Grace-Haters are incapable of honestly admitting what the (P) in Calvinism really means.

[robert derrick]

How could Paul state that he was confident that God would complete the good work in those at Philippi, since not even God could be certain of that ... some could sin, turn apostate and be vomited out of the "hand" of God [If I can be permitted to mix biblical word pictures to reflect the NO ETERNAL SECURITY 'whole council of scripture'.

I am not rejecting or mocking your POV. I have read and admire John Wesley. I simply disagree based on what I see repeated throughout Scripture and the 'whole council' that I must answer to according to my conscience. I merely present an obvious statement by Paul that appears impossible given your understanding. Is Paul just "HOPING" for the Philippians?

I can say, "Paul is CONFIDENT because eternal destiny is assured." You claim that there is NO SUCH ASSURANCE (do you not?).

I don't follow Wesley. He made up a whole bunch of 'holiness' rules commanding 'real' Christians to conform to, that Jesus never did by His apostles.

In the end, I believe it has done more damage to the body of Christ than any good to individual believers.

He is a classic example of a very good and sincere minister of God, who was very sincerely wrong in certain matters of the faith of Jesus.

Adding to the Scripture is always listed first in Scripture, before taking away. And it was the first addition to Scripture that directly led to the transgression of Adam and deception of Eve in the garden.

Neither shall ye touch it...I.e. Eve was trying really hard to be really holy with the Lord in her super-righteous 'holiness' lifestyle.

Show me a normal Christian who knows what God has commanded vs what man commands, and will handle the fruit. Sniff it. Lick it. Throw it around like a baseball, yet have absolutely no lust to eat it. That is a brother and sister indeed who is free and lives as such.

 

[marks]

There really is nothing to be said about a warning from God not to allow something to happen with us, if it cannot possibly happen with us.

There is if it is designed to separate between soul and spirit, between the unsaved and the saved. Reborn people are different, and the Bible has many places to help sort us out.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Neither shall ye touch it...I.e. Eve was trying really hard to be really holy with the Lord in her super-righteous 'holiness' lifestyle.

What if Adam had told her that? I mean, we don't really know, do we? Why make any assumptions when it comes to the Bible?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I can say, "Paul is CONFIDENT because eternal destiny is assured." You claim that there is NO SUCH ASSURANCE (do you not?).

If salvation can be lost, and that based on the consistency or performance of one of us . . . then no, I for one would say we can have NO assurance, because I have ZERO confidence in the flesh. NONE!

And if anyone feels they have confidence in their flesh, Paul had reason for more. I'll let him take over at this point. Paul . . ?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Likewise if it were impossible to fall from grace, then Paul has lied and said ye are fallen from grace.

Fallen from grace . . . is this losing salvation? OR is it no longer relying on grace?

Romans 5:1-2 KJV
1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If we

For myself, these are the words that assure me this is a doctrine without any real assurance. Because I have this idea of what people are like.

This is an assurance based in flesh, and flesh will fail. If it were based in Spirit, Spirit will not fail.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

1 John 3:1-3 KJV
1) Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3) And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

I challenge anyone to read and believe this passage, and then tell me that some of God's children will not be like Jesus at the end.

Any takers?

Is this actually something that we, God's children, know?

The only reconciliation I've ever seen between this passage, and any interpretation of Scripture that declares those who have been born from God may yet still be lost, and will not be conformed to Christ, the only way to reconcile that view with this passage is to say that this passage doesn't really mean what it says. For myself, I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'm going to make sure my views agree with God's Word.

The same thing is so with this one:

Colossians 3:1-4 KJV
1) If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2) Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3) For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4) When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

If you are born again, you WILL appear with Him when He appears, and you WILL become like Him!

Such love!

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

And stays that way without returning to the vomit of the old man of sin. Or if so, then as the prodigal, comes to himself and repents and returns without any special expectation, other than forgiveness and restoration by grace. And if not repent, then a certain fearful looking for of judgment: For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. (Heb 10:26)

Now my challenge:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost...If they shall fall away...(Heb 6:4-6)

Were they once? Did they taste? Partake? Possible to fall away? Really mean what it says?

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29)

Was sanctified? Does despite to the Spirit? Sorer punishment than that of death by law of Moses?

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)

'Is become' means was of effect? 'Fallen from grace' means fallen from grace?

The only eternal assurance of completing that which was begun is by purifying ourselves, and remaining pure in daily conversation, and if we sin, we confess for forgiveness of sin.

The only real question is whether we can turn from God's righteousness to such a point of abundant iniquity, that our love waxes cold, and our goodness of faith becomes dead. The Scriptures above simply state:

He that was..., and is not...Lucifer becomes the devil, and a saint becomes a beast, and both are judged accordingly. And only by grace do we continue in His faith, IF we forsake it not to return to the beggarly elements of the world again unto the end.

Grace does not cover reprobation and apostacy. Grace covers a multitude of sins and transgressions, even as children of God, IF we confess from the heart.

 

[robert derrick]

For myself, these are the words that assure me this is a doctrine without any real assurance. Because I have this idea of what people are like.

This is an assurance based in flesh, and flesh will fail. If it were based in Spirit, Spirit will not fail.

Much love!

Because I have this idea of what people are like.

I don't think our ideas of what people are like matters.

All that matters to me is what Scripture says and does not say, and what sense they mean to me.

I keep my ideas and opinions about people to myself, because that doesn't matter.

Now, if consenting to the Scriptural condition of If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins...is an assurance based in flesh, then it is an assurance by Scripture, not by me.

And therefore, since you have not yet arrived, you are yet in your flesh. Therefore, in your flesh, you have an assurance of God, that IF you sin after your flesh (1 John 2:1), and IF you confess from your heart, then He is faithful and just to forgive you your sin of the flesh.

And yes, flesh will fail, but you have an assurance of restoration from God...IF you confess it as such.

But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them. (1 Kings 9:6)

But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there. (Neh 1:9)

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10)

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)

If we, If ye: really going to call that a fleshy doctrine without assurance? Nothing has changed with God between the old and the new: If we believe and abide and obey...if not...

 

[robert derrick]

Fallen from grace . . . is this losing salvation? OR is it no longer relying on grace?

Romans 5:1-2 KJV
1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Much love!

Now, that is interesting.
1. We don't lose something we never won in the first place: salvation.
2. No longer relying on grace? For what? How exactly do we 'rely' on grace? What Scripture is there for that kind of reliance? Or perhaps there is another term for it?
3. Are we relying on grace to sin aboundingly?
4. The Galatians had ceased to stand by faith, because they were persuaded to rely on the law for justification without faith.
5. Grace is our sufficiency in time of need and trouble and turmoil and confusion (2 Cor 12:9). But by faith we stand and live to be justified with God, and we are likewise justified by grace. (Rom 3:24)

We trust in God, that be grace we are saved, so long as we continue in His faith and turn not aside to another. (Gal 1:6, 5:8)

Nevertheless, they who had begun well, had received the Spirit by faith, had been saved by grace through faith, are now fallen from grace to be justified by a law, rather than by faith:

He that was saved by grace, and is not saved by grace, and yet is thinking to be justified by law... (Rev 17:8)

From faithful saint to legal beast.

 

[TEXBOW]

I almost hate to jump in between you guys in fear of being crushed. The theological ping pong game has been enlightening. This debate has existed for many years and I'm certain will not go away. For myself, I cannot accept the eternal security, O.S.A.S theology for many reasons but I think the most clear-cut scriptures are James 5:19-20.

Brethren if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sin.

You had to be in the TRUTH in order to wander from the TRUTH. The price of leaving the TRUTH is death.

 

[robert derrick]

I almost hate to jump in between you guys in fear of being crushed. The theological ping pong game has been enlightening. This debate has existed for many years and I'm certain will not go away. For myself, I cannot accept the eternal security, O.S.A.S theology for many reasons but I think the most clear-cut scriptures are James 5:19-20.

Brethren if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sin.

You had to be in the TRUTH in order to wander from the TRUTH. The price of leaving the TRUTH is death.

Funny you should use 'wander'. As in an hunter gone astray. TEXBOW

 

[marks]

2. No longer relying on grace? For what? How exactly do we 'rely' on grace? What Scripture is there for that kind of reliance? Or perhaps there is another term for it?

Fallen from grace . . . is this losing salvation? OR is it no longer relying on grace?

Romans 5:1-2 KJV
1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

1. We don't lose something we never won in the first place: salvation.

True. And we don't stop being what we are, either. Not unless God does it for you. You are not the master of your universe, you are what God makes you to be.

If God makes you born from Him, who exactly is going to undo that?

Much love!

 

[marks]

3. Are we relying on grace to sin aboundingly?

I'm not, are you?

Grace actually is the means by which we overcome sin. Law empowers sin, and telling yourself all the shalt/shalt not lest you no longer be regenerated and reconciled to God is to place yourself outside of just living in God's favor, His forgiven, in a word, Grace, and it's to place yourself under a law of your own making. And that self-imposed law will incite sin in your flesh.

Let me know which part if any you would like to see the Scripture on, all of this is directly taught in the Word.

"The motions of sin in my members, which are by the Law"

It's when you realize that God will never ever again hold anything against you, this whole sense of legal requirement just lifts away, the burden is removed. Come to Me, I will give you rest.

And in the removing of the sense of a legal requirement, do this, don't do that, or else - living according to the knowledge of good and evil - that incitement against our flesh (being ever hostile to God) just looses energy. There are still the desires of the body to be sorted through, but without all that legalist energy relentlessly inflaming the flesh to rebel, to sin.

All these Scripture that so many point to, these tell us what is and isn't Spirit, dividing between spirit and flesh, telling us what is and what is not "regeneration", "the new man", and so forth. But none - not one - actually teach the born again die again.

And passages such as Colossions 3:1-4, 1 John 3:1-3, these tell us it simply will not happen.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

I almost hate to jump in between you guys in fear of being crushed. The theological ping pong game has been enlightening. This debate has existed for many years and I'm certain will not go away. For myself, I cannot accept the eternal security, O.S.A.S theology for many reasons but I think the most clear-cut scriptures are James 5:19-20.

Brethren if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sin.

You had to be in the TRUTH in order to wander from the TRUTH. The price of leaving the TRUTH is death.

Even as you had to have tasted, to have tasted, and had to have been sanctified to have been sanctified...(Heb 6,10)

I have no problem other than 'doctrinal correctness' with people believing they are eternally secure in Christ, because the dividing line is so thin.

So long as we confess our sins to God and abide in Him by faith in Jesus, then we are 'secure'. We do have assurance God will be there for His people. If they sin and confess, He is faithful and just to forgive. If they sin not and continue in lively hope and faith, then thanks be God and be not high minded.

But doctrinally speaking they are incorrect:
1. Why warn to abide and not fall, if not abiding and falling were impossible.
2. Examples of not abiding and falling away unto perdition are many, from Lucifer to the 8th beast.
3. There are those who take this eternal security to a limit beyond grace, and those who teach it are therefore partakers of their sins.

My only concern is to not teach what is not written and to reject what is taught as Scripture and is not so. I do not question anyone's salvation in Christ (other than the cult of created-christ makers, and perhaps the Sabbath-keeping by law separatists), but on this thread, I do not believe anyone is trying to justify open transgression and sin. They simply have a fixation on unconditional security by grace that does not exist. They find comfort in it, and perhaps even fear the very idea of salvation of God dependent on their continued honest participation therein.

Believe me. I am the last one to preach a conditional continuance in salvation, based upon my daily living.

The first principles of the doctrine of Christ are for babes (Heb 5), and this would be the first of the first; therefore, as for babes: show the Scripture where love of God and salvation by grace is 'unconditional'. Man says it a lot, and it certainly sounds good and pleasing to the ears, but the beast has a mouth that says great things and they are blasphemies (Rev 13). Therefore, show the very word 'unconditional' or another word that means the same thing, where the big IF has no place. Such as: this has no condition. There is no condition here. This is without dispute exactly what will happen, no mater what any man, even the man it happens to, may say or do...

I see in Scripture only one true eternal assurance, that we can completely count on in any time of trouble or transgression:

If we continue to believe Him, and if we continue to confess to Him, then we shall be forgiven and saved unto the end. The very fact of power to confess Jesus, and if necessary sin, from the heart is proof we are still in the race.

Or the hunt...

 

[marks]

4. The Galatians had ceased to stand by faith, because they were persuaded to rely on the law for justification without faith.

They had turned from the assurance of their faith, to seek some assurance in what they themselves could do. That were looking for a righteousness that would be found in their flesh, and Paul explained to them this meant they had left off from relying on grace, because you can only do one or the other. One denies the other. Grace or works, not both.

I'm thinking he used the word "fallen", fallen from Grace, because it is higher than works.

Much love!

 

[marks]

5. Grace is our sufficiency in time of need and trouble and turmoil and confusion (2 Cor 12:9). But by faith we stand and live to be justified with God, and we are likewise justified by grace. (Rom 3:24)

I'm not sure I know what you mean here. For me, grace is the entire basis of my relationship with God. I don't do a single thing to render myself saved or to help that process in any way, other than to recognize that God is giving this to me, and to receive His gift.

Much love!

 

[atpollard]

"You claim that there is NO SUCH ASSURANCE (do you not?)"

If we abide in the Vine, then certainly. If not, then not.

There really is nothing to be said about a warning from God not to allow something to happen with us, if it cannot possibly happen with us. If it is impossible to fall from the Vine, then the warning from God is vain and useless and confusing, which of course God's Word is none of these.

Likewise if it were impossible to fall from grace, then Paul has lied and said ye are fallen from grace.

The covenant of the law and the covenant of grace do not differ in requirement to behave ourselves as participants therein. The covenant of the law was to teach us that very thing: that God does command and demand outward obedience to His will. That covenant was weak in that it only commanded outward obedience, but that commandment remains in the new testament that first commands inward faith and circumcision of the heart.

God still will not justify the wicked (Ex 23:7), whether they believed in Egypt and then rebelled in Sinai, or they believed in sin, and then rebelled in grace.

He has now changed the means of obedience, not the necessity of obedience.

We now have a more sure assurance of fulfilling His righteousness, but that two-edged sword also means we now have less excuse for not doing so, because we have greater promises of the Spirit within, than the Lord on the mount. They had the blood of the lamb upon their doorposts, and the law from the mount. We have the blood of the Lamb upon our souls, and the law from heaven written upon our hearts.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10)

There really is nothing to offer here that could unsay the Scripture: The heathen do not betray God, having never been known by Him and trusted with the blood of His Son. Only friends can betray friends.

They who were sanctified now do despite to the Spirit of grace. He that was saved, and is not saved... (Rev 17:7)

Look, when it comes right down to it, whether eternal security or not, no one in open transgression and rebellion against God shall inherit the kingdom of God. So, if it makes you feel better to accuse such as hypocrites from the start, who only professed Christ with the lips. Then fine. And if it also gives you assurance when you sin or transgress, that you are still saved. Then fine too. So long as you confess, you shall be forgiven. (But then if future sins are already forgiven, no need to confess?)

If I sin and transgress, and God shows me as much by His Word, then I take Him at His word and confess unto forgiveness and repentance, knowing that by grace and the shedding of His blood I even have opportunity to do so.

I will say one thing about absolute perfect assurance from God: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (I John 1)

We don't have to beg, nor plead, nor ask a hundred times. The very moment God sees our agreement with Him in our hearts, that we have sinned, then He is faithful and just to forgive us straightway, completely. And it is usually we who have the problem of forgiving ourselves and others, even as He forgives us (Matthew 18:35). And frankly, I don't think he wants to here any promises of repentance. Just be forgiven and thankful and free and clean and go and do it no more. And if we do, He is faithful and just to forgive us by our confession 70 times 7.

However, Scripture speaks plainly of a point where repentance is impossible to renew, because confession is impossible to make, because God has given up on us in our openly unashamed shaming of His Son, without any desire to do good. (Heb 6:6-9) (Titus 1:16)

Yes, Scripture shows that god can indeed cease to draw us to Himself, and without such, we cannot possibly come to Him...anymore:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

Let’s assume … just for the sake of discussion … that I agree with everything in your post.
Did you ever actually address my question about the paradox of Paul claiming an CONFIDENCE that no man can possess (not even an Apostle)?

 

[atpollard]

"You claim that there is NO SUCH ASSURANCE (do you not?)"

If we abide in the Vine, then certainly. If not, then not.

I actually agree with this, adding: “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” [Philippians 2:12-13]

IMHO: God has His finger on the scale.

 

[atpollard]

Now my challenge:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost...If they shall fall away...(Heb 6:4-6)

Were they once? Did they taste? Partake? Possible to fall away? Really mean what it says?

Were they once?

• I don’t know. The author of Hebrews has worded it as a ‘hypothetical’.
• “If they shall fall away” … note that it does not say they DID fall away, nor does it say the DID NOT fall away. It only offers a hypothetical “IF”.
• Who are THEY? … it does not tell us. It does not indicate that there is any actual real person that already did this. There is only a warning about a hypothetical “they” and a hypothetical “if”.

Did they taste?

• Maybe.
• If “they” were real, then YES.
• If “they” are only hypothetical constructs in a “what if” warning, then NO.

Partake?

• Again, if “THEY”
  • once were
  • tasted
  • … Then YES, they partook.
• If “THEY” are an imaginary construct in a hypothetical “what if” warning, then NO.

Possible to fall away?

• No. Other scripture tells us that.

Really mean what it says?

• YES … the trick is to correctly “hear” what it “says” and not what you want it to say.
• (Like so much of scripture).