Tension
As I read Scripture, I often find a lot of tension between different texts. When I was younger, tension made me uncomfortable. Even today, sometimes tension makes me uneasy. However, I want to do justice to the Biblical authors. I want to understand their writings in a manner that they would approve of. The more that I try to do this, the more that I realize that often I try to oversimplify certain issues in the Bible. Let me give you an issue that stretches me. I don't know completely what I think about this issue, but I think that it is more difficult than I often thought it was.
I grew in a church that firmly taught eternal security. I love this doctrine. I memorized all of the prooftexts for eternal security in Sunday School. This doctrine still rings true to me. I work at a church where this doctrine is treasured. On the other hand, I know that there are passages in Scripture that provide a serious challenge to this view. Once I could spout out all the easy answers to refute the loss of salvation folk, but the more that I understand hermeneutics the more I'm worried that these answers might be too easy.
One major problem that I have noticed is that in Scripture the prooftexts used by the ES folks are often written side-by-side to the prooftexts used by the no-ES folks. For instance, John 10:25-30 provides us with a great assurance of salvation, but several chapters later John 15 gives us a severe warning of the consequences for apostasy. Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 8 are great passages for the ES folk. Romans 11:17-21 and Romans 14:15 provide the counterpoint. These verses are in the same letter. This troubles me. I don't get it. I used to just write the no-ES verses off with easy answers. "Those folks weren't really saved." "The consequences are just a loss of reward." I'm not sure that I buy that. Hebrews 7:25 and Hebrews 13:5 are great verses for the ES folk. Hebrews 6 and 10 aren't so hot.
In other words, there are great promises that assure us of final salvation in Scripture. I'm not so sure that we can write those off either, but the warnings are there. And we need to do something about them. I'm tired of easy answers. I'm learning to be happy with the tension.
I grew in a church that firmly taught eternal security. I love this doctrine. I memorized all of the prooftexts for eternal security in Sunday School. This doctrine still rings true to me. I work at a church where this doctrine is treasured. On the other hand, I know that there are passages in Scripture that provide a serious challenge to this view. Once I could spout out all the easy answers to refute the loss of salvation folk, but the more that I understand hermeneutics the more I'm worried that these answers might be too easy.
One major problem that I have noticed is that in Scripture the prooftexts used by the ES folks are often written side-by-side to the prooftexts used by the no-ES folks. For instance, John 10:25-30 provides us with a great assurance of salvation, but several chapters later John 15 gives us a severe warning of the consequences for apostasy. Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 8 are great passages for the ES folk. Romans 11:17-21 and Romans 14:15 provide the counterpoint. These verses are in the same letter. This troubles me. I don't get it. I used to just write the no-ES verses off with easy answers. "Those folks weren't really saved." "The consequences are just a loss of reward." I'm not sure that I buy that. Hebrews 7:25 and Hebrews 13:5 are great verses for the ES folk. Hebrews 6 and 10 aren't so hot.
In other words, there are great promises that assure us of final salvation in Scripture. I'm not so sure that we can write those off either, but the warnings are there. And we need to do something about them. I'm tired of easy answers. I'm learning to be happy with the tension.
posted by Daniel | 7:01 PM
15 Comments:
Daniel, thanks for stopping by my blog. I pastor a Southern Baptist church, where I will soon celebrate my fifth anniversary. God bless you in your search for the truth.
Good points. That is why I think it is good to get the right primary verses for certain topics of scripture.
For example with election I would say this one.
"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" Romans 9:16
Now if there are verses that come along and say man must use his will a certain way or man must do good works a certain way then I look at those verses and find out what the context is because I know they can't be in contradiction to this primary verse.
Some people say they like to look at the bible as a whole and take every scripture equal on every topic but come on who are they kidding? Next thing they bring out John 3:16 as their proof text for everything.
Then people often say then who is to say you have the right primary verse?
This has to be given by His Spirit and often you will find that when He does this it is backed up on every page of scripture even these secondary scriptures that appear to be saying otherwise.
This is why I enjoy listening to Spurgeons Sermons because he usually will have one scripture to base the sermon on.
He then uses many others to back up the core theme of this one scripture.
Hey Daniel,
This is only partially related so bear with me. I did notice in a previous thread you suggested that Hebrews 6 questioned "eternal security". I just wanted to let you know that I have had two professors who believe that you can lose your salvation but both have said that Heb 6 is a bad passage to use.
I can't provide full commentary on it right now but a key verse might be 6:8 where it says "close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned". Note that the burning is not a cursing and note that the person is only closed to being cursed. The burned up field is not showing a person being eternally damned, but rather one who will undergo extreme chastizing.
Also, when we look at the theme of Hebrews it is not really "Good versus Bad" but "Good versus Better". They are continuously warned not to fall back into the shadow but press forward into the light.
When this, and many other things are taken into account, I can hold to perseverence of the Saints quite easily while examining this passage.
However, I should note that it would be expected for an Arminian to have trouble with Eternal Security (if we must call it that!). If you can freely choose between accepting faith and rejecting faith then what should stop you from accepting faith and later rejecting it.
Then again ... once you become a Calvinist ... o wait ... that's for another day!
In Christ alone,
mike
Daniel,
As I said in my email there are many who hold to eternal security who feel that many "perseverance" theologians don't deal adequately with the warning passages.
But if ES isn't true I think we need to be honest and say that Christ has lied to us(see many of the ES "proof-text"), but one is John 6:47, Jesus does in fact say that whoever believes in Him HAS eternal life, and if eternal life can be lost then Christ gave it the wrong name!!! Can a Saved person stop believing and still go to heaven?? I think so, see 2 TIm 2:12, also check out antonio's post on the soils: ParableofSoils I think he deals honestly and accurately with the text, check it out see what you think.
But it seems to me if eternal life can be lost,given back, or whatever...this isn't tension but contradiction!!
Well there were a few ES "proof-texts" for you...hahaha
Well anyway Daniel, I appreciate your quest for God's truth! Ipray that we all would have the same attitude and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide!!
GODBLESS,
NATE
Nate,
It's good to hear from you again. I need to clarify myself. don't think that Scripture can contradict itself. I'm not trying to say that. I'm just saying that I'm not sure how to resolve the tension that I find in Scripture between the warnings and the promises of God. I don't want to so emphasis the promises that I neglect the warnings or vice versa. I just want to make sure that I'm doing justice to the text.
Daniel,
I did not get the idea at all that you thought that Scripture contradicts itself!
I think that those who believe that a saved person can lose there salvation have to deal with the fact that they are teaching contradictory things.
There are also many on the ES side who don't deal honestly with the warning passages at all.
That's why I believe those who hold to a solid view of eternal rewards are the only ones who can deal with these "hard" passages honestly!
GODBLESS,
NATE
While the believer is eternally secure in his salvation, he is subject to various losses for unfaithfulness and rebellion. These losses can be both temporal and eternal.
I have a post on the judgment seat of Christ on my blog, it has some good insight I believe.
Grace to you, Daniel!
Antonio
Yes, I agree with Antonio.
The apostates in Hebrews 6 have apostasised beyond the possibility of being restored to a holy walk and have sinned unto death. They will loose their physical life, but are still saved by grace.
I think this makes more sense than it referring to false professors.
God Bless
Matthew
Matthew,
I don't think that that view does justice to the severeness of the warnings. Look at the consequences for disobedience listed in each of the five warnings.
Daneil, do you have the Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament by the staff at Dallas Seminary? Zane Hodges does a bang up job in Hebrews.
Maybe you can post one of the warnings you find very hard to reconcile with someone being regenrate. Post one and we can discuss it.
Antonio
PS: I returned the favor and added a link to your blog on mine.
Look at the consequences for disobedience listed in each of the five warnings.
Do you acknowledge that in Hebrews 6 it says that they are "close" to being cursed, rather than are cursed? Just because we see fire and burning up does not mean we need to jump to hell.
In Christ alone,
mike
Mike,
Here's my understanding on that. According to Strong's, the word "ἐγγύς" means "akin to the base of" or "near." So the transation "close" works. Strong's also says that it means "from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready."
I think that the NIV does a good job with it.
"But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned."
Here's the ESV.
"But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned."
Personally, when I read all five of the warnings together, I can't help but think that the consequence of disobeying the warning is hell.
hmmm, This is the way I look at eternal security. I can't judge whether or not someone who pofesses to be a christian is in danger of going to hell. I have just always wondered, "if no matter what I am always saved, why does God ask me to be holy because I am holy? If no matter what I do I am always saved, what does matter in the light of eternity if I press on, if I run the race with perserence? I prefer to play it safe and say, "You know what, keep your eyes on Jesus and him crucified and then I don't need to worry about it. God is a jealouse God. the only reason He didn't destroy the people of Isreal if I remember correcectly is because moses begged him not too. Out of fear of the Lord, I worry about keeping my nose clean so to speak until the day die. I don't want him to say, you have been an unfaithful servant. I don't want to gamble with my salvation. Does that make sense?
evie
Ashira, there are better reasons for being a faithful servant than fear of hell.
For one, the fact that Christ gave everything for you.
Secondly, seeking rewards in the Kingdom. We are commanded to seek these and it is sinful not to.
Thirdly, if we are do not overcome, we will not share in Christ's reign (Rev 2:26-27).
Fourthly, if we are not faithful, God will chastise us with his discipline.
If our disobediance reaches a mature stage, it will provoke God to terminate our lives (1 Cor 11:30, 1 John 5:16, Romans 14:15-23).
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Post a Comment
<< Home