Faith without works?

[jasoncran]

the modern church in general is very ignorant of the torah and its willingly at times or just plain not willing to learn and step aside from doctrines that were taught.

 

[chessman]

You see, poor Chessman, the Church doesn't understand ...

If you're not understanding what I'm saying, ...

Understand?

First let me answer your question. Yes i understand what you are saying.
You are not defending your position Scripturally, however.

Did you have an answer to my previuos question?

2 Cor 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ.

Would that be one verse consistent with our agreed upon doctrine you state above?

 

[Edward]

chessman:
Yes i understand what you are saying.
You are not defending your position Scripturally, however.

That's sort of an odd question. You're looking for one verse which summarizes what Jethro's last post said? I read his post (twice!) and agree with him. What he said is scriptural, yet sort of a compilation of many scriptures. With all due respect there brother, I believe you're making this harder than it needs to be. As we (continue to) read (all of the) scriptures, what he is saying is absorbed into our heart and becomes a knowing and condition of our heart, in the progressional renewing of us in Christ. Jethro's right, we look to Jesus and have confidence in Him throughout. Huh.

 

[chessman]

That's sort of an odd question. You're looking for one verse which summarizes what Jethro's last post said? I.

My question was left unanswered from a previous post. I wasn't really summarizing his last post. That's why it seems odd. I was stepping back to get an answer on the one verse first.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Did you have an answer to my previuos question?

2 Cor 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ.

Would that be one verse consistent with our agreed upon doctrine you state above?

I did answer your question, but I guess you couldn't make the connection between what I said--which you said you understood, and probably really did--and that being the answer to your question.

As I explained, God makes us firm and steadfast in Christ through the sure and infallible ministry of Christ (and the gift of faith to then be able to trust in that ministry). But the church mistakes that to mean we can do nothing to not stand firm in Christ--God does it all. And bases it's OSAS doctrine on that erroneous understanding.

But, even though it's true that God himself has provided everything we need to stand firm in Christ, we still have the responsibility to continue in the faith that got us there in the first place. What I'm saying is seen in this passage:

Here we see the surety of Christ's ministry making us blameless and beyond reproach. This is the basis for our firm standing in Christ:

"22...He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

Then we see Paul saying in the very next breath that we have to continue in faith to stay firm and established, and steadfast, and unmoved from this perfect work of God that does that for us:

23 ...if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard" (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

Vs. 23 is essentially a parallel verse to the 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 passage we've been talking about.

"...the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NIV)

See? The surety of God's work makes you and I stand firm in Christ. But it is through our faith that surety is laid hold of...our continuing faith. But if you or I do not continue in that faith we will not stand firm in that which God has made perfect and effectual on our behalf and which makes us firm in Christ, and we will be lost. That's not OSAS.

 

[chessman]

I did answer your question, ...

. It was a yes/no question. I haven't still seen your answer.
You said:

For without the Holy Spirit no man would place his trust in that which he can't know is true except by the Holy Spirit convicting him it's true.

To which I merely asked this one simple yes/no question:

2 Cor 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ.

"Would that be one verse consistent with our agreed upon doctrine you state above?" So I will now just assume your answer is yes, since you will not say.

It seems very consistent to me and almost undeniable what Paul means there.

That is, Paul, you and I all agree that it takes the work of the Holy Spirit to initially bring a lost person to the point of firm faith? Right?

Then I am saying that's not the only work of the Holy Spirit. Rather the Holy Spirit continues His work and keeps a true believer believing.

You, on the other hand, are disagreeing and saying the Holy Spirit essentially stops working and allows a true believer to revert back to his former lost self. Right?

I was merely going to point out Paul's next breath:

He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

A true believer has already been Anointed.

A true believer has a seal of ownership (we belong to Him already).

A tue believer has these as guarantees already.

So I assume you are pointing to 1 Cor 15 and now Col 1 for texts to back up your position. Trying to say Paul teaches a true believer can lose his gifted faith. I don't see it.

"22...He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

Hum, a true believer is reconciled now through Christ's flesh and His death. Neither of which change.
Presented already. Hum?

Then we see Paul saying in the very next breath that we have to continue in faith to stay firm and established, and steadfast, and unmoved from this perfect work of God that does that for us:

23 ...if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard" (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

Vs. 23 is essentially a parallel verse to the 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 passage we've been talking about.

Agreed. It is very similar, saying essentially the same thing as 1 Cor 15. Again, I do believe un-saved people can vainly "hear" the gospel and not believe IN the Gospel. Even some church goers. They are the ELSE case.
They have "heard" the Gospel, yet not believed in it.
That's why Paul goes on to say:
2 Cor 2:
5 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

WRT vs 23, Do you know why the translation from the Greek says: "if indeed", rather than just "if" you continue...

It's because in the Greek, Paul's use of the indicative mood of the verb "continue" indicates surety that it will indeed happen. It wouldn't be the full translation not to say "indeed".

See? The surety of God's work makes you and I stand firm in Christ.

Agreed. Yes, I do see that.

I also see some additional work of the Holy Spirit to keep a true believer "anointed". It's guaranteed. In 2 Cor 1

21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

. It was a yes/no question. I haven't still seen your answer.
You said:
To which I merely asked this one simple yes/no question:

2 Cor 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ.

"Would that be one verse consistent with our agreed upon doctrine you state above?" So I will now just assume your answer is yes, since you will not say.

For what you're trying to make the verse defend, I say, 'no'. What you say the verse above means is NOT consistent with what 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, or Colossians 1:22-23 plainly say. I showed you what it does mean and how that understanding is consistent with the other passage.

It seems very consistent to me and almost undeniable what Paul means there.

That is, Paul, you and I all agree that it takes the work of the Holy Spirit to initially bring a lost person to the point of firm faith? Right?

Right. But what you're doing is negating the necessary responsibility of the person to submit to the work of the Holy Spirit of his own free will.

Then I am saying that's not the only work of the Holy Spirit. Rather the Holy Spirit continues His work and keeps a true believer believing.

And I'm saying the responsibility to submit to the work of the Holy Spirit continues along with God's work. But you seem to be pushing the same 'my belief is entirely a God thing, and I have nothing to do with it' thinking after salvation as you do in getting saved itself. This is the very foundation of the OSAS doctrine, but it is a false foundation. That is what I am resisting--not the power of God in believing, but in the thinking that believing is entirely a God thing where believers just get swept along for the ride and don't contribute any responsibility to deciding to believe, and so there is no responsibility on the part of man for that faith to endure to the end.

You, on the other hand, are disagreeing and saying the Holy Spirit essentially stops working and allows a true believer to revert back to his former lost self. Right?

Wrong. The Holy Spirit is always working to maintain the faith of the person who has placed their faith in the blood of Christ for justification. What I'm resisting is the OSAS contention that man's believing, and continued belief, is entirely and utterly God's responsibility, and therefore, the salvation that believing secures is eternal and irreversible, because man plays no part in it. He simply possesses that believing.

I was merely going to point out Paul's next breath:

He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

A true believer has already been Anointed.

A true believer has a seal of ownership (we belong to Him already).

A tue believer has these as guarantees already.

But you refuse to acknowledge the plain words of Paul that warn believers not to stop believing. This is what indoctrinations do--they make people look right at words that contradict what they have been taught to believe and makes them see them in an unreasonable way that supports the indoctrination. It's amazing to me. I've been guilty of it myself. But not anymore. I'm not afraid to acknowledge that the church is terribly wrong in this matter of faith/ works.

So I assume you are pointing to 1 Cor 15 and now Col 1 for texts to back up your position. Trying to say Paul teaches a true believer can lose his gifted faith. I don't see it.

That's because you've been taught that the gift of faith means it is shoved on a person. That the person is in effect assigned that faith, as opposed to what I'm saying, that faith is a gracious gift made available to man and it's his responsibility to receive it and keep it to the very end.

My doctrine does not rob faith of it's gracious nature. It puts the element of man's choice to receive and keep that gracious gift, as an act of his own will, back into the teaching of faith, the way the Bible teaches it.

Hum, a true believer is reconciled now through Christ's flesh and His death.

Right. ...Through faith. And he will continue to be reconciled as long as he has that faith.

Neither of which change.
Presented already. Hum?

Why does 'presented already' have to mean forever, and irreversible? You're reading that definition into the phrase.

Agreed. It is very similar, saying essentially the same thing as 1 Cor 15. Again, I do believe un-saved people can vainly "hear" the gospel and not believe IN the Gospel. Even some church goers. They are the ELSE case.
They have "heard" the Gospel, yet not believed in it.
That's why Paul goes on to say:
2 Cor 2:
5 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

WRT vs 23, Do you know why the translation from the Greek says: "if indeed", rather than just "if" you continue...

It's because in the Greek, Paul's use of the indicative mood of the verb "continue" indicates surety that it will indeed happen. It wouldn't be the full translation not to say "indeed".

So we're back to 'the Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says' defense. I have repented of this kind of dishonest and unreasonable Biblical interpretation. I'm free of the power of these indoctrinations that make people accept these kinds of explanations.

The truth can be hard to accept sometimes, but we all have to find the courage sooner or later to face it and be willing to accept the plain words of scripture and abandon these 'itching ears' explanations of scripture. l'm done with them. It makes the church look really stupid. I'm not defending them anymore.

Agreed. Yes, I do see that.

I also see some additional work of the Holy Spirit to keep a true believer "anointed". It's guaranteed. In 2 Cor 1

21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

I see the power of the indoctrination at work here that makes people automatically see 'eternal' and 'irreversible' in the presentation of the passage above.

Paul PLAINLY says the guarantee is conditional on continuing in faith. I quoted the plain words, but it's amazing how the power of an indoctrination makes people not see it. Simply amazing. That indoctrination being that if it's conditional in any way then it's a works salvation--seemingly oblivious to the fact that Paul does not say 'believing' is among the works that can not justify, but the church erroneously understands his teaching that way.

I first saw how indoctrinations can twist scripture in people's minds in the cults. Then I started seeing how I was guilty of the same indoctrinated blindness. Not anymore. I'm done with it.

 

[JLB]

Chessman said -

Agreed. Yes, I do see that.

I also see some additional work of the Holy Spirit to keep a true believer "anointed". It's guaranteed. In 2 Cor 1

21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

If you read to the end, you will find this phrase that reconciles and balances what Jethro has been saying, concerning our faith in the surety Of Christ, and the balance of "our" part to have faith in His ability to faithfully cleanse us as we draw near to Him for that very reason.

It is a Divine Partnership between the believer and God.

God is faithful to do His part, in that we have complete confidence.

However, there is our part as well, Faith!

Paul concludes -

24 Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand. 2 Corinthians 2:24


But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6



JLB

 

[veryberry]

Eph 4: 30 - And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

I take this as saying, That once a true believer puts his faith in Christ, then he is sealed regardless of his works. In other words a Believer has eternal security. How do you take it?
1 Cor 3: 15 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire

I take this the same way as above. How do you take it?

Saying that works MUST be apart of a true believers faith is dangerous, because then it contradicts what the Bible says in:

Roms 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 is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
and
Eph 2: 8-9: - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,9. not of works, lest anyone should boast

I do agree that Bible does not say that once a person is saved, then he can go and do what ever he wants. There will be consquences such as loosing rewards, chastisement, your life, but loosing salvation is not one of them.
I do believe that a person that is "in the faith" and then leaves the faith, then that person was never "in the faith" to begin with. I fear that this is most professing Christians today.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Eph 4: 30 - And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

I take this as saying, That once a true believer puts his faith in Christ, then he is sealed regardless of his works. In other words a Believer has eternal security. How do you take it?

The thinking is that since justification is by faith apart from works (as it surely is) then a person can not lose their justification by what they do, good or bad. The problem with this thinking is our behavior is a direct reflection of the faith that justifies all by itself. The faith that justifies is measured by what it does. That's why James says the 'faith' that doesn't do anything is the faith that can not save.

To say you have faith, but then not have works consistent with having faith in Christ, is the deception the Bible warns us about. IOW, if you don't act like you have faith in the forgiveness of God.....you probably don't. And that's why the Bible tells us to strive to show our calling and election as being sure by acting it out.

1 Cor 3: 15 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire

I take this the same way as above. How do you take it?

The work that may or may not burn up in a person's life is the 'building' they're building up with the gospel, or the 'field' they're planting and watering the gospel in. What Paul is saying is, "what benefit is it to me if I build you Corinthians up into parts of God's building, and plantings in the field of God that will not withstand the fires of the Judgment and leave me empty handed with nothing to show for my labors?"

The context of the letter is him trying to convince the Corinthians that his ministry is valid, and what he's teaching them is the truth. He's showing them that he has nothing to gain by building them up with a weak and ineffective ministry that can not build them up into something that cannot withstand the fires of Judgment and which robs him of the reward of his work--them.

Look at this passage in Hebrews 6...

"7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God.8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." (Hebrews 6:7-8 NIV)

Land that responds to the gospel is spared the Judgment and is blessed by God, and is useful to those who farmed it. But land that does not drink in the gospel (or stops doing so--see context) and produces no crop is no good to those who farmed it, and the LAND (those in which the word was sown) is burned up, and brings no benefit to the one(s) who farmed it.

So you see, 1 Corinthians 3 is not a passage about how a person can have faith and have no works and still be saved. It's a passage to show how a person can labor in the work of the gospel and have nothing to show for his labor. That's why Paul says he labors with sincerity and truth--so he can reap the reward of his labors--that reward being the people he is laboring for:

"...so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation...in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing." (Phillipians 2:15-16 NIV)

Saying that works MUST be apart of a true believers faith is dangerous, because then it contradicts what the Bible says in:

Roms 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 is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
and
Eph 2: 8-9: - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,9. not of works, lest anyone should boast

But saying works must be a part of a true believers faith doesn't have to mean that person is somehow justified by that work. It simply means faith must be seen in what a person does:

"17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?" (1 John 3:17 NIV)

"14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
18 Show me your faith without deeds (the faith that can not save), and I will show you my faith by my deeds." (James 2:14,18 NIV)

I do agree that Bible does not say that once a person is saved, then he can go and do what ever he wants. There will be consquences such as loosing rewards, chastisement, your life, but loosing salvation is not one of them.

In the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18, the King forgave the man's debt, but reinstated that debt after the servant was not merciful to his fellow servants.

I do believe that a person that is "in the faith" and then leaves the faith, then that person was never "in the faith" to begin with. I fear that this is most professing Christians today.

The man in the parable really was forgiven, but popular teaching in the church says he was never really forgiven to begin with since he did not act like he was forgiven.

This teaching that says the person who doesn't stay in the faith was never really saved to begin with is in fact a very unsure and insecure element of OSAS doctrine (the opposite of what OSAS is supposed to assure us of).

How does anybody know that what they think is their faithful obedience, and the evidence of their eternally secure, irreversible salvation, will really turn out to not be that at all? It is taught that to not continue in faithful obedience is the sign that you were never really saved to begin with. So, how can anyone be sure that what they are doing now will not turn out to be false and that they were never really saved to begin with? In that doctrine good works is NOT a sign of eternal unchangeable salvation as claimed, because that doctrine says the person who walks away from those works was never really saved to begin with. So how do you ever know if you're really truly saved? Think about it.

 

[chessman]

For what you're trying to make the verse defend, I say, 'no'. What you say the verse above means is NOT consistent with what 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, or Colossians 1:22-23 plainly say.

You've misunderstood my question. i asked if that verse was consistent with your statement, not mine. You said:

It requires a work of the Holy Spirit to lead someone to trust in Jesus Christ. That's what makes salvation the gracious gift of God that it is. For without the Holy Spirit no man would place his trust in that which he can't know is true except by the Holy Spirit convicting him it's true.

I merely asked if the 2 Cor 1:21 verse is one consistent with your doctrine concerning this leading work of the Holy Spirit.

I can best speak for my beliefs. You clearly misunderstand my belief, even saying that I am negating man's will and responsibility by saying: "But what you're doing is negating the necessary responsibility of the person to submit to the work of the Holy Spirit of his own free will."

Um, no I'm not. I think man has his will and is responsible for his own choices in the matter of responding to the Holy Spirit's leading. Man having a will/choice does not negate the fact that the Holy Spirit leads or seals, for that matter. You've already said that the Holy Spirit leads a man. I agree. I'm saying the Holy Spirit not only leads but He also seals, anoints and guarantees. But again, if you think that negates man's will, well you're free to think that, I suppose. But it's wrong, in my opinion. And I've never said man doesn't have a will or responsibility. You've said that. So if you think there's a negation of man's will/responsibility given God's seal, anointing and guarantee then it's your private belief. Not mine.

I say all three passages are plainly consistent with each other and my doctrine. I see zero conflict with these passages or man's free will and even man's responsibility. I do believe man's will is still intact, not negated.

My only point was that the Holy Spirit is a helper in maintaining our salvation just as much as He is that initial helper. I don't think God makes mistakes. In other words, OP=faith without works, includes the Holy Spirit's work as a seal and guarantee and anointer. Both aspects are there in the 2 Cor 1-2 passages. If you believe the Holy Spirit helps convict, lead and works in a believer at their initial conversion via 2 Cor 1:21 then you have to also believe that the Holy Spirit continues to work in a believer as a seal and guarantee.

2 Cor 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. [leading work of the H.S.]

and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. [sustaining work of the H.S.]

Talk about reading and believing what Paul plainly says. I start with God and allow God to be God. I'm not negating man's will either, when I do that. Just reading what this passage plainly says. I'm not really even focusing on OSAS in this thread. Rather, my point is that even somebody as anti-OSAS as your belief must recognize that the Holy Spirit doesn't just initially lead and convict an un-saved person. He also abides in the saved person as a seal and guaranteer.

And I'm saying the responsibility to submit to the work of the Holy Spirit continues along with God's work.

Okay. Me too.

But you seem to be pushing the same 'my belief is entirely a God thing, and I have nothing to do with it' thinking after salvation as you do in getting saved itself.

You must have me confused with someone else. I've never said I thought salvation (before or after) was entirely a God thing. But I can assure you, I don't think it's entirely a man thing either (before or after conversion). I know people that think it's entirely a man thing after conversion. but they have zero Scripture to prove that point. And they run into conflicts with Scriptures like 2 Cor 1:21-22 on their view of that kind of works doctrine. It really doesn't matter whether you are talking about rejecting the initial leading of the Holy Spirit, or rejecting it later on in life. The idea that the you are doing so, entirely without the Holy Spirit as a seal for the saved, isn't Biblical. Again, just plainly reading what Paul says.

The Holy Spirit is always working to maintain the faith of the person who has placed their faith in the blood of Christ for justification.

Cool. Me too. That's the answer I thought you would just give right off, several posts back to the 2 Cor 1:21-22 passage. that's really my only point.

But you refuse to acknowledge the plain words of Paul that warn believers not to stop believing.

Um, if you say so, I guess it must be true then huh? It sure doesn't seem to me that I refuse to acknowledge the plain words of Paul that warn believers not to stop believing. In fact, I've acknowledged quite a lot about Paul's words.

It's interesting; A search of the NIV/ESV for the phrase "stop believing" yields zero results. That phrase literally does not appear in the Bible. Try it out yourself.

The 1 Cor 15 passage says "unless you believed in vain". Vain belief is a far cry from "stop believing", plainly.
Col 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith" is also a far cry from "stop believing", INDEED.

That's because you've been taught that the gift of faith means it is shoved on a person. That the person is in effect assigned that faith, as opposed to what I'm saying, that faith is a gracious gift made available to man and it's his responsibility to receive it and keep it to the very end.

Well wait a minute now. That's not what I've been taught nor what I believe. How do you know what I've been taught? How do you know what I acknowledge? I'm beginning to suspect you're a little over presumptuous about what I believe (and Paul) for that matter. Paul never even used the words "stop believing". Those are your words, not Paul's. Yet above you say those are Paul's words.

Why does 'presented already' have to mean forever, and irreversible? You're reading that definition into the phrase.

As opposed to interpreting Paul's plain words of believed in vain = "stop believing".
But to answer: Because I don't think God is stupid, that's why. If the Scripture says: And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us. And it does! Then I don't think God makes mistakes. I don't see God anointing anyone that will not receive salvation. In fact, I pretty much know He hasn't:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

Talk about "plain"!

If God knows the future, and He does, then why would He anoint a future non-believer? It demeans who God is, to think He's that stupid.

So we're back to 'the Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says' defense. I have repented of this kind of dishonest and unreasonable Biblical interpretation. I'm free of the power of these indoctrinations that make people accept these kinds of explanations.

So under your power, your freedom, do you think God is mistaken to anoint a believer who later, to use your words not Paul's, "stops believing"?
Can you even quote a Scripture that describes a true believer as having "stopped believing?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It sure doesn't seem to me that I refuse to acknowledge the plain words of Paul that warn believers not to stop believing. In fact, I've acknowledged quite a lot about Paul's words.

It's interesting; A search of the NIV/ESV for the phrase "stop believing" yields zero results. That phrase literally does not appear in the Bible. Try it out yourself.

I know it's old, it's worn out, but you will not find the word 'trinity' in the Bible either.

The 1 Cor 15 passage says "unless you believed in vain". Vain belief is a far cry from "stop believing", plainly.
Col 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith" is also a far cry from "stop believing", INDEED.

This does not change the passage. Can't you see how hard you have to twist the scripture to make it say what you want it too? I've learned, that should tell you something. That's a red flag. Don't ignore it.

Paul never even used the words "stop believing". Those are your words, not Paul's. Yet above you say those are Paul's words.

The Bible refers to it in terms of 'stop standing', 'shrinking back', 'lose of confidence'.

As opposed to interpreting Paul's plain words of believed in vain = "stop believing".
But to answer: Because I don't think God is stupid, that's why. If the Scripture says: And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us. And it does! Then I don't think God makes mistakes. I don't see God anointing anyone that will not receive salvation. In fact, I pretty much know He hasn't:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

Talk about "plain"!

You're still reading 'permanent', and 'irreversible' into the words. You're applying preconceived ideas from outside the passage to interpret these words. I'm amazed that you can't see that. Since when does the word 'anointing' and 'seal' all by themselves mean forever, and permanent, and irreversible?

If God knows the future, and He does, then why would He anoint a future non-believer? It demeans who God is, to think He's that stupid.

It sounds like good reasoning, except that the Bible really does warn us to not forsake the stand we have taken in Christ. It's undeniable. No power of rationalization and word defining will make it go away.

"...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

It's impossible to honestly make these words go away. Impossible. I'm not striving against plain words of the Bible anymore. I'm done with it. I'm done with 'itching ears' doctrines. These words make it impossible to conclude that one can not stop remaining in Christ after they come to Christ. Impossible.

So under your power, your freedom, do you think God is mistaken to anoint a believer who later, to use your words not Paul's, "stops believing"?
Can you even quote a Scripture that describes a true believer as having "stopped believing?

You've already rejected the ones you were shown. So explain how the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18 can be forgiven, and then not forgiven, okay? That's the point of all this--the King really did forgive him when he begged for that forgiveness, and his contempt for the forgiveness he really did receive caused the King to reconsider the forgiveness he gave to the servant.

 

[JLB]

Chessman said -
it's interesting; A search of the NIV/ESV for the phrase "stop believing" yields zero results. That phrase literally does not appear in the Bible. Try it out yourself.

The 1 Cor 15 passage says "unless you believed in vain". Vain belief is a far cry from "stop believing", plainly.
Col 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith" is also a far cry from "stop believing", INDEED.

A person shows that they stop believing by their work of "departing from the living God".

Their departing from the living God is the evidence that they have stop believing.


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

The word teaches us that we know we have become a partaker of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence, steadfast to the end.

That is why The Word says -

The end of your faith is the salvation of your soul.

Not the beginning of your faith, as OSAS doctrine teaches, but the END of your faith.

... receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1:9


JLB

 

[chessman]

You will not find the word 'trinity' in the Bible either.

I know. But understanding the deep theology of the Trinity takes systematic/complete Biblical exegesis. You, on the other hand, said Paul used the plain words to describe a true believer that "stop believing". That is simply not the case.

The Bible refers to it in terms of 'stop standing', 'shrinking back', 'lose of confidence'.

You said Paul plainly spoke of believers who "stop believing" in 1 Cor 15 and Col 1:23. Those phrases aren't in those passages either. A quick survey of just the word "confidence" also paints a different picture. Hebrews 13:6. So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?”

That's my point about the work of the Holy Spirit. He's our confidence.

What translation has "lose of confidence"? I searched and find zero occurrences in the Bible. Interesting that you think it's there.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...ASV;KJV;NASB;NKJV&searchtype=phrase&bookset=2

You're still reading 'permanent', and 'irreversible' into the words. You're applying preconceived ideas from outside the passage to interpret these words. I'm amazed that you can't see that. Since when does the word 'anointing' and 'seal' all by themselves mean forever, and permanent, and irreversible?

Actually, this is completely wrong. It is inherient in the "seal" as Paul meant the word. That's my point.

4972/sphragízō ("to seal") signifies ownership and the fullsecurity carried by the backing (full authority) of the owner. "Sealing" in the ancient world served as a "legal signature" which guaranteed the promise (contents) of what was sealed.

He didn't mean a seal on an envelope or the seal of Granny's brown jug It's what you are doing, to make this a 21st Century word, if you'd only have an open mind about it.

It sounds like good reasoning, except that the Bible really does warn us to not forsake the stand we have taken in Christ. It's undeniable. No power of rationalization and word defining will make it go away.

Okay, I agree that the Bible warns us not to forsake the stand we have taken. What's your point? That's no exception to believing in God's power, His seal.

"...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

It's impossible to honestly make these words go away. Impossible.

Why would I ever want to makes these words go away? Those having a faith established and firm and presented and reconciled are those that are saved. Else, they're not. They're not of us as 2 John teaches us.

So explain how the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18 can be forgiven, and then not forgiven, okay? That's the point of all this--the King really did forgive him when he begged for that forgiveness, and his contempt for the forgiveness he really did receive caused the King to reconsider the forgiveness he gave to the servant.

Easy:

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said:"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

First, all of Matt 18 (the parrabels told) is about this question. Giving illustrations that illustrate Jesus's answer to this question.

What makes you assume that the unmerciful servant didn't actually learn his lesson in prison? Or to bring the illustration back to the point Jesus was actually making to the disciples, what makes you think Peter and the other disciples didn't see Jesus's point and avoid holding an unmerciful/forgiving attitude altogether and actually take the lowly position of a child? Kind if like the lowly position of recognizing that it's God's power that saves, not man's. Kind of like taking the lowly position that it's God's power (the King) that seals the saved, and not man's (the servents)?

33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' [implied answer=yes=7,000 times over]

34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Do you think this servent ever repaid what he owed and developed a better attitude or rather did he rot away in prison obstinately never repaying the debt? It doesn't matter, the text doesn't say,

Do you think because this verse says "torture" and "prison" that it's an obvious illustration about Hell? I don't. It's interesting that you would speculate that way. It's obvious that Jesus was teaching via a illustrative parrable about how the Father uses trials here on Earth in this life, to mold His clay into better servants. More forgiving servants and lowly servants.

35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart."

Notice:
1: He's talking to the disciples.
2: it's about how they (and us disciples) should forgive others, not teaching about Hell.
3: it says until the debt is paid not forever.
4: 33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' [implied answer=yes But what's up with mercy on you, if this is about the lost?]. Again, if you think God doesn't know the future and is thus depended on the actions of men for His purposes, then you and I fundamentally view God differently.

 

[JLB]

I know. But understanding the deep theology of the Trinity takes systematic/complete Biblical exegesis. You, on the other hand, said Paul used the plain words to describe a true believer that "stop believing". That is simply not the case.



You said Paul plainly spoke of believers who "stop believing" in 1 Cor 15 and Col 1:23. Those phrases aren't in those passages either. A quick survey of just the word "confidence" also paints a different picture. Hebrews 13:6. So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?”

That's my point about the work of the Holy Spirit. He's our confidence.

What translation has "lose of confidence"? I searched and find zero occurrences in the Bible. Interesting that you think it's there.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=lose of confidence&version=ESV;ASV;KJV;NASB;NKJV&searchtype=phrase&bookset=2


Actually, this is completely wrong. It is inherient in the "seal" as Paul meant the word. That's my point.

4972/sphragízō ("to seal") signifies ownership and the fullsecurity carried by the backing (full authority) of the owner. "Sealing" in the ancient world served as a "legal signature" which guaranteed the promise (contents) of what was sealed.

He didn't mean a seal on an envelope or the seal of Granny's brown jug It's what you are doing, to make this a 21st Century word, if you'd only have an open mind about it.


Okay, I agree that the Bible warns us not to forsake the stand we have taken. What's your point? That's no exception to believing in God's power, His seal.

Why would I ever want to makes these words go away? Those having a faith established and firm and presented and reconciled are those that are saved. Else, they're not. They're not of us as 2 John teaches us.



Easy:

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said:"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

First, all of Matt 18 (the parrabels told) is about this question. Giving illustrations that illustrate Jesus's answer to this question.

What makes you assume that the unmerciful servant didn't actually learn his lesson in prison? Or to bring the illustration back to the point Jesus was actually making to the disciples, what makes you think Peter and the other disciples didn't see Jesus's point and avoid holding an unmerciful/forgiving attitude altogether and actually take the lowly position of a child? Kind if like the lowly position of recognizing that it's God's power that saves, not man's. Kind of like taking the lowly position that it's God's power (the King) that seals the saved, and not man's (the servents)?

33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' [implied answer=yes=7,000 times over]

34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Do you think this servent ever repaid what he owed and developed a better attitude or rather did he rot away in prison obstinately never repaying the debt? It doesn't matter, the text doesn't say,

Do you think because this verse says "torture" and "prison" that it's an obvious illustration about Hell? I don't. It's interesting that you would speculate that way. It's obvious that Jesus was teaching via a illustrative parrable about how the Father uses trials here on Earth in this life, to mold His clay into better servants. More forgiving servants and lowly servants.

35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart."

Notice:
1: He's talking to the disciples.
2: it's about how they (and us disciples) should forgive others, not teaching about Hell.
3: it says until the debt is paid not forever.
4: 33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' [implied answer=yes But what's up with mercy on you, if this is about the lost?]. Again, if you think God doesn't know the future and is thus depended on the actions of men for His purposes, then you and I fundamentally view God differently.

The Holy Spirit is our confidence, however, that does not negate the active participation of the believer's faith!

It by faith you are saved!

It is by faith, you continue to stand!

The scripture says, for by faith you stand. 2 Corinthians 1:24

Their departing from the living God is the evidence that they have stop believing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know. But understanding the deep theology of the Trinity takes systematic/complete Biblical exegesis. You, on the other hand, said Paul used the plain words to describe a true believer that "stop believing". That is simply not the case.

So now you want to argue that to not 'stand firm', or not 'be established' in Christ does not mean 'not believing', but 'standing firm', and 'being established' means believing? Really?

What translation has "lose of confidence"? I searched and find zero occurrences in the Bible. Interesting that you think it's there.

Let me help you:

35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.
36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For,
“In just a little while,
he who is coming will come
and will not delay.”
38 And,
“But my righteous one will live by faith.
And I take no pleasure
in the one who shrinks back.”
39 But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved."
(Hebrews 10:35-39 NIV)

Notice how he contrasts 'shrink back' with 'have faith', showing us that 'shrink back' means to 'not have faith'.

Actually, this is completely wrong. It is inherient in the "seal" as Paul meant the word. That's my point.

4972/sphragízō ("to seal") signifies ownership and the fullsecurity carried by the backing (full authority) of the owner. "Sealing" in the ancient world served as a "legal signature" which guaranteed the promise (contents) of what was sealed.

How does this mean that it's impossible that the promise written down and guaranteed to be delivered can not in any way shape or form be conditional on having faith? This is the flawed thinking I see in the doctrine you defend--that a 'seal' means implicitly that what is promised has no--and can not possibly have any--consideration of conditions placed on it whatsoever.

He didn't mean a seal on an envelope or the seal of Granny's brown jug It's what you are doing, to make this a 21st Century word, if you'd only have an open mind about it.

My open mind asks, "why does the seal have to be sealing something that can not possibly be conditioned on something the recipient of the promise must do, and continue to do, in this case, have faith? I think your doctrine is the one with the narrow and closed thinking about it.

I like to think of it in our modern terms of a lotto ticket. When you hit lotto with the right numbers, it's as good as done that you have what was promised. The surety being in the power and reputation of the lotto company. But you still have to produce those winning numbers when it 's time to actually take possession of the full amount of money promised. No numbers--no winnings. No matter how right they were when you had them.

The promise of lotto winnings itself can't fail (remember, it's an analogy, lol). But the condition for the promise may. The surety that one can take confidence in the promise made to the person who satisfies the conditions for receiving what is promised (that is, having the right numbers) is the reputation of the company backing the promise. Just meet the condition and the promise is as sure as they said it is.

You can take comfort in that, but that hardly relieves the lotto winner of his responsibilities of hanging onto the numbers. And it certainly doesn't promise that the winner can not give away the numbers. But for some reason this isn't true in the matter of salvation, even though the Bible plainly says to keep that which you started out with, warning us to not 'throw away' what secured the surety of the promise in the first place.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Okay, I agree that the Bible warns us not to forsake the stand we have taken. What's your point? That's no exception to believing in God's power, His seal.

The point is, it is possible to not be standing on the promises anymore...by purposeful choice. No surety of God's promise can reach that person because the condition for having the sure promise of God in salvation is standing in faith, which they don't have anymore.

Why would I ever want to makes these words go away?

Because they chaff against the feel-good doctrine that you are forever and irretrievably saved no matter if you have works attached to your faith, or not (or whatever one's particular brand of OSAS says that tickles the ears of us humans who want to believe they are saved 'and there's nothing I can do about that').

Those having a faith established and firm and presented and reconciled are those that are saved. Else, they're not.

Why do you ignore the 'if' clause that says 'if (indeed) you continue in your faith'? That's what you have to answer. Inserting the word 'indeed' only emphasizes the practical requirement for doing so, further strengthening and driving home the point that you must continue in the faith to be saved by the faith.

But some in the church mistakenly think that to believe you have to do ANYTHING to be saved--even continuing to believe--you are trying to save yourself by your own works. Paul never said believing is among the works that can not justify. He CONTRASTED faith as that which does justify with the work that does not justify. From here all kinds of variations on a theme pop up to somehow rip the willful 'work' of believing--and continuing to believe--from man to avoid violating an understanding about Paul's faith/works teaching that isn't even true in the first place.

33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' [implied answer=yes=7,000 times over]

34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

How does this mean, 'until you accept my offer of forgiveness of your debt again', when it's actually saying, 'no forgiveness--you have to pay back the debt'? How is paying back the debt (as if he could) somehow akin to once again being forgiven the debt? The master is not offering that as an option. I'm pretty sure that it is your doctrine, not mine, that is doing the speculating here.

Do you think this servent ever repaid what he owed and developed a better attitude or rather did he rot away in prison obstinately never repaying the debt? It doesn't matter, the text doesn't say,

But, chessman, it doesn't say he was put back into prison to somehow be forgiven the debt. He was put there to pay the full amount due, but which was in fact once forgiven--which is the point I'm trying to show you. He was once forgiven. Now he is not. Do you want to somehow argue the famous 'he wasn't really forgiven, or else he would not have acted that way' argument?

Do you think because this verse says "torture" and "prison" that it's an obvious illustration about Hell? I don't. It's interesting that you would speculate that way. It's obvious that Jesus was teaching via a illustrative parrable about how the Father uses trials here on Earth in this life, to mold His clay into better servants. More forgiving servants and lowly servants.

Let's look at a parallel teaching from Christ about this matter of abusing fellow servants:

"35 “Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit. 36 Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.38 Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.

39 “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 40 You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.”

41 Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know (the Judgment), and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers." (Luke 12:35-46 NASB parenthesis mine)

This passage teaches us that Jesus is in fact talking about being cast into hell, and at the Judgment, not about just being chastised, and in this life. Not to mention it also stresses being ready, and staying ready for his appearance. It does not teach believing and then going on your merry way, right or wrong (doesn't matter), and being guaranteed salvation with no possibility whatsoever of being placed with the hypocrites and unbelievers, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 24:51) because the promise is so entirely unable to be conditional on anything other than God's faithful promise.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Their departing from the living God is the evidence that they have stop believing.


12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God....
Hebrews 3:12

Don't miss the point in JLB's post, Chessman. Note the word 'unbelief' and how it means 'departing' (from the living God).


And note in the second kind of soil in Jesus' parable how this kind of person believes, but after a while, does not believe:

"13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13 NASB)

See it? They 'believe for a while', then 'fall away'.

The Bible most certainly does talk about 'believing' and then 'not believing' in terms of the word 'believe' (which you say it does not).

 

[jeff77]

There are real life examples of well known preachers that claim they once believed but don't believe anymore. I can't think of their names right now.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem is, the church thinks of faith in an 'either/ or' way, instead of how the Bible talks about it--faith that is strong and endures to the end, and faith that is weak and does not endure to the end.

Eternal security is about having a strong faith that endures to the end. To whatever degree your faith is strong is the degree to which your salvation is secure. That's why God is working in us to increase and strengthen our faith...so we can endure to the end and be saved, not shrink back and be lost.

We know from the parable of the soil that not everybody who starts out believing endures to the end. And from that same parable we know that a failing faith is not evidence that it was not faith to begin with as is popularly taught in the church, but that it was a weak faith because it did not have deep roots and, therefore, could not endure the trials and testings of this life.