I believe the Bible clearly teaches the Reformed Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, which means that those who are saved will by no means lose their salvation, rather they will preserver until the end. In this post I will provide biblical reasons for thinking this is the case and I will provide a defense against reasons for not thinking that this is the case.
The Bible clearly teaches in many places that you cannot lose your salvation:
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
All those who are drawn and come to God will be raised up on the last day. The term last day in the context of John 6 refers to the resurrection of glory (John 6:40). Which leads me to the next verse:
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
John 10:28-29 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
No one can snatch those who have salvation out of the Father's and the Son's hand.
Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Paul, the inspired apostle, here says that the believers who God has begun a good work in will in fact make it on the last day.
1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul is saying that God will sustain believers until the end. Notice the word guiltless here. This is quite a stab at christian denominations and groups that say a believer can have guilt before God at any point.
Romans 8:28-30 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All those who are justified are glorified. Justification in the context of Romans refers to a event in the when one first receives righteousness and hence salvation (Rom. 3:20-25; 4:1-13). Paul is saying here that those who receive justification will in fact be glorified on the last day and given the context we have no reason to think that this glorious chain of redemption can be broken. This is even more evident when one reads the proceeding context which stresses that nothing can seperate the elect or saved from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:31-39), which is another clear proof of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
Now what about the objections to this biblical doctrine?
Well the most common objection to this doctrine is surprisingly philosophical in orientation, it goes something like this:
P1: If I have experienced S who went to x:church, y:professed faith, and z:had works for a long time T and at a future time T1 ceased from doing x, y, and z then S has lost his salvation.
P2: I have experienced S who did x,y, and z for a long time T and at a future time T1 ceased from doing x,y, and z.
C: Therefore, S has lost his salvation
The problem with this argument is premise 1. Someone can cease from doing x, y, and z and could of never been saved to begin with. The presence of x, y, and z does not necessitate the presence of salvation because someone could have man made reasons and intentions for doing x,y, and z and people could not be aware of those intentions and reasons. But this in no way defeats perseverance of the saints because it states that one cannot lose their salvation which is wrought by God alone, but surely someone can for other reasons stop performing x,y, and z.
Now lets take a look at the biblical arguments against this position:
I will respond to each of these arguments by what is called the Reformed covenantal view point, which is to say: People can loose their membership within the covenant community, but that the covenant community is not synonymous with ones salvation. For surely one can be in the covenant community and not have salvation (Romans (9:6).
Lets take this approach from a few of the supposed falling away passages:
Hebrews 10:29-31 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.
This verse is teaching that if one falls away from the covenant community permanently that they will obtain more guilt than had they not been in the covenant community.
This verse would be teaching the same:
Hebrews 6:4-9 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. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. 9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things- things that belong to salvation.
John 15 would also be teaching this as well:
John 15:1-2 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
This verse teaches that those who do not produce fruit in the covenant community will eventually be cut off and this is made evident by them not producing x, y, and z.
Romans 11:17-22 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
This verse teaches that the Jews were cut off from the covenant community and that if the gentiles do not continue in the faith then there will be some day in which they are cut off from the covenant community. But you might say "well if one being in the covenant community is dependent on faith then how can you avoid the fact that this passages is referring to ones loss of individual salvation". My response to this is that a gentile parent could baptize their child in the covenant community and then their child could have never believed in the first place but stayed in the covenant community and then that unbelieving parent had children and baptized them out of tradition and then the children of that parent has no Godly influence and thus remains a non-believer and this could continue on until the entire cooperate unit would be cut off covenantally. In this way you can have a sort of cooperate breaking off of the covenant community without it effecting one's individual salvation.
Conclusion:
Thus, given the covenantal understanding of these verses and the strong passages we have in support of perseverance of the saint we have to conclude that the answer to the question of whether or not one can lose their salvation has to be a confident No.
The Biblical view of Perseverance is that even if you lose your salvation (falling out of a relationship with God due to grave sin), you will repent before it's too late. The Bible is very clear that not all the saved will persevere, Mat 24:12-13 is one of the clearest.
ReplyDeleteYou: John 6:44 ; 6:40
Nick: These are especially concerned with the elect, who will persevere, BUT that is not the same as the possibility of losing salvation.
You: John 10:28-29
Nick: The Greek tense here is the "present tense" which means this event is true so long as the action is sustained. In otherwords you continue to have salvation as long as you continue to believe and follow as v27 says. Stop the action (believing) and the result ceases.
Now for some passages in John which clearly teach salvation can be lost: 15:6; 12:42; 13:8.
You: Phil 1:6
Nick: This is given for encouragement, because Phil 2:12-13 shows you must work out your salvation "in fear and trembling." And 2:16 warns them to persevere so that Paul will not have "worked in vain."
You: 1 Cor 1:8
Nick: Wrong, this is merely a word of encouragement. 9:27 warns that Paul himself could fall away if he's not careful. 10:1-12 is one of the strongest warnings in Scripture, especially because the Corinthians had turned to lives of sin. 8:11 warns of leading a weak brother to damnation, "one for whom Christ died." 11:32 says Christians should heed God's chastisement so that they "will not be condemned with the world."
You: Rom 8:28-30
Nick: This is specifically talking of the elect, who will persevere (those who love the Lord to the end). 8:17 shows you must persevere in suffering in this life.
Some good conditional security passages in Rom are 4:6-8 where David (in Ps 32) lost his salvation and had to repent. 11:20-22 where some lost their salvation because they stopped believing and Paul warns Christians it could happen to them.
One serious problem thus far is you've falsely equated "salvation" (or "justified") with "ticket into Heaven." When one is saved/justified they go from a dead branch to a living one, ingrafted in Christ and receiving His life in them. However, not until the end, at the harvest, does a Christian become found worthy of entering Heaven (or not) based on their life lived (Gal 6:7-9).
You: This is even more evident when one reads the proceeding context...(Rom. 8:31-39)
Nick: It is very interesting to note that all those dangers are external to the Christian, none of them include the Christian turning to sin (Gal 5:19-21).
You: Someone can cease from doing x, y, and z and could of never been saved to begin with.
Nick: Possibly true (1 Tim 5:8; 11-15), if they were Christian they lost their salvation. If they were not-Christian, and only thought they were, then obviously they didn't lose salvation, but obliterated so called "assurance."
You: Hebrews 10:29-31
Nick: Well this is quite problematic because you didn't quote properly starting with verse 26.
You: This verse would be teaching the same:
Hebrews 6:4-9
Nick: This clearly teaches salvation not only CAN be lost, but WAS. It does not actually say "IF they fall away," but rather a PAST TENSE "HAVING FALLEN AWAY."
http://tinyurl.com/p3wyye
John 15 would also be teaching this as well:
John 15:1-2
Nick: This isn't just community but salvation itself, it's odd you didn't quote v6.
You: Romans 11:17-22
...their child could have never believed in the first place but stayed in the covenant community...
Nick: Quite a explanation for something so simple. This conclusion is erroneous for it assumes being ingrafted has nothing to do with salvation. You're "never believed in the first place" is directly contrary to the plain reading of the text.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion and believe you're position cannot harmonize Scripture anywhere near the Catholic Biblical view can (Mat 18:23-35). The view you presented requires an extraordinary amount of cherry picking texts and a faulty view of justification.
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteIt is good to hear from you again. I hope you are doing well.
The Biblical view of Perseverance is that even if you lose your salvation (falling out of a relationship with God due to grave sin), you will repent before it's too late. The Bible is very clear that not all the saved will persevere, Mat 24:12-13 is one of the clearest.
Response: Matthew 24:12-13 speaks of the increase of lawlessness and because of this lawlessness people will no longer love one another. Verse 13 just states the general truth that all who persevere will be saved from judgment which is compatible with the proposition that all who are truly saved will persevere.
You: John 6:44 ; 6:40
Nick: These are especially concerned with the elect, who will persevere, BUT that is not the same as the possibility of losing salvation.
Response: The distinction between those who have salvation and those who are elect is not a distinction that is found in the Bible whether implicit or explicit. So because you are using Roman distinctions instead of biblical distinctions then we have good reasons for thinking that the elect are all those who obtain salvation.
You: John 10:28-29
Nick: The Greek tense here is the "present tense" which means this event is true so long as the action is sustained. In otherwords you continue to have salvation as long as you continue to believe and follow as v27 says. Stop the action (believing) and the result ceases.
Now for some passages in John which clearly teach salvation can be lost: 15:6; 12:42; 13:8.
Response: The present tense can have a gnomic usage, that is a usage of universal general truths. This is the nuance of the present tense in this Greek construction. The present tense does does not always mean *right now* or as long as the action is sustained, read Daniel Wallace Greek Book beyond the basics of Greek grammar for this.
John 15:6: Those who do not profess Christ are cut out of the covenant community which is not synonymous with salvation (Rom. 9:6).
John 12:42: The crowd believed in the proposition that Christ taught and claimed to be but they did not existentially trust him. You can know that God exists without trusting him as Romans 1 demonstrates about non-believers.
John 13:8: This verse misunderstands protestant theology as most Roman Catholics tend to make this same mistake over and over again. If you are a believer that has been justified by faith you will of necessity produce works such as forgiving those who have sinned against you, you will provide for your family, and one of the conditions that Jesus gives to Peter that he has to out of necessity follow is washing the Christ feet. If Peter did not do this he was never justified by faith to begin with and walk was man made, but if he has been truly justified by faith he will out of necessity was Jesus's feet, these action do not give us merit or counts towards are salvation before God rather they flow out of one being justified by faith alone. Thus, all of Jesus apostles who did not wash out Lords feet were never justified by faith to begin with.
You: Phil 1:6
ReplyDeleteNick: This is given for encouragement, because Phil 2:12-13 shows you must work out your salvation "in fear and trembling." And 2:16 warns them to persevere so that Paul will not have "worked in vain."
Response: It does not follow from confident infallible encouragement that the proposition that Paul intends to communicate it rendered false or even dubious. So logically that does not follow. You are suppose to work through your sanctification through fear and because if you do not produce fruit then you were never justified by faith or saved to begin with and then you would of work in vain since the works of a non-believer are but dirty and fifthly rags before a angry God (Isaiah 64:6).
You: 1 Cor 1:8
Nick: Wrong, this is merely a word of encouragement. 9:27 warns that Paul himself could fall away if he's not careful. 10:1-12 is one of the strongest warnings in Scripture, especially because the Corinthians had turned to lives of sin. 8:11 warns of leading a weak brother to damnation, "one for whom Christ died." 11:32 says Christians should heed God's chastisement so that they "will not be condemned with the world."
Response: If you are saying that this is just encouragement then why can I not say that all the verses you bring up are just warnings? This seems sort of arbitrary. But I do not think you can relegate this verse to just encouragement because he is saying in the future tense that God will keep them guiltless until the last day. It is a statement of fact of what will happen in the future. In 9:27 Paul is saying that he can be disqualified which is true since he struggles with sin he does not have a infallible assurance of his own salvation. In this life I do not think we can have a infallible assurance that we have been justified by faith alone, with this in mind Paul is saying that if he does not produce works then he will know that he is not saved and thus disqualified. 10:1-12 is talking about how people who succumb to idolatry are not saved and since we do not know 100% if we are justified by faith to begin with then Paul is telling the Corinthians not to hand their life over to idolatry because if they were to do that then they would fall out of the covenant community and show themselves never to have been saved (justified by faith) in the first place. 8:11 is talking about the weaker brother stumbling, you can stumble and still be a christian. In 11:32 one of the ways in which Christ keeps us guiltless until the end by disciplining us, but this is not incompatible with the proposition that God will keep his elect until the end.
You: Rom 8:28-30
Nick: This is specifically talking of the elect, who will persevere (those who love the Lord to the end). 8:17 shows you must persevere in suffering in this life.
Some good conditional security passages in Rom are 4:6-8 where David (in Ps 32) lost his salvation and had to repent. 11:20-22 where some lost their salvation because they stopped believing and Paul warns Christians it could happen to them.
Response: I have already responded to the artificial distinction you make between the elect and those who have salvation. I have already given a response to Romans 11 in this post as well. I agree that you must preserve in the midst of suffering in this life and all the saved will do that. No where in the Bible does it say that David lost his salvation.
One serious problem thus far is you've falsely equated "salvation" (or "justified") with "ticket into Heaven." When one is saved/justified they go from a dead branch to a living one, ingrafted in Christ and receiving His life in them. However, not until the end, at the harvest, does a Christian become found worthy of entering Heaven (or not) based on their life lived (Gal 6:7-9).
ReplyDeleteResponse: The reason why I have done that is because one is made righteous by faith and only righteous people go to heaven so when someone is righteous they do have their ticket (Rom. 4:3-5). Galatians 6:7-9 is saying that those who are unregenerate cannot produce reap good because they are of the flesh, but those who reap by the spirit (the saved) do reap good. The reason why they reap good is because of Christs righteousness is imputed to them and if they continue doing works this will verify their imputation by faith alone.
Response:
You: This is even more evident when one reads the proceeding context...(Rom. 8:31-39)
Nick: It is very interesting to note that all those dangers are external to the Christian, none of them include the Christian turning to sin (Gal 5:19-21).
Response: Paul is general argument and thrust of the passage is that nothing that can seperate us from the love of Christ. If we could do that then of course something could, namely ourselves, but if this is true then this goes against the entire reasoning of Paul in Romans 8.
You: Someone can cease from doing x, y, and z and could of never been saved to begin with.
You: Hebrews 10:29-31
Nick: Well this is quite problematic because you didn't quote properly starting with verse 26.
Response: Yeah so 26 says that those who keep on sinning do not have their sins taken care of, which I agree with, how does this effect my interpretation?
You: This verse would be teaching the same:
Hebrews 6:4-9
Nick: This clearly teaches salvation not only CAN be lost, but WAS. It does not actually say "IF they fall away," but rather a PAST TENSE "HAVING FALLEN AWAY."
http://tinyurl.com/p3wyye
Response: Actually the aorist tense is just employed here to emphasize the completeness of their action of falling away from the covenant community. I agree that they haven fallen away from the covenant community so I am not sure where you are going with this.
ReplyDeleteJohn 15 would also be teaching this as well:
John 15:1-2
Nick: This isn't just community but salvation itself, it's odd you didn't quote v6.
Response: Yeah I think they are falling away from the covenant I have already dealt with verse 6 previously.
You: Romans 11:17-22
...their child could have never believed in the first place but stayed in the covenant community...
Nick: Quite a explanation for something so simple. This conclusion is erroneous for it assumes being ingrafted has nothing to do with salvation. You're "never believed in the first place" is directly contrary to the plain reading of the text.
Response: Interesting...I would have to disagree.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion and believe you're position cannot harmonize Scripture anywhere near the Catholic Biblical view can (Mat 18:23-35). The view you presented requires an extraordinary amount of cherry picking texts and a faulty view of justification.
Response: The Catholic interpretations of these texts rely on distinctions that are not themselves found in the text of the old and new testament and for this reason the Protestant interpretation of these texts ought to be preferred.
God Bless,
NPT
John 4:13
ReplyDeleteIn response Jesus told her,
"Everyone who drinks from this water will be thirsty again.
But whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never thirst again-forever!
On the contrary, the water that I will give him willbecome within him a spring of water gushing up to eternal life."
John 3:14,15
ReplyDeleteAnd just as Moses lifted up lifted up the serpent in the desert, likewise the Son of Man,
must be lifted up, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.
John 5:21
ReplyDeleteFor just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life,so also the Son gives life to whom he wishes.
John 5:24
Amen, amen, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes the One who sent Me has eternal life, and will not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life.
John 20:30,31
ReplyDeleteJohn's purpose in writing this book
Jesus actually performend many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Hey WClayH,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking a interest in this blog and putting down some solid scripture concerning the nature of eternal life.
God Bless,
NPT
John 15:1,2
ReplyDeleteI am the true vine and My Father is the vinedresser, Every branch in Me which does not produce fruit He props up, and every one producing fruit He prunes so that it will produce more fruit.
LOGOS21
Your treatment of John 15:2 Is consistent with many translations. If you happen to use the NKJV there is a note that states or "lifts up" at the bottom of the page. The audience the Lord is addressing would understand lifting up the vine in a vineyard was and is a standard practice allowing fruit to be produced! God actually does the heavy lifting here; just as He does at salvation.
ReplyDeleteJames 1:17, 18
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by his word of truth, that we might be a sort of firstfruits of His creatures.
By His Grace
WClayH
Romans 8:32
ReplyDeleteHe who did not spare His own Son, but delievered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
Hey WClayH,
ReplyDeleteI believe my treatment of John 15:2 is consistent with eternal security and covenant theology, but the reason why I choose the translation that I did was because of the word studies I did in airo in my undergraduate work. The Greek word in John's Gospel usually has the meaning of being taken away or cut off rather than lifted up. I do believe God does this and that he does all the work in salvation, but I do not think that this particular text teaches that. But thanks for putting that idea forward.
In Christ,
Nathanael P. Taylor
The Greek word is airei from airo (lift up), not airei from aireo (cut off). (Present
ReplyDeletetense forms of airo are identical with those for aireo). However, we have
documents detailing how vinedressers worked the vineyards in ancient times,
which have been examined by viticultural and biblical scholars. The ancient
vinedressers did not cut off every non-fruit bearing branch. This word is used in
John eight times.
John 5:8 “Get up,” Jesus told him, pick up your bedroll and walk.”
John 5:9 Immediately the man got well, picked up his bedroll and started to walk.
John 5:10 Now that day was the Sabbath. So the Judeans said to the man who had been healed,
“It’s the Sabbath; You’re not permitted to pick up your bedroll.”
John 5:11 He answered them, “The man who made me well—He told me, ‘Take up your bedroll
and walk.’ “
John 5:12 So they asked him, “Who is the man who told you, ‘Pick up your bedroll and walk’?”
John 8:59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him. But Jesus hid Himself and went out
of the temple courts, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
John 10:18 “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have the authority to
lay it down and I have power to take it up again. This command I have received from My Father.”
John 15:2 “Every branch in Me which does not bear fruit He props up; and every one producing
fruit He prunes that it will produce more fruit.
Hey WclayH,
ReplyDeleteI agree with all that you have said. However, cutting off or pruning was also apart of ancient practice. So both views are in accordance with historical investigation. In the proceeding context it is suggested that branches are cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:6) and thus this concept is taught in the same pericope. It is true, as you have shown, that John does use airo to mean lift up at times, but as I have said previously you will find John's predominant usage being "cut off" or "taken away". So we should translate it as taken away or cut off since it is taught in the same pericope and is in accordance with the predominant usage of John.
John 15:8
ReplyDeleteMy Father is glorified by this; that you produce much fruit.
If one has life and is not producing fruit he is cut off and thrown in fire?
If one has life and he is producing fruit God prunes so more fruit is produced?
If God prunes the one already producing fruit could He also lift up the one not producing so that he also is producing more = > 0 fruit?
Hey WclayH,
ReplyDeleteSomeone who has eternal life will not be thrown in the fire, but he who is in the new covenant can be thrown into the fire. John 15 does not necessarily speak of those who have life but those who are connected covenantally. Someone who has life will produce more fruit. God will lift up all those who have eternal life, but I do not think John 15 teaches this, as I have said previously.
God Bless,
NPT
John 6:47
ReplyDelete"Amen, Amen, I tell you, whoever believes in Me has eternal life."
John 6:37
All the father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.
John 5:24
Amen, amen, I tell you, a whoever hears My word and believes the One who sent me has eternal life, and will not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Life and death is the issue.
Jesus Christ guarantees eternal life to all who believe in him for it.
Can we know we have eternal life?
Hey WClayH,
ReplyDeleteYes, we can know that we have eternal life. But in order to know if our trust or belief in Christ genuine we need to produce fruit (James 2). Good works flow out of our justification by faith alone, but they are not the grounds of our justification. Thus, believers will know that their belief in genuine and that they have been truly justified by faith by their fruits or works of gratitude. If one lacks these fruits then one will have very little assurance of salvation. We know our belief is genuine therefore by our works, but our works do not make us saved, they are merely a indicator that we are saved.
God Bless,
NPT
Sorry for this very late response. I kept getting sidetracked.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to go over some of the passages you responded on.
Mat 24:12f: you missed my point. This agape love which grows cold can only be in reference to Christians.
John 6:44,40: You said: "The distinction between those who have salvation and those who are elect is not a distinction that is found in the Bible whether implicit or explicit."
Nick: I would disagree, its very clear in any passage where someone is warned against falling away. 2 Pt 1:9-10 shows a saved man turning to a life of sin, and risks falling away.
John 10:28f: You: "The present tense can have a gnomic usage, that is a usage of universal general truths."
Nick: I've read Protestant works on this (Arminian), that's where I got my info.
You said: John 15:6: Those who do not profess Christ are cut out of the covenant community which is not synonymous with salvation (Rom. 9:6).
Nick: The context of Jn 15:6 is certainly salvation and abiding in Christ. It's not 'covenant community', otherwise Christ's words about "abiding in Him" are illogical (eg "bearing fruit" is impossible if it's a covenant community context).
You said: John 12:42: The crowd believed in the proposition that Christ taught and claimed to be but they did not existentially trust him. You can know that God exists without trusting him as Romans 1 demonstrates about non-believers.
Nick: You're arguing they had 'fake false' essentially, but that's an unwarranted assumption you're forced to make. The context starts off with those who refused to believe, then goes into those who did believe but fell away.
You said: John 13:8: This verse misunderstands protestant theology.. If you are a believer that has been justified by faith you will of necessity produce works...
Nick: It is quite a presumption to say good works are guaranteed, and impossible to defend Scripturally (eg 2 Pt 1:9), especially in the fact Christians can still SIN. That said, I did not misunderstand your theology: Peter was a genuine believer before Jn 13, see Mat 16:17f for example, thus at the Last Supper Jesus was talking to a truly saved Peter. The problem is Jesus gave Peter an ultimatum, impossible if salvation couldn't be lost. It would be an outright lie on Jesus' part if salvation was not on the line. EVEN IF Peter would surely obey, the ultimatum STILL remains true, contradicting your theology which won't even allow a hypothetical possibility of losing salvation.
Phil 1:6:
ReplyDeleteYou: It does not follow from confident infallible encouragement that the proposition that Paul intends to communicate it rendered false or even dubious. You are suppose to work through your sanctification through fear and because if you do not produce fruit then you were never justified by faith or saved to begin with...
Nick: Reading the whole Epistle forces you to take all evidence into consideration, so I would say it "does follow." Further, you presumed "sanctification" was in mind in 2:12f, a totally unwarranted assumption which your theology is forced to create. As for the issue of 'never saved in the first place,' that's another serious assumption, because nowhere are good works guaranteed and further we see Christians turning to lives of sin in Scripture. Paul never goes around talking like that.
1 Cor 1:8:
You: If you are saying that this is just encouragement then why can I not say that all the verses you bring up are just warnings? This seems sort of arbitrary.
Nick: Just warnings? A warning is a genuine threat, regardless of the probability. Under the Sola Fide system, a warning is impossible even if only hypothetical.
You: In 9:27 Paul is saying that he can be disqualified which is true since he struggles with sin he does not have a infallible assurance of his own salvation. In this life I do not think we can have a infallible assurance that we have been justified by faith alone, with this in mind Paul is saying that if he does not produce works then he will know that he is not saved and thus disqualified.
Nick: Wow, quite an admission. I don't even know how you remain Protestant after that, because Sola Fide was supposed to be the antidote to the Catholic "wait and see". Luther's conscience was tormented without Sola Fide giving him full assurance, and here you say Paul didn't know? I'm STUNNED you would claim this, you'd be called a Papist by your colleagues if you made that claim on the front page of your blog.
Also, the term "disqualified" means you were originally a genuine contender.
You: 10:1-12 is talking about how people who succumb to idolatry are not saved and since we do not know 100% if we are justified by faith to begin with then Paul is telling the Corinthians not to hand their life over to idolatry because if they were to do that then they would fall out of the covenant community and show themselves never to have been saved (justified by faith) in the first place.
Nick: This is incorrect reading. Nothing to do with "never saved in the first place," Paul doesn't talk like that. Also, your comments only further obliterates so called "Assurance." The whole point is that people were saved initially but later threw it away by turning to sin.
You: 8:11 is talking about the weaker brother stumbling, you can stumble and still be a christian.
Nick: No, this says the brother for whom Christ died can "perish" (a critical term to use). This is not a minor slip up in mind.
You: In 11:32 one of the ways in which Christ keeps us guiltless until the end by disciplining us, but this is not incompatible with the proposition that God will keep his elect until the end.
Nick: It's impossible in your scheme, because it cannot be true even hypothetically. It says God disciplines SO THAT you won't be condemned in the future, impossible if condemnation is 100% off the table at conversion.
Rom 8:28-30:
You: I have already responded to the artificial distinction you make between the elect and those who have salvation.
Nick: I have responded to this issue above, so hopefully we can flesh it out there rather than repeat in two places.
You: No where in the Bible does it say that David lost his salvation.
Nick: Paul says Ps 32 was a justification situation, yet David wasn't converting here (he already was a believer), he was instead repenting. This is only possible if he lost his salvation from grave sin.
OR WAS he never saved to begin with?
You: The reason why I have done that is because one is made righteous by faith and only righteous people go to heaven so when someone is righteous they do have their ticket (Rom. 4:3-5).
ReplyDeleteNick: Your view of justification is wrong on that point. It's the difference between entering a race and finishing it, entering into a relationship and persevering in growing to maturity so that you can receive the Father's inheritance.
You: Galatians 6:7-9 is saying that those who are unregenerate cannot produce reap good because they are of the flesh, but those who reap by the spirit (the saved) do reap good. The reason why they reap good is because of Christs righteousness is imputed to them and if they continue doing works this will verify their imputation by faith alone.
Nick: This does violence to the text. Paul is warning Galatians who turned to sinful lives here, saying they can either cooperate with the Spirit or satisfy their own lusts. Nothing to do with 'never really saved' and nothing to do with "verifying" true faith or imputation.
You: Paul is general argument and thrust of the passage is that nothing that can seperate us from the love of Christ. If we could do that then of course something could, namely ourselves, but if this is true then this goes against the entire reasoning of Paul in Romans 8.
Nick: You're ignoring the examples Paul gave, none of which were internal/sins, only external sufferings. This is a simple matter of reading it in context.
Hebrews 10:29-31
You: Yeah so 26 says that those who keep on sinning do not have their sins taken care of, which I agree with, how does this effect my interpretation?
Nick: It's talking to believers, saying "if we keep on sinning, no sacrifice remains." That's devastating to your theology. This isn't false believers at all here.
Hebrews 6:4-9
You: Actually the aorist tense is just employed here to emphasize the completeness of their action of falling away from the covenant community. I agree that they haven fallen away from the covenant community so I am not sure where you are going with this.
Nick: This is a direct contradiction to your theology, and you admit they fell away, but now you're stuck claiming "covenant community" which doesn't fit. The context is plainly salvation.
Romans 11:17-22
You: Interesting...I would have to disagree.
Nick: You'd have to twist this into a non-soteriological context, including making "unbelief/belief" here have nothing to do with salvation!
Mat 18:23-35
You: The Catholic interpretations of these texts rely on distinctions that are not themselves found in the text of the old and new testament and for this reason the Protestant interpretation of these texts ought to be preferred.
Nick: The only "distinction" you've put forward is an unproven "covenant community" one, which does considerable violence to the texts we've looked at.
John's Purpose in Writing this Book
ReplyDeleteJohn 20:30,31
Jesus actually performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples which are not written in this book.
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
John 3:2b
Rabbi, we know that You have come as a teacher from God, because no one can perform these miraculous signs You do unless God is with him. Replying, Jesus said to him, Amen, Amen, I tell you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus asked Him, How can anyone be born when he is old? He can't enter his mother's womb a second time and be born, can he? Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I tell you, unless one is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don't be amazed that I told you, You all must be born again. The wind blows where it will, and you hear its sound but you don't know where it is coming from and where its going. So it is with everyone who is born of the spirit. In responses Nicodemus said to Him,
How can these things be?
Are you a teacher of Israel and don't know these things?
Lord bless you guys in your studies.
YBIC
WClayH
John 13:7b Peter said to Him
ReplyDeleteLord, do you wash my feet? What I am doing now you don't understand now, but afterwards you will.
You shall never wash my feet, Peter told him not ever!
Jesus answerd him.
If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.
Simon Peter Said to Him,
Lord not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!
Jesus told him,
One who is bathed has no need except to wash his feet, but is wholly clean. And you are all clean, but not all of you. For He knew who would betray Him. You are not all clean.
So when Jesus Washed there feet and put His robe back on, He reclined and said to them,
do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord and you speak rightly, since I am. So If I your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers feet. In fact I have given an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.
Amen, Amen I tell you a slave is not greater than his master, nor is a mesenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them
In John 13 We are given a wonderful example and object lesson by the Lord .
ReplyDeleteBathed + feet wash = wholly clean.
What is bathed?
What is feet wash?
Why are the disciples to wash one another’s feet?
Lord bless
YBIC
WClayH
Hey Nick,
ReplyDeleteNo worries I figured you were busy.
Mat 24:12f: you missed my point. This agape love which grows cold can only be in reference to Christians.
Response: I did not miss your point. I checked the Greek Lexicons and I did not find one that said that agape only can refer to a love a Christian has, it definitely means that largely, but not only and always. In fact: at times phileo and agape are used interchangeably. Thus, I would maintain my original interpretation that this refers to people loosing the love they have for one another because of the increase of sin and lawlessness.
Nick: I would disagree, its very clear in any passage where someone is warned against falling away. 2 Pt 1:9-10 shows a saved man turning to a life of sin, and risks falling away.
Response: I think a believer can momentarily lack those qualities. I would also say that a believer can forget that he has been justified and cleansed because at the present time he is not producing enough fruit as to give him full assurance. It does not say here that they have lost there salvation by momentarily not practicing all of God’s commandments. Therefore, this still does not justify the Catholic distinction between election and salvation since one could explain and understand this verse without those distinctions.
Nick: I've read Protestant works on this (Arminian), that's where I got my info.
Response: Well then those Protestant works were mistaken then.
Nick: The context of Jn 15:6 is certainly salvation and abiding in Christ. It's not 'covenant community', otherwise Christ's words about "abiding in Him" are illogical (eg "bearing fruit" is impossible if it's a covenant community context).
Response: One can abide in Christ in the covenant community or not abide in Christ in the covenant community, and the same is true of bearing fruit. None of this is incompatible with the covenant community understanding of this text which is clearly taught elsewhere (Heb. 10:23-31). The covenant community relates to salvation but it is not synonymous with salvation and so the talk of abiding in Christ and bearing fruit is very relevant given the concept of the covenant community.
Nick: You're arguing they had 'fake false' essentially, but that's an unwarranted assumption you're forced to make. The context starts off with those who refused to believe, then goes into those who did believe but fell away.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I am not arguing for fake false belief. You have entirely misunderstood my understanding of this text. I am saying that they believed in the fact that Jesus was who he said he was, but they do not have a relational trust in him which is such that they would feel compelled to follow him.
You said: John 13:8: This verse misunderstands protestant theology.. If you are a believer that has been justified by faith you will of necessity produce works...
Nick: It is quite a presumption to say good works are guaranteed, and impossible to defend Scripturally (eg 2 Pt 1:9), especially in the fact Christians can still SIN.
Response: It would only be presumptuous if the bible did not say it, but clearly it does (Ephs. 2:8-10). I have always said that Christians can sin, just read my post on the struggling believer and that will be entirely evident. But what I have said is that there are certain sins that Christians cannot commit, but that is fundamentally different from saying that Christians will not sin in general.
That said, I did not misunderstand your theology: Peter was a genuine believer before Jn 13, see Mat 16:17f for example, thus at the Last Supper Jesus was talking to a truly saved Peter. The problem is Jesus gave Peter an ultimatum, impossible if salvation couldn't be lost. It would be an outright lie on Jesus' part if salvation was not on the line. EVEN IF Peter would surely obey, the ultimatum STILL remains true, contradicting your theology which won't even allow a hypothetical possibility of losing salvation.
Response: I do not really see the contradiction here unless you were to supply this additional premise:
P* If an ultimatum is given to a give agent S then an agent S has the ability to choose both of the courses of action.
Well, I clearly reject this premise and I do not see any good reason for believing it. In other words, I do think it a logical possibility that Peter could have chosen one or the other (no modal logician would ever disagree with that), but what I do reject as many compatiblists do, is that this there are two actual metaphysical possibilities that Jesus is discussing here. The Reformed Protestant view of Perseverance of the Saint luckily is only committed to there being no metaphysical possibility of losing your salvation not that it is actually logically impossible to lose your salvation. So I think that you have misunderstood my theology in light of these clarifications.
Nick: Reading the whole Epistle forces you to take all evidence into consideration, so I would say it "does follow." Further, you presumed "sanctification" was in mind in 2:12f, a totally unwarranted assumption which your theology is forced to create. As for the issue of 'never saved in the first place,' that's another serious assumption, because nowhere are good works guaranteed and further we see Christians turning to lives of sin in Scripture. Paul never goes around talking like that.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well what about the epistle forces me to over turn a clear verse that exhorts me with the fact that God who began a good work in me will bring me to completion on the last day? Why is my understanding of 2:12 unwarranted? The other assumptions I have dealt with above. In the future, when you make a claim, I need to see the evidence for that claim. I cannot read your mind and know why you think my assumptions are unwarranted.
Nick: Just warnings? A warning is a genuine threat, regardless of the probability. Under the Sola Fide system, a warning is impossible even if only hypothetical.
Response: For one I do not think a warning is impossible given the Sola Fide system. A warning could just be an instrument in the text to keep those who are already in the faith to continue in the faith. I believe a threat can be genuine even though after hearing the warning I lack the ability to loose my salvation. These assumptions you have about warnings and ultimatums are all things you bring to the text as one who is a Roman Catholic Libertarian on the will of man, but to just state what you already believe to a Reformed Protestant compatibilist that rejects the Kantian maxim of a “ought implies a can” is rather question begging. Thus, my critique still stands if you can wave your hand at every verse that says you will continue until the end guiltless as mere encouragement and exhortation that carries no metaphysical implication at all then certainly I can do the same when you bring out your passages (but I could just say it is a warning).
Nick: Wow, quite an admission. I don't even know how you remain Protestant after that, because Sola Fide was supposed to be the antidote to the Catholic "wait and see". Luther's conscience was tormented without Sola Fide giving him full assurance, and here you say Paul didn't know? I'm STUNNED you would claim this, you'd be called a Papist by your colleagues if you made that claim on the front page of your blog.
Also, the term "disqualified" means you were originally a genuine contender.
Response: Yeah it is pretty clear how I remain a Protestant after this: For one I reject the Pope and I believe that Rome teaches a false Gospel. I also believe that the Bible is word of God and I have no reason to believe any other authority extrinsic to it. I reject free will, the mass, indulgences, penance, priest, saints, and that Muslims worship the same God that I do. I also reject the Eastern Orthodox claims even more so than the Catholic claims since they reject that the God-man Jesus Christ is a necessary being. I guess it would be pretty difficult for me to be a Catholic after all those things that the Roman Catholic Catechism teaches that I conflict with. I have talked with my colleagues and they either agree with me or disagree with me, but I accept the three of unity, which is standard in the Reformed churches. And nothing I have said here contradicts that. Thus, they would never call me a papist for those reasons, nor have I ever been called one. Luther is not the Bible by the way. And also all those who perform good works before men are original contenders to be saved from our perspective.
Nick: This is incorrect reading. Nothing to do with "never saved in the first place," Paul doesn't talk like that. Also, your comments only further obliterates so called "Assurance." The whole point is that people were saved initially but later threw it away by turning to sin.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I think it is a correct reading. Our Assurance is based on our fruits of gratitude produced by the Holy Spirit; if we lack those then we will have no assurance. The text is talking about those who were in the covenant community were not shown to be saved. I would say Paul does not explicitly use the phrase “never saved in the first place”, but I think that theology can be inferred from the obvious fact that I believe Paul teaches that people who are really saved will not fall away, but obviously people no longer profess Christianity and so naturally my reaction is to believe that the bible is the word of God and that it never speaks falsehood and this would lead me to this obvious theological inference from the word of God:
P: Person S was not really Christians since the bible teaches that real Christians cannot fall away.
Nick: No, this says the brother for whom Christ died can "perish" (a critical term to use). This is not a minor slip up in mind.
Response: There are many glosses for that Greek word. I would not use the gloss perish, but rather destroyed or ruined as a expression to how much you eating food will hurt there Christian life, not that they will lose their salvation. This evident by the fact that this person is still a brother even though you have hurt them spiritually.
Nick: It's impossible in your scheme, because it cannot be true even hypothetically. It says God disciplines SO THAT you won't be condemned in the future, impossible if condemnation is 100% off the table at conversion.
Response: I do not think that discipline is unnecessary if condemnation is 100% off the table. It can be hypothetically in the broad logical sense, but it cannot be a metaphysical possibility which as I have said above is all that is required for perseverance of the saint. I would deal with this objection in the same way I dealt with your objection about imperatives and ultimatums.
Nick: Paul says Ps 32 was a justification situation, yet David wasn't converting here (he already was a believer), he was instead repenting. This is only possible if he lost his salvation from grave sin.
OR WAS he never saved to begin with?
Response: All the text says here is that David in Romans 4 is talking about the blessing of one who is justified apart from works. One can repent and still be justified by faith.
Nick: Your view of justification is wrong on that point. It's the difference between entering a race and finishing it, entering into a relationship and persevering in growing to maturity so that you can receive the Father's inheritance.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well that would be only true if the Bible taught progress justification which it does not (Rom. 5:1).
Nick: This does violence to the text. Paul is warning Galatians who turned to sinful lives here, saying they can either cooperate with the Spirit or satisfy their own lusts. Nothing to do with 'never really saved' and nothing to do with "verifying" true faith or imputation.
Response: I do not think it does. I think either interpretation is compatible. But given that there are clearer texts that say that we are justified by faith apart from works of law and that we will preserve if we have been saved then this verse ought to be given the interpretation which is most compatible with Paul’s theology.
Nick: You're ignoring the examples Paul gave, none of which were internal/sins, only external sufferings. This is a simple matter of reading it in context.
Response: He does not have to cite those examples he incorporates all created things as being unable to separate us from the love of Christ: Romans 8:39 nor anything else in all creation.
P1: Nothing in creation can separate Christians from Christ
P2: Christians are a part of creation
C: Christians cannot separate from Christ
Nick: It's talking to believers, saying "if we keep on sinning, no sacrifice remains." That's devastating to your theology. This isn't false believers at all here.
Response: I believe Paul is talking to the covenant community which is composed of believers and unbelievers and this is obvious if you read the proceeding context (Hebrews 10:28-31).
Nick: This is a direct contradiction to your theology, and you admit they fell away, but now you're stuck claiming "covenant community" which doesn't fit. The context is plainly salvation.
Response: Falling away from the covenant community seems to be a theme in Hebrews so I do not really think that it does not fit (Heb. 10:29).
Nick: You'd have to twist this into a non-soteriological context, including making "unbelief/belief" here have nothing to do with salvation!
Response: I think my interpretation is compatible with unbelief and belief referring to salvation, I just think it is an ethnic cooperate matter rather than an individual matter as my interpretation on the blog makes clear.
Nick: The only "distinction" you've put forward is an unproven "covenant community" one, which does considerable violence to the texts we've looked at.
Response: I think it is a legitimate theological distinction to make sense of a lot of texts and it is taught in the text of the Bible itself (Heb. 10:29) which is something that is hardly true of the Catholic distinction between the elect and the saved. Thus, since the Protestant distinction is textual and the Catholic distinction is not the Protestant understanding ought to be preferred.
I hope you are well.
God Bless,
NPT
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI Think Hebrews 10:21-31
ReplyDeleteIs addressing a very specific audience.
Acts2:14-46
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.
22“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—23Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you £have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25For David says concerning Him:
‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’£
29“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, £according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’£
36“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
If you were one of these guys in the audience would you go back to the temple and make a sacrifice?
Lord Bless
WClayH
John4:21
ReplyDeleteWoman, Jesus told her, believe me a time is coming when you will not worship the Father either on this moutain or in Jerusalem. You Samaritains worship what you don't know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Judeans. But a time and is coming and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. Yes the Father is looking for such people to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
Response (Mt24:12f): ...I did not find one that said that agape only can refer to a love a Christian has...Thus, I would maintain my original interpretation that this refers to people loosing the love they have for one another because of the increase of sin and lawlessness.
ReplyDeleteNick: I'd first like to see where it applies to non-Christians. Next, the text makes no sense if non salvific love is in mind here, what good is "hot" love in the first place? If this is not dealing with salvation, then growing cold means nothing. The quality of love corresponds directly to whether one is saved or not.
Response (2 Pt 1:9f): I think a believer can momentarily lack those qualities. ... It does not say here that they have lost there salvation by momentarily not practicing all of God’s commandments. Therefore, this still does not justify the Catholic distinction between election and salvation...
Nick: Well, this already undermines the "guaranteed good works" theory of yours. Also, there is nothing here indicating only "momentarily." It then says "if you do these things you will never fall," indicating failing to do them causes you to fall away. It also speaks of making your "calling and election sure," indicating one is not automatically elect just because they've been cleansed from past sins.
Response: Well then those Protestant works were mistaken then.
Nick: I don't know enough Greek to make a more definitive judgment.
Response (Jn15:6): One can abide in Christ in the covenant community or not abide in Christ in the covenant community, and the same is true of bearing fruit. ...
Nick: This is illogical, the text is about abiding in Christ, so to say "or not abide in Christ in the covenant community" is non sequitor. You've totally divorced bearing fruit from salvation, your interpretation makes bearing fruit purely a function of "community" which ultimately means nothing and goes directly against the whole context, esp 15:5.
Response: I am not arguing for fake false belief. You have entirely misunderstood my understanding of this text. I am saying that they believed in the fact that Jesus was who he said he was, but they do not have a relational trust in him which is such that they would feel compelled to follow him.
Nick: This is a variation of the "fake faith" (or "non saving faith) argument, but again is unwarranted. You have no grounds to say "faith" in one case means genuine belief, while "faith" in another place means "belief in facts but not saving." The context of Jn 12:42 is undeniably "genuine" belief, yet when it comes to v42 you must make that a different kind of faith.
Response (jn 13:8): It would only be presumptuous if the bible did not say it, but clearly it does (Ephs. 2:8-10). I have always said that Christians can sin, just read my post on the struggling believer and that will be entirely evident. ...
Nick: If Christians can sin, then that contradicts the idea of "guaranteed good works."
Response (Jn 13:8): I do not really see the contradiction here unless you were to supply this additional premise: ...The Reformed Protestant view of Perseverance of the Saint luckily is only committed to there being no metaphysical possibility of losing your salvation not that it is actually logically impossible to lose your salvation. ...
ReplyDeleteNick: This is a lot of fancy talk, but it betrays the plain reading of the text. Peter refused to be washed and Jesus gave him an ultimatum: no wash, no part with Me. The ability to choose is secondary to my argument. This ultimately shows the gymnastics the reformed camp has to go through to explain away texts, all in order to preserve Sola Fide.
Response: Well what about the epistle forces me to over turn a clear verse that exhorts me with the fact that God who began a good work in me will bring me to completion on the last day? Why is my understanding of 2:12 unwarranted? The other assumptions I have dealt with above. ...
Nick: Because it's an exhortation and shouldn't be read as a verse that trumps everything else. In the case of 2:12, you've invented a "justification-sanctification" distinction which Paul never makes, and further assumed "sanctification" must be what he's talking about.
Response: For one I do not think a warning is impossible given the Sola Fide system. A warning could just be an instrument in the text to keep those who are already in the faith to continue in the faith. ...
Nick: In Sola Fide, losing salvation is not an option on the table, even in theory. It's not that it's possible but God will prevent it, rather it's theoretically impossible. Because the ground of justification is wholly outside the individual, nothing the individual does plays into justification. Thus giving a genuine warning is illogical, because in theory it means the individual's actions play a role in justification, directly contradicting the fact the ground is external to him. This is a situation where people like me actually understand Reformed theology better than most Reformed.
Response: ...Thus, they would never call me a papist for those reasons, nor have I ever been called one. ...
Nick: My comments were limited to this comment of yours: "In this life I do not think we can have a infallible assurance that we have been justified by faith alone."
This does away with the idea Sola Fide comforts the conscience while Catholicism keeps the soul in fear.
Response: Our Assurance is based on our fruits of gratitude produced by the Holy Spirit; if we lack those then we will have no assurance.
Nick: Which in turn means the conscience cannot be comforted, contrary to the whole intention of Sola Fide. As soon as you find yourself sinning, you must question whether you were truly saved in the first place, critically undermining Sola Fide.
Response: The text is talking about those who were in the covenant community were not shown to be saved. ...I think that theology can be inferred from the obvious fact that I believe Paul teaches that people who are really saved will not fall away...
Nick: You've ultimately made texts like 1 Cor 10 not really about salvation at all but rather 'pastoral', and ultimately irrelevant. So when the text talks about how "we" should avoid idolatry and immorality and such, the true Christian who falls into them cannot lose salvation, while the false Christian merely falls out of the community.
Response (1 Cor 8:11): There are many glosses for that Greek word. I would not use the gloss perish, but rather destroyed or ruined as a expression to how much you eating food will hurt there Christian life, not that they will lose their salvation. This evident by the fact that this person is still a brother even though you have hurt them spiritually.
Nick: Perish is a term major translations use, and more importantly the Greek term is in reference to the utter destruction of something. So here we have a Christian turning to idolatry, perishing, but nothing of any soteriological value according to you.
Response (1 Cor 11:32): I do not think that discipline is unnecessary if condemnation is 100% off the table. It can be hypothetically in the broad logical sense, but it cannot be a metaphysical possibility...
ReplyDeleteNick: Then your arguing a flat out contradiction:
1) Salvation is 100% not based on anything you do.
2) Warning against losing salvation based on what you do.
It's a flat out contradiction. #2 cannot be true even hypothetically.
Response (Ps32): All the text says here is that David in Romans 4 is talking about the blessing of one who is justified apart from works. One can repent and still be justified by faith.
Nick: Then you're saying repenting had nothing to do with justification, thus Paul's teaching is absurd: It means Ps 32 wasn't really a moment of justification, despite the fact Paul said it was.
Response: Well that would be only true if the Bible taught progress justification which it does not (Rom. 5:1).
Nick: You're reading your understanding of justification into the text. The life of Abraham flatly contradicts your argument, given that Abraham was justified before Gen 15:6. Also, texts like Mat 12:37 put justification in the future, even the final judgment.
Response (Gal 6:7-9): ... given that there are clearer texts that say that we are justified by faith apart from works of law and that we will preserve if we have been saved then this verse ought to be given the interpretation which is most compatible with Paul’s theology.
Nick: But the works of Gal 6:7-9 are not "works of the law," so your argument is problematic right there. Further, nothing says an individual will surely persevere.
Response: He does not have to cite those examples he incorporates all created things as being unable to separate us from the love of Christ: Romans 8:39 nor anything else in all creation.
Nick: The context is of suffering persecutions and such, nothing about personal sins. You are using philosophical arguments here beyond the intention of the text. You are saying "neither murder, nor fornication, nor idolatry, etc, will separate us," which is a twisting of Paul's intention. It further leads to the classic double standard of Reformed theology: No sin can separate, yet if you commit such sin you should question if you were saved in the first place. So if the genuine Christian finds himself in adultery, he must simultaneously affirm salvation cannot be lost while questioning if he was ever saved.
Response: I believe Paul is talking to the covenant community which is composed of believers and unbelievers and this is obvious if you read the proceeding context (Hebrews 10:28-31).
Nick: Irrelevant, the author includes himself, and further all this would be absurd if this wasn't soteriological, which is what you made it out to be.
Response: Falling away from the covenant community seems to be a theme in Hebrews so I do not really think that it does not fit (Heb. 10:29).
Nick: It's a false model, it doesn't fit any context, and it twists concepts like "belief" into ultimately irrelevant terms. That's absurd exegesis.
Response: I think my interpretation is compatible with unbelief and belief referring to salvation, I just think it is an ethnic cooperate matter rather than an individual matter as my interpretation on the blog makes clear.
Nick: Then you're twisting the text. Branches were broken off due to unbelief, yet to you this belief has nothing of the nature of salvation about it, yet in the next breath when Paul speaks of belief it does. It's a clear testimony to the extent the Protestant camp will go to defend unBiblical and preconceived notions, namely Sola Fide.
Response: I think it is a legitimate theological distinction to make sense of a lot of texts and it is taught in the text of the Bible itself (Heb. 10:29) which is something that is hardly true of the Catholic distinction between the elect and the saved.
Nick: How is Heb 10:29 proof? It's plainly soteriological, not covenant community. If 10:29 is not dealing with soteriology, then you've badly misread it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1John2:1, 2
ReplyDeleteMy little children I write these things to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Lord Bless,
YBIC
WClayH
Hey Nick,
ReplyDeleteHere are my responses:
Nick: I'd first like to see where it applies to non-Christians. Next, the text makes no sense if non salvific love is in mind here, what good is "hot" love in the first place? If this is not dealing with salvation, then growing cold means nothing. The quality of love corresponds directly to whether one is saved or not.
Response: It makes perfect sense. At one time they had love that was warm for one another and then at a later time they will no longer have this. This does not at all suggest that one is saved who has this love.
Nick: Well, this already undermines the "guaranteed good works" theory of yours. Also, there is nothing here indicating only "momentarily." It then says "if you do these things you will never fall," indicating failing to do them causes you to fall away. It also speaks of making your "calling and election sure," indicating one is not automatically elect just because they've been cleansed from past sins.
Response: This does not undermine it because I said that once one is justified by faith he perform those actions generally, but not perfectly. In addition, there are a few things that a person who is justified by faith will never do, but certainly these are few and far between. It would seem momentarily given the fact that Christians will generally produce works once they are saved (Eph. 2:8-10), but I am sure it is possible for a Christian to experience this in a period in their life were they are really struggling, both of which is compatible with this text and perseverance of the saints. And with respect to the quotation you made about never failing: This is one of the ways to show that you are believer by performing those works and by performing them continually this shows that you were justified by faith, but there are surely other things a believer will do continually suggesting that will ensure the believer not to fail. Moreover, just because it says that doing these works will ensure that you will not fail there could be other factors that will cause you not to fail like God’s action ensuring you that you will never fail (1 Cor. 1:8). Thus, just because the bible teaches the proposition that doing an action x will ensure that you will not fail does not entail that either 1) that is the only thing that ensures it, 2) that you can in fact fail (at least in the metaphysical since which is all that is needed for perseverance of the saints to be sufficiently established). Now let me address the question of election and it being made sure: Peter here is speaking epistemologically here and not metaphysically. That is to say: believers who perform these works will be more assured (with respect to knowledge) that they are of elect, but it is not saying that those who do not perform works will lose their election (with respect to being).
Nick: This is illogical, the text is about abiding in Christ, so to say "or not abide in Christ in the covenant community" is non sequitor. You've totally divorced bearing fruit from salvation, your interpretation makes bearing fruit purely a function of "community" which ultimately means nothing and goes directly against the whole context, esp 15:5.
ReplyDeleteResponse: The text is about the true vine which is being about in Christ external via the covenant community. But once a branch is a part of the true vine it must abide in order to produce fruits. Those who do not abide are cut off and thrown into the fire. This text is related to salvation and bearing fruit in the covenant community so I do not really see how this divorces anything and this text does not teach that bearing fruit is the only function of the covenant community. I do not see how 15:5 proves your point, how is it incompatible with my interpretation here?
Nick: This is a variation of the "fake faith" (or "non saving faith) argument, but again is unwarranted. You have no grounds to say "faith" in one case means genuine belief, while "faith" in another place means "belief in facts but not saving." The context of Jn 12:42 is undeniably "genuine" belief, yet when it comes to v42 you must make that a different kind of faith.
Response: The Greek word pisteuo can mean a trust in something or a belief in propositions. It seems that someone who is justified by faith would confess that Jesus is Lord and so since these people are not doing that then pisteuo should probably seen as believing in propositions rather than a relational trust, but suppose that is false then one could simply say that these are believers who are not confessing at that point, again either way this is compatible with perseverance of the saints.
Nick: If Christians can sin, then that contradicts the idea of "guaranteed good works."
Response: Again, you have misunderstood the Protestant position here. To make this clear let us distinguish two types of works S and H. S is such that a believer will produce these works at least some or most of the time but not all the time perfectly (and thus accounting for the believer sinning). Now suppose that Sins that are H are such that a believer will never fail to produce these works, if one were to fail to produce these works this would be a indication that he was never justified by faith to begin with (there are only a few sins that are like this). Given this subtle distinction there is no contradiction here at all.
Nick: This is a lot of fancy talk, but it betrays the plain reading of the text. Peter refused to be washed and Jesus gave him an ultimatum: no wash, no part with Me. The ability to choose is secondary to my argument. This ultimately shows the gymnastics the reformed camp has to go through to explain away texts, all in order to preserve Sola Fide.
Response: Well you did not really respond to my interpretation. You just really made fun of it and just made a bunch of assertions without evidence. So I will take this to suggest that you have strong convictions against my position, but that you do not have anything substantial to say by way of response apart from name calling and empty rhetoric.
Nick: Because it's an exhortation and shouldn't be read as a verse that trumps everything else. In the case of 2:12, you've invented a "justification-sanctification" distinction which Paul never makes, and further assumed "sanctification" must be what he's talking about.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Why should I not read an exhortation as factual even if there are verses that are apparently in tension with it? I would ground my justification and sanctification distinction from Romans 2-4 as most Protestants do, but you already know how I do that given our previous discussions.
Nick: In Sola Fide, losing salvation is not an option on the table, even in theory. It's not that it's possible but God will prevent it, rather it's theoretically impossible. Because the ground of justification is wholly outside the individual, nothing the individual does plays into justification. Thus giving a genuine warning is illogical, because in theory it means the individual's actions play a role in justification, directly contradicting the fact the ground is external to him. This is a situation where people like me actually understand Reformed theology better than most Reformed.
Response: I think my metaphysical and logical distinction I gave about losing your salvation still sufficiently answers this question, which of is something you did not respond to at all, but you rather made fun of it which is not really a response at all. There is a logically possible world in which someone looses his salvation by no longer having faith in Jesus. This is still sola fide, but all I am rejecting is that perseverance of the saint is true in all possible worlds. Yet in this world and given the way it has been set up metaphysically and covenantally we cannot loose our salvation.
Nick: My comments were limited to this comment of yours: "In this life I do not think we can have a infallible assurance that we have been justified by faith alone."
This does away with the idea Sola Fide comforts the conscience while Catholicism keeps the soul in fear.
Response: This is more of a subjective and existential argument that has no bearing whatsoever on theology and the objective testimony of the word of God. I would say that I would have more fear if I were a catholic rather than a Protestant so Sola Fide is more comforting to me personally, but you could just subjectively disagree with me and that is fine given that all of these observations are subjective and preferential in character.
Nick: Which in turn means the conscience cannot be comforted, contrary to the whole intention of Sola Fide. As soon as you find yourself sinning, you must question whether you were truly saved in the first place, critically undermining Sola Fide.
Response: I would say the subjective element is not an essential tenant of Sola Fide. If you want to say that was the original intention with Luther that is fine, but my intention is that it is clearly taught in the Bible in Romans 2-4 independent of any happy secure fuzzy feeling I may or may not get. Luther is not the Bible nor does he have any magisterial weight like the Pope, so appealing to original intentions and what Luther said is not going to further this conversation on the objective merits of justification of faith alone or Perseverance of the Saints for that matter. Therefore, this objection does not even touch Sola Fide as expressed in the Bible.
Nick: You've ultimately made texts like 1 Cor 10 not really about salvation at all but rather 'pastoral', and ultimately irrelevant. So when the text talks about how "we" should avoid idolatry and immorality and such, the true Christian who falls into them cannot lose salvation, while the false Christian merely falls out of the community.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I do not think they are made irrelevant.
Nick: Perish is a term major translations use, and more importantly the Greek term is in reference to the utter destruction of something. So here we have a Christian turning to idolatry, perishing, but nothing of any soteriological value according to you.
Response: Destruction is a metaphor for how badly the one brother effects the others brothers sanctification. In a sense this passage is saying that another believer can badly damage anthers sanctification process. But certainly things that are destroyed can be repaired by God’s Grace. It can mean utter destruction but not always according to the 5 different lexicons I went through in Bible works 6.0. Lastly, it has soteriological significance since this is a reference to sanctification.
Nick: Then your arguing a flat out contradiction:
1) Salvation is 100% not based on anything you do.
2) Warning against losing salvation based on what you do.
It's a flat out contradiction. #2 cannot be true even hypothetically.
Response: I reject 2. And I never gave any indication that I accepted 2. Therefore, there is not contradiction.
Nick: Then you're saying repenting had nothing to do with justification, thus Paul's teaching is absurd: It means Ps 32 wasn't really a moment of justification, despite the fact Paul said it was.
Response: Repenting has to do with sanctification. Paul never says it was a justification situation. All he says is this:
Romans 4:6-8 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Notice he never speaks in the first person. You would only have a legitimate case here if Paul applies the justification to David or if David spoke in the first person.
Nick: You're reading your understanding of justification into the text. The life of Abraham flatly contradicts your argument, given that Abraham was justified before Gen 15:6. Also, texts like Mat 12:37 put justification in the future, even the final judgment.
Response: How am I reading it in? This is just your Roman Catholic conviction without any argument. I believe Abraham was justified before Gen. 15:6 and I am not sure how that might be a problem for my position. In Matthew 12:37 the gospel writer is using dikaioo as to be shown to be righteous. In other words believers and unbeliever’s words will show whether or not they have been justified by faith on the Day of Judgment.
Nick: But the works of Gal 6:7-9 are not "works of the law," so your argument is problematic right there. Further, nothing says an individual will surely persevere.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well the language of works of law is not used but the still concept of works remains and Paul in Romans 2-4 clearly teaches against that. Well, I would argue that all the verses I gave in my blog post prove that we will surely persevere.
Nick: The context is of suffering persecutions and such, nothing about personal sins. You are using philosophical arguments here beyond the intention of the text. You are saying "neither murder, nor fornication, nor idolatry, etc, will separate us," which is a twisting of Paul's intention. It further leads to the classic double standard of Reformed theology: No sin can separate, yet if you commit such sin you should question if you were saved in the first place. So if the genuine Christian finds himself in adultery, he must simultaneously affirm salvation cannot be lost while questioning if he was ever saved.
Response: I am not putting any philosophical categories here. The author simply says nothing in creation will separate us, including us. God prevents the believer from committing too many S type sins or any H type sins. God gives the believer the Grace of the Holy Spirit so that they will never loose their faith in God or to produce a sufficient amount of works appropriate for someone who has been justified by faith. So given this understanding I do not see how this twists Paul’s intention apart from you saying it does. This does not lead to a double standard: A person who finds himself in adultery will ask whether or not he was ever saved in the first place because surely he cannot loose his salvation since the Bible clearly states the contrary. In light of that, it is hard for me to see how that is any sort of double standard or being theologically inconsistent.
Nick: Irrelevant, the author includes himself, and further all this would be absurd if this wasn't soteriological, which is what you made it out to be.
Response: Again, the covenant community is related to salvation. Furthermore, if the author includes himself that would still be compatible with the covenant community being composed of believers and unbelievers since the author would fit the former category.
Nick: It's a false model, it doesn't fit any context, and it twists concepts like "belief" into ultimately irrelevant terms. That's absurd exegesis.
Response: No it is a good model and I think that whatever the Bible says about whether belief in a proposition or a belief in a person are both very relevant. But I am not really interested in us just writing angry things back and forth about our convictions. I want to hear the reasons for your conclusions not just your conclusions. Otherwise your rhetoric is just going to continue to be increasingly hostile. And I really think that is not going to accomplish much by way learning and mutual understanding.
Nick: Then you're twisting the text. Branches were broken off due to unbelief, yet to you this belief has nothing of the nature of salvation about it, yet in the next breath when Paul speaks of belief it does. It's a clear testimony to the extent the Protestant camp will go to defend unBiblical and preconceived notions, namely Sola Fide.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I am not twisting the text. The branches were broken off due to cooperate unbelief and it has something to do with the nature of salvation. Read how I deal with this text with an open mind on my actual blog post that you are commenting on.
Nick: How is Heb 10:29 proof? It's plainly soteriological, not covenant community. If 10:29 is not dealing with soteriology, then you've badly misread it.
Response: Yeah, it says that someone has profaned the blood of the covenant. Why have I badly misread it? I know your convictions are formed by whatever the Catholic Church says, but I need to hear reasons for why you think those convictions are correct.
God Bless,
NPT
1John 1:5-2
ReplyDelete5This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
1My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Lord Bless
YBIC
WClayH
There is really nothing more I can say without this turning into each of us repeating ourselves over and over. I believe my case is proven as simply as in how you've dealt with Mat 24:12f. All you could say was that agape applied to non-Christians and that an unregenerate later on not loving another is somehow an plausible and relevant issue in the context of persevering and being saved.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a good topic to spend too much time on because it is ultimately driven by how one views justification. If you take on the imputed righteousness model, then systematically you cannot accept loss of salvation, and any text suggesting such must be interpreted to mean otherwise. So if the core issue is not given primary focus, it will result in what we have here with us repeating ourselves.
Hello Nick,
ReplyDeleteI will respond to these two statements.
There is really nothing more I can say without this turning into each of us repeating ourselves over and over. I believe my case is proven as simply as in how you've dealt with Mat 24:12f. All you could say was that agape applied to non-Christians and that an unregenerate later on not loving another is somehow an plausible and relevant issue in the context of persevering and being saved.
Response: Well in the course of this discussion I saw that there were many verses you did not adequately answer such as: John 10:28-29, 1 Cor 1:8 , John 6:44, Romans 8:28-30. I will grant of course that given the assumption that one thinks a exhortation is not truth indicative whatsoever then it seems that you have some working assumption for Phil 1:6. But the difficultly with this is that you never provided any argumentation as to why we ought to see exhortations as not possessing any sort of truth value. What about Matthew 24:12? Well I provided lexical evidence that agape need not refer to Christians necessarily. But you said well what about the context? Well I would see the love growing cold as being a result of the increase of lawless in general, so one need not be committed to the idea that this phrase is connected to the concept of falling away. But even if I were to grant you that this refers to Christians does this prove your point? Well, it is hard to see that it does. For a Calvinist could simply say that Christians at times can grow cold with respect to their love for one another and this need not indicate that one is not a christian if in fact they had gone cold for a period of time in their life. So it seems that you have offered one verse that is hardly clear defeater and I have offered many verses that you have even yet to deal with adequately.
It's not a good topic to spend too much time on because it is ultimately driven by how one views justification. If you take on the imputed righteousness model, then systematically you cannot accept loss of salvation, and any text suggesting such must be interpreted to mean otherwise. So if the core issue is not given primary focus, it will result in what we have here with us repeating ourselves.
Response: Well, I am not entirely convinced that this is the case. For Protestant arminian theologians believe that you can lose their salvation yet they affirm imputed righteousness and sola fide. So I am not convinced that is entirely the case, but I see how it is related in one sense. But even if it were it seems that our discussions in the past demonstrate more so than not the biblical strength of sola fide, so if that is what the issue is then I am more scripturally confident in that than say perseverance of the saints.
But I thank you for your time and the lively discussion. I hope things are well for you.
God Bless,
NPT
Nate:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
All those who are drawn and come to God will be raised up on the last day. The term last day in the context of John 6 refers to the resurrection of glory (John 6:40). Which leads me to the next verse:”
This verse seems to be stating a necessary condition for personal salvation, not a sufficient condition. “No one can come” means “it is not possible to come”. It does not necessarily mean “will come”. All the surface grammar of the text says is that it is impossible to come to Christ without the drawing of the Father, not that all that are drawn by the Father will come. If it means “will come”, there has to be an additional argument that something other than the surface grammar of the text requires this interpretation.
If you say, “well, the text also says that the person is raised up on the last day” I would ask: which person? The person who is drawn, or the person who comes? It seems permissible to think that the person that is raised will be the person who came. But this does not necessarily imply that all those who were drawn are raised. It could imply that only some of those that were drawn are raised—namely those that also came.
Hello Michael,
ReplyDeleteThis verse seems to be stating a necessary condition for personal salvation, not a sufficient condition. “No one can come” means “it is not possible to come”. It does not necessarily mean “will come”. All the surface grammar of the text says is that it is impossible to come to Christ without the drawing of the Father, not that all that are drawn by the Father will come. If it means “will come”, there has to be an additional argument that something other than the surface grammar of the text requires this interpretation.
Response: The Greek word Helkuo is a strong causal word that is used for Peter dragging fish in Johns Gospel (John 21:11). The use of this Greek word would then imply that it is not being used as a necessary condition but a sufficient condition.
If you say, “well, the text also says that the person is raised up on the last day” I would ask: which person? The person who is drawn, or the person who comes? It seems permissible to think that the person that is raised will be the person who came. But this does not necessarily imply that all those who were drawn are raised. It could imply that only some of those that were drawn are raised—namely those that also came.
Response: In the Greek language genders types are used to refer back to certain persons, things or concepts. In this text the person who is raised is in the masculine gender referring back to the person who was drawn in the masculine gender. Thus, all who are drawn are raised. Given these considerations it seems like my argument for perseverance of the saints still stands.
I hope you are well.
God Bless,
NPT
John 14:1
ReplyDeleteLet not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2In My Father’s house are many £mansions; if it were not so, £I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
Lord Bless,
WClayH
How does God Draw to his Son?
ReplyDeleteWClayH
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteI do not know how God draws to his son. I hope you are well.
God Bless,
NPT
John has the answers for us!
ReplyDeleteI am doing well.
Have a great 4 of July.
Lord Bless
WClayH
Can an individual wind up in hell after being born again by the power of God? Man says yes because in mans ignorant wisdom negates what Gods power has wonderfully done, man stoops in his intellectual exercise in his own unfaithfulness and tries to rationalize it into some kind of theology 101!
ReplyDeleteJesus said
"When he the comforter has come he will guide you in all truth...."
and
If man is unfaithful Jesus will remain faithful for he cannot disown himself....
The only way any that any blood bought born again believer can lose their salvation is that right now one must go to the heavens and destroy all the streets of gold. Then after that bad that individual must destroy all the angels at Holy Gods command. Then the last thing the individual must do is take on Holy God himself. This is impossible so any individual who called out to Jesus for salvation by repentance cannot and will not lose their salvation it would be a paradox in the face of God's holy word and the payment of mans sin by the blood of his dear son Jesus Christ!
Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
For thus saith the Lord: "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity; in his trespass that he hath trespassed and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die" (Ezek. 18:24). That this is to be understood of eternal death appears from the 26th verse: "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; (here is temporal death), for his iniquity which he hath done he shall die." (Here is death eternal.) It appears further, from the whole scope of the chapter, which is to prove, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (v. 4). If you say, "The soul here means the body," I answer, that will die, whether you sin or no. Again, thus saith the Lord: "When I shall say to the righteous that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness (yea, or to that promise as absolute and unconditional) and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed he shall die for it" (Ezek. 33:13).
ReplyDeleteAgain: "When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby" (v. 18). Therefore one who is holy and righteous, in the judgment of God Himself, may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly.
Objection. "But," someone asks, "how is this consistent with what God declared elsewhere? If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, I will visit their offenses with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. I have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not fail David" (Ps. 89:30-35).
Wesley's answer. "There is no inconsistency between one declaration and the other. The prophet declares the righteous judgment of God against every righteous man who falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist declares the old loving kindness which God sware unto David. . . . May not every man see that the covenant here spoken of relates wholly to David and his seed or children? (as a family) while the other is spoken to men as individuals. Where, then, is the inconsistency between the most absolute promise made to a particular family, and that solemn account which God has given of His way of dealing with all mankind?
"Beside, the very covenant mentioned in these words is not absolute, but conditional. The condition of repentance, in case of forsaking God's law, was implied that, this condition failing, not being performed, God did also fail David. He did "alter the thing that had gone out of His lips," and yet without any impeachment of his truth. He "abhorred and forsook His anointed," verse 38, the seed of David, whose throne if they had repented, should have been "as the days of heaven." He did "break the covenant of His servant, and cast his crown to the ground" (v. 39). So vainly are these words of the Psalmist brought to contradict the plain full testimony of the prophet!
"Nor is there any contradiction between this testimony of God by Ezekiel, and those words which he spake by Jeremiah: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee." For do these words assert that no righteous man ever turns from his righteousness? No such thing. They do not touch the question, but simply declare God's love to the Jewish church. To see this in the clearest light you only need to read the context. "At the same time, saith the Lord, I will be a God to all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people," etc. (Jer. 31:1-4).
Suffer me here to observe, once for all, a fallacy which is constantly used by almost all writers on this point. They perpetually beg the question, by applying to particular persons, assertions, or prophecies which relate only to the church in general; and some of them only to the Jewish Church or nation, as distinguished from all other people.