Conditional Salvation
- Thread starter SeaBass
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
James 5:19 "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;"
James is writing to brethren / Christians and says "if any of "you" with the pronoun "you" referring to Christians who err from the truth.
" if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death"
Death here refers to spiritual death. One cannot be converted back from physical death.
James is writing to brethren / Christians and says "if any of "you" with the pronoun "you" referring to Christians who err from the truth.
" if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death"
Death here refers to spiritual death. One cannot be converted back from physical death.
Logic/reason must be used to understand God's word.
2 Tim 2:1 "Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus."
Gal 5:4 ".... ye are fallen from grace..."
Saving grace is only found in Christ Jesus, nowhere else. Therefore, logically if one has fallen from grace he has fallen from Christ. Logically one cannot fall from Christ/grace unless he was first in Christ/grace.
There is only one of two places a person can be:
1) lost being outside of Christ/grace
2) saved being in Christ/grace
So if one is (2) in Christ/grace and falls then he can only fall to (1) outside of Christ/grace for there is no where else to fall to.
Your sophistry does not work, there is no place in the bible for human sophistry.
Some in Galatia left the NT gospel (Gal 1:6,7).
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Rom 1:16.
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." James 2:21
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. The gospel is that engrafted word that is able to save your soul.
Tts 2:11,12 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"
Grace teaches one how to be saved, that is, how to live soberly, righteously and godly. So there is a connection between the gospel, the engrafted word and grace. So when the Galatians left the gospel they also fell from grace, fell from the engrafted word, fell from the instructions that grace gives one to be saved.
Since grace teaches, it is NOT UNcondtionally given apart from teaching and teaching requires understanding and obedience. So if one does not CONDITIONALLY have knowledge of the gospel he CANNOT be in grace. So those that leave the knowledge of the gospel (going back to the OT as some at Galatia) leave grace.
2 Pet 3:18 "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
If one leaves grace he cannot grow in grace or in the knowledge of Christ.
2 Pet 2:20 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein..."
One escapes the pollution/sin of this world by knowledge grace teaches. Again, leaving this knowledge means one leaves grace.
2 Pet 2:1 "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,"
Heb 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"
One leaves the knowledge of truth, he leaves grace entering back into sin.
Show me one example of one who fell from grace but still saved. IF this is possible then grace is not necessary for one to be saved.
2 Tim 2:1 "Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus."
Gal 5:4 ".... ye are fallen from grace..."
Saving grace is only found in Christ Jesus, nowhere else. Therefore, logically if one has fallen from grace he has fallen from Christ. Logically one cannot fall from Christ/grace unless he was first in Christ/grace.
So when the Galatians fell from grace, they fell from Christ.
Gal 5:4 ".... ye are fallen from grace..."
Saving grace is only found in Christ Jesus, nowhere else. Therefore, logically if one has fallen from grace he has fallen from Christ. Logically one cannot fall from Christ/grace unless he was first in Christ/grace.
So when the Galatians fell from grace, they fell from Christ.
Your posted article is trying to find a way to get around the fact some of those in Galatia "are fallen" from grace. Are fallen being aorist tense, indicative mood: it is a statement of fact some had already fallen from grace.
Your article says "Therefore grace here must be interpreted as the daily grace for the living of which the Galatian Christians were depriving themselves"
This is very contrived in that nowhere does Paul speak about "the daily grace for the living".
What Paul is talking about when he says they had fallen from grace:
1) they had removed themselves from the gospel which is God's power to save Rom 1:16.
2) they had quit obeying the truth (gospel of Christ) Gal 3:1; Gal 5:7
Removed from gospel = removed from saving grace.
Removed from the truth = removed from saving grace.
So when Paul says they had fallen from grace he is saying they had left the gospel, left the truth of Christ and NOT simply being deprived of "daily grace".
Can you show how one who has left the gospel, left the truth of Christ and yet still saved?
Your article says "Therefore grace here must be interpreted as the daily grace for the living of which the Galatian Christians were depriving themselves"
This is very contrived in that nowhere does Paul speak about "the daily grace for the living".
What Paul is talking about when he says they had fallen from grace:
1) they had removed themselves from the gospel which is God's power to save Rom 1:16.
2) they had quit obeying the truth (gospel of Christ) Gal 3:1; Gal 5:7
Removed from gospel = removed from saving grace.
Removed from the truth = removed from saving grace.
So when Paul says they had fallen from grace he is saying they had left the gospel, left the truth of Christ and NOT simply being deprived of "daily grace".
Can you show how one who has left the gospel, left the truth of Christ and yet still saved?
Last edited:
Previously addressed. . .
Human logic is never the best way to measure God's word.
One can fall out of the principle of "grace only" for salvation,
and into the principle of law for salvation "earned by law-keeping."
To fall away from the principle of grace for salvation means one never had the fact (possession) of grace in the first place.
Human logic is never the best way to measure God's word.
One can fall out of the principle of "grace only" for salvation,
and into the principle of law for salvation "earned by law-keeping."
To fall away from the principle of grace for salvation means one never had the fact (possession) of grace in the first place.
Last edited:
I do not see the word "never" in 1 Jn 2:19.
But assuming what you posted is true, then why would John say in this same context " If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." verse 24? John is writing to Christan and uses the conditonal word "IF"...if what they heard CONDITIONALLY remains in them then they would CONDITIONALLY continue in the Son.
The Hebrew writer tells us what happens if the Christian lets slip what he has heard: "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;" Heb 2:1-3
Why the admonition to EARNEST HEED to the things we have heard lest they slip if the Christian cannot ever be lost under any circumstance? By letting slip what is heard is to neglect "so great salvation".
Secondly, if John is saying they were "never of them" then that is a specific example John gave and not a general rule:
In Acts 15 the apostles had a meeting at the church in Jerusalem. During that meeting "...there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
The apostles and elders wrote letters saying "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words ,subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"
These Pharisees were among the "believers" in Jerusalem but it was these Christian Pharisees that "went out from us troubling you with words, subverting your souls".
------------------------------------------------------------
Another context to examine is 2 Pet 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought (aorist - past tense) them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Peter says "even as there shall be false teachers among you" The verb "shall" is future tense.
So the issue is this; was these "future" false teachers already among them as true Christian members or were they always false teachers who were never Christians:
A key issue among religious scholars is whether these teachers were church members who were genuine in their conversion initially, or whether they were mere pretenders who never embraced the gospel. Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who endorsed the Calvinistic theory of the impossibility of apostasy, contended that they were simply "professing Christians" (1933, 160). This allegation, however, contradicts the explicit testimony of the text.
False Teachers—Bought but Lost
There are a number of traits the serious student must consider regarding these teachers.
First, Peter declares that these teachers will deny the Master that bought them. The term "bought" (agorazo [found thirty times in the New Testament]) literally means to buy or purchase something (cf. Matthew 27:7), but the term is employed metaphorically on several occasions to describe the redemption of Christians, as in this text (Mounce 2006, 94; Field 1975, 268). Jesus bought his people with his blood (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; Revelation 5:9; 14:3-4; cf. also Acts 20:28 though a different verb is employed). There is no reason, apart from a sectarian predisposition, to assign some exotic significance to brought in this passage.
Professor Edwin Blum of the Dallas Theological Seminary admitted that this term raises questions about the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (i.e., eternal security). However he attempted to wiggle around it by suggesting that though Christ had bought them, the price had not been applied to these teachers by means of the regeneration process (1981, 276). That is some maneuvering!
Clearly the most natural meaning is to see the language in the same contextual sense as his affirmation in the preceding epistle, namely that Christians are the ones redeemed or bought with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19). As Professor Davids observed: [T]hese people did belong to Christ and had been purchased by him and thus owed him obedience (221).
Moreover, the denial was of their Master, which implies the Master-Servant relationship and clearly signifies that at one time they had submitted to Christ as their Lord. Thayer comments that the term deny (arneomai) is here used of those who by cherishing and disseminating pernicious opinions and immorality are adjudged to have apostatized from God and Christ (1958, 74; emphasis added).
Second, near the conclusion of chapter two, Peter described the false teachers as previously having: (a) escaped "the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; (b) known "the way of righteousness; and, turned from the holy commandment delivered unto them (vv. 20-21).
If language means anything at all, one simply cannot avoid the conclusion that these perverters of truth earlier had been right with God, but had abandoned their commitment. In spite of this perfectly clear testimony, those enslaved to the Calvinistic dogma cannot accept it. A recent writer says that the false teachers "claimed to be ‘redeemed’ and ‘saved’ because they were part of the church, but their apostasy showed that they were not truly believers. This statement is entirely contradictory. Had they not been true believers at some point, they could not have apostatized! Observe another conflicting statement regarding vv. 20-22 by the same writer:
But assuming what you posted is true, then why would John say in this same context " If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." verse 24? John is writing to Christan and uses the conditonal word "IF"...if what they heard CONDITIONALLY remains in them then they would CONDITIONALLY continue in the Son.
The Hebrew writer tells us what happens if the Christian lets slip what he has heard: "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;" Heb 2:1-3
Why the admonition to EARNEST HEED to the things we have heard lest they slip if the Christian cannot ever be lost under any circumstance? By letting slip what is heard is to neglect "so great salvation".
Secondly, if John is saying they were "never of them" then that is a specific example John gave and not a general rule:
In Acts 15 the apostles had a meeting at the church in Jerusalem. During that meeting "...there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
The apostles and elders wrote letters saying "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words ,subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"
These Pharisees were among the "believers" in Jerusalem but it was these Christian Pharisees that "went out from us troubling you with words, subverting your souls".
------------------------------------------------------------
Another context to examine is 2 Pet 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought (aorist - past tense) them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Peter says "even as there shall be false teachers among you" The verb "shall" is future tense.
So the issue is this; was these "future" false teachers already among them as true Christian members or were they always false teachers who were never Christians:
A key issue among religious scholars is whether these teachers were church members who were genuine in their conversion initially, or whether they were mere pretenders who never embraced the gospel. Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who endorsed the Calvinistic theory of the impossibility of apostasy, contended that they were simply "professing Christians" (1933, 160). This allegation, however, contradicts the explicit testimony of the text.
False Teachers—Bought but Lost
There are a number of traits the serious student must consider regarding these teachers.
First, Peter declares that these teachers will deny the Master that bought them. The term "bought" (agorazo [found thirty times in the New Testament]) literally means to buy or purchase something (cf. Matthew 27:7), but the term is employed metaphorically on several occasions to describe the redemption of Christians, as in this text (Mounce 2006, 94; Field 1975, 268). Jesus bought his people with his blood (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; Revelation 5:9; 14:3-4; cf. also Acts 20:28 though a different verb is employed). There is no reason, apart from a sectarian predisposition, to assign some exotic significance to brought in this passage.
Professor Edwin Blum of the Dallas Theological Seminary admitted that this term raises questions about the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (i.e., eternal security). However he attempted to wiggle around it by suggesting that though Christ had bought them, the price had not been applied to these teachers by means of the regeneration process (1981, 276). That is some maneuvering!
Clearly the most natural meaning is to see the language in the same contextual sense as his affirmation in the preceding epistle, namely that Christians are the ones redeemed or bought with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19). As Professor Davids observed: [T]hese people did belong to Christ and had been purchased by him and thus owed him obedience (221).
Moreover, the denial was of their Master, which implies the Master-Servant relationship and clearly signifies that at one time they had submitted to Christ as their Lord. Thayer comments that the term deny (arneomai) is here used of those who by cherishing and disseminating pernicious opinions and immorality are adjudged to have apostatized from God and Christ (1958, 74; emphasis added).
Second, near the conclusion of chapter two, Peter described the false teachers as previously having: (a) escaped "the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; (b) known "the way of righteousness; and, turned from the holy commandment delivered unto them (vv. 20-21).
If language means anything at all, one simply cannot avoid the conclusion that these perverters of truth earlier had been right with God, but had abandoned their commitment. In spite of this perfectly clear testimony, those enslaved to the Calvinistic dogma cannot accept it. A recent writer says that the false teachers "claimed to be ‘redeemed’ and ‘saved’ because they were part of the church, but their apostasy showed that they were not truly believers. This statement is entirely contradictory. Had they not been true believers at some point, they could not have apostatized! Observe another conflicting statement regarding vv. 20-22 by the same writer:
It would have been better for these false teachers never to have escaped the world in the first place, than to follow in the path of the knowledge of . . . Christ only to abandon that path and return to a life of sin and darkness (Oss 2008, 2420-2421).
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1487-false-teachers-destructive-heresies-2-peter-2-1
By Wayne Jackson
False Teachers; Destructive Heresies – 2 Peter 2:1
So clearly these future false teachers were current Christians who had been bought by Christ.https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1487-false-teachers-destructive-heresies-2-peter-2-1
By Wayne Jackson
False Teachers; Destructive Heresies – 2 Peter 2:1
Last edited: