StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Pipedude said:
Does he back up this statement about belief in eternal security being a requirement for salvation with scripture? I'd be interested in seeing that.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Believer's Conditional Security Refuted
- Thread starter James_Newman
- Start date
Does he back up this statement about belief in eternal security being a requirement for salvation with scripture? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Very well, you and Faust agree. I, John Wesley, and all others who believe as we do are lost.James_Newman said:When you say 'I believe that Christ saves me IF I DO blah blah blah' then by definition what you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you.
No big deal. Have a nice day.
James_Newman
New Member
Pipedude said:Very well, you and Faust agree. I, John Wesley, and all others who believe as we do are lost.
No big deal. Have a nice day.
Well, Wesley talked a good talk, anyway.
Sermon on salvation by WesleyAnd, first, how are we justified by faith? In what sense is this to be understood? I answer, Faith is the condition, and the only condition, of justification. It is the condition: none is justified but he that believes: without faith no man is justified. And it is the only condition: this alone is sufficient for justification. Every one that believes is justified, whatever else he has or has not. In other words: no man is justified till he believes; every man when he believes is justified.
This is exactly what Joey is talking about, when the man presents the clear gospel, believe and you will be saved, but then steals away the assurance of such a salvation by adding conditions upon it after the new believer has been born again. 'Oh, by the way, if you are really saved you will bring forth fruit to prove it.' Now a man may be born again, but spend his whole life looking at his fruit for evidence instead of resting on the finished work of Christ.
James, wouldn't you like to retrench and let me and Wesley into Heaven after all?
Joey Faust said that one cannot be saved without believing in the doctrine of eternal security. As I wrote earlier, He said "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus."
And you agreed, didn't you? You wrote "When you say 'I believe that Christ saves me IF I DO blah blah blah' then by definition what you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you."
The doctrine of conditional security, as you surely know, says that Christ saves me so long as I believe (which you summarized in Greek as "DO blah blah blah"), as your quote from Wesley demonstrates. You agreed with Faust that the faith of a conditional securitist cannot save: "What you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you." Wesley and the Methodists were conditional securitists. So have been the General Baptists and their progeny since the seventeenth century. You have said that our faith is "works salvation" which cannot save us--so we're lost.
This doesn't surprise me. I've met people like you before and I expect to meet more, both in this life and in the life to come. Although most Christians think that the sentences I have quoted from you and Faust are preposterous, you do not; and no amount of contravening empirical data can affect your belief that we who do not believe in eternal security cannot be saved.
If you can believe that, the only response I can think of is "Well, I'll be damned."
Joey Faust said that one cannot be saved without believing in the doctrine of eternal security. As I wrote earlier, He said "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus."
And you agreed, didn't you? You wrote "When you say 'I believe that Christ saves me IF I DO blah blah blah' then by definition what you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you."
The doctrine of conditional security, as you surely know, says that Christ saves me so long as I believe (which you summarized in Greek as "DO blah blah blah"), as your quote from Wesley demonstrates. You agreed with Faust that the faith of a conditional securitist cannot save: "What you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you." Wesley and the Methodists were conditional securitists. So have been the General Baptists and their progeny since the seventeenth century. You have said that our faith is "works salvation" which cannot save us--so we're lost.
This doesn't surprise me. I've met people like you before and I expect to meet more, both in this life and in the life to come. Although most Christians think that the sentences I have quoted from you and Faust are preposterous, you do not; and no amount of contravening empirical data can affect your belief that we who do not believe in eternal security cannot be saved.
If you can believe that, the only response I can think of is "Well, I'll be damned."
James_Newman
New Member
Here's what I know. I am saved by the blood of Christ. His righteousness was imputed to me when I believed on Him. What do my works have to do with that? I assume that at some point Wesley believed that Christ died for his sins, and Christ's righteousness was imputed to Wesley. What do Wesley's works have to do with that? If you believed that Christ died for your sins, and that by His sacrifice you are saved, well then you are. Even if five minutes later you realize that you have to prove that Jesus died for your sins by keeping the law and abstaining from marriage and not eating meat and never cutting your hair by the light of the moon. I think God is merciful or none of us would be saved, but the only way I know to be saved is to believe that God sent His only begotten Son to pay the price to redeem us on the cross. What you do with yourself from that point on is nothing to do with that finished work at Calvary. You may well be damned, but you'll be raised up on the last day if you believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Aha!
So you DO believe that the millions of Christians who do not, and never did, believe in OSAS can still be saved, even though they came to Christ with the idea that the salvation they were seeking could be forfeited, and never believed in OSAS before, during, or after their conversion?
...And such people, creepy though they may be, have not come to Christ seeking to be justified by their works or intending to be kept by their works, but instead have come seeking to be saved by grace through faith, and to be kept by the power of God through faith?
...And so your earlier allegation that conditional security is "works salvation that will not save you" was just an honest mistake because you didn't really consider the true nature of the doctrine of conditional security, but instead were expressing the logical implications of a popular caricature?
...And you now refuse to endorse Joey Faust's statement that "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus," because you acknowledge that it is totally indefensible to limit saving faith to OSAS faith?
Well, James, I'm just stunned. I've never known of someone capable of making the claim that the non-OSAS people haven't yet trusted Christ, who could then turn around after reconsidering and admit that the earlier claim was uncalled for. There's just something about the worldview (and perhaps the personality makeup) of such folks that usually makes them impervious to common sense and empirical evidence. When their ideas run them into absurdity, they just clasp the absurdity tightly and repeat the ideas all the more.
Are you SURE you believe that Fanny Crosby could be saved?
So you DO believe that the millions of Christians who do not, and never did, believe in OSAS can still be saved, even though they came to Christ with the idea that the salvation they were seeking could be forfeited, and never believed in OSAS before, during, or after their conversion?
...And such people, creepy though they may be, have not come to Christ seeking to be justified by their works or intending to be kept by their works, but instead have come seeking to be saved by grace through faith, and to be kept by the power of God through faith?
...And so your earlier allegation that conditional security is "works salvation that will not save you" was just an honest mistake because you didn't really consider the true nature of the doctrine of conditional security, but instead were expressing the logical implications of a popular caricature?
...And you now refuse to endorse Joey Faust's statement that "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus," because you acknowledge that it is totally indefensible to limit saving faith to OSAS faith?
Well, James, I'm just stunned. I've never known of someone capable of making the claim that the non-OSAS people haven't yet trusted Christ, who could then turn around after reconsidering and admit that the earlier claim was uncalled for. There's just something about the worldview (and perhaps the personality makeup) of such folks that usually makes them impervious to common sense and empirical evidence. When their ideas run them into absurdity, they just clasp the absurdity tightly and repeat the ideas all the more.
Are you SURE you believe that Fanny Crosby could be saved?
James_Newman
New Member
This has really turned into a giant straw man. Believing OSAS is not the same thing as believing that you are saved because of what Jesus did on the cross. I doubt many new believers sit down upon realizing the grace of God and say 'must I now continue in faith to keep this free gift? or am I once saved always saved?' They are saved and they know it. If you did not at some point believe the gospel and come to the realization that you have been saved by God's grace, you aren't saved. Call it whatever you will, for those of us that believe in eternal security, that is it. It is believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and being saved. If you honestly think Joey meant that you had to study the scriptures and decide that what God meant was you could never lose your salvation, that wasn't it. You just had to believe that you were saved based on the work of Christ and not your own works. That is the crux of eternal security. There is nothing to add to the work of Christ because it is finished.Pipedude said:Aha!
So you DO believe that the millions of Christians who do not, and never did, believe in OSAS can still be saved, even though they came to Christ with the idea that the salvation they were seeking could be forfeited, and never believed in OSAS before, during, or after their conversion?
If a person from the start was told, hey Jesus died for your sins and if you believe that and keep the commandments, you'll be saved, I doubt that person really is saved because that is not the gospel. Why don't you move on to a more salient point if you have one, anyone can take a less carefully crafted statement and ram it into the ground, but there were some other issues raised in the article....And such people, creepy though they may be, have not come to Christ seeking to be justified by their works or intending to be kept by their works, but instead have come seeking to be saved by grace through faith, and to be kept by the power of God through faith?
...And so your earlier allegation that conditional security is "works salvation that will not save you" was just an honest mistake because you didn't really consider the true nature of the doctrine of conditional security, but instead were expressing the logical implications of a popular caricature?
...And you now refuse to endorse Joey Faust's statement that "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus," because you acknowledge that it is totally indefensible to limit saving faith to OSAS faith?
Well, James, I'm just stunned. I've never known of someone capable of making the claim that the non-OSAS people haven't yet trusted Christ, who could then turn around after reconsidering and admit that the earlier claim was uncalled for. There's just something about the worldview (and perhaps the personality makeup) of such folks that usually makes them impervious to common sense and empirical evidence. When their ideas run them into absurdity, they just clasp the absurdity tightly and repeat the ideas all the more.
Are you SURE you believe that Fanny Crosby could be saved?
Last edited by a moderator:
James_Newman
New Member
The real issue would be the kingdom of God. If the kingdom of God is not the millennial kingdom of Christ, and is instead 'heaven' or the eternal state of believers, then Dan Corner's book is probably right. You will lose your salvation if you sin. But the kingdom of God is probably the most discussed subject in the bible, it shouldn't be too hard to show the truth of the kingdom from scripture.
Don't you think that claiming that y'all are the only ones who are saved is a pretty salient point?James_Newman said:Why don't you move on to a more salient point if you have one, anyone can take a less carefully crafted statement and ram it into the ground, but there were some other issues raised in the article.
I'm used to people holding that only OSAS people believe the gospel and are saved. It isn't all that rare. I was cheek to cheek with various Texas/Landmark/Arlington/IFB subspecies when I was saved, baptized (by immersion, once, backwards, like the Bible says) and grew up in Texas churches. This type of shoot-from-the-hip theology was as common as grass burrs.
I've learned that it's a big world and we aren't all going to agree, and I've lost interest in opposing Calvinism and noncalvinist OSASism. Believe whatever you please. It's none of my business. To your own master you stand or fall.
Apparently, by claiming that someone somewhere sometime has made a "less carefully crafted statement" about something, you are conceding that believers in conditional security are saved if they trust in Christ alone for salvation, even if they despise the doctrine of OSAS intensely.
I thought the statements were crafted just fine, myself.
But I've probably overstayed my welcome already, so I'll exit here and go do some good works. Having perturbed unnumbered lurkers in this thread, and thereby offending against charity, I have a gnawing fear that my account upstairs may be running low.
James_Newman
New Member
Apparently, by claiming that someone somewhere sometime has made a "less carefully crafted statement" about something, you are conceding that believers in conditional security are saved if they trust in Christ alone for salvation, even if they despise the doctrine of OSAS intensely.
Sure, now what about the kingdom of God?
As I said, debating OSAS doesn't interest me. Those who believe it are okay by me, so long as they don't start practicing it.James_Newman said:Sure, now what about the kingdom of God?
So if somebody wants to respond to Faust's "kingdom" defense, they're welcome to try. I just think it's one of those topics that are beyond reasonable discussion. No matter what one side says, the other side is unmoved. It's like playing chess where all of the pieces are superglued to the board. Why even start?
James_Newman
New Member
Hey, I can understand if you are unwilling to put your beliefs to the test. Every verse that points to works for salvation can be applied correctly to the kingdom of God. It is the erroneous interpretation that the kingdom of God is 'eternity in heaven' that leads to these confusing doctrines where we are saved by faith apart from works but if we don't have works we don't really have faith etc... If we teach free grace salvation through faith, and teach the proper fear of God and accountability for sin at the judgment seat of Christ, 'practicing' our faith does produce fruit. There is no need to water down the grace of God to account for believers who seem unable to maintain good works.
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
If the kingdom of God is the free gift of eternal salvation, then yes indeed you better be good.
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
If the kingdom of God is the free gift of eternal salvation, then yes indeed you better be good.
Hope of Glory
New Member
God is not the author of confusion, but both those who hold to OSAS and those who don't use the same Bible to "prove" their side. Why the confusion? Exactly because of what James is saying here: Applying passages concerning the coming Kingdom to spiritual salvation is going to be confusing, because they will then contradict each other.
James, if you would slow down think, you'd remember that you know almost nothing about me and you'd refrain from insulting my character.James_Newman said:Hey, I can understand if you are unwilling to put your beliefs to the test.
You've been kind enough to sorta/kinda/sideways back off from your pastor's original claim that only those who agree with you have saving faith, even though you're unwilling to just come right out and say that you and he were spouting arrant heresy and now you've changed your mind. Why not build on the progress you've made and try to reign in this OSAS arrogance whose ugliness is so far from what you normally consider proper?
This thread sounds like the usual OSAS debate where the debaters have misunderstandings about what the other believes.
On the BB Other Christian Denominations, there is a thread that list the six types of salvation assurance beliefs and how they relate to each other. It is titled Salvation Assurance Beliefs. You may find it interesting.
On the BB Other Christian Denominations, there is a thread that list the six types of salvation assurance beliefs and how they relate to each other. It is titled Salvation Assurance Beliefs. You may find it interesting.
James_Newman
New Member
Pipedude said:James, if you would slow down think, you'd remember that you know almost nothing about me and you'd refrain from insulting my character.
You've been kind enough to sorta/kinda/sideways back off from your pastor's original claim that only those who agree with you have saving faith, even though you're unwilling to just come right out and say that you and he were spouting arrant heresy and now you've changed your mind. Why not build on the progress you've made and try to reign in this OSAS arrogance whose ugliness is so far from what you normally consider proper?
I'm certainly not trying to insult you, but I am trying to provoke you. You're right, I really don't know you, but you normally seem like an intelligent person. I would like to discuss the issue with you.
Titus 2:13
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
That's Jesus Christ coming out of the sky and setting up His kingdom on this earth. Nothing else. I don't hope to be saved on the last day, I know I will be saved based on the finished work of Jesus Christ. But I hope that when He appears, I will be found worthy to reign with Him in His kingdom.
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
What's your hope and why?
That would be a discussion for which I have neither the time nor the appetite.James_Newman said:I would like to discuss the issue with you.
I know I'm saved for the same reason that you know that you are; nothing esoteric.What's your hope and why?
No debate on OSAS will make any progress on either side. I've seen people change their views on the subject, but never because of a debate. What I've seen in debates is a torrent of abuse, insult, idiocy, ignorance, evasion, equivocation, and asininity.
And it really gets ugly once my opponents have a chance to respond.
My earlier comparison with the superglued chess pieces says it best.
(Y'know, I made that one up on the fly; but after stepping back and looking at it, it occurred to me that it's a pretty good picture of Calvinism :tongue3: )
And it really gets ugly once my opponents have a chance to respond.
Pipedude, you are funny. You are what I wish I was. Can I have your autograph?