questioning eternal security

[MMDAN]

What literature are you referring to? Because what I would wonder is if in that literature they dealt with the concept of being "born again". If they did, then how did they handle the concept and how did it work that one would be un-born. What little I have read in pre-reformation literature seems to be often that Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sin, which is fine, or some type of belief that you must continuously feed on Christ's body and blood in a literal sense, which is not fine.

Amen! The type of belief that you must continuously feed on Christ's body and blood in a literal sense, (transubstantiation - cannibalism) is not fine. Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and shed blood, receiving eternal life.

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" as the result is the same, eternal life.

*HERMENEUTICS*

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

 

[MMDAN]

I agree that warnings as in this matter are concerning something that is unthinkable, but that is the reason for the warning. If as @MMDAN suggests that only false believers could actually fall away then the warnings are of no use as according to his view they were not saved anyway.

There are plenty of shallow ground believers mixed in with genuine believers who have heard the truth and were on the verge of accepting the truth, but then turned and permanently fell away, so these warnings are of use.

He even went so far as to say that a true believer could not fall away

Could not fall away "permanently" but believers can "temporarily" fall away. Prior to Jesus being arrested, in Matthew 26:31, Jesus told His disciples that they would "fall away" because of Him that night (but this was only temporary after having a weak moment). In Proverbs 24:16, we read - For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity. According to you, the righteous fall and never rise again.

so again the warnings would be of no use as they could not loose their salvation as they would never turn away.

It's actually lose and not loose your salvation. Please show me the words "lose salvation" in scripture.

So either the warnings were real or the Holy Spirit was being shall we say less than honest.

The warnings are real but if those warnings imply that genuine born-again Christians lose their salvation then the Holy Spirit was being less than honest in (Psalm 37:28; Proverbs 24:16; John 5:24; John 6:37-39; John 10:27-29; Romans 8:30-39; 11:29; 1 Corinthians 1:13-14; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Jude 1:1, 24-25) The Holy Spirit is 100% honest 100% of the time. We just need to make sure that we properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine. Otherwise, we end up with contradictions in scripture and there are no contradictions in God's Word.

 

[John of Japan]

The following are 15 of the 55 “believe” participles. When “believe” is fully translated, only those who “continuously” believe ---

will become “sons of God” (Jn 1:12),

will “have everlasting life” (Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24),

will “not be condemned” (Jn 3:18),

will be saved by the will of God (Jn 6:40),

will receive “remission” of sins (Acts 10:43),

will be “justified” (Acts 13:39),

will receive salvation (Rom 1:16),

will be “righteous by faith” (Rom 3:22),

will have their “faith” “counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5),

will receive “imputed” righteousness (Rom 4:24),

will receive the “promise” of faith (Gal 3:22),

will be “saved” (Heb 10:39),

will be “born again” (1 Jn 5:1),

can “know they are saved” (1 Jn 5:13)

--- all have Greek present participles of “believe” which mean continuous action.

 

[John of Japan]

True believers in Christ continue to have eternal life so long as they continue to believe (present active participle). The Greek present tense in the indicative and subjunctive moods NEVER implies that the continuance will last forever—and all too often it does not!

I stand by my position.

It is not an accident that the concept of eternal security was first conceived in the 16th century and that the concept of conditional security was universally taught throughout the first 1,500 years of the Church and that for all of the remaining years it has been by far the majority view.

I really don't think you can prove this. But what matters is not church history, but the Word of God.

Moreover, let us never cheapen or belittle the faith of the countless thousands of true believers in Christ who faithfully served Him for decades but who subsequently were overcome by temptations and became apostates.

I have not done this.

 

[John of Japan]

The following are 15 of the 55 “believe” participles. When “believe” is fully translated, only those who “continuously” believe ---

will become “sons of God” (Jn 1:12),

will “have everlasting life” (Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24),

will “not be condemned” (Jn 3:18),

will be saved by the will of God (Jn 6:40),

will receive “remission” of sins (Acts 10:43),

will be “justified” (Acts 13:39),

will receive salvation (Rom 1:16),

I have already answered up to here.

will be “righteous by faith” (Rom 3:22),

At last, a claim I can get my teeth into! There is clearly a participle of "believe" here, but it cannot mean what you think it does, that we must continually believe to be saved.

I already mentioned once that the participles that you are referring to are substantival. That means they are participles being used as nouns, because they have the Greek definite article before them. This not only weakens the "continuous" force, but most of the time eliminates it. Here is what Daniel Wallace said in his massive book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
"Many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν, ποιῶν, etc.) formula is almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. ["Gnomic" means losing the force--JoJ] Many of these instances involve the present participle. But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something out of them--such as a progressive idea" (pp. 615-616).

Again, Wallace on p. 620: "Third, the aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it. Thus, for example, ὁ βαπτίζων in Mark 6:14 does not mean 'the one who continually baptizes' but simply 'the baptizer.'"

So you are making too big of a deal here. The grammar doesn't mean what you think it means.

will have their “faith” “counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5),

The main verb here is "counted," which is present passive indicative, meaning it can either be continuous or a single action. You can't make your point from this.

will receive “imputed” righteousness (Rom 4:24),

Another substantival participle. See above.

will receive the “promise” of faith (Gal 3:22),

"Given" here is an aorist passive subjunctive, meaning it is a one time giving. We who believe (literally, "the believers") are given "the promise of faith" one time. We don't need it again! We are saved once for all.

will be “saved” (Heb 10:39),

Here there is no participle for "believe," which is a verb. Instead there is the genitive singular noun πίστεως, which means "faith."

will be “born again” (1 Jn 5:1),

"Born" here is γεγέννηται, a perfect tense verb, with perfective aspect, meaning it happened once in the past, and the results continue. In other words, the ones who believe (your participle) were born again once! There is no need to be born again one more time. Therefore, this verse does not prove your point, but the opposite. It proves we never lose our salvation, having to be "born again."

And after all, the term "born again" itself proves you are wrong. What baby ever had to be born physically again? Therefore, what born again (spiritually) believer has to be spiritually reborn? That defeats the very metaphor Jesus uses.

can “know they are saved” (1 Jn 5:13)

See the discussion above of the gnomic character of the present participle.

--- all have Greek present participles of “believe” which mean continuous action.

Absolutely wrong, as I have proven.

 

[John of Japan]

Didn't mean to repeat his post with post #103. Still getting used to the new software!

 

[Van]

God chose us from eternity past to be found in Christ, not us deciding for Him first

The pattern driven proclamation of falsehood continues, along with efforts to change the subject.

 

[Van]

In Post #7, you address John 10:27, which has "hear" and "follow" in the present tense. I agree, those born anew sometime in their past are said to in the present still hear and follow, thus they continue their adherence to their faith in God.

Next, in post #8, you address John 3:16, which as "believes" or "is believing" as the condition of those who will not perish but have everlasting life.
Again, I agree, that is the characteristic of those who have become His sheep, born anew children of God.

Which brings us to post #9, and Jesus praying for those who believe because of His disciples word. I believe the idea extends past the present, and to everyone, such as me, who will believe in the future when viewed from the time of His prayer. Thus, the idea is at the time of being given to Christ, they will be, in that present time, believing, not had believed, or will believe.

Next you mention John 6:40 which as those who "behold the Son and believes (present tense) into Him will have everlasting life and will be raised on the last day. So once again we have some who is believing at the time of salvation and then continues be believe as solid doctrine.

Continuing with post 10, you address 1 John 5:13 which says those who are believing may know they have everlasting life. Here again we have the characteristic of those born anew of continuous belief or faith. In 1 John 5:1 we have those who are believing that Jesus is the Christ have been and are continuing to be born of God. We can, I believe reverse the logic ans conclude those born anew will continuous believe or have faith.

Next, post #11, you address Hebrews 6:4-6 with the apparent assumption those in view were born anew. I hold a different view. So setting that aside, let us continue with the characteristic of continuous belief or faith.

Finally you mention Romans 4:5 which says those who believe (present tense) on Him who justified, their faith is credited as righteousness. So again, when a person is believing, God takes action and subsequently, they continue to believe or have faith.

No one should dispute that analysis. However, if when a person is born anew, their faith is protected by the power of God, it would be impossible to anyone born anew to lose or destroy that faith.

Which brings me to my rebuttal (excepting Hebrews 6:4-6) of the contention that a born anew believer can somehow lose or destroy the faith they had when God credited it as righteousness. See 1 Peter 1:3-5. I believe when we are born anew, God protects our faith such that we will receive our inheritance, our salvation, our everlasting life.

Bottom line, all these verbs support the doctrine that once God has caused the person to be spiritually born anew, made alive so to speak, their faith is protected such that they will continue to have faith in Jesus.

 

[Silverhair]

I did answer why the warning passages in post #68. Only those who truly believe will continue to believe. (1 Corinthians 15:1,2) Those that believe and later reject Christ demonstrate that they had a shallow, temporary belief that had no root and was in vain, as we see in the parable of the sower in Luke 8:4-15. Not all belief is the same (compare James 2:19 with Acts 16:31 - same Greek word for believe "pisteuo" in both verses) and answer are the demons saved?) Now even though this shallow ground hearer in Luke 8:13 is said to have "believed," yet he is never said to have been "saved." How do we know that the shallow ground hearer was never actually "saved"? Allow me to explain the reasons.

First, his heart condition is contrasted with that of the "good ground" hearer in the 4th soil, who's heart was "good" and "honest." Thus, his heart was not "good," being like the soil to which it corresponds, being "shallow" or "rocky," lacking sufficient depth. Such soil represents a sinner not properly prepared in heart. People who "believe" and "rejoice" at the preaching of the gospel without a prepared heart, and without a good and honest heart, and without having "root" in themselves, do not experience real salvation.

IN CONTRAST TO - Mark 4:8 - But other seed fell on good ground and yielded a crop that sprang up, increased and produced: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred. Luke 8:15 says, But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience. So, the rocky soil represents a person not properly prepared in heart, so the seed planted ends up with a lack of "root" (lack of being firmly planted or established) and good soil represents a person properly prepared in heart who having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keeps it and bears fruit with patience.

*Unlike saving belief, temporary, shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. How can no depth of earth, no root, no moisture, no fruit, represent saving belief? It can't.

You continue to make the assumption that those that trust in Christ will never change their view. The reality is that it does happen. Even Christ disagree with your view, of the second soil "who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away." of the third soil, "when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity."

You are reading your philosophy into the text and then deny the warning passages.

What you consider an answer in post # 68 does not deal with the reality of the warning passages. Why are they there? Who were they meant for if not those that actually trusted in Christ?

According to you those that truly believe could never fall away and all the others were destined to fall away as they never really believed. So were the warnings real or not?

 

[Silverhair]

There are plenty of shallow ground believers mixed in with genuine believers who have heard the truth and were on the verge of accepting the truth, but then turned and permanently fell away, so these warnings are of use.

So were these "shallow ground believers" true believers or not?

Could not fall away "permanently" but believers can "temporarily" fall away. Prior to Jesus being arrested, in Matthew 26:31, Jesus told His disciples that they would "fall away" because of Him that night (but this was only temporary after having a weak moment). In Proverbs 24:16, we read - For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity. According to you, the righteous fall and never rise again.

But you were not speaking of "temporarily" falling away in your prior comments. Stumbling is not falling away from faith/apostasy.

You made the bold comments that true believers would never fall and all the rest would fall not just stumble.

It's actually lose and not loose your salvation. Please show me the words "lose salvation" in scripture.

Well it seems you do not believe that apostasy or fall away means to lose one's salvation. So if they do not mean that then are all those that profess faith in Christ saved?

The warnings are real but if those warnings imply that genuine born-again Christians lose their salvation then the Holy Spirit was being less than honest in (Psalm 37:28; Proverbs 24:16; John 5:24; John 6:37-39; John 10:27-29; Romans 8:30-39; 11:29; 1 Corinthians 1:13-14; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Jude 1:1, 24-25) The Holy Spirit is 100% honest 100% of the time. We just need to make sure that we properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine. Otherwise, we end up with contradictions in scripture and there are no contradictions in God's Word.

Those that continue to trust in Christ will be saved those that never believe or even those that have believed and latter reject said belief will be lost. Thus the warning passages.

Since you agree that the Holy Spirit is 100% honest 100% of the time then why do you continue to deny the warning passages are actually warnings?

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree that warnings as in this matter are concerning something that is unthinkable, but that is the reason for the warning. If as @MMDAN suggests that only false believers could actually fall away then the warnings are of no use as according to his view they were not saved anyway. He even went so far as to say that a true believer could not fall away so again the warnings would be of no use as they could not loose their salvation as they would never turn away.

So either the warnings were real or the Holy Spirit was being shall we say less than honest.

I don't know why you would think folks should not be allowed to make assumptions based on their other beliefs. The fact is, we all agree that a person must continue to believe. If the reason turns out to be that eternal security is not true, and that you keep believing so that you keep saved then use the warning like that. But if you believe that a true believer must keep believing, and that a true believer is OSAS, then when you read the same warnings you will say "Man, I better examine just what I believe and make sure I am not a false follower." And then if necessary repent and mortify sin as Owen would say. And if it turns out that Reformed theology is right then the means of them learning this was the warnings, and their heeding the warnings and truly getting right with God was part of God's foreordained plan. The result is the same and I have no problem with people viewing it either way, honestly.

The only thing I worry about is those who would use the idea of "once saved always saved" as "fire insurance" so they can live as they like without regard to the Bible. Such people can explain the warnings any way they want but they better take the warnings seriously. But to be fair, many who are the strongest believers in OSAS live some of the best Christian lives so however they use the warning passages is fine with me.

 

[Craigbythesea]

On the contrary, I find it helpful if someone who has specialist knowledge explains the mistakes in a post. Otherwise we are all floundering in ignorance. As for attacking the persons of "dissenters:"

The pot calls the kettle black.
With regard to your claim that no one before the 16th Century believed in Eternal Security, I wonder who told you that? I think that if you look hard enough you can find almost any doctrine in the Church Fathers, and if you were to study the works of Augustine, or of any of his followers such as Fulgentius of Ruspe, you would find that the opposite to what you are claiming is true.
An upholder of Eternal Security at a later date was Gottschalke of Orbais (805-869) Here is an extract from one of his supporters:

"According to the catholic faith, almighty God - even before the foundation of the world, and before He created anything - from the very beginning predestined souls to His kingdom, by His own free love, according to the sure, righteous, unchangeable motives of His own eternal purposes. None of these souls shall perish, for His mercy protects them......"
[From "Reply to the Three Letters," Chapter 10. Usually ascribed to Remigius of Lyons. Taken from "2,000 Years of Christ's Power" Vol 2, by Dr. N.R. Needham]

N.B. Quoting from Roman Catholic sources does not mean that I agree with them on other things.

Numerous Calvinists have done precisely what you are suggesting that I do and they have come up with nothing. I have personally studied the writings of Augustine and his changing theology especially late in his life. At no point in his life, however, do we find in any of his writings anything that comes even close to the prevailing Baptist doctrines of eternal security. I have seen before the “quote” from one of the supporters of Gottschalke of Orbais but I have not been able to verify it genuineness.

 

[John of Japan]

John R. Rice wrote a little pamphlet on "Eight Gospel Absurdities If a Born-Again Soul Ever Loses Salvation." You can read some of it here: Eight Gospel Absurdities

 

[JesusFan]

The pattern driven proclamation of falsehood continues, along with efforts to change the subject.

Did you Choose Jesus to save you then?

The pattern driven proclamation of falsehood continues, along with efforts to change the subject.

so you see election based upon what we chhose to do, and not what God chooses to do?

 

[JesusFan]

Numerous Calvinists have done precisely what you are suggesting that I do and they have come up with nothing. I have personally studied the writings of Augustine and his changing theology especially late in his life. At no point in his life, however, do we find in any of his writings anything that comes even close to the prevailing Baptist doctrines of eternal security. I have seen before the “quote” from one of the supporters of Gottschalke of Orbais but I have not been able to verify it genuineness.

The Holy Spirit is God, and once he seals and indwells a saint now, its forever

 

[JesusFan]

John R. Rice wrote a little pamphlet on "Eight Gospel Absurdities If a Born-Again Soul Ever Loses Salvation." You can read some of it here: Eight Gospel Absurdities

We would be left to a system of salvation that would have God not even really sure if ANY sinner would ever get saved and kept, as would be akin to catholic concept of one becoming good enough to merit salvation in the end

 

[37818]

Earlier than the Reformation, we do not find in any extrabiblical literature so much as a hint of any doctrine of eternal security—but now many Baptists have concocted several or more of them! If the any of the doctrines of eternal security are true, the Bible is so poorly worded that no one could understand even its fundamental teachings until a poorly educated French politician came along and explained it! And a bible so poorly worded as that could not possibly have been inspired by God.

The wages of sin is death, and on this side of the Jordan there are no get out jail free cards.

Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Silverhair]

I don't know why you would think folks should not be allowed to make assumptions based on their other beliefs. The fact is, we all agree that a person must continue to believe. If the reason turns out to be that eternal security is not true, and that you keep believing so that you keep saved then use the warning like that. But if you believe that a true believer must keep believing, and that a true believer is OSAS, then when you read the same warnings you will say "Man, I better examine just what I believe and make sure I am not a false follower." And then if necessary repent and mortify sin as Owen would say. And if it turns out that Reformed theology is right then the means of them learning this was the warnings, and their heeding the warnings and truly getting right with God was part of God's foreordained plan. The result is the same and I have no problem with people viewing it either way, honestly.

The only thing I worry about is those who would use the idea of "once saved always saved" as "fire insurance" so they can live as they like without regard to the Bible. Such people can explain the warnings any way they want but they better take the warnings seriously. But to be fair, many who are the strongest believers in OSAS live some of the best Christian lives so however they use the warning passages is fine with me.

I did not say that a person could not do that, but that seems to be an assumption on your part does it not.

Eternal security is true for those that continue to believe in Christ Jesus but if one that believes chooses to latter reject that faith then they are not saved are they. Those that hold to OSAS would say that no matter what the person would be saved.

If the possibility of a believer rejecting Christ did not exist then why the warning passages? Even to say that as you did "I better examine just what I believe and make sure I am not a false follower." indicates that they could fall away.

To think that it is impossible for a true believer to fall away can lead to a false sense of security. Thus the warning passages value.

 

[Van]

Did you Choose Jesus to save you then?

so you see election based upon what we chhose to do, and not what God chooses to do?

All these off topic questions addressing me are for the purpose of changing the subject from the biblical evidence of eternal security, once saved, always saved.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Numerous Calvinists have done precisely what you are suggesting that I do and they have come up with nothing. I have personally studied the writings of Augustine and his changing theology especially late in his life. At no point in his life, however, do we find in any of his writings anything that comes even close to the prevailing Baptist doctrines of eternal security. I have seen before the “quote” from one of the supporters of Gottschalke of Orbais but I have not been able to verify it genuineness.

Well it took me about ten minutes to find that quote, and it came from a reputable Church historian whose books are used by several seminaries in Britain. I have therefore met your challenge, and I have no doubt that if I spent another half hour, I could find some more. However, ploughing through the works of ancient theologians, which tend increasingly to be tinged with Roman Catholicism the further on one goes, is not my idea of fun.
Quite simply, the idea that someone can be 'in Christ' and then out again, and maybe in again sometime later is ridiculous, as is the notion that someone can be born of God - you know, the One who says, "I the LORD do not change" - and then end up in hell.
Perhaps you will explain what exactly you mean by "the prevailing Baptist doctrines of eternal security." We live in different countries, so we may have different ideas of what those doctrines are.