Children of God are Born Again with Eternal Life

[BavarianWheels]

After thinking about this, sort-of, for a couple of days, I've come to think something that I haven't thought before. It had been really inconceivable to me that someone, after having experienced Christ and having accepted Him, could possibly deny Him later. But I've been thinking of free will. We always have free will. If we decide later, based on our free will, that we don't want to be with God, then God cannot keep us in chains (as it were) and make us be with Him. I think that, because of all the verses in the NT, including some parables and such by Christ Himself, about perseverance, that we can "lose our salvation." I had read in some commentaries about this subject that salvation is a process in the NT, but we have a different mind-set today and have a hard time with this. I very firmly believe that we can have assurance of salvation, but I think this is for the believer - the believer who keeps on believing. As long as we believe, nothing will separate us from Christ. But if we deny Christ after "believing," it would imply that He would have to do His work on the cross over again - which He will not. If you deny Him after knowing Him, He can deny you to the Father and say, "I never knew you." It's interesting to think of, the power of our free will. I don't know what could possibly lead a person to deny Christ after having supposedly accepted Him, but it seems that the possibility exists. But Christ in His great love would never let anyone be snatched away who wants to be with Him. And why would a nonbeliever care about assurance of salvation? It would seem to me that it would be repugnant to them.

I've leaned this way for a long time. Free will is not free will if a person is not free to choose and unchoose Christ. To the one that perseveres, to him/her is salvation a guarantee as in John 3:16. But to the one that believes and does nothing with the gift of the HS speaking to his/her heart, then the gift is revoked and Christ denys him/her. Again, see Matthew 25:14-30 and how the servant given one talent that did nothing with it but hid it and was thrown out "into the darkness, where there will be weaping and gnashing of teeth."
.
.

[truthman]

Again, see Matthew 25:14-30 and how the servant given one talent that did nothing with it but hid it and was thrown out "into the darkness, where there will be weaping and gnashing of teeth."

First, we cannot build doctrines on parables which are only illustrations.
Second, to use this parable to illustrate your beliefs, you must be sure that the talent represents salvation.
Third, the talent most likely represents physical life. Can you be sure that it does not? OR, the talent could represent knowledge of truth. There is no reason to assume that the talent must represent salvation.

[cslewislover]

Narnia4, yes. It's not like we can work in order to feel assured, but only hold on to belief.

Do you know that you HAVE eternal life? If you do, then it cannot end or it is not eternal. If you do not know that you HAVE eternal life, 1 John 5:13 says that you can.

-__- Why are you asking this? We are talking about possibilities of persons, persons who say themselves that they are apostate. I had read Byblos' last comments to you, and thought about what he was asking about, and then wrote my comments. I already said believers are assured of salvation. People who don't believe are not, and many would not want to be. Anyway, sure, I believe I have eternal life; I have believed that for some time now, as soon as I felt Christ in me.

[truthman]

-__- Why are you asking this? We are talking about possibilities of persons, persons who say themselves that they are apostate. I had read Byblos' last comments to you, and thought about what he was asking about, and then wrote my comments. I already said believers are assured of salvation. People who don't believe are not, and many would not want to be. Anyway, sure, I believe I have eternal life; I have believed that for some time now, as soon as I felt Christ in me.

I asked because you said:

But I've been thinking of free will. We always have free will. If we decide later, based on our free will, that we don't want to be with God, then God cannot keep us in chains (as it were) and make us be with Him. I think that, because of all the verses in the NT, including some parables and such by Christ Himself, about perseverance, that we can "lose our salvation."

If a person has eternal life he cannot lose it, give it up, or kill it. It cannot end because it is eternal. For a person to lose his salvation he would have to end his eternal life.

[cslewislover]

Well, I already said what I said, so there's no point in saying it again.

[Byblos]

Given that you believe it is possible a faith can turn out to be false faith, however genuine it might seem at the time, can you honestly say one can have absolute assurance? I mean I can ask you personally the question: you said you already have eternal life. Can you be absolutely sure 10, 15, 20 years from now that you won't change your mind about God? If you're honest enough (not suggesting you're not, just sayin') then your answer must be no I cannot be absolutely sure because no one can predict the future. And even if you did, there are others who were where you are right now, absolutely sure they had eternal life, to later become apostates. What would you tell these people? That their faith wasn't genuine? At the time they certainly believed it was genuine and believed they had eternal life. Now you're telling them they don't have eternal life, which contradicts what you said about once having eternal life one cannot lose by definition. I'm sure you will object 'but it wasn't genuine faith, they really didn't have eternal life', which would be exactly the point, they thought they had absolute assurance but it turned out they were wrong. If one can lose their eternal life by proving they never had it, then no one can have absolute assurance that they do have it now. It is really that simple. Either you have absolutely assurance and no amount of apostasy will take it away, or assurance can at best be a moral, not an absolute one.

I do NOT believe that a faith of the heart in Jesus Christ the Son of God who died for the individuals sins can turn out to be a false faith. Only a faith that is in something else can be false. I do believe individuals can say that they have faith in Jesus Christ when they do not.

Yes, I can and do say that I am absolutely certain that I have eternal life and that I will never change my mind about God.
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.

1Jn_3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jn_4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1Jn_5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1Jn_5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jn_5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

When I trusted Jesus Christ as my Saviour I was spiritually born of God. Because I was born of God I received a new nature: the nature of God my father. Now, just as I cannot flap my arms and fly because I was born of a human father with a human nature, not a bird with a bird nature, having the nature of God there are things that I cannot do.

God cannot sin: the spirit born of God cannot sin.
God cannot stop believing in Jesus: the spirit born of God cannot stop believing in Jesus.

Those are all nice buzzwords but the fact remains until someone dies no one, including themselves, will know that their faith was a genuine faith because there is always the possibility they can reject that faith they believed was genuine and, by your definition, will have proven they had no eternal life to begin with.

Here's what I'm driving at and what Jac has argued for ages: if one wants to be intellectually honest and not hide behind buzzwords and close their eyes to the obvious truth (no pun intended truthman) then there are 2 internally consistent positions with respect to assurance. 1) Either there's absolute assurance and nothing can change that, not even committing the most vile of acts, or 2) One can have a moral assurance and stay the course. There really is no 3rd choice.

[cslewislover]

I'm not arguing with you at all, John, but I just haven't seen that clearly in Jac's posts. You probably know more of his posts, I'm sure. I'm just wondering at the dichotomy though. I mean, it seems like it's some kind-of later construct, like making up an argument (debate) about an issue that was never an issue like that to begin with. And everyone is left scratching their heads. I've never met anyone, except maybe Truthman here (there's a first for everything! but I'm not sure what he'll say), that believed in "absolute assurance" as defined there or from what I gathered from Jac's posts. The emotionalism involved, too (and saying we didn't believe the gospel), points to much more of a religious conviction on his part, it seems to me, and not just a logical or philosophical or even theological difference or argument.

[truthman]

Those are all nice buzzwords but the fact remains until someone dies no one, including themselves, will know that their faith was a genuine faith because there is always the possibility they can reject that faith they believed was genuine and, by your definition, will have proven they had no eternal life to begin with.

Here's what I'm driving at and what Jac has argued for ages: if one wants to be intellectually honest and not hide behind buzzwords and close their eyes to the obvious truth (no pun intended truthman) then there are 2 internally consistent positions with respect to assurance. 1) Either there's absolute assurance and nothing can change that, not even committing the most vile of acts, or 2) One can have a moral assurance and stay the course. There really is no 3rd choice.

I did not use buzzwords. That is a poor debate tactic trying to diminish the seriousness of what I say by calling them buzzwords. I used Scripture. Far more than anyone else.
You appear to be trying to circumvent the direct and obvious meaning of Scripture. Eternal life means just that. It is not a buzzword. I am not closing my eyes to obvious truth. I stand on the obvious truth that when a person is born of God as a child of God with the eternal life of God, the eternal life cannot end by definition. I also stand on the plain truth that a person either has eternal life or does not: there is no in between option. It is beyond me why this is so difficult for people to see.
As far as assurance, I quoted Scripture: 1 John 5:13 & 2 Timothy 1:12 along with others and that is what I believe and where I stand. You gave no direct scriptural support for your conclusions.

[BavarianWheels]

Again, see Matthew 25:14-30 and how the servant given one talent that did nothing with it but hid it and was thrown out "into the darkness, where there will be weaping and gnashing of teeth."

First, we cannot build doctrines on parables which are only illustrations.
Second, to use this parable to illustrate your beliefs, you must be sure that the talent represents salvation.
Third, the talent most likely represents physical life. Can you be sure that it does not? OR, the talent could represent knowledge of truth. There is no reason to assume that the talent must represent salvation.

How convenient your thinking is.

Do a search on "weaping and gnashing of teeth" and what that points to, then tell me the parable is simply about "physical life".
.
.

[truthman]

The weeping and gnashing of teeth does not refer to physical life. The talents given probably do. One person was given a short life, another a longer, etc. Two used their life for eternal gain and reaped eternal reward while the one did not and reaped eternal death.

Or, they all received knowledge. Two invested their God given knowledge by trusting in Christ and investing in eternity, while one did not.

The talents representing salvation do not fit.

Convenient? Just a careful reading of the parable and thinking it through.

[Byblos]

Those are all nice buzzwords but the fact remains until someone dies no one, including themselves, will know that their faith was a genuine faith because there is always the possibility they can reject that faith they believed was genuine and, by your definition, will have proven they had no eternal life to begin with.

Here's what I'm driving at and what Jac has argued for ages: if one wants to be intellectually honest and not hide behind buzzwords and close their eyes to the obvious truth (no pun intended truthman) then there are 2 internally consistent positions with respect to assurance. 1) Either there's absolute assurance and nothing can change that, not even committing the most vile of acts, or 2) One can have a moral assurance and stay the course. There really is no 3rd choice.

I did not use buzzwords. That is a poor debate tactic trying to diminish the seriousness of what I say by calling them buzzwords. I used Scripture. Far more than anyone else. You appear to be trying to circumvent the direct and obvious meaning of Scripture. Eternal life means just that. It is not a buzzword.

Poor choice of words on my part, sorry. What I did NOT mean by buzzwords is the scripture you quoted. The reason I did not address those is that as I already stated, for the sake of this argument, I am in full agreement that they support eternal security. If I wanted to debate that I'd certainly not do it in this thread. Perhaps we will do that some other time.

What I DID mean by buzzwords is your claim that you know the future. That, sir, is a blatantly false statement and where you are denying the obvious truth, which is that NO ONE can know the future, unless of course they have received a special revelation from God. If you did receive such a direct revelation then my apologies, I am talking to the wrong person. But if you didn't then to claim you know the future is disingenuous at best.

I am not closing my eyes to obvious truth. I stand on the obvious truth that when a person is born of God as a child of God with the eternal life of God, the eternal life cannot end by definition. I also stand on the plain truth that a person either has eternal life or does not: there is no in between option. It is beyond me why this is so difficult for people to see.

You see that's where you are proving yet again that you are not understanding the argument I am putting forth. Once again, I am in full agreement with what you state above (for the sake of this discussion). Let us say again, I agree that once someone receives eternal life they cannot lose it. I also agree that a person either has eternal life or they don't, no issue there.

What I am saying for the umpteenth time is if a person genuinely believes he has eternal life then at the time he does have absolute assurance, so far so good. If he later proves that he never had it to begin with (by apostatizing), then his absolute assurance was no assurance at all. And once again, this leaves us with 2 types of assurances:

1) Absolute assurance IRRESPECTIVE of actions post-belief, even becoming an apostate (this is if you do not believe Christians can lose their salvation)
2) A moral assurance because it is possible for one to lose their salvation or prove they never had it.

I know you don't believe 2) is possible, which leaves you with one and only one option. It is truly beyond me why this is so difficult to see.

As far as assurance, I quoted Scripture: 1 John 5:13 & 2 Timothy 1:12 along with others and that is what I believe and where I stand. You gave no direct scriptural support for your conclusions.

And once again, my argument is not with scripture, it is with your understanding of its implications.

[Byblos]

I'm not arguing with you at all, John, but I just haven't seen that clearly in Jac's posts. You probably know more of his posts, I'm sure. I'm just wondering at the dichotomy though. I mean, it seems like it's some kind-of later construct, like making up an argument (debate) about an issue that was never an issue like that to begin with. And everyone is left scratching their heads. I've never met anyone, except maybe Truthman here (there's a first for everything! but I'm not sure what he'll say), that believed in "absolute assurance" as defined there or from what I gathered from Jac's posts. The emotionalism involved, too (and saying we didn't believe the gospel), points to much more of a religious conviction on his part, it seems to me, and not just a logical or philosophical or even theological difference or argument.

I know you're not arguing with me Vicki and that's for a good reason. I do not believe in OSAS and as far as I know you also have some reservations about it, so we really have nothing to disagree about. Unless of course you want to go with my assumption that I do believe in OSAS for the sake of this thread, in which case we can find something to disagree on.

[sinnerbybirth]

Not to sound ignorant. But, is there a difference in everlasting vs eternal?

[Canuckster1127]

Not to sound ignorant. But, is there a difference in everlasting vs eternal?

Depends on context. Eternal means with no beginning and no end. Everlasting can means there is a definite beginning but no end.

In the context of salvation the terms are often interchangable and the implication is that once salvation takes place in a person's life it cannot be taken from them or even surrendered willingly.

[zoegirl]

One thing I would suggest is to look at the relatinship between God and His people through scripture. In the OT, when the covenant between Abraham and God was established, did God "allow" them to leave the covenant through their free will? Or did He fulfill His promise throughout the history in spite of their rejection of God? Even in the story of Gomer, we have the story of a faithful God and an unfaithful wife, the very picture of us and God.

I don't pretend to understand some of the seemingly contradictory passages in the NT, where we have some suggesting leaving the faith and others proclaiming that nothing can separate us from God. However, it would seem to me to err on the side of God's power. WE are none of us faithful, but God is.

I think we give ourselves way too much credit for this relationship and give God too little. While I dont' suggest that no one can dissolve their salvation, it's clear in the NT that this is a new covenant, a new relationship, a decidedly lop-sided relationship with the author of salvation.