From: allan@sunk.hc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Eternal Security (was Re: damnation/purgatory)
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:21:34 GMT

DSIMON writes:

   Using the phrase "eternal life" to argue for eternal security is
   nothing more than a play on words.  Antics with semantics.

What do the words mean?  There is no indication that John was engaging
in word play.  Anyway semantics are important and deserve more respect
than your rhyme would seem to give them.

   "This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God,
   and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."  -  John 17:3

Surely you are not implying that you expect John to define the word
"eternal" before you will agree that he really meant eternal.  The
statement in John 17.3 makes the point that life that lasts forever
cannot be lived apart from God.  This is an implication of the Xian
worldview that needed to be pointed out.  I am not surprised to find it
here.  I *would* be surprised to find a tautology like "This is eternal
life, life that never ends".  I think most authors give their readers a
little more credit than that.

   Eternal life is not tantamount to life that never ends.  Eternal
   life is knowing God.  

The whole point of the verse is that it is both.  It is the former by
the definition of the word.  Why do you think he used the word
"eternal"?  It is the latter because that is the way God set up the
world.  

   There are many good arguments for eternal security.
   The phrase "eternal life" is not one of them.

Well,  I agree that there are other good arguments (perhaps even some
better ones) but you do a disservice to the biblical authors when you
ignore their word choice this way.  They do not seem as illiterate as
you would like to make them.

   > I am at a loss to see how anyone can
   > read almost any Pauline letter and come away with the conclusion that
   > our eternal fate depends on our faithfulness.  Paul goes to such lengths
   > to exclude this interpretation that it is hard to imagine what more he
   > could reasonably be expected to say to deny this idea.

   There are so many verses which imply that a Xian can lose salvation,
   I don't see how these can be ignored.

You seem to have missed the fact that at this point Eric and I were
discussing the place of works in salvation and not eternal security.
These two issues impinge on one another but they are still quite
distinct.  Let me say that while many citations purporting to refute the
issues surrounding God's sovereignity have been made to me most do not
bear close scrutiny.  There are indeed some problems that are not easily
dismissed; however, these are dwarfed by the problems encountered when
one contemplates the converse.  

   Many great Xian thinkers have grappled with this issue.  I am at a loss
   to see how anyone can think that it is a clear-cut issue.

If I saw the edge of a cliff all the experts in the world claiming I was
mistaken could still not convince me to step over the edge.  The only
difference between this situation and that is that here there quite a
few experts who agree that a cliff is there.  I am "at a loss" because I
have read the documents and witnessed the almost completely unequivocal
nature of the discourse found there.  I don't deny that there are those
who have come to different understandings of this matter.  Nor do I deny
that many of these men have achieved measures of greatness.  For all
that I still must accede to that which is manifestly obvious to me.

Nor do I claim immunity to error.  I err often and hope to continue
erring for at least a little while longer.  I have not always held to
eternal security for instance.  Obviously I either was or am in error
about that. But my life has taught me the folly of letting the
_possibility_ of error become the _presumption_ of error.

Still perhaps I have not been exposed to the right set of problems yet.
That is why I exchange messages here.  It is an effort to be exposed to
as many of the problems as possible and analyze them rigorously.  If I
thought the issues were beyond questioning I wouldn't bother.

tntigwi,
dex