Why is "eternal security" a big deal?

[DHK]

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.

First I think your history is askew.
Secondly, the basis of doctrine is not history but the Word of God.
Third, if the I and the Bible agree, and are right, and the whole world is against me, I will stand on the Bible, and let the world be against me.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

That is patently untrue.

You are either woefully ignorant of the position which you falsely characterize, or you are a willful liar.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

: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.

And that "other gospel" was invented by Calvin. That faith that was handed down to the saints knew nothing of the 5 points of Calvinism!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

That is absolutely not true.

"Anti-security" positions, as you false name them, believe that God created free will in man and that the will remains free after a person comes to faith in Jesus. A saved will is still a free will.

By contrast, your side believes that God compels salvation, overriding and setting aside His own principle -- something inherently impossible for God to do.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

That is a lie. Yours is the false gospel.

Those whom the Father gives are the ones who choose to stay. A saved will is still free.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First I think your history is askew.
Secondly, the basis of doctrine is not history but the Word of God.
Third, if the I and the Bible agree, and are right, and the whole world is against me, I will stand on the Bible, and let the world be against me.

And so will I. And that includes moderators of forums.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I wasn't going to get into this again, one reason being that I have friends on the other side, but the gauntlet has been thrown down by saying that what I believe is a false gospel, and I will not let that pass without comment.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

To any who read this:

I may not be here much longer. It seems that my beliefs can be maligned over and over, I can be called apostate, cultic, blasphemer, believing a false gospel, and this over and over, and when I defend myself and call it what it is -- a lie -- I get a warning. So be it. I know I'm a thorn in the side of some here who think anyone believing the opposite of them is on the road to hell. But questioning someone's salvation seems not to be the rule breaker that it's touted to be.

So, let the chips fall where they may. Those in charge of tossing them will do as they please, even if there's no fairness involved.

But I'm not going to let anyone say over and over that what I believe is a false gospel and get away with it.

 

[DHK]

I wasn't going to get into this again, one reason being that I have friends on the other side, but the gauntlet has been thrown down by saying that what I believe is a false gospel, and I will not let that pass without comment.

You get that from this??

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
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.

He is stating his position. He is not attacking you. In this post he does not say that "Michael Wrenn believes in a false gospel." I don't read that there.
There are plenty of Cal/Arm debates where opposite sides are taken and they don't get so quickly offended as you do, neither take things so personal as you do. You need a thicker skin if you stay in a debate forum. Biblicist has every right to post his position.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You get that from this??

[/B]He is stating his position. He is not attacking you. In this post he does not say that "Michael Wrenn believes in a false gospel." I don't read that there.
There are plenty of Cal/Arm debates where opposite sides are taken and they don't get so quickly offended as you do, neither take things so personal as you do. You need a thicker skin if you stay in a debate forum. Biblicist has every right to post his position.
[/I]

And I have every right to object to it.

If a person believes that everybody who holds a position different from his is teaching a false gospel, that condemns a large segment of Christendom. That is wrong.

There is quite a difference in saying that you disagree with someone and saying that person is teaching a false gospel.

 

[DHK]

And I have every right to object to it.

If a person believes that everybody who holds a position different from his is teaching a false gospel, that condemns a large segment of Christendom. That is wrong.

There is quite a difference in saying that you disagree with someone and saying that person is teaching a false gospel.

Then how would you answer my post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1930429&postcount=33

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Then how would you answer my post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1930429&postcount=33

Which part of it?

I believe that a person can reject Jesus after coming to faith but later repent and return to faith in Him. I also believe the rejection can be final.

My position on this is neither the Wesleyan one nor the Calvinist one.

 

[DHK]

Which part of it?

I believe that a person can reject Jesus after coming to faith but later repent and return to faith in Him. I also believe the rejection can be final.

My position on this is neither the Wesleyan one nor the Calvinist one.

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.

That is the start of it. Did you actually read it?
I talk of a false gospel for those who do not believe in eternal security and you don't raise an eyebrow. Biblicist talks of it and you blow your top! Am I missing something?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That is the start of it. Did you actually read it?
I talk of a false gospel for those who do not believe in eternal security and you don't raise an eyebrow. Biblicist talks of it and you blow your top! Am I missing something?

I didn't see yours until you posted the link.

I figure blowing my top once is enough to get my point across.

 

[The Biblicist]

you are a willful liar.

I have been away from the forum and I come back to find such name calling directly addressed at me in your first response to my post? Why can't you simply discuss the issues without doing this? I have refrained from such name calling why can't you? You didn't even provide any referenced data in this post but simply made an substantiated assertion and concluded it by name calling! How can anyone rationaly discuss anything with a person who responds like that?

True, I made an assertion but I did NOT call you or anyone else "liars" or any other names. If you disagree with assertion, then simply disagree and/or provide some data to prove I am wrong and/or prove you are right without the name calling!

My assertion was that the anti-security position provides no salvation for the human will. Furthermore, the human will is not a faculty INDEPENDENT from the spiritual nature of man but is rather the vehicle of expression for that spiritual nature and the proof is found in the Greek terms used and translated "will" in the New Testament (1) Theloma; (2) Boulomai.

The first by its etymology shows that the will in that case is a determination dominated by human emotions while the latter by etymology shows that the will is under the dominate influence of human intellect. This is the cases with all choices as all choices are either dominated by ration or emotion. When I say "dominated" I do not mean that any choice is without both but only that one dominates in that decision.

The idea that the human will is isolated from and/or without influence of the rest of human nature is not taught in Scriptures nor is it true to our experience.

The anti-security position has no salvation for the human will and the proof is that YOU CANNOT describe what salvation of the will is? Prove me wrong and describe WHAT is the will saved from? I say it is saved from apostasy but what what is the will saved from under your view? sin? Find me a saved person who does not sin.

H

 

[The Biblicist]

I have been away from the forum and I come back to find such name calling directly addressed at me in your first response to my post? Why can't you simply discuss the issues without doing this? I have refrained from such name calling why can't you? You didn't even provide any referenced data in this post but simply made an substantiated assertion and concluded it by name calling! How can anyone rationaly discuss anything with a person who responds like that?

True, I made an assertion but I did NOT call you or anyone else "liars" or any other names. If you disagree with assertion, then simply disagree and/or provide some data to prove I am wrong and/or prove you are right without the name calling!

My assertion was that the anti-security position provides no salvation for the human will. Furthermore, the human will is not a faculty INDEPENDENT from the spiritual nature of man but is rather the vehicle of expression for that spiritual nature and the proof is found in the Greek terms used and translated "will" in the New Testament (1) Theloma; (2) Boulomai.

The first by its etymology shows that the will in that case is a determination dominated by human emotions while the latter by etymology shows that the will is under the dominate influence of human intellect. This is the cases with all choices as all choices are either dominated by ration or emotion. When I say "dominated" I do not mean that any choice is without both but only that one dominates in that decision.

The idea that the human will is isolated from and/or without influence of the rest of human nature is not taught in Scriptures nor is it true to our experience.

The anti-security position has no salvation for the human will and the proof is that YOU CANNOT describe what salvation of the will is? Prove me wrong and describe WHAT is the will saved from? I say it is saved from apostasy but what what is the will saved from under your view? sin? Find me a saved person who does not sin.

H

The proof that the human willl is saved from apostasy is the fact that Jesus says that not one given by the Father to the son fails to come to the Son and not one that comes to the son will be lost - Jn. 6;37-39

 

[billwald]

>I believe that a person can reject Jesus after coming to faith but later repent and return to faith in Him. I also believe the rejection can be final.

The "timing" doctrine of saklvation? If the person is hit by a bus in the first or third time segment he goes to Heaven. In the 2nd segment, Hell?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have been away from the forum and I come back to find such name calling directly addressed at me in your first response to my post? Why can't you simply discuss the issues without doing this? I have refrained from such name calling why can't you? You didn't even provide any referenced data in this post but simply made an substantiated assertion and concluded it by name calling! How can anyone rationaly discuss anything with a person who responds like that?

True, I made an assertion but I did NOT call you or anyone else "liars" or any other names. If you disagree with assertion, then simply disagree and/or provide some data to prove I am wrong and/or prove you are right without the name calling!

My assertion was that the anti-security position provides no salvation for the human will. Furthermore, the human will is not a faculty INDEPENDENT from the spiritual nature of man but is rather the vehicle of expression for that spiritual nature and the proof is found in the Greek terms used and translated "will" in the New Testament (1) Theloma; (2) Boulomai.

The first by its etymology shows that the will in that case is a determination dominated by human emotions while the latter by etymology shows that the will is under the dominate influence of human intellect. This is the cases with all choices as all choices are either dominated by ration or emotion. When I say "dominated" I do not mean that any choice is without both but only that one dominates in that decision.

The idea that the human will is isolated from and/or without influence of the rest of human nature is not taught in Scriptures nor is it true to our experience.

The anti-security position has no salvation for the human will and the proof is that YOU CANNOT describe what salvation of the will is? Prove me wrong and describe WHAT is the will saved from? I say it is saved from apostasy but what what is the will saved from under your view? sin? Find me a saved person who does not sin.

H

Ha ha! You have the audacity to scold me for name calling?! I suggest that if anyone wants to know how hypocritical that is, just go back and read your responses to me and others over the past months. You are chief of name callers. I don't think you want me to list what you have called me and others.

The will is saved from the results of the Fall, just like every part of us is saved from that. But a redeemed will is still free. God did not compel us to come to faith, and He does not compel us to remain in the faith. He gave all of His sentient beings the freedom to choose from the beginning; that's how we are in this mess.

God draws us, but He does not force us. If we accept salvation, He gives us strength to endure and remain faithful but does not compel us to do so. A saved will remains free. That is an unchanging and unchangeable principle reflecting the character of an unchanging God.

All of the 5 points of Calvinism are a direct denial of this essential character of God. This "gospel" was invented by a legalistic murderer.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, I said I didn't want to get into this discussion again. I have some friends here who hold the opposite views from mine, and I don't want them to think it's personal, and I don't want it to turn personal.

One of my best friends on this forum years ago was a Primitive Baptist, and we never had one harsh word between us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ha ha! You have the audacity to scold me for name calling?! I suggest that if anyone wants to know how hypocritical that is, just go back and read your responses to me and others over the past months. You are chief of name callers. I don't think you want me to list what you have called me and others.

Here is the difference between us, I did not respond by name calling and I don't intend to. However, it is clear this is going to remain your modus operandi.

The will is saved from the results of the Fall, just like every part of us is saved from that.

In regard to the will that means what?