Keep you from falling

[Linda64]

Consider this verse:

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timothy 1:12)

If we are able to lose our salvation, then Christ is not able to keep that which we've committed unto Him. And what do we commit to Him when we first believe?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Linda he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timothy 1:12)
If we are able to lose our salvation, then Christ is not able to keep that which we've committed unto Him. And what do we commit to Him when we first believe?

HP: Here is what I wrote concerning the topic in post #5

HP: This is indeed a wonderful promise to the believer, yet OSAS cannot be assumed from the text. The text in no way establishes an impossibility of falling, but rather establishes that God is simply ‘able’. If we are to rely on this promise, we must center our will in His with present obedience. Just as God is ‘able’, or possesses the needed abilities to save the entire world, the entire world will not be saved nor is the notion of OSAS established by simply the word ‘able’ as shown in this text. God is ‘able’ to save, but that in no way states all will be saved or OSAS.

God is ‘able’ to do many things that He withholds for various reasons. When Jesus walked on the earth he was ‘able’ to heal, yet He did not do miracles in some places due to unbelief.

God being ‘able’, and God 'necessitated only one possible outcome,' are two different matters.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: Very well. Let’s try again. You start this 'semantic range' study stating that it is ‘written to believers.” What does being a ‘believer’ imply to you? Remember this thread is about falling.
Why does ‘to usward’ denote only believers? Every word you bring forth you beg the question as to who the text is addressing and what being called a believer denotes. You assume without proof that the author has limited the scope of his remarks by using words that in no wise do any such thing in common parlance. I say again, that your presupposition of OSAS drives every step of your exploration and explanation.

I should clarify this one thing. When I say that OSAS is your underlying philosophical position, I should have stated it this way. You allow OSAS and the philosophical implications it implies and or is derived as the results of, to drive your whole approach to the text. OSAS most likely should be considered a theological position although it is driven by and implies many philosophical notions.

Do we agree on at least one thing? Is it impossible for you to approach Scripture, or reason at all for that matter, apart from certain philosophical notions, either expressed or implied, being utilized, consciously or unconsciously?

Ok. When I began explaining semantic range it was in reference to how words are used in sentences, in our case the use of the word "all" and "every" the point being that given the semantic range of those words, it would have to be determined from context. This means that the scope of the all in 2 Peter 3:9 should be determined, not from a pre-existing belief in OSAS, but from the most immediate context, the sentence itself, and from its surrounding context and larger context. What I mean by that is that the words are in a sentence, which are in a paragraph which are in the letter of the epistle of Peter. I began moving from a small circle to a larger one. If I went larger, I could go to other Scriptures to bring more light upon this one.

The way I would define a believer is how the Scripture here defines it: "them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" 2 Peter 1:1

Would you agree that those who have obtained the same faith as the apostle Peter are true believers? This is who the epistle is written to, and is restated in chapter 3:1 "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:"

When I follow the text:

1. verse 2 is the beloved spoken of here. the "ye" is who he addessed in v.1
2. verse 8 is the same beloved.
3. verse 9 the us-ward is the beloved.
4. verse 9 the "all" is the beloved.
5. verse 11 the "you" is believers
6. verse 13 the "we" is believers
7. verse 14 "beloved" is believers
8. verse 18 is written to believers.

By the context of the Scriptures Peter has written his epistle to the believers and following the language I come to this conclusion. Unless you think Peter is calling unbelievers "beloved" I don't see how another application of the semantic range fo all and every can be applied.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: Here is what I wrote concerning the topic in post #5

HP: This is indeed a wonderful promise to the believer, yet OSAS cannot be assumed from the text. The text in no way establishes an impossibility of falling, but rather establishes that God is simply ‘able’. If we are to rely on this promise, we must center our will in His with present obedience. Just as God is ‘able’, or possesses the needed abilities to save the entire world, the entire world will not be saved nor is the notion of OSAS established by simply the word ‘able’ as shown in this text. God is ‘able’ to save, but that in no way states all will be saved or OSAS.

God is ‘able’ to do many things that He withholds for various reasons. When Jesus walked on the earth he was ‘able’ to heal, yet He did not do miracles in some places due to unbelief.

God being ‘able’, and God 'necessitated only one possible outcome,' are two different matters.

HP,

What is interesting is I would never turn to 2 Peter 3 as Scripture to prove the perseverance of the saints. But, I am often taken there by my Evangelical Arminian brethren who use 2 Pter 3:9 as a proof text that God wills that every single person who ever lived and ever will live to come to repetence and not perish.

This is a very bold statement. Are such as teach this saying that God the Father according to His will, that everyone comes to repentence and not willing than anyone perishes? Really???

Hasn't God according to His will made provision for both Jew and Gentile in the substitutionary sacrifice of Chirst? Has God the Father also sent the Holy Spirit to convince men of judgement and sin and righteousness? And who among those who teach a universal will of God to save every single sinner thinks God can be frustrated in His Almighty will and the Son of God's blood made of none effect? And all because the almighty will and resistance of man??

I think not.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: Unless you think Peter is calling unbelievers "beloved" I don't see how another application of the semantic range fo all and every can be applied.

HP: I understand. Well I do, due to the fact I do not hold to the presupposition driving your conclusion and approach, (whether subconsciously or not,) i.e. OSAS.

More later. I have to run.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: I understand. Well I do, due to the fact I do not hold to the presupposition driving your conclusion and approach, (whether subconsciously or not,) i.e. OSAS.

More later. I have to run.

No prob. Remember you have to prove I am holding the perserverance of the saints a priori (or whatever they call it) and not deriving from the text as I have shown here. Since I have shown here how I have derived my understanding from the text, then you need to show how that falls short, and then positively show what the text is saying without bring your presuppositions to it. In other words, show us by praciticing what your preaching. :thumbs:

 

[Dan V.]

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"
Hebrews 5:9

But here it says we have eternal salvation if we obey him. What about those who do not. Won't they lose their salvation? Obey I think is an important word

We have eternal life because Christ obeyed for us. This produces obedience in His people. Not perfectly, but puposefuly.

Dan V.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Whatever other application one would make of Peter's statement here, it is at the least certain that the "us-ward" are believers. And if God is not willing for them to perish they will not perish. This is the same thing Jesus said when He said, "They shall never perish."

HP: This is where we started. You say that the ‘usward’ makes it certain that he is addressing believers. Is this true? I think not. The usward is speaking of all those that are lost and in need of a Savior, for Christ loved the world, not just the believers. He died for the sins of the world, not only those of the elect. He is the propitiation of not only the sins of the elect, but is the propitiation for the sins of the entire world according to Scripture.

It is not unusual for a speaker to place himself in the group he is addressing. When a preacher speaks of needing a Savior to save us from sin, he might say, “We need to call out in repentance and turn from sin,” although he himself has no need at the present time to do this, having been born again and walking in the light. To say that because one places himself in the group of individuals he is addressing, somehow sets in stone the specific group he is addressing, and that group exclusively, is simply a misuse of language.

Furthermore, in this particular passage it is clear that the way to not perishing was the way of repentance. He is in essence saying that God desires that all (the whole world as clearly indicated in other places) would come to repentance that they would not have to perish. God is not willing, that is to say He does not desire for any to perish, but that all might have eternal life. If God was addressing believers and believers exclusively, had they not already repented? “Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” Are you suggesting that only believers are being called to repentance here? Why place such limits the speaker in the passage in question? It makes absolutely no sense.

If there was anything at all that the speaker wishes to convey it is this. God loves the entire world and gave himself for it. He does not desire for one single soul to be lost. He desires that all men would repent of their sins and turn to Him to the end that they might all inherit eternal life. The usward is simply speaking of the whole human race, not angels, or other sentient beings necessarily, but usward.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Spurgeon: "I must be a sinner up to such-and-such a point; I cannot get beyond that attainment." What, saith the Scripture? "Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

Dan V: We have eternal life because Christ obeyed for us. This produces obedience in His people. Not perfectly, but puposefuly.

HP: Here it is, obedience that is not quite full obedience. Did you read Spurgeon’s comments?


Here is a truth to consider. It is a natural impossibility to strive for that which the mind perceives as a natural impossibility. If you believe it is impossible to walk perfectly before the Lord, it is a natural impossibility to even try to do so, let alone strive to do so.

Dan, what in the world was Spurgeon thinking when he penned those words above?


Why would you say that Christ obeyed for us? Are you suggesting that our obedience is by proxy? Did not He obey for the sins of the entire world? 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why is universalim not correct?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: Here it is, obedience that is not quite full obedience. Did you read Spurgeon’s comments?


Here is a truth to consider. It is a natural impossibility to strive for that which the mind perceives as a natural impossibility. If you believe it is impossible to walk perfectly before the Lord, it is a natural impossibility to even try to do so, let alone strive to do so.

Dan, what in the world was Spurgeon thinking when he penned those words above?


Why would you say that Christ obeyed for us? Are you suggesting that our obedience is by proxy? Did not He obey for the sins of the entire world? 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why is universalim not correct?

Call out the calvary! I pray to God I am misunderstanding you. HP, are you saying that Christ did not live a perfect, sinless life in our stead and that HIS obedience to the Law of God is imputed to the believer apart from works? So much so that the believer actually has an alien righteousness, that is, a righteousness that is NOT his own, but given to him as a free gift?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Oh, and as a kind request: Would you mind referencing your Spurgeon quotes? I would like to see some of them within the context of the sermons he preached.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: This is where we started. You say that the ‘usward’ makes it certain that he is addressing believers. Is this true? I think not. The usward is speaking of all those that are lost and in need of a Savior, for Christ loved the world, not just the believers. He died for the sins of the world, not only those of the elect. He is the propitiation of not only the sins of the elect, but is the propitiation for the sins of the entire world according to Scripture.

It is not unusual for a speaker to place himself in the group he is addressing. When a preacher speaks of needing a Savior to save us from sin, he might say, “We need to call out in repentance and turn from sin,” although he himself has no need at the present time to do this, having been born again and walking in the light. To say that because one places himself in the group of individuals he is addressing, somehow sets in stone the specific group he is addressing, and that group exclusively, is simply a misuse of language.


Furthermore, in this particular passage it is clear that the way to not perishing was the way of repentance. He is in essence saying that God desires that all (the whole world as clearly indicated in other places) would come to repentance that they would not have to perish. God is not willing, that is to say He does not desire for any to perish, but that all might have eternal life. If God was addressing believers and believers exclusively, had they not already repented? “Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” Are you suggesting that only believers are being called to repentance here? Why place such limits the speaker in the passage in question? It makes absolutely no sense.

If there was anything at all that the speaker wishes to convey it is this. God loves the entire world and gave himself for it. He does not desire for one single soul to be lost. He desires that all men would repent of their sins and turn to Him to the end that they might all inherit eternal life. The usward is simply speaking of the whole human race, not angels, or other sentient beings necessarily, but usward.

Thank you for your reply. In some way I get the impression you think we don't believe in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. We do, and we preach this way too. We just ascribe all the work to God. Don't you?

At any rate, this still hasn't addressed my dealing with the text itself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: In some way I get the impression you think we don't believe in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. We do, and we preach this way too. We just ascribe all the work to God. Don't you?

At any rate, this still hasn't addressed my dealing with the text itself.

HP: I have tried to deal with the text from the approach you take to examine it. I believe I have shown that you are approaching the text from a faulty method, designed and driven to end up with a conclusion consistent with the presupposition such a method has been designed to bolster, i.e., OSAS. I have tried to show that the words used in the text, such as ‘usward’ cannot be made to encompass only the elect, but rather is a general term used to identify the human race for which Christ died. How is that not dealing with the text?

The system of thought you represent pictures man as a passive pawn manipulated by an arbitrary god. You represent a god that takes pleasure in the punishment of the wicked and calls the works of his own hands being destroyed as good, in that their ends were predetermined by God and God alone for his own ends. The system you paint pits God against Himself. Scripture states that God hates sin, yet you would have us to believe that sin is nothing more than part of God’s creative genius, created again for His own good or pleasure, or are you to tell us that God can do something directly opposed to Himself?

If you deny this, you would have to admit that some things he does are not good or for his pleasure That idea is as contrary to Scripture as any can be. God is Good. God is Just, God is Love, Righteous and Holy. God is not the author of all sin as the system you paint would tell us. Dead sinful logs have to be empowered by their creator. If they are sinful dead logs, the source of their power to sin comes from one source, their creator god.

Repentance and faith are not the mere products of God forcing some ability upon man. God has granted to everyman the ability to repent and have faith, and calls upon rebel man to exercise those abilities in order to receive eternal life.(I do not confuse or combine having the ability to repent and exercise faith with the opportunity of hearing) That is not to say that repentance and faith are meritorious works in and of themselves, nor is it to say that repentance and faith are the grounds of our salvation for they are not. Repentance and faith are indeed works God calls upon man to do, thought of in the sense of not without which, or conditions to salvation. The only grounds of salvation is the mercy of God.

I am not suggesting that one buried in the maelstrom of confusion the system of thought imbibes that you represent cannot be truly saved. I would simply say that those within such a system, if they are saved, have been saved in spite of the system of thought, not as a direct result of it. (For instance, in what I have heard from you and your expressed love for the Lord, i believe I can have confidence in your walk with the Lord. If you live consistent with that exerpt from Spurgeon, I know you are so walking!) It is my wife says about the system of error she was raised in. She told me that if one really had a heart to seek God that there was enough of the truth within the system to lead one to the truth in spite of the system and it errors. I would agree. Just take a long look at that quote from Spurgeon. Who cannot see the truth in what he said in that short excerpt? If one would lay hold of that and ignore the Calvinistic underpinnings, true repentance, faith in God, and a holy walk would inevitably ensue. Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: I have tried to deal with the text from the approach you take to examine it. I believe I have shown that you are approaching the text from a faulty method, designed and driven to end up with a conclusion consistent with the presupposition such a method has been designed to bolster, i.e., OSAS. I have tried to show that the words used in the text, such as ‘usward’ cannot be made to encompass only the elect, but rather is a general term used to identify the human race for which Christ died. How is that not dealing with the text?

How is that the usward cannot encompass believers only? That is what I was asking, and for "all" and "every" given their many ranges of meaning. What I tried to show is how from the text itself, and not a presupposition as I am being accused of, I attached semantic range to the words usward, all, and every.

The system of thought you represent pictures man as a passive pawn manipulated by an arbitrary god. You represent a god that takes pleasure in the punishment of the wicked and calls the works of his own hands being destroyed as good, in that their ends were predetermined by God and God alone for his own ends. The system you paint pits God against Himself. Scripture states that God hates sin, yet you would have us to believe that sin is nothing more than part of God’s creative genius, created again for His own good or pleasure, or are you to tell us that God can do something directly opposed to Himself?

With all due respect, you neither understand what I believe or the reformed doctrine of predestination if these are the conclusions you draw from it. This is an all too common reaction to hearing that God is absolutely sovereign and governs everything He created. These responses I always wonder at because I never had them when I saw the Sovereignty of God in Scripture, but was humbled by it. Second, I think its part of sinful human nature to kick against God's sovereign rule as man "Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?" Ps 12:4

The same moral objections are addressed by God in Romans 9. God puts us in our place so to speak, "who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Romans 9:20

If you deny this, you would have to admit that some things he does are not good or for his pleasure That idea is as contrary to Scripture as any can be. God is Good. God is Just, God is Love, Righteous and Holy. God is not the author of all sin as the system you paint would tell us. Dead sinful logs have to be empowered by their creator. If they are sinful dead logs, the source of their power to sin comes from one source, their creator god.

You may deny it, but I never will. But His praise will continually be in my lips (God willing) "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev 4:11

Repentance and faith are not the mere products of God forcing some ability upon man. God has granted to everyman the ability to repent and have faith, and calls upon rebel man to exercise those abilities in order to receive eternal life.(I do not confuse or combine having the ability to repent and exercise faith with the opportunity of hearing) That is not to say that repentance and faith are meritorious works in and of themselves, nor is it to say that repentance and faith are the grounds of our salvation for they are not. Repentance and faith are indeed works God calls upon man to do, thought of in the sense of not without which, or conditions to salvation. The only grounds of salvation is the grace of God.

Again, by using the word force you show your lack of understanding of reformed theology.

I am not suggesting that one buried in the maelstrom of confusion the system of thought imbibes that you represent cannot be truly saved. I would simply say that those within such a system, if they are saved, have been saved in spite of the system of thought, not as a direct result of it. (For instance, in what I have heard from you and your expressed love for the Lord, i believe I can have confidence in your walk with the Lord. If you live consistent with that exerpt from Spurgeon, I know you are so walking!) It is my wife says about the system of error she was raised in. She told me that if one really had a heart to seek God that there was enough of the truth within the system to lead one to the truth in spite of the system and it errors. I would agree. Just take a long look at that quote from Spurgeon. Who cannot see the truth in what he said in that short excerpt? If one would lay hold of that and ignore the Calvinistic underpinnings, true repentance, faith in God, and a holy walk would inevitably ensue. Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

This rhetoic is disgusting. You liken the doctrines of grace on same ground as anti-christian systems of Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, et. You place calvinism outside the realm of orthoodixy which, again, shows me that you either 1. Have not really studied reforemd theology and its polemics. Or, 2. You have and just persist in these false representations.

Hear my heart brother, I do not suppose any ill-will from you or malicous intent. I believe these impressions of your to be genuine. But I have hard time understanding, despite the volumes and volumes of reformed literature that exist in print and on the internet how someone can continue in false representations of what we believe. I don't think you mean to, but it does seem to be happening alot.

You ask me to ignore the doctrines of grace for repentance and faith is like asking me to build a house without a foundation. Christ is the foundation and in Him is redemption, wisdom, my election, sanctification, and glorification. It is OF HIM that I am in Christ, not OF ME. I will not, and cannot, ascibe any glory to my action for being in Christ. But if I glory, let me do it in the Lord.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RB: How is that the usward cannot encompass believers only?

HP: How is it that ‘usward’ cannot encompass all human mankind??

A good rule of biblical interpretation is:If a verse can be seen to prove either position, it proves neither.

There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to limit the scope of the meaning of ‘usward’ in the passage in question to the believer only. It is well within reason to assume that he is speaking of all humanity. One has to come to the verse with a presupposition consisting of an agenda to find support for a OSAS position to even start to conclude as you would have us to believe.

 

[Dan V.]

I have found that those who oppose the biblical account of how God saves many times resort to false accusations - as you have been the victim of Mr. Reformed Baptist!

Pray that God will grace them to see that He saved their wills!

Dan V.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DanV: I have found that those who oppose the biblical account of how God saves many times resort to false accusations - as you have been the victim of Mr. Reformed Baptist!

Pray that God will grace them to see that He saved their wills!

HP: How have I been a victim of RB??

As for God saving our wills, I would indeed agree in a sense, for we are saved to the uttermost which includes every part of man, the will included. What God does not do is necessitate our wills to salvation and necessitate others to eternal damnation as the logic of RB clearly mandates.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: How is it that ‘usward’ cannot encompass all human mankind??

A good rule of biblical interpretation is:If a verse can be seen to prove either position, it proves neither.

There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to limit the scope of the meaning of ‘usward’ in the passage in question to the believer only. It is well within reason to assume that he is speaking of all humanity. One has to come to the verse with a presupposition consisting of an agenda to find support for a OSAS position to even start to conclude as you would have us to believe.

There actually is, all the verses surrounding it. lol I will look to make sure I understand the use of determining context and see if I have made any exegetical fallacies, but I am convinced by Scripture that this passage is talking to and about believers.

As for the perservance of the saints (I don't like the OSAS terminology) that is easily proved from Scripture.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have found that those who oppose the biblical account of how God saves many times resort to false accusations - as you have been the victim of Mr. Reformed Baptist!

Pray that God will grace them to see that He saved their wills!

Dan V.

Bear witness of my false accusations. To falsely accuse a brother in Christ is a serious sin against my Lord and God. Please show me where I have done this by quoting me. There must have been something you read in what I wrote where I have falsely accused. Please bear a quoted record of it in your next reply.

If I have sinned in such a manner I will repent. :saint:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

HP: How have I been a victim of RB??

As for God saving our wills, I would indeed agree in a sense, for we are saved to the uttermost which includes every part of man, the will included. What God does not do is necessitate our wills to salvation and necessitate others to eternal damnation as the logic of RB clearly mandates.

HP, I challenge you my brother, with all the love of my heart, to produce a single well-bred calvinist (please leave the hypers out, as we are discussing historic, classic calvinism) that has taught the active damnation of the reprobate. I will take a teaching from a notable calvinist or one of their creeds that teaches this active damnation of those whom God has not elected to salvation.

If, however, you cannot produce such a thing. I will consider your idea as a misunderstanding of reformed theology, as I have so far.

 

[Dustin]

HP, I challenge you my brother, with all the love of my heart, to produce a single well-bred calvinist (please leave the hypers out, as we are discussing historic, classic calvinism) that has taught the active damnation of the reprobate. I will take a teaching from a notable calvinist or one of their creeds that teaches this active damnation of those whom God has not elected to salvation.

If, however, you cannot produce such a thing. I will consider your idea as a misunderstanding of reformed theology, as I have so far.

Actually, most if not all supralapsarians believe this, or at least assent to it through the logic of the position. Whether you call it equal ultimacy, double predestination, active reprobation, it's the logical opposite of active predestination of the elect. God saves whom He will and damns whom He will. It's avery biblical concept.

God hardening Pharoh's heart, Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Christ, Jacob over Esau, plus very many other passages, point to the fact that as God is soveriegn over salvation, He is also soveriegn over reprobation.

People who taught this (off the top of my head) Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), John Gill, Herman Hoeksema (of the PRC), Jerome Zanchi, Augustus Toplady, Gordon Clark, A.W. Pink, Vincent Cheung, and there are more, but that is all off the top of my head.

The PRC website has a lot of articles about it.

www.prca.org

Or just Google "double predestination" or "active reprobation" or something, more taught it or assented to it than you may think.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin


P.S. Beza's writings are very profitable, and are a good read for any one who is interested.