Eternal Security

[SoaringEagle]

I am beginning to believe in Eternal Security. I see God loving the redeemed in a more personal and intimate way than the lost. Consequently, I believe He, motivated by His Fatherly love for his own, chastizes and child trains His own when the begin to go astray. I believe this is done in such a way to preserve them from becoming a child of darkness once again. So, I have some questions on Scriptures that conditional security advocates use. But, I want to start with one at a time. Fair? So, I'll start with one in James.

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that ye which converts the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)

Thanks brothers and sisters.

 

[heymikey80]

I am beginning to believe in Eternal Security. I see God loving the redeemed in a more personal and intimate way than the lost. Consequently, I believe He, motivated by His Fatherly love for his own, chastizes and child trains His own when the begin to go astray. I believe this is done in such a way to preserve them from becoming a child of darkness once again. So, I have some questions on Scriptures that conditional security advocates use. But, I want to start with one at a time. Fair? So, I'll start with one in James.

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that ye which converts the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)

Thanks brothers and sisters.

James really describes repentance, in which case of course we find that any kind of faith without turning toward God is not saving faith in the first place. James has just covered this subject in Ch. 2. (If you look at his letter as "sermon notes", which seems to me what they are, you'll find this is a perfectly logical "sum-up" of his prior point.) The person is turning someone the error of unfaithful defiance, and that covers a multitude of sins and saves a soul from death.

Note James didn't say that repentance fixes or avoids those sins. The conversion of someone covers over sin. But if you simply educated someone not to do a sin, you wouldn't cover for sin. You'd be ending sins.

So run this idea back through the verse in its context and tell me what other questions you have. I can't always be sure the exact nature of the question.

 

[Elect]

I am beginning to believe in Eternal Security. I see God loving the redeemed in a more personal and intimate way than the lost. Consequently, I believe He, motivated by His Fatherly love for his own, chastizes and child trains His own when the begin to go astray. I believe this is done in such a way to preserve them from becoming a child of darkness once again. So, I have some questions on Scriptures that conditional security advocates use. But, I want to start with one at a time. Fair? So, I'll start with one in James.

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that ye which converts the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)

Thanks brothers and sisters.

If a person is born again and is given eternal life on Monday. On Wednesday backslides and dies and goes to Hell, was the life given to him on Monday eternal? If it was, this scenario could not happen.

 

[McWilliams]

There are professors and then their are posessors of eternal life. By what means do you know that someone else is either?

 

[mlqurgw]

The Scriptures do not teach eternal security or once saved always saved. Both of those doctrines are what is relied upon by those who wish to have a fire insurance policy against Hell and live as they always have. All you have to do is make a profession of faith and everything is OK. What the Scriptures do teach is that all whom God chose from before the foundation of the world in sovreign mercy, gave to Christ as their surety and substitute, Christ redeemed by His life and death, are called effectually by the Spirit and made new creatures in Christ, are kept in faith and persevere to the end by the grace of God. Since it is all the work of God for and in the sinner and doesn't depend on us in any sense it is sure that all who are made pure and white by the blood of the Lamb, adopted as the children of God, have bold access to the throne of grace and have Christ in them the hope of glory will be forever with Him in eternl bliss. If one single soul for whom Christ died ends up in everlasting torment and destruction then it is Christ who must bear the shame because He was not only unable to save but didn't keep His end of the covenant and failed as the Savior.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Scriptures do not teach eternal security or once saved always saved. Both of those doctrines are what is relied upon by those who wish to have a fire insurance policy against Hell and live as they always have. All you have to do is make a profession of faith and everything is OK.

You know brother I have the highest respect for you. But on this point, you know I must disagree with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

The Scriptures do not teach eternal security or once saved always saved. Both of those doctrines are what is relied upon by those who wish to have a fire insurance policy against Hell and live as they always have. All you have to do is make a profession of faith and everything is OK. What the Scriptures do teach is that all whom God chose from before the foundation of the world in sovreign mercy, gave to Christ as their surety and substitute, Christ redeemed by His life and death, are called effectually by the Spirit and made new creatures in Christ, are kept in faith and persevere to the end by the grace of God. Since it is all the work of God for and in the sinner and doesn't depend on us in any sense it is sure that all who are made pure and white by the blood of the Lamb, adopted as the children of God, have bold access to the throne of grace and have Christ in them the hope of glory will be forever with Him in eternl bliss. If one single soul for whom Christ died ends up in everlasting torment and destruction then it is Christ who must bear the shame because He was not only unable to save but didn't keep His end of the covenant and failed as the Savior.

Would the following be a reasonable paraphrase what you are saying?

There is a subtle but significant different between the the popular concept of 'eternal security' and the Reformed doctrine of 'perseverance of the saints'.

The popular concept of eternal security, or once saved always saved, says that once I've said the sinner's prayer, there is no way I can lose my salvation because God has to honor my prayer. Charles Stanley, in his book Eternal Security, even goes so far to say that if a person dies an apparent atheist, he will still go to heaven but lose out on any 'rewards in heaven' he might otherwise have earned. Therefore, even though a person may seem 'fallen from grace', he is still heaven-bound.

The Reformed doctrine of perseverance, however, says that the elect will never lose their salvation because when God regenerates a person, the person will follow through with his committment to Christ to the very end. This is not as though we can attain sinless perfection here on earth, but no matter how much we bump and stumble, we are still aiming for Christ. The very fact that a person does not stay committed to Christ is evidence that even though the person might have said a prayer, it was for reasons other than that they were truely regenerated. Therefore, if a person seems 'fallen from grace', it's likely that person had never had received grace in the first place.

 

[mlqurgw]

Would the following be a reasonable paraphrase what you are saying?

There is a subtle but significant different between the the popular concept of 'eternal security' and the Reformed doctrine of 'perseverance of the saints'.

The popular concept of eternal security, or once saved always saved, says that once I've said the sinner's prayer, there is no way I can lose my salvation because God has to honor my prayer. Charles Stanley, in his book Eternal Security, even goes so far to say that if a person dies an apparent atheist, he will still go to heaven but lose out on any 'rewards in heaven' he might otherwise have earned. Therefore, even though a person may seem 'fallen from grace', he is still heaven-bound.

The Reformed doctrine of perseverance, however, says that the elect will never lose their salvation because when God regenerates a person, the person will follow through with his committment to Christ to the very end. This is not as though we can attain sinless perfection here on earth, but no matter how much we bump and stumble, we are still aiming for Christ. The very fact that a person does not stay committed to Christ is evidence that even though the person might have said a prayer, it was for reasons other than that they were truely regenerated. Therefore, if a person seems 'fallen from grace', it's likely that person had never had received grace in the first place.

Yes it would be. I do believe that all who were bought by the precious blood of Christ are eternally secure and once you are truly saved you cannot loose it because it is God's work not ours. I do not believe that the doctrines called eternal security and once saved always saved as they are commonly taught and believed are Scriptural.

 

[mlqurgw]

You know brother I have the highest respect for you. But on this point, you know I must disagree with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Maybe you misunderstood my post. I am not saying that true believers aren't eternally secure but that the doctrine as it is commonly taught and belived is unScriptural. All for whom Christ shed His precious blood and eternally secured salvation for will be with Him in eternal bliss. Salvation cannot be lost because it doesn't depend on us. All whom Christ saves He gives a new nature and they will persevere to the end by His grace. Far too many who are banking on the doctrines as commonly taught but have never experienced the life giving grace of God depend on them as their hope. I can't tell you how many times someone has recited to me about how they were saved as a little boy or girl but never show any evidence of faith in Christ. Nor am I saying that a saved sinner doesn't fall and fail and sometimes seem as though they have no faith but that they do, in the tenor of their lives, show themselves to be believers.

 

[DeaconDean]

Maybe you misunderstood my post. I am not saying that true believers aren't eternally secure but that the doctrine as it is commonly taught and belived is unScriptural. All for whom Christ shed His precious blood and eternally secured salvation for will be with Him in eternal bliss. Salvation cannot be lost because it doesn't depend on us. All whom Christ saves He gives a new nature and they will persevere to the end by His grace. Far too many who are banking on the doctrines as commonly taught but have never experienced the life giving grace of God depend on them as their hope. I can't tell you how many times someone has recited to me about how they were saved as a little boy or girl but never show any evidence of faith in Christ. Nor am I saying that a saved sinner doesn't fall and fail and sometimes seem as though they have no faith but that they do, in the tenor of their lives, show themselves to be believers.

No brother, I fully understood what you said. You see, I do believe that scripture does teach and say OSAS.

I have a post in the "Ask a Baptist" section where I specifically studied, and researched for myself, whether or not, scripture teaches "eternal security."

Read my post, the article I wrote is entitled "Once Saved, Always Saved. But is it Biblical."

Brother, you I know I depend on you heavily. I often seek you out for help. We can disagree and still be friends.

I'm not talking about "antinominism" or "apostasy," for you can't be saved and live as you once did, because the Love for God, the love of Christ constrains us from living as if there were no law. (2 Cor. 5:14)

And I do not believe that a truly Saved person, can walk away from God. (apostasy) If they do, it only serves to prove what John said:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." -1 John 2:19 (KJV)

However, as I said before, we can disagree on an occasional point here and there and still be friends and brothers in Christ.

Love ya brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mlqurgw]

No brother, I fully understood what you said. You see, I do believe that scripture does teach and say OSAS.

I have a post in the "Ask a Baptist" section where I specifically studied, and researched for myself, whether or not, scripture teaches "eternal security."

Read my post, the article I wrote is entitled "Once Saved, Always Saved. But is it Biblical."

Brother, you I know I depend on you heavily. I often seek you out for help. We can disagree and still be friends.

I'm not talking about "antinominism" or "apostasy," for you can't be saved and live as you once did, because the Love for God, the love of Christ constrains us from living as if there were no law. (2 Cor. 5:14)

And I do not believe that a truly Saved person, can walk away from God. (apostasy) If they do, it only serves to prove what John said:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." -1 John 2:19 (KJV)

However, as I said before, we can disagree on an occasional point here and there and still be friends and brothers in Christ.

Love ya brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I read your article, which was very well written BTW, and there is no real disagreement between us. I think we are actually saying the exact same thing but in different ways. My objection isn't to the fact that once saved always saved or eternal security is true but that the manner it is understood and believed isn't Biblical. The differences between the doctrines of once saved always saved / eternal security and perseverance of the siants is subtle but important. The former gives false assuance and false hope by pointing the sinner to a profession of faith. The truth always points the sinner to Christ alone as his only ground and hope. The one looks back to something done or experienced. The truth looks presently to Christ alone and forgets those things which were before. The Scriptures never tell us to look back at an experience or to a profession but presently to Christ daily. Whether I was a believer yesterday means nothing, am I today? I cannot rest on yesterday but must presently be trusting Christ.
Love you too, Ron.

 

[DeaconDean]

I read your article, which was very well written BTW, and there is no real disagreement between us. I think we are actually saying the exact same thing but in different ways. My objection isn't to the fact that once saved always saved or eternal security is true but that the manner it is understood and believed isn't Biblical. The differences between the doctrines of once saved always saved / eternal security and perseverance of the siants is subtle but important. The former gives false assuance and false hope by pointing the sinner to a profession of faith. The truth always points the sinner to Christ alone as his only ground and hope. The one looks back to something done or experienced. The truth looks presently to Christ alone and forgets those things which were before. The Scriptures never tell us to look back at an experience or to a profession but presently to Christ daily. Whether I was a believer yesterday means nothing, am I today? I cannot rest on yesterday but must presently be trusting Christ.
Love you too, Ron.

I knew that it had to be nothing more than a simple misunderstanding between us.

God Bless and keep up the good work brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Greatfull]

This is just my humble opinion. It seems to me that the conversations are trying to decide what only the person and God can know. What truely is in the heart of someone can only be guessed at from the outside. God for sure knows and that person knows. If someone is trying to see it from the outside and that is the only way they can, I don't see how they can determine what that person is experiencing. Trying to decide if a person is saved but away from the ways of God even though they know better or if that person was never saved in the first place is too hard for anyone to decide. King David committed murder and adultery. Had he died before he had an opportunity to repent from that, I believe he still would have been saved. But God decided to give King David a chance to repent and he did. How would someone decide if a person was saved? Because he goes to church and get's involved in church activities, he is saved? I think that would be a great indicator that he is saved but that would not necessarily mean he was saved. If a person does not go to church but talks to God in his daily life and relates to people he comes in contact with God's will in mind, would he be saved? I think he would be. Beloved brothers, the latter is me. I have not been to church in many years but I do have a personal relationship with God.

 

[heymikey80]

I think you have a good point, Greatfull. We don't have some kind of 100% knowledge. Plus we "go" on outward indications when it comes to other people.

Yet I think John has this third point to make in 1 John -- that there is a criterion for evaluating our inward lives. If that doesn't match up we should be worried. If we're not, we're deceived.

And assuredly, someone may not know even then. They may well be self-deceived and not realizing the deadly state they're in. Chilling thought, I know.

John also points out though, even when our heart doesn't feel confirmed by our faith, "We know we've come to know Him when we're doing what He commands." 1 Jn 2:3.

What OSAS flatly says -- I'd agree with. But easy-believism is not what OSAS flatly says. So I normally expand on a question about OSAS with something like, "Someone who has truly been saved by God -- not simply one who says so -- will not lose that salvation."

Free-Grace advocates have tried to commandeer the term "OSAS" -- and their opponents have tried to force it into that meaning alone. But we're still here, Sovereign Grace advocates who see that by God's Grace His Spirit works in us to will and to do what God likes.

 

[Greatfull]

When I was attending a Christian College and was having doubts about my Salvation, a friend said that there are a couple of things that would help me. One was a conviction of sin. A person who is saved will have this. The second was fruits. Fruits that reveal God in my life.

 

[ryanb6]

Would the following be a reasonable paraphrase what you are saying?

There is a subtle but significant different between the the popular concept of 'eternal security' and the Reformed doctrine of 'perseverance of the saints'.

The popular concept of eternal security, or once saved always saved, says that once I've said the sinner's prayer, there is no way I can lose my salvation because God has to honor my prayer. Charles Stanley, in his book Eternal Security, even goes so far to say that if a person dies an apparent atheist, he will still go to heaven but lose out on any 'rewards in heaven' he might otherwise have earned. Therefore, even though a person may seem 'fallen from grace', he is still heaven-bound.

The Reformed doctrine of perseverance, however, says that the elect will never lose their salvation because when God regenerates a person, the person will follow through with his committment to Christ to the very end. This is not as though we can attain sinless perfection here on earth, but no matter how much we bump and stumble, we are still aiming for Christ. The very fact that a person does not stay committed to Christ is evidence that even though the person might have said a prayer, it was for reasons other than that they were truely regenerated. Therefore, if a person seems 'fallen from grace', it's likely that person had never had received grace in the first place.

why don't yall post on like in the lifestages forums. almost nobody believes this there.