1 John 5:13 question

[E.E.N.S]

Sandusky, why is hope important? (Faith, hope and love.) If we know without a shadow of doubt that we are saved, then what is the hope for? Why then did St. Paul fear about his possibility about running the race in vain? Why does St. James stress the necessity on good works when if we’re in, we’re in? The idea of OSAS is not found within the history of Christianity, nor is it supported by Scripture, (when you read Scripture in it’s entirety this should be clear.)

 

[MariaG]

The context of 1 John is “Knowledge, Knowing.” Read it, and record the number of times he talks about “knowing.” It is John’s intent, and the Lords intent, that His church knows it is saved.

You have certainly taken that verse out of context.

The chapter is not about individual salvation, but about the salvation of Jew and Gentile in God’s plan. Paul is explaining the reason that Israel has been “cut off.” They have been “cut off” to bring in the Gentiles, thereby making Israel jealous as they see the Gentiles receiving God’s blessings, while they receive God’s severity.

However, in their grafting in, the Gentiles have become “boastful.” Boasting is the opposite of faith.

Paul is scolding them for being boastful, and warning them, that IF they do not stop boasting, and continue in faith, they too will receive the severity of God, and run the risk of being “cut off.”

The church will apostatize at some point, if it has not already, and God will judge the apostate church (cf Rev 2:15, 16; 3:16) just as surely as He judged apostate Israel.

Within apostate Israel, and the apostate church, God always keeps for Himself a “remnant,” those who have not “bowed the knee to Baal” (11:3-5).

Okay, knowing. I know if I am saved. I also know when I fall from Grace. And I know that there are some who have deceived themselves and will call out Lord Lord but He will not know them. Therefore, I abide in HOPEFUL confidence.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sandusky]

E.E.N.S.:

Sandusky, why is hope important? (Faith, hope and love.) If we know without a shadow of doubt that we are saved, then what is the hope for?

Hope is to keep us going at all times, but especially in the midst of trials, you know, the kind where one’s whole family, his wife and children get killed? Or when cancer strikes the one you love, you know, hope? (That is a friend’s blog). Hope is for the good times, but mostly for the tough times.

Biblical hope is confident hope (Php 1:6), because the object of the hope, the object of the confidence is God, and not yourself. If you hope in your performance, then I agree, you have a very good reason not to be sure of your salvation.
E.E.N.S.:

Why then did St. Paul fear about his possibility about running the race in vain?

Paul is not talking about salvation in this verse!
E.E.N.S.:

Why does St. James stress the necessity on good works when if we’re in, we’re in?

James is speaking to a justified faith visibly evidenced.
E.E.N.S.:

The idea of OSAS is not found within the history of Christianity, nor is it supported by Scripture, (when you read Scripture in it’s entirety this should be clear.)

I am not convinced by your assertion.

”When God calls a sinner, He does not repent of it. God does not, as many friends do, love one day and hate another; or as princes, who make their subjects favorites and afterwards throw them into prison. This is the blessedness of a saint; his condition admits of no altercation. God’s call is founded upon His decree, and His decree is immutable. Acts of grace cannot be reversed. God blots out His people’s sins, but not their names."—Thomas Watson

Psalm 103:10-14

10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.

12 As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.

13 Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him.

14 For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.

He wants is church to know.

 

[E.E.N.S]

He wants is church to know.

Why does Jesus say that we must persevere until the end if we are to be saved? Persevere? Why is this necessary if we are already saved without the chance to fail?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

severity.

However, in their grafting in, the Gentiles have become “boastful.” Boasting is the opposite of faith.

Paul is scolding them for being boastful, and warning them, that IF they do not stop boasting, and continue in faith, they too will receive the severity of God, and run the risk of being “cut off.”
.

Can you prove this is what Paul was really writing about?

Cut off??

You mean that the saved/believing faithful can run the risk of being cut off? How can this be?

In the protestant context the writer IS claiming that the faithful in question were indeed saved. How could they be in danger of being cut off??

 

[E.E.N.S]

Also you were speaking of knowledge - so does Hebrews 10:26-29

26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?

or

2 Peter 2:20-21

20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

…or what about when Jesus uses the parable in Luke 8:13, about “after they believed…they fall away.”?

…or what does St. Paul mean when he tells us “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12)?

These things do not speak of the assurance that you would like them to…

As Catholic Answers would put it, “the ‘knowability’ of salvation is different than the ‘loseability’ of salvation.”

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

Can you prove this is what Paul was really writing about?

Cut off??

You mean that the saved/believing faithful can run the risk of being cut off? How can this be?

In the protestant context the writer IS claiming that the faithful in question were indeed saved. How could they be in danger of being cut off??

E.E.N.S.:

Also you were speaking of knowledge - so does Hebrews 10:26-29

26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?

or

2 Peter 2:20-21

20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

…or what about when Jesus uses the parable in Luke 8:13, about “after they believed…they fall away.”?

…or what does St. Paul mean when he tells us “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12)?

The time has come for you two do to some ‘splaining to me.

I’ve been answering your questions for 5 days now Sean. You think that Paul is talking about a believer losing his salvation in Romans 11, tell me why.

You too, E.E.N.S., it is your turn to explain. Pick one of your verses, and explain to me how it says a believer can lose salvation; I don’t care which one you pick, you can explain them all of you’d like, but I will respond to one only; I’m weary of responding to these arguments; they are the standard verses.

Then, I will ask you two some questions, and run you around for a while.

 

[E.E.N.S]

The time has come for you two do to some ‘splaining to me.

I’ve been answering your questions for 5 days now Sean. You think that Paul is talking about a believer losing his salvation in Romans 11, tell me why.

You too, E.E.N.S., it is your turn to explain. Pick one of your verses, and explain to me how it says a believer can lose salvation; I don’t care which one you pick, you can explain them all of you’d like, but I will respond to one only; I’m weary of responding to these arguments; they are the standard verses.

Then, I will ask you two some questions, and run you around for a while.

I think the words “again” and “after” in these verses speak for themselves.

In reality, I don’t rely on my own fallible interpretation of Scripture, for Scripture itself says that one is not to do such a thing and also that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. I rely on the interpretation of the Bride of Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.

(But, as you would say, these verses are “clear”.)

 

[sandusky]

I think the words “again” and “after” in these verses speak for themselves.

In reality, I don’t rely on my own fallible interpretation of Scripture, for Scripture itself says that one is not to do such a thing and also that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. I rely on the interpretation of the Bride of Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.

(But, as you would say, these verses are “clear”.)

Just as I thought; you have more than likely pulled these from an apologetics website, and because they are not your own reasoned arguments, you do not know how to explain why they say that a believer can lose his salvation.

 

[jemfinch]

The time has come for you two do to some ‘splaining to me.

If God Himself can’t explain things to you in His written Word, what makes you think E.E.N.S. and Sean Boyle can do the job? Biblical passages don’t get much clearer than 2 Peter 2 or Hebrews 10, but you still ignore the clear meaning of Scripture.

You too, E.E.N.S., it is your turn to explain. Pick one of your verses, and explain to me how it says a believer can lose salvation;

I’ll take a swing at it, just for my own practice (you and I have been in this debate before the great Forum Crash of 2006, so I know it won’t have any effect):

“For if we willfully persist in sin after having received a knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of Grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)

It’s a very simple argument:

1. These people were covered by the blood of the covenant. They were brought into covenant with God.
2. These people were sanctified as a result of being brought into covenant with God. They were not deceiving themselves; their sanctification was real.
3. They subsequently spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified.
4. They deserve worse punishment than someone who dies “without mercy” by the Law of Moses.

I’m sure you’ll say, “Oh, but the text says only that they deserve such punishment, not that they will receive it,” but such reasoning simply isn’t credible. The clear meaning of the text is that they have lost their salvation, and they have only the fearful prospect of judgment before them.

I don’t care which one you pick, you can explain them all of you’d like, but I will respond to one only; I’m weary of responding to these arguments; they are the standard verses.

I’m don’t doubt you’re weary of responding to these arguments. I’m sure your opponents are weary of making them. So let’s try something else for a change.

Rather than depend solely on your self-declared authority to interpret the Scriptures, why not show us what some other Christians have to say on this point? In particular, I’d like to hear the voices of some early Christians. Certainly, if this doctrine is both authentic and as important as you say it is, the apostles must have taught it to their disciples, and them to their disciples, and so on. At some point during Church history this clear teaching of the apostles must have been challenged and (from your perspective) the Catholic Church adopted the wrong belief: when did this debate happen, and who sat on each side? What were the arguments?

Let’s stop throwing Scripture back and forth, because none of us can argue with your private interpretation of Scripture; just as you have no authority with us, we have no authority with you. But we Catholics have a higher standard for biblical interpretation than mere logical consistency: we’d like to see history in support of your doctrine. Please, do provide us with some. If your doctrine is true, certainly there must be some (a lot, I’d hope) historical support for it.

Or do you simply claim that for around 1,800 years all Christians were simply wrong in their understanding of what you claim is a clear, Scriptural teaching essential to the function of the Church? I’ve heard that claim before – in fact, I’ve heard it quite a bit from various groups from the Mormons to the Seventh Day Adventists to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. You seem much closer to orthodox than those groups: certainly there’s some historical evidence in defense of your doctrine, isn’t there?

Then, I will ask you two some questions, and run you around for a while.

No one doubts you can do that It’s just a matter of whether it’ll be productive.

Jeremy

 

[E.E.N.S]

Just as I thought; you have more than likely pulled these from an apologetics website, and because they are not your own reasoned arguments, you do not know how to explain why they say that a believer can lose his salvation.

Actually, I pulled them straight from the Bible (online of course, www.drbo.org) …and, pray tell, what explanation needs be presented for these verses? It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

How could it be worse for a person who believes (i.e., “saved without possibility for loss of said salvation” in your opinion of course) to sin and fall, than for him never had believed in the first place? I believe the verse speaks for itself…in fact I think you have always avoided these verses since you’ve been here (at least you never answered me directly), so don’t play this “you pulled these verses from an apologetical website” nonsense, what other possible meaning could these verses have?

It seems that what you are trying to do is find your particular outlook in Scripture, as opposed to what Scripture actually is saying.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

viewed in isolation, 1 john 5:13 can be interpreted to support the osas position.

viewed in the larger context of 1 john, it cannot.

thus in the second chapter of 1 john we read:

We know that we have come to know Him IF we obey His commands. The man who says, “I know Him,” but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

• 1 john 2:3-4 nkjv

do you believe in the name of the Son of God, but fail to keep His commandments?

then you don’t know Him – you only perhaps think you do (cf. matthew 7:23).

the same point is reiterated in the third chapter:

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
1 john 3:10 niv

right belief absent right action is not salvific. or, to put it another way, if you do not “do what is right,” whatever “belief” you may have in the Son of God falls short of salvific belief.

returning now to 1 john 5:13, with this context in place, we see that the text is aimed at “you who *believe *in the name of the Son of God”.

“believe” = present participle, which expresses continuous or repeated action.

thus, 1 john 5:13 refers *only *to those who have a present-tense belief in Jesus, and such belief is only salvific if one obeys Jesus’s commands, and does what is right – and *only so long as *one obeys those commands, and continues to do what is right.

john is not talking about mere “head” belief, or even mere “heart” belief. and he is certainly not talking about mere past belief (e.g., that altar call i made on november 7, 1997).

1 john 5:13 applies only to an active, present-tense belief, which is defined as a continuous right belief accompanied by right action, as provided by 1 john 2:3-4 and 1 john 3:10.

such belief is salvific – but it is only salvific so long as it is continued. that is, only so long as such belief is expressed in continuous or repeated action.

 

[sandusky]

viewed in isolation, 1 john 5:13 can be interpreted to support the osas position.

viewed in the larger context of 1 john, it cannot.

thus in the second chapter of 1 john we read:

We know that we have come to know Him IF we obey His commands. The man who says, “I know Him,” but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

• 1 john 2:3-4 nkjv

do you believe in the name of the Son of God, but fail to keep His commandments?

then you don’t know Him – you only perhaps think you do (cf. matthew 7:23).

the same point is reiterated in the third chapter:

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
1 john 3:10 niv

right belief absent right action is not salvific. or, to put it another way, if you do not “do what is right,” whatever “belief” you may have in the Son of God falls short of salvific belief.

returning now to 1 john 5:13, with this context in place, we see that the text is aimed at “you who *believe *in the name of the Son of God”.

“believe” = present participle, which expresses continuous or repeated action.

thus, 1 john 5:13 refers *only *to those who have a present-tense belief in Jesus, and such belief is only salvific if one obeys Jesus’s commands, and does what is right – and *only so long as *one obeys those commands, and continues to do what is right.

john is not talking about mere “head” belief, or even mere “heart” belief. and he is certainly not talking about mere past belief (e.g., that altar call i made on november 7, 1997).

1 john 5:13 applies only to an active, present-tense belief, which is defined as a continuous right belief accompanied by right action, as provided by 1 john 2:3-4 and 1 john 3:10.

such belief is salvific – but it is only salvific so long as it is continued. that is, only so long as such belief is expressed in continuous or repeated action.

Thank you Tim.

That is a very clear, and cogent statement of my position; I couldn’t have stated it clearer myself.

You reject the antinomian version of “OSAS.” So do I.

 

[sandusky]

Actually, I pulled them straight from the Bible (online of course, www.drbo.org) …and, pray tell, what explanation needs be presented for these verses? It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

How could it be worse for a person who believes (i.e., “saved without possibility for loss of said salvation” in your opinion of course) to sin and fall, than for him never had believed in the first place? I believe the verse speaks for itself…in fact I think you have always avoided these verses since you’ve been here (at least you never answered me directly), so don’t play this “you pulled these verses from an apologetical website” nonsense, what other possible meaning could these verses have?

It seems that what you are trying to do is find your particular outlook in Scripture, as opposed to what Scripture actually is saying.

As you read them, they just “felt right.”

Thank you for your assessment of my position.

 

[sandusky]

“For if we willfully persist in sin after having received a knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of Grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)

It’s a very simple argument:

1. These people were covered by the blood of the covenant. They were brought into covenant with God.
2. These people were sanctified as a result of being brought into covenant with God. They were not deceiving themselves; their sanctification was real.
3. They subsequently spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified.
4. They deserve worse punishment than someone who dies “without mercy” by the Law of Moses.

That is an accurate assessment.

jemfinch:

I’m sure you’ll say, “Oh, but the text says only that they deserve such punishment, not that they will receive it,” but such reasoning simply isn’t credible. The clear meaning of the text is that they have lost their salvation, and they have only the fearful prospect of judgment before them.

That is one argument simply stated.

jemfinch:

Rather than depend solely on your self-declared authority to interpret the Scriptures, why not show us what some other Christians have to say on this point? In particular, I’d like to hear the voices of some early Christians. Certainly, if this doctrine is both authentic and as important as you say it is, the apostles must have taught it to their disciples, and them to their disciples, and so on. At some point during Church history this clear teaching of the apostles must have been challenged and (from your perspective) the Catholic Church adopted the wrong belief: when did this debate happen, and who sat on each side? What were the arguments?

Let’s stop throwing Scripture back and forth, because none of us can argue with your private interpretation of Scripture; just as you have no authority with us, we have no authority with you. But we Catholics have a higher standard for biblical interpretation than mere logical consistency: we’d like to see history in support of your doctrine. Please, do provide us with some. If your doctrine is true, certainly there must be some (a lot, I’d hope) historical support for it.

Or do you simply claim that for around 1,800 years all Christians were simply wrong in their understanding of what you claim is a clear, Scriptural teaching essential to the function of the Church? I’ve heard that claim before – in fact, I’ve heard it quite a bit from various groups from the Mormons to the Seventh Day Adventists to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. You seem much closer to orthodox than those groups: certainly there’s some historical evidence in defense of your doctrine, isn’t there?

That too would be a private interpretation, no?

 

[sandusky]

Thank you Tim.

Forgive, me, TINY.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

Thank you Tim.

That is a very clear, and cogent statement of my position; I couldn’t have stated it clearer myself.

You reject the antinomian version of “OSAS.” So do I.

yes, and indeed all forms of osas.

thus, 1 john must itself be interpreted within the larger context of the new testament, which makes clear it is possible to believe, and then fall away from belief. luke 8:13

or drift away. hebrews 2:1

or wander away. 1 timothy 6:10

or turn away from the faith. matthew 24:10

or be cast away, like a dead branch, once engrafted in the vine (Christ), but now withered. john 15:6

or be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 2 peter 3:17

furthermore, of this you can be sure:

No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
-galatians 5:5-7

a real Christian can indeed commit these sins, and hence forfeit his inheritance. if one is immoral, impure or greedy he is not saved as his actions demonstrate a lack of saving faith at the moment, though he might have been truly saved in the past, and still presently professes to “believe”. but salvific belief must be a present-tense right belief and right action, as discussed in my prior post.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

Forgive, me, TINY.

no problem.

 

[mercygate]

Just as I thought; you have more than likely pulled these from an apologetics website, and because they are not your own reasoned arguments, you do not know how to explain why they say that a believer can lose his salvation.

Here is case for the dignity of the human person in relation to Jesus Christ, not taken from “an apologetics web site” but a perosnal reflection on God’s mercy:

We are commanded to love God – as Our Lord reminds us in Mt. 22. Genesis tells us that God made man in his own image, a rational creature, and in Deuteronomy God commands us to love him. In order to love, we must be free. We must be capable of not loving. We must be capable of exercising the choice to turn away from God. If we recognize Christ for Who he IS, and enter his covenant we are not still capable of turning away, we would not need to pray the prayer he himself gave us that our sins be forgiven, and that we not be led into temptation.

The weight of Scripture clearly points to the need of our conscious cooperation in the works of grace, given to us by the Holy Spirit, and to the possibility that we can, of our own free will, remove ourselves from the mercy of God. Love is an ongoing, active choice; love is a relationship of affirmation.

Protestants often tell us Catholics that we do not have “a relationship with Jesus Christ.” To that I answer that there is nothing more personal than the daily affirmation of our love in thanksgiving for the sacrifice by which Christ has purchased our redemption.

Coda: A friend of mine who works as a volunteer counselor with Billy Graham ministries tells me that the rate of perseverance among those who answer the call to come forward is less than five percent.

 

[jemfinch]

That is a very clear, and cogent statement of my position; I couldn’t have stated it clearer myself.

You reject the antinomian version of “OSAS.” So do I.

Then what are we arguing about? If that’s your stance, somehow I’ve missed it amidst all the rehetoric, and for that, I apologize.

So do we still have an actual disagreement? Your stance seems similar to my former stance when I was a Calvinist (and went to great efforts to insist that “Perseverance of the Saints” was not synonymous with “Once Saved, Always Saved”). Do you hold now, as I held then, that salvation was never begun in those people in whom it does not finish?

Jeremy