Why is "eternal security" a big deal?

[DHK]

"Eternal security is a false doctrine originating with Calvin, and never taught for 1500 years before that time."
Prove it.

Since when did you have the time (and ability) to take a world-wide census year after year, from the time of the apostles to the time of Calvin, to determine whether or not all individuals believed in eternal security or not?

That is what you would have to do to prove your premise. That is why it is illogical and totally untenable. It is a universal negative; a logical fallacy.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Since when did you have the time (and ability) to take a world-wide census year after year, from the time of the apostles to the time of Calvin, to determine whether or not all individuals believed in eternal security or not?

That is what you would have to do to prove your premise. That is why it is illogical and totally untenable. It is a universal negative; a logical fallacy.

You protest too much and try to sidetrack the discussion with some ludicrous and irrelevant proposition. The historical evidence proves where the doctrine of eternal security originated, and that was with Calvin. It goes right along with all his other fatalistic, deterministic doctrines.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is sad when you falsely accuse people like this and then continue to make statements that you cannot prove.

I would like you to cease and desist from making any such statement as

"If you hold to eternal security, you got it from Calvin. He was the originator of it. This is not a Biblical doctrine. It was not held in the earliest churches and not held for 1500 years. That is an irrefutable fact. "

1. It is a false accusation against RevMitchell (and myself). We did not get it from Calvin. We are not Calvinists, as we have told you. You owe us an apology.
2. Eternal security did not originate with Calvin. It was taught more than 1500 years before that time.
3. It was held in the earlier churches, and if the fact that it wasn't, was so irrefutable you would be able to provide such irrefutable evidence. But you don't have any, and cannot provide any.
4. What you have provided is a universal negative--a statement that cannot be proven because it is illogically stated. You cannot prove your own statement to be true no matter how hard you try. It is impossible.

"Eternal security is a false doctrine originating with Calvin, and never taught for 1500 years before that time."
Prove it.

I owe you an apology? You've got to be kidding.

What I have stated is an irrefutable fact, proven by church history and theology for the first 1500 years of the church's existence. Read all of both that you can find, and you will find that this pernicious doctrine was unknown and untaught until Calvin.

You have stated an outright falsehood that eternal security was held in the early churches; it definitely was not. You have access to the same sources that I do. YOU prove eternal security was held by the early church -- you cannot because it was not.

 

[DHK]

I owe you an apology? You've got to be kidding.

Yes, you do.
You allege things about me that are not true.
I believed in eternal security before I even heard of Calvin. I was not a Calvinist, nor am I now. Your accusation is baseless and false. How can I get eternal security from Calvin if I had never even heard of him. Stop your lying. I learned the doctrine of eternal salvation the same day I was saved. It is also called "assurance of salvation." And I am sure of mine. I always have been. I went to a secular school. I guess Calvin was not important enough for them to put into the Curriculum. We concentrated more on things like the War of 1812 where heroines like Laura Secord helped the British/Canadians defeat the Americans at the Battle of Beaver Dams. That was far more significant.

What I have stated is an irrefutable fact, proven by church history and theology for the first 1500 years of the church's existence. Read all of both that you can find, and you will find that this pernicious doctrine was unknown and untaught until Calvin.

Another lie.
You say "I have stated an irrefutable fact."
I told you not to post that any more unless you can post "the irrefutable facts or evidence that proves it so.
It is simply your opinion as far as I am concerned. And opinions are not facts. Post it as opinion. But it is not fact until you demonstrate it to be. Keep posting it as fact, and it is a lie every time.

You have stated an outright falsehood that eternal security was held in the early churches; it definitely was not. You have access to the same sources that I do. YOU prove eternal security was held by the early church -- you cannot because it was not.

Christ taught it.
Paul taught it.
The apostles taught it.

I would say that is early enough.
It is not me that is lying.

Again, you cannot prove a universal negative.
You state an logical fallacy and then you say it is an irrefutable fact. That is utter nonsense.

If it is so irrefutable, why can't you provide any evidence??

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yes, you do.
You allege things about me that are not true.
I believed in eternal security before I even heard of Calvin. I was not a Calvinist, nor am I now. Your accusation is baseless and false. How can I get eternal security from Calvin if I had never even heard of him. Stop your lying. I learned the doctrine of eternal salvation the same day I was saved. It is also called "assurance of salvation." And I am sure of mine. I always have been. I went to a secular school. I guess Calvin was not important enough for them to put into the Curriculum. We concentrated more on things like the War of 1812 where heroines like Laura Secord helped the British/Canadians defeat the Americans at the Battle of Beaver Dams. That was far more significant.

Another lie.
You say "I have stated an irrefutable fact."
I told you not to post that any more unless you can post "the irrefutable facts or evidence that proves it so.
It is simply your opinion as far as I am concerned. And opinions are not facts. Post it as opinion. But it is not fact until you demonstrate it to be. Keep posting it as fact, and it is a lie every time.

Christ taught it.
Paul taught it.
The apostles taught it.

I would say that is early enough.
It is not me that is lying.

Again, you cannot prove a universal negative.
You state an logical fallacy and then you say it is an irrefutable fact. That is utter nonsense.

If it is so irrefutable, why can't you provide any evidence??

You expect me to quote every writing from the first 1500 years of the church? That is my evidence. Eternal security was not known or taught in any of these writings; it was unknown and untaught until Calvin.

 

[DHK]

You expect me to quote every writing from the first 1500 years of the church? That is my evidence. Eternal security was not known or taught in any of these writings; it was unknown and untaught until Calvin.

And you have no evidence. You simply keep parroting the same thing over and over again with no evidence whatsoever. Why should anyone believe you? You are totally unreliable because you are biased in your beliefs and can't demonstrate historically or biblically that your beliefs are true.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Why is "eternal security" a big deal

1st, because its true.

2ndly..because without that wonderfull truth, we will be in constant fear that we will somehow lose our salvation, wich is of course inpossible.

...and I am NOT a calvinist

 

[Yeshua1]

Since when did you have the time (and ability) to take a world-wide census year after year, from the time of the apostles to the time of Calvin, to determine whether or not all individuals believed in eternal security or not?

That is what you would have to do to prove your premise. That is why it is illogical and totally untenable. It is a universal negative; a logical fallacy.

eternal security ties directly in the questions of the Theories of the AStonement and the Gospel!

IF penal substitute is the correct view, and that its saved by grace alone/faith alone, that forces us to hold to eternal security of One saved in Christ!

 

[DHK]

eternal security ties directly in the questions of the Theories of the AStonement and the Gospel!

IF penal substitute is the correct view, and that its saved by grace alone/faith alone, that forces us to hold to eternal security of One saved in Christ!

Couldn't agree more.

 

[jbh28]

You protest too much and try to sidetrack the discussion with some ludicrous and irrelevant proposition. The historical evidence proves where the doctrine of eternal security originated, and that was with Calvin. It goes right along with all his other fatalistic, deterministic doctrines.

When we look at history for our doctrinal views, we will usually be wrong. When we look at the Bible, we will usually be right.

The Bible teaches eternal security. Just doing a study of salvation makes losing one's salvation totally against anything taught in the Bible in regards to how we are saved.

You expect me to quote every writing from the first 1500 years of the church? That is my evidence.

Your evidence should be the Scripture. When one deviates away from Scripture, it's because they don't have any Scripture to use for their support.

 

[drfuss]

[QUOTE
2ndly..because without that wonderfull truth, we will be in constant fear that we will somehow lose our salvation, wich is of course inpossible. [/QUOTE]

All Christians who do not believe in eternal security do not live in constant fear of losing their salvation. While there are probably some Christians who may have that fear, most Christians who do not believe in any of the three doctrines of eternal security, are just as sure of retaining their salvation as those who do believe in one of the eternal security doctrines.

Having attended a SBC church for about 20 years, I think I know where this misguided information comes from about fear of losing your salvation. I have checked the Bible study SBC literature over those years and have not found information that specifically says that those who do not believe in eternal security, fear that they will lose their salvation. What the SBC literature generally does say about this subject is something like this: "We know we are eternally secure because the Bible teaches eternal security". This implies that if you don't believe in eternal security, you can not be sure you will not lose your salvation. I have not found the SBC literature to specifically say the above implication; I assume the reason is that in most cases, it can be challenged.

IMO, the reason most eternal security believers will not objectively consider those scriptures which imply a conflict with any of the doctrines of eternal security, is that they think that if they don't believe in eternal security, they can't be sure of their continued salvation.

I have found that in many eternal security believing churches, there is a general lack of knowledge of what other churches actually believe on this subject.

 

[The Biblicist]

[QUOTEWhat the SBC literature generally does say about this subject is something like this: "We know we are eternally secure because the Bible teaches eternal security". This implies that if you don't believe in eternal security, you can not be sure you will not lose your salvation. I have not found the SBC literature to specifically say the above implication; I assume the reason is that in most cases, it can be challenged.

I met my wife, was called to the ministry in a SBC church and attended a SBC Seminary and your assumption is absolutely baseless. The doctrine of eternal security is based upon solid exegesis of the Scriptures by SBC theologians in regard to many different areas of Biblical study.

IMO, the reason most eternal security believers will not objectively consider those scriptures which imply a conflict with any of the doctrines of eternal security, is that they think that if they don't believe in eternal security, they can't be sure of their continued salvation.

This is such a baseless and false opinion that it is hard to imagine you understood much of anything in 20 years in the SBC or that you have done little or any study into this doctrine.

In Seminary and in SBC churches where I attended there was provided a solid exegetical basis for the doctrine of eternal security and these so-called conflicted scriptures are pure imagination when interpreted in their context and by the overall context of scripture. I don't know how many times on this forum those so-called proof texts that you imagine contradict eternal security have been thoroughly dealt with. I have personally dealt with Hebrews 6:1-17 and hebrews 10:25-30 on this forum more than once and many other proof texts jerked out of context.

I have found that in many eternal security believing churches, there is a general lack of knowledge of what other churches actually believe on this subject.

That may be true in regard to some SBC churches but that is certainly not true to the professors in their Seminaries nor is it true of myself. I have been an ardent student for over 40 years of other denominations and their beliefs especially in regard to this particular doctrine.

Those who claim that Methodists, Lutheran's, Nazerines, Assembly of God and others who openly deny eternal security actually believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are simply ignorant and their ignorance is due to one thing! They presume the use of same terms are defined by the same meaning and nothing could be further from the truth.

Those like you, that make this silly and rediculous claim are really ignorant of what all denominations who repudiate eternal security really mean when it comes to their THEOLOGICAL definition of terms.

Enough of this philosophical nonsense! Present the scriptures that you feel contradict the doctrine of eternal security and lets deal with them if you feel there is a just Biblical basis to deny this doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

I met my wife, was called to the ministry in a SBC church and attended a SBC Seminary and your assumption is absolutely baseless. The doctrine of eternal security is based upon solid exegesis of the Scriptures by SBC theologians in regard to many different areas of Biblical study.



This is such a baseless and false opinion that it is hard to imagine you understood much of anything in 20 years in the SBC or that you have done little or any study into this doctrine.

In Seminary and in SBC churches where I attended there was provided a solid exegetical basis for the doctrine of eternal security and these so-called conflicted scriptures are pure imagination when interpreted in their context and by the overall context of scripture. I don't know how many times on this forum those so-called proof texts that you imagine contradict eternal security have been thoroughly dealt with. I have personally dealt with Hebrews 6:1-17 and hebrews 10:25-30 on this forum more than once and many other proof texts jerked out of context.




That may be true in regard to some SBC churches but that is certainly not true to the professors in their Seminaries nor is it true of myself. I have been an ardent student for over 40 years of other denominations and their beliefs especially in regard to this particular doctrine.

Those who claim that Methodists, Lutheran's, Nazerines, Assembly of God and others who openly deny eternal security actually believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are simply ignorant and their ignorance is due to one thing! They presume the use of same terms are defined by the same meaning and nothing could be further from the truth.

Those like you, that make this silly and rediculous claim are really ignorant of what all denominations who repudiate eternal security really mean when it comes to their THEOLOGICAL definition of terms.

Enough of this philosophical nonsense! Present the scriptures that you feel contradict the doctrine of eternal security and lets deal with them if you feel there is a just Biblical basis to deny this doctrine.

Think that it goes back to the concept of your view of the atonememnt of Christ, and if you really hold to "saved by grace alone/faith alone"

 

[drfuss]

[QUOTE
2ndly..because without that wonderfull truth, we will be in constant fear that we will somehow lose our salvation, wich is of course inpossible.

QUOTE from post #91 - "All Christians who do not believe in eternal security do not live in constant fear of losing their salvation. While there are probably some Christians who may have that fear, most Christians who do not believe in any of the three doctrines of eternal security, are just as sure of retaining their salvation as those who do believe in one of the eternal security doctrines.

Having attended a SBC church for about 20 years, I think I know where this misguided information comes from about fear of losing your salvation. I have checked the Bible study SBC literature over those years and have not found information that specifically says that those who do not believe in eternal security, fear that they will lose their salvation. What the SBC literature generally does say about this subject is something like this: "We know we are eternally secure because the Bible teaches eternal security". This implies that if you don't believe in eternal security, you can not be sure you will not lose your salvation. I have not found the SBC literature to specifically say the above implication; I assume the reason is that in most cases, it can be challenged.

IMO, the reason most eternal security believers will not objectively consider those scriptures which imply a conflict with any of the doctrines of eternal security, is that they think that if they don't believe in eternal security, they can't be sure of their continued salvation.

I have found that in many eternal security believing churches, there is a general lack of knowledge of what other churches actually believe on this subject."[/QUOTE]

The above post was to answer the OP as to why some think eternal security is so important. The main purpose of the above post was to help other Christians understand why eternal security believers are so rigid in their beliefs; it is because they mistakenly believe that if you don't believe in eternal security, you will live in fear of losing your salvation.

Biblicist wants me to enter a debate with him on eternal security. I could debate either side of that issue. I have not participated in a security of the believer debate in years, because the only practical differences in the beliefs are primarily a difference in definitions and terminology. IMO, it would be a waste of time.

I do have two questions for Biblicist which I am courious about.

1. There was a Dr. Walter on here which projected the same attitude and positions as you do. Are you and Dr. walter the same person? A simple yes or no would suffice.

2. In post #3 of this thread, there are listed three different doctrines of eternal security listed as follows:


a. A True Christian cannot or will not stop believing (the most popular ES version)
b. A True Christian can stop believing and still go to heaven (the Zane Hodges/Charles Stanley version)
c. Perserverance of the saints (Calvinist).

Which of these three versions do you agree with? Note that you can not agree with both versions "a" and "b" since they directly contradict each other concerning if a True Christian can stop believing. Again, a simple "a". "b" or "c" will suffice.

Thanks.

 

[Amy.G]

I love my son more than anyone on this earth. He is second only to God.

I have know him for 27 years and 3 months. If you count the 9 months he lived inside me, then I have know him for 28 years. We have a relationship. I talk to him, he talks to me. We have been through many experiences together.

Now if I suddenly decide that I don't believe in my son anymore I:

1. Have had a severe brain injury that caused amnesia.

2. Am insane.


So please tell me how someone who has a relationship with their Creator, suddenly stops believing in Him?

 

[Yeshua1]

QUOTE from post #91 - "All Christians who do not believe in eternal security do not live in constant fear of losing their salvation. While there are probably some Christians who may have that fear, most Christians who do not believe in any of the three doctrines of eternal security, are just as sure of retaining their salvation as those who do believe in one of the eternal security doctrines.

Having attended a SBC church for about 20 years, I think I know where this misguided information comes from about fear of losing your salvation. I have checked the Bible study SBC literature over those years and have not found information that specifically says that those who do not believe in eternal security, fear that they will lose their salvation. What the SBC literature generally does say about this subject is something like this: "We know we are eternally secure because the Bible teaches eternal security". This implies that if you don't believe in eternal security, you can not be sure you will not lose your salvation. I have not found the SBC literature to specifically say the above implication; I assume the reason is that in most cases, it can be challenged.

IMO, the reason most eternal security believers will not objectively consider those scriptures which imply a conflict with any of the doctrines of eternal security, is that they think that if they don't believe in eternal security, they can't be sure of their continued salvation.

I have found that in many eternal security believing churches, there is a general lack of knowledge of what other churches actually believe on this subject."

The above post was to answer the OP as to why some think eternal security is so important. The main purpose of the above post was to help other Christians understand why eternal security believers are so rigid in their beliefs; it is because they mistakenly believe that if you don't believe in eternal security, you will live in fear of losing your salvation.

Biblicist wants me to enter a debate with him on eternal security. I could debate either side of that issue. I have not participated in a security of the believer debate in years, because the only practical differences in the beliefs are primarily a difference in definitions and terminology. IMO, it would be a waste of time.

I do have two questions for Biblicist which I am courious about.

1. There was a Dr. Walter on here which projected the same attitude and positions as you do. Are you and Dr. walter the same person? A simple yes or no would suffice.

2. In post #3 of this thread, there are listed three different doctrines of eternal security listed as follows:


a. A True Christian cannot or will not stop believing (the most popular ES version)
b. A True Christian can stop believing and still go to heaven (the Zane Hodges/Charles Stanley version)
c. Perserverance of the saints (Calvinist).

Which of these three versions do you agree with? Note that you can not agree with both versions "a" and "b" since they directly contradict each other concerning if a True Christian can stop believing. Again, a simple "a". "b" or "c" will suffice.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Would say that since my salvation is rooted i the Cross of christ, and that God predestined me to be enabled to get saved by that act, he will make sure to keep me saved, as he will not blot my name out of the Book of Life, for I have the Spirit of His within me, and God cannot disown God!

 

[The Biblicist]

QUOTE from post #91 -

Biblicist wants me to enter a debate with him on eternal security. I could debate either side of that issue.

In other words you have no convictions at all on this matter but are so confused about the issue that you could take either side.

because the only practical differences in the beliefs are primarily a difference in definitions and terminology. IMO, it would be a waste of time.

Here is absolute evidence of absolute ignorance concerning the actual and real differences between these two irreconciable views. It is also a confession that you do not believe in the Bibical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

His statement here is the same as the Roman Catholics on this forum who claim there is no real difference about salvation between all "orthodox" denominations as all of them believe in basically the same gospel. Only those who are trying to deceive and/or are in Pure ignorance of the Scriptures can make such a statement.

2. In post #3 of this thread, there are listed three different doctrines of eternal security listed as follows:


a. A True Christian cannot or will not stop believing (the most popular ES version)
b. A True Christian can stop believing and still go to heaven (the Zane Hodges/Charles Stanley version)
c. Perserverance of the saints (Calvinist).

Which of these three versions do you agree with? Note that you can not agree with both versions "a" and "b" since they directly contradict each other concerning if a True Christian can stop believing. Again, a simple "a". "b" or "c" will suffice.

Thanks.

Who I am is none of your buisness as that is not required to debate on this forum. If I am Clyde klypto from Kalimazoo makes no difference in regard to issues.

As for your questions, you are missing the point that unites all of them. The issue that divides them is not OSAS as they all unitedly agree that a true child of God cannot lose their salvation.

However, the name of your game is divide and conquer and thus deceive.

A and B are both correct in some instances and anyone who visits a nursing home knows that. Those with Alzheimers or other age related mental diseases can stop believing in anything because their mental capacity has been lost. So now, you are going to provide a fourth position huh?

Your attempt to divide and conquer reveals your true colors. You hate the truth of the gospel and demonstrate that hatred by opposing it and attacking it. Your distinctions are side issues as none of the above views deny a true child of God can be lost.

 

[drfuss]

I intended not to continue on this thread due to the tone of some of the comments. But I think it is necessary to correct the following statement:
"A and B are both correct in some instances and anyone who visits a nursing home knows that. Those with Alzheimers or other age related mental diseases can stop believing in anything because their mental capacity has been lost. So now, you are going to provide a fourth position huh?"

Stanley's version of eternal security is not addressing the nursing home or the Alzheimers situations. Stanley is talking about people who make a specific decision to stop trusting Christ. The A and B versions cannot both be correct because they contradict each other.

In Stanley's book "Eternal Security, Can You Be sure", chapter 8 entitled "For Those Who Stop Believing", he is discussing those who make a decision to stop trusting in Christ. Also, on his website about 10 years ago, he used the example of a Christian who converted to the Muslim religion and died a Muslim, that he would still go to heaven because his sins were forgiven.

I did not provide a fourth position, you did. I suggest you check it out.

 

[The Biblicist]

"A and B are both correct in some instances and anyone who visits a nursing home knows that. Those with Alzheimers or other age related mental diseases can stop believing in anything because their mental capacity has been lost. So now, you are going to provide a fourth position huh?"

Stanley's version of eternal security is not addressing the nursing home or the Alzheimers situations.

Do you really think that you can control and decide that the Bible is limited to your chosen possible options???? Do you really think that because Stanley or some other uninspired man does not regard mental problems due to age that A and B cannot both be correct in that area and thus your absolute dichotomy between A and B is set in concrete????

You are not interested in the truth but in causing confusion and dividing and conqueroring. You are just another opponent to the gospel trying to play silly mind games that are complete side issues and that do not disprove OSAS at all.

All three position are united in the very thing you are attempting to deny and that is no true child of God can lose their salvation.

You won't enter into any debate on the real issue because you already know you will not fare well.

 

[saturneptune]

Why do you Real Christians worry about your eternal security? Do you think you might give up fighting Paul's "good fight?"

Worried about eternal security? How does one worry about a myth? Those who believe one can lose eternal security have never been able to define how one loses it, in other words, what acts do they have to perform, how often, and to what degree that trips the wire of a loss of salvation. Neither can they explain how good a person has to be to regain such salvation. Worry, hardly the correct word.

"Carrying on the good fight" has nothing to do with salvation or losing it. Those who fight the good fight already have it and will not lose it. The purpose of fighting the good fight is following Jesus and the Spirit's direction to battle the lingering sin in us. Those who believe we fight the good fight to hold on to salvation are indeed miserable.