The Eternal Security Debate With Independent Baptist Debater Kent Brandenburg, Part 6
Kent replied on August 30, 2007:
This time, I will differentiate with bold and italic from your comments. To start, however, something that would be as vital and necessary as "losing salvation" would be plainly stated in Scripture. It is not found anywhere in the Bible that someone can lose it. All of your "proof" comes from conditional sentences that serve a purpose of having professing believers examine themselves whether they be in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). Your doctrine is coming from your and others own speculation. And I'll show that here.
Dear Kent,
"Your example in Luke 15 doesn't work. You have to read into that text in order
to have it work. He says that it "is thine," present tense. He wasn't saying
to the faithful brother that he would get it, future, but it is his right at
that moment. Your example has absolutely no parallel with the Revelation passage."
Untrue, for it was the father that ordered the things to celebrate the arrival
of his prodigal son. If it had been strictly in the brother's power, he could
have simply refused or disallowed it; it would also make little sense for him to
complain that he'd never even been given a young goat to feast with his friends
(vs 29) if he had already been given his father's entire estate. The idiom his
father used referred to the fact that his inheritance was reserved for and would
pass to his son in the proper time.
Idiom? He said it "is thine"---present tense. We must take our doctrine from Scripture, not from what we want it to mean so that it fits our view. He said "it is thine."
"In the Revelation passage, "shall take away," is future tense. The person who presently (present subjunctive) adds or takes away from Scripture in the future God "shall take away" (future indicative) his part. Why does he take away his part then? Because that is when God judges the lost is at the Great White Throne Judgment, which is future; therefore, it speaks of potential. Why? Because the person reading that, who is possibly lost (subjunctive mode), because he is present tense, habitually adding or taking away, will in the future not have his part, if he is not converted. Whoever is living and hearing what he is saying can effect a change in his future destiny. That is clear when you look at the call in v. 17 to the lost to come for the water of life."
Something that is presently possessed can be taken away at a future time.
People who characteristically take away from or add to the Word of God were never saved. Believers no longer sin as a lifestyle.
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away[future indicative] even that he hath [present indicative]." (Matthew 13:12)
Matthew 13 clearly differentiates from the person who has and has not. The person who has (has ability to comprehend spiritual truth) will have more abundance, but the person who has not (has not the ability to comprehend spiritual truth) will have nothing. You actually prove the point by using this verse. The people that have will keep getting, but the people that have not will lose everything. It doesn't hint one bit that the person who has could possibly lose. Only those who have not will lose.
A big difference between your example and Rev. 22 is that Matthew 13 is not a subjunctive, but an indicative. These people in reality have or have not. In Revelation 22, it is in the subjunctive, so that it is only a potential taking away or adding. Only those who might take away or add characteristically will lose their part. People who definitively have cannot lose; only those who possibly live this way will lose their part.
He speaks obviously to unbelievers in the previous verse to vv. 18, 19, v. 17, and He continues in vv. 18, 19. "Take away," the same Greek Word, is an obvious play on Words---should someone take away, their part will be taken away. Scripture is clear that no Christian will sin as a lifestyle. I mentioned this, gave passages to back it up, and you never answered it. To show that someone "has the inheritance" as you claim, and then loses it, you would have to show someone who actually had it. This never says that. You say it implies it, but that is your opinion based upon your doctrine. If it was an actual believer losing something, a believer would be in the passage. Someone who characteristically sins as a lifestyle is not a believer.
"Again, no place in Scripture says someone loses his salvation. The Bible definitively says that people who do not continue were never saved in the first place. Read 1 John 2:19 and 3:6. That is the truth of Scripture. You are reading into these texts."
1 John 3:6 highlights a basic difference between one who has repented and knows God and one who has not.
You totally skirt this passage here. Here is 1 John 3:6---"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." Anyone who sins as a lifestyle hath not seen him or known him. That means that anyone who goes into sin was never saved in the first place. Are you saying that people who are saved and then lose their salvation have not seen him nor known him? Are you? How can someone be saved unless they see Him and know Him? This devastates your view. This verse is axiomatic and a clear statement about those who sin habitually. They have never been saved. That is clearly stated here and you do not, I repeat, do not answer that.
It does not address the issue of apostasy which scriptures such as the cites from Romans and Revelation do. John writes with similar contrast between the righteous and unrighteous:
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth
is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is
love." (1 John 4:7-8)
1 John 4:7, 8 is a very bad verse for your cause. Someone who is born of God cannot be unborn. "Is born of God" here is perfect tense. The perfect tense means that the action is complete with the results ongoing. The tense of the verb says that it is not possible for someone to be unborn, once he is born. The action of being born is complete, but the results continue on into eternity. Once someone is born of God, he is permanently born of God. If you deny this, you are simply and rebelliously denying God's Word.
Yet it is also written,
"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matthew
24:12)
If John were saying that it's impossible for a believer to fall into sin, there would be no need to warn against it at the beginning of the prior chapter, or for Hebrews 3:13 to caution us against being hardened by its deceitfulness.
Hebrews 3 is warning those who are not saved. Hebrews was written to Hebrews, Jews, and it was a mixed multitude. Some were warned because they were not saved, very much like your Matthew 13 passage to which you referred. They would be hardened if they didn't respond; thus, they are being warned. It is not possible for believers to be hardened. This is a whole new doctrine you are introducing; the hardening of believers. You are putting this in to get it out.
As far as John 2:19, I'm not sure how the presence of some false professors leaving the church is supposed to negate the possibility of apostasy for a believer.
Your casual approach to 1 John 2:19 is interesting. If they had been of them, THEY NO DOUBT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. Did you catch that? People that do not continue, do not continue because they were never of them in the first place. People who are saved, no doubt continue. Come on, J.T. These are clear statements in Scripture.
"This is a metaphor that you are taking way too far. Unbelieving Israel was broken off because she would not believe. Notice that only those who continue will be saved. Those who do not continue were never saved in the first place."
He is speaking to those who were grafted into the vine contrary to nature -Gentiles (vs 17), who stand by faith (vs 20), but warning them that if they did not remain that they will be cut off (vs 22).
You are resting a particular position on a conditional sentence (v. 22). Believers will continue (see 1 John 2:19). Unbelievers do not continue. It is true that Jews would make it to the end if they continued, since all believers continue. It is characteristic of believers to continue. Why? Because God has saved them. They've been born permanently. And all the other clear statements, non-conditional statements, in Scripture.
"Remaining in Christ is a work. If it is dependent up on us to remain, then it is based on our efforts. Believers will remain. Those who do not remain were never believers in the first place."
Incorrect, remaining in Christ is by faith (Romans 11:20), unless you're arguing that faith is a work.
I don't believe it is a work, which is why they will remain if they are saved. Since faith comes from God, it is not possible that they would stop believing.
I wrote:
It does not say 'potential' or 'prospective,' it says 'his part,' which indicates that the person spoken of in some sense does possess the thing. To prove that it is speaking strictly of unbelievers, you would have to show that unbelievers in some way possess a part in this eternal inheritance, which they do not as Ephesians 5:5 plainly states.
Here ironically you add to Scripture. It doesn't say that they had a part of an inheritance. It does not say that they possessed anything. It just says that they lose something. You believe it implies that they had it, so again, you make a major doctrine based upon an inference, an inference that you should deny because of the passages that teach eternal security.
Believers have an inheritance reserved. For one to have a part in a thing, it must be more than a possibility that he can acquire it, for a sinner such as is described in Ephesians 5 who repents and believes on Christ can indeed acquire a share in the inheritance of the saints (Colossians 1:12); so he has potential, yes, but does not possess it in any sense until he believes, since it is only reserved for those who love God.
"It doesn't say that he possesses it. You have to read this into the text. It
isn't in there. We get our doctrine from what Scripture says, not from silence."
The fact that it is a thing possessed (albeit as an inheritance) is implicit in the text, for there would be nothing to take away were it not possessed. This can only apply to believers since unbelievers have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (as stated in Ephesians 5:5). We do possess it by the fact that God has prepared it for Abraham and his seed,
No thing was actually taken away, but a part was taken away. And again, it is something in prospect, because no one is presently in the holy city. I can understand why you want to use this verse, but you must get your doctrine from the verse, not from your inferrences. An implication would need to match up with doctrine stated elsewhere in Scripture. Yours does not.
"And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city." (Hebrews 11:16)
This verse does nothing for your cause.
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also." (John 14:2-3)
This doesn't do a thing for your cause.
Our citizenship is also there:
"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour,
the Lord Jesus Christ..." (Philippians 3:20)
Citizenship there. Yes. For believers. And it actually states it in that verse, so it is something that you can believe. Citizenship IS in heaven. Presently is. Rev. 22 doesn't make that statement.
"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Galatians 4:26)
Nice verse, which does nothing for your case.
It is also part of our inheritance as believers (1 Peter 1:4, already cited), of which it plainly states,
I should have mentioned this before, but 1 Peter 1:4 obliterates your view. "Reserved," a participle, is in the perfect tense. The inheritance that is "reserved" for a believer cannot be taken away, because the reserving is completed in the past with the results ongoing. The reservation for a believer cannot be lost or taken away, based upon this verse.
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to
the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will..."
(Ephesians 1:11)
So it is not eisegetical to say that believers do now possess the heavenly inheritance in that it is reserved for us.
Yes, it is reserved and cannot be lost or taken away, so Rev. 22:18, 19 is a warning to unbelievers. Believers know that they cannot "lose" or have their inheritance "taken away," because the reservation is perfected, finished, never necessary to be renewed.
In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux
P.S. I don't publish private emails without consent, if you feel that your
defense of eternal security is adequate, would you like this discourse printed
on that page? If not, no biggie; if so, you are of course free to publish my
comments as well. Feel free to print this, J.C. but only completely.
I answered on September 1, 2007,
Dear Kent,
Idiom? He said it "is thine"---present tense. We must take our doctrine from Scripture, not from what we want it to mean so that it fits our view. He said "it is thine."
Yes, contextually it is an idiom for the reason I listed, for the brother's statements make no sense if he was the head of the house; he possessed it as inheritance. The same type of idiom I cited before from 2 Corinthians 6:10,
"As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having
nothing, and [yet] possessing all things."
"You actually prove the point by using this verse. The people that have will keep getting, but the people that have not will lose everything. It doesn't hint one bit that the person who has could possibly lose. Only those who have not will lose."
The fact that it doesn't state it's possible does not negate its possibility. That's an unsubstantiated inference.
"Scripture is clear that no Christian will sin as a lifestyle. I mentioned this, gave passages to back it up, and you never answered it."
Do you mean the stuff from 1 John? I did answer that if you recall, which I continue below.
"To show that someone "has the inheritance" as you claim, and then loses it, you would have to show someone who actually had it. This never says that. You say it implies it, but that is your opinion based upon your doctrine."
That's obvious fact based on a proper contextual reading. If the penalty for tampering with the word of God is forfeiture of a place in His kingdom, then it can only apply to those who have a part in it. Only true Christians have a part, non-Christians do not, therefore warnings such as Revelation 22:19 are addressed especially to (and are therefore applicable to) believers.
"Anyone who sins as a lifestyle hath not seen him or known him. That means that anyone who goes into sin was never saved in the first place. Are you saying that people who are saved and then lose their salvation have not seen him nor known him? Are you? How can someone be saved unless they see Him and know Him? This devastates your view."
No, an apostate has known Him at one time, but does no longer. John's statement is a simple separation between the believing and the unbelieving, and is not touching on the issue of apostasy, but rather the basic differences between one who has been truly saved and one who has not. But if you are so determined to stretch 1 John from its contextual scope to exclude the possibility of
apostates, then you are stuck between 1 John 4 and Matthew 24, for whoever loves is born of God, yet Christ predicts that the love of many will grow cold. Another difficulty arises with many of the Galatian believers who had been known by God, yet were actively rebelling against Him in turning back to the precepts of the Mosaic law (Galatians 4:9). Your retort about not being able to be unborn is stretching the parallel, an apostate is not 'unborn,' but 'twice dead' (Jude 12).
Once someone is born of God, he is permanently born of God. If you deny this,
you are simply and rebelliously denying God's Word.
Uh, yeah...reference please?
Hebrews 3 is warning those who are not saved. Hebrews was written to Hebrews,
Jews, and it was a mixed multitude.
Let's see, to whom was he speaking to specifically in this passage?
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." Hebrews 3:1
"I don't believe it is a work, which is why they will remain if they are saved. Since faith comes from God, it is not possible that they would stop believing."
I also believe that faith comes from God, though I don't believe that this excludes men from rejecting it when offered (as the Calvinists would argue) or after receiving it.
"Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck" (1 Timothy 1:19)
"But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against
Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their
first faith." (1 Timothy 5:11-12)
"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:18)
"Here ironically you add to Scripture. It doesn't say that they had a part of an inheritance. It does not say that they possessed anything. It just says that they lose something. You believe it implies that they had it, so again, you make a major doctrine based upon an inference, an inference that you should deny because of the passages that teach eternal security."
A logical inference isn't adding to anything, it is making a deduction from the facts given, and if you have a problem with inferences from scriptural fact constituting sound doctrine, I might suggest you do a Bible word search for 'Trinity.' For something to be taken away, something must be possessed, otherwise it cannot be taken. There are no passages that teach that it's impossible for a Christian to fall away, but rather numerous warnings against doing so.
"No thing was actually taken away, but a part was taken away."
A part is a thing.
"And again, it is something in prospect, because no one is presently in the holy city."
None need be as of yet present as it is possessed as a reserved inheritance.
I should have mentioned this before, but 1 Peter 1:4 obliterates your view. "Reserved," a participle, is in the perfect tense. The inheritance that is "reserved" for a believer cannot be taken away, because the reserving is completed in the past with the results ongoing. The reservation for a believer cannot be lost or taken away, based upon this verse.
A perfect participle does often indicate that the results are presently ongoing, but does not guarantee that such a result will inevitably continue. Paul uses the perfect participle of the Greek verb that denotes the 'present' or ongoing 'evil age' in Galatians 1:4; while the age has been made evil, it will not continue forever, for it will end and its evil be destroyed. Current ongoing results of a past action do not mean that the effect achieved by the action cannot be interrupted or stopped altogether.
Your casual approach to 1 John 2:19 is interesting. If they had been of them, THEY NO DOUBT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. Did you catch that?
Yes, I caught it. If they had been genuine believers, they would have stayed in the church. Hence, when they went out from the church, it showed the world that they were not truly of the body.
People that do not continue, do not continue because they were never of them in the first place. People who are saved, no doubt continue. Come on, J.T. These are clear statements in Scripture.
The fact that those who are saved remain in fellowship with the body has no bearing on if it is possible to fall away.
You are resting a particular position on a conditional sentence (v. 22). Believers will continue (see 1 John 2:19).
Yes I am. If it were so 'clear' that true believers always and without fail continue in Christ, then why would Paul even state such a conditional clause at all? If the fulfillment of the stated condition is to be read as a given, then the both the warning and its consequence are of no effect.
In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux
<< Part 5
Part 7 >>
Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.