If your theology causes you to ignore all the clear warnings from scripture you are wrong.
Hebrews 10: 26-31
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries... 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? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay" ... It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 3: 12-14
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 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. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
Galatians 3:1-12
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump...I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
Colossians 1:11-23
May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Colossians 2: 18-19
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
John 15: 1-9
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
I John 2: 23-25
No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us eternal life.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Luke 12:9
But the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
Matthew 10:22; Mark 13:13
And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
James 5:19-20
My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
I Corinthians 15:1-3
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Monday, October 18, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Philosophy of Once Saved Always Saved Pt 3.
In the various teachings of OSAS there are major differences. One group says you cannot lose faith, another says you can lose faith. They are worlds apart. But they both end up saying the same thing. In these variations there is some overlap between them. Sorry Baptists, you're going to get lumped in with the Calvinists. Southern Baptists, you get no apology :P
Both systems have a common defense for eternal security:
1. When Jesus forgives sins it includes the past, present and future
2. When someone has faith their sins past, present and future are forgiven.
3* If a believer denies the faith his unbelief is still forgiven.
There is a lot to unpack here.
But first, I'd like to note that as a Lutheran I reject the way both groups frame that. But I can also agree with all three statements. I noted number 3 because Calvinists will understand that differently as well. But if you notice, numbers 1 and 2 look identical. What's the difference? I think this might be the key to understanding the differences - because I think most people actually start the argument at number 2.
If someone supports eternal security using this 123 argument I would like to ask, When does Jesus forgive your sins? Likely this will go into when they got saved, invited Jesus into their heart and that kind of thing - and now if they apostasize they are still good to go.
This is where it gets curious. If God forgives your unbelief why doesn't he forgive everyone's unbelief? What's so sanctified about your unbelief? So if you can be raised without faith then that should be true of everyone who would otherwise perish.
Let's use this same line of reasoning to conclude something else.
We can say:
1. Jesus forgives the sins of all including their past present and future on the cross.
2. Unbelief counts as a covered sin
3. Therefore, Universalism
Sure its twisted and un-biblical but the argument works both ways. You see it is conditional. If it is conditional upon faith then why can't it not always be conditional upon a present faith?
As a Lutheran I believe God has already forgiven the sins of the whole world. But it doesn't benefit anyone unless they receive it through faith. Forgiveness is proclaimed to the sinner in order to create faith. Forgiveness (past, present and future) comes from outside of us and works its way into us and lives by faith. Forgiveness precedes faith. I would even go so far as to say that in God's forgiveness he forgives unbelief. But it still has this condition: it must be received in faith. If I fall away, I no longer benefit from that forgiveness, but if I return my unbelief is forgiven because Christ is always proclaiming forgiveness to create faith. And so in that stand point all sins past present and future are forgiven on the cross, but they are also forgiven past present and future in faith - because in this we are united to Christ and destined for glory.
Still with me?
Verdict: Whenever you try to make an argument first ask yourself, Can this same line of reasoning be used to argue all sorts of crazies? What makes the way you argue it seem so special? Then maybe it isn't all that great. Secondly, arguments for the sake of arguments are tiring and lead nowhere.
Yawn.
Both systems have a common defense for eternal security:
1. When Jesus forgives sins it includes the past, present and future
2. When someone has faith their sins past, present and future are forgiven.
3* If a believer denies the faith his unbelief is still forgiven.
There is a lot to unpack here.
But first, I'd like to note that as a Lutheran I reject the way both groups frame that. But I can also agree with all three statements. I noted number 3 because Calvinists will understand that differently as well. But if you notice, numbers 1 and 2 look identical. What's the difference? I think this might be the key to understanding the differences - because I think most people actually start the argument at number 2.
If someone supports eternal security using this 123 argument I would like to ask, When does Jesus forgive your sins? Likely this will go into when they got saved, invited Jesus into their heart and that kind of thing - and now if they apostasize they are still good to go.
This is where it gets curious. If God forgives your unbelief why doesn't he forgive everyone's unbelief? What's so sanctified about your unbelief? So if you can be raised without faith then that should be true of everyone who would otherwise perish.
Let's use this same line of reasoning to conclude something else.
We can say:
1. Jesus forgives the sins of all including their past present and future on the cross.
2. Unbelief counts as a covered sin
3. Therefore, Universalism
Sure its twisted and un-biblical but the argument works both ways. You see it is conditional. If it is conditional upon faith then why can't it not always be conditional upon a present faith?
As a Lutheran I believe God has already forgiven the sins of the whole world. But it doesn't benefit anyone unless they receive it through faith. Forgiveness is proclaimed to the sinner in order to create faith. Forgiveness (past, present and future) comes from outside of us and works its way into us and lives by faith. Forgiveness precedes faith. I would even go so far as to say that in God's forgiveness he forgives unbelief. But it still has this condition: it must be received in faith. If I fall away, I no longer benefit from that forgiveness, but if I return my unbelief is forgiven because Christ is always proclaiming forgiveness to create faith. And so in that stand point all sins past present and future are forgiven on the cross, but they are also forgiven past present and future in faith - because in this we are united to Christ and destined for glory.
Still with me?
Verdict: Whenever you try to make an argument first ask yourself, Can this same line of reasoning be used to argue all sorts of crazies? What makes the way you argue it seem so special? Then maybe it isn't all that great. Secondly, arguments for the sake of arguments are tiring and lead nowhere.
Yawn.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Philosophy of Once Saved Always Saved Pt 2.
A lot of people believe the same things for different reasons or agendas. The eternal security/ once-saved-always-saved teaching is one of those things. Calvinists teach OSAS in a different light. Their particular version is called "Perseverance of the Saints." And it seems to me, yet again, that this brand is just another philosophically derived theory rather than a positive statement from the Bible.
Calvinists teach:
A) the Elect cannot possibly resist the Holy Spirit.
B) Therefore, a believer cannot possibly lose faith.
They start out with the teaching of God's sovereignty over all things and run it through the gamut of soteriology. The reason goes like this: Not all people are saved, therefore God didn't want all people to be saved, therefore Jesus didn't die for everyone, therefore his elect cannot resist him and will persevere in faith. So they say.
A few problems come from this line of reasoning.
1. Those who fall away from faith never had faith.
2. You cannot be assured of your salvation.
Quite the conclusions!
If someone had strong faith and falls away, this theology must claim they never had faith. When something like this happens it must cause other believers to doubt whether their own faith is genuine. And their systematic answer isn't exactly the Gospel. It turns themselves inwards rather than outward to the cross.
This also must be hard for Calvinist pastors to provide pastoral care. The certainty of their salvation doesn't necessarily come from Christ crucified, but from their own experience and response to it. A Calvinist cannot really say with any credibility that "Christ died for you" because who knows if he in fact did? After all, people don't have "elect" tags on their backs. Therefore, they have faith in their own faith which leads to a curious spirituality which down spirals.
In effect, it is a cosmic game of chicken. Jesus doesn't declare forgiveness until you have faith. But the question is, how do you have faith unless he declares to forgive you? Who is going to give first? You see the dilemma. It's a catch 22. You may believe Jesus was raised from the dead as an unmovable fact, but you don't know if your faith is genuine, you don't know if the Holy Spirit is in you. And looking to the cross may not make it anymore assuring to you. It's all quite impersonal.
Verdict: Calvinism is a strange disco. And I love to dance but I'm not sure if I'm invited.
Calvinists teach:
A) the Elect cannot possibly resist the Holy Spirit.
B) Therefore, a believer cannot possibly lose faith.
They start out with the teaching of God's sovereignty over all things and run it through the gamut of soteriology. The reason goes like this: Not all people are saved, therefore God didn't want all people to be saved, therefore Jesus didn't die for everyone, therefore his elect cannot resist him and will persevere in faith. So they say.
A few problems come from this line of reasoning.
1. Those who fall away from faith never had faith.
2. You cannot be assured of your salvation.
Quite the conclusions!
If someone had strong faith and falls away, this theology must claim they never had faith. When something like this happens it must cause other believers to doubt whether their own faith is genuine. And their systematic answer isn't exactly the Gospel. It turns themselves inwards rather than outward to the cross.
This also must be hard for Calvinist pastors to provide pastoral care. The certainty of their salvation doesn't necessarily come from Christ crucified, but from their own experience and response to it. A Calvinist cannot really say with any credibility that "Christ died for you" because who knows if he in fact did? After all, people don't have "elect" tags on their backs. Therefore, they have faith in their own faith which leads to a curious spirituality which down spirals.
In effect, it is a cosmic game of chicken. Jesus doesn't declare forgiveness until you have faith. But the question is, how do you have faith unless he declares to forgive you? Who is going to give first? You see the dilemma. It's a catch 22. You may believe Jesus was raised from the dead as an unmovable fact, but you don't know if your faith is genuine, you don't know if the Holy Spirit is in you. And looking to the cross may not make it anymore assuring to you. It's all quite impersonal.
Verdict: Calvinism is a strange disco. And I love to dance but I'm not sure if I'm invited.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Philosophy of Once Saved Always Saved.
I have yet to see a single verse that teaches "Once Saved Always Saved" and "Eternal Security" in any distinct way. That is why I think it is a philosophy.
I once had lunch with my Radical Baptist KJV-Only Fundamentalist friend and his pastor. I think it was all accidental but we landed on the topic of salvation by grace through faith. He thought that Lutherans might believe in justification by works. I assured him no, and reminded him of the Reformation. So he plainly asked me, "If you fell away from faith would you still go to heaven?" He was quite genuine, but I was honestly shocked. This is his litmus test for works righteousness? Srsly.
This was his reasoning: If I have faith then I must do something to continue in faith - therefore continuing in faith = works. Therefore, if I believe that I must continue in faith I must trust in my own works.
This is the poorest philosophy for OSAS that I've ever encountered. Why must faith be sustained by works? Why can't faith sustain itself in the Gospel and the Holy Spirit?
If I claim to be justified by faith then I'm going to claim that faith always justifies - it doesn't stop justifying. However, if I refuse faith I refuse justification. The same is with the casual unbeliever.
But here is the irony for me. If he believes that continuing in faith is a work then initiating faith is also a work. No matter how thin you slice it, they're the same thing. I don't care if its a nano second or two nano seconds, faith is faith and you cannot call it a work, (especially a work of man), at any point in time. Furthermore, scripture never makes such a distinction.
Verdict: This argument is self defeating, and is built upon the false assumption that the Gospel cannot sustain us.
Just a quick after thought: It seems a little silly to suppose that at the moment of faith, faith dies and goes to heaven, and ceases to exist in its original justifying form - it's just plain old subsequent faith now and if you disagree with this diagnosis then it turns your life into a works righteousness religion. Um.. Yeah, right.
I once had lunch with my Radical Baptist KJV-Only Fundamentalist friend and his pastor. I think it was all accidental but we landed on the topic of salvation by grace through faith. He thought that Lutherans might believe in justification by works. I assured him no, and reminded him of the Reformation. So he plainly asked me, "If you fell away from faith would you still go to heaven?" He was quite genuine, but I was honestly shocked. This is his litmus test for works righteousness? Srsly.
This was his reasoning: If I have faith then I must do something to continue in faith - therefore continuing in faith = works. Therefore, if I believe that I must continue in faith I must trust in my own works.
This is the poorest philosophy for OSAS that I've ever encountered. Why must faith be sustained by works? Why can't faith sustain itself in the Gospel and the Holy Spirit?
If I claim to be justified by faith then I'm going to claim that faith always justifies - it doesn't stop justifying. However, if I refuse faith I refuse justification. The same is with the casual unbeliever.
But here is the irony for me. If he believes that continuing in faith is a work then initiating faith is also a work. No matter how thin you slice it, they're the same thing. I don't care if its a nano second or two nano seconds, faith is faith and you cannot call it a work, (especially a work of man), at any point in time. Furthermore, scripture never makes such a distinction.
Verdict: This argument is self defeating, and is built upon the false assumption that the Gospel cannot sustain us.
Just a quick after thought: It seems a little silly to suppose that at the moment of faith, faith dies and goes to heaven, and ceases to exist in its original justifying form - it's just plain old subsequent faith now and if you disagree with this diagnosis then it turns your life into a works righteousness religion. Um.. Yeah, right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)