Eternal Security, essential or nonessential?

[Yeshua1]

I have been studying other denominations articles of faith on this point for over 30 years (Assembly of God, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.). I would challenge your understanding of their articles and the doctrine of eternal security.

Those who typically reject eternal security claim that final loss of salvation is not by justification by works but by decision of the will. This is a fundemental misunderstanding of the nature of "works" as defined by Christ in Matthew 15. Works are not merely good or bad EXTERNAL ACTIONS but begin with INTERNAL thoughts and decisions. The EXTERNAL actions are merely the evidential consquences of the INTERNAL actions. Do you realize this?

Hence, Biblically speaking "justification by works" means HEART ACTIONS that may or may not be manifested by MOUTH and BODY actions.

I have a good friend of mine who agrees with me that God will NEVER let one of his go, but he also holds that God honors our free will so much that he allows us to be able to escape His grasp!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have a good friend of mine who agrees with me that God will NEVER let one of his go, but he also holds that God honors our free will so much that he allows us to be able to escape His grasp!

Exactly. And that is what the non-Calvinist denominations believe. And I have been studying them for nearly 40 years. And have been a member of a couple.

 

[Alcott]

If eternal security is essential, it is automatically untrue. There is no example in scripture of anyone having to profess a belief in E.S. to become a Christian, and I have not been in a church where that was required. But if one has professed Jesus as Lord, then proclaimed he/she does not believe in E.S., then is shoved away as unsaved because of erring in an essential doctrine, E.S. was a required belief all along, and 'we' did not even ask the new convert if he/she believed it. Either that, or the believer in Christ who does not believe in E.S. has lost salvation, negating any truth to the doctirne.

So which is essential... belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, or belief in eternal security?

 

[The Biblicist]

If eternal security is essential, it is automatically untrue. There is no example in scripture of anyone having to profess a belief in E.S. to become a Christian, and I have not been in a church where that was required. But if one has professed Jesus as Lord, then proclaimed he/she does not believe in E.S., then is shoved away as unsaved because of erring in an essential doctrine, E.S. was a required belief all along, and 'we' did not even ask the new convert if he/she believed it. Either that, or the believer in Christ who does not believe in E.S. has lost salvation, negating any truth to the doctirne.

So which is essential... belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, or belief in eternal security?

By "essential" is not meant that one must "believe" in it to be saved but rather it is inseparable from the true nature of salvation.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Well, the fact is that I get along with myself quite well. I never said you were lost. I said you embrace and preach a false gospel.

Welcome to the Land of the Lost.

"...Now, if that is the gospel you embraced at your conversion then you are lost.

But I never said you were lost... RIght.

WM

 

[padredurand]

I have been studying other denominations articles of faith on this point for over 30 years (Assembly of God, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.). I would challenge your understanding of their articles and the doctrine of eternal security.

I would accept your challenge and submit that you do not know what you are talking about. I too studied the 'other denomination' having attended one of their seminaries, exhaustively read and studied Wesley's body of work and spent two-thirds of my pastoral ministry in one of their pulpits.

Consider Wesley's words, I cannot describe the nature of this faith better than in the words of our own Church: "The only instrument of salvation is faith; that is, a sure trust and confidence that God both hath and will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into His favour, for the merits of Christ's death and passion."

Take a few hours and read Wesley's sermon "Justification by Faith". He asserts there are no good works before justification. Works righteousness has never been part of the historic Wesleyan-Arminian theological understanding.

With a little study on your part you will also find that historic Wesleyans conclude that you cannot lose what you never had. Loosely translated into Baptist-speak, "They probably weren't saved in the first place."

You should learn to paint with a narrower brush.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I posted in another thread but will do so here also: I will no longer respond to those who question my salvation or charge me with teaching "another gospel" and "another christ".

I am warned that I will get an infraction if I keep responding to a person's doctrinal exposition with personal comments, but the doctrinal exposition is made up of the charges listed above! So be it. I have no power here. So, I will simply not respond or defend myself, no matter who says what about me or breaks the forum rules. From now on, neither attackers nor their enablers exist, as far as I'm concerned. So, for those few who fall into that category, knock yourselves out with your false accusations and attacks.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I would accept your challenge and submit that you do not know what you are talking about. I too studied the 'other denomination' having attended one of their seminaries, exhaustively read and studied Wesley's body of work and spent two-thirds of my pastoral ministry in one of their pulpits.

Consider Wesley's words, I cannot describe the nature of this faith better than in the words of our own Church: "The only instrument of salvation is faith; that is, a sure trust and confidence that God both hath and will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into His favour, for the merits of Christ's death and passion."

Take a few hours and read Wesley's sermon "Justification by Faith". He asserts there are no good works before justification. Works righteousness has never been part of the historic Wesleyan-Arminian theological understanding.

With a little study on your part you will also find that historic Wesleyans conclude that you cannot lose what you never had. Loosely translated into Baptist-speak, "They probably weren't saved in the first place."

You should learn to paint with a narrower brush.

You probably don't want my acknowledgement but I agree with you. Also I think Wesley makes an interesting point

So that, although some rare instances may be found, wherein the term "justified" or "justification" is used in so wide a sense as to include "sanctification" also.

In both Wesley and in my view there is the point at which one is initially Justified which happens by faith. Yet necissarily sanctification must follow the initial entry into the ark of salvation.

Our justification begins when we initially receive righteousness at the beginning of our lives as Christians. Prior to this time, we have been in a state of unrighteousness because we were born in Adam. Because of our birth into the human family, we received original sin from our first parent, Adam...Trent teaches that our initial justification, by which we come to and are accepted by God, is not merited by us in anyway by anything we do, whether an act of faith or works. It is intrinsically impossible for an unjustified person to merit justification, therefore our justification is not merited by anything we do leading up to it. This makes explicit what was taught in chapter seven: that Christ, not us, is the meritorious cause of our justification. - commentary on Trent by Akin

 

[The Biblicist]

I would accept your challenge and submit that you do not know what you are talking about.

Just answer the following questions for me:

"Do Methodist believe salvation can be lost"? Yes or no please.

"Do Methodist believe a saved person can choose to reject Christ and go to hell? - Yes or no please.

I have a Methodist Preacher for an uncle and we have talked about this numerous times over the years. I have worked for Methodists. There are multiple Methodist sites on line that deal directly with this point.

BTW do you recognize and accept that "works" include the internal actions of motive and intent as well as their external manifestations (words and physical actions)? Wesley did!

 

[The Biblicist]

Consider Wesley's words, I cannot describe the nature of this faith better than in the words of our own Church: "The only instrument of salvation is faith; that is, a sure trust and confidence that God both hath and will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into His favour, for the merits of Christ's death and passion."

Wesley rejected the Biblical doctrine of Justification by faith. He defined it merely as "pardon" of the "ungodly" man from all PAST sins but not pardon from all FUTURE sins ("will not impute sin"). Future sins, and thus future entrance into heaven are all conditioned upon progressive justification by works/love (sanctification). Hence, he denied that ALL sin (past, present, future) was pardoned and thus denied POSITIONAL justification based upon the LEGAL IMPUTATION of Christ's righteousness and penal substitutionary work fully satisfying the Law's demands so that the justified is PERMENANTLY "dead to the law" at the point of justification by faith.

Instead, he defined justification simply as making the "ungodly" man FIT before God so that he could be justified by his works/love from the initial point of justification by faith forward and thus utimately justified by his works/love before God. Wesley simply made justification by faith refer to the past sins while demanding progressive sanctification (works) necessary for ultimate and final justification before God. He failed to recognize that progressive sanctification had to to with practical FELLOWSHIP whereas justification had to do with legal RELATIONSHIP. Hence, a justified man according to Wesleyism could lose his salvation and there are plenty of websites to back this up.

 

[The Biblicist]

Take a few hours and read Wesley's sermon "Justification by Faith". He asserts there are no good works before justification. Works righteousness has never been part of the historic Wesleyan-Arminian theological understanding.

I have read it and Wesley does believe in eventual justification by works. He merely denies that initial justification by faith is without works. He does not believe that initial justification is FORWARD looking but only BACKWARD looking from the point of initial justification. Hence, FORWARD looking he defines progressive sanctification is in reality what ultimately justifies a believer before God "according to his works."

With a little study on your part you will also find that historic Wesleyans conclude that you cannot lose what you never had. Loosely translated into Baptist-speak, "They probably weren't saved in the first place."

You should learn to paint with a narrower brush.

Which branch of Wesleyism are you referring to when you say "historic Wesleyan's"? I know there is a branch that does believe in eternal security but that is not the MAJORITY of Wesley's followers.

 

[SovereignMercy]

The other branch followed George Whitfield.

 

[SovereignMercy]

Here's the only person's word I take on the topic.

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one."

 

[The Biblicist]

The other branch followed George Whitfield.

I was aware of this branch but it is a small minority among METHODISM today. It is the EXCEPTION to the Rule among Methodists.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here's the only person's word I take on the topic.

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one."

Yes, this is an excellent text. However, I think a much more definitive text is John 6:36-45. ALL the Father gives to Christ none fail to come and ALL who come none fail to be raised up to the resurrection of life. Nothing teaches eternal security of real beleivers more than this text. It absolutely denies that a single solitary person of ALL that the Father gave to Christ ever is lost.

John Wesely did not believe that. His doctrine of Justification did not teach that. Those Wesleians who do believe it did not follow Wesley or his doctrine of justification but rather followed George Whitefield.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, this is an excellent text. However, I think a much more definitive text is John 6:36-45. ALL the Father gives to Christ none fail to come and ALL who come none fail to be raised up to the resurrection of life. Nothing teaches eternal security of real beleivers more than this text. It absolutely denies that a single solitary person of ALL that the Father gave to Christ ever is lost.

John Wesely did not believe that. His doctrine of Justification did not teach that. Those Wesleians who do believe it did not follow Wesley or his doctrine of justification but rather followed George Whitefield.

Doesn't the idea of 'sinless perfection/second act of grace" factor into this OP somehow, as that is held by methodists/Wesylyns?

 

[The Biblicist]

Doesn't the idea of 'sinless perfection/second act of grace" factor into this OP somehow, as that is held by methodists/Wesylyns?

Yes! Since initial justification removes ALL past sin, then in order to maintain that status of SINLESSNESS before God one must live above sin. Of course they would rather describe that doctrine in other languauge than "sinless perfection" but in words describing it as "love".

Of course they repudiate the Biblical doctrine of "sin" and redefine sin so as to be able to live above it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes! Since initial justification removes ALL past sin, then in order to maintain that status of SINLESSNESS before God one must live above sin. Of course they would rather describe that doctrine in other languauge than "sinless perfection" but in words describing it as "love".

Of course they repudiate the Biblical doctrine of "sin" and redefine sin so as to be able to live above it.

So they would see it as being the blood of jesus atones/covers all prior sins, but would have to be able to live 'well enough' to qualify to have his blood in the end cover their sins moviong forward?

And didn't wesley redefine sinless operfection as NOT we are able to liveperfectly, but will be able to love as God does, and see things sin wise as he does?