Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I have a question for my free will advocates. Do you believe we can lose our salvation? If not, does that not negate your notion of free will?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Free Will and Loss of Salvation
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
- Status
Nope not sure why you think it does but 2 Corinthians 5:17 says we are not new creatures in Christ. Elsewhere it says we are indwell with the HS. 1 Peter 1:3-5 says we are kept by God's power. How that work exactly is unknown but scripture is clear.
Eternally secured into Jesus by the Father and Holy Spirit
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Some on this board advocate for an absolute free will as if we are not in bondage to sin and because of that will not choose Christ without a change. How then can those same people hold to no loss of salvation? It totally negates that idea of free will. If you cannot choose to leave your salvation, by their explanation of free will, the will is not free.
I have had some friends who hold to free will gospel who are consistent, as they say that we ourselves can still walk away from God and lose salvation due to free will
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Yes, that would be consistent, not biblical, but consistent.
That is why have met only a few consistent non cals in this area, as most still holding to eternal security
I believe one can not logically hold to "eternal security" without holding to all 5 points of Calvinism.
well, it does only make biblical sense if one does affirm the doctrines of grace
logical fallacy called the black and white fallacy
I don't see it as such. I am Classical Arminian and consistent with its doctrines. Just like C.A. believes, I believe , that due to Scriptural vagueness in this one area, Perseverance of the saints is most likely true, but can not be proven without conceding irresistible grace. If I.G. is conceded, unconditional election must likewise be.
I get that but you have to know that it is rare that there is only an either or choice. Making that argument often makes it easier for us but its rarely true. its almost always true that there are more options even if you do not agree with them.
And then entire domino of all of the doctrines of grace would be held as true
???
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor 5
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I think it was a typo.
I disagree. There are those of the Calvinistic thinking who do not hold to the hyper view of limited atonement nor of the total depravity.
They consider the atonement as both sufficient and efficient and that total depravity leaves no room for the degrees of depravity shown in the human experience preferring perhaps wording such as totally incapable.
A bit confused by the inclusive post "easier for us."
Is the "us" aligning with Calvinism or non-Calvinism?
In regards to the OP... The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT and as far as a man losing his Salvation?... If I believed that he could, which I don't, you might as well take this scripture and throw it in the dumper, because you are saying God LIED?... Brother Glen
Jeremiah 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Jeremiah 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Last edited:
It was a typo not was meant to be now
I realize there it is not an either or. I also realize that I see passages that support eternal security as being inadequate as proof for the position when an Arminian view is applied to the passages concerning the other 4 points.
L.A. AND T.D is now hyper????????
- Status