Die Pfeiler der Ewigen Sicherheit - Teil 2
Übersetzungsvorschläge können hier auf github gemacht werden.
Die Pfeiler der Ewigen Sicherheit - Teil 2
von Jeff Paton
In the Eight Pillars of Eternal Security, I thought that the main pillars had suffered enough erosion that the idol of unconditional eternal security would teeter and fall. Even without the main pillars to support this teaching, the worshipers of this doctrinal goddess have rushed in to prop up their idol once again. With much religious fervor, new pillars have been swiftly erected in their place as the stability of the old ones have collapsed. There is little hope that we will see the disappearance of this doctrine, not only because of its popularity, but also because one would their license for sin. If someone abandoned carnal security, all excuses for sin would be lost, and the dulled conscience would be livened again to the vast holiness of the living God. They would be faced with a dilemma they have ignored; compliance or condemnation. Those that don't want to comply, will tenaciously cling to their idol, no matter how much evidence there is against it, and no matter how paper thin the arguments are for it. Whether the Scriptures support it, is of no concern to them. They make their idol "the gospel," and condemn anyone as deceived and lost for not accepting it. They heap eternal hell and condemnation upon those who do not worship their doctrine, which was carved out of wood and stone! Earthy rationalization from the mind of men becomes the basis of God's truth, and not the spiritual revelation of His Word!
In the second part of this article I will peer underneath these pillars and will examine the substrata which they use to support the weight of these doctrines. Once there is no Biblical support in sight, they routinely fall back on unproven theological presuppositions to justify their conclusions. This tactic is their last refuge, it gets you away from Scripture and distracts you from the truth! Do not let their slight of hand distract you, the only thing that is important is what does the Bible prove? and not, what does some imaginary theory prove!
_Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from death unto life._ _John 5:24_
Since the writing of the Eight Pillars of Eternal Security, this passage has been quoted as the Goliath that must be struck dead. The emphasis that is made is- hath eternal life....._shall not_ come into condemnation.....is passed from death unto life.
This is the same perpetuated error that eternal security proponents make in their interpretation of John 10:27-29. The English does not clearly exhibit the present tense of the Greek. The hearing and believing are in the present tense. The condition of having everlasting life is that we are hearing and believing right _now! This is not some _past act of a moment that secures these promises. It is impossible for one who ceases to continue in the required hearing and believing to have the blessings and promises connected to it.
The _substrata:_ The conclusions derived from the Greek are definite and unavoidable. To salvage this text for their cause, they deviate from the prior condition and argue the word "eternal." They say " If eternal life is "eternal," how can it be lost? The believer hath everlasting life, and that cannot end! If the everlasting life you receive from God ever ceases for any reason, it was not "everlasting."
This assumes that eternal life exists as a possession apart from faith. If someone possessed an eternal pearl of great price, then later they cast the pearl off in favor of something else, that does not make the pearl any less "eternal." It does however cease to be the possession of the one who cast it off. "Eternal life" itself does not lose its quality because of one’s unbelief. However, the possession of this quality of life is no longer owned by the one who no longer meets the Scriptural conditions stated. The fact that they now possess everlasting life is because they are hearing and believing now.
This is not salvation by merit as some will charge, but it is the consistent definition of saving faith throughout the Scriptures. The one who clings to a lifeguard for rescue from drowning does not claim their "clinging," or absence of resistance as the cause of their deliverance. The lifeguard gets the deserved credit, but cannot save the one who fights or refuses his help. It would also be foolish to assume that since one was saved from drowning, that it would be impossible for them to become careless and fall in the water and drown in the future! Such is the logic of eternal security.
They shall not come into condemnation. The same condition applies. If they continue to hear and believe, they have no fear of condemnation. But is passed (perfect tense) from death to life. This is truly the state of the one who presently hears and believes. He was dead, and was made alive, and continues to live today as the perfect tense implies. This is the abiding, continuing, and enduring that the Bible exhorts believers to do. It is important to note that the verse says nothing whatsoever about those who cease hearing and believing. In fact, the Scriptures have no promises of blessings for those who trample under foot the blood of Christ! Based upon the conclusions already given it would be sound advice to follow Paul and Barnabas who are in agreement with our Lord’s statement by "speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God" (Acts 13:43).
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. _Romans 10:9_
Although this is not used on a regular basis by eternal security proponents, it is included since it is the allegation of some that it posits unconditional eternal security.
The emphasis on this verse is usually given as "God says that if you confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, thou shalt be saved. PERIOD! The argument says that the condition of confession and belief have been met at an altar of prayer, then the promise is sure....thou shalt be saved. The conditions are met and the promise guaranteed. God cannot lie.
There is a lot of merit in these words, but the context of the verse is not talking of final salvation. It is dealing with the reception of salvation now. The context is talking about justification, receiving righteousness by faith. We would associate this with the popular term "getting saved."
Nothing within the context would give us any warrant to force an unconditional eternal security upon "thou shalt be saved." Eternal Security is not even implied in the passage. One can read it into it, but cannot get the doctrine out of it; unless they presuppose that it is there. That would not be sound exegesis. Such loose methods of interpretation would leave the Bible a thing that is subject to personal opinion. This is dangerous; anything.., I mean ANYTHING could be proved with this method!
Some have argued that the Greek word used here is in the aorist tense, that is, an act of the moment. A singular act of belief that brings about salvation. This is true that the moment we believe, God saves us. The context of the passage leaves us there. It is important to know that the Scripture is consistent in the use of the present tense wherever the conditions of final salvation are stated. This passage is no exception since it does not consider anything other than the believers initial passing from death unto life.
The _substrata:_ Although the theological underpinning that I am about to bring forth is not directly related to this verse, but it is commonly used by eternal security proponents when they fail to find Biblical support.
"We must be eternally secure because Jesus paid for our sins past, present, and future." It is an interesting challenge if you ask them to prove this supposition. They are assuming that you will be logically defeated by buying into this reasoning. They can search the Scriptures day and night forever, and they will never find any proof of this statement. In fact, the Scriptures lead us to another conclusion. We are told that if we sin, we have an Advocate with the Father. That is, a Lawyer. Now if all your future violations of the law were already paid for, then you would never need an Advocate. The Judge is already satisfied, and no punishment can be inflicted on the one who's fine is already paid for. The fact that Jesus is the Advocate for the believer (1 Jn. 2:1) is evidence enough that future sin is not automatically covered. We would not need an Advocate if we were already judicially paid for at the cross as the Eternal Security proponent asserts.
The fact that the Bible never states that future sins are forgiven is more than innuendo based upon the idea of a need for an Advocate. Paul makes a direct reference concerning the forgiveness of sins in Romans 3:24, 25. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are _past_, through the forbearance of God."
John says it is only if we confess our sins that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1 Jn.1:9). No promise of forgiveness can be found in Scripture for those who refuse to repent. To say that all future sins are covered when we first believe is a theological assumption and not a Biblical fact. We have clear and indisputable statements that **past sins **are covered in the atonement, yet we are at a total loss to find a **singular **passage that states, or even implies, that all future sins of a believer are already pre-forgiven.
Some people will base their eternal salvation on an unproven a_ssumption_ that allows them safety in their sin. Anything concerning salvation that cannot be proven from the Scriptures is nothing more than a baseless theory. Theories are alright if they are used to support that which is clearly defined in Scripture. They are dangerous if they are used as a foundation for any doctrine. This past, present, and future theory was developed to support and bolster their theory of final perseverance. Without any Scriptural evidence to support this teaching, their theory of future payment turns out to be faith in a gargantuan assumption! This approach is prime breading ground for doctrinal idols, and not for truth!
_Und betrübet nicht den heiligen Geist Gottes, mit welchem ihr versiegelt worden seid auf den Tag der Erlösung. Epheser 4,30_ (Schlachterbibel 1951)**
In verschiedenster Hinsicht ist dies derselbe wie Pfeiler Acht. Viel Getue wird gemacht vom Wort "sealed" within both of these passages als Beweis dafür, dass ein fleischlicher "Christ" sicher ist. Auch wird viel Betonung gelegt auf die Aussage "unto the day of redemption." Aufgrund des übermässigen Betonung, den die Verfechter dieser Theorie auf diese Worte legen, halte ich es für notwendig, diesem Thema mehr Beachtung zu schenken, als bereits ihm bereits in den ursprünglichen Pfeilern gegeben wurde.
Once again I want to underscore that the word "seal" in itself makes no allusion to a doctrine of unconditional security whatsoever. It does speak of security which cannot be denied, but nowhere does the word itself define the extent of that security. The word "seal" in itself does not give us the mode in which we are sealed, nor does the word itself give any indication whether the seal can be broken or not. Many will charge that this is clarified by the clause "unto the day of redemption." They read "unto," the Greek "eis" as till, or all the way to the day of redemption. They see this as proving that the seal is guaranteed through to the day of His coming. This stems from a misinterpretation of the ambiguous "unto" of the King James version and by not looking at the original Greek. All versions of the Scriptures since the KJV, and the unanimous consensus of the Greek scholarship of our day goes against this interpretation. Most translate this passage as, "for the day of redemption." The idea of the passage is that we were sealed with a view to the day of redemption. The passage does not say that we are guaranteed this sealing all the way to the day of redemption, or are sure of our arrival at this designated end. The possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit, which is the "seal", implies that this passage is meant as a warning and not as a passage of assurance as the Eternal Security proponents demand. This verse admits the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit, which implies that there is a real danger and that this seal can be broken.
The substrata: Many allude to the ancient custom of using a wax seal as a mark of ownership. There is also the idea of preserving an item in a container, such as jelly or preserves. These references are not complete ideas in which we can take every aspect of them and force them upon Scripture. In fact, the Scripture never specifies how this "sealing" is applied.
For example: A wax seal of ownership is independent of the object which is sealed. Thus, many say that from this image, we cannot break this seal ourselves. As for the jar of preserves; the item inside remains uncontaminated as long as the seal is not broken, or, the seal remains unbroken if the contents remain uncontaminated and do not fester. Since the Bible makes no mention of exactly how this sealing happens, it would be wrong to force any idea too far in either direction. This would be reading too much into these verses. Interjecting our preferred idea of what we think this sealing is into this passage would prove a theory, but it would not prove that it is the idea of Scripture.
Another substrata that the eternal security crowd falls back upon is the use of anthropomorphisms, I.E. human images used to describe God’s relationship to us. Images such as Father, Good Shepard, son, Judge, etc,... are anthropomorphisms. The fact that God is our Father is sometimes used in a way that goes beyond the plain words of Scripture. For an example, here is an actual quote from an eternal security advocate:
"Egal wie sehr ich meinem Vater sage, dass ich nicht sein Sohn sei, die WAHRHEIT diesbezüglich ist, dass ich IMMER sein Sohn sein werde, ungeachtet davon wo ich hingehe oder was ich tue, und ich kann niemals seine Gene in mir ändern, welche hiervon Zeugen sind. Und gleichermassen mit Gott, egal wie sehr ich versuche ihm zu sagen, dass ich nicht länger sein Sohn sei, ich werde IMMER sein Sohn sein und werde nicht dazu fähig sein, seine geistlichen "Gene" zu entfernen. Der Heilige Geist wurde in meinen Geist hinein-"intercoursed", als ich gerettet wurde."
The problem with arguments like these, besides that they go against the clear words of Scripture, is that they sometimes prove too much! Wir wurden alle als Kinder des Teufels geboren; laut dem obigen Argument können wir unsere Sohnschaft nicht verlieren, da unsere Genetik nicht verändert werden kann. Alles was dies beweist, ist dass niemand jemals ein Kind Gottes werden kann! Besides, we are adopted into the family of God aren’t we? Look at what foolish lengths this logic will take us if we apply these images too far! An obigem Zitat ist nichts biblisches, aber [die] Leute fallen jeden Tag auf diese Argumente rein, sogar auf die Absurdität of being "sexed" into salvation! We must be careful not to get carried away in the application of these thoughts. They were never intended to be used to build extensive theories and systems of theology.
ES GIBT NICHTS NEUES UNTER DER SONNE
If old proofs are defeated we can be sure that new ones will always be put in their place. We must be forever vigilant in what we accept as truth, or otherwise, we will build one pillar of error that will someday become a temple. I pray that we will all be willing to tear down those false pillars as they become evident to us. Our assurance is not in a doctrine but in a vital union with our Savior Jesus Christ. " Auch wir sind Menschen, von gleicher Beschaffenheit wie ihr, und predigen euch das Evangelium, daß ihr euch von diesen eitlen Göttern bekehret zu dem lebendigen Gott." Apg 14,15 (Schlachter 1951)