The five points of Calvinism and Eternal Security.

[37818]

Being totally honest, I find it hard to see how ant non-Calvinist can hold to eternal security. You can not make a logical case for it without the other 4 points of Calvinism. (I know. I know. It's "p" in Calvinism

One does not need to know the five poinst of Calvinism to hold to Eternal Security.

On the five points, as I hold them, not being a Calvinist in my view point.
Total Depravity.
Mankind on their own do not seek or understand God. Romans 3:11.
Unconditional Election.
One of the principle conditions of God's election of His elect is they do not merit being elect.
Unmerited yes. Not unconditional. Ephesians 1:4.
Limited Atonement.
That is patently false. Christ's death for sin is for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. 1 John 5:19.
There is no "believer's world" as such. Not Biblical.
Irresistible Grace.
God's grace is available to all men, Titus 2:11. There are those who persist to resist God's sanctifying Spirit, Acts 7:51. Men cannot take credit for faith in Christ, but are fully to blame for their rejection of God's grace.
John 16:7-11.
Perseverance of the Saints.
God who saves, keeps those whom He saves. John 10:26-29.
Noting 1 Corinthians 13:7 with 1 John 4:7.

 

[Reformed]

One does not need to know the five poinst of Calvinism to hold to Eternal Security.

On the five points, as I hold them, not being a Calvinist in my view point.
Total Depravity.
Mankind on there own do not seek or understand God. Romans 3:11.
Unconditional Election.
One of the principle conditions of God's election of His elect is they do not merit being elect.
Unmerited yes. Not unconditional. Ephesians 1:4.
Limited Atonement.
That is patently false. Christ's death for sin is for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. 1 John 5:19.
There is no "believer's world" as such. Not Biblcal.
Irresistible Grace.
God's grace is available to all men, Titus 2:11. There are those who persist to resist God's sanctifying Spirit, Acts of the Apostles 7:51. Men cannot take credit for faith in Christ, but are fully to blame for their rejection of God's grace.
John 16:7-11.
Perseverance of the Saints.
God who saves, keeps those whom He saves. John 10:26-29.
Noting 1 Corinthians 13:7 with 1 John 4:7.

Are you intending to defend eternal security or debate Calvinism? Calvinists understand that some of those who reject Calvinism believe in eternal security. While many Calvinists believe that to be logically inconsistent, we are nonetheless thankful for that.

 

[37818]

Are you intending to defend eternal security or debate Calvinism? Calvinists understand that some of those who reject Calvinism believe in eternal security. While many Calvinists believe that to be logically inconsistent, we are nonetheless thankful for that.

@Reynolds as a Calvinist seemed not to see it to make sense to hold eternal security and not be a Calvinist.

 

[Reformed]

@Reynolds as a Calvinist seemed not to see it to make sense to hold eternal security and not be a Calvinist.

Is @Reynolds a Calvinist? I did not think he was. Of course, my definition of a Calvinist is a person who holds to all 5 points of TULIP. I do not consider Amyraldians to be Calvinists. I have no idea what @Reynolds believes on the issue.

 

[Reynolds]

Is @Reynolds a Calvinist? I did not think he was. Of course, my definition of a Calvinist is a person who holds to all 5 points of TULIP. I do not consider Amyraldians to be Calvinists. I have no idea what @Reynolds believes on the issue.

Classical Arminian. (Though my view on limited atonement does not perfectly align)

 

[Reynolds]

One does not need to know the five poinst of Calvinism to hold to Eternal Security.

On the five points, as I hold them, not being a Calvinist in my view point.
Total Depravity.
Mankind on their own do not seek or understand God. Romans 3:11.
Unconditional Election.
One of the principle conditions of God's election of His elect is they do not merit being elect.
Unmerited yes. Not unconditional. Ephesians 1:4.
Limited Atonement.
That is patently false. Christ's death for sin is for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. 1 John 5:19.
There is no "believer's world" as such. Not Biblical.
Irresistible Grace.
God's grace is available to all men, Titus 2:11. There are those who persist to resist God's sanctifying Spirit, Acts 7:51. Men cannot take credit for faith in Christ, but are fully to blame for their rejection of God's grace.
John 16:7-11.
Perseverance of the Saints.
God who saves, keeps those whom He saves. John 10:26-29.
Noting 1 Corinthians 13:7 with 1 John 4:7.

@Reynolds as a Calvinist seemed not to see it to make sense to hold eternal security and not be a Calvinist.

I am not a Calvinist. I simply stated that non-Cals CAN NOT make a logical argument for eternal security without Calvinism. Without U and I, there is no LOGICAL argument for P.

 

[37818]

I am not a Calvinist. I simply stated that non-Cals CAN NOT make a logical argument for eternal security without Calvinism. Without U and I, there is no LOGICAL argument for P.

OK. I did not correctly understand your perspective from your argument. Since I am not a Calvinist and hold to eternal security of those who are saved. And to believe one who is saved can be lost, to me is not logical.

 

[Reynolds]

OK. I did not correctly understand your perspective from your argument. Since I am not a Calvinist and hold to eternal security of those who are saved. And to believe one who is saved can be lost, to me is not logical.

Logically speaking , you probably should be a Calvinist.

 

[37818]

Logically speaking , you probably should be a Calvinist.

In my openning op post#1 I reject unconditional election, limited aronement and irresisable grace. A two point Calvinist?

 

[Reynolds]

In my openning op post#1 I reject unconditional election, limited aronement and irresisable grace. A two point Calvinist?

How can you logically hold to eternal security yet reject unconditional election and irresistible grace?

 

[JonC]

I am not a Calvinist. I simply stated that non-Cals CAN NOT make a logical argument for eternal security without Calvinism. Without U and I, there is no LOGICAL argument for P.

It may depend on where you start in developing the doctrine. If it rests on the inheritence of eternal life rather than on unconditional election then I can see no logical reason preventing one from holding eternal securtiy absent any form of Calvinism.

Calvinism (and Arminianism) has always belonged to the "milk" of the Word and never the "meat". There are much more important things to consider - things that come with maturity.

 

[Reynolds]

It may depend on where you start in developing the doctrine. If it rests on the inheritence of eternal life rather than on unconditional election then I can see no logical reason preventing one from holding eternal securtiy absent any form of Calvinism.

Calvinism (and Arminianism) has always belonged to the "milk" of the Word and never the "meat". There are much more important things to consider - things that come with maturity.

Whether it's milk or meat, I will simply say I disagree with you.

Inheritance still depends on a type of election.

 

[37818]

How can you logically hold to eternal security yet reject unconditional election and irresistible grace?

Did you not understand my post#1?
I believe the election being unmerited to be a condition of being elect. God's grace is available to everyone (Titus 2:11). And some resist the sanctifiying work of God's Spirit (1 Peter 1:1-2; Acts of the Apostles 7:51).

 

[Revmitchell]

It all boils down to a changed heart. Now calvies think it happens pre-salvation, those who are not cals believe it happens after we choose God but in both cases we believe a heart has been changed. Our nature is changed. I Corinthians 5:17. Further, I Peter 1:3-5 tells us we are kept by the power of God.

There is not a single thing inconsistent or illogical about that.

 

[37818]

It all boils down to a changed heart. Now calvies think it happens pre-salvation, those who are not cals believe it happens after we choose God but in both cases we believe a heart has been changed. Our nature is changed. I Corinthians 5:17. Further, I Peter 1:3-5 tells us we are kept by the power of God.

There is not a single thing inconsistent or illogical about that.

A changed mind in order to have a changed heart. Those who resist God's Spirit, it is not going to happen.

 

[Revmitchell]

A changed mind in order to have a changed heart. Those who resist God's Spirit, it is not going to happen.

Can you reword that with more complete thoughts. I do not understand

 

[JonC]

Whether it's milk or meat, I will simply say I disagree with you.

Inheritance still depends on a type of election.

I believe it does (I believe unconditional election correct).

That said, there are views not of a Calvinistic trajectory that can logically conclude eternal security apart from unconditional election.

One goes like this (in summary) once one has been saved they have been recreated. This simply cannot be undone.

 

[Reformed]

Classical Arminian. (Though my view on limited atonement does not perfectly align)

That is what I thought. Thank you for your honesty. It is refreshing.

My objection to Classical Arminianism is that fulcrum on which the Ordo Salutis pivots is the will of man, not the will of God. Why is that my opinion? Grace is resistible ergo, the will of man is determinative. Conditional election is based on man's decision. The same with eternal security. Arminius was right on Total Depravity and Imputation.

 

[Reynolds]

I believe it does (I believe unconditional election correct).

That said, there are views not of a Calvinistic trajectory that can logically conclude eternal security apart from unconditional election.

One goes like this (in summary) once one has been saved they have been recreated. This simply cannot be undone.

A new

That is what I thought. Thank you for your honesty. It is refreshing.

My objection to Classical Arminianism is that fulcrum on which the Ordo Salutis pivots is the will of man, not the will of God. Why is that my opinion? Grace is resistible ergo, the will of man is determinative. Conditional election is based on man's decision. The same with eternal security. Arminius was right on Total Depravity and Imputation.

I have minor problems with C.A. myself. I have slightly more problems with Calvinism.I have by far the most problems with "traditionalism" aka the mutt theory held by most Southern Baptists.

 

[JonC]

A new

I have minor problems with C.A. myself. I have slightly more problems with Calvinism.I have by far the most problems with "traditionalism" aka the mutt theory held by most Southern Baptists.

Most SBC churches fall outside both Calvinism and Arminianism. This does not mean they hold a blend of the two soteriligical positions but that the laity often dismisses both "camps" as philosophical rubbish. There is still a "healthy" distrust for seminaries and formal theologies within many SBC churches (especially older ones who became leery during the liberal movement through the denomination).

The assumption that people are Calvinists, Arminian, or an amalgamation of the two is an error I have seen more with Calvinists than among Classical Arminianism, but it may be that it is a numbers issue.

In my experience most of the SBC churches have at least a laity that affirms corporate election. While I believe this implies individual election, my view is not a majority view in my experience and the doctrine of eternal assurance becomes based on re-creation (or the experience of being "born again"). Once something has been evidenced as true, that belief cannot be undone.

That is why I say Calvinism/ Arminianism is "milk" (perhaps with a bit of spoilage). People can get accustomed to it so they never move onto to maturity (unfortunately the explanation becomes, for some, the gospel itself).