| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 42 Registered: 1-2004  |
Not to make light of anything you've said here, but if Paul was so worried about the effects of going back to the law in Galatians, (and he was) then there isn't any absolute assurance of salvation for any Christian so long as the possibility of their going back to the law exists, unless Paul was worried about a non-salvational issue in Galatians. Does this make sense? My point being that I think alot of the NT doesn't make sense if you believe in absolute once-saved-always-saved. Jeremiah | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 366 Registered: 7-2004  |
Without getting into a debate whether the Bible supports once-saved-always saved, I don't think believing in being saved through faith alone automatically goes with believing in once-saved-always saved. Our good works have nothing to do with justification, and our good works cannot maintain our salvation. While believing in faith alone, it is still possible to believe that a person can change their mind and no longer want Jesus' free gift of salvation, or to no longer believe in Jesus. The Bible does certainly contain almost an even number of verses on both sides: assurance of salvation and can't be plucked from God's hand, and being careful that you don't fall or don't have your name blotted out of the book of life. It's a paradox I can't explain and probably both are true, but I don't think believing in salvation through faith alone automatically makes you have to accept one or the other about if you can fall away. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1033 Registered: 10-2004  |
Jeremiah, Paul was writing to people who were keeping the Law. But guess what? They had not lost their salvation! He makes it clear that they are still saved and that they are not lost people. He says: "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27 NASB.) They were still saved! But it was still a very important issue, especially since Paul did not want them preaching a false gospel to unbelievers and leading them to hell! Also, he did not want them to be in bondage to the Law--he wanted them to live fruitful Christian lives in the liberty of Christ. And, he wanted them to have assurance of salvation! Yes, absolute assurance of salvation. I will stand up and say that I have absolute assurance of salvation. Nothing in the future can separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord (Romans 8:38-39)!
I have been perfected for ALL TIME by Jesus' sacrifice! For all time means for all time! Saved Forever, Jeremy | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 43 Registered: 1-2004 |
If you've read such things as Foxe's book of Martyrs, how do explain the lengths Christians would go to in order not to deny their faith, if their motivation did not have something to do with keeping their salvation intact? I mean, if you're being tortured, and you think you have absolute assurance of salvation, wouldn't it be a pretty big temptation to just decide not to go through all the trouble since you're automatically forgiven from whatever mistakes or sins you commit anyway? And I do agree that OSAS is probably not necessary for the doctrine of faith alone. Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3306 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jeremiah, the righteousness we have through faith is Jesus' own righteousness. It is not ours and never will be. The changes in our characters that slowly develop after we are saved is the work of the Holy Spirit. God Himself completes His work in us (Phil 1:6). We are never asked to become perfect. We are never asked to develop righteousness. Rather we BECOME the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). This is not based on our honoring or living up to the law in any way. This becoming is based on our willingly offering ourselves to God as living sacrifices, submitting to the convicting and purifying work of the Spirit which operates on the basis of His impressing us with Scriptural truths. He uses the Scriptures as a mirror to convict us. I don'be believe for a minute that the marytyrs held onto their faith in order to keep their salvation. They hung on because the KNEW Jesus, and He was more to them than life itself. They loved him and worshiped Him, and betrayal of the One who loved them that much and promises never to leae them was unthinkable. BTW, Jeremiah, could you email me at proclamation@gmail.com? I need to refresh my memory re: your email address! Colleen | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 396 Registered: 8-2004  |
From what I understand, the martyrs held on to their faith in Jesus because the whole point of their faith was HIM, not themselves or what they would get out of it. It's one thing if we 'join up for the perks' and do the bare minimum required to 'earn' them - whether that is faith or works or standing on our heads, it's another thing altogether if we are in love with someone, are totally and unreservedly loved BY them as well, and are then asked to reject him/her. If salvation means spending eternity with Jesus (and I believe that it does), then denying Him just before reaching eternity doesn't sound like a nice proposition at all, even if I didn't lose my chance to spend eternity with Him over it! | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1034 Registered: 10-2004 |
Jeremiah, are you saying that no Christian in history who has been martyred believed in eternal security? You say that the martyrs were keeping their salvation intact by dying for their faith. That sounds like they were saved by their own blood, in addition to the blood of Jesus! But, anyway, why should we base our beliefs on others' beliefs?? Frankly, I don't care what the martyrs thought or what certain Christians wrote or believed. What matters is what God's Word says. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 44 Registered: 1-2004 |
Well, about the Martyrs, I'll have to go refresh my memory and read some of the accounts again, but they did seem to have the concept that being a martyr made their trip to heaven alot shorter, to loosely paraphrase what I seem to recall. Now on the subject of not caring what other people's beliefs are when we are forming our own beliefs; There was a point in time where I thought I was going to have to become a Greek scholar and learn everything last thing I could in order to find out what was most likely to be the true interpretation of the Scripture. Right now, however, I'm deeply interested in the idea that there's a physical church on earth which has preserved the correct interpretation of Scripture because of a certain promise Jesus made to his disciples. To use one expression, I'm tired of being my own infallible pope! I guess I could go with relativism, too, but it would be nice to know that I'm worshipping the true God rather than a God I made up, or a God which is made from an average of differing Christian beliefs, etc. But regardless of what I currently might think about things, I do really appreciate you guys because of the similar journey we've been on! Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1249 Registered: 3-2005 |
I will say that I stand with Jeremy firmly about the fact that when God sovereignly saves us unto eternal life, that it is really eternal life. There are so many iron-clad scriptures that are so clear, that the less clearer texts about the theoretical possibility of a believer losing their salvation has to be taken in the context of God's iron clad promises, and a lot of admonitions are made in scripture to remind us to persevere, but God has already done the persevering for us, and He has promised to preserve this. We had an interesting discussion of this on a thread called "I've missed you guys", back a couple weeks ago, and the Lutheran contingent had an honest disagreement with the Calvinist contingent, and this debate has gone on for centuries. I have been reading Martin Luther's great book called "Bondage of the Will", and this takes us back to even a more basic question that divided Luther from Rome. Luther contended that we cannot possibly will ourselves into salvation, or become born again of our own free will. Rome said you could decide to be born again. Of course scripture is always the final word, and John 1:12,13 clearly state that our ability to receive Him and become born again is not by the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but we are born of God. So, if I accept that premise, that God sovereignly gave me a resurrected soul, then, that is an eternal decision made by God. It is a miracle of new birth. Now, if you could will yourself into salvation, then it would logically follow that you could will yourself out of salvation. But since God changes our hearts from stone to flesh, and changes our wills, then it would logically follow that this is truly eternal life. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 427 Registered: 7-2004  |
delete duplicate posts. oops. (Message edited by ric_b on January 30, 2006) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 428 Registered: 7-2004 |
Great points Stan (even if I am the Lutheran contingent from the earlier discussion)! If it is about our will not only is it possible that we would fall from salvation, but it is virtually certain that we would. If a certain amount of sanctified righteousness is required of us for salvation, it doesn't just place a question on our assurance of salvation it makes it a certainty that we will not be saved. I make these conclusions because there is nothing to suggest that God's standards are anything lower than being perfect, spotless and without blemish. And all of us with even an ounce of integrity will admit that we aren't any of these things, nor even nearly any of these things. But neither were the great men of faith in Scripture. I don't believe fear of what you might lose could make any man a martyr. Only a deep and real love. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1250 Registered: 3-2005 |
Well said Ric. I will say that only a man who has been born of God can make a statement as clear and from the heart that you just made. Getting back to Justification. If God makes a decision that we have been declared righteous because of the perfect life of Christ lived in our place which is the only standard of righteousness that God will accept--the point that Ric made above--and the perfect atoning sacrifice and death, and then rising from the dead for our justification--that seals the deal. God has made a decision to justify sinners on this basis, and the decision of the Judge is final! Jeremiah, I also appreciate your honesty and your heart in these discussions. We may not agree, but you bring a lot of knowledge and research to this subject that is appreciated. Stan | ||
| Javagirl Registered user Username: Javagirl Post Number: 141 Registered: 6-2005 |
Jeremiah, What if that "church" Jesus referred to is a collective group of individuals throughtout history, the spiritual chuch if you will, rather than a specific organized religion? You remind me of myself, with the quest for the "right" view or interpretation. For me, the only path to truth is through revelation of the Holy Spirit. Reading the Bible, with the enhanced vision of the Holy Spirit brings an entirely new dimension. SUddenly things become clear, at the most opportune time. To quote Colleen "the righteousness we have through faith is Jesus' own righteousness. It is not ours and never will be. The changes in our characters that slowly develop after we are saved is the work of the Holy Spirit. God Himself completes His work in us (Phil 1:6). The miracle of transformation I see in my life are the "subtle things", which are acutally paradigm shifts. Like when I am able to love the unlovable. Or when I open my mouth to speak criticism of my spouse, and a kind word comes out! I understand the Martyrs refusing to deny Christ. The story of the stoning of Stephen--He beheld the GLORY of GOD, the HEAVENS opened up to his vision during his stoning. I cannot even begin to comprehend the Glory of God. Who could even consider for a moment the stench of this earth compared to that. I believe Martyrs are able to remain faithful, because they have ALREADY died to the fleshy shell. They are Children of the King. They are born of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells them, seals them. (peter did deny Christ, and Christ sought him out and made him breakfast)  So even if they did, or could deny Him, Christ forgives and strenghtens them to new levels. The battle for the individual soul is won when we believe and recieve. John 1:12-13. you said "but it would be nice to know that I'm worshipping the true God rather than a God I made up, or a God which is made from an average of differing Christian beliefs, etc." Pray for God to reveal Himself to you. He is faithful. He will do it if you are seeking. It will transend any earthly knowledge or understanding. (in my case, with many errors in theology still present, and continuosly being revealed). True Worship has just become spontaneous for me in the last few months, as I rest, really rest, in the finished work of Christ. offered IMHO--despite possibly continued flawed theology.. JavaGirl | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 45 Registered: 1-2004 |
My curiousity got me again here and I decided to read Chrysostom's homily on John 1:12,13. It was interesting what I found; He goes along exegeting the passage verse by verse like he's never heard of the concept of OSAS, certainly with no intention of refuting it. The thing he gets out of these two verses, believe it or not, is that our choices and our actions determine whether we will be saved or not, and that we can't depend on faith alone to save us. Is that strange or what?!? If you don't believe me, look it up and read it, it's his homily number 10 on the gospel of John. This might be a case of different time, place, language, and culture bringing opposing conclusions to what us Americans see! Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1253 Registered: 3-2005 |
Well, Jeremiah as an alternative view I would suggest reading Wayne Grudem's systematic theology under the chapter of election. His take on John 1:13 is this: "Can we choose to be born physically? Thenhow can we possibly choose such a greater miracle, and that is to be born spiritually from above. You know Jeremiah, most of the authors you quote are before the Reformation. There are so many today who want to deny that the Reformers were specially chosen by God to reveal what Jesus and Paul clearly taught in scripture. There is nothing new under the sun. There are those touting the new perspective on Paul today, who are telling us that because Paul wrote in Greek, that he didn't really mean what he said. I am just puzzled why you are so enamored with the early church fathers, and seem to be so impressed by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? These are different gospels than Jesus and Paul taught. The historical and experiential, as well as Biblical evidence that God raised up Luther and Calvin to bring back Christendom to the authentic gospel of Christ is irrefutable. The revivals that have come from Luther's emphasis on justification by faith have been immeasurable. I would ask you, have you read Luther's "Bondage of the Will", or Luther's Galatians? Have you read any of John Calvin's works? I would just say that for me personally, there has been no other doctrine than the teaching of our salvation by grace alone through faith alone that has inspired and influenced me so deeply. My prayer is that you discover this as well. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1265 Registered: 7-2003  |
These concepts are interesting in debate, but I struggle personalizing them. My challenge is far more first person. I sin. There is no way to sugar-coat that fact. Though "we" like to exalt some sins as worse than others, I'm not sure that scripture does. When I recognize sin in my life or knowingly sin, there is always a twinge of "guilt" that God might reject me for that sin. Especially if I know better. So, how do you take those theological concepts and make them first person? If I believe that I am eternally saved, does sin matter? I'm still righteous in Christ. I don't say that to mean that I think I should live any old way I please, but how much does one beat onesself up for being human ... cuz humans sin. And as someone said before, the only thing I see is that even in my best, I'm still producing filthy rags. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3313 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremiah, I say this with great respect for the church fathers and the legacy of written works they have left us. At this point, when all you believed is up for review, the only way to really know Who the real God is and to understand how we relate to Him and to salvation is to read and meditate on Scripture. I admit that I did not used to believe that all the insight and understanding I needed was in the Bible, but as the years have passed, the reality of the Bible's detailed explanations of theology, salvation, Godly living, security, sovereignty--everything--has grown increasingly clear. I have recently discovered that it is absolutely paradigm-shifting to memorize Scripture. Because of a challenge I heard one person give another last June, I became convicted that in spite of my resistance to the idea and my advanced age, I needed to commit myself to Scripture memory. Since September or October I have been SLOWLY working my way through the book of Ephesians, and I have reached chapter 5 verse 20 to date. Here's what I've discoveredóand I would NEVER have discovered this if I hadn't been processing the words into memory. This tiny book alone (to say nothing of the rest of the Bible!) contains a clear revelation of the eternal power of God, the Trinity, God's sovereignty and election, our inherent depravity, the sovereign work of God in saving us, the complete discounting of any work on our part either for salvation or for remaining saved, the way we are to live as Christ-followers and the fact of our dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit and the love of Christ for our righteousness...etc. For example, here's a connection I never made before when I studied this book, and I know I would never have made if I hadn't been mentally organizing the material so I could remember it better: In Ephesians 5:15-20, Paul has just admonished Christ-followers to live as children of light instead of as the darkness they used to be. He now tells them to be very careful how they live. In describing how to live carefully, he sets up three contrasts that no one would naturally consider as opposites. Here they are: Verse 15: Be wise, not unwise is the command; the explanation of HOW to be wise follows in verse 16: make the most of every opportunity because the days are evil. Verse 17: The command is NOT to be foolish; the description of NOT being foolish is to "understand what the Lord's will is". Verse 18: the command is NOT to get drunk; the alternative, contrasting behavior is, instead, to be "filled with the Spirit". Now, if we were telling someone to be wise, we would likely admonish them to think carefully, to study well, to be rational, etc. This passage, however, clearly identifies being wise with making the most of every opportunity for the gospel. If we were telling someone not to be foolish, we'ld direct them not to be childish, self-centered, self-gratifying, etc. This passage, however, describes not being foolish as "understanding" the Lord's will. Finally, if we were teaching someone against drunkenness, we'd likely talk about staying out of the way of temptation, avoiding becoming out of control, discussing the physical and relational pitfalls of addiction... Paul, however, clearly identifies the antidote to the tempation to become drunk as being filled with the Spirit! What person would think of that as the solution to drunkenness? These juxtapositions are paradigm-shifting. Finally, Paul tells how to live so we will be wise and sober: praise God to each other; sing in our hearts to God; give thanks ALWAYS to the Father for EVERYTHING in the name of Jesus. So, Jeremiah, I say all this by way of illustrating why I believe if you concentrated for a while on deeply studying and learning Scripture, the questions about how you can know truth would evaporate. Scripture is the word of God, and God Himself teaches us His will through them. The amazing thing is how similarly Christians have understood Scripture through the past two millennia. As long as people are devoted to Jesus and not to a philosophy or system of belief, God can teach us and reveal Himself more and more deeply. This deepening understanding, though, won't happen without our commitment to knowing Him alone. Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 46 Registered: 1-2004 |
The reason I'm interested in pre-reformation theology is because I started my study of church history from the beginning and moved forward, rather than starting in modern times and moving backward. Let me just say that after seeing how things developed from the time of the apostles onward, certain things have become clear for me about the Christian church. There were things which were not debateable back in those times... and it just so happens that in modern times at least two of the things that everybody back then agreed on are not held except by the churches which can directly trace their descent from the churches started by the apostles. One thing that is not debateable to me is the succession of bishops from the apostles, and the 3 level church structure of bishop, priest, and deacon. That this was the church structure from before 100 A.D. is so clear from my study as to be beyond reasonable doubt. Another thing that is clear is that Christian worship was patterned on the early practice of first going to the synagogue to hear the scripture read, and then going to homes and celebrating the Lord's supper. This originally was done one part on Sabbath with the Jews, the other part on Sunday with the Apostles. Without fail, every church descended from the Apostles has the same thing, though now all in one service; the liturgy of the word, and then celebration of the Eucharist. Since apostolic succession and the Eucharist are core practices of the Christian church from the beginning, then for me personally, I must be part of a church which has both of these things. That limits me to the Oriental/Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholics. Now, you may be able to understand why when I go to a modern Protestant based church, it seems like "playing church" to me. All I see are remnants here and there of what was continuous through history till the reformers came along. There is no real church authority, since the church structure started at the beginning has been thrown away. People believe opposite things and all say the Holy Spirit taught them. I know this isn't where you are at... but for me the solution is simple; compare the teachings of the current churches with what has been taught from the beginning, and become part of the original church. And this does not make me appreciate you all any less! Thanks for all your input, and please know that I'm listening! Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 47 Registered: 1-2004 |
I love the book of Ephesians! Did you see the part on "church structure" in there? EPH 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; EPH 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: EPH 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. I'm getting this picture of the construction of a building. We have a cornerstone, Jesus, and then foundation stones, the Apostles and Prophets. And notice how it doesn't really fit to say, the foundation of the church is the "writings" of Jesus and the Apostles... I think it's talking about the "persons". You know, the word "family". But what happens as time passes? The Apostles die.. are they still part of the family? EPH 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, I think so! and then what happens when more people are added to the church? the building grows taller. But if you look way back in history, you can see the Apostles are still part of the family, in the foundation of the church. Now the great thing is that if you walk into my local Orthodox church, and IF you understand what icons mean to Orthodox Christians, you realize that Jesus and the Apostles are VERY MUCH part of the family! You'll actually see people "greeting" them, in the ancient way of greeting, with a bow and a kiss. Did you notice how the Spirit inhabits the temple in this passage, and the temple is the collective family of God? In this particular passage, it's not the Spirit inhabiting one person, but all the people together. Anyway yes, excellent advice Colleen, I'm going to have to spend more time in the Bible! Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3317 Registered: 12-2003 |
Absolutely, Jeremiah--the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. There is nothing in Scripture, though, to suggest that church leadership was to continue based on apostolic "succession". 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 contain instructions for selecting bishops for the early churches. First, in 1 Timothy, Paul says, "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task." He continues by describing the kind of man an overseer (Greek word traditionally translated "bishop") must be. These bishops were not identified as "apostles", and this role was, apparently from the wording of verse 1, something men could aspire to become. It was not an "appointment" based on certain clerical or historical qualifications. The apostles had a very specific job, and while the Bible does mention other apostles besides the disciples (ie. Barnabas), it does not identify future generations of church leaders as apostles. The foundation of the church was laid by the prophets and the original apostles, and they built the foundation around the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus. Once the foundation is laid, it does not have to be re-laid. It is there. Future leaders are not laying the foundation. All future members of the body are "living stones" who are "being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifiecs acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5). Peter himself identifies ALL church members as holy priests. All church members are identified as individual stones built into the structure of the churchóall, that is, except the apostles. They are in the foundation. Just to confirm who the apostles of the foundation are, Revelation 21:12-14 describes the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ adorned for her husband, descending out of heaven. It had twelve gates, and "on the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel." It also had twelve foundations, and "on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Notice also that the twelve gates as well as the twelve foundations are identified as--of all things--Jews. For apostolic succession to be truly accurate, we'd have to deduce that future "apostles" would have to be Jewish as well. Yet the NT shows the Gentiles becoming the people among whom the church grew and spread. Second generation church leaders in the NT were almost entirely Gentile. Timothy, who apparently took up Paul's baton along with Titus after Paul's death, was considered Jewish because his mother was a Jew, but his father was Greek. Titus was a Gentile convert. Aquiila and Priscilla were apparently house church leaders. Etc. Paul, however, made it clear that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free; all are of equal worth and value to God. Nowhere is there a hint in the Bible that church leadership is guarded by special rules of succession. Rather, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesains 4, and 1 Peter 4 make it clear that in the church, God gives spiritual gifts to people as He appoints them. Our gifts do not depend upon inheritance, talent, or succession. They are given as sovereign acts of God based on no special qualifications of our own. Romans 12 states that the gift of leadership is one of the spiritual gifts; Ephesians 4 states that the roles of apostle, pastor, evangelist, pastor and teacher are sovereign gifts of God bestowed at He wills on people whom He chooses, as 1 Cor. 12:11 and Ephesians 4:7 state. As far as the Spirit inhabiting the church, definitely yes, Ephesians 2:19-22 and 1 Cor. 3:16 show that the Spirit inhabits the collective church. Yet Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, 1 Cor. 6:19, etc. clearly state that individuals are also the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are individually temples of the Holy Spirit, and collectively we are His body where He likewise dwells. The problem I have with the orthodox description of church is that it is built on assumptions that I believe are false, thus rendering the whole analysis faulty. Just my opinion... Colleen |
