11 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwMy apologies... I did get overly presumptuous there.
Hold your horses fella! I was raised a catholic not a protestant. I'm not a Calvinist either. I said my theology was dispensational.
And I'm not confused about anything either.(well, not exactly)
The issue we were discussing was simply about whether or not one could lose his or her salvation. And that is all I was talking about.
Do we agree that salvati rks" are for, but whether or not those "works" can keep us secure in our salvation.
For me the issue here isn't about what "works" are for, but whether or not those "works" can keep us secure in our salvation.
If one trusts the kindness of the Lord, one's motivation for doing good works will not be in order to keep one's salvation secure, rather one's motivation will be to glorify God. That there is a possibility, however remote, of losing one's salvation through 'grieving' the Holy Spirit (persistently disobeying him) is hardly a concern for someone actually living for Christ. A friend of God need not worry in the slightest. No one can snatch him out of God's hand.
EDIT: The bottom line is, "your labor in the Lord is not in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:58).
11 Jun 07
3 edits
Maybe someone can help me with the following:
What does it mean to "believe" or "have faith"? If a man says he "believes" in fidelity in marriage, but his actions don't reflect this, then I ask you, "Does he truly 'believe'"? Is he not the same as the man who cries 'Lord, Lord', but doesn't follow the will of the Father? If one truly "believed" in Christ, wouldn't he do what He says.
This has bothered me for some time now.
11 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneGood point. It bothers me as well. I think that most everyone can agree that faith is the vehicle through which we have right standing with God. For the Christian, this means having faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross because it is needed for God to be able to pardon us. A price for sin must be payed. However, it says in James that a double-minded person is one in which they step out in faith and then later retract their faith. It says that such a person should not expect to recieve ANYTHING from God. Should salvation be included I wonder? Simply put, should the walk of faith in terms of the expectation for salvation be any different than for our walk of faith regarding the expectation for anything else?
Maybe someone can help me with the following:
What does it mean to "believe" or "have faith"? If a man says he "believes" in fidelity in marriage, but his actions don't reflect this, then I ask you, "Does he truly 'believe'"? Is he not the same as the man who cries 'Lord, Lord', but doesn't follow the will of the Father? If one truly "believed" in Christ, wouldn't he do what He says.
This has bothered me for some time now.
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyThat's why I brought this up. Most of the verses cited thus far speak of 'belief' or 'faith' as being a pre-requisite for salvation.
Good point. It bothers me as well. I think that most everyone can agree that faith is the vehicle through which we have right standing with God. For the Christian, this means having faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross because it is needed for God to be able to pardon us. A price for sin must be payed. However, it says in James that a double-minded ...[text shortened]... vation be any different than for our walk of faith regarding the expectation for anything else?
Sometimes I wonder if what one needs to have 'faith' in, is the idea of being the better for giving up one's own will for the will of the Father. I wonder if what one needs to 'believe' in, is following the will of the Father.
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIn Romans it says that if one confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and believes he was raised from the dead that one will be saved. I have always taken this to mean that one makes Christ their Lord. If you make him your Lord then you serve your Lord and not yourself. Why would you call him Lord if you did not serve him and treat him as your Lord?
That's why I brought this up. Most of the verses cited thus far speak of 'belief' or 'faith' as being a pre-requisite for salvation.
Sometimes I wonder if what one needs to have 'faith' in, is the idea of being the better for giving up one's own will for the will of the Father. I wonder if what one needs to 'believe' in, is following the will of the Father.
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyGood point.
In Romans it says that if one confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and believes he was raised from the dead that one will be saved. I have always taken this to mean that one makes Christ their Lord. If you make him your Lord then you serve your Lord and not yourself. Why would you call him Lord if you did not serve him and treat him as your Lord?
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf (Revelation 3:5) is saying God can 'go back on his promises' then God is making himself out to be a lier. (Titus 1:2) cleary states God does not lie. "a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which GOD, who DOES NOT LIE, promised before the beginning of time"(Titus 1:2). if God lies he is no better than any person on earth. also if God lies he can't save us from sin, making this debate piontles because no one would be saved in the first place.
Notice in the following passage how God indeed has the ability to 'go back on his promise' by blotting out a believer's name from the Book of Life, if a believer refuses to obey the Holy Spirit unto sanctification:
"He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Revelation 3:5).
11 Jun 07
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI ask that because you seem reactionary. Many brothers in the Lord put forth an Arminian "loss of eternal salvation" concept and anticipate typical Calvinist arguments opposed to them.
I don't know. All I know is, there is a deeper understanding of salvation which allows for no contradictions, and it is that understanding which incorporates the whole of scripture, not just certain aspects of scripture. I'm not content with a theology which is merely correct in what it asserts, while being false in what it denies.
There is also a "Dispensational Reward and Punishment" interpretation of all the passages which appear to deal with unpleasant discipline happening to believers in Christ.
Doesn't the "deeper" things, requiring "deeper" understanding of the gospel, require God to work them out in the lives of His sons in time?
If so then we can understand that there could be a limited time in which something very unpleasant could happen from God directed to His saints - should they disobey to go along with His economy. Such passages need not be only interpreted as the loss of eternal salvation.
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by el kreemob"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that is in accordance with godliness, in the hope of eternal life that God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" (Titus 1:1-2).
If (Revelation 3:5) is saying God can 'go back on his promises' then God is making himself out to be a lier. (Titus 1:2) cleary states God does not lie. "a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which GOD, who DOES NOT LIE, promised before the beginning of time"(Titus 1:2). if God lies he is no better than any person on earth. also if Go ...[text shortened]... us from sin, making this debate piontles because no one would be saved in the first place.
God never lies, that is true. I put 'go back on his promises' in quotes because those are not my words. By blotting out someone from the Book of Life he isn't really going back on a promise; he is fulfilling that for which he had given sufficient warning. Scripture gives ample warning to unprofitable and unfruitful servants that they are in danger of being 'cut off' or 'cast forth as branches'. If God never lies, then obviously that danger is real, right? You see, nowhere is God 'going back on his promise'. Notice how even the above passage is couched with a call to piety: 'the knowledge of the truth that is in accordance with godliness.'
It is imperative that believers submit their whole lives to him: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:1-2).
My point is, this call to holiness is bolstered by the portent of legitimate warnings for unprofitable and unfruitful servants, such as this one: "Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’ He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down’” (Luke 13:6-9).
If God never lies, we can be assured that such warnings are not empty threats. The brilliant thing is, being a living sacrifice is not difficult at all. Jesus tells us, "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillTo be honest, before you brought up "Arminianism", I didn't even know that distinction existed. I heard of Calvinism (a position I once ignorantly held) only so far as I discovered its view of predestination to be flawed in its claim that God's grace is irresistible and reserved only for specific individuals, which is contrary to God's expressed desire that all men be saved. And up until now I haven't heard of Dispensationalism either.
I ask that because you seem reactionary. Many brothers in the Lord put forth an Arminian "loss of eternal salvation" concept and anticipate typical Calvinist arguments opposed to them.
There is also a "Dispensational Reward and Punishment" interpretation of all the passages which appear to deal with unpleasant discipline happening to believers in Ch ...[text shortened]... s economy. Such passages need not be only interpreted as the loss of eternal salvation.
After perusing dispensational theology I'm still not clear as to what conclusions its vantage point seemingly allows people to make about God's word. As far as I can tell, dispensationalism is less a theology than it is merely a systematic approach to outlining God's progressive revelation of his Son, Jesus Christ. As far as I can tell, dispensationalism is an attempt to survey the whole of scripture almost as if from God's perspective (as if that were even possible). It is no wonder that its obsession with the end-times has yielded many false prophecies, since its perspective, no matter how intricate, cannot be anything other than less than God's true perspective: "Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!" (Romans 11:33).
I'm wary of the motives any theology might have to minimalize God's warnings to believers. What purpose is there to make light of what God expressly states? What would be your alternative reading of say, John 15:1-2, or any passage of similar meaning: "I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more."
11 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am one with you in taking care to heed the many obvious warnings to believers.
To be honest, before you brought up "Arminianism", I didn't even know that distinction existed. I heard of Calvinism (a position I once ignorantly held) only so far as I discovered its view of predestination to be flawed in its claim that God's grace is irresistible and reserved only for specific individuals, which is contrary to God's expressed desire and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more."
But I don't think in any case the warning is a loss of the gift of eternal redemption.
Concerning the fruitless branches taken away from the true vine - these also would mean a punishment to believers. It would not be eternal but temporary.
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think in any case the warning is a loss of the gift of eternal redemption.
I am one with you in taking care to heed the many obvious warnings to believers.
But I don't think in any case the warning is a loss of the gift of eternal redemption.
Concerning the fruitless branches taken away from the true vine - these also would mean a punishment to believers. It would not be eternal but temporary.
But salvation is that which we are yet to receive: "This is all the more urgent, for you know how late it is; time is running out. Wake up, for our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed" (Romans 13:11). Why is it inconceivable that someone can suffer shipwreck in the faith (1 Timothy 1:19) through overt disobedience to the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ? 2 Peter 2 contains a harrowing description of people who first believe and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, yet eventually become "slaves of corruption"; for whom "the deepest darkness has been reserved;" their "last state has become worse for them than the first." If their last state is worse for them than the first, what makes you think their punishment will only be temporary? In my mind, removing the teeth from God's warnings serves only to give believers license to no longer fear God; fear of God being the necessary ingredient to sanctification: "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).
Concerning the fruitless branches taken away from the true vine - these also would mean a punishment to believers. It would not be eternal but temporary.
Again, what in dispensationalism gives you the confidence to assume as much?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasAlright then....suppose I turn this around and ask you some questions....
I disagree with your assumption that the book of Revelation's warnings to the seven churches are post-rapture. Obviously the time of grace had not yet passed for them because Jesus is still calling them to repentance. There is no reason to repent if the time of grace is over. Furthermore, if these people were Christians, then why weren't they raptured as ...[text shortened]... and, ‘The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud'" (2 Peter 2:20-22).[/b]
#1. "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
-John 10:28 (NKJV)
Is someone going to snatch you out of his hand?
2#.
Eph 1:13-14
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
(NKJ)
What does "sealed" mean? What does "guarantee" mean?
#3. Rom 11:29
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
(NKJ)
What does irrevocable mean?
#4.
Eph 2:4-6
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
(NKJ)
Is this or is it not "past tense"? It is a done deal....
#5.
1 Pet 1:23
23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
(NKJ)
What does "incorruptable" mean here? Is it really corruptible?
#6.
I Jn 3:9
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
(NKJ)
What does "remain" mean here? For that matter, what does "cannot sin" mean here?
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by checkbaiterIt seems to me that what is being said here, is that one who still sins has yet be "born of God". What do you think it is saying?
Alright then....suppose I turn this around and ask you some questions....
#6.
I Jn 3:9
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
(NKJ)
What does "remain" mean here? For that matter, what does "cannot sin" mean here?
Starting with 1 John 3:4:
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.