#2 Defending Eternal Security

The original thread on the topic was closed, in part, because the rhetoric became a bit too heated and at the very least the BB Posting Rules 3 and 4 (showing grace to fellow posters and no personal attacks allowed) were being pushed to the limit if not actually broken. That thread is currently being reviewed by the BB Admin. Council.

This is to serve as fair warning to anyone posting in this new thread: Failure to show grace to your fellow posters and any name calling/personal attack will result in your post being edited by a moderator and may result in further punitive actions by the BB Admin. Council. Remember, show grace to your fellow posters and debate the issue without attacking the person holding the opposing view.

Yours in Christ,

Bible-Boy,
Forum Moderator

 

Sorry, but to avoid excess heat, I sleep a night
on my comments before I post them.
Thus I'll be discussing things already overcome
by the passing of time.

To who it may concern.
At 20 pages this topic will get shut off.
Whomever makes a continuation topic, please call it:

#2 Defending Eternal Security

Please do NOT call it:

Defending Eternal Security #2

Thank you. Most titles are shortened on most lists
(new post topics list, Forum list, etc) nobody can tell
the difference between

Defending Eternal Security #2 and
Defending Eternal Security

When all you can see is:

Defending Eternal Secu
Defending Eternal Secu

Thank you for your kind consideration of the rest of
the posters.

Bluefalcon: //OSAS doctrine, though it may be true, if emphasized enough
over and above the many warning passages of the Bible may
contribute to the damnation of those who do not pause to consider
whether or not they are really of the faith due to their works of unbelief.//

While true, you statement is a waste of time.
I've been debating religion for the past Twenty-one on electronic
Bulletin Boards (formerly 'posting walls') alone. Everytime someone
starts a topic with a title "OSAS or what?" there will be
4 or 5 sequential or similar topics.
Go start one called "Good Words, what they are and how to do them".
Such a topic will be blessed at the 'near miracle' level if it get 20 posts.

 

In response to Craig's post in the first thread:

You ask how far must one stray before he/she can lose salvation? To me this a bit of an unseemly concept.

Do we not assert that salvation (of which the Bible says we can have assurance) comes as a gift from God based on our faith? If so then we do not earn it by our good actions. How then do we "unmerit" it with bad actions?

In addition the Bible speaks of being a "new creation" in Christ. I think that this is not to be overlooked! Does the Bible not also tell us that when a man becomes a Christian he will love his brother? I see this as an indication that salvation is an indwelling of the spirit and a permanent change.

So then what do we do with the examples of those who were part of the church but later renounced this? There are two options. Either (1) one can lose the status of salvation or (2) not everyone in the church is saved, with God "keeping" those who are. As I said I opt for the latter. But regarding the former option, you ask how much is enough? This obviously is a near impossible question to answer. It is given that we all have sinned after salvation. As I said I think that the "believer" who does not feel remorse for sin at all likely was not ever saved. For if our salvation were based on our merits then why the need for Christ?

Now Craig I have not asked you where you stand on the issue of Paul, the law and justification. It seems that the idea of an eternal security is a bit more strained if you follow some of the "New Perspective" group. May I then inquire as to your view on the NPP?

 

I'm amazed that debates like this even take place, to begin with, the scripture are very "CLEAR/PLAIN":

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Heb 9:22 and without shedding of blood is no remission. (of sin)

The flesh of man sinned and only the flesh of man could pay those wages, but it had to be "someone" who had "NO SIN" of their own for which to pay, and only "GOD" is "Sinless".

Catholic's "Believe" a person can be charged with a sin, sent to purgatory", and "THEY" can "remit" that sin "WITHOUT" Jesus returning to die for the sin, but what does the scripture say, "WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD", (death) "NO REMISSION", that's the "LAW".

Is it any different for folks who don't believe in OSAS, they also believe we can be charged with a sin and it will be "remitted" just by "Repenting", "Forgiveness", "WITHOUT" Jesus's death to pay for that sin.

We all sin after being saved, but Jesus's death covered the "SINS OF "THE WHOLE WORLD", even our sins, two thousand years in the future, yet some don't believe his death is sufficient for a "short lifetime".

Actually, saved today, lost tomorrow, saved the next day, they're teaching the "Remission of sin" without Jesus's death to pay for that sin, like the Catholic.

 

Good post, Me4Him...

Paul never once said he was unsaved after his Damascus Road experience. He sinned, that is evident, for he wrote in Romans 7 that 'the evil that I would not do, that I do.'

The flesh and the Spirit will battle as long as we are in this flesh.

The flesh wants 'service'
The Spirit wants 'service'

The flesh wants to win out over the Spirit. That is why Paul struggled, why he had to keep his body under subjection daily.

If we walk in the Spirit, feeding ourselves with the things of God, setting our affection on things above, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Christians will and do fall daily. But it is the Holy Spirit that points us to Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that reproves (convicts) John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

 

Standingfirm, we have agreed about more than we have disagreed about here, and so I would ask you to look again at Romans 7. In verse 9, Paul states that when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and he died. In verse ten, he states that the commandment which was supposed to bring life brought death. In verse eleven, he states the comandment put him to death. In verse thirteen, he speaks of that death again, saying the commandment produced death in him. In verse fourteen, he speaks of his condition in that state of death as "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin."

Thus, what follows, cannot possibly be his position as a redeemed person, but his position after he had experienced the spiritual death, or separation from God, brought about by intentional disobedience to the known commandment. It is not until verses 24-25 that we find him first looking for salvation and then finding it in Christ Jesus. Chapter 7 closes with the statement that "in himself" he is twice a slave -- to God's law and to the law of sin. In both cases he is condemned. Which is why chapter 8 starts with the cry of victory: "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."

Yes, Paul sinned after he was converted, but Romans 7 cannot possibly be an example of that, for Romans 7 explicitely is describing a man who is "unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin", and the struggles that take place within him, leaving him so miserable. Paul, after his conversion to Christ, was no way any longer 'sold as a slave to sin', for he had been bought, as all believers have been, by Christ, for life and for righteousness.

"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin..." Romans 6:6

 

standingfirminChrist/Helen

The simple point that people miss is that "ONE SIN" will send you to hell, and if you're charged with one sin, you're charges with "ALL SIN".

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

To be saved, you can't be charge with so much as "ONE SIN, that Jesus "DID NOT" die to pay the wages of that sin, and Jesus "IS NOT" dying "AGAIN".

We're either "TOTALLY SAVED" or "TOTALLY LOST"

Nothing in between.

 

If that is the case, then Paul was saved in chapter 6, unsaved in 7, and resaved in 8. I don't see it.

Problem is, in verse 18, Paul states that 'in the flesh dwelleth no good thing.' Our flesh always wants to do that which is opposite to the Spirit. Look at the last verse....

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul, in his mind wants to serve God, but the flesh wants the exact opposite. Paul is not unsaved in chapter 7

 

Me4Him,

I agree. 1 John tells us

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Because we are in the flesh, we will sin from time to time. But, because of our faith in Christ, that sin is not held against us.

This does not give us a license to sin. Romans 6:1,2 tells us this.

 

It's the "SOUL" that is "SEALED", only "death" will stop the "old man" from sinning.

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

I think Helen's point was that a "slave" in under the control of a "Master", be it Satan or God.

kinda like what one of my friends said when he was saved:

I didn't stop drinking, I just switch "fountains"

 

Helen, Helen, Helen. I read your posts with such appreciation. I'm sooooo prepared to offer your comments to others. However (here it comes!) in all my years (I be senior by far to thee) I have never, ever, ever heard even a hint of your interpretation as presented to standingfirm. Is this a "life-long" truth for you, or a more recent arrived-at conclusion?

 

Helen, Helen, Helen. I read your posts with such appreciation. I'm sooooo prepared to offer your comments to others. However (here it comes!) in all my years (I be senior by far to thee) I have never, ever, ever heard even a hint of your interpretation as presented to standingfirm. Is this a "life-long" truth for you, or a more recent arrived-at conclusion? </font>[/QUOTE]I, too, found some of the ideas of Helen, as presented here, very singular. I have given them some cursory attention. For me, at least, the numbers are unchanged.
In His grace,
Ed

 

Whomeveron #1: //Post your favorite OSAS verses and I can show
you by careful exegesis of the Greek text that those verses
do NOT teach eternal security.//

John 3:16 (the version in Ed's head):

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
so that whosoever believes on Him should not perish
but have everlasting life.

IMHO the definition of OSAS is what ever is meant here
by not perish and have everlasting life

When does 'everlasting life' start?
When does 'everlasting life' end?
What is the current status of 'everlasting life'.

IMHO 'everlasting life' starts when youfind out about
Jesus'es sacrifice and believe in Jesus.
First believing in Jesus is when 'everlasting life' starts.

The very definition of of 'everlasting life' means
that the second question "When does 'everlasting life' end?"
has no anslwer. "Everlasting life' has no end.

The current status of my 'everlasting life' is that I'm still
living and will live forever.

 

Good post, Ed!

 

I don't see Romans as "The Story of Paul" or "How I, Paul, Was Saved". So I don't look to pinpoint in which chapter he is saved and in which chapter he is unsaved.

I see Romans as a LONG unfolding of the whole story of sin and salvation, which he examines from just about every perspective. He speaks in the first person in some cases to personalize his expository and to make it more clear.

 

My belief in absolute unconditional eternal security is based on John chapter 10:28," and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither Shall any man pluck them out of my hand". So if after a person is saved they can be lost, then the above statement is obviously a lie and we know God's Word does not lie. Also when it says any man it means exactly that! (any man)

 

Yep, mima, sometimes Christianity 101 zips right past the reader. They then spend the rest of their life in these forums, in endless debate.

 

I believe that James D. G. Dunn grossly misunderstands Paul as is generally characteristic of Lutheran scholars of Paul and his writings. But unlike most of his Lutheran colleagues, Dunn (and Tom Wright, E. P. Sanders and others who share his perspective of Paul’s teaching of justification by faith) depreciates the basic theological contrast in Paul’s theology between the Law and grace. From Paul’s perspective, the Law was the antithesis of the grace of God, and the keeping of the Law has no part in our justification. That is not to say, however, that Paul believed that we are saved by grace through faith apart from the performance of good works, as he most certainly would not have contradicted the teachings of James, but only that he believed that we are saved apart from the works of the Law and one’s faith in the efficaciousness of obeying the Law. And along with Luther and especially Calvin, Dunn, in his theology of Paul, greatly depreciates the efficacy of the atonement of Christ in making the regenerate man a new creation in Christ Jesus outwardly as well as inwardly.

I cannot agree, therefore, with this NPP group in their thinking that Protestants as a whole have misinterpreted first century Judaism or Paul’s attitude toward it. I do believe, however, that Protestants as a whole have significantly but certainly not completely misunderstood Paul’s teaching of justification by faith.

 

Helen is most certainly correct in saying Romans 7:14-25 can NOT possibly be Paul’s experience as a Christian because such a teaching would radically contradict both Paul’s theology of salvation and what we know about him from Luke and Paul’s other writings. The man in Romans 7:14-25 has been “sold into bondage to sin” and is struggling in vain to keep the Law; Christ has fulfilled the Law, according to Paul elsewhere, and only an unregenerate Jew would even attempt to keep the Law himself. Christians are saved by grace through faith, and they know that “the power of sin is the law.” 1 Cor. 15:56.

Helen is incorrect, however, in attributing Rom 7:14-25 to Paul as a Christian because that view directly contradicts these words of Paul in his letter to the Philippians,

If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. (NASB, 1995)

The man is Rom. 7:14-25 is, therefore, a picture of the typical Jew of Paul’s day who believed that righteousness could be found only in keeping the Law. And, of course, Paul uses this picture to show that Jew the futility of such an attempt at achieving righteousness.