Keep you from falling

Hey Kay,

Without getting too detailed with an answer, but as a matter of answering with good reasoning, if He is able to keep us from falling (let's assume, away from the faith) and to present us faultless before God, then wouldn't it stand to reason that this doesn't destroy the teaching that the saints shall persevere to the end, but rather establish it?

We observe from the text:

1. God is able to save to the uttermost.
2. God is doing the saving, keeping, presenting faultless
3. The text is to be a confidence to Christians to give them hope and trust in their God to save them to the end.


If we merely bring to our understanding here "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Whatever other application one would make of Peter's statement here, it is at the least certain that the "us-ward" are believers. And if God is not willing for them to perish they will not perish. This is the same thing Jesus said when He said, "They shall never perish."

 

The context of the passage reveals that it is not salvation from which He keeps you from falling, but rather from apostasy. He can keep you from "stumbling" over error.

 

HP: My questions would be, when one falls into apostasy is he really still born again? Where in the text do you find the notion of ‘stumbling over error?’ Even if that is in the text, how do you arrive at the conclusion tat one that stumbles has not in fact rejected the hope that once they held and as such are without hope?

HP: This is indeed a wonderful promise to the believer, yet OSAS cannot be assumed from the text. The text in no way establishes an impossibility of falling, but rather establishes that God is simply ‘able’. If we are to rely on this promise, we must center our will in His with present obedience. Just as God is ‘able’, or possesses the needed abilities to save the entire world, the entire world will not be saved nor is the notion of OSAS established by simply the word ‘able’ as shown in this text. God is ‘able’ to save, but that in no way states all will be saved or OSAS.

God is ‘able’ to do many things that He withholds for various reasons. When Jesus walked on the earth he was ‘able’ to heal, yet He did not do miracles in some places due to unbelief.

 

Mt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

Romans 8:9 states that those who belong to Christ are controlled by the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:29-30 states that those who love Him are predestined to be transformed to the image of Christ. Philippians 1:6 states that He is faithful to complete the good work begun in us. Christ Himself stated that He has not lost one.

The transformation may come more slowly for some than others, but those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit WILL obey Christ. The heart, the entire life, is changed. Learning to listen, learning to obey, is a matter of spiritual maturity. The salvation is an accomplished fact once one has been born again in Christ. Obedience is an outworking of salvation, not a prerequisite for it.

 

HP: How do arrive at that conclusion? “God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.” There is not the least shred of evidence that the ‘any’ or the ‘all’ is only speaking of the elect. Those holding to OSAS may indeed desire to read that into the text to support their presupposition of OSAS, but it is not established by reason or context.

 

Heavenly Pilgrim, please do not consider that the OSAS doctrine is something invented by Calvinism. Calvinism is wrong, but the Bible guarantees the power of Christ to save completely those who come to Him and are born again.

 

HP: “He that saith he loveth me and keepeth not my commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.” “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” “Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”

HP: Salvation is to enter into a hope of eternal life. Just as one can enter into a hope, hope can be lost. I personally believe that the biggest problem is all is those believing they entered into a hope but have never really fulfilled the conditions God stated must be fulfilled in order to enter in, and thereby are living in deception. Certainly if one finds their lives being controlled by the Spirit, it would be clear evidence that their hope is well founded. As you say, the heart and life have undergone a complete transformation. Still there is much growth or maturity to see accomplished in the lives of most. History reveals that there are some indeed that have came into the kingdom of shining mature examples of believers, such as the Apostle Paul, yet he is certainly the exception to the rule, not the norm.

To be perfect in heart before the Lord is not necessarily to be mature. To be perfect before the Lord is to be obedient to Him and His commands with all ones strength and heart in light of ones present abilities and present understanding of what God requires. A new born babe in Christ is perfect in the eyes of the Lord but certainly is not spiritually mature.

HP: That is true in one sense ad false in another. God commands us to repent and exercise faith in order to enter the kingdom. We must be obedient in order to be saved in that sense. Just the same, there is obedience subsequent to salvation that indeed we could not or would not perform without the aide of the Holy Spirit and indeed was not accomplished antecedent to salvation.

I would say that there is a sense in which obedience is required antecedent to salvation, and there is obedience in another sense that is not a prerequisite for salvation.

 

I arrived to this understanding by context that defines the scope of all in that passage. These grand sweeping statements don't help HP. "not the least shred of evidence" and "reading into the text" kind of stuff. We are all seeking to derive from Scripture the meaning. This is what I have done. I understand you see it differently, and that doesn't bother me. I believe even that the understanding you have of the text you have from the integrity of your heart, and not some devious desire to mainting a theology above the teaching of Scirpture.

So my question to you is, since I have derived my understanding of the limitation of "all" would you like me to explain it to you?

 

Kay, would God be the author of eternal salvation to those who do not obey him?

 

HP: I beg to differ with you here. OSAS has been developed as a direct result of Calvinistic beliefs. I do not mean to be offensive, but I believe that any honest observer of the facts could support that statement.

Indeed Christ can and will save to the uttermost. We indeed are kept by the power of God. Just the same, I believe Scripture has given us many warnings that without our wills being voluntarily submitted to Him in willing obedience, we cannot be saved for eternity. Many, I believe, enter into a certain hope of eternal life, yet due to the cares and pleasures of this world, riches, temptation, lack of personal discipline, etc. loose that hope and in the end will find themselves without Christ as their Advocate at the judgment.

But I am persuaded better things of you!:thumbs:

 

HP: Kinder words have not been spoken. I hope in some way I might reflect the same attitude to others that you have reflected toward me. Thank you! :thumbs:

By all means share with us how you arrive at your conclusions. Put my attitude to the test.

 

When I look to understand the meaning of a passage I can approach it either philosophically or contextually, or both. I usually do both, but submit my reasonings about the text to the text itself. i.e. Just because I don't understand it doesn't make it untrue or unaccaptable.

In the larger context of 2 Peter 3 we have 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"

I think it is worth noting that the Apostle is wring to believers. Now, this does not automatically mean he is in 2 Peter 3:9, but it is the broader context.

To get the context of a passage or in our case, the use of a word "all" and "any" which in the Greek and English can take on a varied semantic range. In other words, it can mean every single one, or can mean every single one in a sub-group. This is just the nature of words. What I want to know is how God is using the word in 2 Peter 3.

To this I work from the text to its immediate context: The sentence the word is in, and then work my way out...the verse before and after, and may proceed to great contexts. It's is probably true in most instances that the further you expand the context, the less you get its precise meaning. For example, Peter is most certainly writing to believers in this epistle, but he may or may not be wring about them by time we get to chapter 3. So we need to work from chapter 3 and then out.

Let's look at verse 8-10 in chapter 3 for its immedidate context:

v8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

v9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

v10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I emboldened what I understand to be the qualifieres of "any" and "all" that either limit or do not limit the semantic range. Whatever the case may be, we need to see from the context who the any and all are.

Verse 10 does not have in view any particular group, but a truth concerning the Day fo the Lord. verse 8 does, and closer still, verse 9 does. In verse 8 the "beloved" are the object. In verse 9 "to us-ward" are the object. (I will stay with the English for now, if uncertainly still persists we can appeal to the Greek text).

Let's expand the context further, only quoting our expansion:

v1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:


v11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

Verses 3-7 speak of false teachers, their lies, and their destruction. He is contrasting believers from them. There will be false teachers he says, but let us be mindful of words of our Lord Jesus and the apostles.

verse 8 Peter again address the believers calling them "beloved" and we could not say he is including the false teachers here!

then we get to verse 9 and we are told, after understanding our God is not slack concerning His promise, but is longsuffering to us-ward. To whom? To the beloved, to the believer in Jesus, et.

"Not willing that any perish.." Any whom? Any of the beloved, the believer, et.

"but that all should come to repentance." Again, contextually this refers to the believers.

Are we to think then that believers need to come to repentance? Wouldn't this make it a very odd interpretation because believers are believers because the HAVE come to repentance not because they still need to. Indeed it would be a very odd interepretation. Does the further context add any clarification? Yes it does.

v15 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation...."

The longsuffering of GOd, we we can now say has been 2000 years (or 2 days to God) has been longsuffering while we are waiting for the Day of the Lord. The salvation of who? Well, for 2000 years it was for you and me. We were purposed in Christ before the world began. So in God's patience He waited for us to come to repentance and salvation.

Who are the all that should come to repentance? All the believers in Jesus Christ.

And when I take other Scriptures outside this it helps confirm me that I have properly understood the context.

 

HP: It is impossible to approach Scripture without a philosophy. All men have an underlying philosophy whether or not expressed or is simply implied. As we approach a text, we should make it our business to see if in fact we error as theologians or as philosophers. Both are possibilities and both or either or could be the cause of arriving at false conclusions. To submit to either, without regard to the other, is a natural impossibility, and even if it was possible such an approach would insure error or unsolved questions at best in the conclusion(s) drawn.

HP: Here, although you are not stating your philosophy directly, are implying it via the presupposition of OSAS which defines and confines who a believer is and what it means to be a believer. You are subconsciously if not consciously, applying this presupposition to the text. It is a controlling philosophical notion in your case that you use to direct any and all outcomes of your theological or scriptural studies I have witnessed so far.

HP: Here again OSAS is going to determine your findings. OSAS implies that there are no conditions to salvation, that one cannot lose their salvation, and therefore if this is written to believers the “all” or ‘any in the text can only be speaking to the subgroup of OSAS believers, again because OSAS is true. You are reasoning in a circle via your philosophical beliefs of what eternal salvation must mean, that it cannot have understood conditions due to the fact that in the passage you are looking at or another, the conditions happened to not be stated. Your presuppositions of OSAS are again driving your conclusions. Your underlying philosophical positions are showing.

I will stop here so as not to get too long. I believe it should be obvious to te reader that indeed your presuppositions of OSAS is the driving force of your philosophical approach to the text.

Bear in mind ALL of us approach Scripture with philosophical underpinnings. It is IMPOSSSIBLE to otherwise. I am NOT being critical of having philosophical underpinnings, I am trying to get us to see that it is in fact philosophical underpinnings such as OSAS that are at the heart of the questions concerning the texts we are examining, and that one must first establish OSAS to be true before using it to guide ones findings of the text. So far that has not been accomplished.

 

Unless I missed something here HP, all your doing is saying that I have done so without actually proving it. All I have said concerng the text is that it is written to believers, those who have obtained like precious faith. The text itself it defining the audience.

No, a thousand times no. The context is what deterimines the scope of words, nearly every time for nearly every word. The words "all" and "every" have a varied semantic range that must be determined by the context. You haven't even addressed this yet. The only presupposition I am detecting so for is your presupposition that I always (a logical fallacy) bring OSAS presupposition to the text.

It obvious to this reader that no matter what I would write, I am judged beforehand of being presuppositional. Your free to do so, but you have not actually engaged the subject. I would be glad to do this with you in another thread.

[/QUOTE]

You need to prove that I have done this, which you have not. What I did is engaged the text. Your reply tried to disqualify what I wrote by trying to make me and the reader believe that I a controlled by OSAS rather than by dealing with the text. Now granted, you may have a purpose to do so in another place. But to be fair you need to prove the the conext of the 2 Peter 3:9 DOESN'T define the all and any as believers, you need to show the readers where my contexualizing has fallen short, and you need to show me (since I am the one controlled by OSAS allegedly) how and where I did this in my post.

You tried to showed how I was using OSAS to draw a conclusion, but I was discussing semantic range! That has nothing to do with OSAS but with language.

 

One that has been born again can never be "unborn." One that has been adopted into the family can never be disinherited. We have been made "joint-heirs" with Jesus Christ; it is a done deal.

To fall into apostasy simply means that one has departed from a formerly known and accepted truth. This does not affect one's salvation.

The Greek supports the notion of stumbling; the context support the notion of stumbling over error.

I'm afraid any answer here would be met with the "presupposition" card.

 

HP: Very well. Let’s try again. You start this 'semantic range' study stating that it is ‘written to believers.” What does being a ‘believer’ imply to you? Remember this thread is about falling.
Why does ‘to usward’ denote only believers? Every word you bring forth you beg the question as to who the text is addressing and what being called a believer denotes. You assume without proof that the author has limited the scope of his remarks by using words that in no wise do any such thing in common parlance. I say again, that your presupposition of OSAS drives every step of your exploration and explanation.

I should clarify this one thing. When I say that OSAS is your underlying philosophical position, I should have stated it this way. You allow OSAS and the philosophical implications it implies and or is derived as the results of, to drive your whole approach to the text. OSAS most likely should be considered a theological position although it is driven by and implies many philosophical notions.

Do we agree on at least one thing? Is it impossible for you to approach Scripture, or reason at all for that matter, apart from certain philosophical notions, either expressed or implied, being utilized, consciously or unconsciously?

 

HP: I appreciate your candor and your keen sense and ability to prophesy in accordance to truth.

This is a two edged sword, this notion of presuppositions. We all have them. We all approach Scripture form certain underlying principles or ideas that go into forming ones philosophical notions, or at least we should. Our knowledge of God, truth, reason, justice, right, wrong, etc. did not begin with Scripture. If that were the case, one would have had to read Scripture to have any knowledge of these matters.

God states that the heathen who have not the law have became a law unto themselves. Scripture informs us that ALL have received some light of God and are granted a conscience that either condemns or excuses them.

The problem I see is that some try to approach Scripture seemingly devoid or apart from all intuitive reasoning granted to us by God. In the process and as a result of this approach, they have developed or are developing a course of biblical interpretation at direct antipodes with God given intuitive reason, and as such the mere product of human reasoning. They are or have developed notions that pit God’s truth against their theological notions they claim to be God’s truth, intuitive reason against what has developed as their Scriptural understanding or particular theology

. Our goal should be to harmonize truth with truth, not simply ignore some God-given truth for some idea that we have developed not actually learned by reason or Scripture.