Security of the Beliver.

[larryt]

This topic would normally be an offshoot of whether we have Free Will or not. And since I believe we have free will then I do not believe in eternal Security.

I think it is a lie of the Devil, as it lulls Christians into complacency and takes away accountability.

Alright somebody finally telling it as it is

I believe that man has a will but it is not free, it is in bondage to the fallen nature of man and cannot do what is required of God while still in that fallen state.

I think that the loose of salvation is a lie of the devil because it focuses on man and not Jesus Christ and His ability to keep us. It also does not take into account the new nature that we are changed, behold all thing have become new.

Just tellin' like it is.

LT

[larryt]

So can a christian live in open sin and still go to heaven or not?

The question is faulty. A Christian won't live in open sin. If the person is living in open sin he is not a Christian and never was one. He is a "goat" not a "sheep".

LT

[Mudcat]

Hi Larry,

Again, thanks for the well though response. I hope you don't mind the <snip> to the end.

I abhor long winded posts like you and I deliver.... tagged one upon another.

It gets a little buggering at times.

Here is the question, Can Jesus loose any of His sheep and not be a liar?

No, he can not loose a sheep that is his.

He keeps what is his.

Here is my alternate sheep question.

What if a Christian.... a born again believer decides the don't want to be his anymore.

What if they decided they wanted the world, more than life with Him.

Are you saying it is impossible they could make such a decision?

Would he honor their decision?

Is Christ losing a sheep and a Christian seceding from Christianity the same thing?

If one were to say that He won't loose any but the person can walk away that means that he caused Jesus to loose one of His sheep.

It sounds like you are saying that once we become a 'sheep', that is it, we are sheep.

I suppose I could posit that as a 'sheep' I could go murder, rape and pillage to my hearts desire and still be a sheep.

Either you would say, yes your still a sheep or you would say, no you weren't a sheep to begin with.

At that point it would come down to one of two things. A genuine commitment or a disingenuous commitment to Christ.

I take the direct statements in the bible and interpret that indirect statements by them rather than the other way around.

LT

I see Heb 6:4-6 as a pretty direct statement.

We may wind up at odds on the matter, oh well. Your still a cool guy.

Mudcat

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Well I will begin. Salvation not a "thing" we attain. Salvation is a person. Salvation is eternal life. Eternal life is something we have right now. It is the very life God within us. Eternal life is not something we are waiting on. Salvation is an inner transformation wrought by the Holy Spirit within. Bible says that if any man is in Christ, He is a new creation. I am in Christ and He is in me. I have salvation because Jesus is Salvation, He is eternal life, and I have Christ, right now.

- Well there is our fundamental difference, I believe salvation is indeed a person as long as you define it like that, however Eternal life in the soterilogical sense is union with Christ in Heaven.

No, according to 1 John 5, and John 5:24, Eternal life is a present day possession.

We experience Eternal life in fulness in the Beatific vision, however that transformation in which we enjoy the new creation is initial justification.

We have eternal life NOW even if we do not experience the fulfness of it. That is where the confusion lies. You are defining eternal life according to the end result. I am defining it the way the Bible does with respect to it being a present day condition of each believer.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "intitial justifification." That is just a made up concept.

So our first difference is that you combine initial justification and final justification where as I do not.

No, that is not where we differ. We differ on somehthing much more fundamental. I don't combine them because there are not two types of justification. Initial justification is a myth and is not a biblical concept. It is going to be very hard to discuss theology with someone who makes up concepts that don't exist.

QUOTE

The Bible also does not say that Justification, sanctification love or repentance are "graces" of the cross. That sounds more like manmade religion and not the Bible.

- If the Bible did not say these things, I assure you I would not believe them.

Really??? Well then please present the Scriptures that say "justification" is a grace of the cross," or that "sanctification is a grace of the cross." If you are going to say something is bibilical I expect chapter and verse.

Here is our second difference in theological positions. I believe that initial justification is a one time event in which God infuses us with His grace, and our sin is truly eradicated.

Sorry, but the Bible makes no such. Claim. Justification in the Greek is a pure legal, or declarative term. It does not denote the infusion of anything. It simply means that a person is placed back into rightstanding with God. Justification is purely positional. Nothing in the Bible says that we are made constitutionally rightesous at this time. While that will be the end result, it is not the present condition of the Believer. We are simply declared innocent before God. Sin has not yet been eradicated and there is plenty of Scripture in the New Testament by other writers including Paul that attest to this.

Since we attain initial justification when we are 'born again' but do not enjoy the fulness of justification until unison with Christ in Heaven it is a process or a race until we are admitted into Heaven.

Now, you are confusing justicification with sanctification.

QUOTE

Sorry, but that is simply not so. We have two completely different contexts and two completely different objects in view in with respect to Romans 4 and James 2.

- Of course the contexts are different I am not suggesting otherwise. Rather, Paul was writting to those with a works based salvation, and James was writting to those with a faith alone based salvation. I'm not sure why you limit this discussion to Romans 4 and James 2 either. I do see what your saying, but I must be honest and hold to my own principles and I truly do not believe that the contexts of these discourses allow for your interpretation.

It is precisely because the contexts are different that my position stands. I am looking at two different contexts and thus to different objects. James is not writing for the same reason and thus uses the term justification in a totally different manner than Paul does. You are trying to force them together in a way that is unnatural, is not faithful to the intent of James, and does a lot of violence to the text.

I'm not a big fan of accusations but I would have to say that you are reading into the text, at least from my perspective in that you are assuming that James is not talking about saving faith.

My point is that James is not talking about salvation. He is not talking about Justification with respect to Divine Justice as Paul is, the book of Romans. James is talking about justification in the sense of confirming one's testimony with corresponding action. James is talking about how we justify ourselves in the sight of men. Paul is talking about being declared innocent in the presence of the Divine Judge. You have two compeltely different purposes that cannot be forced to together.

Your argument is that James is speaking about vindication, not justification so I pose a few counter arguments.

1.) If James was speaking about vidication he would have used the proper word for vindication, he specifically speaks about justification with soteriolgical meaning.

2.) James describes Rahabs justification as salvific, and equates it directly to Abrahams in chpt. 2 c. 25, and James and Paul both use the same greek word for righteousness when speaking about Abraham. (Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:3, James 2:23)

1. His usage is not soteriological. That is why he uses the example of showing why love is dead without corresponding action and then compares it to faith. His usage of justification was not soteriological.

2. Yes, they use the same Greek word but it is applied differently and in different contexts. That is the point. Justification has a basic meaning but different applications based on context, which means that you cannot just point to the fact that they used the same word expect that to suffice. It is how they used the word that is more important.

So basically I do not see any Scriptural evidence for Paul or James speaking about a vindication of a true faith through actions.

It is there whether you choose to see it or not.

[larryt]

Hi Larry,

Again, thanks for the well though response. I hope you don't mind the <snip> to the end.

I abhor long winded posts like you and I deliver.... tagged one upon another.

It gets a little buggering at times.

Here is the question, Can Jesus loose any of His sheep and not be a liar?

No, he can not loose a sheep that is his.

He keeps what is his.

Here is my alternate sheep question.

What if a Christian.... a born again believer decides the don't want to be his anymore.

What if they decided they wanted the world, more than life with Him.

Are you saying it is impossible they could make such a decision?

Would he honor their decision?

Is Christ losing a sheep and a Christian seceding from Christianity the same thing?

Can a butterfly become a caterpillar again?

We did not choose Him but he chose us, before the foundation of the world. Not because He knew we would "accept Him" but because of His own will He chose us.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

If one were to say that He won't loose any but the person can walk away that means that he caused Jesus to loose one of His sheep.

It sounds like you are saying that once we become a 'sheep', that is it, we are sheep.

We were His sheep before the foundation of the world. We were given to Jesus by the Father before the foundation of the world. We were lost sheep and He found us.

Goats are goats and sheep are sheep.

I suppose I could posit that as a 'sheep' I could go murder, rape and pillage to my hearts desire and still be a sheep.

Either you would say, yes your still a sheep or you would say, no you weren't a sheep to begin with.

At that point it would come down to one of two things. A genuine commitment or a disingenuous commitment to Christ.

Not to your heart's desire and still be a sheep. The heart of the new man cannot sin.(1John 3:9)

A Christian could commit murder, but it would grieve him greatly. If he didn't then there would be no evidence of the new birth/new nature. Likewise any other sin. And so you think God is going to let His child get away with sin.

Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

There are many that are illegitimate because they are not reprimanded by God. I know. God doesn't let me get away with anything, ever.

I take the direct statements in the bible and interpret that indirect statements by them rather than the other way around.

LT

I see Heb 6:4-6 as a pretty direct statement.

We may wind up at odds on the matter, oh well. Your still a cool guy.

Mudcat

I am only on this earth at present at the pleasure of Jesus Christ and to serve Him.

LT

[Godfearer]

here is scripture that says clearly what can happen to salvation if we turn.

1Ch 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

1Ch 28:10 Take heed now; for the LORD hath chosen thee to build an house for the sanctuary: be strong, and do it.

God has a plan for your life. for solomon it was to build the temple. (temple being a representation of our body which is Gods temple) for solomon to not build would have been to forsake God.

we should all ask ourselves what has God planned for me??? we should seek Him on this. and we should obey and submit to His will. i mean if we surrender our lives to him we dont have the right to do what we want anymore. regardless how much we dont like it. when Jesus put the mans ear back on that came to arrest him he said am I not to drink the cup My Father has given me to drink? the servant isnt greater than The Master.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

No, according to 1 John 5, and John 5:24, Eternal life is a present day possession.

1st John 5:12, "He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life."

1st John 5:13, "These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God."

- I agree that we posess eternal life in so far as our faith is complete and we are free from sin. However when we choose to sin (Heb. 10:26-27, 4:4-6) we choose to forfiet that assurance.

So the minute you sin, you lose assurance? Then you never had assurance in the first place.

Listen to what Christ tells a lawyer in Luke,

Luke 10:25-28 ,"And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life? But he said to him: What is written in the law? How readest thou? He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said to him: Thou hast answered right. This do: and thou shalt live."

- Note that Christ tells this man that all he must do to posses 'eternal life' is love the Lord with all his strength would, and mind and love his neighbour as himself. In otherwords live a life of faith in obedience.

You are missing the point of the story and Jesus' point to the lawyer. In the Greek, "Do this" is present imperative. It means, "do this continuously without stopping forever." To slip one time, is to fail and forever disqualify one for salvation, if we stating that eternal life depends even in part, on our works. Furthermore, you have to do it perfectly. That means, you have to be as perfect in your works as Jesus was, and you have to maintain that level of perfection, every second of every minute, of every day for the rest of your life.

Jesus was not claiming that works are necessary to maintain or secure eternal life. The point is, you can't do anything good enough or perfect enough to maintain or secure your salvation. If you think your works are good enough, you are delusional.

Our problem is that we don't realize that God is not nearly has impressed with our works as we are. We pray for three hours and come away feeling pretty holy. We are just a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous brats when it comes to our crowing about holy we think we are or have to be.

You continue to try to create a false dichotomy between my view and what the Bible teaches. The problem with this false dichotomy is that I am quoting the Scripture and remaining faithful to the text, not to the context that would benefit your position but the Scriptures in totality.

This is where you are confused... If you are not being faithful the context, you are not being faithful to the text. You cannot separate the two. The only way to support your position is to ignore the context and the intent of the author. Only then can you contort the text into what you want it say/mean. By ignoring the context, your view fails the most basic hermeneutic test.

QUOTE

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "intitial justifification." That is just a made up concept.

- I am not sure on what ground you make such a conjecture, and again I assure you if this belief was un-biblical I wouldn't believe it, in fact the only reason I believe as I do, is because I believe the Bible is very clear on this teaching.

I make that point on the ground that it is not there. The Bible does not claim that one is initially justified. There is no process of justification. Justification as used in Romans 3 and 4 is one time legal declaration.

When God justifies you, it is final and it is eternal.

Because justification is an eternal verdict pronounced of God, it is made final the moment

a person believes on Christ. This explains why eternal life is granted at the moment of

faith (John 6:47; 1 John 5:13). As a result, justification is not a lifelong process and must be

distinguished from personal sanctification, which is individual growth in holy living over the

period of a lifetime. Both the Old and New Testaments teach the Protestant view of legal

(forensic) justification.

Consider the following evidence for the Old Testament view of justification:

Concerning the Old Testament word hitsdiq, usually rendered

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

So the minute you sin, you lose assurance? Then you never had assurance in the first place.

- No, we know that salvation is ours to lose, you do not even know that you have it to begin with.

YOU may not know if you are saved, but the Bible tells me that I am saved. If I were to die tonight, I know for a fact based on the Bible, that I would go to heaven. I am sorry, but you don't know if you're saved, you really have nothing to offer. I have a know-so salvation. Whenever someone begins telling me, that cannot know if I am even saved to begin with, I already know they are operating from a very poor theological premise.

Faith is necessary for salvation, and is how we accept the grace of salvation, but the faith that is credited to us as righteous is complete, fulfilled by metorious works in a loving relationship in the perfect law of freedom not dead faith.

There are no meritorious works. Works earn you no merit with God, whatsoever.

I never said works were necessary to maintain or secure eternal life.

Not in so many words, but that is the gist of your theology.

Your pre-concieved notions are humorous, i've never made the claim that God is impressed or otherwise, that is called the fallacy of ad hominem, begging the question. I'm not arrogant, self-righteous, and if I am holy it is only because God has made me so

I never said anything about you. I was speaking in a general sense.

I see no reason why you continue to say I am ignoring the context or the text.

I say it because you are.

I am remaining as faithful to the text as I can, by remaining as objective and open hearted as possible, I am taking the words at face value, and interpreting them in the context of the Bible.

I am reading them in the light of the object the writer has in view. That trumps "face-value."

Your argument however, is stretching the face value of these words stripping the words out of context, and claiming that justification is done in a court-room system when Scripture is explicit that justification is in a familial setting not a judicial system.

The Greek word for justification is a legal term. It means to declare innocent. It is a legal word not a "familial" one.

When speaking about justification, Scripture never uses typical court-room imagery, there is never a defendent, prosecutor, jury, trial, or anything of the sort, this view truly must stretch Scripture to fit it.

It may not use a United States court setting, but the fact is that Justification comes as a result of a judgment from God. The Bible speaks of it in a legal sense, whether your theology makes room for that or not.

The preponderat usage of justification takes place in a Father son enviroment, and I find it interesting that this is discarded so casually.

It is discarded because it is not true.

I am sorry that you are reluctant to indulge yourself in poor apologetical attacks. I am very educated on this subject, and am reluctant to point out that your arugment contains virtually no Scriptural support, and has violated many logical principles. For the most part you relied on rheatoric and ad hominem.

I have not said anything about you as a person. I am sure you are a nice person, but you simply have some very bad theology and incorrect doctrine where justification is concerned. I think you are wrong, I think you are out in left field with all of this, and I have said so. I am not going to pretend that our views possess equal validity, because they don't.

From what I have seen you operate from a different form of hermeneutics than I do. You violate context, as well as ignore the intent of the authors. You place the burden of assurance on the backs of the people instead of on the finished work of the cross, where it belongs.

There is virtually no point at which we agree on the nature and application of justification and there is far, far more scholarship to support the view that justification is eternal and final and not some mythical "process." Our styles of interpretation are far too divergent to make any joint exegesis of any value or even possible, for that matter.

[Smalcald]

Is the main concern with eternal security that someone like me will continue to get drunk, party, get divorced fool around on my wife and then say "in your face dude I'm still saved!

[Guest shiloh357]

Under your system Shiloh justification is a once and foreall event, in which it can never be revocked. The individual is changed from that point on and sanctification follows this justification. If the individual does not display the proper exterior works however, and ends up falling away you state they were never truly justified in the first place.

Not really true.

You have misstated that position.

If a person CLAIMS to have been born again, but has never demonstrated a love for God or desire to serve God, then yes, they need to reexamine the authenticity of their faith.

People can "backslide" (for lack of a better term) without losing salvation. It seems as if people think God's only recourse in these matters is to revoke a person's salvation, but God is not like us. He doesn't throw us to the wolves when we don't measure up. He disciplines us and uses adversity to bring us to repentance and thus to bring us back from the backslidden condition.

It is fully understandable that a person who is truly born again can apostasize. My view in no way, pretends that if someone walks away from the Lord, they were never saved. The Bible does not bear that out.

You approach justification from a Catholic persepective. I approach it according to how it is taught in the New Testament.

That is why there is NEVER going to be any agreement between you and I. I see no reason to respond to the rest of what you have posted. Besides, I don't have time to read online novels. You need to make your points more succintly so that people who have something other to do than sit in front of a computer will bother to read them. The shorter the post, the more likely it will be read.