Hebrews 6:4-6

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Those who recant are not really saved.

Peter recanted three times. Cock-a-doodle-doo

Your brother in Christ, Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

I was taught to compare scripture with scripture and to look at similar passages in a book in order to clarify a difficult passage in the same book. It seems that Heb 10.26-29 might be a parallel passage to the Heb. 6 passage under discussion?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? Heb 10.26-29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, this is talking about someone who knows the truth but yet rejects it, because it says "after receiving the knowlege of truth." Could that be a parallel to being "partakers of the Holy Spirit" in Heb. 6?

Yes! And of course this is the historical interpretation of both passages.

Although it says to hold fast "without wavering," it also says "he who promised is faithful." He is faithful though we are not always so. If this was stated to Jewish believers at a time of persecution, it makes sense to me that it is talking about standing strong in the face of persecution. Those who recant are not really saved.

Yes, God does promise to be faithful and he always is. Most unfortunately, however, some Christians are not. Are those who fall away persons who were never "really" saved? I had a good friend who was the pastor of a church that he started from scratch. He was married to an exceptionally beautiful Christian woman who loved him as much as any woman could love her husband. And he had three very healthy and handsome boys who loved God, loved their parent, and loved each and acted like it. And he himself was handsome and healthy.

He was also very a very intelligent and sensitive man who had a deep and committed love for God, his congregation, and the souls of the lost. He and his middle son were very instrumental in my coming to a saving knowledge of Christ, and his oldest son was one of the most upright and loving young men that I have even known.

The last time I talked to his wife, she had been divorced, but she still very much loved the man whom she had married. Her ex-husband, my dear friend, had left her for another woman and denounced his faith in God.

When people get saved in our churches, we quote scriptures to them assuring them of their salvation. When they subsequently denounce their faith in God, do we say to ourselves that they were never saved in the first place, and that we lied to them when we assured them of their salvation?

 

[gb93433]

Sometimes on this issue we look at the ants on the ground in the forest and forget about the forest. This kind of analysis often gives a distorted view of God and how he works. In America we often come up with theology in the comfort of our homes that never existed among those in the NT.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
Those who recant are not really saved.

Peter recanted three times. Cock-a-doodle-doo

Your brother in Christ, Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]But Peter had remorse after doing this -- he wept. I am not sure he recanted his faith in Christ -- he basically lied about knowing who Jesus of Nazareth was. At that point, Jesus had not yet died and risen again. I just don't see this as a good analogy to use for someone today who truly recants Jesus.

To recant Jesus, I think, would mean to deny he is the Savior, or to deny him as your Savior. And yes, I've known people whom others thought were Christians who did this. But I still don't see this as evidence that one can lose one's salvation -- there is no clear teaching in Heb 6 or here that one is saved and then loses it. Are we not to avoid building a doctrine on a disputed passage?

What about the verses others have quoted like John 10:28? And what about the points raised by Michael52? No one answered those that I saw.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What about the verses others have quoted like John 10:28?

John 10:28 has nothing to do with either Heb. 6:4-6 or eternal security, that is, unless you take it out of context, completely ignoring the first part of the sentence:

John10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

In John 10:27, the first half of the sentence, all three verbs are, in the Greek text, in the present tense, indicative mood, and active voice. All three verbs describe His sheep, the subject of verse 28, exclusively in the present, continuous tense. For those sheep verse 28 is true. Nothing, absolutely nothing is said here of any other sheep. Therefore this verse can NOT be used to support the doctrine of eternal security. If anything, it supports the doctrine of conditional security because it casts at least some doubt upon the fate of the other sheep, that is, those sheep who cease to listen to His voice, or never have.

Some people want so very badly for the Bible to teach what they want for it to teach that they trick themselves into seeing in the Scripture something that is not there at all! Taking John 10:28 out of context is one of the favorite tricks of those who chose to believe OSAS.

 

[Craigbythesea]

But wasn't that the point of the Protestant Reformation? The reformers, to an extent, and Baptists, to a greater extent, said the Bible should be the rule of faith and practice, rather than the Church Fathers or tradition. The message in this is that we think they GOT IT WRONG!

The Reformers substituted the teachings of John Calvin for the teachings of the Bible. If the Bible really taught OSAS, the Church would not have had to wait for 1500 years for John Calvin to come along and tell them that it.

Objectively, we may be reading and interpreting the Bible wrong. But I don't think we should be swayed by the argument that we must believe something just because it was believed traditionally.

We must NOT “believe something just because it was believed traditionally.” But if the Bible really teaches OSAS, the Church should have been able to see that for themselves, without the “help” of John Calvin. What the Church did see is that the Bible teaches conditional security, and those who do not see that in the Bible should wonder why they don’t see that, and why instead they see a teaching of John Calvin.

 

[Craigbythesea]

To recant Jesus, I think, would mean to deny he is the Savior, or to deny him as your Savior. And yes, I've known people whom others thought were Christians who did this. But I still don't see this as evidence that one can lose one's salvation -- there is no clear teaching in Heb 6 or here that one is saved and then loses it. Are we not to avoid building a doctrine on a disputed passage?

Hebrews 6:4-6 was not a disputed passage until John Calvin came along and told the Church that they had it all wrong. And of course the doctrine of conditional security is not built upon Heb. 6:4-6 or any other single passage, but a multitude of passages. For your convenience I am posting some of those below:

Apostasy

Described
Deu_13:13; Heb_3:12

Caused by persecution
Mat_24:9-10; Luk_8:13

Caused by worldliness
2Ti_4:10

Guilt and punishment of
Zep_1:4-6; Heb_10:25-31; Heb_10:39; 2Pe_2:17; 2Pe_2:20-22

Cautions against
Heb_3:12; 2Pe_3:17

Shall abound in the latter days
Mat_24:12; 2Th_2:3; 1Ti_4:1-3
See Antichrist

Unclassified scriptures relating to
General references
Deu_32:15; 1Ch_28:9; Isa_1:28; Isa_65:11-16; Jer_17:5-6; Eze_3:20; Eze_18:24; Eze_18:26; Eze_33:12-13; Eze_33:18; Mat_13:20-21; Mar_4:5-17; Luk_8:13; Mat_24:10; Mat_24:12; Luk_11:24-26; Joh_15:6; Act_7:39-43; 1Co_9:27; 2Th_2:3; 2Th_2:11-12; 1Ti_4:1-2; 2Ti_3:1-9; 2Ti_4:3-4; Heb_6:4-8; Heb_10:26-29; 2Pe_2:1; 2Pe_2:15; 2Pe_2:17; 2Pe_2:20-22; 2Pe_3:17; Jud_1:4-6
See Backsliders; Reprobacy

Instances of:

Israelites
Ex 32; Num 14
Saul
1Sa_15:26-29; 1Sa_18:12; 1Sa_28:15; 1Sa_28:18
Amaziah
2Ch_25:14; 2Ch_25:27

Disciples
Joh_6:66
Judas
Mat_26:14-16; Mat_27:3-5; Mar_14:10-11; Luk_22:3-6; Luk_22:47-48; Act_1:16-18
Hymenaeus and Alexander
1Ti_1:19-20
Phygellus and Hermogenes
2Ti_1:15
See Backsliders, Backsliding of Israel
(from Nave’s Topical Bible, KJV)

 

[Craigbythesea]

Backsliders

General references
Lev 26:14-42; Deu_4:9; Deu_8:11-14; Deut 28:15-68; 1Ki_9:6-9; Deu_29:18-28; Deut 32:15-30; Jos_24:20-27; 2Ch_15:2-4; Ezr_8:22; Job_34:26-27; Psa_44:20-21; Psa_73:27; Psa_85:8; Psa_125:5; Pro_2:17; Pro_14:14; Pro_24:16; Pro_26:11; Jer_17:13; Eze_3:20; Eze_18:24; Eze_18:26; Eze_23:35; Eze_33:12-13; Eze_33:18; Hos_11:7-8; Jon_2:4; Mat_5:13; Mar_9:50; Mat_24:12; Mat_26:31; Mar_4:7; Mar_4:15-19; Mar_8:38; Luk_9:62; Luk_11:21-26; Mat_12:45; Luk_17:32; Joh_6:67; Joh_15:6; 1Co_10:1-13; 2Co_12:20-21; Gal_1:6-7; Gal_3:1; Gal_4:9-11; Gal_5:7; 1Ti_1:19; 1Ti_5:15; 1Ti_6:10; 1Ti_6:20-21; 2Ti_1:8; 2Ti_2:12; 2Ti_4:10; Heb_3:12-13; Heb_4:1; Heb_4:11; Heb_5:11-12; Heb_6:4-8; Heb_10:26-29; Heb_10:38-39; Heb_11:14-15; Heb_12:15; 2Pe_1:9; 2Pe_2:20-21; 2Jo_1:9; Rev_2:4-5; Rev_2:21-23; Rev_3:2-3; Rev_21:8
See Apostasy; Backsliders, Backsliding of Israel; Church, The Collective Body of Believers, Backslidden; Reprobacy

Instances of:
Saul
1Sa_15:11; 1Sa_15:26-28
Solomon
1 Kin 11:4-40; Neh_13:26
Amon
2Ki_21:22-23
Rehoboam
2Ch_12:1-2
Asa
2Ch_16:7-9
Joash
2Ch_24:24
Amaziah
2Ch_25:27
Syrians
Isa_17:10-11
Jonah
Jon_1:3
The disciples
Mat_26:56; Joh_6:66
Peter
Mat_26:69-75
Corinthian Christians
1Co_5:1-8; 2Co_12:20-21
Galatians
Gal_1:6; Gal_3:1; Gal_4:9-11; Gal_5:6-7
Hymenaeus and Alexander
1Ti_1:19-20
Phygellus and Hermogenes
2Ti_1:15
Demas
2Ti_4:10
Churches of Asia
1Ti_5:15; Rev_2:4; Rev_2:14-15; Rev_2:20; Rev_3:2-3; Rev_3:15-18

Promises to
General references
Lev_26:40-42; Deu_4:29-30; Deu_30:1-10; Deu_32:26; Deu_32:28-29; 1 Kin 8:33-53; 2Ch_30:9; Job_22:23-30; Psa_17:5; Psa_56:13; Psa_81:13-14; Isa_42:3; Isa_57:18-19; Jer_3:4-7; Jer_3:12-22; Jer_4:1-2; Jer_4:14; Jer_6:16; Hos_14:4; Zec_10:6; Mal_3:7; Mat_23:37; Rev_3:8; Rev_3:15-21
See Penitence; Penitent; Seekers

Return of
General references
Psa_80:3-7; Psa_80:14-19; Isa_17:7; Isa_29:24; Isa_31:6-7; Jer_50:4-6; Hos_3:5; Hos_6:1-3

Instances of:
Jews
Ezr_6:16-21; Ezra 10
David
Psa 51
Jonah
Jonah 2-3
Peter
Mat_26:75; Mar_14:72; Luk_22:62
Thomas
Joh_20:27-29

Backsliding of Israel
General references
Exo_17:7; Deu_4:25-31; Deu_31:16-30; Deu_32:5-6; Deu_32:15; Deu_32:18; Num_14:43; Jdg_2:12; Jdg_10:12-14; 2Ch_24:20; 2Ki_18:1; 2Ki_18:12; 2Ch_13:11; 2Ch_27:2; 2Ch_29:6; 2Ch_29:8; Ezr_9:10; Ezr_9:13-14; Neh_9:26; Psa_78:10-11; Psa_78:40-43; Psa_78:56-64; Psa_106:13-14; Isa_1:4-7; Isa_1:21-22; Isa_50:1; Isa_2:6; Isa 5:12-30; Isa_9:13-21; Isa_17:10-11; Isa_24:5-6; Isa_30:9; Isa_30:15; Isa_31:6; Isa_43:22; Isa_43:24; Isa_51:17-20; Isa_63:17; Isa_65:2-3; Jer_2:5; Jer_2:11-13; Jer_2:17; Jer_2:19; Jer_2:21; Jer_2:27; Jer_2:31-32; Jer 3:1-25; Jer 5:1-31; Jer_11:9-17; Jer_6:30; Eze_22:18; Jer 7:12-34; Jer 8:1-22; Jer_10:17-22; Jer_12:7; Jer_13:24-25; Jer_14:7; Jer_14:10; Jer_15:1-14; Jer_18:13-15; Jer_19:1-15; Jer_32:30-31; Jer_50:6; Eze_2:3-8; Ezek 5:1-17; Ezek 11:1-21; Eze_16:43; Hos_1:1-9; Hos_4:6; Hos_4:10; Hos_4:16; Hos_5:1-15; Hos_6:4-11; Hos_8:14; Hos 9:1-17; Hos_13:16; Hos_11:2; Hos_11:7; Hos_14:1; Amo_2:4; Zep_1:6; Mal_1:6; Mal_3:7; Heb_3:16-18

Parable of the vine
Eze_15:1-8

Parables of an unfaithful wife
Ezek 16; Ezek 23; Hos 2-3

Instances of Israel's backsliding:
At Meribah
Exo_17:1-7
When Aaron made the golden calf
Ex 32
After Joshua's death
Judg 2
During Asa's reign
2 Chr 15
During Hezekiah's reign
2Ch_30:2-12

Reprobacy

General references
Gen_6:5-7; Gen_19:13; Deut 28:15-68; Deu_31:17-18; Psa_81:11-12; Pro_1:24-28; Isa_6:9-10; Isa_22:12-14; Isa_28:13; Isa_29:9-12; Isa_65:12; Jer_6:30; Jer_7:16; Jer_15:1; Hos_5:6; Mat_13:14-15; Mat_15:14; Mat_25:8-13; Mar_3:29; Luk_13:24-28; Luk_14:24; Joh_10:26; Joh_17:12; Rom_9:21-22; Rom_11:7-8; Rom_11:17-20; 2Co_13:5-7; 2Th_2:7-12; 2Ti_3:8; Heb_3:10-12; Heb_3:17-19; Heb_6:4-8; Heb_10:26-31; Heb_12:15-17; 1Jo_5:16; Jud_1:4-13; Rev_22:11
See Obduracy

Instances of:
Israel
Num 14:26-45; Deu_1:42-43
Eli's house
1Sa_3:14
Saul
1Sa_15:23; 1Sa_16:14; 1Sa_18:12; 1Sa_28:15

(from Nave's Topical Bible, KJV)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
reductio ad absurdum - n. - logic
the proof of a proposition by showing its
opposite to be an obvious falsity
or self-contradiction, or the disproof
of a proposition by showing its consequences
to be impossible or ahbsurd when carred
to a logical conclusion.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is of the first type.
Propostion: It is impossible to be lost
after being saved.
Assume it is possible to be lost after being saved,
then, to be saved, Jesus would have to be
crucified again. Jesus would have to resuffer
the the shame of being crucified.
Jesus cannot suffer again the shame of being crucified.
Jesus cannot be crucified again.
People cannot be resaved.
Therefore it is proved: People cannot be lost after being saved.

Thus Hebrews 6:4-6 is the showpiece scripture
of the ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED (OSAS).
I note that most people who arge against OSAS
like to argue the "always saved" part. In fact,
i recommend inspecting how God sees the "once saved"
part.

--Ed, still lookin' in the Bible for the
"plan of un-salvation".

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it!

This scripture is applicable to all persons of the Church age or any age to come in which persons can freely accept the gift of God which is INTERMITTANT LIFE. No! the gift of God
is eternal life, never ending life.

One picture God uses for salvation is redeemption, the buying back of that which is one's own. How does one get un-redeemed?

One picture God uses for salvation is joining
the Body of Christ. How does one get un-bodied? Do we get squeezed off like a bad zit?

One picture God uses for salvation is becoming
a child of God. What is the plan of un-childing?

Of all the terms and similies used for salvation,
only one "saved" has ANY meaning when you stick "un" in front of it.

IN the Bible the image of salvation is
being BORN AGAIN. can you feature being
un-"born again"?\

Sorry you circular reasoning fans who come up with a non-Biblical term like "Conditional
Salvation", the termonology is AGAINST YOU.

Even "falling away" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 means
departure from this world, not falling away
from salvation. One falls into the arms of Jesus, not away from his arms.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Peter recanted three times.

Peter didn't recant. He denied Christ and then repented. Judas recanted and today is in hell because of it. Judas is a prime example of Heb 6:4-6 -- He heard it all, experienced the power of the Spirit, partook of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away ... He was an unbeliever who committed apostasy. That is what is in view in Heb 6. The contrast is those who are truly saved.

 

[Pastor Larry]

In John 10:27, the first half of the sentence, all three verbs are, in the Greek text, in the present tense, indicative mood, and active voice. All three verbs describe His sheep, the subject of verse 28, exclusively in the present, continuous tense. For those sheep verse 28 is true. Nothing, absolutely nothing is said here of any other sheep. Therefore this verse can NOT be used to support the doctrine of eternal security. If anything, it supports the doctrine of conditional security because it casts at least some doubt upon the fate of the other sheep, that is, those sheep who cease to listen to His voice, or never have.

The problem with this understanding is that it grows out of your need for an explanation to support your position, rather than out of the text itself. The text gives no indication that there are any other sheep. There are sheep ... and they hear his voice and follow him. There are no sheep who do not hear his voice. That is something totally foreign to the passage. You try to read another set of sheep in here, not because of hte passage, but because of your position. The present tense describes the state of affairs ... It is the way sheep are.

This points to a position you hold that does not square with the text of Scripture. And you have placed too much weight on the supposed evidence from the uninspired church fathers whom God did not give to us as a source of truth. If they denied eternal security, then they were wrong.

 

[Lacy Evans]

If Judas was ever saved (I don't know and neither do you.), he is still saved. A Christian can commit any sin imaginable. That is the simple fact.

Peter's and Judas' sin only differed by degrees. What is "received" (Negative/positive reward) for their life's work is not for us to decide. It depends on many things. (What was "given" to them in the way of talents , gifts, revelation, how much mercy they showed, how much forgiveness they sowed, etc.)

This doctrine that says we won't really sin bad, or we won't sin bad and not repent if we are REALLY saved is hogwash. It puts our holiness on a par with the finished work of Christ in obtaining or maintaining our redemption. "Once-saved-always-saved/Salvation by faith alone" must be radical and absolute or it is not logical.

The thing we are missing is that the chastening hand of the father, when properly understood in all its "terror", is quite enough to motivate us to holiness. It is quite enough to reconcile radical absolute free grace/ absolute eternal security (based on the absolutely radical FINISHED work of Christ.) with the practical holiness (or lack thereof) of Christ's "Peter's and Judases."


There are false professors, and folks that were never saved. They are not addressed here.

There are Jews in the trib. They are not addressed here.

There are no "hypothetical" Christians.

There are Christians eternally secure by the precious blood of Jesus, trying to live holy and avoid pitfalls, trying to obtain crowns and avoid the rod, and other normal stuff.
We are addressed here.

Lacy

 

[Pastor Larry]

Judas was not saved. The Bible says that Satan entered into him, something that is impossible for a believer. He committed the sin of apostasy. That is unbelief.

It is true to some degree that Judas and Peter differed by degree, but that is an important distinction.

This doctrine that says we won't really sin bad, or we won't sin bad and not repent if we are REALLY saved is hogwash.

WE as believers will sin, but we will not continue in it unchecked and without repentance at some point. We are capable of committing horrendous sins. But we will not continue in them without conviction and repentance at some point. 1 JOhn 2 is clear that the one who says he knows God and does not obey him is lying. That means he doesn't know God. I agree that eternal security and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are absolute. But the same God that made those promises made equally clear promises about perseverance by the believer. We have taken the doctrine and defined it down because it is a hard teaching, similar to why people left following Christ in JOhn 6. But we dare not do that. Since Scripture teaches it, we should be firm in it.

I cannot see any legitimate way to say that people for whom repentance is impossible are saved. Impossible is a very strong and clear word. Why would God prevent a true child of his from repenting? That is the purpose of chastening in Heb 12 ... to bring repentance. These people in vv. 4-6 are still contrasted with those who are characterized by things accompanying salvation. That is a stark contrast that means nothing if these people are saved.

Did you read the article I linked to yet?

 

[Craigbythesea]

This points to a position you hold that does not square with the text of Scripture. And you have placed too much weight on the supposed evidence from the uninspired church fathers whom God did not give to us as a source of truth. If they denied eternal security, then they were wrong.

The evidence from the church fathers is not "supposed" evidence, it is historical fact. To argue that the Bible clearly teaches a doctrine that was not, in fact, seen by anyone to be in the Bible for 1500 years is against all reason. If all of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers were wrong about conditional security, and the whole church was wrong about conditional security for 1500 years, we have no logical reason to believe that the Church today is right about one single doctrine in the Bible. Your logic brings into question the truth of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Sinlessness of Christ, and every other doctrine that constitutes Christian belief.

HONESTY demands that we take into consideration all of the pertinent FACTS when deciding upon the TRUTH of doctrine; and HONESTY demands that we put aside all PREJUDICE, EMOTIONAL BAGAGE, and PERSONAL PREFERENCES. To argue that the Bible teaches a doctrine that was hidden from the eyes and minds of the entire Church for 1500 years is to argue for the FALSE TEACHING OF PROGRESSIVE REVELATION, a false teaching that can be used to teach the genuineness of ANY FALSE DOCTRINE.

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
...
When people get saved in our churches, we quote scriptures to them assuring them of their salvation. When they subsequently denounce their faith in God, do we say to ourselves that they were never saved in the first place, and that we lied to them when we assured them of their salvation?

Craig

When people get saved in our churches, we quote scriptures to them assuring them of their salvation.

If I were in a church that did this, I would run!

The scriptures teach that once a person is saved by God, he is allways saved (ie "eternally secure"). The scriptures teach that we can have an assurance of our salvation if we faithfully follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But we can't assure them (ie "others") of their salvation. We can only assure them of the promises made in the Bible.

If we "fall away", "backslide", etc., we can, and should, question our "assurance". One mark of a saved person, is their recognition of the duty to remain faithful even when they are finding it difficult to act faithfully. However, this assurance, or lack of it, does not have anything to do with OSAS. If we try and judge the necessary conditions of "conditional security", then we have taken the responsibility away from the rightful judge, God.

Logically, for OSAS to be true, then we would have to allow that a person who is seemingly totally apostate may still have been saved and remains saved. We squirm at this thought when individuals don't measure-up to our expectations of how a saved person should behave. All we can do is teach what the Bible says is the "normal" behavoir and attitudes of a "proper" child of God.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. John 10:27 (ESV)

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Pastor Larry]

The evidence from the church fathers is not "supposed" evidence, it is historical fact. To argue that the Bible clearly teaches a doctrine that was not, in fact, seen by anyone to be in the Bible for 1500 years is against all reason. If all of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers were wrong about conditional security, and the whole church was wrong about conditional security for 1500 years, we have no logical reason to believe that the Church today is right about one single doctrine in the Bible. Your logic brings into question the truth of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Sinlessness of Christ, and every other doctrine that constitutes Christian belief.

Actually, your logic is what brings doctrine into question. Many of the doctrines you mention were developed over time. They did not drop out of the apostles neatly wrapped in a systematic theology chapter. They were developed as people gave it thought and as the church wrestled through the issues.

Secondly to say that no church father believed in eternal security assumes way too much knowledge on your part.

Thirdly, to assert church fathers on the same level as Scripture is bad method and, IMO, shows a disregard for the high nature of Scripture. The fact that a person, or group of people may have misunderstood Scripture, does not mean that Scripture does not teach what it teaches.

As I have said, Scripture is abundantly clear on this and the only recourse for you is a method such as you tried above that assumes things that the text does not say. I cannot, in good conscience, adopt those methods. I would much rather assume that church fathers missed something, or had not yet developed such a doctrine. We see both phenomena in church history.

HONESTY demands that we take into consideration all of the pertinent FACTS when deciding upon the TRUTH of doctrine;

I agree ... but the main fact involved is the inspired text of Scripture, not the uninspired views of men, no matter how godly they may have been.

and HONESTY demands that we put aside all PREJUDICE, EMOTIONAL BAGAGE, and PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

I agree absolutely.

To argue that the Bible teaches a doctrine that was hidden from the eyes and minds of the entire Church for 1500 years is to argue for the FALSE TEACHING OF PROGRESSIVE REVELATION, a false teaching that can be used to teach the genuineness of ANY FALSE DOCTRINE.

You just jumped a huge chasm. First, progressive revelation does not deal with the development or systematization of doctrine. It deals with revelation over time. It is limited to the canon. And it is not a false doctrine. It is abundantly clear.

Second, I am not arguing that it was hidden. I think you would be wise not to assert such since there is no way you can possibly know what every church father taught.

Third, in the analysis of doctrine to determine falsity or truth, the only reliable standard is the word of God itself. It is entirely possibly that fallible men, standing on the shoulders of fallible men missed something, or did not properly emphasize it. None of that matters. When it comes to doctrine, there is only one question: What did God say?

On this issue, I think that answer is clear.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Michael52,

According to your logic, we do not have the ability as Christians to recognize each other, and there is no way that we can know for sure if the man or woman sitting next to us in church is "really" saved or not. The Bible, however, in hundreds of places, teaches the exact opposite. It teaches that we can know who is "really" saved and who is not. Just look at Paul's epistles. In every one of them he speaks to persons that he knew to be "really" saved.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You just jumped a huge chasm. First, progressive revelation does not deal with the development or systematization of doctrine. It deals with revelation over time. It is limited to the canon. And it is not a false doctrine. It is abundantly clear.

Post-Biblical Progressive Revelation IS A FALSE DOCTRINE and NO Less DANGEROUS than any other FALSE DOCTRINE! God gave us His inspired Word AND the means to understand it from day one. Yes, some doctrines were formalized over a period of time, but that was not due to progressive revelation, it was do to the Church Fathers coming to agreement as to the best way to express in ecclesiastical terms what they ALREADY KNEW TO BE TRUE from the Bible, including the doctrine of conditional security.

 

[Michael52]

Craig,

Is Paul the omniscient judge? Has his recognition of fellow believers (saved) been a revelation from God? It may be true. If it is, then do you think these saved people that Paul spoke of are eternally secure or is it possible that they could subsequently “fall away”?

I’m not sure this helps your argument.

Do you think we recognize the tares or is this God's task?

 

[Artimaeus]

Questions for those who believe in temporary security. Be specific, no generalities.

1. How many sins does it take to get lost again?
2. Which sins in particular will do the trick?

Give me a concrete example, make up details, if you want, to illustrate your scenerio. Such as, if I do this or I behave this way, or whatever but give a real life clear example of how it is done.