Why is "eternal security" a big deal?

[The Biblicist]

I don't consider it a "big deal."

If it's true and a believer cannot lose salvation by any means, then he can't lose it by believing he can lose it.

If it ain't true and a believer becomes an unbeliever, then proponents of eternal security claim he never was really a believer.

I don't see what it is that 'comes out different.' It can't be a dangerous doctrine for anyone, but neither can not believing it. And as for whether compels anyone to evangelize more or less, I would have to see evidence of that, which I don't.

You are right that a true believer cannot lose his salvation even though he may be led to believe he can.

However, those who teach and preach a salvation that fails to acheive its objective (which is salvation) are preaching "another gospel" and denying the true gospel of Jesus Christ which asserts by the character of its provisions and promises that it does not fail to acehieve its objective simply because MAN does not provide anything at all to obtain that objective.

 

[drfuss]

>Originally Posted by drfuss
>Definitions and terminology differences in how they consider a Christian who stops trusting in Christ.

Please define "trusting in" in this context. Please define the limits of the subject. Obvously, most people don't trust Jesus to fix a leaking roof or mow the lawn. Is it a positive or a negative concept?

In other words, must every person "trust" someone or something in this context? Is it possible for a person to never consider this context, whatever it is?

When I referred to a Christian who stops trusting in Christ, I mean stops trusting in Christ as his only Savior and his Lord. I am not talking about trusting in Christ for temporal things, only talking here about trusting in Christ as Savior and Lord for salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are right that a true believer cannot lose his salvation even though he may be led to believe he can.

However, those who teach and preach a salvation that fails to acheive its objective (which is salvation) are preaching "another gospel" and denying the true gospel of Jesus Christ which asserts by the character of its provisions and promises that it does not fail to acehieve its objective simply because MAN does not provide anything at all to obtain that objective.

What is amusing is that those who embrace, teach and defend "another gospel" either deny there is really "another gospel" at all or simply redefine the true gospel to inclue "another gospel."

The false gospel is any gospel that denies Christ satisfied and finished all that is necessary to acheive ultimate salvation without any contributions from man. The doctrine of apostasy by true children of God denies that very thing.

 

[The Biblicist]

When I referred to a Christian who stops trusting in Christ, I mean stops trusting in Christ as his only Savior and his Lord. I am not talking about trusting in Christ for temporal things, only talking here about trusting in Christ as Savior and Lord for salvation.

What you are failing to grasp is that in today's Christian culture all Biblical terms are empty and worthless vessels that convey NOTHING until they are defined or filled with meaning from the perspective of the person speaking them.

The JW believes that Jesus is the "only Savior" and He is their "Lord." Are they believers in a Biblical sense? No!

The Sacramentalist believes that Jesus is the "only Savior" and "his Lord"! But that does that mean they are true believers? No!

Until the terms take on the correct Biblical meaning they are nothing but distractions and empty rhetoric.

Hence, the truth is not manifested by biblical terms but by Biblical terms with Biblical meaning.

The hope of the gospel is determined by understanding the Biblical provisions and promises of the gospel.

The false gospel or what Paul calls "another" gospel uses Biblical terms empty of the Biblical provisions and thus contrary to the Biblical promises.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is amusing is that those who embrace, teach and defend "another gospel" either deny there is really "another gospel" at all or simply redefine the true gospel to inclue "another gospel."

The false gospel is any gospel that denies Christ satisfied and finished all that is necessary to acheive ultimate salvation without any contributions from man. The doctrine of apostasy by true children of God denies that very thing.

Here is the crux of this disussion. Is the redemptive work of Christ efficient to justify the person who is "ungodly" in their own person? Ungodliness in regard to his whole person including the will.

Those who deny eternal security also deny any person who is ungodly in his own person especially in regard to the human will, will be justified.

Those who affirm the redemptive work of Christ is efficient to justify the person who is "ungody" in his own person just as adamently deny the existence of any who are righteous in their own person.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the crux of this disussion. Is the redemptive work of Christ efficient to justify the person who is "ungodly" in their own person? Ungodliness in regard to his whole person including the will.

Those who deny eternal security also deny any person who is ungodly in his own person especially in regard to the human will, will be justified.

Those who affirm the redemptive work of Christ is efficient to justify the person who is "ungody" in his own person just as adamently deny the existence of any who are righteous in their own person.

Let me approach this from another angle. If Christ died 2000 years ago for your sins, then all of your sins were yet future. If he died for any he died for all or he died for none!

Furthermore, and grab this, there can be NO SINS he died for that you will not commit during your span of life or else you are sinless and there was no need for Christ to die for you at all.

Furthermore, if your sins, all your sins (Rom. 4:7-8) are paid for then what is the purpose of confessing our sins? Not to get them paid for as that bill was paid in full - finished! Answer - To EXPERIENCE the blessings of eternal salvation TEMPORALLY in your life span. No confession no TEMPORAL experience of salvational blessings but that does not change the fact they are paid in full for all ETERNITY.

 

[mont974x4]

What you are failing to grasp is that in today's Christian culture all Biblical terms are empty and worthless vessels that convey NOTHING until they are defined or filled with meaning from the perspective of the person speaking them.

The JW believes that Jesus is the "only Savior" and He is their "Lord." Are they believers in a Biblical sense? No!

The Sacramentalist believes that Jesus is the "only Savior" and "his Lord"! But that does that mean they are true believers? No!

Until the terms take on the correct Biblical meaning they are nothing but distractions and empty rhetoric.

Hence, the truth is not manifested by biblical terms but by Biblical terms with Biblical meaning.

The hope of the gospel is determined by understanding the Biblical provisions and promises of the gospel.

The false gospel or what Paul calls "another" gospel uses Biblical terms empty of the Biblical provisions and thus contrary to the Biblical promises.

:thumbs: Overall I agree with you. However the part I put in bold above is a concern. It is more than a distraction and more than empty rhetoric. This is evidenced by passages like Jude that indicate these things lead to destruction.

As you so aptly point out...we are dealing with another gospel, and thus, the heart felt appeal that we contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints.

 

[The Biblicist]

:thumbs: Overall I agree with you. However the part I put in bold above is a concern. It is more than a distraction and more than empty rhetoric. This is evidenced by passages like Jude that indicate these things lead to destruction.

As you so aptly point out...we are dealing with another gospel, and thus, the heart felt appeal that we contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints.

You are correct, my poor choice of words.

 

[drfuss]

What is amusing is that those who embrace, teach and defend "another gospel" either deny there is really "another gospel" at all or simply redefine the true gospel to inclue "another gospel."

The false gospel is any gospel that denies Christ satisfied and finished all that is necessary to acheive ultimate salvation without any contributions from man. The doctrine of apostasy by true children of God denies that very thing.

"Christ satisfied and finished all that is necessary to acheive ultimate salvation without any contributions from man."

All five versions of the security of the believer previously listed by me, agree with the above quote. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the five beliefs. Eternal security types should stop relying on their talking points and actually study what the other beliefs consist of. Too much false information is floating around about what other people believe.

 

[The Biblicist]

"Christ satisfied and finished all that is necessary to acheive ultimate salvation without any contributions from man."

All five versions of the security of the believer previously listed by me, agree with the above quote. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the five beliefs. Eternal security types should stop relying on their talking points and actually study what the other beliefs consist of. Too much false information is floating around about what other people believe.

I think not! "without contributions" means without negative or positive INPUT and that includes contributions by any aspect of human nature - including the will.

All anti-security positions have no efficient salvation for the will of man but are wholly dependent upon that contribution by man. In contrast all security positions embrace the efficient salvation of the will.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think not! "without contributions" means without negative or positive INPUT and that includes contributions by any aspect of human nature - including the will.

All anti-security positions have no efficient salvation for the will of man but are wholly dependent upon that contribution by man. In contrast all security positions embrace the efficient salvation of the will.

In addition this is not fatalistic determinism! The human will has become the subject of salvation as much as any other spiritual aspect of the human nature. The will is merely the expression of the heart and God has given a "new heart" and a "new spirit" - Deut. 29:4 with Ezek. 36:26-27 and the result is an efficient salvation of the human will that saves it from apostasy. That is precisely why Jesus asserts unconditionally that all that the Father gives, comes and not one "of all" shall be lost - Jn. 6:37-39

However, the false gospel, 'another gospel" repudiates this assertion by Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In addition this is not fatalistic determinism! The human will has become the subject of salvation as much as any other spiritual aspect of the human nature. The will is merely the expression of the heart and God has given a "new heart" and a "new spirit" - Deut. 29:4 with Ezek. 36:26-27 and the result is an efficient salvation of the human will that saves it from apostasy. That is precisely why Jesus asserts unconditionally that all that the Father gives, comes and not one "of all" shall be lost - Jn. 6:37-39

However, the false gospel, 'another gospel" repudiates this assertion by Christ.

You are on a roll Mark......:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

I don't consider it a "big deal."

If it's true and a believer cannot lose salvation by any means, then he can't lose it by believing he can lose it.

If it ain't true and a believer becomes an unbeliever, then proponents of eternal security claim he never was really a believer.

I don't see what it is that 'comes out different.' It can't be a dangerous doctrine for anyone, but neither can not believing it. And as for whether compels anyone to evangelize more or less, I would have to see evidence of that, which I don't.

If one doesn't believe in eternal security, but rather believes that his salvation can be lost, then the end result is ultimately believing in a "gospel of works" which indeed is a false gospel. If salvation is "lost" then what must one "do" to get it back? Do they get "reborn," "repent again," "believe in Christ unto salvation again," etc. All these become "works," at that point. Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. If one can lose, or the possibility exists, then salvation is by works and not of grace. If salvation is truly by perseverance, then it is "enduring" to the end or working to the end. That is not my salvation.
Christ has my salvation securely held in the palm of his hand.

 

[Van]

An excellent thread, thanks to all contributors!!

I am in the top group, born anew believers cannot lose or forfeit their salvation, nor would they want too because their faith and devotion to Christ is protected by the power of God, 1 Peter 1:3-5. Thus for me the "real issue" is whether or not the person has actually been saved because people can profess Christ, and say Lord, Lord, but never be known by Christ, Matthew 7. Our security comes from our examining ourselves and being able to discern our faith, devotion, and striving to follow Christ. Otherwise we should fall on our knees.

 

[billwald]

If a person can be saved then unsaved then saved then unsaved . . . the timing of his death is more important than the living of his life.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If a person can be saved then unsaved then saved then unsaved . . . the timing of his death is more important than the living of his life.

VERY, VERY TRUE! :laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The doctrine of eternal security has nothing to do with fatalism nor deternism. I am not Calvinist, and believe in neither one. It has to do with a proper understanding of salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God. It is by grace through faith, and not of works.
In John 10:27-30, Jesus gives his sheep (those that have believed on him) eternal life, a free gift. If it isn't eternal meaning eternal secure in Christ, then Christ is a liar. The only way you can deny this doctrine is to redefine eternal (neo-orthodoxy) which you have. You do not stick to the historical orthodox terminology of Christianity, but create your own definitions in order to destroy orthodox doctrines. Otherwise you would not be able to refute this doctrine.

I am one of the few here upholding "orthodox" doctrine on this matter, as so-called eternal security was not taught for 1500 years.

 

[DHK]

I am one of the few here upholding "orthodox" doctrine on this matter, as so-called eternal security was not taught for 1500 years.

You have not demonstrated that a whit; not on this forum. You fail to tackle John 10:27-30, almost out fear and trembling. You know it will kill your case.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What is amusing is that those who embrace, teach and defend "another gospel" either deny there is really "another gospel" at all or simply redefine the true gospel to inclue "another gospel."

The false gospel is any gospel that denies Christ satisfied and finished all that is necessary to acheive ultimate salvation without any contributions from man. The doctrine of apostasy by true children of God denies that very thing.

That is a lie, and you have just accused the vast majority of Christendom of teaching another Gospel and a false Gospel. This is akin to Mormonism -- the true Gospel was hidden for 1500 years until discovered by Calvin.

I have come to see that Calvin was the most destructive human being in the history of Christendom.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What you are failing to grasp is that in today's Christian culture all Biblical terms are empty and worthless vessels that convey NOTHING until they are defined or filled with meaning from the perspective of the person speaking them.

The JW believes that Jesus is the "only Savior" and He is their "Lord." Are they believers in a Biblical sense? No!

The Sacramentalist believes that Jesus is the "only Savior" and "his Lord"! But that does that mean they are true believers? No!

Until the terms take on the correct Biblical meaning they are nothing but distractions and empty rhetoric.

Hence, the truth is not manifested by biblical terms but by Biblical terms with Biblical meaning.

The hope of the gospel is determined by understanding the Biblical provisions and promises of the gospel.

The false gospel or what Paul calls "another" gospel uses Biblical terms empty of the Biblical provisions and thus contrary to the Biblical promises.

That is an extremely bigoted statement. Whether one believes in "sacraments" or "ordinances" has nothing to do whether that person is a true believe or not.