Once saved, always saved??

[Ed Edwards]

The following is said of Salvation at
the SOF (statement of faith) page of this
Baptist Board (BB):

IV. Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.


Please notice that each of regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification
is done BY GOD. Of course, we have to cooperate
with God in these matters.
Regeneration is a work of God in us.
Justification is a work of God in us.
Sanctification is a work of God in us.
Glorification is a work of God in us.

If we have been Regenerated and Justified,
would God then fail to Sanctify us?
I rather think not.
If we have been Regenerated and Justified,
woill God then fail to Sanctify us?
I rather think not.

Still, if you live like the devil,
then the devil is your father.

[ August 05, 2004, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

[/b]There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. [/b]

There is no regeneration salvation apart
from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
There is no justification salvation apart from
personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
There is no sanctification salvation
apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ
as Lord.
There is no glorification salvation apart
from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Eternal life starts out eternal, is eternal
in the middle, is eternal at the end -
oh "eternal at the end" doesn't make sense,
eternal life has no end -- eternal life
is always eternal!

 

[natters]

Trotter said "It boils down to the question of whether you think God is big enough to hang on to us."

I think God is big enough to hang on to us. God is also big enough to let people fall away if that's what they choose to do.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

The whole premise of losing your salvation is false. It is God who saves us, in spite of ourselves; it is God who keeps us saved, in spite of ourselves.

If I am unable to save myself, in the first place, I am unable to keep my self saved.

If I believed in the possibility of losing my salvation, I would ask God to kill me before this happens. In fact, it would be to my advantage if God killed me the moment I was saved, that would be the safe thing for me.

Heb 13:5
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. (KJV)

Thank God, if I walk away from Jesus, he will follow me wherever I go. Praise God!

 

[natters]

Terry_Harrington said "The whole premise of losing your salvation is false."

Well that's what the debate is about.

"If I am unable to save myself, in the first place, I am unable to keep my self saved."

I agree. We don't keep ourselves saved. We only have to keep the requirements of the new covenant - God keeps us saved.

"If I believed in the possibility of losing my salvation, I would ask God to kill me before this happens. In fact, it would be to my advantage if God killed me the moment I was saved, that would be the safe thing for me."

The same argument could be made for aborting babies.

"I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

That is true. God will always remain faithful to the covenant. But both sides need to be faithful to a covenant for that covenant to remain intact.

"I walk away from Jesus, he will follow me wherever I go. Praise God!"

Yes, this is very comforting. The Shepherd will look for the sheep that goes astray. But sometimes the sheep willingly runs away and is devoured by wolves before the shepherd find him.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
The doctrine of once saved, always saved is almost exclusively a post-reformation doctrine.

So? Indulgences and the celebate priesthood are pre-reformation doctrines... does that make them true.

The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers very clearly taught conditional rather than eternal security.

You write this as if they were a monolithic group... they weren't. Please cite proofs for any that you feel are relevant. But please keep in mind that theirs are interpretations of scripture just like ours.

In the 5th century we find the first teaching suggesting the doctrine of eternal security, but not the doctrine as it is taught today in most Baptist churches.

That is, of course, if you don't count the NT writers- in particular, Paul.

Today, the large majority of Bible scholars still reject the doctrine of once saved, always saved. The primary exceptions are those of the Reformed and Baptist denominations, as well as most Calvary Chapel churches and the churches that have sprung up out of that movement. The Roman Catholic Church, all of the Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc.) Churches, the Lutheran Churches, the Methodist Churches, the Anglican Churches, the Nazarene Church, the Assemblies of God, the Church of God of Cleveland Tennessee, the Church of God in Christ, the Apostolic Faith Church, and most other denominations all teach conditional security.

I like the side of the debate you have put me on since some of these religions teach clearly false sotierology.

The doctrine of eternal security as it is typically taught today has its roots in the teachings of John Calvin and his views regarding the sovereignty of God. Prior to John Calvin, the verses that are now understood to teach eternal security were understood very differently.

No. It originated with the NT.

Again, you have made an unqualified assertion that everyone prior to this or that or them disagreed with eternal security.

But even so, there are many passages in the New Testament that trouble some of those who believe in eternal security. Zane Hodges, for example, teaches that Matt. 25:30

There are more that give trouble to those who would make salvation conditional upon the good will of man.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"Yes, this is very comforting. The Shepherd will look for the sheep that goes astray. But sometimes the sheep willingly runs away and is devoured by wolves before the shepherd find him."

Regular sheep maybe but not Christ's sheep!

There are verses frequently cited for and against eternal security. The answer lies not in quoting this or that verse but in understanding scripture as a whole. I think that while many can "fall away" - this generally describes those who were never REALLY Christ's. Look at Heb 6:7-9 and 2 Pet 2:22 for an example. The understanding we get of salvation is that of something which causes a permanent change and is like a passage from death to life.

 

[Eutychus]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
The doctrine of once saved, always saved is almost exclusively a post-reformation doctrine.
-----------------

Actually, the NT scripture made a better case for perserverance than did the Reformers. They simply rediscovered that which the RCC obscurred.

 

[Eutychus]

"Yes, this is very comforting. The Shepherd will look for the sheep that goes astray. But sometimes the sheep willingly runs away and is devoured by wolves before the shepherd find him."


That must be another reference to the obscure book of Hezekiah. The Lord's parables on the topic did not give such a scenario...

 

[GODzThunder]

The doctrine of eternal security as it is typically taught today has its roots in the teachings of John Calvin and his views regarding the sovereignty of God. Prior to John Calvin, the verses that are now understood to teach eternal security were understood very differently.

I am sorry but you can find the issue of eternal security being debated in the chronicles of the "ante-nicean fathers." This council existed long before the birth of Jonn Calvin and even before the existance of the modern Cahtolic Church.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I am sorry but you can find the issue of eternal security being debated in the chronicles of the "ante-nicean fathers." This council existed long before the birth of Jonn Calvin and even before the existance of the modern Cahtolic Church.

This post is 100% fictitious.

 

[GODzThunder]

it is fictious that the ante-nicene fathers debated the doctrine of eternal security in 325AD? I think not, book IV article III. of the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers.

 

[HeLeft9941]

May I remind us once again that we are not having this discussion to tear each other down or make make one opinion better than the other.

With that said, I'd like to think everyone for their input! It's an interesting read. I look forward to more!

 

[Stratiotes]

If I have nothing to do with my salvation (and I don't) then I fail to see how I could have anything to do with losing it. If it is God's grace alone that saves me initially then it must be his grace alone that preserves me.

 

[natters]

Stratiotes said "If I have nothing to do with my salvation (and I don't) then I fail to see how I could have anything to do with losing it."

You DID have something to do with it: you had to believe and have faith in Christ. That's our side of the covenant. Yes, God's grace saved you, but you received that grace through faith. That's why the New Testament repeatedly exhorts us to remain faithful, stay believing, endure.

Charles Meadows said "Regular sheep maybe but not Christ's sheep!" and Eutychus said "That must be another reference to the obscure book of Hezekiah. The Lord's parables on the topic did not give such a scenario..."

Luke 8:13, Heb 3:12, Heb 10:38, 1 Tim 1:19-20, 1 Tim 5:15, 2 Pet 2:20-22, 2 Pet 3:17. No need for Hezekiah.

Chris Meadows said "I think that while many can "fall away" - this generally describes those who were never REALLY Christ's."

One cannot fall away from a place they never were. Falling away, by definition, means they WERE in Christ.

Chris Meadows said "The understanding we get of salvation is that of something which causes a permanent change and is like a passage from death to life."

The understanding throughout the New Testament ("New Covenant") is that salvation is a covenant. It is intended to be permanent, and will remain intact while both parties are faithful to the covenant. Christ will always be faithful, but man sometimes breaks the covenant.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Natters said:
One cannot fall away from a place they never were. Falling away, by definition, means they WERE in Christ.

I 100% agree. But now you would have to examine the phrase "fall away" to see whether it has to do with salvation or reward. Whether it is a falling away for absolute eternity or if it is a temporal falling away.


Lacy

 

[Russ Kelly]

As long as it is clearly taught in the Word of God, what difference does it make that Calvin had to re-discover it?

Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. NASU

Once God has called (by election or otherwise) and given the gift of sonship/adoption as witnessed by the seal of the Holy Spirit, THEN, God cannot and will not change his calling and withdraw his gift.

Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. NASU

Those who do not accept once-saved-always-saved are confused about the difference between justification and sanctification. "Hs perfected for all time" is JUSTIFICATION which cannot be added to or reduced.

One who has truly been elected and justified cannot fall away from the RELATIONSHIP of grace, but can only fall away from FELLOWSHIP. This is where many oveerlook the word, "fellowship" in the "confess your sins" text of 1st John 1:9; compare verses 3 and 6.

Also, I suspect that at least one of those in this thread arguing against once-saved-always-saved is not a Baptist and is "falling away" from God's will merely by pretending to be a Baptist to infiltrate our discussion.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Natters,

"One cannot fall away from a place they never were. Falling away, by definition, means they WERE in Christ."

Not necessarily! We all know someone who bumped his/her nose on an altar and was gung ho for about a month and then was gone, back in the ways of the world like nothing ever happened. In our eyes this person "fell away"; he/she was part of our community and then left. As 2 Peter 2:22 says the dog returns to its vomit. Was this person ever really saved or was he/she going through the motions? Based on verses like 2 Pet 2:22 and Heb 6:7-9 I think this refers to those who fellowshipped with us for a while but left since they were not really of us - never REALLY saved.

 

[Russ Kelly]

Craigbythesea (alias Seventh-day Adventist)

Please tell us where we can subscribe to an SDA forum like BaptistBoard.com as HONEST Baptists and discuss your SDA their theology in detail?

Please stop the charade! Ellen G. White never instructed SDAs to infiltrate other churches to subvert their doctrines.

 

[Craigbythesea]

it is fictious that the ante-nicene fathers debated the doctrine of eternal security in 325AD? I think not, book IV article III. of the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers.

There is no "book IV article III. of the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers." Several Ante-Nicene Church Fathers explicitly taught conditional security, but they did not argue for that position because it was the only position until the 5th century. If you don't own a hard copy of the writing of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, they are available on line for free. I don’t know whose mumbo-jumbo you are referring to in your posts, but that is all that it is. Check out the writing for yourself and you will see that I am telling you the truth.