Salvation is Certain?

[mackbrislawn]

Gaelic Bard;10256628

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.

I’m still struggling to understand, because to me it still doesn’t make sense. Let’s address the statement I bolded. Okay, why is it needed to demonstrate that your name is in the book? To whom are you demonstrating? I mean, like you’re not demonstrating to God, because He already knows–He’s the one who wrote the book in the first place. Demonstrating to others? Hardly. Demonstrating to ourselves? That makes more sense, because you think, “If I only I can hold on, if I can persevere and not cowardly fall away that demonstrates to myself I am of the elect…”

You never know if you will persevere to the end until the end actually comes, and only then will you know if you have persevered to the end! Hence, I don’t see any use or point to the elect doctrine. It tells you nothing more than you knew already.

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

Indeed, there is a clear problem. What do you think the problem is? Would you say the problem is that this person, even though presumably of the elect, really isn’t?

“The elect are set.” This statement can very well be true. There is no way to disprove it. But so what? We don’t know who the elect are until they have demonstrated they are of the elect by persevering. And we don’t know who will persevere until it is too late, that is, until the end. So whether the elect are set or not makes no difference. It’s all the same to us. That’s why sayihg the elect are set is a useless, meaningless assertion.

I agree on the principle of not looking at single pasages but looking at all of them. And not looking at a single book either, but all of the New Testament. Revelation was one of the last books written, long after the gospels and Paul’s epistles. Revelation was written within the background of prior Christian teaching, and that fact needs to be taken into account when reading Revelation. Otherwise we are reading the Bible backwards, allowing later teachings to color our understanding of earlier, foundational teachings.

 

[ltwin]

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 would be more accurate to say formed after the Holiness Movement, since the Holiness got started in the 19th century, but Pentecostals only in the 20th century. It’s also more complicated by the fact that Wesleyan-Holiness and Methodism was not the only type of evangelicalism to influence Pentecostalism. Most of the Southern churches, like the Churches of God, Pentecostal Holiness, and Church of God in Christ got the most out of Wesleyanism. You got the Reformed or the Baptistic strain that did a lot to influence the Assemblies of God and similar churches on their view of progressive sanctification.

It’s relative newness (by years) A general dislike of forming theology that way?

All of the above. Pentecostals are highly oral and narrative oriented in their theologizing, so we don’t do theology in the normal ways. There are highly educated Pentecostal scholars today that are beginning to call for the crafting of a truly Pentecostal theology freed from the curse of Protestant scholasticism that has ravaged Pentecostal identity.

Which Pentecostal denomination do you attend?

The local church I attend was founded as a Pentecostal Church of God (similar to the Assemblies of God). Today, it is a non-denominational Pentecostal church with a prosperity/Word-Faith flavor.

I do not agree with the extremes of prosperity gospel/faith teachings. My theology is more in line with the Assemblies of God, and I could see myself going to an AG or similar church. So, ironically, I am technically what is referred to among Pentecostals as a Reformed Pentecostal (as understood by Pentecostals in reference to progressive sanctification) rather than a Wesleyan Pentecostal (though I find something very beautiful about Wesleyanism).

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.

I’m still confused about Presbyterianism because it seems that most Presbyterians aren’t actually Calvinist

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10256628

I’m still struggling to understand, because to me it still doesn’t make sense. Let’s address the statement I bolded. Okay, why is it needed to demonstrate that your name is in the book? To whom are you demonstrating? I mean, like you’re not demonstrating to God, because He already knows–He’s the one who wrote the book in the first place. Demonstrating to others? Hardly. Demonstrating to ourselves? That makes more sense, because you think, “If I only I can hold on, if I can persevere and not cowardly fall away that demonstrates to myself I am of the elect…”

You never know if you will persevere to the end until the end actually comes, and only then will you know if you have persevered to the end! Hence, I don’t see any use or point to the elect doctrine. It tells you nothing more than you knew already.

Well, chiefly because God commands us to persevere, both in good works and faith. No, we don’t demonstrate it to God per se, though I think some of that is in there as well. God does crown the gifts that He gives after all. Demonstrating to others is a big part of Jesus’ teaching on good works…“so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven,” “by this they will know you are my disciples, if you love one another.” That list could go on and on for a while. What is a martyr but one who is a witness? “If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my Father.” It’s chock full of eschatological goodiness.
Proving it to ourselves? Part of it but I would say its in the minority of stress in the NT.

“The elect are set.” This statement can very well be true. There is no way to disprove it. But so what? We don’t know who the elect are until they have demonstrated they are of the elect by persevering. And we don’t know who will persevere until it is too late, that is, until the end. So whether the elect are set or not makes no difference. It’s all the same to us. That’s why sayihg the elect are set is a useless, meaningless assertion.

It would be if the NT writers didn’t talk about election so much! I agree it can bog down quite a bit into pointless arguments and speculation. Like any teaching of Christ though, it has its practical benefits, aside from the egghead ones.

I agree on the principle of not looking at single pasages but looking at all of them. And not looking at a single book either, but all of the New Testament. Revelation was one of the last books written, long after the gospels and Paul’s epistles. Revelation was written within the background of prior Christian teaching, and that fact needs to be taken into account when reading Revelation. Otherwise we are reading the Bible backwards, allowing later teachings to color our understanding of earlier, foundational teachings.

I agree. Bear in mind I was responding to a citation from Revelation so that’s what I was addressing. I know what you mean though. I see that in the obsession with the free grace of Romans but ignoring the holiness and good works in 1 John, James, 2 Peter…etc. In all things balance!

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

The former, mostly.

“If we are obedient we know we are born of God.” Now, is the reverse true, that if we are not obedient, we know we are not born of God? Or is it possible to be not obedient but still be born of God and not know it?

I’m not trying to be difficult. It seems to me whether one is obedient to “merit” salvation, or obedient to demonstrate we are born of God, they amount to the same thing:

lack of obedience and works = lack of salvation.

 

[JonNC]

If I understood you correctly, you do not believe in “once saved always saved”?

Isn’t this concept a pillar of Protestant theology that all Protestants embrace?

God bless,

Um, no.

From the Augsburg Confession

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

“If we are obedient we know we are born of God.” Now, is the reverse true, that if we are not obedient, we know we are not born of God? Or is it possible to be not obedient but still be born of God and not know it?

I’m not trying to be difficult. It seems to me whether one is obedient to “merit” salvation, or obedient to demonstrate we are born of God, they amount to the same thing:

lack of obedience and works = lack of salvation.

Absolutely, mack! John clearly says that lack of obedience/righteousness is evidence that we belong to the enemy in his first epistle!

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

It would be more accurate to say formed after the Holiness Movement, since the Holiness got started in the 19th century, but Pentecostals only in the 20th century. It’s also more complicated by the fact that Wesleyan-Holiness and Methodism was not the only type of evangelicalism to influence Pentecostalism. Most of the Southern churches, like the Churches of God, Pentecostal Holiness, and Church of God in Christ got the most out of Wesleyanism. You got the Reformed or the Baptistic strain that did a lot to influence the Assemblies of God and similar churches on their view of progressive sanctification.

All of the above. Pentecostals are highly oral and narrative oriented in their theologizing, so we don’t do theology in the normal ways. There are highly educated Pentecostal scholars today that are beginning to call for the crafting of a truly Pentecostal theology freed from the curse of Protestant scholasticism that has ravaged Pentecostal identity.

The local church I attend was founded as a Pentecostal Church of God (similar to the Assemblies of God). Today, it is a non-denominational Pentecostal church with a prosperity/Word-Faith flavor.

I do not agree with the extremes of prosperity gospel/faith teachings. My theology is more in line with the Assemblies of God, and I could see myself going to an AG or similar church. So, ironically, I am technically what is referred to among Pentecostals as a Reformed Pentecostal (as understood by Pentecostals in reference to progressive sanctification) rather than a Wesleyan Pentecostal (though I find something very beautiful about Wesleyanism).

I’m still confused about Presbyterianism because it seems that most Presbyterians aren’t actually Calvinist

You’re probably thinking more along the lines of liberal Presbyterians in the PCUSSR…I mean PCUSA. The smaller Presbyterian churches like the PCA and OPC are definitely Calvinistic in the traditional sense. Think R. C. Sproul.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Gaelic Bard;10257575

Well, chiefly because God commands us to persevere, both in good works and faith. No, we don’t demonstrate it to God per se, though I think some of that is in there as well. God does crown the gifts that He gives after all. Demonstrating to others is a big part of Jesus’ teaching on good works…“so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven,” “by this they will know you are my disciples, if you love one another.” That list could go on and on for a while. What is a martyr but one who is a witness? “If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my Father.” It’s chock full of eschatological goodiness.
Proving it to ourselves? Part of it but I would say its in the minority of stress in the NT.

The above examples don’t seem to me to be especially eschatological, expect for “If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my Father.” This one does have a direct bearing on perseverance and salvation because it implies that “if you quit confessing me before men, I will quit confessing you before my Father.” The same as saying if you quit confessing, your name will quit being in the book of life.

Yes, God commands us to persevere, but why does He command us to do so? Well, the answer seems to be because it is necessary for salvation. Wrong?

It would be if the NT writers didn’t talk about election so much! I agree it can bog down quite a bit into pointless arguments and speculation. Like any teaching of Christ though, it has its practical benefits, aside from the egghead ones.

Indeed, that is the whole purpose of the NT, to talk about salvation or election, how to obtain it and how to hold on to it.

Now, you mentioned practical benefits. What do you mean? To me the only benefit would be if one knew he were of the elect, but we have shown it impossible to know that until the end.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You’re probably thinking more along the lines of liberal Presbyterians in the** PCUSSR**…I mean PCUSA. The smaller Presbyterian churches like the PCA and OPC are definitely Calvinistic in the traditional sense. Think R. C. Sproul.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10257575
The above examples don’t seem to me to be especially eschatological, expect for “If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my Father.” This one does have a direct bearing on perseverance and salvation because it implies that “if you quit confessing me before men, I will quit confessing you before my Father.” The same as saying if you quit confessing, your name will quit being in the book of life.

Yes, God commands us to persevere, but why does He command us to do so? Well, the answer seems to be because it is necessary for salvation. Wrong?

This is where it can get trickier because the traditional Protestant view is works are not necessary for justification. But justification is not salvation. So yes, works are necessary for sanctification…which is an equal part of salvation as justification. So works are necessary for salvation.

The eschatological reality is that our goodvworks advance the kingdom of Christ against the kingdom of Satan, until Christ returns and the fullness is consummated.

Indeed, that is the whole purpose of the NT, to talk about salvation or election, how to obtain it and how to hold on to it.

Now, you mentioned practical benefits. What do you mean? To me the only benefit would be if one knew he were of the elect, but we have shown it impossible to know that until the end.

Aside from election fitting into the whole of the revelation of redemptive history, the practical benefit would be the same for us as it was for the apostolic era church, would it not? Assurance in trial, strength to persevere in the faith, knowing the outcome of our salvation belongs to the Lord…no? If the paradigm you’re working from is election has no practica benefit unless you know you’re elect, then you’d have to go to Paul and say why are you mentioning this to the church in Ephesus…they can’t know they’re elect so why tell them that!?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

It would be more accurate to say formed after the Holiness Movement, since the Holiness got started in the 19th century, but Pentecostals only in the 20th century. It’s also more complicated by the fact that Wesleyan-Holiness and Methodism was not the only type of evangelicalism to influence Pentecostalism. Most of the Southern churches, like the Churches of God, Pentecostal Holiness, and Church of God in Christ got the most out of Wesleyanism. You got the Reformed or the Baptistic strain that did a lot to influence the Assemblies of God and similar churches on their view of progressive sanctification.

All of the above. Pentecostals are highly oral and narrative oriented in their theologizing, so we don’t do theology in the normal ways. There are highly educated Pentecostal scholars today that are beginning to call for the crafting of a truly Pentecostal theology freed from the curse of Protestant scholasticism that has ravaged Pentecostal identity.

It’s a shame. As a cessationist, I would like to read a systematic explanation and defense of the Pentecostal viewpoint.

The local church I attend was founded as a Pentecostal Church of God (similar to the Assemblies of God). Today, it is a non-denominational Pentecostal church with a prosperity/Word-Faith flavor.

I do not agree with the extremes of prosperity gospel/faith teachings. My theology is more in line with the Assemblies of God, and I could see myself going to an AG or similar church. So, ironically, I am technically what is referred to among Pentecostals as a Reformed Pentecostal (as understood by Pentecostals in reference to progressive sanctification) rather than a Wesleyan Pentecostal (though I find something very beautiful about Wesleyanism).

I’m not a cobelligerent with Weslyanism on systematic doctrine… but when it comes tonpiety, they’re hard to beat (outside of the Anabaptists)

 

[mackbrislawn]

Gaelic Bard;10257742

This is where it can get trickier because the traditional Protestant view is works are not necessary for justification. But justification is not salvation. So yes, works are necessary for sanctification…which is an equal part of salvation as justification. So works are necessary for salvation.

Okay, I understand. This is the Catholic view also.

The eschatological reality is that our goodvworks advance the kingdom of Christ against the kingdom of Satan, until Christ returns and the fullness is consummated.

This is true also. By our perseverance we influence others–to show to other Christians that endurance is possible, and to show to non-Christians what Christians are like. And we must persevere until the end, our own end or until Christ returns.

Aside from election fitting into the whole of the revelation of redemptive history, the practical benefit would be the same for us as it was for the apostolic era church, would it not? Assurance in trial, strength to persevere in the faith, knowing the outcome of our salvation belongs to the Lord…no? If the paradigm you’re working from is election has no practica benefit unless you know you’re elect, then you’d have to go to Paul and say why are you mentioning this to the church in Ephesus…they can’t know they’re elect so why tell them that!?

I am speaking of an individual’s personal knowledge of whether he will persevere until the end, that is, be of the elect. How can he know he will persevere until the end until he perseveres to the end? That is the benefit I am talking about, the personal comfort of knowing he will persevere to the end. But, until the end is reached, he does not know if he will or not. So there is no benefit to him in the meantime.

In Ephesians Paul is speaking to a group of Christians, some of whom are of the “elect,” and some aren’t (does Paul use the term ‘elect’?) He cannot tell them apart. So he addresses them equally.

However, the real gist of Ephesians as I see it, is now that the Ephesians are of the “elect,” is how to keep from falling from the elect. That is Paul’s assumption, that they are all of the elect, but that the devil still can get to them individually; ones’ election is premised on standing firm. Paul doesn’t know if they individually will or not, but he tells them how: “Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil…that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”

That is the comfort of Christians, not that they are of the “elect,” but that they have the armor of God which will enable them to resist. God is with them, and Paul tells the Ephesians what all to do to ensure that, how not to allow the devil in.

Of course, we know that not all Christians put on the armor of God, not all stood firm. John mentions those who were “cowards,” and fell away.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I am speaking of an individual’s personal knowledge of whether he will persevere until the end, that is, be of the elect. How can he know he will persevere until the end until he perseveres to the end? That is the benefit I am talking about, the personal comfort of knowing he will persevere to the end. But, until the end is reached, he does not know if he will or not. So there is no benefit to him in the meantime.

Okay, I get what you’re saying. The emphasis should not be upon the subjective "I will persevere, " but rather the objective “Christ is able to preserve you.” This is what the stress is always on in the NT. For the individual, the stress is on obedience, faithfulness, love, etc. When viewed from God’s perspective, it is “to Him who is able to keep you…” “Christ, the author and finisher of our faith…” “He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified…”

This is what Paul is doing with the Ephesians. The church is persecuted; gnostics are trying to infiltrate its ranks, false apostles are trying to subvert apostolic teaching (see Rev 2 for all this). The Ephesians must be wondering…“is it worth it? Is Christ with us, if so, why do we suffer?” Paul’s answer is to respond in an indicative form. He takes all of their subjective, individual distress and says “He chose you from before the foundation of the world. All that you are experiencing is predestined according to His plan and counsel. How can His promises fail?”

In Ephesians Paul is speaking to a group of Christians, some of whom are of the “elect,” and some aren’t (does Paul use the term ‘elect’?) He cannot tell them apart. So he addresses them equally.

Yes. He uses a variation of eklektos in vs. 4, 11. No, he doesn’t know the difference. I will respond to the rest of your post in another post. Might run out of room, lol

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

However, the real gist of Ephesians as I see it, is now that the Ephesians are of the “elect,” is how to keep from falling from the elect. That is Paul’s assumption, that they are all of the elect, but that the devil still can get to them individually; ones’ election is premised on standing firm. Paul doesn’t know if they individually will or not, but he tells them how: “Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil…that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”

That is the comfort of Christians, not that they are of the “elect,” but that they have the armor of God which will enable them to resist. God is with them, and Paul tells the Ephesians what all to do to ensure that, how not to allow the devil in.

Of course, we know that not all Christians put on the armor of God, not all stood firm. John mentions those who were “cowards,” and fell away.

I have to disagree with your view of Ephesians here, respectfully. Paul is using what has been termed “gospel logic,” in contrast to the logic of humanity. In human thinking, since we are driven to think in terms of law, our imperatives drive our indicatives. That is to say, our “do’s” drive our “is.” For example, in our work environment, “you want to be promoted to a manager? Work hard, pull yourself up by your boot straps, put in 50 hours a week…etc.” The effort (the imperative) determines the title manager (the indicative). In the gospel, this is turned on its head. The indicative (saint) drives the imperative (do good works). Throughout Paul’s writings, he does this time and again. The first 3 chapters of Ephesians are indicatives. Examples:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”
“In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will”
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”
“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”
“and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

Paul goes through all these indicative, declarative statements, “you are saints” “you are chosen” “you are predestined” “you have been sealed” “saved by grace not of yourselves” “you were made alive by God” “you are now members of the covenant by the blood of Christ…” In order to begin chapter 4, “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” “Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.”
“to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires” “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”

continued…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Notice what Paul doesn’t do. He doesn’t begin with chapter 4-6 and then end with chapters 1-3. He doesn’t say, “put off the old self” “be angry and do not sin” “submit to your husbands” “love your wives” “put on the armor of God” in order to be “chosen before the foundation of the world” “sealed with the Holy Spirit” "made alive by God,’ etc., I hope I have stated my point clearly. If not, let me know. To sum, the therefore imperatives are in light of the you are indicatives. We see this in Paul’s other epistles as well. The first 11 chapters of Romans are about our failure as unregenerate sinners, God’s monergistic work of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Then he begins chapter 12 with “Therefore, in view of God’s mercies, present your bodies as a living sacrifice.”

The apostle Peter does this as well in his first epistle, chapter 2. His indicative: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy”

drives his imperative, “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”

You are holy, so act like what you are! You are justified by God, so act like a just person! The Rev. Tim Keller put it this way, “Religion says, ‘I obey, therefore, I am accepted.’ Christianity says, ‘I am accepted, therefore, I obey.’”