Featured Some of the best Conditional “IF” Statements in the NT

I think that the confusion here is not Augustine but Webster. Many of us grew up with words having less than subjective meanings (those of us 40 years old or older, anyway). We also had to memorize multiplication tables because those didn't change either. But time....now that's different. That changes and we simply have to learn to change with it.

Back in my day this is how eternal was defined:

Eternal – without beginning or end; lasting forever; opposed to temporal

But back in my day if we invented our own meanings we would get a whooping from the teacher, and another when we got home. They stifled our creative self-expression back then and forced us into a narrow box called "reality". That's why we are pretty good at our jobs but not so good at video games. And that's why we do not understand "eternal life" to be a temporary sort of thing.

 

Thank you for your kind words. While I was being a bit sarcastic (I hope not caustic), and I do believe that "eternal life" carries certain implications of assurance, I understand your disagreement.

There are some issues where I believe less “precise”, or less dogmatic, stands are perhaps the more biblical approach. Not because of the love we have for the brethren (although this is important) but because of nature of what is revealed in Scripture of the topic (eschatological issues often fall into this category). Sometimes a doctrine that is important to us can appear a bit off kilter because the biblical lens does not focus as sharp on the teaching as we would desire.

I do not believe eternal security is one of these doctrines. You see, I also believe that the life we are given in Christ is conditional. I see this poured out in the apostolic writings, particularly those of John, Paul, and Peter. We are to abide in Christ as He abides in the Father. Those who endure shall be saved. This is conditional.

The difference is that while I believe that the life we have in Christ is conditional, I also believe that it is God who meets the condition. It is the faithfulness of God that makes this life in Christ eternal.

 

I agree that we cannot (or should not) base doctrine on a single verse or passage and probably not on parables. Scripture validates itself. I actually never considered John 10 as the primary evidence of the security of the believer. If you have a moment, I will try to explain why I believe so strongly in the doctrine (even apart from the passages that we have and undoubtedly will discuss here) as there seems to be a point where we may be talking past one another. (Sorry for the length...just read it fast and it'll seem shorter).

We believe what has been evidenced to us as being true.

I recall believing that the song “Winder Wonderland” contained the lyric “later on we’ll perspire, as we dream by the fire.” Why? Because it was evidence to be true by my mishearing of the song sung. And there are deeper beliefs. At a much younger age I believed in Santa Claus as his existence was evidenced to me through tradition, culture, and an affirmation of presents under the tree. As I matured my own thinking of reality proved those evidences false.

As a young Christian I “believed” in the doctrine “Once Saved, Always Saved” because that was a doctrine of my church. In truth, I did not really believe it so much as I held or accepted it to be true as an un-evidenced concession. As a Southern Baptist that’s simply what we believed. There were other beliefs that I held because I convinced myself they were true (I supplied the evidence for that belief through self-persuasion). And this was the reason I changed my major in college and later continued to seminary. I was convinced, based on my own experiences that churches had let the teaching of doctrine slip in favor of a more dogmatic approach to several fundamental views (a belief evidenced by my own subjective experience).

There is a belief in God that is not conversion, for James tells us that even the demons believe. We can cognitively believe something is true without that belief having a fundamental effect in our lives. The evidence of God is visible in all of creation. But it is not a belief in the existence of God that Scripture offers as salvation. Christianity is more than a belief that Jesus Christ is the Savior; it is the belief that Jesus is our Savior, and there is a difference. I believed the former for a long time before I came to believe the latter.

When I was converted it was because God had revealed to me the Truth that the gospel teaches, that is Jesus Christ. He had unveiled in my heart and mind the Man and God behind the message. God Himself evidenced the truth of the gospel message.

We believe what has been evidenced to us as being true, and that belief is ALWAYS dependent on the evidence. There are no exceptions. If it is superficial evidence, then it is a superficial belief. But for a belief to be overturned, the evidence of that belief has to be demonstrated false. For me to lose my salvation would be for me to reject what I believe. Or to put it another way, it would be for something or someone else to overshadow God. And the only way that this is possible is if our conversion is based on our own perception and human persuasion rather than a supernatural work of God.

So what is at stake when we debate eternal security is the doctrine of God because redemption is God offering of Himself. The evidence that substantiates belief in true conversion is not a knowledge of the gospel message (or even a belief that it is true) but God Himself revealed to us supernaturally resulting in a transformed life (we have new desires, a different inclination of will, we are new creatures).

 

No offence inteded, but do you not?