Matthew Johnson wrote:

> [snip]
> >Christ said, "... but the one who endures to the end shall be
saved."
>
> This is one of the many 'proof-texts' AGAINST Loren's tragic error.
But just
> watch how he will twist in the wind to avoid taking this verse
seriously!
>
so basically you deny that there cannot be any other interpretation
except yours.

In my understanding, this verse is little different than what James
teaches when he wrote the much debated, "Faith without works is dead."
As Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, even Arminus, Terretin, and most
Protestants teach,

Quote:

.. . . a new light and knowledge of God and Christ and of the Divine
Will, have been kindled in his [the regenerate believer] mind; and. . .
new affections, inclinations and motions agreeing with the law of God,
have been excited in his heart, and new powers have been produced
[ingeneratae] in him."

[Arminius, "Public Disputations: vol 2, p 194]

The primary difference between Matthews position and the Protestant
position is that Matthew believes that salvation is never actually won
in this life time, but is progressive until such time we are made
complete and then, and only then is the believer justified.  He
believes as did Jerome, that salvation "Is ours to begin, God's to
finish" or Cicero, that "everyone acquires virtue for himself."  His
position believes that the will of man is only injured or infirmed, not
totally deprave.  But there is a small problem with this position for
if there were enough good left within man's ability to choose ("free
will") for it apply itself to good, it would then counter the
Scriptural record concerning the need of grace.  Like Erasmus' argument
in "The Diatribe,"  Matt's position is that a will that is powerless
without grace is not really free, and he simply will not bow the knee
to that conclusion.

For the Protestant, however, "endurance" does not speak to
justification, but rather sanctification and the rewards which follow.
In eternity past, God's council determined those who were to be called.
Those "elect" have been "predestined," that is, a
boundary has been
marked out around them and they cannot tresspass outside of that
boundary.  As sure as are the foreknowledge, the predestination and the
calling of God, equally so are the justification and glorification as
mentioned in Rom 8:30-31, all being written in the aorist tense
indicating that as far as God is concerned, the believer "in Christ"
never has to worry about being separated.  Good works never come to
bear on the question of justification because it is all a work of God,
even the regeneration of the will of the called sinner inorder to
enable and surely encourage him to believe.  Sanctification is based
upon this true and is the "from faith to faith" outworking of this new
regenerated relationship.  Sin, even willful sin can no longer separate
us judicially from God.

All regenerated believers "endure" to the end.  Some
"endure" better
than others.  That goes without question.  But if what Matt's position
is indeed the correct interpretation, then one must question why the
Church has failed so miserably at bringing in the Kingdom.  Sometimes
it is easier to see the big picture of the corporate body than the
individual experience, though we identify more readily with the
individual.  We as regenerated believers all travel though the Pauline
experience of Rom 7, to one degree or another as we walk through life.
But as John concludes his first epistle, we can know that we have
eternal life because of the fact that justification is a past event and
it is once and for all.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/13/04 1:31:53 PM