Odd. Here's the 3rd option I stated in answer to what I see as your false-dichotomy. Please note that I flagged you within this second linked post (#4,188) expecting you would see it:
I've also set aside the
@Musicmaster false dichotomy and entered a 3rd view of responsive, cooperative, obedient faith which words provide indication that God initiates, leads, guides, disciplines, teaches, trains, etc., His children and expects and requires and provides ability for us to respond, cooperate, obey/believe and is the one who sovereignly determines what is work that He will reward and compensate and bless for. I also see these 4 words actively being involved in our initial coming to Christ and simply continuing from there in our growth as He directs.
You posted no explanation for 2Tim2:13 other than suggesting it affirms your position on security. I've asked you to take us through the verse and explain it to us.
The burden is on you to explain why it supports your view.
I'm anxious to interact with your teaching based upon your analysis of that verse in close context of 2Tim2:10-13 and most specifically of 2Tim2:11-13 being the more entire statement you're drawing one verse from. Some view the structure as hymnic or liturgical and you're just pulling one piece from that structure and using it to make a theological conclusion.
Please explain how losing, versus cannot lose, salvation is a false dichotomy. If your splitting the hair for there to be a third option, and that being that one can vacate their salvation, that option too is as empty for supporting scripture as the loss position. That's pretty straightforward and logical. Pointing to the silence also serves a good purpose for highlighting the additions to the text things that aren't there.
As to the 2 Timothy 2 section:
2 Timothy 2:10-13 — Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
So, point by point:
Paul endures the stonings and other hardships of his ministry to bring his gospel to the Jews (without building on Peter's foundations among the Jews) and the Gentiles. If we are dead with Christ, we are also alive with him. Conditionally, if we suffer, we will also reign with him in the Heavenlies. Nothing cryptic or hidden so far, but to continue: If we deny Him, He will deny us.
THIS is where some of the rub comes into this context, where some inject salvation into Paul's meaning in how he phrased the concept of denial. Given that Paul did not address this as the tipping point for loss of salvation, some think themselves possessing license to just go ahead and eisegete that into the word choices inspired.
Thayer's Lexicon says this about the denying parts:
a. ἀρν. Ἰησοῦν is
used of follower of Jesus who, for fear of death or persecution, deny that Jesus is their master, and desert his cause, [to disown]: Matthew 10:33; Luke 12:9; [John 13:38 L text T Tr WH]; 2 Timothy 2:12, (ἀρν. τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, Revelation 3:8 means the same); and
on the other hand, of Jesus, denying that one is his follower: Matthew 10:33; 2 Timothy 2:12.
When we take this at the exclusion of all else that defines the salvation we have by grace, it's THEN very easy to make this say whatever one wishes it to mean. Isolative interpretation methodology is just too easy when it seems to offer the freedom for subjective assignment of meaning, especially when it seems to strongly support that subjective desire. For example, when we exclude from our systematic understanding and study verses like these:
2 Corinthians 1:22 — Who hath also
sealed us, and
given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
and this
Ephesians 1:13 — In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
and this
Ephesians 4:30 — And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are
sealed unto the day of redemption.
...one is left with nothing to support the idea of 2 Tim. 2 being a defense for loss of salvation or any other combination that does nothing but to convolute the topic.
Many, many more sections of scripture could be pointed out to an exhaustive extent, but if this doesn't suffice, then I'm not sure what could be shown to revitalize one's appreciation for understanding what all of scripture, under the Gospel of Grace and outside this gospel, that could serve as solid grounding for an understanding of the error behind injecting salvation loss into the meaning of Pauls words.
Galatians 1:11-12 — But I certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul persecuted them believing Jews on the basis of the Kingdom Gospel he had heard from men, but the Gospel of Grace that he received only from Christ, it clearly stands apart from the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve. Under one they had to endure unto the end, under the other they did not have to endure in order to be saved, but the endurance having to do only with reward. We are saved to the uttermost right now, not at some future point as was stated to those under the Kingdom Gospel.
Those differences, then, set us apart from those who were not under the same gospel and same conditions for salvation, for none of the twelve ever told Israel they were saved by grace through faith and that jot of themselves, lest any man should boast...
Lastly, when Paul was inspired to insert the condition of unbelief among true believers into that text, he makes clear to us the faithfulness of Christ and His lack in ever denying Himself even within believer's traipse into unbelief, the implications, coupled with all else that's stated by way of being sealed by Holy Spirit, it's just undeniable the extent of our salvation being based upon His faithfulness and His Holy Spirit who has infinite strength.
How could the Lord ever fail to hold the believer who falls into unfaithfulness for whatever reason? It all serves His purposes that some foolishly choose to question. It's not at all hard to comprehend the extent of the Lord's faithfulness in the face of our habitual unfaithfulness in daily sins. Who has ever stopped sinning in this life, and yet some choose to draw subjective lines in the sands of their pathetic humanity to think themselves qualified to define a line that exists nowhere in relation to the extent of our salvation.
I hope that helps.
MM
