Why do people hate the doctrine of Eternal Security?

[Zenas]

If one is justified by grace, he cannot fall from grace otherwise grace would not be grace.

And how do you justify that with Galations 5:4?

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Remember, at some point in their Christian journey the Galatians had been justified by grace. Paul had established the church at Galatia and it was only after he moved on that they started to do things wrong.

 

[Tom Butler]

And how do you justify that with Galations 5:4? Remember, at some point in their Christian journey the Galatians had been justified by grace. Paul had established the church at Galatia and it was only after he moved on that they started to do things wrong.

I think it's a mistake to equate falling from grace with losing one's salvation. Remember, Paul is refuting the Judaizers who had infiltrated the Galation congregation. They were the ones who added keeping the Law to salvation by grace.

Paul is warning them not to abandon salvation by grace alone. To do so, he counseled, is to fall away from the truth of what grace is. Keeping the Law is not grace at all.

 

[MB]

MB said: That is a whole different subject but I challenge you to find one reputable commentary that says "should" in 1 Corinthians 9:27 means "ought to". That is one of the problems with the KJV. It uses classical English that doesn't always mean the same thing as the same words mean in modern English.

What can I say I don't live eternally through commentaries. They are what they are and should not be considered scripture. Just because someone else believes something doesn't make it true.

Then MB said concerning 1 John 1:9: That's OK. Ignorance is bliss and if you confess, you're forgiven anyway so it doesn't matter.

This is what puzzles me about those who believe you can loose your Salvation. Hebrews says;
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

If you've lost your Salvation as you believe can happen then what do you do with these passages. They clearly say It impossible to be renewed because there is no more sacrifices.

Then MB commented thusly on James 5:19-20: You are right. The saved are not referred to as sinners. The formerly saved, who are now unsaved, are referred to as sinners. The epistle was written to all Jewish Christians. So when James says, "Bretheren, if any of you . . . ," he is referring to Christian brothers. So, once again I say these two verses portray a Christian who has fallen away, a fellow Christian who rescues him, and saves a soul from death. Don't you see? The saved Christian becomes unsaved and then is saved again. Why do you find this concept so repulsive that you can't even address it? It's in the Bible, accept it!

Yes it's in the Bible but it doesn't say Christian brothers in any text. It's true that James was speaking to his brothers but those were Jewish brothers. Where do you get the idea they were Christian. I'm sorry but your view is clouded by what you want to see and not what is actually there.

Finally, MB said this concerning Galations 5:4: Again you find the concept of falling from grace so repulsive you can't even address it. OF COURSE, we are justified by Christ and Christ alone. No one disputes that. But what about those men who had fallen from grace? They had once been justified by Christ but they had lost that justification because of their reliance on the law. They had fallen from grace, that is they had once been saved but were no longer saved. It's so simple, yet you fight so hard to talk around it.

Your wrong about them being justified by Christ. You haven't shown anything to support they were saved. That is just a guess by you. The Jews weren't justified by the law but by faith in God but in there life time the covenant had been changed by Christ. Before Christ there were none saved because there is only one way to be saved and that is through Christ.
I do not find what you believe repulsive. I find that it isn't supported by scripture. Therefore it is not the truth of scripture.
MB

 

[DHK]

And how do you justify that with Galations 5:4? Remember, at some point in their Christian journey the Galatians had been justified by grace. Paul had established the church at Galatia and it was only after he moved on that they started to do things wrong.

I don't have to "justify" any verse. I must look at its context in order to receive proper understanding.
It wasn't "at some point they had been justified by grace" and then" They were justified by grace period.
Now look at the context in its entirety.

Galatians 5:1-5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
4 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

First the context of the book. The false teachers of the Judaizers, that believed that circumcision and the keeping of the law were also necessary to be saved, followed Paul wherever he went. They preached this "works" gospel, which was soundly put down at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. They showed up here in the region of Galatia and led man of them astray into their false teaching. Paul is addressing this problem.

Thus the context begins in verse one, where Paul refers to their salvation. Jesus said "the truth shall make you free." They were free. They could stand fast in the liberty of the gospel and be free from the bondage of the law. They were no longer bound to the law, or to circumcision which the Judaizers taught. Some had followed this heresy.

Verse three emphasizes this.
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."
If you are going to trust in circumcision as part of your salvation, then you are bound to keep the whole law--all the Levitical law, not just the Ten Commandments. You can't just choose and pick, like some cults want to do today. It is either all or none. It is either the gospel or the law. Choose which one will save you.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
--If you choose the law (this is the context), Christ is become no effect to you, for you (think) you have been justified by the law. (Remember that the law cannot justify anyone but can only point to our sin.) If that is true then you are fallen from grace--in other words were never saved in the first place. For those who trust in works are not trusting in grace. The two are incompatable. It is either one or the other.

Thus we go back to verse one.
Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. There is no falling from grace. Only the liberty of the gospel which had made them free from the law and the yoke of the bondage from sin.
Paul is contrasting that to the keeping of the law which was being forced upon them by the Judaizers.
Don't take Scripture out of its context.

 

[Zenas]

I think it's a mistake to equate falling from grace with losing one's salvation. Remember, Paul is refuting the Judaizers who had infiltrated the Galation congregation. They were the ones who added keeping the Law to salvation by grace.

Paul is warning them not to abandon salvation by grace alone. To do so, he counseled, is to fall away from the truth of what grace is. Keeping the Law is not grace at all.

Are you saying that "fallen from grace" here means the same thing that "falling away" means in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV), i.e., an apostasy or departure from correct teaching? If so, I strongly disagree but that does make more sense than anything else that has been advanced to explain away this verse. As usual, Tom, you are showing a lot of common sense here. I don't agree with all your conclusions but I like your thought process.