Free Will and Loss of Salvation

[atpollard]

You still have not answered my question.

I did, you rejected it.
Since you will not answer my question and cannot understand my answer to your question ... we are probably finished with this conversation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I think you miss the point of the OP.

Did you not ask those who do not believe one can lose their salvation (like me) how this thinking (that salvation is eternally secure) does not negate free will?

 

[Reformed1689]

Did you not ask those who do not believe one can lose their salvation (like me) how this thinking (that salvation is eternally secure) does not negate free will?

Yes. And that is not talking about what people would desire to do as a hypothetical. It is saying if you think we are eternally secure, that means you no longer have the choice (free will) to step out of salvation. That's the point.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I did, you rejected it.
Since you will not answer my question and cannot understand my answer to your question ... we are probably finished with this conversation.

You did not answer the question if Job lost his faith or it grew. you took me to the example of two people who got stones, one who died, and one who did not. and how it relates.

Its ok.. You do not have to answer. no one is trying to force you.

Here I will answer you..

Job did not lose faith. It does not matter what his friend's thought. What matters is the truth. If Job stopped believing in God when God came to talk to him he would have ignored him Are you going to talk to something you do not believe in? Of course not!

Did Job have his faith tested? Oh yeah! And eventually in the end, His faith was stronger than it was before God tested him.

But did he lose it?

NO!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes. And that is not talking about what people would desire to do as a hypothetical. It is saying if you think we are eternally secure, that means you no longer have the choice (free will) to step out of salvation. That's the point.

That's a false misnomer though.

If A person who is truly saved would never lose faith. then the argument is mute.

Our salvation is not based on our faithfulness, Its based on Gods..

Our faith is based on our hope.. The only reason to lose faith is to lose hope. The only reason we would lose hope in God is if he proves untrustworthy..

 

[Reformed1689]

That's a false misnomer though.

If A person who is truly saved would never lose faith. then the argument is mute.

Our salvation is not based on our faithfulness, Its based on Gods..

Our faith is based on our hope.. The only reason to lose faith is to lose hope. The only reason we would lose hope in God is if he proves untrustworthy..

I understand, but I am pointing out the logical inconsistency of a certain position.

 

[atpollard]

I understand, but I am pointing out the logical inconsistency of a certain position.

… and he is presenting a “No true Scotsman” fallacy (and doesn’t care about your logical argument).

 

[37818]

T

That actually doesn't address the topic. If you have eternal security, you don't have absolute free will.

Why would anyone want to give up being saved? Exodus 32:31-32, ". . . And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. . . ."
Romans 9:2-3, ". . . That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. . . ."

 

[agedman]

That's a false misnomer though.

If A person who is truly saved would never lose faith. then the argument is mute.

Our salvation is not based on our faithfulness, Its based on Gods..

Our faith is based on our hope.. The only reason to lose faith is to lose hope. The only reason we would lose hope in God is if he proves untrustworthy..

But that really isn't answering the question.

Besides, how does one who begins with a fleshly hope and proclaims it as faith actually know for certain that they really were saved?

Would the flesh provide assurance? Maybe they had some emotionalism experience, or indigestion? Is that good enough to change hope to assurance?

Maybe they studied the Scriptures and read some verses to support some mental gymnastics, but would that be of benefit?

If faith is of the flesh, can not then such faith be swayed by discussion, what is pleasant to the ears, or who sounds like God?

Why would God hold onto someone who didn't want to be held on to?

Christ didn't in the earthly ministry did He? Is there evidence that He did?

Did He not allow those who turned away from Him to depart without comment other than asking if the core group was also going, too?

So, it is not God's faithfulness that is in question, nor the ability of God. Rather, the presentation of an example where God overruled the will of humankind to turn away from Him.

If one looses faith, that which was begun originally in the flesh as some kind of "hope" why can they not then at a later time turn away from such by placing hope in a different manner or object?

Typical Baptists would certainly claim that their initial "profession of faith" was good enough.


Why? I don't see the Scriptures supporting such an assumption, do you?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I understand, but I am pointing out the logical inconsistency of a certain position.

And I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of your attempt to prove a logical inconsistency of the view your trying to argue against.

I think You would be better off trying a different argument to support your position.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

… and he is presenting a “No true Scotsman” fallacy (and doesn’t care about your logical argument).

actually I do care about his argument.

However, his argument is not logical. Well to those outside of those trying to prove that we are not free will agents.

His argument is illogical. unless he can show HOW or WHY God will fail people to make it to the point they no longer even believe in God.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

But that really isn't answering the question.

Besides, how does one who begins with a fleshly hope and proclaims it as faith actually know for certain that they really were saved?

How is one who only has fleshly hope even saved to begin with? I can not find where anyone who has fleshy hope has ever been saved. In fact. If I remember right, Paul called them fools..

Would the flesh provide assurance? Maybe they had some emotionalism experience, or indigestion? Is that good enough to change hope to assurance?

Maybe they studied the Scriptures and read some verses to support some mental gymnastics, but would that be of benefit?

If faith is of the flesh, can not then such faith be swayed by discussion, what is pleasant to the ears, or who sounds like God?

Why would God hold onto someone who didn't want to be held on to?

Christ didn't in the earthly ministry did He? Is there evidence that He did?

Did He not allow those who turned away from Him to depart without comment other than asking if the core group was also going, too?

So, it is not God's faithfulness that is in question, nor the ability of God. Rather, the presentation of an example where God overruled the will of humankind to turn away from Him.

If one looses faith, that which was begun originally in the flesh as some kind of "hope" why can they not then at a later time turn away from such by placing hope in a different manner or object?

Typical Baptists would certainly claim that their initial "profession of faith" was good enough.


Why? I don't see the Scriptures supporting such an assumption, do you?

see here you go with the second false argument,

That a persons faith comes from the flesh. This is not so. The bible says a persons faith comes from God. It is him through creation shows himself (rom 1) It is him through his word that he tells us to search diligently, it is him through his people who spread the word. It is him through life circumstances are brought to a point they must make a decision.

The tax collector did not will himself to salvation
The tax collector did not come to the point he called out to Christ in his flesh
The tax collector did not depend on the flesh to save himself (he would have never come to this point if he did)
the tax collector became poor in spirit. And as Jesus said, he entered the kingdom.

you don't win arguments by pointing out illogical fallacies and making up things about others which do not make any sense

 

[Reformed1689]

Why would anyone want to give up being saved? Exodus 32:31-32, ". . . And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. . . ."
Romans 9:2-3, ". . . That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. . . ."

That is not the question, either address the OP as written, or don't participate in this thread.

 

[Reformed1689]

And I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of your attempt to prove a logical inconsistency of the view your trying to argue against.

I think You would be better off trying a different argument to support your position.

Answer the OP, not your opinion of what the OP should be.

 

[Reformed1689]

actually I do care about his argument.

However, his argument is not logical. Well to those outside of those trying to prove that we are not free will agents.

His argument is illogical. unless he can show HOW or WHY God will fail people to make it to the point they no longer even believe in God.

I did not say not free will agents. I said not ABSOLUTE free will agents. Stick to the OP or kindly bow out of this coversation.

 

[George Antonios]

I have a question for my free will advocates. Do you believe we can lose our salvation? If not, does that not negate your notion of free will?

That depends on the dispensation. You cannot lose it in the church age. You can lose it after the church age.
How would that negate the notion of free will?

 

[AustinC]

That depends on the dispensation. You cannot lose it in the church age. You can lose it after the church age.
How would that negate the notion of free will?

George, what passage in the Bible supports your assertion?

In order for your assertion to be true, your assumption must be true. First, you need to prove your assumption, otherwise your assertion cannot be true.

I am glad to see you call free will a "notion." It is a notion. It is not supported by exegesis. It can only be a "notion" by use of eisegesis.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That is not the question, either address the OP as written, or don't participate in this thread.

I have addressed the op as written.

You have failed to address my counter point to.

I believe in free will. I also believe in eternal security. Your question was addressed specifically to people like me.

I answered your question.

you could own up to the point you do not agree with my answer. then address why. but what you can not do is say I have failed to address your question or tell me to basically shut up.

 

[Reformed1689]

I have addressed the op as written.

You have failed to address my counter point to.

I believe in free will. I also believe in eternal security. Your question was addressed specifically to people like me.

I answered your question.

you could own up to the point you do not agree with my answer. then address why. but what you can not do is say I have failed to address your question or tell me to basically shut up.

Your couterpoint is invalid as a logical fallacy. So there is nothing to address. We aren't talking about "just free will" we are talking about ABSOLUTE free will. I also hold to free will, but the free will that exists in reality, not absolute free will as if we have equal choices without influence.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I did not say not free will agents. I said not ABSOLUTE free will agents. Stick to the OP or kindly bow out of this coversation.

lets see

I have a question for my free will advocates. Do you believe we can lose our salvation? If not, does that not negate your notion of free will?

1. You did not use the word ABSOLUTE.
2. You spoke to me, a free will advocate (agent or however you want to put it)
3. You spoke to me about believing we can NOT lose our salvation
4. You asked, does that not NEGATE my notion of free will.

you sir are not even sure of your own question.