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

[Calv1]

There is only ONE WAY to have certainty that one that day or period that you KNEW you were saved, that you would make it to glory, is if you believe the truth of Reformed Theology.

I think Arminians have never really thought out what they believe, even if they haven't thought the following, if you are Armininian;

1. You came to Christ, and stayed with Christ because you were either better or smarter, or in better circumstances then your neighbor, your salvation ultimately depends on you and circumstances, God's heart broke, His love once in your heart, now having to turn on you and hate you.
2. That the Jews and Romans may have never crucified Christ. If the Jews and Romans operated off free will, the Jews might have made Him King, or Pilate might have said "Nope, not doing it, that dream scared me", so God, frustrated, would have to keep trying, maybe it would NEVER HAPPEN.
3. You can't pray for unbelievers. For by doing so you are asking God to violate their free will, asking God to "take out their heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh" as He promised He would do. Also since God is supposedly pulling out all stops anyways, what more can He do? Only with a God who acts among His people can prayer have any effect.
4. Since you do not believe in substitutionary atonement, and deny God imputes Christ's righteousness to us, you have this idea of penal substitution, that is Christ's sacrifice is adequate for all, He didn't really die for anyone. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NNE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED, and still possible, for what if all fell away on their own free will?
5. You make God a unjust judge, one that judges the same sin twice. According to you He died for every single person on planet earth, so He died for say Hitler, God punished Hitlers sins, then when Hitler died God judged Hitlers sins again.
6. Jesus could fail as High Priest. You accept Christ, yet you start sinning, you make up some imaginary line that God says "OK that's it, can't stand it anymore", and even though Christ, who has "Perfected once for all" you, you really aren't perfect, Christ begs the Father, the Father says "No we can't violate this mans free will, it's just insane, so you know it's a resurgence of the Church of Romes theology, both synergistic, both leave the outcome with man and not God, both get credit.
7. We can never be sure of Scripture. Hey men with free will make mistakes, for all you know Paul and Peter made mistakes.
8. God could never chastise you; Hebrews 12, Rev 4.. How can God "Correct you", "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are not sons but illegitimate", nope God can't correct you, for according to you (Not in Scripture), you have free will He'll never violate.
9. Definite atonement never happened. Christ didn't die for His sheep, Christ didn't keep all those the Father gave Him. Since Christ didn't die SPECIFICALLY FOR YOUR SINS, AND SINCE GOD DIDN'T IMPUTE CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS TO YOU, all you have is a satisfied God, but you are not righteous, so no heir in Heaven.

Arminianism is a wacky, crazy THEORY invented in response to the right teaching of the Reformation from Luther and Calvin, and many others, these are just the famous men. There is so much more but I'm tired.

When God says "God has opened lydias heart so that she could understood what was said" can't be true, for God is violating her will by opening her heart, let's look at how often God affects our free will;

1. Nebuchadnezzar, God turned his mind into that of a animal. The Pagan King is Reformed, for check out His statement of God.
2, The Jews: Isaiah wrote "Lord, why have you hardened our hearts so that we fear you not"
3. "I have reserved 7000 for myself.
4. "I prevented him from sinning against Me"
5. I will harden Pharaohs heart, 6 chapters later we read for the FIRST TIME "Pharaoh hardened his heart"
6. "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", "That was NOT revealed from the flesh, but from my Father"
7. "So the Lord turned the Ammorites hearts to hate the Israelite's so that they might make war and be utterly destroyed"
8. "The Kings heart is like streams of water in the hands of the Lord, He TURNS IT ANY WAY HE WISHES"
9. "Thoughts belong to man, but every word is of the Lord"
10. "Shall we receive good from the Lord and not Evil", (with all of this Job did not sin with his mouth)
11. "Who makes the rich, who creates the poor, is it not I says the Lord"
12. Before creating His bride Israel "I'm about to act, but I do it for My Name Sake, for how shall my name be blasphemed". It would be blasphemous for a perfect God to do good to evil, EVERYTHING HE DOES HE DOES FOR HIS NAME SAKE.
13. That God is unfair to only get Scripture to some, and to allow billions to be lost due to lack of knowledge, "Believing comes by the word of God", since God deprives the Chinese, Iranians, etc. when He could put a bible on each table is unfair, I don't think it's unfair, just blasting those who think it's unfair that God saves some rebels and justly sentences the others.

What bothers me most, and why I changed from Arminian to Calvinist, is that I BELIEVE GODS WORD, DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE TO ME, IT'S CALLED FAITH, I think often it's ego "I decide if I'm saved or not", but I think most run right into Paul's trap Romans 9 "It isn't fair", but see if Arminianism were true, it's even less fair, for there are BILLIONS who don't even have a bible, God can provide one, BUT HE DOESN'T, THEREBY CONDEMNING THEM TO HELL BY OMISSION.

When we go from man centerness to God centerness everything makes more sense. The Bible is not about us, or even salvation, it's about GOD.

OK too tired, this is a horrible job, if you really knew the insanity of Arminianism, you'd learn the faith as espoused in Scripture.

 

[Deacon]

I'm not a follower of Reformed Theology.

...and you're saying I CAN'T have assurance?​

so.....

... assurance of salvation can only be found in John Calvin and in no other name?​

Rob

 

[JonC]

Arminianism is a Reformed theology, although it departs from Beza’s systematizing of Calvin’s works. During Arminius’ lifetime his ideas were debated but there were populations within Calvinism that concluded his teachings were not such a distortion as to depart from what would be considered orthodox Calvinism. The issue was not free-will but predestination and Theodore Beza’s placement of predestination within Calvinism.

The doctrine of eternal security can exist within Classic Arminianism quite easily. Those who believe God chose and predestined people based on a pre-knowledge of conversion can certainly believe this choice irrevocable.

Another point I'd make is that we are looking at the doctrine of the security of the believer wrong by focusing on man rather than God. Eternal security is not our assurance that we will be kept but our assurance that He is able and willing to keep those who are saved. We know that we are saved by our walk with God and by examining that walk. We know that we are secure in that salvation because Christ is God, and He is able.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think someone is still in the cage stage.

 

[Revmitchell]

GODS WORD, DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE

The clarion call of the Calvinist.

 

[StefanM]

People can, and they do all the time.

 

[JonC]

I believe @Revmitchell is another example (please correct me if I am wrong, revmitch, it's been awhile since you and I have "talked" and my memory isn't the best). If I remember correctly, he belongs to neither camp (Calvinism and Arminianism) and does not consider election to be individual. Instead he believes election to be corporate (God has a chosen people, the Church). But this does not mean he, by necessity or logic, rejects the idea that those among this population are secure in Christ as he may believe in regeneration.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe @Revmitchell is another example (please correct me if I am wrong, revmitch, it's been awhile since you and I have "talked" and my memory isn't the best). If I remember correctly, he belongs to neither camp (Calvinism and Arminianism) and does not consider election to be individual. Instead he believes election to be corporate (God has a chosen people, the Church). But this does not mean he, by necessity or logic, rejects the idea that those among this population are secure in Christ as he may believe in regeneration.

No you got it right.

 

[Yeshua1]

The clarion call of the Calvinist.

Not really, as still waiting to have someone show real free will still exists for those now slaves to sin!

 

[Calv1]

I'm not a follower of Reformed Theology.

...and you're saying I CAN'T have assurance?​

so.....

... assurance of salvation can only be found in John Calvin and in no other name?​

Rob

Has nothing to do with john Calvin or Martin Luther, it has to do with what you believe, and yes, you can have NO ASSURANCE. Since salvation is ultimately up to you, you determine whether you'll make it to the end or not, 'He who endures to the end will be saved', Gee hope you are smart/determined/Good enough!!!!

 

[Calv1]

Arminianism is a Reformed theology, although it departs from Beza’s systematizing of Calvin’s works. During Arminius’ lifetime his ideas were debated but there were populations within Calvinism that concluded his teachings were not such a distortion as to depart from what would be considered orthodox Calvinism. The issue was not free-will but predestination and Theodore Beza’s placement of predestination within Calvinism.

The doctrine of eternal security can exist within Classic Arminianism quite easily. Those who believe God chose and predestined people based on a pre-knowledge of conversion can certainly believe this choice irrevocable.

Another point I'd make is that we are looking at the doctrine of the security of the believer wrong by focusing on man rather than God. Eternal security is not our assurance that we will be kept but our assurance that He is able and willing to keep those who are saved. We know that we are saved by our walk with God and by examining that walk. We know that we are secure in that salvation because Christ is God, and He is able.

Wrong, try again. Yes the synergist can be assured if YOU WORK, but since God has no say so in your salvation, its ultimately up to you, and you never know you can have a "Job" experience, and what arrogance to say 'oh i'd be fine", no you have NO ASSURANCE, you were the one determining salvation, you are the one determining whether you'll stay.

BTW Arminius was more Church or Rome than Protestant, as are modern liberal Baptists. Funny saw a debate Dr James White vs Roman Catholic on eternal security, the Catholic sounded EXACTLY like a liberal Baptist, and you ARE ON THEIR SIDE. Luther Himself said Free Will was the main point difference between Rome and the Protestants (Bondage of the Will), to be clear, in regards to soteriology, non-reformed Christians agree more with Rome on the weightier matters, and if on a debate stage you'd have to take their side. Only true Reformed Theology is unique among all world Religions, islam, Mormonism, liberal Baptists, doesn't matter, all the same, ALL OUR SYNERGISTIC, the Bible is MONERGISTIC, so sad you won't follow it!

 

[Calv1]

Not really, as still waiting to have someone show real free will still exists for those now slaves to sin!

You'll be waiting along time! 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.

 

[Calv1]

I believe @Revmitchell is another example (please correct me if I am wrong, revmitch, it's been awhile since you and I have "talked" and my memory isn't the best). If I remember correctly, he belongs to neither camp (Calvinism and Arminianism) and does not consider election to be individual. Instead he believes election to be corporate (God has a chosen people, the Church). But this does not mean he, by necessity or logic, rejects the idea that those among this population are secure in Christ as he may believe in regeneration.

If someone says they don't not believe in either camp they know not of which they speak.

 

[Calv1]

The clarion call of the Calvinist.

Hey, don't EVER do that, that's a flat out lie, misquoting me as if I meant that sentence in isolation. Do you guys not care about lying, aren't we Christians here? My point was that we don't go off our own understanding, but trust in the Lord, we can't trust our thoughts, emotions, our only guide is God's revelation to us.

 

[Rob_BW]

Hey, don't EVER do that, that's a flat out lie, misquoting me as if I meant that sentence in isolation. Do you guys not care about lying, aren't we Christians here? My point was that we don't go off our own understanding, but trust in the Lord, we can't trust our thoughts, emotions, our only guide is God's revelation to us.

So do you believe God's word must make sense to man, or not?

If your answer affirms what Revmitchell snipped, it's not much of a misquote or lie, from where I'm looking.

 

[Rolfe]

If someone says they don't not believe in either camp they know not of which they speak.

Proof that reason and good sentence structure is not a requirement to post on the Baptist Board...

 

[Calv1]

So do you believe God's word must make sense to man, or not?

If your answer affirms what Revmitchell snipped, it's not much of a misquote or lie, from where I'm looking.

God treats man as rational creatures who, by the aide of His Spirit can discern His word. My worry is that many without the Spirit of God are on this forum making dogmatic falsehoods. The authors of the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions were not your ordinary theologians, back in those days to even qualify to take classes for your Doctorate you had to do more than know Greek well, you had to debate in it well, so when I see biblically illiterate men attack what they don't know, it draws concern.

And no, the bible is clear, what does 1 Cor 2:14 say? "The Natural man is UNABLE to understand the things of God, they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them for they are spiritually discerned".

So no, I do not think the average "Joe" can understand the things of God, this verse makes it clear the natural man is UNABLE to understand them, only when God has regenerated a person are they able to understand the things of God.

 

[Calv1]

Proof that reason and good sentence structure is not a requirement to post on the Baptist Board...

Is that all you have? Little dog barking at the big bears feet? It is good sentence structure, sorry you're not well read enough to see what I did with that, and even if i did make a grammatical error is that all you have? Yes because you are clueless, vomited garbage that you don't even understand.

 

[Rob_BW]

God treats man as rational creatures who, by the aide of His Spirit can discern His word. My worry is that many without the Spirit of God are on this forum making dogmatic falsehoods. The authors of the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions were not your ordinary theologians, back in those days to even qualify to take classes for your Doctorate you had to do more than know Greek well, you had to debate in it well, so when I see biblically illiterate men attack what they don't know, it draws concern.

And no, the bible is clear, what does 1 Cor 2:14 say? "The Natural man is UNABLE to understand the things of God, they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them for they are spiritually discerned".

So no, I do not think the average "Joe" can understand the things of God, this verse makes it clear the natural man is UNABLE to understand them, only when God has regenerated a person are they able to understand the things of God.

Looks like we agree on a fair amount.

 

[Rob_BW]

Is that all you have? Little dog barking at the big bears feet? It is good sentence structure, sorry you're not well read enough to see what I did with that, and even if i did make a grammatical error is that all you have? Yes because you are clueless, vomited garbage that you don't even understand.