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!
The Bible instructs us to do good works in order to make our salvation sure. Evidently that is one of the reasons. As with many things in life, there is no single reason for doing things. Each act has many implications and does so many things at the same time.We do good works to show that we love Him, not to try to "persevere until the end" to secure our salvation.
I know that this could be a subject of another thread, but where is in the Bible? How do we know that the "unwarranted" just want to be rescued from harm? Is this Biblical or just man's implication?We say "warranted resting" because there is an "unwarranted resting",people who think that they are saved but are not,because they have never come to see the glory of Christ as compellingly glorious.These people only believe on the basis of wanting rescue from harm,not because they see Christ as more beautiful and desirable than all else.But for those who"see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ"their resting is warranted.
It is only amazing Eric, because you are not familiar with the issues involved. It is simple: God changes man so that he will respond in faith and repentance to be saved. God also gives man the ability to do the works of perseverance. It is all of God from beginning to end.Originally posted by Eric B:
It's amazing that with all the insistance that a person could net even choose to be saved, because that's [supposedly] a "work" by which a person "saves himself", yet, if a person thinks he is saved, then he must work ("produce fruits") to try to "persevere until the end", in order to realize his [potential] salvation, and until he does, his "assurance" is "fallible".
If eternal security and assurance are unrelated, then, with respect to the adulterous relationship above used as an example, would it be possible that in reality, contrary to the observable evidence that would contend for their assurance as being worthless, they still are the elect?Originally posted by Larry:
...I have talked to people living in constant adulterous relationships who are unwilling to repent who claim to be sure of salvation. I have pointed out to them that on the basis of Scripture, they do not give evidence of salvation. Therefore, their assurance is worthless...This (that is, eternal security itself and the assurance of eternal security, are) totally unrelated since we are talking about assurance, not eternal security. The two are not the same. Assurance is my knowledge of my own eternal security. I may have assurance without eternal security; I may have eternal security without assurance. Eternal security is the objective truth of salvation. Assurance is the subjective experience of that truth in my life.
Yes it would be possible. If they are of the elect, then they will come to a place of repentance. We cannot tell what is going on in their heart. They may be suffering the intense conviction of the Spirit. They might repent. After all, consider David. He was an adulterer and lived in that state for a number of months. Yet he repented under the conviction of the Spirit. We do not know infallibly the condition of the heart. We can however judge ourselves and others based on the dictates of Scripture.Originally posted by Nelson:
If eternal security and assurance are unrelated, then, with respect to the adulterous relationship above used as an example, would it be possible that in reality, contrary to the observable evidence that would contend for their assurance as being worthless, they still are the elect?
posted by Nelson: If eternal security and assurance are unrelated, then, with respect to the adulterous relationship above used as an example, would it be possible that in reality, contrary to the observable evidence that would contend for their assurance as being worthless, they still are the elect?
If such is the case, would it then be correct to say that, contrary to the Scriptural basis one may present to give evidence that they are not saved and, therefore, their assurance of salvation is worthless, the fact may be be that their assurance is not worthless if they are, in fact, the elect?posted by Larry: Yes it would be possible. If they are of the elect, then they will come to a place of repentance. We cannot tell what is going on in their heart. They may be suffering the intense conviction of the Spirit. They might repent. After all, consider David. He was an adulterer and lived in that state for a number of months. Yet he repented under the conviction of the Spirit. We do not know infallibly the condition of the heart. We can however judge ourselves and others based on the dictates of Scripture.
No, IMO, it would not be correct. Their assurance is still worthless because it is based on a faulty premise. They have no biblical basis for assurance based on clear revelation.Originally posted by Nelson:
If such is the case, would it then be correct to say that, contrary to the Scriptural basis one may present to give evidence that they are not saved and, therefore, their assurance of salvation is worthless, the fact may be be that their assurance is not worthless if they are, in fact, the elect?
That is a mighty big if!the fact may be be that their assurance is not worthless if they are, in fact, the elect?
posted by Nelson:...the fact may be that their assurance is not worthless if they are, in fact, the elect?
However, the point I am stressing in light of a real-life situation Larry proposed as an example is that the assurance possessed is not necessarily worthless.posted by Tuor:That is a mighty big if! IF one is of the elect, then one will repent of a rebellious life and get right with the Lord before one dies.
But if you're saying that your assurance is "fallible" since you have not yet persevered until the end, then it seems there is no real assurance, because God changes man, but you are not 100% sure he has changed you and gave you the ability to not just do the works but to keep doing to the end, so from our perspective, it appears that we must try to persevere, and we still may not (at least from what I seem to be reading). (I still wonder how any of these non-elect can come even this close to faith if God is the only one who can change their natures from wanting only to run from Him.)It is only amazing Eric, because you are not familiar with the issues involved. It is simple: God changes man so that he will respond in faith and repentance to be saved. God also gives man the ability to do the works of perseverance. It is all of God from beginning to end.
There may be verses that appear to say this, but then our ultimate salvation does rest in us, (our works) and not God. Once again, I believe such scriptures are telling us "You say you're saved, so prove it" (James 2:18); not that doing the works is what makes/keeps us saved, but that this would separate the true believers from those who followed Christ for ulterior purposes. A person truly saved can still sometimes lack fruits, so for this purpose James is admonishing them to act like they have faith.The Bible instructs us to do good works in order to make our salvation sure. Evidently that is one of the reasons. As with many things in life, there is no single reason for doing things. Each act has many implications and does so many things at the same time.
Where in the Bible does it say that?A person truly saved can still sometimes lack fruits
And that is why I stated that though one may be committing sin, for example the adultery example Larry proposed, his profession of Christianity and his assurance of being saved is not necessarily "worthless" because, as has been conceded, it is possible for that one to truly be the elect of God.Originally posted by Tuor: God's elect are based on God's ability to see the future. Since we don't have this perspective, it is impossible for us to have a perspective on such a one's assurance one way or the other.
But you said 'elect', that puts a whole new spin on things.