Another thread on eternal security! [Archive]

View Full Version : Another thread on eternal security!

Amazing Rando

October 31st 2004, 10:08 AM

Perhaps to further express my incredulity over the doctrine of eternal security as concernes our real-life experiences, I'd like to make mention of a recent case brought forth on Tweb.

RightIdea has recently expressed his joy that a friend of his was recently delivered from the clutches of the "Landmark Education" cult, a point over which I happily rejoice with him. :joy: But during her ordeal, he made several comments which intrigued me and which I'd like to explore further.

In a post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=651861&postcount=24), he says:

It has come to an end. She is now spewing lies about me and the team at her blog, including claiming that I'm obsessed with her and practically stalking her. It is so painful to see, you have no idea. But, it's over.

I'll see her in Heaven, even if not until then.

:bawl:

RI posted this when it appeared that his friend was deeply and irrevocably lost to this "Landmark" cult. Thankfully, the Lord once again proved that when all hope appears lost to us, it's not lost to Him.

But what really piqued my curiostity was his last sentence. RI believed that his friend was lost to this cult and had rejected Christianity once and for all... yet he then says that he'll see her in heaven. :huh: Now I know RI believes in eternal security, but when he said this, it made little sense to me.

Do you believe that God actively saves people who have apostatized and have rejected him?

geebob

October 31st 2004, 10:41 AM

It sounds like salvation is thought of more in terms of legal loopholes, aka she signed an unbreakable contract that is binding even if she doesn't hold up her end (or perhaps there is no required end) instead of using relationship as the primary mode of understanding.

If she rejects God's grace, there is no relationship. If there is no relationship, there is no salvation as salvation is relationship, and not merely a destination after death.

Amazing Rando

October 31st 2004, 10:48 AM

smaller

October 31st 2004, 02:30 PM

If there is no "eternal security" now why should there be in the "future?"

All you gotta do to prove "temporal security" is provide one named example from the sciptures.

Hint: there is none.

7thangel

October 31st 2004, 03:00 PM

If she rejects God's grace, there is no relationship. If there is no relationship, there is no salvation as salvation is relationship, and not merely a destination after death.
I think it is the right time for others to realize that our relationship with God does not at all depend on our "being" but rather of God's plans. Come to think of it that we are chosen before the foundation of the world, much more of what Ephesians 2:10 says, and also of Romans 9:20-21. We also have an account of the conversion of Paul, the choosing of Jacob rather than Esau, the fact of Faith being a gift, saved by the blood and death of Christ, being changed to a new creature, and others.....but mostly, being chosen according to God's own purpose and will. We have more that enough to whow that our salvation was not obtained through our own willing.

We all agree that man need God's help to be saved, but who among us do not need help? Other's may say, "Yeah, but they do not have a prure heart!" But what do we make of Romans 10:1-3? Don't these mentioned Israelites seek God with zeal and need help, same as we are before, to know Him? And check what we profess? Isn't it we profess that God is the none who change our hearts and minds? So why then should we argue about ones' will and hearts and not let God change it according to His own will and purpose?

My contention is that let us not judge men according to works, nor according to what we see and hear, rather let us judge men according to what we can perceive as God's plan to the person. Backsliding does not at all meant that the person had denied God, rather they are even used for the good of those who God had chosen. As Paul said, "...all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." We see evidence of this on the story of Jacob and Esau; as on how Jacob got the blessing by deceiving his father Isaac. Wasn't Paul used the story to show that God's salvation is not about works at all, even choosing a deceiver(Jacob)? Not only is Jacob a deceiver, but he feared his brother Esau more than God? I know some would twist what Paul meant. But in any case, what is the point of Paul making emphasis of "being chosen before birth" mean when all alone he was chosen according to his heart and willing?

I submit even among us, theists, have different knowledge of who God is, which if taken seriously, if one is right among all others, they who errs are being against God in fact. As Paul said, "...when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." And unless we understand what exactly salvation meant and of how it is working to a person, we do not have authority to condemn, nor even profess when a person is, or not, saved.

Saying that a person errs is really different to saying that a person is saved. See the man who died on the cross with Jesus? He was saved even before the foundation of the world. The gospel speaks of salvation as a gift concerning one man's fate, or destiny. While the law speaks of salvation as a reward for man to work for. It is find that we speak salvation in terms of the law, especially when we are still neophytes hence we are being subject to the law until we receive the faith. But if we have received the faith, and have matured enough,we profess the grace and truth that are being revealed through the gospel of Christ, that salvation is a gift of God, and not to be confused of the reasons why we, or others, speaks unto the neophytes to work for their salvation. Amen.

7thangel

geebob

October 31st 2004, 04:05 PM

I think it is the right time for others to realize that our relationship with God does not at all depend on our "being" but rather of God's plans.

good thing I didn't assert that.

but rather of God's plans.

of course God takes the mammoth effort to do what it takes to save us. But if there is no reciprocation, there is no relationship.

We also have an account of the conversion of Paul,

Paul responded to God. Who's to say that he couldn't go to his death as a blind man refusing Christ? perhaps he like others choosen of God such as saul and balaam could have turned away.

And then again, perhaps Paul could not have resisted his calling to bring the message to the gentiles, which is not to say that everyone is like that.

the choosing of Jacob rather than Esau,

they were choosen for a purpose, not for salvation and damnation. They were choosen according to the promise. What was that promise? That God would bless all the nations through the seed of abraham. The promise was not that jacob would be saved from eternal hell while Esau would be damned to hell.

The prophecy was not for esau to be damned and hated and Jacob saved and loved. No, the prophecy was that the older would serve the younger. And the fulfillment was "jacob I loved and Esau I hated". Did the prophecy have to be filled that way? Is God so powerless that he can only fulfill his prophecies in very few and limited ways?

We have more that enough to whow that our salvation was not obtained through our own willing.

Well, to be faithful to paul's meaning, our salvation is not obtained through the will, ie the decision of the husband. That is it isn't up to jewish decent as the Jews counted on but now it was according to faith in christ. The greek word could just as easily be translated as husband and that is what makes sense in light of the historical context and not this 16th century debate on predestination and free will.

But what do we make of Romans 10:1-3? Don't these mentioned Israelites seek God with zeal and need help, same as we are before, to know Him?

It says they didn't know him and sought to establish their own righteousness.

And then Paul concludes with Isaiah that it wasn't due to any lack of effort on God's behalf.

"All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Backsliding does not at all meant that the person had denied God, rather they are even used for the good of those who God had chosen. As Paul said, "...all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

so if you cease to love God, all things will no longer work out to your good.

But in any case, what is the point of Paul making emphasis of "being chosen before birth" mean when all alone he was chosen according to his heart and willing?

His point was contrary to his opponents that It's up to God's decision with regard to his requirements and it is not up to whether we identify with the Jews by following the Mosaic law. That they were choosen before birth wasn't paul's point. That they were choosen before birth demonstrated that God's choice did not depend upon whether Jacob or Esau followed the Mosaic law. It was the identification of the choosen body (not choosen individuals) that was on paul's mind. That Jacob and esau were choosen before birth and that they were individuals is just as irrelevent to the illustration as is the fact that pots were clay and had to be fired. Not everything in an illustration is relevent to the point of the illustration. If you insist it so, then maybe we christians should literrally be made of clay and should fire ourselves in an oven.

As Paul said, "...when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."

no where in scripture is knowledge of God outlined by who holds to calvinism and who doesn't. God is identified in two ways, through relationships (The God of Abraham, Jacob and David) and through his actions (Creator, Redeamer (from egypt) Judge, etc), particularly his historical actions, which is way the narrative is so important in Judeo-Christian piety.

the man who died on the cross with Jesus? He was saved even before the foundation of the world.

that isn't scriptural.

While the law speaks of salvation as a reward for man to work for.

no, this was a mistake of protestants starting with martin luther and is a big reason as to why certain scriptures have been mistakenly used as prooftexts for calvinism.

The Jews did not believe that they earned salvation due to a reward by the law. They were already saved. The law was to help one become one of the choosen, the saved, the beneficiaries of grace. And it was to help them to continue to be one of the choosen.

misterguss

February 7th 2005, 05:36 PM

spiritmech

February 7th 2005, 05:44 PM

I find myself agreeing with AR a good bit recently. It must be a touch of the flu.
SM

spiritmech

February 7th 2005, 05:50 PM

When a person puts their faith in the Biblical teachings of what Christ did for them, what happens?

If you agree with the belief that they are now able to have a relationship with God because Jesus' blood has now covered all their sin, then how is it possible not to believe in eternal security?

If Jesus' blood truly did cover all that person's sin at the point of regeneration, how could anything they do from that point on disqualify them for what they just received? Either you believe Jesus' blood covers all sin or you don't...and if you don't believe in eternal security, then how can you believe that Jesus' blood covers all sin?

You can't because your belief proves that Jesus' blood is limited to a person's actions even after regeneration.

Well what you'd have to say here is (since she has fallen away) that Calvinism would say she was never predestined to be saved. It's a misinterpretation of Calvinism to say if you've accepted Jesus and then fallen away that you're still saved. Rather, Calvinism explains apostacy by arguing she was never saved. Jesus's blood never covered her sins. It was false, it was a forgery. She is not, and never was, regenerate.

SM

Sheepdog

February 7th 2005, 06:19 PM

When a person puts their faith in the Biblical teachings of what Christ did for them, what happens?

If you agree with the belief that they are now able to have a relationship with God because Jesus' blood has now covered all their sin, then how is it possible not to believe in eternal security?

If Jesus' blood truly did cover all that person's sin at the point of regeneration, how could anything they do from that point on disqualify them for what they just received? Either you believe Jesus' blood covers all sin or you don't...and if you don't believe in eternal security, then how can you believe that Jesus' blood covers all sin?

You can't because your belief proves that Jesus' blood is limited to a person's actions even after regeneration.

because many of use don't believe sin disqualifies people from salvation, it is hardened disbelief that does.

Jaltus

February 7th 2005, 06:24 PM

Trout

February 7th 2005, 07:13 PM

Hey Jaltus,

I seem to recall that there are many good scholars who disagree with you on the Hebrews passage. Why are you right and they wrong?

Jaltus

February 7th 2005, 07:41 PM

Hey Jaltus,

I seem to recall that there are many good scholars who disagree with you on the Hebrews passage. Why are you right and they wrong?

Do you want me to argue from the Greek? That is what it would take.

Also, I convinced Peter O'Brien (a well known Calvinist NT scholar) that my take on Hebrews was more likely than his. He is currently writing a commentary on Hebrews (I think for the BECNT), and he mentioned that he might make use of some of my work, though he will end up disagreeing with me overall.

Trout, I think the real reason Calvinist or OSAS scholars will disagree with me is their previous bias. I read Hebrews as a Calvinist and came away an Arminian.

smaller

February 7th 2005, 07:50 PM

Greetings Jaltus

You wrote:

Hebrews makes it very clear that salvation can be lost.

Perhaps you can provide one named example of any "christian" who has lost their eternal salvation???

There was certainly ample time passed from the time of Christ's Resurrection to come up with at least one named example....The Holy Spirit could have provided at least one named example of this supposed "fate" and then disclosed it to any of the Apostles/writers...

enjoy!

smaller

Xavier

February 7th 2005, 07:52 PM

Sure... How about any Apostate currently present at TWeb? You've got plenty to choose from.

That also seems to be a rather handy way of dodging any exegetical work on Hebrews that Jaltus presented here and elsewhere.

Yours,
Xavier

Trout

February 7th 2005, 08:46 PM

Do you want me to argue from the Greek? That is what it would take.

I'm afraid the argument would be lost on this farmer.

Jaltus:
Also, I convinced Peter O'Brien (a well known Calvinist NT scholar) that my take on Hebrews was more likely than his. He is currently writing a commentary on Hebrews (I think for the BECNT), and he mentioned that he might make use of some of my work, though he will end up disagreeing with me overall.

I think I read his work on Phillipians, (:huh: But you know how us old folks are about remembering things) he seems to be a pretty level-headed guy. But I think the book was like fifty bucks.

Jaltus:
Trout, I think the real reason Calvinist or OSAS scholars will disagree with me is their previous bias. I read Hebrews as a Calvinist and came away an Arminian.

I think bias plays a large role in many things, including Biblical exegesis.

Is the Hebrews passage the only one upon which you base your eternal security doctrine? Or does it seem to be the most convincing?

You know, as a Christian one of the most frequently asked questions I hear seem to be; can a Christian lose his salvation? I'm sure you field the same question rather regularly.

My typical answer is; Yes, as humans we have the ability to lose our salvation.

But . . .

smaller

February 7th 2005, 09:19 PM

Sure... How about any Apostate currently present at TWeb? You've got plenty to choose from.

I asked for scriptural references to the position via named examples. Perhaps even the "specific violations" that these named people did and therefore obtained their "anti-reward" would be in order as well???

One would think that if the Apostles taught such a fate for "believers" they must have surely seen this happen and had this so called Truth disclosed to them via the HS...but then again if there are no named examples, then the extraction of the position could be, just could be, extremely off base because it does fly in the face of many scriptures that are to the contrary.

The penalty for these so called "violations" does not have to be "permanent."

That also seems to be a rather handy way of dodging any exegetical work on Hebrews that Jaltus presented here and elsewhere.

I think we already know the list of scriptures that are against the position.

I do not even deny that there is scripture set that delivers the salvation loss equation, but there is absolutely ZERO scriptural evidence that the condition of "loss in this life" was PERMANENT and that then RESULTS in the eventual tossing of God's offspring (Acts 17:26-31) into the Lake of Fire.

I consider this simple question to be a legitimate criticism of the position.

Maybe you feel comfortable climbing out on the limb that sentences other people to eternal fates of torture in flames??? No man holds that position IMHO nor should any man think they can vaunt such a thing to others. Romans 2:1 strictly prohibits this practice to the unbeliever and calls the behaviour "inexcusable," yet alone to people who were possibly "once saved."

I do not however see any of the writers making this supposed doctrinal statement to any named person ever ever or even making a threat of such a doctrinal position to any named person, therefore forgive me for being skeptical of the presentation. There was one writer who was very mad when a supposed preacher called a certain group of Cretins as mere "liars."

The Jews did not even believe in "eternal torment" for people and they still don't to this day. Apparently such an important doctrine did not exist in the entire volume of the OT???

I do believe that just like Jesus, the Apostles and other writers also spoke to things that are in mankind THAT WERE NOT THE SAME AS MANKIND...when they were looking people right in the face...

If you cannot discern this DIFFERENCE then perhaps you are mistaking just who it is they were addressing????

enjoy!

smaller

Sheepdog

February 8th 2005, 01:23 AM

Perhaps you can provide one named example of any "christian" who has lost their eternal salvation???

no, but we know there were candidates. the writer of Hebrews was obviously aware of some who fell away. For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, ... and then have committed apostasy Hebrews 6:4, 6, NET. notice that the writer doesn't speak of this as though it were hypothetical: he was refering to specific people he aparently knew about.

Sheepdog

February 8th 2005, 01:44 AM

I asked for scriptural references to the position via named examples. Perhaps even the "specific violations" that these named people did and therefore obtained their "anti-reward" would be in order as well???

One would think that if the Apostles taught such a fate for "believers" they must have surely seen this happen and had this so called Truth disclosed to them via the HS...

i would note that this is an argument from silence, and a poor one at that. does the Bible tell use that the Disciples were saved? to my knowledge it does not, but we have good reason to believe it was so.

but then again if there are no named examples, then the extraction of the position could be, just could be, extremely off base because it does fly in the face of many scriptures that are to the contrary.

actually, i have not seen any such passages. i have seen passages which can be interpreted in that way, but only if the exegete takes them out of context.

you could enlighten us, though.

The penalty for these so called "violations" does not have to be "permanent."

the writer of Hebrews apparently would beg to differ.

I do not even deny that there is scripture set that delivers the salvation loss equation, but there is absolutely ZERO scriptural evidence that the condition of "loss in this life" was PERMANENT and that then RESULTS in the eventual tossing of God's offspring (Acts 17:26-31) into the Lake of Fire.

if by "ZERO" you mean to include Heb. 6 as an evidence, then i have to agree. :ahem:

Maybe you feel comfortable climbing out on the limb that sentences other people to eternal fates of torture in flames??? No man holds that position IMHO nor should any man think they can vaunt such a thing to others. Romans 2:1 strictly prohibits this practice to the unbeliever and calls the behaviour "inexcusable," yet alone to people who were possibly "once saved."

i don't get this. no one here is personally condemning any individual to hell. We are simply assenting to Scripture. Do you agree with Jesus that the "goats" in his parable of the sheep and the goats are going to hell?

The Jews did not even believe in "eternal torment" for people and they still don't to this day. Apparently such an important doctrine did not exist in the entire volume of the OT???

are you saying that there isn't an eternal hell? are you a universalist? :huh:

smaller

February 8th 2005, 02:06 AM

i would note that this is an argument from silence, and a poor one at that. does the Bible tell use that the Disciples were saved?

I would think that such a horrible eternal fate would be deserving of a more clear example eh? An argument from silence only means that the exact position that is postulated is largely non-existent.

The Disciples and other servents of God are indeed described and advised many many times of their eternal rewards. I will be happy to dig out the proof texts if you think these specifics are absent.

to my knowledge it does not, but we have good reason to believe it was so.

You are right. There is no named example in the entire bible of any named person suffering the fate of eternal torment YET ALONE a Christian.

actually, i have not seen any such passages. i have seen passages which can be interpreted in that way, but only if the exegete takes them out of context.

Are you saying there is no scripture for eternal security of the believer??? lol

I am sure someone will take the trouble to provide them for you.

the writer of Hebrews apparently would beg to differ.

The writer of Hebrews gave no named examples of any believer suffering the fate of eternal torment. Many of the writers do speak of believers being again deceived by the devil. Why is it you want to see your fellow soldier burned alive at the stake. Not even worldly armies behave in such a way...

This is our admonishment:

Galatians 6:1
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Why do you condemn the slaves of sin with the tempter??? Such an action on your part would exhibit more the work of the enemy than the work of God.

if by "ZERO" you mean to include Heb. 6 as an evidence, then i have to agree. :ahem:

And you continually fail to consider that ALL of the writers did address things in mankind that WERE NOT THE SAME AS MANKIND. But of course when one is blind to the most very obvious things they will certainly fall into false condemnation...ahem...

i don't get this. no one here is personally condemning any individual to hell.

Oh baloney! You merely say GOD SAYS not me!

The truth of the matter however is that GOD DID NOT SAY. Only YOU say, and this "say" is only a reflection of WHAT IS IN YOUR OWN HEART shown to YOU from The Word....ahem...Word...

We are simply assenting to Scripture.

Ah, you are assenting to your own reflection.

Do you agree with Jesus that the "goats" in his parable of the sheep and the goats are going to hell?

I believe for a CERTAINTY that the Goats are headed to the ETERNAL FLAMES.

Perhaps it is you who does not see that there are NO PEOPLE said to be heading there to the FIRE, ONLY GOATS and THE DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS. [u]Is it just ever remotely remotely possible that that Goats DWELL with the sheep prior to their SEPARATION, like IN THE FLESH of MANKIND and that the nations of the GOATS, the DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS are the ones separated from their dwelling place, the FLESH of MANKIND, the SHEEP, the NATIONS of men???

Perhaps the mystery of iniquity is a lesson that you missed??? You know the World Government called MYSTERY BABYLON, and Jerusalem of the earth which is called in the scriptures spiritual SODOM and EGYPT???

You as a supposed SHEEP could give the matter more serious study, but unfortunately most are simply locked into the blind condemnation of other peoplefor what is ALSO IN THEM even though this is an inexcusable practice per Romans 2:1.

You appear to be no exception to this difficulty and this too is a sign of slavery to the enemies.

are you saying that there isn't an eternal hell? are you a universalist? :huh:

I believe in every single eternal damnation scripture. Love has afforded me a BETTER WAY to see The Truth of them.

And yes, I am a Universal Reconciliationist per the multitude of scriptures that openly present the position to ALL including you.

enjoy!

smaller

misterguss

February 8th 2005, 02:35 AM

Conditional Security refers to how nobody can take your salvation from you, but you can give it up yourself.What must a person do in order to give up their salvation? Since the only way to give up salvation in your view is by "falling away" (sin), then what does Heb. 8:12 mean?

Heb 8:12- For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.

Falling away can't refer to loosing salvation since nothing we do from the point of regeneration will disqualify us from salvation since Jesus' blood covered our sin and He will not remember our sin.
Hebrews makes it very clear that salvation can be lost.

Hebrews 6:4-6 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Hebrews 10:28-31 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Scripture is very clear on this issue: salvation can in fact be lost in that it is given away, but it cannot be taken away.If you think these passages in Hebrews are referring to a person loosing their salvation, it would be going against Rom. 8:28-39 and Heb. 8:12.

I don't see why "falling away" must be interpreted as either "once saved then lost" or "professed believers who were never really saved." I don't agree with either of these points...and I don't think we should limit it to just these 2 views.

I think the most accurate view would be that of a "saved person who backslides." I think a backsliding Christian is saved since Jesus' blood covered all their sin and that He will not remember their sin (Heb. 8:12). Jesus' blood is not limited to a person's actions!
A backsliding Christian who has fallen away will not be restored in his/her fellowship/communion (Heb. 6:4-6) with God but will always have salvation.

7thangel

February 18th 2005, 01:52 PM

First off, the use of "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated" is a Calvinist misrepresentation of Scripture, as Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3.

Malachi 1:2-5 2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert." 4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'" 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, "Great is the LORD beyond the border of Israel!"

Note the change of proper noun in verse 4. Esau here is a reference to the NATION which came from him, Edom. Thus, God is not talking about the election of one over the other, He is talking about His choice between Israel and other nations. THerefore, when Paul quotes this, so is he. To assume Paul means the individuals means one assumes Paul is misusing Scripture.No need to be an expert in Greek, Jaltus, to see the obvious point of Paul. Paul is plainly speaking of God's election(salvation) in Romans, as thus also of Malachi, and thus he did not misuse the verse of Malachi.

The key point of Paul mentioning Jacob and Esau is that God's salvation is not of him that willeth, but of God that showeth mercy. In fact, as you read in Malachi, Edom, or Esau, is WILLING to return to God.

4Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places

But God said,

They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

So whatever the distiction of God's choice for Jacob and Esau is affecting salvation(Note that God is responsible for Edom's eternal indignation despite Edom's will to return). Understand what is the implication of God's response to Edom; it is synonymous to cursing them.

The implication of the question: "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" is that Esau and Jacob are rightful heirs of the promise being coming from the loins of Abraham, therefore both are counted 'of the seed.' But, again, according to God's election, He chose Jacob. For what reason? Is it of good works, or, somehow, influenced by anything good or evil in the two brethren? It has nothing to do with any of them pleasing God. In fact, Paul said,

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Again, note that God is declaring something that He purposed between Esau and Jacob. It is God's own work that the elder, Esau, shall serve the younger, Jacob. And in fact, as Isaac blessed the two, Esau was given the blessing to serve his younger brother, Jacob.

But mind you, Jaltus. The blessing to be a servant of a brother is actually a curse. See the allegory of Isaac and Ishmael! Ismael is son of a servant while Isaac is a son of the free. The promises to the seed is that they are set to be rulers, lords and kings; and that is contradictory to being a servant, especially of their own brethren. Read in Malachi what God promised to do to Edom, isn't it a curse?

Let me explain a little bit of the message of Malachi 1. The first five verses speak of the concept of God's election and whom He chose, which is Israel. Unfortunately for Israel, the TRUE ISRAEL to whom God will give His pormises will be with the gentiles, see verse 11. Seeing that the salvation of God rests solely on God's election, as implied in the first five verses, the reason why Israel cannot recover, though it has the WILL to seek God like Edom is because God had forsaken her like Edom. In short, God is responsible of the fall of Israel. That is the message of Malachi 1.

Blessed are the eyes that see.

Sincerely,
7thangel

GoBahnsen

February 19th 2005, 06:37 PM

Well what you'd have to say here is (since she has fallen away) that Calvinism would say she was never predestined to be saved. It's a misinterpretation of Calvinism to say if you've accepted Jesus and then fallen away that you're still saved. Rather, Calvinism explains apostacy by arguing she was never saved. Jesus's blood never covered her sins. It was false, it was a forgery. She is not, and never was, regenerate.

SMAhhh, but maybe she is. Time will tell. Who are any of us to think God is through with her? Many would have said the same about me at times. I have feared for myself in the past, when I looked at my life-style. I had no good reason to believe I was saved. I may have been, but at the time I didn't give evidence that I was.

Yet, I see now that God wasn't going to leave me there. He applied the necessary pressure. He is really good at getting my right arm way up behind my back. I feared He might cause it to come out of socket, so I cried "Jesus" (instead of uncle-it's Jesus in this one). It hurt, but soon yielded the peaceable fruit of righteousness and He continues to bear fruit in my life.

You see, the whole argument with a Calvinist is that God doesn't start something, in Salvation, to leave off part way. It is He who began, not WE who began a good work in us. I can see where those who deny irresistible grace and think that their decision got it started for them, would easily believe they can get away from God's hand as well.

I'm thankful that my salvation is not dependent on me, but rather my Savior, who ever lives to make intersession for me. That doesn't mean I kick back and call myself elect. No, I must by God's grace "make my calling and election sure." Being confident that it is God who is at work in me both to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

Calvinist4Him

February 20th 2005, 01:16 AM

Ahhh, but maybe she is. Time will tell. Who are any of us to think God is through with her? Many would have said the same about me at times. I have feared for myself in the past, when I looked at my life-style. I had no good reason to believe I was saved. I may have been, but at the time I didn't give evidence that I was.

Yet, I see now that God wasn't going to leave me there. He applied the necessary pressure. He is really good at getting my right arm way up behind my back. I feared He might cause it to come out of socket, so I cried "Jesus" (instead of uncle-it's Jesus in this one). It hurt, but soon yielded the peaceable fruit of righteousness and He continues to bear fruit in my life.

You see, the whole argument with a Calvinist is that God doesn't start something, in Salvation, to leave off part way. It is He who began, not WE who began a good work in us. I can see where those who deny irresistible grace and think that their decision got it started for them, would easily believe they can get away from God's hand as well.

I'm thankful that my salvation is not dependent on me, but rather my Savior, who ever lives to make intersession for me. That doesn't mean I kick back and call myself elect. No, I must by God's grace "make my calling and election sure." Being confident that it is God who is at work in me both to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

:thumb: Nice post brother GB!

Sparko

February 20th 2005, 02:05 AM

Scripture is very clear on this issue: salvation can in fact be lost in that it is given away, but it cannot be taken away. God said no one can snatch those he has given Jesus from his hands.
You say that it doesn’t mean you can’t walk away on your own.

1. There is no conceivable way that someone/something could even attempt to snatch people from God’s hand that did not eventually boil down to getting the believer to “walk away” – because belief is the very foundation of faith. You have to get them to "give it away" in order to take their faith from them.

2. Example. Satan convinces you to “walk away” by attacking your faith. This is functionally equivalent to him snatching you from God’s hand.

3. If this is true then God’s promise that no one can snatch you away from him is an empty promise.

4. Therefore you won’t walk away once you submit yourself fully to God.

Questions (from Charles Stanley's book "Eternal Security"):

If Christ came to seek and save that which was lost, and yet we can somehow become unsaved – and therefore undo what Christ came to do – would it not be wise for God to take us on to heaven the moment we are saved in order to insure we make it? Isn’t it unnecessarily risky to force us to stay here?

If our salvation is not secure, how could Jesus say about those whom He gives eternal life, “and they shall never perish” (John 10:28). If even one man or woman receives eternal life and then forfeits it through sin or apostasy, will they not perish? And by doing so not make Jesus’ words a lie?

If salvation wasn’t permanent, why introduce the concept of adoption? Adoption indicates a permanent relationship that can’t be undone by the adopted. Can my adopted son decide he no longer wants to be my son? Would a loving father allow his adopted son to become unadopted? Wouldn’t it have been better for the bible to describe salvation in terms of a conditional legal contract between man and God, instead of calling us his adopted children?

The bible tells us we are sealed as belonging to God (Eph 1:13-14 and 2 Cor 1:21-22) – What good is a seal that can be continually removed and reapplied? What does it really seal?

If we are spiritually born again when we believe, do we spiritually die when we stop believing, then get spiritually reborn yet again when we believe again, and so on? Does God give us a new spirit, take it away, give it again, take it away, etc?

James Peter

February 26th 2005, 10:56 AM

Sheepdog

February 26th 2005, 01:15 PM

God said no one can snatch those he has given Jesus from his hands.
You say that it doesn’t mean you can’t walk away on your own.

of course. because the concept of "snatching" implies something external taking by force.

1. There is no conceivable way that someone/something could even attempt to snatch people from God’s hand that did not eventually boil down to getting the believer to “walk away” – because belief is the very foundation of faith. You have to get them to "give it away" in order to take their faith from them.

yet, the person still would have to give it up by one's own freewill?

2. Example. Satan convinces you to “walk away” by attacking your faith. This is functionally equivalent to him snatching you from God’s hand.

unless Satan deterministicaly cause the person to walk away, i don't see how it qualifies as snatching away.

3. If this is true then God’s promise that no one can snatch you away from him is an empty promise.

i don't think so. not just considering the above, but this passage also indicates that God isn't going to allow someone to deceive or coerce you out of the faith. though people may try: yet, God gave the martyrs of the early church the strength to not fall away, despite vicious persecution.

4. Therefore you won’t walk away once you submit yourself fully to God.

hmm. that is actually a nice sentiment. and in fact i agree. However, i have yet to meet a Christians who is submitted fully to God. even those who think they are, i've observed, have skeletons in their closets they don't know about.

but yeah, i agree: if we were perfect, we would never fall away. :doh:

Questions (from Charles Stanley's book "Eternal Security"):

If Christ came to seek and save that which was lost, and yet we can somehow become unsaved – and therefore undo what Christ came to do – would it not be wise for God to take us on to heaven the moment we are saved in order to insure we make it? Isn’t it unnecessarily risky to force us to stay here?

why would it be? doesn't God fully know what will happen in the future?

If our salvation is not secure, how could Jesus say about those whom He gives eternal life, “and they shall never perish” (John 10:28). If even one man or woman receives eternal life and then forfeits it through sin or apostasy, will they not perish? And by doing so not make Jesus’ words a lie?

actually, in other contexts even Jesus assented that perseverence was necessary to be saved (e.g., Matt. 24:13). this doesn't make Jesus into a liar, as in a high-context society (yes, i know i'm slowly turning into a mini-J.P.Holding) Jesus didn't need to go into those details, as he spoke about it in other contexts and thus it was expected that his audience understood that that was part of this.

does John 10:28 make Jesus' promise in Matt. 24:13 a lie?

If salvation wasn’t permanent, why introduce the concept of adoption? Adoption indicates a permanent relationship that can’t be undone by the adopted. Can my adopted son decide he no longer wants to be my son? Would a loving father allow his adopted son to become unadopted? Wouldn’t it have been better for the bible to describe salvation in terms of a conditional legal contract between man and God, instead of calling us his adopted children?

the most important question i have here, of course, is did the Jews of that day have the same presumptions about adoption as we do today? this seems assumed in the above rather than proven.

more importantly, my understanding of the adoption imagery is that it's purpose in the Bible isn't to describe a legally binding "relationship," but to describe the circumstances of how we come to be in a relationship with God. we were once at emnity with Him, but now we are His children. to pigeonhole that into a case for unconditional security, IMO, is disengenuous. who are we to interpret some significance out of Biblical imagery if there is no reason to suspect that that was the author's intent?

The bible tells us we are sealed as belonging to God (Eph 1:13-14 and 2 Cor 1:21-22) – What good is a seal that can be continually removed and reapplied? What does it really seal?

first, i'm not convinced that one can be saved "again." though there are a some who hold to that, i'd prefer not to be rubber stamped as being among them.

but again we need to be careful not to anachronistically interpret something out of some Biblical imagery if it isn't the author's intent (really, the Author's intent). i wrote this in a recent update to my site:

Another notion that is often used to support the view that once a person is saved, they are always saved, is the imagery Paul uses of "being sealed by the Spirit." Here is the actual text: And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ-you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:13-14, NET. Also, And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30, NET. The argument often stems from the view that if God seals you, and indeed if He seals you with the Holy Spirit, then it is impossible for us to break that seal. The seal would have to be broken, they reason, in order for a Christian to apostisize.

However, this argument goes too far. Paul is drawing from the imagery of his day -- the seal. Regard another context where Paul uses the same imagery ZIBBC reports, "...Seals in antiquity were widely used and extremely important to commerce and everyday life. On a document, the seal serves as a signature, guaranteeing its authenticity. Parcels could be sealed to ensure that their contents were not disturbed in transit. The seal itself was made of stone, metal, or ivory, which was then pressed into soft wax or lead to make a distinctive impression."1 Yet seals were by no means indestructable. In fact, it may have been a crime to break a seal (if in fact you were not the one whom the property belongs to), however a seal is physically destructable. Jesus' tomb was sealed with a Roman seal (cf. Matt. 27:66). Yet, presumably it was broken when the stone was rolled back one Sunday morning. Thus, Paul's usage seems to actually suggest the opposite, one may free oneself from the seal of the Holy Spirit, but not without considerable effort.

However what if in reality, we are actually missing Paul's point? What if there is something else in the imagery Paul is trying to call to mind? The ancient seal also would have an intricate image, which was unique to the owner of the seal.2 Hence, by being sealed by the Spirit, we bear God's image... not just as Adam did, but in a unique, personal way. Hence, looking at the context of Eph. 4:30, I find it bizarre that Paul would be talking about salvation when refering to the seal. However, the mandate to not grieve the Spirit makes perfect sense if in fact the seal represents God's image imprinted on us. Why return to the same old ways, when we bear His mark? While it would be more challenging to argue from the context, I can see someone using this view as well in regards to Paul's usage of the seal imagery in Eph. 1:13-14. But even if not, as noted above a seal also signified ownership, so in context it may represent God's ownership of the Christian rather than unbreakability of such.

1. Arnold, Clinton E. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 3. p. 203. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.

2. ibid.

http://www.john15.net/arm/ca1.php#seal

If we are spiritually born again when we believe, do we spiritually die when we stop believing, then get spiritually reborn yet again when we believe again, and so on? Does God give us a new spirit, take it away, give it again, take it away, etc?

no.

Sparko

February 26th 2005, 02:48 PM

JohnSparks:
God said no one can snatch those he has given Jesus from his hands.You say that it doesn’t mean you can’t walk away on your own.

of course. because the concept of "snatching" implies something external taking by force.

So, give me an example of how Satan could theoretically force you into giving up your faith that does not involve you voluntarily stop believing. If you can't then the promise is an empty one.

In other words, give me an example of what God is promising to prevent from happening when he says "no one can snatch them from my hand" - an actual scenario.

JohnSparks: 1. There is no conceivable way that someone/something could even attempt to snatch people from God’s hand that did not eventually boil down to getting the believer to “walk away” – because belief is the very foundation of faith. You have to get them to "give it away" in order to take their faith from them.

yet, the person still would have to give it up by one's own freewill?

Right. There is no way someone can steal faith from someone that does not boil down to the person of faith voluntarily giving up his belief. All anyone can do is convince you not to believe anymore. And that means it always boils down to you "walking away"

JohnSparks - 2. Example. Satan convinces you to “walk away” by attacking your faith. This is functionally equivalent to him snatching you from God’s hand.

unless Satan deterministicaly cause the person to walk away, i don't see how it qualifies as snatching away.

I am saying there is no way for Satan to deterministically cause you to lose your faith. The only way Satan can "snatch" you is to convince you to give up your faith.

So that puts a dent in the claim that no one can snatch you but you can walk away. All cases of someone losing their faith is walking away. Their is no way for someone to take your faith away. No LOGICAL way. So if you can still lose your faith, God promising to keep you safe and stop anyone from snatching you is just an empty promise. Because

1. No one ever could snatch you away (in the way you mean) even if God did not make that promise
2. Anyone can still lose their faith (by giving it up) even though God did make the promise.

The promise makes no sense and serves no purpose if you can just walk away.

He might as well have said "I promise that no invisible pink unicorns will cause you to lose your faith."

JohnSparks - 3. If this is true then God’s promise that no one can snatch you away from him is an empty promise.

i don't think so. not just considering the above, but this passage also indicates that God isn't going to allow someone to deceive or coerce you out of the faith. though people may try: yet, God gave the martyrs of the early church the strength to not fall away, despite vicious persecution.

People get decieved and coerces out of their faith all the time. If the faith is the truth then anything that causes you to stop beleiving in it is deciet. When an atheist on TWEB tells a christian that their is no God and tries to convince them of that fact, that is coersion. If they succeed, and you give up your faith, is that not snatching you from God's hand? Did he not succeed in getting you to leave the faith?

(my solution is that 1. either the christian did not have true saving faith in the first place, or 2. he is like the prodigal son, and will return to God later and be reconciled and so has not truly lost salvation)

JohnSparks - 4. Therefore you won’t walk away once you submit yourself fully to God.

hmm. that is actually a nice sentiment. and in fact i agree. However, i have yet to meet a Christians who is submitted fully to God. even those who think they are, i've observed, have skeletons in their closets they don't know about.

but yeah, i agree: if we were perfect, we would never fall away.

Not what I was saying. I was saying if you are a true Christian and are saved, then you will not leave the faith (unless as a prodigal son as I stated above)

JohnSparks - Questions (from Charles Stanley's book "Eternal Security"):

If Christ came to seek and save that which was lost, and yet we can somehow become unsaved – and therefore undo what Christ came to do – would it not be wise for God to take us on to heaven the moment we are saved in order to insure we make it? Isn’t it unnecessarily risky to force us to stay here?

why would it be? doesn't God fully know what will happen in the future?

Well, let's say you CAN be saved one day and then lost the next. Fred is saved on tuesday and yet on Friday God knows he will give up his faith and be on his way to hell. Since God knows Fred is bound for heaven on Tuesday, shouldn't God go ahead and kill Fred before Friday in order to save his soul? So if you can lose your salvation, it would behoove God to kill you before you can lose it again. Unless he wants you to go to hell.

Johnsparks - If our salvation is not secure, how could Jesus say about those whom He gives eternal life, “and they shall never perish” (John 10:28). If even one man or woman receives eternal life and then forfeits it through sin or apostasy, will they not perish? And by doing so not make Jesus’ words a lie?

actually, in other contexts even Jesus assented that perseverence was necessary to be saved (e.g., Matt. 24:13). this doesn't make Jesus into a liar, as in a high-context society (yes, i know i'm slowly turning into a mini-J.P.Holding) Jesus didn't need to go into those details, as he spoke about it in other contexts and thus it was expected that his audience understood that that was part of this.

does John 10:28 make Jesus' promise in Matt. 24:13 a lie?

I still see it as I stated above. Some will have a false faith, that is, they are churchians, and not christians. They go to church, do the right things, but have never truly given themselves to Christ and been saved, if you were to ask them, they would call themselves 'christian' and say they are going to heaven, but they are only fooling themselves. When trouble comes, they will abandon their 'faith'. But true Christians will stick with it no matter what and will stand firm to the end and will not abandon their faith.

JohnSparks - If salvation wasn’t permanent, why introduce the concept of adoption? Adoption indicates a permanent relationship that can’t be undone by the adopted. Can my adopted son decide he no longer wants to be my son? Would a loving father allow his adopted son to become unadopted? Wouldn’t it have been better for the bible to describe salvation in terms of a conditional legal contract between man and God, instead of calling us his adopted children?

the most important question i have here, of course, is did the Jews of that day have the same presumptions about adoption as we do today? this seems assumed in the above rather than proven.

more importantly, my understanding of the adoption imagery is that it's purpose in the Bible isn't to describe a legally binding "relationship," but to describe the circumstances of how we come to be in a relationship with God. we were once at emnity with Him, but now we are His children. to pigeonhole that into a case for unconditional security, IMO, is disengenuous. who are we to interpret some significance out of Biblical imagery if there is no reason to suspect that that was the author's intent?

Well I disagree with you here, in my opinion, the reason God calls us children and adopted sons and wants us to call him Father is VERY clear. We are part of his family. What Father would disown his own children? Did the King in the prodigal son story say "Well, I guess he is no longer my son!" No, he waited for his son to return to him. Even if the son did not return, he would still have been his son and part of the family. I bet the king would have sent his servents to get his body when he died and bring it back to the kingdom to be buried in honor, don't you? God will never abandon us and we can never decide to not be his child once we are adopted into the family. We might try to run, but we are alway part of his family.

JohnSparks - The bible tells us we are sealed as belonging to God (Eph 1:13-14 and 2 Cor 1:21-22) – What good is a seal that can be continually removed and reapplied? What does it really seal?

first, i'm not convinced that one can be saved "again." though there are a some who hold to that, i'd prefer not to be rubber stamped as being among them.

but again we need to be careful not to anachronistically interpret something out of some Biblical imagery if it isn't the author's intent (really, the Author's intent). i wrote this in a recent update to my site:

Another notion that is often used to support the view that once a person is saved, they are always saved, is the imagery Paul uses of "being sealed by the Spirit." Here is the actual text: And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ-you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:13-14, NET. Also, And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30, NET. The argument often stems from the view that if God seals you, and indeed if He seals you with the Holy Spirit, then it is impossible for us to break that seal. The seal would have to be broken, they reason, in order for a Christian to apostisize.

However, this argument goes too far. Paul is drawing from the imagery of his day -- the seal. Regard another context where Paul uses the same imagery ZIBBC reports, "...Seals in antiquity were widely used and extremely important to commerce and everyday life. On a document, the seal serves as a signature, guaranteeing its authenticity. Parcels could be sealed to ensure that their contents were not disturbed in transit. The seal itself was made of stone, metal, or ivory, which was then pressed into soft wax or lead to make a distinctive impression."1 Yet seals were by no means indestructable. In fact, it may have been a crime to break a seal (if in fact you were not the one whom the property belongs to), however a seal is physically destructable. Jesus' tomb was sealed with a Roman seal (cf. Matt. 27:66). Yet, presumably it was broken when the stone was rolled back one Sunday morning. Thus, Paul's usage seems to actually suggest the opposite, one may free oneself from the seal of the Holy Spirit, but not without considerable effort.

However what if in reality, we are actually missing Paul's point? What if there is something else in the imagery Paul is trying to call to mind? The ancient seal also would have an intricate image, which was unique to the owner of the seal.2 Hence, by being sealed by the Spirit, we bear God's image... not just as Adam did, but in a unique, personal way. Hence, looking at the context of Eph. 4:30, I find it bizarre that Paul would be talking about salvation when refering to the seal. However, the mandate to not grieve the Spirit makes perfect sense if in fact the seal represents God's image imprinted on us. Why return to the same old ways, when we bear His mark? While it would be more challenging to argue from the context, I can see someone using this view as well in regards to Paul's usage of the seal imagery in Eph. 1:13-14. But even if not, as noted above a seal also signified ownership, so in context it may represent God's ownership of the Christian rather than unbreakability of such.

1. Arnold, Clinton E. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 3. p. 203. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.

2. ibid.

http://www.john15.net/arm/ca1.php#seal

Dispite being a nice article, Sheepdog, you are completely missing the point. Paul spells out exactly what the seal means right in the verse:

In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession–to the praise of his glory.

The seal is the holy spirit who is the deposit GUARANTEEING our inheritance (heaven and being part of the family of God) UNTIL we are redeemed (judged righteous and glorified) - and we are called God's POSSESSIONS!!

The holy spririt guarantees that we will get our inheritance!!! If we can lose that inheritance then the promise and seal means NOTHING. NADA.

And if we can lose it, then gain it back again, then lose it and gain it back again, then the seal is doubly useless. A seal is something meant to keep something closed until it is ready to be opened by the OWNER. And since we are God's possesions and sealed, then only GOD can open the seal. Not US.

JohnSparks - If we are spiritually born again when we believe, do we spiritually die when we stop believing, then get spiritually reborn yet again when we believe again, and so on? Does God give us a new spirit, take it away, give it again, take it away, etc?

no.

So you believe that if you stop believing, you are lost forever and can never change your mind? I sure hope you never have any doubts.

However if you (like many) beleive that you can walk away and come back, then you must believe that you are spiritually reborn, then spiritually dead, then reborn, dead, reborn, every time you change your mind.

Sheepdog

February 27th 2005, 01:32 AM

So, give me an example of how Satan could theoretically force you into giving up your faith that does not involve you voluntarily stop believing. If you can't then the promise is an empty one.

well, theoretically Satan could possess you and make you renounce God.

but in reality, it's impossible since he'd first have to overpower the Holy Spirit in the Christian. (i.e. bind the strong man and then take his loot.) hence the promise is quite potent.

In other words, give me an example of what God is promising to prevent from happening when he says "no one can snatch them from my hand" - an actual scenario.

well in terms of the example i just gave, it means that God will ensure that the believer is never overcome by anything the Devil sends his way.

Right. There is no way someone can steal faith from someone that does not boil down to the person of faith voluntarily giving up his belief. All anyone can do is convince you not to believe anymore. And that means it always boils down to you "walking away"

so in other words, you are simply agreeing with Jesus that no one can snatch one of us out of his hand?

I am saying there is no way for Satan to deterministically cause you to lose your faith. The only way Satan can "snatch" you is to convince you to give up your faith.

how do you know that there is no way for Satan to do that? unless you presuppose that it is God who keeps him from doing that. but then that goes back to what i'm saying: God will make sure you will never be taken against your will.

So that puts a dent in the claim that no one can snatch you but you can walk away. All cases of someone losing their faith is walking away. Their is no way for someone to take your faith away. No LOGICAL way...

then your next challenge is to set forth a sound deductive argument. and please, stick to a standard logic form, it makes it easier to analyse.

So if you can still lose your faith, God promising to keep you safe and stop anyone from snatching you is just an empty promise. Because

1. No one ever could snatch you away (in the way you mean) even if God did not make that promise
2. Anyone can still lose their faith (by giving it up) even though God did make the promise.

lacking a sound deductive argument, i am rejecting the first assertion.

The promise makes no sense and serves no purpose if you can just walk away.

i don't see how it makes no sense. even if the negation of it is a logical impossibility, it's still a valid promise.

He might as well have said "I promise that no invisible pink unicorns will cause you to lose your faith."

good! i always new those IPUs were malvolent. :teeth: seriously, even if it was a logic impossibility, the point of making a promise in the first place is to instill hope and/or assurance in the mind of those who believe in the promise. so, in this sense, the only empty promise is the one that fails to come to pass.

People get decieved and coerces out of their faith all the time.

then the promise could be negated. i appreciate your effort, but next time, if i need you to refute yourself, i'll let you know :poke:

If the faith is the truth then anything that causes you to stop beleiving in it is deciet. When an atheist on TWEB tells a christian that their is no God and tries to convince them of that fact, that is coersion.

the former assertion goes back to my premise that one could theoretically be determined to fall... i note the key word "causes." again, you don't have to refute yourself if i don't ask you to.

that latter is illicit in it's use of the term coersion. the only way that term is legit is if it implies that someone is taken from the faith against their will. but if a Christian does let a skeptic convince him, how is that against one's will? my view is that God actively makes it so that no one could do that... you'd have to intentionally will to be "deceived" or "coerced."

If they succeed, and you give up your faith, is that not snatching you from God's hand? Did he not succeed in getting you to leave the faith?

no, because they require some prior, intentional desire to leave the faith on the part of the believer in order to succeed. the promise negates any form of legitimate, successful deceit or coersion. no one is genuinely deceived nor coerced if they are actively looking for an excuse to leave God.

(my solution is that 1. either the christian did not have true saving faith in the first place, or 2. he is like the prodigal son, and will return to God later and be reconciled and so has not truly lost salvation)

solution (1) is incoherent, as one is not a Christian it they don't have true saving faith. even so, how do you escape it being circular, effectively defining apostacy out of existance? after all that is what the compatibilists do when, after someone negates their view by noting a choice that didn't conform to the strongest desire, they suppose that the "strongest" desire was never really the strongest desire, but the real strongest desire is the one that lead to that choice. i find such tactics to be intellectually dishonest.

one could argue that 2 is also incoherent in light of scripture. but IMO that isn't important ot this immediate debate.

Not what I was saying.

so you weren't speaking of people who submit fully to God, even though your exact words are "... once you submit yourself fully to God." if this isn't what you are saying, then please try to be bit more clear in the future.

I was saying if you are a true Christian and are saved, then you will not leave the faith (unless as a prodigal son as I stated above)

ok.

Well, let's say you CAN be saved one day and then lost the next. Fred is saved on tuesday and yet on Friday God knows he will give up his faith and be on his way to hell. Since God knows Fred is bound for heaven on Tuesday, shouldn't God go ahead and kill Fred before Friday in order to save his soul? So if you can lose your salvation, it would behoove God to kill you before you can lose it again. Unless he wants you to go to hell.

well if we are going to come down to that, why did God, knowing that Adam would fall, allow it to happen anyways? did he want Adam to die?

unless there is a greater purpose which we don't understand. but if that's the case, then is it not possible that the apostates are also part of some greater purpose?

personally, i don't care to pull a Job, but i will trust God. and i am not convinced that OSAS is what He has revealed to us.

I still see it as I stated above. Some will have a false faith, that is, they are churchians, and not christians. They go to church, do the right things, but have never truly given themselves to Christ and been saved, if you were to ask them, they would call themselves 'christian' and say they are going to heaven, but they are only fooling themselves. When trouble comes, they will abandon their 'faith'.

did anything i say negate this? of course not. i have no problem admitting that this happens in many cases.

But true Christians will stick with it no matter what and will stand firm to the end and will not abandon their faith.

now we are getting circular, as i warned of above. i could likewise say that all true Christians drink Pepsi. is one a Coke drinker? then one was never a true Christian. (note that i am speaking hypothetically, this is not a case i'd seriously make). this is why i think this kind of reasoning is dihonest. it's really a semantic shell game designed to make OSAS (much like Compatibilists and what they do) imprenitrable to criticism. just define your terms in a way that makes the negation of your view impossible.

now that in itself doesn't make OSAS false. however, i believe that the Bible student ought to be as open as possible to scrutiny, since we have a knack for getting it wrong. thus, such circular arguments i reject out of hand. IMO, you should too.

Well I disagree with you here, in my opinion, the reason God calls us children and adopted sons and wants us to call him Father is VERY clear. We are part of his family.

well you started good. the above is actually my point.

What Father would disown his own children? Did the King in the prodigal son story say "Well, I guess he is no longer my son!"

no, but he did say, "... this son of mine was dead, and is alive again--he was lost and is found!'" Luke 15:24. as far as the father was concerned, the son was dead to him until he returned. doesn't that sound even harsher than disowning him?

No, he waited for his son to return to him. Even if the son did not return, he would still have been his son and part of the family. I bet the king would have sent his servents to get his body when he died and bring it back to the kingdom to be buried in honor, don't you?

you've made this point before, but i never understood why you think it is significant. if the apostate is indeed dead to God, doesn't that mean that if he stays in his apostacy to his physical death, that he would be spiritually dead? that is, doomed to eternal condemnation?

God will never abandon us and we can never decide to not be his child once we are adopted into the family. We might try to run, but we are alway part of his family.

well, if we are really going to stick out this interpretation of the parable of the progical son, that means that the apostate is dead as far as God is concerned, so long as he doesn't repent.

but really, aren't we being a bit anachronistic here? the context this is in is the contention of the Pharisees over Jesus eating with tax collecters and "sinners." these are people who were Jews, but they have slidden into a corrupt or sinful life. in modern, Evangelical terms, they were "backsliders," not full blown apostates. so to be honest, i don't think we have grounds to apply the parable of the prodigal son to apostates.

Dispite being a nice article, Sheepdog, you are completely missing the point.

to be honest, i find this comment to be ironic...

Paul spells out exactly what the seal means right in the verse:

In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession–to the praise of his glory.

i don't see it. i see two different thoughts: a seal, and a "down payment" (NET), which happen to be placed together in the same paragraph. i've never heard of a seal also being a down payment... this doesn't mesh with how i understand these concepts from the social background. the Holy Spirit is certainly both, but if so it is because he fulfills both aspects, not that they are really the same thing.

The seal is the holy spirit who is the deposit GUARANTEEING our inheritance (heaven and being part of the family of God) UNTIL we are redeemed (judged righteous and glorified) - and we are called God's POSSESSIONS!!

i'm hoping the caps and the esclaimation points are for emphasis... let's not poop our pants over this. this topic isn't so important that we have to get that emotional.

BTW, why does the NIV (or whatever translation you you use) render it "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance"? i checked the NASB and the NET and neither use the term "guaranteeing." beyond that, i don't see anything problematic here. in the social setting of the day (as well as today), a down payment is used to assure the payee that the payer is good to make the rest of the payment (hmm... that could explain the NIV rendering). However, i've never heard of a down payment made to assure the payer of the trustworthiness of the payee; nor that the deposit couldn't be taken back if the payee didn't live up to his end of the contract. to be fair, this is my own, modern understanding about how this works, but i doubt it would be any different in ANE law.

The holy spririt guarantees that we will get our inheritance!!! If we can lose that inheritance then the promise and seal means NOTHING. NADA.

no not true. the promise and seal means that God will certainly live up to his promise, if we don't back out of the "contract." it only means "NOTHING, NADA" if we kept in faith yet God was the one who reneged on the deal.

And if we can lose it, then gain it back again, then lose it and gain it back again, then the seal is doubly useless.

this is not my view, so please don't set up this strawman.

A seal is something meant to keep something closed until it is ready to be opened by the OWNER. And since we are God's possesions and sealed, then only GOD can open the seal. Not US.

didn't i explain this in the article? the social background behind the seal imagery indicates that this doesn't intend to imply physical unbreakability, but that one should not break the seal. this is why i think that if we are going to draw that type of conclusion, it would be in favor of my view, not yours. it was a death sentence if one broke a Roman seal who wasn't supposed to... how much more if one "opened" God's seal?

was the Roman seal broken when Jesus' tomb was opened?

So you believe that if you stop believing, you are lost forever and can never change your mind? I sure hope you never have any doubts.

i do, but having doubts and not believing are not the same thing. i can have faith despite some minor doubts. but if they do get serious, i know i have God in my corner, and He won't let it become something i couldn't fight.

out of curiosity, why do you think Satan tries to instill doubt in us if he knows he can't win us over?

However if you (like many) beleive that you can walk away and come back, then you must believe that you are spiritually reborn, then spiritually dead, then reborn, dead, reborn, every time you change your mind.

i don't.

Sparko

February 27th 2005, 03:39 PM

well, theoretically Satan could possess you and make you renounce God.

Then it would not be YOU renouncing God, it would be Satan. It would not count anymore than if someone took your hand and made you sign a contract.

but in reality, it's impossible since he'd first have to overpower the Holy Spirit in the Christian. (i.e. bind the strong man and then take his loot.) hence the promise is quite potent.

I stand by the statement that no one can force you into losing your salvation.

well in terms of the example i just gave, it means that God will ensure that the believer is never overcome by anything the Devil sends his way.

Really? What if the devil send him pain and suffering and a lot of atheist professors in college to convince him that Chrisitanity is false, and the person succombs to that pressure and gives up his faith? Are you saying this can't happen? Wouldn't this be the equivalent of Satan winning? And isn't that the same thing as Satan snatching them from God?

(note: I don't think a true Christian CAN succomb to that pressure to the extent of losing salvation, but I am proposing it above because you do believe that some one can walk away from their salvation)

If you are right and people can walk away, then Satan can snatch them away by just throwing enough problems and uncertainty into their lives that some will give in and "walk away"

This is the equivalent of being "snatched" since Satan succeeded in his goal of getting you to lose your salvation.

so in other words, you are simply agreeing with Jesus that no one can snatch one of us out of his hand?

That is what I believe. That no one can snatch you from God's hand once you are in it. Not even you. You are not more powerful than God. If God says NO ONE he means NO ONE.

how do you know that there is no way for Satan to do that? unless you presuppose that it is God who keeps him from doing that. but then that goes back to what i'm saying: God will make sure you will never be taken against your will.

Again if Satan could force you to give up your salvation involuntarily, then it would not count. It would not be your will.

It HAS to always boil down to your will to give up the faith. So if God meant that only by your will can you lose your salvation, then he was not promising you anything, since it must be your will that gives it up. So the only explanation that fits is that NO ONE, not even YOU can give up your salvation once you have it.

then your next challenge is to set forth a sound deductive argument. and please, stick to a standard logic form, it makes it easier to analyse.

Not really good at formal logical statements, sorry. I was always better at word problems in math :teeth: I work better in converstaional logical arguments.

then the promise could be negated. i appreciate your effort, but next time, if i need you to refute yourself, i'll let you know :poke:

The point I was making was that if someone can be decieved out of their faith, which you said couldn't happen, then it still boils down to "walking away" and therefore "walking away" has to be covered under not being snatched. But let's go on and take the statement as given...

I think a person can give up their faith, whether self initiated or because of outside pressure, but that works out to two things:

1. They never had a saving faith.
2. They only give up their belief in God, but not their salvation. Their faith is dead, but their salvation is whole as they still belong to God. They may not act like Christians but they are still saved. Hopefully they will realize their error and return to God later.

no, because they require some prior, intentional desire to leave the faith on the part of the believer in order to succeed. the promise negates any form of legitimate, successful deceit or coersion. no one is genuinely deceived nor coerced if they are actively looking for an excuse to leave God.

So you think the only people who can lose their salvation from outside influence must already be looking for an excuse to leave? That is a new one to me. Do you have evidence of this? That a devout christian can't be influenced to give up their belief based on on prior wish to lose their faith?

solution (1) is incoherent, as one is not a Christian it they don't have true saving faith.

No it is not incoherent. Since I beleive that no one can lose their salvation, but you can show some examples that APPEAR to be people losing their salvation, I am showing that it is not really them losing anything. They left something they never really had. They never belonged to God but may have appeared to others that they did. So when they left, they make it appear as if a true believer walked away and lost their faith.

even so, how do you escape it being circular, effectively defining apostacy out of existance? after all that is what the compatibilists do when, after someone negates their view by noting a choice that didn't conform to the strongest desire, they suppose that the "strongest" desire was never really the strongest desire, but the real strongest desire is the one that lead to that choice. i find such tactics to be intellectually dishonest.

Not inderstanding you there, Sheepdog. Are you saying that there are not people who appear to be Christian but who really do not have a saving faith? Who may look saved to others, but never gave themself to Jesus?

so you weren't speaking of people who submit fully to God, even though your exact words are "... once you submit yourself fully to God." if this isn't what you are saying, then please try to be bit more clear in the future. By submit fully to God I meant to actually repent and be saved, verses just paying lip service to God. I did not mean being a perfect Christian.

well if we are going to come down to that, why did God, knowing that Adam would fall, allow it to happen anyways? did he want Adam to die?

With Adam, God knew that Adam would repent and be saved and He had already knew he would be sending Jesus as his Salvation. But if a person can lose salvation then God should take them while they believe in order to save them from hell. In fact as a Christian, if I know I might lose my salvation at a future date, I would pray and beg God to kill me before that could happen. Wouldn't you?

no, but he did say, "... this son of mine was dead, and is alive again--he was lost and is found!'" Luke 15:24. as far as the father was concerned, the son was dead to him until he returned. doesn't that sound even harsher than disowning him?

No, because he meant that his son left him and he thought he would never see him again. He might as well have been dead. He did not mean he disowned him. If that were the case he would not have been waiting for him when he returned.

you've made this point before, but i never understood why you think it is significant. if the apostate is indeed dead to God, doesn't that mean that if he stays in his apostacy to his physical death, that he would be spiritually dead? that is, doomed to eternal condemnation?

No, he is just useless to God and could actually be helping the devil in furthering his lies. He is like the man who passes through the flame and all his works are burned up but he himself is saved.

but really, aren't we being a bit anachronistic here? the context this is in is the contention of the Pharisees over Jesus eating with tax collecters and "sinners." these are people who were Jews, but they have slidden into a corrupt or sinful life. in modern, Evangelical terms, they were "backsliders," not full blown apostates. so to be honest, i don't think we have grounds to apply the parable of the prodigal son to apostates.

To me backsliders are just a lesser degree of apostates.

i don't see it. i see two different thoughts: a seal, and a "down payment" (NET), which happen to be placed together in the same paragraph. i've never heard of a seal also being a down payment... this doesn't mesh with how i understand these concepts from the social background. the Holy Spirit is certainly both, but if so it is because he fulfills both aspects, not that they are really the same thing.

The holy spirit is a down payment because God is giving us a taste of what we will receive in full when we are glorified. When you make a down payment on something you are entering into a contract with them. God is saying you have eternal life and here is the holy spirit to care for you until you are glorified. The HS is the guarantee that God will give you eternal life.

i'm hoping the caps and the esclaimation points are for emphasis... let's not poop our pants over this. this topic isn't so important that we have to get that emotional.

Yes, emphasis. I was not yelling. :smile:

no not true. the promise and seal means that God will certainly live up to his promise, if we don't back out of the "contract." it only means "NOTHING, NADA" if we kept in faith yet God was the one who reneged on the deal.

And God promises that no-one will be able to take you from his hand.

out of curiosity, why do you think Satan tries to instill doubt in us if he knows he can't win us over? What better way to make you useless to God? If Satan can get Christians to stop spreading the gospel he keeps more out of heaven. Whether he gets you to be lazy, or think you are no longer saved, he wins by making you useless to God, and if he can convince you that you are not saved and there is no God, then he can enlist you to actually help him in attacking God's word and people. What better way to snub his nose at God?

smaller

February 27th 2005, 11:35 PM

Whilst its not a named example smaller I think that 1 John 5:16-17 at least implies that some sin is 'mortal' (or leading to death' as the NIV renders it). The sin in question is commited by a brother, which almost certainly is used in the sense of a fellow believer instead of an unsaved genetic sibling.

What form this sin takes isn't disclosed (though 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' would be a key contender) and I certainly wouldn't take the definitions of mortal and venial sin that the Roman Catholic Church advocates. However, the point is that some sin, however rare it is, does 'lead to death' a believer. Only one exception is needed for eternal security to not be eternal security right?

All of Israel are God's Children (Deuteronomy 14:1 Psalm 82:6 and many others) and ALL PEOPLE are God's offspring. As such it was NEVER possible for them to be LOST on a permanent basis. We are all temporal slaves of sin, corruption, evil, and death in this world for the judgment and eradication of same from the realm of the eternal.

Sin on the other hand is never forgiven. It is just not held to the accounts of mankind. It is held to the permanent account of the devil and his messengers who were the sinners, unbelievers, liars, and murderers from the beginning. They will pay the price of sin, the SECOND DEATH.

The "reason" why most "believers" don't see this is because we all have "sin indwelling" our flesh that blinds us to their dwelling place, our flesh. God has sold "us" under "them" for a time. Like eternal seeds planted into the black ground of this present earth.

All men will rise to be with their Father. Jesus said so.

enjoy!

smaller

Sheepdog

March 1st 2005, 01:41 AM

before we go on, i must warn you that i'm running on a crazy sleep schedule, so i might be a bit incoherent (at least more than usual :wink:).

Then it would not be YOU renouncing God, it would be Satan. It would not count anymore than if someone took your hand and made you sign a contract.

why? after all, the Compatibilists are on to something however wrong they are: if it is caused by your desires (which presumably Satan would be manipulating), then your actions are authentically yours. This is responsibility in the strictest sense, even though it is not culpability (you did it, but it wasn't your fault).

I stand by the statement that no one can force you into losing your salvation.

see above.

Really? What if the devil send him pain and suffering and a lot of atheist professors in college to convince him that Chrisitanity is false, and the person succombs to that pressure and gives up his faith? Are you saying this can't happen? ...

no. i said God will ensure one is not overcome. that is not the same thing as saying someone will not succomb. the former, in my understanding, implies lack of freewill, while the latter need not.

Wouldn't this be the equivalent of Satan winning?

technically yes, but if it was by one's free will, why does it matter?

And isn't that the same thing as Satan snatching them from God?

if it was by free will then no. when are you going to deal with my info on the usage of the term "to snatch"?

If you are right and people can walk away, then Satan can snatch them away by just throwing enough problems and uncertainty into their lives that some will give in and "walk away"

no. that is an improper use of the term "snatch."

That is what I believe. That no one can snatch you from God's hand once you are in it. Not even you. You are not more powerful than God. If God says NO ONE he means NO ONE.

we are not more powerful than God. you know i would not say otherwise. however, this is about taking the verse as it presents us, and as noted the term "to snatch" implies an external force taking despite God's will or ours. it says nothing about whether we can fall away by our own choice.

to use an illustration, if i hold a grasshopper in my fist, can it "snatch" itself away? it's not coherent to say such, because that is an improper use of the term. you could try to snatch it away from me, but i can stop you (especially if i'm omnipotent). on the other hand, the grasshopper itself can try to jump out of my hand, and if i let it, it can be successful.

Again if Satan could force you to give up your salvation involuntarily, then it would not count. It would not be your will.

i'm not convinced, if it wasn't obvious already.

It HAS to always boil down to your will to give up the faith. So if God meant that only by your will can you lose your salvation, then he was not promising you anything, since it must be your will that gives it up. So the only explanation that fits is that NO ONE, not even YOU can give up your salvation once you have it.

both arguments above negate this.

Not really good at formal logical statements, sorry. I was always better at word problems in math :teeth: I work better in converstaional logical arguments.

the reason why i ask is that with "ordinary language" logic, one always has the possibility of ambiguous terminology, vagueness, and illicit conversions. that is not to say the formal deductive forms lack this, it is just that these fallacies become much easier to detect.

in other words, i ask because it would be benefitial to this discussion, not because i'm a killjoy (actually i am, but that isn't my motive here :evul:)

The point I was making was that if someone can be decieved out of their faith, which you said couldn't happen, then it still boils down to "walking away" and therefore "walking away" has to be covered under not being snatched. But let's go on and take the statement as given...

I think a person can give up their faith, whether self initiated or because of outside pressure, but that works out to two things:

1. They never had a saving faith.
2. They only give up their belief in God, but not their salvation. Their faith is dead, but their salvation is whole as they still belong to God. They may not act like Christians but they are still saved. Hopefully they will realize their error and return to God later.

i've tried to explain why the first one is bad if you try to pigeonhole every instance of apparent apostacy into that mold. you'd get no argument from me if you say that it happens in a lot of cases, but once we make it a deductively strong statement, we get into circular reasoning.

#2 is a bit concerning to me, though. it seems that if you are going to make that case, then you will have to suppose that someone can be saved even though they do not believe. this flies in the face of Eph. 2:8-9, but more importantly it can lead one down a slippery slope into antimonialism. i am confident that that is in fact not your view, but how do you escape antimonialism as the grounding upon which you base that view?

So you think the only people who can lose their salvation from outside influence must already be looking for an excuse to leave?

no, that is but one possibility. my general position is that it has to be intentional and willing to leave.

That a devout christian can't be influenced to give up their belief based on on prior wish to lose their faith?

i can't make sense of this question for some reason. i'd argue that the warnings to persevere suggest that apostacy was a real possibility, and in a few places the NT writers show knowledge of people who actually fell away. 1Tim. 4:1 is my favorite example, but there are others.

No it is not incoherent. Since I beleive that no one can lose their salvation, but you can show some examples that APPEAR to be people losing their salvation, I am showing that it is not really them losing anything. They left something they never really had. They never belonged to God but may have appeared to others that they did. So when they left, they make it appear as if a true believer walked away and lost their faith.

but if they never really belonged to God, never became disciples of Christ, never came to faith, etc. they ought not be called Christians. after all, is it not agreed that assenting to the right doctrines and praying a prayer are not what makes a person a Christian? that is why it was incoherent.

Not inderstanding you there, Sheepdog. Are you saying that there are not people who appear to be Christian but who really do not have a saving faith? Who may look saved to others, but never gave themself to Jesus?

no. though i do assent that there are some who fit the bill. i am saying that you cannot say that it is the case of all apostates based on redefining words so that "falling away from faith" is defined out of existance. if you do, you end up committing what is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm).

By submit fully to God I meant to actually repent and be saved, verses just paying lip service to God. I did not mean being a perfect Christian.

ok.

With Adam, God knew that Adam would repent and be saved and He had already knew he would be sending Jesus as his Salvation.

when did Adam repent?

But if a person can lose salvation then God should take them while they believe in order to save them from hell.

should He? :huh: are we in the position to tell God what he should or shouldn't do?

In fact as a Christian, if I know I might lose my salvation at a future date, I would pray and beg God to kill me before that could happen. Wouldn't you?

if i knew i might, or if i knew i will? i already know it is a possibility, though i am confident it won't occur. if i knew i will fall away as a matter of fact, however, i don't see how i could escape that fate. seems to be a catch-22, and i suspect such scenarios are the reason God doesn't reveal more about the future than He has.

No, because he meant that his son left him and he thought he would never see him again. He might as well have been dead. He did not mean he disowned him. If that were the case he would not have been waiting for him when he returned.

exactly. He thought he would never see this son again. the son might as well be dead. does that sound like a gaurantee that the son will necessarily return? if he doesn't he was never really a son in the first place? this round peg is not fitting your square hole.

No, he is just useless to God...

the millions who aren't saved are also useless to God :doh:

... and could actually be helping the devil in furthering his lies.

... just like the Pharisees and the other leaders were. are you trying to refute me or to make my case?

He is like the man who passes through the flame and all his works are burned up but he himself is saved.

which is describing Christians who are on the foundation of Jesus but are complacent. like the "luke warm" Christians in Corinth, not full blown apostates.

To me backsliders are just a lesser degree of apostates.

this is a categorical error. to my knowledge, those who are backsliders are still in a relationship with God, they are just not fellowshipping with Him. whatever faith may be there, it is still authentic enough that they can be restored. however, the term apostacy describes someone who is neither in a relationship nor in fellowship with God anymore.

The holy spirit is a down payment because God is giving us a taste of what we will receive in full when we are glorified. When you make a down payment on something you are entering into a contract with them. God is saying you have eternal life and here is the holy spirit to care for you until you are glorified. The HS is the guarantee that God will give you eternal life.

but your initial statement spliced the down payment and seal imagery into the same thought. that was what i was rebutting here. but this goes back to the thrust of my subsequent comments.

And God promises that no-one will be able to take you from his hand.

yes, no one will snatch me from His hand, as i explained before.

the down payment and the seal demonstrate that God is good on is part of the "bargain," but again i don't see how they gaurantee our faithfulness.

What better way to make you useless to God? If Satan can get Christians to stop spreading the gospel he keeps more out of heaven. Whether he gets you to be lazy, or think you are no longer saved, he wins by making you useless to God, and if he can convince you that you are not saved and there is no God, then he can enlist you to actually help him in attacking God's word and people. What better way to snub his nose at God?

the problem, is, if he does convince you you are no longer saved, is he not correct? think about it, we are saved by grace through ....

Sparko

March 1st 2005, 12:23 PM

Well, sheepy

I think it is going to boil down to how we interpret the word "snatch" and how we view salvation, as an ongoing thing or a one time event.

To me it is a one time event. I am saved by putting my trust in God. At that instant, God makes me a new creation and gives me a new spirit. I then have eternal life. HAVE eternal life, not might get it eventually, if I don't walk away. HAVE IT (not yelling, emphasis :teeth:)

If you have something that is eternal then how can you lose it? How can I have eternal life on monday and not on friday? If I won't have it on friday, then I sure don't have it on monday either. Eternal life is something that you can either have or not have. You can't have it now if you will lose it later. If you can lose it in the future then it means you really DON'T have it now, you just think you do.

John 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [ Or his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 5:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=5&verse=24&version=31&context=verse)
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

1 John 5:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

before we go on, i must warn you that i'm running on a crazy sleep schedule, so i might be a bit incoherent (at least more than usual :wink:).

why? after all, the Compatibilists are on to something however wrong they are: if it is caused by your desires (which presumably Satan would be manipulating), then your actions are authentically yours. This is responsibility in the strictest sense, even though it is not culpability (you did it, but it wasn't your fault).

If Satan is manipulating your desires and your actions are authentically yours, then this is not "snatching" is it? It is you walking away.

I keep saying that it all boils down to you walking away of your own action, so what is Jesus/God promising to keep from happening when he says "no one can snatch them from my hand?"

The only sane understanding is that he is preventing anyone from losing their salvation once they have it. If it means what you think it does, then it is an empy promise.

The only way someone could snatch you away from God and it not be your freewill action would be to control your mind and body and force you to leave AGAINST YOUR WILL. This would clearly not count since it was against your will, so even without the promise, God would not hold it against a person. It was not their action. So the promise is empty.

no. i said God will ensure one is not overcome. that is not the same thing as saying someone will not succomb. the former, in my understanding, implies lack of freewill, while the latter need not.

You are agreeing with me then. No one can be snatched. It is logically impossible to make someone lose their faith that does not boil down to a free will action on the part of the person. If it is a free will action, then it is "walking away" and not "snatching" and that means that all cases of someone losing their salvation would be cases of "walking away"

If you are right and God is only preventing "snatching" and that is logically impossible anyway, and he allows "walking away", which ends up being the only way it can logically happen, then He is not promising ANY safety at all. it is an empy promise

1. If someone could force you to leave not of your own free will it would not count since it is not you performing the action.

2. If they could cause you to leave of your own free will this would be "walking away"

3. Therefore there is no way someone could ever snatch your salvation even if God never made his promise to you.

4. If God allows only walking away but prevents snatching which would never count in the first place, then what good is the promise? Why make it? The purpose of his saying that was to comfort believers that they can't lose salvation.

But I think we are just going to go around in circles on this verse, so we will eventually have to just agree to disagree on this verse.

we are not more powerful than God. you know i would not say otherwise. however, this is about taking the verse as it presents us, and as noted the term "to snatch" implies an external force taking despite God's will or ours. it says nothing about whether we can fall away by our own choice.

As you said above, even if Satan possessed us, it would still be our own choice. So there can be no "snatching" in any form that God is preventing.

in other words, i ask because it would be benefitial to this discussion, not because i'm a killjoy (actually i am, but that isn't my motive here :evul:)

Like I said, I am not good at that stuff. Is what I did above more like what you want?

i've tried to explain why the first one is bad if you try to pigeonhole every instance of apparent apostacy into that mold. you'd get no argument from me if you say that it happens in a lot of cases, but once we make it a deductively strong statement, we get into circular reasoning.

Never said it was every case. I said many times what we percieve as a Christian leaving the faith is not really what is happening. It could be a person who just calls himself Christian and never really was, who left.

#2 is a bit concerning to me, though. it seems that if you are going to make that case, then you will have to suppose that someone can be saved even though they do not believe. this flies in the face of Eph. 2:8-9, but more importantly it can lead one down a slippery slope into antimonialism. i am confident that that is in fact not your view, but how do you escape antimonialism as the grounding upon which you base that view?

Do you mean antimonianism? The idea that Christians can sin as much as they like?

How do you escape the same problem? How did Paul deal with it?

Did Paul deny the fact that Christians CAN sin and still be saved?

No he said there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. He knew what that meant. He knew that some would take that as a license to sin, and his response was that even though we are free in Christ and their is no condemnation, we are not supposed to live in sin. He never said that if you did you would lose your salvation. In fact he implied the exact opposite because he said there is no condemnation, but we shouldnt live in sin.

Paul is saying that while there is no condemnation for believers who are in Christ, there are consequences for sinning. We lose our relationship with God, we become slaves to sin, we get harmed by the sin and we harm others.

but if they never really belonged to God, never became disciples of Christ, never came to faith, etc. they ought not be called Christians. after all, is it not agreed that assenting to the right doctrines and praying a prayer are not what makes a person a Christian? that is why it was incoherent.

I agree, they are not Christians. They just appear to be to you and me. They may even call themselves Christians. When they eventually turn away from Christianity they only make it appear that a Christian has lost their salvation. But they never really had it.

I am saying that those type of people account for many of what you might be thinking of as examples of people who lost their faith and are no longer Christians. They never were Christians.

no. though i do assent that there are some who fit the bill. i am saying that you cannot say that it is the case of all apostates based on redefining words so that "falling away from faith" is defined out of existance. if you do, you end up committing what is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm).

Never said that they accounted for all. Just many. Others who appear to leave their salvation behind are just extreme backsliders who reject their belief in God temporarily and who return later. Others may even die in that state, but it they are still saved.

when did Adam repent?

It is never stated directly but implied by the fact that God gave them the animal skins and accepted sacrifices from their children and by Eve claiming the Lord gave her a son, and by Cain being the first to be banished, and by Seth being the line of righteous men.

Do you think Adam and Eve were lost forever and will not be in heaven?

should He? :huh: are we in the position to tell God what he should or shouldn't do?

Nice dodge. But if our eternal souls are on the line and we are saved today but God knows we will lose that salvation next thursday at 2PM, then it is in OUR best interest and God's to kill us before 2PM Thursday. Unless you think God wants us to go to hell?

if i knew i might, or if i knew i will? i already know it is a possibility, though i am confident it won't occur. if i knew i will fall away as a matter of fact, however, i don't see how i could escape that fate. seems to be a catch-22, and i suspect such scenarios are the reason God doesn't reveal more about the future than He has.

But God does know the future and he does know if you will lose your salvation. So knowing that, wouldn't you want God to kill you before that happened? I would.

the millions who aren't saved are also useless to God :doh:

so? All I am saying is that if you are saved and you act as if you aren't then you are as useless as those who really aren't. It does not mean you are not saved.

... just like the Pharisees and the other leaders were. are you trying to refute me or to make my case?

Who said the Pharisees ever WERE saved? They are more like those above who claim to be Christian but who really are not.

this is a categorical error. to my knowledge, those who are backsliders are still in a relationship with God, they are just not fellowshipping with Him. whatever faith may be there, it is still authentic enough that they can be restored. however, the term apostacy describes someone who is neither in a relationship nor in fellowship with God anymore.

You will have to show me in the bible where it makes such a distinction. I don't see either word in the bible so how are you getting your definitions of what each means?

the down payment and the seal demonstrate that God is good on is part of the "bargain," but again i don't see how they gaurantee our faithfulness.

He is guaranteeing our salvation, not our faithfulness. Our faith can grow and wane but God's promise never leaves.

the problem, is, if he does convince you you are no longer saved, is he not correct? think about it, we are saved by grace through ....

Ever had a moment of weakness where you thought "Gee I must not be saved, God can't forgive me for that!"

If you ever felt like that, then by your standard you lost your salvation since you were convinced, even if just for a moment, that you were not saved, and according to you, once you lose your salvation, you can't get it back.

Our faith can fade for a moment or a month or a lifetime, but we are still saved.

Sheepdog

March 2nd 2005, 04:23 AM

i'll have to hit this later. i do have an in depth response in mind though.

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 10:29 AM

i'll have to hit this later. i do have an in depth response in mind though.

:eek:

Sheepdog

March 3rd 2005, 06:01 PM

:eek:

well, it's just because i'll be talking about my soteriology, and if i do that, i'll have to unpack it.

Sparko

March 3rd 2005, 06:03 PM

well, it's just because i'll be talking about my soteriology, and if i do that, i'll have to unpack it.

Now you are just using big words to show off. :wink:

Champagne

March 3rd 2005, 07:56 PM

Sparko

March 4th 2005, 10:36 AM

I have a question- Satan himself at one time was an angel, at one time he was on God's side. Somehow he rebelled and decided to war against God.
But, is he actually still "saved," since he at one time was on God's side? And he was, b/c it would not have been possible for God to have created Satan as an angel who always, since his creation, was plotting to overthrow God. At some point, Satan had to make the decision to stop being on God's side. He couldn't have been created "evil", since God created him. At some point he made the choice to be an apostate.
So my question is, will the devil himself be saved?

Champagne. That is a really good point you brought up. I will have to think on that. No I don't think the devil will be saved (or the other angels that rebelled)

But off the top of my head, without having really studied the issue, my reaction is that Satan is a much different situation then we are in. He was actually IN heaven and was basically God's right hand man, an archangel. When he rebelled it was not a matter of losing faith or not beleiving, it was outright rebellion and hatred of what he KNEW God was. He had the pride to think he could be better than God and he KNEW God face to face.

When the angels rebelled