Why is "eternal security" a big deal?

[billwald]

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

 

[mont974x4]

Scripture tells us to examine ourselves. Time and time again the NT has the Gospel being preached to saved people. This is to remind us that our lives should reflect our eternal status. In other words....if Christ is your all then live like it. It is not about a fear of losing your salvation, for we are kept in Christ, but a desire to ensure we bring glory to God in all things.

 

[drfuss]

Eternal security is not a big deal. There are three doctrines of eternal security:
- A True Christian cannot or will not stop believing (the most popular ES version)
- A True Christian can stop believing and still go to heaven (the Zane Hodges/Charles Stanley version)
- Perserverance of the saints (Calvinist).

There are two basic doctrines that do not believe any of the above versions of the security of the believer:
- A Christian can forfeit his salvation, but not lose it (Classic Arminian)
- A Christian can lose his salvation as well as forfeit it (Wesleyan Arminian)

All five doctrines believe a Christian must accept Christ as Savior and Lord and trust in his saving and keeping power. The primary differences are in the definitions and the termoninolgy that they use in describing a person who appears to trust Christ for a while and then stops trusting Christ.

Oh yes, they all have their own talking points to convince themselves and others, of the rightness of their own belief and to criticize other beliefs. But they all have the same assurance of salvation as in the other beliefs, although some (particularily eternal security believers) believe others cannot be sure of their salvation.

There are also people on the fringes of the above belief systems that cause a lot of confusion, because they are often quoted by those of other beliefs as representing the belief that they are on the fringe of.

 

[mont974x4]

How is it not a big deal? It addresses the very nature of our salvation, the effectiveness of Christ's work on the cross, and the faithfulness of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Eternal security is not a big deal. There are three doctrines of eternal security:
- A True Christian cannot or will not stop believing (the most popular ES version)
- A True Christian can stop believing and still go to heaven (the Zane Hodges/Charles Stanley version)
- Perserverance of the saints (Calvinist).

There are two basic doctrines that do not believe any of the above versions of the security of the believer:
- A Christian can forfeit his salvation, but not lose it (Classic Arminian)
- A Christian can lose his salvation as well as forfeit it (Wesleyan Arminian)

All five doctrines believe a Christian must accept Christ as Savior and Lord and trust in his saving and keeping power. The primary differences are in the definitions and the termoninolgy that they use in describing a person who appears to trust Christ for a while and then stops trusting Christ.

Oh yes, they all have their own talking points to convince themselves and others, of the rightness of their own belief and to criticize other beliefs. But they all have the same assurance of salvation as in the other beliefs, although some (particularily eternal security believers) believe others cannot be sure of their salvation.

There are also people on the fringes of the above belief systems that cause a lot of confusion, because they are often quoted by those of other beliefs as representing the belief that they are on the fringe of.

Your classifications ignore the real issue. The real issue is what kind of gospel have you embraced by faith? You cannot possibly deny that there is "another gospel" because the scriptures clearly say such is preached by men (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:4) and if it were not significant then why in the world place a double curse on those who preach it (Gal. 1:8-9)?

How can we know what gospel people have embraced? Very easy. Just as the two gospels are mutually opposed to each other at the very heart of what constitutes the true gospel so are those who have embraced them opposed to each other at the very same issue - the sufficiency of the atonement in regard to YOU concerning what YOU DO or DON'T DO.

 

[SolaSaint]

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

Real Christians don't worry about eternal security, they rest in it. If there was no security for the believer then that would be cause for worry.

 

[DHK]

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

Those who don't accept eternal security don't understand fully salvation.
Here is an excellent article on it:
http://www.truthfulwords.org/articles/security2.html

Just to quote the very last paragraph of the conclusion, he says:

The doctrine of eternal security is vitally important. If anyone believes he can lose his salvation, then he is not trusting completely in the perfect, finished work of Christ. He is placing his faith in Christ plus his own works or plus a religious institution to preserve his salvation. But God's Word says salvation is only by faith in Jesus Christ alone! If an individual believes his eternal life can be terminated by something he does or does not do, then he has concluded that his own actions or lack thereof are an integral part of his salvation. No, the genuine believer has a perfect salvation that is completely secure due to the work of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Proclaim this glorious truth to the world!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is amazing how the proponents of "eternal security" continually misrepresent the views of those who disagree with them.

What is really at issue here is the character of God -- is God's character defined by fatalistic determinism in which he compels salvation, or is the character of God based in freedom. A fatalistic, deterministic god who compels would not be a god of love.

 

[DHK]

It is amazing how the proponents of "eternal security" continually misrepresent the views of those who disagree with them.

What is really at issue here is the character of God -- is God's character defined by fatalistic determinism in which he compels salvation, or is the character of God based in freedom. A fatalistic, deterministic god who compels would not be a god of love.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

Eternal security is not a big deal. There are three doctrines of eternal security:
- A True Christian cannot or will not stop believing (the most popular ES version)

- Perserverance of the saints (Calvinist).

So what difference between these two do you see?

 

[Revmitchell]

It is amazing how the proponents of "eternal security" continually misrepresent the views of those who disagree with them.

What is really at issue here is the character of God -- is God's character defined by fatalistic determinism in which he compels salvation, or is the character of God based in freedom. A fatalistic, deterministic god who compels would not be a god of love.

Who has done that in this thread?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And

Your classifications ignore the real issue. The real issue is what kind of gospel have you embraced by faith? You cannot possibly deny that there is "another gospel" because the scriptures clearly say such is preached by men (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:4) and if it were not significant then why in the world place a double curse on those who preach it (Gal. 1:8-9)?

How can we know what gospel people have embraced? Very easy. Just as the two gospels are mutually opposed to each other at the very heart of what constitutes the true gospel so are those who have embraced them opposed to each other at the very same issue - the sufficiency of the atonement in regard to YOU concerning what YOU DO or DON'T DO.

Amen & AMEN!!! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[drfuss]

So what difference between these two do you see?

Definitions and terminology differences in how they consider a Christian who stops trusting in Christ.

Calvinism - He was not a part of the elect or he would not have stopped trusting in Christ.

Most popular eternal security -He was not a real Christian or he would not have stopped trusting in Christ.

 

[mont974x4]

Definitions and terminology differences in how they consider a Christian who stops trusting in Christ.

Calvinism - He was not a part of the elect or he would not have stopped trusting in Christ.

Most popular eternal security -He was not a real Christian or he would not have stopped trusting in Christ.

Those are perfectly biblical statements.

 

[The Biblicist]

Definitions and terminology differences in how they consider a Christian who stops trusting in Christ.

Calvinism - He was not a part of the elect or he would not have stopped trusting in Christ.

Most popular eternal security -He was not a real Christian or he would not have stopped trusting in Christ.

Again, you have missed, if not distorted the real issue. The issue is not "who stops trusting in Christ" as that presumes all have equally trusted in Christ according to the Biblical sense. The real is is what constitutes true gospel faith and what are its true characteristics and how can "tares" be exposed in, during and after their cessation of faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is amazing how the proponents of "eternal security" continually misrepresent the views of those who disagree with them.

What is really at issue here is the character of God -- is God's character defined by fatalistic determinism in which he compels salvation, or is the character of God based in freedom. A fatalistic, deterministic god who compels would not be a god of love.

Talk about misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with you - this takes the cake.

Eternal security does not demand any other kind of compulsion other than self-determination. The issue is how does one who is by nature at enmity with God and who "cannot be" submissive to God's Law (Rom. 8:7) transformed into one who willing loves God and submissive to God's will? Self-determination is changed but what changes it from hating light to loving light - that is the real issue.

The Bible teaches that this change is effected by God not by man and it is effected by giving man a "new heart" and a "new spirit" which are the faculties from which self-determination originate - Deut. 29:4/Ezek. 36:26-27.

 

[billwald]

>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?

 

[billwald]

further, if "trusting" is limited to one's status in the next life

Is a person who never thinks about the various possibilities of a next life absolved from this obligation to "trust" Jesus for a positive outcome in the next life?

Don't all religions use a "straw man" argument about facts not in evidence? Isn't the existence of a next life basically a logical construct?

 

[The Biblicist]

Is a person who never thinks about the various possibilities of a next life absolved from this obligation to "trust" Jesus for a positive outcome in the next life?

In other words, keep the gospel a secret and they don't go to hell? In other words, indifference excuses you from culpibility for responsible choices that have consequences?

Don't all religions use a "straw man" argument about facts not in evidence? Isn't the existence of a next life basically a logical construct?

In other words you reject God's Word as His revealed will and thus reject what the Bible claims as God as its source?

 

[Alcott]

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.