rbaker@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert Baker) (12/17/90)
One thought I've had on this ,"once saved, always saved" question is that I have not seen anyone talk about the role of free will choice in salvation. Although if you are predestined to salvation...ahhh, that's another can of beans...anyway my point is if I have a free will choice to accept Christ and all he has to offer I ought to still have a free will choice to renounce his hold/postion in my life a.k.a. "not be saved" anymore. not that I'd recommend or be willing to go to hell to prove my point Robert"not Bob" [I thought this had already been dealt with. As I understand it, there's a disagreement about what is within our ability to decide. Those who believe in election believe that someone who has not been regenerated is unable to choose God -- not physically incapable, but rather their motives and character are so corrupted by sin that without God's intervention they are always going to do the wrong thing. God's intervention involves regenerating us -- making us the "new creature" that Paul talked about. Once that has happened, we are going to respond to God. If you end up rejecting God, this would be taken as evidence that you hadn't really been regenerated in the first place, but were simply showing some of the outward signs of salvation. Logically you could take the position that even after having been regenerated, someone could fall again. The reason I believe those who believe in election reject this position is that it implies that salvation is caused by something about us, rather than by God's grace. That is, those who persevere would have to be viewed as in some way "better" than those who fall back. The concept of election was reintroduced into the Church by Luther. As far as I can tell, he had a radical distrust of people (and in particular himself). He felt that if his salvation rested on anything other than God, it would not be secure. To him, requiring that you had to be good enough to persevere in salvation was just as bad as requiring you to be good to be saved in the first place: it meant you had to rely in some way on your own goodness. Frankly I'm not sure there is any way out of this existential trap. Luther obviously had no question of whether he was elected. Anything that required him to do something, even something as simple as simply not rejecting Jesus, left him feeling uneasy. He had no confidence in his own goodness. We wanted his salvation to rest entirely on God's decision, and nothing of his own. However the later history of Calvinism makes it clear that putting all the responsibility on God leaves us with a different but just as serious problem: how do we know that God has really elected us? Given that some people start out appearing to be saved but fall away, we have to adopt the view that there are no infallible external signs that guarantee that you are saved. So the same problem Luther had with relying on his own goodness, the later Calvinists had in relying on God's election. This led to all sorts of odd modifications to Calvinism, including Universalism. A lot of effort in Calvinist theology went into defining ways to known that you are elected. I'm ont proposing any specific resolution of the problem here, but trying to make the consequences of the positions as clear as possible. --clh]
tdm7695@tamsun.tamu.edu (Tom Moriarty) (01/29/91)
>In article <Jan.20.14.18.58.1991.13848@athos.rutgers.edu> >lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Andy Lumsdaine) writes: > I have a question about this that maybe someone on the net can answer. > Alot of the discussion about "once save always saved" seems to revolve > around the fact that you must be a Christian at the time you die. > That is, one could lead as bad a life as could be imagined, repent > shortly before death, and go to heaven. Why is that it matters what > the person's state is at the time of death? > Let's say person A becomes a Christian when he is 20 years old, "falls > away" when he is 21, and dies when he is 60. Let's say person B > becomes a Christian when she is 59 and dies when she is 60. What is > the difference between person A and B? Both were only Christians for > one of 60 years (let's also assume that they both acheived the same > level of spiritual maturity in that one year). > Can someone help me with this? Anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus is the Son of God shall have eternal life. John 3:15-16 says, "That everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He have His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life". The Bible tells us that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe (Ephesians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 1:22). Other verses say that all of those who become believers became believers in Christ because they were "predestined before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:5, Romans 8:29). Therefore, it is clear that once a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit, he can never be "unsealed". Once a person is dispensationally transferred out of the kingdom of Satan and into the kingdom of God, he can never be dispensationally transferred back again into the kingdom of Satan (Christians do of course fall into gross sin.) So there is scriptural truth behind the teaching of "once saved -- always saved". The problem with the "once saved -- always saved" teaching is that it misses the mark when it comes to God's plan and purpose of the ages. God regenerates anyone who calls upon the Lord's name with a pure heart. Romans 10:9 says "That if you confess with your mouth, Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from among the dead, you shall be saved". Salvation is as simple as calling on the name "Lord Jesus" in an audible way, out of a pure heart. God saves and regenerates christians but for what purpose? Does God save man so that christians can boast in a vain and idle way? Does God save man so that he can be a part of an exclusive social club? Or does God save man so that he can obtain a free ticket to heaven? I know some genuinely saved and regenerated christians who are living the same loose, unsanctified, and sinful lifestyles as anyone of the unbelieving world. There are a few cases that I have observed where the unbelievers have behaved more ethically than the believers in Christ. It is true that "blood of Jesus" always and unconditionally washes away the sin of anyone who geniunely believes in him. Any genuinely saved christian has the proper ground to say that his sins are unconditionally and completely washed away by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the son of God. However, I think that you can realize that the slogan "once saved and always saved" while scripturally sound mishandles the matter of God having a plan and purpose of the ages. God saves and regenerates us with the hope that we might take part in the coming kingdom age. When Jesus Christ comes back, He will setup a 1000 year kingdom. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 tell us that only the "overcomers" or the "overcoming christians" will reign as co-kings with Christ in the coming kingdom age. Salvation is as simple as believing in him and calling upon the name "Lord Jesus". However, entering into the 1000 year kingdom to be a part of God's government and administration is not so simple. The book of Matthew exposes Jesus of Nazareth as the proper King prepared to rule over the entire earth for a 1000 years after his second coming. Matthew reveals a harder and more demanding gospel than that revealed in John because the gospel of Matthew was written with the view that all would enter into the kingdom of heavens. The "overcoming" christians will be rewarded with a crown and the "backslidden and unprepared" christians will be disciplined and even cast into outer darkness. Today, you can find the "seeds" of the kingdom of the heavens if you will look hard enough and pray enough. In this present age, the kingdom of the heavens is in "seed-form" which means that the overwhelming majority of the unbelieving world has no concept that such a thing as the "kingdom of the heavens" exists today. But when Christ returns, the "kingdom of the heavens" will appear in great splendor and all the nations will recognize Christ as the King of a divine administration that will last one thousand years. Salvation is the first step of this path, and the reward is the last step. It is only the saved ones who are qualified to gain the reward. The unsaved ones are not qualified for this. God has given us two things rather than one thing. God places the gift before the worldly people and places the reward before the christians. When one believes in Christ, he receives the gift. When one follows Christ, he receives the reward. Gift is obtained through faith, and it is for the worldly people. Reward is obtained by being faithful and having good deeds, and it is for the christians. There is a big mistake in the churches today. Man thinks that salvation is the only thing and that there is nothing elses besides being saved. He takes the kingdom of the heavens and eternal life as the same thing. He considers that since one is saved when he believes, no longer does he have to be concerned for works. Once anyone believes in the Lord Jesus, he is saved. But after salvation, God immediately places the second thing before him, telling him that besides salvation, there is a reward, a coming glory, a crown, and a throne for him. God puts His throne, crown, glory, and reward before the believers. If one is faithful, he will obtain these, If he is faithful, he will lose them. You asked the question: > That is, one could lead as bad a life as could be imagined, repent > shortly before death, and go to heaven. Why is that it matters what > the person's state is at the time of death? One could lead as bad a life as possible, repent before death, and escape the eternal damnation of the lake of fire in Revelation 20:15 (hell). Salvation is simple and unconditional. No matter how atrocious that person's sins are, such a person is eternally saved and regenerated when he believes in Christ Jesus. A person's state is important in terms of whether or not that believer receives the inheritance of the millenial kingdom. Furthermore, it matters in terms of whether or not that person reigns together with Christ as a co-king during his divine administration. It is unlikely that such a one would receive the inheritance of the millenial kingdom. > Let's say person A becomes a Christian when he is 20 years old, "falls > away" when he is 21, and dies when he is 60. Let's say person B > becomes a Christian when she is 59 and dies when she is 60. What is > the difference between person A and B? Both were only Christians for > one of 60 years (let's also assume that they both acheived the same > level of spiritual maturity in that one year). In order to become a co-king with Christ, we need the training, education, and discipline that a king needs in order to be qualified for consideration. The apostle Paul often exhorted the believes so that they would be "renewed and transformed" in their minds. Unless persons A or B that you described were to have been thoroughly "renewed and transformed" in their minds after salvation, I would think that it would be unlikely that they would participate in the 1000 year kingdom. -- * Thomas Moriarty | tdm7695@tamsun.tamu.edu * * 808 San Saba | * * College Station, Texas USA | * * 77845 (409 693-5829 | Bitnet: tdm7695@tamvenus *