Charles Stanley faulty view of Eternal Security

The Apostle Paul "disputed, REPROVED, and corrected" Galatianism MANY YEARS AGO. Works play NO PART in giving one salvation or KEEPING it. (Acts 15, Galatians 1-6)

GRACE IS NOT WORKS, and "members of the body of Christ" are SAVED BY GRACE according to the apostle Paul. (Rom.11, Titus 3)

Any other "view, belief, philosophy, or interpretation" is heresy.

 

True believers are secure for eternity. Here's the rub: Can a true believer completely and finally turn away from Jesus Christ? I have never found anywhere in Scripture (OT & NT) that suggests that unbelievers are promised eternal life in Heaven.

 

You said:
I choose to believe the word of God rather than some silly philosophy regarding the nature of eternal life.

==If you don't believe in the perseverence of the saints then you are going to run into some serious Scriptural problems (Jn 6:37-39, etc). However I think it is safe to assume that neither view is "silly philosophy" since Godly men (whom God has used) have been on both sides of the issue (John Newton, John Wesley).
___________________________

You said:
The Bible is explicitly clear on the matter of conditional security, and so it was understood by all Christians for 1500 years and is understood by the large majority of Christians today.

==Historically this is not true. It is no more true that for 1500 years everyone believed in conditional security than it is true that until the reformation the Catholic Church spoke for all Christians. I suggest you brush up on your church/theology history. The Bible is, btw, explicitly clear on the nature of salvation: Christ does not lose those whom the Father gave Him. Btw, before you respond to me on that last point, be careful! Don't make the same mistake the majority of conditional security believers make and end up being utterly refuted.
____________________________

You said:
Those who teach that the Bible was so poorly worded that the doctrine of salvation could not be understood for 1500 years deny, in essence, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.

==Of course the doctrine of salvation has been confusion, why? Because people put human theories above Scripture. The Bible is clear, sadly the majority like works salvation, conditional salvation, and other errors.
_________________________

Martin.

 

===


We at least agree on that Bro. Carl!

 

Martin wrote,

It is true. Please post a quote from a Christian who wrote during the time period from the close of the New Testament Canon to the Reformation who taught OSAS.

 

Martin wrote,

37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. (NASB, 1995)

This passage of Scripture says absolutely nothing about the faithfulness or the perseverance of any man; it speaks EXCLUSIVELY of the faithfulness of Christ. I have posted above a number of passages in the Bible that explicitly teach that man is NOT always faithful and that he does NOT always persevere.

 

You said:
Please post a quote from a Christian who wrote during the time period from the close of the New Testament Canon to the Reformation who taught OSAS.

==The old Augustine order, that Luther belonged to, was Calvinistic (before Calvin of course). There have always been Christians who held to a strong view of the sovereignty of God and such a view excludes the loss of salvation view point. You don't need a direct quote, just a general over-view of church history and historical theology.

Martin.

 

You said:
This passage of Scripture says absolutely nothing about the faithfulness or the perseverance of any man; it speaks EXCLUSIVELY of the faithfulness of Christ.

==Thats right. And what is Christ faithful in doing?

"that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day"

Christ is faithful not to lose one of those the Father has given Him. Why is Christ faithful not to lose even one of those the Father has given Him?

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

Christ does the Father's will, always and perfectly (Jn 5:30, 8:19). What is the Father's will? That of all of those the Father has given to the Son (the result of which is that they come to Christ, the Son), the Son lose nothing (not one). In fact in John 10:28 Jesus says that those who are His will never "perish". That is the same term in John 6:39 that is translated "lose" or "lost", or "perish". None that have come to the Son, because they are given to the Son by the Father, will ever be lost. Why not? Because Christ is faithful to the will of His Father not to lose one.

So I agree, Christ is faithful!
__________________________________

You said:
I have posted above a number of passages in the Bible that explicitly teach that man is NOT always faithful and that he does NOT always persevere.

==Man does not save himself, man does not keep himself. True believers do persevere (Jn 10:27). There are false believers (Jn 8:30, 1Jn 2:19). The believer is not kept by not sinning. The believer is kept by the power of God through Christ (Heb 10:14). When the believer sins he is not cast away (Ps 37:24). Rather believers are preserved forever (Ps 37:28) because they are believers in Christ. These are those who have repented of their sin (Ps 37:27) and who have turned to Christ in faith (Jn 3:14-18). They have turned from darkness to light (Acts 26:15-23). They have been born of God and have the Holy Spirit living within them. The result of all of this? They no longer practice the flesh, rather they live for God (1Jn 3:9-10, Jer 31:33, Jn 10:27).

Martin.

 

Martin wrote,

Your assumption here is both theologically and historically incorrect.

 

Martin,

Thank you for sharing your personal beliefs with us. If you would like to discuss the Greek text any particular verse that you have referenced, and the history of its interpretation, please specify the verse and we can discuss it in as much detail as you may like. In the meantime, the verses that I posted expressly teach conditional salvation, a doctrine that is not all in conflict the Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

 

Your assumption here is both theologically and historically incorrect.

</font>[/QUOTE]Don't think so.

 

You said:
Thank you for sharing your personal beliefs with us.

==I just used Scripture to back up my statements.
_____________________

You said:
If you would like to discuss the Greek text any particular verse that you have referenced, and the history of its interpretation, please specify the verse and we can discuss it in as much detail as you may like.

==The "history of its interpretation"? How about we just stick with the text(s) itself? I am a strong, strong believer in sola scriptura. My interest is not in how others have understood the text (even if I agree with them). My interest is in what the text actually says. In other words one could say that I believe in original intent. As for the greek, we can discuss that. However the greek changes nothing. I have studied John 6:39 (etc) in the greek and have reached the same conclusions. In fact a greek study of John 6:37-40 lead me to be even more sure of the security of the believer. The meaning of the text does not change from greek to english, or translation to translation. It says what it says.
_____________________________

You said:
In the meantime, the verses that I posted expressly teach conditional salvation, a doctrine that is not all in conflict the Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

==If one can lose their salvation then Christ has not done the will of the Father and is therefore not sovereign. If one can lose their salvation then God's foreknowledge was wrong, thus His Predestining was wrong, thus He is not sovereign. Such claims, as I am sure you would fully agree, are utter heresy. However that is the results of the conditional security view and such is in conflict with the sovereignty of God.

The conditional security position is not heresy but its logical conclusions are. While I have not read your post (to which you refer) I know the verses generally used by conditional security advocates (I have debate this many times with many different people). The majority of those verses, in context, deal with false believers or do not deal with salvation at all. Depends.

Martin.

 

Martin wrote,

Do you have ANY direct quotes to back up your statement—or are merely deducing that you are correct based upon a faulty premise?

 

Sticking with the text(s) without the help of any of the other data that God has blessed us with the knowledge of is, in my opinion, slapping God in the face.

 

Sticking with the text(s) without the help of any of the other data that God has blessed us with the knowledge of is, in my opinion, slapping God in the face.

Spurgeon wrote,

“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

 

I choose to believe the word of God rather than some silly philosophy regarding the nature of eternal life. The Bible is explicitly clear on the matter of conditional security, and so it was understood by all Christians for 1500 years and is understood by the large majority of Christians today. Those who teach that the Bible was so poorly worded that the doctrine of salvation could not be understood for 1500 years deny, in essence, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.

</font>[/QUOTE]Craigbythesea????

Isn't this quote of yours standing in total contridiction to the two above posts on this page???? In the which your write, "Sticking with the text(s) without the help of any of the other data that God has blessed us with the knowledge of is, in my opinion, slapping God in the face."

 

No. Actually, I have no idea what you are supposing that I wrote that is contradictory. You have probably misunderstood me. I believe that when we interpret the Bible, we need to take into consideration all the information that we have, and that information must include at least the most relevant historical information and a substantial knowledge of what the Holy Spirit has taught others. You may have noticed that except for Gen. 1-11 I have posted very little regarding the Old Testament. That is because I have not taken the necessary time to study it with the necessary thoroughness to offer to the readers of my posts an educated interpretation of it. The very same thing applies to the Book of Revelation.

 

"Oh! I see!!"---said the blind man to the deaf man!

 

IMO, too many fronts. Why not isolate the issues?

I suggest that Martin and Craig have an exegetical discussion for now just on Jo. 6 if there is disagreement about what it means. Does it indicate the divine perseverence of those who accept Christ as Savior or not?

 

May God our Father bless you according to His riches in glory through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.