For the rest of the series, see 5/6/2008-5/9/288, 5/12/2008-5/16/2008, 6/16/2008, 7/23/2008, and 10/17/2008

Please click on the attachment to view Brenda B. Colijn, "“LET US APPROACH”: SOTERIOLOGY IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/4 (December 1996) 571–586.

Please click on the attachment to view Douglas W. Kennard, "Petrine Redemption: Its Meaning and Extent", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30/4 (December 1987) 399-405.

In Martin Glynn’s critique of the Articles of the Remonstrants, he provides a brief and helpful historical introduction and then dissects each of the five articles. Glynn notes the two surprises in the pile: article 3 is an unqualified expression of Total Depravity and in article 5 the Remonstrants are undecided on the issue of apostasy and simply say they need to research it more in Scripture. (link)

This article derives from: http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/eternalsecurityandexegeticaloverv...

and may be viewed there or by clicking on the pdf attachment. The formatting at the above website is better.

For the Calvinist, the "doctrines of grace" is a synonym for TULIP theology. So, do the Biblical Doctrines of Grace of Arminianism also follow a system, such as TULIP? Arminianism proper has not historically employed an acronym as the one used for nearly four centuries by Calvinists.

Let it be stated, however, that if it had not been for the followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) presenting their five arguments to the state to be approved as orthodox consent, then the TULIP would have never been constructed. And the original order of the Remonstrants was Conditional Election (to those in Christ), Unlimited Atonement, Total Depravity, Resistible Grace, and Conditional Perseverance.

If the Calvinists had strictly followed the Arminian system, it would have spelled ULTIP, which is a bad acronym, considering Ultip is not a word. Worse off, the Arminian acronym would have been CUTRC. The best sense which we could make out of that construct is TRUCC, also not a word.

This post attempts to put the Calvinistic “never really saved to begin with” view of apostasy to the test when reading select passages relevant to the topic of apostasy. The results speak for themselves.

“I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. [proving that he was never in Christ to begin with, making it impossible to 'remain' in Him or be 'cut off' from Him] Jn. 15:3-6

The following link is to an article by James M. Leonard, "Arminian Baptist," who argues from the overall text of Hebrews for the actual possibility of believers leaving their faith.

http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/eternalsecurityandexegeticaloverv...

For the rest of the series, see 5/6/2008-5/9/288, 5/12/2008-5/16/2008, 6/16/2008, 7/23/2008

Having examined the primary passages that teach apostasy we now examine the passages that the advocates of unconditional eternal security believe clearly support their doctrine:

John 10:27-29

“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”

In this article Mr. Hamilton reexamines this controversial verse to discover whether a person can regain his salvation after losing it.

Please click on the attachment to view Robert Hamilton's "Does Hebrews 6:6 Teach that Apostasy is Without Remedy?"

It is a popular teaching today that once someone becomes a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ, he or she will never cease to be God’s child regardless of behavior and continuance in saving faith.

In order to express this teaching, it is reasoned from human experience to that which is spiritual and a strong distinction is made between “fellowship” and “relationship”. It is said that a believer can harm and even sever one’s fellowship with God while somehow maintaining a saving relationship. The only way to express this concept is through human analogy.

Neil T. Anderson gives us the basis of this argumentation in Stomping Out the Darkness, co-authored by Dave Park. Under the heading: There’s A Difference Between Relationship and Fellowship, Anderson writes…

For the rest of the series, see 5/6/2008-5/9/288, 5/12/2008-5/16/2008, 6/16/2008

Is Restoration Really Impossible?

After studying the warning passages in Hebrews the question naturally arises: can an apostate ever be restored again to salvation? Is the repudiation of saving faith irrevocable and the condition of the apostate permanent?