|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 4, 2010 13:54:19 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jun 4, 2010 21:41:19 GMT -7
It's too late for me to listen to these now, but no, I don't agree with him. I am aware that Wilkin is controversial and believes some far out things. But though there are many things I disagree with him in, I do recommend many articles on the Grace Evangelical website, including some of Wilkin's.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 8, 2010 14:54:39 GMT -7
Eli, On the issue of eternal security you have said in the other thread that, "We know from other verses in the Bible that a truly born again person can never be lost or perish." and "... any interpretation that suggests that a born again person may lose their salvation cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture." This is exactly the way Wilkin argues for eternal security in part II of the above audio. Is this really the way we are to interpret Scripture? This is an issue of Hermeneutics. I want to give you a couple of quotes that I think speak clearly of the problem I have with your (and Wilkin's) approach here. The first one needs a little context so it's a little long but bear with me as I think this is important. Grant R. Osborne, who does not believe in eternal security, writes in The Hermeneutical Spiral, "In contrast to the regula fidei ('rule of faith') of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther propounded the analogia fidei ('analogy of faith'). Luther opposed the centrality of ecclesial tradition and believed that Scripture alone should determine dogma. On the basis of the unity and clarity of Scripture, he proposed that the basic doctrines must cohere with and cannot contradict the holistic teaching of Scripture. However, for Luther the system still had a certain prominence. Calvin took the final step, suggesting the principle of analogia scriptura ('analogy of Scripture') as an alternative. Milton Terry's dictum still stands: 'No single statement or obscure passage of one book may be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages." I would strengthen this by adding that doctrines should not be built on a single passage but rather should summarize all that Scripture says on that topic. If there are no clarifying passages (e.g., baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 or a compartmentalized Hades in Lk 16:22-26), we must be careful about seeing a statement of dogma." I think this is the basic idea you and Wilkin have in mind here. Osborne goes on then to caution about a misuse of this principle when he writes, "Moreover, all such doctrinal statements (for instance, on the lordship of Christ or on eternal security) should be made on the basis of all the texts that speak to the issue rather than on the basis of proof-texts or 'favorite' passages. Such an approach results in a 'canon within a canon,' a phenomenon in which certain passages are subjective favored over others because they fit a system that is imposed on Scripture rather than drawn from it. This is a dangerous situation, for it assumes that one's preconceived ideas are more important than is the text. Also, it misinterprets Scripture" (pp. 28-29). The second quote along these lines comes from Joseph C. Dillow, an advocate of eternal security. In his study of eternal security The Reign of the Servant Kings he writes, "The Protestant doctrine of the analogy of faith has, in practice, sometimes become what might be called 'theological exegesis.' What started as a valid attempt to allow other Scriptures to help interpret the meaning of obscure passages has gradually become a method of interpreting obviously clear passages in a way that will harmonize with a particular theological tradition. Instead of permitting each text to speak for itself, the theological system determines the meaning" (p. 28). I think these are great insights into the misuse of a good hermeneutical principle.
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jun 9, 2010 7:05:28 GMT -7
Yeah, I think these quotes are very good; thanks for posting them, Steve. I'm excited to discuss this with you. I agree and believe the doctrine of eternal security is founded on clear Scripture and sound exegesis without doing violence to texts that might be used to the contrary. Everybody has to exercise this principle of harmonizing Scripture, for whichever side you hold to you are going to encounter Scriptures that seem to contradict other Scriptures, and must be reconciled. This isn't just with the doctrine of eternal or conditional security, but also of the Messiahship of Jesus, for example. What do we do when an unbelieving Jew points to Isaiah 7:14 in context and disregards any allusion to the virgin birth as being a distortion in exegesis? Of course, we reason with them using the text fairly, but our interpretation is guided by our knowledge of who Jesus is. What one believes about anything will effect their interpretation of any given Scripture, and this shouldn't be underestimated, nor too severely criticized for it is natural and acceptable, so long as the Scriptures are faithfully handled and not misused.
Blessings to you! -Eli
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 9, 2010 17:40:06 GMT -7
I agree that harmonization is necessary. I've been talking with JW's recently and they start with certain Scriptures that they believe clearly deny Christ's deity. These texts control the meaning of every other text in Scripture on the subject. Whenever you take them to a text that demonstrates the deity of Christ they say, "We know that this cannot mean Jesus is God because John 17:3 says...." or something similar. This is a misuse of the Scripture interprets Scripture principle. I see it often in Christian writings as well (and I'm sure I do my fair share of it too).
How would you like to pursue this discussion? I'm pretty busy as well so we can just interact as we get the time, no pressure.
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jun 11, 2010 22:23:18 GMT -7
Well, I think perhaps I'll start by clarifying what I believe about eternal security.
I see the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved as distinct from the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Though I certainly believe that once a person is saved they always are saved, the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved has typically been thought of (by both those who hold it and those who oppose it) like this: that once a person has "accepted Jesus into their heart" or said the "sinner's prayer" or "decided for Christ" then whatever happens they can never lose their salvation; that whatever was transacted at that moment in time can never be lost, even if the person departs from the faith. But this is a perversion of the true doctrine of eternal security and therefore any Arminian who tears it down does a good service, but also tears down a strawman in their opposition of eternal security.
The doctrine that I believe has commonly been called Perseverance of the Saints, and it's focus is not on a person's decision to follow Christ or the sinner's prayer or asking Jesus into their heart, but on being born again - on regeneration. I believe that once a person is born again they, because they are regenerate, will never fall away from Christ; they will never depart from the faith. It is actually because they are born again that they have faith (1 John 5:1), and it is because they are born again that they will overcome all things (1 John 5:4). I will lay great emphasis upon 1 John 5:4 in our discussion. So again, the focus is on regeneration, which is a sovereign act of God (John 1:13), and by virtue of that new birth a true Christian can never fall away and perish, for it is God who works in them both to will and to do according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). What God began He most certainly will carry on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6).
Perseverance of the Saints teaches us, not that a Christian can depart from Christ and still remain saved, but that a true Christian will not depart from Christ and therefore remain saved. This is an important distinction and must be recognized if any meaningful discussion of eternal security can take place.
Much more to be said, but I'll stop there and look forward to hearing from you. Blessings! -Eli
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 12, 2010 9:00:42 GMT -7
Eli,
I'm surprised and encouraged by your last post. I also recognize the difference between what is commonly called Once Saved Always Saved and the Perseverance of the Saints. I have said for years that the Perseverance of the Saints is not really worth fighting about but Once Saved Always Saved is. With you directing me to the Grace Evangelical Society I assumed your views on Eternal Security would be of the Once Saved Always Saved variety. I consider their view of Eternal Security to be an extremely dangerous and harmful false teaching. That being said, I do also disagree with the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. I do not, however, consider it a dangerous and harmful teaching to the body of Christ. The reason I reject Eternal Security (I will use "Eternal Security" to mean your viewpoint from here on unless noted) is that I'm not satisfied with the way the warning and conditional passages of Scripture are handled.
Let me quickly clarify my own viewpoint as well. I believe it is possible for a regenerate person to ultimately perish eternally. I do not believe that every time a Christian (I will use "Christian" to mean one who is regenerate unless noted) sins he loses his salvation. I do not believe apostasy (I use this term to refer to a regenerate person departing from the faith) is likely or frequent but possible. In many cases I would agree with the viewpoint that says people that appear to apostatize were never really regenerate in the first place. I do not think this covers everyone or that this is a satisfactory explanation for all the Scriptures on this subject.
With regard to the loss of salvation I also must clarify that I believe that the door in is the door out. If one holds that salvation is by grace through faith then one should not hold that the loss of salvation is through works. If we are saved through faith we depart through the loss of faith. I believe sin can lead to that loss but to be consistent with the doctrine of sola fide I hold that salvation can only be lost when faith is lost. I agree with what James Arminius said in this regard. He wrote that it is "impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers, to decline from salvation" (Works 1:742 emphasis his).
I will look over the texts you've listed and give some response to them when I get a little more time.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 14, 2010 17:11:17 GMT -7
Alright, here we go. 1 John 5:1-4 (I typically read from the ESV so that is what I will usually use in me Scripture quotes) "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" You state of verse 1 that "It is actually because they are born again that they have faith." Are you stating here that you hold to the Reformed view that one must be regenerated before they will believe the gospel? Is v.4 teaching that because those John is writing to are born again they will infallibly persevere? I don't think that it is. In this letter John is concerned about false teachers who are seeking to draw away the believers. They were teaching a different Jesus and John is warning them about the teachers and their teaching (1 John 2:18-23). He then says to these believers, "Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us — eternal life" (2:24-25 italics mine). Here John is exhorting the believers against departing from the true faith because of the false teachers. He does this by speaking of the conditional nature of salvation (if - then conditional sentence). Here we see that John believes it possible for true believers to be deceived and fail to abide in the Son and in the Father. The word "abide" is key here. As I said about John 15 one can only abide (remain, continue) if one is already "in". What sense does it make to tell someone outside of your house to abide (remain, continue) in your house? If they aren't already in your house they cannot abide in your house. Likewise, to speak of abiding in the Father and in the Son implies that one is already in the Father and in the Son. John implies here that if one fails to abide they lose the promised eternal life. The promise is conditional. The reason for this is laid out in 5:11-12 where John writes, "And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." We do not posses the life independently of the Son. "This life is in the Son". As long as we are in the Son we have the life but if we fail to abide in the Son we lose the life. John speaks about this abiding using conditional language and implies that those who do not abide lose the eternal life that is in the Son. If John is saying in 5:4 that genuine believers cannot fail to abide then why does John speak like this? Believers, as long as they abide, will overcome all things, but if they do not abide in Christ they will not overcome. What is implied in 1 John 2 is made explicit in 2 John. He writes, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son" (7-9). John again warns genuine believers to not be deceived by the false teachers. If they are, and fail to abide, they will lose what was worked for. Thus in these epistles I believe we must allow for the possibility that genuine believers may depart from the true faith and so lose eternal life.
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jun 14, 2010 20:46:27 GMT -7
Hi Steve,
I'm encouraged to hear that we agree on much - that justification is by faith, and that apostasy is when a person departs from the faith, not when they sin. I agree with you also that sin may lead to unbelief.
However, this statement of yours:
and this statement:
need to be explained, as there are serious problems with them. How does your first statement agree with 1 John 5:4? If you believe a regenerate person can ultimately perish, how does that fit with what John says, that whatever is born of God (regenerate) overcomes the world? My second question is directed at your second statement. If you agree that there are people who fall away who are not regenerate, then what is it to be regenerate? If an unregenerate person can believe in Christ and fall away, and a regenerate person can believe in Christ and fall away, what's the point of regeneration? What is the difference between the two people? When does regeneration occur, and what does it do?
In answer to your question: yes, I believe that a person must be born again in order to believe the gospel. This, I believe, is the Biblical view and not merely the Reformed view.
Your question and case is a very good one, and I'm going to answer it in my next post, but I want to point out that you did not actually explain what 1 John 5:4 means. You went to other Scriptures seeking to explain what it does not mean, but that is not the same as explaining what it does mean. What does it mean that "whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world?"
I will respond again shortly, but first I'd like to hear from you regarding the above. It's more natural for our conversation, as I don't think we're ready to move on until this is wrapped up.
God bless! -Eli
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 17, 2010 20:21:45 GMT -7
Hi Eli, Sorry about the slowness. I had a position paper on salvation due today and two finals this week so I’ve been pretty busy. Lots of questions to respond to here. Looks like we may end up all over the theological map . You ask, "If you agree that there are people who fall away who are not regenerate, then what is it to be regenerate? If an unregenerate person can believe in Christ and fall away, and a regenerate person can believe in Christ and fall away, what's the point of regeneration? What is the difference between the two people? When does regeneration occur, and what does it do?" I'm trying to be precise with my language because I think it's important for clarity. Here's what I said, "In many cases I would agree with the viewpoint that says people that appear to apostatize were never really regenerate in the first place." I do not believe that an unregenerate person can commit apostasy but only appear to commit apostasy. To draw from the illustration I used in my last post: Someone who is in your house can leave your house but someone who was never in your house cannot leave your house. Thus, the way I understand apostasy is that only a genuine believer can commit apostasy and not one who professed to be a believer but was not born again. I believe regeneration is conditional not unconditional. That is not to say that I believe regeneration is synergistic. It is the work of God alone. Conditional regeneration means that God regenerates the one who meets the condition of salvation - Faith. I have two questions for you since you affirm that regeneration precedes faith. Is regeneration a part of salvation? Also, do you consider regeneration the beginning of sanctification? As to the nature of regeneration I think Jesus' statement to Nicodemus in John 3:8 demands that we be cautious about precise explanations. He said that the new birth was like the wind, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." The new birth is not observable by the senses so I think precision as to it's nature is difficult. What I think we can say is that in regeneration the person dead in trespasses and sins is made alive. There is a reversal of our natural tendencies. The flesh is crucified and the Spirit takes up residence in us. We become a new creation in Christ. It is both instantaneous at conversion and a present relationship sustained by the Holy Spirit. It is supernatural. The O.T. prophecies speak of the removal of the heart of stone and the giving of a heart of flesh. You also ask, "What does it mean that 'whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world?'" The second part of verse 4 states that we overcome through faith (present tense). I believe faith is both a sign of regeneration (1 Jn 5:1) and also the condition of regenration (Jn 1:12-13). In v.1 John is talking about the present state of the believer (perfect tense). Thus, as long as one is believing and is regenerate that one is overcoming the world.
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jun 19, 2010 18:46:59 GMT -7
Hey Steve, thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying. It is true that a person cannot apostatize from something that they are not in, thus your conclusion is that therefore only someone who is born again can truly apostatize, and a non-regenerate person only appears to be "in" and to apostatize. We agree on the fact that a non-regenerate person who falls away only appeared to be regenerate, but our conclusion about who was "in" is different. I quote this revealing verse in the Bible (again, in 1 John): "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John 2:19) John at one and the same time says that they were "in" but that they "were not really of us". He doesn't say that they only appeared to be "in", but he says that they only appeared to be one of us. Hence, figuratively speaking, there is a place that the non-regenerate can enter, and that is where the regenerate are, but they are not actually regenerate. And the proof that one is regenerate is that they will remain in that place, whereas the proof that one is not regenerate is that they will apostatize. This is the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints... that a truly born again believer will persevere in the faith, or as 1 John 5:4 puts it: overcome the world. John's words couldn't be clearer here: if they were truly of us, they would no doubt continue with us. Their apostasy actually proved, not that they were born again, but that they were not born again! But any view that requires man's part for result is synergistic. For example, the Mormons likewise affirm that the forgiveness of sins is totally because of the work of Christ alone, but in order to receive that work they must work and keep the commandments. They affirm monergism but it is actually synergism because there are at least two different parties that need to work for the result to take place. One party may do an impressive amount and quality of work, but if that second party is required to work even in the slightest it becomes synergistic. Though I understand that you are saying that the work of God in regeneration is a supernatural and humanly impossible thing. I believe regeneration is a part of salvation in that God works in us so that we respond to the gospel by faith and are justified. It is not regeneration that forgives us, but regeneration that brings us to Christ to be forgiven (John 6:35-40, 65). So regeneration is an indirect cause but not the direct cause. My view on sanctification is quite different than the traditional view of sanctification, in either Calvinistic or Arminian circles. It will have to be another topic for another time. I'll just say that regeneration is the beginning of sanctification only in that it brings you to Christ to be justified. It is freedom from the law and the assurance of the love of Christ and of one's justification that affects one's sanctification. Again, not regeneration directly. It seems amazing to me that such a supernatural and powerful act of God could be overridden by an act of man, especially in light of verses such as these that say: "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." (Ecclesiastes 3:14) "Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?" (Isaiah 43:13) "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." (Prov. 19:21) "If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39) The Old Testament indeed speaks of the taking away of the heart of stone and the giving of the heart of flesh: "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul." (Jeremiah 32:39-41) This is the most glorious thing, Steve, that when God sets His heart to save an undeserving and wretched sinner dead in trespasses and sins He does it with His whole heart and soul, and nothing can destroy the work of God in a persons life - for it wasn't that persons work to begin with - He draws them to Christ, not because of him who wills nor of him who runs, but because of God's own mercy, and the work that He begins He will most certainly carry it on to completion, for God never begins something that He will not finish. He is both the author and the finisher of our faith. The perseverance of a saint is a miracle that brings glory to God! I agree that he is talking about the present state of the believer, and there is no issue there. But, dear brother, the verse doesn't say that as long as one is believing and regenerate they are overcoming the world, but that "whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world". They will overcome because they are born of God. There is no "is" after "born of God", and it does not say "overcoming" but "overcomes". I know truly that you're not trying to twist the Scripture, but that was twist. Just had to call you on it in love .
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jun 20, 2010 21:41:05 GMT -7
Hey Eli, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that one who is "in" the visible church can commit "apostasy". There are those "in" the visible church who are not regenerate that can "fall away", but no one "in" the invisible church can fall away because they are all regenerate. Is that really apostasy? Lets say that they never "fall away" from the visible church but die as good church going folk who were never regenerate. Will they be in Heaven? No. If an unregenerate person "falls away" from their profession of faith they are in no worse shape than if they continued in that profession until their death. They are lost if they continue in that profession and lost if they forsake it. This view of "apostasy" is particularly revealed to be fraudulent by the fact that John is exhorting those who "have been anointed by the Holy One" (2:20), and who "know the truth" (21) to let the truth "abide" (remain) in them. He follows this with the conditional "If... then" statement that if the truth abides in them, then they will abide in the Father and the Son receiving the promise of eternal life. Here it is clearly implied that one who is regenerate can fail to receive eternal life if they fail to continue to meet the condition for receiving it. That is apostasy. Consider: If they failed to let the truth abide in them, and thus failed to abide in the Father and the Son, not receiving the promise of eternal life, are they in worse shape? Yes. The many warnings in Scripture with regard to apostasy are not written to keep the unregenerate professor from falling away from the visible church. They are warnings to the regenerate that they are not eternally secure until they are securely in eternity. 1 John 2:19 may very well be saying that these particular "antichrists" were never really "of us" in the first place. I don't think that is the only way to understand it though. John could be simply saying that at the time of their departing they were not "of us" without reference to if they ever were or not. I think that these people were probably never really "of us". I don't believe though that this is a universal statement about apostasy, especially in the light of the exhortation to the regenerate to continue a couple verses later with the implication of the possibility of apostasy. What sense does it make to say that everyone who is regenerate remains and then to follow that immediately with an exhortation to the regenerate to remain with the condition that if they do they will receive eternal life? As far as monergism and synergism are concerned I don't see how you can claim that you are a monergist and I am a synergist under your definitions. You say that you "believe regeneration is a part of salvation in that God works in us so that we respond to the gospel by faith and are justified." Does this mean that you believe justification is synergistic? I think you would have to say yes since you also say, "any view that requires man's part for result is synergistic." Is man required to believe in order to be justified? I know that only the regenerate can believe in your view and that faith itself is a gift from God but despite all of that is the man required to believe in order to get the result of justification? I believe that apart from the grace of God it is not possible for a sinner dead in trespasses and sins to believe the gospel and be justified. Thus, faith is a gift in the sense that it is not possible unless there is first a gracious work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the sinner. God enables us to believe but He does not believe for us. I also reject the assertion that a graciously enabled belief is a work "even in the slightest". Faith is the antithesis of works in the New Testament. I agree with you that regeneration is a part of salvation. This can be seen in Titus 3:4-7 which reads, "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Here Paul speaks of the overarching concept of salvation which includes, among other things, regeneration and justification. Thus, you believe regeneration precedes faith but is also a part of salvation. How then can you affirm that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8)? If salvation is "through faith" and regeneration is a part of that salvation, then isn't it obvious that regeneration must be through faith? When Paul told the Philippian jailer "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31), was he speaking of the same salvation he mentioned to Titus which included regeneration and justification? I will have to give some more thought, prayer, and study to the issue of 1 John 5:4. It's certainly a thought provoking text for me. I wasn't seeking to twist the Scripture before, I just didn't express myself well. I will have to get back to you on this one. If I could, I would like to throw out a text that I want to see your interpretation on - 1 Cor. 15:1-2. While continuing this discussion in 1 John I would like to expand it a bit to see how you interpret this other text. Blessings, Steve
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jun 28, 2010 13:05:41 GMT -7
Hi Steve, sorry for the delay.
Apostasy in Scripture is never seen as losing your salvation, but as departing from the faith. For example, one of the most well known texts on apostasy states, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (1 Tim. 4:1) There is portrayed throughout the Bible the reality (and we see this even today) that people can indeed believe for a time but then fall away (from believing). But the proof that you are born of God is that you will not only believe, but also continue believing. 1 John 2:19 could not be clearer on this point. And 1 John 5:4 cannot be downplayed: "Whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world: And this is the victory that overcomes the world: even our faith." It is impossible to say that a born again believer can be overcome by the world and perish according to this verse. However one tries to explain it, any idea that someone who is born of God will not overcome the world is untenable.
But because of the fact that people can believe for a season and then fall away, proving they were really unregenerate and that their faith was really only man-wrought and not divine-wrought, makes it much more messy: it is difficult to determine who exactly is born of God and who exactly is not, because so long as someone is believing we really have no reason to suspect their salvation. Paul knew this well. He wrote: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (2 Tim. 2:19) Paul is not saying that we cannot have assurance of salvation, nor even that we can never know whether others are elect (see 1 Thess. 1:4), but that sometimes we can be wrong. I believe Paul acted on the principle that if someone was believing we ought to assure them with all the promises of election, even if we end up being mistaken. I see this in the relationship between Paul and Demas. At one time they were ministering together! Paul certainly would not have ministered with someone he knew was unregenerate, but because Demas believed he behaved toward Him as a brother. Later, Demas proved himself to be unregenerate when he was overcome by the world (2 Tim. 4:10). I see this same principle in 1 John 2:19. While those men were with the brethren John had no reason to suspect them. But it was only after they departed from the faith that John could say: "...but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." They were not manifest before!
A person who departs from the faith proves that they were never justified. It is not that they depart from justification. In Romans 8:30, the Holy Spirit reveals: "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." This is a spiritual chain that cannot be broken. What a glorious truth! Those whom God predestines are justified, and those whom He justifies are glorified. God doesn't make mistakes.
I'm glad you mentioned 1 Corinthians 15. Once again this principle occurs:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Cor. 15:1-2)
It is only persevering faith that saves, and Paul expressly says that if a person does not continue to believe then the faith which they had was in vain - their former faith was profitless.
Now to your excellent question that I before said I would answer. If it is true that everyone who is born of God overcomes the world, why all the warnings and exhortations to abide in the faith? If it is inevitable that a true Christian cannot fall away, why warn?
I confess that many who believe in eternal security tend to sweep those verses under the rug, but I say that it is completely unnecessary to do so. Every verse of Scripture, including the warning passages, are in full conformity to the doctrine of eternal security. We don't need to sweep them under the rug at all.
Let's go to Philippians 2:12.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
I quote this verse because of it's broadness. I believe every exhortation, command and warning in Scripture can be summarized in this verse. Paraphrasically, Paul says, "Whatever it is that needs to be done to accomplish salvation in your lives, do it." Believe, abide, overcome, remain, run, persevere, endure, etc, etc.
But it is the next verse that gives us the answer to all the warning passages in the whole Bible: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (v. 13) That is, whatever needs to be done to accomplish your salvation, GOD is the One who is working in you BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO according to His good pleasure. Therefore it is not predicated upon either our willing nor our doing, though it will ultimately play itself out in our willing and our doing. It is by all these warnings and exhortations that the regenerate and the unregenerate are distinguished. It is not that the regenerate don't need to be given warnings... it is that the regenerate will take heed to the warnings and the unregenerate will not. The regenerate man fears and trembles when John says to abide, and taking heed, he abides. It is the unregenerate man who fails to take heed and ends up departing from the faith proving himself to be unregenerate. Thus all the warnings and exhortations in Scripture are to be heeded by the believer, and not one excepted. They are his safety, and God who works in him is his guarantee of obedience. Thus John states that the one who is born of God "overcomes the world", not, "is once saved always saved." They really do overcome because they are born of God!
As for synergism and monergism, of course we as people have a part to play: we must believe and overcome by faith. And I agree wholeheartedly with you that faith is not a work but is the opposite of work (Rom. 4:5). Therefore there indeed appears to be a true synergism. But in reality it is wholly monergism, for it is only because God is working in us by His grace that we both will and do according to His good pleasure. So while there is a perceived synergism, there really is only monergism - yet that monergism never downplays nor discards the necessary resultant things that we do.
An interesting take on Titus 3:4-7 which I've never heard, but I don't see there what you are trying to say.
Paul is outlining the process of salvation, and as I said before salvation requires regeneration, but not because regeneration justifies us, but brings us to justification; and in Scripture, as is here in Titus 3:4-7, it is justification that is technically designated as salvation: salvation from the wrath of God.
According to Titus 3:4-7, this is how God saves us:
First, in verse 3, we are foolish, deceived, disobedient, etc. Not only are our actions perverse, but also our minds. Implied is that we are under condemnation and deserve nothing but wrath.
But God moves in kindness toward mankind by sending His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins and to enable reconciliation. The objective work is complete.
Now the subjective work begins. God, not according to any works of righteousness that we have done, shows mercy upon us and saves us (this sounds just like Romans 9:16). This is how He saves us:
He regenerates us (v. 5). It is "through" (Greek: dia) regeneration that He saves us, not "by" regeneration. This is the first thing, not because regeneration itself justifies, but that it is antecedent to that which justifies: that is, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus regeneration is essentially the taking out, by God, of the stony heart and the giving, by God, of the new heart (Ezekiel 36:25-27; hence the "pouring out on us" in v. 6. Notice the similarity between Ezekiel and Titus and Jesus in John 3:5), and this is what Paul is saying in Titus 3:5. The washing of regeneration is the cleansing of our inward rebellion against God's truth, which before always suppressed His truth, while the renewal of the Holy Spirit is referring to the renewing of our minds and of our understanding (see Eph. 4:23). This is the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to the sinner about sin and salvation.
But however we technically explain verse 5 and 6, it is not to be missed that verse 7 is the climax of the passage and the fulfillment of "He saved us". It is that "being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Justification is the salvation spoken of in this passage; the Spirit works in us to bring us to faith in Christ for justification and eternal life.
You don't have to agree with my explanation of everything in this passage, but at least you can see how even here regeneration precedes faith as it relates to salvation.
Without regeneration preceding faith I would have no hope for salvation, because being sinner I know that I would ever suppress the truth of God unto my own destruction were it not for His removing my hard heart and giving me a willingness to hear and believe. It must be the work of God, for no one seeks God nor fears God (Rom. 3:11, 18). It must be God who does it in us, as Jeremiah 32:39-41 so clearly states. This is the only resolution to the problem, and I am thankful to God and happy to give Him all the glory for my salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jul 5, 2010 16:16:47 GMT -7
Hey Eli,
I a little overwhelmed right now with school so I won't be able to get to this for a while. I'll try to pick it up again when I get more time.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Eli Brayley on Jul 6, 2010 18:13:19 GMT -7
That's alright, Steve. I understand how it is. Looking forward to hearing from you again once things settle down.
God bless! -Eli
|
|