Farrell Till

As I noted earlier http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=173498&page=2 post#45, Bible John’s website indicates that he believes in the doctrine known as the perseverance of the saints or the impossibility of apostasy. In simpler terms, this doctrine claims that once a person is saved, he is always saved and cannot later lose his “salvation.” Because Bible John speaks rather smugly about “false Christians” and “false doctrines,” I have decided to take the time to show that this doctrine is contrary to rather clear NT passages so that others can see that he really has little room to talk about “false Christians.” In this thread, I will be affirming the following proposition:

Resolved: The New Testament teaches that a person who has been saved can fall from that state and lose his salvation.

To make this discussion applicable to biblical errancy, I am going to begin by saying that there are some NT passages that seem to indicate that "salvation" once obtained will be permanent. However, there are numerous passages that are so clear in teaching that "salvation" can be lost that either (1) the first category of passages must not mean that "salvation" is permanent, or else (2) the NT teaches that "salvation" is a tenuous state that can be lost. There is, of course, a third alternative: the NT contradicts itself on this point. I'm sure, however, that this is not an alternative that Bible John will want to accept.

Probably the best known "proof text" of those who believe in the perseverance of the saints (impossibility of apostasy) is 1 John 39.

A related text is in 1 John 518.

Do these passages mean that one who has been "born of God" (whatever that means) just cannot commit acts that the Bible calls "sin"? If so, then Bible John must argue that Christians (real Christians, of course) cannot perform the acts of lying, stealing, killing, etc., but to argue this would be to take a position that is obviously contrary to reality. Besides this problem, Bible John must explain to us NT passages much plainer than those quoted above, which clearly teach that people can and do sin after they have been "saved." One of the most obvious of these passages is Hebrews 6:4-6.

If this passage does not teach that a "saved" individual can lose his "salvation," then Bible John will have to argue that being once enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, sharing in the Holy Spirit, and tasting the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come do not bring one into a condition of "salvation," but if that is the case, then exactly what must one do in order to attain that state? My goodness, what does Bible John think that one would have to do beyond those steps listed above to obtain this state of "salvation" that the NT speaks of?

That these people were in a state of "salvation" or rather that the writer had at least thought they were in this state is evident from his statement that they had "fallen away" (v:6). What exactly had they fallen away from if it wasn't a state of salvation? After all, these people in addition to having once been enlightened, having tasted the heavenly gift, having partaken of the Holy Spirit, etc., had also repented, because the writer said that if they "fell away" from the things listed above, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance again. The fact that he spoke of "renewing" them to repentance must mean that he thought that they had previously repented. So look at what we have.

1. These people had repented.
2. These people had been enlightened.
3. These people had tasted the heavenly gift.
4. These people had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
5. These people had tasted the good word of God.
6. These people had tasted the power of the ages to come.

Why then were these people not "saved"? If Bible John is going to claim that they were not "saved," I would like for him to explain to us exactly what a person must do in order to be "saved."

Finally, these people had also "fallen away," so they had fallen away from something. What was it that they had “fallen away” from if it was not a state or condition of "salvation"? Furthermore, the writer said that it was impossible to renew them again to repentance, so rather than teaching once-saved-always-saved, the Hebrew writer taught that it was possible to fall away from "salvation" to an extent that made it impossible to be saved again.

The passage just analyzed {Hebrews 6:4-6) barely scratches the surface of New Testament passages that clearly teach that “salvation” can be lost after it has been obtained. The apostasy of Simon the Sorcerer in Samaria is an example that Bible John cannot reconcile with his claim that “salvation” once obtained cannot be lost.

The apostasy of Simon is related in Acts 8.

The preceding verse said that the Samaritans believed what Philip preached to them, and that they were baptized both men and women. If what Jesus allegedly said in Mark 16:16 is true (he that believes and is baptized shall be saved), then the Samaritans at this point were "saved."

If not, why not?

To say that the Samaritans were “saved,” however, presents some serious problems to Bible John’s once-saved-always-saved belief as the story of the Samaritan conversions continues.

The Greek word translated even in verse 13 was kai, which would carry the sense of "also." (See Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, section II, definition 1.) It is so translated in some versions of Acts 8.

So what the Samaritans did, Simon also did. If the Samaritans were saved when they believed Philip's preaching and were baptized, then Simon too was saved when he also believed and was baptized.

If not, why not?

We could approach this in reverse. If Simon was not saved when he believed Philip's preaching and was baptized, then none of the Samaritans were saved either, because Simon also did what the Samaritans had done. To say that Simon was “saved,” however, will present some serious problems to Bible John’s once-saved-always-saved belief.

I will ask Bible John to notice that this verse says that the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God. If this does not mean that the Samaritans were "saved," then accepting the "word of God" must not bring about a state of salvation. Furthermore, if the Samaritans were not "saved," why did the apostles send Peter and John to them to do the following?

Thus, Simon also believed and was baptized, but after he believed and was baptized, he committed the sin of offering a bribe to the apostles to give him the power to impart the Holy Spirit through the laying on of his hands. Peter described his condition as being in the "gall of bitterness and the chains wickedness." Perhaps Bible John will tell us if one who is in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness would be in a "saved" condition?

If once-saved-always-saved is a NT doctrinal truth, then why did Simon ask for Peter's prayer that "nothing of what you have said may happened to me," because if he was saved, he was saved and, according to Bible John, would have been in a state of eternal security? If Bible John says that he wasn't saved, then he will have to say that none of the Samaritans were saved, because the text clearly says that Simon also believed and was baptized. Furthermore, if none of the Samaritans were saved, then why did the apostles impart to them the Holy Spirit?

I still have barely scratched the surface of New Testament passages that teach the conditional state of “security” or “salvation.” To sustain his belief in the perseverance of the saints, Bible John will have to explain away the following New Testament scriptures that teach the possibility of losing one’s “salvation.”

If Bible John is going to deny that this passage teaches the possibility of apostasy, he will have to show us three things: (1) escaping the defilements of the world through a knowledge of “our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” doesn’t mean that the person so described is in a “saved” condition, (2) knowing "the way of righteousness" does not bring about a state of "salvation," and (3) being entangled again in the defilements of the world would put a person in a worse state than he was in before he had escaped the defilements of the world. In other words, Bible John will have to explain how being lost would be a worst state than being lost.

If “salvation” is permanently secured after the individual obtains it, Bible John needs to explain why the apostle Paul put a provision or condition to the Colossians’ having been “reconciled in his fleshly body through death,” which condition was that they would have to “continue securely established and steadfast in the faith.” Why would such a condition not indicate that Paul understood that it would be possible for Christians not to continue securely established and steadfast in the faith and thereby lose the reconciliation that they had previously obtained?

This is about as plain as anything could be. The apostle Paul said that those who wanted to be justified by the law had “cut [themselves] off from Christ” and had “fallen away from grace,” but Bible John believes that it isn’t possible to be cut off from Christ after having been saved or to fall away from grace. Clearly, he has some explaining to do.

I will ask Bible John to notice the condition at the end of this passage. If it impossible to lose one’s salvation,“ why is the condition there? Didn’t the apostle Paul know that he and the Galatian Christians were going to reap at harvest time come what may? Why did he tell them that they would reap if they did not give up?

Paul said that the Romans had to continue in the kindness of God toward them or they would otherwise “be cut off,” but Bible John claims that once one is saved it is impossible to lose his “salvation.” He has a lot of explaining to do.

I could continue indefinitely quoting scriptures that clearly teach the possibility of apostasy, but these are enough to keep Bible John busy for a long time. If he can satisfactorily explain them away, I have others to quote.

Chili

Not really Farrel because according to John salvation is like metamorphosis and I do not think that the pupa stage can ever revert to the larva stage. Do you?

I will read your post later and show where, how and why you are wrong.

Chili

Sorry Farrel, this response posted 4 times for some reason, but it failed to move to the top.

Chili

Bump

Helpmabob

Hi Farrell Till – Although I believe in the perseverance of the saints, whether a man believes this or not or has no view on whether someone can lose his salvation adds no part to that man’s salvation. God’s grace is sufficient.

Allow me to attempt to address two passages you have quoted?

In Colossians 1:23 and Galatians 6:9, one reading of the passage could appear to suggest that there is a condition attached. You are looking at them from the perspective that salvation is unsure. But if we look at it in the context that it is impossible for God to lose those He has promised to save it changes. If we add to:

‘if we do not give up’ the proviso ‘but we cannot give up’ and to;

‘provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith’ the proviso ‘we will remain secure in His love’;

these passages become a source of consolation to the Christian, not a concern. So it seems to depend on which perspective you choose, but obviously I haven't proved here which perspective is the correct one.

mikem

Farrell, You are right to point out that there are passages in Scripture that go against the notion of the perseverence of the saints. That idea is based however, not on specific verses, but on the logic of Calvinism, encapsulated in the acrostic TULIP:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints.

The argument roughly goes as follows: Huamity as a result of the fall, is incapable of contributing to it's own salvation. It is not aware of it's sinfulness, and if it was, would have no desire to do anything about it. God knew from all eternity that this would be the case, and therefore resolved to save some individuals, but not all. He elected them to be saved. This had nothing to do with any merit on their part, since they had none, and if they did, and God choose them on that basis, then it could be said that they had contributed towards their own salvation, which would undermine the soverignty of grace.

Having decided that he was going to save some from sin, God then choose the means of their salvation - the death of Christ. However this death was actually effective in saving individuals, it was not merely an opportunity for salvation. Those for whom Christ died would be saved. Hence it follows, that because not all are chosen not all would be saved, and so Christ did not die for all, but only the elect. However, because we are dead in sin, God needed to awaken those who were to be saved to their true condition, and bring them to faith in Christ - hence Grace is irresistable. Grace is also offeredto those who have not been elected to salvation, but this is not irresistable, and so is resisted. This accounts for those who appear to be Xtians, but eventually fall away Some of the verses you have quoted apply to this category.

Finally, it follows from everything that has gone before, that those who have been elected in eternity, and called in time by the irrestible urgings of the Spirit, cannot finally lose their salvation. This is not possible, because their salvation is entirely God's work from start to finish - even the faith that saves them is God's gift.

So if you are going to take on Bible John, you are not just taking on the specific issue of "once saved, always saved", you are taking on an entire theology.

Frankly, if I were you, I simply wouldn't bother with this nonsense.

Chili

Yes Farrel, these three alternatives are possible as seen from the outside because it seems that one cannot be saved and at the same time not be saved.1 John 3:9 works for me: "No one who is begotten of God acts sinfully because he remains of God's stock; he cannot sin because he is begotten of God."Acts of lying, stealing and killing are defined by the law and those who have been set free from the law of slavery and sin can obviously not be convicted by this law. Gal.5:1-4 tells us that Christians are set free from religion an thus also from the law that is needed for the conviction of sin.

The salvation of Hebrews 6:4-6 is obviously not of God because if it was it would indeed contradict 1Jn.3-9. It must be something like a toy steering wheel that makes people think that they are in charge of their own destiny while in fact they are not.

The distinction between these two kinds of salvation is made in John 1:13 where we can be begotten by God or by carnal desire which obviously is not of God. Hence the word "but" in "who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it but by God.Let's just leave Bible John out of this for now and let me tell you that one just has to be a Catholic of good faith (whatever that means) to be begotten in faith by God because the Church does not encourage bible reading to be saved. John 5:39-40 has a clear warning in this regard where we are not encouraged to search the scriptures to be saved: "[you] search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life--they also testify on my behalf. Yet you are unwilling to come to me to get that life."They had fallen away from God's favor by seeking justification in the law after having found favor with Christ. This would be from Gal.5:4.

They did repent but the very "I" that did the repenting was not part of the repented. Hence they received the carnal desire kind of salvation as per John.1:13.Yes they were saved but salvation is just the beginning of the race, as Paul put it. It is in completing this race that victory is ours.From Christ and therefore from God's favor.

Impossible yes because they have been awakened before God's own time, as Songs 2:7 puts it. The Church would say that they have fornicated their own spiritual virginity (eg. the rape of Mary) by storming the doors to the sacred instead of allowing salvation to come from above like a thief in night.

I really don't want to get into your take on Acts 8 because it includes what we call hell on earth and that would be just opposite to heaven on earth. This is based on the idea that if heaven on earth is a state of mind hell on earth would be it's counterpart that must necessarily exist to make this pair of opposites known. Peter described this condition as being in the "gall of bitterness and the chains wickedness" that would be ours when the baptism of fire is acquired by human desire instead of the will of God.

Johnny Skeptic

Farrell, I don't know how much you know about Chili, but he does not really believe anything at all that he posts. He has admitted on several occasions that he visits the Secular Web only for entertainment. He might be a lonely recluse looking for someone to talk to. Chili does not attempt to persuade, but to engage. Don't expect to have intelligent discussions with him. It ain't gonna happen. I no longer reply to his posts.

Chili

Thanks Johnny, I am sure that Farrel will be glad to know that but don't you think that it is rather intelligent to say that one cannot be saved and not saved?

And don't you like my toy salvation idea that keeps the conversation going while the NT remains inerrant?

I think I'll stop here since the conversation will probably end here.

Farrell Till

If you are going to address me by name, do try to learn how to spell it. That shouldn't be too difficult for someone who seems to think that he has the answer for everything. <edit>... I am going to reply to this post in order to point out to readers what you are not addressing. If you then fail to respond to my major points, I won't waste any more time on you. <edit>

Well, I agree with that. It is sort of equivalent to saying that one cannot be stupid and at the same time not be stupid. So what exactly do you think you are rebutting with this comment? I have not said that the NT teaches that one can be in a state of "salvation" and simultaneously not be in a state of "salvation." If you intended an analogy here, you simply didn't understand my rebuttal arguments. Take, for example, the case of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, which we will later see that you refused to address. As I showed in my post, when he also believed what Philip had preached and was baptized, he, according to Jesus in Mark 16:16, put himself into a state of "salvation," but after being in this state, he so conducted himself that he lost that state of "salvation." Hence, I was not saying that Simon was simultaneously both "saved" and not "saved." He was "saved" but later became not "saved."

I think that is clear enough that even you should understand it.

Try to remember, Chili, what I said at the beginning of my post.

This is one of the passages that does seem to teach the permanence of "salvation," but as I went on to point out, there are so many NT passages that teach the opposite that one must either say that one set of passages must not mean what they seem to be saying or else acknowledge that the NT contradicts itself on this point. I then went on to point out that there are so many examples of "saved" people who later lost that "salvation" and passages that clearly teach the distinct possibility of apostasy that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints rests at best on tenous ground.

When did I say that the NT teaches that Christians will be "convicted by the law [of Moses]"? I have said no such thing. I have, however, shown that the NT teaches very clearly that after a person is "saved," he can lose that state of "salvation." If that is not so, then there are numerous NT passages that make no sense at all. The apostle Paul, for example, said that he "buffeted" his body and brought it "into subjection lest by any means after that [he] had preached to others [he himself] might be rejected" (1 Cor. 9:27). It's too bad you didn't live back then. You could have told Paul that he was concerned about nothing because he had been "saved" and so it just wasn't possible for him to be rejected. Perhaps you could have put him at ease by telling him that it wasn't possible to be saved and not saved at the same time.

Just for the fun of it, why don't we look at another text by the apostle Paul in which he clearly taught that "salvation" once obtained could afterwards be lost. It followed on the heels of the passage just cited.

If it is doctrinally true that "saved" individuals cannot lose their "salvation," this passage makes no sense at all. Why would Paul have gone to such lengths to issue this warning to the Corinthians Christians if he understood that it was impossible for them to lose the "salvation" that they had attained?

You are now trying to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. Your "argument" is that 1 John 3:9 teaches that once a person is "saved" he is always saved, so Hebrews 6:4-6 must not mean that "salvation" can be lost after it is obtained, because if it does, there is a contradiction in the Bible. It would be just as valid to argue that 1 John 3:9 must not mean that it is impossible for a "saved" person to commit sins, because if it does, it would contradict Hebrews 6:4-6 and various other texts, which teach that Christians can not only sin after being "saved" but can so sin that they will lose their "salvation." One argument would be just as valid as the other.

If you try to reply again, Chili, don't forget to address this point.

You are still arguing from the assumption of biblical inerrancy. You are saying that passages like Hebrew 6:4-6 must not mean what they clearly say, because if they do, the New Testament contradicts itself.

Here is what John 1:13 says in its context.

This text is saying no more than that people are not "saved" by their own plans of "salvation" but by "God's." Your task now is to show us that those who did everything attributed to them in Hebrews 6:4-6 were somehow not "born of God." Here is what the writer said that they had done.

1. They had repented.
2. They had been enlightened.
3. They had tasted the heavenly gift.
4. They had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
5. They had tasted the good word of God.
6. They had tasted the power of the ages to come.

You are, therefore, claiming that people who repent, become enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God, and taste the power of the ages to come have somehow failed to be "born of God." That is a position that makes no sense at all, just as it makes no sense to argue that those who have "escaped the defilements of the world through a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ" are somehow not "saved" (2 Peter 2:20), but "Peter" nevertheless said in this passage that those who so escape will be in a worse state than their first one if they become entangled again in the defilements of the world and are overcome by them.

Sorry, Chili, but you are ignoring NT passages that clearly teach that there is a constant danger of losing "salvation" after it is obtained.

Well, Chili, is the one who is going to be left out of this if he doesn't start trying to answer my arguments. I am not going to waste time on someone who trolls a forum just to try to divert attention to himself.

Since Chili has presumed to reply to a post that I addressed to Bible John, I will put my question directly to him: what does Chili think that one would have to do beyond those steps listed above to obtain this state of "salvation" that the NT speaks of?

Ignore this question again, Chili, and I will ignore you.

But Galatians 5:4 is not the passage under consideration; 2 Peter 2:20-22 is the proof text that I presented.

Now where does this text even hint that "Peter" was referring to those who were "seeking justification in the law after having found favor with Christ"? But even if this was what "Peter" was referring to, it would, nevertheless, be true that he was saying that after escaping from the defilements of the world through a knowledge of Jesus Christ it was possible to become entangled in those defilements again and overcome, a state or condition that he said would be worse than their first state.

Just to show that there is nothing in the broader context of this passage to indicate that "Peter" was talking about those who had sought justification through the law, I will quote for Chili's consideration all of the verses in this chapter that preceded the ones I quoted above.

Notice that this verse refers to those who had been "bought" by the Master but later denied him to bring destruction on themselves. This statement makes no sense at all if "Peter" thought that loss of "salvation" was not possible.

Notice that "Peter" said that angels sinned and were cast into hell and kept in chains until the judment, so Chili must think that even though angels can fall from grace and lose their blessed state, ordinary humans who attain a state of "salvation" cannot lose that state.

Now just where does the broad context of 2 Peter 2:20-22 say anything about those who were "seeking justification in the law after having found favor with Christ"? There is nothing here to indicate that "Peter" was referring to this, but he obviously was warning his readers of the danger of losing favor with God after having once obtained it. Furthermore, as I said above, even if "Peter" was talking about those who were "seeking justification in the law after having found favor with Christ," the passage would still be warning of a danger of losing "salvation" after it had been obtained.

I suppose everyone noticed that Chili is simply arguing by assertion. He made no attempt to prove that the text was referring to "the repenting [that] was not part of the repented" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). I assume that everyone also noticed that Chili argues by assertions that make no sense and leaves them hanging without any effort on his part to explain what they mean or to prove that the passages in question were saying what he claims. I, on the other hand, have given mountains of evidence that passages like 2 Peter 2:20-22 clearly taught that "salvation" can be lost after it is once obtained.

Can't Chili see that he has made a damaging admission here? If "salvation" is, as he said, "just the beginning of the race" and if only "in completing this race [the] victory is ours," Chili has admitted what I have shown to be the clear meanings of various NT passages: [I]Once a person has attained "salvation," he can lose it if he doesn't complete the race.

Is there any need to continue this discussion?

When Chili makes sense, I will try to reply to him, but when he does nothing but post nonsensical assertions for which he offers no supporting evidence, there is no need to dignify the nonsense with serious attempts to rebut that which is not even comprehensible.

Well, I can certainly see why Chili doesn't "want to get into [my] take on Acts 8," because it gives a clear example of a person (Simon the Sorcerer) who obtained "salvation" and then lost it. As for his nonsensical comments about "heaven on earth" and "hell on earth," I will gladly comment on them when he offers textual evidence that Peter was referring only to a state of mind known as "hell on earth" when he said that Simon was in "the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness."

Now here is a final word to Chili. <edit>...start making serious attempts to debate or else go waste someone else's time. I have taken a large part of my day to reply to your post, which in many places is pure nonsense, so give me the same consideration or I will let you waste somebody else's time.