Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Eternal security or conditional security?

Because, I as said in my first post on this passage and repeated multiple times, Paul used the present tense in the indicative mode for the verb translated "hold fast" or "hold firm".

It does NOT indicate a future or even a continuous tense as your interpretation assumes that it does. He very specifically meant the verb as a simple event in time. Not a continuous action. Go study it.
I did study it, and I shared my study material. Here it is again:

Open this link, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/15/1/t_conc_1077002 .
Click on the 'Parse' button next to the Greek word 'katechō'.
You'll see this verb, rendered 'hold fast' in English, is in the Greek Present Indicative.

Now click on this link, http://ezraproject.com/id27.html , to see what the Greek Present Indicative verb means. Pay special attention to this paragraph:

"We face a slightly different situation when we deal with verbs in the indicative mood, the verb form used for statements of fact. Indicative verbs bear a double burden: they must reveal the time of an action, not just the type of action. A present indicative verb describes an action taking place at the present time. Normally, this action is a continued action taking place right now."

So we see, the Present Indicative tense does in fact represent an action continuing to date. Paul is indeed saying that to be saved you have to hold fast (to date) the word of the gospel. It also indicates the Corinthians are doing that (as of his last knowledge of that)--which rules out your interpretation of "unless you believed in vain" which says 'they really didn't believe to begin with'. But it fully supports my interpretation that says "unless you believed in vain" is referring to them no longer holding fast to the word originally preached (which they were in fact doing last Paul knew) and adopting a gospel that doesn't have a resurrected Christ in it. That is what would make the faith that Paul says he last knew them to have vain. And he explains this fully in the verses following as I have shown.
 
so throw the fish back and you will still have 'em right?

Also, by this same method of reasoning, a believer who no longer believes is still a believer. :eek2


Where is the like button???

LIKE!
 
A believer who believes for a while, then later no longer believes... is not an unbeliever, but an ex-believer.

Which is still an unbeliever, that used to believe.

That's it. A ustabeliever.

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:12-13.

...who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

Can anyone from the OSAS side, please tell me what more that a person must do to be saved, other than believe?

believe for a while = saved for a while.


JLB
 
Last edited:
But JLB what of this verse
Joh_10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
 
And they believed that they had fruit of their beliefs and works...
But what does Jesus say? What exactly does He call them?

So...
Obviously simply preaching theologies and morality doesn't cut the mustard according to Jesus.

Maybe in all their piousness they forgot about humility.
Amen!
 
A present indicative verb describes an action taking place at the present time. Normally, this action is a continued action taking place right now."
Exactly. That's entirely compatible with my interpretation. But my point is that if Paul meant the verse to be a warning to them (as you claim), he would have used a Greek tense depicting future tense. But he didn't. But you do often when speaking about the verse. I never said it was a verse that taught OSAS (alhough I could make that argument). There are clearer verses than this for that argument. I'm simply pointing out to you that it doesn't teach anti-OSAS as you claim.

From your Greek site:
When the verb in question is in the imperative, subjunctive, or optative mood, or is an infinitive, present tense says nothing at all about the time when an action takes place. It does not mean that something is happening right now. Its only significance is to show that the action happens continuously or repeatedly. In Ephesians 5:18, for example, Paul uses a present imperative when he tells believers to "be filled with the Spirit." The present tense makes it clear that this is a continuing experience, which they should maintain constantly.

He should have used the imperative mood of the present tense in order for it to be interpreted the way you do. Or better yet, a future tense. That's my only point about this verb's tense and mood.

It also indicates the Corinthians are doing that (as of his last knowledge of that)--which rules out your interpretation of "unless you believed in vain" which says 'they really didn't believe to begin with'.

Your mistake #1:
No it doesn't rule out my interpretation. It says means the saved believers are doing that (holdind firm) presently. The form of the verb jives exactly with my interpretation. I didn't say 'they really didn't believe to begin with'. I say some superficially believed in the past and were thusly NOT saved. Why? Because Paul says some had superfically believed in the past. In this verse and elswhere.

Which is your 2nd mistake here.
Your mistake #2:
You act think the Corinthian church was a monolith, filled 100% with saved belivers, at some point in the past. Paul disagrees with that bad assumption with his use of the past tense verb form for "believed in vain". And with other verses as well. So the church most certainly had vain believers in it from the past and present and future. To not recognize the fact that chuch had unsaved people in it, is to not study the book fully. It's also just common sense.

You agreed that the logical form of the verse, in computer coded terms, is:
IF you hold fast the Gospel
THEN you are saved
ELSE you are lost

If you then insert the actual text into that form and recognize the proper verb tenses for both "hold fast" and "believed in vain" you can see how it is compatible with my interpretation. But not yours. To be compatible with your 'it's a warning to believers to continually hold on to their salvation' interpretation, it would go something like:

IF you hold fast to the Gospel now and into the future (i.e. imperative mood, not indicative or better yet, future tense)
THEN you remain saved in the future
ELSE you become unsaved in the future

Or:

IF you stop holding fast to the Gospel and begin to hold it vainly
THEN you become unsaved in the future

I don't know, you tell me a better logical flow than the IF, THEN, ELSE statement that I mapped the verse and tenses to originally.

I invited you to map the text to that logical flow but you haven't. But I mapped the text of the verse into the form we agreed to and it fits perfectly, verb tenses and all. Yours doesn't. Thus, you should stop calling it a warning passage. That's my point.

IF you hold fast the Gospel-if you hold firmly (present tense) to the word which I preached (past tense) to you

THEN you are saved-By this faith you are saved (present tense) reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose

ELSE you are lost-unless you believed (past tense) in vain just superficially and without complete commitment
 
A believer who believes for a while, then later no longer believes... is not an unbeliever, but an ex-believer.
That is correct. There are no Biblical Texts that use the term "unbeliever" to depict someone that once believed but no longer believes. But you do.

Just as the Bible uses the term uncircumcised for someone who has never been circumcised.

How exactly would a circumcised person become uncircumcised again? Think about it!
 
Look at your first section. You quote one verse from Romans 6 and another from Romans 11. In your argument you don't use either passage in the context in which it was written. Rather you simply pull two sentences from their context and say, see, that's what the Bible says'. That's nonsense. It's called proof texting and it's not how to study the Bible.
This is what I did. From 6:23 I showed that Paul described eternal life as a gift of God. From 11:29, I showed that Paul said that God's gifts are irrevocable.

Now, IF Paul did not have the specific gift of eternal life in mind when he wrote 11:29, where is the "disclaimer"? The 2 verses are absolutely linked because both speak of God's gifts.

Using that method a person could make the case that one can be saved without faith.
I'd like to see such an attempt. The Bible specifically says we are saved through faith.

KJV Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Heb. 5:9 KJV)

See, nothing about faith or believing. So using your methodology one could argue that you don't have to believe.
It also doesn't say anything about HOW one is saved. He certainly WILL save all who obey Him, but the verse doesn't say that obedience is the means of salvation.
 
I do not mean obedience provides salvation, but I am saying obedience is the necessary outworking of saving faith. If their is no obedience, there is no saving faith and thus, there is no salvation. Saving faith results in obedience just as a person being alive results in their breathing. A person can claim all they want they are alive/saved, but if they are not breathing/obeying, they are not.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36 ESV)​
So, basically, your view is that saving faith is guaranteed to produce obedience. This is primary the tenent of Lordship Salvation.

So, if true, why all the commands for obedience, and warnings about disobedience? Why then are believers encouraged to "remain true to the Lord" (Acts 11:23) or to "continue in the faith" (Acts 14:22)?
 
None of the scriptures in the OP are made false by "you are saved if you hold fast the word" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB).
Of course not. Nothing can make truth to be false. What needs to be done is show me that the verses in the OP don't teach eternal security, because I believe that all of them do just that.

If I'm wrong about those verses, someone needs to show me what they are teaching instead of ES.

Your problem is, your interpretation of those verses IS made false by "you are saved if you hold fast the word". That is what you have to refute.
Sorry, but I don't follow. It appears to me that your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:2 refutes my interpretation of the verses in the OP. That's not how to refute one's incorrect interpretation. You've just said "I'm right and you're wrong" in other words. What needs to be done is to explain WHAT the OP verses are teaching, if not ES.

You have to make "you are saved if you hold fast the word" go away in order for your interpretation of the scriptures in the OP to be true.
No I don't. I have explained 1 Cor 15:2. I DON'T want the verse to "go away" as you charge. I have NO problem with the verse. My problem is wondering what the OP verses are teaching if not ES.

The challenge to your position has been leveled. Now you have to address it, not simply restate over and over and over again what you say the scriptures in your OP mean. That's how debates work.
I will wait for someone to explain to me what the OP verses actually teach, which is the ONLY way my view of them will be refuted.

"(Y)ou are saved if you hold fast the word" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB) makes it impossible to interpret the passages in the OP to mean that once a person is saved they are irreversibly saved forever no matter what they do or don't believe.
Then just please explain what all those verses are teaching, since your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:2 does not permit you to understand any of them as teaching ES.

But they DO teach something. Paul wrote that ALL Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

So, they either teach SOMETHING, or they are profitable for one of the other categories.

Can you explain what they teach, or what other category they are profitable for?
 
believe for a while = saved for a while.
JLB
Not even Luke 8:13 teaches this idea.

The Bible does teach that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23, and that God's gifts are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

The Bible does teach that those who have been given the gift of eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH.

So, eternal life cannot be lost, and those saved WILL NEVER PERISH.

The Bible teaches eternal security, not loss of salvation.
 
But my point is that if Paul meant the verse to be a warning to them (as you claim), he would have used a Greek tense depicting future tense. But he didn't. But you do often when speaking about the verse.
No. I'm not defending a future tense.
What I'm showing you is he's saying you have to be presently holding fast the word in order to be saved.

2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)

Cast off that which you were saved by and you no longer have that which you are saved by. Paul is plainly saying that. But OSAS [edited] says you are saved even if you are not presently holding fast the word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. I'm not defending a future tense.
What I'm showing you is he's saying you have to be presently holding fast the word in order to be saved.

2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)

Cast off that which you were saved by and you no longer have that which you are saved by. Paul is plainly saying that. But OSAS [edited] says you are saved even if you are not presently holding fast the word.
The challenge remains: to show from Scripture how one "casts off" their salvation. Technically, and biblically, we are saved by God Himself. We can't "cast" Him off. We can leave, but we still have His gift of eternal life.

But the issue is how to lose salvation. No verse says we can lose salvation. Or lose eternal life. There are verses tell us that:
eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable
those who have been given eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH.

And what I am saying is that who have eternal life are saved and will never perish.

The last phrase "unless you believed in vain" is in contrast to "if you hold fast the word". So we need to ask the question; what did Paul mean by "believed in vain"?

The word for "vain" is: eikē

1) inconsiderably, without purpose, without just cause
2) in vain
2a) without success or effort

The primary meaning is in #1; without purpose or without cause.

iow, believing WITH purpose or cause is to believe in Jesus AS Savior and that He will save you. This is commonly called "saving faith".

So, Paul is saying that one who has believed in Christ for (purpose, cause) salvation is saved, and is holding fast the word. They've done that. They are saved.

Those who didn't believe in Christ FOR salvation are not saved. They have believed something else (in vain).

iow, believing in Santa Claus is to believe in vain. It won't save.

To believe the present tense supports "loss of salvation if one loses faith" is to believe in vain. Because both Paul and Jesus used the aorist tense in regard to our salvation by faith.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's because eternal life isn't any different than life. It just means we will never die.
So then, those who will be cast into the lake of fire, which is described as being an eternal fire (Matt 25:41, Jule 7) also have eternal life?

Yet, the Bible calls the lake of fire the "second death", where souls will exist forever.
 
Assuming this question is directed at the possibility of giving away one's gift of eternal life, is there a verse or passage that suggests the possibility?
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
 
But JLB what of this verse
Joh_10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

The context of "pluck them out of My Father's hand" is a reference to His sheep, which in this context, refer to His disciples.

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”


And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd... My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

The sheep that Jesus refers to here specifically, are His disciples, that hear His voice and follow Him.

He plainly refers to other sheep, but these His sheep [disciples who were specifically chosen by Him], to reproduce His life and message and teaching and be sent to teach the next generation of disciples, were were to be sent out [Apostle means: sent one]


Notice this verse doesn't say....

No one is able to turn away from Me of his own free will.

Then there is the truth of His Father removing unfruitful branches.

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; John 15:1-2


Do you believe that a person can be "in Christ", then later be removed from Him?



JLB
 
The context of "pluck them out of My Father's hand" is a reference to His sheep, which in this context, refer to His disciples.
are you not one of His sheep ? Are you denying He is your Shepherd?
Then so does this and many more not listed
Mar_16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
JLB as i read these forums i see both sides of this issue doing the same thing
putting this scripture or that one aside because it does not fit into the context of 'our' theologies..
He was speaking to His disciples in the Olivit Discourse , yet you dont use the same understanding for those verses as you are for John 10 :29
Seems we all pick and choose...
 
Back
Top