2 Peter 2:20

[Kurieuo]

Why does the believer need to be punished for their sin; did not Christ take upon himself the full payment of our sins in dying once for all? (1 Peter 3:18; Colossians 2:9-12) If Christ died for all our sin, so that we are now forgiven by grace rather than punished by justice, then those who hold onto Christ's promise can not recieve punishment for their sin (which according to Scripture is death—Romans 6:23). Thus, if a believer is saved from death and given eternal life, that believer has no sin to be paid for.

The fact that our sins have been forgiven for in an absolute sense means that we will not suffer for them in an eternal sense. This in no way means that we will not suffer for them in a temporal sense.

The term "suffer" can be equivocated in several ways here. Either "suffer" as in righteous punishment (God's wrath) brought about by our sin, "suffer" as discipline and correction, or "suffer" as in the natural consequences which follow our sin. I believe we who believe in Christ suffer the latter two, but we do not suffer the first as we have received Christ's forgiveness. Yet, you believe we still get punished for our sin, in which case I see the heart of Gospel being ripped out where Christ paid for our punishment. I see the route you've taken destroys hope in God's grace, in the redemption that came by Christ, if we are still to incur righteous punishment for our sins.

(Please note, I had an "Ahh huh" experience below where what you were saying clicked. While we get disciplined, you do not believe we still get punished for our sin do you?)

No sin will be counted against a person at the Bema Seat, or even at the Great White Throne Judgment. The issue in these final, eschatological judgments will be the merits of our works. Because Christ has paid the price for sin, there can be no condemnation.

So there will be no scourging of punishment then? For if a person's sin is not counted against them, then no punishment can be wrought for that person's sin.

However, the moment we receive Christ, we become, for the first time, God's children. Not all men are such. All are God's creation; not all are God's children. The fact that God disciplines His children is so well attested to in Scripture I am suprised that anyone would object!

Yes, he shepherds us... trains us in the way we should go... refines us so we are not spoilt heirs. This is not a punishment, or scourging upon us for our sins. The Hebrews 12 passage you brought up is about God training us through hardship towards righteousness, not punishing us for sin. We read:

• 7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

This passage is not saying believers who fall into sin will suffer scourging for their sins. It is says all beleivers can expect to be scourged by God if they head down the wrong direction, for we are His sons and He will lead us in the way we should go as His children.

What do you think is the purpose of church discipline? Or what about the letters to the seven churches? Did Jesus not say that if these people continued in sin that He would put out their candle? John spoke of the sin unto death, and this in reference to Scripture. The previously noted Hebrews passage clearly says that God disciplines His children. He scourges them. Those are not my words, K. They are God's.

But he scourges for discipline and training, not to punish us for sins which Christ has already redeemed us from.

It is your explanation is it not, that the believer who falls into sin will not simply be disciplined, but scourged by God for their sin?

Hmm. I've had an "ah huh" moment and can see you are actually talking about discipline in this life only. You don't believe God will punish those believers who fall into sin in the life which follows do you? If you don't, then I no longer consider your explanation heretical. I was considering your explanation in the context of the after life when all is over, not in this temporal life.

Now if we are still to receive consequences for some sin, then maybe we should all fear this scourging as I don't see anyone who does not continue falling into sin, believer or non. It seems it may be better to be a non-believer than a believer if the scourging is worse than hell.

Only Christians should fear this scourging. I fear it. So should you. Thus, we are exhorted by Paul to offer our bodies as living sacrifices. However, non-Christians do not have to fear this. What they have to fear is another catagory entirely, namely, wrath. God punishes sin in this life, both believer and non. However, each group has a different type of punishment to worry about, albeit on the surface they may appear to be the same. God destroys the wicked; he disciplines the righteous.

I understand. You may want to stress that you believe the 2 Peter 2 passage is in relation to this world only. That is, the believer who falls into sin will be scourged by God to correct their way, and discipline them. Rather than the way I understood which the believer who falls into sin and dies will be scourged by God as a punishment for their sins.

These are just some thoughts which come to my mind while reading over your words. I really can't help but feel such an explanation is even perhaps heretical, making a mockery out of Christ's redemptive act and God's grace (albeit I still accept you in Christ).

You should be careful with this kind of lange, K. There is very little difference between saying someone's "explanation is perhaps heretical," and saying "that belief is heretical." And there is no practical difference in saying "that belief is heretical" and "the person who holds that belief is a heretic." If you are going to lay such a serious charge, then lay it openly.

I thought I was open. I have no time to be around the bush and will call a duck a duck if I see one (just picture me beside a poind and seeing 100 ducks: "duck duck duck..." ). Yet, your explanation when properly understood as God correcting our ways in this life is not at all heretical.

You should also consider your words more carefully with reference to my understanding of Christ's redemptive act and God's grace. What what considers "mockery" or foolishness, another considers the very essense of the Gospel. I know your understanding of salvation, as we've had the discussion in depth. The charge can run either way. As I've said before, editorial comments do not help discussion.

Finally, you should be extremely careful with phrases like "I still accept you in Christ." I think I understand your intent, but this mind-boggingly patronizing. You would put yourself on a level where you can accept a heretic, because, after all, he may be very wrong, but he' still saved, God bless him. Needless to say, it doesn't matter one iota whether I accept you or if you accept me.

You are over-analysing my words. I was simply emphasising while I didn't agree with your explanation which I considered heretical (when understood as a believer who falls into sin and dies will be scourged as a punishment for their sins), that I'm sure your sincerity is there and that God wouldn't hold it against you.

It would perhaps be good to re-read my messages with the knowledge that I was understanding your explanation of 2 Peter 2 in the context of the believer who falls back into sin and dies, is worse off than the unbeliever in hell. I hope you can forgive me for misunderstanding. I certainly didn't intend to inflame, but am sure you also see the way I was first understanding your explanation as even heretical?

Kurieuo

[led]

I'm not too sure I understand were it mentions anything temporal. It does say "never" which is an eternal connection. I think that's the only time a temporal or eternal word is used.

vs.21 It would be better if they had never known the right way to live than to know it and then reject the holy commandments that were given to them.

Isn't the unbeliever's punishment eternal?

If "it's better to never know the right way" mean "it's better to go to hell", then isn't it talking about eternity?

[YLTYLT]

Yes but "never" is a modifier of the word "known" which is past tense. So it only refers to eternal past - not eternal future.

And you are correct that it does not mention temporal in the verse. But to get a correct understanding, you must read it in context of the surrounding scripture as well as in light of other scripture.

In other words, if a particular interpretation of a verse completely contradicts other scripture that has is heavily supported throughout the texts, then this particular interpretation may need to be rethought to see if there may be a better interpretation that fits in line with other scripture.

Keep in mind that the other scripture needs to be heavily supported. Or else you can get into circular reasoning. A good place to start is with the Gospel1 Cor 15:1-4. Because this is what Saves. nothing else...

If an interpretation contradicts it then that interpretation is wrong because there is only one Gospel (Gal 1:6[/quote]

[Kurieuo]

Led,

In support of what you are trying to argue for (assumably against OSAS) I think there are other passages of importance in this chapter.

Take verse 1:

• 1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

The false teachers were believers. The word for "bought" has a Strong's definition of "to purchase; specifically to redeem." These false teachers and prophets deny the very person (i.e., Christ) who had redeemed them.

If you read the link Jac provided (see http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1988/88may2.html) Wilkin seems to overlook the false teachers were also believers where he says: "Verses 18 and 20 indicate that the people being drawn into sin by the false teachers are those "who have actually escaped from those who live in error" and who "have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Only believers fit that description." Wilkin fails to recognise verse 1 already states the false teachers and prophets were believers, having been redeemed.

Now the next important verses are 15 and 17:

• 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.
  ...
  17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

In verse 15 we see again these false teachers and prophets left the straight way. The KJV has they "abandoned the right way." What is the straight, or right way? Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) The same word is used for "way" in both instances. Clearly, verse 15 is saying (like verse 1) that the false teachers who were once with Christ, have now abandoned Christ.

Then we come to verse 17 which says "Blackest darkness is reserved for them". For who? For the false teachers who were once redeemed. Wilkin agrees verse 17 and prior refer to the false teachers. What is this "blackest darkness"? KJV adds "forever" rendering this verse as "Blackest darkness is reserved for them forever." Clearly this is an everlasting punishment. So what we have here as "blackest darkness" is a metaphor what we as Christians understand to be hell.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

K, you seem to have my understanding of the passage down pat. Scourging is discipline.

As for the remarks on heresy, call it what you will, but like I said . . . take it as a word of caution. I've known you long enough that I figured there was something more to it.

Concerning the present discussion . . . you guys are going to end up making me post a verse by verse of this entire passage, aren't you? I don't believe these false teachers were ever saved to begin with. The fact that they were bought by Christ only supports my concept of universal atonement. The word is, in fact, reconciled to God through Christ. ALL sin has been atoned for. Men are not condemned for their sin, but for their seperation from God. Christ offers those who will trust in Him life. It's that simple.

On a final note, this discussion can't help but go in an OSAS direction. Obviously, I hold to the position, but let me tell you why it is incredibly important. There was a time I would have said that it didn't matter, because both OSASers and NOSASers agree you should live in the faith on a daily basis. The practical ramifications seemed minor. However, consider this statement: "We are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth."

Let's use Acts 16:31 as an example to illustrate this point. Believe on the Lord Jesus, and be saved. Saved from what? Hell. Wrath. Take your pick. Now, if you believe that you can lose your salvation, then it is possible to believe on Jesus and Hell still "get you." You are rather like a man standing on a train track with the train bearing down on him, but it is ten miles away. You are safe now, but it can get you.

So, in NOSAS theology, the phrase should be understood, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be temporarily safe." And that, my friend, is good, solid Roman Catholic orthodoxy. The whole "state of grace" notion began there.

Now, the problem, though, is that if Acts 16:31 means that if you believe in Christ, then you are immune to Hell--that is, you are absolutely saved from it--then the person who believes he can lose his salvation has not believed the gospel. So, the question is this: Does "saved" mean "in a state of grace" or "permanently delivered from the clutches of hell"? This passage doesn't tell us. And we wouldn't expect it to, because it was written to Christians where who, it was assumed, knew what it meant to be saved.

But, it so happens that there is a book written to non-Christians that does not assume they know what it means to be saved. That would be the Gospel of John. We all know John 3:16, but 3:17 is just as important. "or God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (NIV)

So . . . 16 says whoever believes will not die, but has life, and 17 says the can be condemned or saved. It seems obvious that belief unto life results in salvation, whereas unbelief results in condemnation. And what does 16 say: "He who believes will not perish." So, salvation is the promise that, upon belief, we will not die. Ever. If a person teaches that you can lose your salvation, they are teaching that you can believe, and still perish. That's contrary to Scripture.

So, the definition of salvation seems to be that it is the deliverance from death aquired through a belief in Jesus Christ. Thus, if Acts 16:31 says "believe and be saved," and you believe you can lose your salvation, you have not believed what the verse really says. Forget being saved. You are note even temporarily safe!

So, OSAS is a HUGe issue. It is the very essence of the gospell. That's why I told Byblos that if he'd never had 100% assurance of his salvation, then he's still in his sins. I'm not going to judge anyone's salvation, but let's just put it this way:

Assuming the gospel message is as follows, have you believed it?

Gospel: I have trusted Christ, by His life, death, buriel, and resurrection, has saved me from death, and that I will never, under any circumstances, suffer eternal seperation from Him.

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life ~ Jesus (John 6:47)

God bless

[FFC]

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life ~ Jesus (John 6:47)

Amen, Jac! I agree, but to play Devil's advocate some could say that the "he who believes" could be the disclaimer. Does everlasting life require continuous believing? Duck, it's a monkey wrench!

[Byblos]

So, the definition of salvation seems to be that it is the deliverance from death aquired through a belief in Jesus Christ. Thus, if Acts 16:31 says "believe and be saved," and you believe you can lose your salvation, you have not believed what the verse really says. Forget being saved. You are note even temporarily safe!

So, OSAS is a HUGe issue. It is the very essence of the gospell. That's why I told Byblos that if he'd never had 100% assurance of his salvation, then he's still in his sins. I'm not going to judge anyone's salvation, but let's just put it this way:

Assuming the gospel message is as follows, have you believed it?

Gospel: I have trusted Christ, by His life, death, buriel, and resurrection, has saved me from death, and that I will never, under any circumstances, suffer eternal seperation from Him.

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life ~ Jesus (John 6:47)

I understanding what you're saying Jac but I still cannot reconcile it with two things: 1) The free will issue and 2) The judgment issue. Both of which we have some deep disagreements on, particularly free will.

You say we cannot loose our salvation because we did not choose to be saved, we chose to trust in Christ. That's a semantic argument as I truly do not see the difference. Why do we choose to trust Christ? What is our motivation? It is precisely because we want to be eternally saved. I.e. it is our choice to accept God's free gift as it is equally our choice to reject it through our free will. God laid out the rules and also laid out the consequences and the rewards.

I am very curious to know, however, where do all OSASers on this board stand with respect to free will and judgment. Do they all agree with you on those 2 issues? Because it seems to me that either they totally agree with you or they are not OSASers (in which case I will proclaim them lost Catholics, LOL). I don't see a middle ground here. Let's hear some opinions please. Anyone?

God Bless,

Byblos.

[Jac3510]

FFC - the idea that a person has to "keep on believing" falls to the same "temporarily safe" argument as presented above. So long as you are believing, you are safe from hell. But that means it is possible to believe in Jesus and then still get caught by Hell anyway, which stands in direct contrast to a plethora of Scriptures. For instance, Jesus said who He drinks of the water of life will never thirst again. He said that the ones given to Him He would not lose (which would, to me, kill the idea that you can "opt out" of salvation). Jesus said that he who eats of His flesh will never die.

As it stands, there are words that mean "continue to do so." They don't appear in these passages for the reason that they are not required. So, it comes down to this: are we "saved" only so long as we are in a state of belief or not? There is absolutely no middle ground on this. If I am right, then if a person has never believed--even on a subconscious, unexamined assumption--that they cannot lose their salvation, then it is a logical necessity to assert that they have never been saved on the account that they have never received the gift of life. They've not trusted Christ. Or, put in the words of my original argument, they've believed biblical language but not biblical truth.

Byblos:

It seems we've found something we can totally agree on. It's amazing, though, how many Protestants say they believe in OSAS but deny it in practice. The issue, in reality, isn't OSAS but rather absolute, objective assurance. Let me use my uncle as an example. He is a Ph.D. graduate from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and a phenomenal preacher. He's not a strict Calvinist, but he strongly believes in the final perseverence of the saints. He is a thorough Lordship salvationist. As a result of these beliefs, he argues that if you've never completely submitted your life to Christ then you are not saved. Equally, he argues that if a person falls from the faith, they prove they were never saved.

So, he argues for OSAS. Once you are really saved, you can't lose it, because God Himself sustains your faith. But, how do you know if you are really saved? The answer is in how you live your life. If you at some point fall away, you prove you were only deluding yourself. Thus, the assurance you have of your salvation is subjective. It is only as sure as your best day.

So, while he pays lip service to the idea of OSAS . . . while he says from the pulpit, "If you don't know that you know that you know that you are going to heaven when you die . . ." he will turn right around in the same breath and say, "But if you fall into sin, that's an indicator that you haven't really believed."

Yes, they are lost Catholics . That's why the Free Grace gospel is such a big deal. It's radical. It says that we can trust Christ for our salvation and that's that. Assurance is of the very essense of saving faith. It is purely objective. The FG gospel is the only gospel that is absolutely, completely, and totally without works. That's the appeal to me. Those who disagree, even our Protestant brothers . . . well, you can debate with them over the Catholic roots of their faith. You may want to suggest they look at the original writings of Calvin and compare them with his writings post-Trent.

God bless

[YLTYLT]

Jac do you know where I can find some of Calvins later writings (post-Trent?). I understand that he changed some of his views later in life. Is this correct?

[Jac3510]

YLT:

Here is a good place to start. It isn't Calvin himself, but its a discussion on how a change in one area of theology forces a change in other areas, and Calvin is used as an example. I would also recognize doing some general research on Trent. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject.

That should give you some background info. As far as Calvin himself, his Institutes is absolutely required reading. While the later chapters represent some later thought, in general, the entire work could be considered "early Calvin." His commentaries represent his later thinking, which improves in some ways and degenerates in others. All of them are good, but his Romans commentaries are, of course, absolutely required. I've not looked at his work on Galatians, although I would expect it to be very helpful as well, given the known impact of Luther on his thinking.

Besides that, I'd recommend looking into R. T. Kendall's book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). It's sort also required reading on the subject.

PL may have some extra ideas on places to go and works to read . . . I don't want to offer a ton of overload. Besides, I'm still working through a lot of this myself.

Hope that helps,

God bless

[Kurieuo]

K, you seem to have my understanding of the passage down pat. Scourging is discipline.

That is fair enough, although I myself think there is more in mind than simply discipline. It seems clear to me reading the chapter that final judgement is in mind, but I don't care to force this conclusion onto 2 Peter 2—either you accept it or you don't.

However, further to 2 Peter 2 we do have Hebrews 10:29 which reads: "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" I see this goes hand-in-glove with 2 Peter 2:20 where it is written those who believe are worse off in the end if they turn away from it. We don't just have discipline, but punishment. And Hebrews 10:27 reveals this punishment is of eternal consequences, being judgement and "raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

I don't believe these false teachers were ever saved to begin with. The fact that they were bought by Christ only supports my concept of universal atonement. The word is, in fact, reconciled to God through Christ. ALL sin has been atoned for. Men are not condemned for their sin, but for their seperation from God. Christ offers those who will trust in Him life. It's that simple.

I can agree with all sin being atoned for since I believe in universal forgiveness. Yet, having one's sin atoned for, and receiving that atonement are two separate things. If there was not this distinction, then it seems to me universal salvation would follow.

Now if verse 1 simply means the sin of false teachers had been attoned for, then this seems redundant for why state the obvious and further constrain it to "them" (the false teachers)? If it was intended as you say I would expect to read:

• They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought us—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

rather than

• They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Further, I would argue to be "redeemed" (a given meaning of the Greek for "bought") not only requires Christ's payment for our sins but our acceptance of that payment. And so if the false teachers had been redeemed, then they had accepted Christ's payment.

Verse 15 also backs up the fact they had accepted Christ, for these false teachers abandoned the right way, the way Christ freely opens to all of us.

On a final note, this discussion can't help but go in an OSAS direction. Obviously, I hold to the position, but let me tell you why it is incredibly important. There was a time I would have said that it didn't matter, because both OSASers and NOSASers agree you should live in the faith on a daily basis. The practical ramifications seemed minor. However, consider this statement: "We are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth."

I am not familiar with the options you present and do not know where they come from, but I'm not sure we are saved by believing biblical language or biblical truth. Biblical truths are important, but the conditions of the disjunction seem to be too limited. Further, to say that "believe" is simply belief, for example as in John 3:16, is I believe to misunderstand that pisteuo here is intended to encompass so much more. Not just a belief, but an entrusting and conviction. For as is said in James 2:19, "even the demons believe and shudder."

Let's use Acts 16:31 as an example to illustrate this point. Believe on the Lord Jesus, and be saved. Saved from what? Hell. Wrath. Take your pick.

Sin... missing the mark which makes us incompatible with God... but ok.

Now, if you believe that you can lose your salvation, then it is possible to believe on Jesus and Hell still "get you." You are rather like a man standing on a train track with the train bearing down on him, but it is ten miles away. You are safe now, but it can get you.

I don't believe I can "lose" my salvation. I am quite assured of it. I do believe I can "throw away" my salvation and tread what Christ did for me underfoot. (Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:29)

Further, it is said that one who throws away the gift after having tasted it, for such it is impossible to return (Hebrews 6:4-6). I believe this is likely because God's love and kindness leads us to a state of repentance (Romans 2:4), but if a person rejects Christ after having tasted the gift and love and all that in encompassed, then I don't see how they could be lured back to a state of repentance by something they freely rejected.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life ~ Jesus (John 6:47)

Amen, Jac! I agree, but to play Devil's advocate some could say that the "he who believes" could be the disclaimer. Does everlasting life require continuous believing? Duck, it's a monkey wrench!

Say a person who believed realises after they don't desire the gift they were given of being reconciled with God. Is God to torture them for eternity by making them be with Him?

A response Christians often give as to why God condemns some people from His presence is the free will argument. I believe Geisler once put it that if God forced Himself onto everyone, even those who didn't want Him, then that would be divine rape. Does one's belief entail God forces Himself onto that person, even if that person decides they do not want what God has to offer to the point of even making a mockery out of it?

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

K,

I have no problem with the Hebrews passages. I suppose we could walk through each of them, but all three are ones that I regularly use in support of universal atonement and OSAS.

I do want to be more clear on saved by biblical language vs. biblical truth. First off, we know that we are saved through belief. I don't care how you define belief right now. That is a separate, although important, issue. But, the thing here is that regardless of how you define it, I believe you'll be forced to come to OSAS.

Now, we know that we are saved by grace through faith (belief). The question then is this: what do we have to believe (however you define it) to be saved. Two people may say they believe the same thing and in fact not. This is beautifully demonstrated in the Salvation thread. Catholics say they believe in "faith alone." Byblos provided a quote from the Pope where he said as much. However, their concept of "faith alone" is so radically different from the typical Protestant's as to render them entirely different beliefs. The same can be said with assurance of salvation, which I will simply say that you do not have in the same sense that I do as your assurance is contingent on your not "opting out" of the faith. You cannot know for 100% fact that you won't do that, so your "assurance" is something different than what I am talking about.

So, we have this idea of biblical language. We all use it. We all say "salvation is by grace through faith alone." And we all believe that. And we all believe a person can "know" he is saved. And we all believe that "He who believes in Jesus has everlasting life." We have to believe those things because they are in the Bible.

BUT, the problem is that we all believe very different things about what those concepts actually entail. Biblical language can cover a lot of ideas. However, biblical truth is not wide. When Jesus said, "He who believes has everlasting life," he meant something very specific. When Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved," he meant something very specific. If your concept of those words are wrong, you may have believed an idea expressed in biblical language, but you have not believed in biblical truth.

So, we return to my arguments. I assert that the biblical truth is that the offer of salvation is unconditional. The nature of the gift is everlasting. If you believe that you can lose that gift, even by means of "giving it back," then you have not received the gift. Why? Because you are believing in Jesus for something He does not offer. Jesus makes one, and only one, offer:

Believe in me for everlasting life.

If you then believe that in order to receive everlasting life, you have to maintain this faith, commit your life to His lordship, repent of your sins, be baptized, or any other addition, be it by prerequisite or simply requisite, then you have not believed Jesus' promise. He offers everlasting life--a life that cannot be lost--on one and only one basis: simple faith. Therefore, if you do not understand (or do not assume) that this salvation cannot be lost, then you have not received the gift as you have tried to accept something not offered. It would be like going to Burger King and ordering a Bic Mac. Yes, a Big Mac is a hamburger, but it's not the kind that Burger King sells. They offer Whoppers. Secondly, if you do not receive that gift in faith alone, or only in faith, then you have not received the gift. If you try to "exchange your life for His," you have not received the gift, because those are not the terms on which it is offered.

God saves on His terms, or He does not save at all. He has one term, which is grace. You receive everlasting life freely, or you don't receive it. Thus, narrow is the way to salvation. "Easy Believism" turns out not to be so easy to believe. Few find the way of salvation because they reject the notion that you can be 100% assured of your salvation in an objective sense. There has to be a way to lose it, or at least give it back. Thus, they reject the actual gift of God.

We are saved through our belief, K. But, that belief has to be in the truth presented in the Bible, intended by God -- not in some "truth" that we think we have found in the Bible but was, in reality, not intended by God.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

Hi Chris,

I obviously have objections, most of which your challenging my true acceptance of Christ. I will just state, in order to believe in Christ for forgiveness of our sins, certain things need to be acknowledged by a person including God exists, they have sinned, they do not add up to God's standard, and require help only Jesus can provide, and the like. Thus, belief in Christ includes all these things. And when one finally accepts Christ that is when one commits or trusts (pisteuo [aka "believe"]) their life into His hands, the redemptive transaction is made complete. Other than stating this, I will let your comments lie for while I understand you sincerely believe what you do, I am also entirely repulsed by your comments which challenges the assurance I know I have. I am happy to wait for that final day to be justified on whether I truly accepted God's grace through the redemption that came by Christ.

God saves on His terms, or He does not save at all. He has one term, which is grace. You receive everlasting life freely, or you don't receive it. Thus, narrow is the way to salvation. "Easy Believism" turns out not to be so easy to believe. Few find the way of salvation because they reject the notion that you can be 100% assured of your salvation in an objective sense. There has to be a way to lose it, or at least give it back. Thus, they reject the actual gift of God.

We are saved through our belief, K. But, that belief has to be in the truth presented in the Bible, intended by God -- not in some "truth" that we think we have found in the Bible but was, in reality, not intended by God.

In my last post to FFC would you say the person who "throws away" their belief in Christ never truly received God's gift then? That is, they had a form of "easy believism" and thus were never truly saved for they accepted something that wasn't on offer. If so it does seem we reach the same end conclusion regarding a person's salvation who ends up entirely rejecting Christ, albeit by different paths.

Only now this means your OSAS belief no longer has the total assurance you believe it has. Afterall, how does one know they didn't really accept something not on offer (a psuedo-gift of Christ which you commented I'd have) instead of the true gift of Christ? I'm sorry, but I am entirely assured of my salvation. If I accepted your beliefs here, then I don't see how I could be assured of my salvation at any point. For I would not know whether the "gift" I accepted was real until I died.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

K,

There are those in my camp who hold an overly narrow understanding of what I'm advocating here. I agree with them that the Gospel is OSAS (so far as it's nature). To reject it is to reject the Gospel itself. However, the idea has a caveat that is often missed and thus misapplied. This was demonstrated at the conference I recently attended where one of the speakers was asked this question:

"I was saved as a young child, but it wasn't until a few years ago that I grasped the concept of eternal security. When do you say I was saved?"

The speaker replied emphatically that the man was saved at the moment he grasped the concept of eternal security.

I reject this, as the proclamation is "faith alone in Christ alone," not "faith alone in eternal security alone!" What is often missed is that OSAS can be assumed, and I would argue it actually is. Suppose I give a gift to a loved one. They receive it. At a later time, you ask them, "Is there anything you could do that would cause Chris to take the gift back?" At this point, they would either object or stop and consider the question. However, it is important to note that until you brought it up, they had simply assumed the gift actually was theirs.

It is the same with salvation. The essense of the Gospel is to believe that you actually have it. If, then, a person does not believe they actually have it--even on an assumed level--then the person is not saved. Of course, two people may say that they "know" they are saved and again mean different things. That's why I keep harping on objective assurance.

Anyway, my point is that there are many people who received the simple gift of God and later had their thought process perverted by the idea that the gift could be lost or given back. However, that does not change the fact that they did, at one time, actually receive the gift. My hope and prayer for you is that you did, at some point, believe the in the simple nature of the Gospel. I work on the assumption that you did and you have sense changed your beliefs.

Now, as for the person who believes and later throws away their faith, I have no problem with that. They are still saved. Salvation comes by trusting Christ once to save you. The moment you do that, He does it. There's nothing you and I can do about it at that point. We are born again, never to hunger or thirst again for salvation. Salvation absolutely cannot be lost.

Is that easy believism? I say no by the simple proof that those of us who actually believe what I am saying are in a strong minority. You refuse to accept the notion that God would save someone simply because they trusted Christ, despite any lack of fruit, repentence of sin, or perseverence in faith. So it isn't easy to believe. This is exacty what makes it difficult to believe. However, it most certainly is simple believism.

As an aside, I would hope you wouldn't take this personally. My job is simple, and it's the same one you have. I exound Scripture, explaining it as I have come to understand it. It is illogical for you to be offended at the necessary results of what I'm saying as they relate to you. You don't judge the truthfulness of a statement based on how it affects you. You judge the truthfulness of a statement based on its own merits, and then you react to it as necessary.

So, when I say you don't have assurance, define it however you like, K, but you don't have it in the same sense that I do. If you want to make it less personal, let's define the idea as Foo. Foo is the 100% objective knowledge that a person will go to Heaven absolutely regardless of anything they do, say, or believe (or don't do, say, or believe) for the rest of their lives. Foo is the absolute knowledge of a salvation that cannot be lost.

Do you have Foo, K? I do. Your system doesn't allow it. Again, don't take it personally. We're simply talking scriptural principles . . . it's up to you to decide what they mean to you.