21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’
where did the assurance of guaranteed heaven come from in christianity ?
if you do not doubt in your heart but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
they got limitless powers based on belief, but then at the end of the tunnel there is no guarantee that belief will take you to heaven because of lawlessness.
so where is this idea of guaranteed heaven from ?
Well what’s left of my fundamentalist family believe in the doctrine colloquially called “once saved always saved”. Eternal security. The idea is that if you are truly saved you cannot lose your salvation. What they really think in the twilight kingdom of their own secret thoughts I have no idea. My folks were not Calvinists.
John 10:28-30
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, in regard to what he has given me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.
Hmmmm…has anyone ever considered that, in context, that famous last statement might not entirely mean what it has come to mean? Perhaps Jesus is saying that he and the Father are one in purpose rather than in substance?
What “idea of guaranteed heaven in Christianity” are you referring to here? Not doubting that such a guarantee might exist somewhere, just wondering where it is expressed. Is it part of Calvinism or some other particular interpretation of Christianity?
this belief of “once saved always saved”
where did it come from?
Robert said
What “idea of guaranteed heaven in Christianity” are you referring to here? Not doubting that such a guarantee might exist somewhere, just wondering where it is expressed. Is it part of Calvinism or some other particular interpretation of Christianity?
I came up in like non denominatioal/southern baptist/ evangelical circles and this was common to hear as a kid.
jakejones said
What “idea of guaranteed heaven in Christianity” are you referring to here? Not doubting that such a guarantee might exist somewhere, just wondering where it is expressed. Is it part of Calvinism or some other particular interpretation of Christianity?
this belief of “once saved always saved”
where did it come from?
There are quotes in the NT that could be interpreted that way. Augustine discussed it. Calvin and the Reformers hit it hard and heavy and came up with the idea of Predestination and Perseverance of the Saints. My folks were Arminians (although they probably never actually heard the word) as are many Southern Baptists in America. In the UK Baptists are mostly Calvinists. For my folks if you went too deeply off the beam it meant you weren’t actually “saved” in the first place. It is not possible for a “real” Christian to stop being a Christian so it follows that I never was saved.
Jill I don’t think Paul would have seen these points of view as inconsistent. He wasn’t a systematic theologian. (Neither is God apparently.) Paul’s thought had room for both views. What subsequent, more meticulous interpreters did was pick the verses they agreed with and explain away the ones they didn’t.
I was thinking given the chronology of the letters (Galatians second (?) and Romans as last) [it could be said that] Paul developed the latter view over time. From Galatians, if we not faint; to Romans, irrevocable trust. He is writing from his own internal struggle with this hidden conviction combined with his perceived mission from his G-d as a highly charged and emotional man.
Does that make sense?
Thinking about the irrevocable trust aspect, though, Paul would have this in the catalog of his mind being the devoted Hebrew that he was and his knowledge of the Abrahamic covenant and the Hebrew bible (the Greek version). So, if he didn’t necessarily ‘develop’ his thoughts, ‘if we not faint’ is not opposed to ‘irrevocable’ is it? In encouraging his brothers he is simply saying ‘we must not lose our courage of conviction and we must press forward.’
Does that make sense?
Yep. However, I did just stumble on a comment in an essay about Ezekiel pointing out that the book, which has a fairly consistent message otherwise, claims both that the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem was preordained by Yahweh, and, that it was caused by the people of Israel neglecting his worship. To us these seem like contrary ideas. To us.
To us.
Right, if you are okay with it being the case both that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (so he would have a chance to manifest his power to the nations) and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (such that he could confess that he had sinned), there is nothing particularly problematic here.
John 12.37-38
Now for all the Signs he had performed before them, they did not believe in him – that the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled:
Lord, who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
This was why they could not believe: for Isaiah again said, He has blinded their eyes and made their hearts insensible . . .
Ex. 9.11
And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils for the boils were on the magicians as well as on all the Egyptians.
And the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.
Ex 10.26-27
Therefore, our livestock, too, will go with us; not a hoof will be left behind, for we shall take some of them to serve the LORD our God. And until we arrive there, we ourselves do not know with what we shall serve the LORD.
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go.
Finally,
Ex 14.3-4
For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them .’ Thus I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh’s heart, and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD.”
———————
So, my point here is, that God did not per se harden the heart of Pharaoh. No. The ‘idea’ of God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. What God stood for is what hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God didn’t waive his magic want and harden Pharaoh’s heart.
———————–
In the case of Genesis 15 where the covenant [the irrevocable] with Abraham is described, no threat is implied.
The Moses covenant is connected with the law, and the benefits of the covenant are contingent upon one keeping the law. (See John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, p. 94)
The rub here though, is that in Genesis 17, every male among the descendants of Abraham must be circumcised – which is how we get the cosmetic outward versus the spiritual inward observance of the law [of love].
Gal 5:14 For the entire law is summed up in one word, you must love your neighbor as yourself (whereas, if you snap at each other and prey upon each other take care lest you destroy one another).
16: For what counts is neither circumcision or uncircumcision, it is the new creation. On all who will be guided by this rule, may peace and mercy rest, even upon the Israel of God. [Not just ‘Jew’ but Israel of God][the concept of ‘all’]
So here:
Gal 5.9
And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap [what is irrevocable] if we do not grow weary.
So, my point here is, that God did not per se harden the heart of Pharaoh. No. The ‘idea’ of God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. What God stood for is what hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God didn’t waive his magic want and harden Pharaoh’s heart.
I don’t see that in any of the texts. In fact, Ex. 14:4 seems to militate against that interpretation–God not only says, I’m going to do this thing, he goes further and explains the *reason* he going to do it. I don’t see how we can get away from God claiming agency there.
And it certainly doesn’t seem to have been how Paul took it; see Rom. 9:18 for example.
I’ve found a site ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that gives
Rashi’s [b.02/02/1040 – d.07/13/1105] comments from the Torah. This may shed some light on Paul’s understanding at least at Gal 6.9. But overall I think even at Rom 9.18
Exod. 14.3-4
It was reported to Pharaoh: He [Pharaoh] sent officers with them, and as soon as the three days they [the Israelites] had set to go [into the desert] and return had elapsed, and they [the officers] saw that they were not returning to Egypt, they came and informed Pharaoh on the fourth day. On the fifth and the sixth [days after the Israelites’ departure], they pursued them. On the night preceding the seventh, they went down into the sea. In the morning [of the seventh day], they [the Israelites] recited the Song [of the Sea (Exod. 15:1-18)]. Therefore, we read [in the Torah] the Song on the seventh day, that is the seventh day of Passover.
had a change: He [Pharaoh] had a change of heart from how he had felt [previously], for he had said to them [the Israelites], “Get up and get out from among my people” (Exod. 12:31). His servants [also] had a change of heart, for previously they had said to him, “How long will this one be a stumbling block to us?” (Exod. 10:7). Now they had a change of heart to pursue them [the Israelites] on account of the money that they had lent them. — [based on Mechilta]
Exod. 14:8
And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh: Because he vacillated about whether to pursue [the Israelites] or not. [So] He hardened his heart to pursue [them]. — [from Mechilta]
In Gal 6.9 I think Paul is speaking of the wavering of ‘our’ determination to act as brothers to one another; or in Pharaoh’s case his wavering in allowing the Israelites their freedom; or in the case of John12.37-38, in the face of many signs performed still hardened hearts, G-d as agent of otherwise. (I don’t think God hardens hearts, he just lets hearts do what they want).
Paul is hoping that our unwavering commitment to be as spiritual brothers or fellows or members united in the body of messiah will result in the fulfillment of G-d’s irrevocable promise to Abraham as father (Abraham did after all break out of the Ur scene) of one great united people comprising Jew, Gentile, slave, free, man, woman.
Of course, this would not necessarily mean assurance of a guaranteed heaven. I just thought that particular passage beginning at 17 of Rom 11.17-29, but especially 29 would be where the idea comes from.
I don’t think God hardens hearts, he just lets hearts do what they want
I’m not trying to tell you what you believe. I am saying that in the canonical Scriptures we find a thread of thought that holds that God has absolute sovereignty even over the individual’s free will. This is often found alongside affirmations that individuals do have free will; I think that is what Stephen was talking about in saying we can quote Paul both ways.
Consider Paul in Rom 9:16-18: “it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”
That’s the basic claim: God hardens the hearts of whom he will and, conversely, has mercy on whom he will.
Then Paul immediately places an objection in the mouth of his reader: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” In other words, if God is the one who hardens peoples’ hearts, who blinds them to the truth and causes them to sin, how is it, when they sin, the individual’s fault rather than God’s? Couldn’t Pharaoh retort: It’s not my fault. God made me do it. He willed to harden my heart.
And Paul’s, not very comforting or satisfying, solution follows (Rom 9:20-21): “But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?” God’s control over the human heart is analogous to the absolute control a potter has over his clay.
And by the way, Paul returns to the idea that God can and freely does harden people in Rom 11:7-8: “The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.'” If they are obstinate and unrepentant it is because the almighty God who created them made them be obstinate.
It isn’t always hardening of course, God also has mercy on whom he will. This idea also has precedent, see Ez 11:19-20, “And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them” and even clearer Ez 36:26 “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.”
When people convert, God converted them (see Lam 5:21) and gave then a new heart. When people walk in God’s statutes and take care to observe his ordinances, it is because God caused them to. When people sin, it is because God hardened their hearts and gave them a spirit of stupor.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert