Not Believing and still Get to Heaven?

[J. Jump]

I am sticking with the first class condition "rule".

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.

 

[Jack Matthews]

Sat. writes:
"Truer words were never spoken. How can any one person possibly speak for all or even mosts Baptists when there is such a diversity of views right here in this forum."


What about the IFB churches? I realize they are all independent and can have different beliefs. I know they have no accepted statement of faith like the SBC so this may be difficult to answer.. However, do they generally agree with the SBC on this issue, with Stanley, or who know?

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.

 

[Martin]

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

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.

==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.

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.

==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.

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.

==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).

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

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.)

 

[Martin]

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".

 

[pituophis]

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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

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.)

 

[drfuss]

Aside from the much debated doctrinal issues like election, OSAS, freewill, etc. and the supporting scriptures for each, a comparison of the practical aspects of the various security beliefs is interesting. In making this comparison, let’s include the following three beliefs. Note that being saved means having eternal like with God.

Stanley’s belief – A true Christian who does not persevere in trusting Christ will still be saved when they die.
SBC BF&M – A true Christian will persevere in trusting Christ until death and will be saved.
Conditional security – A true Christian who does not persevere in trusting Christ will not be saved. But if they resume trusting in Christ, they will be saved.

Comparison statements:

1. Once saved, always saved (OSAS).
Stanley’s belief -Yes
SBC - Yes
Conditional security - No

2. A true Christian can stop trusting in Christ as savior.
Stanley’s belief - -Yes
SBC - - No
Conditional security -Yes

3. A true Christian can know for sure NOW that he is currently saved.
Stanley’s belief - Yes, and he doesn’t have to persevere to remained saved.
SBC - No, if he doesn’t persevere, he was not initially a true Christian. He just thought he was?
Conditional security –Yes, and he has to persevere to remain saved.

4. A person must be trusting Christ as savior when they die to be saved.
Stanley’s belief - No
SBC - Yes
Conditional security - Yes

For statement #1, Stanley and SBC agree.

For statements #2 &3, Stanley and conditional security agree.

For statement #4, SBC and conditional security agree. For practical purposes, this the most important statement because it involves the criteria for being saved when you die. SBC and conditional security beliefs have the same assurance of being saved since both beliefs require perseverance in trusting Christ. On the other hand, Stanley disagrees with almost all other Christian beliefs on this statement.

For statement #4, the only practical difference between SBC and conditional security is demonstrated as follows. Consider a person who was a Christian and did not persevere in trusting Christ, was he really a Christian in the first place. SBC says no; conditional security says yes. For practical applications, this difference can be looked on as merely a difference in terminology, i.e. was he saved back then or wasn’t he. The criteria is the same for being saved when he dies.

Granted, the theology to arrive at the SBC and the conditional security positions is very different. But the practical application is the same. It is just how you say it, i.e “a play on words”.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Granted, the theology to arrive at the SBC and the conditional security positions is very different. But the practical application is the same. It is just how you say it, i.e “a play on words”.

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).

 

[Hope of Glory]

it does not matter what your cult says it means.

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

 

[Martin]

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 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.

 

[Martin]

Stanley’s belief – A true Christian who does not persevere in trusting Christ will still be saved when they die.

SBC BF&M – A true Christian will persevere in trusting Christ until death and will be saved.
Conditional security – A true Christian who does not persevere in trusting Christ will not be saved. But if they resume trusting in Christ, they will be saved.

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

3. A true Christian can know for sure NOW that he is currently saved.Stanley’s belief - Yes, and he doesn’t have to persevere to remained saved.

SBC - No, if he doesn’t persevere, he was not initially a true Christian. He just thought he was?
Conditional security –Yes, and he has to persevere to remain saved.

==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.

For statement #4, the only practical difference between SBC and conditional security is demonstrated as follows. Consider a person who was a Christian and did not persevere in trusting Christ, was he really a Christian in the first place. SBC says no; conditional security says yes. For practical applications, this difference can be looked on as merely a difference in terminology, i.e. was he saved back then or wasn’t he. The criteria is the same for being saved when he dies. Granted, the theology to arrive at the SBC and the conditional security positions is very different. But the practical application is the same. It is just how you say it, i.e “a play on words”.

==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

 

[Hope of Glory]

==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'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.

 

[drfuss]

Martin writes:
"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."

Martin, did you just contradict yourself? How does a person really know that he is not one of those who "trust in Christ for a period" as you said?

Both SBC and conditional security beliefs have the same total assurance that they are saved. Both depend on perseverence to be among the saved when they die..

Martin writes:
"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."

I agree there is a theological difference, but I was talking about a practical difference. For a practical perspective, both have the same result, i.e. the difference is "a play on words".

Martin writes:
"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)."


The above demonstrates a big problem in these debates. The Stanley and SBC people consider all other beliefs as conditional security. Let's review the definition of conditional security.
Conditional security – A true Christian who does not persevere in trusting Christ will not be saved. But if they resume trusting in Christ, they will be saved.

There is nothing in the definition about works, sins or types of sins as you have included above. It is only about trusting Christ as savior.

You have included other different beliefs as part of conditional security when they are not. Other assurance beliefs NOT included in conditional security are: faith plus works, victorious christian life, and faith & works plus sacraments. Yet, OSAS people conveniently keep grouping then all under conditional security.

 

[Martin]

did you just contradict yourself? How does a person really know that he is not one of those who "trust in Christ for a period" as you said?

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

The above demonstrates a big problem in these debates. The Stanley and SBC people consider all other beliefs as conditional security. Let's review the definition of conditional security. Conditional security – A true Christian who does not persevere in trusting Christ will not be saved. But if they resume trusting in Christ, they will be saved. There is nothing in the definition about works, sins or types of sins as you have included above. It is only about trusting Christ as savior.

==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.

You have included other different beliefs as part of conditional security when they are not. Other assurance beliefs NOT included in conditional security are: faith plus works, victorious christian life, and faith & works plus sacraments. Yet, OSAS people conveniently keep grouping then all under conditional security.

==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.

 

[drfuss]

Martin writes:
"The Bible gives assurance only to those who are believing in Christ (1Jn 5:13, Jn 5:24, etc)"

Yes, the Bible gives this same assurance in both the SBC and conditional security beliefs. Also, both include perseverence to be saved when they die.

Martin writes:
"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."

Correct.

Martin writes:
"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."

Thank you. I intend to get the book. If only other OSAS christians were as knowledgeable about conditional security as you are. Most people in OSAS churches have been taught for years that if it is not OSAS, then it is conditional security that includes: works, uncertain about being saved, etc. It is not that the ministers intentionally misled people; The ministers had been taught that for years and it makes the preaching easier.

 

[drfuss]

Martin writes:
"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."

From the book link, I notice from the back cover of the "4 Views On Eternal Security" that the book uses the term "lose your salvation" and not "forfeit your salvation". This is OSAS terminology suggesting the book may be bias. Hopefully, it also includes "forfeiting your salvation" in the body of the book. Otherwise, the terminology in the book is bias.

 

[Martin]

No Bias

From the book link, I notice from the back cover of the "4 Views On Eternal Security" that the book uses the term "lose your salvation" and not "forfeit your salvation". This is OSAS terminology suggesting the book may be bias. Hopefully, it also includes "forfeiting your salvation" in the body of the book. Otherwise, the terminology in the book is 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.