Apologeticsquad

On Romans 8:28-39, you wrote, “predestination means decide before hand, ordain, etc.”

If God predestined the elect to be conformed to the image of His son, then they can’t possibly fall away).

> This is because of his foreknowledge (see verse 29, more on this later)

In this passage and many others, God’s sovereign foreknowledge is to be understood as God’s covenantal love, not mere prescience.

> This verse does not say (1) one can't every fall from Christ

It does. These whom He foreknew, that is, set his heart upon in love, he predestined, these whom he predestined, he called, these whom he called, he justified, these whom he justified, he glorified. It’s an unbreakable chain, not one will be lost.

> (2) justified means freed or rendered innocent

Justification is the judicial act of God, whereby He declares sinners righteous on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by an empty hand of faith.

> (3) glorified means something like honored

Nope. Glorification here is about the resurrection where all believers will be raised in a glorious body as Christ. All whom he justified, he also glorified. The future glorification of believers is assured. All who believe will be raised up at the last day and Christ shall lose none of those given to him by the Father (John 6:37-39).

> It comports well with the historical Christian view of that God has foreknowledge

In Romans 8:29-30, God’s sovereign foreknowing someone is not mere prescience, it’s “to have special loving regard for “(See Jer. 1:5 for example) We also find the equivalent in Eph 1:4-5, “In love [equivalent to “foreknowing”] having predestined us,” those whom he foreknew, that is, whom He set his heart upon, he predestined unto salvation.

> he calls them (along with everyone else, no one has an excuse)

It’s important to note that the calling Paul talks about in Rom. 8:30 is not the external call; rather, the calling here is the inward, efficacious call that inevitably causes one to believe and be justified.

> those who respond he justifies them and glorifies them

Men, in his fallen natural state, will not and cannot respond to the gospel unless God effectually calls him (I’ll discuss more later) ; We are told that these whom He called, he justified. There is not a single one whom he called, whom he will not justify; and there is not a single one whom he justified, whom he will not also glorify.

> This is called the free gift of salvation. However, just because it is a free gift does not mean we go Scot-free. We have a responsibility to obey. This passage does not deny this aspect.

“Responsibility” ≠ “God’s elect can be eventually lost”.

> Where does this verse say one can't fall away?

By the nature of Christ work of intercession, God’s elect cannot fall away since Christ always intercedes on their behalf, and the Father always hears the Son.

> Just because one intercedes does not mean that the person interceded for can't reject the intercession.

In the economic Trinity, that is unthinkable. Christ always intercedes for the elect, whether you like it or not. He doesn’t need our “permission.”

> Think of intercessors in our life and time, we can deny the intercessors help, can't we?

That’s a false comparison. To whom will you liken the Lord of heaven and earth? If God is for us, who can be against us?

> I am using it to stress that we should really consider their thoughts. NO I am NOT saying that they are at the same level as the Bible.

We know that any teaching that is contrary to Scripture must be rejected. That’s why they must be scrutinized as well.

> However, I have noticed a number of quotes from theologians and commentators have been provided on your part. You seem to take them seriously. Why? Why not just read the Bible with a clear mind, without these others views?

That is assuming what you are yet to prove. You have not yet proved that your position is biblical.

> If you knew one who talk with Paul, Peter or John (or knew one of their disciples), and who spoke the same language as they and the NT text, would not you put more confidence in them?

My confidence is ultimately in God’s word. The Bereans were commended for studying the Scriptures diligently to see if what Paul says is true (Acts 17:11).

> Do you trust those more who had to learn Greek as a second language and who has been influenced by many different views that have popped up during the past couple thousand years?

Again, you are begging the question.

> Also, in giving them as a source of what early Christians believed, I am not demonstrating an infallible authority, rather what they believed the Bible said and their communication with the Apostles and those who knew the apostles told them.

More question begging. Also, I think atleast three could be considered as personally have known the apostles: Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. BTW, I’m still waiting for their commentary on Rev. 3:5 that you still haven’t provided.).

> In addition, being naturalized to the Greek language also seems to give them some credence of what one meant when taking in that language was another reason for quoting them.

That does not follow; also, do they know the Granville-Sharp rule?

> Let Scripture be the judge among us. We should take what Scripture says way more seriously.” I agree overall, so I would encourage you to decrease reliance on theologians and commentators but rather on the plain reading of the text, in context, with the proper definitions as intended. Why do you keep quoting theologians and commentators if you feel this way?

Simply, because I perceive that what they documented concerning these are in line with what Scripture says. Moreover, I don’t think you have proved that you have the correct interpretation.

> I am quoting them, they are the primary source. I am talking about what they believed.

Is it too much to ask for reference or citations?

> From what I have read of them they tried to take the Scriptures as a whole and not proof text. That is not to say they did not quote text. But, I think they had a different approach – read if for what it says and try to follow, not squirm around issues or talk ones way out of this or that.

Snide remark.

> That is why they held to the view they did, because as a whole, Christ and the Apostles did teach one could fall away. That is what they believed, all of them.

Again, that begs the question.

> Again, do you feel that modern theologians with a novel interpretation are more correct?

More question begging.

> Alright, I think I owe you a head on look at a passage or two – I'll hit these two. Let's look at Romans 8. We need to take this proof text (Romans 8:28-39) in context, that is one of the primary axioms of exegesis.

Alright, let’s see if you will do exegesis or eisegesis:

> Let's ground it in Romans 8:1 (as far as that goes the rest of Romans) “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” We have no condemnation IF we walk do not walk after the flesh but after the Spirit....it seems that we have a responsibility here. It is conditional on how we walk.

First of all, that is a textual variant. The earliest manuscripts do not have the phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” in verse 1. Be that as it may, even if we are to include that phrase; it still doesn’t teach what you want it to teach. Where’s this big “IF” in Romans 8:1? Our personal effort or work is not the ground of having no condemnation. The basis of having no condemnation is union with Christ; He redeemed us from the curse of the law, that is, from the just condemnation of us, by becoming a curse for us, that is, by bearing its just condemnation of us by dying in our place. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus;” the “walking after the Spirit” flows from this union.

> Rom 8:2-5 Jesus made us free from the law of sin and Jesus condemned the sin. Those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us.

That’s backwards. God condemned sin (past, present and future) in the flesh. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in Christ , and in those who are united to Him because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to them (by faith).

> Rom 8:6 -8 If we are carnally minded it is death and enmity against God. Those who are in the flesh can't please him.“

Total depravity, check.

> If we are spiritually minded we have life.”

For Paul all Christians are in the Spirit (v. 9-11) and led by the Spirit, at work in them.

> Rom 8:9 - 12 We should not live in the “flesh” but in the Spirit if God dwells in us.

All believers are led and indwelt by the Spirit:

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”

Notice that Paul speaks of glorification as secured for those who are in Christ, having been sealed by the Holy Spirit, the guarantee of future resurrection to eternal life.

> Rom 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

Paul admonishes them to walk after the Spirit, as they are in the Spirit. Those who are in flesh cannot walk after the Spirit because they have not been born of the Spirit (v.8-9, cf. 1 Cor. 2:14).

> “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

The believers (children of God) are led by His Spirit. Unbelievers are after the flesh, they are not led by the Spirit, for the Spirit does not dwell in them. Unless they be born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.

> Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Having received the Spirit of adoption, believers have assurance of salvation. Contrast this to those who deny the assurance of salvation, who will have to live daily in fear and uncertainty.

Rom 8:18-23, For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

Believers can surely expect that the world will be delivered from the bondage of corruption just as they can fully expect that God will surely deliver them from the body of sin (their future glorification).

> Rom 8:24-25 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

The believer have hope. He can trust that God will keep him, even to the end. 1 Cor. 1:8, “Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The believer can expect of being raised in a glorified body as Christ in the near future, John writes similarly, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2-3)

> 8:20-28 We live in a fallen world, but we shall are delivered. We are saved by hope and we need patience. The Spirit helps interceded in our behalf.

If the Spirit interecedes for every believer, then how can they be lost? The Spirit renews them, works in them, perseveres them and intercedes for them. The three persons in God are united in the work of redemption. To make one of the persons in the Godhead fail in his work and at odds against one another is to deny God altogether.

> 28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” If we love God and were called to him, things will work together (ultimately)

Believers are called according to God’s purpose. His eternal purpose for them cannot fail. They are loved by God (they are the beloved); and they love God.

> However, what it does not say is that “since he foreknew, and since he predestined, one can't fall away..

Again, If God predestined His elect to be conformed to the image of His Son, then they can’t possibly fall away.

> Nor does this limit our free will, we still have the responsibility, with his help we need to “work out or salvation”

There is a big difference between “work out” and “work for”; one works out his muscles (he exercises what he already possesses); and see verse 13 where it says “For it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Let that sink in. It is God who works in us both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Because he works in us, we persevere in the faith. This echoes what Paul said earlier in the first chapter of Philippians: “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.”

> gain the onus in on us to obey and follow. Nor does it say they can't fall from Christ later if they reject him or practice unrepentant sin.

The elect will never reject Him. They are accepted in Christ. Those whom he justified, he will also glorify. They cannot possibly fall away. God preserves them so they will persevere in the end and be saved; they will be glorified in the end.

> With God's power we can stay on the Way – if we desire his help “

So you’re basically saying, “God cannot help us without our help. God needs help.” That sounds like: “God helps those who help themselves.” But Scripture teach that God helps the helpless.

> Rom 8:33 -34 “Who can now condemn us – seems like a rhetorical question stating that we can't be condemned of our past sin.”

It concerns past, present and future sins (v. 38-39). None can condemn God’s elect for all their sin [past, present and future], God condemned in the flesh. Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? None, for it is God who justifies them.

> Lastly, Christ makes intercession for us.

Indeed, If Christ intercedes for the elect, then they cannot possibly fall away. They are in safe hands.

> Rom 8:35-39..Two items here. First, sin is what will separate us from Christ.

Paul raised those rhetorical questions to show that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Ironically, you would have said, ”No, Paul, you are wrong. Sin is greater than the love of Christ, sin can separate us from the love of Christ.”

> Sin is not a thing,”

That doesn’t make sense. If it’s not a thing, then it’s nothing. If it’s nothing then it doesn’t mean anything. Sin exists as evil exists. It’s a thing, and a thing that must be abhorred.

> it is a choice on our part to turn away from God's ways and commands.”

Why are you championing creaturely freedom instead of God’s sovereignty in salvation? God is faithful. The sheep may stumble but not to the point that they would fall away [they shall never perish]; for they are kept by the good Shepherd who keeps them and holds them in His hand [no one can snatch them out of His hand]. Also, you may want to review the “nor powers, nor any other created being” part.

> It separates us from God as Isaiah 59:1-2 states (reading the rest of the passage from Isaiah tells what sin is).”

Christ came to save His people from their sins. Read the last verses of Isaiah 59:20-21 and tell me again how that teaches that the children of God can fall away and not be saved.

> Second, it is talking about the love of Christ and love of God. The writer of Romans already said this in Rom 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Continue and read the next verse. v. 9-10,“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

Those who have been justified by Christ, have the penalty for their sins paid in full. The wrath of God has been satisfied. It no longer abides on those for whom Christ died nor will they ever be lost.

> But even if the love of Christ does mean salvation, which it may, Jesus himself said in John 15:10 “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.”

So, are you saying that salvation is based on our law-keeping? Also, you are again conflating those two passages that have different contexts.

> He says “if we keep his commandments” this is a conditional clause “ye shall abide in my love” this is the promise statement.

Jesus is saying in v.10 that to keep his commandments = to abide in his love.

He is not saying to them, “If you broke my commandments, then I no longer love you, to hell you go.” That would be at odds with what He said in v.11. He simply underlined what he said earlier in v.9, “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.” To say that this is conditional love is to say that the Father’s love toward the Son is conditional; it also makes the Son’s love toward us conditional, and if this is the kind of love that we should imitate, then our love towards one another must also be conditional.

> He still loves us in a sense even if we sin or are sinners, but it separates us from God.

Not in the sense that God would condemn believers. Sin leads to fatherly displeasure. But it cannot consign believers to hell. God would not reverse his judicial declaration, he doesn’t change his mind. Paul answers: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. “

> That is why we need to repent of sin and toward Christ. We need to do the will of God.

Because that is the duty and disposition of believers, a heart that sorrows for sin and always seeks to please God. If God works in us, to repent, trust, believe and persevere to the end, then we are sure that salvation is assured; For God’s work cannot fail.

> OK, so what about Ephesians 1:13-14? “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” We trusted (in Christ), after hearing the gospel, this led to salvation.

Dan, how can it have secured salvation when in your paradigm, those who are saved can be lost? I think the accurate way to put it, according to your paradigm, is that it merely led to a probationary period.

> Once we believed we were sealed with the holy Spirit. This Spirit is an earnest (down payment) for till ultimate redemption. Nowhere does this say one can't fall from salvation.

The passage is clear that believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit. Having been sealed by God, they cannot be unsealed. Their redemption is secured.

> We hear, we are born again, we are sealed (marked, stamped like a signet) by the Spirit which is a down payment for full inheritance.”

The Spirit’s sealing is God’s guarantee of full inheritance. This work cannot be overturned. Paul speaks of the same thing in 2 Cor. 5:5 speaking of believers having full assurance of redemption in the end: “Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.”

> Joh 6:34 “Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Jesus was just talking about the bread from heaven and they asked for it.

It’s clear from the preceding verses that these people didn’t understand what Jesus was saying to them.

> Joh 6:35-36 “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.”. Even though they saw what He did, they did not believe in Him.

Jesus is telling them the reason why they won't believe (John 6:36-39, 44, 65). He would say the same thing later in John chapter 8: "The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Man, in his fallen natural state, will not come, he is by nature, a child of wrath, an enemy of God, enslaved to sin and blinded by Satan. Unless God remove the scales in his eyes, he won’t see and believe.

> Joh 6:37-38 The Father gave Jesus disciples – those who accepts and comes, Christ will not “cast out.” He wants all to come and receive eternal life.

That is not what the text says.

1) Jesus did not say, “some of those the Father gives me will come to me.” He said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”

2) Christ said that he came to do his Father’s will, that He should lose nothing of all that the Father has given to Him. If the Son could lose them that the Father has given him, then wouldn’t that make him a failure? Did he fail to do his Father’s will? You’d be saying that He failed miserably.

> While it says Christ will not cast one out, it does not say we can't leave or reject, we do have free will.

You are reading that into the text. The text nowhere says that Christ will lose those given to him by the Father.

> It is God's will that that Christ lose none and all who see Jesus and believe should have eternal life.

Can Christ lose those given to him by the Father? The answer is no. They are given to the Son, resulting to their coming to the Son and they will be raised up at the last day (v.39). This is airtight.

And then you went to several different passages that have almost nothing to do with our present discussion. I will have to respond to your comments. But I ask you to stick with the topic and not to derail the thread further. You wrote:

> I do want to note that it also is the father's will that all come to him (1 Tim 2:3-4).

‘All’ must be interpreted in terms of its context. In this passage, “all” does not mean “all men without exception.” It means all categories of men (i.e. kings, slaves etc.). God has decreed to save a particular people from all categories of men, not all men without exception.

> Will all come? No, as we see in Matthew 7:21,

The question is, who will come? We know that only a particular people whom the Father has given to the Son shall come. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (John 6:37). Christ said, “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (v. 65). Man, in his fallen natural state, cannot come [savingly believe]. God must first remove the stony heart and replace it with a heart of flesh. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

> How would you like it if I would not take your words a face value? No, we do need to take it a face value as it was intended and not twist Scripture which will lead to our destruction.

In Psalms we read this:

“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.”

So, God has big wings with lots of feathers and all? There’s your reading the text at face value.

> We need to take it for how the writers intended. Also, I guess I never denied nor asserted that one should read it out of context. It seems to me that this can happen when one “verses” another without thought on context.

Dude, that’s what I already said. I responded to what you said earlier when you said that you just “read the text at face value.” Are you now taking that back?

Regarding 2 Peter 2:1 you wrote:

This is not a soteriological passage? Why not? What defines a “soteriological passage”? Go back and reread this passage yourself with and open mind, without trying to prove a point, it IS talking about salvation.”

Read again. 2 Peter 2 is not about how a man can be justified before God’s sight nor is it about how a man can be saved. Peter is talking about false teachers and their just condemnation that is not idle, reserved for them a long time ago.

> Ok? Let's check it out. “Kurios” - Mat 6:24 , Mat 13:27, Mat 27:63, Luk 19:33, Joh 12:21, Act 16:16, Eph 6:5. These are just a percentage those that are not used as a soteriological title.

We are talking about when the title Kurios is applied to God or Christ in a redemptive sense. Do those verses mention “agorazo” with a price mentioned or its equivalent? You cited a bunch of passage that mentions Kurios when it is not referring to Christ in redemptive sense nor of being bought with a price.

Matthew 27:63, the title refers to Pilate.
Luke 19:33 refers to the owner of the horse.
John 12:21 refers to Philip.
Acts 16:16 refers to the owners of a diviner.
Eph. 6:5 refers to owner of slaves.

> “Despotes”– Rev 6:10, Act 4:24, Luk 2:29, Jud 1:4 (Jude uses both terms, ones for Jesus and the other for God). I could only find ten places that this word is used total. Five of the times (counting 2 Peter 2:1) are used to refer to Jesus or God.

I’m not sure how these examples addresses my point. 2 Peter 2:1 does not say that those false teachers were saved and then fell away. Rather, they are false teachers who were like false prophets who denied their “despotes,” that is Sovereign Creator, who owned them.

> It seems to me that it is a perfect fit for the location that it is in. It is talking about Jesus who bought them. However, it also seems this argument is a “ball and cup” game. This is deceptive on the theologians part.

You are assuming what you are yet to prove, Dan.

> First Long's calculations of the number of times this word shows up is deviant from the real number

How many times agorazo appears with price (greek, “times”) mentioned or its equivalent in the new testament?

> (I did not re-quote the quote you provided).

Dan, I think you should have. The blunder you have made will be made evident, as you said:

“his assertion is not the case. See Revelations 14:3-4 (in opposition to Dr. Reymond and Gary D. Long), where these are other cases where this word is used similarly.”

Review the quote. What did Long say? Did he mention Rev. 14:3-4?

> Even so, this also seems to be a null argument. The apostles used everyday terms. The were not “theologians” in the sense of their terminology.”

Agorazo is a commonly used term and do not refer to a redemptive sense especially when no price paid or its equivalent mentioned.

> who gave this man the authority to decide when it should be used for redemption or not? By what authority does he have to make these qualifications? A magicians slight-of-hand it seems to me.”

You are making ad hominem arguments again.

"[Long] concludes from an analysis of the two Greek words, taken together, against the background of their usage in the LXX and the New Testament, that what Peter actually intends to say in 2 Peter 2:1, alluding as he does to Deuteronomy 32:6 (in 2:13 he loosely alludes to Deuteronomy 32:5), is that Christ, the sovereign Lord, acquired [or “obtained”] the false teachers (spots and blemishes, II Pet. 2:13) in order to make them a part of the covenant nation of God in the flesh because he had created them, within the mystery of his providence, for the purpose of bringing glory to himself through their foreordain-ment unto condemnation (see II Pet. 2:12; Jude 4).

Sorry, I'm not sure what to say, so Long is telling us that Peter was not able to express himself so Long is going to have to give us what he “actually intends” to say?

You are poisoning the well.

> By what authority does he have? It seems to me that I would rather believe a clear reading of Peter instead of Long's commentary. Again, I am getting more and more skeptical of these commentators. I would advise you to read the passage for yourself and take it as it was written and intended.

More ad hominem; Care to interact with what He said?

> I would rather go with what Peter says in place of Dr. Reymond's conclusions. Peter is a much better authority on this issue. He was personally taught by Christ. Again, I would advise you to be skeptical of this man's writings – he is reading his thoughts into the text, not taking it for what it says.

Again, you are poisoning the well.

> Pseudodidaskalos does not mean “pseudo-Christian” rather, like you said first it means “false professors” or false teachers. This is a big differences.

I never said pseudodidaskalos is translated as false Christians. I said, false teachers (pseudodidaskalos) are false Christians.

> However, they are false Christians now because they denied the Lord who bought them.

Again, “agorazo” is not used here in a redemptive sense because of the absence of a price paid or its equivalent. When “agorazo” is used in a redemptive sense, a price is always mentioned or its equivalent being made explicit in the context (i.e. Rev 14:3,4).

> Sorry, but I don't think so. The same Greek word is used in 1Ti 2:4, 2Ti 2:25, 2Ti 3:7, Heb 10:26 and 2 Pe 1:3, all dealing with salvation. Check them out.”

I checked them out;,and those passages is not dealing with how a man can be saved. Not every occurrence of epignosis deals with one who is saved. A greek word is defined by its context.

[Addendum: in 2 Peter, we have false teachers who know the truth 'intellectually' (and may experience deliverance from 'worldliness' temporarily) yet they repudiated the truth, even denying the Sovereign, who provide this temporal deliverance.]

> “It also does not say here that in the beginning their “conversion was illusory”, again they are reading into the passage, not taking it as intend.”

False teachers are false Christians. Their conversion is illusory.

"'It is more likely that Peter refers to those who appeared to be Christians but then showed by their apostasy and their behavior that they never truly belonged to Christ (see notes on John 6:66; 15:2; Gal. 2:3–4; 1 John 2:19). God promises that those who truly know him will never fall away because he will keep them by his grace (cf. John 10:27–29; Rom. 8:28–39; Phil. 1:6). Those who do turn back show that their true character is like that of a dog (cf. Prov. 26:11) or a sow. They appeared to have been saved, but by returning to the vomit and mire of the world, they demonstrated that they were never truly regenerated.' (ESV Study Bible)”

Um...OK. I guess they do have the correct and a clear reading, to believe Peter's words would be a fallacious task to undertake. I guess we should believe them over Peter.

Dan, you are just throwing ad hominem statements. Care to interact with what was said? Also, you are assuming that Peter teaches that false teachers are true believers, who were saved. Sorry, but that is not the case. A quick survey of how Peter described these false teachers shows that these false teachers are not true Christians (2 Peter 2:12 etc.)

In v.18 we read that these false teachers allure others and works to deceive “the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error,” suggesting that these false teachers were not truly saved.

> It seems to me that this IS talking about one who had “known the way of righteous” then “turn from the holy commandment.” Clearly the sow had been washed and is now dirty again (washing is an illustration of salvation in the Scriptures)

People in Noah’s day have been washed, alright. I don’t think that it is an illustration that they are saved. False teachers appear to be righteous on the outside but dead on the inside. They “have a form of godliness” but deny its power. They can dress themselves like a Christian but they cannot change what they truly are. That is the picture Peter portrays.

> Clearly the dog got rid of the his stomach contents, now he reeats the vomit.

Peter illustrates that false Christians are like dogs who return to it’s own vomit, they delight in it, having never been truly regenerated. True believers are never described as dogs in the New testament. They are identified as sheep.

> This sounds to me that he is talking about one who “escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” then they “again entangle” themselves back. Again 2 Tim. 3:5 “Having a form of godliness..” It also sounds as it is worse for them now since that had “known the way of righteousness” but turned from the truth. As you know, unbelievers go to Hell, and now it is worse for these people who turn from the truth...sounds to me they need to repent from this and come back to Christ.”

These are not true believers. There are many false Christians who grew up in church, who for a time went to church, was nice and all, and then they went out and became worse. John says they were not truly saved in the first place (1 John 2:19); They will incur greater judgement than those who live in remote places, who have not actually heard about Christ.

For in-depth discussion of 2 Peter, read here.

> Regarding John 15, It's important to note that Jesus is speaking to his disciples not to cause them sorrow but to give them joy.. He said in v11, 'These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.' So, any interpretation that disregards this would be questionable.” I don't necessarily disagree with your statement (I would have some technical qualifications, but they are besides the point). However, it does not seem to have bearing on the question at hand.

It definitely has as I have showed earlier.

> Second, I am concerned about the method of exegesis employed here for John 15. It seems to me to be questionable at best. Why deviate from the natural flow of Jesus' words? Why not read them straight through using the flow that Christ intended?

You are assuming what you are yet to prove. I provided a gist, it’s not intended to be a book or a sermon on John 15. Also, have you read the article on the link I gave you? It’s not just there for display, Dan.

> I rearranged them back in the intended order with my commentary:

(Snide remark)

> You did not note John 15:1 (you eluded to it however): Jesus is the vine and the father is the vinedresser.

I did.

> “(John 15:2) 'Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.'” Great. I agree with this. “Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away,” That means those who are in him, and don't bear fruit he takes them away, as far as I can tell.

Jesus says that those who are truly in Him will bear fruit (v.5).

> And “for the Father (the Vinedresser) prunes those who bear fruit so that they would bear much fruit (v.2).” I agree again. Sounds like a vinedressers job to me.

I already pointed that out, if the Father prunes them, they cannot possibly fall away, they will always bear fruit.

> Here, we find the gist, where two branches are introduced, the fruitful branches (the true disciples), and the unfruitful branches (the false disciples like Judas).” OK, he does not offer names,”

Is Judas a true disciple?

> nor says the one are the true and the other false disciples, but it does say some of the branches are are fruitful and the others are not.”

Because only those who have vital union with Christ bear fruit. Those whose connection is merely superficial (false disciples like Judas), are the dead branches that are thown away to be burned.

> The true disciples are "clean" and are pruned (v.3).” True to some extent, however Jesus does not spell out “true disciple here” he says “you.” By slipping this phrase in here one is changing the meaning of the text.”

Is Judas clean? If you have read the previous chapter (Ch. 13), then you would learn that this is not changing the meaning of the text: “Jesus said to him, He who is bathed need only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” For He knew who should betray Him; therefore He said,” You are not all clean.”

> You skipped verse 4 “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.” The onus in upon the disciples, they are commanded to abide in Jesus. This is because of oneself, one can't bear fruit. Jesus says “neither can you, unless you abide in me,” again the onus is upon “you”, meaning disciples of Jesus.

I already alluded to it. Only those who have real, vital union with Christ (true believers) will bear fruit. The Father prunes them so that they bear much fruit.

> Yes and no, a very import concept is absent. The verse says this “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.” Again one needs to abide in him to bear fruit.

In other words, those who have no vital union with Christ cannot bear fruit.

> Again, yes and no. This is what the verse says “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” It says “if a man abide not in me” yes that makes him unfruitful, but again the responsibility in on the man to abide, it is he free will. “

Men, in his fallen natural state, having a corrupted will, dead in trespasses and sins, can neither believe nor can he bear fruit (v 4-5).”

> And yes, you are correct, he will be “burned” like a breach that is removed from a tree. That's why we need to stay connected to the tree.”

The unfruitful branches are dead branches because they were never truly connected to the tree. If they were truly connected to the tree, they would not have been burned.

> Again the encumbrance is upon the person to abide in Christ and his words – Jesus will give freely.

Again, “Responsibility” ≠ “God’s elect can be eventually lost”.

> Again, yes and no. Here is the verse “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.” It does not talk about unfruitfulness of one “shows that they were not truly of Christ”, rater that God is glorified if we bear much fruit – with that we will be his disciple – it proves we are his (present tense, not past).”

In other words, the fruitfuless, dead branches are not true disciples. Only those who truly connected to the vine shall bear fruit.

> It also does not say “They would not be burned for they are kept by God.” Again, this concept is not even remotely inferred here.

You’re wrong, Dan. If the Vinedresser prunes them so that they will bear more fruit, then they will not be burned since by that very act, they are kept by Him. The Vinedresser attends to them and cares for them. Unless, you wanna say that the Vinedresser fails in his work.

> He tells them he loves them and THEY should continue in his love. He says IF “ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love”. Here is his commandment “we need to love one another.” Great love is when one lays down his life for a friend. We are his friend IF we do what he commanded. We are called friends of Jesus.”

How does this teach that true believers can fall away?

> Now we get to verse 16 where you pick up “'You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide,' (v.16). Far from teaching that true believers can be lost.” (As you did, I'll just ignore the last half of the verse for now.)”

I tried to be as succinct as possible, not intending full length expostion. That’s why I gave you that link which seems, you didn’t even bother to read. I noticed that you haven’t really dealt with verse 16. You just went to other passages that are far from what the verse is talking about. I gather that you pretty much ignored the passage.

> Two things here. First, Jesus personally did choose his disciples. He told them to follow him. He told them he would make them fishers of men, etc. We also have to remember that Judas turned from Christ, stopped being his disciple.

Christ included Judas knowing perfectly that Judas would eventually betray him. His betrayal is a part of God’s plan. God worketh all things after the counsel of His holy will. The Lord knows those who are his (2 Tim 2:19); and Christ always intercedes for the elect; they will never be lost:

“While I was with them, I kept them in Your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, , and none of them has been lost except the son of destruction; that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).

> However, I think it has reference to us as well. You know, we read other places that God wants all to come to repentance. He wants all to come to him (2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4).

2 Peter 3:9 refers to the elect;. God is not willing that any of them should perish. They will all come to repentance in God’s appointed time.

> However, not all will come.

All those given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son, and he will not cast them out (John 6:37-39).

> In Mat 22:14 Jesus says says “many are called, but few are chosen.”

Matt 22:14 is about the external call, not the inward call. This distinction is made clear from many passages like Acts 16:14, where the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. The gospel is preached to all, this is the external call, but only those who are effectually called will believe and be justified.

> Then we hit John 15:17 (ignoring John 15:16) “These things I command you, that ye love one another.” Again we have the same command – the fruit that we must bear – the onus is on us (through the power of Christ).”

Again, how does this text prove that true believers can fall away?

“Responsibility” ≠ “God’s elect can be eventually lost”.

> Regarding Romans 11,” So who makes up the Jews and Gentiles? Individuals, including believers and non believers. No, it is talking about all of us. If I would say that “everyone in Sean's family is cool”, that includes all corporately and individually – even you.

1) Jews and Gentiles are composed of believers and non-believers. Therefore, my statement stands: the passage is not mainly about individual believers. 2) Also, Paul is addressing the churches at Rome, a mixed body which would be composed of both true Christians and pseudo-Christians. The warning passage could apply to either one of these groups or to both. 3) The Jews were “broken off” because of their unbelief (9:32 says, “because they did not pursue it by faith but as if it were based on works”), not because they were saved and then fell away (See Gal. 5:4). 4) The Gentiles, particularly those who are in Rome, are warned too of being “cut off” from true Israel, if they, like the unbelieving Jews, do not pursue the righteousness that is by faith (20-22). Because only those who are of faith (those who pursue justification before God by faith) are sons of Abraham and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3 & 4)

Verse 29 tells us, “For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. “God will not turn back on his word; He will do what He has promised. If He says that his sheep will never perish, they will never perish.

> We can twist and turn, rationalize and rearrange the Scriptures all we want, but that does not mean that is what the Scriptures say.

Again, you are assuming what you are yet to prove. Care to interact with what Moo says?

> 1 John 2:19, as far as I know, is talking about gnostic teachers.”

It talks about all false professors.1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

Those who went out were never really saved in the first place. Their apostasy manifests their true colors. They were never His sheep; they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

> I'll let the book of second John answer this for me. Feel free to read it sometime.

Yes, I‘ve read it more than a dozen times. It doesn’t teach want you want it to teach.

> This is true. “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” However, he says “I keep under my body and bring it into subjection” the responsibility is his (from other places we know that Christ give the power). No, he said that unless he would keep his body this way, even thought he preached to others, he would be a cast away. We can't slip and slide around the text.

Again, you are assuming that Paul taught that true believers can fall away, when in reality he is admonishing the Corinthians to examine themselves if they are in the faith by using an analogy and giving them an example to follow. Paul speaks similarly in his second letter to the Corinthians,

2 Cor.13:6-7, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.”

So, he is not teaching them that the elect can fall away. He echoes what John says in 1 John 2:19. Those who are disqualified are not saved to begin with. Those who are truly in Christ, continue in the faith for God works in them.

> He was a testament that true believers will not fall away.” No, it does not say this here. He is an example, yes, but in no fashion here does he even allude that “true believers will not fall away.”

Was Paul a true believer?

> [On Philippians 1:6], Sorry, this does not state “true believers will not fall away” or something to that effect, what it says is that he is sure (confident, persuaded) that they will be saved in the day of Jesus Christ. I feel this is our promise as well. We know we must continue in Christ and his was, if we do, we to can be confident of “eternal security.” It does not say that “one can't lose one's salvation.” We know we must continue in Christ and his was, if we do, we to can be confident of “eternal security.”

Read again. Notice that Paul’s confidence is grounded in God’s promise of bringing to completion the work that He has begun (Phil. 1:6). He will surely do it. This ensures that the elect cannot possibly fall away because it is God who works in them both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). How does this comport with your view that a believer can fall away bringing God’s work in incompletion?

> “'Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.' (1 Thessalonians 5:23) ” This passage does not teach one can't walk away from Christ. Where does it say it?

Read again; especially the last sentence: “God is faithful. He will surely do it.”

> Nor does it infer that since Paul stayed on that way that everyone else would as well. Again, things are being read into the verse.

You simply can’t bear the weight of this passage nor can you find a way to reconcile it with your view.

> As a final thought here, I want to give you some things to think about. These are more or less rhetorical, they don't need answers.

Well, let’s see how many times you would beg the question as you have done constantly.

1) Why believe something about Christian theology that the Bible does not teach, but rather teaches against?

Yep, you’re begging the question (1)

2) Why hold a view that seems to go against many passages that indicate that the onus is on us, with God's help, after we are saved? It also teaches that it is our free will to trust, follow and obey Christ.

Apologeticsquad

Monday, July 28, 2014

Response to Dan Koncal