Loss of salvation arguements compiled...

Christ is God EVEN if you accept the scriptures listed on page 1.

In fact ESPECIALLY if you accept them since they are the Words of Christ!

God IS faithful EVEn if you accept the scriptures listed on page 1.

In fact EXPECIALLY if you accept the scriptures listed on page 1 because God is the AUTHOR of scripture.

That is a false assumption. The point is to prove such assertions.

This is like the "uncreated argument" arguing that Adam must "uncreate himself" to be lost.

The objective unbiased reader will note that You have merely assumed the salient point of your argument instead of proving it.


I see a lot of "conclusions" in your post - but no evidence.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You have missed the point entirely!

Any RC member can post :laugh: after :laugh: in response to my Bible challenges to them against Purgatory just as anyone determined to cling to OSAS "no matter what the Bible evidence against it" can do the same here.

That is a "given"!

My point is that this is NOT the end of the story in the same way that "it would be" if it were just the two of us debating in a closed room.

The fact that we also happen to have unbiased objective READERS that do not necessarily post in the "can't hear what you are saying just believ'n what I choose" model -means that there is PURPOSE in the discussion EVEN when the one opposing my views has run out of all answers except "I choose not to follow your argument -- just clinging to my bias anyway" style responses.

In fact the point is enhanced for the objective unbiased reader when those "non-answers" are the only thing coming back from the opposing view.

Posting "assertion after assertion" and "conclusion after conclusion" with no actual evidence or argument that could possibly have responded substantively to the points raised - is perfect for that kind of "let the reader decide" comment from me. Those who oppose the scriptures I post may cling to the idea that their argument may still has some Vestigial substance left - and that is fine! Let the reader decide!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Absolutely. But you don't accept those Scriptures for what they teach. You have changed the teaching to conform to your own ideas, and in so doing you have made Christ and God the Father out to be a liar by your own interpretation. Rather than submitting your mind to the teaching of Scripture, you have made up your own teaching.

No, it's nothing like that.

You wouldn't have to be particularly objective or unbiased to note that I have not argued for it. Nor would you have to be particularly objective or unbiased to note that the proof of my position is in the Scriptures themselves, if words mean anything. Your position only works if words don't mean anything, or if God can say stuff that isn't true.

Jesus says that we have eternal life based on what he has done; he says that we are eternally secure. Your verses are perfectly consistent with that. the problem is that you started with a bad presupposition (namely that Scripture doesn't mean what it says and that we can lose our salvation), and then proceeded from there to wrest Scriptures in order to support it. That's a bad way to do theology.

 

BobRyan: //Those who oppose the scriptures I post ... //

Nobody opposes the scriptures you post.
Many of us oppose your understanding of the scriptures
that you post. How can you continue your assumption
there is only one truth in those scriptures and contradictory
truths in other scriptures. ALL scriptures have to fit
together to properly DIVIDE the scripture.

Again, God has given me other duties than to continually
explain to you how if all your scriptures don't fit
together. Jesus saves for Eternity. Eternity is time without
end; Salvation is for Eternity; The Salvation Jesus gives
is based on His Sinless life & miracle Resurrection
NOT on the Fidelity of People. The Bible is full of admonitions
to do the right thing that a SAVED BY JESUS person
aught to do.

 

Fine - but when do we get to the part where a substantive response to those scriptures is posted?

Even responding to just the two posts on pag 5 would do for a start

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1052162#post1052162

Easy - I never claim to have contradictory truths in other scriptures. (The link given near the end of this post proves this point clearly)

True enough. Are you saying that the list I gave can not be responded to - but that "you are stuck" because there is "another set of scriptures" stopping you from accepting what was posted??

One approach is that we each not respond to -- not look at -- the scriptures being posted in support of any position that does not fit with our own view.

That is certainly one way to solve the problem

IF the argument is that those who cling to OSAS no matter what scripture says (as I have highlighted what scripture says in actual quotes here) don't have time to look at those texts and respond - they only have time to post texts that do not overtly refute OSAS - then the posts already on this thread that are showing how even THOSE texts do not DEMAND OSAS as the only solution should suffice.

For example here is one -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1052447&postcount=52

The poster completely ignores the list of texts given on Page 1 and the 2 posts on page 5 and simply addresses examples from the "other list" given here that supposedly "demand an OSAS conclusion". In that post we see clearly that while OSAS is not REFUTED in that text - it is not the only solution for it. Posts like that combined with the ones of the form I have given have addressed BOTH arguments. BOTH the LIST that clearly refute OSAS AND also showing that those texts supposedly demanding OSAS - don't actually select for that one solution.

So even though that is an example of NOT responding to the list that clearly refute OSAS it still addresses the point of the thread.

Now we have to ask ourselves -- "All these pages and yet people still claim "they don't have time" to demonstrate any of their accusations against the texts listed on page 1 and page 5 are true"?

May the objective unbiased reader be clearly informed on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

How do you give a substantive response to an absurd assertion from Scripture that denies the truthfulness of God?

Here's the most substantive response we can give: You are wrong becuase you 1) deny the teachings of Scripture that contradict your preconceived position, 2) deny the proper meaning of the texts at hand, and 3) ultimately deny the truthfulness and faithfulness of God himself.

Those texts have been interacted with many many times. Their meaning has not changed since then.

 

LEt's take just one for kicks:

Matt 10:22 but it is he who has endured until the end that will be saved.

This is not contradictory to eternal security. Only a misunderstanding of eternal security could conclude otherwise. Those who endure to teh end will be saved. Those who do not endure will not be saved because they were never saved.

 

I am beginning to be convinced by arguments, put forth by NT Wright, that our justification is really only secured at the end of our lives when the evidence of works serves to substantiate that we really have been redeemed. On such a view, the very question of OSAS becomes irrelevant, since one does not have the time to lose salvation that is really only secured at the end of one's life. Here is what NT Wright has to say about this. I have edited for brevity by removing material that did not seem necessary:

 

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Matt 10:22 but it is he who has endured until the end that will be saved.

More support for the view that salvation is not procured until the end of one's life - when works bear testimony as to whether one has really accepted the gift of grace.

 

But is that view legitimate in view of Scripture's revelation? The answer is unequivocally no. On this NT Wright as abandoned the historic biblical position. The salvation that comes at the end is a physical salvation from the sincursed world and from final damnation. However, salvation is a present possession of the true believer that cannot be lost.

 

I hope that people will read his material and come to their own conclusions on the matter.

 

His material has been rather soundly refuted. Is it really wise or discerning to spend time in such pursuits of information from people with so serious a doctrinal flaw? This is not really a minor issue is it? I don't have a problem with someone reading it. I do not encourage it for those who are unsound in their faith and understanding because they might be persuaded away from the simplicity of the faith that is in Christ that has been defended and propogated in the church for 2000 years. Wright has compromised some key points on that, and has done so by finding things that are not in the Bible, but rather from outside the Bible.

Part of the problem today is that there is a desire for novelty and newness and historic doctrines are being emasculated so someone can write a new book. I don't think that is wise.

 

I think our collective pursuit for a correct understanding of the Scriptures is best served when individual Christians take responsibility for developing an understanding of the Scriptures, and not defer entirely to the "authority" of those who have gone before, e.g. the reformers.

Obviously we should take their (the reformer's) arguments seriously. But we should always be open to the possibility that the theology they developed had errors. Christians should view the Scriptures as being the word of God, but should not assume that certain historical interpretations of it are beyond error.

Besides, ideas about what Paul was talking about (e.g. in Romans) should be allowed to compete freely and not rejected out of hand because an idea might be "new". Are the ideas of the reformers the end of theology? I highly doubt it.

Readers: there will always be voices who want to tell you what to believe. I submit that you should decide for yourself, considering all ideas while taking proper account of the credentials of their proponents. In respect to scholarly credentials, I would suggest that NT Wright fares rather well. Here they are:

Educated at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, he served as Fellow and Chaplain at Downing College, Cambridge (1978-1981), as Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies at McGill University in Montreal, Canada (1981-1986), and as Fellow and Chaplain of Worcester College, Oxford (1986-1993). He has served as Dean of Lichfield (1994-1999) and Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey (2000-2003). Currently he is Bishop of Durham. He has served as Visiting Professor at Yale Divinity School and Harvard Divinity School, among others.

 

Of course.

I disagree. We don't get to decide for ourselves. We must submit our minds to the Word of God. Theology is not a "roll your own" pursuit. There are reasons that NT Wrights's views are not excepted in orthodoxy ... Because they are flawed. Academic credentials will not change that.

 

Your post mischaracterises my point. I am not saying that theology is a private act. It should be a collective enterprise where we listen to ideas from a wide range of sources. Wright may be wrong or he may be right. You say that his views are flawed. Obviously, a serious person will not simply take your word for this, unless you and others who claim that his views are flawed, have otherwise established yourselves as authortative sources on what the Scriptures mean.

I suggest that the readers decide for themselves whether Wright's views are flawed.

 

Andre,

Your suggestion that "we should decide for ourselves" is, apart from qualification, a statement that human decision overrides the authority of Scripture. I don't know whether you believe that or not. I know you said it. One can certainly evaluate the writings of this person or that person, but "deciding for ourselves" only takes place in the realm of things that Scripture is not clear on.

That removes the currently discussed position of Wright from the realm of of "deciding for ourselves." When Scripture declares something contrary to what Wright says (as it most certainly does), then we cannot decide for ourselves to follow Wright.

We need to be careful with how we put these statements.

Curious though as to what you find convincing in Wright.

 

I am always surprised at this kind of statement, because I see it as manifestly denying the plain facts about how God has put the world together. More specifically, you appear to hold the belief that the meaning of the words in Scripture present themselves to the human mind in a manner that bypasses the need for an act of interpretation on the part of the individual.

It is part of the technicalities of human cognition that Fred has to decide what sentence X means, even if He is committed to the belief that sentence X originates from a trustworthy God in the form of authoritative Scripture. In other words, a belief that the Scriptures are authoritative does not tell you what they mean. And I hold it as rather obvious that each individual "does the processing" to determine what they mean.

I do not see it can be otherwise. I think to cast things in terms of "authority of the Scriptures" versus "human decision" is like saying that the content of the experience of tasting an orange can somehow bypass the individual's "taste processing infrastructure". I do not see how this is even possible.

I hope to get back to you on why I like Wright. One reason: those of my friends that I consider to the most serious in their pursuit of the knowledge of God think very highly of him.

 

Not at all. But the truth is that the meaning is in the words, not in our interpretation. The authority is in the words, not in how we understand them.

Fred doesn't decide what sentence X means. He interprets it, but the meaning is there before Fred ever interprets it.

Now, in interpretation, we must recognize the fallibility of hte human mind, compared to the authority of Scripture. And that is my point. You may decide that Wright is right, but both of you could be (and I am convinced are) wrong.

The locus of authority is the text, not our interaction with it.

 

I do not see how such a view can possibly work in our world. I cannot overstate how obvious it seems to me that words simply do not contain meaning - they are given meaning by an act of human interpretation, even if that act of interpretation is guided by God as He assists us in understanding the meaning He intended to impart.

You are creating a distinction that cannot possibly exist. Words are marks on a page - nothing more. When one reads, light rays transmit a representation of those marks to the mind of the human. It is the mind of the human that is the "locus" where those otherwise meaningless marks are given meaning.

I am not 100% sure I am understanding you properly. I may risk offence here, but the position that I understand you as holding seems so obviously wrong that I find it hard to believe that you actually hold such a position. So this is why I raise the possibility that I am misunderstanding what you write.

The structure of the world, more specifically the chain of events that start with light rays bouncing off marks on a page and ends with a person developing a hypothesis about the meaning of those marks simply rules out the possiblity that "meaning" is vested in words. Meaning cannot arise without a human act of interpretation.