Eternal security or conditional security?

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, all you have to do is look up the word 'vain' in the dictionary. adj. unfruitful, unsatisfying, unavailing, ineffectual, empty, worthless. So 'unless you believed in vain' means unless you believed for naught.

And the believing for naught that Paul is referring to is the believing they did in his gospel if it turns out to be true that there is no resurrection of Christ.

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, 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."

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. " (1 Corinthians 15:1-2,13-14 NASB)

 

[JLB]

Well, all you have to do is look up the word 'vain' in the dictionary. adj. unfruitful, unsatisfying, unavailing, ineffectual, empty, worthless. So 'unless you believed in vain' means unless you believed for naught.

That's the result of not holding fast
(Present tense) to the word of our faith, the Gospel message that was preached (past tense) to us.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:1-2

JLB

 

[MarkT]

For no result or nothing. They believed in nothing if not the gospel Paul preached. So he wanted to remind them to hold it fast.

 

[JLB]

For no result or nothing. They believed in nothing if not the gospel Paul preached.

They believed... Initially.

However, Paul warns them, that they must hold fast to what they believed initially, otherwise if they don't, then they believed in vain.


JLB

 

[MarkT]

They believed... Initially.

However, Paul warns them, that they must hold fast to what they believed initially, otherwise if they don't, then they believed in vain.


JLB

I agree. I wasn't really following your conversations. Sorry to interrupt.

 

[JLB]

I agree. I wasn't really following your conversations. Sorry to interrupt.

Your not interrupting.

Your comments are not only welcome, but refreshing to hear.


JLB

 

[chessman]

I challenge you once again to show how if they 'really' believed or not in the beginning changes the truth 'you are saved if you hold firmly the word that was preached'.

Why would I challange that? It's NOT my view (based on the Scriptures I read) that a true believer ever stops truly believing. That's my point. That's some powerful stuff, truly believing in the past. One might even say it's a gift of God's. Look at what it did for the thief. The man lived over 7,000 seconds with the confidence he'd be with Jesus when he died. Jesus told him he would. We all should have confidence in what Jesus says.

Write this down: The argument is, you have to be believing today, right now, in order to be saved today, right now.

I don't have to write it down. That's my point. It's already written down in 1 Cor 15:1-2. The part you highlight in combination with the part you don't. Else, Paul would have never had the confidence to tell the saved Corinthians they were still saved right now (today, presently) based on their past believing (the part you often truncate). Obviously he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write them back such a letter for a reason. Just as Jesus would have never had the confidence to tell the thief what he did that day a couple hours prior to his death. Just as Jesus will not be telling a lie at the final judgment when He says "I never knew you" to all those He casts out. That IS OSAS, all in one verse.

All one has to do is believe Jesus is telling the truth there and a little bit of logic.

How could He tell de-saved people "I never knew you", if in fact He once knew them? Just makes zero sense for Him to say that unless it were true.

 

[reba]

It always ends up ' they were never really believers "
so round and round we go

 

[Cygnus]

Please post the scripture for this opinion.


JLB

You still sin. In your theology Christ blood isn't enough to cover your sins....you gotta do a bit more, help Jesus out so to speak.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It always ends up ' they were never really believers "
so round and round we go

Round and round OSAS goes. Not me. I'm not on that merry-go-round, I'm non-OSAS. Either you believe right now and are saved, or you don't believe and are lost.

You still sin. In your theology Christ blood isn't enough to cover your sins....you gotta do a bit more, help Jesus out so to speak.

You're still hearing the argument in the pre-programmed OSAS way.
This isn't simply about losing your salvation because you sin. It's about losing your salvation because you don't believe in Christ anymore. The return to the old lifestyle of sin being the evidence of that loss of faith.

A rejection of Christ in unbelief is what the blood of Christ can't cover. But our day to day struggle with sin in our ongoing faith and trust in Christ's forgiveness is more than covered by the blood of Christ.

How could He tell de-saved people "I never knew you", if in fact He once knew them?

Simple.
He won't be saying 'I never knew you' to those people. Obviously, he can only say that to people he never knew, not to people he did know but who later rejected him. Is every person to whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you" among those of who will say to him, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; 27and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ (Luke 13:26-27 NASB capitals in original).

Matthew 7:21-23 NASB (and it's parallel in Luke 13:23-27 NASB) is another example of how OSAS takes a single set of circumstances for a particular people or person and decides since it's that way for that person or persons (i.e. thief on the cross, the Prodigal son) then it's that way for everyone else, categorically and without exception. Not everyone has Jesus prophesying to them that they will be in Paradise with him today (or whenever), and not all Prodigal sons come home, or have walked the streets with Jesus, that their stories prove that OSAS is true.

 

[Cygnus]

You're still hearing the argument in the pre-programmed OSAS way.
This isn't simply about losing your salvation because you sin. It's about losing your salvation because you don't believe in Christ anymore. The return to the old lifestyle of sin being the evidence of that loss of faith.

A rejection of Christ in unbelief is what the blood of Christ can't cover. But our day to day struggle with sin in our ongoing faith and trust in Christ's forgiveness is more than covered by the blood of Christ.

Being the evidence of that loss of faith...or never having it.

I once use to believe one could lose their salvation...until I finally understood you are saved by mercy and grace and your salvation is kept due to mercy and grace and not what you need to do or believe.

Then I read the can't be snatched verse.....and the debate for me was over.

later I realized if one can lose their salvation...they already have.

 

[FreeGrace]

OSAS seems to always here the necessity for faith to be saved as the necessity for satisfactory works in and of one's own righteousness to be saved.

I'm not sure what this is saying. Please re-phrase.

That is NOT what is being argued for. The argument is that one has to have FAITH to the very end in order to be saved in the end.

I do understand that argument. But it isn't grounded in plain Scripture, but on assumption. Scripture says that when believes, they HAVE eternal life, and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise FOR the day of redemption. And there are no verses that warn us that either eternal life or this seal can be removed.

The part you and multitudes of others in the church don't get is that the so-called faith that does not produce the righteous works of the Spirit in a person is not the faith that Paul says saves apart from works (James 2: 14 NASB).

Well, Paul didn't write James. James wasn't even speaking of eternal salvation anyway. He used the word for "save" 5 times in his epistle and not any of the uses refers to eternal salvation.

Yes, but you are ignoring the complete argument. One loses salvation if they don't bear fruit BECAUSE THEY HAVE STOPPED BELIEVING IN THE GOSPEL AND HAVE LOST THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT PRODUCES THAT FRUIT IN THEM.

Please provide the verse that actually says that salvation is lost because of ceasing to believe the gospel AND the verse that warns anywhere in the NT that the Holy Spirit can be lost.

In fact, that is refuted by Jesus, who prophesied about the Holy Spirit who would be "with us forever". Jn 14:16

Not to mention (again) that all believers have been sealed with the Holy Spirit FOR the day of redemption. Eph 1:13.

Where is the verse that warns of this specific seal being broken for any reason before the day of redemption.

It's an argument for the continuation of faith, not an argument for the continuation of self-righteous works.

The argument needs clear and plain Scripture to support the argument, which does not exist.

God's grace is not greater than unbelief. That's the one thing that God's grace can't touch. God can't cover the unbelief that prevents a person from receiving the grace that only believing can secure (1 John 5:10-12 NASB).

It seems we disagree on the scope of the sins that Christ died for. He died for all of them, not just most of them, or some of them. All of them. No one goes to the lake of fire because of sin. They are cast into the lake of fire for not having received eternal life. Rev 20:15.

As to the comment about God's grace is not greater than unbelief; where is that taught? The Bible specifically does mention that God gives "greater grace" in James 4:6. So where would I read about God's grace not being "enough" for any specific thing?

Are you saying the believer who has cast the word of God aside in unbelief is still holding fast and possessing he word of the gospel that saved them?

Since to "hold fast" means to possess, as I've already proven, once eternal life is possessed, which comes from believing the gospel, they continue to possess eternal life regardless of what happens in the future.

This is supported by the fact that God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29) and eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and the fact that there is nothing in the future that separates the child of God from God's love.
Rom 8:38,39 - 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This verse tells us that there is nothing that can happen future to our believing that effects our relationship with God through Christ.

Please answer this: can parents do anything to undo the birth of one of their children? Of course not. Nor does God do so.

No, you have to show us that an entirely new and separate entity gets created when one gets born again to show that your human birth analogy shows us it's impossible to be unborn again.

No, I don't. The Bible tells us that those in Christ are NEW CREATURES. That is enough for me. I have no idea what that may mean to you, but I do understand what that means. And the criteria of "and separate entity" is of no consequence. Why would that be necessary.

The human birth analogy is used to prove that once born, it can't be undone. Period. Why would spiritual birth be any different? Why did God use terms that parallel the human birth experience? For that very reason.

If I'm wrong, please explain how so.

Maybe you, like Nicodemus, do not understand the born again experience?

From the comment above, it seems that you do not understand what being born again means.

"6“Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy with them and be changed into another man. " (1 Samuel 10:6 NASB)

See? No new person is made when one has the Holy Spirit. It's an inner change of person.

Since I never even hinted that a "new entity" is created, this comment has no relevance to the discussion.

The new birth means that the human being now has 2 natures; the natural, or sin nature, and a born again spiritual nature.

That's why your analogy of a child not being able to be 'unborn' in no way proves that someone born of the Spirit can not be unborn.

It most assuredly does. However, if there was any verse that speaks of our new birth being undone, please provide it.

The whole counsel of the Bible shows us that it is those who believe that have the Holy Spirit and are sealed for the Day of Wrath/Redemption. The ex-believer who no is no longer holding fast to the gospel by which they were saved is disqualified from the promises.

By continuing to misunderstand the meaning of hold fast, I guess there's nothing more to discuss. It means to possess, and when one believes, they possess eternal life, which is irrevocable.

The Holy Spirit is conditioned on believing.

But it's just a huge assumption to claim that if one ceases to believe, they cease to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit, or the sealing with the Holy Spirit is broken. What verse teaches this?

The qualification for having the Holy Spirit is believing. Stop believing and you no longer meet the qualification for having the Holy Spirit and being a part of the body of Jesus.

This is just assumption. Nothing in Scripture supports this assumption.

 

[FreeGrace]

That's not what it says. It says hold fast the word:
"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)

I know what is says. And I know what it means. One is saved by believing the Word. One receives eternal life by believing the Word.

Or do you disagree with this?

 

[FreeGrace]

Well, since the passage doesn't say 'hold on to your condition' your argument is meaningless. It says 'hold fast the word'. And it most certainly is possible to NOT hold on to that which you first heard. John even speaks of that:

"24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:24 NASB)
"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

So we see that if you do not hold on to that which you heard in the beginning then you will not abide in and have the Son and the Father. And if you do not have the Son you do not have eternal life. Read it.

Read this post carefully. You'll see the verses you are sure don't exist.

The problem with this view is that God's gifts are irrevocable, and eternal life is one of the gifts of God. Therefore, eternal life is irrevocable.

Did Paul make any attempt to exclude the gift of eternal life from the gifts that are irrevocable in Romans, or any other epistle? No, he did not. I make no assumptions.

I do what the Bereans do. I check to see that what is preached, claimed, etc matches what Scripture says. And I find that LOS doctrine does not find support from Scripture. No clear and straight-forward statements of loss of salvation, or eternal life. Just the opposite, in fact. Which is seen in the verses in the OP.

 

[FreeGrace]

You have yet to provide any scriptures that prove your theory of those who no longer believe are still saved, as only those who have the Son have life.

What hasn't been proven is the assumption that one is saved only as long as one believes.

Scripture says that God's gifts are irrevocable AND that eternal life is a gift of God AND Paul never excluded the gift of eternal life from God's gifts that are irrevocable.

For we have become partakers, (have the Son), IF...

To become a partaker means to have fellowship, which I proved in my response to WIP's question earlier today.

we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,

12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
Hebrews 3:12-14

Nothing here about loss of salvation. We have fellowship with Christ IF we hold our confidence (faith) steady to the end of our life. Of course.

 

[FreeGrace]

They believed... Initially.

However, Paul warns them, that they must hold fast to what they believed initially, otherwise if they don't, then they believed in vain.
JLB

The Greek word for "in vain" means "without purpose". It doesn't mean to cease to believe.

iow, to believe that Jesus was a human being and lived during the early part of the 1st Century isn't saving faith. There is no purpose in that believing. To believe that He was just a good man and teacher also isn't saving faith.

Therefore, to believe "in vain" is to believe for any purpose other than that of receiving eternal life and salvation from the lake of fire.

 

[FreeGrace]

It always ends up ' they were never really believers "
so round and round we go

Not in my explanations. When the Bible says that someone believes, I believe it. Including Simon the sorcerer.

 

[reba]

Just maybe those of us who are not clear on this topic read some of these posts differently..

 

[chessman]

Round and round OSAS goes. Not me.

Not me either. I've never thought an unbeliever makes it to Heaven.

Simple.
He won't be saying 'I never knew you' to those people. Obviously, he can only say that to people he never knew, not to people he did know but who later rejected him.
...
Matthew 7:21-23 NASB (and it's parallel in Luke 13:23-27 NASB) is another example of how OSAS takes a single set of circumstances for a particular people or person and decides since it's that way for that person or persons...

The Golden Rule is part of the same conversation as "I never knew you". What, that's not applicable to me, you and every other Christian either? Makes your case look weak, very weak, IMO. But anyway, at least you recognize:

Obviously, he can only say that to people he never knew,

Yep, pretty obvious indeed.

John 17:3 (NASB) This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

BTW, Luke's gospel records Jesus speaking to the villagers just outside Jerusalem on His way to Jerusalem saying;

"Luke 13:27 (NASB) and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers.’ ​

Matthew's record is from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount near the shore of The Sea of Galiliee and given to a large crowd of people from all over the region, not just Jerusalem. Two different occasions, two different locations and two different sayings. Similar, but each unique none the less.

Matthew 7:23 (NASB) And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ ​

 

[JLB]

You still sin. In your theology Christ blood isn't enough to cover your sins....you gotta do a bit more, help Jesus out so to speak.

I need to confess my sin, so that He will forgive and cleanse me.

JLB