Seemingly Anti-OSAS Scriptures

[FreeGrace2]

Nice try, but look at the context of the "they" which he is referring to:
v. 19 "they themselves are slaves of corruption"
v. 17 "These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved."
He is talking about the false teachers who come into the midst of the churches. The writers of all the epistles assume that the churches contain true and false believers, based on the wheat and tares parable. "Not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." There are both true and fake Christians in the churches today as it also was back then. Therefore, these kinds of warnings lead us true believers into a deeper introspection about our identity in Christ, as Peter also calls us to make certain of our calling and election in 2 Pet. 1:10.
TD

Let's look at the whole context in 2 Peter 2, not just 2 verses.

17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

v.17 definitely describes unbelievers.
v.18 describes what they do.
v.19 tells us to whom they promise freedom, so the "them" in v.19 refers to believers, not themselves. We have "they" and "them". The "they" are those of v.17, and "them" are believers who have been deceived by the unbelievers.
v.20 gives us a conditional clause "if". So "if they" refers to those deceived by the unbelievers of v.17, and are described as having knowing "our Lord and Savior". This kind of wording is NEVER used in reference to unbelievers.

So I stand by what I said about v.20 and v.21.

 

[tdidymas]

Let's look at the whole context in 2 Peter 2, not just 2 verses.

17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

v.17 definitely describes unbelievers.
v.18 describes what they do.
v.19 tells us to whom they promise freedom, so the "them" in v.19 refers to believers, not themselves. We have "they" and "them". The "they" are those of v.17, and "them" are believers who have been deceived by the unbelievers.
v.20 gives us a conditional clause "if". So "if they" refers to those deceived by the unbelievers of v.17, and are described as having knowing "our Lord and Savior". This kind of wording is NEVER used in reference to unbelievers.

So I stand by what I said about v.20 and v.21.

The whole context of the passage is talking about false teachers. He doesn't suddenly flip to talking about hearers of false teachers. Therefore the subject of all these statements are false teachers, since it is the context of what Peter is talking about.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

The whole context of the passage is talking about false teachers. He doesn't suddenly flip to talking about hearers of false teachers. Therefore the subject of all these statements are false teachers, since it is the context of what Peter is talking about.
TD

I explained very clearly who the "they" and the "them" are in v.19.

What is clear is that "they" did not promise freedom to "themselves". They promised freedom to those who had "escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". It couldn't be any more clear.

So v.20 and 21 are about believers who get entangled again in the world. It WILL be worse for them at the end of their life than before they believed.

Why? Because of God's discipline, which is painful per Heb 12:11.

If you continue to disagree, please do so by taking my points one at a time and explaining how and why my view is incorrect.

 

[tdidymas]

Part 1 of 3:

I said:
"The issue is settled by what the Bible says, or not says. Where does the Bible tell us that faith is a gift? Many will respond with "Eph 2:8". But does the verse say that? No, it doesn't. It does say that our salvation is a gift of God, just as Rom 6:23 says that "the gift of God is eternal life".

Both salvation and eternal life are synonymous, as one cannot have one without the other."

tdidymas said: ↑
It depends on how you read it, based on what soteriology you believe in.

It certainly does depend on one's bias (how you read it). But my comments were about what the Bible actually says. My "bias" is determined by the words of the Bible.

Everyone says this same thing who has confidence that their bias is right. The fact is, your explanation of what you think it means is based on your bias in addition to the actual words.

TD: The way I read Eph. 2:8 is that when he says "it is the gift of God" he is talking about the whole package, saved-grace-faith.

FG2: Those with training in Greek inform me that the genitive for "it" is the same (feminine) as the genitive for "saved". I would agree that 'faith' as a noun would be a gift of God, since God gave us His Word.

However, it seems to me that most who claim "faith is a gift" do so in the sense of a verb, and mean that those who believe do so because God gave them the ability to believe. Meaning, of course, that He doesn't give many that gift. But if that were true, then the FACT that Jesus died for all would be meaningless.

Jesus died (effectually) for all the elect, that is, for all believers past present and future. "He purchased with His blood men from every tribe, tongue and nation." "Men from" indicates the purchase did not include everyone. If it did include everyone, it would have said so, and this would also imply universalism which is not a Biblical idea. So let's look at the context of 2 Cor. 5 where it says that He "died for all" - if it means everyone in the world for all time, then that would imply one of two conclusions:
1. His death is effectual for everyone, thus everyone is saved, since Christ's atonement actually reconciles to God every individual it applies to. This would be universalism.
2. His death is ineffective to save anyone, since not everyone is saved by His dying for them. So something else has to be the effective work for their redemption.
Since neither of these ideas are Biblical, my conclusion is that Christ died for the (past, present, and future) elect. So "all" must be qualified as "all the elect of God, no matter what class of people" as opposed to "all people everywhere regardless of whether they believe or not."

Also, verb or noun, it makes no difference, it is still a gift.

TD: These cannot be divided as a partial package, as if you could have one without the other. Saved by grace through faith - it is a simultaneous event, and this event is said to be the gift of God. Therefore, as the salvation is the gift of God, and (obviously) grace is the gift of God, so also is faith the gift of God, as it is part of the same event. So then, I claim that it does say that faith is the gift of God. It is a matter of exegeting that meaning from the context of the whole NT.

Other passages concur, such as:
Phil. 1:29 - we are granted by God to believe. Not everyone is granted this.

FG2: Since Christ died for all, it should be obvious that everyone has the ability to believe. In fact, this is proved by the fact that Paul tried to persuade men to believe. Why would he even bother if the determinant of who believes is God Himself? And again, why did Jesus die for all if not all were able to believe in the first place?

Yet the scripture clearly states that not everyone has that ability:
Jhn 12:40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”
2Co 4:4 "in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Rom 8:7 "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so"
Jhn 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word."
1Co 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
John 6:65 "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

These scriptures show the inability of anyone to believe who has not had the mercy and gift of faith bestowed on them by God.

Paul trying to persuade men to believe is simply him acknowledging that God works providentially through natural means, namely human reasoning. But the fact that only a few who hear the same message actually believe it is evidence that God does His work of producing faith in some individuals, since the grace of God is not a roll of the dice in effecting salvation for men.

TD: Rom. 12:3 - God allots faith to us

FG2: This is in context of spiritual gifts; not related to unbelievers.

The gift of faith that is a spiritual gift is the same gift of faith in Christ that saves an individual. Jesus never distinguished between kinds of faith, but only in measures.

TD: 2 Pet. 1:1 - we have received a faith given by God

FG2: As a noun. His word.

How does it being a noun prove anything? As a noun or verb, it is still a gift.

TD: 1 Cor. 1:30 - we are in Christ by God's doing, including the faith necessary to be in Christ

FG2: Being "in Christ" is fully explained in Eph 1:13,14. The key is that those "having believed" are sealed. The believing precedes the sealing. Your comment is opposite to that.

The sealing is simultaneous to the believing. In :13 there is first the hearing, then afterward is the believing and sealing. Out of 14 translations, there are only 2 translations (KJV and WEB) that place the sealing chronologically after believing. After reading 2 interlinears which give no indication that there is any chronological difference between believing and sealing, my conclusion is that the KJV and WEB are mistranslations based on the bias of the translators. Therefore, the way I read :13 is that the believing and sealing happen at the same time. If this is the case, my previous statement is still supported, as regeneration is a logical precedent of believing, and probably happens simultaneously from a chronological viewpoint.

Thus, my reading of 1 Cor. 2:14-16 stands. Those not born again do not understand nor believe the gospel (nor have any interest in believing it), whereas those who believe have been born again.

TD: John 6:29 - faith is the work of God, not men

FG2: Not what the text says. In context, the Jews asked Jesus what God requires for eternal life. Note that the Jews were works oriented and thought being good would get them into heaven (law keeping). What God requires for eternal life is to believe in Christ.

I agree that the Jews Jesus was speaking to were relying on their obedience to law to save them, and that He purposely responded with "this is the work of God, to believe on Him whom He has sent." However, they did actually understand the concept of God working His works through people, otherwise called "the providence of God" by theologians, since the Jews also taught that concept even back then. This is why they asked "what must we do to work the works of God?" Therefore, Jesus was acknowledging that concept to be true, that God does indeed work His works through men, as John 3:21 also testifies the truth of it. Thus, His response "this is the work of God, to believe..." is a way of saying that faith in Christ is God's work in an individual. Which also implies that if God doesn't work that work in an individual, that individual will not believe.

Salvation:

Mark 16:16 " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Luke 8:12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 11:14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'

Acts 16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Rom 10:9, 10 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

2 Tim 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1 Peter 1:9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

2 Thess 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Eternal Life:

John 3:15-16 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

1 Tim 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Since I agree with all scripture, including all these, I wonder what your intent is here. We both know that we agree with scripture, but disagree in how we read it.

TD: 1 Cor. 12 says that faith is a gift of the Spirit. Granted it is talking about a faith that goes beyond the ordinary. But how can anyone think that ordinary faith is obtained some different way, as if an individual could generate his own faith apart from God's action in him? I say that even this extraordinary faith being a gift of the Spirit is the same faith that is given to Christians to believe in Christ.

FG2: 1 Cor 12 is about spiritual gifts, not related or relevant for unbelievers.

It is relevent, since it is the same kind of faith in Christ that saves a person as the kind of faith which is a spiritual gift. Jesus makes no distinction in kinds of faith in His teachings, only in measures.
TD
(cont'd)

 

[tdidymas]

Part 2 of 3:

TD: In 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 8 Paul explains that individuals in their natural state (not born again) cannot believe the gospel as it is taught in the NT. He uses this kind of language:
"does not receive the things of the Spirit" (the gospel)
"neither can he understand" (can't believe)
"mind set on the flesh" (not believing)
"cannot please God" (not having faith)
This language is in the context of faith in Christ being the righteous act that pleases God, as he also says that faith is that obedience to God's calling - Rom. 1:5.

FG2: We always have to consult the context for every verse, in order to understand what they mean.

Re:
"does not receive the things of the Spirit" does NOT refer to "the gospel" but the "deep things" of God, which is deeper and advanced doctrines. Something that even immature and baby Christians cannot understand. Heb 5:12.

"neither can he understand" also refers to the "deep things of God", which are for the "mature" believer. 1 Cor 1.

The "deep things of God" indeed is doctrine of the NT regarding the gospel. Several times in ch. 1 he reminds us he is talking about the gospel, and he is still talking about it in ch. 2 since he goes back to reminding us in ch. 3 that he is still talking about the gospel. All the deep and even "hard to understand" teachings of the NT is about the gospel. There is no other or different message which is conveyed in the NT.

"mind set on the flesh" is also a problem for believers, so isn't relevant.

"cannot please God" is true of believers who fail to trust God in every situation. Just like the Exodus generation. 1 Cor 10:1-5.

"mind set on the flesh" is an unbeliever, someone who "cannot please God" because they "do not subject themselves to the law of God" (that is, the law of faith), and "neither can they do so" - IOW, unbelievers cannot believe in the gospel or have faith that saves, unless "the Spirit of God dwells" in them. So Rom. 8:1-17 is talking about 2 different groups of people, believers and unbelievers (whether they call themselves "Christian" or not). The brass tacks of this passage is v. 13 where he says that living after the flesh results in death (namely the 2nd death); but believers in Christ are living after the spirit, namely "putting to death the (evil) deeds of the body" which results in eternal life - another way of saying "led by the Spirit," which is equivalent to living by faith.

TD: These statements of Paul are based on Jesus' claim in John 6:65 that "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" which speaks of a divine imposition that must take place in individuals before they can exhibit faith in the gospel message. I say that divine imposition is rebirth. "The wind blows where it wills" - IOW, it is God's choice.

FG2: Don't forget to read John 6:44 AND 45. v.45 explains who comes to Jesus: those who have listened and learned from the Father. And the verse tells us that God has taught all. So no one has any excuse about "not being chosen" to believe.

John 6:44-45 actually prove my point. "No one can" means that anyone not taught of God is unable to come to Christ, therefore divine imposition must happen if anyone is to believe the gospel. Further, "they shall all" is referring to "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father." Therefore the qualifier of believers for the term "all" in this context is clear. If you are not a universalist, then to impose a scope of everyone in the whole world as a qualifier for "all" in this context would be a contradiction to NT teaching.

TD: The verses you quote (2 Cor 5:14,15, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2) do not prove that Christ died for every individual everywhere and for all time, as this modification of the term "all" is an imposition on the scripture.

FG2: Here's how to determine how to handle the word "all". ONLY IF there is a condition or description IN the verse or immediate context that defines exactly who ONLY are the "all", we can be assured that "all" means just that, everyone.

And all 3 verses I quoted have NO SUCH QUALIFIERS to limit "all" to any smaller group than everyone in the human race.

But I invite you to show me in either 2 Cor 5 or Heb 2 where you see any such qualifiers that would limit the scope of "all".

2Co 5:14-15 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

The audience of this statement is the church, therefore he is talking about Christ dying for the church, and for whomever is potentially the church. Further to consider that the apostle does not assume that everyone in the (visible) church is a true believer, just as Christ does not assume that everyone in the crowd to whom He speaks "your father in heaven" is a child of God. This is what makes this passage and others like it a possible evangelistic appeal.

Not every reader (or hearer) of this passage is a true believer or will understand (or even be interested in) the idea of "new creation." Paul is speaking of spiritual things, so the "all" he is referring to are all those who become spiritual (eventually), namely in Christ. He says "all were dead" - that is, spiritually, and therefore "those who live" are those who live spiritually. Therefore "he died for all" is the scope of all those who eventually come to life spiritually to be a new creation.

If Christ dying "for" everyone makes atonement effectual for everyone, then this would imply universalism, which the Bible doesn't teach.

Heb 2:9 "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone."

It says "He might taste death for everyone" - again, it cannot mean that atonement is effectual for everyone. Either the scope of "everyone" is the context of believers in Christ, or Christ's death "for everyone" is potential, not actual. Since I am certain that universalism is false, I read this passage consistent with the teaching of the whole NT.

TD: Since the usage of the term "all" in the context determines its scope, therefore the scope of "all" is the church, since it is the audience of these epistles.

FG2: Not true. This is merely an attempt to limit the scope. If Jesus died for all, when a writer of Scripture was telling saved congregations who He died for, would simply say He died for all.

Your limitation is artificial.

My limitation is not artificial, since I am considering the whole context of the NT and not just one single verse. If the apostles have qualifiers for "all" in other contexts, which they do, then in obscure verses like this, I assume the same qualifiers. Otherwise, there is contradiction.

TD: In 1 Jn. 2, the "kosmos" is equivalent to men everywhere, and implies potential propitiation as opposed to actual.

FG2: This is an opinion which is not supported by the very words in the verse. John says that Jesus died not only for "us", which means believers, but for the "whole world".

Trying to force only saved people into "whole world" would be quite a feat.

"Which means believers" is your opinion of what it means, based on your biased reading. How do you know if John wasn't writing to a church largely of Jews, and this statement was designed to convince them to accept Gentile believers? Paul also produced a whole argument about that in Rom. 2 and elsewhere.

But let's assume just for argument's sake that "us" means believers, and "whole world" includes unbelievers. Christ's atoning sacrifice purchases "men from every tribe..." that is, those who believe in the gospel, in exclusion of unbelievers. So, propitiation cannot be effectual for unbelievers, since they will be condemned. Therefore, propitiation is only effectual for believers.
It follows then that John's statement has to do with Christ's atoning sacrifice being potentially propitiating for all future believers of the world, Jew and Gentile alike. Not actual and effectual propitiation until those who will believe in the future actually do believe and propitiation is appropriated for them at that time. Only then does it become effectual, since most of us start out being hostile to God and the gospel.

Therefore, John's statement cannot mean that Christ's sacrifice is effectually atoning for the whole world, since that would imply universalism which the Bible does not teach. Certainly Christ's sacrifice is worthy to be effectual for every individual who ever lives many times over. But since we know that many will be condemned in the end, we also understand that atonement is only effectual for those who believe the gospel (eventually), and thus is redemption (propitiation) limited to them.

TD: Rev. 5:9 is clear that the blood of Christ purchased some individuals and not everyone.

FG2: No, it's not at all clear. What is clear is that Jesus died for all, everyone. And verses that plainly say so. And no context to limit "all" to less than everyone.

"...men from..." sounds pretty clear to me that not everyone is purchased.

Rom. 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
If you claim that "all men" here means everyone in the whole world for all time, that would make you a universalist. Are you a universalist?

If not, then, would you agree that not all men are justified to life? And so "all" does not mean "everyone"?

TD: If you believe that you have a say in your eternal destiny, that it is in your hands, then your faith is directed toward yourself.

FG2: First, to be clear, I'm NO Arminian. My faith is directed SOLELY and ONLY toward the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for me and saves me on the basis of my faith IN HIM.

But regarding your comment about "having a say in my eternal destiny", what is your opinion of the Philippian jailer who asked this question:
He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Acts 16:30

And how do you explain Paul's answer:
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” v.31

The jailer clearly wanted to be saved and asked what he MUST DO to be saved.
Paul's answer clearly stated that he must believe in order to be saved.

Firstly, I'm not accusing you of being Arminian. My hypothetical "if you..." is merely a general statement and is not a personal affront.

A historical narrative may support doctrine, but must not be the primary source of doctrine. The Bible tells me in various places the clear doctrinal idea that we must be born again (as a logical prerequisite) before we can see (i.e. believe in) the kingdom of God, namely receiving the gospel. So then, Paul tells the jailer he must believe in Christ "and you will be saved..." (but not your words "in order to be saved"). This is an accommodation to the "unbelieving" jailer who has been deceived by the serpent in thinking that he has control of his destiny, and Paul is meeting him there. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." The jailer thinks he is in control of believing, but in reality (in the realm of the spirit) God is really in control, therefore the jailer believes. If God had not had mercy on the man, then the man would not have asked the question, as he would not be interested. But God was already working on him and drawing him through the previous actions of Paul and Silas. And so, we "hear the sound" of the "wind" blowing, which is the "sound" of repentance. The jailer feared God (which is part of faith and prerequisite to faith in the gospel), humbled himself (a form of repentance), and submitted himself to Paul (he recognized Paul's authority in the kingdom of God). The end result is that the jailer loses his conflict with God and surrenders, thus the culmination of believing.

I firmly believe that regeneration precedes faith, since I see the Bible teaching it.

TD: Even if you claim that God determines your destiny in cooperation with your "free will" to choose it (or to stay in it), your faith is partially directed toward yourself.

FG2: I believe that it is God's plan ONLY that He will save those who believe. In fact, Scripture says this.

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

This verse doesn't prove your logic. It simply identifies those whom God is saving - those who believe in Christ. It does not say that belief causes God's decision to save that individual, as your response implies. I believe that regeneration precedes faith.

Do you believe that saving faith is an act of the individual apart from God's gifting, and that people not born again have this ability?

TD: If you believe that God is author and completer of your personal faith in Christ, then your faith is fully directed toward Him

FG2: No, I don't believe this, because the Bible never says any of this.

What the Bible does say is that God is the author and completer of my SALVATION.

Heb. 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith..." The way I read it is that Jesus authors my faith, in conjunction with His statement that He gives life to whomever He wishes, and in conjunction with Paul's statement that God has mercy on whomever He wishes.
TD
(cont'd)

 

[tdidymas]

Part 3 of 3:

TD: seeing that your eternal destiny in totally in His hands.

FG2: It is. For sure.

Praise the Lord! But I was also assuming that fact.

TD: This is what I mean by "where one's faith is directed." It is which direction the trust is going.

FG2: The ONLY direction of faith that is saving is when it is toward Jesus Christ.

Precisely the point.

Epilogue:
Besides all this, look at Rom. 5:16 carefully: "The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification."

Since we are justified by faith (5:1), this "free gift" he is talking about which results in justification is the faith that justifies. Faith is the gift of God.

TD
[end]

 

[tdidymas]

I explained very clearly who the "they" and the "them" are in v.19.

What is clear is that "they" did not promise freedom to "themselves". They promised freedom to those who had "escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". It couldn't be any more clear.

So v.20 and 21 are about believers who get entangled again in the world. It WILL be worse for them at the end of their life than before they believed.

Why? Because of God's discipline, which is painful per Heb 12:11.

If you continue to disagree, please do so by taking my points one at a time and explaining how and why my view is incorrect.

I did not say that every "they" and "them" in the passage refers to false teachers. What I said is that false teachers are the subject matter of the whole passage. I also explained that IMO Peter is discussing one subject in that passage, and not jumping to a different subject matter. So, I am trying to explain how and why your view is incorrect.

I'll try this, to insert my comments into the text and let you see if it makes sense:
2 Pet. 2:17-22
:17 "These (false teachers) are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom (teachers) the black darkness has been reserved."
:18 "For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those (hearers) who barely escape from the ones (teachers) who live in error,"
:19 "promising them (hearers) freedom while they (teachers) themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man (teacher) is overcome, by this he is enslaved."
:20 "For if, after they (teachers) have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they (teachers) are again entangled in them (defilements) and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them (teachers) than the first."
:21 "For it would be better for them (teachers) not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them (teachers)."
:22 "It has happened to them (teachers) according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

This whole chapter from v. 1 to the end is the subject of false teachers. Their hearers, those who are being enticed "barely escape" - IOW are not the ones who are overcome by defilements. They escape, though barely. But it is a given that many of their hearers do not escape the defilements, and such are cults.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

Part 1 of 3:
Everyone says this same thing who has confidence that their bias is right. The fact is, your explanation of what you think it means is based on your bias in addition to the actual words.

As I said previously, my bias is based on what the Bible says.

Jesus died (effectually) for all the elect, that is, for all believers past present and future.

Fact is, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ died for all the elect. Ever.

"He purchased with His blood men from every tribe, tongue and nation."

Some might argue that He died only for males. But we all know better.

"Men from" indicates the purchase did not include everyone.

No such indication.

If it did include everyone, it would have said so, and this would also imply universalism which is not a Biblical idea.

First, I've given 3 verses that actually say He died for everyone. Not just some.

Second, Christ's dying for everyone doesn't lead to universalism. But Calvinism thinks that Christ's death actually saves the "elect". There are several problems with such thinking. First, the biblical doctrine of election is about being chosen for service, not salvation. Second, the ONLY CONDITION for being saved is to believe in Christ.

So let's look at the context of 2 Cor. 5 where it says that He "died for all" - if it means everyone in the world for all time, then that would imply one of two conclusions:
1. His death is effectual for everyone, thus everyone is saved, since Christ's atonement actually reconciles to God every individual it applies to.

I would suggest you reconsider what reconciliation means. It doesn't mean salvation. It means that by paying for man's sins, God's justice is freed to actually save those who believe. Christ removed the sin barrier between God and man, so that God can save man. If Christ didn't die for a person's sins, God could not save him, even if he believed.

This would be universalism.

I've just explained why that is not true.

2. His death is ineffective to save anyone, since not everyone is saved by His dying for them. So something else has to be the effective work for their redemption.
Since neither of these ideas are Biblical, my conclusion is that Christ died for the (past, present, and future) elect.

Your conclusion is incorrect. He did die for everyone, so that "whosoEVER believes will be saved". John 3:16

So "all" must be qualified as "all the elect of God, no matter what class of people" as opposed to "all people everywhere regardless of whether they believe or not."

Not true.

Also, verb or noun, it makes no difference, it is still a gift.

Everyone in the world, past, present, and future, are ABLE to believe. But most refuse to believe. Do you understand what it means to say that one refuses to do something?

It means they are ABLE to do something, but just won't do it.

Yet the scripture clearly states that not everyone has that ability:
Jhn 12:40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”

This is a quote from Isa 6:9,10. This is how Luke quotes the 2 verses at the end of Acts.
28:26,27
26 “ ‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

Do you see their own volition here? They themselves have closed their own eyes.

And do you see the possibility here? If they "turn", then God "would heal them".

2Co 4:4 "in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Jesus said basically the same thing in the parable of the soils regarding the first soil.

But the verse doesn't say that either:
1. God blinds the "non-elect" from believing, or
2. God causes the "elect" to believe.

Rom 8:7 "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so"

Of course unbelievers are unable to subject themselves to the law of God. But this doesn't say that they can't believe.

Jhn 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word."

Go back to Isa 6:9,10. They had closed their ears, just as Isaiah wrote. When those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, they had closed their ears and could not hear His words.

If you attend a class and keep your fingers in your ears, will you hear the teacher and learn anything? Of course not.

1Co 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

Look at the entire context.
In v.6 of 1 Cor 2, Paul notes that he was speaking a "message of wisdom among the mature". iow, what he was writing was to mature believers, not newbies. Then in v.10 he noted the "deep things of God". This would be advanced doctrine that baby believers cannot understand any more than physical babies can digest steak. Heb 5 deals with this in v.11 and 12.

John 6:65 "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Go back to v.44 and 45:
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

v.45 explains WHO will be drawn to Jesus: "everyone who had listened and learned from the Father will come to Him".

Please note who all has been taught by God: "all will be taught by God". That's not just some. It's all. So no one has any excuse. Just as Rom 1:20 says.

These scriptures show the inability of anyone to believe who has not had the mercy and gift of faith bestowed on them by God.

I've just explained that they don't show any inability. They speak of something else. Refusal to believe. And that's not inability. It's rebellion.

Paul trying to persuade men to believe is simply him acknowledging that God works providentially through natural means, namely human reasoning.

But none of this is relevant if God chooses who will believe. That should be obvious.

But the fact that only a few who hear the same message actually believe it is evidence that God does His work of producing faith in some individuals, since the grace of God is not a roll of the dice in effecting salvation for men.

Of course it's no roll of the dice. But God created humanity with an intellect that is able to choose from among options. Including whether to believe the gospel or not.

The sealing is simultaneous to the believing. In :13 there is first the hearing, then afterward is the believing and sealing. Out of 14 translations, there are only 2 translations (KJV and WEB) that place the sealing chronologically after believing. After reading 2 interlinears which give no indication that there is any chronological difference between believing and sealing, my conclusion is that the KJV and WEB are mistranslations based on the bias of the translators. Therefore, the way I read :13 is that the believing and sealing happen at the same time.

Yes, they are simultaneous.

If this is the case, my previous statement is still supported, as regeneration is a logical precedent of believing, and probably happens simultaneously from a chronological viewpoint.

The Bible actually indicates that believing precedes regeneration.
Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The red words at the beginning of the verse speak of regeneration, which I'm sure you'll agree.
The blue words at the end of the verse is a clarification of what regeneration is. iow, to be regenerated is to be saved. Or, to be saved is to be regenerated.

The point is that regeneration and salvation are equated in v.5.

Now, the proof:
v.8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

In order to be saved THROUGH faith, the faith must precede the salvation. So faith in Christ precedes regeneration and salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Part 2 of 3:

The "deep things of God" indeed is doctrine of the NT regarding the gospel.

Hardly. Consider what Peter wrote about Paul's teaching in 2 Pet 3:16 - He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

It can hardly be said that the gospel is "hard to understand". What is difficult are the many advanced doctrines which Paul taught.

John 6:44-45 actually prove my point. "No one can" means that anyone not taught of God is unable to come to Christ, therefore divine imposition must happen if anyone is to believe the gospel.

The problem in your view is that v.45 clearly states that "all have been taught by God", which nullifies your view.

Further, "they shall all" is referring to "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father."

No it's not. Just read v.45. All have been taught, but only those who listened and learned will come to Jesus.

2Co 5:14-15 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

The audience of this statement is the church, therefore he is talking about Christ dying for the church, and for whomever is potentially the church.

There is no basis for such a claim. In v.14 Paul clearly was referring to everyone in the human race since he concluded "then were ALL dead". Are only the "elect" dead? Of course not. Everyone in humanity is born spiritually dead. Romans 5 proves that.

Heb 2:9 "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone."

It says "He might taste death for everyone" - again, it cannot mean that atonement is effectual for everyone. Either the scope of "everyone" is the context of believers in Christ, or Christ's death "for everyone" is potential, not actual.

How can you claim it's "potential". By the time the writer of Hebrews wrote 2:9, Christ had already died for all.

My limitation is not artificial, since I am considering the whole context of the NT and not just one single verse.

There are no verses that outright exclude anyone from Christ's death. And there are 3 that clearly and directly SAY He died for everyone.

If the apostles have qualifiers for "all" in other contexts, which they do, then in obscure verses like this, I assume the same qualifiers. Otherwise, there is contradiction.

There is no obscurity in any of the 3 verses that say Christ died for everyone.

Rom. 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
If you claim that "all men" here means everyone in the whole world for all time, that would make you a universalist. Are you a universalist?

This verse speaks of the availability of the free gift. That's what "came upon all men" means, or refers to. Consider Titus 2:11. Same principle.

And, no, I'm NOT a universalist. Only believers will enter heaven.

If not, then, would you agree that not all men are justified to life? And so "all" does not mean "everyone"?

Only those who believe are justified. Rom 5:1

I firmly believe that regeneration precedes faith, since I see the Bible teaching it.

Not one verse does so. In fact, I've already explained from Eph 2:5 and 8 that faith precedes both regeneration and salvation.

Do you believe that saving faith is an act of the individual apart from God's gifting, and that people not born again have this ability?

I believe what is obvious; that God created humanity with the intellect to understand many things, which include the gospel, and He gave them the freedom to believe or reject Him.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did not say that every "they" and "them" in the passage refers to false teachers.

I didn't either. I specifically addressed the "they" and "them" in ONE VERSE, v.19.

What I said is that false teachers are the subject matter of the whole passage. I also explained that IMO Peter is discussing one subject in that passage, and not jumping to a different subject matter. So, I am trying to explain how and why your view is incorrect.

While false teachers IS the subject, v.19 tells us WHAT the false teachers promise "them", believers. And the result, getting entangled again in this world.

I'll try this, to insert my comments into the text and let you see if it makes sense:
2 Pet. 2:17-22
:17 "These (false teachers) are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom (teachers) the black darkness has been reserved."
:18 "For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those (hearers) who barely escape from the ones (teachers) who live in error,"
:19 "promising them (hearers) freedom while they (teachers) themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man (teacher) is overcome, by this he is enslaved."
:20 "For if, after they (teachers) have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they (teachers) are again entangled in them (defilements) and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them (teachers) than the first."
:21 "For it would be better for them (teachers) not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them (teachers)."
:22 "It has happened to them (teachers) according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

Sorry. It doesn't make sense. And you haven't shown that my explanation of v.19 is incorrect.

 

[Gr8Grace]

As I said previously, my bias is based on what the Bible says.


Fact is, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ died for all the elect. Ever.


Some might argue that He died only for males. But we all know better.


No such indication.


First, I've given 3 verses that actually say He died for everyone. Not just some.

Second, Christ's dying for everyone doesn't lead to universalism. But Calvinism thinks that Christ's death actually saves the "elect". There are several problems with such thinking. First, the biblical doctrine of election is about being chosen for service, not salvation. Second, the ONLY CONDITION for being saved is to believe in Christ.


I would suggest you reconsider what reconciliation means. It doesn't mean salvation. It means that by paying for man's sins, God's justice is freed to actually save those who believe. Christ removed the sin barrier between God and man, so that God can save man. If Christ didn't die for a person's sins, God could not save him, even if he believed.


I've just explained why that is not true.


Your conclusion is incorrect. He did die for everyone, so that "whosoEVER believes will be saved". John 3:16


Not true.


Everyone in the world, past, present, and future, are ABLE to believe. But most refuse to believe. Do you understand what it means to say that one refuses to do something?

It means they are ABLE to do something, but just won't do it.


This is a quote from Isa 6:9,10. This is how Luke quotes the 2 verses at the end of Acts.
28:26,27
26 “ ‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

Do you see their own volition here? They themselves have closed their own eyes.

And do you see the possibility here? If they "turn", then God "would heal them".


Jesus said basically the same thing in the parable of the soils regarding the first soil.

But the verse doesn't say that either:
1. God blinds the "non-elect" from believing, or
2. God causes the "elect" to believe.


Of course unbelievers are unable to subject themselves to the law of God. But this doesn't say that they can't believe.


Go back to Isa 6:9,10. They had closed their ears, just as Isaiah wrote. When those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, they had closed their ears and could not hear His words.

If you attend a class and keep your fingers in your ears, will you hear the teacher and learn anything? Of course not.


Look at the entire context.
In v.6 of 1 Cor 2, Paul notes that he was speaking a "message of wisdom among the mature". iow, what he was writing was to mature believers, not newbies. Then in v.10 he noted the "deep things of God". This would be advanced doctrine that baby believers cannot understand any more than physical babies can digest steak. Heb 5 deals with this in v.11 and 12.


Go back to v.44 and 45:
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

v.45 explains WHO will be drawn to Jesus: "everyone who had listened and learned from the Father will come to Him".

Please note who all has been taught by God: "all will be taught by God". That's not just some. It's all. So no one has any excuse. Just as Rom 1:20 says.


I've just explained that they don't show any inability. They speak of something else. Refusal to believe. And that's not inability. It's rebellion.


But none of this is relevant if God chooses who will believe. That should be obvious.


Of course it's no roll of the dice. But God created humanity with an intellect that is able to choose from among options. Including whether to believe the gospel or not.


Yes, they are simultaneous.


The Bible actually indicates that believing precedes regeneration.
Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The red words at the beginning of the verse speak of regeneration, which I'm sure you'll agree.
The blue words at the end of the verse is a clarification of what regeneration is. iow, to be regenerated is to be saved. Or, to be saved is to be regenerated.

The point is that regeneration and salvation are equated in v.5.

Now, the proof:
v.8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

In order to be saved THROUGH faith, the faith must precede the salvation. So faith in Christ precedes regeneration and salvation.

In my neck of the woods, this post would be called a HOME RUN. And knocked out of the park. Way out of the park.

It seems that the simple fact that the Lord Jesus Christ paid for ALL sin For ALL mankind is the main stumbling block for many.

Sin is no longer the issue/barrier for mankind.......believing in Him is the issue.....For ALL.

Acts 16:31; John 3:16

John 12:32~~New American Standard Bible
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Rom 1:20~~New American Standard Bible
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

[tdidymas]

I didn't either. I specifically addressed the "they" and "them" in ONE VERSE, v.19.


While false teachers IS the subject, v.19 tells us WHAT the false teachers promise "them", believers. And the result, getting entangled again in this world.


Sorry. It doesn't make sense. And you haven't shown that my explanation of v.19 is incorrect.

I think this is where our paths diverge, since our reading of scripture is quite different at this point. I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of individuals, and you strongly believe in the free will of man for the same, and I think we will continue to argue on parallel paths and never meet. I see much resistance in you to try to understand my interpretation, whereas I have tried my best to see your points. It makes me think that you have had some bad experience in the past with people who stand on God's sovereignty.

Actually you have made some good points and have challenged me to consider my interpretation. One good point I've had to think through is this one:

Now, the proof:
v.8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

In order to be saved THROUGH faith, the faith must precede the salvation. So faith in Christ precedes regeneration and salvation.

However, the text doesn't actually say anything about what precedes what. I get that it happens simultaneously, as you agreed, and that faith neither precedes nor follows the other. This then leads us to who is doing the work, and is the work a synergism or monergism (both ways or one way).

As for this:

you haven't shown that my explanation of v.19 is incorrect

I just did in my last post. You just don't want to accept it, but instead pass it off as "it doesn't make sense."

Finally, why did you avoid addressing my point here:

TD said:
Besides all this, look at Rom. 5:16 carefully: "The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification."

Since we are justified by faith (5:1), this "free gift" he is talking about which results in justification is the faith that justifies. Faith is the gift of God.

Do you have an alternate interpretation for this?
TD

 

[WordSword]

Jesus stated plainly that some believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

Yes, this is one of the most directly-put readings and plainly spoken, yet no Bible commentator uses this passage (or any other) to demonstrate loosing faith and salvation.

It's often noted that Scripture occasionally seems to be contradictory within itself, so looking at the whole of Scripture relating to any subject can present more clarity with an issue. Concerning this subject, there's well more concurrence with the majority of the Bible language supporting permanency than there is with passages that seemingly teach otherwise, therefore my opinion is that while the majority of passages on a doctrine is received, the few seemingly opposing passages continue to receive further study and contemplation. (just my way and opinion)

Blessings!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think this is where our paths diverge, since our reading of scripture is quite different at this point.

I detect a strong Calvinistic bias in your posts. I disagree with your view point because I can't find any verses that actually state what Calvinism claims.

I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of individuals, and you strongly believe in the free will of man for the same, and I think we will continue to argue on parallel paths and never meet.

You have misunderstood me quite a bit. I also believe in God's sovereignty in EVERYTHING, including salvation. But that doesn't mean nor demand that He causes anyone to believe, or that He chooses who will believe, which is the real foundation for the reformed doctrine of election.

God's sovereignty is seen in the fact that God determined that His Son go to the cross and pay for the sins of humanity, all of them, so that He would be free to gift eternal life to all who believe in His Son for it. And there's a lot of verses that say this.

I see much resistance in you to try to understand my interpretation

Oh no, I fully understand your interpretation. My resistance is in accepting it. I cannot, for there is no evidence to support your interpretation.

whereas I have tried my best to see your points. It makes me think that you have had some bad experience in the past with people who stand on God's sovereignty.

Not at all. I simply don't accept any theology that can't be supported from Scripture. And I know full well that every Calvinist claims their view is supported in Scripture. Just like the Arminians who wrongly claim that loss of salvation IS taught in Scripture, and the verses they provide are just as unconvincing as the verses Calvinists provide for their doctrines.

Actually you have made some good points and have challenged me to consider my interpretation. One good point I've had to think through is this one:
"Now, the proof:
v.8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

In order to be saved THROUGH faith, the faith must precede the salvation. So faith in Christ precedes regeneration and salvation."

Thanks. My only goal is to get others thinking about what the Bible actually says.

However, the text doesn't actually say anything about what precedes what. I get that it happens simultaneously, as you agreed, and that faith neither precedes nor follows the other.

I disagree. The verse DOES support an order. Salvation is THROUGH faith. That means the faith is there BEFORE the salvation is given. Seems to me that is the obvious meaning of THROUGH. For anything to go THROUGH something, the something has to be present BEFORE the anything can pass through it.

Example: for a boat to pass THROUGH the water, the water has to be there FOR the boat to pass THROUGH. I see the same thing with salvation and faith.

The faith has to be there before salvation is given.

This then leads us to who is doing the work, and is the work a synergism or monergism (both ways or one way).

I think such words are just mumbo jumbo. God did all the work in Christ by going to the cross and paying for all sins. This removes the sin barrier and frees the justice of God to save those who believe.

As for this:
"you haven't shown that my explanation of v.19 is incorrect"

I just did in my last post. You just don't want to accept it, but instead pass it off as "it doesn't make sense."

When I say something doesn't make sense, it's because it doesn't make sense to me.

Finally, why did you avoid addressing my point here:
"TD said:
Besides all this, look at Rom. 5:16 carefully: "The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification."

Since we are justified by faith (5:1), this "free gift" he is talking about which results in justification is the faith that justifies. Faith is the gift of God."
Do you have an alternate interpretation for this?

TD

I think v.15 is the key to the context in Romans 5.

v.15 - But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Here we read that "by the trespass (sin) of the one (Adam) the many (all of humanity) died" (spiritually).

So, everyone is born spiritually dead on the basis of what Adam did in the garden.

Now note the comparison: 'how much more did God's grace and the gift (salvation) that came by the grace of Jesus Christ, overflow to the many (all of humanity).'

This doesn't say or mean that because of Christ's grace and gift, that all of humanity benefits from it. But the idea of "overflowing" indicates that God's grace and gift are abundantly available to all of humanity. And Paul makes it abundantly clear throughout Romans 3-5 that one is justified through faith in Christ, and imputed righteousness is through faith in Christ.

iow, from Christ's sacrifice on the cross, all of humanity can benefit through faith in Him.

Once this is understood, v.16 poses no problem.

Paul sets up a contrast between Adam's single act and Christ's single act. The results of Adam's action spread to all. But the results of Christ's actions are offered freely to all.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, this is one of the most directly-put readings and plainly spoken, yet no Bible commentator uses this passage (or any other) to demonstrate loosing faith and salvation.

It's often noted that Scripture occasionally seems to be contradictory within itself, so looking at the whole of Scripture relating to any subject can present more clarity with an issue. Concerning this subject, there's well more concurrence with the majority of the Bible language supporting permanency than there is with passages that seemingly teach otherwise, therefore my opinion is that while the majority of passages on a doctrine is received, the few seemingly opposing passages continue to receive further study and contemplation. (just my way and opinion)

Blessings!

When there seems to be contradiction it's because we are misunderstanding something. I have to disagree with you that the majority of the Bible supports permanency. I'd argue that none of the Bible supports or suggests it. Rather, I'd suggest that this idea comes from passages that are misunderstood or taken out of context. A big problem today is that Christians are taught to proof text rather than study the Bible in context. Christians are told what the Bible says by pastors and theologians and then given a sentence here and a sentence there that are supposed to support what they've been taught. That's not proper exgesis. I see it all time in the OSAS/NOSAS debates. Passages are taken out of context routinely in an attempt to support the OSAS doctrine. However, when considered in context it's seen that they don't support the doctrine at all.

 

[WordSword]

When there seems to be contradiction it's because we are misunderstanding something.

I think there will always be Scripture we misunderstand because it's part of our learning encounters. As long as we are ever open and truly desirous of the Spirit's teaching (which is through multiple avenues, and I believe the Bible commentators community being the most useful in my opinion), regardless of how adamant we may be concerning even a lifelong belief, we eventually are shown the truth we seek.

This of course does not relate to that which teaches how to be saved, which is always clear for those truly in the faith due to the urgency of its reception, but issues like OSAS have no bearing on being saved through faith, but they do on growing in faith.

Myself, I believe the more we are is loving towards others (esp. other believers), the more and quicker God teaches us truth in our studies, because this is what it all leads to.

Blessings!

 

[FreeGrace2]

When there seems to be contradiction it's because we are misunderstanding something. I have to disagree with you that the majority of the Bible supports permanency. I'd argue that none of the Bible supports or suggests it. Rather, I'd suggest that this idea comes from passages that are misunderstood or taken out of context. A big problem today is that Christians are taught to proof text rather than study the Bible in context. Christians are told what the Bible says by pastors and theologians and then given a sentence here and a sentence there that are supposed to support what they've been taught. That's not proper exgesis. I see it all time in the OSAS/NOSAS debates. Passages are taken out of context routinely in an attempt to support the OSAS doctrine. However, when considered in context it's seen that they don't support the doctrine at all.

I am interested in your exegesis of John 10:28, in which Jesus taught us both the CAUSE and EFFECT of having or possessing eternal life.

Here is the verse:
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

The phrase in red teaches the CAUSE of having eternal life; Jesus Christ Himself.

The phrase in blue teaches the EFFECT of having eternal life; which is to never perish.

Now, given your comments above, please explain how neither of these colored phrases teach us about the CAUSE and EFFECT of having eternal life.

Thanks.

 

[Butch5]

I think there will always be Scripture we misunderstand because it's part of our learning encounters. As long as we are ever open and truly desirous of the Spirit's teaching (which is through multiple avenues, and I believe the Bible commentators community being the most useful in my opinion), regardless of how adamant we may be concerning even a lifelong belief, we eventually are shown the truth we seek.

This of course does not relate to that which teaches how to be saved, which is always clear for those truly in the faith due to the urgency of its reception, but issues like OSAS have no bearing on being saved through faith, but they do on growing in faith.

Myself, I believe the more we are is loving towards others (esp. other believers), the more and quicker God teaches us truth in our studies, because this is what it all leads to.

Blessings!

I agree there may always be some Scriptures we don't understand. But I think if we're honest with ourselves and put aside our presuppositions we can learn what the Bible teaches. I've found that too many aren't willing to do this. Too often when shown Scripture that flatly refutes what one believes that one simply either ignores the passage or twists it to say what it clearly doesn't.

Regarding the commentators, I disagree. I find that commentators simply parrot what they've been taught in Seminary. Take any given passage and a commentator will usually interpret it based on his preconceived beliefs. I don't really find that very useful.

I've found that too many commentators and pastor simply don't know what the Bible teaches. That may seem like a rather bold claim, but it's true. The reason is they simply parrot what they've been taught. Each denomination has a set of preconceived beliefs that have been handed down for generations. All too often these are wrong. I've found very few who really study the Bible deeply, who are willing to go against the flow when the text says something different than what was taught in seminary. Instead they just write it off as something they don't understand rather than challenge the establishment.

I got tired of being taught mutually exclusive doctrines by different churches from the same book. Someone has to be wrong. I decided to find out who was wrong. In doing so, I found that most of the denominations are wrong on multiple doctrines. Some of the most universally held doctrines in mainline Christianity aren't even Biblical doctrines. I'll give you an example, the Heavenly Destiny doctrine. One would think that if the ultimate goal of man was to go to Heaven when he dies, it would be found somewhere in the Bible. Surely, with 66 books God would have said it somewhere. Yet we find no such statement anywhere in the Bible. Instead, Christians come to the text already believing that and then infer from passages taken out of context that it's in the Bible. It's not. It's nowhere to be found.

You said, "if we're open and truly desirous of the Spirit's teaching." Well, I am and have been desirous of the truth for some years now. Because of that I have rejected a long held belief that when people die they go to Heaven. Having studied the origin of this belief, I've found that it's roots are in Greek Philosophy and Gnostcism, not the Scriptures. That's just one doctrine. There are others.

One problem I find is that too many who enter into Christianity are influenced by many false teachings. As such they have to choose which denomination to belong to. The problem is that they are all wrong for the most part. Sure, they have parts right, but they also have quite a bit wrong. So people become so confused that they don't know what to believe. It doesn't have to be this way. The Bible isn't that hard to understand. The problem is that most everyone is coming to the text with the wrong presuppositions and too many are simply unwilling to consider what the text actually says. It's easier to just go along with the crowd than the buck the system and rock the boat. That doesn't work for me. I want the truth no matter where it leads and no matter what doctrines fall by the wayside. And plenty of doctrines have fallen by the wayside. I too, used to hold to the Heavenly Destiny doctrine. However, after searching the Scriptures for it and not finding any evidence of it at all, I rejected it. I too held to the OSAS position at one time. However, after serious study of "all" of the pertinent passages have reject it too. Again, it's not supported in the Scriptures. When the passages are considered in context it becomes clear that OSAS is not a Biblical doctrine. In addition to this the Historical record also shows that OSAS is not a Biblical doctrine. Some of the earliest Christian writers called it a heresy. The idea was around in the beginning of the Church, however, it wasn't Christians who held it, it was the Gnostics and Greeks. So, much of modern Christianity, include Protestant Christianity, comes out of early and Midieval Roman Catholicism. As such there is quite a bit of error that the Protestants never got rid of when they broke away from the Catholic Church. It's still around today.

 

[WordSword]

I agree there may always be some Scriptures we don't understand. But I think if we're honest with ourselves and put aside our presuppositions we can learn what the Bible teaches.

I'll always appreciate your replies, regardless of any differences of understanding.

God bless you Brother Butch!

 

[Dan the deacon]

If we cannot reject our salvation, then explain falling away.