ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You said

The Bible is clear about those who have heard the Gospel and reject it vs 'what about the heathen who never heard the Gospel'. They are lost.

I'm confused, is this an unfinished comparison or a conclusion about who? Are both groups lost or what?

In blue will be OSAS type ideas, and in red will be that you can loose your salvation ideas.
You said

Believers have security in Christ, even if they yield to temptation for a time. Those who are unbelievers or become unbelievers again do not have security.

We are saved and sanctified by faith. Good works are not 'required' once we are saved any more than they are required to be saved. However, Peter's and Paul's exhortation to holiness is not optional. We are to be holy, because He is holy. Genuine faith will lead to a life conformed to the character of Christ and bear fruit of good works. The thief on the cross did neither and was still saved, because it is by faith from first to last.

So it's both! (chuckles) God can't do that which is illogical or contradictory, but you say that contradiction is the nature of salvation. Kidding aside, so, I guess your understanding of a "believers assurance and security" over their salvation rests in their own obedience to God because they can loose their salvation. Is that right? Do you flatly deny OSAS as an overstatement or?

 

[godrulz]

Genuine saving faith and continuance in the faith (faith is NOT a work 0r self-righteous law keeping) is a condition of salvation...i.e. it is not a one time faith with a return to faithlessness...it is a faith that is alive, not dead or dying. Those who have faith are saved unconditionally. This faith includes love and trust vs 'devil believes and trembles'.

Unbelief is the antithesis of faith. A state of unbelief is a state of rebellion and lostness.

Belief= secure.

Unbelief= lost.

I perceive that just as one moves from unbelief to belief, one can move from faith to defiant apostasy (unbelief...Heb. 6:4-6). Salvation is a relationship, not an irreversible change. It must be freely entered into and maintained by God through vibrant faith.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
You said

Jesus was talking before His resurrection. We are dealing with the Old Covenant and transition to His fulfillment. The rich ruler was not asking how he can earn salvation. Instead, he wondered about how he could be assured of entering Messiah's kingdom. He wanted to know what good work would demonstrate that he was righteous and qualified to enter the kingdom. Jesus reminded him that perfection was required and exposed the fact that he was not perfect because he could not and did not keep all the law (no one did). One must be as perfect as God. He must have God's righteousness which comes from faith in God (Rom. 4:5 OT Abraham was justified by faith, not works!). Jesus waited to see if he would demonstrate faith in Him, the true God, one with the Father (good/perfect).

Jesus indicated that life in God's kingdom can be entered only if one gives EVIDENCE that he is righteous (if God makes us righteous, there will be evidence and fruit of this). The Old Covenant standard of righteousness was the Law of Moses. Jesus told the man (not us) to obey the commandments. This would be evidence that He had saving faith (Jesus taught that the work, not works, of God is to BELIEVE in Him; Jn. 3:16= salvation= faith, not works...v. 17 is not a proof text for works salvation, contrary to Jesus' explicit faith alone teaching). When he asked, 'which ones'? the ruler was referring to the Pharisee's additional rules/standards. Jesus summarized the commands as loving his neighbour. His god of money was evidence he did not do this. His unwillingness to give money up was evidence he did not love God and others as evidence of salvation by faith. He lacked salvation and was not willing to follow Christ as Lord and Savior through repentant FAITH, not works or commandment keeping. He trusted his riches rather than the Lord. Salvation is a work of God. Who can be saved? The Pharisees thought wealth was a blessing of God. The disciples were confused by this. Jesus dealt with one man this way. He did not tell other's he encountered to keep the commandments. We cannot proof text this passage to didactly say more than it does. Jn. 3:16, 36; 1:12 is the Gospel, not Mt. 19:17.

Loving God and others is evidence of genuine salvation. The ruler failed the test since riches were his god, not Jesus Christ. Jesus used the Law to convict him of his rebellion, not as a way to be saved.

Jesus did say that if we love Him we will obey His commandments (Jn. 14:15, 23). We are not saved by keeping Mosaic Law, but we will love God and others if we are saved (the summary of the Decalogue).

To the best of my understanding, that was your second attempt at answering the question, what does verse 17b mean while considering the context that Jesus was honestly talking about salvation as per verses 17, 23, 24, 25. Yet so far, after two attempts, you have not provided an attempt to explain what those words mean.

I am not asking you to explain your general ideas about what the passage is teachings, I'm asking you to explain the meaning of 17b without violating the context that it was about salvation as per vv. 17, 23, 24, 25. If you disagree with the context that it's about salvation, then please explain that. If you have a struggle understanding what Jesus means by those words, then just say so, but if you understand what it means, then please explain your understanding.

THANKS (Maybe 3's a charm!)

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
From your post 1722, you said

Genuine saving faith and continuance in the faith (faith is NOT a work 0r self-righteous law keeping) is a condition of salvation...i.e. it is not a one time faith with a return to faithlessness...it is a faith that is alive, not dead or dying. Those who have faith are saved unconditionally. This faith includes love and trust vs 'devil believes and trembles'.

Unbelief is the antithesis of faith. A state of unbelief is a state of rebellion and lostness.

Belief= secure.

Unbelief= lost.

I perceive that just as one moves from unbelief to belief, one can move from faith to defiant apostasy (unbelief...Heb. 6:4-6). Salvation is a relationship, not an irreversible change. It must be freely entered into and maintained by God through vibrant faith.

I'm trying to understand what you believe, but even you can not honestly believe a contradiction. If you are saved unconditionally, then you could not possibly loose your salvation, but you just said that if you are genuinely saved, then continuance in faith, i.e. not returning to faithlessness is a condition of salvation.

Like I said, if your not sure about these things, then just say so, many people believe a little of both side of the eternal security issue.

 

[1Way]

Sozo,

Oh? wow. As to stealing my thunder, trust me, at this point, I can use all the help I can get. (chuckles)

So, if one gets saved, one needs to make sure that you get the salvation plan with the worry free full protection renewable maintenance service upgrade agreement. Is that it? Hmmmm, I wonder how much more that kind of salvation plan costs?

So some salvation is ,,, securely maintained by God, and some salvation is ,,, not as well maintained by God,,, is that it?

Let me see if I get this right. So we are saved to the uttermost, we are more than conquerors, and nothing can separate us from the love of God, ... (unless we loose our salvation).

 

[1Way]

Salvation is

• unconditional and eternally secure
  
  and
  
  it is conditional and you can loose your salvation

:thumb:

Just say it's both and confound them all!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

I don't want to steal your thunder, 1Way, but godrulz just came to the conclusion that one moves from faith to apostasy while God is maintaining you.

Is God's 'maintenance' coercive/causative? There are too many conditional references (if...then) to say that God keeps us contrary to wills that deny Him (e.g. Judas).

Are Bible Baptists hyper-Calvinists and exclusivists?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Godrulz,
From your post 1722, you said I'm trying to understand what you believe, but even you can not honestly believe a contradiction. If you are saved unconditionally, then you could not possibly loose your salvation, but you just said that if you are genuinely saved, then continuance in faith, i.e. not returning to faithlessness is a condition of salvation.

Like I said, if your not sure about these things, then just say so, many people believe a little of both side of the eternal security issue.

I know what I believe. I must not be communicating it with clarity or your receptors are defective.

I want my mommy...they're picking on me again

Explained and understood correctly will not create confusion or contradiction.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Sozo,

Oh? wow. As to stealing my thunder, trust me, at this point, I can use all the help I can get. (chuckles)

So, if one gets saved, one needs to make sure that you get the salvation plan with the worry free full protection renewable maintenance service upgrade agreement. Is that it? Hmmmm, I wonder how much more that kind of salvation plan costs?

So some salvation is ,,, securely maintained by God, and some salvation is ,,, not as well maintained by God,,, is that it?

Let me see if I get this right. So we are saved to the uttermost, we are more than conquerors, and nothing can separate us from the love of God, ... (unless we loose our salvation).

Nothing can separate us from God except our own defiant, selfish, foolish, stupid rebellion. This kept us from salvation (universalism is a lie), so why can't it undermine our salvation (what is true at point A may not be true 25 years later on one's death bed at point B). Unless we are less free after salvation than before, it is possible to renounce the grace of God. Unless grace is irresistible (which is contrary to grace) as Calvinism teaches, then it is possible to apostasize. The warnings about the possibility of apostasy and the biblical and anecdotal examples of apostasy are not disingenuous or specious.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Salvation is

• unconditional and eternally secure
  
  and
  
  it is conditional and you can loose your salvation

:thumb:

Just say it's both and confound them all!

I believe in conditional eternal security (biblical), not unconditional eternal security (OSAS/Calvinism's TULIP).

1way aint going to like this, but Southern Baptist (usually OSAS) Robert Shank's "Life in the Son: A study of the perseverance of the saints" is a credible exegesis of the relevant passages on both sides of the debate. He solidly shows that salvation is conditional in some aspects (apostasy is possible) and handles your objections from Scripture.

What do you make of Heb. 6:4-6 again?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

:chuckle:

Since godrulz is sooooo (rightfully) opposed to Calvinism, I find it odd that He rejects that God chooses whom He will save, but has no problem with God choosing whom He will not keep.

Salvation and grace are not irresistible. I am a free will theist. Love is not coerced. Just as two married people can fall in love, stay in love for years, and then end their relationship in bitter divorce, so can Israel, the Church, or individual believers become harlots despite the perfection of God as perfect husband or parent.

OSAS is one of the most debated theological issues through the centuries. Godly, capable believers have taken different views on it (hence Calvinism vs Arminianism). Let me know when we definitively resolve the issue (when you admit I am right and you were wrong

 

[1Way]

Sozo,
You have a contagious sense of humor. I'm trying to hold mine back as I hear godrulz out. I like him, but there's something not right about some of his (almost bible) reasoning. I can't make sense of what he is trying to say. But your responses seem enlightening, in a manner of speaking. Much appreciated.

 

[godrulz]

I am an idiot savant


It is hard to develop a doctrine helter skelter in a few posts. I have given more Scriptural evidence on other threads somewhere in the last 5000 posts.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
I agree that both sides of the eternal security issue have strong bible support, if you ignore the changes that God makes in different dispensations.

OSAS is not simply akin to Calvinism. The OSAS that the plot teaches is nothing like that, so I wonder why you only posit OSAS as though it is from TULIP.

You rightly say that man has gotten OSAS wrong for the last 2,000 years. So with that in mind, you wink as you suggest that resolution is not about to happen anytime soon.

And so again I am justified in saying that you reason far too much on the basis of extra-biblical reasoning. God's word does not lend to the idea that we can have such diversity as many believing that you can loose your salvation, and many believe you cannot. That is about as divided and unrighteous as could be.

Isn't it possible, that when God said that we are to have one mind and one united faith, that He included such practical and foundational issues as, can we loose our salvation or not. Christianity can agree on like 5 major bible doctrines, but on average, if you consider a hundred different doctrines or bible passages, you might have a 1000 different views ranging from outrageous and illogical to outright contradictions to ignorance and false teachings, plus some lucky one's get some things right. Hmmmmm, Is that maybe because they were emphasizing too much understanding of man's views, or God's views? Hmmmmm

As to me not making sense of your views, first things first. I don't need bible references for them yet, I first need to understand that which is in contradiction. A and nonA canot both be true at the same time and in the same relationship. Salvation can not be both conditional, and not conditional, at the same time and in the same relationship. Please explain what you mean by salvation not being conditional and being secure.

 

[1Way]

And by the way, this tangent with godrulz is brought to you by longstanding Arminians and their baby Calvinism. Without both of their influence, this discussion would not likely have happened.

 

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by 1Way

And by the way, this tangent with godrulz is brought to you by longstanding Arminians and their baby Calvinism. Without both of their influence, this discussion would not likely have happened.

:chuckle:

 

[godrulz]

The perfect provision of salvation (grounds) must be appropriated. Repentant faith (not works) is the God-given condition to respond to God's free gift of eternal life in Christ. Not all men are saved despite God not willing that any perish (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4). Calvinism's limited atonement/unconditional election is not the solution. TULIP would explain OSAS, but its assumptions are unbiblical (self-consistent internally, but wrong). The solution is differentiating the grounds/grace/cross (reason for which) and conditions/repentant faith (not without which) of salvation. The provision must be appropriated or it is not efficacious for that individual. Likewise, continuance in the faith (not works) is an extension of the initial saving faith. If faith becomes unbelief through a persistent, rebellious change of mind and will, then the promises no longer apply.

If salvation is conditional in its initial appropriation, then it is not unreasonable that it is conditional in its continuance (if salvation is a reconciled love relationship rather than a metaphysical, irreversible change).

If Mid-Acts says that Pauline teaching is OSAS, while the 12 taught conditions, then I have never seen that before. It seems to me that non-OSAS can be argued from every book of the Bible. Hebrews is a strong argument against OSAS. This fits your thesis. However, Paul and others also taught about the possibilty of apostasy. I look forward to "The Plot's" view. It is also interesting that C. Gordon Olson's "Calvinism vs Arminianism: A Mediate Theology of Salvation" slams much of Calvinism, yet he also believes in OSAS. I have not got to that chapter yet. I like many of his ideas, but this is one that I will need to see the Scriptural evidence (he will come to the same conclusion as you without Mid-Acts). I trust I will follow the evidence, but it will be hard to overturn Shank's excellent exposition.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

I believe in conditional eternal security (biblical), not unconditional eternal security (OSAS/Calvinism's TULIP).

1way aint going to like this, but Southern Baptist (usually OSAS) Robert Shank's "Life in the Son: A study of the perseverance of the saints" is a credible exegesis of the relevant passages on both sides of the debate. He solidly shows that salvation is conditional in some aspects (apostasy is possible) and handles your objections from Scripture.

What do you make of Heb. 6:4-6 again?

Out of curiosity.

Of the passages he exegetes from both sides of the debate, are the one's in favor of OSAS Pauline and the one's against from the rest of the Bible?

I'll bet they are. Every book I've ever seen on the subject (aside from The Plot) aligns with one set or the other and explains how the other set doesn't mean what it seems to say.


Also it might interest you to know that I beleive that there is a caviot with regards to eternal security. In my view the key scripture is in Ephesian 1...

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

I've underlined the caviot. You believe that we can walk away from our salvation this side of the day of redemption but Paul teaches otherwise. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit as an ERNEST PAYMENT on our salvation. GOD CANNOT BE UNFAITHFUL TO HIMSELF! So until that day, there can be no doubt that we will be saved. After that, is a different issue. I do not believe that God is going to make you stay forever in heaven if you don't want to be there. But once you have believed during this life you are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit Himself that you will be given the opportunity to do so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Out of curiosity.

Of the passages he exegetes from both sides of the debate, are the one's in favor of OSAS Pauline and the one's against from the rest of the Bible?

I'll bet they are. Every book I've ever seen on the subject (aside from The Plot) aligns with one set or the other and explains how the other set doesn't mean what it seems to say.


Also it might interest you to know that I beleive that there is a caviot with regards to eternal security. In my view the key scripture is in Ephesian 1...

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

I've underlined the caviot. You believe that we can walk away from our salvation this side of the day of redemption but Paul teaches otherwise. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit as an ERNEST PAYMENT on our salvation. GOD CANNOT BE UNFAITHFUL TO HIMSELF! So until that day, there can be no doubt that we will be saved. After that, is a different issue. I do not believe that God is going to make you stay forever in heaven if you don't want to be there. But once you have believed during this life you are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit Himself that you will be given the opportunity to do so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ephesians 1 is a favorite Calvinist passage. It requires careful exegesis (difficult passage grammatically). 1:13,14 Ch. 8 Shank deals with the 'earnest' of the Spirit (what it meant historically, contextually, grammatically). Bottom line: we have an earnest of what the Spirit intends to do in us to bring us to His ultimate and complete purposes in redemption (start to finish...Phil. 1:6 Paul was confidant that He was able to save and keep us; also Jude 24,25). The Spirit is the seal of God's ownership. We have a promised inheritance. Does this negate other Pauline conditional passages? "But the Holy Spirit can do nothing for those who refuse His ministry. Therefore, we are exhorted..."

Eph. 5:18 be filled
Gal. 5:16 walk
Gal. 6:7-9 sow spirit vs flesh
Rom. 8:1-13 live Spirit vs flesh
8:14 led by Spirit

Warned against:
grieving Spirit Eph. 4:30
quench Spirit I Thess. 5:19
despite (insult) to Spirit Heb. 10:29

"All these solemn exhortations and warnings affirm that the believer has a definite responsibility with respect to the ministry of the Holy Spirit which he dare not ignore."

"God is faithful (beyond question)...but the faithfulness of God cannot avail for unfaithful men."

Are we free moral agents or not? Is salvation coercive/causative or cooperative (reconciliation/relationship involves two parties)?

 

[servent101]

1Way

Explain your support reasoning for your view, whatever it is.

I have tried, but you seem to of in the past insisted on chapter and verse - ONLY – but now you seem to be willing to hear as you put it from a source

for your view, whatever it is.

So anyways, I do see that you ONLY find scripture as your source of KNOWLEDGE – and accept nothing else – so I reverse this question to you - which is

Please explain your point, do you, or do you not agree that the bible is a closed canon?

And just to be sane – if you insist on Scripture for everything you consider KNWLEDGE – where is your scripture for the Closed Canon? –

And is it not PLAIN that any and all of the WRITERS of the Book that contains all of their varied letters, did not instruct us to CLOSE the CANON or any mention of a canon of any sort?


1Way -you asked

Would you please give me a reference supporting your view that the scriptures are not closed.

To which Servent101 said

The history is there if you want to read about early church history – Who conquered Rome and how and why the New Emperor showed favor to the previously outcast and persecuted Christians – it was the Emperor’s idea that Christians should have their own book and their own church – just like every other religion.

To which you replied

Instead of clarifying what you are trying to say, you say something tangential about Rome's new Emperor favoring Christians and that it was his idea that Christians should have their own book, how about clearly stating your view and showing any support reasoning for it. Not only are you somewhat off topic, you didn't even make a point. Please explain what you tried to say, what was your point?

So I guess the recorded History on how the canon came about – how the Early Church was instructed by a Roman Conqueror to make a Book like every other Religion, and to have a Clergy like every other Religion has not been noticed by you, not factored into your understanding?

Anyways your comments here

quote:John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Jesus is not making a statement on Other Scriptures in other Cultures – He is talking to the Jews – the validity of His Person, to Fulfill the Law – what you say He is talking about – as a discourse on other Scriptures in other Cultures cannot be done in clear conscience.

Again what you say

There is no other besides Jesus and His word. You must accept Him and His word if you want please God. It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His word.

canot be inferred from what you quote

quote:John 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.44 "You are of [your] father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and [does not] stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [resources], for he is a liar and the father of it.47 "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."51 "Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."

The part here

As to the fulfillment of scripture, which means it has been completed, it is not unfinished.
quote:Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,

If this is an example of how you say

God teaches about substantiating the truth instead of just accepting claims as though they are true without understanding it's validity.

I will just walk away…

So anyways – if you think you have made a point – the words you used to describe my writings…

Not only are you somewhat off topic, you didn't even make a point. Please explain what you tried to say, what was your point?

As all People of the Book – you quote a Scripture and take a quote from Scripture that does not have anything to do in context with what you are trying to support – in this case

Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,

You give this credence for this vague statement -

As to the fulfillment of scripture, which means it has been completed, it is not unfinished.

– this is not what Paul is addressing, this is not even remotely addressing what Paul is communicating.

And you say

I just demonstrated my view by numerous verifiable bible teachings. That is supporting your claim and clarifying what you believe.

And you have the audacity to suggest

Unless of course you simply made up your own view, which again is not necessarily incredulous, unless you claim to know better than God.

So what can I say? - you obviously think you somehow are reading the Book and taking these ideas out of them - but your exegesis is all out of context... All I can do is say read the Good News in context,




With Christ’s Love

Servent101