The unpopular (but deadly) truth of conditional salvation

[John Zain]

Here’s a page full of “conditional salvation” verses …

1 Cor 15:1-2 • Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you,
which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved,
IF you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

Heb 3:6 • … but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are
IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

Col 1:22-23 • … to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight
— IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away
from the hope of the gospel

1 Jn 2:3-5 • Now by this we know that we know Him, IF we keep His commandments.
He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar,
and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God
is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

Rom 8:13-17 • For IF you live according to the flesh you will die;
but IF by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
… we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God
and joint heirs with Christ, IF indeed we suffer with Him

1 John 1:7-10 • But IF we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship
with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar

Heb 10:38-39 • Now the just shall live by faith; but IF anyone draws back,
My soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who draw back to perdition,
but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

Heb 2:1-4 • Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard,
lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every
transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape
IF we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and
was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs
and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?

2 Pet 2:20-22 • For IF, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the
knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and
overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been
better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it,
to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them
according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and,
“a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

EXPLANATION …

All of the MANY dozens of warnings and threats written to the churches were
actually ONLY for those who were elected before the foundation of the world.

God knew that His “elect” would heed the warnings, and walk the narrow path.
And that’s why they were elected in the first place!

P.S. not all BACs are part of God’s elect, i.e. some choose to not co-operate.
This is somewhat well-hidden … a positive outlook helps keep a civil society.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
I've been told by competent Bible expositors, trained in biblical languages,
that the koiné Greek word often translated "if" is a bit ambiguous; viz: it can
also be understood to mean "since" and/or "whereas" and/or "for as much
as".

For example:

†. 1Cor 15:1-2 . . Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I
preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your
stand. By this gospel you are saved, since you hold firmly to the word I
preached to you.

†. Heb 3:6 . . Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his
house, since we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

†. Col 1:22-23 . . He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through
death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from
accusation-- since you continue in your faith, established and firm, not
moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

Several of the verses quoted in the OP have nothing to do with a believer's
eternal destiny so I left those unrevised.

Here's a really tricky verse:

†. Matt 16:4 . . A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous
sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

Guess which of those words is translated from the very same word often
translated if? Give up? It's the words "but" and "except".

You know; the sad part of internet forums is that anybody, any age, and
from anywhere can get up on a soap box and preach their version of the
gospel without any credentials. In other words: the internet is a wild west for
armchair theologians with no formal training whatsoever; some have never
even been to Sunday school. They're especially deficient in linguistic skills;
and many are deficient in English grammar skills too. God help you should
they do a drive-by because they don't care who they hit just so long as they
get to fire their guns in somebody's direction.

Buen Camino
/

 

[John Zain]

You know; the sad part of internet forums is that anybody, any age, and
from anywhere can get up on a soap box and preach their version of the
gospel without any credentials. In other words: the internet is a wild west for
armchair theologians with no formal training whatsoever; some have never
even been to Sunday school. They're especially deficient in linguistic skills;
and many are deficient in English grammar skills too. God help you should
they do a drive-by because they don't care who they hit just so long as they
get to fire their guns in somebody's direction.

Yes, I agree, it was a sad day for us indeed when you arrived.

 

[FHII]

You know; the sad part of internet forums is that anybody, any age, and
from anywhere can get up on a soap box and preach their version of the
gospel without any credentials. In other words: the internet is a wild west for
armchair theologians with no formal training whatsoever; some have never
even been to Sunday school. They're especially deficient in linguistic skills;
and many are deficient in English grammar skills too. God help you should
they do a drive-by because they don't care who they hit just so long as they
get to fire their guns in somebody's direction.

Buen Camino
/

Buen, I applaud that. Absolutely anyone can get on the net and preach. They can set up web sites and become an expert. Not only is this true in religion, but in any other field. I happen to be of the world of health and fitness and I've seen it there too.

Sticking to the religion part of it, many of these so called warnings Evanglist7 brings up can be comforting in that they identify who someone is. In other words, I agree with you on that!

What about me? I've been going to a Christianity school for 12 years. Missed a few classes here and there (non required extra classes), but I made up for it with self study and listening to classes online. I call this institute of higher religious education "my Church". We got a text book and a curriculum guide too. It's called the KJV Holy Bible. We don't stray from it.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

.
I've been told by competent Bible expositors, trained in biblical languages,
that the koiné Greek word often translated "if" is a bit ambiguous; viz: it can
also be understood to mean "since" and/or "whereas" and/or "for as much
as".

For example:

†. 1Cor 15:1-2 . . Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I
preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your
stand. By this gospel you are saved, since you hold firmly to the word I
preached to you.

†. Heb 3:6 . . Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his
house, since we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

†. Col 1:22-23 . . He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through
death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from
accusation-- since you continue in your faith, established and firm, not
moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

In these 3 cases you've presented a distinction without a difference. The use of if or since makes these verses say the same thing, i.e., salvation is conditional upon the continued obedience of faith.

 

[FHII]

In these 3 cases you've presented a distinction without a difference. The use of if or since makes these verses say the same thing, i.e., salvation is conditional upon the continued obedience of faith.

So is it a warning or an identification?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So is it a warning or an identification?

I wouldn't call it either. I would simply call it edification about the nature of salvation.

 

[FHII]

I wouldn't call it either. I would simply call it edification about the nature of salvation.

I can live with that...

 

[Webers_Home]

.
One of Webster's definitions of IF is: "allowing that". For example:

If 2+2 = 4, then 2x2 = 4.

Restated:

Allowing that 2+2= 4, then 2x2 = 4.

The use of "if" in that situation has nothing to do with stipulations and/or
conditions. It's just simply a lead-in to an obvious conclusion based upon an
obvious fact. For example:

If your daddy is my daddy too; then we're siblings.

Restated:

Allowing that your daddy is my daddy too, then we're siblings.

Here's another:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which
you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you
are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

Restated:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which
you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you
are saved, allowing that you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

"allowing that" implies a given rather than a question.

People anchoring their anti-OSAS theories to an ambiguous preposition like
"if" are standing on very shaky ground; and they need to come to grips with
the reality that their ground is easily dug out from under them by anybody
who knows anything about English language and grammar. In other words:
people anchoring their anti-OSAS theories to an ambiguous preposition
like "if" are standing over a potential sink hole.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Pelaides]

.
I've been told by competent Bible expositors, trained in biblical languages,
that the koiné Greek word often translated "if" is a bit ambiguous; viz: it can
also be understood to mean "since" and/or "whereas" and/or "for as much
as".

For example:

†. 1Cor 15:1-2 . . Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I
preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your
stand. By this gospel you are saved, since you hold firmly to the word I
preached to you.

†. Heb 3:6 . . Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his
house, since we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

†. Col 1:22-23 . . He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through
death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from
accusation-- since you continue in your faith, established and firm, not
moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

Several of the verses quoted in the OP have nothing to do with a believer's
eternal destiny so I left those unrevised.

Here's a really tricky verse:

†. Matt 16:4 . . A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous
sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

Guess which of those words is translated from the very same word often
translated if? Give up? It's the words "but" and "except".

You know; the sad part of internet forums is that anybody, any age, and
from anywhere can get up on a soap box and preach their version of the
gospel without any credentials. In other words: the internet is a wild west for
armchair theologians with no formal training whatsoever; some have never
even been to Sunday school. They're especially deficient in linguistic skills;
and many are deficient in English grammar skills too. God help you should
they do a drive-by because they don't care who they hit just so long as they
get to fire their guns in somebody's direction.

Buen Camino
/

You know they said the same thing about the diciples,Why would jesus chose uneducated fishermanand tentmakers as his assistants?Maybe only college educated people are worthy of salvation?is that what you are trying to say?

Or are just being a troll as usual?

 

[Webers_Home]

Maybe only college educated people are worthy of salvation?

One needn't be college educated to be a Bible student. However, a self-
taught Bible student is doomed to error because it is Christ's wishes that his
church be instructed by men Spirit-blessed with the aptitude to do so.

Several of Christ's hand-picked men were uneducated blue collar guys who
were inept to either understand or to teach the Bible. Pentecost changed all
that.

"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were
unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that
these men had been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13)

Many of the people up on soap boxes that I encounter on internet forums
and message boards shouldn't be doing that. They should be in Sunday
school classes and/or glued to a radio program at the feet of a man whom
God's Spirit has given the ability to know what he's talking about. There are
just too many armchair theologians on the internet mucking up the waters
with endless debating and perpetual bull sessions that never get to the bottom
of anything.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Why do so many Christians have the tendency to feel the guy in the pew next to them is not as saved as they are ,

 

[Rach1370]

Huh...I usually have the opposite problem...I usually struggle with feelings that I'm not 'as good as' them. Not a correct attitude I realise, and I don't believe that my salvation rests on my 'being good enough' thank God! I think it's a result of living with me....its hard to feel 'holier than thou' when I hear my thoughts and feelings all the time...sigh.

As far as the OP goes...I do believe in unconditonal salvation...but I'm not sure I understand, or agree, about the comment that not all 'born again Christians' are the 'elect'....wondering if there could be some elaboration?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

yeah , that was kinda my point ..... the OP shows a list of things that potentially could cause me to loose my salvation .... yet I bet he does not feel in danger of loosing his own salvation .... which amounts to him saying I am not as good a christian as he is , or as saved as he is.

Wonder why so many Christians feel "they alone" have it right , and everybody else has it wrong ,

P.S. not all BACs are part of God’s elect, i.e. some choose to not co-operate.

How did you determine that ?

thanks

 

[williemac]

When John was in exile, he had a revelation and saw a multitude before the throne of God which no one could number (7:9). This is more than a few. This represents the promise made to Abraham that his descendants would be innumerable. It also proves that salvation is not hard to attain, but rather it is easy. God made it so. Otherwise, how could it have been a promise if is depends upon the efforts of those descendants? He called life a free gift. He gives His grace to the humble and resists the proud. Obviously the work of the Holy Spirit is somewhat successful in convincing the world of sin. We can see that by the sheer number standing before the throne.
But contrary to what some may believe, this conviction is not so that people would pull up their socks and behave better. It is so that they would realize and understand that in order to have life, they must receive it as a gift, as they have no ability to earn it. If the church is warned about anything, it is that they need to remain humble and remain dependent upon His grace and mercy, as opposed to falling for the enticements that will come and have been always present; the enticements to revert to the law for justification. Such is the op.
The op would also consider John 3:16 as a 'warning', by the standards it uses. The correct word for it is "promise".
The word 'gospel' means good news. However, I see nothing but bad news in the op and other threads started by the same person.

Here's the sad part. Apparently the good news only lasts long enough to get a person filled with God's life and righteousness. Then God lowers the boom, pulls out the fine print, and threatens those whom He loves. (really?) If we gave this fine print to the lost before they are saved, they would never come. In fact, many stay away because of this kind of "gospel". They give up. Those who do are more honest and realistic than many who serve God with a self justifying motive.

And for the record, Mr. Evangelist 7, Paul's references to the flesh are not about sin. Sin was dealt with at Calvary. The only remaining issue with the flesh is the attempt to exalt itself. Check out Gal.4:22-30. Those born of the flesh were those born of the bondwoman, and represent Abraham's attempt to assist God in fulfilling His promise. This represents what man can do in the flesh. It always falls short. Notice in Rom.8, Paul did not mention sin. He mentions the weakness of the law (vs.3). He mentions being free from the law of sin and death(vs.2).

So as you say, if anything is hidden, it is hidden from those who are in the flesh. If we want to see the mindset of they who are in the spirit(Rom.8:5), we refer back to the previous chapter, where Paul confessed his sin but also disassociated himself with it, because he agreed in principle with the law, but admitted his inability to fulfill it in the flesh (in his sinful body). This is how we are free from condemnation. Rom. 8:1 says "therefore", which means, refer back to what was just shared.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

yeah , that was kinda my point ..... the OP shows a list of things that potentially could cause me to loose my salvation .... yet I bet he does not feel in danger of loosing his own salvation .... which amounts to him saying I am not as good a christian as he is , or as saved as he is.

Wonder why so many Christians feel "they alone" have it right , and everybody else has it wrong ,


How did you determine that ?

thanks

One quick cure to that is to become Catholic.

A lack of humility is at the heart of thinking the Bible just fell out of the sky last week. Christians have been reading the Bible for centuries and have plumbed the depths of it, engaged in weighty and often heated debates, and passed on to us the fruits of their wisdom. In particular, the Christians in greatest proximity to the apostolic age are more likely to give a perspective that complies with what Jesus and the apostles originally taught, which is why those debates in particular should cause us to take heed. The Church has been around for 2000 years and even the Protestant Reformation has 500 years under its belt along with its own sets of founders, councils, catechisms, and confessions, all of which bequeath to us the deep insight of the reformers.

We really should be more humble, shouldn't we?

 

[FHII]

Vale, it might be against forum rules.... But the cure your are prescribing (to become Catholic) is a death sentance. Christ's Church has been around for 2000 years, but the Catholic Church hasn't.

I've stood with you about organisation in the Church, But the Catholics ain't got it right.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

When John was in exile, he had a revelation and saw a multitude before the throne of God which no one could number (7:9). This is more than a few. This represents the promise made to Abraham that his descendants would be innumerable. It also proves that salvation is not hard to attain, but rather it is easy. God made it so. Otherwise, how could it have been a promise if is depends upon the efforts of those descendants? He called life a free gift. He gives His grace to the humble and resists the proud. Obviously the work of the Holy Spirit is somewhat successful in convincing the world of sin. We can see that by the sheer number standing before the throne.
But contrary to what some may believe, this conviction is not so that people would pull up their socks and behave better. It is so that they would realize and understand that in order to have life, they must receive it as a gift, as they have no ability to earn it. If the church is warned about anything, it is that they need to remain humble and remain dependent upon His grace and mercy, as opposed to falling for the enticements that will come and have been always present; the enticements to revert to the law for justification. Such is the op.
The op would also consider John 3:16 as a 'warning', by the standards it uses. The correct word for it is "promise".
The word 'gospel' means good news. However, I see nothing but bad news in the op and other threads started by the same person.

Here's the sad part. Apparently the good news only lasts long enough to get a person filled with God's life and righteousness. Then God lowers the boom, pulls out the fine print, and threatens those whom He loves. (really?) If we gave this fine print to the lost before they are saved, they would never come. In fact, many stay away because of this kind of "gospel". They give up. Those who do are more honest and realistic than many who serve God with a self justifying motive.

And for the record, Mr. Evangelist 7, Paul's references to the flesh are not about sin. Sin was dealt with at Calvary. The only remaining issue with the flesh is the attempt to exalt itself. Check out Gal.4:22-30. Those born of the flesh were those born of the bondwoman, and represent Abraham's attempt to assist God in fulfilling His promise. This represents what man can do in the flesh. It always falls short. Notice in Rom.8, Paul did not mention sin. He mentions the weakness of the law (vs.3). He mentions being free from the law of sin and death(vs.2).

So as you say, if anything is hidden, it is hidden from those who are in the flesh. If we want to see the mindset of they who are in the spirit(Rom.8:5), we refer back to the previous chapter, where Paul confessed his sin but also disassociated himself with it, because he agreed in principle with the law, but admitted his inability to fulfill it in the flesh (in his sinful body). This is how we are free from condemnation. Rom. 8:1 says "therefore", which means, refer back to what was just shared.

So WM, is there no requirement to continue in the obedience of faith to be saved?

 

[williemac]

So WM, is there no requirement to continue in the obedience of faith to be saved?

I never said that. But what we mean by obedience to the faith may well be different. If you or anyone means obedience to moral law, then I say no. Mainly because the word "continue" implies that it was required in the first place. It is not. Obedience to moral law cannot initially save anyone. So then, once having been given everlasting life (by grace through faith and humility), and still living in this world in this sinful body, the thought that moral obedience is required to 'maintain' or 'keep' everlasting life represents a change in the requirement and not a continuation of a requirement. Remaining in faith is done by continuing to accept the gift of life as a freely given gift of grace. This is where the rubber meets the highway in these discussions, because if one is required to keep his life by his behavior, it disqualifies and contradicts salvation by faith. It doesn't support it. If I am traveling on a road, I cannot continue to travel on it by changing which road I am on. This is what I am getting at. Thanks for the question and allowing me to clarify.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Vale, it might be against forum rules.... But the cure your are prescribing (to become Catholic) is a death sentance. Christ's Church has been around for 2000 years, but the Catholic Church hasn't.

I've stood with you about organisation in the Church, But the Catholics ain't got it right.

I don't think an honest and respectful expression of your opinion violates any rules, but if you looked past the first sentence, you'll see that wasn't the thrust of my argument but rather a humorous diversion. (that smilie was WASTED on you! )