"Once saved, always saved"--Fact or Fiction?

I think I may have addressed in passing some of your questions, or rather some assumptions underlying some of your questions. However, I'll try to be more explicit.

Who knows. God's ways are higher than ours. However, that line of questioning seems to also underlie the Calvinist's position in limited atonement: "Why would Christ die for anyone who wasn't eternally elect?". Askers of such rhetorical (to them) questions seem to think they have thereby ended the debate. However, without pretending to probe the depths of God's mind I'll say it has something to do with the mysterious dynamic between God's Love and man's free will.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or someone else, but I'll start by saying that 1 John 5:13 is one of the most horribly abused verses used by OSASites in support of their position. (I know, because when I myself was an OSASite, I too horribly abused it) Why? Because they yank it out of context of the rest of the epistle. Let's see what else John has to say about "knowing" one has life or not, etc:

"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him." (1 John 2:3-5)

"Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in your, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:24)

"In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10)

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death" (1 John 3:14)

"My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before Him" (1 John 3:18)

Of course, there is a lot more in this one epistle that shows that "knowing" one has eternal life involves much more than a mere recollection of a one time decision in the past to follow Christ. To limit salvation "assurance" to such would be to completely distort John's message that true saving "knowledge" intimately involves what we do.

So once one considers John's expanded criteria for "assurance", then yes, if one meets the criteria listed through out the epistle (ie "these things I have written to you" 1 John 5:13), one can have a present tense assurance of present tense salvation. However, it would be presumptuous to suppose that this would always and automatically continue to be the case. Which leads us to...

Just because one has (ie "possesses", present tense) eternal life now doesn't mean he will continue to have it in the future. Why? Because eternal life is not something that is granted exterior to (and irrespective of) one's relationhip with Christ, but eternal life is in Christ Himself. Christ is eternal and has life in Himself. Those who are in Christ therefore have His life. However, if one doesn't abide in Christ but rather cuts himself off from the Source of Life then he obviously no longer has life (see John 15:1-6; Romans 11:19-23). So eternal life is eternal because Christ is eternal. However, our possession of this life is a different story--it has a beginning in time, and, if we do not abide, and ending in time as well.

Anyone can take an illustration such as this, absolutize it, and thereby "prove" their soteriological position as if it is a comphrehensive and exhaustive summary of Biblical teaching on salvation. However, this illustration, though revealing some truth, does not encompass all the Bible teaches about the dynamic between God and man and our salvation. Of course, God initiates salvation, but the NT (and OT, for that matter) is replete with conditional instructions for Christians to "abide", "hold fast", "keep", "stand firm", "endure", "overcome" etc. In other words, God works and we are working as well. This is best summed up by Paul's command to the Philippians to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13)." We can either by Grace work with God or against Him. So although God "reached down", and became Incarnate, died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead without us asking, and by His Spirit draws us to Himself without us asking, we must respond to Him--not just once, but continually til the day we die. If we stumble, we must confess and repent. Those who are faithful until death will be saved.

Abraham was indeed justified many years before he was obedient with Isaac, but you make the mistake of assuming that justification is just a one time, once-for-all occurance. Yes, in Genesis 15:6 it says that Abraham "believed in the Lord and He accounted it to him for righteousness". However, this was not the point of his initial justification. In Hebrews 11:8 it says: "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to out to the place which he would receive and inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going." Chronologically, this took place years before the justification mentioned in Genesis 15. In other words, since Abraham had already demonstrated obedient faith years before, one can accurately say that he was justified in Genesis 12 as well. So rather than being a one time, once-for-all event, justification is seen biblically as a true description of the faithful one's ongoing relationship with God--that the faithful one is truly considered to be righteous on account of his obedient faith. (Which is why one can never separate justification--being reckoned as righteous--from sanctification--being set apart for God.) This is why James too was correct when he said that Abraham was (again) justified because he offered Isaac...and this of course involved the work of obedient faith. And, of course, faith without works is dead and does not avail for salvation.

When Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac, it was just Abraham, Isaac, and God--no one else was around. Did God give the command to Abraham to sacrifice his son and then turn around and say: "But you don't actually need to pack up and go. I see in your faith in your heart". Nope. God does say, after He stays Abraham's hand from slaying his son: "For now I know that you fear God, since you have not witheld your son, your only son, from Me (Gen 22:12)." In other words, God wanted Abraham to prove to Him that he still had faith in Him. This goes with the James 2 passage nicely, and with the passage in Hebrews 11. All of this shows that salvation, and the justification which accompanies it, is a life-long dynamic relationship with God in Christ, and not some "hell insurance" resulting merely from a one time past decision to "accept Christ" in one's heart.

(PS: Have fun camping)

[ August 25, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

Hey mman


First, I know of very few who want to please God through human obedience schemes that know that the Greek behind the KJV John 3:5 "born again" is actual "born from above." Congrats!

The reason so few of your theology know this is that they botch the word "water" to mean water baptism and totally overlook Jesus' contrast between physical and spiritual. Eternal life is from above = spiritual. Lack of eternal life (death) is from below = physical.

Spiritual birth is from above; physical birth is through the waters of birth.


Second, you quote

is also exact.

However, one must do more than say exact words, one must also realize why it is exact.

Justification is by faith alone.
Sanctification is by faithfulness.

Justification is God's activity.
Sanctification is mixed activity.
__Past/future is God's domain.
__Present is human activity.

The Hebrews 11 shows justification by faith and the historic records of human faithfulness. You must see that both justification and sanctification are presented together as the summative view one's life.

We don't want the baby to just be born (justification) and remain a baby. We want the baby to grow into an adult.

I am for justification by faith alone. But I'm also for faithfulness. I don't want justification to depend on sanctification. That is a sneaky way of endorsing Catholicism. No thanks for me.

Lot of good stuff from you this time!
Lloyd

 

Greetings bmerr

Yes! You pose yet another difficult question. I doubt few today would get to this answer. We are a nation that no longer studies God’s Word. We do the best we can but slide every further – ever faster into national darkness.

This and the parables near it fall within a lengthy polemic between Jesus and the religious leaders (11:14–13:9). This section contains six woes upon the Pharisees, the nation’s religious rulers. Gary T. Meadors, “The Poor in the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke,” GTJ 6:2 (Fall 85): 313.

This section is part of Luke’s “central section” (viz. 9:51–18:14).

Bob Deffinbaugh describes it best, “I believe that God is saying to Israel that He has turned (or will do so) to the Gentiles because of the rebellion of Israel. His “servants” who eat, and drink, and rejoice are thus those who have turned to Him in faith, and they include both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Those whom God will “slay” (Isaiah 65:15) are His disobedient people.

“Based upon these premises, my understanding is that the “servant” who is “cut in pieces” is the unbelieving nation of Israel. Unbelieving Israel will be “cut in pieces” (dispersed) and will be cast into hell, along with those heathen they so much disdain and despise. The faithful servant is God’s church, those who have trusted in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah, and who wait expectantly for His return.” (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1112)

Hope this helps. I had to do some digging myself until I see the relation to national Israel. This matches with Paul’s description of the branches in Rom 9-11.

Your tough questions make me dig!
Lloyd

 

Greetings Frank

You must be getting to the end of your smoke and mirror proof to be talking this way.

My gut hurts from laughing. You mentioned Gen 6 but pulled the word definition from Genn 7:1. Did you happen to see the words "just" and "perfect" in Gen 6:9?

Howver, every aspect of The Flood happened after Noah's justification. The flood saga demonstrated the severing of ALREADY SAVED Noah’s ties to the old world of corruption and judgment as it ushered him into the new world of life. When Noah disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal of a cleansed conscience to live the new life under God’s control and direction. Likewise, water baptism is to be used as an AFTER justification appeal to God based upon an ALREADY saved conscience. The altar is Peter’s focus; not the water.

In addition to typology confusion, you contrast the Bible in several key ways. You believe that water saves; Bible shows that water brought death and destruction (II Pet 2:5, 3:6). You want salvation to come through the water; Bible shows that justification came BEFORE the waters (Gen 6:8-9). you seek safety from going through the waters; Bible shows that safety was inside the ARK (a type of Christ). You want baptism to be an appeal to God for justification; context shows that Noah built the altar as an appeal to God to live for Him in the new life for sanctification. You contrast the biblical story at every point.

Water baptism happens AFTER justification as a picture of a dramatic change in life and an appeal to live for God in the new world! How much clearer does it have to be? Only blind loyalty to human-centered self-righteousness could miss such obvious context.

One error at a time!
Lloyd

 

Greetings Frank

You are truly a clanging cymbal. I don’t know where you pull this stuff up.

Let’s go back to justification. You seem to think you know it. Here are your examples.

PASSIVE VOICE
Acts 13:39; Pres Pass Ind; All who believe are justified
Rom 3:24; Pres Pass Ptcp; Being justified freely by his grace through Jesus’ redemption.
Rom 3:28; Pres Pass Infin; We are justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:5; Pres Act Ptcp; Those who believe in Jesus are justified. Faith is counted for righteousness.
Gal 2:16; Pres Pass Ind; We are not justified by the works of the law.
Gal 3:11; Pres Pass Ind; No one is justified by the law. The just (dikaios) shall live by faith.
Gal 5:4; Pres Pass Ind; Christ is of no effect if you are justified by the law. Ye are fallen from grace.
James 2:24; Pres Pass Ind; A man is justified by works and not by faith only.
Matt 11:19; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified of her children.
Luke 7:35; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified by her children.
Rom 3:4; Aor Pass Subj; God’s Word is given that you might be justified.
Rom 4:2; Aor Pass Ind; If Abraham was justified by works he can boast.
Rom 5:1; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
Rom 5:9; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by Jesus’ blood, we shall be saved from God’s wrath.
I Cor 6:11; Aor Pass Ind; We are justified and sanctified in Jesus’ name by God’s Spirit.
Gal 2:17; Aor Pass Infin; If we seek to be justified by Christ and found to be sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid!
Gal 3:24; Aor Pass Subj; The law brought us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
I Tim 3:16; Aor Pass Ind; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, believed in the world, and received up into glory.
Tit. 3:7; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs.
James 2:21; Aor Pass Ind; Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered up Isaac?
James 2:25; Aor Pass Ind; Rahab was justified by works.
Rev 22:11; Aor Pass Imper; He who is righteous, let him be righteous still.
Matt 12:37; Fut Pass Ind; You will be justified by your words.
Rom 2:13; Fut Pass Ind; The doers of the law will be justified.
Rom 3:20; Fut Pass Ind; No one will be justified by the deeds of the law.
Luke 18:14; Perf Pass Ptcp; The publican went away justified.
Rom 6:7; Perf Pass Ind; He that is dead is freed (justified) from sin.
I Cor 4:4; Perf Pass Ind; I am not yet justified (because of stewardship).

It is a good thing you aren't a betting man!

Hope you have a pipe too!
Lloyd

 

Greetings

The Greek word for "handwriting" is cheirographon, used in common Greek for a document written in one's own hand as legal proof of indebtedness. Some modern translations call it a bond of indebtedness. Christ wiped out a note of debt.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? I'd try a bit of homework before you get obstreperous. It prevents against public embarassment as well!

Basics get you really hard don’t they!
Lloyd

 

What an excellent study!

Thanks!

In Christ,

Bob

 

You really "do" know everything!

NASB translates it the same way.

[/quote]

 

... No, when looked at with a little logic Matthew 18 does not refute OSAS.

[/QUOTE]

Brian -- I beg to differ.

Matt 18 strikes a devasting blow to OSAS from which OSAS never recovers.

The context for Matt 18 IS "the Kingdom of heaven" by contrast to your assertion that it is not.

That is just for starters.

... Here we go - back to OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lets deal with "the obvious" in Matt 18.

#1. The forgiveness shown OTHERS was to be based on the real forgiveness ALREADY received from God.

#2. The REAL forgiveness received from God was regarding the unpayable DEBT that each one owes to God. The debt of sin.

#3. NO one can be SAVED but UNFORGIVEN.

#4. THIS IS an illustration of "THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN" according to Christ.

#5. This is the SAME instruction we see in Matt 6 in the Lord's prayer "FORGIVE us our debts AS WE forgive others".

#6. The DEBT OWED to the King of kings is RETURNED back to the one who OWED the debt as "payment due" and they are put into torment paying that huge debt of sin! This pay-your-own-debt-of-sin idea is never called "The saved relationship with God" in all of scripture.

#7. Christ says to his own followers "So shall My Heavenly Father do to EACH ONE OF YOU IF you do not forgive...". Christ makes the same point that He made in Matt 6 "For IF YOU do not FORGIVE... then neither will..."

Matt 18 is a clear, irrefutable and obvious case of "forgiveness REVOKED".

The response of those what believe in OSAS will often list reasons why this story "should not be in scripture" (as it were) -- but they never actually address the devastating "details" in Matt 18 regarding OSAS.

That is instructive.

==========================================================

Matthew 18
21 Then Peter came and said to Him, ""Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?''
22 Jesus said to him, ""I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.


Matt 18:23-35 Forgiveness revoked – as opposed to blaming God for not “preserving us”.

Here we see that the Kingdom of Heaven is the context – and the servant “owes” in that eternal reality – a debt that is far greater than he and all his substance could ever repay. He is judged as owing the debt and payment is demanded.

So it is for all of humanity – the law points to the debt owed (Romans 6) the “Wages of Sin is death.” And Rev 20 – 21 tells us that this is in fact the suffering and torment of the 2nd death – eternal.

Though the slave undervalues his own debt and over-values his own ability to “repay” – the Lord has mercy on him anyway and “Forgives the Debt” – full and complete forgiveness in the scenario regarding “the Kingdom of Heaven”. This is key to the Arminian point.

But (as Christ points out in His model prayer of Matt 6) those who Are forgiven are under obligation to forgive others.

Here the case of “the Forgiven” slave is that HE is “unwilling” to show forgiveness to others even though he HAS been forgiven.

Exercising his free-will he is “Unwilling” to give to others that SAME sense of mercy and compassion that HAS been shown him by his Lord.

The Lord does not show any reservation about the full and complete forgiveness that HE gave to His servant.

Here is the direct appeal to the same Point we see Christ making in Matt 6 “Forgive us OUR debts AS WE forgive our debtors” and then adds “For if you do NOT forgive others then…” well you know what He said.

Clearly – “forgiveness revoked” with FULL payment made now – by the slave!
.

Here many shout “OH NO He will NOT!”. They think that “once forgiven ALWAYS forgiven” applies even to those in rebellion. (A good 4-point Calvinist POV by the way).

Here Christ charges that the point is valid for Christians. He argues that WE have been forgiven by our heavenly Father – and that HE will revoke Our forgiveness just as we see in this story and just as Christ claimed in Matt 6 If “we” do not persevere in showing the Same kind regard for forgiving our brothers.

Rather than God blaming Himself for our lack of perseverance or God claiming that HE failed to preserve us – HE charges that WE are under obligation to obey as He directs or be faced with “forgiveness revoked” just as it is really described in this chapter.

 

There is NO case in all of scripture where a person is saved but NOT forgiven sin.

In the case of Moses - he is fully forgiven for the sin of murder- but still dies in old age. (As it turns out so too did David and Samuel and Joshua die in old age).

IF Moses had "paid his own debt of sin" we would see him in the lake of fire.

The DEBT Christ nailed to the cross (the certificate of debt -- decrees written against us for violation of God's Word - His Law) is the debt of the second death!

If Moses had paid such a "huge debt" then HIS would be the death of the lake of fire!

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. you are not giving a proof for OSAS - you are simply musing. It is of the form
IF God knew Adam was going to fall why did God create him PERFECT and SINLESS, holy and IN HARMONY with God?? what would the point be??

That kind of speculation does not "prove anything" but in showing the "type" I hope to DISPROVE the attempt to use it for something.

#2. STILL the "Answer" would be that God has the SAME system for the saved and the lost as He points out in Romans 2. He is "impartial" and the system for staying is the same as the one for ENTERING. HENCE we see in Col 2 "AS you have RECEIVED Christ Jesus SO WALK IN Him"

#3. Notice the argument of Paul in 1Cor 9 regarding HIS participation in the GOSPEL.

Now comes that “unpleasant section” for many where Paul points out the seriousness of this Gospel pursuit for the goal of saving people -- so that I may by all means save some. as he says.

It is as a “fellow partaker of the GOSPEL” that Paul wants to participate in preaching. He then shows that his own example in persuing that goal of being “A fellow partaker of the Gospel” is the standard/model/role-model for the saints. He has left the realm of “I am a leader and Apostle and so I have special rights” to the perspective of WE ALL want to be “Fellow partakers” of the Gospel for as he has just pointed out when the Gospel is received the people are saved. (; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.)

So now in this “fellow partaker of the Gospel” model for ALL that Paul is offering (in the form of his own life example) he shows how it works. He shows the perspective of the saint, the attitude, the focus the Olympic ALL for the Gospel focus that is NEEDED. IN fact he argues that it is critical EVEN for an Apostle for even in this most exaulted case HE is at risk “LEST after preaching the Gospel to other I MYSELF should be disqualified” from that very Gospel!

How instructive!

Yet how fervently ignored by those who find this to be an “unpleasant” section of scripture!

Take each "detail" and show the meaning IN the 1Cor 9 context itself. Let the argument speak for itself IN the text you are exegeting.

Or do you read vs 23-27 and respond with

And so when Paul says

Do you respond with

"Are you saved by your efforts of paying close attention, persevering and taking pains with those disciplines?"

Will your response to each of these displeasing texts be simply to challenge them and show how your view of "other texts" don't allow these unpleasant texts to exist??


When Paul says

Do you respond with I would hope that you are humble enough to put no faith in yourself........and at least a little in God!

In an effort to misdirect away from the texts above where Paul is being crystal clear – perhaps when you see yourself needing to “gloss over” the details of these text and you respond to them as “inconvenient” to your views on other texts (like Eph 2 for example) it is a sign that those other texts are being taken to extremes in your interpretation.

When we let THE TEXT speak does it cause you to immediately jump to some other "more comfortable" text?

IF so - it is a sign that you have taken what your comfortable texts do not actually say explicitly and have added "inferences" that were never in those texts to start with.

In the case of these "unpleasant" texts - it is the mere quote of them and the insistence on seeing their details rather than glossing over them that is causes so many to have heart burn.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Does Adam "KNOW" he is sinless and alive?? Does he think "this is just temporary so I don't really KNOW IT"??

Again - the form of puzzle you present is not "proof of anything".

God argues FOR etneral life for Adam when He says He will REMOVE access to the tree of life "Lest he eat and life forever".

EVERY interpretation for the Tree of Life in Gen 2 indicates mankind had full access to it - BEFORE the fall.

But God argues that access is eternal life "living forever".

Your argument simply does not work - from the very start of the Bible.

That kind of guesswork would not have worked in Gen 2 and 3 with the tree of life and God's OWN statement about eternal life and "living forever".

You "feel"??

Is this a post from the west coast??

Are you talking about Adam? Eve? Lucifer? 1/3 of the Angels?

What?

This "proof by puzzle" thing is not working for you.

True. The ONE Gospel worked the SAME in BOTH the OT and the NT.

At least you have the right.

In any case - this is a good topic. Well worth studying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lloyd:

I thought you were going to address the scriptures. Instead, it is the same tired drivel about passive voice, which in context of what was posted proves nothing. You have arrayed scripture against scripture, or I should say, attempted to pit the Greek against the totality of the harmonious evidence. This is typical of denominationalist. This is simply a feeble attempt to avoid the textual argument.

The passive voice does not preclude man from compling with the conditions of pardon as set forth in the scriptures. Again, EVERY EXAMPLE IN THE BIBLE REQUIRES ONE TO BE BlESSED THROUGH AN OBEDIENT FAITH!. NO EXCEPTIONS. Again,to support your position you offered the example of the infamous NO MAN! if it were so clear, why can't you post us book chapter and verse for the one saved by a do nothing faith.

You still have not revealed to us how language or the science of interpretation functions. You do not want to discuss, Noah, Joshua or Abraham. I would run from the text too if I believed in the do nothing faith like you!! I have read over and over about Abraham and his so called do nothing belief that was accounted for righteousness. In your rush to the do nothing faith you fail to examine the totality of scripture. And, you are lecturing me about study. Pot meet kettle!! What a joke!
Abraham believed and went out from his home.Gen. 12:1-4, cf. Hebs. 11:8. Unless my grammar has failed me, went out is an action verb. I am amazed you purport to know the functioning of the greek language without error. Funny, You cannot even handle our mother tongue. Big words such as and, but, went out, compassed about, seem to stump you. Gen. 12:1-4. cf. Hebs. 11:8.

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge about hermeneutics. As I said earlier, passive voice does not preclude man from submission to the conditions of pardon as set forth by God. No exceptions! I have proved this statement to be true with each example posted. You have yet to provide one example to refute it! Let me make it easy for you. Name an example of a sinner being saved without an obedient faith. Please, post an example that supports your position. I have provided them for mine.


Your contention about Col. 2:14 is simply wrong based on the context. Furthermore, the bible says in Nehemiah 9:13,14, in 13  Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
14  And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Nehemiah states the old law included all that was written in Col. 2:14-16. Of course, you know more about the old law than he did. You are truly self deceived.

I suppose you are going to tell us that the coordinating conjunction in Nehemiah 9 does not really links things in likeness. After all, you imply this with the and of Mark 16:16. If a word does not mean what you like. You just change it!!


By the way, the bible says in Galatians 3:26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It will read this way on the day of judgement, too. I hope one day you will finally get it right.

 

Lloyd:

1 Peter 3:19  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21  ¶The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1. Noah would have been lost had he not done all God had asked. Genesis. 6:22. Name the directve given by God not essential to the saving of Noah? How do you know this from the text? You cannot prove your propositon because it did not happen as you claim. Noah did all and was saved. You simply made an unsubstantiated assertion. Peter affirms this in the text.
2. Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. Again, it does not mean he was sinless. The text compares his righteousness to other men ( His generations). God does not use a man's generations to justify or acquit us of sin or consider us right in his eyes, your assertion not withstanding.
3. Noah's character was superior to all men at this time. He was given a reprieve from the flood as a result. How? Through his obedient faith he moved ( action verb) bad word for you, moving to build the ark. Hebrews 11:7. It all harmonizes.

 

Greetings

Your statements in the face of monumental scriptural evidence that faith is passive shows your complete misunderstanding of justification and sanctificaiton.

The passive voice shows that there is nothing that can be done for sanctification. The activity of obedience is with sanctification. Your error is to continue forcing the human obedience of sanctification upon God's activity in justification.

Jesus Himself used the LOOK and LIVE motif with the brazen serpent to teach Nicodemus that eternal life comes passively only the the look of faith. "Whosoever believes." NO EXCEPTIONS.

There is not viable example in scripture where justification is by works or baptism. Only blind loyalties to human-centered self-righteousness misses the clear teaching of scripture.

Your demand for obedience belongs to sanctification. Until you get that right you will continue to flounder and perpetrate error.

Abraham next post.
Lloyd

 

Hey Frank

Noah was ALREADY JUST and PERFECT (Gen 6:8-9) and RIGHTEOUS (Gen 7:1 before the flood saga.

The flood saga demonstrated the severing of ALREADY SAVED Noah’s ties to the old world of corruption and judgment as it ushered him into the new world of life. When Noah disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal of a cleansed conscience to live the new life under God’s control and direction. Likewise, water baptism is to be used as an AFTER justification appeal to God based upon an ALREADY saved conscience. The altar is Peter’s focus; not the water.

You contrast the Bible in several key ways. You believe that water saves; Bible shows that water brought death and destruction (II Pet 2:5, 3:6). You want salvation to come through the water; Bible shows that justification came BEFORE the waters (Gen 6:8-9). You seek safety from going through the waters; Bible shows that safety was inside the ARK (a type of Christ). You want baptism to be an appeal to God for justification; context shows that Noah built the altar as an appeal to God to live for Him in the new life for sanctification. You contrast the biblical story at every point.

Water baptism happens AFTER justification as a picture of a dramatic change in life and an appeal to live for God in the new world! How much clearer does it have to be? Only blind loyalty to human-centered self-righteousness could miss such obvious context. Only denominational mind control makes one twist the focus from the altar's appeal to live for God.

Have you ever read 1 Pet 4?
Context rules!
Lloyd

 

Hey Frank

A statement made from continued ignorance of justification and sanctification. Noah was ALREADY JUST. He didn't need to build an Ark to be just.

His faithful act of obedience belonged to sanctification. Had he failed and died in the Flood Waters he would still be in heaven.

The Hebrews 11 examples show the combination of justification and sanctification. The saints were justified by faith; and then vindicated this through faithful obedience.

Justification takes precedence. Your process salvation view disintegrates in Heb 11 with Samson. How can suicide by rewarded in a process salvation view without compromising standards (not that you haven't already done that)??

We want the baby to walk and talk. We don't make the baby walk and talk to prove itself ready for birth. Sanctification follows justification. Sanctification is not a requirement for justification.

But you have already dismissed 40 some clear references to the passive voice of justification by clinging to your denominational rhetoric. It is sad to see what happens when humanism is elevated about Christ and God's Word.

Your view doesn't harmonize with Heb 11 - unless you are willing to twist Bible.

Lloyd