Lordship Salvation?

Amy this is a simple matter of whether Scripture says eternal salvation is secure or whether its conditional. You and I both believe that salvation is secure, so why are you trying to argue something that we both believe in.

This again just goes to prove that you all just want to disagree with everything we say.

If eternal salvation is secure then a person can stop believing and nothing changes. If a person stops believing and loses his/her savlation then that is conditional security and no security at all.

Our eternal salvation is not based upon our continuing in belief. If it was then it would be based on us and not on God.

Surely you understand that?

EDIT: Just to add another point Scripture never calls for a person to continue to believe in order to be saved. It's a one-time event in a person's life and then the matter is closed for all of eternity. The matter is NEVER again brought up.

 

Bwwaaawwh!!! Haw! Haw! :laugh: :laugh:

Best line I've seen all day!

Ed

 

If it's true that a person is saved who stopped believing then there will be scripture to back it up.
You must provide scripture to prove what you're saying is true, otherwise it's your opinion.
Show us scripture that plainly says that any person who does NOT believe will be saved.
And it doesn't take a genius to understand that a person who does NOT believe IS an unbeliever.

 

A person who does not believe is an unbeliever?!? Call the papers!

 

There isn't any Scripture that say a person can stop believing and still be saved, because it is a MOOT point. This is something that "man" has introduced therefore Scripture doesn't address it, because it doesn't need to.

Once you are saved you are saved. That's just the plain and simple facts of the matter.

Why are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?

 

2 T 2 2

Love your username - not your theology, though.

1 - I am new to this thread, but where did anyone even imply that unbelievers will be saved? What has been said is that once a person believed (point-in-time) they were regenerated and hence as a child of God were guaranteed eternal life - regardless. I don't know your background... are you Arminian? If so, then I understand the above. But if you're Reformed, then I do not, as you are indicating that a person can be saved, then unsaved.

2 - Where has anyone said that believers may spend time in the flames of hell? I quoted John 5:24 which says that if a person has come to believe in jesus Christ they HAVE crossed over out of death and into life... they will not come into judgment. Now, where could you infer such an idea from that? It appears that you are lumping people together and making categorical conclusions which are simply not fair to those you've castigated. If I'm wrong about this, then please forgive my presumptuousness. And if you desire to interact with me on my single earlier post, then please do address my specific arguments and scriptures posted. Thx.

3 - Actually what is being referenced is that once a person believes in Christ he ischanged - God does it. Would you disagree with this? Does the person change himself from an unredeemed soul into a child of God? What work does he do which will accomplish this?

The point being made is simply that eternal life is a free gift - completely unearned in any way. But God is just. He will reward those who are faithful. Do you disagree with this theology? The βῆμα (BHMA) seat seat is a place where believers are rewarded, and chastized, for their works in this life. Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10 is clear on that, as is 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, which also speaks of this "judgment." But this is a different word from κρίσις - which refers to "judgment." It refers to an analysis process, and does not involve condemnation.

Anyway, we need to be careful about putting words into people's mouths.

BTW, the gospel perversion that Paul was concerned about was bringing works in the back door - in this instance usually in the form of requiring believers to be circumcized, instead of relying upon salvation by faith alone:

Galatians 3:1-7 You foolish Galatians! Who has hypnotized you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified? I only want to learn this from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now going to be made complete by the flesh? Did you suffer so much for nothing--if in fact it was for nothing? So then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, so understand that those who have faith are Abraham's sons.

I submit that the answer to Paul's last question above is "by hearing with faith." IOW, you har the gospel, and when you believe, simply believe, you are re-born and indwelt by the Spirit. Those who have faith (alone) are Abraham's sons... faith plus anything else.

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. According to His great mercy, He has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, uncorrupted, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who are being protected by God's power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.

We are protected by God's power through faith for a salvation that is yet to be revealed to us...

Now, several years ago I wondered why in the world God would require such a thing - faith - for those whom He would save. Why? Thinking through this has helped me to clarify the gospel in my own mind.

To believe is to trust in Christ. It is to rely on Him, rather than upon yourself. And just what are we trusting Him to do? To save us from our sin. Of course that is why the death and resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the gospel message. It also explains why our sinfulness is a critical part of the gospel message as well.

If we do not see that we are sinful and need to be saved, why would we ever trust in Him? As such, faith is something that is important for the unsaved as well as for the saved. How can we grow in Christ without faith? "For we walk by faith, not by sight." "Walk" is used there throughout the NT by Paul and others as a synonym for "live." We can live this Christian life only by faith.

But I pointed out in my earlier post that when a person trusts in Christ he is re-born - at that instant. That being true, and I imagine that all of us here would agree with that, then the question is not whetehr or not a point-in-time faith dsaves, for we all agree that it does... the question is whether if our faith ceases, or stagnates, that we then lose our salvation. No other option is available to us. And if we hold to that position, then we believe that a person is not saved by faith alone, but by faith plus works. You'd have to explain to me how logically it can be otherwise.

I repeat, when a person believes that Jesus died for Him and trusts in Christ to "save" him he becomes a child of God. He becomes a new creature. I think that so often people want to see a convert express some sort of commitment because if they were honest with themselves they do not really believe that when a person has come to believe in Jesus that they are saved. But that IS what the Bible says. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done..." (Titus 3:5)

And once we really believe that this miracle happens, that a person genuinely is regenerated by the power of God by faith alone, it certainly makes sense that once we have been born spiritually that it cannot be undone. The issue here is whether or not I really believe I am saved by faith alone. And from my perspective, if I am not saved by faith alone, then I am trying to be saved by works, which is futile. There is no middle ground. THAT was what Paul was teaching in Galatians, as in Romans 11...

Romans 11:6 Now if it is by grace, then it is not on the basis of works; otherwise grace ceases to be grace.

There is no middle ground.

I believe the concern that somehave is that we may think that some expression of faith at a point in time - something that I "said" saves me. It is not anything I say or pray that saves me. It is faith, and faith alone.

How about that verb in John 1:12, 13 "receive?" "To all who received him, who believe in His name, He gave power/authority to become the children of God who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Notice what I underlined about the will of man. I am not saved because I made some commitment to follow christ, or because I really desired to become a child of God. It was a birth brought about by God. And that verb ELABON - an aorist 3P/pl. of LAMBANO - is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense speaks (in the indicative mood) of things which occur in the past. There are many past tenses in Greek:
imperfect - "was believing" - continuous past tense
perfect - "having believed" - both point-in-time in the past and having a state which continues into the present
aorist - "believed" - referring to something which occured at a point-in-time in the past.

If I wanted to refer to someone having been shot yesterday, I'd use the aorist tense, since the person was obviously not continuously being shot. ("Once shot, always shot." ) If I wanted to say that he was shot at a point in time in the past and was now in the state of having been shot, I'd use the perfect tense. If I wanted to speak of a shootout that started yesterday (at the OK-corral) and lasted some time, or perhaps was even still going on, I'd use the imperfect tense. Wyatt Earp "was shooting."

Thx,

FG

 

Salt may help with the meat but the feathers are tough to swallow no matter how long ya gotta chew them.:laugh: :laugh:

 

Faith Alone,
This thread has long since left the Lordship salvation discussion it started as. It had morphed into the M.E. doctrine.

If you have the patience, you can read all the pages posted yesterday and get a good idea of what the believers of this doctrine teach. Yes, they believe if a person believed even for 1 second they are saved, even tho 2 seconds later they changed their mind and became an unbeliever.

 

More on John 1:12, 13 and the present tense in John's gospel

The way that John expressed it in 1:12, as I discussed it in the previous post, makes it clear that we become children of God based on a point-in-time kind of faith. We may struggle with our faith later, but we remain a child of God.

So think about it, according to John 1:12 the giving of this spiritual life is aorist and takes place the moment the faith occurs. The giving is conditioned upon the believing. If believe meant continuous faith, then the giving could not take place until death. Eternal life could not be a present possession in this life since you would have to wait until death to get it. But such is not the case as Jesus and John make clear in 5:24 and 6:47 - it is a present possession. ("He who hears My words and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life. He shall not come into judgment, but has passed out of (crossed over out of") death into life.")

Now if Jesus guaranteed that we would not come into judgment but have passed from death into life, how can that be conditioned on anything that occurs after our faith in Christ at a point-in-time?

But there's more in this verse to indicate point-in-time action. The word typically translated "become" in this verse is an aorist infinitive (GENESTHAI) and so it too is punctiliar and cannot mean that at some later time those who received Him would become God's children if they continue to believe. It's past tense, point-in-time action. And this aorist infinitive expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the two preceding finite aorists ELABON ("received") and EDOKEN ("gave"). IOW, the moment of someone accepting/receiving Christ, that, too, is the moment of becoming a child of God. The fact that receiving Christ means receiving him by faith is clear from vs. 7 where we read, "...so that all might believe through Him."

Now aorist infinitives strongly point to punctiliar (point-in-time) action taking place. This point-in-time nature of "become" demands that "received," "gave," and "believe" also be understood as point-in-time.

So then not only is the immediate context of "believe" in verse 12 surrounded with aorist verbs indicating point-in-time action, but the present tense participle "believe" is equated with the aorist tense verb "receive." They are synonymous expressions.

But we're not done here. What about the verb translated "believe" in v. 7? What tense is it? Aorist. And not just indicative aorist, it is an aorist subjunctive which ALWAYS specifies punctiliar ("point-in-time") action. In the indicative mood, the aorist tense is fairly "simple," not necessarily saying a whole lot about the action except that something happened - in a punctiliar fashion. But in other than indicative the focus is no longer on the time of the action, but on the kind of action in Greek - so it's point-in-time kind of action is being emphasized. So then, one act of faith, punctiliar ("point-in-time") action, was required for faith to be saving. Continuous faith is not required. The action spoken of here is clearly point-in-time kind of action.

Now, one more grammatical point about the verb "believes" as used in John's gospel. The use of the present tense does not imply that the action involved cannot stop. On the contrary, the present participle is used here - with an article ("the"). The present participle is used of actions that have stopped! People sometimes take the Greek present tense and note that it can be continual action. But they ignore the fact that this is a present articular participle used throughout John (PAS hO PISTEUON EIS - "all the ones who believe in/upon") - for just that reason. For example - John 9:8 (Usually translated as, "Is this the man who sat and begged?") - has two present participles there. In the final analysis the Greek construction translated by "he who believes" or "the one who believes" is merely descriptive. It identifies a person as "a believer," but it does not specify anything at all about the continuity of the action. It might best be described something like "the believing one" or "the one who believed."

Let me give a few specific instances of just such present tense participles:

The use of the present tense does not imply that the action involved cannot stop. On the contrary, the present participle is used of actions that have stopped!"

Matthew 2:20 "those who sought [= article + present participle]...are dead"

Mark 5:16 "those who saw it told them how it happened to him who had been demon-possessed" (= article + present participle)

Mark 6:14 "John the Baptist (= article + present participle) is risen from the dead"

John 9:8 "Is not this he who sat and begged?" (= article + two present participles)

Galatians 1:23 "He who formerly persecuted us" (= article + present participle).
​

Oh, John 9:8 says, "Is this the man who sat and begged?" or "Is this the man who sat begging?" Now clearly the neighbors were asking if the man who now could see was the same man who "used to" sit and beg. He is obviously no longer "sitting and begging." Yet people take the present tense that John uses in his gospel to say that it means that we must continue to believe. Was that blind man still sitting and begging? That is the same as asking if a person who has trusted in Christ is still not a child of God, or if he is now a child of God. If my logic is at fault here, then please explain how.

By the way... that verb in 1 Peter 1:5 for "are guarded"... it is also a present participle (passive). The word for faith there is a noun, so we can't apply any grammatical verbal analysis there.

Now think about it. John 3:16 is the most popular verse to use in sharing the gospel. But look at it in context. (3:14-17) The illustration is used of the OT story where people were being bitten and dying because of their sin. God had Moses erect a tall pole with a brass snake on it. Then when someone was bitten he need only go to that pole and look upon thesnake and he was "saved."

Did that snake-bitten person in the OT need to continually look up at that serpent IOT be saved from death? No - clearly he need only look once. Similarly, when we believe in Jesus Christ at a point in time we gain eternal life. The illustration makes it clear how the present tense is to be understood there. We must be careful that we do not say that eternal faith gives us salvation; but that faith gives us eternal salvation.

Consider the thesis statement of John in 20:30, 31 -> John 20:31 tells us why this whole Gospel was written. It says, "These have been written that you may believe (aorist tense: past tense - punctiliar - point-in-time believe) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

OK, permit me to point out a few more cases in the NT where a point in time faith is clearly what saves - is what is required for eternal life:

Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

"believes" = PAS hO PISTEUSAS - "all the ones who believe" - a nominative sing., masc. aorist active participle. "but whoever does not believe" = hO DE APISTESAS - a nominative sing., masc. aorist active participle (Note: Remember, the aorist tense indicates a point-in-time moment of faith in order to be saved. It never describes continual kind of action.)

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

"Whoever believes" = PAS hO PISTEUON, and "But whoever does not believe" = PAS hO DE ME PISTEUON are both - nominative sing. masc. present active participles.

But, "because he has not believed" = hOTI ME PEPISTEUKEN - perfect tense, active, indicative, 3rd, sing. participle. Now the perfect tense signifies a completed action moment of faith (point-in-time) that has ocurred in the past with an existing state of ongoing results in the present. And this is the requirement to avoid being condemned. Thus the present participle, "whoever believes" is paralleled with the perfect tense "because he has not believed," indicating that only a moment of faith is what's required IOT gain eternal life.

I think I need to summarize what I've said about the present tense in another post...

Thx for hanging in there.

FA

 

I've heard they tickle a little on the way down, but I wouldn't know .

Yeah right .

 

And yet NNE has said ANYTHING about a person believing one second and then 2 seconds later chaning their mind. Seriously can't you people just have an "honest" discussion? Is that really an impossibility?

 

If there is no scripture to back you up, you should stop telling people they are saved even if they don't believe anymore.

I still do not believe that a person stops believing. When we are saved God puts His Spirit in us. How can God deny God? That makes no sense.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Summary of present tense and "believe"

OK, let me summarize:

The most basic "mood" in koine Greek is indicative, indicating basic action taking place in real time. There are other moods, imperative (commands-volitionally possible), subjunctive (possibility), optative (rare - subjectively possible). Bottom line, with all but the indicative mood the time of action is not signficant at all, but the kind of action, the type of action, is emphasized. So in all but the indicative mood, the statement that present tense is a linear kind of action is true. In those moods, aorist tense always indicates punctiliar (point-in-time) kind of action, and present tenses always indicates linear action. But in the indicative mood, that is not how it works. In the indicative mood, aorist indicates simple punctiliar (point-in-time) action, while present tense indicates either punctiliar or linear action. And in addition, the present participle is in general used to indicate completed action in the present tense.
​

Thx for considering this, and if anyone wishes to address any of these points, then please be specific and consider the logic I've pointed out in the previous two posts.

I do not see any way around acknowledging that a person gains eternal life as a present possession based on a point-in-time kind of faith. If you disagree, then if you attempt to address the arguments I made, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thx much,

FA

 

Are you sure you know what you believe?

We have been discussing whether a person is saved who once believed, but has stopped believing. You said that such a person is saved even tho they don't believe anymore, because of that 1 moment in which they did believe.

This is beginning to sound like "who's on first?".

 

...and so goes the ME debate...

 

Well you keep on believing that even though there are people that will tell you otherwise. I guess they are lying just like the rich man, huh?

 

Please show me ONE time where I have mispresented your views and you have called me out on it. ONE time please. I love these character assassination attempts with no proof.

 

EXACTLY. But we have NOT been discussing a person that believes one second and then changes his mind 2 seconds later. That was "your" biased "commentary" added to the discussion!

 

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

<----- me being a Berean


Help me out JJ. Show me some scripture. You can't defend your doctrine without the sword!

Show me where a person who stopped believing is saved!