Hebrews 6:4-6

[Craigbythesea]

You are saying that it is not clearly taught because the church fathers that you know of contain no record of it. That doesn't mean it is not clearly taught. It simply means that the church fathers you have knowledge of show no record of it. That is far different. You seem to be rejecting it because you hold the church fathers in such high esteem. Not sharing your esteem for the church fathers, I can rely on the statements of God in Scripture. That is why I say what I do.

I see that you are getting a little closer to what I have been saying, but you are still seriously distorting it. It is thus becoming clear to me why you misunderstand the soteriological passages in the Bible.

I do not like it when people TELL ME what I am saying, when it is NOT what I am saying; and I doubt that God cares much for it when people tell others what He is saying, when it is NOT what He is saying.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I suppose, however, that praying everyday for many years for God to teach me the truth and protect me from error had something to do with what I learned.

So God failed those who disagree with you??? I firmly believe that you have been mislead on this. I believe I can show you that from Scripture. But to claim that you believe what you do because God "taught you the truth and protected you from error" is to beg the question. We believe the same thing about our doctrine.

Here are just a few of the many verses that show OSAS to be the doctrine of Scripture. Your insistence that this doctrine is not clearly taught flies in teh face of the text itself. Each of these passages (and many others) could be defended at length against those who would say they don't mean that we are eternally saved.

John 10:27-29 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
• Eternal life/never perish
• No one can snatch them out of my hand or the Father’s hand.

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
• Believers are kept by God
• Believers are kept through faith, not irrespective of faith.
• Believers are kept for final salvation (in the last time).

John 6:37-40 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
• All who come will be accepted.
• God’s will is that those whom he has given to Christ will be raised up.
• Christ came to do his father’s will and therefore will to raise them up at the last day.

Romans 8:31-39 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
• God is for us. Who can be against us?
• Who can charge God’s elect since Christ is interceding for us?
• Nothing can separate us from the love of God.

Ephesians 4:30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
• The Holy Spirit’s seal is good until the day of redemption (cf 1:13-14).

Philippians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
• God began it and therefore he will finish it.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
• God’s desire is that believers be preserved completely and without blame at Christ’s coming.
• He called us to salvation; he will bring it to pass.

2 Thessalonians 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.
• God is at work protecting us from Satan.

In the end, the very faithfulness and promises of God are at stake. If we are not eternally saved, then Christ's death is less than perfect, God's faithfulness simply isn't faithfulness, and we are saved by our own efforts. That is not biblical, in any sense of the word.

 

[HankD]

Thank you for your response Craig. I too could not find the pre-trib pre-mill rapture in the writings of the early Church Fathers.

There is at least one doctrine of the early Church Fathers which I have found to be just about unanimous among them and that is the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

As a corollary to your proposition that the early fathers taught conditional salvation, do you also agree with their view of the Lord's Supper?

"Real Presence" being a subjective matter.

HankD

[ July 01, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dear Craig, where in 2 Peter 2 does it say that these were "saved"? "escaped the pollutions of the world" does not necessarily mean salvation but indeed may mean a supernatural work of God, namely the reproval of sin.

Dear Brother Hank,

The word “saved” is not, of course, in the passage. I posted the very long standing historical view of the passage. I am not saying it is the correct view, but the evidence in support of it is very substantial. John Calvin had a devastating influence upon the Church and its teachings, and very many people today are very much confused because of John Calvin’s influence. Before John Calvin came upon the scene, the Bible was interpreted VERY DIFFERENTLY than it is by many today.

I realize this can be turned into a Calvin/Arminius debate but I offer this apart from that.

I disagree with you concerning this but I certainly respect your position and the obvious thought and research in the Word of God you have put into it.

Thank you, Hank. As for me, I very much appreciate your consistent Christ-like spirit and attitude in your posts. Needless to say, my respect for you as a fellow board member is very high.

 

[HankD]

Indeed Calvin did change the course of theolgical history as did several others before him e.g. Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther.

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

As a corollary to your proposition that the early fathers taught conditional salvation, do you also accept their view of the Lord's Supper?

That is a refreshingly intelligent question! Please quote specific statements and include the author, work, and chapter number and I will study each statement in detail.

However, the key here is "just about unanimous." If even one responsible Ante-Nicene Church Father saw a different thing in the Scriptures, that fact would lend much credence to that that different view. Also, if any of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers ARGUE FOR the “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper, that shows that they were aware of an opposing point of view. When it comes to the doctrine of eternal security and the pre-trib doctrine, we find neither of these things to be present, virtually eliminating them from being rational interpretations of the Scriptures.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Indeed Calvin did change the course of theolgical history as did several others before him e.g. Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther.

HankD

In the community where I live, we have Calvinistic Baptist Churches and Arminian Baptist Churches, but we do not have any Athanasius Baptist Churches . The role of John Calvin in the history of the interpretation of the Bible is infinitely greater than the role of all these other men put together.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is thus becoming clear to me why you misunderstand the soteriological passages in the Bible.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What do you mean? BTW, "misunderstand the soteriological passages" is a severe charge, especially since I hold the view that the majority of orthodox theologians today hold. It is soundly defensible from Scripture, and in fact can soundly refute its opponent. I am not sure I am the one misunderstanding here.

I do not like it when people TELL ME what I am saying, when it is NOT what I am saying; and I doubt that God cares much for it when people tell others what He is saying, when it is NOT what He is saying.

I am not telling you what you are saying. You are the one saying it. I am simply trying to draw some conclusions about why you reject a certain doctrine and trying to express my conclusions in a manner that draws on the things you have said. I totally agree that we should not tell others what they are saying. I am seriously not trying to do that. If I have, then please forgive me.

What you have said brings great alarm to me becuase of the seeming value you place on the church fathers compared to the word of God. It seems that you value their statements much higher than you value the statements of God. I know you do not believe you are doing it ... that is why I say "seemimg" and "seems." I cannot understand how you reconcile your position with the clear statements of Scripture ... and yes, I maintain they are clear. I have cited just a few of them for you. I cannot find any other explanation for these verses, regardless of who might have said what.

 

[Craigbythesea]

But to claim that you believe what you do because God "taught you the truth and protected you from error" is to beg the question.

I did not claim that I believe what I do because God "taught [me] the truth and protected [me] from error," I said that I "suppose" that to be the case.

Please stop misrepresenting what I post! If you find it necessary to do so in order to find fault with my arguments, it is probably because my arguments are valid and yours are not.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Here are just a few of the many verses that show OSAS to be the doctrine of Scripture.

ALL of YOUR interpretations are post-reformation interpretations. Can you quote EVEN ONE pre-reformation scholar who agrees with ANY of YOUR interpretations?

 

[HankD]

Dear CBTS,

RE: The Real Presence:

I believe Origen might have been the exception but everyone considers him at least heretical.

If one can trust the Catholic Encyclopedia on this matter, they say the following

As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance, namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries.

Found online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Actually both Calvinistic and Arminian Baptist Churches are Trinitarian.

Athanasius as you know did battle with Arius and his followers and for the most part brought Trinitarianism as an essential dogma to the early Church orthodoxy.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I cannot find any other explanation for these verses, regardless of who might have said what.

That is a very odd thing! I have here in my library at home hundreds of commentaries, and hundreds of volumes on Christian theology, that give other explanation for these verses. And at the university library there are thousand upon thousands of volumes that give other explanation for these verses. Apparently you have not looked very hard! And ALL of these explanations are based upon the word of God. Neither I nor they base our understanding on the church fathers, but we DO HAVE the support of the church fathers for our views, and YOU DO NOT!

 

[Artimaeus]

I have been reading this thread intently and keep waiting for someone to answer this question. First the verses...

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible ...If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame

Then the question... How is it that these people now have to power to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame? NNE can put Him to an open shame. NNE can crucify Him again. It is impossible. It would be a shame on Christ if they did fall away. Unless you are saying that it is their trying to repent that puts Him to an open shame. Either way, it is a shame.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Artimeus makes a good point. I don't think the verses here are intending to stipulate whether or not one can lose salvation. Rather they are describing a very unfortunate situation. They speak of those who would go so far that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to come back. This seems more like a warning to those who would go through the motions but who didn't really have the spirit within. As such I don't think the main focus here is salvation.

Indeed it would hardly put Christ "to an open shame" to come again asking for forgiveness!

 

[Charles Meadows]

By the way Craig - where do you teach?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I did not claim that I believe what I do because God "taught [me] the truth and protected [me] from error," I said that I "suppose" that to be the case.

I think that is a distinction without a difference. I suppose you are wrong, both on this and on my "misrepresenting" what you post. I didn't misrepresent anything. I have drawn conclusions based on your words and you didn't like the conclusions. I already told you I am not trying to misrepresent you. I am trying to understand what you are saying. So far, it is making little, if any, sense to me.

Please stop misrepresenting what I post! If you find it necessary to do so in order to find fault with my arguments, it is probably because my arguments are valid and yours are not.

I haven't found it necessary to misrepresent your posts. I have found it strange that you say what you do and I think that I find it strange because your arguments are invalid.

ALL of YOUR interpretations are post-reformation interpretations. Can you quote EVEN ONE pre-reformation scholar who agrees with ANY of YOUR interpretations?

So time determines truth? Come on, Craig, you know better. If all the world said that God was a frog, we would not accept that, much less if they had said for years and centuries and millennia. Time is irrelevant in the matter of truth seeking. Truth is conformity to reality. The fact that supposedly no one interpreted that way prior to the reformation can mean several things: 1) It may mean that you simply do not have enough information (this is my suspicion). 2) It may mean that they were wrong (as I believe the ones you are leaning so heavily on are). 3) It may mean that I am wrong (in which case the text sounds very strange). Either way, time is not the factor. I understand the role of historical theology. But I think you grossly overestimate it.

I have here in my library at home hundreds of commentaries, and hundreds of volumes on Christian theology, that give other explanation for these verses. And at the university library there are thousand upon thousands of volumes that give other explanation for these verses. Apparently you have not looked very hard! And ALL of these explanations are based upon the word of God.

It is not that I haven't seen them. It is that I have not found them to be legitimate explanations. (STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSTS!!!! ) I have heard the arguments for your side and I find them very unconvincing.

Neither I nor they base our understanding on the church fathers, but we DO HAVE the support of the church fathers for our views, and YOU DO NOT!

But truth does not need the understanding of the church fathers. It needs the support of Scripture and that is what we have, and what you and the church fathers you lean on do not have.

Ultimately I cannot accept the value you place on the church fathers. I think it is way too much value ... especially since it leads to you treat the texts in such a manner (that statement is not perjorative). I cannot find that your explanations for these texts and many others do justice to what God said. In the end, the church fathers have value, but it is limited value ... and that must be understood ...

 

[Craigbythesea]

So time determines truth? Come on, Craig, you know better. If all the world said that God was a frog, we would not accept that, much less if they had said for years and centuries and millennia.

More irrelevant nonsense on your part! If you know ANYTHING AT ALL about the role that the history of Christian doctrine has in Biblical hermeneutics (and I believe that you do), YOU UNDERSTAND VERY WELL MY ARGUMENT AND ITS SIGNIFICICANCE. We are not talking about the empty and baseless opinions of a bunch of fools, we are talking about the group of Biblical scholars through whom God canonized the New Testament and established the Nicene Creed. These very scholars searched the Scriptures and did NOT FIND IN THE SCRIPTURES THE DOCTRINE OF ETERANAL SECURITY, BUT RATHER THEY FOUND IN THEM THE DOCTRINE OF CONDITIONAL SECURITY.

Time is irrelevant in the matter of truth seeking. Truth is conformity to reality. The fact that supposedly no one interpreted that way prior to the reformation can mean several things: 1) It may mean that you simply do not have enough information (this is my suspicion). 2) It may mean that they were wrong (as I believe the ones you are leaning so heavily on are). 3) It may mean that I am wrong (in which case the text sounds very strange). Either way, time is not the factor. I understand the role of historical theology. But I think you grossly overestimate it.

If 1500 years of searching the Scriptures by hundreds of Biblical scholars and the results of that search is "irrelevant,” then what study of the Scriptures is relevant??? How could any individual be so audaciously arrogant that he would compare his individual, scanty study of the Scriptures, and the very tiny little bit of results of that study, to 1500 years of Biblical scholarship by hundreds of brilliant scholars who committed their very lives to the study of God’s Word, and then pridefully but ignorantly argue that he is obviously correct and they are obviously mistaken. That ANYONE could have such an attitude staggers my imagination. I sincerely hope that such an attitude is not characteristic of you, but that you are only amusing yourself on this message board.

 

[Craigbythesea]

1) It may mean that you simply do not have enough information (this is my suspicion). 2) It may mean that they were wrong (as I believe the ones you are leaning so heavily on are).

I have an immense about of information about the teachings of the church fathers. Can you cite EVEN ONE LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION from the Church fathers that I have over looked? Everybody was wrong, all 100,000,000 (plus or minus) of them, for 1500 years, but Larry is obviously right?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I do understand your argument and its significance. I think you have overvalued its significance by placing too much weight on the uninspired church fathers.

If 1500 years of searching the Scriptures by hundreds of Biblical scholars and the results of that search is "irrelevant,” then what study of the Scriptures is relevant???

Whos said that they were irrelevant? I certainly didn't. YOu accuse me of twisting your words. What in the world do you call this? I said the time factor is irrelevant. If someone believes a false doctrine for a million years, it doesn't make it true. That is my point. I think you know that ...

Many scholars have found many things in Scripture. They have not all been accurate. The test of truth is not whether someone found while others missed it. The test is "Does it conform to God's truth?"

I am not resting on my individual scanty study of the Scriptures. I hold the position that a great number of orthodox scholars hold, brilliant scholars who have devoted their lives ot the study of God's word. I think people who argue for anything but eternal security are wrong ... That is not arrogant, any more than you saying that the vast number of scholars who agree with me are wrong. It staggers my imagination that you can say the things that is fine. I am amused by the attempt here to argue against eternal security. I find it, yet again, unconvincingly as I have before.

But be all that as it may, the point is this: The word of God is truth. The preserved writings of the church fathers are like the writings of any other theologian or commentator. It may be right; it may be wrong. It must be measured against God's word.

My consistent argument has been that God's word has authority over even the most godly of the church fathers. And when God's word contradicts them, then we must side with God's word.

In all that you have said, you still have the problem of the text itself, the very words of God. To put so much emphasis on teh church fathers to the extent that you are willing to recharacterize the promises of God seems inadequate to me. I think your position compromises the very character of God ... his promises, his faithfulness. In fact, in studying Heb 6 this week for Sunday, I am reminded again of the great faithfulness of God. We are secure because of who he is. Not becuase of what we do. Those who are his sheep hear his voice and have eternal life and will never perish. That promise is absolute. It is not conditional.

 

[Craigbythesea]

My consistent argument has been that God's word has authority over even the most godly of the church fathers. And when God's word contradicts them, then we must side with God's word.

You know very well that we agree on this. The question is whether or not God's word teaches eternal security. If it does, why did it take 1500 for somebody to see that it does? You have over and over again belittled my data, but you have not posted ANY data to refute it.