First off, if you haven't read the previous post and it's comments, this post won't make as much sense as if you had read them. I know this is long, and I'm sorry if some of you have a hard time getting through it all, but I'd like to get all this out there for discussion at once rather than stringing my views over several days.
Please don't give up on it, just because of it's length...print it off and read it at your leisure, and then come back and share your thoughts with me on it. I'm really interested in feedback on this.
As you read through these discussions it's important to remember that no one here believes in Hyper-grace, or the ability to just say "I accept Jesus" and then go out and live in wickedness with your salvation "secure". We all agree that Holiness is the mark of saved person. Please continue reading with the motive of Love for our brother and a desire to be a Berean!
Before I get into the my understanding of eternal security, I'd like to lay some groundwork by going over the Biblical definitions of "sin". The Bible does not refer to all sin in the same manner. There are specific words to refer to specific types of sin.
Ok, with those definitions out there, I'd like to offer another take on Hebrews 6. Basically, if I understand them correctly, Mark and Dave are defending the idea that, since it's not obviously clear that the message of Hebrews 6 is directed at truly saved believers, that we shouldn't use that passage to defend conditional security. While I agree that the text may not be conclusively speaking to the saved, it's also not conclusively speaking to the unsaved. Can you "share in the Holy Spirit" and be unsaved?
With that said, here's how I think it could possibly fit into the concept of conditional security:
So, my position is this: I believe in conditional eternal security with the
condition being that, after conversion, you do not reject God.
The chances of a real believer walking away from God in rebellion and losing his own soul are remote. Remote, yet possible (I don't think the Bible conclusively points to an inability for a true Christian to walk away). There is no state of grace we can reach where we could not of our own free will decide to reject God and finally lose our own soul.
But the chances of a real Christian eventually losing his own soul are slim. Why? Because "His seed remains within us." At conversion we experienced a sort of "spiritual gene splicing." God's nature was planted inside us. We received a tendency to be Godly. Sure, it is possible for us to disobey Him. But spiritual rebellion—the hardened set-chin spiritual defiance that breaks a relationship—is a very unlikely happening for a truly born again Christian.
If I understand Mark and Dave's view correctly, we have a lot of similar beliefs, with one key difference.
I'll do a part three tomorrow with some "closing thoughts", so don't jump to conclusions or get upset until you hear the final word. *grin*
12 comments:
I believe that it is possible for this true believer to be drawn away of their own lust and ...
you make me think of James 1:13,14,15,...
somewhere you used the phrase "overheated eternity" :)
Anon: I was alluding to James when I said that. You lost me on the "overheated eternity" comment. I'm not sure what you mean? I don't remember using that phrase.
Whew! Whenever I come across this issue, I’m like a leaf rattling around in the wind. I cheer for the Arminian-tinged beliefs, but only until the 5-point Calvinist speaks his mind. They both have such firm Scriptural evidence to back up their views that I’m inspired to start studying the Bible more pointedly to get it all figured out once and for all!
However, at the risk of sounding like a spineless and convictionless believer, I will say that issues like these matter much less than many Christians think they matter. Oh, they’re important – to some degree, at least; if they weren’t, the Bible wouldn’t lend space to them. But I believe it speaks volumes to hear Christ’s answers when drilled about the fine points of the law; He rarely answers the questions directly but instead points to His relationship with the Father, seeking to glorify Him. Many times, Jesus starts telling stories (I’m thinking specifically of the story of the good Samaritan), rather than delving into the ten spiritual laws (or however many there are). His answers are mysterious and profound and get to the heart of what life is all about: loving God and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. Any time spent on fine-tuning and teaching theology is wasted if _love_ is overlooked.
My conclusion is this: I have no doubts about my salvation, and in it I feel secure. But in the hearts of those who seem to have once believed and now do not, or those who were considered believers and then ended their own lives in suicide, I believe I have no license to determine their eternal destination. I don’t know the point at which God lets one of His children go reject Him – or if there is one. The mix of God’s sovereignty and human freedom is a mystery that I haven’t yet unraveled.
After reading these posts, I _am_ compelled to keep digging up these truths from the Bible. They help us worship. (So, thank you, Luke!) I just don’t want my time with God to turn into a time of dogmatic polishing, in which I’m concerned only about wrapping my _mind_ around the logic of the Bible rather than simply worshiping God for His grace and perfect judgment, His beauty and love, and, yes, even His mystery.
c.l.beyer: I can relate to the wind-blown feeling. I appreciate your reminder to not let discussions like this turn our worship into "dogmatic polishing". That's a very real concern when people begin discussing theology.
I think one of the reasons I find it important to discuss issues like this, is because at one time I had some very errant beliefs. I went through a period in my life where I felt as though everytime I sinned, I had lost my salvation until I came before God and truly repented. Then, if I did it again, I wondered how God could continue to forgive me. I seriously doubted my salvation even though I was committed to Christ and striving to live for Him, I was striving without knowledge.
However, I completely agree with your points about relationship with the Father being the overriding theme of Christ.
Let us all strive to heed the call to Love more fully!
These occasional hamartia-s, however, do not earn one an overheated eternity--unless the believer chooses to reject God (asebia), live a lifestyle of immorality (anomia) and unrighteousness (adikia), while refusing God's forgiveness (parabasis).
(I added the emphasis)
Really - the phrase made me grin. which was nice, since it was my lunch hour and who likes to not be grinning during lunch??
I remember once having a discussion with you on whether Christians sin. I think that this word study on "sin" would have been a pretty good conclusion on that discussion.
(A Different Anonymous)
So Luke, if you believe that a true believer can reject God and lose their salvation, while Mark believes taht someone who ceases living like a true Christian never really had salvation, can you explain what difference that distinction makes. In the end, either way, that person is condemned to an overheated eternity, but can't the distinction impact how we view our present condition/standing, and how we choose to live our lives and to view our lives and the lives of others?
As I see it:
To take your view, we can live our present lives as confident Christians, assured that we presently "possess" salvation, and that other Christians we know are in the same state. (Obviously with the understanding that only god is the judge.) Yet we need to continue in the life of a Christian.
To take Mark's view, we cannot be assured that we ever "possess" salvation until we die, having lived our entire lives as aChristian, which could have a tendency to make us more tentative and unsure of our proclamation of faith. And we could easily be more questioning of the true state of others who call themselves Christian, thinking maybe in the end the "won't make it".
Anon 2: I have a feeling that Mark or Dave will want to address that point.
I don't necessarily think you meant your comment this way, but I will say that I want to caution everyone in saying, "Since I think Mark's viewpoint may make some people tentative in their proclamation of faith, and Luke's view doesn't, I think Luke's view is correct." That's not good reasoning to use in making a decision about what the Bible says.
For one, I could just as easily say, Luke's view could easily be interpreted as "if I sin too much, I will lose my salvation". Now, I don't think that's a correct interpretation of my view, but it lends itself more to that misunderstanding than Mark's view does. The possible ways in which someone could abuse a viewpoint don't lend or take away any credibility to that view point.
I had a hard time writing what I meant here, does that make any sense?
Once again, I'm not saying that's necessarily how you meant your comment. It just made me think of that point, and I wanted to share. I hoping Mark or Dave will address your comment more specifically
I don't often farm at the coffeeshop, but I'll share an experience I had last week that kind of confirms anon's hypothesis. Our company provides English classes in the evening for employees. One man attended class quite drunk. In discussing the incident with him, the conversation turned to greater issues and I asked him about his faith. At first he was reluctant to comment, stating that it was difficult for him to believe in an almighty God who will judge us. As we conversed longer, he became more and more serious, and finally asked about, " ...that verse that says that some are created as vessels to honor, and others as vessels to dishonor." He said, "What if I was created as a vessel to dishonor, and there's no hope?" He truly was in utter despair. This may relate more to the concept of "election" than eternal security, but the irony is that it can quickly become the doctrine of eternal insecurity.
This topic is big enough, that it is difficult to get our arms around it without writing books, so bear with me. I think this illustrates the greatest problem with the entire subject. It doesn't affect people of faith (true believers) very much. If my faith is real, I'm going to try to serve God the best I can. However, it does affect people of marginal understanding,(e.g.my co-worker) and it can affect later generations. One who grows up believing that one who is an heir can in no circumstances lose his inheritance is apt to be careless or value it little. However, if there were no risk of injury or death, why would we put on the armor of God? If there were no chance that God would blot out our name from the Book of Life, why would he state that He will "not blot out" those who overcome? If we have no choice but to abide in the vine, why did Jesus say, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. IF ye abide in me ....."?
The topic of eternal security is a bit like the Twister game of theology - especially if we read the Bible with a preconceived conclusion. We find ourselves in a lot of strange positions if we try to cover all the spots.
It's not easy to take the Bible for what it says at face value. That is why I really appreciate the definitions that you posted, Luke. Truth approached with sheer honesty is unifying. If we let wisdom have her perfect work, we will put it into practice - or allow God to put it into practice in our life. (depending on your viewpoint) And then go plow, plant, cultivate, water, harvest, or whatever our calling is.
Greetings brethren..
Good discussion! I began frantically typing a comment on the topic of "Assurance", but then I realized this subject is bigger than I can hope to do justice to. So, I will again offer a few "blips on the radar screen", and believe me, they will probably end up being more than a few :)
1. The words of hymn writer Augustus Topaldy may be helpful in understanding just what assurance is: Faith is the hand by which we embrace or touch, or reach toward, the garment of Christ's righteousness, for our own justification.-Such a soul is undoubtedly safe. Assurance I consider as the ring which God puts, upon faith's finger.-Such a soul is not only safe, but also comfortable and happy."
2. While there are other means of gaining assurance, revelation directly from the Holy Spirit seems to be one that is plainly taught in scripture (Romans 8:16, etc.).
3. I believe true assurance is possible here and now for the believer, though perhaps not in an infallible/unwavering way (perhaps this is under the umbrella of the things that "we know in part" - 1Cor 13:9). Before someone tries to jump all over this :) :) please read #4 so you understand that I'm operating under the view that there is more than one type of assurance one can speak of.
4. Faith can be understood to have at two sorts of warrants (or "assurances"), subjective warrants and objective warrants. One of the keys to understanding how I, believing in perseverence of the saints could also believe in current assurance lies in understanding how the "objective warrants" (the plain facts of the gospel, justification, the faithfulness of God etc.) relate to the "subjective warrants" (our sanctification, our fruits, etc.). I'd argue that our assurance in the "objective warrants" is core to what faith is, while assurance in the "subjective warrants" is not core to what faith is. If we are not assured in the "objective warrants", I'd say we likely lack saving faith. If we are not assured in the "subjective warrants" we lack comfort, but could very well have saving faith (though one would wonder where its fruits are..)
5. We are specifically asked to test our assurance (II Corinthians 13:5), and I believe that implies we are to examine our "subjective warrants" in that process. But in examining the "subjective warrants", we are attempting to evaluate "objective warrants".
I realise that none of this really deals decisively with the allegation that my view leads to no current assurance. They are just comments that may be coherent individually, but don't tie together well enough in my mind yet. I'd propose that our current assurance is allowed to exist to the measure it which we are currently exhibiting what salvation produces. If we are not exhibiting it, perhaps the lack of assurance is God's way of knocking us back on track. I'm inclined to think of assurance as a "balanced trust", one which must exist in tandem with the inward reality which God working in all those who are relaly His. One random thought which comes to my mind right now is: Can we fairly expect to have the *blessing* of assurance (which I think we would agree is not essential to salvation, strictly speaking, it can wane) if we have no "subjective warrants" for our supposed saving faith?
In my opinion, the people who reject the doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" seem to fall into one of two traps: 1. The ones that believe salvation can't be lost seem to emphasize the reliance on the "objective warrants" and underestimate the need to examine the "subjective warrant". 2. The ones that believe salvation can be lost to some degree disregard the "objective warrants" in pursuit of measuring themselves up to the "subjective warrants".
I believe that the doctrine of the "perseverence of the saints" not only is reflected throughout the Scriptures, it also retains a balance between the objective/subjective warrants that is so elusive to so many proponents for and against unconditional security. Of course, by definition, this brings the accusation that those who advocate Perseverance of the Saints are destroying current assurance. I say that if it is False Assurance, let it be destroyed and quickly at that! (few things are more dangerous to the soul than false assurance). But, if it is True Assurance, somewhat proped up by the "subjective warrants" but ultimately leaning of the "objective warrents', I say we ought to fortify it and treasure it!! And, yes, the Christian life is a struggle in the tension between presumption and surety, which certainly deflates our pride--but also throws us full speed towards the very things that can actually "make our calling and election sure"!
This study of sin is quite interesting, however the key to the matter is in the heart of man and not the kind of sin he falls into. There is a difference between falling into sin (David) and falling from grace (Saul). Repentence is an attitude we must have all our life. Repentence is a journey,not the end point.
In retrospect to my last comment, I just want to state that one reason why the doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" may seem confusing or contradictory to many is because it actively embraces (rather than trying to deflect..) the Scriptural paradox of how the perspectives of the eternal and the temporal meet in God's activity in saving mankind. In a certain sense, Biblically, we persevere by being assured. And in another sense we are assured by persevering. It is a great Paradox, perhaps not so amiable to human philosophy, but certainly amiable to God's revealation, in my opinion.
Don,
Here's my take on some of the questions you asked:
1. "One who grows up believing that one who is an heir can in no circumstances lose his inheritance is apt to be careless or value it little."
He would likely to manage it well if he was taught that heirs who keep their inheritence manage it well. This is my opinion is compatible with "perseverance of the saints".
2. "However, if there were no risk of injury or death, why would we put on the armor of God?"
Good question. A question which follows similar reasoning is: Why should I pray for the kingdom to come when we know it will come for sure?
We take on the armor of God even though victory is assured because the provision of the armour of God is God's way of preserving us from injury and death and making us victorious. Now 'victorious' does not mean we will not be injured, but it does mean we will not be injured fatally.
In my understanding of scripture, those who are truly saved are perminently saved. However, God does not save these people without MEANS. Those who are truly saved, by definition, use the means that God has appointed for endurance. People ask another question that is similar to the one you asked. It is: "Why should we preach the gospel if God predestines men unto salvation". The answer to these "Why X if Y" questions is almost always "X is how Y is worked out in practice" (ie. God brings His elect to faith by the preaching the gospel). The armour of God is the God-appointed means of never perishing, which the Bible describes as characteristic of the truly saved.
Post a Comment