Security of the Believer Beliefs

[drfuss]

Sounds circular.

Arminians would require belief for salvation and would define ASSURANCE of salvation as the process whereby a BELIEVER "in Christ" (as opposed to the believer in security for example) finds confirmation of his current acceptance with Christ and being born-again.

But instead of referring to assurance the document you quote refers to "security". And then states "those who believe in security rely on their belief IN security to have continued security". It is sorta like saying "you can believe you win the lottery as long as you believe you win the lottery". Circular rather than substantive.

Having said that - 3 and 5 point Calvinists (reformed) have this concept of "assurance retro deleted" for those that do not "persevere" as the NT text says that a NT SAINT must do.

BTW - most Arminians are "2 point Cavlinists" when it comes to total depravity and perseverance.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,
One of the objectives of the OP was to demonstrate that classifying Christians as Calvinists/Arminians, has lead to false information on what various Christians believe. This has gone so far that the New Unger's Bible Dictionary has actually documented the wrong information about the beliefs of people they consider Arminians (Non-Calvinists).

I see that you are doing the same thing, speaking for "all Arminians". Has anyone checked the actual statements of faith of the denominations that are considered by the Calvinists to be "Arminian" to see what they actually believe?

I, like many others on BB, refuse to consider myself either Calvinist or Arminian. This system has lead to too many misconceptions and false informantion about what others believe.

 

[BobRyan]

I find that the term 3,4,5 point calvinist has specific meaning as it is applied to the classic TULIP. Holding to those same ideas but not wanting to be called a 3 point Calvinist (for example) serves no purpose.

Call yourself "reformed" or "covenant reformed" or whatever - but if in the end you still come down on the same points of the TULIP as a 5 pointer or as a 3 pointer - I prefer the reference to the "points" since that spells it out in terms of those specific doctrines.

As I said - even many Arminians could be considered as TWO point Calvinists when it comes to Total Depravity and to Perseverance of the saints.

Having said that - I certainly argee tha I find Arminians here who would not hold to those two points either.

In my case I claim to be Arminian as does the entire denomination to which I belong - but I have no trouble identifying "to some degree" with the T, and P of the TULIP. I am not wary of being "pinned down" on those points.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And of course if the truth were to be told I hold to Limited Atonement in the pure 1 John 2:2 and Lev 16 technical sense but not in the popular sense in which it is used by Calvinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

How long are you going to throw those verses so far out of context?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

Correction - I ALWAYS use them IN proper context!

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock:

#1. CHrist on the OUTSIDE - lost humanity alone on the INSIDE.
#2. Christ is not opening the door - He is only knocking and waiting. (Drawing ALL mankind unto Him)
#3. The invitation is in the form of a knock - NOT in the form of OPENING the door and coming in but WAITING and knocking!

Rev 3:20

if any man hear my voice, and open the door,

The gating action is very simple. Having STARTED with Christ taking the inititiative and knocking - the NEXT gate is "IF ANY of mankind" alone and on the inside WITHOUT Chirst -- chooses to hear AND to OPEN the door THEN the desired union will take place!

The next action is Christ’s - HE WILL come in -- and UNION With Christ Takes place. Note the details IN the text where Union WITH Christ is the focus!

Rev 3

I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Those who deny this goal - the objective of Christ in Knocking -- the goal of UNION WITH Christ -- deny the entire Gospel invitation of Rev 3:22!
Why deny the Gospel "just for Calvinism"? Why not embrace the truth instead?

See friends -- Be willing to quote the text and show how EACH salient point IN the illustration is showing the Gospel truth!!


Salvation is “individual” the remedy is “individual” the people IN the church of Laodicea are in fact “individuals” with the spiritual condition described, and in need of taking the “action” described – individually – to obtain the “individual solution” described IN the text in “individual” terms.

Note – the “individual terms” continue –

Rev 3
21 " He who overcomes, I will grant to HIM to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 " He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

It is NOT just the Laodiceans that will enjoy God's company and sit with Christ - but ALL who open the door.

At times – the Calvinist approach is to imagine “the door of the CHURCH” is closed to Christ and all on the inside of the church are “without Christ” – all on the inside are “spiritually blind, wretched, poor, miserable and spiritually naked” without the robe of Christ. Then in that view – one of the members is asked to “let Christ into the church” since He is outside the door of the church knocking. But in that case the “result” would be that only to that One – is fellowship restored – the REST would remain – spewed out – miserable and lost since the language of the solution shows that “I with HIM and HE with ME” is the nature of this 1-to-1 solution.

Calvinism’s attempted rework of the text is not possible.

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew Henry
http://www.godrules.net/library/henry/henryrev3.htm


14-22 Laodicea was the last and worst of the seven churches of Asia. Here our Lord Jesus styles himself, "The Amen;" one steady and unchangeable in all his purposes and promises. If religion is worth anything, it is worth every thing. Christ expects men should be in earnest. How many professors of gospel doctrine are neither hot nor cold; except as they are indifferent in needful matters, and hot and fiery in disputes about things of lesser moment! A severe punishment is threatened…They must receive from Christ the white raiment he purchased and provided for them; his own imputed righteousness for justification, and the garments of holiness and sanctification. Let them give themselves up to his word and Spirit, and their eyes shall be opened to see their way and their end. Let us examine ourselves by the rule of his word, and pray earnestly for the teaching of his Holy Spirit, to take away our pride, prejudices, and worldly lusts. Sinners ought to take the rebukes of God's word and rod, as tokens of his love to their souls. Christ stood without; knocking, by the dealings of his providence, the warnings and teaching of his word, and the influences of his Spirit. Christ still graciously, by his word and Spirit, comes to the door of the hearts of sinners.
http://www.godrules.net/library/henry/henryrev3.htm


Those who open to him shall enjoy his presence. If what he finds would make but a poor feast, what he brings will supply a rich one. He will give fresh supplies of graces and comforts. In the conclusion is a promise to the overcoming believer. Christ himself had temptations and conflicts; he overcame them all, and was more than a conqueror. Those made like to Christ in his trials, shall be made like to him in glory. All is closed with the general demand of attention. And these counsels, while suited to the churches to which they were addressed, are deeply interesting to all men.
http://www.godrules.net/library/henry/henryrev3.htm

 

[drfuss]

BobRyan writes
"In my case I claim to be Arminian as does the entire denomination to which I belong - but I have no trouble identifying "to some degree" with the T, and P of the TULIP. I am not wary of being "pinned down" on those points."

Thank you Bob for helping to illustrate one of the points I was trying to make in starting this thread. The SDA entire denomination claims to be Arminian. That is fine with me.

The problem is that many Calvinists and OSAS Christians have been lead to believe that anyone who does not believe in OSAS is an Arminian. There are many denominations that do not believe in OSAS, and have many belief differences from the SDA. Yet, many Calvinists and OSAS Christians lump them all together, and then criticize all non-OSAS Christians for selected beliefs that they do not have.

From your posts, I think that security of the believer may be one of the areas where there are differences.

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary fell into this trap by claiming that Arminians (Meaning all non-OSAS christians) rely on experience for their security. If fact, most non-OSAS Christians rely on belief, not experiance.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"Having said that - I certainly argee tha I find Arminians here who would not hold to those two points either."

GE:

According to a publication of the denomination you belong to, 'Questions on Doctrine', it is claimed SDAs neither are Calvinist nor Arminian, but 'somehow in-between' --- which is questionable enough to be understood at all!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To say it my way, SDAs are Arminian to the ultimate but unfailing consequence, of their doctrine of an 'investigative judgement'.
'Arminianism' and 'investigative judgment' are inseparable; one cannot accept the one but deny the other. I give Seventh Day Adventism the credit for their consistency and honest consequentiallity in this matter. It should be an embarrassment for the rest of Christianity that rejects the SDA logical insight.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,
One of the objectives of the OP was to demonstrate that classifying Christians as Calvinists/Arminians, has lead to false information on what various Christians believe. This has gone so far that the New Unger's Bible Dictionary has actually documented the wrong information about the beliefs of people they consider Arminians (Non-Calvinists).

In the thread regarding Charles Stanley - it "may" be that he is not Calvinist but is some flavor of Arminian - but when you DO find someone that does hold to either the 3-point calvinist view or the 4-point position OR the 5 point position -- it is helpful shorthand to simply state it.

I see that you are doing the same thing, speaking for "all Arminians".

Far be it from me to "speak for all Arminians". I differ with most Arminians on this board in that I find no way to reconcile OSAS with the FREE WILL baseline position in the Arminian camp. The same goes for Perseverance. I find no way to reject the Bible teaching on Perseverance AND still be logically and consistently Arminian.

I, like many others on BB, refuse to consider myself either Calvinist or Arminian. This system has lead to too many misconceptions and false informantion about what others believe.

I get a lot of that on this board but in most cases it seems to boild down to "A distinction without a difference". It does no good to HOLD to 3 Point Calvinist positions but refuse to be called a 3-pointer only to have to later admit to all 3 points as positions you do hold (for example)!

see my point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR:

"Having said that - I certainly argee tha I find Arminians here who would not hold to those two points either."

GE:

According to a publication of the denomination you belong to, 'Questions on Doctrine', it is claimed SDAs neither are Calvinist nor Arminian,

Well as usual with you GE - I need an actual quote. When "you quote you" it always raises a red flag for me.

Having said that - SDAs are united in believing that ALL must CHOOSE to accept the Gospel - no brains get "zapped" into it - no arbitrary selection, no "God so Loved the FEW that He gave". SDAs reject OSAS so they fully embrace Perseverance of the saints. They reject "limited Atoning Sacrifice" but rather insist on an UNLIMITED atoning Sacrifice in 1John 2:2.

The only reason someone might not call that 100% PURE ARMINIANISM is that SDAs accept the Bible doctrine on the sinful nature and the depravity of man and the fact that the supernatural DRAWING OF ALL by God is what ENABLES sinful mankind to accept the Gospel. However most non-SDA Arminians I have met ALSO agree with that position.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

I have updated the OP after getting help from others on another board including a Lutheran Christian. I have added a seventh belief: "The Augustine/Lutheran Belief". They believed in umconditional election and irristible grace and also believed the elected man could reject grace. The fact that Luther and Augustine beliefs were very similiar should not be suprising since Luther was an Augustine monk.

For Augustine's views, see:
Augustine’s view:
http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/agustineonfallingfromgrace.html



UPDATED ORGINIAL POST

I know of at least six different beliefs in the security of the believer. All believe that God is completely sovereign. All believe that the grace God provides is more than sufficient for salvation. The differences are in man's required response to God's grace.

The following are very abbreviated descriptions of the beliefs. Obviously more could be said about each one, but are put in this format so many could be included.

1. 4/5 Point Calvinist. - God unconditionally elects, man has no choice.

2. Eternal Security (non-4/5 point Calvinist). - Man must accept grace, then will not reject grace.

3, Arminius Belief - Man must accept grace, but can later choose to forfeit grace by not believing.

4. Wesley' Belief - Man must: accept grace, confess and be remorseful for known sins, and not have long term un-forgiveness of others.​

5. Sanctification Belief - Wesley' belief plus man must continue on the path to sanctification.

6. Roman Catholic belief - Accept grace by faith plus have some good works.

7. Augustine/Lutheran Belief - God unconditionally elects, man can then reject grace.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss:UPDATED ORGINIAL POST
I know of at least six different beliefs in the security of the believer. All believe that God is completely sovereign. All believe that the grace God provides is more than sufficient for salvation. The differences are in man's required response to God's grace. ……
2. Eternal Security (non-4/5 point Calvinist). - Man must accept grace, then will not reject grace.

HP: I would like to ask you a question or two about what you see as the “Eternal Security view.” Which specific points are you claiming this view does not hold to in TULIP? Secondly, what do you mean by “will not reject grace?” Are they able to reject grace but just will not, or it is impossible for them to reject grace? Are you saying that it is possible for them to deny grace and be lost or not? Does man have anything to do with his salvation, or is God sovereign in choosing who will receive grace and who will not?

 

[drfuss]

HP: I would like to ask you a question or two about what you see as the “Eternal Security view.” Which specific points are you claiming this view does not hold to in TULIP? Secondly, what do you mean by “will not reject grace?” Are they able to reject grace but just will not, or it is impossible for them to reject grace? Are you saying that it is possible for them to deny grace and be lost or not? Does man have anything to do with his salvation, or is God sovereign in choosing who will receive grace and who will not?

The Eternal Security View believes in the perseverance of the believer. It does not believe in unconditional election, irrisistible grace and limited atonement.

Your second question involves "cannot reject grace" or "will not reject grace". In my experience, there are those that believe only in perseverance of the believer and have redifined unconditional election and irresistible grace so they can still claim to be Calvinists. They tend to believe "cannot reject grace" to agree with the Calvinists.

Those who only believe in the perseverance of the believer with no association with Calvinism, believe "can, but will not".

Do you think "cannot reject grace" warrants a separate belief?

I initially had "cannot reject grace", but was convinced by a number of comments that "will not reject grace" is more representative.


The TULIP tends to divide Christians into Calvinist and Arminians. This has led to much misunderstanding. The 4/5 Point Calvinists tend to consider all others, Arminians. Whereas some eternal security Christians like to considers themselves Calvinists even though they are not, IMO. Also, Calvinists and eternal security Christians tend to lump all "Arminians" together.

There are many distinct beliefs that are not Calvinists or eternal security. The purpose of the list is to help clarify the situation.

 

[BobRyan]

HP has argued repeatedly that the only logical - consistent argument available for OSAS is that "man has nothing to do with salvation therefore man also have nothing to do with falling from grace -- losing salvation".

In that model - he has a point. And it would also hold that limited atonement - unconditional election etc must also be needed since the argument that "man has nothing to do with this" is the only real basis for arguing that salvation CAN NOT be given up the SAME way Adam gave up Eden.

In Christ,

bob

 

[drfuss]

HP has argued repeatedly that the only logical - consistent argument available for OSAS is that "man has nothing to do with salvation therefore man also have nothing to do with falling from grace -- losing salvation".

In that model - he has a point. And it would also hold that limited atonement - unconditional election etc must also be needed since the argument that "man has nothing to do with this" is the only real basis for arguing that salvation CAN NOT be given up the SAME way Adam gave up Eden.

In Christ,

bob

From a practical perspective, both "cannot reject grace" and "will not reject grace" are the same for purposes of this list of beliefs. If an apparent Christian rejects grace: The Calvinist say he was not part of the elect in the first place, he just thought or claimed he was. The eternal security believers say he was not a true Christian in the first place, he just thought or claimed he was. Sounds the same to me.

Some eternal security Christians say that if a person is a true Christian, he will not reject grace because it is so wonderful. That is, anyone that rejects grace was never a true Christian, he just thought he was or he was a hypocrite.

I am inclined to leave the Eternal Security Belief as is, i.e. "will not reject grace".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss: The Eternal Security View believes in the perseverance of the believer. It does not believe in unconditional election, irrisistible grace and limited atonement.

HP: So I take it this view also believes that salvation has conditions and that man, by his own actions, determines who will be saved and that man can reject the grace God bestows upon him? If the atonement is not limited, are you saying this view denies a literal payment for sins was made? If a literal payment for sins was made, either this view would logically be forced to believe in universalism or the payment made was indeed limited to the sins of the elect, or the atonement was not able to really atone for certain sins. So what exactly does this eternal security belief really believe?

Drfuss: Your second question involves "cannot reject grace" or "will not reject grace". In my experience, there are those that believe only in perseverance of the believer and have redifined unconditional election and irresistible grace so they can still claim to be Calvinists. They tend to believe "cannot reject grace" to agree with the Calvinists.

HP: If one cannot reject grace, it of necessity is simply irresistable. If one says that one ‘will not’ reject grace, they have really not defined what they believe. They could either believe the possibility to reject grace is possible, or not.

Drfuss: Those who only believe in the perseverance of the believer with no association with Calvinism, believe "can, but will not".

HP: There is absolutely no distinction between the two views that I can see UNLESS those that claim “can but will not” believe that God is not the sole cause of salvation and the atonement was not a literal payment. If both sides say that God is the sole cause of salvation and there was a literal payment for sins, the distinction between the Calvinist perspective and the ‘Eternal Security’ is a chimera, a mere sophistic distinction without any real merit.

Drfuss: Do you think "cannot reject grace" warrants a separate belief?

HP: From what I have seen so far, cannot and will not, due to like held beliefs in the atonement being a literal payment and God as the sole cause of salvation, are again in logical reality, harmonious views.

Drfuss: I initially had "cannot reject grace", but was convinced by a number of comments that "will not reject grace" is more representative.

HP: Again, you will have to show me that you reject a literal payment, and that you do not believe that God is the sole cause of salvation in order to convince me of any real difference.

Let me explain once more. If one holds to a literal payment, either you are a universalist or you believe in a limited atonement. Why? Because if Christ literally bought the sins of the entire world, they would of necessity have to be atoned for resulting in universalism. If not, you are forced to believe that the atonement was indeed limited to the sins of the elect.

If one says that God is the sole cause of salvation, and man plays no part in it, you again are logically forced to conclude that salvation is indeed limited to those whom God atoned for, obviously a limited amount or again all would be saved.

The questions are simple. 1. Does the eternal security view hold to a literal payment? 2. Does the eternal security view hold that God is the sole cause of salvation?

If you answer in the affirmative to these two questions, any denial of limited atonement and unconditional election are meaningless. One that answers these two questions in the affirmative has logically affirmed the same ends of the standard Calvinistic position.

 

[BobRyan]

From a practical perspective, both "cannot reject grace" and "will not reject grace" are the same for purposes of this list of beliefs.

There is a difference.

The loyal angels "Will not rebel" - but it is incorrect to say that God created angels such that they "could not rebel".

3 and 5 point Calivnists hold to Perseverance. 4 Point Calvinists do not.

I agree that God warns us in places like Matt 18 about "forgiveness revoked" when it comes to failing to persevere.

But failure to perseveren CAN NOT mean you had nothing to persevere IN to start with - because THEN it would be a circular argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I believe in literal payment - but no Calvinism and not OSAS

Let me explain once more. If one holds to a literal payment, either you are a universalist or you believe in a limited atonement. Why? Because if Christ literally bought the sins of the entire world, they would of necessity have to be atoned for resulting in universalism. If not, you are forced to believe that the atonement was indeed limited to the sins of the elect.

There is another option.

#1. Christ did not "buy sins" because nobody was "selling sins".
#2. Christ became the Lev 16 "Atoning Sacrifice" for our sins - but atonement's process does not end BEFORE the high priests work begins according to Lev 16.


Christ's suffering and death met the demands of HIS OWN Law - but HE determines the conditions upon which the sinner benefits from that.

If one says that God is the sole cause of salvation, and man plays no part in it,

That is a word-trick. "Sole cause" and "sole actor" are two different things entirely. I may be the sole cause of enabling my family vacation but I am not the sole ACTOR in it. If the children refuse to go - we have a wrecked vacation. IF they get in the care cheerfully they can not then claim credit for taking the family to Europe! (Though some Calvinists like to think of it that way - I admit). But you are right that OSAS depends on God being both sole CAUSE AND sole ACTOR! When the puppeteer stages a battle between "good puppet" and "bad puppet" the puppeteer is STILL sole cause AND sole Actor in the play.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I believe in literal payment - but no Calvinism and not OSAS

HP: What sins were 'literally' paid for? How did Christ literally pay for one solitary sin, with the penalty for one sin being nothing other than eternal separation from God? Is Christ, or has Christ ever been 'eternally' separated from God?

 

[BobRyan]

Literal payment as in literal sacrifice that met the demands of His OWN literal Law.

But there is no "bank" and there is no "seller of sins" and there is no "Christ paying the Father for sin". I.e. No "grocery store for sins"

There is only Christ providing the substitutionary "Atoning Sacrifice" to meet the demands of the Law.

That is the DIFFERENCE between the "Atonement" model for Salvation that God HIMSELF defines for us in Lev 16 -- and a grocery store model where you come to the cashier and pay for groceries.

In Christ,

Bob