Non-Calvinists and Eternal Security

10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet (19) stumbles in one point, he has become (20) guilty of all. - James 2:10 NASB

If a person breaks even the smallest law, they are a lawbreaker.

38 For I am convinced that neither (89) death, nor life, nor (90) angels, nor principalities, nor (91) things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from (92) the love of God, which is (93) in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39 NASB

We are indeed created things so I don't see how we could separate ourselves from God.

 

Let's put this verse (John 5:29) in the proper context.

John 5:24 states:

Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death unto life.

"hath" means I already have everlasting life right now.
"shall not come into condemnation" means I can't lose it. Having "everlasting life", by it's very definition, is everlasting. If I somehow lose it, then I never really had everlasting life to begin with.

Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that those in John 5:29 that "have done good" are those who "believed" in verse 24 and where then "created in Christ Jesus unto to good works"(Eph 2:10)

[ August 24, 2002, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: tfisher ]

 

I am of the Arminian POV - however I agree with Ken Hamilton's argument from "consistency" - that the Ariminian model is only consistent if you leave free will in the system all the way through. Even after being born again.

If the sinless - perfect Adam could "choose" to walk away from paradise - how much more sinful (albeit born-again) humanity.

However - Ken also has his own "blind spot" in that Calvinism often defines itself in such as way that "Assurance" is impossible until the day of one's death. (If one were to be "consistent").

Such that - in the Arminian system you can "consistently" know you are saved today - but as a Calvinist - you can't even know that. IN the Cavlinist system - all your "knowing" that you are saved is "retro-deleted" if at some year in the future you should not "endure" - or is it "perservere".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The supposition that you can not lose salvation is refuted in Matt 18 where we find "forgiveness revoked" as the basis for warning the saints.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ken,

When the Arminian claims "eternal security" and you point out that he is being "inconsistent" - he can not address the point by responding "HE who comes to Me I will in no wise cast out" as though this solves the problem of endorsing free will right up until the point that one is "saved".

In the same way - appealing to 1John 5 that you can know you have eternal life - does not answer the charge that "present-assurance fails IN a system where assurance is "retro-deleted based on future actions" -

Because 1John 5 is missing the key ingredient needed to respond to the charge - it is missing "Your present knowing that you are saved is retro deleted if you fail in some future year - yet you can be assured anyway without knowing what you will do in some future year".

Calvinism offers "assurance" to those that are saved today and perservere to the end. It says to them "you CAN never be lost".

Arminianism offers to them "You were never lost - you perservered - and you were saved the entire time."

The problem is - the Calvinist form can't be "known" until you see that you perservere and did not have your "knowing" retro-deleted.

But in the case of those who "know they are saved" but then failed to perservere - Calvinism offers the comfort "you never lost your salvation - because you never had it".

Arminianism simply says "your previous knowing you were saved was valid - and real - even though you failed to perservere and fell from Grace afterward".

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 01, 2002, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Ok, but what are you being assured of, then? Certainly not that you will be in heaven someday...so of what value is this "yes, you really are saved today!" assurance, if it's not a guarantee of eternal life with the Lord?

Plus, I have trouble thinking that God who is merciful, would 'retro-delete'; I have trouble with the idea that a person who was truly saved, say for 30 years, could fall away, then one year later be killed in an accident and off he goes to eternal damnation. Doesn't this mean salvation is strangely skewed, so that it is totally dependent on the day you die? Sort of like the 'you have to die in a state of grace to go to heaven' concept?

I would find it easier to envisage that same person going to heaven anyway - that when they meet the Lord they are repentantly and humbly, albeit regretfully (because of their recent rejection) re-united with the One they truly had known and loved for many years.

Assurance that I am saved today but might not be tomorrow and therefore might be eternally condemned, doesn't seem like assurance worth having, to me...

Thinking about this has made me realize how un-Arminian I am...so I appreciate your comments, BobRyan; they have been thought-provoking and enlightening to me .

AITB

 

That is a good point. Is the "assurance" that we are born again and accepted by God. Under the New Covenant - a child of God (Romans 8:16) - OR is the assurance in the form of "in the future you will perservere and ultimately go to heaven"?

If it is the latter - then the "retro-delete" function makes that "Assurance" very unstable.

If it is the former then the assurance is rock solid but it is tempered by what you choose in the future.

Knowing that you currently "have eternal life" is not the same as knowing that in the future you will perservere. (At least from the Arminian POV). IN Calvinism they are the same thing - and the problem is - they really don't know the future.

Calvinism would say that you can not fall away.

But Calvinism would also "retro-delete" your present "Assurance" if you did fall-away.

First of all - you are not lost for each sin you commit. But you can "fall from grace" Gal 5. IN MAtt 18 we have the example of "forgiveness revoked" and we find the same illustration in Ezek 18.

They show that indeed - God does not drag the wicked sinner screaming and kicking into heaven.

"God is not mocked - whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap" Gal 6.

"Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven - but he who does the will of My Father.." Matt 7

IT is in deed a state of Knowing God and Walking in the Spirit "But IF by the Spirit you are puttin to death the deeds of the flesh THEN are you the children of God" Romans 8.

So 4 point Calvinism? Everything but the perservance? Calvin did not go for that.

(Correction - I think 4 point Calvinists are the ones that believe that the atonement is not limited - but do accept all other points including the perserverance point. So possibly you are 2 point Calvinist?).

However - I do affirm that - that is the only way to get "more assurance" out of the system than you got in Arminianism and far more than Calvinism.

Arminianism says that BOTH the person that did perservere AND the one that did not - were SAVED at the time they had assurance.

Calvinism says ONLY the one that perservered was saved.

The 2 point view says BOTH were saved - but adds that even those that leave God - fail to perservere - stay saved. Truly a "better" assurance than the previous two - but kinda flies in the face of MAtt 18 (among the others that say "IF you perservere faithful until the end")

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 01, 2002, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

On second thought - my 4 point Calvinism statement might be inaccurate.

If you believe that God died for all mankind and offers salvation to all - but some choose to refuse - and you do not believe that the saints must always perservere to the end to really be saved - I think that's actually 2-point Calvinism and it actually has the benefit of having more comfort and "Assurance" than 3 point Calvinism or 5 point Calvinism or even the Arminian view.

But it should be noted that the "reason" those other 3 systems insisted on the "perserverence" part is due to the scads of texts in scripture that deal with the subject.

1Cor 9 is another good example "I buffet my body and make it my slave lest after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified".

The comment "no such thing" would have to follow in all those cases to hold to that perserverance-optional model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just to pick up on this one point for now, but I may come back to others when I have more time: if we believe that God has made us promises about the future and that His Word cannot be broken, then we do know some things about the future.

Humanly speaking, we wouldn't, but if God who knows the future reveals it to us, then we do.

AITB

 

The problem is that your theology will insist that all your resting and all your assurance and all your knowing you are in Christ - be retro-deleted should you ever in any future year - prove to "not perservere".

Your "present" assurance is "voided" by your own theology when the future event occurs.

In the Arminian system - your present assurance would remain "valid" even if in a future year you should fail to perservere.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed you do - you know something about God and the future. In fact you know the same thing that all those Calvinists know that trust God today but then fail to perservere in the future and have to retro-deleted all today's "knowings".

And that is the problem.

However the solution you have proposed - that of "perserverence optional" actually solves that problem, so I am not saying that that part of the problem remains in the model that you have chosen.

In Christ,

Bob

 

My problem continues to be that this 'assurance' isn't worth much, is it?

Can you lay out what benefit it is to me?

AITB

p.s. it's AITB not ATTB. Because it stands for Accepted In The Beloved - a quote from Eph 1, NKJV. I don't mind if you put ATTB but at least you know why it's AITB now

 

The "IF" 's spell it out.

The Benefit is real - we need to know today that what we have IS salvation - or else "what is there to walk away from". You have to know you "have something" to determine "not to lose it".

In Gal 5 Paul says "you have fallen from Grace" - but what value is that IF you could not know that you were IN grace, accepted by God now.

Having to wait until you die to "see" that you "perservered" whould be "too late' to take the warning about not falling from Grace. There is nothing to "fall from" if you are already not saved.

In Hebrews 6 Paul warns us not to "fall away" - but the truth is - the totally depraved have nothing to "fall from" nor anything state of "depravity" to which it would be a loss not to be restored too.

The warning only works if you know you are saved and if you really can fall.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 01, 2002, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian. But, I do agree with Ken on the eternal security issue, but possibly not for the same reason. I was raised in a Free Will Baptist Church. I believed completely the false doctrine of "fall from grace". We were taught, that any unconfessed sin, would cause a born again person to lose their salvation. Then I found out, that other Free Will Baptist beileved what they call the "apostasy of the believer". The making shipwreck of ones faith, by returning to a life of sin, and ultimately rejecting God. When neither side could ever produce scripture to validate their doctrinal beliefs, the Lord laid it on my heart to study it out myself. Through prayer and Bible study, I quickly realized that the Arminian position was man made, and was grieving to the Holy Spirit of God. I brought this to many respected people of my church, and asked them to explain to me, using the Bible for authority, their belief. Sadly, for them, they couldn't, because it just ain't there. Everyone of them, gave me the same answer....they feel like a person can lose their salvation, they could never "prove" it in the Bible. I suggest that the vast majority of the people that believe "fall from grace", have never prayerfully studied it out. They accept the teachings that they have always heard. I was one of them, but praise God, he opened my eyes to the truth of his word. I pray that anyone that is under the bondage of the Arminian point of view, will take this as it is meant. Not hurtful, but letting you know that if you will set down with your Bible, and try to leave your preconceptions out of it, God will, through his Holy Spirit, teach you the truth.

 

I wonder, I really wonder, why Arminians' hairs bristle at the thought that God would be merciful enough to work His will on His chosen so that they would come to repentance and a saving knowledge of His only begotten Son and also balk at the implication of His mercy resulting in there being more saved souls than unsaved souls.

 

IN other words, you have no such Scripture. Thanks for answering my question - It may have been in a roundabout way, but it was an answer.

The idea of a majority of people in Heaven is not Scriptural. I wish there were a majority, but such a case cannot be made using the Bible.