- Jun 30, 2021
- 359
- 71
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Clare73 stated in post #938:
"So you've included in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 both
1) a warning to possessors of faith (believers), which warnings are how God preserves believers in OSAS, and are not an indication they can lose their salvation, and
2) a warning to professors (only) of the results of the apostasy of unbelief.
This is how all warnings in the NT regarding faith and/or salvation are to be understood, and not as indications that salvation can be lost."
Well, although I wasn't addressing Heb.3:7-4:13 specifically, that is a pretty accurate summation of the conclusion that I've come to by implementing the Molinist "can/won't model of perseverance." Yes, there are other means of supporting my truth statement [i.e. - that genuine believers will not ultimately fall away unto eternal perdition], but ultimately, the core of my premise originates with the "can/won't" Molinist concept. [see my post #1 - page 1 & post #42 - page 3] < Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation? >
As an example of another means of supporting and expounding upon my claim, I would point to what is called "the preacher's we." [for example the "we" of Hebrews 3:14, "For [we] are made partakers of Christ, if [we] hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end."] The big question here concerns the identity of the "we" that the writer of Hebrews was referring to. For a more complete understanding of my perspective see my post #85 - page 5 < Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation? >
"This is how all warnings in the NT regarding faith and/or salvation are to be understood, and not as indications that salvation can be lost."
It appears to me that these warning passages would also necessarily include those parables that would fall [no pun intended] into that classification; let's call them "warning parables."
Returning to your original 2 points :
"1) a warning to possessors of faith (believers), which warnings are how God preserves believers in OSAS, and are not an indication they can lose their salvation, and
2) a warning to professors (only) of the results of the apostasy of unbelief."
IMHO, the common error [and point of great contention between the Traditional Calvinists and Arminians] that is made here is assuming that points 1 and 2 must necessarily be mutually exclusive truth statements. That is to say, you must choose between them, it's an "either/or" proposition. The principles proposed within Molinism allows it to be a mediating [or "balanced"] position that incorporates elements of truths from both sides of the "theological spectrum". This is why many Molinists claim that the issue of the eternal security of the believer cannot be rightly understood without the use of philosophical theology.
I'm very aware that many run away immediately when the word "philosophy" is brought into the realm of theological issues ... please don't fall into pitfall of imagining that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, that is, there is no room for reason [philosophy] in the Christian faith. For instance, any time your Pastor attempts to explain [expound upon and bring clarity to different portions of the scriptures] apart from his using the express words used in the scriptures [i.e., only reading from passages of scripture] he is also "guilty" of utilizing philosophy, [that is, if faith and reason are indeed mutually exclusive].
Philosophy simply entails thinking, reasoning, thought, wisdom, and knowledge. In Isaiah 1:18, the Lord beckons us to apply reason... "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." We are told to diligently study the scriptures, and how else can this be done without applying these God-given attributes of our minds?
"So you've included in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 both
1) a warning to possessors of faith (believers), which warnings are how God preserves believers in OSAS, and are not an indication they can lose their salvation, and
2) a warning to professors (only) of the results of the apostasy of unbelief.
This is how all warnings in the NT regarding faith and/or salvation are to be understood, and not as indications that salvation can be lost."
Well, although I wasn't addressing Heb.3:7-4:13 specifically, that is a pretty accurate summation of the conclusion that I've come to by implementing the Molinist "can/won't model of perseverance." Yes, there are other means of supporting my truth statement [i.e. - that genuine believers will not ultimately fall away unto eternal perdition], but ultimately, the core of my premise originates with the "can/won't" Molinist concept. [see my post #1 - page 1 & post #42 - page 3] < Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation? >
As an example of another means of supporting and expounding upon my claim, I would point to what is called "the preacher's we." [for example the "we" of Hebrews 3:14, "For [we] are made partakers of Christ, if [we] hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end."] The big question here concerns the identity of the "we" that the writer of Hebrews was referring to. For a more complete understanding of my perspective see my post #85 - page 5 < Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation? >
"This is how all warnings in the NT regarding faith and/or salvation are to be understood, and not as indications that salvation can be lost."
It appears to me that these warning passages would also necessarily include those parables that would fall [no pun intended] into that classification; let's call them "warning parables."
Returning to your original 2 points :
"1) a warning to possessors of faith (believers), which warnings are how God preserves believers in OSAS, and are not an indication they can lose their salvation, and
2) a warning to professors (only) of the results of the apostasy of unbelief."
IMHO, the common error [and point of great contention between the Traditional Calvinists and Arminians] that is made here is assuming that points 1 and 2 must necessarily be mutually exclusive truth statements. That is to say, you must choose between them, it's an "either/or" proposition. The principles proposed within Molinism allows it to be a mediating [or "balanced"] position that incorporates elements of truths from both sides of the "theological spectrum". This is why many Molinists claim that the issue of the eternal security of the believer cannot be rightly understood without the use of philosophical theology.
I'm very aware that many run away immediately when the word "philosophy" is brought into the realm of theological issues ... please don't fall into pitfall of imagining that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, that is, there is no room for reason [philosophy] in the Christian faith. For instance, any time your Pastor attempts to explain [expound upon and bring clarity to different portions of the scriptures] apart from his using the express words used in the scriptures [i.e., only reading from passages of scripture] he is also "guilty" of utilizing philosophy, [that is, if faith and reason are indeed mutually exclusive].
Philosophy simply entails thinking, reasoning, thought, wisdom, and knowledge. In Isaiah 1:18, the Lord beckons us to apply reason... "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." We are told to diligently study the scriptures, and how else can this be done without applying these God-given attributes of our minds?
Upvote
0