Not Believing and still Get to Heaven?

Okay after much researching this first class condition of which you keep speaking I think I finally see where you are coming from. You didn't do a very good job of explaining your case (which is just a tip for future reference), so I had to do some digging on my own.

However, it still doesn't prove what you are trying to say, and here's why...

You are saying that this statement is true of all Christians, which you are leaving out the very "rule" that you say is necessary for understanding and that is context.

Part of context is audience. And Paul tells us who the audience is. The audience were faithful believers. The key part being faithful.

Since Paul was writing to faithful believers he could make a statment of assuming a true reality in the "if" statement. But that doesn't mean all Christians are going to be faithful. There are just too many other passages of Scripture that say there are going to be faithful and unfaithful Christians. Unfaithful Christians will not take part in the condition of Colossians 1.

 

The churches of the SBC are independent and autonomous. Denominational statements of faith are not binding on the churches. They only establish a rather minimal basis of doctrinal consensus required for cooperative ministry, which basically includes the seminaries, the mission boards and a few other entities like the annuity board and executive committee. The SBC doesn't dictate to the churches, so I think you will find as much diversity of opinion there as you would among Independent Fundamental Baptists. I've been a member of a Southern Baptist church (2 different congregations) for about 16 years, and both of them approached interpretations and applications of scripture a bit differently, though they agreed on what I would consider the essentials. Eternal security, IMHO, isn't at the top of that list. I think you will find a diversity of opinion on that within the ranks of the churches of the SBC, and perhaps, even within the membership of a single congregation.

 

The Perseverence of the Saints and Col 1:21-23

==Good, I am glad I "forced" you to do some digging into this matter. That is what I wanted from the start. I am aware that my explanations might not have been the best in the world. Limited space + limited time = less than perfect explanations.

==I agree that Paul was talking to an audience of believers (1:3-5) and yes even faithful believers. However that does not change my understanding of the text.

"And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds" vs21

Of course this verse describes their pre-salvation lifestyles (see also Eph 2:1-3, Col 3:6-7). The condition described here is true of all lost men/women, even though some maybe more wicked than others all are equally lost.

"yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy, and blameless and beyond reproach" vs22

Chirst's substitutionary death on the cross paid the sin penalty in full and therefore purchased salvation for all who would believe. Therefore those who believe in Christ are totally saved, reconciled to God through Jesus Christ (see Rom 5:10, 2Cor 5:18-21). What is the purpose of this reconciliation? Certainly there is more than one purpose that could be mentioned. In Colossians 1:22 the Apostle Paul says that one purpose is to present those who are reconciled to God the Father through Christ as "holy, and blameless and beyond reproach". Notice that Paul says, "He has now reconciled you...in order to present you before Him...". One of the main reasons we were reconciled to God the Father, through Christ Jesus, is so we can be presented before Him as holy, blameless, and beyond reproach.

Now, is there any doubt this will happen? I don't think so. First our being presented before the Father as holy, blameless, and beyond reproach is one of the purposes of reconciliation. It is a result of our being saved. Our position before the Father, thanks to the work of Christ, is "perfect" (Heb 10:14). Therefore we no longer need any more sacrifices for our sins (Heb 10:18). It is a done deal. Secondly God promises to make sure we remain holy and blameless before Him. Notice what the Apostle Paul says in 1Thess 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. Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass" 1Thess 5:23-24

Notice that God is faithful to make sure we are without blame. There is no question about the fact that those who are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ will be presented before Him holy, blameless, and beyond reproach.

While there is no question about those who are reconciled there does remain a question. Are all of Paul's readers truly reconciled (saved)? The Apostle Paul understood that in a church, even in a good church, there are probably some who are not truly saved. Paul warns the Ephesian Christians about this very fact...

"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God" Eph 5:3-5 (see also 1Cor 6:9-10, Rev 21:8,27).

Because of this, the Apostle Paul adds verse 23...

"if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister"

Paul is not saying that they are saved "as long as they continue in the faith", he is not presenting that type of conditional statement. The condition, simply put, means that they are reconciled and will be presented holy, blameless, and beyond reproach before the Father, but this is only true of them if they continue in the faith. Those who do not continue in the faith are not reconciled to God, and they will not be presented holy, blameless, and beyond reproach. What happens to them? They go into destruction (Heb 10:39, vss26-31).

The first class condition, in verse 23, means that Paul is assuming that they are reconciled, and they will be presented before God as holy, blameless, and beyond reproach. However it is true that those who do not continue prove they are not reconciled to God through Christ.

==While I agree that Christians can be faithless, true Christians don't turn away from the faith. In Colossians 1:21-23 the Apostle Paul is talking about them continuing in the faith and "the hope of the gospel". This "gospel" is the saving message that Paul was preaching, and which he is assuming these Colossian "Christians" had believed (ie...the first class condition).

 

In this passage, "sanctify" is optative (he may be sanctifying; he may not be; upon what is this bases?) and "preserved" is also optative. "Sanctify" is active and "preserved" is passive. They are both wishes for the future and it's the Lord doing the work, but he may or may not do it. What is the "may or may not" based upon?

"Wholly" is a predicate adjective. It's the "whole of each of you" or "every part of each of you". It's qualitative, not quantitative. (Spirit and soul and body.)

 

==All of that being so, I think verse 24 makes it clear that "He also will bring it to pass".

 

A few of you see to want to think that there will be people in heaven who do not love Jesus. If someone does not perservere, then then obviously do not love Jesus. The Bible tells that those who love Him will obey Him. Obedience is following. Obedience is perservering. Obedience is remaining in Him, etc... "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning." (1 John 3:6) The verses from John, Colossians, Ephesians, etc have to do with eternal security...it does not matter what your cult says it means.

 

Without a doubt, he is faithful, and he is the one who will be bringing it to pass. But, it's a conditional statement. If this, then that, and he's faithful and capable of doing what he said, based upon the conditional. (That was a confusing sentence structure, even in my head.)

 

I am now waiting for those in the SBC to start yelling that they are not the same things (although I agree they are and they are both wrong).

 

My cult is a Baptist one. What's yours?

 

==I think I understand what you are saying (maybe not?). Are you saying that a saved person might not be secure? In other words, what is your position on eternal security? The way I read the verse, and I admit it has been some time since I have sat down and gone through it in detail, there is the assurance that God will bring these things to pass. I would connect this promise, assurance, with Jesus' promises in John 10 and 6.

Martin.

 

==I think that is a fair treatment of the various positions.

==I disagree with the second point. I believe, as do those who hold my position, that a person can have totally assurance that he/she is saved. How? By a present trust in the Son of God (1Jn 5:13). If a person is trusting in Christ they can be assured that they are saved. There are those who, for various reasons, are not truly saved. These people may trust in Christ for a period but they, usually, fall away from Christ. Anyone who turns away from Christ should be given no assurance of salvation. The Bible offers no assurance to those who are not believing in Christ.

==I would say it is a real theological difference and not just a play on words. We are not saying the same thing in two different ways. We are saying two different things that, in the end, have the same result.

Do I have a problem with those who don't believe in eternal security/perseverence of the saints?

In general, no. However, and that is a BIG however, *I think their position leads them down some very dangerous roads. What about Divine election and predestination? Does God make mistakes? Of course they would say God does not make mistakes. However their position "could" cause them to claim that God has made a mistake by electing (etc) a certain individual. So while I generally don't have a big problem with those who believe in a "conditional security" I think their position is (a) problematic, (b) on shakey ground Biblically, (c) and maybe dangerous (see above*). This of course refers to those who are in the mainstream conditional security camp.

There are some who go way too far with their conditional security views. For example someone who believes that a person can lose their salvation over one sin. Such a position refutes grace for, as Robert Shank* said, "if grace is not for sinners, it is not grace" (Life In The Son, pg135). Any "acceptable" conditional security view must allow for growth and grace. Secondly those who hold to this type of conditional security are often very inconsistant in that they allow for certain sins while saying others will cause immediate loss of salvation. For example they may over-look gossip, saying the gossip has not lost salvation because of their gossip. However they are not willing to over-look a sin that might be more "offensive" like fornication. These folks will often say that one act of a sin, such as fornication, will cause a person to lose his/her salvation. Yet they forget that the Bible condemns both behaviors strongly. If a person can lose his/her salvation over fornication, then they can certainly lose his/her salvation over gossip (Rom 1:28-32).

Notes...

*Robert Shank's book, "Life In The Son", promotes a Conditional Security view.

A good book, presenting all sides of the debate, is "4 Views On Eternal Security".

Link for book...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310234395/sr=8-3/qid=1152820309/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-8577490-0085444?ie=UTF8

 

I'm fairly positive we're close to an understanding, and hopefully, we're close to an agreement.

A saved person is absolutely secure, the moment they believe on Jesus as their savior. That can never be revoked, rescinded, nor forfeited.

But, I don't think that spiritual salvation is what is being promised. I think it's an if/then statement that involves perseverence and rewards, and that God is faithful and capable of following through on those promises.

If we are faithful to do such and such, he is faithful faithful to do so and so.

I don't think our spiritual salvation is based on doing anything; it's based on believing on the Lord Jesus and his finished work on the cross, and that's secure no matter what.

 

==No. The Bible gives assurance only to those who are believing in Christ (1Jn 5:13, Jn 5:24, etc)

==There may not be anything in your definition about those things, but many in the Conditional security camp do include those things (to one degree or another). While there are those in the conditional security camp who would firmly agree with your definition there are others who would say that your definition does not go far enough. As an example of the second group of conditional security advocates I mentioned in my reply I would point you to the book "The Believer's Conditional Security" by Dan Corner.

So I am not saying that someone holds to conditional security just because they disagree with me. I am saying that my second group (see my reply) are promoting a form of conditional security. Keep in mind I did, in my reply, put them in two different groups. So I am not confusing the two.

==I am talking about the various forms of conditional security. Just like there are different views among those who believe in "eternal security" (ie...Zane Hodges v. John MacArthur, etc) there are different views among those who believe in "conditional security" (ie...Dan Corner v. Robert Shank). This point would be clear by reading the book, "4 Views On Eternal Security", that I linked to in my reply.

 

No Bias

==The book does not have one author. Each position is "explained" by a person who holds that position. For example Stephen Ashby wrote the chapter on Reformed Arminianism because he holds that view. Steven Harper wrote the chapter on Wesleyan Arminianism because that is the position he holds. Michael Horton wrote the chapter on Classical Calvinism because that is the view he holds, and Norman Geisler wrote the chapter on Moderate Calvinism because that is the view he holds. So there is no bias as far as the book goes. Each position is defended by a person who holds that view.

Now, to be honest, I don't think anyone in this book takes the more extreme conditional security position that Dan Corner (Evangelical Outreach) holds. A good book defending the conditional security position is "Life In The Son" by Robert Shank. For a pro-eternal security position from the perseverence camp I would recommend "Saved Without A Doubt" by John MacArthur. For a good treatment of the "once saved, always saved" position (ie...no perseverence) I would recommend "So Great Salvation" by Charles Ryrie, or "Eternal Security" by Charles Stanley.