PDA

View Full Version : "Earning" salvation?



gertiegrl
Sep 17th 2007, 03:52 AM
This came up in another thread and it has been bothering me since... Whats the general consenses on "earning salvation"?

I think someone said (and I won't quote directly because I dunno how) basically, that a once only salvation message was taught by false teachers/preachers - which of course interested and intrigued me cause thats what I have been taught and what I believe.

I personally believe that salvation is something that is given as a free gift of God by his grace, to those who believe and place faith in Christ Jesus, and turn your life and your will to him and ask him to enter your life and be your Lord and Saviour. I believe that salvation is a once only happening. When your choice comes to either accept Christ or reject him and you choose to place your faith in him, then just like that - you are saved. Repentance, confession and a santification process comes as a response to being saved, not as a way of "earning salvation" . So continual sin or unrepentance in some area would not cause a person to need to re-give themselves to the Lord time and time again. As we can only be born of the flesh once, so is it with being born of the Spirit (although the Holy Spirit may empower us and move within us more powerfully at different times for different purposes) we are only -born into- Christ ONCE. If a constant repentance is what is needed to continually assure salvation - then why did Christ bother, we could be striving to constantly repent without Calvery! To me the mere suggestion that constant repentance is nessecary or a salvation requirement negates the power of Christ! Through Christ I am dead to sin and alive in the Spirit, note that - through Christ alone, not through repentance. Now because I am alive with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit I submit myself to the transforming sactification process and I surrender to it willingly in response to my once only salvation - and that is where I find true repentance. Christ wasn't crucified over and over again, just the once. Isn't anything else just a process of attempting to "earn" salvation which completely undermines the amazing gift of God's grace?


K - So thats the basics of the Gertie theology theory.... Just curious because as I say, a comment on false teachings has me intrigued... What do others think? How far wrong is my belief structure?

My heart's Desire
Sep 17th 2007, 04:39 AM
I believe that pretty much. Grace (unmerited favor) from God. All God's work, none of ours. I once heard that it is that way because when in heaven, though we will receive rewards, we will cast our crowns at the feet of God and in the end, God gets all the glory. ALL of it!

My heart's Desire
Sep 17th 2007, 04:49 AM
Oh and as far as false teaching that would be mentioned in Galations. Almost the whole book talks about false teachers who tried to bring the believers there back into being justified by works (or the Law) after they had salvation by faith alone .

gertiegrl
Sep 17th 2007, 05:03 AM
I think the quote that confused me was exactly that - false teachings of how works is required for salvation, not faith. But I may be reading that wrong too. Thank you for your input! Pleased to know Im not completely mucked up in my theology!

My heart's Desire
Sep 17th 2007, 05:09 AM
Sounds like what you ran across was a Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS) discussion. There are several views, which I'm not going to go into at the moment. Midnight here! :)

gertiegrl
Sep 17th 2007, 06:07 AM
Oh, aint I just a muggins! I havn't been around long enough or come across teachings past what I have had been taught - cause I didn't even realise that this (OSAS) was up for debate!

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 17th 2007, 07:55 AM
How can a person "earn" something that is impossible to attain on his own merits

The truth is, we have all sinned....sin is an ENORMOUS debt to pay....and impossible for us because we are sinners by nature.

It would be like someone robbing a bank, then trying to pay back the money by stealing from liquor stores.

The debt from sin is beyond our capacity to pay back...It is an eternal crime that altered the perfect creation of God. The ONLY one who is able to pay our debt is Christ Jesus....BECAUSE He was sinless. He was not born of sin, as we were...He was, and is, perfect.

2 Tim. 1:9 (God) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began

Not only does trying to earn salvation undermine the work of Christ, as you said, but it also exhibits a lack of trust in His sacrifice. Basically, what one is saying by proclaining this is "Lord, I know that You died for my sins, but I don't believe You when You say that all I need to do is accept it. I really think I need to do more."

In essence, you are calling God a liar.

Sold Out
Sep 17th 2007, 12:51 PM
K - So thats the basics of the Gertie theology theory.... Just curious because as I say, a comment on false teachings has me intrigued... What do others think? How far wrong is my belief structure?

Great post Gertie!!!

Bible Doctrine
Sep 23rd 2007, 10:37 PM
Let me know when someone themselves has achieved the "righteous of Christ" and we can discuss earning salvation.

Frances
Sep 24th 2007, 08:00 PM
So continual sin or unrepentance in some area would not cause a person to need to re-give themselves to the Lord time and time again.

I believe such continual Sin would require genuine repentance (determination not to repeat that Sin in future) trusting Jesus Christ's death and resurrection on their behalf.

The difference between those who believe (a)OSAS and (b)NOSAS is that (a) believe that no matter what Sin without repentance a Saved person gets involved in, they will still spend eternity in Heaven (presumably complete with their Sin) even though God is so Holy that He turned away from Jesus on the cross because He bore our Sin; whereas (b) believe that even though a person committed their life to God through Jesus Christ, it is possible to forfeit spending eternity in Heaven with Him through constant, unrepented Sin.

ps. it is not possible for anyone to 'earn' Salvation - we can only receive it as a Gift of God's Grace.

NightWatchman
Sep 25th 2007, 02:08 AM
The difference between those who believe (a)OSAS and (b)NOSAS is that (a) believe that no matter what Sin without repentance a Saved person gets involved in, they will still spend eternity in Heaven (presumably complete with their Sin) even though God is so Holy that He turned away from Jesus on the cross because He bore our Sin; whereas (b) believe that even though a person committed their life to God through Jesus Christ, it is possible to forfeit spending eternity in Heaven with Him through constant, unrepented Sin.

ps. it is not possible for anyone to 'earn' Salvation - we can only receive it as a Gift of God's Grace.

At the end of one's life, no one has resolved all of their sinful attitudes, and no one has repented of all their sins.
So option (b) is a no-win situation for everyone, there is no room for grace, mercy and forgiveness.

CrunchyChristian
Sep 25th 2007, 10:41 PM
I once heard that it is that way because when in heaven, though we will receive rewards, we will cast our crowns at the feet of God and in the end, God gets all the glory. ALL of it!

I have heard that same thing from a very close friend of mine.

I think you hit it spot on, Gertie. I do believe, though, that it is possible to lose your salvation if you walk away from the Lord. Can you get it back? Yep! I did. :spin:

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 10:49 PM
This came up in another thread and it has been bothering me since... Whats the general consenses on "earning salvation"?

I think someone said (and I won't quote directly because I dunno how) basically, that a once only salvation message was taught by false teachers/preachers - which of course interested and intrigued me cause thats what I have been taught and what I believe.

I personally believe that salvation is something that is given as a free gift of God by his grace, to those who believe and place faith in Christ Jesus, and turn your life and your will to him and ask him to enter your life and be your Lord and Saviour. I believe that salvation is a once only happening. When your choice comes to either accept Christ or reject him and you choose to place your faith in him, then just like that - you are saved. Repentance, confession and a santification process comes as a response to being saved, not as a way of "earning salvation" . So continual sin or unrepentance in some area would not cause a person to need to re-give themselves to the Lord time and time again. As we can only be born of the flesh once, so is it with being born of the Spirit (although the Holy Spirit may empower us and move within us more powerfully at different times for different purposes) we are only -born into- Christ ONCE. If a constant repentance is what is needed to continually assure salvation - then why did Christ bother, we could be striving to constantly repent without Calvery! To me the mere suggestion that constant repentance is nessecary or a salvation requirement negates the power of Christ! Through Christ I am dead to sin and alive in the Spirit, note that - through Christ alone, not through repentance. Now because I am alive with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit I submit myself to the transforming sactification process and I surrender to it willingly in response to my once only salvation - and that is where I find true repentance. Christ wasn't crucified over and over again, just the once. Isn't anything else just a process of attempting to "earn" salvation which completely undermines the amazing gift of God's grace?


K - So thats the basics of the Gertie theology theory.... Just curious because as I say, a comment on false teachings has me intrigued... What do others think? How far wrong is my belief structure?
In regard to the history of "once saved always saved," you might be interested in reading this paper:

http://the7ones.com/2007/04/19/augustine-connecting-link-between-gnosticism-and-modern-calvinistic-theology/

God bless!

Bible Doctrine
Sep 28th 2007, 12:27 PM
Again, when someone can be divinely perfect as Christ was then we can talk about earning and keeping salvation through works. Until then you have only Christ upon which to rely for the gift and the guarantee of salvation.

Steven3
Sep 28th 2007, 12:40 PM
Hi Gertiegirl :)

The reality is that Christian churches of all denominations have a fall-away rate of 50% or more. So irrespective of what people say about being saved, there's a good likelihood that you, and I, and everyone else on this forum could fall away, un-save themselves, before Christ comes or we fall asleep in him (whichever happens first).

1Co 10:1 For I want you to know, brothers, [1] that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were scattered in the wilderness.

Ro 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

And so on. There are hundreds of warnings against unsaving yourself in the Bible. Pretending they aren't there is like driving without a seatbelt.
God bless :)
Steven

Bible Doctrine
Sep 28th 2007, 01:55 PM
There is no such thing as "unsaving" or becoming "unsaved" once you are saved. It is the integrity of Christ that guarantees salvation, not human integrity or else NO ONE would ever get saved and stay saved because it would require divine perfection after salvation to stay saved and ONLY CHRIST can and does provide divine perfection.

Bandit
Sep 28th 2007, 06:07 PM
There is no such thing as "unsaving" or becoming "unsaved" once you are saved. It is the integrity of Christ that guarantees salvation, not human integrity or else NO ONE would ever get saved and stay saved because it would require divine perfection after salvation to stay saved and ONLY CHRIST can and does provide divine perfection.


Hello BD,

I know this was not intended as a "once saved always saved" thread, but there are too many warnings in scripture against falling away. The Parable of the Hard-hearted Servant in Matthew 18 is a particularly clear example. (Though I have heard many pastors try to wiggle their way around it and other warning passages.) If there is no such thing as becoming "unsaved," then there should be no such thing as becoming "unforgiven." I suggest that, as this parable indicates (and many other passages besides), that salvation can be forfeited. In other words, to become "unforgiven" means to become "unsaved." I'm not sure how anyone could deny this conclusion, but many do.

Bandit

Bible Doctrine
Sep 28th 2007, 07:01 PM
Hello BD,

I know this was not intended as a "once saved always saved" thread, but there are too many warnings in scripture against falling away. The Parable of the Hard-hearted Servant in Matthew 18 is a particularly clear example. (Though I have heard many pastors try to wiggle their way around it and other warning passages.) If there is no such thing as becoming "unsaved," then there should be no such thing as becoming "unforgiven." I suggest that, as this parable indicates (and many other passages besides), that salvation can be forfeited. In other words, to become "unforgiven" means to become "unsaved." I'm not sure how anyone could deny this conclusion, but many do.

BanditI'd be glad to discuss each passage which you believe supports your claim. The Bible is famous for providing passages that supports someone's point until a closer examination reveals the have an incorrect understanding of the passage and related doctrines.

Again, a general statement that the Bible says thus and thus is okay but each passage you claim supports your belief I gladly will debate.

Bandit
Sep 28th 2007, 08:04 PM
Hello BD,

In the opening post of this thread Gertiegrl asked about "earning salvation." I mentioned the Parable of the Hard-hearted Servant because it deals so directly with her question. In that parable the servant in question was forgiven his great debt by a compassionate king. Notice that the debt was not paid (nor could it be) and that his forgiveness was unearned. But later, because of that servant's actions, his debt was reinstated. So, what was unearned was subsequently lost. It would appear that Jesus is giving a serious warning here, that being that our own forgiveness, once obtained, can be forfeited. I am not sure how else one can honestly interpret this parable, though I do realize that it throws a "monkey wrench" into many person's theology. All I am saying is what the parable says; forgiveness is unearned, but it also can be forfeited. I have never hear an honest argument concerning this parable to the contrary, though I have heard many who have tried to vehemently deny any connection between the forgiveness portrayed in the parable and salvation. And how they justify separating salvation from forgiveness I do not know. So where do you think I have gone wrong in understanding this parable?

Sincerely,
Bandit

Steven3
Sep 28th 2007, 08:07 PM
Hi Bible Doctrine :)
There is no such thing as "unsaving" or becoming "unsaved" once you are saved. It is the integrity of Christ that guarantees salvation, not human integrity or else NO ONE would ever get saved and stay saved because it would require divine perfection after salvation to stay saved and ONLY CHRIST can and does provide divine perfection.

1. don't you lose people from your church? Don't you have zealous keen Christians who 10 years later deny the existence of God?

2. please see Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-29

Sorry, I don't want to disagree with anyone, but (a) the Bible says that "saved" isn't sure unless you stick with it, (b) telling people otherwise is like persuading people to try flying off office blocks - it will get people killed.

God bless
Steven

Bible Doctrine
Sep 28th 2007, 08:16 PM
Hi Bible Doctrine :)

1. don't you lose people from your church? Don't you have zealous keen Christians who 10 years later deny the existence of God?
Salvation isn't the guarantee that you will be faithful, it is the guarantee of God's faithfulness to you.


2. please see Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-29

Sorry, I don't want to disagree with anyone, but (a) the Bible says that "saved" isn't sure unless you stick with it, (b) telling people otherwise is like persuading people to try flying off office blocks - it will get people killed.

God bless
StevenI see the passage and appreciate your posting them but without you being clear how you are using them as objections to the guarantee that one cannot lose their salvation, I cannot respond effectively to your objections.

Bible Doctrine
Sep 28th 2007, 08:21 PM
Hello BD,

In the opening post of this thread Gertiegrl asked about "earning salvation." I mentioned the Parable of the Hard-hearted Servant because it deals so directly with her question. In that parable the servant in question was forgiven his great debt by a compassionate king. Notice that the debt was not paid (nor could it be) and that his forgiveness was unearned. But later, because of that servant's actions, his debt was reinstated. So, what was unearned was subsequently lost. It would appear that Jesus is giving a serious warning here, that being that our own forgiveness, once obtained, can be forfeited. I am not sure how else one can honestly interpret this parable, though I do realize that it throws a "monkey wrench" into many person's theology. All I am saying is what the parable says; forgiveness is unearned, but it also can be forfeited. I have never hear an honest argument concerning this parable to the contrary, though I have heard many who have tried to vehemently deny any connection between the forgiveness portrayed in the parable and salvation. And how they justify separating salvation from forgiveness I do not know. So where do you think I have gone wrong in understanding this parable?

Sincerely,
BanditI am looking for your post on that and cannot find it. I am either blind or well...in need of a lot of help find the post. Can you and will you point me to it? There are several parables of stewards so I need the passage for specifics and then I can respond. Thanks

But if you mean Matt 18 then let me respond. The context was answering Peter on how he should treat a fellow believer, how often he should or how many times he should forgive that person. Our Lord told Peter "seventy times seven" which is analogous for always or without number. And then he provides the parables about how we are not to keep count of offenses toward us but to forgive and that if we have an unforgiving heart we will reap divine discipline as believers. This is NOT referring in context to anyone's salvation but the temporal experience of forgiveness toward one another as believers and the results of temporal judgment for bitterness and unforgiveness toward believers while on earth.

Bandit
Sep 29th 2007, 02:15 AM
Hello BD,

I mentioned the parable in passing in posts #17 and #19 of this thread. But concerning your interpretation of that parable, on what basis do you claim that it does not concern salvation? Does not salvation itself deal with the forgiveness of sins? I donít see how anyone could think that God could reinstate a personís sin debt and that person still be saved? (That really blows my mind.) You have simply made an unsubstantiated claim that the parable does not relate to salvation. And you have offered nothing from the parable which supports any "temporal judgement," whatever that might mean. You need to consider the very real possibility that you are simply reading your pet doctrine into the parable rather than allowing the parable to speak for itself.

If being saved means having oneís sin debt removed, then the reinstatement of that sin debt means the loss of salvation. It is just that simple. There is just no legitimate way around this conclusion. If what you are saying is true, then the forgiveness of sins does not relate to salvation. Please donít expect me to believe that.

I have heard the "interpretation" you gave many times before. It is simply the only recourse for those who can not accept what the parable clearly implies. And it just goes to show how far some people will go in order to protect their pet doctrines. If you were really honest, you would realize (as I bet you probably do) that a straightforward reading of this parable does not support the OSAS doctrine. So although you might never acknowledge this fact publicly, I bet deep down inside you know that a straightforward reading of this parable does not line up with your theology, but you cover it up anyway with an ill-fitting explanation, hoping no one calls you on it.

And this is why I bring up this parable so often; I can tell very quickly whether or not a person is willing to deal honestly with scripture. Your rendering tells me that you are not yet at the point in your Christian walk where you are willing to deal honestly with such scriptures. I believe a more mature and honest person who believed OSAS would simply admit that this parable does not align with their once saved always saved doctrine. But you probably suspect that such an admission might be the proverbial "foot in the door" which might lead to the ultimate downfall of a cherished doctrine. So rather than risk the chance of having your pet doctrine successfully challenged, you simply refuse to admit the existence of even one opposing passage. And that is too bad, for if you are unwilling to examine scripture honestly, then there is no use in trying to discuss this further; for you are simply going to read your pet interpretation (OSAS) at every turn, whether it fits or not.

Sincerely,
Bandit

My heart's Desire
Sep 29th 2007, 02:28 AM
Hello BD,

I know this was not intended as a "once saved always saved" thread, but there are too many warnings in scripture against falling away. The Parable of the Hard-hearted Servant in Matthew 18 is a particularly clear example. (Though I have heard many pastors try to wiggle their way around it and other warning passages.) If there is no such thing as becoming "unsaved," then there should be no such thing as becoming "unforgiven." I suggest that, as this parable indicates (and many other passages besides), that salvation can be forfeited. In other words, to become "unforgiven" means to become "unsaved." I'm not sure how anyone could deny this conclusion, but many do.

Bandit
Call it unfortunate human logic if I'm wrong but I see the story as an example of simply "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". Love Your neighbor as yourself. Forgive as I have forgiven you. See, it could mean or illustrate lots of things as well as eternal salvation. To me, an eternal salvation is not eternal if you could lose it.

My heart's Desire
Sep 29th 2007, 03:34 AM
I have another comment if I may. I'll assume that we've brought in the thought that somehow, we lose forgiveness or Salvation or we can give back the gift.
I think of Peter's experience but in reverse. In Matt. 26:31-34 Peter didn't intend to or think of giving up or denying Christ (as we are saying that some might) and yet, Jesus told His disciples this:
v. 31 Then Jesus said to them, " You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, " I will strike down the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered".
33. But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away.
See Peter was just the opposite of giving away his gift. He thought that he would never fall away. But it happened, and the Lord knew it would.
In verse 34 Jesus told Peter that yes, Peter would deny Him 3 times. And Peter surely did just that.
We find out in the other gospel accounts, what happened with Peter on the other side of the Cross.
In Mark 16:5-7 At the tomb they saw that the stone had been rolled away. Entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.
But to be specific Verse 7 says:
But go, tell His disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you to Galilee, just as He told you.
Notice the angel said tell His disciples yet he mentions Peter's name separately?

In John: 21:15-17 We recall the conversation of the risen Lord with Peter about love.
About feeding His sheep. And about how Peter would die.
Peter denied the Lord! Whatever the reason, Peter denied Him! And yet Our Lord, sought out Peter and loved Peter and didn't mention that he had denied Him.

Let's go back to Matt 18 but lets look at vs 12-14.
"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?
13: If it turns out that he finds it, truely I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.
14: So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
I guess to me that means, it is not our faithfulness, but it is His faithness.

Steven3
Sep 29th 2007, 09:50 AM
Hi Bible Doctrine :)
Salvation isn't the guarantee that you will be faithful, it is the guarantee of God's faithfulness to you. God will not be faithful to me if I deny him. Neither will Christ. What did Christ say? Besides the fall-off rate in your own church (30%? 50%? 70%?) is evidence that that isn't the case. God does not guarantee salvation to save people against their wishes, people who change their minds and decide they don't want to be saved, or fall away.


I see the passage and appreciate your posting them but without you being clear how you are using them as objections to the guarantee that one cannot lose their salvation, I cannot respond effectively to your objections.Well rather than me interpret Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-29 why don't you post them and say how you read them to say that there's no need to stick with it after being saved? :)

God bless
Steven

Steven3
Sep 29th 2007, 09:54 AM
Hi My Heart's Desire
lovely name :)
I have another comment if I may. I'll assume that we've brought in the thought that somehow, we lose forgiveness or Salvation or we can give back the gift.I don't think anyone is questioning Peter's repentence, but the test case is Judas. Judas was saved - Judas was promised he'd sit on one of the 12 thrones in the kingdom. And yet now he's lost. Just a small but obvious example that OSAS and the related objection to producing fruit as "works" "earning salvation" are the exact opposite of what the NT teaches. :)
God bless
Steven

ikester7579
Sep 29th 2007, 11:17 AM
If the thread goes to much more into a osas vs no-osas it will probably get moved to another section.

So going back to the OP. I would say that you cannot earn salvation. There is a condition to recieving it, which is saying the sinner's prayer a certain way. But that is not earning it, it's fulfilling the condition required to get it.

Example: The sinner's prayer has to:
1) Admit to what Christ did on the cross.
2) That he died and rose in three days.
3) Ask forgivness of sins.
4) Ask Christ into your heart.

So seeing there are conditions, you need to discern from a work and a condition. Like this example:

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

These are conditions to what is next. There are 3 conditions (trinity).

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Steven3
Sep 29th 2007, 12:19 PM
Ikester :)
Sorry about that. But it is difficult to stay on track when the trouble is the OP two questions are one question ;)


This came up in another thread and it has been bothering me since... Whats the general consenses on "earning salvation"?

I think someone said (and I won't quote directly because I dunno how) basically, that a once only salvation message was taught by false teachers/preachers - which of course interested and intrigued me cause thats what I have been taught and what I believe.

I personally believe that salvation is something that is given as a free gift of God by his grace, to those who believe and place faith in Christ Jesus, and turn your life and your will to him and ask him to enter your life and be your Lord and Saviour. I believe that salvation is a once only happening. When your choice comes to either accept Christ or reject him and you choose to place your faith in him, then just like that - you are saved. Repentance, confession and a santification process comes as a response to being saved, not as a way of "earning salvation" . So continual sin or unrepentance in some area would not cause a person to need to re-give themselves to the Lord time and time again. As we can only be born of the flesh once, so is it with being born of the Spirit (although the Holy Spirit may empower us and move within us more powerfully at different times for different purposes) we are only -born into- Christ ONCE. If a constant repentance is what is needed to continually assure salvation - then why did Christ bother, we could be striving to constantly repent without Calvery! To me the mere suggestion that constant repentance is nessecary or a salvation requirement negates the power of Christ! Through Christ I am dead to sin and alive in the Spirit, note that - through Christ alone, not through repentance. Now because I am alive with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit I submit myself to the transforming sactification process and I surrender to it willingly in response to my once only salvation - and that is where I find true repentance. Christ wasn't crucified over and over again, just the once. Isn't anything else just a process of attempting to "earn" salvation which completely undermines the amazing gift of God's grace?


K - So thats the basics of the Gertie theology theory.... Just curious because as I say, a comment on false teachings has me intrigued... What do others think? How far wrong is my belief structure?

Christ wasn't crucified over and over again but it isn't his crucifixion that saves, there were thousands of people crucified by the Romans. What was different about Jesus was 33 years of not sinning over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, every day, culminating in his obediene unto death. Now obviously, because he did that for 33 years, we don't need to (which as just as well as 33 seconds is beyond us), but it doesn't mean I'll get saved and then to make any attempt to put on the new man, or to stick with it, or not deny him, is all works. The reality is Peter didn't "earn" his salvation, but he didn't discard it either - he repented of what he'd done and was forgiven. Judas didn't earn his salvation, Christ earned it for him, but Christ didn't save Judas against Judas' wishes when he chose to throw what Christ had earned away.

However we cut it, the bottom line remains that those Hebrews verses show we must persist, keep on going, and even the externals of church-going are no guarantee - see Matt7 and the scariest verses in the Bible "not everyone who says Lord, Lord".
God bless
Steven

Bible Doctrine
Sep 29th 2007, 01:46 PM
Hi Bible Doctrine :)God will not be faithful to me if I deny him. Neither will Christ. What did Christ say? Besides the fall-off rate in your own church (30%? 50%? 70%?) is evidence that that isn't the case. God does not guarantee salvation to save people against their wishes, people who change their minds and decide they don't want to be saved, or fall away.

Well rather than me interpret Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-29 why don't you post them and say how you read them to say that there's no need to stick with it after being saved? :)

God bless
StevenGod will be faithful to you regardless of your thoughts or actions. When you are born again God becomes your guarantee, not yourself.

You are the person that brought up these passages, it is upon you to make your case. Otherwise you are arguing from silence which is no argument at all.

Bandit
Sep 29th 2007, 04:58 PM
Hello Gertie (and all),

I know it is hard to keep this from becoming an OSAS debate, but given the nature of your opening post, that is pretty much what it really is. The title on your first post was "ĎEarningí salvation." Let it be clearly understood that no one here (as far as I know) claims that one must "earn" their salvation. The real question (which can be broken down into two parts) is whether or not being saved imposes requirements upon the one being saved; and then, if such requirements do exist, can salvation be forfeited through failure to live according to said requirements.

No doubt what you have heard being called "earning salvation" is nothing more than a teaching which says that such requirements exist. Those who object to any such requirements (and object to the potential for subsequent loss of salvation) have incorrectly labeled it as a "earning your salvation" teaching. Please realize that no one here (that I have noticed) actually teaches that we "earn" our salvation; it is only an intentional mislabeling by some of the OSAS proponents of the non-OSAS position (though it is possible there are some who claim one must "earn" their salvation, though I know of no such person here).

Now back to the two parts of the real question. In my mind, proof of the second part implies proof of the first part. (We can discuss this if you like, but I think it should be obvious conclusion, and we can certainly deal with the first part on its own if we have to.) The second part is proven if it can be shown that there are passages which support the existence of apostasy, or if there are warning against committing such. I briefly mentioned the parable of the Hard-hearted Servant in Matthew 18 which exhibits two rather pertinent facts: the first fact being that Godís forgiveness is unearned (forgiveness is by mercy), and the second fact being that Godís forgiveness can be rescinded (God can take it away). The clear implication here is that if salvation is synonymous with being forgiven by God, then being unforgiven by God is synonymous with being unsaved. (As a note, there are some who strongly disagree with this implication, but their disagreements find no support from within the parable itself. The parable is a clear warning of the potential for loss of salvation which many refuse to acknowledge.)

But is this parable the only place in scripture where the potential for apostasy is presented, or where salvation is tied to manís moral behavior? The answer is a resounding, "No!" There are numerous places where the potential for apostasy is discussed or alluded to, and there are many passages which connect salvation to manís moral behavior (i.e., one can not continue to be saved while continuing to live any way they want). Now some might try to turn this into a proof-text battle, and that is certainly not my desire, but it is my desire to explain to you that the belief in apostasy and the requirement for righteous living is not synonymous with "earning" oneís salvation. Please donít fall for that false characterization. It is a cheap shot intentionally designed to misrepresent the facts.

Please let me know if you (or anyone else for that matter) would like to discuss some passages which touch on the question of apostasy, or which tie salvation to how one lives. It is a great mistake to think that these are not connected; the scriptures truly do not teach such a separation. A great many people have fallen into eternal ruin because they have fallen for this false separation and have lived accordingly. I pray that you do not do that.

Sincerely,
Bandit

Tanya~
Sep 29th 2007, 08:15 PM
This came up in another thread and it has been bothering me since... Whats the general consenses on "earning salvation"?

Salvation cannot be earned. It is a free gift.


I think someone said (and I won't quote directly because I dunno how) basically, that a once only salvation message was taught by false teachers/preachers - which of course interested and intrigued me cause thats what I have been taught and what I believe.

Some teach that 'getting saved' is saying a prayer asking Jesus into your heart, and/or walking down an aisle in a church. Once a person does that, they're saved and cannot be lost no matter what they do in the future. This is false teaching. Biblical salvation is by faith in Christ, and to get saved and stay saved, a person must believe and continue to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ.




I personally believe that salvation is something that is given as a free gift of God by his grace, to those who believe and place faith in Christ Jesus, and turn your life and your will to him and ask him to enter your life and be your Lord and Saviour.

It is a free gift, given to all who believe. The turning over of your life and will to God is a process that continues as you grow in Him, and is the fruit rather than the cause of salvation. Asking Jesus to enter your life technically isn't Biblical, since there is no teaching, command, or example of this in Scripture. In the Bible people were always baptized as soon as they believed, because this is what the risen Jesus commanded just before He ascended to heaven, and the apostles were obedient to His command. So the gospel would be preached then when someone believed what they heard, they were baptized (rather than asking Jesus into their heart by a 'sinner's prayer.'



I believe that salvation is a once only happening.

It's something that begins at a certain point and then continues on from there. It's not something that is done once and then that's done so you can go do something else. It's not like getting your high school diploma, which you get once and then you move on.


When your choice comes to either accept Christ or reject him and you choose to place your faith in him, then just like that - you are saved. Repentance, confession and a santification process comes as a response to being saved, not as a way of "earning salvation".

Yes. Our sanctification is a result, not the cause, of salvation.


So continual sin or unrepentance in some area would not cause a person to need to re-give themselves to the Lord time and time again. As we can only be born of the flesh once, so is it with being born of the Spirit (although the Holy Spirit may empower us and move within us more powerfully at different times for different purposes) we are only -born into- Christ ONCE.

That's true, if a person gets caught in sin, they don't then become unsaved because of sin, and need to be re-saved. A person can't 'get saved' more than one time.


If a constant repentance is what is needed to continually assure salvation - then why did Christ bother, we could be striving to constantly repent without Calvery! To me the mere suggestion that constant repentance is nessecary or a salvation requirement negates the power of Christ!

It is not constant repentance, but continued faith that is necessary for continued salvation. Those who do not believe the gospel are not saved. Only believers are saved. It is important to understand though, how sin can harden our hearts and turn us from our faith in God.


Heb 3:12-19

12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, 15 while it is said:

"Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."

16 Failure of the Wilderness Wanderers


For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? 17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

If a believer falls into sin, God will deal with us (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%2012;&version=50;), to correct us. If we continue and rebel against His correction, and are hardened by the deceitfulness of our sin, it is possible for a person to then fall away, that is, to depart from the living God.



Through Christ I am dead to sin and alive in the Spirit, note that - through Christ alone, not through repentance. Now because I am alive with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit I submit myself to the transforming sactification process and I surrender to it willingly in response to my once only salvation - and that is where I find true repentance.

So true.


Christ wasn't crucified over and over again, just the once. Isn't anything else just a process of attempting to "earn" salvation which completely undermines the amazing gift of God's grace?


Heb 9:12
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.


Heb 10:10
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


K - So thats the basics of the Gertie theology theory.... Just curious because as I say, a comment on false teachings has me intrigued... What do others think? How far wrong is my belief structure?

I think you're on track. :) If you can set aside the time, it would be very beneficial to sit down and just read through the book of Hebrews, as it speaks to much of what you're thinking about.


2 Tim 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

gertiegrl
Sep 30th 2007, 12:16 AM
K - Just to keep this on my intended track, because the OSAS/NOSAS whatever debate isn't my intention... but a few comments have raised a further point of unsettle for me...

There seems to be alot of thought that somehow repentence = evidence of faith. So maybe that is my confusion here. So although we all agree that it is through faith in Christ alone that is what assures salvation - but the disagreement seems to be what exactly faith itself is... Because I get the impression (please correct me if Im wrong) that one view is repentence is what shows our faith..

To me, faith is as simply put in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." So that to me does not require anything, not repentance, not anything else, just faith - the assurdness of Christs saving power. That is all that determines salvation.

Now of course if you look to Galatians 5 you can of course argue from the perspective of what Paul was writing regarding Life by the spirit, and in particular the examples of the acts of the sinful nature after which Paul states "5:21... I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God". But to me this does not point to repentence required to maintain salvation... The context that Paul was writing in to these new churches was basically to point out that now they were living in the Spirit, why would they want to return to thier old ways? That they needed to evangalise and bring more of the lost before Christ. This is a church that was falling away from their newfound salvation and living life according to their old ways, not by the spirit and he was encouraging them to live in the freedom that Christ earnt for them. Again, I see it as something we do in response salvation, not because it effects it in any way. Galatians 5 "Its is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery". There are heaps more verses of course along the same lines, but I do not in any way interpret it as a command to repentence, for the sake of salvation, but as an encouragment to stand firm in our positions as spirit filled children of God.

Now I am aware that repentence is also a command, but I guess what Im querying is at what point it becomes a nesscity to assure salvation. I mean take it this way (my favourite example lately, but understand of course that this is the biggest work the spirit has done in me to date, so of course I use the example alot) I am an alcoholic. I have been freed from this, 18 months -after- my baptism (of the Spirit) I finally laid it down before the cross and grabbed hold of God's deliverence. I have been sober for 2 months. Now if I turn back to drunkeness do I become unsaved? The place Jesus holds in my heart wouldn't change, just that I fell to a sinful temptation. I would still attend services, still serve my church, still witness to others, still pray and still have faith in Christ. But would I still have salvation? I believe so, and even if I hadn't repented of this life issue - I still believe in my salvation. Mainly because sin is sin, and Christ crushed Satan underfoot at Calvery and overcame sin, so it has no power over me, now or eternally. Its just whether I apply that power. But repentence or not, that power is there.

Hmmmm, not sure if any of this makes sense or is all just incoherrant rambling, its just I really cannot see how it is possible that through area's of unrepentance in someones life they may possibly forgo thier salvation? Noone is perfect at the point of salvation, so how does it equate that lack of repentence may render a person unsaved? I only argue that repentence is in response to salvation....

My heart's Desire
Sep 30th 2007, 01:09 AM
Hmmmm, not sure if any of this makes sense or is all just incoherrant rambling, its just I really cannot see how it is possible that through area's of unrepentance in someones life they may possibly forgo thier salvation? Noone is perfect at the point of salvation, so how does it equate that lack of repentence may render a person unsaved? I only argue that repentence is in response to salvation....

I know exactly what you are asking and its not alcohol but something else in my life and I've been thru a spiritual battle with.

In Matt. 15:17 - 20 Jesus said that what goes into the mouth and into the stomach is eliminated.
It is the things which come out of the mouth that come from the heart, and those are the things that defile a man.

Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornidcations, thefts, false witness, slanders, These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.

I congratuate you on being sober. I would like to proceed with caution here for you though so I won't go into why I might believe that to drink is not a sin but being drunk may be.
I don't drink but being married to someone who does, I will just say that there is alot of things that are not nice when this person drinks and I'd like to believe that those things do not come from that persons heart, but Jesus said that what comes from the mouth comes from the heart.
I'll just say that after Salvation, there are just some things that are not good for a person, but they don't effect Salvation.
I'll not go farther than to say that if you have the right salvation, then everything else will fall in step with that.

To repent means a change of mind. It means a change of mind, to accept what God said about us being a Sinner and that we need a Saviour. Most people do not think they need a Saviour. To be saved they must change their mind about that and to accept what the Saviour has done for them. A change of mind usually results in a change of life.

Tanya~
Sep 30th 2007, 04:57 AM
Hi Gertie,

The best way to understand Biblical repentance is to go through the Scripture and see what it says about the subject. I would encourage you to use a concordance and study every occurrence of repent(ance). After doing that you will have a better understanding of how the Bible deals with the subject.


There seems to be alot of thought that somehow repentence = evidence of faith. So maybe that is my confusion here. So although we all agree that it is through faith in Christ alone that is what assures salvation - but the disagreement seems to be what exactly faith itself is... Because I get the impression (please correct me if Im wrong) that one view is repentence is what shows our faith..

Repentance always accompanies true faith. John the baptist preached a baptism of repentance. He was the one who prepared the way for the Lord Jesus. Those who believed his message and received his baptism were prepared to receive Jesus. Those who rejected his message and his baptism also rejected the Lord.


Luke 7:26-30
26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is he of whom it is written:

'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.'

28 For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
Notice the similarity of the message of John the Baptist and Jesus:


Matt 3:1-2
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

Matt 4:17
17 From that time [after John had been put in prison] Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Jesus later sent out His 12 disciples to preach the gospel of the kingdom as well:


Mark 6:12
12 So they went out and preached that people should repent.

Later, after the resurrection of Jesus, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given, we can see the same message being preached:


Acts 2:38-41
38 Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

And then of course Paul, the apostle who was chosen last, preached the same message. He recounted his Damascus road experience to King Agrippa. Picking up the narrative after Jesus spoke to Paul:


Acts 26:15-21
15 So I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'

19 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

And Jesus again, in His messages to the 7 churches of the Revelation (chapters 2-3), warned believers who were sinning to repent.



To me, faith is as simply put in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." So that to me does not require anything, not repentance, not anything else, just faith - the assurdness of Christs saving power. That is all that determines salvation.

This is just a definition of faith, and isn't telling the believers how to be saved. I would encourage you to read through the whole book of Hebrews in one sitting if possible, and then you will get a good overview of the whole message being presented.


I see it as something we do in response salvation, not because it effects it in any way.

I don't think Scripture shows repentance as a response to salvation, but the works befitting repentance as a response to true repentance that leads to salvation.


2 Cor 7:10
10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.


Now I am aware that repentence is also a command, but I guess what Im querying is at what point it becomes a nesscity to assure salvation.

Your assurance of salvation is your faith in Christ. But it should be a concern to you that you're seeming to try to bargain about the subject of repentance. This is the flesh talking, not the Spirit. The flesh wants the option to indulge in sin, and never wants to be told that it can't have its lusts fulfilled.


I mean take it this way (my favourite example lately, but understand of course that this is the biggest work the spirit has done in me to date, so of course I use the example alot) I am an alcoholic. I have been freed from this, 18 months -after- my baptism (of the Spirit) I finally laid it down before the cross and grabbed hold of God's deliverence. I have been sober for 2 months. Now if I turn back to drunkeness do I become unsaved?

If I say, "no, you will not become unsaved if you return to drunkenness" would that leave the option open for you to go back to it? Actually, it would, and that little opening may well lead you in exactly that direction. That message wouldn't strengthen you in time of temptation, but weaken you, because it would give you permission to go back to it. If I tell you what Paul would tell you through the Spirit, "drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God" then would that leave the option open for you to go back to it? No, it wouldn't. That would instill the fear of God and encourage you to stay away from it.

In Hebrews we read that sin is deceitful and can lead us to depart from the living God. You don't lose salvation by committing a sin, but if you fall into sin and allow it to deceive you, then you can be led away from faith into complete apostasy (unbelief). And if one is in unbelief, they are not saved. Only believers are saved. That's the danger of sin and why we shouldn't treat it lightly, and why no believer should ever give another believer 'permission' to indulge the thought that they could return to their sin and be okay with God because they once asked Jesus into their life.

The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire. The child of God doesn't do such things. As a child of God, you shouldn't even consider it as an option. If the Lord has done this work in you (and he has), delivering you from your darkness in drunkenness, why would you despise that work and go back to that darkness? That would indeed be a great insult (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%2010:26-39%20;&version=50;) to the Spirit of grace.


The place Jesus holds in my heart wouldn't change, just that I fell to a sinful temptation.

That's the deception of sin. We think we could just indulge in this one thing that the flesh desires, and that wouldn't affect our love for Jesus. It's just not true. You cannot serve two masters.


I would still attend services, still serve my church, still witness to others, still pray and still have faith in Christ. But would I still have salvation?

If Jesus saved you from your sins, and if God delivered you from bondage to alcohol, but you turned back and sold yourself back into bondage, then you would have done what is described in Hebrews 10. To do this is to trample the Son of God underfoot.


I believe so, and even if I hadn't repented of this life issue - I still believe in my salvation. Mainly because sin is sin, and Christ crushed Satan underfoot at Calvery and overcame sin, so it has no power over me, now or eternally. Its just whether I apply that power. But repentence or not, that power is there.

It doesn't work that way though. You can't say that Christ crushed Satan underfoot, and overcame sin on your behalf, yet you choose not to apply the power, and it wouldn't make any difference with regard to your salvation if you choose not to apply the power.


I really cannot see how it is possible that through area's of unrepentance in someones life they may possibly forgo thier salvation? Noone is perfect at the point of salvation, so how does it equate that lack of repentence may render a person unsaved? I only argue that repentence is in response to salvation....

We are God's children, and He is our Father. As our Father, He will work with us. He works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure. When we resist, He will apply pressure. When we resist more, or when we are just sort of dense (as we certainly can be) He will apply more pressure. God doesn't yield to us. We are supposed to yield to Him. If we harden our hearts and refuse to yield, then we are on the road to departing from God. The consequences of sin are very great.

gertiegrl
Sep 30th 2007, 09:53 AM
Thanks Tania,

Repentance always accompanies true faith.
I agree that repentance accompanies true faith, but my confusion lies in the fact that if we repent as a requirement for salvation then it appears to be a process of "earning" salvation (impossible, as it is a free gift by the grace of God) wheras repentance in response to salvation is part of the sanctification process of the Holy Spirit.

John the baptist preached a baptism of repentance. He was the one who prepared the way for the Lord Jesus. Those who believed his message and received his baptism were prepared to receive Jesus. Those who rejected his message and his baptism also rejected the Lord.
I agree with all of this. But in all scriptures quoted, isn't the word "repent" used in those verses meaning as in -turn from unbelief to belief-? Not as -turn from all sin immediately- but as...open your hearts to god and believe? That has been my interpretation anyhow.

This is just a definition of faith, and isn't telling the believers how to be saved. I would encourage you to read through the whole book of Hebrews in one sitting if possible, and then you will get a good overview of the whole message being presented.
Yes, most of Hebrews 11 is meant (in my opinion and limited study) to define faith, and show examples of faith from the OT. However, this definition of faith in its most succinct when considered with the well known "John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" makes me ask, does faith = believes in him?

I don't think Scripture shows repentance as a response to salvation, but the works befitting repentance as a response to true repentance that leads to salvation.
So by true repentance you mean heartfelt turning from old ways and placing faith in Jesus? Maybe that is my confusion... to my understanding, works don't equate in the matter of salvation at all. So any works befitting repentance don't come into the picture - If you are leading a life without following the will of God but following the will of the sinful nature, then true heartfelt repentance of turning to God enters you into a sanctification process by the Holy Spirit. Submitting to that process and being led by the Spirit and bearing the fruit of the Spirit is witness to others of salvation which may be interpreted as repentance through works or acts, but salvation itself is not dependant upon it.

2 Cor 7:10
10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Your assurance of salvation is your faith in Christ. But it should be a concern to you that you're seeming to try to bargain about the subject of repentance. This is the flesh talking, not the Spirit. The flesh wants the option to indulge in sin, and never wants to be told that it can't have its lusts fulfilled.
Whoa - hang on a sec, Im not bargaining the subject of repentance. I am simply clarifying the role repentance plays in salvation. Because from one stance it would appear - perhaps I am unsaved. Perhaps most of the people I attend service with are unsaved, perhaps my Pastor is unsaved, Perhaps the apostle Paul is unsaved "Romans 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing"

Paul goes on to say in "Romans 8 Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"...

So those who are in Christ, who are Spirit filled still wrestle with sin and temptation. Some area's that perhaps they are not repentive of yet - but they are still ...in Christ Jesus... they are saved.

If I say, "no, you will not become unsaved if you return to drunkenness" would that leave the option open for you to go back to it? Actually, it would, and that little opening may well lead you in exactly that direction. That message wouldn't strengthen you in time of temptation, but weaken you, because it would give you permission to go back to it. If I tell you what Paul would tell you through the Spirit, "drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God" then would that leave the option open for you to go back to it? No, it wouldn't. That would instill the fear of God and encourage you to stay away from it.
Hmmmmm, my take is that if you were to say to me "Why (?) would you return to drunkenness, when your Lord and Saviour died to free you from it and you can stand firm and place faith in his promises of love and stregnth to get you through this time of trial" would be much more likely to strengthen anyone battling with sin then to question their salvation and put an enternal judgement that only God is placed to put on anyone into thier head. It also seems to me to be a much more likely and accurate (scripturally speaking) picture of God's forgiveness and Mercy and Grace. When Paul writes "drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God" ,in historical and biblical context I believe he is referring to people who have not allowed Jesus into thier hearts in the first place. The letter of Hebrews was written to recently converted Jews, they needed the encouragment ans support to move from being under law to being under Grace.

In Hebrews we read that sin is deceitful and can lead us to depart from the living God. You don't lose salvation by committing a sin, but if you fall into sin and allow it to deceive you, then you can be led away from faith into complete apostasy (unbelief). And if one is in unbelief, they are not saved. Only believers are saved. That's the danger of sin and why we shouldn't treat it lightly, and why no believer should ever give another believer 'permission' to indulge the thought that they could return to their sin and be okay with God because they once asked Jesus into their life.
Again, I agree with this in its entirety. I do not however see how this points to repentance as a requirement for salvation? Yes you can be led into complete apostasy by continuing sin, and -then- a person may be considered unsaved, but I STILL fail to see how repentance equates to belief or faith.

The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire. The child of God doesn't do such things. As a child of God, you shouldn't even consider it as an option. If the Lord has done this work in you (and he has), delivering you from your darkness in drunkenness, why would you despise that work and go back to that darkness? That would indeed be a great insult (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%2010:26-39%20;&version=50;) to the Spirit of grace.
Agreed completely. But this does not determine salvation. Insult yes, and therefore we would also have to repent of that. But to deem a person unsaved as a result of falling back into habitual sin, completely undermines the Spirit of grace, and then makes salvation appear an "earned" process, which we know it is not.

That's the deception of sin. We think we could just indulge in this one thing that the flesh desires, and that wouldn't affect our love for Jesus. It's just not true. You cannot serve two masters.
Again, agreed.

If Jesus saved you from your sins, and if God delivered you from bondage to alcohol, but you turned back and sold yourself back into bondage, then you would have done what is described in Hebrews 10. To do this is to trample the Son of God underfoot.
My understanding of Hebrews 10 is that it was written to recently converted jews, to whom accepting Jesus as the Messiah still seemed somewhat foriegn. The chapter is more about turning from living by the law, to living by love and accepting the "Good news". To trample the son of God underfoot, would be to deny he is Lord, to deny that he is God, Messiah, and to attempt to live by the law. Just my understanding of which your opinion would be appreciated.

We are God's children, and He is our Father. As our Father, He will work with us. He works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure. When we resist, He will apply pressure. When we resist more, or when we are just sort of dense (as we certainly can be) He will apply more pressure. God doesn't yield to us. We are supposed to yield to Him. If we harden our hearts and refuse to yield, then we are on the road to departing from God. The consequences of sin are very great.
Again, I agree.


OK - So now my head is completely whirling! I am not sure whether I have in the end created a OSAS/NOSAS debate, or what that means in terms of forum rules and guidelines and whether or not this is a long hashed over debate that causes nothign but trouble and discord. I am questioning only due to the fact that I have only ever attended one church in my life, only been taught one doctrine and am interested in opposing views. But as I said, concious of the fact that I don't know where this is headed or if it is indeed an easily inflammed issue - i am gonna highlight this post itself for the mods, to make sure no boundries are being pushed. Feel free to move, close, ignore or whatever mods! I am encouraged by the respectful and helpful replies, just unsure about topic.

Thanks all!

gertiegrl
Sep 30th 2007, 10:11 AM
I congratuate you on being sober. I would like to proceed with caution here for you though so I won't go into why I might believe that to drink is not a sin but being drunk may be.


Thank you for your comments! Just a note for this point, I also believe that to drink is not a sin - Jesus first miracle was to turn water into wine, so its gotta be OK for most! However to be drunk is sinful, and when you're a person like me who can't just have "a drink" without gettign drunk then its better in terms of heartfelt repentance to stay away from the stuff altogether! However I would never judge a Christian who does drink, but when you drink 2 - 3 bottles of wine singlehandledly per day for 7 years... ha ha, I think thats a sinful lifestyle to be repented!

***I would like to point out here that although alcohol is my favourite personal example - I AM NOT asking for anyone to suggest it is permissable for me to drink. I am not in any way suggesting that I can fall back into this sin and convince myself its OK because people told me that I will not be unsaved as a result. That is NOT in any way my intention. I provided that as an example - but I have no desire or temptation to go back to that lifestyle, I am free from that bondage. This topic is not about that - more of a learning process for me regarding repentance and its significance to salvation.***

Steven3
Sep 30th 2007, 03:43 PM
Hi Bible Doctrine :)
I'm pretty well off the board now, more or less, for some time. But I thought I would make one last post.
God will be faithful to you regardless of your thoughts or actions. When you are born again God becomes your guarantee, not yourself.I'm sure God was faithful to Judas too, and Anaias and Saphira, but after being saved by grace, they still threw their salvation away. They scorned God's guarantee and rejected it - as so many have chosen to do since.


You are the person that brought up these passages, it is upon you to make your case. Otherwise you are arguing from silence which is no argument at all.What they say is obvious I didn't think it would need commentary ;)

Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

This means that "saved" Christians need to take care lest there be in any of us an evil, unbelieving heart, leading us to fall away from the living God. We should exhort each other every day that none of us be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. We will only share in Christ, if we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

This means it is next to impossible, in the case of those who have once been saved ("saved" meaning 1. been enlightened, 2. tasted the heavenly gift, 3. shared in the Holy Spirit, 4. tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come) and then after having been saved etc. have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

This means that if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth after having been sanctified", saved, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but only expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. So worse punishment will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace.

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out (24 NT uses here (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2716&Version=kjv)) your own salvation with fear and trembling,

Peter did not "earn" his salvation by repenting, but he did "hold firm", he did "work out his own salvation with fear and trembling". Judas likewise was saved by grace, he did not earn his salvation, but he did not hold firm, he did not let God work in him to "work out his own salvation".

God bless
Steven

Bible Doctrine
Sep 30th 2007, 04:07 PM
Hi Bible Doctrine :)
I'm pretty well off the board now, more or less, for some time. But I thought I would make one last post. I'm sure God was faithful to Judas too, and Anaias and Saphira, but after being saved by grace, they still threw their salvation away. They scorned God's guarantee and rejected it - as so many have chosen to do since. The Bible makes no commentary on the salvation of Annanias and Saphira, only on their being judged temoporally for disobedience. As for Judas, the Bible does not make clear whether he was a believer in Christ as Savior.

So let's look at your text:


Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ďtoday,Ē that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.



Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The most important part of the passage is "It is impossible.....to restore them again to repentance". IF this were talking about losing one's salvation it certainly would not be teaching one cannot be saved again. According to you, if one loses their salvation, it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to renew them again unto repentance. But we know, among those that believe as you do that a person can be saved more than once and this is your practice and the practice of most, if not all who hold to the belief you can lose your salvation.

If this passage is talking about the ability to lose salvation it is also talking about the IMPOSSIBILITY to be saved ever again after that point no matter how much you repent since it says it is "IMPOSSIBLE...to renew them again unto repentance". This flies in the face of even YOUR OWN teaching. So not just on the account of those who hold to O.S.A.S. but on account of your OWN doctrines it cannot be talking about that.

But this is of course not even the context as you imagine but since you do believe that I figured I would argue from the context in which you insist it is and still it cannot hold to the concept this is about losing salvation.

Bandit
Sep 30th 2007, 04:41 PM
K - Just to keep this on my intended track, because the OSAS/NOSAS whatever debate isn't my intention... but a few comments have raised a further point of unsettle for me...

There seems to be alot of thought that somehow repentence = evidence of faith. So maybe that is my confusion here. So although we all agree that it is through faith in Christ alone that is what assures salvation - but the disagreement seems to be what exactly faith itself is...



Yes, your last statement here is true. Much debate does center on what constitutes a real saving faith.




To me, faith is as simply put in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." So that to me does not require anything, not repentance, not anything else, just faith - the assurdness of Christs saving power. That is all that determines salvation.


As Tonya has recommended, Hebrews should be read in its entirety and as a cohesive whole. (Something which is not at all easy, for many people still disagree over this book.) Many try to define faith as something one thinks about Christ, but which makes no demands upon how they live. (If you would read all of Hebrews you should see that this definition of faith does not suffice.) Others say that faith most certainly does make demands upon us. I agree with the latter group. I believe that God through Christ has made promises towards those who follow Him. So to me, faith means taking God at His word; if I serve the Son, I am accepted and loved by the Father. If I refuse to serve the Son, I will be rejected by the Father.

Please read all of Hebrews chapter 11. Which definition of faith (an active following of God, or an "I'll do my own thing" mentality) best fits those described?

Tanya~
Sep 30th 2007, 05:02 PM
Hi Gertie, :hug:

I just want to say that in no way was I saying that a believer who falls into sin becomes unsaved because of the sin. There are some who teach this but I don't agree with it. The same also teach that a person can be saved then unsaved, then saved again, then unsaved, and so on ad infinitum, based on how much sin is in one's life. Some also believe in sinless perfection in this life, which I also don't believe.

I also want you to know that I am not questioning your salvation, or the salvation of any believer who commits a sin. I do think that there is teaching in the church that hinders believers from having victory in their walk though.

I am not interested in a debate about OSAS/NOSAS either. :) My concern is always to encourage believers to believe in and walk in the truth of God's word.


I agree that repentance accompanies true faith, but my confusion lies in the fact that if we repent as a requirement for salvation then it appears to be a process of "earning" salvation (impossible, as it is a free gift by the grace of God) wheras repentance in response to salvation is part of the sanctification process of the Holy Spirit.Repentance is not a 'work' just as faith is not a 'work.' There are works 'befitting repentance,' that show true repentance. Repentance is a condition of the mind and heart, that results in a change in behavior, even if that behavior change comes later.

In the Scripture, we don't find repentance as a response to salvation, but it is a response to hearing the gospel. When the gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit convicts the heart. The person may respond by rejecting the message, or by recognizing they have sinned, and repenting. Repentance is what prepares the way for the Lord. That's why Peter said (1) repent (2) be baptized (3) and you will receive the Holy Spirit. The people heard and obeyed his message right then. If repentance was some kind of work that had to be done, and proven by a period of time of sinlessness, then they would not have been able to be baptized immediately. The 'works befitting repentance' are seen afterwards.


But in all scriptures quoted, isn't the word "repent" used in those verses meaning as in -turn from unbelief to belief-? Not as -turn from all sin immediately- but as...open your hearts to god and believe? That has been my interpretation anyhow.The word 'repent' simply means 'to think differently.' So, yes. It does relate to sin directly though, because it's talking about our sinful ways. Repentance isn't exactly the same thing as belief, it 'makes the way straight' for belief.
Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
Paul echoed this in his farewell address to the Ephesian elders:
Acts 20:20-21
...I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
What repentance equates to is an acknowledgment of sin, but not just to say, "I know that I am a sinner." It is a change of thinking as it concerns my sin, with the intent to turn away from it, to not live any longer in it. Faith toward Jesus is believing that He died to save me from my sin. We can have all the great intentions in the world to turn from sin, but we are powerless to do so apart from Jesus.


However, this definition of faith in its most succinct when considered with the well known "John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" makes me ask, does faith = believes in him?Yes.


So by true repentance you mean heartfelt turning from old ways and placing faith in Jesus?Repentance is the turning from sin; placing faith in Jesus is the belief in the gospel that He died for my sins and rose again. If I say, "I acknowledge I am a sinner, and I believe that Jesus died so I don't have to go to hell" but I have no intention or desire to turn from my sin, then I have not repented, and I don't actually believe the gospel. Jesus didn't just come to take away the punishment for sin. He came to deliver us from its power, so that we can live righteously.


Maybe that is my confusion... to my understanding, works don't equate in the matter of salvation at all. Works are the result of salvation, not the cause. When we are saved, we receive the Holy Spirit. Through the Spirit, God works in us so that we should do those things that please Him. Works are an integral part of salvation but not in the order of works -> salvation. Rather, it is salvation -> works. Salvation leads to godliness, not the other way around.


So any works befitting repentance don't come into the picture - If you are leading a life without following the will of God but following the will of the sinful nature, then true heartfelt repentance of turning to God enters you into a sanctification process by the Holy Spirit. Submitting to that process and being led by the Spirit and bearing the fruit of the Spirit is witness to others of salvation which may be interpreted as repentance through works or acts, but salvation itself is not dependant upon it.Right. Salvation is not dependent on it -- rather, it is dependent on salvation. My case isn't any different from yours. The sin is different, but the problem is the same. I became a believer, but there was a particular besetting sin in my life, and I struggled greatly to try to overcome it. I struggled in vain for a long time. I don't remember how long but it was at least a few years. Why did I have this sin (a work of the flesh), and why didn't I have the fruit of the Spirit???? To make a long story short, I found that it was a lack of understanding -- it was believing wrong things that led to my powerlessness over my sin. Once I understood the truth, that's when everything changed, and I finally got victory over that sin rather than struggling and fighting a losing battle.


Whoa - hang on a sec, Im not bargaining the subject of repentance. I am simply clarifying the role repentance plays in salvation. Because from one stance it would appear - perhaps I am unsaved. Perhaps most of the people I attend service with are unsaved, perhaps my Pastor is unsaved, Perhaps the apostle Paul is unsaved "Romans 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing"

Paul goes on to say in "Romans 8 Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"...This is exactly where my thinking was wrong. I was taught the same thing, and it was this wrong teaching that actually kept me in bondage. This teaching says that since even Paul had no victory over sin in actual practice, neither can we expect to. We are not under any condemnation even though we continue to live in the muck of sin, because of Jesus. The message is that I'm still living in my sin, but it's ok because Jesus took away the condemnation. This in essence is a license to sin. Yet like you, I struggled because I was still under great conviction over it, I was still in bondage to it, and I knew deep down that this could not go on.

I don't think I was unsaved (and I don't think you were either, when you were 'drunking'), but I do know that I was still in bondage to sin. Jesus HAD saved me from my sin, but I just didn't understand really what that meant, and still lived in bondage to that old slave master when I had been set free. It's exactly like the 250,000 American slaves in Texas, who were still in bondage two years after the Emancipation Proclamation. They simply didn't know they were free. They WERE free, but still living in bondage, unnecessarily.

A huge part of what made the difference for me was learning from Romans 6, 7, and 8. Romans 7 is often misunderstood, because in that one section, Paul speaks in the first person, present tense, about a losing battle against covetousness. What most of us don't understand is that he is using a Greek literary device known as the 'gnomic present' which is employed to emphasize a general truth. The context of Romans 7 is LAW, not grace, not the Holy Spirit. What Paul is showing there is that trying to attain righteousness through the works of the law is a losing battle, doomed to futility, leading to a wretched, miserable state. In chapter 7, Paul is not contradicting or negating what he wrote in the previous chapter or the following chapter. In chapter 6 he talks about being set free from slavery to sin. In chapter 7 he talks about how the law cannot save from sin, and vividly describes what it is like to be under the law and wanting to please God. In chapter 8, he talks about how we are set free from the law of sin and death -- through Christ. We are under no condemnation because we can walk by the Spirit rather than in the flesh as is described in Romans 7.

So those who are in Christ, who are Spirit filled still wrestle with sin and temptation. Some area's that perhaps they are not repentive of yet - but they are still ...in Christ Jesus... they are saved. I would encourage you to read all of chapters 6, 7 and 8 together. Wrestle with sin and temptation, yes. Lose the battle? No. We only lose, and give in to temptation because we don't understand that we have been set free and do not have to obey sin. We have been given exactly what we need to resist temptation. Yes, it is a battle. We have to fight it. The problem is that too many believers don't fight. They surrender almost immediately, or if they resist at one point, they do not believe that they can be permanently set free from bondage to their addiction, and always have it in the back of their mind that relapse is not just possible, but inevitable. All that does is give the flesh hope for indulgence. But we can close that door, and live free from that bondage. Even you, or anyone else who considers themselves to be 'an alcoholic' can be set free from that identity. You could get to the point where you don't feel the need to identify yourself by your past sin. You will no longer confess, "I am an alcoholic" but you will say instead, "I am a child of the Living God."


When Paul writes "drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God", in historical and biblical context I believe he is referring to people who have not allowed Jesus into thier hearts in the first place. The letter of Hebrews was written to recently converted Jews, they needed the encouragment ans support to move from being under law to being under Grace.Paul isn't saying that only unbelieving drunkards will not inherit the kingdom. That would be like saying, if you're a believer and a drunkard, you will inherit the kingdom. His warning was to the church, not to unbelievers. It is the same thing when he spoke the same message to the Galatians and the Ephesians. These warnings were given to Christians, for our instruction, so that we would turn from such things.


Again, I agree with this in its entirety. I do not however see how this points to repentance as a requirement for salvation? Yes you can be led into complete apostasy by continuing sin, and -then- a person may be considered unsaved, but I STILL fail to see how repentance equates to belief or faith.It doesn't. Repentance is different from faith. Repentance prepares the way for faith. It would not make any sense to believe that Jesus died to save us from our sins if we have no intention or desire to be set free from our sins. That's how repentance prepares the way for faith. Putting it in master/slave terminology, if you love your master, you do not mind being his slave. You serve him willingly. If someone comes along and says, I have bought you, so now you are free from bondage to your master. Will you turn away from your old master and go to your new master? Repentance is turning away from the old master, and submitting to the new master. We do not continue to serve the old master. We serve the new Master. Our new Master gives us life, whereas our old master is killing us.

Bandit
Sep 30th 2007, 08:19 PM
Quote:



Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The most important part of the passage is "It is impossible.....to restore them again to repentance". IF this were talking about losing one's salvation it certainly would not be teaching one cannot be saved again. According to you, if one loses their salvation, it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to renew them again unto repentance. But we know, among those that believe as you do that a person can be saved more than once and this is your practice and the practice of most, if not all who hold to the belief you can lose your salvation.

If this passage is talking about the ability to lose salvation it is also talking about the IMPOSSIBILITY to be saved ever again after that point no matter how much you repent since it says it is "IMPOSSIBLE...to renew them again unto repentance". This flies in the face of even YOUR OWN teaching...



Hello all,

I know these passages are much debated, especially the Hebrews 6:4-6 passage, but the claim that these passages teach that restoration is completely impossible is perhaps not as full-proof as some might think. BD said the most important part of the Hebrews 6 passage is "it is impossible...to restore them again to repentance," but this is not the only part of the passage. Another important part is just who cannot be restored. As Hebrews 10:26 makes clear, it is those who "go on sinning deliberately." In Hebrews 6:6 the Greek likewise indicates that those in question are in an active, ongoing state of rebellion. And the Greek also seems to be saying that "it is impossible...[for you] to restore them again to repentance." So, rather than this being a definite impossibility of it ever happening, it is more of a relative impossibility. As long as these persons are in an active state of rebellion, they cannot be restored. (But canít this be said of everyone?)

And these two passages are not the only two relating to the question of restoration. Other passages seem to point to the possibility of restoration, but again, only after the active rebellion ceases. The Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 is a good example. As it says, it wasnít until after the son came to his senses, that he returned and repented. So this parable kind of supports what Hebrews 10:26 seems to indicate: that someone currently engaged in rebellion must first come to their senses and realize the error of their ways before they can be restored.
And there are other passages like Romans 11:23 which indicate that restoration is possible for those who were broken off if they do not continue in unbelief. But there actually may be a point of no return, meaning that there may be some point at which rebellion is without cure, but I do not believe we can make a general statement to the effect that restoration is never possible. I think God only knows all the circumstances of any particular situation.

Sincerely,
Bandit


P.S. As Luke 15:10 says, "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Bible Doctrine
Sep 30th 2007, 08:37 PM
Hello all,

I know these passages are much debated, especially the Hebrews 6:4-6 passage, but the claim that these passages teach that restoration is completely impossible is perhaps not as full-proof as some might think. BD said the most important part of the Hebrews 6 passage is "it is impossible...to restore them again to repentance," but this is not the only part of the passage.... And the Greek also seems to be saying that "it is impossible...[for you] to restore them again to repentance." So, rather than this being a definite impossibility of it ever happening, it is more of a relative impossibility. As long as these persons are in an active state of rebellion, they cannot be restored. (But can’t this be said of everyone?)
Well, the Greek does not agree with your case. Here, parapipto is an Aorist Active Particple and specifically with an Ingressive use. This means that "fallen away" is referring to an act at some point in the past without reference to ongoing conditions and there is no implication of ongoing action.

If indeed the writer meant to convey "fallen away" carries with it continued falling away he would have use the present tense, generally a broad tense.

gertiegrl
Sep 30th 2007, 08:46 PM
OK, Thank you all for your considered replies! I think I understand all sides and am sorting out my conclusions. I also believe that much of what was causing confusion for me is just different terminology, we are probably pretty much all agreed.

TanyaP, In particular this stood out for me in your reply...

I would encourage you to read all of chapters 6, 7 and 8 together. Wrestle with sin and temptation, yes. Lose the battle? No. We only lose, and give in to temptation because we don't understand that we have been set free and do not have to obey sin. We have been given exactly what we need to resist temptation. Yes, it is a battle. We have to fight it. The problem is that too many believers don't fight. They surrender almost immediately, or if they resist at one point, they do not believe that they can be permanently set free from bondage to their addiction, and always have it in the back of their mind that relapse is not just possible, but inevitable. All that does is give the flesh hope for indulgence. But we can close that door, and live free from that bondage. Even you, or anyone else who considers themselves to be 'an alcoholic' can be set free from that identity. You could get to the point where you don't feel the need to identify yourself by your past sin. You will no longer confess, "I am an alcoholic" but you will say instead, "I am a child of the Living God."

I agree with this completely, and believe that the book of Romans speaks powerfully to most people struggling under sin and bondage today because as you say Chapters 6, 7, and 8 clearly show how we have been freed. Not by repeating the stories of how Christ overcame, but clearly outlining the work of the Spirit and how he wants to and is able to dominate over the sinful nature in our life every day. I see those chapters in Romans being a clear illustration of what life is like without the Holy Spirit and what the Spirit will accomplish and free us from.

Bandit, Thanks for your replies!

Please read all of Hebrews chapter 11. Which definition of faith (an active following of God, or an "I'll do my own thing" mentality) best fits those described?
I agree that all examples in Hebrews 11 show an active following of God. And I also believe that this is a nessecity in the Christian walk - for our own personal growth and in obedience to God. However, I do not think that it determines salvation.

Steven, Hiya, and thank you!

Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

Now I recall as a brand new Christian I found this verse and as I have said, was struggling in bondage with many issues - and I recall bursting into tears at a meeting with my Pastor and throwing this very verse at him and suggesting there was absolutely no point in being a Christian at all because it didn't matter what I did I could not make myself be perfect, every day I had sin issues, so I would burn in hell anyway. All Christians continue to sin, every day. Some perhaps are deliberate too. I think that a misinterpretation of this verse is very dangerous and harmful to evangalism and the rescue of lost. As I say, this very verse almost had me turn my back on the Lord completely - due to misinterpretation. The way it has since been taught to me in order to clarify it better, was that if you consider that the new converts from the jewish beliefs had until the coming of the messiah been living a life of ritualistic sacrifices and offerings. So if they stuffed up, they just made another sacrifice. And this continued every time a law was broken. This verse points to the fact that unless Christ is accepted and Saviour and as the ultimate sacrifice - there is no other option. There is no sacrifice that is worthy. So basically, don't think that if you're living under the law and making blood offerings repetitively for sin that you're saved. This verse by my understanding, points more to the fact that Christ Jesus is the ONLY Saviour, only Lord, only worthy sacrifice - NOT as a command to repentance, or as an argument that salvation requires repentance.

In saying that though, I must acknowledge of course that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and is as relevent today as it was when written, even out of historical context. The Holy Spirit convicts us each in different ways through the same verses. So basically, I think that with prayerful consideration each of us, to a point, can draw personal conclusions.

thanks for all the replies! As I say, i have a greater understanding now of other peoples views, and things to mull over!

Bandit
Oct 1st 2007, 12:53 AM
Well, the Greek does not agree with your case. Here, parapipto is an Aorist Active Particple and specifically with an Ingressive use. This means that "fallen away" is referring to an act at some point in the past without reference to ongoing conditions and there is no implication of ongoing action.

If indeed the writer meant to convey "fallen away" carries with it continued falling away he would have use the present tense, generally a broad tense.


Hello BD,

I think you misunderstood my last post, for you are looking at the wrong place (at least concerning my post). I never said anything concerning the aorist participle used for "fallen away." Allow me to highlight the part of Hebrews 6:4-6 more pertinent to my post.

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have ... and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Notice that the text seem to say that it is impossible to restore these since they are crucifying Him and holding Him in contempt. (These are present participles consistent with an active, present state of rebellion.) There is at least the possibility that restoration could happen if these were to stop their rebellous acts and repent. And as I tried to point out, such a possibility is consistent with some other passages (which I mentioned a few). I think you somehow missed the point I was making. Let me know if this helps clear things up.

Bandit

Bible Doctrine
Oct 1st 2007, 10:42 PM
Hello BD,

I think you misunderstood my last post, for you are looking at the wrong place (at least concerning my post). I never said anything concerning the aorist participle used for "fallen away." Allow me to highlight the part of Hebrews 6:4-6 more pertinent to my post.

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have ... and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Notice that the text seem to say that it is impossible to restore these since they are crucifying Him and holding Him in contempt. (These are present participles consistent with an active, present state of rebellion.) There is at least the possibility that restoration could happen if these were to stop their rebellous acts and repent. And as I tried to point out, such a possibility is consistent with some other passages (which I mentioned a few). I think you somehow missed the point I was making. Let me know if this helps clear things up.

Bandit
You are obligated to explain and justify what "crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm" means and why it means what you believe it means. Simply saying it refers to someone continuing in rebellion doesn't work.

hyerin
Oct 2nd 2007, 09:23 AM
I think you are right about salvation being a one free gift, however when you do sin, you must repent each time. We are still sinners, and not free from sin.

Bandit
Oct 3rd 2007, 01:35 AM
You are obligated to explain and justify what "crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm" means and why it means what you believe it means. Simply saying it refers to someone continuing in rebellion doesn't work.


Hello BD,

If it were simply a matter of explaining something for the first time, I would have no problem, but I have already offered much more explanation than you have, and to no avail. All you have done is reject everything I have said - and without offering any clear rationale of your own. I tied 4 different passages together in post #42 to make a plausible case, and other than an irrelevant observation on your part concerning one of those passages, Hebrews 6 (which I did address in post #45), you have offered nothing. You know, I think the real problem here is that you are not going to accept anything from anyone which does not jive with your preconceived doctrinal position. So letís see, you havenít really addressed anything I have said in a substantial way, and you really havenít offered anything substantial for me to address in return. This discussion (if you could call it that) has been very one-sided. So I believe the ball is really in your court if you want to pursue it. As I see it, I have offered two posts (#42 and #45) which you have not yet addressed. I believe I have made a reasonable argument that apostasy need not always be an irreversible condition. You have as of yet to address that argument. As I see it, this discussion is going nowhere fast
.

Bandit