“Full Assurance of Faith” (Hebrews 10:22)

[chessman]

The point being, which you have missed completely, they didn't start out that way.

Not according to Paul. That's just your preconceived assumption. And a wrong one at that. The ones among them that had believed in vain (past tense) were "still in their sins" (presently). He didn't say they once believed Christ rose (and were thusly cleansed) then stopped believing Christ rose and thusly returned to their sins. But he could have, if that were the case.

 

[GodsGrace]

Love for God is not the condition that solicits justification. Though one would certainly love God, to one degree or another, based on the weight of sin they were forgiven. Jesus teaches this truth in Luke 7:47 NASB:

"...her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.”

Having your sins forgiven through faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for your sin is what justifies/saves. How much you love is the result of that justification/salvation. People who are very cognizant and appreciative of the sin they have been forgiven love God a lot. For those whom the forgiveness of God they received is not so big a deal, well, they love little.

But the bottom line is, love for God is not what determines if you are saved or not. But it does indicate if you are saved, and to what extent you understand and appreciate the sin that God has forgiven for you.

I agree with what you say regarding our appreciation of the forgiveness of sins. If many have been forgiven us, much is our appreciation, if few have been forgiven, we appreciate nonetheless, but to a lesser degree.

Okay. But I cannot agree with the fact that you say that our love for God does not save us. How could this be?
When I was saved, I loved the Lord and was very appreciative of what He did for me (not to do with sin).
I knew nothing of the concept of salvation, or the atonement - I knew about it in a general way, but not what it really meant.

So because one doesn't understand the theology, are you saying they aren't saved??
If you love God, you tend to want to be near Him and please Him - it would be a natural reaction.
Isn't this enough?

W

 

[ezra]

I agree with what you say regarding our appreciation of the forgiveness of sins. If many have been forgiven us, much is our appreciation, if few have been forgiven, we appreciate nonetheless, but to a lesser degree.

Okay. But I cannot agree with the fact that you say that our love for God does not save us. How could this be?
When I was saved, I loved the Lord and was very appreciative of what He did for me (not to do with sin).
I knew nothing of the concept of salvation, or the atonement - I knew about it in a general way, but not what it really meant.

So because one doesn't understand the theology, are you saying they aren't saved??
If you love God, you tend to want to be near Him and please Him - it would be a natural reaction.
Isn't this enough?

W

you dont have to fully understand salvation we accept by faith. the night i got saved i was like a mule looking at a new gate. the evangelist prayed . then asked if i thought i would go to heaven .i told him i dont know he prayed again .i said GOD SAVE me and i was saved. this is what upsets me with man . they think they have the plan of salvation monopolized. yes a person needs to believe in Jesus but accept it by faith

 

[GodsGrace]

you dont have to fully understand salvation we accept by faith. the night i got saved i was like a mule looking at a new gate. the evangelist prayed . then asked if i thought i would go to heaven .i told him i dont know he prayed again .i said GOD SAVE me and i was saved. this is what upsets me with man . they think they have the plan of salvation monopolized. yes a person needs to believe in Jesus but accept it by faith

We agree. We are saved by Jesus by faith.

Ephesians 2:8
We are saved by grace through faith.

We were excluded and separate from Christ
Ephesians 2:12

But now in Christ we have been purchased by the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 2:13

W

 

[GodsGrace]

Let's face a little fact about the non-OSAS crowd.

They all fear for their own hides. Therefore they serve out of fear for self. And they claim this is love, when it is in fact fear that they will be eternally tormented if they don't do (whatever it is that they must do to avoid this fate, the lists can be endless.)

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

How many of the non OSAS crowd would still serve God in Christ if they didn't think God in Christ was always dangling them over the pit of hell to extract their services?

I'm in the non-OSAS crowd.
I don't fear for my own hide.
I don't serve out of fear itself.
I know it's love.
I agree with 1 John 4:18

How could you tell me what I feel or believe??
I dislike Calvin immensely for dividing us.
There should be as few division as possible and here we are arguing about a theory that got invented by a man in the 1500's.

There are many verses about the unity of believers. Here are just a few:
Acts 4:32
1 Corinthians 12:12
Philippians 2:1-3

W

 

[GodsGrace]

The facts of the Greek grammar in the verse are against your statement above. Look it up:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-2.htm

And here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

"TENSES OF THE INDICATIVE MOOD.​

6. The significance of the tenses of the Indicative mood may be stated in general as follows: --​

As respects progress:
The Present and Imperfect denote action in progress;
the Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect denote completed action;
the Aorist represents the action indefinitely as an event or single fact;
the Future is used either of action in progress like the Present, or indefinitely like the Aorist.​

As respects time:
The Present and Perfect denote present time;
the Imperfect, Aorist, and Pluperfect denote past time;
the Future and Future Perfect denote future time.​

The verb "believed" from "unless you believed in vain" is rendered in the past tense English because the fact is, that's what Paul meant. Some among them had in the past believed in vain. He said that some among them had in a single event in the past, believed in vain via the Greek grammar.

He doesn't say there were some among them that once believed then stopped believing. But he could have, if that's what he meant to say.

Chessman
Why lesson in Greek when the English is so easy to understand?

In this case it's totally not necessary. I clicked on your first link. These words were staring up at me from Bible Hub:

by which also you are being saved to the word I proclaimed to you if you hold fast
unless if not in vain you have believed

1 Corinthians 15 is speaking about the resurrection. If we don't believe in the resurrection, our faith us in vain because Jesus is the one who gives life.

1 Corinthians 15:2 is speaking instead of persons to whom Paul preached the gospel message, they accepted this message of salvation and they are saved by it, Paul hopes that their belief is the real thing, that they did not believe in vain (a passing belief) and that they are in this forever and will hold fast (as is written in the link you posted).

We are all BEING SAVED unless, at some point, we believed in vain and STOP believing.

1 Corinthians 15:2 shows that it's possible for someone to have believed at some point and then stops believing.
It's speaking about people who have not held firmly and have believed in vain. I agree that he did not particularly mean the persons he was speaking to, however, it still holds true that it would be possible.

The tense does not seem so important to me in this case.

W

 

[smaller]

I'm in the non-OSAS crowd.
I don't fear for my own hide.
I don't serve out of fear itself.
I know it's love.
I agree with 1 John 4:18

How could you tell me what I feel or believe??

I think it started round about the time the form of reasoning came in that says Jesus never leaves us but we can leave Him and the reasoning didn't make much sense to some believers.

Believe what you want. If you think Jesus can lose you no one is about to tell you differently. Don't expect others to agree with circular logic.

I dislike Calvin immensely for dividing us.

Who is "us?" Church splits were happening long before Calvin, over a lot less.

There should be as few division as possible and here we are arguing about a theory that got invented by a man in the 1500's.

I'd hardly blame Calvin for picking up the scriptures and reading this:

Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

How freewillers missed it, I have no idea.

Those whom God has had His Mercy put upon them, also declare His Mercy unto others. But they probably also understand that God also hardeneth whom He will, regardless.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

or not.

 

[ezra]

How freewillers missed it, I have no idea.

whats there to miss we harden our own heart every time we reject the Lord .i believe even Judas had a chance had he not been so blindsided , all that time he spent listening to Christ teaching . he kept on listening to the message of Satan

 

[smaller]

whats there to miss we harden our own heart every time we reject the Lord .i believe even Judas had a chance had he not been so blindsided , all that time he spent listening to Christ teaching . he kept on listening to the message of Satan

It's a hard thing to understand, that an entire nation of people, Israel, were hardened/blinded, in our behalves. Their "will's" didn't have a thing to do with it.

Paul employs simple if/then reasoning.

Romans 11:
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The blinded could unblind themselves. God Himself blinded them:

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

They didn't do that to themselves. God DID. He elected to HARDEN them and blind them, just as Paul said in chapter 9.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The reason some have full assurance of salvation is we know, for no uncertain fact that it is God Alone, through the Grace and Mercy of our Lord upon us, saved us and keeps us. Others are sure this is not and can not be the case.

That's why Paul's controversial, because he kicked the legs out from under legalists and those who thought they could "work'' their own way into salvation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody "earns" Gods Mercy and Grace. It is SOLELY Gods to give, as HE Wills.

 

[chessman]

Why lesson in Greek when the English is so easy to understand?

Because English lacks the accuracy, clearness and distinction that the Greek verbs have. If you desire to know the exact distinctions and exact thoughts of the author, a moderate amount of knowledge of Greek grammar is important. Verbs in Greek have seven tenses used in four distinct moods. Not so in English which has only three tenses and three moods. Thus, distinctions in the Greek original are simply lost in translation. Ever heard the term "lost in translation"?

they accepted this message of salvation and they are saved by it

Unless they believed in vain! And some among them most certainly did believe in vain back when Paul preached it to them in the past. Paul says so. Not just me.

We are all BEING SAVED unless, at some point, we believed in vain and STOP believing.

Why add to what Paul said? Paul didn't say they stopped believing. If Paul had said someone there once held fast to the Gospel he preached, then stopped believing and went back to being in their sins, I wouldn't be a OSAS believer. But the fact is, he never said they stopped believing. He said they believed in vain back in the past.

The tense does not seem so important to me in this case.

Okay but remember Paul used the aorist tense in the indicative mood. And he did so for a very important reason. It's important to me.

1 Corinthians 15:2 shows that it's possible for someone to have believed at some point and then stops believing.

Where? How so? It never even uses the words "stops believing". How could it teach that it is possible to "stop believing". It doesn't.

 

[chessman]

Their "will's" didn't have a thing to do with it.

Where, exactly, does Rom 11 (or any other passage for that matter) say their wills didn't have a thing to do with it? The verses you posted don't say or even imply the Israel's will didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[smaller]

Where, exactly, does Rom 11 (or any other passage for that matter) say their wills didn't have a thing to do with it? The verses you posted don't say or even imply the Israel's will didn't have anything to do with it.

Romans 9:
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Unbelieving Israel, to this day, still doesn't have a clue about Jesus.

Why?

Romans 11:
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

2 Corinthians 3:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

How does this blinding take place?

2 Corinthians 4:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The same state of blindness we were in prior to salvation:

Eph. 2:
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

God can allow this blinder to come again? Undoubtedly:

2 Tim. 2:
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Does the above mean they were lost? No. They were blinded by a party that is not them, in every case.

IF a believer were to inform any unbeliever of the truth, that they do not believe because the "god of this world" blinds their minds they'd laugh in your face. But who's really doing the laughing? The "god of this world."

IF we said to an unbelieving Jew, the same thing, that God bound them with disobedience and blinded them by a spirit of slumber being put upon them, they wouldn't and couldn't believe it whatsoever. But who is really involved with that? Just them? No. The spirit of slumber, the god of this world, the power of Satan IS upon such minds and hearts. It is not "just them" making any decision. It is GOD ALLOWING them to see Jesus, by His Mercy and by His Sole Election to allow it. OR NOT.

Even christians have a very hard time understanding this:

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

And He will have mercy on whom He Alone Wills.

 

[chessman]

Romans 9:
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Romans 9:16 (LEB) Consequently therefore, it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy.
​

Again, this passage doesn't say man or Israel doesn't have freewill. It actually says we do have wills.

It (injustice) does not depend on the one who wills. True. But there is the one who wills.

It (injustice) does not depend on the one who runs. True. But there is the one who runs.

 

[smaller]

IF we were to observe Paul's works, what do we find?

Paul had lustful thoughts:

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Paul did things he hated, even though he willed not to:

Romans 7:
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Paul did evil:

Romans 7:
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Does this sound like a man doing "works" for his salvation, to retain same? Hardly. Where are all the believers holding fast to the above facts? Most will deny that they "DO" every point above. Even though an Apostle says, honestly, WHAT SIN DOES in his flesh.

Paul concluded from the above, this fact about himself:

1 Timothy 1:15
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Not was, not used to be. I am, present tense, after salvation.

Does this sound like a man promoting "works" for salvation? Hardly.

This is what Paul said about his own flesh:

Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:

->so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.<-

Did the evil present with Paul obey the Gospel? Did the sin indwelling his flesh NOT DO what it did? None of these facts are removed by works, are made any better by works, are changed by works. These operations DO what they DO, period. This is why the Spirit is against the flesh. And that conclusion is not about to change.

And this is also why we are saved by the Mercy and Grace of God in Christ, alone, and NOT by works.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Yet there are people, who I don't doubt are believers, still thinking they do NONE of what Paul did and they only do "good works." Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not better than Paul and Paul did NOT teach us that we are better than any other blinded common sinning unbeliever:

Romans 3:9
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Did Paul prove he was under sin? Had evil present with him? Did things he hated? Did evil? Was a sinner after salvation? Yes. That is how HE PROVED all under sin. By his own statements of fact for himself, and by extension, to everyone.

We are saved by Grace and Mercy expressed in Jesus Christ.

No man is worthy of His Eternal Gift by their actions, before or after salvation.

There is only one conclusion that God has for every mouth and ALL the world:

Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Every mouth and all the world includes us as well.

The verdict was already in before we were even born:

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

 

[smaller]

Romans 9:16 (LEB) Consequently therefore, it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy.
​

Again, this passage doesn't say man or Israel doesn't have freewill. It actually says we do have wills.

What will are you speaking of?

This one?

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded

or this one?

the minds of them which believe not,

Romans 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

or not.

It (injustice) does not depend on the one who wills. True. But there is the one who wills.

What does God will for this will?

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded

or this will?

the minds of them which believe not,

Do you think Gods Intentions are the SAME for both parties? No.

It (injustice) does not depend on the one who runs. True. But there is the one who runs.

I might say that all depends on which will God Alone Elects to deal with.

Acts 4:
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Did any of the above do their own will? No. They were appointed, by God, to do "whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."

Their wills couldn't have made a freewill decision contrary to God if their lives depended on it. God DETERMINED what would happen, every step of Jesus Ways, for them to be "AGAINST THY HOLY CHILD, JESUS."

Were they alone in that effort? No. This is who God used to direct them:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

God does not just deal and engage with MAN on the earth. God also deals with the god of this world IN MAN.

No freewill can even see it. That's how "free" their will is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The ones among them that had believed in vain (past tense) were "still in their sins" (presently).

Paul plainly says they are still in their sins if Christ didn't really rise from the dead:

"if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14 NASB bold mine)
"if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:17 NASB bold and underline mine)

So, we don't need to wonder what "unless you believed in vain" (vs.2) means in the passage. Paul tells us. As we can see for ourselves, it means "unless Christ didn't really rise from the dead as I preached to you and as you then believed".

He didn't say they once believed Christ rose...

Well, actually he did:

"the gospel which I preached to you (which included the Resurrection of Christ--see vs.4), which also you received, in which also you stand" (1 Corinthians 15:1 NASB bold and parenthesis mine)

...then stopped believing Christ rose and thusly returned to their sins. But he could have, if that were the case.

Right. He said the exact opposite. They are indeed standing on the gospel of the resurrection Paul preached to them.
And the important point for this thread is he said this certainty, this assurance, this security, is conditioned on them continuing to do so:

"the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain (that is, unless we bore false witness and Christ didn't really rise from the dead--vs.)." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB bold and parenthesis mine)

The unshakable assurance and security of God's salvation is for those who believe, not for those who stop believing. If you stop believing you move outside of the salvation that is secure and assured--secure and assured because of the perfect sacrifice and ministry of Jesus Christ, not because once you are saved you can not forfeit it in any way:

21 ...since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" (Hebrews 10:19-23 NASB)

Salvation is secure and assured because of the efficacy of Christ's ministry, not because there is nothing we can do to forfeit what we have freely received in Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The tense does not seem so important to me in this case.

I agree.
It matters not when a person stops believing, or if they never really believed to begin with. In any case, they do not satisfy the condition for being saved which is holding fast the word of the gospel:

"the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB bold and underline mine)

"(U)nless you believed in vain" can mean whatever you want it to mean and it still has no effect whatsoever on the truth that you have to be presently believing in order to be presently saved. This completely defeats hyper-grace OSAS which claims that even returning to unbelief can not forfeit your salvation, and it robs traditional OSAS of it's boast of security and assurance because in that doctrine you can not know you are 'really' believing unto salvation until all opportunities for your faith to be tested and proven genuine have been exhausted, which is the day you die. But by then, it's too late to do anything about it if you find that you weren't really believing unto salvation.

Traditional OSASer's are the one's that have to worry about going to bed and waking up lost, not non-OSASer's. If they die in their sleep and wake up on the other side to the horror of finding out their faith really wasn't genuine there's nothing they can do about it. In non-OSAS the person is secure and assured every moment and every second they are believing and trusting in the perfect blood of Christ. Now that's Biblical security.

 

[chessman]

Well, actually he did:

"the gospel which I preached to you (which included the Resurrection of Christ--see vs.4), which also you received, in which also you stand" (1 Corinthians 15:1 NASB bold and parenthesis mine)

Sep you come up with the fragmented statement posted above by (and only by) the deletion of "unless you believed in vain".

Also the "you" is plural and used in reference to the entire Corinthian church community not singular. Which is another issue with translation into English. In English "you" is used for both singular and plural pronouns, for some odd reason. Do ya'll think everyone in Corinth was saved when Paul came through and preached the Gospel? Even the ones who didn't believe in ressurection that Paul says were their among them?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sep you come up with the fragmented statement posted above by (and only by) the deletion of "unless you believed in vain".

In the original Greek Paul is speaking emphatically. Their belief and salvation in his gospel of a risen Christ is a fact. But some are being led astray from that. That's why he even has to bring this up in the first place. As I showed you yesterday, false apostles are trying to deceive them and draw them away from their sincere and pure devotion to Christ:

"3But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully." (2 Corinthians 11:3-4 NASB)

I'm not sure why you are even talking about this since it has no bearing on the condition for being saved: "you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB).

Also the "you" is plural and used in reference to the entire Corinthian church community not singular. Which is another issue with translation into English. In English "you" is used for both singular and plural pronouns, for some odd reason. Do ya'll think everyone in Corinth was saved when Paul came through and preached the Gospel? Even the ones who didn't believe in ressurection that Paul says were their among them?

And this proves OSAS how?

 

[chessman]

I agree.
It matters not when a person stops believing, or if they never really believed to begin with.

How about if there were some among them that had believed in vain? Does that matter to you?

1 Corinthians 15:2 (AMP) By this faith you are saved reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose, if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain just superficially and without complete commitment. ​