Also to help full disclosure here, I do not believe in dispensationalist theology of any kind nor OSAS(once saved always saved). I believe the scriptures are clear from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelations and they speak of the same thing from start to finish regarding God's saving grace, and mercy. I believe God's plan has never changed from the moment this created world began, and that plan was His kingdom, whereby being saved from the ever dying world has always been by means of and through the works of our Lord.
I'll attach a document I've used at times when discussing this topic (OSAS). It is from a non-biased point of view, IMHO. As it has 2 columns. One side lists verses concerning OSAS (Permanence) and the other listing verses concerning Conditional. It only lists verses from the Epistles on the Conditional side, so as to not bring up the inevitable hidden man in the corner(Dispensationalists). And that's all it is.. Just verses. Pro/Against. I've found it helpful at times.. And while not exhaustive, it's the primary ones usually discussed.
Nice list. I suspect that both "sides" are making a fundamental mistake. Stipulating to that list, it appears that there's a number of verses saying "conditional", and a number of verses saying "unconditional." This points towards one of 2 conclusions:
A) the Bible is contradictory in major ways and thus is unreliable for doctrine like this
B) the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently.
That's my thinking, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. Then again, we're still beginning this discussion, so who knows where we will end up before it's over?
I'll attach a document I've used at times when discussing this topic (OSAS).
That's quite a list! It has done NOTHING to help clarify, for me, whether salvation is permanent or not. It looks, at first look, that it can go either way. And so...
3 hours ago, WordWolf said:
the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently.
I agree with WordWolf. Now to try to determine what those different things are.
On 6/8/2018 at 2:20 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:
TLC does not follow dictor Paul. He’s a hyperdispensationalist just like his idols, Bullinger, Welch, Schofield, et al. To rely on the KJV, which is to rely upon Stephens’ Critical Greek Text compiled in 1550, is completely misguided. Even dictor “taught” there are NO ORIGINALS. So, he simply systematized the errors of the genuine Biblical scholars he plagiarized.
Given that my previous response to your banal posting and its snide quips seems to have stirred the pot a bit much (as it appears to have been removed), I won't bother with it much further other than point out the fact that you, Mr. D, are plainly clueless as to who I am, what my background is, how I think, what I do and don't know, and why I believe what I do. And when you bother trying to persuade or convince anyone else that you know more than you do, it actually shows up as nothing more than a reflection upon your own real ignorance.
Scoff and huff and puff all you want, but for the record, dispensationlism (in more general terms) is quite alive and well outside the walls of this puny little forum, though it doesn't necessarily appear in the exact same form as might be ensconced in the works of any (or all) of Bullinger, Welch, Schofiel, et al. (Nor does this link encompass or surmise the complete essence or totality of it - http://www.charlottetownbiblechapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/David-Dunlap-handout.pdf )
While I may be wrong, but I don't believe one can discuss OSAS without also dipping into Dispensational theology. And as such a number of terms being thrown around may not have the same meaning.
Oh for sure, it can be discussed. Just like you can keep the blinders on a horse if you want to be sure to lead them where you want them to go. Just means you probably have a certain end in mind before entering the discussion.
...I believe the scriptures are clear from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelations and they speak of the same thing from start to finish regarding God's saving grace, and mercy. I believe God's plan has never changed from the moment this created world began, and that plan was His kingdom, whereby being saved from the ever dying world has always been by means of and through the works of our Lord.
I have no issue believing likewise. It's merely a matter of understanding how his saving grace and mercy are dispensed.
On 6/11/2018 at 5:58 AM, TrustAndObey said:
...I believe God's plan has never changed from the moment this created world began, and that plan was His kingdom, whereby being saved from the ever dying world has always been by means of and through the works of our Lord.
And I see it being from before Adam (but not Genesis 1:1).
the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently.
I agree with WordWolf. Now to try to determine what those different things are.
Yeah, and good luck with that trying to stay away from dispensationalism.
Given that my previous response to your banal posting and its snide quips seems to have stirred the pot a bit much (as it appears to have been removed), I won't bother with it much further other than point out the fact that you, Mr. D, are plainly clueless as to who I am, what my background is, how I think, what I do and don't know, and why I believe what I do
It's not addressed to me but I will respond by saying I really don't care who you are, what your background is, how you think or what you do or don't know. I am curious, though, why you continue to believe in a concept that has no scriptural basis while professing yourself to be an "expert" on all things biblical..
Dispensationalism is a rationalization. It's a way of explaining away the very real contradictions that exist in the scriptures. It's a way of deluding yourself into believing the scriptures are inerrant.
Scoff and huff and puff all you want, but for the record, dispensationlism (in more general terms) is quite alive and well outside the walls of this puny little forum, though it doesn't necessarily appear in the exact same form as might be ensconced in the works of any (or all) of Bullinger, Welch, Schofiel, et al. (Nor does this link encompass or surmise the complete essence or totality of it - http://www.charlottetownbiblechapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/David-Dunlap-handout.pdf )
TLC, Dispensationalism is still the most popular view of eschatology but it is in decline for various reasons...the time statements within the Book of Revelation being one of them. Dispensationalists are even admitting to this decline as confirmed at 1:49 in this video of a futurist/preterist debate although I disagree with their reasons why.
It's not addressed to me but I will respond by saying I really don't care who you are, what your background is, how you think or what you do or don't know.
Of course it wasn't addressed to you, as you weren't the one trying to define me and persuade others of it. So why bother stating the inherently obvious, that you don't care, when I don't care that you don't care?
20 hours ago, waysider said:
I am curious, though, why you continue to believe in a concept that has no scriptural basis while professing yourself to be an "expert" on all things biblical..
And, though I do not (and have not) professed myself to be an "expert on all things biblical," I'm curious why you think yourself much more the expert, in that your claiming the concept has no scriptural basis should have or bear so much more authority or weight than me writing something about what I might happen to believe...
Dispensationalism is a rationalization. It's a way of explaining away the very real contradictions that exist in the scriptures. It's a way of deluding yourself into believing the scriptures are inerrant.
If scripture cannot be broken, then it is inerrant... regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks so. (John 10:35.) So perhaps you ought to remove that from your argument against it. Which would leave your previous claim juxtapositioned alone against a way of understanding a great many (if not most all) apparent contradictions that exist in the scriptures.
Inerrancy is only possible if you allow for a dispensational approach to the scriptures. Without it, there are contradictions. This is one of the big things that was stressed in the PFAL class. "They only seem like contradictions because you fail to recognize who they were addressed to, etc" (dispensations)
TLC, Dispensationalism is still the most popular view of eschatology but it is in decline for various reasons...the time statements within the Book of Revelation being one of them. Dispensationalists are even admitting to this decline as confirmed at 1:49 in this video of a futurist/preterist debate although I disagree with their reasons why.
Surely you don't suppose that being (or becoming) more or less popular actually adds or subtracts anything to its veracity. However, thanks anyways for the video, which I may continue listening to it if/when I have more time.
If scripture cannot be broken, then it is inerrant... regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks so. (John 10:35.) So perhaps you ought to remove that from your argument against it. Which would leave your previous claim juxtapositioned alone against a way of understanding a great many (if not most all) apparent contradictions that exist in the scriptures.
It’s possible “the scripture cannot be broken” in John 10:35 refers to something other than inerrancy...Barnes’ notes on the Bible says of that phrase - the authority of scripture is final - it cannot be set aside...it appears Jesus was defending himself against the charge of blasphemy by appealing to the Old Testament - Psalm 82:6... look at other places where “broken” is used in reference to breaking the law of scripture : John 5:18 - “not only was he breaking the Sabbath “ and John 7:23 “circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken”...it I could be wrong but I take the phrase to mean something similar to how we view our country’s laws...no one is above the law - it is the final authority- no one can set it aside...can laws be broken ? Yes people do it all the time.
Sorry for this aside on another interpretation of “scripture cannot be broken” that does not equate it with inerrancy - but like a lot of other interesting points on this thread, maybe it warrants a whole new thread...
== == ==
now getting back to the topic - I would like to ask a few questions - which have been stated earlier by others as well:
Ok, can we start trying to get some definitions going, or does everyone want another few rounds before we start?
Then perhaps there should be some relatively early attempts to isolate and/or pin down more precisely what salvation can, does, or might mean.
Frankly, I'd be curious to know if anyone can show (or explain) how or why (prior to Paul) it means anything much more than, or something other than, the following:
-saved/redeemed/delivered/rescued (take your pick)
1) from our (i.e., Israel's) enemies, or
2) from (physical) sickness and/or death
Granted, the "entry into the kingdom of God" might allude to something more than this... but, from the perspective of how it was likely thought of or seen by his disciples, I suspect not.
Incorruptible: I like Thayer's definition - "not liable to decay, imperishable" Strong and Bullinger are in agreement, for the most part.
Anyone else agree?
I do, but would prefer to add "unable to rot" to that, and change "liable" (awkward word) to either "not ABLE to decay" or "not SUBJECT to decay" or "not ELIGIBLE to decay." I can easily see someone stumbling over "liable" and vpw would certainly have gone off on how that meant it was LEGAL to decay or something. (Thank you for not going the lazy route and saying "unable to corrupt" and calling it a day.)
Nice list. I suspect that both "sides" are making a fundamental mistake. Stipulating to that list, it appears that there's a number of verses saying "conditional", and a number of verses saying "unconditional." This points towards one of 2 conclusions:
A) the Bible is contradictory in major ways and thus is unreliable for doctrine like this
B) the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently.
That's my thinking, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. Then again, we're still beginning this discussion, so who knows where we will end up before it's over?
If it is ok with you WW, might I add one of probably many other possible conclusions?
It may be that both are RIGHT AND they are addressing the very same thing. BUT they are looking at that same thing from different perspectives. A time perspective? A functional perspective?
That's quite a list! It has done NOTHING to help clarify, for me, whether salvation is permanent or not. It looks, at first look, that it can go either way. And so...
I agree with WordWolf. Now to try to determine what those different things are.
That actually was the point of the list.. It is a good opener for the discussion that does nothing to solve the problem but rather to make it more visible. It is not exhaustive however, and I regret to have used the word unbiased when posting it. Since one could say it is biased towards permanence in that it lists them first and adds verses from other parts of the scriptures. And others could say it biases the conditional side because it happens to have more verses on that side. But the point was to try and be as unbiased as possible, and not lead either side to anything more than realizing this subject is much larger than just saying we have an "apparent contradiction" between what the apostle Paul said and what the book of James says. By faith or by works. Hebrews vs Romans. Old covenant vs New covenant. The law versus grace. Jesus vs Paul. The tabernacle of Moses vs the tabernacle of David. Abraham vs Israel. Israel vs Judah. Judah vs Ephraim. Adam vs Eve. Adam vs Adam and Israel vs Israel.
And dispensational theology is NOT the answer. Throwing out books of the Bible and verses in the name of "it's not written to me", is not the answer. Ignoring the 10 ton gorilla in the room is not the answer either.
But I believe chockfull's direction on defining terms is definitely a great start!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
TrustAndObey
Also to help full disclosure here, I do not believe in dispensationalist theology of any kind nor OSAS(once saved always saved). I believe the scriptures are clear from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelations and they speak of the same thing from start to finish regarding God's saving grace, and mercy. I believe God's plan has never changed from the moment this created world began, and that plan was His kingdom, whereby being saved from the ever dying world has always been by means of and through the works of our Lord.
I'll attach a document I've used at times when discussing this topic (OSAS). It is from a non-biased point of view, IMHO. As it has 2 columns. One side lists verses concerning OSAS (Permanence) and the other listing verses concerning Conditional. It only lists verses from the Epistles on the Conditional side, so as to not bring up the inevitable hidden man in the corner(Dispensationalists). And that's all it is.. Just verses. Pro/Against. I've found it helpful at times.. And while not exhaustive, it's the primary ones usually discussed.
Once_Saved_Always_Saved.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nice list. I suspect that both "sides" are making a fundamental mistake. Stipulating to that list, it appears that there's a number of verses saying "conditional", and a number of verses saying "unconditional." This points towards one of 2 conclusions:
A) the Bible is contradictory in major ways and thus is unreliable for doctrine like this
B) the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently.
That's my thinking, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. Then again, we're still beginning this discussion, so who knows where we will end up before it's over?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
That's quite a list! It has done NOTHING to help clarify, for me, whether salvation is permanent or not. It looks, at first look, that it can go either way. And so...
I agree with WordWolf. Now to try to determine what those different things are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given that my previous response to your banal posting and its snide quips seems to have stirred the pot a bit much (as it appears to have been removed), I won't bother with it much further other than point out the fact that you, Mr. D, are plainly clueless as to who I am, what my background is, how I think, what I do and don't know, and why I believe what I do. And when you bother trying to persuade or convince anyone else that you know more than you do, it actually shows up as nothing more than a reflection upon your own real ignorance.
Scoff and huff and puff all you want, but for the record, dispensationlism (in more general terms) is quite alive and well outside the walls of this puny little forum, though it doesn't necessarily appear in the exact same form as might be ensconced in the works of any (or all) of Bullinger, Welch, Schofiel, et al. (Nor does this link encompass or surmise the complete essence or totality of it - http://www.charlottetownbiblechapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/David-Dunlap-handout.pdf )
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Oh for sure, it can be discussed. Just like you can keep the blinders on a horse if you want to be sure to lead them where you want them to go. Just means you probably have a certain end in mind before entering the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I have no issue believing likewise. It's merely a matter of understanding how his saving grace and mercy are dispensed.
And I see it being from before Adam (but not Genesis 1:1).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yeah, and good luck with that trying to stay away from dispensationalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's not addressed to me but I will respond by saying I really don't care who you are, what your background is, how you think or what you do or don't know. I am curious, though, why you continue to believe in a concept that has no scriptural basis while professing yourself to be an "expert" on all things biblical..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
It's probably unavoidable, but then, I'm not trying to avoid it. It just seemed like a viable concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Dispensationalism is a rationalization. It's a way of explaining away the very real contradictions that exist in the scriptures. It's a way of deluding yourself into believing the scriptures are inerrant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
TLC, Dispensationalism is still the most popular view of eschatology but it is in decline for various reasons...the time statements within the Book of Revelation being one of them. Dispensationalists are even admitting to this decline as confirmed at 1:49 in this video of a futurist/preterist debate although I disagree with their reasons why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, can we start trying to get some definitions going, or does everyone want another few rounds before we start?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Incorruptible: I like Thayer's definition - "not liable to decay, imperishable" Strong and Bullinger are in agreement, for the most part.
Anyone else agree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Of course it wasn't addressed to you, as you weren't the one trying to define me and persuade others of it. So why bother stating the inherently obvious, that you don't care, when I don't care that you don't care?
And, though I do not (and have not) professed myself to be an "expert on all things biblical," I'm curious why you think yourself much more the expert, in that your claiming the concept has no scriptural basis should have or bear so much more authority or weight than me writing something about what I might happen to believe...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If scripture cannot be broken, then it is inerrant... regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks so. (John 10:35.) So perhaps you ought to remove that from your argument against it. Which would leave your previous claim juxtapositioned alone against a way of understanding a great many (if not most all) apparent contradictions that exist in the scriptures.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Inerrancy is only possible if you allow for a dispensational approach to the scriptures. Without it, there are contradictions. This is one of the big things that was stressed in the PFAL class. "They only seem like contradictions because you fail to recognize who they were addressed to, etc" (dispensations)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Surely you don't suppose that being (or becoming) more or less popular actually adds or subtracts anything to its veracity. However, thanks anyways for the video, which I may continue listening to it if/when I have more time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It’s possible “the scripture cannot be broken” in John 10:35 refers to something other than inerrancy...Barnes’ notes on the Bible says of that phrase - the authority of scripture is final - it cannot be set aside...it appears Jesus was defending himself against the charge of blasphemy by appealing to the Old Testament - Psalm 82:6... look at other places where “broken” is used in reference to breaking the law of scripture : John 5:18 - “not only was he breaking the Sabbath “ and John 7:23 “circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken”...it I could be wrong but I take the phrase to mean something similar to how we view our country’s laws...no one is above the law - it is the final authority- no one can set it aside...can laws be broken ? Yes people do it all the time.
Sorry for this aside on another interpretation of “scripture cannot be broken” that does not equate it with inerrancy - but like a lot of other interesting points on this thread, maybe it warrants a whole new thread...
== == ==
now getting back to the topic - I would like to ask a few questions - which have been stated earlier by others as well:
What is the biblical definition of “salvation “?
What does it mean for the Christian?
How does one know whether or not they are saved?
Is salvation something that can be lost?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Then perhaps there should be some relatively early attempts to isolate and/or pin down more precisely what salvation can, does, or might mean.
Frankly, I'd be curious to know if anyone can show (or explain) how or why (prior to Paul) it means anything much more than, or something other than, the following:
-saved/redeemed/delivered/rescued (take your pick)
1) from our (i.e., Israel's) enemies, or
2) from (physical) sickness and/or death
Granted, the "entry into the kingdom of God" might allude to something more than this... but, from the perspective of how it was likely thought of or seen by his disciples, I suspect not.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I don't disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I do, but would prefer to add "unable to rot" to that, and change "liable" (awkward word) to either "not ABLE to decay" or "not SUBJECT to decay" or "not ELIGIBLE to decay." I can easily see someone stumbling over "liable" and vpw would certainly have gone off on how that meant it was LEGAL to decay or something. (Thank you for not going the lazy route and saying "unable to corrupt" and calling it a day.)
Anyone else on "incorruptible"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
This one it good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
If it is ok with you WW, might I add one of probably many other possible conclusions?
It may be that both are RIGHT AND they are addressing the very same thing. BUT they are looking at that same thing from different perspectives. A time perspective? A functional perspective?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
That actually was the point of the list.. It is a good opener for the discussion that does nothing to solve the problem but rather to make it more visible. It is not exhaustive however, and I regret to have used the word unbiased when posting it. Since one could say it is biased towards permanence in that it lists them first and adds verses from other parts of the scriptures. And others could say it biases the conditional side because it happens to have more verses on that side. But the point was to try and be as unbiased as possible, and not lead either side to anything more than realizing this subject is much larger than just saying we have an "apparent contradiction" between what the apostle Paul said and what the book of James says. By faith or by works. Hebrews vs Romans. Old covenant vs New covenant. The law versus grace. Jesus vs Paul. The tabernacle of Moses vs the tabernacle of David. Abraham vs Israel. Israel vs Judah. Judah vs Ephraim. Adam vs Eve. Adam vs Adam and Israel vs Israel.
And dispensational theology is NOT the answer. Throwing out books of the Bible and verses in the name of "it's not written to me", is not the answer. Ignoring the 10 ton gorilla in the room is not the answer either.
But I believe chockfull's direction on defining terms is definitely a great start!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.