Eternal security and unpardonable sin

[thegospelgeek]

True. But faith in Christ is not a lie.


Gotta go. :wavey:

You have misunderstood what I am saying. I never said beleiving in Christ was a lie. I am saying the oposite.

You are actually demonstrating my point exactly. You and i are not differing on the salvation of the soul in question, but rather debating what we call the state of the soul of the person. In your case it is never know if one is saved or not, until they have endured. If they fail to do so, they were never saved no matter the fruit they bore.

 

[drfuss]

Amy,
If I understand you correctly, you then believe one must endure to the end. So do I . The only difference between the two is how we catagorize those who do not. This I see as a minor difference, not a major division that many on both sides make it to be.

drfuss: Yes, the difference is how we catagorize those who do not endure to the end, i.e. different definitions and terminology.

Note that Stanley is very different in that he believes a True Christian can stop believing (may not endure to the end) and is still saved in his unbelieving state. This is more that different definitions and terminology from other ES and classic Arminian beliefs. This says unbelievers can get to heaven if they once believed and then stopped believing.

 

[webdog]

You have answered your own question. The man says his experience was not real. He never "really" put his faith in Christ, just the idea of Christ.

That's one possibility. The other is the "father of lies" has him believing his experience was never genuine, even though it was. Since he was a pastor for 15 years, the latter is more likely.

 

[webdog]

drfuss: Yes, the difference is how we catagorize those who do not endure to the end, i.e. different definitions and terminology.

Note that Stanley is very different in that he believes a True Christian can stop believing (may not endure to the end) and is still saved in his unbelieving state. This is more that different definitions and terminology from other ES and classic Arminian beliefs. This says unbelievers can get to heaven if they once believed and then stopped believing.

I don't think Charles Stanley should even be in this discussion. His view is not orthodox, as he believes a true believer whe dies in a state of unbelief (or sin) will spend the 1000 year millenial in hell. This heresy known as Millenial Exclusion (Stanley, Watchman Nee, Chitwood all hold to this view) is not the prevalent view of those who hold to ES.

 

[thegospelgeek]

Webdog,

Glad your back. Did you see my question about enduring? How do you reconcile this with your belief that one can stop beleiving and still be saved?

 

[thegospelgeek]

I just remembered a verse.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:


It is impossible for a believer who has received the Holy Spirit to stop believing because the Spirit is with him 24/7 testifying that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amy, for arguments sake, let's say you have convinced me. Nothing has really changed except now I think those who have shipwrecked their faith were never really saved. It doesn't change anything that is, just what I call it.

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

Glad your back. Did you see my question about enduring? How do you reconcile this with your belief that one can stop beleiving and still be saved?

Which passage, the one in Matthew?

I found this interesting in regards to enduring. This is shared with the Mormons as well (pertaining to justification)
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/enduring_end_eom.htm

 

[thegospelgeek]

Which passage, the one in Matthew?

I found this interesting in regards to enduring. This is shared with the Mormons as well (pertaining to justification)
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/enduring_end_eom.htm

I was thinking more in line with John's letters to the churches in Rev. added But either will do.

 

[drfuss]

I don't think Charles Stanley should even be in this discussion. His view is not orthodox, as he believes a true believer whe dies in a state of unbelief (or sin) will spend the 1000 year millenial in hell. This heresy known as Millenial Exclusion (Stanley, Watchman Nee, Chitwood all hold to this view) is not the prevalent view of those who hold to ES.

drfuss: Charles Stanley continues to be in this discussion because Dr Timo, who started this thread, indicated he believes just like Charles Stanley, see posts #59 & #74. I said Stanley represents a small minority of ES believers, but Dr Timo indicated there were many who believed like Stanley. Dr Timo has been promoting Stanley's belief on this thread.

 

[webdog]

drfuss: Charles Stanley continues to be in this discussion because Dr Timo, who started this thread, indicated he believes just like Charles Stanley, see posts #59 & #74. I said Stanley represents a small minority of ES believers, but Dr Timo indicated there were many who believed like Stanley. Dr Timo has been promoting Stanley's belief on this thread.

Maybe Dr. Timo hasn't studied Stanley's eschatology, then. If he agrees with him, he will eventually be banned like the rest of the ME'ers

 

[thegospelgeek]

I don't think Charles Stanley should even be in this discussion. His view is not orthodox, as he believes a true believer whe dies in a state of unbelief (or sin) will spend the 1000 year millenial in hell. This heresy known as Millenial Exclusion (Stanley, Watchman Nee, Chitwood all hold to this view) is not the prevalent view of those who hold to ES.

I know this is not the topic but, how can any sane person come up with this?

 

[webdog]

I was thinking more in line with John's letters to the churches in Rev. added But either will do.

In context, the "enduring" in Matthew is referring to the Great Tribulation, and not giving in to the antichrist.

In Revelation 2, the benefits or enduring are to rule with Christ.

Neither speak of justification in regards to holding on to it.

 

[webdog]

I know this is not the topic but, how can any sane person come up with this?

The same way any false doctrine is, I guess.

 

[Dr. Timo]

I don't think Charles Stanley should even be in this discussion. His view is not orthodox, as he believes a true believer whe dies in a state of unbelief (or sin) will spend the 1000 year millenial in hell. This heresy known as Millenial Exclusion (Stanley, Watchman Nee, Chitwood all hold to this view) is not the prevalent view of those who hold to ES.

I don't believe this is true. What is your proof of this!!!:wavey: :jesus:

 

[Dr. Timo]

I will check this out from the source as I am in touch (no pun intended) with Dr. Stanley. I don't know where your information came from but you can be sure it is not true. Dr. Stanley does not believe a saved person will spend anytime in hell under any circumstances.:laugh: :jesus:

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, for arguments sake, let's say you have convinced me. Nothing has really changed except now I think those who have shipwrecked their faith were never really saved. It doesn't change anything that is, just what I call it.

Ok, just for arguments sake, here's what I'll do if I've convinced you.......

<-----dancing baptist

 

[Amy.G]

I have heard people claim that Charles Stanley is a Millennial Exclusionist, but I have never seen proof of it. But I do know that Dr. Stanley believes that a person can be saved, stop believing, reject Christ, and still go to heaven. I know because I have a book he wrote where he said that very thing.

 

[Dr. Timo]

That's a good one Amy!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :jesus:

 

[Dr. Timo]

Ok, just for arguments sake, here's what I'll do if I've convinced you.......

<-----dancing baptist

That's a good one Amy!!!:laugh 1_grouphug:

 

[thegospelgeek]

OK,

Just a recap of the thread, correct me if I'm wrong.

The topic is why do the subjects of Eternal Security and unpardonable sin keep coming up in studies, classes, etc.

There are 4 different main views and thousnands of variations.

1. Amy is of the mindset that if one truly beleives they will never stop beleiving.
2. Webdog and Dr. Timo beleive one can stop beleiving yet are still saved.
3. Myself and drfuss feel one forfiets their salvation when one stops beleiving
4. There is the Weslyan Arminian veiw that one can continue in sin and be unrepentant, thus forfieting their salvation. So far we have no one defending this view.

I see similarities in Amy's view and my own, yet they differ somewhat. I see large differences in my view and that of webdog and Dr. Timo