Eternal Security based on a holy walk and the fear of falling away.

[aiki]

In 1 John 1:8-10 it does NOT say that everyone sins...it says that everyone has indwelling sin.

John makes no such distinction in what he wrote. He does not clarify that the sin of which he is speaking is of an "indwelling" type (whatever that means).

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

See? No "indwelling sin." Just sin - that is the curse of everyone born from Adam.

Now I have already explained that this indwelling sin can be rendered dead so that it has no say over our behaviour (Romans 6:6-7, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8).

Only as we "reckon" it so. (Romans 6:11)

And we know that since John says in 1 John 2:17 that the one who does the will of God abides for ever, and in 1 John 3:6 that whosoever abideth in him sinneth not (which, according to you cannot be hyperbole but must be literal since you have forbidden God to use literary tactics in what He says), that if we interpret 1 John 3:9 by what the scripture said before, it is saying that the one who is born of God does not and can not sin.

You're just repeating yourself now. I won't follow suit but refer you instead to my earlier posts.

Yes, depending on what principle you are controlled by as a believer: flesh or Spirit. If you are controlled by the flesh you should question whether you are even a believer, especially if you are not grieved by it.

This isn't what Paul wrote. He didn't say, "depending upon what 'principle' you are controlled by" in Galatians 5:17. He appears to be explaining why believers might "bite and devour one another." (vs. 15) That's believers, mind you, not the lost (vs. 13). He also doesn't say that experiencing a struggle between one's flesh and the Spirit means one is not saved.

It is a common sense conclusion that entire sanctification would be a second benefit over and above our immediate justification as believers, which happens at believing.

Whatever you may think is a "common sense conclusion," Paul doesn't give you any ground for it in 2 Corinthians 1:15-16. For one who is keen to be exegetical, you do an awful lot of eisegesis...

But if you want to believe that entire sanctification is not a SECOND benefit, then you probably have to conclude that it is the FIRST benefit. Therefore if someone is not entirely sanctified, they have never believed: and I am not opposed to that interpretation.

Of course one is entirely sanctified at the moment they are saved. This is quite clear in Scripture. But this is a positional truth/reality that must - over time - be manifested in a believer's condition (or daily living).

Taking a single, cursory phrase Paul uses only once in all of his letters and manufacturing a doctrine out of it is a classic method of false teaching. My sister is caught in the grip of vile false teachers like Benny Hinn, and Cindy Jacobs, and Creflo Dollar and she constantly spouts just the sort of "exegesis" you've used here. Yikes!

Certainly love can motivate a person to obedience, that is part of my own motivation. But I have given twice in this thread certain scriptures which speak of how fear as a motivation is not an unbiblical motivation for obeying the Lord.

I know of no instance in all of the New Testament where we (believers) are urged to obey out of fear of Hell. Paul makes it very clear that love is the one necessary motivation in obeying God. He doesn't ever say this about fear:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing.

Speaking of the fundamental motive for our walk with God, Jesus said:

Matthew 22:37-38
37 ...You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.

The First and Great Commandment isn't to fear God, but to love Him. And, as the apostle John said, when our love for God is mature, it will cast out fear (1 John 4:18). I see in these verses, then, that there is no room for fear as a motivator for the Christian's walk with God and obedience to Him. This is, at least in part, because the fear motive is an ultimately self-centered motive for obedience.

When the fear of the LORD was not present, I know that I did love God; but it was not enough to keep me from doing certain things that weren't pleasing to Him.

Sorry, but the proof is in the pudding. If you had loved God as the First and Great commandment stipulates, that is, wholeheartedly and supremely, you would not have done that which was displeasing to God. What "love" you may have had for Him was not equal or greater than the love you had for your Self. And you showed it by doing what you ought not to have done. But this is the case with all sin: It reveals the we still love ourselves more than God. Fear cannot overcome this Self-love. In fact, to be motivated by fear of Hell is to be motivated by Self-protection which is one of the many ways we express Self-love. This Self-protection is exactly opposite the life Jesus called his disciples to:

Matthew 16:24-25
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

The only thing that will carry us into and through the life of Self-denial and Self-death that is fundamental to Christian living is love - the Self-sacrificing agape love of God Himself. Fear of Hell is the counterfeit, and corrupt motive Self supplies to believers for righteous living.

So if you don't sin at all through the motivation of love alone, consider yourself lucky and special.

No, I consider myself biblical:

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14 For the love of Christ compels us...

Like Paul, though, I have not been perfected. When I am shown that I yet love myself more than my God, I follow Paul's advice:

Philippians 3:12-14
12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

So then, is it false teaching to say that Jesus was using hyperbole in Matthew 5:29-30? because if He wasn't, all of us should right about now be cutting off our hands and plucking out our eyes!

It is quite obvious that Jesus was engaging in hyperbole in Matthew 5:29-30. But there is no such obvious exaggeration, or, as you suggest, "identification" that Paul makes in his comments at the end of Romans 7.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree here. But if you are wrong, and continue to live according to Romans 7 all your life, you risk condemnation if I am right.

??? Why on earth would I live according to Romans 7? Paul goes in the following chapter to lay out how I can avoid such an experience!

And since in Romans 8:9, if someone is in the flesh he does not belong to Christ, I conclude that the people spoken of in Romans 7:14-25 are not saved.

Why was Paul explaining to the Roman believers what he did in Romans 8? It seems obvious to me that he was doing so because they did not know or understand - as believers - what he was telling them. They were living as carnally-minded believers and Paul was explaining to them the danger of doing so and how they ought to be living. But Paul doesn't refer to the Roman believers as lost people, only carnal. It seems very plain to me, therefore, that one can be carnal, can be living according to the flesh as the Roman believers evidently were, and still be saved.

Paul certainly gives me good cause to think this way when he wrote to the Corinthian believers:

1 Corinthians 3:13-15
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

??? A man's works may be burned up and yet he is still saved? How can this be? Isn't a man saved by his works, by living a totally sanctified life? Paul seems to contradict this idea quite flatly here - as he does somewhat less directly in his comments to the believers in Romans 8.

But I don't expect you to get this right away, if you have a different point of view.

Oh, I get it. That's not the problem. The problem is that it's wrong.

 

[justbyfaith]

I watched the video on the KJV-only controversy.

The moderator on two different occasions cut off the people who were advocating the KJV-only position. In one, a man was about to ask a question that James White (the non-KJV-only guy) very likely wouldn't have been able to answer, and the moderator cut him off; and in the second, he cut off the KJV-only advocate as he was giving his final response. Even with that, I do not find that the KJV-only position was defeated. Even though the KJV-only advocate was told to go first and usually those who go second have the advantage in any debate. I liked what the KJV-only advocate said on one occasion: Certainly I can go across the ocean in a plane that has only one engine; but wouldn't you rather go across the sea in a plane that has the prescribed three engines?

Also, I think that this has a bearing on what I heard in the video: Jeremiah 6:16, Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think what Mark is saying is you are actually responding to your own posts and then arguing with yourself.

I'm seeing the same thing.

Is this some type of theatre arts approach to debate? If so it is very Avant Garde

Well it looks like his discussion with Aiki is back on track, my work here is done...at least I've done everything I can.

 

[justbyfaith]

No buddy, I don't think so and you may be right that there is a technical problem of some kind but I don't think so. Did you look at post #86? Because the quote box still has your name on it. I'm not trying to embarrass you, I just want you to take a look at the post and tell me if what your quoting is from one of your posts.

Yes it has my name on it, but not in a box. I copied and pasted what was given before, wherein @aiki wrote: justbyfaith said. and then gave my quote, and then responded. Now in the quotes in question, in post #86, and also in posts further down, I DID correct the problem by showing where my words ended and @aiki's began. If you doubt the validity of that you can go back to previous posts and see that what I attribute to @aiki is indeed what @aiki said.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think what Mark is saying is you are actually responding to your own posts and then arguing with yourself.

I'm seeing the same thing.

Is this some type of theatre arts approach to debate? If so it is very Avant Garde

Yet there was a technical problem. I am not arguing with myself, as you say. At the top is my moniker, but aiki's response is there immediately after my words within each quote box. That is what I am responding to, not my own words.

(many days later): I have now completely corrected the problem in above posts by typing in [..quote] [/.../quote] where it needs to be so that aiki's quote box is now more evident.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes it has my name on it, but not in a box. I copied and pasted what was given before, wherein @aiki wrote: justbyfaith said. and then gave my quote, and then responded. Now in the quotes in question, in post #86, and also in posts further down, I DID correct the problem by showing where my words ended and @aiki's began. If you doubt the validity of that you can go back to previous posts and see that what I attribute to @aiki is indeed what @aiki said.

Ok, when you reply to someone you will have brackets at the top of the quote and a bracket at the bottom that has a /quote inside the brackets. If you want to break the quote up into parts, the next section should be in two brackets one that has 'quote' inside brackets and then the end brackets that has a '/quote', just in case you didn't know that. Every single quote had your name on it, for like three posts.

 

[aiki]

Also, you did not explain how it is that certain translators departed from the thought that was being presented, if how the people in question were already sanctified, and then said something entirely different, that they were being sanctified. And even if they were only being sanctified, I have explained how biblically this can still mean that they have been sanctified entirely, even in the practical sense.

The answer is simple: In Greek, the verse reads,

Hebrews 10:14
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

ἁγιαζομενους - hagiazemenous - "being sanctified."

Appears in: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Westcott and Hort 1881

You see, then, that I am not playing fast-and-loose with the verse and its meaning, but am being completely faithful to what the verse actually says in the original Greek.

You have not shown me any errors in what I preach; I have shown the error in your reasoning, which you also refuse to accept.

*Sigh*

I have said within this thread that it is kind of like a blind man living on a plateau where there is sound emanating from the middle. If he wanders away from the sound, he has reason to feel fear, as he might walk over the edge at any moment: but if out of a healthy fear he stays close to the middle, he has no reason to feel fear, as there is no chance of walking over the edge.

Well, this is an interesting analogy but it has absolutely no equivalent in Scripture. None.

This indicates to me that you believe that a man is justified even if he is walking in blatant sinful behaviour; you are therefore one of those who in his teaching turns the grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:3-4).

Pffft! This doesn't deal with my point but dismisses it out-of-hand. Such a response is typical of one who cannot effectively rebut the point that was made.

Your answer is in the thing that you deleted. God calls those things which be not as though they were. And in declaring a man righteous He makes him righteous. So of course he has sinned (in the past). What a lame attempt to put words in my mouth!

Well, then, if the man has sinned, he is a sinner. God's forensic declaration that a sinner is justifed does not erase this fact. Being in Christ does not make you instantly righteously perfect any more than being in a hospital makes you instantly well when you are sick.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said: ↑
In 1 John 1:8-10 it does NOT say that everyone sins...it says that everyone has indwelling sin.

@aiki: John makes no such distinction in what he wrote. He does not clarify that the sin of which he is speaking is of an "indwelling" type (whatever that means).

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

See? No "indwelling sin." Just sin - that is the curse of everyone born from Adam.

I think you missed the part that I emphasize above.

justbyfaith said: ↑
Now I have already explained that this indwelling sin can be rendered dead so that it has no say over our behaviour (Romans 6:6-7, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8).

@aiki: Only as we "reckon" it so. (Romans 6:11)

Agreed. Have you reckoned it so? And is it a practical reality in your life?

justbyfaith said: ↑
And we know that since John says in 1 John 2:17 that the one who does the will of God abides for ever, and in 1 John 3:6 that whosoever abideth in him sinneth not (which, according to you cannot be hyperbole but must be literal since you have forbidden God to use literary tactics in what He says), that if we interpret 1 John 3:9 by what the scripture said before, it is saying that the one who is born of God does not and can not sin.

@aiki: You're just repeating yourself now. I won't follow suit but refer you instead to my earlier posts.

Am I? I don't think I was (repeating myself). I would also tell you to go back and re-read all of the posts in this thread before answering any further. Because I think you have repeated yourself a few times (I could be wrong).

justbyfaith said: ↑
Yes, depending on what principle you are controlled by as a believer: flesh or Spirit. If you are controlled by the flesh you should question whether you are even a believer, especially if you are not grieved by it.

@aiki: This isn't what Paul wrote. He didn't say, "depending upon what 'principle' you are controlled by" in Galatians 5:17. He appears to be explaining why believers might "bite and devour one another." (vs. 15) That's believers, mind you, not the lost (vs. 13). He also doesn't say that experiencing a struggle between one's flesh and the Spirit means one is not saved.

Galatians 5:17 can be compared to 1 John 3:9 just as easily as it can be compared to Romans 7:14-25. In the former, not being able to do what I would, means I cannot sin. That is a plain fact. But I do not have to argue my points; they are quite clear, and if you wish to harden your heart to the truth that does not mean that others will follow suit. And he is not trying to explain why believers are biting and devouring one another. You have inferred that into the text. Beginning in verse 16, it is an entirely new paragraph.

justbyfaith said: ↑
It is a common sense conclusion that entire sanctification would be a second benefit over and above our immediate justification as believers, which happens at believing.

@aiki: Whatever you may think is a "common sense conclusion," Paul doesn't give you any ground for it in 2 Corinthians 1:15-16. For one who is keen to be exegetical, you do an awful lot of eisegesis...

Sometimes we can learn things through eisegesis, it is not always the wrong interpretation when we do so. But of course it is more proveable if we use exegesis when we are trying to convince someone else. So go right ahead and disassociate the second benefit in 2 Corinthians 1:15 from 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. What it means is that you have to make 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 the FIRST benefit of being a Christian; therefore in your doctrine you would have to believe that entire sanctification happens on first faith. Now since blamelessness is included in the equation, you would have to admit that entire sanctification is practical in the life of the new believer; that the moment a man believes he is entirely sanctified in the practical sense.

justbyfaith said: ↑
But if you want to believe that entire sanctification is not a SECOND benefit, then you probably have to conclude that it is the FIRST benefit. Therefore if someone is not entirely sanctified, they have never believed: and I am not opposed to that interpretation.

@aiki: Of course one is entirely sanctified at the moment they are saved. This is quite clear in Scripture. But this is a positional truth/reality that must - over time - be manifested in a believer's condition (or daily living).

This is where we disagree. I believe that sanctification must be practical. For I equate sanctification with the impartation of righteousness. Matthew 5:6, Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

justbyfaith said: ↑
Certainly love can motivate a person to obedience, that is part of my own motivation. But I have given twice in this thread certain scriptures which speak of how fear as a motivation is not an unbiblical motivation for obeying the Lord.

@aiki: I know of no instance in all of the New Testament where we (believers) are urged to obey out of fear of Hell.

That's interesting, because I have given NT verses. It shows that you are not reading my posts. So, as you have also said, I will not repeat myself here.

@aiki: Paul makes it very clear that love is the one necessary motivation in obeying God. He doesn't ever say this about fear:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing.

Speaking of the fundamental motive for our walk with God, Jesus said:

Matthew 22:37-38
37 ...You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.

The First and Great Commandment isn't to fear God, but to love Him. And, as the apostle John said, when our love for God is mature, it will cast out fear (1 John 4:18). I see in these verses, then, that there is no room for fear as a motivator for the Christian's walk with God and obedience to Him. This is, at least in part, because the fear motive is an ultimately self-centered motive for obedience.

But I will repeat myself here: A blind man who stays near the center of the plateau has no cause for fear; he cannot fall off the edge as long as he stays near the center. He is involved in a love relationship with the One who lives at the center and has no reason to go near the edges. But if he falls out of love with the One who dwells at the center, and begins to wander, he ought to fear (though he may be devoid of the appropriate fear because he is blind) because he could fall off the edge at any given moment; because the further he goes away from the center, the greater the chance of falling over the edge of the cliff. But again, if he is in love with Jesus, who dwells at the center of the plateau, there is no reason to fear because he is with Jesus and Jesus will not lead him anywhere near the edges; they will stay near the center where it is truly safe: no reason to fear because there is perfect love.

And I would also point to the six verses that I quoted on the subject of the fear of the Lord. I will post them again below for your convenience in one of the next posts.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said: ↑
When the fear of the LORD was not present, I know that I did love God; but it was not enough to keep me from doing certain things that weren't pleasing to Him.

@aiki: Sorry, but the proof is in the pudding. If you had loved God as the First and Great commandment stipulates, that is, wholeheartedly and supremely, you would not have done that which was displeasing to God.

Therefore if you love God you will walk in total freedom from sin. That is what you are saying to me. But I don't think you believe that.

@aiki: What "love" you may have had for Him was not equal or greater than the love you had for your Self. And you showed it by doing what you ought not to have done. But this is the case with all sin: It reveals the we still love ourselves more than God. Fear cannot overcome this Self-love. In fact, to be motivated by fear of Hell is to be motivated by Self-protection which is one of the many ways we express Self-love. This Self-protection is exactly opposite the life Jesus called his disciples to:

Matthew 16:24-25
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

The only thing that will carry us into and through the life of Self-denial and Self-death that is fundamental to Christian living is love - the Self-sacrificing agape love of God Himself. Fear of Hell is the counterfeit, and corrupt motive Self supplies to believers for righteous living.

Then why did Jesus speak so much on the subject of hell? I think you have missed the point of some of what He has said, in Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:5:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to kill both soul and body in hell.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Also Job 28:28, And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

In the last verse, fearing the LORD is equated to departing from evil. What I have been saying.

justbyfaith said: ↑
So if you don't sin at all through the motivation of love alone, consider yourself lucky and special.

@aiki: No, I consider myself biblical:

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
14 For the love of Christ compels us...

Like Paul, though, I have not been perfected. When I am shown that I yet love myself more than my God, I follow Paul's advice:

Philippians 3:12-14
12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Of course, in the whole of the passage (see Philippians 3:15), it says that as many as are perfect should have this attitude. Therefore I consider myself not to have attained, which indicates that I may indeed be perfected.

justbyfaith said: ↑
So then, is it false teaching to say that Jesus was using hyperbole in Matthew 5:29-30? because if He wasn't, all of us should right about now be cutting off our hands and plucking out our eyes!

@aiki: It is quite obvious that Jesus was engaging in hyperbole in Matthew 5:29-30. But there is no such obvious exaggeration, or, as you suggest, "identification" that Paul makes in his comments at the end of Romans 7.

It is very obvious to me. But then, I have studied that passage thoroughly and continue to study it weekly. It is not exaggeration. What you need to know is that scripture interprets scripture, and that Romans 7:14-25 is DEFINITELY what Peter spoke about in 2 Peter 3:15-16, and that Paul was referring to some of his statements in Romans (including this one) when he wrote 1 Corinthians 9:22.

justbyfaith said: ↑
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree here. But if you are wrong, and continue to live according to Romans 7 all your life, you risk condemnation if I am right.

@aiki: ??? Why on earth would I live according to Romans 7? Paul goes in the following chapter to lay out how I can avoid such an experience!

Well, praise God you are not living in Romans 7! The righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in you, I gather? (Romans 8:4)

justbyfaith said: ↑
And since in Romans 8:9, if someone is in the flesh he does not belong to Christ, I conclude that the people spoken of in Romans 7:14-25 are not saved.

@aiki: Why was Paul explaining to the Roman believers what he did in Romans 8? It seems obvious to me that he was doing so because they did not know or understand - as believers - what he was telling them. They were living as carnally-minded believers and Paul was explaining to them the danger of doing so and how they ought to be living. But Paul doesn't refer to the Roman believers as lost people, only carnal. It seems very plain to me, therefore, that one can be carnal, can be living according to the flesh as the Roman believers evidently were, and still be saved.

Then you're not seeing what the whole of the passage is teaching, and you did not do the comparing of scriptures that I asked you to do.

@aiki: Paul certainly gives me good cause to think this way when he wrote to the Corinthian believers:

1 Corinthians 3:13-15
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

??? A man's works may be burned up and yet he is still saved? How can this be? Isn't a man saved by his works, by living a totally sanctified life? Paul seems to contradict this idea quite flatly here - as he does somewhat less directly in his comments to the believers in Romans 8.

But in your own teaching, you say that 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 (the doctrine of entire sanctification) is not speaking of a second benefit, therefore it can only be speaking of a first benefit, received upon first faith in Jesus Christ! And a man is not saved by his works, by living an entirely sanctified life. But as soon as a man gets tired of being chastened by the Holy Spirit every time he re-commits his besetting sin, he may decide to surrender his life to the Lord in the area that he has not given up for the Lord, and will be set free and made happy, for that he is no longer convicted in his conscience of doing that which isn't pleasing to God. In order to get there he may have to understand that living carnally is something that will place him outside the kingdom if he persists in that kind of behaviour and does not repent.

justbyfaith said: ↑
But I don't expect you to get this right away, if you have a different point of view.

@aiki: Oh, I get it. That's not the problem. The problem is that it's wrong.

Yes, that's true. Your different point of view is wrong.

 

[justbyfaith]

Perfect love casts out the fear of things other than God. For the fear of God is healthy, and even a desirable.

Proverbs 1:7, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Psalms 111:10, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

Job 28:28, And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Matthew 10:28, And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.

Luke 12:5, But I will forewarn you whom ye should fear: Fear him which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell: I say unto you, Fear him.

1 Peter 1:17, And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said: ↑
Also, you did not explain how it is that certain translators departed from the thought that was being presented, if how the people in question were already sanctified, and then said something entirely different, that they were being sanctified. And even if they were only being sanctified, I have explained how biblically this can still mean that they have been sanctified entirely, even in the practical sense.

@aiki: The answer is simple: In Greek, the verse reads,

Hebrews 10:14
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

ἁγιαζομενους - hagiazemenous - "being sanctified."

Appears in: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Westcott and Hort 1881

You see, then, that I am not playing fast-and-loose with the verse and its meaning, but am being completely faithful to what the verse actually says in the original Greek.

What I have said is that even if we are to take the translation that says "being sanctified" over the translation that says "sanctified" (which is more consistent from the thought before), that it is true that we are being sanctified, while we have been entirely sanctified, in that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (wherein the verb tense indicates continual action). So when sin comes in from the outside, it is immediately cleansed; and this indicates entire sanctification. So then, it can even be taken in both ways: 1) He hath perfected for ever them that are being sanctified; and 2) he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. In holding to the truest interpretation of (1), we do not discount the plain meaning of (2).

justbyfaith said: ↑
You have not shown me any errors in what I preach; I have shown the error in your reasoning, which you also refuse to accept.

@aiki: *Sigh* dontcare:

You don't care? I suppose that even Christians can be apathetic at times...

justbyfaith said: ↑
I have said within this thread that it is kind of like a blind man living on a plateau where there is sound emanating from the middle. If he wanders away from the sound, he has reason to feel fear, as he might walk over the edge at any moment: but if out of a healthy fear he stays close to the middle, he has no reason to feel fear, as there is no chance of walking over the edge.

@aiki: Well, this is an interesting analogy but it has absolutely no equivalent in Scripture. None.

So you say. But I would say that its equivalent in scripture is in understanding scripture, and in adding to your understanding from posts that have been made. The OP shows the equivalent in scripture quite nicely, when you add the understanding that perfect love casts out fear.

justbyfaith said: ↑
This indicates to me that you believe that a man is justified even if he is walking in blatant sinful behaviour; you are therefore one of those who in his teaching turns the grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:3-4).

@aiki: Pffft! This doesn't deal with my point but dismisses it out-of-hand. Such a response is typical of one who cannot effectively rebut the point that was made.

Yes, I dismiss it out of hand. Because it is not the doctrine which is according to godliness (1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:1).

justbyfaith said: ↑
Your answer is in the thing that you deleted. God calls those things which be not as though they were. And in declaring a man righteous He makes him righteous. So of course he has sinned (in the past). What a lame attempt to put words in my mouth!

@aiki: Well, then, if the man has sinned, he is a sinner. God's forensic declaration that a sinner is justifed does not erase this fact. Being in Christ does not make you instantly righteously perfect any more than being in a hospital makes you instantly well when you are sick.

People are made well by going into hospitals. And I didn't say it was instant, YOU DID. I believe it comes as a second benefit. And yes the man is a sinner. That does not mean that he commits sin. An alcoholic who has been clean and sober forty-five years calls himself an alcoholic still; but he has been clean and sober forty-five years. So I call myself a sinner; this does not mean that my life is a life of sinning, just as the life of the clean and sober alcoholic is not a life of drinking alcohol. Also, that I have sinned does not mean that I DO sin. In fact, that is the meaning of Romans 3:23. I come short of the glory of God in that I HAVE SINNED (in the past); not in that I DO SIN (present and future).

 

[justbyfaith]

Ok, when you reply to someone you will have brackets at the top of the quote and a bracket at the bottom that has a /quote inside the brackets. If you want to break the quote up into parts, the next section should be in two brackets one that has 'quote' inside brackets and then the end brackets that has a '/quote', just in case you didn't know that. Every single quote had your name on it, for like three posts.

That's how I'm doing it because it's easier for me. If anyone opens the quotes, they will see where @aiki (or anyone else) begins his statements in every quote.

 

[justbyfaith]

A few more things on the fear of the LORD, as I was reading in Proverbs 14 this morning:

Proverbs 14:2, He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the LORD: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him.

Proverbs 14:16, A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.

Proverbs 14:26, In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge.

Proverbs 14:27, The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.

In the first verse given, fearing the LORD is equated to walking in uprightness; and is contrasted to despising Him and being perverse in one's ways.

In the second, fearing is equated to departing from evil (not the understanding that God loves you; but the fear of Him).

In the third, the fear of the LORD is equated to a strong confidence and having a place of refuge in the LORD. To me, this amounts to healthy fear casting out terror, as I explained in the parable about the blind man on the plateau.

In the fourth, the fear of God amounts to being filled with the Holy Spirit, who is a fountain of life (at least, that is what I gather from it by comparing it to John 4:13-14, John 6:35, and John 7:37-39); and is also a reason why we depart from the snares of death.

 

[justbyfaith]

****bump****

 

[justbyfaith]

No more contention. All that is left is to keep bumping this thread up so that new web-crawlers will see it more easily and be attracted to it and click on it.

 

[aiki]

I think you missed the part that I emphasize above.

No, I didn't miss it. John says nothing about "indwelling" sin. You emphasize the word "have" as though it is a stand-in for "indwelling" but "have" simply communicates possession.

Agreed. Have you reckoned it so? And is it a practical reality in your life?

1 Peter 1:17, And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Every day. You?

Galatians 5:17 can be compared to 1 John 3:9 just as easily as it can be compared to Romans 7:14-25. In the former, not being able to do what I would, means I cannot sin. That is a plain fact. But I do not have to argue my points; they are quite clear, and if you wish to harden your heart to the truth that does not mean that others will follow suit.

Well, as I pointed out, Paul clarifies what he means in the immediate context of Galatians 5:17. In verse 15, he is talking about believers "biting and devouring one another." (vs. 15) And in verse 16, Paul talks about how not to behave in such a fleshly way. In context, then, Paul is not, in verse 17, talking about believers who are being prevented from sin by the Spirit, but about those who are at risk of "consuming one another" in their carnal behaviour. Paul explains why this is so: For the flesh lusts against the Spirit...so that you cannot do the things that you would." There is, then, absolutely no need to resort to another letter entirely, written by a completely different author (1 John 3:9), to understand what Paul means. Given what I've pointed out about the context of Galatians 5:17, Paul's words in the latter part of Romans 7 are a much better parallel than what John wrote in 1 John 3:9.

Sometimes we can learn things through eisegesis, it is not always the wrong interpretation when we do so. But of course it is more proveable if we use exegesis when we are trying to convince someone else. So go right ahead and disassociate the second benefit in 2 Corinthians 1:15 from 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.

Just to be clear: I don't need your permission to reject the eisegesis in which you have indulged in arriving at your "second benefit" doctrine. You have added to Paul's words and twisted his meaning in doing so. And what's worse, you're promoting your twisted doctrine to others. It seems to me that you aren't taking the warnings of Scripture against this sort of thing very seriously. You should.

What it means is that you have to make 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 the FIRST benefit of being a Christian; therefore in your doctrine you would have to believe that entire sanctification happens on first faith. Now since blamelessness is included in the equation, you would have to admit that entire sanctification is practical in the life of the new believer; that the moment a man believes he is entirely sanctified in the practical sense.

As I have explained, the believer is positionally sanctified in Christ but the working out of their sanctified position in him happens over time. So it is that a Christian is both fully sanctified in Christ and being sanctified in their daily condition - just as Hebrews 10:14 indicates.

This is where we disagree. I believe that sanctification must be practical. For I equate sanctification with the impartation of righteousness. Matthew 5:6, Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Sanctification is practical but it is also progressive. None of these verses deny this.

That's interesting, because I have given NT verses. It shows that you are not reading my posts. So, as you have also said, I will not repeat myself here.

You mean these verses, of course:

Proverbs 1:7, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

No mention here of a believer obeying out of fear of God throwing them into hell. And, as I explained, the "fear of the Lord" is reverential awe, not the fear one would have for a dangerous animal or chemical that could cause one harm.

Psalms 111:10, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

Job 28:28, And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Again, no mention in these verses of a believer obeying God out of a fear of going to hell.

Luke 12:5, But I will forewarn you whom ye should fear: Fear him which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell: I say unto you, Fear him.

Is this a comment given to born-again believers? Nope. Christ had not yet died for the sins of all mankind when he spoke these words. All of those to whom he spoke stood under the jeopardy of eternal hell as unsaved people.

1 Peter 1:17, And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Does Peter mean here a craven, slavish fear that is concerned with Self-protection? No, the same God he calls believers to fear, Peter also says has redeemed them through the shed blood of Christ (vs. 18, 19), and has foreordained them to faith from before the foundation of the world (vs. 20), and is the One in whom they should have faith and hope (vs. 21). In light of these things, it is nonsensical to hold that Peter means by "fear" a craven, slavish sort of thing, but rather the reverential awe of a good, and caring, and amazing God that we see urged upon us in other places in Scripture.

But I will repeat myself here: A blind man who stays near the center of the plateau has no cause for fear; he cannot fall off the edge as long as he stays near the center. He is involved in a love relationship with the One who lives at the center and has no reason to go near the edges. But if he falls out of love with the One who dwells at the center, and begins to wander, he ought to fear (though he may be devoid of the appropriate fear because he is blind) because he could fall off the edge at any given moment; because the further he goes away from the center, the greater the chance of falling over the edge of the cliff.

And where is the "edge of the cliff," exactly? How much "wandering" is too much? The Bible never says. Not once is any precise line drawn beyond which a believer may step out of their salvation. Why? Because there is no such line. The "cliff" does not exist.

John 10:28-29
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.

Therefore if you love God you will walk in total freedom from sin. That is what you are saying to me. But I don't think you believe that.

??? Where did I say this? When a believer comes to love God after the manner described in the First and Great Commandment, sin will become in their living the exception rather than the rule. Sinless perfection, however, is only possible in eternity.

 

[DeaconDean]

When a believer comes to love God after the manner described in the First and Great Commandment, sin will become in their living the exception rather than the rule. Sinless perfection, however, is only possible in eternity.

Amen!

I have purposely stayed out of this conversation.

One simple look at the title of this thread says a lot:

"Eternal Security based on a holy walk and the fear of falling away."

Salvation is wholly dependent on your actions. You become responsible for your eternal security, not God!

Which also flies in the face of Jude 1:24.

John Gill comments on Jude 1:24 saying:

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling
The people of God are liable to falling into temptation, into sin, into errors and mistakes, from an exercise of grace, or from a degree of steadfastness in Gospel truths, and even into a final and total apostasy, were it not for divine power; and they are not able to keep themselves. Adam, in his state of innocence, could not keep himself from falling; nor could the angels, many of whom fell, and the rest are preserved by the grace of God; wherefore, much less can imperfect sinful men keep themselves, they want both skill and power to do it; nor can any, short of Christ, keep them, and it is his work and office to preserve them; they were given to him with this view, and he undertook to do it; and sensible sinners commit themselves to him, as being appointed for that purpose; and this is a work Christ has been, and is, employed in, and he is every way qualified for it: he is "able" to do it, for he is the mighty God, the Creator and upholder of all things; and as Mediator, he has all power in heaven and in earth; instances of persons kept by him prove it; and there is such evidence of it, that believers may be, and are persuaded of it: and he is as willing as he is able; it is his Father's will he should keep them, and in that he delights; and as he has undertook to keep them, he is accountable for them; besides, he has an interest in them, and the greatest love and affection for them; to which may be added, that the glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in man's salvation, depends on the keeping of them: and what he keeps them from is, from falling by temptations, not from being tempted by Satan, but from sinking under his temptations, and from being devoured by him; and from falling by sin, not from the being or commission of sin, but from the dominion of it, and from the falling into it, so as to perish by it; and from falling into damnable heresies; and from the true grace of God, and into final impenitence, unbelief, and total apostasy. Instead of "you", the Alexandrian copy reads "us", and some copies "them":"

Source

If my eternal salvation, my destiny was based on nothing but my "holy walk and fear from falling away" I can not call myself a Christian today.

Just more of the "I" theology and thus, bragging rights in heaven. Look at me people, I made it into heaven because I walked holy and feared falling away.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[aiki]

Of course, in the whole of the passage (see Philippians 3:15), it says that as many as are perfect should have this attitude. Therefore I consider myself not to have attained, which indicates that I may indeed be perfected.

"Perfect" in verse 15 is better translated "mature" - as it is in many translations. It refers to a state of being, unlike verse 12 where Paul refers to a process of becoming. We may all reach a place of maturity but we will all of us always be in the process of becoming perfect.

It is very obvious to me. But then, I have studied that passage thoroughly and continue to study it weekly. It is not exaggeration.

LOL! You aren't the only one studying the passage! As I've pointed out, you must force into Paul's words in Romans 7 your idea of his identifying with the sinner. He no where in his words even hints that he is doing so. And, as I explained, the context of the entire chapter makes it clear he is speaking to believers as a believer. He is not adopting the position of a lost person in what he says about his struggle with sin.

What you need to know is that scripture interprets scripture, and that Romans 7:14-25 is DEFINITELY what Peter spoke about in 2 Peter 3:15-16, and that Paul was referring to some of his statements in Romans (including this one) when he wrote 1 Corinthians 9:22.

I know quite well that Scripture interprets itself. But when context can do the job, it ought to be allowed to do so. So far, you haven't needed to jump about among books of the New Testament as you're doing to get at what Paul, or John, or Peter meant. One of the chief rules of exegesis is that "context is king." And when I examine your views in light of the context of a given verse or passage that you've offered, I find you often at odds with it.

Again, concerning Peter's words, you are going beyond what is written in the verses themselves and their immediate context. He gives not the slightest hint which of Paul's teachings were "hard to understand" and were being twisted. Yet, you propose to know that Peter was DEFINITELY referring to what Paul had written in the last half of Romans 7. How? Are you reading Peter's mind some 2000 years after his death? That would be a neat trick.

Then you're not seeing what the whole of the passage is teaching, and you did not do the comparing of scriptures that I asked you to do.

If I'm wanting to know what Paul meant, I consider his words, not those of another. And just looking at what Paul himself taught, I am totally within the confines of what he wrote in Romans 8 to think as I do about it. I don't need to consider the comments of another writer entirely to understand Paul's thinking. He is quite clear, it seems to me. Why, then, should I have done the comparison of verses you urged me to do? As far as I can see, I don't need to. And neither do you.

But in your own teaching, you say that 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 (the doctrine of entire sanctification) is not speaking of a second benefit, therefore it can only be speaking of a first benefit, received upon first faith in Jesus Christ!

Yes. This is what Scripture teaches - though without this "benefit" stuff.

But as soon as a man gets tired of being chastened by the Holy Spirit every time he re-commits his besetting sin, he may decide to surrender his life to the Lord in the area that he has not given up for the Lord, and will be set free and made happy, for that he is no longer convicted in his conscience of doing that which isn't pleasing to God. In order to get there he may have to understand that living carnally is something that will place him outside the kingdom if he persists in that kind of behaviour and does not repent.

God does not require this sort of appeal to a person's Self-centeredness in order to get them to obey. Paul is very clear that the only obedience God accepts from us comes from a motive of self-sacrificing love for Him (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

So when sin comes in from the outside, it is immediately cleansed; and this indicates entire sanctification.

1 John 1:9 gives this thinking a problem: It says that confession is necessary before cleansing of the sin and the application of the forgiveness of God obtained by Christ's atoning sacrifice.

So you say.

I do say - because it is true. Your analogy has no equivalent anywhere in the entire Bible.

People are made well by going into hospitals.

Of course. But not instantly, which was my point.

And I didn't say it was instant, YOU DID. I believe it comes as a second benefit.

And is the effect of the second benefit instant? If so, then my observation is appropo.

Also, that I have sinned does not mean that I DO sin.

It doesn't mean that you DON'T sin, either.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jude 1:24, Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.

This is interpreted by 2 Peter 1:10, Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

1 Peter 1:5, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time, Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need by, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations; That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1 John 5:18, We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1 Peter 1:3, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

 

[justbyfaith]

1 Corinthians 10:13, There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able: but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Ephesians 3:16, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

Colossians 1:11, Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness.

Philippians 4:13, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

These scriptures tell us that when temptation comes, you have the power in the Holy Ghost, even all might, to resist that temptation every time: and therefore if you don't, you will be held accountable by the Lord:

1 Thessalonians 3:5, For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain.

The purpose of the labour of Paul and his companions was for the salvation of those they were ministering to. So if their (Paul and his companions') labour ended up being in vain, it would have failed to bring them (the Thessalonians) to ultimate salvation. And their labour (of Paul and his companions) would be in vain if the tempter tempted them (the Thessalonicans) so that they fell from their state of being born again by sinning against the Lord through giving in to the temptation presented by the tempter.