Eternal Security

[DD2008]

Condescending, and ignored. In keeping with my observations of this perspective in my last post.

This is getting ridiculous.

Let me just ask you this.

Do you believe that those who have faith in Christ are saved, eternally secure?

 

[Hupomone10]

Is it my faith that causes me to be eternally secure?

Robert, if you read this thread, all you have to believe is that God is sovereign and all doubts regarding eternal security and assurance of acceptance will disappear; and according to this thread, if you have doubts you don't really have saving faith.

That's according to this thread, not according to scripture.

""Take care what you listen to." Mk 4:24

 

[PrincetonGuy]

In other words, God in his wisdom knows that it is good that sin exist for awhile because the destruction of sin is a great work.

Sin resulted in the need for Christ to die on the cross. Was that also good? No, but

John 3:14. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15. so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” (NASB, 1995)

God created man with a free will and has allowed him to keep it and use it. Man, having a free will, often chooses to use his will to sin; thereby violating the will of God that no one sins. Christians who choose to use their will to sin though abandoning their faith in Christ violate the will of God and consequently suffer His eternal wrath.

God allowed Adam the freedom to choose. He made Adam a good creature with the ability to choose. Adam chose wrong. Adam was the caretaker of all creation, so he , all of his offspring and everything under Adam's care was cursed. That's why things die. God chose to allow that to happen and it is better that it happened than if it didn't because now God has shown us the riches of his grace through Jesus Christ. God didn't cause Adam to sin, Adam sinned because he wanted to sin. God knew he would sin, but didn't cause him to sin. Election to salvation is a choice on the part of God to either save a sinful man by giving him a new nature or to leave him in his sins. The price for sins was paid for by Christ. Those who are elected to salvation are saved because God regenerated them so that they could repent and believe in Christ their savior. The knowledge that Christ has saved a person is a gift of God.

No, it would have been infinitely better if Adam had not sinned because Christ would not have had to suffer and die, and we would all be able to enjoy our relationship with God without the ever-present knowledge that Christ had to suffer and die to make our relationship with God possible. Furthermore, there would be no death nor sorrow nor suffering of any kind whatsoever, and we would not be groaning “within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” (NASB, 1995)

 

[DD2008]

Robert, if you read this thread, all you have to believe is that God is sovereign and all doubts regarding eternal security and assurance of acceptance will disappear; and according to this thread, if you have doubts you don't really have saving faith.

That's according to this thread, not according to scripture.

""Take care what you listen to." Mk 4:24

That's silly. You misunderstand the thread. I said that God's word can be trusted because he is sovereign. It doesn't matter if you know that or not, it's true.

One is saved by the power of God and they know they are saved because they have faith in Christ that he saved them.

 

[Hupomone10]

Its really that simple? I need to think on that for a bit because when I read what you just posted I felt like I might have some hope, even if its very small.

Have hope Robert. It IS really that simple.

Don't let these guys get you back into thinking you've been rejected by God and committed the unpardonable sin. Their theology, or at least their posts, are good at that. No one walking in the Spirit would do that to you.

Your friend and brother,
Bill

 

[DD2008]

No, it would have been infinitely better if Adam had not sinned because Christ would not have had to suffer and die, and we would all be able to enjoy our relationship with God without the ever-present knowledge that Christ had to suffer and die to make our relationship with God possible.

So you say that God was unwise to create the universe the way he did? You believe he could have done it better?

Romans 9:22-23 NIV
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

 

[DD2008]

No one walking in the Spirit would do that to you.

Are you accusing me of not walking in the Spirit because I affirm that God is sovereign and can be trusted at his word when he says that those who have faith in Christ are saved?

That seems a bit of a leap there Hupo.

That message should never lead anyone to doubt their salvaiton. It is in fact a message of encouragement.

 

[Hupomone10]

That's silly. You misunderstand the thread. I said that God's word can be trusted because he is sovereign. It doesn't matter if you know that or not, it's true.

One is saved by the power of God and they know they are saved because they have faith in Christ that he saved them.

Now even the Word of God is silly.

See what I mean, Robert?

DD,
re "if you read this thread, all you have to believe is that God is sovereign and all doubts regarding eternal security and assurance of acceptance will disappear; and according to this thread, if you have doubts you don't really have saving faith."

If you like, I can quote your quotes where you said essentially that.

 

[DD2008]

Now even the Word of God is silly.

See what I mean, Robert?

Hupo you are obviously angry about something and should probably take a break.

DD,
re "if you read this thread, all you have to believe is that God is sovereign and all doubts regarding eternal security and assurance of acceptance will disappear; and according to this thread, if you have doubts you don't really have saving faith."

Assurance is a part of faith. But that doesn't mean that one won't ever doubt. BUt if one has faith then they do, they just believe, that's what faith is, believeing in things unseen.

Hebrews 11:1 NIV
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

 

[Hupomone10]

Are you accusing me of not walking in the Spirit because I affirm that God is sovereign and can be trusted at his word when he says that those who have faith in Christ are saved?

No. Here's what I said:

Robert, if you read this thread, all you have to believe is that God is sovereign and all doubts regarding eternal security and assurance of acceptance will disappear; and according to this thread, if you have doubts you don't really have saving faith

Don't let these guys get you back into thinking you've been rejected by God and committed the unpardonable sin. Their theology, or at least their posts, are good at that. No one walking in the Spirit would do that to you.

What we do and say determines if we are walking by the Spirit. If we cause doubts in a brother who believes in Christ for his salvation, we are not walking in the Spirit.

That message should never lead anyone to doubt their salvaiton. It is in fact a message of encouragement.

If it were shared the right way, it wouldn't.

 

[DD2008]

If it were shared the right way, it wouldn't.

Is there any better way to say that one who has faith in Jesus is eternally secure in his salvation by the power of the sovereign God than to say, "one who has faith in Jesus is eternally secure in his salvation by the power of the sovereign God." Because that's what I said.

 

[Hupomone10]

[/size][/font]

Hupo you are obviously angry about something and should probably take a break.

No, I'm not angry: re

DeaconDean, DD2008, PrincetonGuy,
Try not to let discussions with disagreements push you farther than you want to be. With our unredeemed flesh, these things tend to act like a pendulum and push each person farther than they would ordinarily be and to say things they would not say in another context. DD2008, I particularly notice this in your posts to me. I try to be wary of this, but if I've done the same, please forgive me and understand that the flesh is incredibly deceitful.

Blessings,
H.

I just don't want people to cause doubts to people unnecessarily.

Assurance is a part of faith. But that doesn't mean that one won't ever doubt. BUt if one has faith then they do, they just believe, that's what faith is, believeing in things unseen.

Hebrews 11:1 NIV
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Finally we agree. And I do have to take a break, not due to anger but to get ready for work.

Blessings,
H.

 

[DD2008]

Finally we agree. And I do have to take a break, not due to anger but to get ready for work.

Blessings,
H.

Outstanding I'm glad we agree on this passage because it is key. It tells us what faith is.

Hebrews 11:1 NIV
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Notice it says CONFIDENCE in what we hope for, ASSURANCE about what we don't see.

If we have faith we are confident Christ has saved us, we have assurance it is all true. Because that is the very definition of what faith is.

So we see, eternal security is indeed a biblical doctrine beyond a shadow of a doubt. God is awesome.

 

[Hentenza]

Hey, quite a more-or-less philosophical question. I'd have to do some more brainstorming on this, or perhaps future questions will help me answer... but I'll give it a try.

I purposely worded my query in a syllogistic way to make it simpler.

First of all, I believe the premise of the question is flawed. To suggest that God being perfect means He lacks nothing is not necessarily true -- and in fact is paradoxical. If God lacks nothing then He does not lack imperfection and therefore is imperfect as well as perfect, or else He is lacking imperfection.

Problem, imperfection is a lack of perfection. One can not be perfect and imperfect. That is like saying that I made both a triangle and a square. It is logically impossible. There is nothing wrong with the premise.

Isaiah 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

Job 36:4
4 For truly my words are not false;
One who is perfect in knowledge is with you.

There are no biblical teachings regarding God's "imperfection".

Putting that aside, I do agree with you that He has all knowledge, as the Bible teaches that it is those whom He foreknew that He predestined, whom He called, whom He justified, whom He glorified. And in that order, therefore it always hinges on foreknowledge (and God), but not determinism. Thus God is not sitting there waiting for man. He already knows and He has already destined and He has already called and He has already Justified and He has already glorified, those whom He foreknew.

So can a person that God predestined, justified, and glorified change God's foreknowledge?

Let me give you an analogy. If I have a child and they reach for the stove that is hot, I know it is going to burn them. My knowledge of what is going to happen does not make me contingent on the child's will. I know if the child will touch it, it will burn the child, but if the child doesn't, it won't burn the child. This is based on foreknowledge. Or there's sometimes certain kids how you just KNOW they're going to do one thing or another -- but with God, He obviously knows it all. However, if we accept a determinism view of Calvinism, it would suggest that God knows the child who is going to touch the stove and the child that isn't going to touch the stove because God forces the child to touch the stove or forces the child not to touch the stove.

God simply knows that the child will touch the stove but it is the child that will touch the stove. There is no coercion or force used. God, having all knowledge, knows. Does the child has the free will to not touch the stove once God knows that he will touch the stove? That is the million dollar question and one that we will not know the answer in this life. lol

BTW- Follow up question from this section. Did Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, any of the prophets (minor and major), Mary, the apostles, etc, etc, have the free will to reject God?

But again, let me make this clear. I do not believe in free will in a palagian sense. I do not believe God is sitting in the sky waiting for humans to make a humanistic free will decision. Our will was bound by the fall, but I believe that God has provided the grace to all men to be able to believe or disbelieve, which is why God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. That is, lets suppose there are a group of people who can't swim standing by the deep end of a pool. I don't believe God pushed the helpless people into the pool to seemingly drown, then chooses who to throw a rope to, then forces them to grab the rope, so that they will be saved, and that He simply does not throw a rope to others to leave them to drown for His decision to push non-capable swimmers into the pool. That sounds more like Satan than God to me.

If you wish to suggest that God doesn't throw the rope to the others based on His foreknowledge, that is something I could agree with. But I wouldn't agree that God forces helpless people to drown. Or in biblical terms, I don't believe God forces people to sin to leave them helpless into Eternal Damnation.

Oh, God throws the rope but God knows that who will not reach for it. There is nothing evil about that. God also knows who is going to sin and not repent. There is nothing evil about that either.

Lastly, if we say that God does not respond to human will, then we mind as well say God sent Christ for no purpose. That is, sending Christ's was God's response to our sin. So to suggest that God simply doesn't respond to man's will because He already knows is a fallacy.

So God doesn't know?

If God knows that a person will not repent, how is that a fallacy? Can a person repent that God already knows will not repent?

If that be the case then everything we are going through right now is essentially purposeless. That is, Adam and Eve served no purpose, therefore, so did Christ, and all of human history has no purpose. God could just force His glory to be exalted and sent people to Hell and Heaven without living any life on Earth because it would all be useless. I don't believe man is in charge of God, but nonetheless to suggest that if God responds at all to man, then God isn't God is a faulted argument (and no we can't change God's knowledge, but by way of your argument, if God knows everything, then why make any decisions at all? We obviously know that would be illogical.).

We make decisions because God wills it, just like we pray to Him because God wills it. There is no fault in that argument. There is a plethora of biblical backing for it. For example, 1 John 5:14-15 teaches us that when we ask for things that are in accordance with His will He will give us what we ask for. The opposite is also true, if we ask for things that are not in accordance with His will then He will not grant them. The common denominator is God's will not man's will. Adam and Eve served God's purpose. Christ dying on the cross was in accordance with His will (after all, Jesus did everything in accordance with God's will). Christ died for all, however, not all will be saved (that would be the heresy of universalism). Those that will not be saved God knows beforehand that they will not be saved (afterall, God has all knowledge, past, present, and future).

BTW- Just so that you know, I believe that there is a mystery this side of Heaven that does not fully explain God's predestination operationally. I do trust that God, having all wisdom, has it figured out justly.

 

[RobertZ]

I purposely worded my query in a syllogistic way to make it simpler.




Problem, imperfection is a lack of perfection. One can not be perfect and imperfect. That is like saying that I made both a triangle and a square. It is logically impossible. There is nothing wrong with the premise.

Isaiah 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

Job 36:4
4 For truly my words are not false;
One who is perfect in knowledge is with you.

There are no biblical teachings regarding God's "imperfection".



So can a person that God predestined, justified, and glorified change God's foreknowledge?




God simply knows that the child will touch the stove but it is the child that will touch the stove. There is no coercion or force used. God, having all knowledge, knows. Does the child has the free will to not touch the stove once God knows that he will touch the stove? That is the million dollar question and one that we will not know the answer in this life. lol

BTW- Follow up question from this section. Did Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, any of the prophets (minor and major), Mary, the apostles, etc, etc, have the free will to reject God?



Oh, God throws the rope but God knows that who will not reach for it. There is nothing evil about that. God also knows who is going to sin and not repent. There is nothing evil about that either.




So God doesn't know?

If God knows that a person will not repent, how is that a fallacy? Can a person repent that God already knows will not repent?





We make decisions because God wills it, just like we pray to Him because God wills it. There is no fault in that argument. There is a plethora of biblical backing for it. For example, 1 John 5:14-15 teaches us that when we ask for things that are in accordance with His will He will give us what we ask for. The opposite is also true, if we ask for things that are not in accordance with His will then He will not grant them. The common denominator is God's will not man's will. Adam and Eve served God's purpose. Christ dying on the cross was in accordance with His will (after all, Jesus did everything in accordance with God's will). Christ died for all, however, not all will be saved (that would be the heresy of universalism). Those that will not be saved God knows beforehand that they will not be saved (afterall, God has all knowledge, past, present, and future).

BTW- Just so that you know, I believe that there is a mystery this side of Heaven that does not fully explain God's predestination operationally. I do trust that God, having all wisdom, has it figured out justly.

Do you believe that Gods foreknowledge is based off of him looking down through the tunnels of time and predestining those who he knew would believe in him?

 

[Hentenza]

Do you believe that Gods foreknowledge is based off of him looking down through the tunnels of time and predestining those who he knew would believe in him?

There is no tunnels of time for God. He knows all past, all present, and all future at once. He does not have to 'search" His memory.

Isaiah 42:9
9 Behold, the former things have come to pass,
And new things I declare;
Before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

 

[faceofbear]

Problem, imperfection is a lack of perfection. One can not be perfect and imperfect. That is like saying that I made both a triangle and a square. It is logically impossible. There is nothing wrong with the premise.

Again, that's why I said it is a paradox and can't be true. In essence, your definition of perfection: "Not lacking anything," is what is wrong. Or if you'd like me to change it, I could say that if God lacks nothing, He lacks not evil, therefore God is evil. But this isn't so. And we cannot say, "If God is evil, He is not perfect," because that's an assumption that evil is contrary to perfect, which is not provided in the premise.

Isaiah 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

Job 36:4
4 For truly my words are not false;
One who is perfect in knowledge is with you.

There are no biblical teachings regarding God's "imperfection".

I agree. There are no verses speaking of God's imperfection, which is why I was stating the argument you were presenting is not true. God is perfect, but perfect cannot mean "lacking in nothing." Unless we define specifically what God is not lacking in.

Anyways, lol, this really had nothing to do with the rest of the post, I was going to use it to provide a different point, but I forgot what.

So can a person that God predestined, justified, and glorified change God's foreknowledge?

No, we've already concluded God is perfect in knowledge. But they can change their status. That is, God knew Adam and Eve would sin, correct? But God did not FORCE Adam and Eve to sin. Adam and Eve were in communion with God, but then chose to rebel against Him by their own will. God knew they'd sin against Him, but God did not efficaciously cause them to sin. Nor did God's knowledge change when He sinned.

God simply knows that the child will touch the stove but it is the child that will touch the stove. There is no coercion or force used. God, having all knowledge, knows. Does the child has the free will to not touch the stove once God knows that he will touch the stove? That is the million dollar question and one that we will not know the answer in this life. lol

Yes. Exactly. But the issue I have is saying that God is a deterministic God who forces the child to touch the stove. Just because God KNOWS what will happen, does mean that the child is still acting of His own freewill, unless God efficaciously caused the child to touch the stove.

BTW- Follow up question from this section. Did Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, any of the prophets (minor and major), Mary, the apostles, etc, etc, have the free will to reject God?

It depends how you look at it. God didn't warp their wills to agree with God, Jonah even fled. However, Jonah eventually came around but God did not force Jonah's will to change.

Oh, God throws the rope but God knows that who will not reach for it. There is nothing evil about that. God also knows who is going to sin and not repent. There is nothing evil about that either.

I agree. But that's different than the deterministic God who forces people to sin, makes people evil, provides them no will, no grace, nor way to repent, then sends them eternally to hell to be tormented for something they could not otherwise do because God determined to make them eternally evil then force them to suffer for His decision to make them evil. Or in this case, God would determine to give them no ability to swim, force them into the deep end of a pool, provide them with no rope, and leave them to drown to death.

So God doesn't know?

No. That wasn't the argument. The argument was that Calvinist often say, "Well, why would God be "waiting for someone to respond." He isn't waiting because He already knows who will respond. But the argument was more-or-less hypothetical. As in, lets suppose God doesn't know and is "waiting for someone to respond." The Calvinist would have it that God is so sovereign that He wouldn't respond once the sinner responded. That is, that man then becomes the god of God. But God responded to the original sin, so then is man the god of God since God responded to sin by sending Christ? The answer is obviously no. So why would it be any different if someone believed and then God responded to their belief? It doesn't make man the god of God any more than man sinning made man the god of God.

If God knows that a person will not repent, how is that a fallacy? Can a person repent that God already knows will not repent?

Again, my argument was hypothetical, sorry for not clearing that up. But it depends. Can a person repent that God already knows will not repent? Essentially, yes. But they won't. In other words, if I give a crack addict crack, I know they will use the crack because they are addicted to it. But do they have the ability not to use it? Essentially, yes. But they won't. Or let's take the stove example. If the child touches the stove, we say "we know the child will be burned." However, there is the possibility that at that moment in time nature might change for an instance, or something odd might happen where though the child touches it, the child DOESN'T get burn. There is a POSSIBILITY for the child not to get burned, but we know the child will be burned.

We make decisions because God wills it, just like we pray to Him because God wills it. There is no fault in that argument. There is a plethora of biblical backing for it. For example, 1 John 5:14-15 teaches us that when we ask for things that are in accordance with His will He will give us what we ask for.

So if we ask that His will be done is there a possibility that His will won't be done? Elsewise what is the point of asking for it? I do agree that we make decisions because God allows it. But not because He wills it. To suggest He wills it is suggest that God wills sin and wills people to perish. He allows humans to sin and allows people to perish, but doesn't will it.

The common denominator is God's will not man's will. Adam and Eve served God's purpose.

They served a purpose, yes. But God did not efficaciously will them to sin. Or else God is the only sinner. Let me share what Arminius said on this subject to a Calvinist:

"But you say that 'the will of man intervened in this desertion [from God],' because "man was not deserted, unless willing to be deserted.' I reply, If it is so, then truly man deserved to be forsaken. But I ask whether man could have willed not to be forsaken. But if you say he could, then he did not sin necessarily, but freely. But if you say he could not, then the blame redounds to God."
​

We know that God does not will for sin, because sin is contrary to His will. But if Adam sinned out of necessity and had no way to do otherwise, then God is to blame for Adam's sin. This isn't about foreknowledge, it's about determinism. See, I believe Adam had a "choice," but God knew Adam would sin. This does not mean that Adam had no choice, Adam chose to rebel against God, and would not do otherwise, but he still had a choice because God had not forced Adam to sin.

BTW- Just so that you know, I believe that there is a mystery this side of Heaven that does not fully explain God's predestination operationally. I do trust that God, having all wisdom, has it figured out justly.

I agree. But I cannot believe that God would ever in anyway directly or indirectly efficaciously cause anyone to sin then send them to hell to be tormented forever for God's forcing them to do what they could not otherwise do. This completely denies God's nature which is good, loving, and just. To force someone to sin then punish them for it is neither good, loving, or just. And I don't think it is my job to judge God by my understanding of justice, but imagine if a humanly judge did such a thing to a person. Such a person would be viewed at as worse than Hitler.

Anyways, I'm not going to post here anymore because people (not you), are completely ignoring what I'm saying and are determined to put words into my mouth and take words out by either not listening to what I say, or have a presupposition about what I am saying, or just completely ignoring it. If you want to keep talking, which I gladly would since talking to you is always more calming then some because I believe both of us believe neither of us are infallible or that neither of our interpretations are infallible and are understanding towards another.

Either way, God bless you.

 

[DeaconDean]

BibleGateway - Quick search: sovereign





Then why are you arguing against eternal security.



It is not an assumption at all. If it faith in Christ. The sovereign God said that those who have faith in Christ are saved. So....they are.




As I have said many times I agree with that.

You know, it is funny that you and I produce scriptures which say God is sovereign, and or speak of the sovereignty of God, and yet, they want to argue against it.

Go figure.

Which leaves us with to positions.

1) Either the scriptures do not lie because God cannot lie as Holy men of old spoke as the Spirit guided them, and the same Spirit guided the NT Apostles in thier writting and God is Sovereign;

2) Or, God is not sovereign and thus, the scriptures lie and are in error. And if in error, then they are not worth the papyrus they were written on.

I vote for #1.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hupomone10]

You know, it is funny that you and I produce scriptures which say God is sovereign, and or speak of the sovereignty of God, and yet, they want to argue against it.

Go figure.

Which leaves us with to positions.

1) Either the scriptures do not lie because God cannot lie as Holy men of old spoke as the Spirit guided them, and the same Spirit guided the NT Apostles in thier writting and God is Sovereign;

2) Or, God is not sovereign and thus, the scriptures lie and are in error. And if in error, then they are not worth the papyrus they were written on.

I vote for #1.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Would everyone here who has posted and doesn't believe God is sovereign please post and show yourselves? Come on, don't be shy, vote for #2. Dean believes you're out there!

It is my contention that most if not all who have posted here do not fit the bill of #2 above; so this is a straw man. Feel free to tear him down. Knock yourself out. He's your own creation.

I think it is really sad that people have to put words in others' mouths and tell them what they believe. I'm sure you sometimes feel the same way; which makes me all the more wonder why you are doing it.

No one here to my knowledge has indicated they believe God is not sovereign. DD2008 even said "God allowed" in certain instances; so I see that as no different from others saying "God allowed... and this doesn't violate His sovereignty if He chooses to allow ..."

I give no credibility to anyone who has to resort to putting words or doctrines in my mouth that I don't believe.

Some of us don't feel we have to put the word "sovereign" before certain doctrines to legitimize them ("sovereign grace" for example; is there an unsovereign grace?). Maybe Bear should have referred to this thread as "sovereign eternal security vs. normal eternal security."

Blessings,
H.

 

[DD2008]

Would everyone here who has posted and doesn't believe God is sovereign please post and show yourselves? Come on, don't be shy, vote for #2. Dean believes you're out there!

It is my contention that most if not all who have posted here do not fit the bill of #2 above; so this is a straw man. Feel free to tear him down. Knock yourself out. He's your own creation.

I think it is really sad that people have to put words in others' mouths and tell them what they believe. I'm sure you sometimes feel the same way; which makes me all the more wonder why you are doing it.

No one here to my knowledge has indicated they believe God is not sovereign. DD2008 even said "God allowed" in certain instances; so I see that as no different from others saying "God allowed... and this doesn't violate His sovereignty if He chooses to allow ..."

I give no credibility to anyone who has to resort to putting words or doctrines in my mouth that I don't believe.

Some of us don't feel we have to put the word "sovereign" before certain doctrines to legitimize them ("sovereign grace" for example; is there an unsovereign grace?). Maybe Bear should have referred to this thread as "sovereign eternal security vs. normal eternal security."

Blessings,
H.

We agree that eternal security of the believer is biblical and true. That is the goal of the thread. Lets have peace with each other now.