Conditional salvation?

[Ed Edwards]

Craigbythesea: " There is no promise in the Greek New Testament
of eternal life to those who believed at one time or another
but no longer believe (aorist indicative tense)."

Sorry, i still velieve JESUS SAVES not that the 'Greek
aorist indicative tense saves'

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Carl wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> While this poor soul is basing his belief on the "present participle", I'll base mine on what Paul SAID about belief.

2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Some people seem not to have noticed that those "present participles" were spoken by Jesus and written by the Apostle Paul .

As for 2 Timothy 2:13, I don’t believe in just one verse taken completely out of context to twist and distort what Paul really said, I believe every word written by Paul, including these three verses:

2 Tim. 1:11. It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12. If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

This passage of Scripture explicitly says that if we (born-again Christians) deny Him (our Savior), He (our Savior) will deny us (you and me, born-again Christians). He (our Savior) remains faithful, even if we are not, and He cannot deny Himself, but He will deny those Christians who do not endure and who thereby deny Him. “If we endure” is a conditional clause and explicitly teaches conditional salvation.

The faithfulness of Christ is taught throughout the New Testament. But we all know that as faithful as the husband may be, the bride is not always faithful, and many brides, after the consummation of the marriage, and, in many cases, after many years of faithfulness, subsequently abandon their faithfulness and leave their faithful husband. In the New Testament the Church is likened to the bride, and Christ is likened to the husband.

Eph. 5:22. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
24. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
26. so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27. that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
28. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29. for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
30. because we are members of His body.
31. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
32. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

(All Scriptures, NASB, 1995; the emphasis in bold type is mine)

</font>[/QUOTE]Mental dementia plagues that exposition.

Note how Craig DID NOT EXPOSIT THE VERSE in the order in which it appears, which changes the statment of truth. The subject changes from LIFE to SERVICE to STATE OF BELIEF.

Verse 11 concerns our DEATH WITH HIM (Rom.6) ensuring our LIFE WITH HIM. (Rom.6)

Verse 12 concerns our suffering with him, which gives us a REIGN with him. (Rom.8) If we DENY SUFFERING WITH HIM, we are denied a REIGN with him.

Verse 13 concerns OUR BELIEF. If we believe not, YET he abideth faithful, which concerns the WITNESS of the SPIRIT OF CHRIST within us. (Rom.8) He cannot DENY himself!

No conditional salvation HERE by Paul. NO WORKS HERE FOR SALVATION.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Carlaimpinge: "No conditional salvation HERE by Paul. NO WORKS HERE FOR SALVATION."

Amen, Brother Carlaimpinge -- Preach it!

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
[QB]

The key is the Greek present participle rather than the Greek aorist indicative tense... In the Greek New Testament, eternal life is promised only to those who are currently believing in Christ (Greek present participle). There is no promise in the Greek New Testament of eternal life to those who believed at one time or another but no longer believe (aorist indicative tense).

===

I'm sure that your meaning is not that the aorist indicative cannot be used for those who yet believe and are yet saved, eg :


"Those who were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 14:38

"Our salvation is nearer than when we believed. " Rom 13:11.

"This is what we preach, and this is what you believed." 1 Cor 15:11.

I think you are right that one who does not believe is not saved. (IMO a true believer goes on believing) But the Aorist indicative, I think, may be also used of those who are continuing in belief.

[ May 09, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

we now sing at chuch

Greek aorist indicative tense paid it all,
all to Greek aorist indicative tense i owe,
Sin had made a crimson stain,
Greek aorist indicative tense made it white as snow.

/well, maybe you would have had to of been
there ???/

 

[av1611jim]

Carl Said, "The passage of 1 Cor.3 doesn't speak of FOLLOWING TEACHINGS, but of GLORYING IN MEN."

Which is EXACTLY why I posted it. This "Pauline Dispensationalism" is "sensationalist" garbage which glorifies a single Apostle and discounts the clear teachings of Christ, as well as His other Apostoloic Scripture writers.

"Progressive revelation" is a cute term one uses when they have a rabid desire to discount Scripture passages which make them feel uncomfortable. It is typical of a particular sect of "Baptists" who appear to be somewhat yet are naught but pavlovian dogs trained to salivate when they see conditions in Scripture to which they themselves refuse to be held accountable.

And BTW; I cut my teeth on "Pauline dispensationalism". That is until I could handle the meat of the Word. Then I left "baby eisegesis" for rightly dividing the word of Truth.

Ya shot yerself in the foot there Carl with your reference to Eph 3!

"Holy Apostles and Prophets" is a plural term. Nothing there exclusive of yer buddy Paul. Paul is simply one of the many who ministered among the Gentiles. Paul being foremost but not exclusive. And by appealing to 2 Pet. 3 we now have Peter/Pauline Dispensationalism?

Ya kill me buddy, you really do. Many of my friends back home are just like you! Clones of PSR. Can't think fer themselves nor understand what Scripture says without a filter created by PSR.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Carl Said, "The passage of 1 Cor.3 doesn't speak of FOLLOWING TEACHINGS, but of GLORYING IN MEN."

Which is EXACTLY why I posted it. This "Pauline Dispensationalism" is "sensationalist" garbage which glorifies a single Apostle and discounts the clear teachings of Christ, as well as His other Apostoloic Scripture writers.

"Progressive revelation" is a cute term one uses when they have a rabid desire to discount Scripture passages which make them feel uncomfortable. It is typical of a particular sect of "Baptists" who appear to be somewhat yet are naught but pavlovian dogs trained to salivate when they see conditions in Scripture to which they themselves refuse to be held accountable.

And BTW; I cut my teeth on "Pauline dispensationalism". That is until I could handle the meat of the Word. Then I left "baby eisegesis" for rightly dividing the word of Truth.

Ya shot yerself in the foot there Carl with your reference to Eph 3!

"Holy Apostles and Prophets" is a plural term. Nothing there exclusive of yer buddy Paul. Paul is simply one of the many who ministered among the Gentiles. Paul being foremost but not exclusive. And by appealing to 2 Pet. 3 we now have Peter/Pauline Dispensationalism?

Ya kill me buddy, you really do. Many of my friends back home are just like you! Clones of PSR. Can't think fer themselves nor understand what Scripture says without a filter created by PSR.

In HIS service;
Jim

I see you're going to LEAVE THE SUBJECT of the thread and make it personal against me. That's fine. I got your number bud.

Sensationalist garbage? The Holy Scriptures WRITTEN by the HOLY SPIRIT through Paul who STATED follow me? You poor deluded man, believing the BOOK is not "glorifying" Paul, but believing Pauline statements concerning SUBSEQUENT REVELATION which he received! Don't LIE and tell me that Paul DID NOT RECEIVE subsequent revelation which was UNKNOWN to others before him.

We "see" who the MALICIOUS SALIVATORS are. You're dripping bud, when someone marks you for your ignorance and infidelity. You couldn't even OPEN YOUR MOUTH to state your doctrine. (See threads under Baptist Purgatory, Millenial Exclusionism in other section.)

Why you poor ole ILLITERATE soul. The knowledge of the apostles and prophets CAME AFTER Pauline revelation in the passage kid. (Eph.3, Gal.2) The HOLY SPIRIT revealed it to them AFTER Paul TOLD THEM. (See Gal. 2 where they PERCEIVED THE GRACE that was given unto Paul.)

And AGAIN, ignorant foolishness is manifested by you.

Amen. I'm LIKE the Doc. I believe the Book and can MARK bible distorters and MALICIOUS, VINDICTIVE, troublemakers like yo'self. (Watch yourself son, you're manifesting the WORKS OF THE FLESH. Gal.5!) You'll MISS your own "inheritance" that you falsely preach.

Typical. (Prov.6:19)

 

[UZThD]

We "see" who the MALICIOUS SALIVATORS are. You're dripping bud, when someone marks you for your ignorance and infidelity. .......... you poor ole ILLITERATE soul. ....

... MALICIOUS, VINDICTIVE, troublemakers like yo'self. (Watch yourself son, you're manifesting the WORKS OF THE FLESH. Gal.5!) You'll MISS your own "inheritance" that you falsely preach.

===


Someone help me out for I am a new kid on the block. How much ad hominem attacks are allowed here? Is this how Baptists argue: "Unless you agree wholly with me you are a heretic" ?

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
we now sing at chuch

Greek aorist indicative tense paid it all,
all to Greek aorist indicative tense i owe,
Sin had made a crimson stain,
Greek aorist indicative tense made it white as snow.

/well, maybe you would have had to of been
there ???/

===


Ed

Change your lyrics. Craig is arguing for the significance of the present tense of 'believe' not for the aorist.

[ May 10, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by UZThD:
We "see" who the MALICIOUS SALIVATORS are. You're dripping bud, when someone marks you for your ignorance and infidelity. .......... you poor ole ILLITERATE soul. ....

... MALICIOUS, VINDICTIVE, troublemakers like yo'self. (Watch yourself son, you're manifesting the WORKS OF THE FLESH. Gal.5!) You'll MISS your own "inheritance" that you falsely preach.

===


Someone help me out for I am a new kid on the block. How much ad hominem attacks are allowed here? Is this how Baptists argue: "Unless you agree wholly with me you are a heretic" ?

Brother you missed the post which this one was in RESPONSE to. You also mischaracterized the content. No one has said what you stated.

Disputing with the brethren, especially those who teach heresies is not pretty. (Acts 15, Gal.2, 1 Cor.9, 2 Cor.11, Titus 1-3, 2 Tim.2)

 

[Charles Meadows]

Craig,

The key is the Greek present participle rather than the Greek aorist indicative tense that is used in the verses that so very many Baptists seriously misunderstand. In the Greek New Testament, eternal life is promised only to those who are currently believing in Christ (Greek present participle). There is no promise in the Greek New Testament of eternal life to those who believed at one time or another but no longer believe (aorist indicative tense).

I respect your knowledge of NT!

But I'm going to challenge you on this one. The context determines the usage here I think. It would make no sense to even make a statement that one who (once) BELIEVED but now does not is saved. The use of the participle is expected in these verses. The use of the imperfective aspect (present tense) is consistent with the fact the that belief is a continuous action, and (agreeing with your point) is related to the main predicate as a continuous action.

But to say that the aorist indicative would have been used IF a once and for all salvation were obtainable is (in my opinion) reading too much into the text.

The present participle is used because the participial aspect (related to the main predicate) is imperfective and because it is meant to stand out as an important point from the rest of the sequence. We cannot, from the text, deduce that this precludes a once and for all decision.

It is no accident that that the teaching of OSAS was not “discovered” in the Bible for 1500 years. It is not there, but only imagined to be there.

What has that got to do with the text?

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
We "see" who the MALICIOUS SALIVATORS are. You're dripping bud, when someone marks you for your ignorance and infidelity. .......... you poor ole ILLITERATE soul. ....

... MALICIOUS, VINDICTIVE, troublemakers like yo'self. (Watch yourself son, you're manifesting the WORKS OF THE FLESH. Gal.5!) You'll MISS your own "inheritance" that you falsely preach.

===


Someone help me out for I am a new kid on the block. How much ad hominem attacks are allowed here? Is this how Baptists argue: "Unless you agree wholly with me you are a heretic" ?

Brother you missed the post which this one was in RESPONSE to. You also mischaracterized the content. No one has said what you stated.

Disputing with the brethren, especially those who teach heresies is not pretty. (Acts 15, Gal.2, 1 Cor.9, 2 Cor.11, Titus 1-3, 2 Tim.2) </font>[/QUOTE]===

Sorry if I mischaracterized your post ; it is not good to mischaracterize the thoughts of our brethren.

Please help me to see how describing yours as "ad hominem" is a mischaracterization. Also, please help me to see where, in any of the texts you provide, dispensationalism is the issue which is being corrected and/or where the dispute is between two brothers or groups each of which is attempting to honestly base his argumentation on Scripture or on oral apostolic authority.

It doesn't seem to me that an honest discussion , based on Scripture, in and of itself, on the virtues ,or lack thereof, of dispensationalism is an expression of infidelity to God or an evidence of the ignorance of the facts, by either of the principals.

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by UZThD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
We "see" who the MALICIOUS SALIVATORS are. You're dripping bud, when someone marks you for your ignorance and infidelity. .......... you poor ole ILLITERATE soul. ....

... MALICIOUS, VINDICTIVE, troublemakers like yo'self. (Watch yourself son, you're manifesting the WORKS OF THE FLESH. Gal.5!) You'll MISS your own "inheritance" that you falsely preach.

===


Someone help me out for I am a new kid on the block. How much ad hominem attacks are allowed here? Is this how Baptists argue: "Unless you agree wholly with me you are a heretic" ?

Brother you missed the post which this one was in RESPONSE to. You also mischaracterized the content. No one has said what you stated.

Disputing with the brethren, especially those who teach heresies is not pretty. (Acts 15, Gal.2, 1 Cor.9, 2 Cor.11, Titus 1-3, 2 Tim.2) </font>[/QUOTE]===

Sorry if I mischaracterized your post ; it is not good to mischaracterize the thoughts of our brethren.

Please help me to see how describing yours as "ad hominem" is a mischaracterization. Also, please help me to see where, in any of the texts you provide, dispensationalism is the issue which is being corrected and/or where the dispute is between two brothers or groups each of which is attempting to honestly base his argumentation on Scripture or on oral apostolic authority.

It doesn't seem to me that an honest discussion , based on Scripture, in and of itself, on the virtues ,or lack thereof, of dispensationalism is an expression of infidelity to God or an evidence of the ignorance of the facts, by either of the principals. </font>[/QUOTE]Threads get bogged down due to DETOURS like this.

Brother, if you would check the thread topic, you would note that AV1611 made an attack against myself OUTSIDE of the topic. It was an attack against Pauline dispensationalism, which I believe.

There is no ad hominem in pointing out his error of statement CONCERNING anything FALSE presented as biblical which he has stated. His other remarks are ad hominem. Mine were just RESPONSES to those, identifying them FOR WHAT THEY WERE and the spirit in which they were made. It's not ad hominem to call a snake a snake.

Again, HAD YOU READ the whole thread, you would find that AV1611 posted against me due to my beliefs. I corrected his IGNORANT and FALSE STATEMENT in the post, which you sliced my response from.

Enough explanation.

Now, if you have anything to add to CONDITIONAL SALVATION, let's hear it.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
We "see" who the MALICIOUS SALIVATORS are. You're dripping bud, when someone marks you for your ignorance and infidelity. .......... you poor ole ILLITERATE soul. ....

... MALICIOUS, VINDICTIVE, troublemakers like yo'self. (Watch yourself son, you're manifesting the WORKS OF THE FLESH. Gal.5!) You'll MISS your own "inheritance" that you falsely preach.

===


Someone help me out for I am a new kid on the block. How much ad hominem attacks are allowed here? Is this how Baptists argue: "Unless you agree wholly with me you are a heretic" ?

Brother you missed the post which this one was in RESPONSE to. You also mischaracterized the content. No one has said what you stated.

Disputing with the brethren, especially those who teach heresies is not pretty. (Acts 15, Gal.2, 1 Cor.9, 2 Cor.11, Titus 1-3, 2 Tim.2) </font>[/QUOTE]===

Sorry if I mischaracterized your post ; it is not good to mischaracterize the thoughts of our brethren.

Please help me to see how describing yours as "ad hominem" is a mischaracterization. Also, please help me to see where, in any of the texts you provide, dispensationalism is the issue which is being corrected and/or where the dispute is between two brothers or groups each of which is attempting to honestly base his argumentation on Scripture or on oral apostolic authority.

It doesn't seem to me that an honest discussion , based on Scripture, in and of itself, on the virtues ,or lack thereof, of dispensationalism is an expression of infidelity to God or an evidence of the ignorance of the facts, by either of the principals. </font>[/QUOTE]Threads get bogged down due to DETOURS like this.

Brother, if you would check the thread topic, you would note that AV1611 made an attack against myself OUTSIDE of the topic. It was an attack against Pauline dispensationalism, which I believe.

There is no ad hominem in pointing out his error of statement CONCERNING anything FALSE presented as biblical which he has stated. His other remarks are ad hominem. Mine were just RESPONSES to those, identifying them FOR WHAT THEY WERE and the spirit in which they were made. It's not ad hominem to call a snake a snake.

Again, HAD YOU READ the whole thread, you would find that AV1611 posted against me due to my beliefs. I corrected his IGNORANT and FALSE STATEMENT in the post, which you sliced my response from.

Enough explanation.

Now, if you have anything to add to CONDITIONAL SALVATION, let's hear it.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl </font>[/QUOTE]===

I've posted several times re the subject of this thread. If you think calling someone a snake is not ad hominem, then we disagree on Webster's definition.

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by UZThD:


I've posted several times re the subject of this thread. If you think calling someone a snake is not ad hominem, then we disagree on Webster's definition. [/QB]

So have I and you should have stayed posting concerning it.

I care more about biblical and scriptural speech which apparently offends your "good self". Don't address ONE PERSON without addressing the other involved. Judge righteous judgment.

I SAID, it's not ad hominem to call a SNAKE a SNAKE. (You misquoted me.)

The speech of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended you also it appears. Now leave it alone. Whether or not you AGREE with my speech is not the thread topic.

Good day.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Charles Meadows wrote,

I respect your knowledge of NT!

But I'm going to challenge you on this one. The context determines the usage here I think. It would make no sense to even make a statement that one who (once) BELIEVED but now does not is saved. The use of the participle is expected in these verses. The use of the imperfective aspect (present tense) is consistent with the fact the that belief is a continuous action, and (agreeing with your point) is related to the main predicate as a continuous action.

But to say that the aorist indicative would have been used IF a once and for all salvation were obtainable is (in my opinion) reading too much into the text.

The present participle is used because the participial aspect (related to the main predicate) is imperfective and because it is meant to stand out as an important point from the rest of the sequence. We cannot, from the text, deduce that this precludes a once and for all decision.

My point was simply that the verses under discussion make no promise to those who believe for awhile, and subsequently do not believe. Continuous belief IS a condition for ultimate salvation. It is, of course, not the purpose of these verses under discussion to expressly teach that, but neither is it the purpose of these verses to teach that a one time belief in Christ is sufficient for ultimate salvation. Only those who continue to believe shall see the Promised Land, for to them only is the promise made.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:


I care more about biblical and scriptural speech which apparently offends your "good self".... the speech h of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended you also it appears.


===


No, Jesus and Paul are Scripture and so are not offensive. They are inspired and authoritative.

But ,while I hesitate to point this out to you , you are neither Jesus nor Paul . Further, your words are neither inspired, nor authoritative, nor Scripture! But they are very pontifical.

===

Now leave it alone.

===

Is that a divine command just like Jesus and Paul made ?

[ May 10, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[Deafmidweeker]

CraigbytheSea,

Why are you so obsessed with trying to keep your salvation after you have trusted Jesus alone for your salvation. Remember Jesus Christ our Lord did the whole work on the cross for you and me by shedding His Precious Blood not only for washing our sins away, but to redeem us out of the kingdom of Satan.

Once you trusted Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour and are born-again of the Holy Spirit, you CANNOT lose your salvation!!! Here is a couple of verses to show you:

Ephesians 1: 13-14:

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

This word of God said that you and I are SEALED "with that holy Spirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession..."!!! That shows that you CANNOT lose your salvation and you DON'T have to work to keep your salvation!!

Romans 8: 29-30:

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

These verses said that ONCE you trusted Jesus as your Saviour, GOD will "GLORIFY" you!!! That is ETERNAL SECURITY!!

IF you want to work to keep your salvation, fine with me. But I gave you a verse to warn you:

Galatians 2:21:

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

IF you want to work to keep your salvation, then Jesus Christ our LORD died for you for NOTHING!!!!

Deafmidweeker

 

[Craigbythesea]

UZThD wrote,

I'm sure that your meaning is not that the aorist indicative cannot be used for those who yet believe and are yet saved, eg :


"Those who were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 14:38

"Our salvation is nearer than when we believed. " Rom 13:11.

"This is what we preach, and this is what you believed." 1 Cor 15:11.

I think you are right that one who does not believe is not saved. (IMO a true believer goes on believing) But the Aorist indicative, I think, may be also used of those who are continuing in belief.

Acts 13:48. When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Rom. 13:11. Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.

1 Cor. 15:11. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The aorist tense in these verses tells nothing but that these people at a point in time believed; whether or not they continued to believe is not indicated by the tense used. However, we do know from other passages in the Bible that only those who continue to believe shall ultimately be saved. Does aorist belief guarantee present continuous belief for the rest of one’s life? The answer from both the Scriptures and the history of Christian civilization is a resounding no.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Charles Meadows wrote,

"It is no accident that that the teaching of OSAS was not “discovered” in the Bible for 1500 years. It is not there, but only imagined to be there."

What has that got to do with the text?

It has no bearing at all on the text itself, but it VERY strongly suggests that the 16th century discovery of the doctrine of OSAS in the text was no discovery at all—but an illusion caused by wishful thinking by men still entrapped in their sins. The behavior of some of those in this very thread is more than ample proof of that entrapment.