Temporal Salvation?

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"The reason it makes no sense to you because you don't understand God's grace."

Your understanding lessens the sinfulness of sin and cheapens the grace of God.

Not at all. In fact, Arminians think only in terms of losing salvation because of sin. That's a huge OVER-REACTION to the problem of sin.

The Bible (my ONLY source for truth) teaches that God's discipline towards His children is PAINFUL. And the examples include being turned over to Satan! And he knows how to make people HURT. So you can dispell the folly that OSAS excuses sin and lets people get away with it. Sheer nonsense.

Grace is only as amazing as the despicableness and ugliness of sin.

Well, you might not realize it, but you JUST NOW limited God's grace to sin. That is despicable in my view.

God's grace is GREATER than ALL our sin. But not, apparently, to you.

The very fact that you believe that sinful behavior can result in loss of God's greatest gift to mankind proves that you do NOT understand the scope of God's grace.

Rather, your skewed view leads you to the folly that "free grace" excuses sin and minimizes it. Totally untrue.

The love of the Father for us does not disdain the love for the Son by simply ignoring how his children live.

See there? You proved me right again! God NEVER ignores how His children live.

Why don't you pay attention to my posts when I discuss God's discipline towards His children? Instead, you just mosey along oblivious to the doctrine of divine discipline and continue to apply FALSE notions to those who believe in eternal security. King David suffered greatly for his sins, to be sure. So you can QUIT thinking that my view is that God "simply ignores how his children live". You couldn't be farther from the truth.

He demands his children live as the Son he gave lived. Again, John says, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did." (1 John 2:6)
Doug

Yes, He commands His children to live holy and blameless lives. And those who don't WON'T get away with anything.

And YOU aren't the judge of what others may "seem" to be getting away with.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes, it's clear they are different words & have different meanings. I'm probably a bit tighter than you at the moment, the way I understand you. I think obedient action is faith in action.

And I agree with this! How about that; you agree with a free gracer!!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"OK? Veryu clear and straightforward. Eternal life is given to those who believe. It should be obvious that the giving occurs WHEN a person first believes, because the MOMENT one believes, they ARE a believer at that MOMENT and John 5:24 and 6:47 say that those believing possess eternal life."

Yep, and the moment they abandon the faith and leave it behind without repenting of and ceasing that sin they give up eternal life!

Here we go again! Where is the verse that actually says this? That's the problem, Doug. You don't have any. But you believe it anyway. All without any evidence for such belief. Why do you do that?

It's not only about the moment we believe, it is about every moment afterward as well.

Right. Saved by grace (saving faith at the moment of belief) and then kept by works, or "every moment afterward as well". Nice way of putting it. Very clear. You believe in a system of salvtion by a mixture of grace and works.

[QUOTER] That's why scripture says without ambiguity, "if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory" (Heb 3:6), and again, "We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." (Heb 3:14)
Doug[/QUOTE]
Sad that you don't have a clue about what these verses mean.

In Heb 3:6 the Greek word for "hold fast" has the same Strong's # as in 1 Cor 15:2. It has to do with possession of something. Not a "tight-knuckled grip" on something.

And, Heb 3:6 is about our confidence, not our salvation, as MOST Arminians mistakenly think.

Re: Heb 3:14, the words "share in Christ" is about fellowship with Christ, another concept that seems to fly way over the head of Arminians.

Jesus was clear in John 15 that ONLY those believers who are in fellowship (abide in Me and I in you) will bear fruit. And so many totally miss this point.

All they see is "burning" and smell hell. The metaphor isn't about hell at all. Rather, it is about being discarded from service. And don't forget the principle about discipline. The mention of "fire" many times in Scripture is a reference to God's discipline towards His children.

Is fire hot? Will it burn? Does it hurt?

Are you getting the picture yet?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Re: "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did." (1 John 2:6)

However, I do like that they translated ofeilo as "must," which better expresses the "obligation" meaning of ofeilo than "ought" does.

Please explain HOW "obligation" is a better word than 'ought'. I see no relevant difference. So enlighten me, please, if you will.

When I'm translating verses like this that use ofeilo, I just go straight to "obligation."]QUOTE]
And those who are obligated certainly OUGHT to do what they are obligated to do.

Literal: The one who says/claims (or is saying/claiming) to abide/remain in Him is obligated, just as that man (Jesus Christ) walked, he himself also to walk in this manner

I love this!

The person claiming to abide in Christ is obligated to walk just as Jesus walked.

He sure is. However, how many pastors even teach this?

And, sadly, how many believers actually honor their obligation?

As for "ought," which several English translation use for ofeilo (also for dei), the reason I don't like to use it is because of the "advisable" concepts contained within it, so there's is contingency to it.

Maybe in your mind. I've never seen "ought" as something that one "could" do, as opposed to "is obligated to do".

Which brings up a point to consider: a policy statement is actually an OBLIGATION of the employee/member of the organization to follow the policy. Nothing less.

So thanks for bringing up the word "obligation". I like it. And I think it is interchangeable with "ought".

People don't always follow through with their obligations.
People don't always follow through with what they ought to do.

Although there's a contingency as to whether one walks or does not walk as Jesus did, there is nevertheless the obligation to walk as He walked to meet the reality of abiding, and this is what John1:6 is speaking of, the obligation.

Right. It's something they OUGHT to do. As opposed to "may or many not".

So, if we're going to be saying we abide in Christ, then we are obligated to be walking (or living as the NIV correlates) as Jesus did.

Amen!!

The point being there is a reality to abiding and an obligation to be met - or as the NIV says, [an obligation] we "must" meet.

Right. And those who don't meet this obligation, won't bear fruit (John 15) and WILL face God's discipline.

It's like saying, I'm sorry but you cannot come in - you are obligated to have a ticket first, you don't have one, and you're not coming in. There's really no discretion on the part of the doorkeeper - you're either ticketed & coming in or not ticketed & not coming in.

That's what Jesus was teaching His disciples in John 15. If you want to bear fruit, then you MUST abide in Me. He wasn't referring to "staying saved". In fact, NO person has the ability or power to either save themself or keep themselves saved.

But that seems to be the sentiment among Arminians, from all I've read from them.

If I say, I'm sorry but you ought to have a ticket before you come in, IMO, because "ought" can mean "it's advisable," then the doorkeeper might let you in anyway.

It's always easy to play words games. There is no insinuation with "ought" that leads to what you think.

We're obligated to walk as Jesus walked in order to be abiding in Him.

As long as you understand what "abiding in Him" refers to: fellowship. Not salvation.

And this assists us in understanding what Jesus was talking about in John15.

Ditto here.

Abiding in Him is walking/living as He did (1John1) and per John15 keeping His commandments is abiding in His Love. It also assists us in proofing the Ongoing reality of Biblical Faith.

So far, so good.

Walking is a process going somewhere to some destination.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that the "destination" is heaven. No one "walks to heaven". Ever.

Living is a lifestyle. Neither is a one-time momentary concept and then reverting back to where we began or to how we previously lived.

And lifestyle doesn't save anyone, or unsave anyone. But it seems Arminians don't get it.

 

[TibiasDad]

I'm not a big fan of the NIV, mainly because of translations like this one, which makes it difficult to see that John is using meno here. However, I do like that they translated ofeilo as "must," which better expresses the "obligation" meaning of ofeilo than "ought" does. When I'm translating verses like this that use ofeilo, I just go straight to "obligation."

I see what you are saying with meno but I think the NIV is trying to show consistency of thought between memo and peripateó (walk), the latter figuratively meaning the way we live our lives, and so abiding is also a "way of life". I agree that opheiló carries a moral sense of obligation and the use of must is a very legitimate translation.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree that opheiló carries a moral sense of obligation and the use of must is a very legitimate translation.
Doug

Why woulldn't "you ought to..." not carry a moral sense of obligation as well?

 

[TibiasDad]

That's a huge OVER-REACTION to the problem of sin.

There can be no over reaction to the problem of sin. Sin is the one enemy whose power is overthrown by only one! There is no greater negative force, and its aim is to make itself seem of no account. The wages of sin is death, period! Discipline is not the remedy of sin, only death and resurrection can conquer sin and the grave.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

There can be no over reaction to the problem of sin.

Yes, thinking that sin will cause loss of salvation is HYSTERICALLY an over reaction.

Sin is the one enemy whose power is overthrown by only one!

Right. And Jesus Christ was VICTORIOUS on the cross. He DEFEATED sin. But apparently you don't believe that. Why?

There is no greater negative force, and its aim is to make itself seem of no account.

Nonsense. You reveal that you DO think that Christ didn't actually DEFEAT sin, and that you are required to help Him out by your own life.

The wages of sin is death, period!

2 Cor 5:14,15 says Christ died for everyone. And v.19 says God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. So the sin problem WAS (note the aorist tense here) SOLVED 2,000 years ago.

Discipline is not the remedy of sin, only death and resurrection can conquer sin and the grave.

And Christ's death and resurrection DID ALREADY CONQUER SIN. Why haven't you gotten the memo?

No wonder your theology is so messed up.

1 John 3:8 - The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

Do you believe this verse? You are acting as if you need to help Christ out on the issue of sin. News flash: Jesus Christ doesn't need your help. All you are doing is getting in His way.

Heb 9:28 - so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

James 1:13-15
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

In this passage, James addresses the progression of sin, from temptation to the sin.

What do you think "gives birth to death" refers to? What kind of death?

 

[TibiasDad]

Why woulldn't "you ought to..." not carry a moral sense of obligation as well?

"You ought to pay your mortgage" is a lot less forceful than "You are obligated to pay your mortgage." "Ought" doesn't carry the weight that it ought to in today's language.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"Why woulldn't "you ought to..." not carry a moral sense of obligation as well?"

"You ought to pay your mortgage" is a lot less forceful than "You are obligated to pay your mortgage." "Ought" doesn't carry the weight that it ought to in today's language.
Doug

Oh, so it's a matter of "force" then?

Kinda like typing all caps? Is that more forceful? Will that obligate posters to then read the posts?

How about this for forcefulness:

You ought to pay your mortgage, or you won't like the consequences.

Kinda sounds forceful to me. A threat, even.

What you seem to miss is that human beings renege on their obligations all the time.

So "force" isn't really a factor.

The word "ought" means "should". Force isn't necessary to communicate what one is supposed to do. And I expect your response to be; "but that isn't very forceful."

"ought", "should" and "supposed to" all mean the same thing. They all speak of obligation.

 

[GDL]

"You ought to pay your mortgage" is a lot less forceful than "You are obligated to pay your mortgage." "Ought" doesn't carry the weight that it ought to in today's language.

Doug

Agree, Doug.

Why doesn't anyone just cite a dictionary, or better, a few dictionaries since they typically differ?

My point was simple. And this goes way back for me - decades. When I first read "ought" to do something in the Bible, and it's still the case for me, it seemed like a suggestion. So, I looked up "ought" in several dictionaries, where the word has a range from obligation to something advisable, and leaves uncertainty. One of the suggested synonyms is "should," which can also mean obligation, but also ranges into uncertainty.

Ofeilo per BDAG speaks primarily of being indebted or under obligation. There's no uncertainty being expressed in 1J2:6 - if we say we are living/abiding in Him, then we are obligated to live/walk just as He did. There's no uncertainty about this obligation. There's always an uncertainty about people doing living up to it, but that's not the point being made here. God says if we're going to be claiming this, then we're obligated to be living it. And He has the sovereign ability to make sure we are doing so.

As you said, and I agree, the force/weight of "obligation" for me and many I have discussed this with, is more than ought or should. Personal choice I guess. But if anyone who uses ought or should here, I'd ask them what they mean. Obligation is just more clear & precise to the Greek.

 

[TibiasDad]

Yes, thinking that sin will cause loss of salvation is HYSTERICALLY an over reaction.

Sin doesn't cause anything, it is our own choices to disobey, our choices to listen to the voice of the sinful nature! It is our own decision not sin itself that dooms us, just like it has been since the garden.

Nonsense. You reveal that you DO think that Christ didn't actually DEFEAT sin, and that you are required to help Him out by your own life.

Care to explain why you think I don't? You don't know what I believe, but if you've read Arminian thought, surely you've read some Wesleyan thinking and you should know better than to make such a statement. Again, as John says, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work." (1 John 3:8b) And that he did, completely, and utterly. But if we believe or not does not effect a change in what Christ has done, but it does affect our experience of what Christ has done.

2 Cor 5:14,15 says Christ died for everyone. And v.19 says God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. So the sin problem WAS (note the aorist tense here) SOLVED 2,000 years ago.

The atonement reconciled Got to the world, not the world to God. God now, because of Christ's atonement, is able to look at man through eyes of love and mercy, not in anger and wrath. We are still his enemies, we see God as as a foe not a friend! The completion of the atonement's work lies in whether a person believes and abides in Christ and makes the reconciliation whole.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Agree, Doug.

Why doesn't anyone just cite a dictionary, or better, a few dictionaries since they typically differ?

My point was simple. And this goes way back for me - decades. When I first read "ought" to do something in the Bible, and it's still the case for me, it seemed like a suggestion. So, I looked up "ought" in several dictionaries, where the word has a range from obligation to something advisable, and leaves uncertainty. One of the suggested synonyms is "should," which can also mean obligation, but also ranges into uncertainty.

Ofeilo per BDAG speaks primarily of being indebted or under obligation. There's no uncertainty being expressed in 1J2:6 - if we say we are living/abiding in Him, then we are obligated to live/walk just as He did. There's no uncertainty about this obligation. There's always an uncertainty about people doing living up to it, but that's not the point being made here. God says if we're going to be claiming this, then we're obligated to be living it. And He has the sovereign ability to make sure we are doing so.

As you said, and I agree, the force/weight of "obligation" for me and many I have discussed this with, is more than ought or should. Personal choice I guess. But if anyone who uses ought or should here, I'd ask them what they mean. Obligation is just more clear & precise to the Greek.

To carry on with the mortgage analogy, an obligation has an inherent sense of necessity if the ownership/possession of the house is going to be an eventual reality. We cannot be delinquent in our fulfilling our obligation endlessly without loss of the whole thing we were hoping for.

If you would, what is your meaning when you said "And He has the sovereign ability to make sure we are doing so"?

Doug

 

[GDL]

If you would, what is your meaning when you said "And He has the sovereign ability to make sure we are doing so"?

Good question. Simply meant He brings His Children into line with their obligations.

I got your mortgage analogy - obligation & necessity carry the weight for me. Accurate translations of ofeilo & dei.

 

[JLB777]

Haven't you ever heard of IGNORANT believers? There are many. Even Paul was concerned about ignorance among believers.

Rom 1:13 - Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

Rom 11:25 - For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

1 Cor 10:1 - For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

1 Cor 12:1 - Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1 Cor 15:34 - Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God —I say this to your shame.

2 Cor 1:8 - For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:

1 Thess 4:13 - But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

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

I'll leave you with this verse to meditate on:

1 Cor 14:38 - But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Some who are I n Christ, can indeed be removed from Christ, and cast into the fire and burned, if they are ignorant of God’s word that teaches us to remain in Christ.



If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6


Here’s how we are instructed to remain in Christ.


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 3:24




JLB

 

[GDL]

Here’s how we are instructed to remain in Christ.


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 3:24

Seems clear to me.

It's as I said, at the end of all analysis, obeying Christ & our Father is at the core of everything, even our Biblical Belief, both at and after first coming to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[TibiasDad]

Good question. Simply meant He brings His Children into line with their obligations.

I got your mortgage analogy - obligation & necessity carry the weight for me. Accurate translations of ofeilo & dei.

Does he do this irresistibly? It would seem, to me, that by asserting the Sovereignty of God that this would mean that God causes them to necessarily keep their obligations, thus bypassing the human will's volition.

Doug

 

[GDL]

John 5:24 is another verse that has been stated as making the case for the Free Grace once saved always saved theory. Is it really any different that John 10:26-28, or Acts 16:31 that we have already dealt with?

2 translations dealing with the present active indicative participles differently:

NKJ John 5:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

YLT John 5:24 'Verily, verily, I say to you -- He who is hearing my word, and is believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during, and to judgment he doth not come, but hath passed out of the death to the life.

So:
- ongoing or one-time / momentary hearing & believing in order to have eternal life & not come into judgment?
- why belief in (or believing) God the Father for eternal life & not in Christ alone?
- does the perfect active indicative "has passed" from death into life mean one can never pass from life into death again? (I note 1John3:14 where John adds more detail to this concept of having passed from death into life & I note JLB's recent comments re: eternal life 1 & eternal life 2)
- does the context speak of the deity of Jesus Christ?

Although I was aggressively taught they do, IMO now, Matt10:26-28 & Acts16:31 have been dealt with and do not make the stand-alone case for a one-time, undefined belief for osas. So, how about J5:24?

 

[GDL]

Does he do this irresistibly? It would seem, to me, that by asserting the Sovereignty of God that this would mean that God causes them to necessarily keep their obligations, thus bypassing the human will's volition.

Thought you might narrow down further. Maybe not the best choice of His characteristics on my part - all I meant was that He will (sovereignly) have His way with His Children. He makes the rules, puts forth the obligations, defines the terminology, and so on.

Then, by His Children I mean those that choose to obey & remain in Him as commanded. As a general rule, I do not take free will out of the equation in any of this.

However, based upon illustrations like the potter & clay, and to put forth a specific example, could John the Baptist (Baptizer, Immerser, etc., etc. - for those with different takes) have chosen to disregard who he was chosen by God to be? I still think there are some mysteries to His Sovereignty vs. our free will.

If you'd like to keep narrowing or suggest something other than sovereignty, my eyes are open to read you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Yes, thinking that sin will cause loss of salvation is HYSTERICALLY an over reaction."

Sin doesn't cause anything, it is our own choices to disobey, our choices to listen to the voice of the sinful nature!

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Scripture since you don't think sin causes anything.

James 1-
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Sin causes death.

It is our own decision not sin itself that dooms us, just like it has been since the garden.

No, you just don't understand Genesis 3. God's warning to Adam and the woman was "in the day that you eat of the tree, you SHALL DIE".

So, there it is again. Sin causes death. But do you understand the "death" that is mentioned in both passages?

Care to explain why you think I don't? You don't know what I believe, but if you've read Arminian thought, surely you've read some Wesleyan thinking and you should know better than to make such a statement.

Another easy question. I know what you think by what you post.

Unless, that is, you post stuff that isn't what you think. And what would be a problem in itself.

Again, as John says, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work." (1 John 3:8b) And that he did, completely, and utterly. But if we believe or not does not effect a change in what Christ has done, but it does affect our experience of what Christ has done.

Go back to James 1.

The atonement reconciled Got to the world, not the world to God. God now, because of Christ's atonement, is able to look at man through eyes of love and mercy, not in anger and wrath. We are still his enemies, we see God as as a foe not a friend! The completion of the atonement's work lies in whether a person believes and abides in Christ and makes the reconciliation whole.
Doug

Well, since you know that sin is no longer a problem, why do you Arminians keep pushing the idea that a sinful lifestyle will get a believer into hell then??