Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Absolute nonsense! A most shameful display of behavior! Absolutely false and ludicrous statements that do not deserve further reply!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
An Interesting Post Against Eternal Security
- Thread starter AVBunyan
- Start date
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your post, Jack, and for accusing me of doing precisely the opposite of what the post above yours falsely accused me of. But of course your post, compared to his, is as a breath of fresh air and a return to sanity.
You wrote that I “continue to use this same argument to refute any promise of God that doesn't fit your theology.” I believe, however, that you know better than that. I believe that you know that I have been using the same arguments to refute your wrong interpretation of the verses from the Gospel According to John because your interpretation has repeatedly been due to not taking into due consideration the tenses of the verbs and participles that we find in those verses.
And you ask me, in reference to 1 John 5:12-13, “Does not the person have (present tense) eternal life at that point or not? If your answer is no, then you are wrong.
12. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
13. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. (NASB, 1995)
12. Ho echon ton Huion echei tenzoen, ho me echon ton Huion tou Theou ten zoen ouk echei.
13. Tauta egrapsa humin hina eidete hoti zoen echete aionion, tois pisteuousin eis to onoma tou Huiou tou Theou.
Therefore, a more literal translation would be,
12. The [one] having the Son has the life; the [one] not having the Son of God the life has not.
13. These things I wrote to you in order that you may know that life ye have eternal, to the [ones] believing in the name of the Son of God.
Your question if a very difficult question to answer because you speak of a point in time but Jesus did not. In verse 12, the Greek word translated “has” the first time is a present participle in the nominative case and active voice. The Greek word translated “has” the second time in verse 12 is a verb in the present tense, the indicative mood, and active voice. Neither the participle nor the verb speaks of a point in time. What is easy to see here is that the [one] who is in the state of having the Son is also in the state of having eternal life. To say more than that requires extrapolation.
In verse 13, the Greek word translated “believe” is present participle in the dative case (but see below) and active voice. The Greek word translated “know” is a verb in the perfect tense, the subjunctive mood, and the active voice. When interpreting verbs in the subjunctive rather than indicative mood we have to think in terms of state rather than time. The matter is further complicated by the fact that subjunctive mood, as used here, is used to express ideas and concepts in terms of probability and contingency rather than fact and reality as in the indicative mood. The Greek word translated “know” comes from the root idea of seeing, and thus perceiving. This is all further complicated by the fact that the Greek participle translated “believe” in verse 13 is in some manuscripts in the nominative case rather than the dative case.
The bottom line here is that what sometimes looks to be so very clear to a Baptist layman who has been taught that the Bible teaches eternal rather than conditional security is, in reality, not so clear and is very much subject to interpretation.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
There is no "past tense" in Greek, although in the indicative mood we do find some past tenses—the imperfect tense, the aorist tense, and the past-perfect tense. In the other moods we really don't find "tenses" like we do in English, and the aorist “tense” is not always a past tense form.
Are not Greek verbs in the past tense very emphatic?
[/QUOTE]
None of the Greek past tenses are emphatic.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Dear brother, it is nearly 2:00 in the morning. I simply to not have the time now to answer this and the rest of your questions, nor those by the other posters. Perhaps I shall get to them tomorrow.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Dear Mark
Please do not think that I am ignoring these questions. I need to go to bed, but I will pray for you before doing so.
Welcome to the Baptist Board!
Jesus Loves YOU!
GeneMBridges
New Member
Absolute nonsense! A most shameful display of behavior! Absolutely false and ludicrous statements that do not deserve further reply!
The bottom line, Craig, is this: Faith and logic feed each other. God is a God of perfect logic. Your theology may be logical, but it embraces a serious error in the perfections of God Himself, and proceeds from it. However, the topmost agreed upon description of God's nature is that God is pure actuality with absolutely no potentiality in Him whatsoever. No matter how you cut it, the view of conditional security turns on the idea that the security of the believer is grounded not in God, but in a human being. You even admitted this in this thread when you wrote that if a person loses his salvation it is not because of something God does. Ultimately, the position requires you believe that something is grounded, not in God himself, but in a contingent being with potentiality in Him. However, if that is so, then God is grounding something that He has done or allowed to happen in something other than Himself. This means that God would have to have potentiality in His Being. Even to voluntarily relinquish the grounding of an action to a contingent being would be to violate His own attributes. (Furthermore, it might even lead one to accept a kenosis theory of the Incarnation, ala Bishop Gore, 1889). In short, the exegesis you support, if valid, contradicts Theology Proper. This can not be. Here is a case where your exegesis does not stand up to the definition of God as being purely actual with no potential in Him; it should be adjusted accordingly. The only way it can be adjusted accordingly is toward perseverance. You might argue that our theology of God should be exegetical. I argue that the theology of God points in one direction: toward a God of absolute actuality and no potentiality whatsoever. All exegetical conclusions ending in conditional security would require the exegesis of God toward pure actuality are false, e.g. contradictory exegetical results. Since soteriology turns on Theology Proper, it is best to adjust soteriology to Theology Proper, not vice versa. If you hold to your view, it is inconsistent to affirm that definition. Ad homineum reductio ad absudum, you can not hold to conditional security (Or purely conditional election) without being an Open Theist.
The exegesis of the Scriptures you have given turns on your doctrine of God. If you are correct in your exegesis, then God is not a God who is pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever in Him. He grounds some things in things other than Him. That means God has potentiality in Him, and this is not a quality that an Uncaused Necessary Being can have in Him. This is the ultimate test of your exegesis, and one that it fails miserably.
GeneMBridges
New Member
Biblically speaking, committing egregious sins and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive. No one who is still believing in Jesus, in the Biblical sense, can possibly be committing egregious sins.
If this is so, then it does nothing to support your position. To hold to this presumes that the person does so because he is no longer believing in Jesus. This is purely speculative. In fact," in this thread you agree with Iranaeus, and in so doing contradict yourself. You write: You asked me, 'What exactly do you believe could cause you to lose your salvation?” My answer is, “Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.'” and yet write this, with regard to Iranaeus' own writings, "I find nothing especially erroneous about that belief because the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews believed the very same thing. What causes the loss of one's salvation, blaspheming the Spirit or egregious sin? It can't be egregious sin, since you say that a Christian that is still believing in Jesus can't commit egregious sins, and why isn't blaspheming the Holy Spirit an egregious sin? I would think that it would be if it is, as you say, the thing that causes a Christian to lose his salvation. How do you know what is egregious and what isn't? Besides, if you agree with Iraneus, you'd have to say that Christians can commit egregious sin and this is what causes them to lose their salvation, since that is, in fact, what Iranaeus said, and you have agreed with them. If Christians can't commit egregious sins, then how can blaphemy actually be the cause (your word...cause) of the loss of their salvation?
You also seem to like to assume that when the Greek present tense is used, it is with regard to continual action. You write, "In this verse, the Greek words translated as “beholds” and “believes” are both present active participles in the nominative case and therefore signify continuous rather than punctiliar action." This is a very frequent objection that conditionalists make. However, if that is so, then you must also agree that where Jesus drinks water, he is continually drinking. This is a major inconsistency and one often simply dismissed. This is clear evidence of presuppositional exegesis on your part. If you exegete it that way there, then why not in every such instance? Context? Okay, no problem, but then what we're left with is still a presuppositional exegesis on your part. You can claim you aren't bringing any presuppostions to your exegesis, but you clearly are, because if not, you'd be more consistent.
You also write this: "Salvation is a gift from God, and like any other gift, it must be received in order to be possessed. And like any other gift, once received, it may be rejected." Elsewhere you argue a symmetric libertine free will, when you write: "God will never betray us and steel our free will! We will always have the freedom to give back any gifts that we receive. We have been set free in Christ, not chained to the gift of eternal life. If we should decide to forsake that gift and accept an offer from Satan instead, we, being free in Christ, have the freedom to do just exactly that." However this is, again, purely speculative.
Ultimately, we are left with the comparison of your exegesis to the doctrine of God. The precise reason so many evangelical Arminians are now repudiating the idea of conditional security as articulated by you is that it conflicts with a God who is Absolutely Actual with no potentiality in His being whatsoever. One can not avoid anchoring something via a dependency on a human being, which, by definition, contradicts the doctrine of God (Theology Proper) and all sound exegesis regarding the doctrine of God as being such a Being. In fact, any notion of absolute libertine free will as you have articulated it here is most certainly in conflict with that doctrine. Since your exegesis is out of synch with the exegesis of the core doctrine of God Himself, then you need to revise it as such.
If this is so, then it does nothing to support your position. To hold to this presumes that the person does so because he is no longer believing in Jesus. This is purely speculative. In fact," in this thread you agree with Iranaeus, and in so doing contradict yourself. You write: You asked me, 'What exactly do you believe could cause you to lose your salvation?” My answer is, “Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.'” and yet write this, with regard to Iranaeus' own writings, "I find nothing especially erroneous about that belief because the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews believed the very same thing. What causes the loss of one's salvation, blaspheming the Spirit or egregious sin? It can't be egregious sin, since you say that a Christian that is still believing in Jesus can't commit egregious sins, and why isn't blaspheming the Holy Spirit an egregious sin? I would think that it would be if it is, as you say, the thing that causes a Christian to lose his salvation. How do you know what is egregious and what isn't? Besides, if you agree with Iraneus, you'd have to say that Christians can commit egregious sin and this is what causes them to lose their salvation, since that is, in fact, what Iranaeus said, and you have agreed with them. If Christians can't commit egregious sins, then how can blaphemy actually be the cause (your word...cause) of the loss of their salvation?
You also seem to like to assume that when the Greek present tense is used, it is with regard to continual action. You write, "In this verse, the Greek words translated as “beholds” and “believes” are both present active participles in the nominative case and therefore signify continuous rather than punctiliar action." This is a very frequent objection that conditionalists make. However, if that is so, then you must also agree that where Jesus drinks water, he is continually drinking. This is a major inconsistency and one often simply dismissed. This is clear evidence of presuppositional exegesis on your part. If you exegete it that way there, then why not in every such instance? Context? Okay, no problem, but then what we're left with is still a presuppositional exegesis on your part. You can claim you aren't bringing any presuppostions to your exegesis, but you clearly are, because if not, you'd be more consistent.
You also write this: "Salvation is a gift from God, and like any other gift, it must be received in order to be possessed. And like any other gift, once received, it may be rejected." Elsewhere you argue a symmetric libertine free will, when you write: "God will never betray us and steel our free will! We will always have the freedom to give back any gifts that we receive. We have been set free in Christ, not chained to the gift of eternal life. If we should decide to forsake that gift and accept an offer from Satan instead, we, being free in Christ, have the freedom to do just exactly that." However this is, again, purely speculative.
Ultimately, we are left with the comparison of your exegesis to the doctrine of God. The precise reason so many evangelical Arminians are now repudiating the idea of conditional security as articulated by you is that it conflicts with a God who is Absolutely Actual with no potentiality in His being whatsoever. One can not avoid anchoring something via a dependency on a human being, which, by definition, contradicts the doctrine of God (Theology Proper) and all sound exegesis regarding the doctrine of God as being such a Being. In fact, any notion of absolute libertine free will as you have articulated it here is most certainly in conflict with that doctrine. Since your exegesis is out of synch with the exegesis of the core doctrine of God Himself, then you need to revise it as such.
GeneMBridges
New Member
Time to edit has passed...add this to the end of paragraph 4.
Besides, wouldn't that be an egregious sin? Yet you say that Christians can't possibly be committing egregious sins, and, if repudiating the gospel, eg. believing out of Christ is also continuous, which it must be if believing in Christ must also be continuous, then that means the person must start committing an egregious sin in order to become unsaved. Now Hebrews says a person can not be brought back to repentance. That means their eternal damnation is secure, but that would necessitate an asymmetry to the salvific experience. which would seem to violate the whole idea of libertine free will, if things are as you say they must be. Why is damnation out of Christ secure and not security in Christ? Surely if the will is fully free as you allege, then they must be able to believe back into Christ, but this would contradict Hebrews. Conditional security seems to contain several self-defeating premises if it works as articulated in this thread.
Besides, wouldn't that be an egregious sin? Yet you say that Christians can't possibly be committing egregious sins, and, if repudiating the gospel, eg. believing out of Christ is also continuous, which it must be if believing in Christ must also be continuous, then that means the person must start committing an egregious sin in order to become unsaved. Now Hebrews says a person can not be brought back to repentance. That means their eternal damnation is secure, but that would necessitate an asymmetry to the salvific experience. which would seem to violate the whole idea of libertine free will, if things are as you say they must be. Why is damnation out of Christ secure and not security in Christ? Surely if the will is fully free as you allege, then they must be able to believe back into Christ, but this would contradict Hebrews. Conditional security seems to contain several self-defeating premises if it works as articulated in this thread.
There is no "past tense" in Greek, although in the indicative mood we do find some past tenses—the imperfect tense, the aorist tense, and the past-perfect tense. In the other moods we really don't find "tenses" like we do in English, and the aorist “tense” is not always a past tense form.
Are not Greek verbs in the past tense very emphatic?
</font>[/QUOTE]None of the Greek past tenses are emphatic.
Craig.
Would you say that the verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are aorist past-perfect tense?
Why would Paul make such a claim that God has already done for the believer everything from salvation to reward in Heaven if he wasn't being emphatic?
And using your gray-area interpretation of the Greek; can you ever be sure of any of God's promises in the NT? (I mean, who realy knows what Greek mood God was in when He inspired the verses?)
I would like for you to list for me one or two promises from the NT that you are sure of (if any) and explain why the Greek in those promises don't fall into your "pat answer" Greek interpretation/translation.
I also wouldn't mind, when you find the time, to list for me some of your "endurance" works (Mt. 24:13) that you are doing in order to sustain your own salvation.
Gene wrote:
"Salvation is of the LORD." Jonah 2:9b
Hmmmmm..I guess Gene is right. (Don't ya love it when God keeps things simple!)
Gene also wrote:
I do however believe in eternal security as opposed to the Perseverence of the Saints interpretation of Calvinism.
All sin is egregious, which is a fact that we here can't fully comprehend. I believe that the "sin unto death" as recorded in 1 John 5:16 speaks of a "brother" (saint) that has to be taken home by God because of his/her egregious sinning. The "death" here is physical, and the fellow in 1 Cor. 5:5 is a classic example of this. In fact Moses is also an example from the OT of God taking him home shortly after his mishap with the rock.
Our pastor who was a missionary for years in Brazille spoke often of missionaries that he knew that God took home early because of just this same thing. In fact, withour specifics, he told of one that had to be given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. He died soon after, and the matter was not taken lightly. He does not like to talk about it. But the point is that saints can fall into carnal sin, and they still go to Heaven with much loss suffered.
Let's see what Scripture says...
"Salvation is of the LORD." Jonah 2:9b
Hmmmmm..I guess Gene is right. (Don't ya love it when God keeps things simple!)
Gene also wrote:
That is the ever popular 'if pigs could fly' argument from the conditional security folks.
I do however believe in eternal security as opposed to the Perseverence of the Saints interpretation of Calvinism.
All sin is egregious, which is a fact that we here can't fully comprehend. I believe that the "sin unto death" as recorded in 1 John 5:16 speaks of a "brother" (saint) that has to be taken home by God because of his/her egregious sinning. The "death" here is physical, and the fellow in 1 Cor. 5:5 is a classic example of this. In fact Moses is also an example from the OT of God taking him home shortly after his mishap with the rock.
Our pastor who was a missionary for years in Brazille spoke often of missionaries that he knew that God took home early because of just this same thing. In fact, withour specifics, he told of one that had to be given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. He died soon after, and the matter was not taken lightly. He does not like to talk about it. But the point is that saints can fall into carnal sin, and they still go to Heaven with much loss suffered.
There is no "past tense" in Greek, although in the indicative mood we do find some past tenses—the imperfect tense, the aorist tense, and the past-perfect tense. In the other moods we really don't find "tenses" like we do in English, and the aorist “tense” is not always a past tense form.
Are not Greek verbs in the past tense very emphatic?
</font>[/QUOTE]None of the Greek past tenses are emphatic.
Would you say that the verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are aorist past-perfect tense?
Why would Paul make such a claim that God has already done for the believer everything from salvation to reward in Heaven if he wasn't being emphatic?
And using your gray-area interpretation of the Greek; can you ever be sure of any of God's promises in the NT? (I mean, who realy knows what Greek mood God was in when He inspired the verses?)
I would like for you to list for me one or two promises from the NT that you are sure of (if any) and explain why the Greek in those promises don't fall into your "pat answer" Greek interpretation/translation.
I also wouldn't mind, when you find the time, to list for me some of your "endurance" works (Mt. 24:13) that you are doing in order to sustain your own salvation.
I would also like to know if this 'endurance' is part of the Gospel since you claim that it is required to get saved? Gal. 3:2-3[/QUOTE]
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Romans 8:29. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30. and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Romans 8:29. Hoti hous proegno, kai proorisen summorfous tes eikonos tou Huiou autou, eis to einai auton prototokon en pollois adelfois,
30. hous de proorisen, toutous kai ekalesen, kai hous ekalesen, toutous kai edikaiosen, hous de edikaiosen, toutous kai edoxasen.
Verse 29
Proegno = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
Proorisen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
Einai = infinitive, present tense, active voice, accusative case
Verse 30
Proorisen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
Ekalesen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
Ekalesen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
Edikaiosen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
Edikaiosen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice
You asked, “Would you say that the verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are aorist past-perfect tense?” The answer, as evidenced above, is that there are NO verbs in Rom. 8:29-30 that are in the aorist past-perfect tense. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the aorist past-perfect tense.
There is HUGE difference between a tense being emphatic, and the writer using the tense being emphatic. Indeed, from your use of the word, it appears to me that you do not know what the word means. And look again at the tenses of the verbs in these two verses—expect for the infinitive, which is a verbal noun, ALL of the verbs are aorist indicative verbs, signifying past action with no link to the present or the future. Paul makes NO promises here to anyone. He is simply stating as a matter of fact what God has done in the past, and he is doing so in order that the Christians in Rome might be encouraged by God’s PAST actions.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Adam Clarke and I are in full agreement here
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Wrong again! Very wrong indeed! For me to reply as I did to your post is a VERY RARE thing for me to do. I am not an arrogant snob who looks down on others and dismisses what they have to say even if they have only a second grade education, for even some of these have knowledge and wisdom that can come only from above. It is God who has blessed me with a fine education and a sound mind, and it is only by and according to His grace they He has done so. I did absolutely nothing to deserve it!
Nor do I decline to reply to questions or comments to which I am not able to reply, for I have to this date never encountered such a question or comment. I do, however, on very, very rare occasions, dismiss questions or comments when I believe that the spirit in which they were written gives me no good alternative.
And no, you did not strike a nerve. As a teacher of the Bible, teaching brilliant men and women from very diverse backgrounds and theologies, my nerves have become desensitized, and I enjoy challenging questions and comments from brilliant minds that make me pause and think, but I have found something entirely different from that in your posts. And to blame “my pride from my Princeton education” for the beliefs that I have embraced in the matters that we have discussed is wholly without justification, for Princeton had nothing at all to do with these beliefs that I embraced as the Lord Jesus taught them to me through the ministry of the Holy Spirit before I set one foot in New Jersey.
One of the very finest Christian men whom I have ever known is a staunch five point Calvinist, and in the 31 years of our friendship, he has never found for me so much as one unkind word. Indeed, he knows that we are brothers and that knowledge is ever present in his thoughts and words when we have the pleasure of sharing each other’s company. What an embarrassment it is to the gospel which we claim to believer that we do not all share this attitude.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
GeneMBridges
New Member
This entire idea is logically self-defeating in itself.
First, it assumes that potentialities can give rise to actualities. As I've read through
the argument, it also assumes that the new birth itself is synergistic. However, Scripture
calls the new birth a new creation.
A. No potentiality can actualize itself. Only actualities can actualize potentialities.
B. Self-causation is impossible, because in order for that to happen a thing would have to
exist and not exist at the same time.
C. Salvation is described as being a "NEW creation."
D. If salvation is synergistic, then you have a potentiality at least assisting in its own
actualization. This is impossible, because it results in an impossible self-caused
being. A potentiality is actualizing itself, thus it is both actual and potential
simultaneously. This is impossible.
E. The only way this can be avoided in this system is for the thing assisting in the new
creation to be bringing forth a different thing other than itself. This is dualism.
Christian soteriology rejects dualism.
F. Corollary: Syngergystic salvation is ultimately heresy, see proof Five.
Second,
A. We have been told that the will is libertine. The state of the will is symmetrical
before and after salvation. It is free to reject the free gift.
B. We have also been told that it is impossible for a person to be committing grevious sin
and be a Christian.
C. We have been told that the sin which causes the person to lose his salvation is
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
D. Therefore, if A and B are true, then C. is false, rendering the doctrine false.
a. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a grevious sin.
b. To move from being saved to unsaved involves the committing of this grevious sin.
c. Therefore, Christians must be able to commit at least one grevious sin, namely this
one.
d. Therefore, it can not be that Christians can not be committing grevious sin, or else he could not commit this one.
e. Premise B contradicts Premise A, for if it is impossible for an individual to do B, then the will is not truly libertine, because according to B. the will is
necessarily bound, not libertine, as it legislates against libertine free will by dictating an impossible act.
Third, relative to the first argument:
A. The understanding of the argument is that believing is a state of actuality.
B. The understanding of the argument is not that the state of disbelieving is a poteniality, but it is a corresponding state of actuality.
C. This necessitates that an infinite regress of actualities are giving rise to other actualities. Chains of infinite regress of cause and effect are impossible within the
theistic worldview, as this is an axiom that theism historically rejects.
D. The only way around this is to say that the state of actuality of belief gives rise to
the state of potentiality, unbelief, contradicting the understanding of the state of
unbelief as being a like symmetric actuality.
E. Additionally, if the state of belief is giving rise to a like state of unbelief, at some point it will have to believe and not believe simultaneously. This is impossible because of the first argument against self-causation.
F. The only way around this is to postulate dualism, in which the new actuality negates the other actuality, however, dualism is impossible, because for dualism to be true,
then all of Argument One must also be true, and the argument has been shown to be false, and dualism is rejected.
Fourth, relative to atonement:
A. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. For the moment, we will say this is an actual
effective propitiation and atonement.
B. Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is a sin.
C. Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is a sin that must be paid for, since Jesus paid
for all our sins.
D. Therefore: a. If a person can lose his salvation because of this sin, it is false
that Jesus paid for this sin. This contradicts Scripture. Additionally, it requires
an actual ineffective propitiation and atonement. These notions are oxymorons.
E. If the oxymoron is antinomious, then it still results in double jeopardy for the person
blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because he is persisting in unbelief and unbelief is a
sin, and this sin has been paid for, but it is nevertheless resulting in him having no
atonement for his sins.
Fifth, relative to atonement:
A. Jesus is the propitiation of our sins. We will now assume this is potential atonement.
B. In a potential atonement, all a person's sins are paid for when faith is added to the
atonement and "credited" their account.
C. Thus, it becomes effective.
D. Therefore, if a person quits believing then they have lost the right to take part in
the propitiation.
E. This crediting is something God does not something that man does.
F. We've been told that God has no hand in a person losing his salvation (unless
Tertullian was correct).
G. If God has no hand in this, then D is false, because the person had no hand in the
crediting Himself. God will have to have a hand in this loss of salvation. A person
can not do this in a way that is grounded in himself, because doing so is monergistic.
Monergism is rejected with regards to justification within this soteriological system,
thus it is contradictory to say that security is conditional and mongeristic from the side of the person losing his salvation.
H. If the loss of a person's salvation is grounded in himself, then God is acting in a
contingent manner, if the loss of salvation is syngergistic (or if the initial point
of the sinner's justification was synergystic.
I. All exegesis and all orthodox theology agree: God is pure actuality without any
potentiality whatsoever in His being.
J. If I. is true, then conditional security is false, because, by definition, salvation is
ultimately grounded in something other than God, which contradicts I. If conditional
security is true, then I is false, because God is ultimately acting contingently, and
can not therefore be pure actuality with no potentiality in Him. Thus, if I. is false, this is heresy.
Conditional security is thus self-defeating on multiple levels. It can not be true. If it
is, it is ultimately false.
First, it assumes that potentialities can give rise to actualities. As I've read through
the argument, it also assumes that the new birth itself is synergistic. However, Scripture
calls the new birth a new creation.
A. No potentiality can actualize itself. Only actualities can actualize potentialities.
B. Self-causation is impossible, because in order for that to happen a thing would have to
exist and not exist at the same time.
C. Salvation is described as being a "NEW creation."
D. If salvation is synergistic, then you have a potentiality at least assisting in its own
actualization. This is impossible, because it results in an impossible self-caused
being. A potentiality is actualizing itself, thus it is both actual and potential
simultaneously. This is impossible.
E. The only way this can be avoided in this system is for the thing assisting in the new
creation to be bringing forth a different thing other than itself. This is dualism.
Christian soteriology rejects dualism.
F. Corollary: Syngergystic salvation is ultimately heresy, see proof Five.
Second,
A. We have been told that the will is libertine. The state of the will is symmetrical
before and after salvation. It is free to reject the free gift.
B. We have also been told that it is impossible for a person to be committing grevious sin
and be a Christian.
C. We have been told that the sin which causes the person to lose his salvation is
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
D. Therefore, if A and B are true, then C. is false, rendering the doctrine false.
a. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a grevious sin.
b. To move from being saved to unsaved involves the committing of this grevious sin.
c. Therefore, Christians must be able to commit at least one grevious sin, namely this
one.
d. Therefore, it can not be that Christians can not be committing grevious sin, or else he could not commit this one.
e. Premise B contradicts Premise A, for if it is impossible for an individual to do B, then the will is not truly libertine, because according to B. the will is
necessarily bound, not libertine, as it legislates against libertine free will by dictating an impossible act.
Third, relative to the first argument:
A. The understanding of the argument is that believing is a state of actuality.
B. The understanding of the argument is not that the state of disbelieving is a poteniality, but it is a corresponding state of actuality.
C. This necessitates that an infinite regress of actualities are giving rise to other actualities. Chains of infinite regress of cause and effect are impossible within the
theistic worldview, as this is an axiom that theism historically rejects.
D. The only way around this is to say that the state of actuality of belief gives rise to
the state of potentiality, unbelief, contradicting the understanding of the state of
unbelief as being a like symmetric actuality.
E. Additionally, if the state of belief is giving rise to a like state of unbelief, at some point it will have to believe and not believe simultaneously. This is impossible because of the first argument against self-causation.
F. The only way around this is to postulate dualism, in which the new actuality negates the other actuality, however, dualism is impossible, because for dualism to be true,
then all of Argument One must also be true, and the argument has been shown to be false, and dualism is rejected.
Fourth, relative to atonement:
A. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. For the moment, we will say this is an actual
effective propitiation and atonement.
B. Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is a sin.
C. Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is a sin that must be paid for, since Jesus paid
for all our sins.
D. Therefore: a. If a person can lose his salvation because of this sin, it is false
that Jesus paid for this sin. This contradicts Scripture. Additionally, it requires
an actual ineffective propitiation and atonement. These notions are oxymorons.
E. If the oxymoron is antinomious, then it still results in double jeopardy for the person
blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because he is persisting in unbelief and unbelief is a
sin, and this sin has been paid for, but it is nevertheless resulting in him having no
atonement for his sins.
Fifth, relative to atonement:
A. Jesus is the propitiation of our sins. We will now assume this is potential atonement.
B. In a potential atonement, all a person's sins are paid for when faith is added to the
atonement and "credited" their account.
C. Thus, it becomes effective.
D. Therefore, if a person quits believing then they have lost the right to take part in
the propitiation.
E. This crediting is something God does not something that man does.
F. We've been told that God has no hand in a person losing his salvation (unless
Tertullian was correct).
G. If God has no hand in this, then D is false, because the person had no hand in the
crediting Himself. God will have to have a hand in this loss of salvation. A person
can not do this in a way that is grounded in himself, because doing so is monergistic.
Monergism is rejected with regards to justification within this soteriological system,
thus it is contradictory to say that security is conditional and mongeristic from the side of the person losing his salvation.
H. If the loss of a person's salvation is grounded in himself, then God is acting in a
contingent manner, if the loss of salvation is syngergistic (or if the initial point
of the sinner's justification was synergystic.
I. All exegesis and all orthodox theology agree: God is pure actuality without any
potentiality whatsoever in His being.
J. If I. is true, then conditional security is false, because, by definition, salvation is
ultimately grounded in something other than God, which contradicts I. If conditional
security is true, then I is false, because God is ultimately acting contingently, and
can not therefore be pure actuality with no potentiality in Him. Thus, if I. is false, this is heresy.
Conditional security is thus self-defeating on multiple levels. It can not be true. If it
is, it is ultimately false.
This is probably my only statement on this topic. I view the question in the light of two clear (to me at least) Scriptural teachings.
I first look at the question in terms of "spiritual birth", "ye must be born again", "my little children (born-ones), ect. As such, I view my current relationship with God as a birth relationship. (Or as I've heard it put: It's in the Genes.) I could no more 'loose' my salvation, stop being a regenerated child of God, than I could stop being my earthly fathers' son. Scripture to my memory does not speak of disinheriting anyone.
Then, I view it in terms of "redemption". Is there a "Return Counter" for God to take us back to?
I first look at the question in terms of "spiritual birth", "ye must be born again", "my little children (born-ones), ect. As such, I view my current relationship with God as a birth relationship. (Or as I've heard it put: It's in the Genes.) I could no more 'loose' my salvation, stop being a regenerated child of God, than I could stop being my earthly fathers' son. Scripture to my memory does not speak of disinheriting anyone.
Then, I view it in terms of "redemption". Is there a "Return Counter" for God to take us back to?
GeneMBridges
New Member
Wrong again! Very wrong indeed! For me to reply as I did to your post is a VERY RARE thing for me to do. I am not an arrogant snob who looks down on others and dismisses what they have to say even if they have only a second grade education, for even some of these have knowledge and wisdom that can come only from above. It is God who has blessed me with a fine education and a sound mind, and it is only by and according to His grace they He has done so. I did absolutely nothing to deserve it!
There are multiple ad homs from you in this thread alone. The doctrine itself is called false and licentious, man-made, and a few other metaphors. You call what some theologians have said, "nonsense." You belittle a poster by saying what one person writes, saying it is "amusing." You accuse me of being "intellectually dishonest," and "putting words in Cyprian's mouth" (I quoted him directly), you used straw men arguments frequently, you dismissed James Newman, you said "My two year old grandson has more cognitive thinking, Pastor Greg points out that you have ridiculed others here multiple times by page five of this thread, you never reply back to him; you dismiss others writing as "totally absurd, mumbo-jumbo," "Gibberish," at multiple times you simply say persons here don't know what they're talking about (which means you and you alone know what you're talking about to their exclusion) There are also muliple appeals to tradition, the popular, and uses of circular logic on your part.
In another thread, you admit to attempting not to sound condescending (tho. you ultimately do so).
I another thread, you call what others have written, "Ridiculous, absolute trash, foolish, shallow, and aberrant"...ALL IN ONE THREAD!
In this thread, you call what others say, "malicious, snide, demeaning, and ignorant." Again, all in one thread. You do, to your credit, apologize...however, the matter could have also been handled by PM...you still chose to make it public.
You frequently dismiss others accusing them of ignoring fact, Scriptures, et.al.. threads are too numerous to even count. Even found another one where you declare someone's post repugnant and not justifying a response.
This type of behavior is not a RARE thing for you Craig...I picked just 4 random threads within the last month and found not just one or two but MULTIPLE attacks like this within single threads, no rolls eyes, not tongue in cheek comments.