " sounds very certain to me. (1 John 5:12, 13.)

One Bad Pig
03-25-2014, 12:31 PM
". . .that ye may know that ye have eternal life, . . " sounds very certain to me. (1 John 5:12, 13.)
Context is not unimportant. John is combating proto-gnostic beliefs throughout the work, and that needs to be kept in mind when interpreting it. On a more obvious level, the words you quote are preceded by "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God". If someone no longer believes in the name of the Son of God, but once did, does that person still have eternal life?

phat8594
03-25-2014, 12:52 PM
Ah, my favorite pastime. Straining at nats and swallowing camels. Little did I know our friend phat8594 can strain at smaller nats and swallow bigger camels than I can. :tongue:

I don't know if I would call it this...as much as I would just learning to read what the text actually says in context, and not inserting our theology into it. We have to be OK with not going beyond what a text says just to support a theology (this is something we all deal with). Once we start using texts to support our theology (when in fact it doesn't), we have then elevated our theology above the word of God.

And as always, context matters. As someone once said "A text without a context is a pretext to a prooftext (to make the Bible say whatever you want)"

(like the case of straining gnats and swallowing camels, which really has more to do with those who take care to be legalistic about small things, but in reality miss the heart of God by ignoring the weightier matters of the law -- i.e. the heart of the Law, or what it was built upon)

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 05:57 PM
If someone no longer believes in the name of the Son of God, but once did, does that person still have eternal life?

Yes


John is combating proto-gnostic beliefs throughout the work, and that needs to be kept in mind when interpreting it.

Would that cause John to write doctrines that are inaccurate?


On a more obvious level, the words you quote are preceded by "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God".

All that suggests, if anything, is that someone who has lost his faith has also lost his knowledge about eternal life.

As a side note and for what it's worth, I agree with phat's interpretation (and have already said as much) that "we" generally refers to the apostles.

One Bad Pig
03-25-2014, 07:39 PM
Would that cause John to write doctrines that are inaccurate?
:sigh: No. However, if an interpreter does not understand the situation being addressed in the letter, then the interpreter is more likely to come away with an incorrect understanding of the text.


All that suggests, if anything, is that someone who has lost his faith has also lost his knowledge about eternal life.
What a splendid example of allowing one's a priori belief to determine the meaning of the text!

As a side note and for what it's worth, I agree with phat's interpretation (and have already said as much) that "we" generally refers to the apostles.
It's possible, I suppose, but it seems rather more likely to me that "we" generally refers to all believers based on its usage in 5:3 (does God only want the apostles to keep His commandments?) and 5:14 (does God only hear the prayers of the apostles?). The only place in the chapter where John differentiates between himself and those he is writing to is in 5:13, and that's in the immediate context of informing his recipients why he (not the apostles) is writing to them.

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 09:25 PM
What a splendid example of allowing one's a priori belief to determine the meaning of the text!

It is an example of applying logic to the text. The fact that you seem to have trouble understanding it isn't my problem.

Paprika
03-25-2014, 09:48 PM
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
:whistle:

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 10:28 PM
It's speaking in the subjunctive. Get a real Bible version.

Paprika
03-25-2014, 11:10 PM
It's speaking in the subjunctive.
Thus does it not imply that the Johannine 'eternal life' has a present aspect and a future aspect, which are different?

One Bad Pig
03-26-2014, 06:17 AM
It is an example of applying logic to the text.
:no: That's an example of your so-called logic making the text dance a merry jig.

The fact that you seem to have trouble understanding it isn't my problem.

Lawl.

Cow Poke
03-26-2014, 06:39 AM
Hey, this thread wasn't titled by ME, was it? :huh:

Sparko
03-26-2014, 07:07 AM
Hey, this thread wasn't titled by ME, was it? :huh:

I was thinking the same thing.

Cow Poke
03-26-2014, 07:09 AM
I was thinking the same thing.

But that's how you pronounce "heaven", isn't it? :smug:

Sparko
03-26-2014, 07:25 AM
But that's how you pronounce "heaven", isn't it? :smug:

I thought it was pronounced "Bacon"

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 08:44 AM
Thus does it not imply that the Johannine 'eternal life' has a present aspect and a future aspect, which are different?

What it is defining is the purpose of eternal life, not the term itself.

37818
03-26-2014, 08:53 AM
Hey, this thread wasn't titled by ME, was it? :huh:The title, haven was typed instead of heaven, by mistake. But since "haven" means "rest" the idea of "rest" in heaven is not objectionable. Unless you have an objection to heaven being a place of "rest." And besides that a spell checker would not have helped since "haven" is valid word. Add to the fact that I cannot spell to save my life. Other words if my life depended on spelling I would have been dead in 1st grade. And have died many times since.

RBerman
03-26-2014, 08:59 AM
The title, haven was typed instead of heaven, by mistake. But since "haven" means "rest" the idea of "rest" in heaven is not objectionable. Unless you have an objection to heaven being a place of "rest." And besides that a spell checker would not have helped since "haven" is valid word. Add to the fact that I cannot spell to save my life. Other words if my life depended on spelling I would have been dead in 1st grade. And have died many times since.

Mind you, heaven is our intermediate destination. Our final destination is the New Earth, on which we will probably fulfill the mandate given to Adam to engage in pleasant, holy work of dominion.

KingsGambit
03-26-2014, 09:00 AM
Mind you, heaven is our intermediate destination. Our final destination is the New Earth, on which we will probably fulfill the mandate given to Adam to engage in pleasant, holy work of dominion.

:yes:

Paprika
03-26-2014, 09:02 AM
What it is defining is the purpose of eternal life, not the term itself.
As far as I can see, you're reading this interpretation into the text to prop up your own idea.

Bill the Cat
03-26-2014, 09:13 AM
If someone no longer believes in the name of the Son of God, but once did, does that person still have eternal life?


Yes


This is incorrect.

Hebrews 6:4-8"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

One can not partake in the Holy Spirit unless one is saved. And one can not fall away from what is impossible to fall away from. Apostasy is real, and permanent.

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 10:17 AM
As far as I can see, you're reading this interpretation into the text to prop up your own idea.

That's because you are reading a faulty translation that ignores the subjunctive.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 10:20 AM
One can not partake in the Holy Spirit unless one is saved. And one can not fall away from what is impossible to fall away from. Apostasy is real, and permanent.

It says you cannot renew them to repentance because they keep crucifying the Son of God. It is referring to their animal sacrifices. If they can get away from the sacrifices, there should be nothing stopping them from repenting.

Also, it doesn't say they lack eternal life. It says their end is to be "burned." I don't equate every instance of burning to eternal death, as you apparently do.

Bill the Cat
03-26-2014, 10:46 AM
It says you cannot renew them to repentance because they keep crucifying the Son of God. It is referring to their animal sacrifices. If they can get away from the sacrifices, there should be nothing stopping them from repenting.

No. It has nothing to do with animal sacrifices. It refers to falling away (parapipto). The root of the compound word for what happened to satan when he fell from heaven (Luke 10:18). Those who have been saved (by the Spirit of God) who fall away (parapipto), it is impossible (adunatos) to be renewed.


Also, it doesn't say they lack eternal life. It says their end is to be "burned." I don't equate every instance of burning to eternal death, as you apparently do.

Thorns and thistles are biblical indicators of worthlesness, which is burned up as chaff.

phat8594
03-26-2014, 10:56 AM
It's possible, I suppose, but it seems rather more likely to me that "we" generally refers to all believers based on its usage in 5:3 (does God only want the apostles to keep His commandments?) and 5:14 (does God only hear the prayers of the apostles?). The only place in the chapter where John differentiates between himself and those he is writing to is in 5:13, and that's in the immediate context of informing his recipients why he (not the apostles) is writing to them.

It actually all depends on context. In 1 John 2:19, I said it applies to the apostles due to the fact that John makes a distinction between you, us and them.

The same of course applies to 1 John 1:


1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Of course, there are other parts of the letter in which John can be referring to the 'us' & 'you" in the 'we': if not exactly (as some might suppose), at least doctrinally. It just depends on context.

phat8594
03-26-2014, 10:58 AM
Mind you, heaven is our intermediate destination. Our final destination is the New Earth, on which we will probably fulfill the mandate given to Adam to engage in pleasant, holy work of dominion.

So what about now? Should be not be engaging in holy work of dominion (although imperfect until that time?)

One Bad Pig
03-26-2014, 11:40 AM
It actually all depends on context. In 1 John 2:19, I said it applies to the apostles due to the fact that John makes a distinction between you, us and them.

The same of course applies to 1 John 1:



Of course, there are other parts of the letter in which John can be referring to the 'us' & 'you" in the 'we': if not exactly (as some might suppose), at least doctrinally. It just depends on context.
Yes, it depends on context. We were discussing 1 John 5 though, so that's what I was focusing on.

phat8594
03-26-2014, 11:46 AM
Yes, it depends on context. We were discussing 1 John 5 though, so that's what I was focusing on.

Great. I just wanted to clarify that 'my interpretation' (that I previously discussed, and which was referenced) was dealing with 1 John 2:19, not 1 John 5. :thumb:

KingsGambit
03-26-2014, 11:52 AM
This is incorrect.

Hebrews 6:4-8"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

One can not partake in the Holy Spirit unless one is saved. And one can not fall away from what is impossible to fall away from. Apostasy is real, and permanent.

I disagree that apostasy must be permanent, as this would contradict James 5:16-17 (as well as the part where Paul says Hymenaeus and Alexander have shipwrecked their faith yet he holds up hope for their redemption). There are a couple other ways of understanding the Hebrews passage participles in Hebrews can be taken as temporal or as hyperbolic.

2 Peter 2:20-22 also clearly refutes what Obsdian is saying. When I presented it to him awhile ago, he claimed it only referred to false teachers, but the principle there is clear.

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 12:10 PM
No. It has nothing to do with animal sacrifices. It refers to falling away (parapipto). The root of the compound word for what happened to satan when he fell from heaven (Luke 10:18). Those who have been saved (by the Spirit of God) who fall away (parapipto), it is impossible (adunatos) to be renewed.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, . . . if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

It is referring either to the animal sacrifices, or to the persecution of Christians. Most likely the former. The topic of animal sacrifice is also discussed elsewhere in the book.

Cow Poke
03-26-2014, 12:13 PM
The title, haven was typed instead of heaven, by mistake. But since "haven" means "rest" the idea of "rest" in heaven is not objectionable. Unless you have an objection to heaven being a place of "rest." And besides that a spell checker would not have helped since "haven" is valid word. Add to the fact that I cannot spell to save my life. Other words if my life depended on spelling I would have been dead in 1st grade. And have died many times since.

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that I went through a 'spell' of mis-spelling thread titles* serially! :smile: It looked like "my work".


*And I have no excuse because I CAN spell! :shrug:

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 12:18 PM
2 Peter 2:20-22 also clearly refutes what Obsdian is saying. When I presented it to him awhile ago, he claimed it only referred to false teachers, but the principle there is clear.

No, what I said was that in the context, being worse off than in the beginning refers to being a greater slave of sin. You are assuming that it refers to eternal damnation. And in fact, that passage doesn't even refer to losing faith.

KingsGambit
03-26-2014, 12:48 PM
No, what I said was that in the context, being worse off than in the beginning refers to being a greater slave of sin. You are assuming that it refers to eternal damnation. And in fact, that passage doesn't even refer to losing faith.

You're right, I'm sorry. But if the person is saved, how can they possibly be in a worse state than they were before they were saved?

Bill the Cat
03-26-2014, 12:56 PM
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, . . . if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

It is referring either to the animal sacrifices, or to the persecution of Christians. Most likely the former. The topic of animal sacrifice is also discussed elsewhere in the book.

No. It is referring to aligning one's self with those who crucified Him, or as the writer says later in Chapter 10, "who has trampled the Son of God underfoot".

37818
03-26-2014, 02:01 PM
Context is not unimportant. John is combating proto-gnostic beliefs throughout the work, and that needs to be kept in mind when interpreting it. On a more obvious level, the words you quote are preceded by "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God". If someone no longer believes in the name of the Son of God, but once did, does that person still have eternal life?At the judgment, the lost perish, and the saved who "have" eternal life go on into the new heaven and earth. I dare say those who perish never knew they had eternal life. It is my take, to know one has eternal life means one will not lose that life. The only ones who "loose eternal life" are the ones who never obtained it. And they didn't really know. Most nominal Christians, do not know, and would say so. No one [in general] knows when they are going to die. So only those who will not have there name blotted out of the book of life, are the sons of God and being saved know they now have eternal life. Those who have eternal life know God personally. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20. John 14:6.)

Bill the Cat
03-26-2014, 02:05 PM
At the judgment, the lost perish, and the saved who "have" eternal life go on into the new heaven and earth. I dare say those who perish never knew they had eternal life. It is my take, to know one has eternal life means one will not lose that life. The only ones who "loose eternal life" are the ones who never obtained it. And they didn't really know. Most nominal Christians, do not know, and would say so. No one [in general] knows when they are going to die. So only those who will not have there name blotted out of the book of life, are the sons of God and being saved know they now have eternal life. Those who have eternal life know God personally. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20. John 14:6.)

And who gets their name blotted out of the book, and who has it written in there? And those who HAD it written in there, but were LATER blotted out?

KingsGambit
03-26-2014, 02:18 PM
On the flipside, I would say that a number of nominal Christians, or believers in general folk religion, are quite confident that they are bound for eternal glory.

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 02:53 PM
No. It is referring to aligning one's self with those who crucified Him

I don't really see where you get that interpretation from. Further, even assuming this interpretation were correct, it would not disprove what I said about the possibility of repentance. You're looking solely at the part that says it's impossible to repent. You are ignoring the condition behind that assessment.


But if the person is saved, how can they possibly be in a worse state than they were before they were saved?

A gnostic will generally be more immoral than an unsaved Jew. The false teachers described in this chapter seem to be teaching people that it is good to sin. So the hearers wind up with less liberty than when they started. That is all it is saying.

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returneth to his vomit,
so a fool returneth to his folly.

Also, have you not ever personally observed someone who was foolish, and seemed to become even more foolish over time? In my experience, unless a fool definitively tries to abandon his foolishness by fearing God, it is virtually inevitable that this decline will occur. They always wind up in a worse state.

KingsGambit
03-26-2014, 04:11 PM
I don't really see where you get that interpretation from. Further, even assuming this interpretation were correct, it would not disprove what I said about the possibility of repentance. You're looking solely at the part that says it's impossible to repent. You are ignoring the condition behind that assessment.



A gnostic will generally be more immoral than an unsaved Jew. The false teachers described in this chapter seem to be teaching people that it is good to sin. So the hearers wind up with less liberty than when they started. That is all it is saying.

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returneth to his vomit,
so a fool returneth to his folly.

Also, have you not ever personally observed someone who was foolish, and seemed to become even more foolish over time? In my experience, unless a fool definitively tries to abandon his foolishness by fearing God, it is virtually inevitable that this decline will occur. They always wind up in a worse state.

If taken in isolation, I agree that this passage could refer to such a state, but how do we not apply it to eternal judgment given that the entire chapter before this point warns of eternal punishment in fairly explicit terms?

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 04:32 PM
The chapter in general is about the judgment of the prophets, while also touching upon the doctrines of the prophets. In verses 10-16, it talks fairly extensively about about the doctrines of the prophets and to a lesser extent also mentions their judgment. Then in either verse 17 or 18 (depending on interpretation), it focuses even more heavily on the doctrines of the prophets. It explains that their doctrines enslave people. The verse you are referring to, verse 20, occurs within this section. In my view, it is referring to the enslavement of the people who listen to the prophets.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 06:29 AM
At the judgment, the lost perish, and the saved who "have" eternal life go on into the new heaven and earth. I dare say those who perish never knew they had eternal life. It is my take, to know one has eternal life means one will not lose that life. The only ones who "loose eternal life" are the ones who never obtained it. And they didn't really know.
Let's look at a couple passages on the final judgment:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Why do you think people will be protesting? Clearly it is because they disagree with it - IOW, they thought they would be judged otherwise, and have eternal life.

Most nominal Christians, do not know, and would say so.
You are flat wrong on this. If you look at the statistics on who believes in heaven vs. those who attend church regularly, there's a vast difference - and I dare say most people who believe in heaven think they'll end up there.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 06:34 AM
If taken in isolation, I agree that this passage could refer to such a state, but how do we not apply it to eternal judgment given that the entire chapter before this point warns of eternal punishment in fairly explicit terms?
More than one passage is being brought up in this thread. Could you please more explicitly identify what you're talking about? I've lost track. :dizzy:

KingsGambit
03-27-2014, 06:48 AM
More than one passage is being brought up in this thread. Could you please more explicitly identify what you're talking about? I've lost track. :dizzy:

I'm responding to Obsidian's claim that 2 Peter 2:20-22 does not refer to one being in a worse state because of their eternal state (the obvious interpretation), but rather to them being in a state where, while they are still saved because they professed faith at one point, they are "worse off" than before their salvation because they are more mired in sin.

Bill the Cat
03-27-2014, 06:56 AM
I don't really see where you get that interpretation from.

From the text. When one "crucifies the Lord anew", they stand with those who crucified Him in the first place.


Further, even assuming this interpretation were correct, it would not disprove what I said about the possibility of repentance.

Sure it does. It says it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.


You're looking solely at the part that says it's impossible to repent. You are ignoring the condition behind that assessment.

No I am not. There is no hint that renewing them to repentance becomes suddenly possible. It says it is impossible. Once your name is blotted out of the book of life, it can not be unblotted.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 06:58 AM
I'm responding to Obsidian's claim that 2 Peter 2:20-22 does not refer to one being in a worse state because of their eternal state (the obvious interpretation), but rather to them being in a state where, while they are still saved because they professed faith at one point, they are "worse off" than before their salvation because they are more mired in sin.
Thank you. :smile:

KingsGambit
03-27-2014, 07:00 AM
Thank you. :smile:

I know I have a really bad habit of not using the quote feature enough. I'm working on it. :tongue:

37818
03-27-2014, 12:10 PM
And who gets their name blotted out of the book, and who has it written in there? And those who HAD it written in there, but were LATER blotted out?It is my understanding that by reason Christ die for all (1 John 2:2) everyone's name is in the book of life. Those who "overcome the world" by believing in Christ (1 John 5:1, 4, 5) have the promises of not having one's name blotted out and not be subject to the second death (Revelation 3:5; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 21:7). Those whose names are blotted out those who do not receive Christ (Psalm 69:27, 28).

Obsidian
03-27-2014, 12:35 PM
Sure it does. It says it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.

As I've said, I interpret "impossible" to mean impossible while they are crucifying the Son anew. And I find your interpretation of what crucifying the Son anew means a bit too metaphorical, and unfounded. The continuing animal sacrifice makes more sense, given the usual biblical symbolism involved and given what the book of Hebrews actually talks about.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 12:53 PM
As I've said, I interpret "impossible" to mean impossible while they are crucifying the Son anew.
That interpretation completely vitiates the meaning of the text.

Bill the Cat
03-27-2014, 12:54 PM
As I've said, I interpret "impossible" to mean impossible while they are crucifying the Son anew. And I find your interpretation of what crucifying the Son anew means a bit too metaphorical, and unfounded. The continuing animal sacrifice makes more sense, given the usual biblical symbolism involved and given what the book of Hebrews actually talks about.

sacrificing animals is not crucifying the Son of God.

Obsidian
03-27-2014, 01:06 PM
Well, neither is whatever it is you're calling the crucifixion anew

37818
03-27-2014, 01:54 PM
". . . For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, And they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame. . . ." This whole scenario is the impossibility! Furthermore the writer goes on to say, ". . . But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak."

KingsGambit
03-27-2014, 02:17 PM
That interpretation completely vitiates the meaning of the text.

It is a fairly commonly held interpretation, because it does fit grammatically, though it does seem rather tautological. I used to interpret the passage in this manner, but I am now closer to following the lead of scholars who grant for an allowance of hyperbole (such as I.H. Marshall, who does take it to be temporal and Ben Witherington, whom I believe does not take it to be temporal). My reasoning is because, as noted above, there are several NT texts that do suggest the possibility of restoral after apostasy, so systematically, this seems to make the most sense to me. (Verse 9 seems hyperbolical because, as has been noted, the author is no doubt not truly convinced that they all will necessarily avoid apostasy; thus the warning.)

As Barnabas Lindars puts it in The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews:


"He then has another device - equally exaggerated - when in verse 9 he makes a captatio benevolentiae expressing his assurance that such a case does not apply to the readers, here called beloved for the only time in the whole epistle. Of course he knows it does! It is precisely what he is most afraid of."

KingsGambit
03-27-2014, 02:20 PM
sacrificing animals is not crucifying the Son of God.

If one abandoned the sacrifice of Christ by attempting to cover for their sins with animal sacrifice, this would seem to qualify as metaphorically crucifying the son of God anew per the Hebrews analogy.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 02:32 PM
It is a fairly commonly held interpretation, because it does fit grammatically, though it does seem rather tautological.
Quite. IMO it is commonly held because people would rather believe that. Allowing for hyperbole makes much more sense in light of other scripture.

Obsidian
03-27-2014, 02:35 PM
One Bad Pig, your religion teaches that people can repeatedly fall away AND lose their salvation...and then still repent and regain their salvation. Am I wrong?

Leonhard
03-27-2014, 02:47 PM
No I am not. There is no hint that renewing them to repentance becomes suddenly possible. It says it is impossible. Once your name is blotted out of the book of life, it can not be unblotted.

I assume you interpret this to mean that those people would never again repent of their sins or confess them to Christ. The species of a Christian who was doing all of these things whole heartedly, but was unforgiven because he had apostatised when he was younger wouldn't be possible. Am I reading you right?

Obsidian
03-27-2014, 02:52 PM
It might just be saying that it's impossible to get them to repent because their time is almost up, anyway. In context, I think that the burning refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was near.

Hebrews 6
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

I think verses 7-8 are a weakness in 37181's view. Otherwise, I would say that his view is the best.


I assume you interpret this to mean that those people would never again repent of their sins or confess them to Christ. The species of a Christian who was doing all of these things whole heartedly, but was unforgiven because he had apostatised when he was younger wouldn't be possible.

Strictly speaking, the passage does not say that it is impossible for them to gain forgiveness, or regain salvation (assuming it could be lost). The passage says it is impossible to repent. And I would assume that Bill the Cat thinks it is impossible for them to believe once they stop believing. Verses 7-8 could indicate that the reason it is impossible for them to repent is because they've already soaked up lots of good rain, but just seem to be useless in terms of growing anything from it.

Leonhard
03-27-2014, 03:10 PM
One Bad Pig, your religion teaches that people can repeatedly fall away AND lose their salvation...and then still repent and regain their salvation. Am I wrong?

I think One Bad Pig is Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic Church I know holds this. As long as you haven't died, you can still be forgiven of mortal sin if you repent and you seek forgiveness.

KingsGambit
03-27-2014, 03:13 PM
I assume you interpret this to mean that those people would never again repent of their sins or confess them to Christ. The species of a Christian who was doing all of these things whole heartedly, but was unforgiven because he had apostatised when he was younger wouldn't be possible. Am I reading you right?

Right; the key is that repentance is impossible, not that forgiveness is impossible. This is possibly the harshest of five warnings in Hebrews; an extremely hortatory book.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 05:43 PM
One Bad Pig, your religion teaches that people can repeatedly fall away AND lose their salvation...and then still repent and regain their salvation. Am I wrong?
People can fall away from communion with God. It's possible, with God's help, to return to Christ, but it is very difficult. I would not couch it in terms of losing and regaining salvation, however, since I do not view salvation as a point but a process which is not complete on this side of death (as I have already posted in this thread). I would not say repeatedly because the odds of returning even once are not good.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 05:46 PM
I think One Bad Pig is Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic Church I know holds this. As long as you haven't died, you can still be forgiven of mortal sin if you repent and you seek forgiveness.
The Orthodox Church does not distinguish mortal and venial sins.

KingsGambit
03-27-2014, 05:50 PM
In the cases where it humanly appears like one has apostasized and returned, we cannot truly judge those because we have no way of knowing if the initial conversion was genuine. In the vast majority I suspect it was not.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 06:14 PM
In the cases where it humanly appears like one has apostasized and returned, we cannot truly judge those because we have no way of knowing if the initial conversion was genuine. In the vast majority I suspect it was not.
I would not venture to speculate either way.

37818
03-27-2014, 07:15 PM
Again, in the judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) Those whose names are not in the book of life perish. And those whose names are not blotted out according to promise (Revelation 3:5) are the ones who could know that they have eternal life (1 John 5;1, 4, 5, 9-13). Eternal life in not what can be lost (John 10:27-30), except by not obtaining that life (1 John 5:12). Those who know God are the ones who have eternal life (John 17:3).

Truthseeker
03-27-2014, 07:43 PM
Nothing is impossible to God.

We simply don't know which ones of us will be in Heaven or already are. We can't even say what the odds will be for any given situation.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 07:47 PM
Again, in the judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) Those whose names are not in the book of life perish.
Agreed.

And those whose names are not blotted out according to promise (Revelation 3:5)are the ones who could know that they have eternal life (1 John 5;1, 4, 5, 9-13).
Does not the promise at the very least imply that it is possible to have one's name blotted out if one fails to overcome? Is it possible in your opinion to have one's name written in the book of life but not know one has eternal life?

Obsidian
03-27-2014, 08:00 PM
Does not the promise at the very least imply that it is possible to have one's name blotted out if one fails to overcome?

1 John 5:4-5
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Romans 8:37-39
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


We simply don't know which ones of us will be in Heaven or already are. We can't even say what the odds will be for any given situation.

Obviously, you haven't been paying very much attention to the verses cited in this thread.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2014, 08:26 PM
1 John 5:4-5
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Yay, duelling scripture verses! You're not reading 1 John in its proper context.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
Tell me, do the demons overcome the world?


Romans 8:37-39
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Of course nothing else can separate us from the love of God. Only we can turn away (Heb 6:6).

Obsidian
03-27-2014, 08:35 PM
Pulling out a random verse from James is a silly way to overcome the obvious meaning of those verses. Demons cannot be redeemed because Jesus did not take the form of angels. He took the form of men.

Hebrews 2
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Also, demons know this very fact that they cannot be saved. That is why James does not say the demons believe upon Jesus for everlasting life. It just says that they "believe," which in the context seems to be referring to a belief in God's unity.


Of course nothing else can separate us from the love of God. Only we can turn away (Heb 6:6).

Since you seem to think that this could separate a believer form the love of God, think about this: Wouldn't that have to occur in the "things to come"?

Paprika
03-27-2014, 09:08 PM
Yay, duelling scripture verses! You're not reading 1 John in its proper context.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
Tell me, do the demons overcome the world?
By the way, those are two different beliefs. "Jesus is the Son of God" is different from the Shema, "there is one God".

One Bad Pig
03-28-2014, 06:05 AM
By the way, those are two different beliefs. "Jesus is the Son of God" is different from the Shema, "there is one God".
Do you deny that demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

One Bad Pig
03-28-2014, 06:23 AM
Pulling out a random verse from James is a silly way to overcome the obvious meaning of those verses.
It's hardly random, and the meaning you think is so obvious has nothing to do with why John wrote those words.

Demons cannot be redeemed because Jesus did not take the form of angels. He took the form of men.

Hebrews 2
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
I agree that demons cannot be saved and that Jesus did not take the form of an angel, but you're connecting ideas that are not meant to be.



Also, demons know this very fact that they cannot be saved.
Sure.

That is why James does not say the demons believe upon Jesus for everlasting life.
:doh: No.
It just says that they "believe," which in the context seems to be referring to a belief in God's unity.
James is bringing up demons because mere belief is not salvific. Which brings us back to your faulty understanding of James.


Since you seem to think that this could separate a believer form the love of God, think about this: Wouldn't that have to occur in the "things to come"?
:twitch: That's referring to events.

Paprika
03-28-2014, 06:26 AM
Do you deny that demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
No. How is that supposed to be relevant?

Bill the Cat
03-28-2014, 06:26 AM
I assume you interpret this to mean that those people would never again repent of their sins or confess them to Christ.

Precisely. I think this is a very rare occurrence indeed, but even so, it is a warning to not even try coming near the line of being unable to be renewed. Once your name is blotted out, there is no re-writing it.


The species of a Christian who was doing all of these things whole heartedly, but was unforgiven because he had apostatised when he was younger wouldn't be possible. Am I reading you right?

Right. But, again, apostasy is more than just denying Christ, or even temporarily falling into atheism AFAICT. Paul linked it with forsaking Jesus for the man of sin in a permanent fashion. Even some of those the church called "apostates" were welcomed back into the church after being rebaptized (OB1 can probably speak more on that if you need).

One Bad Pig
03-28-2014, 06:31 AM
No. How is that supposed to be relevant?
And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” And He, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that He was the Christ.
When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before Him, and with a loud voice said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me!”

It's relevant because James is not focusing on the specific beliefs of demons; he's saying that mere belief is not salvific. Look at the context of the verse, not just that sentence.

KingsGambit
03-28-2014, 06:35 AM
Right; it's clear from the Gospel passages that the demons know precisely who Jesus is, well before any person (other than Jesus himself, obviously). The fact that they have no opportunity to repent even if they wanted to doesn't affect James's analogy.

Paprika
03-28-2014, 06:39 AM
Right; it's clear from the Gospel passages that the demons know precisely who Jesus is, well before any person (other than Jesus himself, obviously). The fact that they have no opportunity to repent even if they wanted to doesn't affect James's analogy.
I didn't deny that. My earlier post was to question the use of that abstracted verse of James to counter (what was also abstracted) from 1 John.

The Remonstrant
03-28-2014, 07:03 AM
Pulling out a random verse from James is a silly way to overcome the obvious meaning of those verses. Demons cannot be redeemed because Jesus did not take the form of angels. He took the form of men. . . .

Also, demons know this very fact that they cannot be saved. That is why James does not say the demons believe upon Jesus for everlasting life. It just says that they "believe," which in the context seems to be referring to a belief in God's unity. [The Remonstrant: Or "oneness", I would say (not in the modalistic sense, though).]

:thumb:

KingsGambit
03-28-2014, 07:07 AM
Right. But, again, apostasy is more than just denying Christ, or even temporarily falling into atheism AFAICT. Paul linked it with forsaking Jesus for the man of sin in a permanent fashion. Even some of those the church called "apostates" were welcomed back into the church after being rebaptized (OB1 can probably speak more on that if you need).

I have to disagree. Falling into atheism is by definition apostasy, and denying Christ seems to be similarly linked (Matthew 10:33, 2 Timothy 2:12). It seems to me like your post is saying "it's only apostasy if they don't return", in which case the warning in Hebrews 6 would seem almost tautological.

The Remonstrant
03-28-2014, 07:17 AM
I didn't deny that. My earlier post was to question the use of that abstracted verse of James to counter (what was also abstracted) from 1 John.

Going over the exchange above, I honestly do not see how this misunderstanding arose in the first place. In your post above (message #189), you said:


By the way, those are two different beliefs. "Jesus is the Son of God" is different from the Shema, "there is one God".

One Bad Pig responded (message #190):


Do you deny that demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

?

Paprika, I would agree that saying Jesus is God's Son (cf. 1 John 5:5) and affirming the "oneness" of Yahweh God (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19) are, in fact, entirely distinct (although not contrary) claims.

Bill the Cat
03-28-2014, 07:19 AM
I have to disagree. Falling into atheism is by definition apostasy, and denying Christ seems to be similarly linked (Matthew 10:33, 2 Timothy 2:12).

Think about this... the ones Jesus accused of the unpardonable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit)... were they atheists or were they Pharisees?


It seems to me like your post is saying "it's only apostasy if they don't return", in which case the warning in Hebrews 6 would seem almost tautological.

I am distinguishing between apostasy and backsliding.

The Remonstrant
03-28-2014, 07:40 AM
I am distinguishing between apostasy and backsliding.

This is a valid distinction. However, I would hasten to add that the danger of perpetually drifting is that it makes one more prone to finally apostatizing/falling away from Christ (or even ripe for it, if you prefer). Though not all who drift ultimately forsake Christ, apostasy is the end result of inattentiveness to one's salvation.


Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. . . . how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (Hebrews 2:1,3a ESV)

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. (3:12-14)

KingsGambit
03-28-2014, 07:43 AM
Think about this... the ones Jesus accused of the unpardonable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit)... were they atheists or were they Pharisees?

I don't think it's clear he accused them of the unpardonable sin; it seems viable that the Pharisees may have been warned of it. Either way, atheism and Phariseeism end up with the same result: rejection of Christ.





I am distinguishing between apostasy and backsliding.

I don't think "backsliding" as distinct from apostasy is a NT concept at all if one defines backsliding as a state where one is not identifying as a Christian.

Bill the Cat
03-28-2014, 07:47 AM
I don't think it's clear he accused them of the unpardonable sin; it seems viable that the Pharisees may have been warned of it. Either way, atheism and Phariseeism end up with the same result: rejection of Christ.





I don't think "backsliding" as distinct from apostasy is a NT concept at all if one defines backsliding as a state where one is not identifying as a Christian.

I really don't see anything in the New Testament that even addresses atheism, but I could be wrong. :nsm:

One Bad Pig
03-28-2014, 07:50 AM
Going over the exchange above, I honestly do not see how this misunderstanding arose in the first place. In your post above (message #189), you said:



One Bad Pig responded (message #190):



?

Paprika, I would agree that saying Jesus is God's Son (cf. 1 John 5:5) and affirming the "oneness" of Yahweh God (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19) are, in fact, entirely distinct (although not contrary) claims.
The misunderstanding arose because Paprika misunderstood why I was citing the verse. You seem to have the same misunderstanding.

KingsGambit
03-28-2014, 07:55 AM
I really don't see anything in the New Testament that even addresses atheism, but I could be wrong. :nsm:

I'm not talking about atheism specifically; I'm just talking about the state of not being in Christ, whether that be in atheism or any other religion.

The Remonstrant
03-28-2014, 07:57 AM
The misunderstanding arose because Paprika misunderstood why I was citing the verse. You seem to have the same misunderstanding.

You have not made it clear why you have quoted numerous verses throughout this thread in order to demonstrate your points. Your response above (#204) does nothing toward clarifying Paprika's (alleged) misunderstanding, or mine. It is not helpful to simply reply that we don't understand what you are driving at. We've already more or less conceded this. Help us to understand, then.

Obsidian
03-28-2014, 09:32 AM
@One Bad Pig

When John talks about overcoming the world, he is specifically referring to overcoming Satan. Clearly that applies to humans. Dragging in other verses to muddy the water and argue that faith cannot save us does not change the meaning of what John wrote. Do you take any verses in the Bible very literally? It seems like you just grab onto whatever works-salvation gist you can possibly pull from each verse, and ignore the details.

The only reason demons are even referenced in James 2 is to show that a person can believe in God but still fail to serve him adequately. It has nothing to do with whether demons are saved from eternal damnation -- which they are not, and cannot be.

I already discussed the meaning of James 2 earlier in this same thread. You repeatedly denied that it refers to deliverance from judgment under the law -- even though that is what the chapter explicitly refers to. You shouldn't just use a (flawed) interpretation of James 2 to undermine every other part of the Bible.


@Bill the Cat

I agree with KingsGambit that your view is tautological. If any Christian becomes an atheist and then repents, that should serve to discredit your position. Yet you allow for it.

I say that the best explanation for why it was impossible to repent is the explanation given in Hebrews 6:7-8. The judgment was too near for them to repent. The whole city was soon to be wiped out.

One Bad Pig
03-31-2014, 07:37 PM
You have not made it clear why you have quoted numerous verses throughout this thread in order to demonstrate your points. Your response above (#204) does nothing toward clarifying Paprika's (alleged) misunderstanding, or mine. It is not helpful to simply reply that we don't understand what you are driving at. We've already more or less conceded this. Help us to understand, then.
I clarified in post #192 in response to Obsidian, and again in post #194. KG had no problem following. I honestly don't understand how you're not following.

James says both before AND after 2:19 that faith without works is dead. In 2:19, he refers to the non-saving belief of demons. That the specific belief is "God is one" is beside the point; any true belief about God would've fit. Further, per Luke 4:41, demons also believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Does this belief save them, unlike the other one? I don't think so. Letting scripture interpret scripture, then, it is best to not take 1 John 5:5 as strictly literal. John is writing a polemic against those who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Further, it should be obvious from the context in 1 John (4:20-21) that mere belief is not sufficient.

Does that help clarify things?

One Bad Pig
03-31-2014, 08:17 PM
@One Bad Pig

When John talks about overcoming the world, he is specifically referring to overcoming Satan.
:hrm: IMO it's a little broader than that, including demons as well, and possibly unbelievers also.

Clearly that applies to humans.
Those who are of God, yes.

Dragging in other verses to muddy the water and argue that faith cannot save us does not change the meaning of what John wrote. Do you take any verses in the Bible very literally? It seems like you just grab onto whatever works-salvation gist you can possibly pull from each verse, and ignore the details.
I think you don't understand my position at all - and I'm not the only one (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1224-Knowing-for-sure-one-is-going-to-haven&p=29239&viewfull=1#post29239) who thinks so. (While you're at the link, scroll down to post #53 as well.)


The only reason demons are even referenced in James 2 is to show that a person can believe in God but still fail to serve him adequately. It has nothing to do with whether demons are saved from eternal damnation -- which they are not, and cannot be.
Hey, we agree on something!


I already discussed the meaning of James 2 earlier in this same thread. You repeatedly denied that it refers to deliverance from judgment under the law -- even though that is what the chapter explicitly refers to. You shouldn't just use a (flawed) interpretation of James 2 to undermine every other part of the Bible.
You've repeatedly misrepresented both James and my interpretation of it. That you think I use scripture to undermine other scripture shows how utterly you've failed to understand me. Try asking for clarification rather than assuming the worst, eh?

Pinoy
03-31-2014, 09:55 PM
I answered God who saves does the keeping. I just believe that God already know who are to be saved (foreknowledge). All we do here in the world is for our benefit, to give us confidence in our belief (faith).

Obsidian
03-31-2014, 10:11 PM
One Bad Pig, do you believe that if a demon turned from all his sins and lived a life of good works he would be saved? That is not biblical. Whether a demon believes, lives a good life, worships God, whatever, makes no difference to his eternal fate. Therefore, using Luke 4 to disprove salvation by faith makes no sense.

One Bad Pig
04-01-2014, 06:59 PM
One Bad Pig, do you believe that if a demon turned from all his sins and lived a life of good works he would be saved? That is not biblical.
:twitch: Did you even read my last post?

Whether a demon believes, lives a good life, worships God, whatever, makes no difference to his eternal fate. Therefore, using Luke 4 to disprove salvation by faith makes no sense.
James is the one who brought up the belief of demons in the context of faith. Was James making no sense in 2:19? Are you even trying to follow my argument?

Obsidian
04-01-2014, 07:59 PM
I've read everything you've been writing. I haven't seen you make much of an argument. As best I can tell, your position seems to be that since the demons believe and wind up in eternal torment, therefore belief does not save humans either.

You stated the following, which implies that you think demons could get to heaven if they would just do some good works to add to their faith.


Further, per Luke 4:41, demons also believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Does this belief save them, unlike the other one? I don't think so.

One Bad Pig
04-01-2014, 08:55 PM
I've read everything you've been writing.
Then why did you bother asking a question I'd already answered in the negative? :duh:

I haven't seen you make much of an argument.
*shrug* Chrawnus got my point, as did Teallaura.

As best I can tell, your position seems to be that since the demons believe and wind up in eternal torment, therefore belief does not save humans either.
Would you rather I disagree with James?



You stated the following, which implies that you think demons could get to heaven if they would just do some good works to add to their faith.
:doh: No, it does not. Try dealing with my statement from within the context it was made.

Teallaura
04-02-2014, 07:05 AM
Hint: belief in existence of God =/= faith in God. Faith is our trust that God is Who He says He is and will do what He says He will - His existence is a given.

thewriteranon
04-02-2014, 08:24 AM
Hint: belief in existence of God =/= faith in God. Faith is our trust that God is Who He says He is and will do what He says He will - His existence is a given.

:thumb:

37818
04-16-2014, 12:09 PM
And those whose names are not blotted out according to promise (Revelation 3:5)are the ones who could know that they have eternal life (1 John 5;1, 4, 5, 9-13).

Does not the promise at the very least imply that it is possible to have one's name blotted out if one fails to overcome? Is it possible in your opinion to have one's name written in the book of life but not know one has eternal life?
I believe everyones names are in the book of life until they are blotted out.

What the promise teaches is those who "overcome" by having faith in Christ (1 John 5:1, 4, 5.) will not have their names blotted out. There are 7 promises written regarding those who are the ones who have faith in Christ and so overcomes this world.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." -- Revelation 2:11.
"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." -- Revelation 21:7.

Those who do not overcome are those who do not have faith in God's Christ alone. They are trusting in their dead works.

Obsidian
04-16-2014, 12:45 PM
I believe everyones names are in the book of life until they are blotted out.

The rest of your post could easily be true even if this point is not. I agree with the rest of your post. What is the purpose of this belief -- just to reconcile your soteriology with the KJV of Revelation 22:18-19?

37818
04-16-2014, 02:05 PM
The rest of your post could easily be true even if this point is not. I agree with the rest of your post. What is the purpose of this belief -- just to reconcile your soteriology with the KJV of Revelation 22:18-19?

The prerequisite is receiving the kingdom of God as a child. (Luke 18:17, 18. John 3:3.) Christ dead for everyone (1 John 2:2), so everyone's name would be in the book of life. The reason names are removed is being of age and not being saved. The names can be removed any time between coming of age (compare Isaiah 7:16) and death (Psalm 69:27, 28). So children who are not of age to shoose Christ, their names remain in the book of life, since Christ died for them too.

One Bad Pig
04-17-2014, 11:01 AM
I believe everyones names are in the book of life until they are blotted out.
[from a subsequent post]
The prerequisite is receiving the kingdom of God as a child. (Luke 18:17, 18. John 3:3.) Christ dead for everyone (1 John 2:2), so everyone's name would be in the book of life. The reason names are removed is being of age and not being saved. The names can be removed any time between coming of age (compare Isaiah 7:16) and death (Psalm 69:27, 28). So children who are not of age to shoose Christ, their names remain in the book of life, since Christ died for them too.

I was only able to find one passage on how names are written:
Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, And the Lord listened and heard them; So a book of remembrance was written before Him For those who fear the Lord And who meditate on His name.



What the promise teaches is those who "overcome" by having faith in Christ (1 John 5:1, 4, 5.) will not have their names blotted out.
Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses pass that test. Are they saved?

There are 7 promises written regarding those who are the ones who have faith in Christ and so overcomes this world.
What are those?


"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh [B]shall not be hurt of the second death." -- Revelation 2:11.
"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." -- Revelation 21:7.

Can those who are under the age of accountability have faith in Christ and overcome?


Those who do not overcome are those who do not have faith in God's Christ alone. They are trusting in their dead works.
Hold on a minute. You were just using 1 John 5:1,4-5 as the litmus test for salvation. Now you're adding in other criteria. You can't have things both ways. Further,
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

James says that faith without works is dead (three times, even - he repeats in in v. 26). Is he mistaken? It's no wonder that the champion of "Faith alone" (Martin Luther) wanted to throw the book out.

Obsidian
04-17-2014, 02:32 PM
Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses pass that test. Are they saved?

LDS and Jehovah's witnesses believe in works salvation, same as the Orthodox Church.


Hold on a minute. You were just using 1 John 5:1,4-5 as the litmus test for salvation. Now you're adding in other criteria.

1 John 5:11 clarifies what the record is that needs to be believed. The record includes the fact that salvation is eternal (implying it is not contingent on future works), that it is a gift (implying that it is not contingent on past works) and that it comes from the Son of God (implying that it is based on Jesus's works).

I'm not gonna defend his comments about the book of life, however, because I am not sure whether I even agree.

37818
04-17-2014, 07:45 PM
[from a subsequent post]

I was only able to find one passage on how names are written:
Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, And the Lord listened and heard them; So a book of remembrance was written before Him For those who fear the Lord And who meditate on His name.So are you equate the book of remembrance with the book of life?

There is another reference of being written, ". . . Thy eyes did see my imperfect being, and in thy book all shall be written: days shall be formed, and no one in them. . . ." -- Psalm 139:16. I do not know if this refers to the book of life.

Now following may refer to the book of life, but again it does not say this: ". . . rejoice in this, that your names are written in heaven." -- Luke 20:10.

The first reference I believe of the book of life is because of Moses' request to have his name removed if God does not forgive the people of Israel, " . . . strike me out of the book that thou hast written." -- Exodus 32:32.





[back to the original post]

What the promise teaches is those who "overcome" by having faith in Christ (1 John 5:1, 4, 5.) will not have their names blotted out.
Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses pass that test. Are they saved?No, they do not. It is not a test, it is the requirement to believe in God's Christ. LDS deny God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same God. LDS view of the trinity is tritheism. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus is Jehovah (Isaiah 43:11, Acts 4:12, Acts 10:43). When I offered to them to explain 1 John 5:1, those Jehovah's Witnesses stipulated "Everyone" refers to only the 144,000, but not to them.

Believing Jesus is the Christ, is not in a mere title, but who He is (2 John 9).



There are 7 promises written regarding those who are the ones who have faith in Christ and so overcomes this world. What are those?
1.- "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the paradise of my God." -- Revelation 2:7.
2.- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: He that shall overcome shall not be hurt by the second death." -- Revelation 2:11.
3.- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna and will give him a white counter: and in the counter, a new name written, which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it." -- Revelation 2:17.
4.- "And he that shall overcome and keep my words unto the end, I will give him power over the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken: As I also have received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. " -- Revelation 2:26-29.
5.- "He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments: and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. And I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." -- Revelation 3:5, 6.
6.- "He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God: and he shall go out no more. And I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." -- Revelation 3:12, 13.
7.- " To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." -- Revelation 3:21, 22.

And the eight reference,
"He that shall overcome shall possess these things. And I will be his God: and he shall be my son." -- Revelation 21:7.









Can those who are under the age of accountability have faith in Christ and overcome?They without faith in Christ already meet the requirement of being children. For they are for whom Christ died. The kingdom of God was prepared for them. ". . . But Jesus, calling them together, said: Allow children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Luke 18:16.


Those who do not overcome are those who do not have faith in God's Christ alone. They are trusting in their dead works.
Hold on a minute. You were just using 1 John 5:1,4-5 as the litmus test for salvation.It is not a test. It is what is needed to meet the requirement (John 3:3). Those who trust in their works are not trusting in God's Christ according to God's will.
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 7:21.



Those who do not overcome are those who do not have faith in God's Christ alone. They are trusting in their dead works.
. . . Now you're adding in other criteria. You can't have things both ways. It is not two ways, it is only the one way.
" Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?" -- Matthew 7:22. Notice they are trusting in their works.
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." -- Matthew 7:23.
They never were really Christ's followers.




. . . Further,
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

James says that faith without works is dead (three times, even - he repeats in in v. 26). Is he mistaken? It's no wonder that the champion of "Faith alone" (Martin Luther) wanted to throw the book out.It is my understanding that works that count, follow those who are saved. Abraham whose work is given as an example. His work took place and followed years after (Genesis 22:1-17) Abraham was counted righteous (Genesis 15:6).

The purpose of works is to follow salvation. Not to obtain salvation.
"For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10.

". . . with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will." -- Philppians 2:12. 13. Salvation is a possession.

Obsidian
04-17-2014, 07:52 PM
LDS deny God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same God. LDS view of the trinity is tritheism. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus is Jehovah (Isaiah 43:11, Acts 4:12, Acts 10:43).

Why even get to that complicated issue? Is there a single church in all existence that teaches salvation by faith alone, yet denies the Trinity? True faith in Jesus as Savior is the real issue. Yet look at how (seemingly) all the churches which deny the Trinity also teach works salvation.

37818
04-17-2014, 08:06 PM
Why even get to that complicated issue? Is there a single church in all existence that teaches salvation by faith alone, yet denies the Trinity? True faith in Jesus as Savior is the real issue. Yet look at how (seemingly) all the churches which deny the Trinity also teach works salvation.Yes, that is the evidence. But even so, affirmation of teaching the Trinity (One God, three Persons) does not assure that salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is being taught. One can have the trinity explanation right and still have the wrong Christ.

The issue was being made that LDS and JW believe in Christ (1 John 5:1). They have the wrong Christ. Or may we say they have the wrong understanding of whom Christ is and what Christ fully accomplished.

Obsidian
04-17-2014, 09:04 PM
Saying they have the "wrong Christ" is a subjective, dubious assertion. They get some things wrong about Christ. Does that make him the wrong one? Who knows. The point is that they don't believe on him, so it doesn't matter whether he's the right one or the wrong one.

One Bad Pig
04-18-2014, 09:10 AM
So are you equate the book of remembrance with the book of life?
Tentatively, yes, based on the description of who is written there.


There is another reference of being written, ". . . Thy eyes did see my imperfect being, and in thy book all shall be written: days shall be formed, and no one in them. . . ." -- Psalm 139:16. I do not know if this refers to the book of life.
I think it is probably not referring to the book of life; the reference seems broader than that.


Now following may refer to the book of life, but again it does not say this: ". . . rejoice in this, that your names are written in heaven." -- Luke 20:10.
Probably, but it does not touch on how/why the names are written.


The first reference I believe of the book of life is because of Moses' request to have his name removed if God does not forgive the people of Israel, " . . . strike me out of the book that thou hast written." -- Exodus 32:32.
Agreed.


No, they do not. It is not a test, it is the requirement to believe in God's Christ. LDS deny God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same God. LDS view of the trinity is tritheism. The Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus is Jehovah (Isaiah 43:11, Acts 4:12, Acts 10:43). When I offered to them to explain 1 John 5:1, those Jehovah's Witnesses stipulated "Everyone" refers to only the 144,000, but not to them.

Believing Jesus is the Christ, is not in a mere title, but who He is (2 John 9).
Ok. I only asked because you seemed to be using the passage as the criterion earlier.


1.- "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the paradise of my God." -- Revelation 2:7.
2.- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: He that shall overcome shall not be hurt by the second death." -- Revelation 2:11.
3.- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna and will give him a white counter: and in the counter, a new name written, which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it." -- Revelation 2:17.
4.- "And he that shall overcome and keep my words unto the end, I will give him power over the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken: As I also have received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. " -- Revelation 2:26-29.
5.- "He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments: and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. And I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." -- Revelation 3:5, 6.
6.- "He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God: and he shall go out no more. And I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." -- Revelation 3:12, 13.
7.- " To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." -- Revelation 3:21, 22.

And the eight reference,
"He that shall overcome shall possess these things. And I will be his God: and he shall be my son." -- Revelation 21:7.

Thanks.


They without faith in Christ already meet the requirement of being children. For they are for whom Christ died.
Christ died for all. Why do you think the requirement of being children is sufficient?

The kingdom of God was prepared for them. ". . . But Jesus, calling them together, said: Allow children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Luke 18:16.
:hrm: I don't think you're quite grasping Jesus' meaning here. Why does Jesus say this if children?


It is not a test. It is what is needed to meet the requirement (John 3:3). Those who trust in their works are not trusting in God's Christ according to God's will.
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 7:21.

It is not two ways, it is only the one way.
Note the bold part of what you quoted.


" Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?" -- Matthew 7:22. Notice they are trusting in their works.
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." -- Matthew 7:23.
They never were really Christ's followers.
On the other hand, faith without works won't necessarily get you there either.
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


It is my understanding that works that count, follow those who are saved. Abraham whose work is given as an example. His work took place and followed years after (Genesis 22:1-17) Abraham was counted righteous (Genesis 15:6).

The purpose of works is to follow salvation. Not to obtain salvation.
Works are evidence of being saved. Salvation is not a point event. As I've said before, that idea comes from the inability to easily express the Greek perfect tense in English.

"For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10.

I quite agree. I am not being saved by my works.


". . . with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will." -- Philppians 2:12. 13. Salvation is a possession.
How to you get that idea from those verses? It boggles the mind how one can quote Philippians 2:12 and then conclude works are unimportant.

FarEastBird
04-18-2014, 11:13 AM
this poll doesn't really make sense, IMO.

If you can plainly show how the two would work in our salvation, rather than just believing it to be so, then you will have a point.

37818
04-18-2014, 11:47 AM
Christ died for all. Why do you think the requirement of being children is sufficient?
. . .
:hrm: I don't think you're quite grasping Jesus' meaning here. Why does Jesus say this if children?


"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 18:3.

"But Jesus said, Allow little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 19:14.

"But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." -- Mark 10:14-15.

"But Jesus called them , and said, Allow little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:16-17.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born over, he cannot see the kingdom of God. -- John 3:3.

It is my understanding, the kingdom of God was prepared for children. So unless we become as children, being born over, we will not even see God's kingdom, let alone, not even entering.

To be born of God is as easy as believing Jesus is the Christ. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ." -- 1 John 5:1.

It is God who does the new birth according to His will.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. -- John 1:12, 13.

". . . Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, . . . " -- James 1:18.







t is not a test. It is what is needed to meet the requirement (John 3:3). Those who trust in their works are not trusting in God's Christ according to God's will.
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 7:21.

It is not two ways, it is only the one way.
Note the bold part of what you quoted.See above.


" Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?" -- Matthew 7:22. Notice they are trusting in their works.
"And then will I profess unto them, I [U]never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." -- Matthew 7:23.
They never were really Christ's followers.
On the other hand, faith without works won't necessarily get you there either.
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Works are evidence of being saved. Salvation is not a point event. As I've said before, that idea comes from the inability to easily express the Greek perfect tense in English.
"For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10.
I quite agree. I am not being saved by my works.The mere lack of works will not make one who is saved to become lost. We are not saved by works and once saved we are not lost by the lack thereof.
" He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. " -- 1 John 5:12.
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 13:5.


". . . with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will." -- Philppians 2:12. 13. Salvation is a possession.
How to you get that idea from those verses? It boggles the mind how one can quote Philippians 2:12 and then conclude works are unimportant.

Just because one who is saved cannot be made lost by the lack of works, by no means does that make works unimportant. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:10.

". . . let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. . . . Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. . . . If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 3:10-16. Our salvation, while it may not depend on our works, our eternal rewards, if any, in heaven does.

Obsidian
04-18-2014, 12:28 PM
The connection of John 3 to those other passages is very insightful.

Regarding James, I agree that practically speaking, everyone who gets saved is bound to do at least one good work during the following twenty years. However, while that is a true belief, it is not what James is teaching. James is teaching that Jesus (and/or the apostles) will judge Christians based on their works. And he is teaching that we will be judged based on how we judge. And he is teaching that in order to have a living faith, we need to do good works. However, the passage doesn't say anything about eternal damnation, or having the right kind of faith, or any of that. That is where One Bad Pig jumps the shark. The passage does not tell people how to gain eternal life. Eternal life is something that they already have, which is what makes them part of the "twelve tribes scattered abroad" in the first place.

One Bad Pig
04-18-2014, 02:16 PM
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 18:3.

"But Jesus said, Allow little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 19:14.

"But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." -- Mark 10:14-15.

"But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Allow little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:16-17.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born over, he cannot see the kingdom of God. -- John 3:3.

Thanks for pulling out the scriptures you see about children and the kingdom of God (though the last one does not apply IMO). You didn't answer my question, however. Why did Jesus say this about children?


It is my understanding, the kingdom of God was prepared for children. So unless we become as children, being born over, we will not even see God's kingdom, let alone, not even entering.
I think you're understanding Jesus about as well as Nicodemus did. Where did you find the rendering "born over"? I've never seen that before.


To be born of God is as easy as believing Jesus is the Christ. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ." -- 1 John 5:1.
There you go again reducing salvation to 1 John 5:1. You keep going in circles with this.


It is God who does the new birth according to His will.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. -- John 1:12, 13.
I think you have the cause and effect backwards here.


". . . Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, . . . " -- James 1:18.
It is God's will that none should perish (2 Pet. 3:9)


The mere lack of works will not make one who is saved to become lost. We are not saved by works and once saved we are not lost by the lack thereof.
You're arguing against a position I do not hold.


" He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. " -- 1 John 5:12.
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 13:5.


Just because one who is saved cannot be made lost by the lack of works, by no means does that make works unimportant. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:10.
One can never be saved in the first place if works are not done commensurate with faith. In the Matthew 25 passage I quoted earlier, Jesus rejected those who had not done works (though their protest shows that they thought they were saved).


". . . let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. . . . Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. . . . If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 3:10-16. Our salvation, while it may not depend on our works, our eternal rewards, if any, in heaven does.
In context, this is not talking about a person's works, but how a leader builds the church in his charge.

Obsidian
04-18-2014, 03:12 PM
In the Matthew 25 passage I quoted earlier, Jesus rejected those who had not done works (though their protest shows that they thought they were saved).

Their protest suggests no such thing.

Matthew 25:44
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

37818
04-19-2014, 12:19 PM
. . . You didn't answer my question, however. Why did Jesus say this about children?Again, it is my understanding the kingdom of heaven was and is prepared for them. So how do you think one becomes as a little child? It is the requirement.
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:17.
I see John 3:3 being this same requirement. You seem not to see the connection.




I think you're understanding Jesus about as well as Nicodemus did. Where did you find the rendering "born over"? I've never seen that before. The Greek word translated "again" means literally "top," "above," or "over." So it is often been also translated "[from] above." The rendering as "over" is literal, and carries the same sense as "again." Nicodemus understood what Jesus was saying, but not how. Jesus explained the difference from physical birth and being born of the Spirit which is what God does (see John 1:13).


There you go again reducing salvation to 1 John 5:1. You keep going in circles with this. Salvation is through faith alone and God does the new birth.


I think you have the cause and effect backwards here.No. It is through faith which saves that comes before works which are never the requirement. (grace and works cancel each other, Romans 11:6.)
"But to him that worketh not, . . ." -- Romans 4:5.


It is God's will that none should perish (2 Pet. 3:9).It is a different word here meaning "desire."

.


One can never be saved in the first place if works are not done commensurate with faith. In the Matthew 25 passage I quoted earlier, Jesus rejected those who had not dere one works (though their protest shows that they thought they wsaved).Your understanding comes across, to me, as a counterfeit view of the gospel. (see Romans 4:5. Romans 11:6)


In context, this is not talking about a person's works, but how a leader builds the church in his charge.How do you come to that concussion? It explicitly speaks of every man's works.

One Bad Pig
04-19-2014, 02:50 PM
Perhaps I'll come back to this early next week. In the meantime, have a blessed Easter.

footwasher
04-29-2014, 07:08 AM
Again, it is my understanding the kingdom of heaven was and is prepared for them. So how do you think one becomes as a little child? It is the requirement.
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:17.
I see John 3:3 being this same requirement. You seem not to see the connection.

Belief results in receiving the Holy Spirit. Those who receive the Holy Spirit become like children, not under law. Only those not under law can enter the Kingdom.

The Greek word translated "again" means literally "top," "above," or "over." So it is often been also translated "[from] above." The rendering as "over" is literal, and carries the same sense as "again." Nicodemus understood what Jesus was saying, but not how. Jesus explained the difference from physical birth and being born of the Spirit which is what God does (see John 1:13).

Jesus said:
John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Realising who our Father is changes our priorities:

Acts 19:24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29“Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”


Salvation is through faith alone and God does the new birth.

Calvin and Luther never knew about the patron-client paradigm:

Quote
This now leads to an expansion of the pistis concept as derived from deSilva. As deSilva shows, the relationship between the believer and God is framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. As God's "clients" to whom he has shown unmerited favor (grace), our response should be, as Malina and Neyrey frame it, a "constant awareness" of prescribed duties toward those in whom we are indebted (God) and the group in which we are embedded (God's kin group, the body of Christ).

This "constant awareness" is the expression of our faithfulness of loyalty -- in other words, this is our pistis, or faith. "Faith" is not a feeling, but our pledge to trust, and be reliable servants to, our patron (God), who has provided us with tangible gifts (Christ) and proof thereby of His own reliability.

www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.php

Loyalty results in the giving of the Spirit:

Galatians 3: 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?


No. It is through faith which saves that comes before works which are never the requirement. (grace and works cancel each other, Romans 11:6.)
"But to him that worketh not, . . ." -- Romans 4:5.
Romans 11:5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace

Why is the remnant chosen by grace? Because they have been chosen because of loyalty, they have not bowed their knee to Baal, not because they have fulfilled the law.

Romans 4: 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:7“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8“BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

IOW, they did not work, they only did not switch loyalty to Baal.

How do you come to that concussion? It explicitly speaks of every man's works.

Works are fruit, which is right doctrine, which can give life to the dead. In the early church, every person contributed, some with a tongue, another with a psalm.

The teaching was tested against Scripture. Every sound teaching survived, unsound teaching was destroyed, the teacher's union with God was questioned, but he wasn't excommunicated, he survived, but as through fire:

Jeremiah 23:25“I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, ‘I had a dream, I had a dream!’ 26“How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart, 27who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal? 28“The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?” declares the LORD. 29“Is not My word like fire?” declares the LORD, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock? 30“Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the LORD, “who steal My words from each other. 31“Behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the LORD, “who use their tongues and declare, ‘The Lord declares.’ 32“Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams,” declares the LORD, “and related them and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit,” declares the LORD.

37818
05-07-2014, 12:21 PM
Belief results in receiving the Holy Spirit. Those who receive the Holy Spirit become like children, not under law. Only those not under law can enter the Kingdom.


Jesus said:
John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Realising who our Father is changes our priorities:

Acts 19:24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29“Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”



Calvin and Luther never knew about the patron-client paradigm:

Quote
This now leads to an expansion of the pistis concept as derived from deSilva. As deSilva shows, the relationship between the believer and God is framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. As God's "clients" to whom he has shown unmerited favor (grace), our response should be, as Malina and Neyrey frame it, a "constant awareness" of prescribed duties toward those in whom we are indebted (God) and the group in which we are embedded (God's kin group, the body of Christ).

This "constant awareness" is the expression of our faithfulness of loyalty -- in other words, this is our pistis, or faith. "Faith" is not a feeling, but our pledge to trust, and be reliable servants to, our patron (God), who has provided us with tangible gifts (Christ) and proof thereby of His own reliability.

www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.php

Loyalty results in the giving of the Spirit:

Galatians 3: 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?


Romans 11:5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace

Why is the remnant chosen by grace? Because they have been chosen because of loyalty, they have not bowed their knee to Baal, not because they have fulfilled the law.

Romans 4: 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:7“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8“BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

IOW, they did not work, they only did not switch loyalty to Baal.


Works are fruit, which is right doctrine, which can give life to the dead. In the early church, every person contributed, some with a tongue, another with a psalm.

The teaching was tested against Scripture. Every sound teaching survived, unsound teaching was destroyed, the teacher's union with God was questioned, but he wasn't excommunicated, he survived, but as through fire:

Jeremiah 23:25“I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, ‘I had a dream, I had a dream!’ 26“How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart, 27who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal? 28“The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?” declares the LORD. 29“Is not My word like fire?” declares the LORD, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock? 30“Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the LORD, “who steal My words from each other. 31“Behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the LORD, “who use their tongues and declare, ‘The Lord declares.’ 32“Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams,” declares the LORD, “and related them and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit,” declares the LORD.

Changing "faith" into a "pledge to trust," into a "loyalty" is a negation of God's grace [unmerited favor].


Salvation is through faith alone and God does the new birth.

" for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; . . ." -- Ephesians 2:8 ASV.

footwasher
05-07-2014, 10:30 PM
" for by favour have you been saved through loyalty and not law keeping; and even that favourable attitude towards your people group from God is unmerited, it is the gift of God; . . ." -- Ephesians 2:8




The letter to the church in Ephesus was addressed to a church founded by Gentiles:

Ephesians 2:11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Gentiles were called "dogs" and had no share in God's Covenant, a grace, a favour not worked for, that extended only to Jews:

Matthew 15:26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs."

God hardened the unbelief of the disloyal Jews so that Gentiles were now saved by a larger, more inclusive grace , now including them, but even that grace was like the grace bestowed on the Jews, an unmerited, favourable attitude extended towards them by God, even though they were not the largest or most noble of people groups, but were unrighteous, because there was no righteous group, not even one, without exception. So even the grace extended to Gentiles was a gift, giving no one room for boasting. Parallel found here:

Romans 3:22This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Some Jews were cut off for not believing Jesus was the Messiah, for disloyalty to God, but Gentiles were included because they obtained a righteousness that was not their own, and were preserved by loyalty:

Romans 11: 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.


Changing "faith" into a "pledge to trust," into a "loyalty" is a negation of God's grace [unmerited favor].



" for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; . . ." -- [I]Ephesians 2:8 ASV.

Obsidian
05-08-2014, 07:41 AM
How is loyalty different from lawkeeping?

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Truthseeker
05-08-2014, 09:19 AM
How is loyalty different from lawkeeping?

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.I'm not sure what you mean by "loyalty."

KingsGambit
05-08-2014, 09:35 AM
How is loyalty different from lawkeeping?

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Because loyalty is a state of mind rather than an action. Now, granted, it will lead to actions, but there's a semantical different.

Obsidian
05-08-2014, 09:58 AM
Lawkeeping includes states of mind.

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Deuteronomy 6:5
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart. . . .

footwasher
05-08-2014, 10:45 AM
Matthew 23:23You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness.


Good question. Loyalty is first of all confessing one king is better than another, maybe that one is a true leader, and the other, a false one. The shema,

Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.

is a confession that our God is the one true God and the other gods are false gods.

However, it is not sufficient to just admit that there is only one God, even the demons do that: one needs to demonstrate that loyalty.

James 2:21Was not Abraham our father justified (authenticated as a loyal follower) by works (obedient action) when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

The idea here is that confessing God is the only true God is not enough, as some people claimed, saying some have confessions of loyalty while others have opportunities to demonstrate that loyalty. The truth is , there IS NO situation where a confession is sufficient. Everything in your life changes when you switch loyalties, from following mammon to following God, including how you treat rich and poor visitors to your church, including how you respond to a brother in need.

Isn't that a type of law keeping? Well, those under the contract of law were bound by a formal list, the letter of the law. You could observe the law in letter and still be going against the spirit of the law. For example,the Law was given to limit retaliation, lex talionis. You couldn't kill a person for putting out your eye. Justice meant you could demand an equivalent injury to be inflicted on your opponent. However, nothing prevented you from foregoing vengeance, since God had withheld His wrath when we were sinning against Him. The spirit of the law was fairness, mercy and love. Observing the letter of the law often meant the spirit of the law was abandoned. Which was what the Jewish leadership was faulted for, by Christ (Matthew 23:23).

Those under the contract of grace, being in line to receive the gifting of the Kingdom, formerly only Jews, now Jews AND Gentiles, are only bound by the spirit of loyalty.

The contract of law (Old Covenant) existed as long as the signees lived. Christ qualified to represent all mankind by being the sinless sacrifice required by that contract. When He accepted death, the first Adam died.

Galatians 3:1You foolish Galatians, who has deceived you, before whose eyes Christ has been publicly portrayed as crucified?


The resurrected Christ now represents the second Adam, who is under the new contract, formalised by the blood of that new contract. Under this new contract, those who keep the law are in infraction, Christ is of no benefit to them. However those who manifest love, self control, sacrificial giving are following not the old contract, but the Eternal Law. These believers are not in infraction of ANY law.

Galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

An interesting exercise would be to study if those heroes of faith (loyalty) were observing the old contract or the new:

Hebrews 11:31By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

In contrast, entry into rest, the Kingdom of God was denied not for noncompliance, but disloyalty:

1 Corinthians 10:9Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.


How is loyalty different from lawkeeping?

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

37818
05-08-2014, 12:05 PM
" for by favour have you been saved through loyalty and not law keeping; and even that favourable attitude towards your people group from God is unmerited, it is the gift of God; . . ." -- Ephesians 2:8

<snip> . . .τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον



You seem to be making things up here. Please slow down and explain your thinking how you get to this.

37818
05-08-2014, 12:13 PM
<snip> . . .

James 2:21Was not Abraham our father justified (authenticated as a loyal follower) by works (obedient action) when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

<snip> . . . You do understand this justification of Abraham's by works followed years latter (Genesis 15:6 - Genesis 22:) after Abraham was justified without any kind of works what so ever.

". . . But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:5.

footwasher
05-08-2014, 12:16 PM
Your argument is with the theologyweb sister site, not me:

Quote
This now leads to an expansion of the pistis concept as derived from deSilva. As deSilva shows, the relationship between the believer and God is framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. As God's "clients" to whom he has shown unmerited favor (grace), our response should be, as Malina and Neyrey frame it, a "constant awareness" of prescribed duties toward those in whom we are indebted (God) and the group in which we are embedded (God's kin group, the body of Christ).

This "constant awareness" is the expression of our faithfulness of loyalty -- in other words, this is our pistis, or faith. "Faith" is not a feeling, but our pledge to trust and be reliable servants to our patron (God), who has provided us with tangible gifts (Christ) and proof thereby of His own reliability.

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.php


τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον



You seem to be making things up here. Please slow down and explain your thinking how you get to this.

footwasher
05-08-2014, 12:24 PM
You do realise James was giving the most incontrovertible, most striking, of Abraham's numerous acts of obedience? Before he believed God and was counted as loyal, Abraham obeyed.

Hebrews 11:8By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Romans 4 has interesting occurrences of faith, works, law, ungodly, etc.

They fit well into the view posted above.


You do understand this justification of Abraham's by works followed years latter (Genesis 15:6 - Genesis 22:) after Abraham was justified without any kind of works what so ever.

". . . But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:5.

37818
05-08-2014, 01:46 PM
Your argument is with the theologyweb sister site, not me: . . .
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.phpYou are presenting it. Explain the difference as you understand it.

37818
05-08-2014, 01:58 PM
You do realise James was giving the most incontrovertible, most striking, of Abraham's numerous acts of obedience? Before he believed God and was counted as loyal, Abraham obeyed.

Hebrews 11:8By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Romans 4 has interesting occurrences of faith, works, law, ungodly, etc.

They fit well into the view posted above.

Are you denying grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone?

The goal of salvation is the works. But the works are not the requirement. Rather, the works are to be a result of salvation.

"By faith Abraham, when he was called . . ." Even this obedience follows faith. And no way makes the works any kind of requirement. But like the example James used. Faith precedes works. And how many years of faith preceded that work? Abram was 75 year old.

Obsidian
05-08-2014, 03:47 PM
Actually, Abraham violated what God said for many years, by taking his father along with him, and by not going the full distance to Canaan. But this talk about Abraham is largely beside the point.


However, it is not sufficient to just admit that there is only one God, even the demons do that: one needs to demonstrate that loyalty.

So now you further obliterate the distinction that KingsGambit tried to make between actions (supposedly the law) and thoughts (supposedly faith). Now you say that we don't just need loyalty or thoughts, but we need to demonstrate it through actions in order to be saved. So much for being saved by inward thinking.

Footwasher, I think that you -- along with basically every other Catholic and legalist -- have an incredibly low view of the law. Paul stated that the law of God is holy. It didn't need to be supplemented with any loyalty. The law DEMANDED loyalty. That was one of the laws:

Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thoughtful Monk
05-08-2014, 04:21 PM
Because loyalty is a state of mind rather than an action. Now, granted, it will lead to actions, but there's a semantical different.

Good point.

I find its hard for me to tell if a person has a state of mind rather than just doing an action. I'm glad its God who makes the final judgment on which a person is practicing.

KingsGambit
05-08-2014, 05:59 PM
Good point.

I find its hard for me to tell if a person has a state of mind rather than just doing an action. I'm glad its God who makes the final judgment on which a person is practicing.

Me too. God knows our hearts, and the Bible is filled with warnings that God doesn't look kindly on empty actions without love or thought behind them.