If you are not Reformed, you cannot believe in eternal security

[HankD]

He's not saying that Arminian believers aren't eternally secure, only that there are some logical inconsistencies between Arminianism and the Biblical doctrine of eternal security that they will have trouble reconciling it.

In other words, the problem isn't with their security, but with how they articulate it.

Much better presentation IMO.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

It's part of the unspoken debate rules.

e.g. In the heat of a debate one (either side) will say "If you prayerfully and/or carefully read the scripture/OP I gave as a proof text, then you will understand what I am saying".

Thin ice with no falling through.

You have been on the receiving end.

I think some of the insults in this particular thread have broken through the ice though.

Like I said I've been guilty in the past as well.

HankD

Hmmmmm. That response begs the question. Do you drink?

 

[JonC]

Actually it is very close to the truth. There is no middle ground. You either believe in total depravity or you don't. Unconditional election or you don't. Particular atonement or you don't. Efficacious grace or you don't. Preservation of the Saints or you don't.

My point is that I could reject all five points and still not hold to Arminianism.

 

[TCassidy]

My point is that I could reject all five points and still not hold to Arminianism.

If you reject all 5 points you are a 5 point Arminian.

 

[JonC]

He's not saying that Arminian believers aren't eternally secure, only that there are some logical inconsistencies between Arminianism and the Biblical doctrine of eternal security that they will have trouble reconciling it.

In other words, the problem isn't with their security, but with how they articulate it.

I think the problem is that he is looking at Arminianism within his own theological structure. They cannot have the same basis, perhaps, as he has for the doctrine of eternal security if his is based on doctrine what they reject. But that does not mean they do not have reasons of their own.

(I do not hold to Arminianism, so I'm not answering for them but his statement is just not correct).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I beg to differ. I do not consider myself to be Reformed. Yet I do hold to the security of the Believer in Christ. IOW, I do not believe a person can "loose his\her salvation". This as "salvation" has many aspects among which are

1. Redemption - A Saved Person is bought by a price, the precious Blood of Christ. As such, there is no "Return Window" for God to get the redemption price back.
2. Adoption - We are formally made joint heirs.
3. Regeneration - We gained His Spiritual genetics. This from the Greek word used in 1 John 2:1 τεκνια. Which can be translated "my little-born ones." As with # 2, there is no formal place for disinheriting. Further, a disobedient son is still a child of his father.

 

[HankD]

Hmmmmm. That response begs the question. Do you drink?

I'll never tell

HankD

 

[Rolfe]

Re Eternal Security. John 10:28, 29 settles it in my mind.

 

[JonC]

If you reject all 5 points you are a 5 point Arminian.

If so, then both Calvinism and Arminianism do not exist beyond those five simple points.

I think we are talking about different things....Mostly because I affirm all five points but don't consider myself a Calvinist . (I know...it doesn't matter what I "consider myself").

The issue is that a man reject all five points of Calvinism AND all of the articles of the Remonstrants. What then? One side calls them a Calvinist and the other an Arminian?

Does one's understanding of the points make a difference (e.g., Calvinism seems to look at the Atonement through Penal Substitution, with Christ being punished for us individually and that applied at the cross. Luther did not hold this view. Was Martin Luther a Calvinist?).

 

[Iconoclast]

Calv1,

Here's the thing, I'm pretty sure, most, that is those who have studied, have had the word of God, who've seen the verses, and reject them, yes they are just 'professing Christians' and not saved, don't possess the Spirit of God, maybe walked down some aisle and 'Gave themselves to a King", but I think some are here who don't fully understand, and will eventually come to the truth. So we have to be here for them.

If you believe what you say you believe than you cannot make this kind of judgment against any person on here.
People learn at different rates , but a man can receive nothing unless it is given to him from heaven.
How can you refer to someone who professes to be saved by the blood of Jesus..."vomit"???? I know too many people who opposed the truths of grace who have come to embrace them.
I have opposed several men who are posting here, yet if a JW comes in denying Christ is God, to a man they will defend bible truth of the deity of Jesus.

You cannot just insult everyone one minute, then expect things to just be peachy keen the next.

 

[Iconoclast]

There are men who oppose truth who are not going to heaven.
There are men who profess truth who are going to perish....
God alone can see the heart.
When you see men posting in opposition to the truth....make a scriptural case for the truth.
I did not see people posting against you personally....that can and does happen, but looks as if you opened fire here.... why is that?

 

[Iconoclast]

What if God is not finished working with these men you wish to reject?

If you cannot love them for who they are now,love them for who they will be when glorified.

 

[TCassidy]

I affirm all five points but don't consider myself a Calvinist

I affirm all five point and do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with the 5 points.

The issue is that a man reject all five points of Calvinism AND all of the articles of the Remonstrants. What then?

Unbeliever?

 

[JonC]

Unbeliever?

Do you think that how these points are defined have a bearing as well? Suppose I affirm all five points of Calvinism but I reject Penal Substitution. Would my definition (or application?) of the points depart from Calvinism itself?

Martin Luther, for example, taught that the Atonement was a payment and satisfaction made to “remit the punishment and wrath” of God towards man. Jesus took our place, assumed our sins, and answered for mankind as if He were guilty of our sin. Jesus’ righteousness “outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account” and his “merit is so great that God is not satisfied.” (Luther, Sermons vol. 2, p. 334).

At first glance this fits within how Calvinism is often explained. Jesus took upon Himself the punishment of those who are saved, thereby atoning for their sins. But this is not at all what Luther taught. His position was substitution, but it was not penal in the sense that it consisted of the punishments of the elect inflicted on the Son.

This may be a minor difference (but I don’t think so). But it is a difference between Calvin and Luther. And it does present a difference in how the “scope of the atonement” is defined. Was Martin Luther a Calvinist?

 

[TCassidy]

Would my definition (or application?) of the points depart from Calvinism itself?

I don't know. I am not talking about Calvinism. I am talking about the 5 points (heads of doctrine) of Particular Redemption.

What Calvin believed is irrelevant to me. What Luther believed is irrelevant to me. What the bible teaches is all that is relevant to me and John 6 makes the 5 points very, very clear.

 

[tyndale1946]

Hmmmmm. That response begs the question. Do you drink?

I only do according to scripture for medicinal purposes... Brother Glen

1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

 

[TCassidy]

I only do according to scripture for medicinal purposes.

My dad, an Irishman, used to say he only drank to protect himself from snake bite. My mother reminded him there were no snakes in Ireland. He replied, "See! It works!"

 

[HankD]

John 10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.

I was a Catholic (but saved) when I first read this passage - all doubt, fear left my heart and mind I then knew my church (at the time) was wrong about purgatory, mortal sin, etc. I was safe.

Didn't even know there was a "calvin".

HankD

 

[JonC]

I don't know. I am not talking about Calvinism. I am talking about the 5 points (heads of doctrine) of Particular Redemption.

What Calvin believed is irrelevant to me. What Luther believed is irrelevant to me. What the bible teaches is all that is relevant to me and John 6 makes the 5 points very, very clear.

You once told me that words had specific meanings, and I’m just trying to narrow this down. I think we are working off different definitions. Still, it doesn't make sense to me that to reject the five points is to accept the five articles (because many here have rejected both).

Here is my thought process....step in my head for a minute...watch you step and don't touch anything... you don't know where it's been :

1. Calvinism was never the only, or even necessarily always the predominant, theological position. During John Calvin’s time it existed alongside other Reformed positions as well as “Anabaptist” positions.

2. James Arminius disputed predestination. This grew into Arminianism. The five points of Calvinism were a rebuttal of the articles of the Remonstrance.

3. Calvinism, and Arminianism (which is of Calvinistic trajectory) combined do not incorporate all of Christianity because Calvinism did not, prior to Arminianism, incorporate all of Christianity.

4. Not everyone belongs to either Calvinism or Arminianism. A rejection of the articles does not make one a Calvinist, and a rejection of the five points doesn’t make one Arminian.


Here is another example. Arminianism holds man is “in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good, such as saving faith eminently is; but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good” (Article 3). Regenerate man himself, “without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptation to evil.” (Article 4).

These articles define Arminianism as distinctive from Calvinism (assuming the rest of Calvinistic doctrine). But they do define Arminianism. If I do not believe two points that define a thing, then I don’t believe the thing. If I do not accept those two points then I reject Arminianism.

If I believe that man has the power to turn to God, unassisted, then I’ve rejected Arminianism. I believe that I would also have rejected Calvinism.

 

[tyndale1946]

My dad, an Irishman, used to say he only drank to protect himself from snake bite. My mother reminded him there were no snakes in Ireland. He replied, "See! It works!"

Is it folklore rumor or is it true St. Patrick ran the snakes out of Ireland?... I'm Scottish/Irish and anyone that can get rid of snakes... They give me the willies... Is a friend of mine... Kind of like the Piped-piper of Hamlin... Rats give me the willies too... So fess up T.C. what do you put in your coffee to give it that true Irish flavor... Huh!... Brother Glen