Salvation is Certain?

[Byzantine_Wolf]

That’s surprising, Byz, that they have a liberal seminary. All the Nazarenes I know are very strictly conservative.

Same. This particular seminary is super liberal, but in general the churches (save those directly associated with the seminary, or run by people at the seminary) themselves are conservatives. I’ve heard stories that some Nazarene churches won’t accept pastor candidates from this seminary because they know how liberal it is.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

Scripture says that we can lose our salvation.

Revelation 3 … Do you believe a person who was not justified could have been written in the book of life

The promise “I will not erase his name from the book of life,” does not necessarily imply that some do have their names erased. It simply says to the one who is in the book and who conquers in faith: I will never wipe out your name. In other words, being erased is a fearful prospect which I will not allow to happen. I will keep you safe in the book. That is one of the promises made to those who persevere and conquer. It does not say that those who fail to conquer and fall away from Christ were written in the book and got erased.

In fact, there are two other verses in Revelation that seem to teach that to have your name written in the book means that you will most definitely persevere and conquer. Consider Revelation 13:8. “And all who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.” This verse implies that those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life “from the foundation of the world” definitely will not worship the beast. In other words, having our name in the book of life from the foundation of the world seems to mean that God will keep you from falling and grant you to persevere in allegiance to God. Being in the book means you will not apostatize.

Similarly consider Revelation 17:8, “The beast that you saw was and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and to go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will marvel, when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.” Again having one’s name written in the book of life from the foundation of the world appears to secure one from “marveling” at the beast. Those whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel. If your name is written there, you will not marvel at the beast.

The teaching here is that having one’s name written in the book is effectual. That is, it has a defining effect on one’s responses. To have your name written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world guarantees that you will not worship or marvel at the beast. John does not say, “If you worship the beast, your name is erased.” He says, “If your name is written, you will not worship the beast.”

Romans 11… Can a person who was not justified be attached?

Mainly addressed within the context of Old Covenant Israel. Old Covenant Israel was broken off due to its unbelief. The text does not say that the Israelites believed and then fell away, or any such corollary to justification. The Jews were given a covenant and swore to obey it. They didn’t, and were broken off. The warnings to Jewish and Gentile Christians are to not be like they were. It is these sorts of warning in Scripture that assist in making sure the believer does not fall away. We are given the grace, and it is strengthened by, meditating on these instructions from the Lord.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I agree, mack. That is why I addressed the context within which the phrase “Perseverance of the Saints” was used. Remember that the Calvinists who coined this term were debating **those who did not accept the idea that the elect are by definition going to heaven. **They were not debating Roman Catholics or Lutherans on this topic. They were debating Arminians.

In comparison, in Roman Catholic theology, by definition, the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ. If someone comes along and says the Pope is not the vicar of Christ, for the church to formally declare that he is, is not a tautology.

The same goes for any other doctrine. To say “Christ is fully God and fully man” would be redundant, since by nature Christ is fully God and fully man, etc. Statements affirming this are not intentionally being redundant…they are definitions intended to refute those who oppose them.

What was the idea of the elect as regarded by the Arminians?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

What was the idea of the elect as regarded by the Arminians?

They had no concept of the elect as being those who are gauranteed salvation. In their thinking, anyone who believed was elect, whether or not they later fell away. Their use of the term elect was not related to the Augustinian understanding.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The promise “I will not erase his name from the book of life,” does not necessarily imply that some do have their names erased. It simply says to the one who is in the book and who conquers in faith: I will never wipe out your name. In other words, being erased is a fearful prospect which I will not allow to happen. I will keep you safe in the book. That is one of the promises made to those who persevere and conquer. It does not say that those who fail to conquer and fall away from Christ were written in the book and got erased.

In fact, there are two other verses in Revelation that seem to teach that to have your name written in the book means that you will most definitely persevere and conquer. Consider Revelation 13:8. “And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.” This verse implies that those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life “from the foundation of the world” definitely will not worship the beast. In other words, having our name in the book of life from the foundation of the world seems to mean that God will keep you from falling and grant you to persevere in allegiance to God. Being in the book means you will not apostatize.

Similarly consider Revelation 17:8, “The beast that you saw was and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and to go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will marvel, when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.” Again having one’s name written in the book of life from the foundation of the world appears to secure one from “marveling” at the beast. Those whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel. If your name is written there, you will not marvel at the beast.

The teaching here is that having one’s name written in the book is effectual. That is, it has a defining effect on one’s responses. To have your name written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world guarantees that you will not worship or marvel at the beast. John does not say, “If you worship the beast, your name is erased.” He says, “If your name is written, you will not worship the beast.”

Mainly addressed within the context of Old Covenant Israel. Old Covenant Israel was broken off due to its unbelief. The text does not say that the Israelites believed and then fell away, or any such corollary to justification. The Jews were given a covenant and swore to obey it. They didn’t, and were broken off. The warnings to Jewish and Gentile Christians are to not be like they were. It is these sorts of warning in Scripture that assist in making sure the believer does not fall away. We are given the grace, and it is strengthened by, meditating on these instructions from the Lord.

Gaelic–a marvel of logic. I don’t follow all of it, and of course from my point of view it seems a bit forced, trying to avoid what to me are the obvious corollaries.

The phrases I put in bold seem to negate the general conclusions you make. “To the one who is in the book AND conquers in faith: I will never wipe out your name.” To me it takes an effort not to draw the obvious conclusion that the one who does not conquer in faith, WILL have their name wiped out. Otherwise, why should the holy writer bring up the idea of being erased at all? It takes two conditions to remain in the Book of Life: first, to be in there to begin with, and second, to conquer in faith.

“It is these sorts of warnings given in Scripture that assist in making sure the believer does not fall away.” Exactly. That is why scripture is full of warnings to persist, not to fall away. If the writer was sure that believers were automatically locked in, why give all these warnings at all? It is because of the possibility of becoming a non-believer, the possibility of falling away, of becoming a coward, that these warnings are given. So that the Christian will realize the need to pray, to meditate, to have his grace strengthened thereby

A question: there are those whose names have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Okay. Now, are there those whose names were not written from the foundation of the world, but got written in later? Got penciled in?

 

[mackbrislawn]

They had no concept of the elect as being those who are gauranteed salvation. In their thinking, anyone who believed was elect, whether or not they later fell away. Their use of the term elect was not related to the Augustinian understanding.

I myself am not an Augustinian. Augustine had his opinions and his opinions have had lots of influence in the West, less so in the East. Anyway, my opinions seem to be more in line with the Arminians, anyone who believes is considered to be of the elect, of the saved, whether or not they later fall away.

Because “elect” is a conditional title, a courtesy title. The presumption being that those elect and saved will of course continue that way. Paul uses the term “saints” to refer to his early Christians in this manner. Later on in the history of the New Testament and of Christianity it became clear that not all of the presumed saints really were saints. John spoke of the “cowards” who fell away.

For the purposes of argument, lets assume the Calvinist definition of elect to be those who will not fall away and therefore are guaranteed heaven. Now, the question is, how does one know he is one of those kind of elect? He doesn’t. He doesn’t know that he will not become one of John’s “cowards,” one of those who fall away under persecution. However, he also believes that the truly saved will do good works, so he frantically goes around doing good works as evidence to himself he is of the elect!

What a merry-go-round.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic–a marvel of logic. I don’t follow all of it, and of course from my point of view it seems a bit forced, trying to avoid what to me are the obvious corollaries.

The phrases I put in bold seem to negate the general conclusions you make. “To the one who is in the book AND conquers in faith: I will never wipe out your name.” To me it takes an effort not to draw the obvious conclusion that the one who does not conquer in faith, WILL have their name wiped out. Otherwise, why should the holy writer bring up the idea of being erased at all? It takes two conditions to remain in the Book of Life: first, to be in there to begin with, and second, to conquer in faith.

Only if one isolates a individual passage without taking all of them in total. If John says those whose names are written will not apostasize, and he also says those who persevere in not apostasizing will not have their names erased, it’s clearer to me that they are both one and the same people. The point of perseverance is that it demonstrates that your name is in the book. Thus fulfilling both conditions - which God by grace will make sure are fulfilled.

“It is these sorts of warnings given in Scripture that assist in making sure the believer does not fall away.” Exactly. That is why scripture is full of warnings to persist, not to fall away. If the writer was sure that believers were automatically locked in, why give all these warnings at all? It is because of the possibility of becoming a non-believer, the possibility of falling away, of becoming a coward, that these warnings are given. So that the Christian will realize the need to pray, to meditate, to have his grace strengthened thereby

A question: there are those whose names have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Okay. Now, are there those whose names were not written from the foundation of the world, but got written in later? Got penciled in?

Agreed about the warnings. If the person reads the warnings and doesn’t take them seriously, doesn’t pray, doesn’t meditate, etc., then there’s immediately a clear problem. Hence why the passages exist. No, there’s no one penciled in. The elect are set.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

For the purposes of argument, lets assume the Calvinist definition of elect to be those who will not fall away and therefore are guaranteed heaven. Now, the question is, how does one know he is one of those kind of elect? He doesn’t. He doesn’t know that he will not become one of John’s “cowards,” one of those who fall away under persecution. However, he also believes that the truly saved will do good works, so he frantically goes around doing good works as evidence to himself he is of the elect!

What a merry-go-round.

I’ve heard this as a concern and I can understand where you are coming from. Election exists as a comfort, especially in the Scripture where it is given to persecuted believers who are unsure about the promises of Christ. That’s how it should be preached and discussed. We shouldn’t be trying to find God’s hidden will nor navel gaze at ourselves. We are called to be faithful, that’s all and trust Christ to take care of the rest, knowing that our High Priest intercedes for us.

I have to ask though; whats wrong with frantically doing good works? Lol

 

[ltwin]

Yes! Because the majority of modern Arminians believe in the free will to accept Christ, but also believe in eternal security. i.e., once you accept Christ, you lose your free will!

Well, Pentecostals must be the exception, because one thing we never lose is our free will. We believe in “conditional security.”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Well, Pentecostals must be the exception, because one thing we never lose is our free will. We believe in “conditional security.”

My fiance is Pentecostal. She doesn’t believe in my free will.

I have a deep affection for the Holiness groups, esp. Nazarenes.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I’ve heard this as a concern and I can understand where you are coming from. Election exists as a comfort, especially in the Scripture where it is given to persecuted believers who are unsure about the promises of Christ. That’s how it should be preached and discussed. We shouldn’t be trying to find God’s hidden will nor navel gaze at ourselves. We are called to be faithful, that’s all and trust Christ to take care of the rest, knowing that our High Priest intercedes for us.

I have to ask though; whats wrong with frantically doing good works? Lol

About frantically doing good works, there is nothing wrong with it. But it seems ironic to me that many Protestants mock Catholics by saying that Catholics frantically do good works in order to save themselves, and that Catholics never can know when they have done enough good works to merit heaven.

Sure, it can be a comfort to know that if you are of the elect you will be saved. But it is not comforting to be unsure if you are of the elect or not. So, some Protestants put themselves back into the same boat as they accuse Catholics of being in: frantically doing good works, not to save themselves but to prove they are of the elect!

“Who are unsure about the promises of Christ.” I’m uncertain as to this statement’s meaning. Does it refer to those Christians who may be unsure that Christ will keep his promises, and unsure that He has the power to do so? Yes, it is comforting to be reassured that He can and will keep his promises. We have a heavenly Father we can rely on. Or is it they are unsure what those promises are and they need to be reminded?

I myself take it as reminders to hold tight and not give up the ship, hold tight to the promises of Christ, be faithful, because if you don’t you will be swept away.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

About frantically doing good works, there is nothing wrong with it. But it seems ironic to me that many Protestants mock Catholics by saying that Catholics frantically do good works in order to save themselves, and that Catholics never can know when they have done enough good works to merit heaven.

Sure, it can be a comfort to know that if you are of the elect you will be saved. But it is not comforting to be unsure if you are of the elect or not. So, some Protestants put themselves back into the same boat as they accuse Catholics of being in: frantically doing good works, not to save themselves but to prove they are of the elect!

Bleh…I dont buy into the rhetoric on either side on that one. John says that if we are obedient we can know we are born of God. I’m confident of just sticking with that. It’s not doing good works for holiness that I disagree with about Catholic doctrine on salvation.

“Who are unsure about the promises of Christ.” I’m uncertain as to this statement’s meaning. Does it refer to those Christians who may be unsure that Christ will keep his promises, and unsure that He has the power to do so? Yes, it is comforting to be reassured that He can and will keep his promises. We have a heavenly Father we can rely on. Or is it they are unsure what those promises are and they need to be reminded?

I myself take it as reminders to hold tight and not give up the ship, hold tight to the promises of Christ, be faithful, because if you don’t you will be swept away.

The former, mostly.

 

[ltwin]

My fiance is Pentecostal. She doesn’t believe in my free will.

Really? That’s weird. But what do you expect of Pentecostals, everytime I try to put them in a box they surprise me.

What does she believe about free will?

I have a deep affection for the Holiness groups, esp. Nazarenes.

My great grandfather was a member of the Nazarene Church a long time ago (when they still shouted). My mom’s Nazarene uncle always tells her that she needs to “return to her roots”.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Really? That’s weird. But what do you expect of Pentecostals, everytime I try to put them in a box they surprise me.

What does she believe about free will?

Haha…that was a joke. She doesn’t believe in MY free will. She believes in her own! LOL

She’s Arminian for sure.

My great grandfather was a member of the Nazarene Church a long time ago (when they still shouted). My mom’s Nazarene uncle always tells her that she needs to “return to her roots”.

I attend their Bible studies on Wednesday nights now and again at the one down the street. Beautiful disciples of Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Haha…that was a joke. She doesn’t believe in MY free will. She believes in her own! LOL

Slow on the uptake.

She’s Arminian for sure.

Thank God! I was beginning to think the new calvinism was making inroads into Pentecostalism.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Slow on the uptake.

Thank God! I was beginning to think the new calvinism was making inroads into Pentecostalism.

It is in many charismatic circles…ala John Piper,; C. J. Mahaney…etc. I guess that’s technically distinct from Pentecostal, though.

 

[ltwin]

It is in many charismatic circles…ala John Piper,; C. J. Mahaney…etc. I guess that’s technically distinct from Pentecostal, though.

I like Piper, really like Matt Chandler from the Village Church, and I like Mark Driscoll (he says he’s charismatic too, but he seems think that the loons on TBN represent all Pentecostals, so I can’t really listen to his abrasive style too much). The biggest threat to Pentecostal theology is non-charismatic evangelicalism.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I like Piper, really like Matt Chandler from the Village Church, and I like Mark Driscoll (he says he’s charismatic too, but he seems think that the loons on TBN represent all Pentecostals, so I can’t really listen to his abrasive style too much). The biggest threat to Pentecostal theology is non-charismatic evangelicalism.

Yeah…Piper and Chandler are great. They both present Calvinistic thinking how it should be…winsomly and lovingly. I can tolerate about 5 minutes of Driscoll before the hipness starts making my head hurt. In what way vis a vie non-charismatic evangelicalism?

 

[ltwin]

In what way vis a vie non-charismatic evangelicalism?

Well first it was failing to craft a truly Pentecostal theology and simply taking evangelical theologies and tacking on Spirit baptism and tongues to it. We basically said, Pentecostals are just like evangelicals, we just speak in tongues! Now we have classical Pentecostals so “evangelicalized” that they don’t think preaching Pentecostal distinctives (a robust theology of Spirit baptism, a robust theology of spiritual gifts, and a robust theology of divine healing) is important. Also, they don’t want spiritual gifts to be exercised in their churches. You would be surprised (or maybe you wouldn’t be) of how many members of Pentecostal churches have never had their own “personal Pentecost” as the old folks used to say in reference to Spirit baptism.

Some Pentecostals have an inferiority complex when it comes to uppity Calvinists (and others) who seem to think that (as one person on this thread said) they are the only ones who understand the Bible.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Well first it was failing to craft a truly Pentecostal theology and simply taking evangelical theologies and tacking on Spirit baptism and tongues to it. We basically said, Pentecostals are just like evangelicals, we just speak in tongues! Now we have classical Pentecostals so “evangelicalized” that they don’t think preaching Pentecostal distinctives (a robust theology of Spirit baptism, a robust theology of spiritual gifts, and a robust theology of divine healing) is important. Also, they don’t want spiritual gifts to be exercised in their churches. You would be surprised (or maybe you wouldn’t be) of how many members of Pentecostal churches have never had their own “personal Pentecost” as the old folks used to say in reference to Spirit baptism.

Some Pentecostals have an inferiority complex when it comes to uppity Calvinists (and others) who seem to think that (as one person on this thread said) they are the only ones who understand the Bible.

Do you think the failure of Pentecostals to form a strong, systematic theology is owed to its emergence at the same time as other Holiness church bodies? It’s relative newness (by years) A general dislike of forming theology that way? Which Pentecostal denomination do you attend?

I know what you mean by the attitude of many uppity Calvinists. Many uber-conservative Presbyterians wouldn’t even consider me a Calvinist becausevof infant baptism and my disagrement with theit covenant theology. C’est la vie.