Eternal Security On What Basis?

No, but I did choose to be born again, and nothing in this world can change the fact that I now am in the family of God. God will not disown his own children. I am an heir of God and joint-heir with Jesus Christ. I am a child of God. I have the right to call him Father, and there is nothing that can change that.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

Amen, Brother James_Newman -- Preach it! :thumbs:

John 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his
only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth
in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

What ever the meaning of: // whosoeuer beleeueth
in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life //
I say it means ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER.

 

The basis of our eternal security is not in us or anything that we do. It is in God himself and in the Son.

John 10:28 "...no one can snatch them out of MY hand."
I Tim 1:12 "...HE is able to KEEP that which I've committed..."
Ro 11:29 "..the gifts and calling of God are without repentance..."
Ro 8:29-30 "..whom He calls He justifies..."
Ro 8:34 "...who shall separate us from the love of God?..."

 

Amen! All I know is God said whoever called upon Him would be saved, He said come, and I came, He said take my yoke upon you, I took it, He said for by grace you can be saved through faith, I put my faith in Him and in His grace He forgave me, He said, repent, I repented.

Now all these things happen together, but break them down and they all occur. Couple that with Tom's post and I think you have a basis for eternal security.

 

natural childbirth is a very poor analogy of the new birth in Christ. It doesn't even equate into the fallacy of "free-willism".

Some need to read the book of Job and understand the absolute sovereignty of God in dealing with choices made by man under the permissive will of God, but always under His sovereign choices.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim1999, you are right, as usual.

Please allow this brief digression. I see by your profile that you have a birthday coming up on Friday. I will leave it to you to reveal the number. An early congratulations.

 

Could Job not have just cursed God and died? The fallacy is in assuming that God cannot have absolute sovereignty while still allowing man to have free will. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

...but the fallacy of getting on and off a train is a good analogy? :laugh:

 

It is a better example of free willism...I can choose to get on or off the train, whilst I cannot decide to be born or not. Doesn't take a genius to get that.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't think what you call 'free-willism' is what I call eternal security.

 

Can you get off the train if God seals the doors and windows shut (no man being able to pluck us from God's hand)? The birthing analogy is flawed (as are all analogies) because even though one cannot choose to be born, one can choose to die, which pertaining to salvation, is not true.

 

Since the gifts and calling are without repentance, and since salvation is a gift, I believe I can safely say I am saved and cannot lose my salvation.

I am persuaded that He has sealed me with His Holy Spirit of promise and no man, not even myself, can break that seal. He is faithful who promised, and since He said 'He that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out', I have assurance that He will not cast me away.

 

Eternal security built upon anything other than faith in the saving grace of the Blood is going to fail for eternity.

 

To say that Saul/Paul had no choice once he got knocked off of his high horse on the road to Damascus is not a true statement.

When the Spirit reveals to man that he is in sin, man has two choices. He can heed the Spirit and accept Christ as Savior and Lord, or he can hear the Spirit and reject Christ.

Even after Christ revealed Himself to Saul, he could have rejected Him.

 

Believing in Calvinism (or in free will for that matter) does not save you. Do you actually believe that id you accept the "Theology of Grace" that that will save you? We are saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior.

 

Eternal Security On What Basis?
IPeter 1:5 "Who are KEPT by the POWER of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

 

Christ is the only basis.

All others are imposters.

 

Whew!!!!My, my we ARE testy today. If I am correct in my stipulation that calvinists believe that when man died spiritually in the garden he lost his ability to choose to receive Christ. My point is......he (man) did not become unable to choose God as Adam was forced out of the garden. Adam wanted to be with God, Adam wanted God in his life, Adam was choosing God and in his will he was saying......I dont want to leave this place, this is where God is, this is where He spoke to me and gave me the things I needed for life, for the Bible says God "drove" Adam from the garden.
The Calvinists stipulate that man is "Totally Depraved" (sic) therefore unable to choose God. Adam was choosing God all the way out the gate folks.

StraightandNarrow - One of my best friends in life was a primitive Baptist man. He loved God. He sought after God. He lived a precious and holy life striving to decide if he was one of the elect or not. One day I would visit with him and he would be doing great in spirit and mind and then the next he would be despondent and groveling. I was with him when his 30 year old son was found dead in one of his barns. His son drank himself to death. I ask him if he ever witnessed to him of the grace of God and the blood of Christ and he stated that it was not important because God elects and calls and gives gifts and saves and seals whom He will, all others are eternally damned. My statements to Helen were absolutely tongue in cheek and drawn from my experience with a true calvinist.

 

Uhm...Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists, nor do they claim to be, since they recognize where they differ from Calvinists. Although there are similarites in beliefs, one of the main differences--and it's a biggie--is that Calvinists believe that God uses means to accomplish what he predestines, and some (not all) primitive baptists believe that God doesn't necessarily use means to accomplish what he predestines. Therefore, there's no need, according to those Primitive Baptists for sharing the gospel, for instance, because it doesn't matter whether the elect believe, they'll be saved anyway. But that's NOT CALVINISM, so it's a little strange for you to call a Primitive Baptist a TRUE Calvinist.