A new and devastating quickie against Faith Alone?

[SolaScriptura]

But since you will not fall away, then the warning is still useless. In your paradigm, none of these warnings can be aimed at the justified, because you said God will preserve them. So who are these warnings aimed at? It cannot be the justified, because God will preserve them. If you say they will be preserved from never wanting to fall away, it would still be a useless warning. There is no need to put up a do not enter sign, if there is no possibility that anyone can enter.

They are not useless, they are one of the means that God uses to persevere the saints. An example. If I make a promise to a parent that I will not let their child get hurt playing on the playground. I watching the child and protecting, stand close by to prevent any injury. However, I also tell the child, do not jump off the slide because you will hurt yourself. That warning is used as a means to prevent the child from injury even though I’m there and will prevent it ultimately if needed. So the warning is not superfluous but a means to prevent injury.

Yes, but does never really one of us mean: part of Christianity that believes the way that John does, but not the whole of Christianity? Or does it mean that they left Christianity altogether? One could easily view the ones that left as an early form of Protestantism. They may have just been in schism from John, and there schismatic views were present from the start. That’s why he says they were never really part of us. It does not mean they were never justified, and therefore could not fall away. There is not enough information. You read this as them never having been justified, because it fits your paradigm. But the text does not say that.

Actually if you read the context of the verses it is very clear that he means they left Christianity all together. He is warning the church about the anti-Christ and distinguishing those that have true Spirit of God from the impostors and anti-Christ.

Again, we do not know that. Their viewpoint may have always been different than John’s, and that is why he says never really one of us. We know that there was at least one other bishop who had a problem with John.

When John says the left us, it logically follows that they were once a part of them. They would not have been a part of the church if they did not accept the central teachings. Or do you believe the church was baptizing and adding to their midst those they knew were denying central teaching about Jesus Christ?

So what good did the doctrine of eternal security do them? Did they think they were falling away, or that their interpretation of Scripture was more accurate than John’s? If they still believed they were Christian, than they do not believe they fell away.

The doctrine of perseverance of the saints does nothing for one that is not justified. That is common sense. It doesn’t matter what one thinks either. Many during Jesus times thought they were right when they refused Him as the Messiah, but what does that prove? None of this contradicts the doctrine, it just shows that people can be wrong.

But they have no way of knowing that their claims or hopes are false. That is why the doctrine is so insidious, and you cannot find one instance of it being taught for 1500 years before John Calvin.

This is weird and nonsensical form of argument. One could equally make the same claim about your belief in the infallibility of the Church. You have no way of knowing that your belief in its infallibility is false, because you believe it is infallible. You should not make arguments that tear down your own belief system.

But is His declaration of justification a one time event, when you come to God, or His declaration of one being justified, after one has persevered?

The text says those God justified. If he justified you at initial justification( I’m using Catholic reasoning) then He justified you and it follows that He will glorified you.

Many are called, few are chosen is talking about salvation. He calls many, few are chosen.

This is the general call of the Gospel, not God’s calling of one that is justified. This general call goes out to all that hear.

 

[benhur]

Every scriptural reference to our judgment “on that day” is according to what we have done

Hi P,

Well there a a few texts that say or ask who we know and are we known of/by (the Lord).

“Depart from me I never knew you”.

The action reveals the relationship. The unjust will be judged by their works alone, “what we have done”. The righteous will be judged (for entry into His kingdom/heaven) by relationship or faith in the Lamb, and being in His book.

-The "solas’ are a snapshot, a freeze-frame in time. Life is a process, or else it would be nonsensical for our Lord to teach that we must persevere, or for Saint Paul to teach us to “work out salvation with fear and trembling” or to “run the race so as to win.”

Well I think the solas are to keep us from any self justification, that can either keep us out of the kingdom , or diminish the reward and His glory for our walk. The solas apply to the entire journey, to the entire “process”.

Bible Christians are often obsessed with “justification” but what does that mean? I have no idea why this obsession, since a single, one-time act often justifies them,

Agree that their is a divide in how churches apply, understand the term. Yet one must also look at how other terms are understood also, else you might say what you did, that for P’s justification is and “end all or short cut”. Sanctification and glorification etc must also be looked at also, and suggest a continuance of a journey, not an end all.

There are one time acts, and that perhaps is at the core of the problem. The new birth is indeed a miracle and a one time event, just as it it is in the flesh.The issue is clouded when assumptions are made as to just when that happens. Does it really happen at water baptism, or infant baptism? Does it happen at the altar or with a sinners prayer ? Does being religious, like the five foolish virgins , mean you are born again, filled with the Spirit ? Being busy in a garage does not turn you into a car.

That is what neo-Christianity is - a grossly simplified (even lazy) belief system in which less and less is up to us, and more and more is up to God. “I left it up to You” on judgment day sounds an awful lot like the man in Matthew 25:14-30 who was given a single talent and then returned it to his master.

“Being” is foundational to do “doing”. Indeed one can be born again and be lazy, even carnal. But one can also be doing in vain, and not “be” born again, having no oil in you lamp, which is worse.

As far as lazy, I was listening to Catholic radio, interviewing a priest who wrote a book. He estimates after interviewing many pastors that only 5-6 % of parishioners are “engaged” spiritually, have a desire for Christ, and are involved in any ministry (in and out in an hour Catholics-even some P’s and O’s I suppose). He did not say most were not born again as I would , but that they did not have a deeper “encounter” with Christ.

Yet, prayer to the Holy Spirit is what helps accomplish conversion

Yes. but how can you convert those who think they are already? Conversion is one thing. Living out ones conversion with power and purpose is another. But pray yes. Amen!

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

The verse clearly says the one God calls, He justifies, and He glorifies. So whether you want to claim justification is a process or not does not change the fact that God says if he justifies you( initial justification or some other justification ) He will glorify you.

Yes, the verse is clearly talking about an elect person. What the verse does not tell you is whether one can be called by God, and then turn back. Meaning, can one of the reprobate, exhibit all the signs of an elect, believe that they are one of the elect, and in actuality be damned. If the answer is yes, which Calvin clearly teaches, then eternal security does no good for anyone, as no one can know if they are one of the elect.

Remember one of the main themes of the Epistle to the Romans is how one is justified in the presence. This is what the Apostle Paul is still dealing with, the God who justifies the ungodly(e.g. Romans 4:5 ). So whenever and whomever God justifies, He will glorified. Whether you want to believe in a process or not does not change the logic of these verses. If God justifies you( beginning, re-justification, or final ) He will glorify you.

Provided that we persevere. But if we turn back, which all the warning verses say you can, there will be no glorification. But again, if we cannot turn back, or won’t turn back, there is no reason for warning verses. The verses you quote can never apply to either the elect or the reprobate, in your doctrine.

These verses tell us all whom God calls, He justifies, all He justifies, He glorifies There is no sense of one being called and justified that is a reprobate anywhere in this chain.

Again, this verse is specifically talking about the elect. What it does not address is if one can be on the path and then fall off. There are various verses that do clearly seem to state that one can be on the path, i.e. friendship with God, and turn back.

Yes, that maybe true. For example there are many cults that may think this, but this doesn’t change the fact that those who are justified will not fall away.

Again, this is what is in question between us.

It is always ironic when Catholics make the claim that a doctrine was not taught in the early church and therefore should not be believed, because some of your most precious dogma are guilty of this very thing. For example, when was the doctrine of Papal Infallibility first taught? Or the Marian Dogmas? I’m aware of the development of doctrine theory used to justify this, so we could say the same. The seed of the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints was taught by Augustine But whether you found it in Church History or not, we see it in the Scriptures.

I can clearly show where some of the early church fathers taught on every one of the Catholic dogmas.

Augustine did teach on perseverance, but he clearly rejected eternal security. In his *Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, *Augustine believed it was possible to experience the justifying grace of God and yet not persevere to the end. Augustine did believe God’s elect would certainly persevere to the end, but he denied that a person could know they were in the elect and he also warned it was possible to be justified but not among the elect. So Augustine clearly rejected ahead of time, what you say about eternal security.

I challenge you to find your doctrine in seed form in any other early Church writing. Remember, famous Calvinist theologians have admitted that it is not anywhere, even in seed form, in any of the patristic writings.

However, I also tell the child, do not jump off the slide because you will hurt yourself. That warning is used as a means to prevent the child from injury even though I’m there and will prevent it ultimately if needed. So the warning is not superfluous but a means to prevent injury.

The child can only be hurt, if in all actuality she could jump and land. But with you there you have intimated that this is an impossibility. So yes, the warning is superfluous. The only need to give the warning is if you are not there, or if somehow she could jump and you not protect her from falling. But again this is an impossibility.

Actually if you read the context of the verses it is very clear that he means they left Christianity all together. He is warning the church about the anti-Christ and distinguishing those that have true Spirit of God from the impostors and anti-Christ.

Not at all. We know they left and were teaching false doctrine. But John would still consider them as anti-Christs if they still believed in Christ, but were teaching a doctrine foreign to what the Apostles taught. We do not know if those ones that left genuinely believed what John was teaching about Jesus was false. See, the ones that left, may have thought John was obscuring the true gospel message.

When John says the left us, it logically follows that they were once a part of them. They would not have been a part of the church if they did not accept the central teachings. Or do you believe the church was baptizing and adding to their midst those they knew were denying central teaching about Jesus Christ?

I believe there have been people since the Church was founded that joined, even though they had reservations about some teaching. I have seen with my own eyes people who have come into the Church who said they accepted all the Church taught, and within a few days say they accept x,y, but not z.

 

[Duane1966]

This is weird and nonsensical form of argument. One could equally make the same claim about your belief in the infallibility of the Church. You have no way of knowing that your belief in its infallibility is false, because you believe it is infallible. You should not make arguments that tear down your own belief system.

Here is the difference. The Catholic Church teaches that if I, responding to the grace given by God, follow the teachings given by Christ, and I persevere by continuing to co-operate with grace, then I will die in friendship with God, and be saved. The path to salvation is clear in the Catholic Church.

Your doctrine, as enunciated by Calvin, says I can do the exact same things I just mentioned, and it was a false grace all the time, and I can still be damned. And some of the damned have no way of knowing that they are on the wrong path. What assurance is that?

As for infallibility, all I have to do is see one place where the Church taught error, to know infallibility was wrong. But if this is the case, there are two immediate problems:

1.) The church could be totally wrong when she says the bible is inspired scripture, because now she is, and was fallible.

2.) Jesus lied when He said He would guide the Church into all truth.

The text says those God justified. If he justified you at initial justification( I’m using Catholic reasoning) then He justified you and it follows that He will glorified you.

Actually, this is not even close to Catholic reasoning. Did He justify me? Yes. But because I responded to the grace He initially sent. In Catholicism, I still could have rejected that grace. And He continues to justify me, as long as I continue to accept the grace He sends me. But right up to the moment of my death, I can reject that grace.

This is the general call of the Gospel, not God’s calling of one that is justified. This general call goes out to all that hear.

Actually, if few are chosen, that means many responded. The fact that they responded, means they were on the path. They just did not persevere to the end.

 

[Cathoholic]

SolaScriptura.

Concerning your tradition of once saved always saved . . . .

Why do you think Jesus “MIGHT BE” the firstborn among many instead of “NECESSARILY WILL” be the firstborn among many?

Certainly you don’t think the “might be” has to do with the work of Jesus (and either do I).

That leaves you with the freewill of the people He is saving.

The very verse you cited assumes a free will where people MAY (by their own volition) reject Jesus.

And you ignored the fuller contex also. A context which included conditions.

Conditions like suffering WITH Jesus. Incidentally, this need to offer our whole selves including our suffering with Jesus (“provided we suffer with Him in order that we MAY also be glorified with Him”"), does not exemplify faith ALONE.

ROMANS 8:17 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

ROMANS 8:29 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

NOT ROMANS 8:29 (Phantom verse) 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he necessarily will be the firstborn among many brothers.

I affirm predestination SolaScriptra. St. Paul talks about it. But I affirm free will too and the Bible discusses that as well.

How can free will AND predestination co-exist?

We don’t know. It is a mystery. But they DO both exist, and Sacred Sciture talks about BOTH concepts and I affirm them both.

Your going to have to DENY free will or ignore the role it has in the lifelong process of justification, which follows that MOMENT of justification (when one was “born again” or “born of water AND the Spirit” – Baptized).

The Bible does not teach justification by faith ALONE and does not teach “once saved always saved”.

 

[benhur]

I affirm predestination SolaScriptra. St. Paul talks about it. But I affirm free will too and the Bible discusses that as well.

How can free will AND predestination co-exist?

We don’t know. It is a mystery. But they DO both exist, and Sacred Sciture talks about BOTH concepts and I affirm them both.

Hi C,

I agree with this. Like we get to the Pearly Gates and the sign on going in reads, “Well done, for you have chosen to serve me”. On passing thru, the sign on the back says, " “Rejoice, for I have chosen you before the foundation of the world was laid”. So I would say God enabled , and gave me, gifted me, the desire for choosing Him. He gets all the credit.

I somehow apply the same loose, flexible allowance of OSAS and the possibility of being taken out of the Book of Life. Both are somewhat true, and have scriptural rationale. So I would say God keeps me from doing anything stupid enough to get me kicked out of the Book. He gets all the credit.

I suppose the same could be said of justified by faith and justified by works. Yet here I am inclined that the first does not need as much qualifying as the latter does. So I would say God grants me by gifting saving /justifying faith, and the works to prove it. He gets all the credit.

The Bible does not teach justification by faith ALONE and does not teach “once saved always saved”.

The bible also does not teach that God is not capable of carrying us from beginning to end, nor that works preempts faith or simultaneously first with faith, that we are saved by an institution, or rites, or a church, or religious works, and that hopefully only.

Blessings.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes, the verse is clearly talking about an elect person. What the verse does not tell you is whether one can be called by God, and then turn back. Meaning, can one of the reprobate, exhibit all the signs of an elect, believe that they are one of the elect, and in actuality be damned. If the answer is yes, which Calvin clearly teaches, then eternal security does no good for anyone, as no one can know if they are one of the elect.

Provided that we persevere. But if we turn back, which all the warning verses say you can, there will be no glorification. But again, if we cannot turn back, or won’t turn back, there is no reason for warning verses. The verses you quote can never apply to either the elect or the reprobate, in your doctrine.

Again, this verse is specifically talking about the elect. What it does not address is if one can be on the path and then fall off. There are various verses that do clearly seem to state that one can be on the path, i.e. friendship with God, and turn back.

Again, this is what is in question between us.

All of your responses are basically the same, and they are inconsistent with the text. The text clearly says all that God calls He justifies and all that He justifies He glorifies. There are none that He justifies that He doesn’t glorify. If you are claiming that God justifies some other group( non-elect reprobate ) that He doesn’t glorify then that contradicts what the text says. Your claim that this is talking about the elect doesn’t solve the problem. You have to show how a group of non-elect that God justifies He doesn’t glorify.

By the way if you keep reading the rest of Romans 8 wouldyou say this applies only to the elect also:

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be* against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.[j] 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.*

You are sounding more like a Calvinist everyday.

I can clearly show where some of the early church fathers taught on every one of the Catholic dogmas.

OK, I accept. Show me where Papal Infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary was first taught in the early fathers?

Augustine did teach on perseverance, but he clearly rejected eternal security. In his *Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, *

Augustine believed it was possible to experience the justifying grace of God and yet not persevere to the end. Augustine did believe God’s elect would certainly persevere to the end, but he denied that a person could know they were in the elect and he also warned it was possible to be justified but not among the elect. So Augustine clearly rejected ahead of time, what you say about eternal security.

I challenge you to find your doctrine in seed form in any other early Church writing. Remember, famous Calvinist theologians have admitted that it is not anywhere, even in seed form, in any of the patristic writings.

Seed form is not the complete doctrine as I’ve heard Catholics refer to it in reference to some of their dogmas.

The child can only be hurt, if in all actuality she could jump and land. But with you there you have intimated that this is an impossibility. So yes, the warning is superfluous.

Not really, because the warning could and does also prevent the child from jumping. Maybe there are some children that would jump and then I would have to catch, but in many cases the warning themselves do the job. As a matter of fact you will see this happens in the Scripture. For example, I’ve often heard those who believe you can lose your justification quote the verse that says, if you deny God He will deny you. But didn’t the Apostle Peter deny the Lord 3 times? Did he lose his justification?

Not at all. We know they left and were teaching false doctrine. But John would still consider them as anti-Christs if they still believed in Christ, but were teaching a doctrine foreign to what the Apostles taught. We do not know if those ones that left genuinely believed what John was teaching about Jesus was false. See, the ones that left, may have thought John was obscuring the true gospel message.

That is some wild speculations. The context of those verses are clearly those who denied the Father and the Son.

22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

I believe there have been people since the Church was founded that joined, even though they had reservations about some teaching. I have seen with my own eyes people who have come into the Church who said they accepted all the Church taught, and within a few days say they accept x,y, but not z.

OK, so if they leave do your church teach, they left because they were never really one of us? Or do you say they lost their justification?

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

You said:

The bible also does not teach that God is not capable of carrying us from beginning to end

Where did I ever infer that God isn’t capable of carrying us from beginning to end?

The question is, does He carry us in HARMONY with the free will that the Bible teaches too.

I say BOTH. Predestination AND free will.

You also said:

nor that works preempts faith or simultaneously first with faith, that we are saved by an institution, or rites, or a church, or religious works, and that hopefully only.

Oh boy.

Where to start?

nor that works preempts faith

What do you mean by “works”?
How did you get the notion that I think “works” pre-empt “faith”?

that we are saved by an institution

You have a built-in false premise here.

You are artificially divorcing Jesus from His Church.

Jesus said, “I will build my Church and the gates of Hades will NOT prevail against it.”

I believe this.

The question isn’t, “Does Jesus save instead of the Church?”

The question is, “How does Jesus save through the Church that He built that we trust the Gates of Hades will NOT PREVAIL against it?”

THAT’S the question.

nor that … . we are saved by . . . . religious works . . .

If you are disqualifying obeying Jesus’ commandments to be born of water and the Spirit which is explicitly in the Bible, than I’m not buying it.

If you were physically blind, and Jesus put mud and spittle on your eyes and He told you to go wash in the Pool of Siloam . . . .

. . . . Using your reasoning you would have to say: “Yeah. I suppose I’ll do it but I don’t HAVE to. Maybe I’ll just have faith and MAYBE I will do what He says here, maybe not. But I don’t HAVE to.”

And if you didn’t do that “WORK”, you may not have your sight. But if you obediently DID do that work, you would definitively HAVE your sight.

And we see people trade in what they are told to do by Jesus, and follow after traditions of men.

Traditions that say to do a prayer of accepting Jesus into your heart (which is fine), but it is not in Scripture, and is NOT being born of water and the Spirit like Jesus tells us to.

Some will rationalize that command to be re-born of water and the Spirit away.

And I suppose the blind man COULD have done the same thing:

"Well. Jesus didn’t REALLY mean wash in the pool of Siloam.

I’ve been told to re-interpret that as a “spiritual” washing in the spiritual pool of Siloam.

So I don’t REALLY have to obey Jesus literally and PHYSICALLY (incarnationally) here.

I can just accept the pool of Siloam into my heart and go home and I’ll get my sight back."

After awhile this kind of thinking is really “anti-incarnational” thinking. Taken to its logical conclusion it leads one down the road of Gnosticism.

 

[Duane1966]

All of your responses are basically the same, and they are inconsistent with the text. The text clearly says all that God calls He justifies and all that He justifies He glorifies. There are none that He justifies that He doesn’t glorify. If you are claiming that God justifies some other group( non-elect reprobate ) that He doesn’t glorify then that contradicts what the text says. Your claim that this is talking about the elect doesn’t solve the problem. You have to show how a group of non-elect that God justifies He doesn’t glorify.

Taken from this website: shamelesspopery.com/salvation-of-the-damned/

But there’s a second argument, less obviously fallacious. It’s that Scripture sometimes speaks of two groups: the sheep and the goats, the just and the wicked, etc. It’s easy to imagine these two groups as entirely fixed in such a way that someone born into the wrong group could never be saved. If you read only those verses, that’s a completely reasonable reading. But you should also read Ezekiel 18, in which God explains at great length that this isn’t what He means, and that people can enter and leave either group (Ezekiel 18:20-32):

“The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

“But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? **But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.**

“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God; so turn, and live.”

That’s unambiguous. There are the righteous and the wicked, yes; but the wicked can be saved (and God declares that He desires that they be saved!), and the righteous can be condemned. The wicked man who turns back to God is no longer numbered amongst the wicked; the righteous man who rejects God is no longer numbered amongst the righteous. So an argument for limited atonement that starts from the assumption that the just and the wicked are in two eternally-fixed, static groups is beginning the inquiry by rejecting a truth revealed directly by God.

Notice, God calls them righteous, and it was not an external righteousness, where their soul was not righteous. We know this because they turned to a life of sin, so they were not sinning before.

 

[Duane1966]

You are sounding more like a Calvinist everyday.

Calvinism teaches eternal security. I quite obviously do not believe in it. Since you espouse it, you are a Calvinist in some way.

Taken from this website : matt1618.freeyellow.com/fallaway.html

Also, another good Scripture that shows that one can lose salvation is the following: 2 Pet. 2:20-22

"20 For if, after they have escaped the defilement’s of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire. "

Some have argued that escaping the corruption of the world, is merely hearing about Christ. That did not actually mean that they followed Christ. However, in this passage, we see that those who have escaped the defilement of the world, Knew our Lord Jesus Christ, get entangled again in these sins and lose their salvation. In case anybody says, 'well, they knew about Jesus but didn’t accept him," really avoids what the text says. Peter specifically writes that these have escaped the defilement of the world… You only escape the corruption of the world, if you are actually in Jesus Christ. Besides that, Peter specifically writes that after this, he went into these same sins again. If one had just heard about Jesus, but not really change their lives, there would be no reason for Peter to say, that they went back into their sins again. They would have never stopped these sins in the first place. In fact, according to Peter, they indeed escaped the corruption of the world, and through this knowledge of Christ, they had indeed stopped their sins. Another point that drives home that these people really were in God’s grace was the prior chapter, to show what Peter meant by knowledge of Christ, and escaping the corruption of the world: 2 Pet. 1:1-4.

1Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

Here, it uses the same terminology as in 2 Pet. 2:20-22, in talking about people in God’s grace. The people who KNOW Christ Jesus escaped the corruption of the world, and had KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ, and were partakers of the divine nature. Notice the only way that they have escaped the corruption of the world is if they know him and had divine power. Only once they have known him and had his divine power, have they escaped the corruption of the world. Thus, it was not merely hearing about Christ. The only means, according to Peter, of escaping the corruption of the world is by not only knowing him, as specifically stated in 2 Peter 2, but because the people have been granted and given divine power and became partakers of the divine nature. Peter is clearly speaking in 2 Peter 2:20-22 of those who have truly known God, and truly participated in the divine nature. Those are the ones who will then be punished eternally with even worse consequences than those who never were in Christ. Thus, the possibility of losing salvation is shown clearly here, even more when we compare the texts of 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 1.

Tell me, if they were never really justified, how is the last state worse than the first?

OK, I accept. Show me where Papal Infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary was first taught in the early fathers?

Papal infallibility: Cyprian in 256, Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century, Augustine in the fourth, and Sixtus III in 433, all address the infallibility of the Church of Rome, or the seat of Peter.

Bodily Assumption of Mary: There are Syriac fragments that have been dated to no later than the third century, which mentions the Assumption of Mary. Some scholars believe these fragments are actually from the second century. Bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 told the emperor that Mary had been assumed into Heaven, and that this was a tradition handed down from the Apostles. I can give you more.

Seed form is not the complete doctrine as I’ve heard Catholics refer to it in reference to some of their dogmas.

Agreed. The problem for you is that scholars that are proponents of eternal security admit that they cannot find one instance of the doctrine in seed form from anyone before John Calvin, in the sixteenth century. I am asking you to show me one Church father who espoused eternal security in seed form. You can’t say Augustine, because he taught that it was possible for God to justify someone, and they could still turn away. He said it was possible to be justified, but not one of the elect.

 

[Cathoholic]

SolaScriptura. You pointed out . . .

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? For I am sure that (nothing) . . . . will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Nobody is talking about being separated from the “LOVE of God” here SolaScriptura.

God so LOVED the whole WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son.

I affirm God’s love.

But you CAN CHOOSE to separate yourself from . . . . the LIFE of God (not the “love” of God).

Notice what St. Paul DOESN’T say: “For I am sure that (nothing) . . . . will be able to separate us from the LIFE of God.”

 

[Duane1966]

Not really, because the warning could and does also prevent the child from jumping. Maybe there are some children that would jump and then I would have to catch, but in many cases the warning themselves do the job.

Except that those that jumped, this means they disobeyed you, which means their heart was not in tune with what you were saying. So even though you prevented them from falling, when they decided to jump, in your analogy, their thoughts could not be the thoughts of a justified person, for they did not care to obey you when they decided to jump.

As a matter of fact you will see this happens in the Scripture. For example, I’ve often heard those who believe you can lose your justification quote the verse that says, if you deny God He will deny you. But didn’t the Apostle Peter deny the Lord 3 times? Did he lose his justification?

Until he repented, yes.

That is some wild speculations. The context of those verses are clearly those who denied the Father and the Son.

From Dr. Scot McKnight:

Two points: the first is that John’s situation ought to be given full consideration; **he’s talking in this context about antichrists, and not your ordinary run-of-the-mill Christian who decides to walk from the faith. **This is the “last hour” he says in 2:18; the antichrist is coming and, in fact, “even now many antichrists have come” and this indicates the lateness of the hour. This is serious stuff. The “they” is the antichrists and John is talking about a secession or schism in the church so it is at least reasonable, and I think clear, that he’s talking groups here more than personal or individual soteriology (though I don’t want to pretend that personal redemption is not at work here; it is).

The second point is that John clearly connects perseverance, and here it means remaining in fellowship with John’s theology (cf. 2:22-23) and church, to genuine faith. One can reasonably extrapolate from this that anyone who falls away never had genuine faith. I respect that, but in light of the first point it is reasonable to think John has formed a general principle on the basis of a particular situation. It is not convincing to me that he means to speak to all situations with the same principle. In other words, those of Hebrews are in fact described as those who did have genuine faith.

The passage in Hebrews he is referring to is about those who had genuine faith, and left.

OK, so if they leave do your church teach, they left because they were never really one of us? Or do you say they lost their justification?

Neither. I would never presume to say someone has been finally justified, for I know in reality, all Christians are in the process of justification. Some moving towards God and final justification. Some moving away from God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Calvinism teaches eternal security. I quite obviously do not believe in it. Since you espouse it, you are a Calvinist in some way.

No, you believe it in a modified form. You believe there is this elect group that has eternal security. This elect group is referring to often in Scripture and so much of Scripture is directed to them alone( most of Romans 8 and Romans 9 ).

Taken from this website : matt1618.freeyellow.com/fallaway.htmlTell me, if they were never really justified, how is the last state worse than the first?

Because has the text says, they knew the path of righteousness. They are like the ones in 1:2:19. They were a part of the ministry of the Gospel, they partook of the Sacraments, and witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit. To turn away from this is to make your last state worse than the first where you had not had this experience and knowledge.

Papal infallibility: Cyprian in 256, Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century, Augustine in the fourth, and Sixtus III in 433, all address the infallibility of the Church of Rome, or the seat of Peter.

Evidence please? Not just an assertion.

Bodily Assumption of Mary: There are Syriac fragments that have been dated to no later than the third century, which mentions the Assumption of Mary. Some scholars believe these fragments are actually from the second century. Bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 told the emperor that Mary had been assumed into Heaven, and that this was a tradition handed down from the Apostles. I can give you more.

Could you provide a url to your source?

Agreed. The problem for you is that scholars that are proponents of eternal security admit that they cannot find one instance of the doctrine in seed form from anyone before John Calvin, in the sixteenth century. I am asking you to show me one Church father who espoused eternal security in seed form. You can’t say Augustine, because he taught that it was possible for God to justify someone, and they could still turn away. He said it was possible to be justified, but not one of the elect.

Well, this is the seed. He believed the elect had eternal security. The weird thing about this is that the Scripture refers to all believers as elect. You will notice Romans 8 continues to build on 8:30 where it goes on to say:

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be* against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect*? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.[j] 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

You will notice all of this about God’s elect. So your position is worse than the eternal security one that you complain about. If you are not elect( and you might not be just a ole regular believer ) these verses are not for you. Did he not spare His Son for you? What part of these are true for the non-elect justified believer?

 

[benhur]

benhur.
Where did I ever infer that God isn’t capable of carrying us from beginning to end?
The question is, does He carry us in HARMONY with the free will that the Bible teaches too.I say BOTH. Predestination AND free will.

Hi C,

I think OSAS proponents might infer naysayers limit Gods sovereignty in the matter. Of course I agree that you don’t, just that He won’t (override free will). So the question is how can both be true. There are verses that say God even enables our free wills to align with His. We exercise our free will towards Him only by grace. The flesh is tenacious in claiming credit, to the very last strand ! OSAS at least is right in giving God all the credit.

How did you get the notion that I think “works” pre-empt “faith”?

I don’t think you do. I only suggest that as a baseline. I believe works is not even equal, on par, with faith. Faith preempts works. Faith leads to works. Again this is to counter any carnal faith/ trust in a work and not in the "effectuator’’…In this regard faith is alone. That works follow does not mean faith is not alone in it’s effectuating role.Like somebody saves your life with emergency CPR and you begin to breathe again. Do you say that person saved you (alone), or do you say only partly, because after all, you decided to continue breathing ? Of course not, that person saved you, and of course you then continued in life(but nothing is equal to that persons act of resuscitation-two different aspects but the resuscitation stands alone, and you’ll never forget it).

You have a built-in false premise here.
You are artificially divorcing Jesus from His Church.
The question isn’t, “Does Jesus save instead of the Church?”
The question is, “How does Jesus save through the Church that He built that we trust the Gates of Hades will NOT PREVAIL against it?”

Perhaps, but I am also showing, or asking then what is the church ? Is it a simple" institution" of believers in Christ, or is it a church centralized in Rome, Italy ? Or is it centralized in Springfield, Missouri or Nashville, Ten. ?

We both would agree to divorce the term “church” from anything “artificial”.

I think we both agree that membership can be genuine, and it can be false, in name only.

I think we both agree that the flesh again can try to claim credit, as in false pride in ones own church (like “I was baptized by Peter, or Paul” etc. ).

I think that the church is to put forth Christ first , and loses power when it pushes itself. Of course both are important, but it is wrong if we push our denomination, our faith points , more than pushing encountering Christ first. Key word is "more’’ , for the faith points are important to a point.

If you are disqualifying obeying Jesus’ commandments to be born of water and the Spirit which is explicitly in the Bible, than I’m not buying it.

Well, all who are physically born have already been born of “water”, as in from our mothers womb.

For sure God’s command is for us to believe, and to be born of the spirit in order to do so.

And if you didn’t do that “WORK”, you may not have your sight. But if you obediently DID do that work, you would definitively HAVE your sight.

And would Jesus reply ,"Your work has saved you " or “Your faith has saved you " ? I still think faith is the primary underlying force here. I am not sure the blind man would say, " Jesus was pretty good here ,but so was MY obedience to wash” i think he would rather say faith alone was the driving force behind the petition and the obedience.

Again, faith alone came about to offset a carnal application to works, where flesh covets credit .

And we see people trade in what they are told to do by Jesus, and follow after traditions of men.

Agree that is wrong( no one advocates not being water baptized ). Traditions of men however can garnish away credit and glory to God.

Traditions that say to do a prayer of accepting Jesus into your heart (which is fine), but it is not in Scripture, and is NOT being born of water and the Spirit like Jesus tells us to.

Glad you say it is fine, but I also list it as a work that may or may not be “effectual”, may or may not be symbolic of a spiritual reality.It is biblical. One verse comes to mind,“WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

Some will rationalize that command to be re-born of water and the Spirit away.

One is not reborn of water in the Nicodemus text. The rabbi was circumcised ,barmitzvahed, done all the rites and studies, was a religious leader yet, he was not Born of God, born of the spirit, born again. There was never a regenerating baptismal rite that Nicodemus was ignorant of, yet he was chided for being ignorant (of spiritual birth/circumcision without human hands ) .

And I suppose the blind man COULD have done the same thing:

"Well. Jesus didn’t REALLY mean wash in the pool of Siloam.
​

He thought none of those things because he believed Jesus. The belief is the overriding factor, which then led to any obedience. Faith is the gift, that led to the petition and to any faithful response. Faith stands alone in that regard.It does not mean faith is fruitless…I am sure the blind man did not pat himself on the back and say , “I did my part”.

After awhile this kind of thinking is really “anti-incarnational” thinking. Taken to its logical conclusion it leads one down the road of Gnosticism.

it certainly can , though have not met anyone who fell away into that. I have met more who have believed themselves to be righteous when they were not, believed they were born again, spirit filled, due to supposed faith and the rites observed (like Nic).

Blessings​

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur.

You said:

I believe . . . Faith preempts works.

It depends upon what types of “works” you are talking about.

For example, St. Paul reminds us in Romans 10, that . . . .

. . . . . faith itself comes from hearing the word PREACHED.

Now one could attempt to pretend preaching isn’t a “work” , but it won’t be very convincing to anyone.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Except that those that jumped, this means they disobeyed you, which means their heart was not in tune with what you were saying. So even though you prevented them from falling, when they decided to jump, in your analogy, their thoughts could not be the thoughts of a justified person, for they did not care to obey you when they decided to jump.

Everyone disobeys, everyday , even those you deem the elect that cannot fall away, right?

Until he repented, yes.

Oh so Peter is not one of the elect? Remember you said the elect does not lose their justification, but here you are saying Peter did. This is interesting, even if not puzzling. But I guess this is where trying to impose an interpretation on Scripture leads you to.

From Dr. Scot McKnight: The passage in Hebrews he is referring to is about those who had genuine faith, and left.

Well, I’m sorry but Dr. Scot McKnight is not here to question or examine on his interpretation.

Neither. I would never presume to say someone has been finally justified, for I know in reality, all Christians are in the process of justification. Some moving towards God and final justification. Some moving away from God.

I didn’t ask you about final justification and btw you did answer this in reference to Peter. You said he lost his justification until he repented.

 

[benhur]

Benhur.

You said:

It depends upon what types of “works” you are talking about.

For example, St. Paul reminds us in Romans 10, that . . . .

. . . . . faith itself comes from hearing the word PREACHED.

Now one could attempt to pretend preaching isn’t a “work” , but it won’t be very convincing to anyone.

HI C,

Of course we are referring to the same person, as to their faith and to their works and what they signify . Faith alone does not suggest no preacher . Yet how did the preacher get to be a preacher ? Even he began with faith. It all goes back to the garden, Adam and Eve believed in the very first promise,and then acted accordingly.

“Alones” have a context, historical, and theological . You must allow for proper exegesis from coiners of the phrases.

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

Attempting to rationalize justification by “faith ALONE” you said . . . .

Of course we are referring to the same person, as to their faith and to their works

That’s kind of what I thought you might say.

OK. So its now justification by faith ALONE AND somebody else’s WORKS. Or is it something else?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Here is the difference. The Catholic Church teaches that if I, responding to the grace given by God, follow the teachings given by Christ, and I persevere by continuing to co-operate with grace, then I will die in friendship with God, and be saved. The path to salvation is clear in the Catholic Church.

Your doctrine, as enunciated by Calvin, says I can do the exact same things I just mentioned, and it was a false grace all the time, and I can still be damned. And some of the damned have no way of knowing that they are on the wrong path. What assurance is that?

Yes, but suppose you are wrong in believing the Catholic Church? You could do everything they tell you and you will end up being damned. And you have no way of knowing you are on the wrong track.

As for infallibility, all I have to do is see one place where the Church taught error, to know infallibility was wrong. But if this is the case, there are two immediate problems:

1.) The church could be totally wrong when she says the bible is inspired scripture, because now she is, and was fallible.

2.) Jesus lied when He said He would guide the Church into all truth.

You left out the most obvious choice. You are just wrong in believing Papal Infallibility. The Old Testament church didn’t need it to survive. The East does not need it and they survive. Protestants don’t need it and we survive. BTW, Jesus didn’t say He would guide the Church into all truth and definitely not the Bishop of Rome, he told that to the Apostles( with a ‘s’) and resulted in the infallibility.

Actually, this is not even close to Catholic reasoning. Did He justify me? Yes. But because I responded to the grace He initially sent. In Catholicism, I still could have rejected that grace. And He continues to justify me, as long as I continue to accept the grace He sends me. But right up to the moment of my death, I can reject that grace.

I’m not talking about Catholic reasoning, I’m talking about what the Scriptures say. All those God justifies He glorifies. I know Catholic reasoning says something different, but that is the problem.

Actually, if few are chosen, that means many responded. The fact that they responded, means they were on the path. They just did not persevere to the end.

What??? Have you even read the context of this verse? I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion if you did.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please get back on topic. " A new and devastating quickie against Faith Alone"