Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

[Sentry]

Again, I stand pat, my view reflects what Paul is saying, yours does not.

By the numbers the imperishable prize is the salvation of others.
This is the reward for preaching the gospel effectively.
If Paul disqualifies himself by not exercising self control, he cannot preach the gospel as effectively as if he practiced self control.

"So run that you may obtain the prize" Practice self control.
So that we may obtain an imperishable prize, the salvation of others.
If I preach self control to others, and then do not practice it myself, I disqualify myself from preaching self control to others.

I do not see how it can be read any other way, but that is the issue.

The imperishable prize is the salvation of others eh? Contrive away.

 

[frumanchu]

Explain how it CAN happen.

It can happen in theory if God were to withhold His grace from believers, renege on His promises to preserve them, and allow Satan to snatch them from His grasp. By ourselves, apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the active work of God in preserving us from falling fully or finally away, we would be no match for the world, the flesh, and the devil. But...

Explain why it WON'T happen even though it CAN.

...it won't happen because He promises to preserve us in our faith and to protect us from the evil one. Those whom He justifies He glorifies. They have passed from death to life and will be confirmed to the end.

 

[Van]

Sentry, I have carefully and fully explained how I read the passage. Carefully consider how Paul uses terms like imperishable, crown, reward, I think the case is compelling.

 

[Sentry]

Sentry, I have carefully and fully explained how I read the passage. Carefully consider how Paul uses terms like imperishable, crown, reward, I think the case is compelling.

Your case is clearly absurd.

 

[Sentry]

It can happen in theory if God were to withhold His grace from believers, renege on His promises to preserve them, and allow Satan to snatch them from His grasp. By ourselves, apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the active work of God in preserving us from falling fully or finally away, we would be no match for the world, the flesh, and the devil. But...



...it won't happen because He promises to preserve us in our faith and to protect us from the evil one. Those whom He justifies He glorifies. They have passed from death to life and will be confirmed to the end.

Fru if you really stop and think about what you are saying you will perhaps realize that it is quite mad. You have a situation where Bible writers are writing letters to people about things that won't happen because they can't happen since God has predestined they won't happen. It is insanity.

 

[Van]

Sentry, if you want to defend your position by saying my position is absurd, that is fine. Anyone else interested by find Philippians 4:1 interesting, Paul's children in Christ are his crown, or 1 Thess 2:19, believers influenced by Paul are his crown of exultation.

 

[nobdysfool]

Your case is clearly absurd.

Sentry, the hatred and venom that spill forth from your posts are decidedly unchristian. You have accused Van falsely, and have insulted him repeatedly. I disagree with much of what Van says, but in this case, he has made a compelling case for his view, which instead of disagreeing and explaining why, you just spit on publicly. How utterly un-Christ-like of you!

 

[nobdysfool]

Sentry, if you want to defend your position by saying my position is absurd, that is fine. Anyone else interested by find Philippians 4:1 interesting, Paul's children in Christ are his crown, or 1 Thess 2:19, believers influenced by Paul are his crown of exultation.

I agree with you here, I think you have stated it well.

 

[Nazaroo]

The problem is you are both 'right' in some particulars.

Sentry has made a strong and valid point here:

Fru if you really stop and think about what you are saying you will perhaps realize that it is quite mad. You have a situation where Bible writers are writing letters to people about things that won't happen because they can't happen since God has predestined they won't happen. It is insanity.

Van on the other hand has made a good argument and provided evidence for his interpretation of crown and prize.

The problem is,

Sentry is wrong to say Van's entire case is absurd,
and Van is wrong too.

Even if Van is absolutely correct in his exposition of Paul's meaning for 'crown' and 'prize', it by no means proves that Paul would buy into Augustine's 'Sola Grace' doctrine, or Luther's and Calvin's extension and exaggeration of it. And even if Paul would assent to such an exaggeration and even be misled himself to it Calvin's conclusion of predestination and the impossibility of losing salvation, this doctrine does not stand up to the rest of the New Testament.

And Paul himself warned, that if even he or anyone else presented a 'strange doctrine' we should not assent to it.

The plain teaching of the New Testament is that men have sinned, and must repent. They are commanded to repent, and have the free choice to repent. The fact that ultimately God is the One who makes repentance possible for man is secondary to the fact that God COMMANDS men to repent, and salvation is not 'unconditional' but given on the basis of repentance. For their time upon earth, men are only given the 'downpayment' of Eternal Life: that is the 'permission or authority' to BECOME the children of God, by receiving Jesus.

The fact that God's promise is utterly reliable and God's side of the equation will never waiver, has NO BEARING on the fact that the Amnesty offered, the New Covenant, is still CONDITIONAL. It is based upon repentance, and most importantly, THE MAINTENANCE of repentance, that is, not returning to sin, not abusing 'liberty', but being committed to constant self-improvement, correction, and the highest achievable ethical standard.

The New Covenant is not entirely 'NEW'. The terms and conditions were described thoroughly by Ezekiel, not just vaguely prophesied by Isaiah.
It is all too clear that a man even under grace can stumble and fall, perhaps even fatally. All the New Testament writers repeatedly warn us not to stumble, backslide, return to old ways, and especially to commit sins that lead unto death and the Lake of Fire.

Paul and all the other apostles would not continuously warn Christians of a non-existant danger.

To sum up the points:

(1) Van has presented evidence that must be accounted for.

(2) Van's argument for the utter reliability of God's promise is meaningless to the argument, unless it can be shown that the CONTENT of God's promise is predestined, unconditional, un-loseable Eternal Life.

(3) The argument for the sovereignty of God's power is also meaningless to the argument. All it proves is that no one ELSE can take away Eternal Life. It doesn't prove God can't take it away, or that man can't lose it by refusing to continue fulfilling the obligatory conditions under which it was granted.

(4) The repeated warnings in the New Testament must be accounted for.

 

[Van]

"Even if Van is absolutely correct in his exposition of Paul's meaning for 'crown' and 'prize', it by no means proves that Paul would buy into Augustine's 'Sola Grace' doctrine, or Luther's and Calvin's extension and exaggeration of it."

The passage does not support loss of salvation, it supports exercising self discipline in order to have an effective ministry. The passage that supports salvation by grace alone and not by works of the Law is Ephesians 2:8-9. Now when I say salvation, I am referring to positional sanctification, where God accepts our faith and places us "in Christ." You say God might kick us out, but He has promised us eternal life, and God keeps His promises. You say we might choose to wander away. But with our faith protected, we would never choose to wander away from our faith. Our walk is not protected, we all wander from the path, but those born again, are convicted and strive to return to the path.

"Van's argument for the utter reliability of God's promise is meaningless to the argument, unless it can be shown that the CONTENT of God's promise is predestined, unconditional, un-loseable Eternal Life."

Lets take this one slowly. God's promise can be found in John 3:16, whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. You can assert that requires believing at some point in ones life and then continuing to believe throughout the remainder of ones life. I think that is the correct view. However, I submit that once born again, with our faith protected, we will believe till the end of our life. We will overcome.

Turning now to the content of the promise being predestined, I am not sure I understand what you are saying. When God says He is going to keep us for an inheritance, then the keeping is predestined for the remainder of our life.

Turning now to the promise being unconditional, I think John 3:16 makes it clear there is no condition except God's acceptance of our belief in our Lord and Savior. With our faith (belief and devotion to Christ) protected, once we are born again, our inheritance is unlosable. Again, John 3:16, "shall not perish".

Finally, once we are placed in Christ by God alone, after God reckons our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:5; 4:24, two things about our subsequent life "in Christ" are predestined, we will be conformed to the image of Christ, and we will be adopted as sons of God, which means we will be bodily resurrected unto eternal life. Hence, salvation is in three parts, placed in Christ, conformed to the image of Christ, and bodily resurrected to eternal life. During the second part of salvation, when we are progressively being conformed to the image of Christ, we face two problems. Our service to our Lord can be hindered by sin, because of a lack of self control, and our service to our Lord can be ineffective, because we are sidetracked by false teachings. But if we are actually "in Christ" and indwelt, we will strive to pick up our cross and follow Him, and although we might not bring any rewards, we will escape as one through a fire.

 

[Nazaroo]

"Even if Van is absolutely correct in his exposition of Paul's meaning for 'crown' and 'prize', it by no means proves that Paul would buy into Augustine's 'Sola Grace' doctrine, or Luther's and Calvin's extension and exaggeration of it."

The passage does not support loss of salvation, it supports exercising self discipline in order to have an effective ministry. The passage that supports salvation by grace alone and not by works of the Law is Ephesians 2:8-9. Now when I say salvation, I am referring to positional sanctification, where God accepts our faith and places us "in Christ." You say God might kick us out, but He has promised us eternal life, and God keeps His promises. You say we might choose to wander away. But with our faith protected, we would never choose to wander away from our faith. Our walk is not protected, we all wander from the path, but those born again, are convicted and strive to return to the path.

Thank you for your considerate and detailed reply.
I agree that along with your evidence, the passage's support for the possible loss of salvation is weakened. But this passage's support for the possible loss of salvation is also unnecessary. There are many passages and scriptural examples that when taken together, in my view support the real danger of the loss of salvation.

God surely keeps His promises. But it would be dangerously foolish to misinterpret exactly what God's promise is, and what conditions are required to qualify for God's amnesty.

Two key scriptural examples:

(1) Job indeed DID have a hedge around him, and the Angel of the Lord (Job's adversary) pointed out that this made his faith (loyalty) worthless, and untested. The same principle caused David to reject the king's armour in battling Goliath.

(2) Judas indeed strayed, far enough to perish. He did so wilfully, and was not stopped by Jesus, even though Jesus could easily have done so by overriding Judas' free will, as Jesus indeed did on several occasions with demons. Judas did not suffer any temptations from God not common to all men, and that Judas could not have overcome, if he had been so inclined.

The example of Judas, like that of Lot's wife stands prominently in scripture as a warning.

You admit that 'born-again' Christians can wander, and do. Your claim I suppose now becomes the claim that they cannot wander farther than a certain distance, namely into a deadly sin.

And if public records, and our own eyes contradict your thesis, I suppose you would argue that they weren't really 'born again'. But this 'argument' begs the question, whether applied to a backsliding modern Christian or Judas.

And your reasoning here (above) is flawed: vis - "Christians are convicted, and strive to return to the path". Again, if they are killed instead, you would argue that they weren't Christians, or didn't go to Gehenna or the Lake of Fire. But in each case, you have no evidence to support your claim.

The argument is logically fallacious, because it doesn't explain, let alone prove that God only allows Christians to stray "a certain distance". The scriptures should be clear and abundant upon such an important doctrine. Instead, the scripture is clear and abundant in stating that even Christians are in danger of death, destruction and the Lake of Fire or worse if they stumble into a deadly sin.

These warnings would be 'tongue in cheek' parodies if the doctrines of Calvin concerning predestination and unloseable salvation were true. And that is the point. Extreme Calvinism makes a mockery of the New Testament warning to repent and obey the commandments of Jesus the King.

Predestination itself is based upon shoddy 19th century scientism, the doctrines of materialsim and determinism, which virtually all of modern physics blantantly contradict. Not that modern physics is a higher authority than scripture, but absolutely a higher authority than the shoddy 19th century 'science' that produced Darwinism and German Higher Criticism of the bible.

 

[Van]

Hi Nazaroo, I find much we agree upon in your post, and of course much we disagree upon. vbmenu_register("postmenu_20498600", true);

Your appeal to a vague - body of scripture - that supports your view may be true, but the only way to know is to go over those passages one by one and see if they stand up to study. When you say, "loss of salvation" you are saying after a person is born again, and becomes a new creature in Christ, God or the person will somehow undo that action. I am unaware of any scripture that supports that idea. (I am certainly aware of passages purported to teach loss of salvation, but they can be understood to support my view as well.)

The trouble with using OT examples of loss of salvation is that illustrates Old Covenant reality, and does not address the possible difference, once actually saved its settled, of the New Covenant in His blood.

Judas was choosen to fulfill the betrayal prophecy, and therefore was precluded from trusting in Christ.

Lets go over the idea of wandering. We can wander in our walk, we can sin, but a born again person will not "practice" sin because our Helper will convict us. If a person practices sin, on that day Jesus will say, I never knew you. He will not say I knew you, but you wandered out of my hand.

Lets go over the backslidden "Christian." I think folks can be dormant for years, believing in their heart Jesus is Lord, but not serving Him with all their heart. These folks are not the same as folks who really do not trust in Christ for their salvation and practice lawlessness. Those who do not have of the love of God in their hearts are not born again, they are not backslidden, even though they say Lord, Lord, they are unsaved.

If they are saved, they do not perish, but they have eternal life.

To repeat my argument, if we are born again, God protects our faith and devotion to Christ, and therefore we would never wander away from our faith. Deep down, we believe in Christ more than anything.

Warnings concerning (1) being sure you are actually born again are not tongue in cheek when directed toward a mix of folks, both actually born again and those not born again but believe they are born again. Warnings concerning (2) losing the blessings of salvation, the blessings that apply to born again Christians, are not tongue in Cheek. We are to be ambassadors for Christ and we are carry out the ministry of reconciliation, and if we are ineffective, either by not fleeing sin as we should, stumbling more than we should, or by being sidetracked by false teachings where we build on the foundation with straw, we lose those blessings of salvation, or so to speak we lose salvation, because we lose a part of it. We are to press on toward the higher calling.

When you speak of predestination, you need to recognize that what I said concerning predestination is not what John Calvin understood. In my view, predestination only applies to those "in Christ," those actually born again, and it concerns what happens in Christ, and has nothing to do with being placed in Christ. We are predestined, once we are placed in Christ, to be conformed to the image of Christ. We are predestined, once we are placed in Christ, to be adopted as sons of God which refers to our bodily resurrection unto eternal life. But, according to my understanding of every passage that discusses predestination, we are not predestined to be placed in Christ, we are elected or chosen during our lifetime based on God accepting our faith.

 

[Nazaroo]

Your appeal to a vague - body of scripture - that supports your view may be true, but the only way to know is to go over those passages one by one and see if they stand up to study.

Agreed. For us mere disciples, coming into the game late, this plodding gate is the only approach.
But indulge me for a moment as I go over your last post:

What about the OT Examples?

Cleverly, you seem able to dismiss Job and virtually all OT examples in one swoop with the dispensational technique of Old and New Covenants.

But this is not so easy sailing as you make it seem. True, the OT points forward, and the NT points backward to a historical dividing mark, the cross and ressurrection. But in spite of being rooted in a historical moment, there is some sense in which not only is time before and after bound as one. There is only one saviour, and one act of salvation for all mankind from Adam and Abraham, to Joan of Arc and Astronauts. They are all saved the same way by the same saviour, and in a very significant sense everybody gets the same deal.

There cannot be a dispensation different in kind or quality for OT sinners and CA sinners, nor can the terms be so different as to be unjust. Nor can we somehow claim that either the 'natural man' or the Spiritual man is a different species before and after the historical 1st Advent. And this is what would be required if salvation itself was different in quality or kind or conditions of acceptance or availability before and after the cross.

It may be that some are rich and others poor, and some suffer more or less, but these differences must be minor, and can be conventionally compensated by punishment and reward in the next life by a just judge. The real differences in judgement and compensation come not from the hand dealt men but from how they play it: how they respond to the instruction and tests from God.

If the lessons are somewhat different, so are God's expectations. And so we find the NT agreeing with this thesis, in the parable of Lazarus, and especially in the warning that the citizens of Sodom and Ninevah were now able to claim more righteousness than the residents of Jerusalem, due to differences in the status of the messenger visiting them.

By faith we must accept that even the most extreme differences, Lazarus and the wealthy Pharisee, or Joan of Arc and Jack the Ripper, can be and can only be compensated by future judgement and justice. For like Job, we see no real justice here on earth before death. Only the ideal, the hint, the sketch of justice can we experience, just as we see only the the downpayment, the hope of the promise of Eternal Life on this side of death.

Ultimately, God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. And making too much of dispensations or ages is a dangerous heresy. For God is nothing if not just and impartial to both men and whole generations, and indeed every age. He is a Rock.

So not only do I fail to see how you have rid us of the example of Job, I fail to see how you could have, even if your appeal to the differences between OT and NT dispensations were true. It seemed there might be a possibility of a case, but nothing at all has been shown, and I am still left with Job and Lot's wife and all the other examples on the negative side.

And consider Melchesidik, the Angel of the Lord of Hosts, and Enoch, Elijah the Tishbite and Elisha for positive examples of OT grants of the Holy Spirit. Even John's gospel can't save us from the Old Testament. The gap of difference closes even narrower still. The difference in the granting of the Holy Spirit itself seems more a question of frequency and numbers than kind or quality.

What miracle did Jesus or Paul do that Elijah or Elisha did not? Only one: the cross. And that one action we have shown cannot distinguish OT from NT times or peoples. If Jesus is the saviour, He always was the Saviour, from before the creation of the world.

And when Paul or some other writer is concerned about counter-gospels or heretical doctrines, what do they mean? If someone says Christ has NOT come in a heretical way, he is only denying the First Advent. And if another heretic claims Christ has already come, he is only denying the Second Advent yet to come. For true Christians believe in both. But neither advent changes the nature of man or salvation. Salvation is merely grounded in a historical place at the pleasure of the Father and the Saviour.

We are unconvinced you have disposed of OT examples for us.

What about the NT example grande, Judas?

You dismiss him with one mechanical line:

Judas was choosen to fulfill the betrayal prophecy, and therefore was precluded from trusting in Christ.

But can this terse coat of paint hold up to the light? No.
For when as you suggest we examine the prophecies, we see that it not need be Judas at all, nor are the prophecies so detailed that things must happen 'a certain way'. Anyone could have betrayed Jesus and it would have suited the prophecies and the plan of Salvation equally well. The fact of Christ's choosing Judas is meaningless for this argument in a very important sense. For Jesus cannot play favourites, choosing one man for Eternal Life and another for the Lake of Fire on an arbitrary whim or to merely fulfill a prophecy He Himself can write as He pleases.

Not by lack of power, but by very nature as promised and in which we trust for our own salvation, Jesus MUST treat Judas equally and as fairly as He deals with all other men, or else your salvation has NO reliability, no surety, stability, or even hope. He cannot pre-condemn Judas, or else if Jesus especially created a 'golem' Judas, a fake, a robot, an automaton, or a demon, or illusion, then He must openly tell us so, or else again He is a deceiver. If Judas was created for destruction to merely operate as a lever, a mechanical foil in a plot to fool the principalities and powers like 'Satan', then Jesus is a fraud, an untrustworthy and immoral trickster we cannot commit to, no matter how desperate we are, because His word would be worthless.

What is the point of all this elaborate intrigue? To 'fool' men into being afraid of losing their souls, or falling into a trap that never existed except as a parable, because the real Judas wasn't a real Judas? Isn't it more plausible and acceptable to all that is at stake to take Jesus and God and the scriptures and Judas at plain value, and say Judas lost his salvation through his own deadly sin?

Again for the NT example I feel you have not at all proven a case, and the default speaks against the position you have taken here. Judas has not been properly dismissed at all by your one-liner.

 

[frumanchu]

You have a situation where Bible writers are writing letters to people about things that won't happen because they can't happen since God has predestined they won't happen.

The aspect you are failing to see is that the letters are the means through which God accomplishes those things He predestined.

 

[Nazaroo]

Quote

Originally Posted by: Sentry

You have a situation where Bible writers are writing letters to people about things that won't happen because they can't happen since God has predestined they won't happen.

The aspect you are failing to see is that the letters are the means through which God accomplishes those things He predestined.

No. That is too clever by half. Christianity is not a magical game
of self-fulfilling prophecy, like 'Back to the Future/Timecop/Total Recall'.

That is the doctrine of sophisticated and vain philosophy.

[staff edit]

"Make plain the Way of the Lord:"

The gospel, or amnesty offered by God in the New Testament is simple:

Repent and receive Jesus the Anointed One as Lord and Saviour,
and follow His commandments,
or else you will face the Wrath to Come.

NOW is the acceptable time for the Amnesty of God.
Believe and be baptized into the name of the Only born Son of God the Father.

What we have to say is hard to explain,
because you have become dull in understanding! (Hebrews 5:11)

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance
those who have once been enlightened (like Judas)
and have tasted the heavenly gift (the promise of salvation)
and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the goodness the Word of God (Romans 1:21)
and the powers of the age to come (Luke 10:17)
and then have fallen away (John 12:4)
since on their own they are crucifying again
the Son of God, and are holding Him up for contempt. (Hebrews 5:4-6)

Even though we speak in this way,
we have confidence of better things in your case,
things that belong to your salvation:
For God is NOT UNJUST:
He will not skip over your your work and the love
you have shown for His sake in serving the holy ones,
as you still continue to do:
Thus we want each one of you to show the same diligence
so you can receive the full assurance of hope to the very end:
so that you many not become unproductive,
but imitators of those who through faithfulness and perserverance
inherit the promises of salvation. (Hebrews 6:9-12)

Anyone who has violated the Law of Moses dies without mercy
on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
How much worse punishment do you think will be earned
by those who have spurned the Son of God,
profaned the blood of the Covenant by which they were sanctified,
and outraged the Spirit of Mercy? (Hebrews 10:28-29)

And the dead, great and small
were judged according to their works as written down...
and anyone who wasn't found written in the Book of Life
was cast into the Lake of Fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)

 

[Van]

"Cleverly, you seem able to dismiss Job and virtually all OT examples in one swoop with the dispensational technique of Old and New Covenants."

I believe the new Covenant is different from the Old Covenant. I believe that folks who are born again are under a very different administration than folks under the Law. I think the Book of Hebrews lays this out clearly.

All the saints, whether OT or NT are saved the same way, by the mercy of God based on accepting their faith. Hebrews 11:2. This has nothing to do with OT saints being under the Old Covenant where loss of the relationship with God occurs, and born again believers where loss of the relationship does not occur. A superior covenant.

The NT is clear that Judas was chosen to fulfill prophecy, so you assertion that Judas was not chosen to fulfil prophecy seems unenlightened. See John 17:12 and John 6:64-71.

For Jesus cannot play favourites, choosing one man for Eternal Life and another for the Lake of Fire on an arbitrary whim or to merely fulfill a prophecy He Himself can write as He pleases.

Here Sir, we disagree. God can and does treat us differently. Recall Jesus telling His disciples, "what is it to you if I allow this person..." He can have one servant killed with piano wire, and another write about it to help bring down an evil empire. God does as He pleases in accord with His purpose and plan. Dissimilar or unequal treatment in this life does not indicate God provide perfect justice in the next. I think God can influence a use a person for the purpose of a bad example, or to bring about His plan. Any unfairness in this life can be balanced by compensation in the next.

So hardening Judas heart and precluding him from coming to Jesus, John 6:65, does not undercut our promise of salvation, nor make God a deceiver. God states it plainly in scripture. Judas was a real judas, God chooses folks whose hearts fit His purpose, and so when Jesus chose him, He knew he was untrustworthy from the get go.

 

[Nazaroo]

I will try to deal with some other points you made in a moment.
Meanwhile let me see if this thesis here of your can form a reliable foundation to build upon;

...OT saints being under the Old Covenant where loss of the relationship with God occurs, and born again believers where loss of the relationship does not occur. A superior covenant.

Is this really the essential difference between the Covenants, and can it be shown?

Loss of Relationship

First, some kinds of 'loss of relationship' is certainly possible, as many a backsliding Christian knows only too well. And we are back to your earlier idea, that God will only let us stray 'so far'. The question is, can Salvation be forfeit by a violation of the conditions of the New Covenant, and is THIS really the essential difference between the Covenants, as you propose now.

The straighforward answer seems to be NO. What NT writers themselves point out, is that the New Covenant is superior, not because it promises un-losable Salvation, but because the Old Covenant of the Law cannot save at all, and offers no loophole around sin, guilt, and punishment. This seems clear enough via Paul and Hebrews.

Wretched man that I am, what can I do under the Old Covenant?
All I have to look forward to for any breach of terms is 'loss of relationship',
exile, death, destruction.
Praise to God! He has provided mercy, FORGIVENESS,
and Salvation through Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God,
IF I receive Him, AND remain in Him!

Unloseable Salvation is not mentioned, promised, or needed
to make the New Covenant infinitely superior to Old.
If indeed salvation were 'unloseable', it would only be gravy.
It is not exclusively that makes the New superior,
and it is not essential to its superiority.

Old Covenant Losses?

Second, suppose we concede that OT people were temporarily under an inferior Covenant, which allowed 'loss of relationship'. Was it permanent? By your thesis yes, it actually must be, or else there is no true distinction ultimately between the two covenants. Some people had to have been unfortunate enough to have actually lost their salvation under the Old Covenant.

For if not, then they really weren't and aren't under a different Covenant after all. They just experienced a temporary delay. Ultimately, they are absorbed into the New Covenant and their Salvation must be as assured as yours is! If all losses are temporary, we have a kind of Universalism for Christians only.

The Old Covenant really isn't a Covenant at all, just a minor temporary anomaly, or a misunderstanding, cleared up by the First Advent.

Remarkably, the fact that NO OT believers ever lose their salvation is mandatory if God is the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow, offering NT believers 'un-loseable' salvation. There can't be two different deals in the end.

BUT THE CONVERSE IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. We DON'T have to have 'un-loseable' salvation for God to be the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow. We only have to have a fair and reasonable New Covenant that is easy to understand. 'Un-loseable' Salvation is not entailed in God's dealings in the OT or NT being consistent.

And now, in case someone weren't satisfied with Judas on the basis that 'perhaps he was never saved' or experienced the grace of Jesus the Messiah, we can turn to Anannias and Sapphira. They indeed had no excuse, having experienced the grace of God and valued it less than short term comfort and gain. And they were lost.

I understand your thesis, but I see no evidence for it. Simply stating it is not adequate for me to risk my salvation and the sound doctrine I have been given.

--------------------------------------------------------
Now to thesis two:

Judas was Chosen

Here I think there is a simple understanding that will clear up a common confusion,
and honour God by preserving His reputation of utter fairness and imparitiality.
Lets try to do this:

There are really two possible basic meanings for the concept of 'choosing':

(1) God gives all men free choice, and after instructing them in fundamental truths,
allows them ultimately to choose where they belong, based upon those truths.

In this meaning, Jesus chose Judas, not because he would betray him,
but in spite of the fact that Judas would betray him,
in the same way He chose Peter, not because he would deny him,
but in spite of the fact that Peter would deny him.
God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow,
and God is impartial. He responds appropriately to our choices.

(2) Some men have NO free choice. God chooses them by creating them
with a deterministic clock-work like body, soul, mind and heart,
and pre-programs them to perform as He desires when He winds them up a releases them.

In this scenario, Judas was 'chosen' by Jesus with an entirely different and sinister meaning. He was helpless in God's hands of course, and he was used,
as the false Jewish anti-gospel of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' would tell us.

God wins the scenario because He's all powerful, not all-moral.
Who can argue with 'God'?

Except this isn't the God of Love and Justice I have been taught to worship.
Its a modern Apostate Jewish Idol. Cute music though.

 

[Van]

I supported my thesis on Judas with scripture. Enough said.

Concerning the difference between the Old and New Covenants, if you have reread Hebrews 8, you know the difference, temporary forgiveness that must be renewed and renewed and renewed or in other words the relationship must be sustained by works. If you stop believing, and then stop working, you sin and your sin is unforgiven, and thus your relationship with God is severed. But after the sacrifice of Jesus, he sat down, because no more sacrifices are necessary.

Last point, you cannot undo being born again, there is no scripture that says once we are a new creation we can become an old creation.

 

[Van]

"I understand your thesis, but I see no evidence for it. Simply stating it is not adequate for me to risk my salvation and the sound doctrine I have been given."

Please do not put your salvation at risk by believing false teaching. I will endevour to do the same.

 

[Nazaroo]

Once again I'd like to thank you for continuing in this discussion,
as frustrating as it perhaps might be, given that we seem to differ
on what appears to be some fundamental aspects of salvation.
Please be encouraged to continue the debate with me,
since I think we are both learning about opposing views to our own,
and perhaps modifying and extending our own understanding of our respective positions.
In this case, we, and all who are following this thread are certainly
benefiting, by strengthening their own understanding and doctrine.

Concerning the difference between the Old and New Covenants, if you have reread Hebrews 8, you know the difference, temporary forgiveness that must be renewed and renewed and renewed or in other words the relationship must be sustained by works. If you stop believing, and then stop working, you sin and your sin is unforgiven, and thus your relationship with God is severed. But after the sacrifice of Jesus, he sat down, because no more sacrifices are necessary.

Letter to the Hebrews: Deeper Ramafications

Indeed this point has a certain weight, a surface value.
But if we really look deeply into the teaching of Hebrews,
we get a surprising result which goes far beyond the simple statement above:

Rather than two covenants, we really have only one real covenant,
and one clumsy imitation consisting of some play-acting with lambs and pigeons.
The writer of Hebrews informs us that all the posturing and gestures performed
by the old priesthood are indeed fake, and ineffective.
They are merely symbols of real and heavenly things,
hints and instructional performances meant to teach us about more abstract realities.
Without blurting it out and scaring off Jews used to taking temple activities for granted,
Hebrews carefully leads the reader gently into the understanding
that the priesthood, the rituals and the temple are all an earthly icon of heavenly things:
Of themselves they are worthless.

So again, the core teaching of Hebrews has little bearing on
the key point of debate between us:
whether or not salvation can be lost.

Hebrews on the Danger of Losing Salvation

The writer of Hebrews is in fact ambiguous on this point:
He has high hopes and confidence regarding the loyalty and ability
of the readers to stay the course, but he dares not declare them saved.
Instead, he repeatedly warns them, hoping the warnings themselves
(and the real danger they are based on) will spur the readers to stick it out to the end.

There is no time or suggestion that readers may 'take a few days off',
or coast on holidays, retire at the age of 50, having served well.
They are prodded most profoundly and urgently to never waiver,
and the danger is described as worse than death itself.

This is NOT the Old (fake) Covenant,
the play-acting with goats and bulls.
It is the real Covenant.

Yes there is an insistence on Christ's one sacrifice for all time,
and His seating at the right hand of God, His rest upon the throne of Heaven.

But far from guaranteeing the 'un-losability' of Salvation,
this 'once and for all' Sacrifice is precisely what puts the urgency,
the bite, the meat into the writer of Hebrews statement:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance
those who have once been enlightened (like Judas)
and have tasted the heavenly gift (the promise of salvation)
and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the goodness the Word of God (Romans 1:21)
and the powers of the age to come (Luke 10:17)
and then have fallen away (John 12:4)
since on their own they are crucifying again
the Son of God, and are holding Him up for contempt. (Hebrews 5:4-6)

If Jesus' sacrifice were a renewable resource,
or a repeatable event that God would be happy to perform as needed,
if it had no cost or meaning to the Mind and Heart of God,
if we could just ask God to save us again and again,
and God had no preference one way or another about it,
then by all means we could go off and murder someone,
and say, "hey, I'm sorry about that deadly sin. Can you catch my tab again?"
But the author of Hebrews makes a most serious case that
such an idea would be a BIG mistake.

Although the Sacrifice of Jesus may be priceless,
and able to cover an infinite amount of sin in the sense of its power and value,
God doesn't give men infinite opportunities to run up infinite tabs.
We have a finite amount of time, energy, and resources,
and a finite amount of grace is granted us to perservere to reach the final prize.

Otherwise, we will now enter into the flakey world of 'reincarnation' and other false doctrines
which encourage men to believe they can do whatever they will,
and there will always be a 'next time'.

temporary forgiveness that must be renewed and renewed and renewed or in other words the relationship must be sustained by works. If you stop believing, and then stop working, you sin and your sin is unforgiven, and thus your relationship with God is severed.

But here now, although your argument is indeed existant in some form in Hebrews,
again you seem to have missed a key point of the discussion:
that this is all hypothetical to the author of Hebrews:
Bulls and Lambs don't cover sin or grant forgiveness, even in the 'Old Covenant'.
They only cover specific time periods, or specific sins, as a metaphor of true Salvation.

Even if a blameless Israelite or innocent child performs some 'sacrifice',
and never offends the law again, or commits a deadly sin,
the 'forgiveness' bought under the old system only buys time.
There is no real 'relationship with God'. There is no Salvation at all.
Its all a series of 'keep busy and keep out of trouble' manuveurs until the Messiah comes.

And if someone falls out of the boat, or slips through the cracks,
there isn't even an acknowledgement under the Law that there's a problem.
Why? Because its all a sham. A fake. An edifying play to instruct the people,
and convict them of sin, to prepare them for the Messiah their Salvation.

Your contention that the 'New' Covenant is better because men cannot be lost
falls apart in my view, because there is no 'New' Covenant really, only a pre-advent
and post-advent viewpoint of one and the same covenant, if we mean Salvation.

Just as there are "other 'gods'", there are 'other covenants': land covenants,
royal covenants, covenants of battle, and payments of goods, grocery lists.
But even the priestly 'covenant' of Israel is just a slap on the back
and a pointer to the Real One Covenant of Salvation.

The best that can be said is that OT characters lived and died,
some without even hearing the full story and details of the Covenant.
And the most we can say about them is that they will be judged
based upon the quality of their guilt and innocence in light of their knowledge.

Last point, you cannot undo being born again, there is no scripture that says once we are a new creation we can become an old creation.

The 'born again' doctrine is a childish misunderstanding of John's gospel.
I will deal with it shortly.