Was Christ Ignorant of OSAS?

[BobRyan]

Before we get too far here - I am more than a little facinated by this exchange.

In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is out the window entirely. Thus it matters not if you persevere - you may be saved one day - then live like the devil the rest of your life - as along as that salvation event was real - the 4 point Calvinist model says you remain saved "anyway".

In 4 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is out the window entirely. Thus it matters not if you persevere - you may be saved one day - then live like the devil the rest of your life - as along as that salvation event was real - the 4 point Calvinist model says you remain saved "anyway". With rare exceptions, 4 point Cists reject the doctrine of limited atonement, not perseverance of the saints. I don't think you will find any serious Cist who doesn't hold to that doctrine. I suspect you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Calvinism and those who hold it. But please, by all means, refer me to a serious (or even popular for that matter) Calvinist who rejects this doctrine and I will concede the matter.

This board has a rather rich history of having had a Calvinist-vs-Arminian debate section very similar to this "Other denominations" area.

3 Point Calvinists deny limited atonement and irresistable Grace - and thus in many respects are similar to Arminians - sometimes even arguing with us against their own 4 and 5 point brethren.

The 4 point calvinist denying perseverance of the saints will often try to spin it as "preservation" of the saints. They renamed it to "preservation of the saints" claiming that the best way to guarantee preservation was to delete the requirement for perseverance.

One site describes it this way

Moderate Calvinism teaches preservation of the saints as opposed to perseverance of the saints. The Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security teaches that the believer will be preserved by the grace of God. No saint will ever be lost (even if they die in a sinful state). The believer is eternally secure. Moderate Calvinists believe in assurance of salvation while on earth whereas Extreme Calvinists teach that no one can know 100% for sure that they are saved.

As you note - they deny limited atonement - though for some reason that point did not register with me at the time - because it makes Moderate (or 4 point) Calvinists a new kind of '3 point Calvinist' --!

And this gets to my point in bringing them up - one of the OSAS models takes this denial of perseverance of the saints route - (and may even call it preservation of the saints as a way to cover up) - while the other OSAS model does not take that route.

And this moderate-Cavlinst (4 point) solution is often unwittingly persued even by Arminian believers in OSAS.

This in this model - your basis for assurance is everything - because perseverance reveals nothing about that salvation.

And some Arminians will innexplicably adopt that form of OSAS.

This has always been a point of dispute within Arminianism. In fact, the 5 points of Arminianism leaves this open to question. However, the original tendency in Aism was towards some form of perseverance of the saints.

I don't know of anything in the 5 points of the Arminian system that allows for "choosing for the devil and going to heaven anyway". Which is why I argue that Arminians are "compromised" in their arguments when they argue for OSAS using this particular solution

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

Before we get too far here - I am more than a little facinated by this exchange.

This board has a rather rich history of having had a Calvinist-vs-Arminian debate section very similar to this "Other denominations" area. And as one of those who participated somewhat vigiorously at times in that area - not once did I find a 4 point Calvinist denying the limited atonement doctrine.

3 Point Calvinists deny limited atonement and irresistable Grace - and thus in many respects are similar to Arminians - sometimes even arguing with us against their own 4 and 5 point brethren.

But in all of that - not a single 4 point calvinist denying anything but perseverance of the saints. They rather renamed it to "preservation of the saints" claiming that the best way to guarantee preservation was to delete the requirement for perseverance.

in Christ,

Bob

I believe you misunderstood them then. "Preservation of the saints" is merely a different label for the same thing. You are going to find plenty of 5 point Calvinists who prefer to use the same label. All it is is focusing on a different aspect of the same doctrine. It is meant to emphasize more strongly that its really about God and not man's effort - God efforts (His preserving) vs. man's efforts (man's persevering). 4 pt Cism is almost exclusively associated with rejection of limited atonement. Google it if you don't believe me.

Personally, I like this label better as well, but stick with the classical label in more exchanges so there is less confusion over what I am referring to.

So its most likely that either you were talking with people who weren't really well studied in Cism (since anyone studied in Cism would almost certainly see the two labels as referring to the same doctrine), or you misunderstood what they were saying. Of course, if you want to point me to a thread where you saw this going on, I would be glad to go take a look at it.

But we can take this to PMs so as to not clutter up the thread more.

 

[BobRyan]

In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

Those who hold to this include Charles Stanley and John McArthur.

Meh, you totally misunderstand the doctrine. Now sure, some may misapply it, but the doctrine itself is quite clear. Assurance in perseverance of the saints is not some retroactive thing.

You misundertand the point I am making. My argument is not that assurance is retro-active - my argument is that assurance is "retro-deleted" when it turns out that you fail to persevere ten years from today under the 3 and 5 point Calvinist model.

No matter what today's claims are for assurance they will say that today's claims are "deleted" if it turns out that you fall away ten years from today. (Have gone over this point with them in triplicate)

How the doctrine relates to to assurance is that as soon as it appears that you aren't persevering (ie. living in unrepentant sin), you can no longer have assurance of salvation. There is little, if any, retroactive

Your suggestion above is that they "try not to think about what this means regarding claims to having had absolute assurance in the past" -- however that is not an actual solution.

On the contrary. Since OSAS demands that any assurance that you are denied today must never have been there in the first place (because if it were legit ten years ago - then the entire OSAS model is destroyed) - then all the past experience you had - no matter how emphatic that you had assurance - is now "discovered" to have all been fake.

I.e. retro-deleted.

In fact it works no other way for those who cling to both OSAS and Perserverance of the saints (not preservation but perseverance). All the literature they produce on Perseverance and failure to persevere - states that a failure is proof that you were never saved to start with. And "never" has a past componant to it that cannot be swept under the rug as if all of life is only "present tense".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BillySunday1935]

In your view, can one who truly accepts God's mercy and "is saved" ever reach a state of impenitence and eternal loss afterwards?

If by that you are asking if one can fall away after accepting God's mercy, then my answer is - yes.

Peace!

 

[dwmoeller1]

I can choose to not believe in gravity but it will have the same effect as choosing to stop believing in God's finished work. Once salvation is done by God it is no longer in man's hands. This seems to be the point where the two sides disagree. If it is up to man to keep himself saved, whether by works or continuing to believe, then it is not salvation at all. Either God does it and therefore keeps it or it is just wishful thinking on man's part.

To a free-will believer, the idea that salvation is like gravity - irresistible and inevitable irregardless of the free will of man - is going to be totally repulsive. I am not saying their view is correct, merely that its reasonable and the ideas that flow from them are reasonable (assuming they are consistent).

No one is ever saved against their will. I do not appreciate anyone twisting my words or trying to draw out conclusions I did not make. I have no idea where you came up with that one as I never said anything akin to it. No one who refuses the free gift offer by God is saved. Once that person accepts it he/she is adopted into the family of God. You are either in or out and that door only goes in one direction.

First of all, I didn't say this. I merely asked questions. Secondly, those questions were rhetorical - designed only to show the natural reaction of a free-willer to your logic.

Thirdly, there were two questions. The second was actually the more significant. You seem to hold that people can be sent to heaven against their will. IOW, if they were saved in the past but reject God and hate His presence in the future, the will still be sent to heaven. I base that conclusion on this:

Even if I had remained in that condition I would still have belonged to Him. My own will, or anyone else's for that matter, is not enough to sever what God was done.

It seems you are allowing that one can reject God, remain in that condition and still end up in heaven.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth or making inane conclusions. My life was radically changed when I was saved. The times I mentioned were not at my point of salvation but came much later. I did not remain in that state, nor will I elaborate on the conditions that brought it about. i used them as an example of a child of God in complete rebellion and yet remaining in the family of God.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was honestly asking question so you could clarify further and I could understand you position better...Although looking at it, I should have left out the leading "So" as that could be taken as me making logical conclusions and phrasing my statements as questions. That was not my intent and I apologize if thats how it came across.

At the same time though, its statement like the bolded part which make my questions pertinent. From statements like these I reasonably (if not accurately) conclude that, while a person cannot be initially saved against their will (ie. while still in rebellion against God), they can still be sent to heaven against their will. Is that accurate? If not, can you see how I might reach that conclusion, and clarify where I am missing something?

When I accepted Christ I did so through my own choice. Up until that point I was still a sinner bound for Hell and eternal damnation. I asked Jesus Christ to save me and repented of my past life and sins. It was a transaction through faith, and that faith was given by God. I could have refused and remained lost but I didn't.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yet another straw man. OSAS is not a cloak for being able to live like the devil; it is not fire insurance. Anyone who continues to live in unrepentant sin is showing evidence of having never known Christ to begin with. And yet those who oppose OSAS continue to try to throw this up as some sort of legitimate argument.

I refer you back to the bolded quote above where you seem to be saying the opposite. Please clarify this apparent contradiction.

And secondly, I would never throw this reasoning up to negate OSAS. I merely note that OSAS has difficulty dealing with it in a consistent manner. There *seems* to a lot of double speak - they will often hold that no amount of sin or living in sin could cause one to lose their salvation, but when asked about those who actually live in sin they seem to jump the fence and hold that it means they never saved in the first place. At best, this seems very ad hoc.

I have no problem dealing with it. A person who is saved will show this by there being a difference in their life from before salvation.

Kinda tricky for those raised in the church from birth, who's natural personality is mild and complient, and who are saved at a very early age...but I will let that pass for now.

There will be times where everyone will falter and sin as we are still bound in our mortal bodies and subject to this world, but this is not the same as continuous unrepentant sin. Even a true Christian may remain in such for a season but God will not give them peace in it as He knows His own and chastens them.

What is meant by a "season"? Days? Months? Years? Decades?

Describe what you mean by lack of "peace".

A person's condition of salvation is known only to them and God, and sometimes only to God as there are many who think that their works, deeds, church, or whatever is going to get them there. We cannot look at someone and know whether they are God's or not as there is not insignia or mark to distinguish us from the non-saved. Our lives and actions will show it, but even then one cannot judge due to us living in a sinful world. everyone can and does sin, but that does not mean that we lose our salvation.

So, if I reason this out correctly...by your logic it is theoretically possible for someone to live for years (I am assuming "season" could include years) in sin without repenting and, as long as they "don't feel peace" then they can still have reliable and accurate assurance they are saved? If not, what am I missing?

 

[dwmoeller1]

If by that you are asking if one can fall away after accepting God's mercy, then my answer is - yes.

Peace!

So it seems that in your view salvation does not create an essential change in the believer's nature. Would that be fair to say?

 

[dwmoeller1]

In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

Those who hold to this include Charles Stanley and John McArthur.

See here for MacArther position. I am not finding what you are talking about in there. In fact, that whole last section would seem to be directly contrary to your claim. Maybe you can reference a quote or two which supports you claim.

You misundertand the point I am making. My argument is not that assurance is retro-active - my argument is that assurance is "retro-deleted" when it turns out that you fail to persevere ten years from today under the 3 and 5 point Calvinist model.

And if assurance is only meaningful in the present, then how can it be "retro-deleted"?

No matter what today's claims are for assurance they will say that today's claims are "deleted" if it turns out that you fall away ten years from today. (Have gone over this point with them in triplicate)

What claims? The claims that they had assurance, the claims that their assurance was sound, or something else?

Your suggestion above is that they "try not to think about what this means regarding claims to having had absolute assurance in the past" -- however that is not an actual solution.

On the contrary. Since OSAS demands that any assurance that you are denied today must never have been there in the first place (because if it were legit ten years ago - then the entire OSAS model is destroyed) - then all the past experience you had - no matter how emphatic that you had assurance - is now "discovered" to have all been fake.

I.e. retro-deleted.

Yes, as I understand it, OSAS generally demands what you say above. Its a big problem I have with OSAS.

However, this is NOT the doctrine of P of the S. P of S demand nothing of the sort. In fact, P of S deals with this question in a totally different way. P of S allows that those who may be denied assurance now may still be saved. P of S allows that true believers may go through times of where they fall away. During those times, they have no reason for assurance, but this in no way denies that past assurance may have been genuine and real. What present sin does though is to raise the possibility that you were deceiving yourself in the past, but it doesn't in anyway imply that you *must* have been.

In short, when it comes to assurance, all the matters is the present. Do you have assurance now, in the present? The lack of assurance in the present says nothing definite about the past or future. All a lack does now is to raise the possibility that it *might* have all been false...You might still be a true believer and you might not have ever been, past assurance might have been real and it might not have been. You have no way of being knowing as long as you continue in sin.

Follow me? So "retro-deleted"? Absolutely not! "Retro-questioned"? That wouldn't be unfair...but then isn't lack of assurance by its very nature "retro-questioning"?

I am 99% certain that this is essentially the exact same reasoning MacArthur and Stanley use. Maybe you are reading their stuff in light of your own suppositions instead of theirs? I suspect that might also be the case with those who claim the doctrine on this board...although its also possible that they simply have a false understanding of the doctrine themselves.

In fact it works no other way for those who cling to both OSAS and Perserverance of the saints (not preservation but perseverance).

There is no difference between preservation and perseverance of the saints to any Calvinist. Two different ways of expressing the exact same thing. One just wants to emphasize what God does over what man does (they are, after all, Calvinsts ) - different sides of the same coin.

All the literature they produce on Perseverance and failure to persevere - states that a failure is proof that you were never saved to start with. And "never" has a past componant to it that cannot be swept under the rug as if all of life is only "present tense".

Just one source of a serious Calvinist who makes such an argument. MacArthur and Stanley certainly don't. Take a look at the Westminster Confession on the subject: They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

This definition does not deny the possibility of failings in one's Christian experience, because the Confession also says:

Nevertheless [believers] may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein; whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit: come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves (sec. 3).

In short, there is no way to know if has "failed to persevere" by external observation. The best that can be said that someone has *appeared* to "fail to perservere" but without denying the possibility that they may in fact not have "totally nor finally fallen away from the faith". After all, "totally and finally" can't be judged till death much less from external observation. And after death, the whole question of "retro-deletion" becomes totally moot anyways.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In 3 and 5 Point Calvinism - the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints is retained and so OSAS is believed ONLY with the caveat that today's assurance of salvation can be retro deleted if you fail to persevere ten years from today - such that all the assurance you think you have - is nothing at all but self-deception.

Those who hold to this include Charles Stanley and John MacArthur.

MacArthur being a good example of 5 point Calvinism.

See here for MacArther position. I am not finding what you are talking about in there. In fact, that whole last section would seem to be directly contrary to your claim. Maybe you can reference a quote or two which supports you claim.

And if assurance is only meaningful in the present, then how can it be "retro-deleted"?

This is from MacArthur's link that you gave -

Perseverance means that "those who have true faith can lose that faith neither totally nor finally." It echoes God's promise through Jeremiah: "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me" (32:40, emphasis added).

That flatly contradicts the notion entertained by some who teach that faith can evaporate, leaving "believers" who no longer believe. It opposes the radical easy-believism teaching that genuine Christians can choose to "drop out" of the spiritual growth process and "cease to confess

Christianity." It is the polar opposite of the brand of theology that makes faith a "historic moment," a one-time "act" that secures heaven, but offers no guarantee the "believer's" earthly life will be changed.

Thus MacArthur quickly identifies the 4 point position that argues for worldly saints - who have fallen and yet are "saved none-the-less". The very form of OSAS that Zenas was also complaining about. IN this case both MacArthur and Zenas are complaining about the same camp/segment/faction of OSAS believers.

Quote:
You misundertand the point I am making. My argument is not that assurance is retro-active - my argument is that assurance is "retro-deleted" when it turns out that you fail to persevere ten years from today under the 3 and 5 point Calvinist model.


No matter what today's claims are for assurance they will say that today's claims are "deleted" if it turns out that you fall away ten years from today. (Have gone over this point with them in triplicate)

What claims? The claims that they had assurance, the claims that their assurance was sound, or something else?

Nobody is making the claim "I am saved - and I believe in OSAS I just don't have sound assurance or don't believe in eternal assurance".

All the guys who say they believe in OSAS and claim to have the assurance of salvation - claim it is "legit". And all of the 5 pointers that make that claim and then observe someone who has fallen (in the terms MacArthur uses) will claim that such a person never was saved to start with - no matter what their former claims to assurance were.

-------------

But more specifically to your complaints on this subject regarding Zenas - is the issue of the "Moderate Calvinist" the 4 pointer that subtitutes Perseverance with "preservation" and argues that no matter how fallen the former saint - they are still saved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jedi Knight]

God gives teachers for the body of Christ.......I thank God for John MacArthur who is a gifted Bible teacher. :thumbsup:

 

[dwmoeller1]

A point that Christ must surely have known when He said -- speaking outside of the parable -- "SO shall My Father do to each one of you IF you do not forgive your brother from your heart".

Hence one of the several reasons why I granted that you raised a valid point to be considered.

In the parable we have the "I forgave you all" statement and the argument that is made - is in the form "in like manner as you have really been forgiven - so you should forgive".

But IF it could be argued that the slave was not "really" forgiven - then it could also be argued that the slave WAS in fact forgiving others JUST AS he had been forgiven - for in fact - he had not really been forgiven.

And in that case it would be the King in the story that is unjust by demanding that of his servant which he himself was unwilling to perform.

Was the slave ever forgiven at all? The parable does not say the servant was forgiven - it says his debt was canceled. On what basis do you equate canceling of debt with forgiveness of sins? It seems you are relying too much on a tight parallel for this to work. For instance, if canceling of debt is exactly parallel to God forgiving our sins, then wouldn't the parable imply that forgiveness of sins comes only with begging instead of being a free gift offered to all?

 

[dwmoeller1]

MacArthur being a good example of 5 point Calvinism.

MacArthur is not a 5 point Cist. He does not accept limited atonement as found in the 5 points but instead modifies it.

Thus MacArthur quickly identifies the 4 point position that argues for worldly saints - who have fallen and yet are "saved none-the-less". The very form of OSAS that Zenas was also complaining about. IN this case both MacArthur and Zenas are complaining about the same camp/segment/faction of OSAS believers.

Yeah. Not following your point though. How does this quote support your own claims about the "retro-delete" position you say MacArthur holds?

Also, again, you are inaccurate in your label of 4 points Cism. 4 pointers almost always reject the doctrine of limited atonement - not the doctrine of P of S. The second most rejected part of TULIP is the "irresistible grace" very very few who label themselves as Cists reject the doctrine of P of S. Of course, I open to any source/info/counter-example which shows otherwise.

Why do I keep coming back to what seems to be a very niggling point? Because it seems to typify what i believe is your misapprehension of Cism.

Nobody is making the claim "I am saved - and I believe in OSAS I just don't have sound assurance or don't believe in eternal assurance".

All the guys who say they believe in OSAS and claim to have the assurance of salvation - claim it is "legit". And all of the 5 pointers that make that claim and then observe someone who has fallen (in the terms MacArthur uses) will claim that such a person never was saved to start with - no matter what their former claims to assurance were.

That is not accurate. You have MacArthurs article on the subject. Where does he say such a thing?

Also, I explained at length, what 5 pointers actually do believe. Why did you ignore all that and go back to making the same bald assertion. If this is what I can expect from you, I will just say up front that, while you may be a perfectly worthy person, its not worth my time and effort to spend time giving detailed explanations only to have them treated as if they never existed. You can see the problem, right?

But more specifically to your complaints on this subject regarding Zenas - is the issue of the "Moderate Calvinist" the 4 pointer that subtitutes Perseverance with "preservation" and argues that no matter how fallen the former saint - they are still saved.

Source please. I ask because I am betting that he doesn't truly argue "no matter how fallen". I am betting that if I posted that first bit from the Westminster about he would agree that no one saint can totally and finally fall away. And I am betting that he sees his substitution as merely a restatement of the same thing and not a rejection of the perseverance. And I am betting that if he claims to be a 4 pointer its because he rejects limited atonement instead of P of S.

Of course, easiest thing would be if Zenas pops in to clarify.

 

[BillySunday1935]

So it seems that in your view salvation does not create an essential change in the believer's nature. Would that be fair to say?

Well, not exactly. There is a change in one's nature as one is filled with the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't contradict the free will with which God endowed us. One can make a choice to sin - not repent - keep on sinning and thus, fall away.

Peace!

 

[dwmoeller1]

Well, not exactly. There is a change in one's nature as one is filled with the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't contradict the free will with which God endowed us. One can make a choice to sin - not repent - keep on sinning and thus, fall away.

Peace!

Being filled with something is not a change in nature. If I fill glass with water, the nature of the glass remains the same. Sure, now we have a glass filled with water, so we have more than we had before, but there was no essential change to the nature of the glass.

If the only change after salvation is that we are filled with the HS, that seems like what we have is just the same old sinner who now has something added on.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Being filled with something is not a change in nature. If I fill glass with water, the nature of the glass remains the same. Sure, now we have a glass filled with water, so we have more than we had before, but there was no essential change to the nature of the glass.

If the only change after salvation is that we are filled with the HS, that seems like what we have is just the same old sinner who now has something added on.

Thats right, thats why some depart from the faith because they were not regenerate. John 6 is a good example and John said again later in 1 John "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." If you take a pig and clean it up and put a big bow on it's head...... won't be long before he is back in the mud loving it! A sheep "regenerate" on the other hand may fall into the mud and get dirty but wants to be clean again....why?..... because he is not a pig by nature. Thats why it says "if anyone be in Christ he is a new creation".

 

[dwmoeller1]

Thats right, thats why some depart from the faith because they were not regenerate. John 6 is a good example and John said again later in 1 John "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." If you take a pig and clean it up and put a big bow on it's head...... won't be long before he is back in the mud loving it! A sheep "regenerate" on the other hand may fall into the mud and get dirty but wants to be clean again....why?..... because he is not a pig by nature. Thats why it says "if anyone be in Christ he is a new creation".

So, it seems you do hold that there is some essential change that happens to the believer, and that this change is more than just the indwelling of the HS, correct? A pig turns into a sheep, so to speak.

However, you earlier said:
JK: If by that you are asking if one can fall away after accepting God's mercy, then my answer is - yes.

So this is where I am having some difficulty understanding. We both agree that a "pig" turns into a "sheep" at salvation but it seems you are saying that a sheep can turn back into a pig. That is, it seems one who is transformed into someone who wants to be "clean" can then "fall away" and transform back into a pig.

Is this accurate, and if not, what am I missing?

 

[Jedi Knight]

"JK: If by that you are asking if one can fall away after accepting God's mercy, then my answer is - yes." I never said this but....if someone makes some profession of faith in the past but gose on living like there is no God....thats not SUPERNATURAL. Christians can "fall down" but LORD upholds all those who fall and lifts up all who are bowed down. A new heart is what God gives a believer ....
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." Ezekiel 36:26
And "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me." Jeremiah 32:40 This is a seed that remains in them....born of God. God not only gives a "New Heart" BUT also has to legaly cancel the debt as well with Christ's death on the cross. The moment a sinner puts their faith in Christ a legal transaction takes place.....they are partakers in his death,resurection and thus justified. Christians are IN Christ....and where is He? In Heaven and we are hidden in Christ with God. Thats why Jesus said "because I live,you shall live also." John 14:19

 

[dwmoeller1]

"JK: If by that you are asking if one can fall away after accepting God's mercy, then my answer is - yes." I never said this.

Oooops sorry. Still new enough that I get you all mixed up sometimes. Both Billy and JK ignore that post.

 

[BobRyan]

MacArthur is not a 5 point Cist.

He calls himself a 5 point Calvlinist - and he sure sounds like one when it comes to "perseverance" instead of the easy-believism preservation.

Scripture speaks with absolute, unmistakable clarity on these vital issues: (1) Sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Rom 8:7-8). (2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving Will (Eph 1:4-5). (3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God's wrath on behalf of His people, and his atoning work is efficacious for their salvation (Isa. 53:5). (4) God's saving purpose cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), meaning none of Christ's true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29). That is because (5) God assures the perseverance of His elect (Jude 24; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).
Those are the five points of Calvinism. I believe them not because of their historical pedigree, but because that is what Scripture teaches.

John F. MacArthur Jr. ​

Extracted from The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented. 2nd Edition : David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and Lance Quinn.

Here is attacks the four-point position as "easy believism" that offers the promise of salvation but does not result in a persevering Christian.

That flatly contradicts the notion entertained by some who teach that faith can evaporate, leaving "believers" who no longer believe. It opposes the radical easy-believism teaching that genuine Christians can choose to "drop out" of the spiritual growth process and "cease to confess Christianity." It is the polar opposite of the brand of theology that makes faith a "historic moment," a one-time "act" that secures heaven, but offers no guarantee the "believer's" earthly life will be changed.

He does not accept limited atonement as found in the 5 points but instead modifies it.

(3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God's wrath on behalf of His people, and his atoning work is efficacious for their salvation (Isa. 53:5).

Sure Sounds like limited atonement to me.

Yeah. Not following your point though. How does this quote support your own claims about the "retro-delete" position you say MacArthur holds?

Because the 3 and 5 point Calvinist view on perseverance denies salvation for anyone who fails to persevere 10 years from today.

Hence at that time they will claim "you were never saved in the first place" since obviously they cannot go the "well you lost salvation" route.

Was there "another choice" for them?

Also, again, you are inaccurate in your label of 4 points Cism. 4 pointers almost always reject the doctrine of limited atonement - not the doctrine of P of S.

I condede that I was in error on their view of limited atonement - thinking that they accepted it when they do not.

But so far we have yet to see a single example of 4 point acceptance of perseverance of the saints.

In fact - we see that they argue against perseverance with "enthusiasm". It is what MacArthur calls "easy believism"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

HP: You present salvation as one that could not choose to do otherwise under any conditions.

You do not grasp the doctrine of regeneration. Regeneration is a one time event, an act of God, upon the person calling on the name of the Lord.

Salvation is a process that begins with regeneration and ends with glorification. Having the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit throughout.

1Th 5:23¶And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 Faithful [is] he that calleth you, who also will do [it].

 

[BobRyan]

All the literature they produce on Perseverance and failure to persevere - states that a failure is proof that you were never saved to start with. And "never" has a past componant to it that cannot be swept under the rug as if all of life is only "present tense".

Just one source of a serious Calvinist who makes such an argument. MacArthur and Stanley certainly don't. Take a look at the Westminster Confession on the subject: They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

This definition does not deny the possibility of failings in one's Christian experience, because the Confession also says:

Nevertheless [believers] may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein; whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit: come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves (sec. 3).

In short, there is no way to know if has "failed to persevere" by external observation.

MacArthur has repeatedly made statements about the life revealing that someone was "never saved to start with".

You keep circling back to MacArthur's view on a genuinely saved saint that may at times slip. But that is not the point of debate.

It is the clear cases where MacArthur and other 5 pointers make the argument "well then they were never saved to start with - no matter what they claimed" that is the issue that is very predictable for the 5 point position but which you never see expressed among 4-pointers because in the 4-point model there is no problem with falling away.

Thus even MacArthur attacks it as "easy believism".

It is crucial to understand what the biblical doctrine of perseverance does not mean. It does not mean that people who "accept Christ" can then live any way they please without fear of hell. The expression "eternal security" is often used in this sense, as is "once saved, always saved." Kendall, arguing for the latter phrase, defines its meaning thus:

"Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies. But I will not stop there. Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith.

Kendall also writes, "I hope no one will take this as an attack on the Westminster Confession. It is not that." But is precisely that! Kendall expressly argues against Westminster's assertion that faith cannot fail. He believes faith is best characterized as a single look: "one need only see the Sin Bearer once to be saved." This is a full-scale assault against the doctrine of perseverance affirmed in the Westminster Confession. Worse, it subverts Scripture itself. Unfortunately, it is a view that has come to be widely believed by Christians today.
Murray, noting this trend nearly forty years ago, defended the expression "perseverance of the saints":

It is not in the best interests of the doctrine involved to substitute the designation, "The Security of the Believer," not because the latter is wrong in itself but because the other formula is much more carefully and inclusively framed. . . . It is not true that the believer is secure however much he may fall into sin and unfaithfulness. Why is this not true? It is not true because it sets up an impossible combination. It is true that a believer sins; he may fall into grievous sin and backslide for lengthy periods. But it is also true that a believer cannot abandon himself to sin; he cannot come under the dominion of sin; he cannot be guilty of certain kinds of unfaithfulness. The truth is that the faith of Jesus Christ is always respective of the life of holiness and fidelity. And so it is never proper to think of a believer irrespective of the fruits in faith and holiness. To say that a believer is secure whatever may be the extent of his addiction to sin in his subsequent life is to abstract faith in Christ from its very definition and it ministers to that abuse which turns the grace of God into lasciviousness. The doctrine of perseverance is the doctrine that believers persevere. . . . It is not at all that they will be saved irrespective of the their perseverance or their continuance, but that they will assuredly persevere. Consequently the security that is theirs is inseparable from their perseverance. Is this not what Jesus said? "He than endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
Let us not then take refuge in our sloth or encouragement in our lust from the abused doctrine of the security of the believer. But let us appreciate the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and recognize that we may entertain the faith of our security in Christ only as we persevere in faith and holiness to the end.

Any doctrine of eternal security that leaves out perseverance distorts the doctrine of salvation itself. Heaven without holiness ignores the whole purpose for which God chose and redeemed His people:

A more startling depiction of the very thing that Zenas complained about - could hardly be imagine.

. If this is what I can expect from you, I will just say up front that, while you may be a perfectly worthy person, its not worth my time and effort to spend time giving detailed explanations only to have them treated as if they never existed.

Less smoke more fire please. :jesus:

I am just dealing with the facts. If they do not support a particular point of view - then let us put the facts on the table and prove it. If I am wrong - let the facts show it.


in Christ,

Bob