An Interesting Post Against Eternal Security

[HankD]

OK Craig have it your way, you believe that you can lose your salvation, fine. But don't include me in on your misery.

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

HankD

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Yep. God lied when He gave me eternal life. It is NOT unconditional (based in His Word) but dependent on ME.

And if that is true - which it is not of course, it is a lie from the pit - then hell is where I will be for eternity.

For in me dwells no good. It is either 100% God or Bob goes to hell. M/E or lose your salvation is a 100% works-oriented position. And no man ever has been justified by the works of the Law.

Eternal security is rooted in the nature of God and it is blasphemy against God to call Him a liar.

Amen! except the M/E part

 

[Craigbythesea]

Eternal security is rooted in the nature of God and it is blasphemy against God to call Him a liar.

Dr. Bob,

I see that you have been taking lessons in cognitive thinking from the KJO sect.

 

[Craigbythesea]

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Hank,

Thank you for posting this proof-text for conditional security

. In the Greek text of verse 36, the word translated here in English as “believeth” is in the Greek a present participle connoting continuous action, and the Greek word translated here in English as “hath” is a verb in the present indicative tense (which, of course, also connotes continuous action). In other words, the last part of verse 36 expressly says in the Greek language that those do not continue to believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. How much security is there in that kind of eternity?

If you have a good sense of humor, read in the grammars by A.T. Robertson and Dana and Mantey to see how Baptists who believe in eternal security write that in this verse the Greek can not mean what it says, because if it does, this verse explicitly teaches conditional security as all Bible scholars believed that it does for 1500 years, and as most Bible scholars believe today.

But that’s OK. I understand that the facts are irrelevant if they prove that you are wrong.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. For 1500 years the Bible was understood to teach conditional security.

During the same period, we had the development of numerous false doctrines within the "church" such as prayer to saints, Mariolatry, relics and icons, the authority of tradition and papal decrees, the establishment of a Christian theocracy, etc.

The history of the "church" is very incomplete outside the "official" church. Most of what we know about those that rejected Rome comes from RCC condemnations of them. There is very little independent history up until the reformation.

John Calvin did precisely this and believed that he discovered truths in some verses in the Bible that no one had ever seen before.

No one? It seems that Calvin drew on Augustine's teachings.

I believe that God caused the Bible to be written in such a manner that the common reader could easily understand at least the major doctrines like salvation.

I agree completely... and therefore reject arminianism and all forms of conditional security.

And we know from history how the Bible passages speaking of salvation were understood throughout the history of the Church, and we know that for 1500 years they were understood to teach that salvation is conditional upon continued belief.

Augustine's support would certainly cut your 1500 years considerably.

As already mentioned, "the Church" prior to the reformation was the RCC. Anyone who taught something other than official church doctrine (against conditional salvation) would have been considered a heretic. They would have been persecuted and their views suppressed regardless of whether their scriptural evidence held water or not.

To cite historical interpretation prior to the Reformation places a level of trust in the RCC that I simply do not possess.

The belief in OSAS was a natural outgrowth of sola scriptura, the reassertion of the Bible as the only valid source for doctrine.

The early reformers did not have concordances that they could use to compare scripture with scripture, and all scriptures were interpreted to a very great extent out of context.

That is speculation on your part. The Reformers had a very great grasp of the text of scripture in Latin, sometimes Greek, and sometimes their vulgar tongues.

In fact, it is a remarkable statement by you. You first say that OSAS violates the historical interpretation of scripture then you provide the parallel between Bible study tools and the rise of the belief in eternal security.

That parallel does seem to be valid by the way, it is because of what I understand as the whole context of the NT teaching on salvation that I accept a calvinistic form of sotierology.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Hank,

Thank you for posting this proof-text for conditional security

. In the Greek text of verse 36, the word translated here in English as “believeth” is in the Greek a present participle connoting continuous action, and the Greek word translated here in English as “hath” is a verb in the present indicative tense (which, of course, also connotes continuous action). In other words, the last part of verse 36 expressly says in the Greek language that those do not continue to believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. How much security is there in that kind of eternity?

If you have a good sense of humor, read in the grammars by A.T. Robertson and Dana and Mantey to see how Baptists who believe in eternal security write that in this verse the Greek can not mean what it says, because if it does, this verse explicitly teaches conditional security as all Bible scholars believed that it does for 1500 years, and as most Bible scholars believe today.

But that’s OK. I understand that the facts are irrelevant if they prove that you are wrong.

</font>[/QUOTE]Mangle this one too

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[Scott J]

Looks like we're headed for another discussion of what the word "all" means.

 

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Paul wrote these words to and about and a particular group of Christians about whom he was confident regarding the outcome of their faith because their lives manifested it. He was not so confident about the outcome of the faith of Hymenaeus and Alexander:

1Tim. 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1Tim. 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Tim. 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

This is one of the most obvious examples that I have ever seen of how taking a verse out of context can make it appear to teach something that the verse does not so much as hint at.

How can Paul have that confidence about that group of believers in Phil. 1:6? Only one of two ways. Either he can see the future, or the work that God began in them will be completed because God began it, just as in all believers. If salvation can be lost, Paul had no right to make that statement about that church or any other believer or group of believers.

 

[HankD]

“hath” is a verb in the present indicative tense

Spin the verb tense any way you like. I have everlasting life and no one is able to take it away from me (including you, including myself) because no one is greater than my Savior.

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

My personal opinion is that it is best to have one’s faith in Christ rather than a falsely-spinned, non-biblical, man-made, modernistic, licentious doctrine invented in the 16th century which contradicts the inspired Greek New Testament and the Church Fathers whom it pleased God to use to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity and to canonize the New Testament, but I fully respect your right to believe what ever you choose.

 

[Craigbythesea]

If salvation can be lost, Paul had no right to make that statement about that church or any other believer or group of believers.

I do not understand how a 21st century Christian can believe that the Apostle Paul had “no right” to pen his writings as the Holy Spirit gave him the words to edify a group of dear and precious Christians.

Even football coaches have the right to tell their teams that they have confidence that they will win the game tonight when they have won every game by a landslide for the past two seasons. And of course, sometimes those teams still loose. But what do I know about football!

 

[Craigbythesea]

During the same period, we had the development of numerous false doctrines within the "church" such as prayer to saints, Mariolatry, relics and icons, the authority of tradition and papal decrees, the establishment of a Christian theocracy, etc.

Yes, this is all correct. The further we get from the New Testament times, the more errors we find in theology. Papist theology sprung up in the 5th century. Calvin did not write until the 16th century.

 

[Craigbythesea]

No one? It seems that Calvin drew on Augustine's teachings.

Scott,

Are you SURE that you really want to go there? The teachings of Augustine that Calvin drew upon were those found in the "Retractions of Augustine" in which Augustine summarized the teachings that he still held to in his very old age, and in which he recanted some of his earlier teachings. This piece of writing is considered to be so poor that scholars of Augustine's writings value it only for helping to establish the certainty of the authorship of some of Augustine’s earlier writings. Therefore this piece of Augustine’s writings is omitted from collections of Augustine's writings. As a matter of fact, the Retractions of Augustine are so seldom published and in such small editions that to find a copy of the work is very difficult. If you don’t believe me—try to find a copy of it!

If you should be so fortunate as to find a copy of it, read it, and you will find that Augustine only gave Calvin some things to ponder and elaborate upon. Augustine did not teach the doctrine of eternal security and could not have taught it because the doctrine of eternal security is theologically dependent upon theological concepts that had not yet been developed.

 

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If salvation can be lost, Paul had no right to make that statement about that church or any other believer or group of believers.

I do not understand how a 21st century Christian can believe that the Apostle Paul had “no right” to pen his writings as the Holy Spirit gave him the words to edify a group of dear and precious Christians.

Even football coaches have the right to tell their teams that they have confidence that they will win the game tonight when they have won every game by a landslide for the past two seasons. And of course, sometimes those teams still loose. But what do I know about football!

</font>[/QUOTE]So, you're saying maybe some of the Philippians later on lost their salvation, but it was o.k. for Paul to lie to them and tell them that they wouldn't?

 

[Craigbythesea]

So, you're saying maybe some of the Philippians later on lost their salvation, but it was o.k. for Paul to lie to them and tell them that they wouldn't?

I suppose it is only to be expected that those who misconstrue the words of the beloved Apostle Paul would also misconstrue my words. After all, when a man has no data to refute the arguments of his opponent, the only recourses that he has are to admit that he is wrong or to misconstrue his opponent’s data. Personally, I have no desire to win a debate, even by telling the truth; my desire is simply to tell the truth and I am thankful that the owner of this message board allows me to do that.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Calvin did not write until the 16th century.

Yes but Paul wrote in the 1st century.

While history and tradition can be helpful and are interesting, scripture is the constant authority.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Augustine did not teach the doctrine of eternal security and could not have taught it because the doctrine of eternal security is theologically dependent upon theological concepts that had not yet been developed.

The fact that the doctrine of the trinity had no been formalized in the 1st or 2nd century did not make it untrue.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The fact that the doctrine of the trinity had no been formalized in the 1st or 2nd century did not make it untrue.

No, it did not. But if the doctrine of eternal security, formalized or not, is true, at least one dear soul who loved Jesus would have seen that doctrine taught somewhere in the Bible, but there is no evidence that anyone did until the 16th century. If you believe that Augustine taught the doctrine of eternal security, formalized or not, quote a passage of his writings that proves that he did.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Very true, but irrelevant. No one is arguing the authority of the Scriptures. We are debating the interpretation of them by men over the course of hundreds and hundreds of years.

If the Bible really teaches eternal security, we must conclude that:

• The Bible was so poorly worded that no one was able to understand it for 1500 years.

If the Bible was so poorly worded that no one was able to understand it for 1500 years, we must conclude that:

• The Bible is not an inspired work.

If the Bible is not an inspired work, we must conclude that:

• There is no sure foundation for the Christian faith.

Personally, I believe that we do have a sure foundation for the Christian faith because the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it was worded so well that it was clearly understood by virtually every one (there were some Universalists) to teach the doctrine of conditional security for 1500, and by the large majority of Christians for the next 500 years.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The fact that the doctrine of the trinity had no been formalized in the 1st or 2nd century did not make it untrue.

No, it did not. But if the doctrine of eternal security, formalized or not, is true, at least one dear soul who loved Jesus would have seen that doctrine taught somewhere in the Bible, but there is no evidence that anyone did until the 16th century. If you believe that Augustine taught the doctrine of eternal security, formalized or not, quote a passage of his writings that proves that he did.

</font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that Augustine never addressed the topic of election from a point of view similar to Calvin's?

BTW, we don't have the means of knowing what everyone down through the ages believed. You are arguing from silence every bit as much as you claim we are.

If you took only the writings of just the major reformers using your methods, you could conclude that baptism by immersion was unknown. Had one reformed church developed and dominated in an RCC type fashion, it is quite conceivable that by today no record would remain of anyone who baptized by immersion during the 1500's.