Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

[Clare73]

Love is a choice, or it cannot and will not be love.

Who made that rule?

When God changes the disposition, one freely chooses what the disposition prefers.

 

[fhansen]

According to your meaning of "duplicitous" he was.

Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated that. You're welcome to give it a shot if you wish, however.

 

[fhansen]

Who made that rule?

God, apparently, as it's a fact of life, at least in regard to the love He has and wants for us. A very dramatic demonstration was in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus' love for the Father and man was tested greatly. And why do you ask since you're argument below is an attempt at supportingt this truth?

When God changes the disposition, one freely chooses what the disposition prefers.

If the disposition has been changed by an outside source then freedom has already been compromised.

 

[Hentenza]

Well, the two compliment each other nicely as well as both being consistent with other parts of the bible. His sheep are those who remain in Him, who don't visit for awhile and then stray, or who return if they do stray. They're the ones who will persevere to the end, proving to be good soil.

I’m curious to understand where from these verses did you get the interpretation that some of His sheep don’t visit for a while and stray.

They also produce good fruit such as those sheep in Matt 25 who did for "the least of these", meaning that they love, as John tells us they must in his letters, and that they overcome sin by the power of the Spirit as John also tells us tells us they must as well as Paul in Rom 8, as love and sin are mutually exclusive.

Yes, Matthew 25 refers to those whose faith did not fall in the good soil and did not produced fruit. But those with faith that fell in good soil are His sheep. So they produce good fruit naturally from salvation not for it.

 

[Clare73]

Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated that. You're welcome to give it a shot if you wish, however.

Demonstrated in post #112.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I’ve written in CP before that I believe once a Christian is saved through the sacrifice of Christ, they cannot lose their salvation. This doctrine is most often called the perseverance (sometimes labeled “preservation”) of the saints.

On this topic, the Westminster Confession of Faith says: “They whom God hath accepted in His beloved Son effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit can neither totally nor finally fall away from a state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved.”

There are plenty who disagree with this.

For example, the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent declared: “If anyone says that a man once justified cannot lose grace and therefore that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be accursed.” And at the 1610 Conference of the Remonstrants (what Arminians called themselves then) said, “Persons truly regenerate, by neglecting grace and grieving the Holy Spirit with sin, fall away totally, and at length finally, from grace into eternal reprobation.”

While I think those who believe this, including the ones who laid the foundation of the you-can-lose-your-salvation position, have good intentions and are primarily trying to guard against the issue of “cheap grace,” it overlooks the fact that the Christian faith is built on the pattern of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant outlined in Genesis 12:1–3. Abraham was called, blessed, and then exhibited faith just as we do today.

Continued below.

Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

All our sins past and future evaporated at the cross and can t be resurrected against us ever, and thus we re forever protected from them

www.christianpost.com

I missed the point. Maybe it was in the link. Can you restate what is "the number one fallacy on eternal security" here so I don't need to do additional research?

 

[Clare73]

I’m curious to understand where from these verses did you get the interpretation that some of His sheep don’t visit for a while and stray.

Yes, Matthew 25 refers to those whose faith did not fall in the good soil and did not produced fruit. But those with faith that fell in good soil are His sheep. So they produce good fruit naturally from salvation not for it.

Isn't that Mt 13, and isn't the seed the word of God, while the soil is faith, where only true faith produces fruit and counterfeit faith does not?
Or am I in the wrong section of the NT?

 

[Clare73]

God, apparently, as it's a fact of life, at least in regard to the love He has and wants for us. A very dramatic demonstration was in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus' love for the Father and man was tested greatly. And why do you ask since you're argument below is an attempt at supportingt this truth?

If the disposition has been changed by an outside source

God is not an external "outside source" when he works within.
God giving man to prefer the things of God is not a violation of his choosing what he prefers.

Free will is not about the the composition of the disposition, it is about choosing what the disposition prefers.

then freedom has already been compromised.

Not according to the meaning of "free will" in those who are "slaves to sin" (Jn 8:34), which is all mankind. Slaves are not free.
The Bible does not present the "free will" of man. Man cannot choose to be sinless.
That is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero) asserted by Pelagius around 400 AD, on the assumption that responsibility for sin requires that man have a free will. Biblically, this is not so.

"Free will" in fallen mankind is the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers.
As long as man is choosing what he prefers, he is exercising free will.
How or why he prefers it is irrelevant.

 

[fhansen]

Demonstrated in post #112.

So I'll ask again. Did God want His people to be freed? If He wanted His people to be freed while not wanting His people to be freed then we'd have a problem, and duplicitousness, not to mention irrationality.

 

[fhansen]

I’m curious to understand where from these verses did you get the interpretation that some of His sheep don’t visit for a while and stray.

I'm curious to know if you think a sheep can stray into and remain in particularly egregious sin and still be considered a sheep by any reasonable measure. The bible says otherwise. Or, if that would disqualify them from being a sheep to begin with, then at what point, what degree or amount of sin, would/should trigger that opinion of them? Or if sheep, by definition, always return, how does one predict that they'll be one of those sheep. Or how does one know with 100% certainty that they're one of those sheep now?

 

[Hentenza]

Isn't that Mt 13, and isn't the seed the word of God, while the soil is faith, where only true faith produces fruit and counterfeit faith does not?
Or did I miss something here?

You didn’t miss anything.

 

[fhansen]

That God gives him to prefer the things of God is not a violation of his choosing what he prefers.

It completely defeats and denies the purpose of revelation and Christ's work. The bible is an information source and a beckoning, a calling, a knocking on your door. People perish for lack of knowledge because without it they have no way choose. Grace draws us; we can't even begin to approach let alone find God without it, but He never knocks us over the head with it. Again, He calls. Because he's not interested in automaton.

 

[fhansen]

God is not an external "outside source" when he works within.

Geez. Man needs a source, apart from himself, who works within. He's apart from that Source due to the Fall. Basic Christianityy. But that Source does not force that grace upon man or else man is not free at all.

 

[fhansen]

Free will is not about the the composition of the disposition, it is about choosing what the disposition prefers.

Nicely speculated upon. Just not quite right. Man, including Adam, is not free in a perfect and infinte sense, as God is. And he certainly needs grace in order to begin to appreciate the things of God. But even fallen man is not without choice in this matter, in that he can resist; he can say no. He's wounded, compromised and corrupted in will, sick, asleep, lost, dead. But not so far gone that he cannot already know of his depravity in this pigsty of a world. And not so far down that he cannot muster a yes instead of a no even as the help of revelation and grace is necessary.

 

[Clare73]

So I'll ask again. Did God want His people to be freed? If He wanted His people to be freed while not wanting His people to be freed then we'd have a problem, and duplicitousness, not to mention irrationality.

Non-responsive to post #112:

"Which does not address the "duplicitousness" of God with Pharaoh; i.e., commanding him to obey and willing him not to obey."

 

[fhansen]

Non-responsive to post #112.

No, I responded twice now You just didn't like the answer-and that may be why you're avoiding the questions now.

 

[fhansen]

If a person walks like a sheep and talks/baas like a sheep (not always defined the same way) and continues to do so throughout whatever time they have here in this life then they're probably a sheep. And God will confirm or deny that in the next life.

 

[Clare73]

It completely defeats and denies the purpose of revelation and Christ's work.

Who made that rule?

It accomplished the purpose of revelation and Christ's work (not man's work).

The bible is an information source and a beckoning, a calling, a knocking on your door. People perish for lack of knowledge because without it they have no way choose. Grace draws us; we can't even begin to approach let alone find God without it, but He never knocks us over the head with it. Again, He calls. Because he's not interested in automaton.

It's "unfortunate" that you see God's work within a person (Php 2:13) as automaton.

Your God is too small. . .he needs man's contribution to accomplish his purposes.

 

[Clare73]

Geez. Man needs a source, apart from himself, who works within. He's apart from that Source due to the Fall. Basic Christianityy. But that Source does not force that grace upon man or else man is not free at all.

Previously addressed. . .

No, I responded twice now You just didn't like the answer-and that may be why you're avoiding the questions now.

Which does not address the "duplicitousness" of God with Pharaoh; i.e., commanding him to obey and willing him not to obey (post #112).

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

[fhansen]

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.'

Methinks not. I adressed post #112, directly, in 124. You haven't addressd post #169