Does 'Eternal Life' Bar Conditions?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If I promised you a parcel of land and told you that it was yours to keep and hold for a lifetime, stating to You, “I give this land to you to keep for your entire lifetime” is this any proof that if you could lose this land for any reason, the one giving it to you would be a lair?

What if the owner of the land stated that he would give to you the land for an entire lifetime, but conditioned that upon your remaining a friend, or being honest in your business deals, or remaining faithful to the laws of the land, would the landowner be a liar if you lost the land and were unable to keep it for a lifetime in in fact you violated the conditions or terms of the property transfer?

If the transfer of the property was indeed certain at6 the moment, yet was conditioned upon future actions the one receiving the property would make, would it be improper to make the clear statement at a specified time, “ I grant to you this property for the entire length of your life.” Is this not true in a sense, and could be said as a true statement even though there were obviously understood conditions that must be kept in order to see an entire lifetime of enjoyment come from this ownership?

Could not the owner granting this property to another state that ‘no man can wrest the ownership of this property from you,‘ if in fact the original owner posses the power to see that accomplished? Would it be proper to assume that the one being granted the property could never do anything to force himself to relinquish the property, even though the original owner clearly placed conditions upon ‘remaining’ as the owner for a lifetime?

If one, as a governor, would grant to one a pardon for a crime of the past, and say to you that no man can wrest this pardon from you, does that in any way imply that one could not commit another crime and come under the full penalty of the law? Would the governor be unjust or a liar to send one to prison for a future crime if in fact at the time of the pardon he had said, " You are herby exonerated from the penalty and guilt of the law forever! No man can pluck this pardon from your guilt from you, as long as you live and this government is in force!"

Does one have to state implied conditions every time a promise is repeated or at every time a promise is given? Does logic or reason imply that if a stated condition is not mentioned every time a promise is spoken of that the one speaking the promise is or should be denoted as a liar? Does it imply that the author should be considered a liar because he or she does not state the conditions every time they state the promise?

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

If I promised you a parcel of land and told you that it was yours to keep and hold for a lifetime, stating to You, “I give this land to you to keep for your entire lifetime” is this any proof that if you could lose this land for any reason, the one giving it to you would be a lair?

What if the owner of the land stated that he would give to you the land for an entire lifetime, but conditioned that upon your remaining a friend, or being honest in your business deals, or remaining faithful to the laws of the land, would the landowner be a liar if you lost the land and were unable to keep it for a lifetime in in fact you violated the conditions or terms of the property transfer?

If the transfer of the property was indeed certain at6 the moment, yet was conditioned upon future actions the one receiving the property would make, would it be improper to make the clear statement at a specified time, “ I grant to you this property for the entire length of your life.” Is this not true in a sense, and could be said as a true statement even though there were obviously understood conditions that must be kept in order to see an entire lifetime of enjoyment come from this ownership?

Could not the owner granting this property to another state that ‘no man can wrest the ownership of this property from you,‘ if in fact the original owner posses the power to see that accomplished? Would it be proper to assume that the one being granted the property could never do anything to force himself to relinquish the property, even though the original owner clearly placed conditions upon ‘remaining’ as the owner for a lifetime?

If one, as a governor, would grant to one a pardon for a crime of the past, and say to you that no man can wrest this pardon from you, does that in any way imply that one could not commit another crime and come under the full penalty of the law? Would the governor be unjust or a liar to send one to prison for a future crime if in fact at the time of the pardon he had said, " You are herby exonerated from the penalty and guilt of the law forever! No man can pluck this pardon from your guilt from you, as long as you live and this government is in force!"

Does one have to state implied conditions every time a promise is repeated or at every time a promise is given? Does logic or reason imply that if a stated condition is not mentioned every time a promise is spoken of that the one speaking the promise is or should be denoted as a liar? Does it imply that the author should be considered a liar because he or she does not state the conditions every time they state the promise?

For the analogy, it depends on whether or not the owner of the land has the power to regenerate my heart so that I will remain a friend.


BGTF

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BGTF: For the analogy, it depends on whether or not the owner of the land has the power to regenerate my heart so that I will remain a friend.

HP: What difference does that make? Try explaining your answer without begging the question with any presuppositions of OSAS.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

HP: What difference does that make? Try explaining your answer without begging the question with any presuppositions of OSAS.

The ability to regenerate is one of the differences between a false 'landowner' and the true One.


BGTF

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BGTF: The ability to regenerate is one of the differences between a false 'landowner' and the true One.

HP: I know the illustration given could be improved upon, and that no illustration we give with temporal means is an exact parallel to the spiritual, yet I believe the illustration does in fact prove that one can, in common parlance, state clearly that one will receive something for a specific amount of time, yet both parties clearly understand that there are implied conditions, and understand if those conditions are not met or kept, the original promise can and will automatically be modified, and if in fact the original promise is abandoned, that it does not imply the original owner was a liar or that he has lied.

Ability to or not to regenerate has no bearing that I can see on the import of the illustration, unless you happen to understand every issue from the lenses of the presupposition of OSAS and how it affects ones idea as to what constitutes regeneration.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

How is it that when we read promises every day on every level that we automatically assume there are conditions that apply, yet when we read Scripture and God promises us eternal life we tell God that He cannot promise eternal life if there are any conditions that apply, and if He does He has somehow shown Himself to be a liar??

Why even illustrate the point? Look at any advertisement anywhere. Look at any guarantee anywhere. Look at any warranty anywhere. They all have conditions, expressed or implied, yet it is almost unusal to see them clearly in writing or given at the same time the promise id spoken. Certainly no one would require that everytime one makes a promise that one be forced to reiterate every condition expressed or implied. .

Look at Scripture. Does the word used over and over, that little two letter word ‘if’ mean anything to us at all? Why does it come as such a shock that God indeed does have conditions that must be kept in order to inherit eternal life? Does God have to reiterate the plain conditions He has set forth every time He states the promise to be above reproach and as such not be accused of being a liar?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How is it that when we read promises every day on every level that we automatically assume there are conditions that apply, yet when we read Scripture and God promises us eternal life we tell God that He cannot promise eternal life if there are any conditions that apply, and if He does He has somehow shown Himself to be a liar??

Why even illustrate the point? Look at any advertisement anywhere. Look at any guarantee anywhere. Look at any warranty anywhere. They all have conditions, expressed or implied, yet it is almost unusal to see them clearly in writing or given at the same time the promise id spoken. Certainly no one would require that everytime one makes a promise that one be forced to reiterate every condition expressed or implied. .

Look at Scripture. Does the word used over and over, that little two letter word ‘if’ mean anything to us at all? Why does it come as such a shock that God indeed does have conditions that must be kept in order to inherit eternal life? Does God have to reiterate the plain conditions He has set forth every time He states the promise to be above reproach and as such not be accused of being a liar?

What is your understanding of a covenant?

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

How is it that when we read promises every day on every level that we automatically assume there are conditions that apply, yet when we read Scripture and God promises us eternal life we tell God that He cannot promise eternal life if there are any conditions that apply, and if He does He has somehow shown Himself to be a liar??

Why even illustrate the point? Look at any advertisement anywhere. Look at any guarantee anywhere. Look at any warranty anywhere. They all have conditions, expressed or implied, yet it is almost unusal to see them clearly in writing or given at the same time the promise id spoken. Certainly no one would require that everytime one makes a promise that one be forced to reiterate every condition expressed or implied. .

Look at Scripture. Does the word used over and over, that little two letter word ‘if’ mean anything to us at all? Why does it come as such a shock that God indeed does have conditions that must be kept in order to inherit eternal life? Does God have to reiterate the plain conditions He has set forth every time He states the promise to be above reproach and as such not be accused of being a liar?

HP
I understand you want some practical guidelines for Christian against antinomianism, this thread has some good instruction.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1088866#post1088866

If you are past that, take a look at Christian Cautions.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/cautions.htm

Or maybe take a look at what desires grace ignited in the heart of Jonathan Edwards.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/ResolutionsOfJonathanEdwards.htm


BGTF

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: What is your understanding of a covenant?

HP: Both the new and the old are and were conditional. Take for instance the sacrifices under the OT. Although repentance was not specifically set forth as a condition to the acceptance of the sacrifice, the Jews had a clear understanding that no sacrifice would atone for sin unless genuine repentance was evident antecedent to the offering. Clearly, conditions are not spelled out every time the covenant was mentioned. Just the same, the Jews knew and understood clearly the conditions required. I suppose there were many that did not understand the conditions, but I bet they began to realize that they existed about the time God divorced them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Spurgeon: Now Christian if you profess this, your life must prove it, or else, if your life gives the lie to your religious pretensions, you stand convicted of a flagrant falsehood, a fraud on men and a felony against God. It is a high crime and misdemeanor for a man to assume the name of a son of God, when he is utterly devoid of the divine nature, and lives in unholiness. In proportion as the privilege and the honour of a child of God is great, the sin of false pretensions to grace is increased. If you say you are regenerated, renewed, and sanctified, then be all that this means, or else cease your boasting.

HP: It is like the old cowboy preacher said. They preach real good but have a secret agreement amongst themselves that it doesn’t mean them.

Let’s be real for a minute. Let me proclaim what is preached in like pulpits across the world on every alternating Sunday.

“ Now you know that salvation has nothing to with ones works. It is not gained or kept by works. Once a son always a son. Nothing can separate you from God, and no amount of sin can separate you if you have been born again. You have nothing to do with your salvation. Repentance and faith are a gift of God, not the results of man forming intents. Sinful man is dead and can do nothing, not even repent or have faith. Repentance and faith come subsequent to salvation, not required antecedent to salvation. You must be regenerated by God before you can do anything. If you believe in conditions to salvation you believe in salvation by works. Nobody’s perfect. If you think you are, try walking on water. Act righteously? Who is kidding who? What does it matter? All your righteousness is simply filthy rags to God. Are you feeling condemned over the way you are acting? That’s just the devil, because there is therefore now NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. “

If an Arminian would even consider preaching like the paragraph noted as Spurgeon’s, most would ride him out of town on a rail accusing him of preaching a works based salvation. I suppose the only reason one would tolerate Spurgeon is that they know full well he either does not believe it or will equalize this gross error with the next sermon.

If Spurgeon would have remained consistent to this paragraph, he might have seen enough results to have been accused of turning the world upside down.

The Calvinist's results will be seen in direct proportion to their inconsistencies with their dogmas. The more inconsistent they are concerning their dogmas in stressing the duties, responsibilities, and mans accountability before God for their actions, the more results thy have. Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

BGTF, I will try and read at least portions of your other sites as I have time. I will save my comments on them until I have.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: It is like the old cowboy preacher said. They preach real good but have a secret agreement amongst themselves that it doesn’t mean them.

Let’s be real for a minute. Let me proclaim what is preached in like pulpits across the world on every alternating Sunday.

“ Now you know that salvation has nothing to with ones works. It is not gained or kept by works. Once a son always a son. Nothing can separate you from God, and no amount of sin can separate you if you have been born again. You have nothing to do with your salvation. Repentance and faith are a gift of God, not the results of man forming intents. Sinful man is dead and can do nothing, not even repent or have faith. Repentance and faith come subsequent to salvation, not required antecedent to salvation. You must be regenerated by God before you can do anything. If you believe in conditions to salvation you believe in salvation by works. Nobody’s perfect. If you think you are, try walking on water. Act righteously? Who is kidding who? What does it matter? All your righteousness is simply filthy rags to God. Are you feeling condemned over the way you are acting? That’s just the devil, because there is therefore now NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. “

If an Arminian would even consider preaching like the paragraph noted as Spurgeon’s, most would ride him out of town on a rail accusing him of preaching a works based salvation. I suppose the only reason one would tolerate Spurgeon is that they know full well he either does not believe it or will equalize this gross error with the next sermon.

If Spurgeon would have remained consistent to this paragraph, he might have seen enough results to have been accused of turning the world upside down.

The Calvinist's results will be seen in direct proportion to their inconsistencies with their dogmas. The more inconsistent they are concerning their dogmas in stressing the duties, responsibilities, and mans accountability before God for their actions, the more results thy have. Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

BGTF, I will try and read at least portions of your other sites as I have time. I will save my comments on them until I have.

Of all things I have seen you most proficient at, is setting up those straw men and taking them down one by one. :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Now you know that salvation has nothing to with ones works. It is not gained or kept by works. Once a son always a son. Nothing can separate you from God, and no amount of sin can separate you if you have been born again. You have nothing to do with your salvation. Repentance and faith are a gift of God, not the results of man forming intents. Sinful man is dead and can do nothing, not even repent or have faith. Repentance and faith come subsequent to salvation, not required antecedent to salvation. You must be regenerated by God before you can do anything. If you believe in conditions to salvation you believe in salvation by works. Nobody’s perfect. If you think you are, try walking on water. Act righteously? Who is kidding who? What does it matter? All your righteousness is simply filthy rags to God. Are you feeling condemned over the way you are acting? That’s just the devil, because there is therefore now NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

BGTF: Of all things I have seen you most proficient at, is setting up those straw men and taking them down one by one.

HP: What straw men? Show me one notion in this list that any normal Calvinistic minded person would not have to admit deep down that they honestly believe and we hear taught at least on a normal ‘every other’ Sunday basis?

Don't get me wrong. I really do appreciate those every other Sundays when the truth is proclaimed as was proclaimed in Spurgeon's sermon you posted. He almost sounded like a normal Arminian for at least a paragraph. :thumbs:

 

[Dan V.]

HP: What straw men? Show me one notion in this list that any normal Calvinistic minded person would not have to admit deep down that they honestly believe and we hear taught at least on a normal ‘every other’ Sunday basis?

Don't get me wrong. I really do appreciate those every other Sundays when the truth is proclaimed as was proclaimed in Spurgeon's sermon you posted. He almost sounded like a normal Arminian for at least a paragraph. :thumbs:

Name one Calvinist who has ever dismissed repentence from sin and faith in Christ. The Calvinist (by the grace of God) proplerly accounts for it. God changed his heart first. All glory goes to God.

Be honest. The atoning work of Christ was made effectual to you on the merits and basis of your will. Glory and honor go to you! You were saved by your willpower. And you just might finish the race by your willpower.

Dan V.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DanV: Name one Calvinist who has ever dismissed repentence from sin and faith in Christ. The Calvinist (by the grace of God) proplerly accounts for it. God changed his heart first. All glory goes to God.

HP: The problem is not that they dismiss it, they just eliminate it as the condition for salvation Scripture states it is. They make out repentance to be something that you do because you have been saved, not in order to be saved. They have it exactly backwards. Conditions are not thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of, but rather in the sense of not without which. We are not saved for the sake of repentance, but neither will we be saved apart from repentance.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: The problem is not that they dismiss it, they just eliminate it as the condition for salvation Scripture states it is. They make out repentance to be something that you do because you have been saved, not in order to be saved. They have it exactly backwards. Conditions are not thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of, but rather in the sense of not without which. We are not saved for the sake of repentance, but neither will we be saved apart from repentance.

1. No well-bred Calvinist does what you just outlined.

2. If your claim is true, then, please, let us know how you came up with that conclusion.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

HP: The problem is not that they dismiss it, they just eliminate it as the condition for salvation Scripture states it is. They make out repentance to be something that you do because you have been saved, not in order to be saved. They have it exactly backwards. Conditions are not thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of, but rather in the sense of not without which. We are not saved for the sake of repentance, but neither will we be saved apart from repentance.

Repentance is a change of mind from loving sin to hating it. It comes part in parcel with regeneration. When the Holy Spirit renews your heart, He gives it new desires as well. Repentance isn't so much sorrow for sin as it is disgust for it. Most of what is passed off today as repentance is sorrow for sin's consequences, not disgust of sin for sin's sake.

Before I was saved I preferred sin, I often times didn't like the consequences of it, but kept going back because sin was what I preferred. Now it is like I am allergic to sin, which doesn't mean I never sin, but that upon doing so I break out in grief of sin for sin's sake.


BGTF

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Repentance is a change of mind from loving sin to hating it. It comes part in parcel with regeneration. When the Holy Spirit renews your heart, He gives it new desires as well. Repentance isn't so much sorrow for sin as it is disgust for it. Most of what is passed off today as repentance is sorrow for sin's consequences, not disgust of sin for sin's sake.

Before I was saved I preferred sin, I often times didn't like the consequences of it, but kept going back because sin was what I preferred. Now it is like I am allergic to sin, which doesn't mean I never sin, but that upon doing so I break out in grief of sin for sin's sake.


BGTF

That is the change in my heart too, and exactly how it happened. The word of God was preached to me (through a book) and the power of God saved me. Eveything changed in me. Now I hate what I used to love. And I am so looking forward to being in heaven where I will see Jesus and the Father and have the body of sins done away with. O to be removed from sin forever to serve our great God and Saviour without any hinderance. What a day it will be!

 

[Dan V.]

That is the change in my heart too, and exactly how it happened. The word of God was preached to me (through a book) and the power of God saved me. Eveything changed in me. Now I hate what I used to love. And I am so looking forward to being in heaven where I will see Jesus and the Father and have the body of sins done away with. O to be removed from sin forever to serve our great God and Saviour without any hinderance. What a day it will be!

Amen! We have been made new ceatures. Born again - not of ourselves.

Dan V.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreeK: 1. No well-bred Calvinist does what you just outlined.

HP: My greatest joy would be to find out what I believe I have witnessed is in fact not the case.

Continue by all means.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: O to be removed from sin forever to serve our great God and Saviour without any hinderance. What a day it will be!

HP: This is a most interesting and thought provoking statement.

When the Calvinist speaks of gaining eternal life, they insist that it is accomplished in but a moment, that for eternity, and can never be revoked or forsaken. The force of their argument comes from what they see as absolute knowledge of a fact declared by God, and written in stone, and that for eternity. To say otherwise, they claim, is paramount to calling God a liar.

Now what is so thought provoking is that eternal salvation is only one of the promises of God. Another promise of God directly related to salvation is to remove our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. Now if in fact ones sins are not removed from them, in that they are reminded of them on a daily basis by sinning in thought word and deed, how is it that they have been removed from them? Why stand around longing for a future day when at some future time they will be free from sin if in fact Paul tells us that we ARE free from sin in the here and now, i.e., if we are walking in the Spirit? Is Paul a liar?

Why are they now claiming absolute realized knowledge of one thing right now, when the they say they have to wait for the proof of the pudding, being made free from sin, to occur at a later date?? Is there any such thing as salvation from some sin but not others? Is Scripture true when it says that we have been ‘made free from sin’ and that ‘sin no longer has dominion over us?’ Does not Scripture say the following? Ro 6:16 “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Ro 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” (Now this is indeed without question a verse written to and about believers, is it not?)

If the one who claims to be a believer is still bound fast in the chains of sin, serving sin in the flesh, how can they on the other hand claim to be freed from the curse of the law? (Read Galatians 5)

What is it about sin that one obviously does not receive simultaneously with salvation in the total deliverance from all sins that are past, (at least according to some individuals) in the here and now and that for all eternity, that they claims is the very essence of what happens at salvation, i.e., they receive something right then and now in its finality that can never be changed? Why such finality with the answer to the problem when the problem itself seems to keep right on existing in the form of continuous sin in the believers life? How can one receive eternally now the very essence of salvation ‘freedom from sin,’ if in fact freedom from sin is not realized until we pass from this world into the next? Again, why is the promise of salvation completely consummated in one act of faith in this world at a specific point in time when in fact the results of salvation, i.e. freedom from sin, is not fully realized until we pass from this world to the next, again according to some?

Why does one promise of necessity have to be seen as without conditions,(eternal life) yet another promise directly related to salvation must have a condition, the condition we are no longer in this world? (freedom from sin)