Presuppositions

Most seasoned Christians are familiar with a phenomenon that is often disturbing, seldom edifying, and mostly perplexing. Further, it is something that can not be ignored with trite dismissives, though it often is. It is a plain fact that controversial doctrines exist, are confusing, and continue to cause division in the church; and all are based upon views of what is called the plain and evident reading of certain passages of the Bible. The doctrine of salvation is one area that has the unfortunate circumstance of being among this kind of doctrinal mayhem. In our finite minds, we do not know why God arranged for His church to exist with controversial doctrines, and differing interpretations, relentlessly taking shape and causing confusion and turmoil. It is not typically recognized to be according to the preceptive aspect of God's will that this happens, where He says that this is the way He wants it to be. It seems like God wants this kind of thing when Paul says that it is necessary for there to be divisions among you so that those who are approved will be made manifest, but not all divisions have to do with making manifest those who are approved. In God's sovereignty, controversial doctrines, and varying interpretations exist according to the decretive aspect of His will. In simpler terms, God allows it (determines it) to happen even though His prescription to us is that He does not like it. Though all these things be the case, the fact of the matter is that there is correct doctrine in respect to salvation, and it should not be controversial to any Christian.

The apostles saw a need to warn and encourage against doctrinal muddiness that they foresaw coming in their age. They battled it in their own day. This has been a huge part of our existence for the last 2000 years. What this means practically for the inquiring mind, is that there are certain questions that need answering:

What exactly is the right view of Scripture on a certain doctrinal issue?

What are the proper interpretations?

What do we do with passages that may seem like they contradict other passages?

Which interpretation should I believe?

There are perhaps hundreds, even thousands, of questions that are similar to the ones above that need answering. The Scriptures reveal to us that God must have His reasons for allowing this because it is in the Scriptures that we find that there is an ultimate purpose for everything and everything ultimately glorifies God. It goes along with the same kind of principle behind the pronouncement of Joseph where he said that what his brothers meant for evil, God meant for good. Though it seems like it can only end in evil, God will ultimately use all our doctrinal confusion and turmoil for His good. In the meantime, here they are: doctrines that divide, and systems of theology that contradict and even oppose one another. Salvation itself is something that many people can not define properly. In fact, there are views of Scriptural salvation that vary so much, one would think the Bible is like a painting left to us from a long dead artist, and so here we are--the critics and connoisseurs giving our opinion as to what the painter meant by his use of a certain color; by his arrangement of the composition; what elements in the art we think should be viewed as symbolic or literal, and so forth. Some of us just want to say, "the artist left us this painting so just accept it for what it evidently is;" as if that is really going to halt our questions. Some might even say, "Well you can't understand all of it, but you can at least understand some of it;" as if that is really going to halt the fact they my understanding may differ from yours. Some of us might even go so far as to assert, "Even a child can understand this painting;" as if that is really going to halt the fact that many adults do not understand some of the various elements. Most of us believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us to understand it all. But the fact that there are so many views of understanding, by so many good Christians who think that the Holy Spirit is leading them to believe what they believe, demonstrates that there must be more to the statement than the ease there is in blurting it out. All of these things apply to the biblical subject of salvation. The one thing we Christians all agree on though, is that the truth is there because the artist painted what He painted with the meaning in His mind when He painted. In other words, we have God's truth preserved for us--whether someone interprets it wrongly or not. Our task is to discern it to the best of our ability, grasp it, and live it--particularly what we believe the Scriptures reveal concerning salvation.

This book deals heavily with interpretation. In fact, this book exists because of the doctrinal mayhem that has been described above. Subsequently, this particular chapter deals with presuppositions that are important to recognize when reading this book. The presuppositions listed in this chapter are meant to help the reader understand some fundamental starting points that drive the interpretational practices found within this book.

(1)
A fundamental presupposition of this book, is that everyone approaches any Scriptural passage with certain presuppositions. For example, the skeptic approaches Scripture with the presupposition that there may be something wrong with the text, and that there probably is. An atheist approaches Scripture with the presupposition that there is no God, and so the text is immediately not considered to be inspired by God. People who think that God has not determined all that is to be as it is, approach the scriptures thinking that God has left His creation to randomness and chance to work itself out through history. People who think that God does not secure salvation for those whom He saves, presuppose that any, and all, Biblical texts must necessarily mean that God does not secure salvation for those whom He saves. People who recognize that God actually does save people eternally in actual salvation, presuppose that all texts must necessarily mean that God does save eternally those who are saved. To deny that people come to the text of Scripture absent of presuppositions is dishonest as a worst case motivation, or is naively believing an optimistic fallacy at best. With this in mind, for someone who believes in the Not Eternally Saved Theory (NEST) to attempt to malign or discredit those who recognize eternal security as being Once Saved In Eternal Spiritual Salvation (OSIESS) because they come to the text with presuppositions, as if this is a novel, and negative trait, is absurd, and by extension, self stultifying.

(2)
The second presupposition of this book, is that Scripture helps interpret Scripture. If I see a passage that speaks of being born again, I need to see how the rest of Scripture contextually and principally expresses the interpretation. If not, I may continue to wonder, as Nicodemus did with Jesus,

"How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" John 3:4

Along with that, we must seek Scripture to find out Who it is that conceives us; Who it is that supplies our nutrients, and Who births us when we are born again. Was it us?; or was it our Spiritual parent? Concurrently, the rest of Scripture interprets whether it is possible to make one's self an unborn person after being a born person. Just because I want to say that I think you can make yourself not born, or not born again, does not make me right. So, we look to Scripture rather than philosophy as the ultimate interpreter and arbitrator concerning doctrine; Scripture helps interpret Scripture.

(3)
The third presupposition of this book is that context is the golden key. I can barely express how many misconstrued proof-texts are cleared up when we go to the whole section and get the contextual meaning--or we look at the cultural considerations and see why something was addressed in the first place. Context is the golden key.

(4)
The fourth presupposition of this book, is the first thing my New Testament professor scrawled on the board on my first day of class in seminary. I'll never forget it as long as I live; "Scripture always means what it always meant." This seems so simple and so obvious doesn't it? Sadly, it is not. In our day of spiritualizing passages, and reckless proof texting, where people want to make a scripture mean what they want it to mean, it seems that Scripture doesn't always mean what it meant. Fortunately for us, Scripture always means what it always meant. Even things like double prophecies, and double applications; for example, David writing about his turmoil in the Psalms, and the same words also being a prophecy of Messiah; Scripture always means what it always meant. So, if it is a double prophecy, then presupposition number (2) applies to help us to see it: Scripture interprets Scripture. Every time you go to the Old testament and find a double meaning for a Scripture, you know that it really does have a double meaning because it has been quoted in the Bible as such. But let me warn you. We have got to be careful, because the New Testament writers may quote only one sentence from the Old Testament in the middle of a huge chapter, and so it is that one sentence that we know for sure is the prophecy. Everything surrounding it would be speculative as being double, and oftentimes does not apply at all. The point is that you can not make it have a double meaning just because you think that it should. Only God can do that. So, Scripture always means what it always meant.

(5)
The fifth presupposition of this book, is that certain Scriptures--particularly translated into English from Greek--are not easy to understand even though we may want to believe that certain passages are so simple that even a child can determine their original meaning. Practically every page of the Bible will have an example of where passages are not easy to understand. 1 Corinthians 15:29, is a quick, and classic example;

"29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)

What exactly will those do who are baptized for the dead? Why exactly are they baptized for the dead anyway? These are doctrinal considerations that need to be covered in another book. The point is that the passage is not easy to understand, and it should not be pretensively asserted that it is. Another example is found in Ephesians 4:8, where Paul is quoting from Psalm 68:18;

"8 Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.'" (Ephesians 4:8)

"18 You have ascended on high, You have led captive Your captives; You have received gifts among men, even among the rebellious also, that Jehovah God may dwell there." (Psalm 68:18)

Did He give gifts to men as Paul says?; or did He receive gifts among men as David says? Further, why did Paul quote the Psalm this way? Without knowing that Paul is quoting from the Targum, and Pishetta, this problem would not be reconciled. But, a so called clear and evident reading of the text that even a child can understand does not reveal this vital fact. The Bible is packed with this kind of somewhat esoteric material, and the fact of the matter is that it is hard to understand. Additionally, we were told that certain Scriptures would be hard to understand, so we must not act surprised;

"16 as also in all his [Paul the apostle's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, ..." (2 Peter 3:16)

The bottom line is that the "hard to understand" principle doesn't change simply because we want to deny it exists. Oftentimes it takes extra teaching, and the attribute of being stable to read such things without distortion, which is the background, and substance of this book.

(6)
The sixth presupposition of this book, is that the so called literal, plain, and obvious interpretation, may not be as plain and obvious as is often supposed. For example, what seems plain and obvious in a sentence to my 10 year old son, does not necessarily reflect what the writer meant. Likewise, what is supposedly plain and obvious in the NEST, does not necessarily reflect what the writer meant. Simply to assert that one's interpretation is merely the plain and obvious, literal, and therefor correct interpretation, is what is called a non-sequitur. A non sequitur declaration is an assertion that draws conclusions from premises that are not logically connected to the conclusion--most importantly it is an assertion that fails to interact with important considerations. For example, the Not Eternally Saved Theory interpretation may not be the plain one after all. It takes more than mere assertion--it takes comprehensive evaluation of each premise. Further, if you disagree with the NEST interpretation, then you may become the brunt of another argument tactic called ad homonym. Ad homonyms focus upon degrading the person rather than staying with the details of the person's argument for the plain and literal interpretation. Ad homonyms are attempts to focus upon attacking you rather than sticking to the details of the argument. A NEST Ad homonym, usually goes in the direction of something like this,

"You say that you interpret literally, and yet you can not see what the plain and literal interpretation of this verse is? What is wrong with you? Anyone can see what the plain and literal meaning of this verse is, and since you disagree with what I think I see, then you obviously refuse to see it, or you are so dumb that you can not see the plain and literal interpretation."

Ad homonyms and non sequitors aside, simply because someone who believes in the NEST (or anyone for that matter) asserts that a certain reading of a sentence in the Bible is the plain and literal meaning that they apply to it, does not follow that their own so-called plain and literal meaning is the actual meaning of the author, and further, it does not follow that those who believe in the great doctrine of being Once Saved In Eternal Spiritual Salvation are wrong in their interpretation.

(7)
The seventh presupposition of this book is that any doctrinal theory of losing salvation that one has supposedly had beforehand, must be based upon a proper definition of salvation to begin with. In other words, presuppositions are not previously derived from the Bible concerning losing salvation without a prior definition of what it is that is supposedly able to be lost. The salvation that is supposedly lost is a supposed salvation that is either defined in the Bible, or is a philosophical fantasy that has no basis whatsoever, which would make it an equivocation.

(8)
The eighth presupposition of this book is that salvation is in Christ, and it is salvation once for eternity. The overwhelming majority of Scriptures that deal with salvation directly, demonstrate that salvation is eternal, and we can be sure that we have it when we do. Christ asserted it when he said in John 6,

"39 This is the will of [God] who sent Me, that of all [the people] that He has given Me I lose [none of them], but raise [them] up on the last day." (John 6:39)

Christ says God gives; Christ receives; He loses no person given to Him. Then later, Christ's purchase of people, and atonement and propitiation for sin on the cross is perfect, and so once saved always saved people will necessarily be raised up later on the last day, which is John 3:16,

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that every one who believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

So this presupposition is that the eternality of eternal life is really eternal. Our life may have the appearance of being temporal since our bodies are mortal, yet in hope we await our adoption into the next aspect of eternal life where we experience the redemption of our bodies in glorification (cf. Romans 8:23, Jude 21, 1 Corinthians 15 etc.). It is the eternal hope that the apostles preached where we are in this cursed world now, and our body dies, but we wait anxiously for the resurrecting mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to an eternal body that is incapable of dying. It is the future tense aspect of the eternal-spiritual life we have now. Nevertheless, eternal life as salvation is not temporal for any individual. The presupposition is that if one has authentic saving belief, then one has authentic eternal life--being a partaker of the divine nature.

(9)
The ninth presupposition of this book, is that the presupposition that the doctrine of salvation means that salvation is eternal, is a presupposition that is previously derived from the Bible. This is not circular reasoning, because the field of salvation is not the subject of coming to the scripture itself, but rather the field is the doctrine of salvation discovered after coming to the scriptures.

(10)
The tenth presupposition of this book, is that salvation is a miracle as a state of being. It is not a concept, nor is it merely mental assent.

(11)
The eleventh presupposition of this book, is that salvation is not an ontological thing that can be misplaced, lost, destroyed, or walked away from. In the NEST tapestry, spiritual salvation is said to be something that one can lose after being saved. But salvation is not a thing that you can lose, like a mechanism, or a generator, or a life preserver, or a ticket, or some ontological thing like those items. Salvation does not exist like that. Salvation is a miraculous state of being, where you are saved from something because you have been changed into something, and because you were saved, you are saved.

One reason that certain people believe that salvation can be lost, is because the Not Eternally Saved Theory never explains, aside from philosophy, what someone is saved from when actually saved. Salvation is not merely knowledge as I have heard one man assert. Knowledge may lead to salvation, and salvation may lead to more knowledge. Knowledge can preceed salvation, and knowledge can follow, but salvation is not the knowledge. Likewise, salvation is not merely faith, or belief, as another man so boldly asserted to me. Rather, people are saved by grace through faith. Grace through faith is not the summation of salvation in and of itself.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;" Ephesians 2:8

In other words, people are not faith by grace through faith. People are saved by grace through faith, and it is not something they generate or give to themselves; it is a gift of God. Salvation is a state of being where you are saved from eternal destruction by being changed into an eternal being of glory.


(12)
The twelfth presupposition of this book, is that salvation is not merely the philosophy of being in an in between state of partial salvation that you are somehow able to reject once you are in the supposed partial salvation. Let me clarify; salvation is not an intermediate existence between lostness on one hand where one is hell bound, and then over on the other hand, to be secure for eternity. The Bible describes no such philosophical in between state. If you were hell bound before entering a speculated "in between" salvation, and you supposedly walk away from the conjectured in between state back into lostness, then, in actuality, you were always hell bound. Therefor you are, were, and exist as lost--you never left being hell bound by the logical conclusion of the fact that hell is where history proves you were bound to go. The reality of salvation is being made righteous by God now which always results in being glorified;

"and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also made righteous; and whom He made righteous, these he also glorified." Romans 8:30

Spiritual salvation is a past tense action, that continues forever, and the action is by God. Salvation is a miracle. Glorified people do not walk away from glorification, or fall away from glorification. Predestined, called, made righteous, glorified, people are all of those categories as a singular state of being. Whatever a saved person does, the person remains glorified, which finds its consummate experience in a super-glorified body in the resurrection.

(13)
The thirteenth presupposition of this book, is that Eternal Spiritual Salvation has three tenses of experience. Past when one's salvation is actualized in being born-again by real grace, through the gift of faith, and receiving the Holy Spirit, also known as being crucified with Christ on the cross, but nevertheless living, yet not you, but Christ living in you, Galatians 2:20. Then there is the present tense aspect of the same eternal salvation that has to do with one's immediate experience, where one operates in the moments of this cursed world right now until it is left behind in death and resurrection. Then there is the future tense of the same eternal salvation, where after one's mortal body dies the saved are resurrected in a wonderful super-body. Salvation can be described in three tenses but it is the same salvation that goes on for eternity.


(14)
The fourteenth presupposition of this book, is that there are those who appear like they are saved, but they are not really saved. There are those who appear to have been given by the Father to the Son, but have not. In other words, it only appears to us humans that they believe in Christ as Lord and Savior. They are temporal lookalikes who are called tares among the wheat in Matthew 13. Such tares (darnel plants) appear at the outset like true wheat, but ultimately the blossoming seed that comes forth as their genetic fruit exposes them for what they are--fakes who are, and always were, on their way to hell. Even their testimonies and actions can appear to be wheat;

"22 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'" (Matthew 7:22)

Christ never knew the fakes as partakers of His metaphorical spiritual DNA. He only knew them as being impostors among the true. They are tares among the wheat. They, in context, were the Jewish apostates of Israel who are manifested as being antinomian--rejecting God's leadership, and commands.

(15)
The fifteenth presupposition of this book, is that God is not a universalist. In other words, not everyone is saved. Only some are saved. God calls them His elect. Since God is not a universalist, He has redeemed particular people through Christ. Christ has not redeemed, purchased, bought everyone. To do so would make Christ a universalist. But, Christ is God and God is not a universalist. What Christ has actually done, of which is made evident now, and will be made evident trillions of years from now, is that he has ransomed, redeemed, bought, purchased, particular people through the cross. The particular people Christ redeems are the people the Father gives to Him. They are called saved people. In simple terms, this is called "particular redemption." People get confused on this and the reason is because they do not recognize that there is a difference between saying that the applicable scope of Christ's atoning purchase is limited, from saying that the power and value of the atoning purchase is somehow limited. In actuality, Christ's purchasing power and value is not limited, yet it is only power, and value, for a particular application. The scope of Christ's powerful redemptive transaction is limited to those people whom are actually purchased. This is what Jesus meant when He said,

"the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28, and Mark 10:45)

The Greek word for ransom here is luthron. Luthron is the payment of a purchase price for someone which releases them from a previous bondage. Notice that Jesus defines all that He ransoms. They are all of the many but not all of the everyone everywhere. So when an apostle, or anyone speaks of all that Christ ransomed, like in 1 Timothy 2:6, we understand it in light of Jesus' explanation that it is all the people who are among the many. To put this another way, the cross was powerful enough to save all, but effective only for many, and all the many are the saved. This does not mean that the saving nature of Christ's atoning work has somehow been limited. Some people think it does mean that the saving nature of Christ's atoning work has been limited. To explain how this happens, we will look at the following illustration of a guy with the name of Joe. Joe thinks particular redemption is a wrong doctrine because he thinks that it limits the saving nature of Christ's atoning work. Joe says emphatically,

Christ died for all people.

It sounds like a simple enough sentence, but what does Joe mean exactly? Is Joe saying that Christ's death actually bought all people and so it has already secured the salvation of every person? Is Joe saying that Christ ransomed everyone, rather than many? Joe, says,

No, of course not. Christ died for all people, but that doesn't mean that all people are saved.

Next, let us ask Joe if Christ died specifically so that Christ has done what is necessary to purchase certain people in particular, thus securing their salvation. Joe says,

No--actually, Christ has died so that any person may possibly be saved, but only possibly. They must follow certain conditions first. So, any person is saved only if they do what is necessary to acquire salvation.

What Joe has not recognized is that Joe has just limited the atoning work of the death of Christ. Joe says,

How in the world have I limited the atoning work of the death of Christ?

Here's how: To say that it is only possible for people to be saved by being bought, places a philosophical limit on the effect of the purchase in respect to what the purchase actually is. The purchase and ownership is of people. Actually being saved because of being bought identifies the full scope of the purchase. In reality (not mere possibility) particular redemption means that Christ's atoning purchase infallibly secured the salvation of a great many and particular multitude of people throughout all time--a particular multitude so great that no human can number, who through Christ's atoning purchase not only may be saved, but will be saved, are saved, and necessarily must be saved as those who the buying and purchasing and redeeming was all about in the business deal of the cross in the first place. The cross was powerful enough to save all because it does not lack the value, so to speak, but it is effective only for many--those actually bought. Christ is not a universalist.

(16)
The sixteenth presupposition of this book, is that the purchase that results in salvation is certain. In other words, Christ died for sins, (1 Peter 3:18), and Christ's sacrifice is the offering for sin, (Romans 8:3). Christ sacrifice is the complete satisfaction required for

1.) the unholiness of sin,

2.) the penalty for sin, (which is death)

In respect to the above two aspects of Christ's accomplishment on the cross, Christ's atoning-propitiating sacrifice is also the effectual purchase of certain people from their previous life in sin.

"... since a death has occurred that redeems [purchases] them [people] from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. [ESV]" (Hebrews 9:15)

People are Christ's objects of His ransom. People are what are bought. What this means is that Christ did not purchase sin on the cross. Christ did not purchase the earth, or the whole world, or the universe. Christ did not purchase salvation as the thing of His love. The Bible proclaims that Jesus purchased people from their previous state for salvation.

Christ particularly bought the church as we read in Acts 20;

"... shepherd the church of God which He [Christ] purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28)

Christ did not buy all men, but Christ particularly bought certain men and women as we read in Revelation 5,

"... for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9)

Christ bought certain people out of the curse of the law as we read in Galatians 3,

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law" (Galatians 3:13);

and Galatians 4, where Christ bought people out from under the Law,

"so that He might redeem those who were under the Law" (Galatians 4:5)

Then Titus 2, where we see that Christ gave Himself for particular people to purchase them,

"... our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us ..." (Titus 2:13-14);

1 Corinthians 6 and 7,

"... you have been bought with a price:" (1 Corinthians 6:20)

"You were bought with a price; ..." (1 Corinthians 7:23)

Christ effectually made atonement for (covered) the sins of those whom He saves while on the cross. Christ effectually propitiated (absorbed the wrath) deserved for sins, of those whom He saves, while on the cross. Christ effectually purchased (redeemed, bought) the people whom He saves in certain redemption while on the cross.

(17)
The seventeenth presupposition of this book, is that eternal spiritual salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ's work alone.