Eternal Security

[Charlie24]

What are you saying, Jon, it seems you are trying to say those under the Law were saved a different way than we are under Grace?

Is that your point?

"The righteousness of God apart from the Law" is the righteousness apart from works that those under the Law were expected to do.

When they seen that they couldn't keep the Law and they were guilty of sin, the Sacrificial System was their grace and mercy.

The New Covenant in Christ is apart from the works of the Law, it's only by the grace and mercy of God, whereas under the Law god expected them to keep the Law, but gave them a way out through the Sacrificial System.

You see, Jon, we in the New Covenant are law keepers by faith in Christ who kept the Law for us.

Christ had not yet done this during the Law, they were put to the task of Keeping the Law, but given a way out through the Sacrificial System in grace and mercy.

 

[Charlie24]

You see, Jon, we in the New Covenant are law keepers by faith in Christ who kept the Law for us.

Christ had not yet done this during the Law, they were put to the task of Keeping the Law, but given a way out through the Sacrificial System in grace and mercy.

This is how the Law pointed to Christ, they seen they could not keep all of the Law, and in the innocent, perfect sacrifice of an animal, they seen their Messiah, The Lamb of God that takes away their sins.

 

[JonC]

What are you saying, Jon, it seems you are trying to say those under the Law were saved a different way than we are under Grace?

Is that your point?

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement to be recieved by faith, the New Covenant. God did this as a demonstration of His righteousness because in His restraint God had left the sins of the past unpunished.

There is no condemnation for those of us who are in Jesus because through Him we have been set from the law of sin and death.

The Law was perfect, a perfect demonstration of God's righteousness, but it was powerless to justify us because it was weakned by the flesh. So what the Law could not do God did by sending His Son.

The Law contains a curse and a blessing, dependent on conduct. Jesus shared in our "sickness", He became a curse for us. The Word became flesh, was made like us, bore our sins, died for our sins. Having died He was judged righteous, vindicated, raised to the right hand of the Father.

Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. He became a life giving Spirit. The righteous requirement of the Law is fully met in us because we do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[Charlie24]

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement to be recieved by faith, the New Covenant. God did this as a demonstration of His righteousness because in His restraint God had left the sins of the past unpunished.

There is no condemnation for those of us who are in Jesus because through Him we have been set from the law of sin and death.

The Law was perfect, a perfect demonstration of God's righteousness, but it was powerless to justify us because it was weakned by the flesh. So what the Law could not do God did by sending His Son.

The Law contains a curse and a blessing, dependent on conduct. Jesus shared in our "sickness", He became a curse for us. The Word became flesh, was made like us, bore our sins, died for our sins. Having died He was judged righteous, vindicated, raised to the right hand of the Father.

Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. He became a life giving Spirit. The righteous requirement of the Law is fully met in us because we do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

I don't see that we have an argument!

 

[JonC]

I don't see that we have an argument!

We don't there.

I'm just saying that there are better passages you could use to support your position.


I do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of eternal security.

At the same time I do not believe salvation itself can be lost because it points to a future reality.

I don't believe we can be made new creations and then somehow be unmade.

The question is how we believe and how much we truely know our own heart.


I take warnings about testing our faith, about forfeiting the prize, about not enduring to the end seriously.

We can be assured of our salvation (that we will be saved) only by the fruits we produce. Fruit ends, assurance ends.

 

[Charlie24]

We don't there.

I'm just saying that there are better passages you could use to support your position.


I do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of eternal security.

At the same time I do not believe salvation itself can be lost because it points to a future reality.

I don't believe we can be made new creations and then somehow be unmade.

The question is how we believe and how much we truely know our own heart.


I take warnings about testing our faith, about forfeiting the prize, about not enduring to the end seriously.

We can be assured of our salvation (that we will be saved) only by the fruits we produce. Fruit ends, assurance ends.

I certainly believe in eternal security. But I would say keep a check on that faith.

 

[Reynolds]

In the interest of figuring out who believes what, the doctrine of Eternal Security, Assurance of Salvation, Once Saved Always Saved,… what ever you want to call it- I would like to know what your title and explanation for this subject is. If you are opposed to the notion please share the name of your alternative doctrine and explanation. (Heretic is not an acceptable title)
I’m interested to know where we stand individually because the broader forum is too vague on the subject to give me an accurate idea of who I’m talking to.

IMO, you can’t logically get there without the other 4 points of Calvinism.
I believe Perseverance of the saints.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

(Eph 4:30 KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Enough said.

 

[JonC]

IMO, you can’t logically get there without the other 4 points of Calvinism.
I believe Perseverance of the saints.

You can, depending on how you "get there".

I, for example, believe that we are saved from the wrath to come by transformation (God making us new creations in Christ, us being born of the Spirit). I do not believe we, if truely "born of the Spirit", can die spiritually (this is "Christ in us").

So I, while completely rejecting all points of Calvinism (as Calvinism would base those points) still believe that all who believe will inherit everlasting life.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

So I, while completely rejecting all points of Calvinism (as Calvinism would base those points) still believe that all who believe will inherit everlasting life.

You reject all five point of Calvinism.

Calvinism ?Rejected position? Scripture supporting rejected position​

1. Total Depravity: Man is partially depraved

2. Unconditional Election: Conditional election

3. Limited Atonement: Unlimited atonement

4. Irresistible Grace: Resistible grace

5. Perseverance of the Saints: Non-perseverance of the saints

If your have a different rejections, please share. I would like to be enlightened and know the scripture supporting your position.

I am unable to format this post as I'd like. There should be three columns: Calvinism; Rejected position; Scripture supporting rejected position.

 

[JonC]

So I, while completely rejecting all points of Calvinism (as Calvinism would base those points) still believe that all who believe will inherit everlasting life.

You reject all five point of Calvinism.










I am unable to format this post as I'd like. There should be three columns: Calvinism; Rejected position; Scripture supporting rejected position.

That's fine. Formatting while including routes gets real goofy on this site.

But yes, I reject all five points of Calvinism (also the articles of the Remonstrance that those points addressed). The reason is the basis for Calvinism and Arminianism. As far as providing Scripture, there are no Scripture that supports Calvinism.

The points were arrived at through philosophy, not Scripture.

Now....do I believe that God is sovereign, that men cannot merit salvation, that salvation is not conditioned on human merit, that God will accomplish His plan, and that those who are saved are saved from the wrath to come?

Yes.

But the five points of Calvinism include how Calvinism gets there and a calvinistic context. Their five points are based on a philosophy rather than on God's Word (the foundation upon which Calvinism is built is not in God's Word).


So can I provide passages that deny the five points in the form of a summary expressed superfivially as TULIP or the "doctrines of geace"? No, my summery may even sound the same superficially.

But the "doctrines of grace" are just a shell for the doctrines upon which they were built.

If the philosophy upon which Calvinism and Arminianism is wrong, and I believe it is, then everything that follows us wrong if you look beneath the surface.

 

[Ben1445]

IMO, you can’t logically get there without the other 4 points of Calvinism.
I believe Perseverance of the saints

I don’t need Calvinist logic or any of the petals from the tulip to believe in eternal security.

As an example, the text following, that might seem like it teaches holding on to salvation as if it could be lost, actually shows the opposite.

Hebrews 10:16-31
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (God forgave our sins. All of them before they were committed.) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (There is no more offering because there is remission of sin. There is no sin to offer for. This is in the context at the beginning of the chapter. “Once for all.”)
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (The bold ness can only come by assurance of salvation. A lasting peace that is dependent upon the work of Christ. But then he doesn’t just say assurance, he says full assurance. Complete assurance. At this point Reformed theology logic isn’t necessary. It is here in plain English. The sprinkling of the heart is a reference to the blood of Christ that was offered on the mercy seat in heaven. The sprinkling of the heart leads us to a clear conscience. At this point the Christian is guiltless because the blood is applied.)
(Now in the following verses it tells us to hold on to the profession of our faith. And exhort to good works. Why? The rest of the passage tells us. )
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (There is no more sacrifice for sins because they are gone, covered under the blood. One sacrifice for all sins.) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, (“whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth”) which shall devour the adversaries(opposed, those doing what is sin). He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (All this judgment speaks of an answer in this lifetime. All through Hebrews the old and new covenants are compared. The guilty under the law were put to death. But they were guilty of the Law. Christian’s are now guilty of the blood of Christ. They have known what Christ has done for them and walked all over Him. By comparison, from the first covenant to the second, who has the greater stench of offense? The question is asked, what punishment do you think he is now worthy of. I find it an intentional rhetorical question. It doesn’t say, “ you know what he’s going to get for that now don’t you?” Or, “how much more punishment will he get?”
Instead, without mistake, it says “thought worthy.” It is all a matter of personal judgment at this point.
But then he says God will judge HIS people. They are not children of the devil. They are His own children who are being chastised.
In comparison with the first covenant, I find the chastening to be related to this lifetime on earth and not related to eternity.)

 

[Ben1445]

I don’t need Calvinist logic or any of the petals from the tulip to believe in eternal security.

As an example, the text following, that might seem like it teaches holding on to salvation as if it could be lost, actually shows the opposite.

Hebrews 10:16-31
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (God forgave our sins. All of them before they were committed.) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (There is no more offering because there is remission of sin. There is no sin to offer for. This is in the context at the beginning of the chapter. “Once for all.”)
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (The bold ness can only come by assurance of salvation. A lasting peace that is dependent upon the work of Christ. But then he doesn’t just say assurance, he says full assurance. Complete assurance. At this point Reformed theology logic isn’t necessary. It is here in plain English. The sprinkling of the heart is a reference to the blood of Christ that was offered on the mercy seat in heaven. The sprinkling of the heart leads us to a clear conscience. At this point the Christian is guiltless because the blood is applied.)
(Now in the following verses it tells us to hold on to the profession of our faith. And exhort to good works. Why? The rest of the passage tells us. )
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (There is no more sacrifice for sins because they are gone, covered under the blood. One sacrifice for all sins.) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, (“whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth”) which shall devour the adversaries(opposed, those doing what is sin). He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (All this judgment speaks of an answer in this lifetime. All through Hebrews the old and new covenants are compared. The guilty under the law were put to death. But they were guilty of the Law. Christian’s are now guilty of the blood of Christ. They have known what Christ has done for them and walked all over Him. By comparison, from the first covenant to the second, who has the greater stench of offense? The question is asked, what punishment do you think he is now worthy of. I find it an intentional rhetorical question. It doesn’t say, “ you know what he’s going to get for that now don’t you?” Or, “how much more punishment will he get?”
Instead, without mistake, it says “thought worthy.” It is all a matter of personal judgment at this point.
But then he says God will judge HIS people. They are not children of the devil. They are His own children who are being chastised.
In comparison with the first covenant, I find the chastening to be related to this lifetime on earth and not related to eternity.)

This platform problem is starting to get to me. The emoji didn’t belong in the middle of the Scripture quote. I had it up with the tulip petals. In saving and replacing and trying not to lose my work, somehow it got moved down the post.

 

[Charlie24]

This platform problem is starting to get to me. The emoji didn’t belong in the middle of the Scripture quote. I had it up with the tulip petals. In saving and replacing and trying not to lose my work, somehow it got moved down the post.

I look at it as the Lord teaching us patience, regardless of the true nature of the problem.

I can't speak for others, but I know I could use that lesson, even though I don't want it.