“Once Saved Always Saved” a dangerous delusion?

[heymikey80]

By Christ's death, truly he propitiated. This still does not make us saved until we accept that.

Just thinking off the cuff here as to what was meant in Hebrews 10:14, then -- "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."

In reality, the propitiation is treated as something of an office of Christ. If Christ did indeed turn aside God's wrath (and btw, "atoning" isn't in the Greek) for the whole world, then there is no wrath to expend upon anyone. So the question would turn to why punish anyone when there is no wrath for anyone. Acceptance is not the point. If Christ really did turn aside wrath, the wrath is turned aside. If we decide whether Christ turns aside wrath, then Christ could not possibly indeed have turned aside God's wrath, and 1 John 2:2 could not possibly be understood to mean that.

So a decisional theology also has to shift the meaning of 1 John 2:2. It only means an office or role Christ serves.

And that's assuredly the point. Once that verse is shifted, it has no problem with Calvinism. Going to actual propitiation results in universalism. Accepting it as an office results in no contradiction with Calvinism.

Everything you say here is totally and utterly true. Like you said, Christ did 100% of the work. Our decision to accept this fact takes nothing away from his 100%. We take nothing away from Christ when He allows us to come to him by choice.

This would bother me, because in two places, John 1:13 and Romans 9:16, Scirpture directly states that it's not from human will -- though a decision from a human free will would indeed be a human will.

As for 2 Peter 2:1, the verse starts out with "But", which refers to what he was talking about prior. The prior verse is:

2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

We can conclude from this that these prophets who spoke from God carried the Holy Spirit, obviously meaning they were saved. 2:1 speaks about false prophets, and says "among you", which means that the false prophets were among believers.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them —bringing swift destruction on themselves.

To which I would agree. They resided among believers; that did not mean they were believers, but instead would be considered disciples, followers, about whom such things as spiritual belief could only be guessed at. Spirituality is unseen.

Some texts translate it as "Master", or even like you said "God as the sovereign owner".

Anyway, lets say, Hypothetically, it could be referring to Jesus our master, or Father God, or even the God of the old testament. In any one of those situations, how can the "Master" have "bought" us? Through Jesus Christ on Calvary. Father God sent his only son to buy us from our sins. I don't see how this verse could be translated any other way.

Again, to me this is indeed the Master's deserved Lordship over the entire universe. Judgment is committed to the Son, proclaimed through the Resurrection. Paul said as much at Athens.

So everything is His to judge, sure. Often Calvinists encounter people who will quickly jump from "died for" to "died for the salvation of", when the latter is not warranted. Clarification on that point shows that Christ is indeed Judge over everything in the universe.

 

[Skala]

Thanks brother for your gracious response and continued discussion. You said the following:

By Christ's death, truly he propitiated. This still does not make us saved until we accept that.

You say this, but then you say you agree with the following section where I explained that Christ's death actually secures our "acceptance" (to use your word) of it:

Everything you say here is totally and utterly true. Like you said, Christ did 100% of the work.

So I think you may have misunderstood the thrust of my argument brother.

My point was, if a man needs to accept Christ in order to be saved, and he also needs atonement, and he also needs regeneration, and he also needs propitiation....then Christ secured all of that in order to save the man.

The salvation of a man is completely wrapped up in what Christ did. You say "Yes, he propitiated, but we need to accept it", and I say "I accept it because Christ secured my faith in addition to securing my propitiation!"

I hope that makes my position clear. When I say Christ's death saved me, I am being literal. I do not mean that it was merely the possibility of my salvation, conditioned on whether I do this or that, but that it actually and literally saved me because it also secured all of those conditions.

Whatever I need to be saved, Christ secured it for me on the cross. My faith, my repentance, my regeneration, my atonement. That's my position.

There's literally nothing i can take credit for or boast in. Even my faith is a gift from God, my salvation is entirely by grace.

Now you see why I must interpret 1 Jn 2:2 the way I do.

Anyway, lets say, Hypothetically, it could be referring to Jesus our master, or Father God, or even the God of the old testament. In any one of those situations, how can the "Master" have "bought" us? Through Jesus Christ on Calvary. Father God sent his only son to buy us from our sins. I don't see how this verse could be translated any other way.

The other way to interpret it is because the word "bought" can also signify ownership. Not necessarily salvific redemption (another kind of bought)

Remember, Peter is likening the current and future false prophets to the false prophets of old. He says "they arose among the people...denying the master who bought them"

Well, in the OT, Israel was said to be "bought" when God rescued them from Egypt. Consider this commentary:

in Deu_32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2Pe_2:12 compared with Deu_32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exo_15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:

Long story short, I am not convinced that this verse is referring to either Christ or the work of atonement on the cross. Peter mention mentions either. It is read into the text (eisegesis) The point is, false teachers in the OT denied the Master who owned them (Israel) and Peter is warning us that they will do it again.

We can conclude from this that these prophets who spoke from God carried the Holy Spirit, obviously meaning they were saved. 2:1 speaks about false prophets, and says "among you", which means that the false prophets were among believers.

Are you sure you want to make that argument brother? To be a prophet in the sense you are talking about means that you speak to the people on behalf of God. The Holy Spirit gives them the words to say. A false prophet isn't a prophet who is being led along by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit never says anything false!

No, a false prophet is someone who claims to be an authoritative teacher, but is really not.

He's not a true prophet that gives false information. There's no such thing. It goes against the very idea of a what a prophet is: Someone that God speaks through.

 

[Morik]

Thanks heymikey80 and Skala

Let's look at the verse you gave.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

As I have said before, notice the tense. This is happening now. Does this still line up with 1 John 2:2 ?

2 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ did not "turn" God's wrath. He is "turning" God's wrath according to these verses. "being sanctified". This lines up with scripture.

Lets look at those two scriptures you gave me.

John 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God

We both agree this verse is referring to salvation. Let me translate this verse piece by piece. We are not born of natural descent (or blood). This means we are not saved from the union of our father and mother, or a distinguished ancestry. We are not born of a human decision, or will of the flesh. That is, anything that the corrupt heart of man could propose on its behalf. Nor are we born out of a husband's will, or the will of man to be more precise. That is, anything that another may be disposed to do in our behalf. But we are born of God, not the will of God. That is what John was meaning when he wrote this passage.

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

The context is extremely similar. It is referring to human will in general, as man's tendency to pursue a righteousness of his own judgment through his own works.

To which I would agree. They resided among believers; that did not mean they were believers, but instead would be considered disciples, followers, about whom such things as spiritual belief could only be guessed at. Spirituality is unseen.

The scripture states "among you". Again, who is the audience? General believers. Believers. Most probably specifically the churches in western Asia and Asia Minor, and he must have had knowledge that his letter would go further.

Again, to me this is indeed the Master's deserved Lordship over the entire universe. Judgment is committed to the Son, proclaimed through the Resurrection. Paul said as much at Athens.

Jesus is the Judge, but he is also our defense, although I might be missing the point you are trying to prove.

My point was, if a man needs to accept Christ in order to be saved, and he also needs atonement, and he also needs regeneration, and he also needs propitiation....then Christ secured all of that in order to save the man.

The salvation of a man is completely wrapped up in what Christ did. You say "Yes, he propitiated, but we need to accept it", and I say "I accept it because Christ secured my faith in addition to securing my propitiation!"

I hope that makes my position clear. When I say Christ's death saved me, I am being literal. I do not mean that it was merely the possibility of my salvation, conditioned on whether I do this or that, but that it actually and literally saved me because it also secured all of those conditions.

Whatever I need to be saved, Christ secured it for me on the cross. My faith, my repentance, my regeneration, my atonement. That's my position.

There's literally nothing i can take credit for or boast in. Even my faith is a gift from God, my salvation is entirely by grace.

I might also be missing you point because I still agree with most of this. Christ secured, and is securing, our atonement. He saved us, and totally secured all of our sins on the cross. We are taking NONE of the credit when we accept Jesus to come into our hearts to be our personal savior.

---

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them —bringing swift destruction on themselves.

To start with the commentary, "that the persons he writes to were Jews" is a false statement. Peter wrote his letter to churches with gentiles, and even claims in his letter:

1 Peter 1:1b To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours

"Lord" cannot mean any but our God, and this is even confirmed with Deut 32:6. Our Lord delivered His people and "bought" them. Essentially putting his people under Him. Peter is making this comparison here. Our Master "bought" us. How did God buy us? Most defiantly not by delivering us from Israel, but through Jesus Christ on Calvary. "the sovereign Lord" is our Master Jesus, who has all power and authority (thus, sovereign). "who bought" took ownership, or brought salvation in this context. "them", the false prophets.

Are you sure you want to make that argument brother? To be a prophet in the sense you are talking about means that you speak to the people on behalf of God. The Holy Spirit gives them the words to say. A false prophet isn't a prophet who is being led along by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit never says anything false!

No, a false prophet is someone who claims to be an authoritative teacher, but is really not.

He's not a true prophet that gives false information. There's no such thing. It goes against the very idea of a what a prophet is: Someone that God speaks through.

The answer is simple. They lost their salvation.

 

[Skala]

Originally Posted by Skala

Are you sure you want to make that argument brother? To be a prophet in the sense you are talking about means that you speak to the people on behalf of God. The Holy Spirit gives them the words to say. A false prophet isn't a prophet who is being led along by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit never says anything false!

No, a false prophet is someone who claims to be an authoritative teacher, but is really not.

He's not a true prophet that gives false information. There's no such thing. It goes against the very idea of a what a prophet is: Someone that God speaks through.

The answer is simple. They lost their salvation.

Don't you see that you are filtering this concept through your presupposition that actually saved people can become unsaved?

I might also be missing you point because I still agree with most of this. Christ secured, and is securing, our atonement. He saved us, and totally secured all of our sins on the cross. We are taking NONE of the credit when we accept Jesus to come into our hearts to be our personal savior.

I think you are missing the point lol.

Here's your position: Christ atoned, now, to make it effective, we have to, in and of ourselves, "accept it" or cooperate with it.

Here's my position: Christ atoned, and it, in and of itself, is effective at bringing me into acceptance and cooperation with it

In the first position, Christ, all by himself, doesn't save. It requires cooperation from the object of salvation.

In the latter position, Christ, all by himself, does save. He doesn't require faith in order to make his work effective, but rather his work is effective because it secures the faith needed.

Christ secures everything needed for my salvation, including my faith. I didn't bring "Faith to the table" in order to complete my salvation. My salvation is complete in Christ because faith is a gift from God, secured by Christ on my behalf so that I would be saved.

In one view, Christ potentially saves. In the other, he actually saves.

 

[heymikey80]

Thanks heymikey80 and Skala

Let's look at the verse you gave.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
As I have said before, notice the tense. This is happening now. Does this still line up with 1 John 2:2 ?

Sure, but notice the tense -- "he has perfected for all time". So those who are being sanctified (set apart), God has already perfected for all time by His offering.

Already perfected -- but being set apart at the time.

2 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ did not "turn" God's wrath. He is "turning" God's wrath according to these verses. "being sanctified". This lines up with scripture.

It being a noun, it doesn't have a tense. "Propitiation" is simply "the one who turns aside wrath" (Thayer). There is no "continuing" tense to a noun.

Lets look at those two scriptures you gave me.

John 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God

We both agree this verse is referring to salvation. Let me translate this verse piece by piece. We are not born of natural descent (or blood).

Let's preserve the tense -- we were not born of natural descent.

This means we are not saved from the union of our father and mother, or a distinguished ancestry. We are not born of a human decision, or will of the flesh. That is, anything that the corrupt heart of man could propose on its behalf. Nor are we born out of a husband's will, or the will of man to be more precise. That is, anything that another may be disposed to do in our behalf. But we are born of God, not the will of God. That is what John was meaning when he wrote this passage.

were born of God. And pointedly, there's no action in focus with this verse, or nearby. It's human will that's in focus, not human action.

If you want to add the will of God to this --
"The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes." John 3:8

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

The context is extremely similar. It is referring to human will in general, as man's tendency to pursue a righteousness of his own judgment through his own works.

Well, human pursuit of righteousness results in works pursuit, but Paul is identifying God's choice as not being from this human pursuit of righteousness, not simply the pursuit of righteousness by works. Paul's conclusion in 9:18 rejects human will as a factor: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

As mentioned before in John 1:13, "blood" can't be connected to works-righteousness. They just don't fit together. So too human will or fleshly will. I can see how this idea is developing, but that's just not what John 1:13 is saying. Y'can't even find the works-righteousness theme running through this verse. That's because it's not really the source of the thought.

The scripture states "among you". Again, who is the audience? General believers. Believers. Most probably specifically the churches in western Asia and Asia Minor, and he must have had knowledge that his letter would go further.

Every letter is written to visible groups of people, none of which is pure, 100% saved. The presumption of Peter is that he's talking to a whole group, and "those among you" is Peter speaking to certain people about other people within that group.

Otherwise y'gotta conclude that "For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved." means believers.

Finally, a look at Peter's example is one of the nation of Israel, "false prophets also arose among the people, (B)just as there will be false teachers among you,". They weren't all believers or saved either.

Jesus is the Judge, but he is also our defense, although I might be missing the point you are trying to prove.

He's the judge, but the defense of those He will save.

I might also be missing you point because I still agree with most of this. Christ secured, and is securing, our atonement. He saved us, and totally secured all of our sins on the cross. We are taking NONE of the credit when we accept Jesus to come into our hearts to be our personal savior.

That's just not the case. If you're to blame for rejecting Christ, then you're to be commended for accepting Him. That's credit by any stretch of the term.