Loss of salvation arguements compiled...

Think of how impractical this is: You tell your daughter, "Go to bed." She doesn't do it. You question her. She says, "Well I thought you meant I should watch Jay Leno."

How can you possibly refute her with your hermeneutic? You can't. In your scenario, those words you used don't have any meaning until she interprets them. But in your conversation, you meant something by them and expected her to respond according to your meaning, not hers.

You see, the meaning is in the words as used by the author, not as understood by the interpreter.

Yes, the mind of the author as he intends them, not the reader.

When you read my words you are using the very thing I talk about. The only way you can refute it is by using my approach.

So let's test this: If you put an English Bible in front of a German who knows no English, does the Bible have meaning?

Of course it does. The German simply doesn't understand it.

Right now, as I write, these words have meaning even though you have yet to interpret them. There is something I intend for you to understand, and I imagine you will come pretty close to understanding it. You (based on what you have said) will reject it, but only becuase you use the very hermeneutic I am espousing.

BTW, your whole objection to my comment about "deciding for yourself" is predicated on me being right. You were not willing to believe that the words had no meaning until I interpreted them. You (rightly) asserted that they had meaning when you spoke them.

 

HP: Here is a post that so far has went unanswered.

HP: “Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

HP: If we are to believe Scripture, we could readily assume that many of these deceived individuals are within the walls of the church today, could we not? We sure do not see any casting out devils, prophesying, etc. in the local bars. That is for certain. At any rate, they are deceived into believing they are Christians when in fact they are not.

Is it possible that these deceived individuals have at one time said the sinners prayer, or repeated after some well intentioned minister a prayer, and been told after they finish it that they have been born again, and that if any doubt, as to their standing before God, arises, it is of the enemy of there souls, for ‘OSAS’ you know, and nothing they can or will do in any way affects their eternal standing before the Lord.

Let me assume that you are with me so far, and that you, as a pastor, might believe it is possible that some of those deceived individuals might in fact be within the walls of your own congregation. Now remember, they think they are saved, they profess to be saved, but in God’s eyes (which is impossible for us in this world to see through) they are deceived. What instruction would you give your congregation that would lead one to properly examine their faith to see if in fact it is the real McCoy? Is there any sure sign that they are not true believers? If so, what are those signs?

 

Sure

We don't see it in local churches either.

Sure.

I would warn them from Heb 3 that they take care so that there not be in any one of them an evil unbelieving heart. I would warn them as Paul did in 2 Cor 13:5 to test themselves to see if they be in the faith. I would warn them as John did to examine their lives to see if the evidences of 1 John are apparent in their lives.

Here is a place where we can simply use the Scripture. False professors are not new, nor are people who think they can lose their salvation. They existed in the early church and they were answered there in the same way they are now.

 

Thankfully those texts on page one and listed on page 5 DO NOT represent a "denial of God". Rather Scripture contains a strong affirmation of it's author.

Making empty accusation after empty accusation may suffice in your thinking as "doing something substantive" but I have to believe in the existence of unbiased objective readers that see through that instantly.

Surely you must know they are there.

Why then do you take that approach?

Actually in this case it turns out that you are wrong -- see the texts listed on page 1 and page 5 for details.

No - rather I affirm scripture and I keep asking that those who oppose those texts given on page 1 and page 5 give their reasons for doing so.

Wrong. I stongly affirm the proper meaning of each of those texts and ask that those who oppose them begin to take the texts seriously.

Wrong again. God is the author of those texts - so my affirming them and asking others to take them seriously is actually AFFIRMING the truthfulness and faithfulness of God.

Now I have to ask you to objectively consider the case of the objective unbiased reader that comes to these texts listed on this thread and then notices that your response is a complete retreat from deailing with the substantive challenge those texts pose to OSAS.

Surely you have to know how this looks to them? you can not simply tell yourself in post after post "that I am right" without offerring anything else by way of answer to the texts and expect a reader who does not already agree with you to consider your view as the correct one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that SOME Perseverance texts only oppose the OSAS arguments of 4 point Calvinists and those Arminians who innexplicably take the 4-point tactic of denying perseverance.

But in the case of Matt 10 - Christ is speaking to hiw OWN evangelists -- not to back sliders. He is not saying "you have not endured to this point so there is no sense in keeping that non-endurance up". Rather He is warning these FAITHFUL ones to REMAIN faithful "or else".

In your model "there is no OR ELSE" because there is no such thing as "Failing to endure". If one FAILs to REMAIN faithful to Christ you will instantly make the circular argument "then they never were in Christ to start with and so could not have FAILED to remain in Christ. I know this because they FAILED to remain faithful to Christ".


in Christ,

Bob

 

you are missing a key point here Andre -

In Romans 5:1-2 Justification is clearly and undeniably PAST tense. This is aso true in the Romans 3 context where no "work" of any kind is being considered in Justification. This is the Justification that does NOT fit with NT Wright's views I suspect.

But in the James 2 and Romans 2 context Justification is FUTURE it is OBJECTIVE it is corporate (as we see in Dan 7 "Judment passed in favor of the saints"). As Romans 2 and Matt 7 make it clear along with James 2 "the doers of the Law WILL BE justified" in that future "DAY WHEN God WILL JUDGE the secrets of all manking through the man Jesus Christ". That is future Justification and it is objective (verifiable - judged out of the books of record). in that future judgment the Rue of Romans 2 applies fully. That is the one that fits NT Wright's views I suspect.

 

Best argument – to date: (Against “no-perseverance” group of OSAS)

MMAN –

II Pet 2:20-22, "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1034131&postcount=9


SOME of the OSAS people claim to believe in eternal hell and to believe that this failure to persevere simply means that you are “OSAS Saved anyway but without persevering”.

Question:
HOW can it be WORSE? Worse to live with Christ forever than burn in hell forever??


Certainly this was a great point by MMAN - starting with post 9 of the thread linked to above!!

Is this a case of God saying to Himself "I have to remember to fear for if I did not spare the unbelieving Jews then neither will I spare the faithful saints who do not persevere -- so I have to remember to make them persevere"??


Rom 11:22
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able tograft them in again.



Is it even possible to take any of these "warning texts" and turn them so instead of God warning us -- it is God warning Himself regarding the fact that He needs to stay focused and remember to make us Persevere?

Matt 18
29 ""So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
30 ""But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
31 ""So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you[/b], if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.''


TRUE statement about those who ARE in Christ and joined to Christ – being SEVERED from Christ – or God reminding Himself that this is something that can never happen?

Severed FROM Christ and Fallen from grace

Gal 5
4 [b]You have been severed from Christ[/b], you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Let the objective unbiased reader decide for him/her self.

 

HP: Let’s see. All are born in sin an as such estranged from God. They are only able to sin and that continually. Not faithful to Christ?? How can that be? They just were not faithful to that which it would have been impossible to be faithful to unless they were chosen and such granted the abilities to be faithful, of which necessitates the impossibility to be anything else than faithful, which makes it impossible to not be faithful to that which they could not have been faithful to because………..(here is some advice for some on the list; start over at the beginning and repeat as many times as it takes to understand that something is skewed in such an approach) :BangHead:

 

HP: How do you test yourself to see if you are of the faith? What is it in my life that I can examine pray tell? With sinning every day in thought word and deed being the common place for the believer, what can I examine? Am I to examine my faith to see if I have faith, by my faith or what?

What evidences are there in 1John? Are you preaching a 'works assurance of salvation' Pastor?

 

indeed you can not "fail to remain faithful" to the state you are in - if you are lost EXCEPT that you "Become saved".

And if you are SAVED and then "fail to remain faithful" to that saved state - it can ONLY be that you have "become lost".

This is impossible to ignore - and yet some are arguing themselves into ignoring it.

May the truth-seeking unbiased objective reader be fully informed on this simple easy point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The unbiased objective reader will note from my prev post on page 9 of the thread (and on page 5 of the thread) that I ask 3 simple questions related to each text quoted.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1053869&postcount=87

I think it would be more compelling for the objective unbiased reader (who does not start out clinging blindly to your position) if you would address the questions asked with those 3 texts rather than simply making unproven assertion after unproven accusation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You are correct here. The texts do not deny God. Your use of them does, however, and that is the problem. You have taken God's words and used them to mean something he never intended them to mean, as we can see by comparing what he said elsewhere.

Take what appraoch? I have made no empty accusations or unproven assertions. I have refused to address ad infinitum these texts that have been addressed before and whose clear meaning does not say what you say it says. How do you refute something so simple? Some things are so far out of bounds they need no in depth refuting, and this is one of them.

I don't oppose those texts. I affirm the texts. You are the one who opposes them. And you give no reasons for doing so except your preconceived theology.

Then why do you post what you post here? If you take them seriously, then say what they say. Don't try to make them sound like they teach youc an lose your salvation when you know they don't say that.

Where is the substnative challenge to eternal security? I have yet to see one to respond to. So far, all that is hear is a concordance search with a cut and paste of texts that teach something else.

I don't have to argue that "I am right." The texts in question show that I am. This is what is confusing. You say you take the Scripture seriuosly and want others to. You say that you believe God. You say that you affirm the Scriptures. And yet you spend all this time arguing against them. Is this some kind of Devil's advocate ruse you are pulling here?

 

This is a question that has nothing to do with the text. It is irrelevant. The text is teaching that if false teachers come to a knowledge of Christ and then turn away it is worse for them than those who never came to a knowledge of Christ. This is consistent with james 3:1 where teachers are judged by a higher standard, and with Rev 20:11-5 where hell is described as having levels of punishment. As you can tell by reading the text, these men were never saved. They didn't lose their salvation.

No obviously not. Again, simply read the text. God is warning others, not himself. And he is warning the Jews that they have no advanced standing because they are Jews.

No, that's absurd. As you can tell from the texts, the warnings are to people.

Neither. Do you not understand the nature of parables? This is a teaching of Christ about forgiveness. He is teaching, as elsewhere, that those who have forgiveness in Christ will forgive others.

HEre are three texts that you came to with a preconceived notion about a topic, and then twisted these texts to try to make them support what you wanted them to say. As you can see, you misused all three.

This kidn of thing cannot be taken as a serious attempt to talk about eternal security.

 

Hi Bob:

I do not have the time to address this. All I will say is that I think NT Wright is saying there are both "past and future" aspects to the issue of justification. If you have time, I recommend you read his material for yourself.

 

HP: How does this text represent them as no ever being saved? Have the lost escaped the defilements of the world ? If I am hearing many of the Calvinists on this board, not even the saved can accomplish that feat, sinning every day in thought word and deed. How can you say with a straight face that those spoken of in the text have not been born again, and is just referring to the lost? Can you point to one person that is or has been lost that has escaped the defilements of the world apart from getting born again?

 

Quote:
II Pet 2:20-22, "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."


SOME of the OSAS people claim to believe in eternal hell and to believe that this failure to persevere simply means that you are “OSAS Saved anyway but without persevering”.

Question:
HOW can it be WORSE? Worse to live with Christ forever than burn in hell forever??

Stellar assumption -- but where is the logic? the Reason? the part where you "do the math"??

#1. That rationalization merely bends the text AS if to argue that "LOST people became LOSTER" in that view. You seem to say that Peter is arguing in favor of persevering in the first LOST state rather than falling into a LOSTER state!! You stand the Bible on its head in an attempt to spare OSAS.

Again - James is not dealing with LOST teachers becoming "LOSTER" because they are teachers. James is not arguing for "a better way to be LOST".

There are NO "levels of hell" in Rev 20. There is only the grave "HADES" and "the Lake of Fire".

However I do thank you for at least trying to find a solution for OSAS when it comes to 2 Peter 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Romans 11 Paul states that he is addressing saints among both the Jews AND the Gentiles. He says to the gentiles that the unfaithful Jews FELL due to unbelief.

Is this a case of God saying to Himself "I have to remember to fear for if I did not spare the unbelieving Jews then neither will I spare the faithful saints who do not persevere -- so I have to remember to make them persevere"??


Rom 11:22
20Quite right, they (unbelieving Jews) were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able tograft them in again.

Your response Pastor Larry completely MISSed the fact that in Romans 11 Paul argues that the saints are "Both Jews AND Gentiles" and the contrast to the saints that "stand by their faith" is the Jews that "fell due to unbelief".

The "you" of vs 21 is in contrast to the "natural branches" that were removed due to unbelief.

Yet even of the unbelieving Jews Paul says "HE is able to Graft them in AGAIN if they do not CONTINUE in their unbelief".

Your solution does not fit with the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Is it even possible to take any of these "warning texts" and turn them so instead of God warning us -- it is God warning Himself regarding the fact that He needs to stay focused and remember to make us Persevere?

Matt 18
29 ""So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
30 ""But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
31 ""So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you[/b], if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.''


TRUE statement about those who ARE in Christ and joined to Christ – being SEVERED from Christ – or God reminding Himself that this is something that can never happen?

Now see - we agree on something!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 18
29 ""So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
30 ""But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
31 ""So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you[/b], if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.''


TRUE statement about those who ARE in Christ and joined to Christ – being SEVERED from Christ – or God reminding Himself that this is something that can never happen?

Severed FROM Christ and Fallen from grace

Gal 5
4 [b]You have been severed from Christ[/b], you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Let the objective unbiased reader decide for him/her self.

Funny thing about that --

#1. ALL the people who have exposed the flaws in the OSAS argument on this thread find these texts to be "serious" and the question being asked here "significant".

#2. Those whose views are threatened by these scriptures have been dragging their feet in coming up with a response to them - they seem to prefer ad hominem.

#3. You did not show "even once" that a misuse of the text is required for me to "ask the question" after simply QUOTING the text.

#4. To take your response seriously we conclude that Christ SHOULD have made the point something like this - "My Servant I forgave you so you QUICKLY forgave your fellow servant - you could do no other and now you know why" - that WOULD have been in keeping with your argument that those forgiven can not but help themselves in quickly forgiving others.

But instead of the scenario your solution requires - what we find the text of Matt 18 is FAILURE on the part of the one who WAS truly forgiven! Thus you hvae exposed the flaw in your own position.

Read the text carefully

32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you[/b], if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.''


In Christ,

Bob

 

Assuming you mean N. T. Wright the (Anglican) bishop of Durham, England, I would urge caution in reading his works. He seems to hold some unorthodox views, particularly on justification and imputation. Here is an excerpt from an article to be found at http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/ntw_just_aug2.html

Wright rejects the traditional meaning of justification based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. He is quite aware that he has turned from the understanding of the reformers. He describes their view as one “a later age has dreamed up.” That is not a compliment to the Three Forms of Unity. It is very clear Wright could never agree with the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession or the Westminster standards. He thinks justification is not part of the gospel; it is a result. He admits he was dissatisfied with the reformed position of a certain author. He thinks reformed teachers have been misusing the texts of Paul to arrive at our doctrine. Wright is emphatic about this. Acknowledging that the reformed view is the popular view, he says the reformers’ understanding of Paul’s doctrine “distorts it at various points.” He warns us that if you start with the popular view of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of Paul’s gospel”. In other words his disagreement with reformed doctrine is intentional. He warns us if we who do not accept the definitions of Paul’s words he proposes, that we are “locking ourselves out from the possibility of ever really understanding what the text actually does say". N. T. Wright claims that the reformed view is a tradition that leads us to misread Paul for “it manifestly has” done so. He could not be more clear that our doctrine is wrong. ​