Eternal Security

[DeaconDean]

I give up. Read about synergism before you making weird accusations of which I thoroughly disagree with everything you charged against me -- which is common among many Calvinist because they misrepresent a synergist view and accuse it of pelagianism and works-based, which is solely a misunderstanding of synergism.

No sir, we do not misunderstand "synergism".

Synergism has more in common with semipelagianism that pelagianism.

But either way, both teach wrong.

Pelagus taught Adam only set a bad example, while Jesus set the right example.

Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism).

Pelagianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace. (From Greek sunergos, working together : sun-, syn- + ergon, work). The Century Dictionary defines synergism as

"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."​

​

Monergism vs. Synergism by John Hendryx

Basically, you co-operated with God to bring about your own salvation, whether it is the faith that you exercized, or the "free will" choice you made to believe.

synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation...The Synergistic Conception of "Sola Fide" therefore must, by definition, draw on nature to cooperate with God's grace as the human fulfillment of a condition.

Ibid

No sir, he does not and neither do Calvinists:

misrepresent a synergist view and accuse it of pelagianism and works-based,

Because that is exactly what it is.

Either way, Pelagianism or Semipelagianism both rely on works (whether it is mans own faith, or his free will to choose) to co-operate with God thusly bringing about their own salvation.

Compare what synergism teaches with monergism teaches:

Synergism:

Regeneration is the work of Christ plus the good will of unspiritual man. What makes men to differ from one another is not the grace of Jesus alone, but Jesus plus the good will of unspiritual man.

Faith is the cause that triggers regeneration

Faith and affections for God are produced by the old nature.

God and Man work together to produce the new birth. God's grace takes us part of the way to salvation, man's unregenerate will must determine the final outcome. In other words belief in Christ gives rise to the new birth.

God is eagerly awaiting the sinner's will.

The persons of the Trinity have conflicting goals in accomplishing and applying salvation: The Father elects a particular people; The Son dies for a general people and the Holy Spirit applies the atonement conditionally on those who exercize their autonomous libertarian free will.

Restoration of spiritual faculties comes after the man without the Spirit exercizes faith with his natural (innate) capacities. Has the ability to see spiritual truth even before healed. (see 1 Cor 2:14). Has spiritual capacity/desire to receive the truth, prior God's granting any spiritual ability.

Monergism:

Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit alone applying the the effectual crosswork of Christ to the unspiritual man. What makes men to differ is Jesus Christ alone.

Regeneration has causal priority to faith (Just as a person must have eyes before they see and ears prior to their ability to hear, so one must first have a new heart in order to understand spiritual truth)

Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature. It is the immediate and inevitable product of the new nature. The new heart (by nature) loves Christ.

God, the Holy Spirit, alone produces regeneration with no contribution from the sinner (A work of God). The new birth is never spoke of in the imperative (not commanded), rather man must be born again by God.

God effectually enables the sinner's will.

The persons of the Trinity work in harmony - The Father elects a particular people (Eph 1:3-5), Christ dies for those the Father has given Him (John 17:9, 15; Rev 5:9) and the Holy Spirit likewise applies the benefits of the atonement to the same. (Regeneration is one of the redemptive benefits of Christ's work)

"Light" itself is not enough for a blind man to see, his vision must first be restored. (John 3:3,6). Needs spiritual ability to receive truth prior to receiving it (1 Cor 2:12; John 6:63-65 & 37).

A full chart showing the differences between Synergism and Monergism is found here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[faceofbear]

Again, synergism has been misunderstood by many -- and I would not deny that many professing Arminians are actually palagians or semi-pelagian, and that many professing low Calvinists are actually Arminian. When you study Arminius and Wesleyan theology you find that they do not differ from Calvin on most points, in fact, the doctrines are almost identical but interpreted in a different philosophical manner. Classical Arminainism as opposed to the current liberalized trend in UM churches, etc, is VERY close to Calvinism. But unfortunately to popularization of pelagianism in once Arminian circles have warped Arminius and Wesleyan teachings to become semi-pelagian, if not full pelagianism. Though that is not even close to what Arminius or Wesley or early Remonstrants taught. Though heretics did exist, and always will exist -- among Calvinist and Arminians both.

I do not believe my faith saved me. I believe that grace saves me through faith. They must be bi-particles, grace cannot exist without faith. But it is by grace through faith. My faith doesn't save, grace does. Again, I've provided examples to illustrate. Pelagianism derived from a liberalization of Arminian theology, but they are extremely different. In that Arminius and Wesley both believed in total depravity, pelagian theology does not. Just like there is heterodox in Calvinism of liberalized Calvinist. I do not believe in humanitarian freewill. I believed that Christ is the savior of all, especially those who believe. That when Christ died He restored our inability in order to provide us with preceding grace in order to respond to His gift of grace that one might accept or reject -- only by grace. And it is grace that saves us, and it is grace that sustains us. It is never due to man's freewill. It is illustrated over and over in the New Testament, especially the gospels. Christ saves those who have faith. Christ cures those who have faith. Did they save themselves? No. Did they cure themselves? No. Christ did. But Christ operated within their means of faith, and even at one point stated, "Thy faith has saved thee." In fact, Spurgeon once spoke on a message about that phrase. Whatever these sources people got this information from, it is not synergism, palagian that you are speaking of.

And I don't believe God is eagerly waiting for a sinner to respond. God already knows and has predestined those who will respond and gave us grace before the foundations of the world.

A book I suggest reading if one can humble themselves enough to:

http://www.amazon.com/Arminian-Theo...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292048496&sr=8-1

It's a book that has helped me realize that Arminianism is not necessarily heretical, but obviously only one of the two are correct, or somehow both co-exist even if it seems illogical. Again, it wouldn't be the first paradox of scripture. And it logically debunks the works based, free will, anti-grace myths that people all spreading so generously.

But thanks Dean, I respect and appreciate your view. It is helpful, even if I disagree with the summary.

 

[Hupomone10]

Since the reprobates - the evil ones - are God's enemies, how is it that God commands US to love OUR enemies, if He supposedly hates them?

Because we're not God and have no right to judge. That is a major error that most synergists make. They put man on par with God in many ways, when he is above us. God can judge righteously because he knows everything and is sovereign, we can't because we're not.

I think you know that is not what I intended, as the rest of my post indicated. I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.

If I said that God has no right to hate His enemies, what you said above would be valid. But far from setting myself up as judge of God, I am merely allowing Christ to give me the example of the Father's love to follow. This example goes directly against the idea that God hates His enemies, as the rest of my previous post you didn't include indicates.

I'll include it again, with further comments:

"The answer to the question is that God would NEVER command us to do something He was unwilling to do or didn't do Himself.

Jesus tells us how to love our enemies, and gives us the example of the Father's love:

Matt 5:44-48 NASB
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR, and hate your enemy.'

44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, ...

45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;...
(Jesus gives us the example of the Father's love)

46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?
(this is exactly the picture you gave us of God's love in your previous post; Jesus shows that this is a fleshly love, and in the next statement He drives home that this is not the type of love the Father has)

48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Jesus here points out that part of being perfect is to love one's enemies. We are to be as the Heavenly Father is, and that is perfect.

(Don't miss this statement this time)
If He commands us to love our enemies, we can be sure it is because He does the same.

 

[DD2008]

The synergist view believe sthat salvation is dependent upon the grace of God but that God has provided grace to all men. That is why He is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. In other words, Christ's death on the cross provided grace for all men to be capable of being saved, but will only save those who have faith. Christ initiated our salvation by grace on the cross, and it will be completed by grace. When Christ died on the cross He drew all men unto Himself -- not just some.

Here is the biblical view.

1. All men are naturally evil since the fall and deserve hell.
2. God for reasons of his own has elected some men to salvation and not elected others. He has given grace to his elect and allowed them to see the truth by giving them a new nature. He has provided atonement for their sins by Christ's death on the cross.
3. Christs death on the cross is sufficient for everyone who ever lived, however it is only effective for those who are elected to salvation so it is limited in application to those who are given the gift of faith.
4. A person can't love God until he is regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit regenerates a person that person will love God and will gladly and joyfully praise God for Christ.
5. Because God is sovereign all of his elect will persevere to the end by the power of God.

Also I noticed out of all of that long post that you feel like you are a teacher. You keep saying you are "teaching". Last I remember you were a seeker. Are you a memebr of a local church?

Synergism is untrue. The bible is very clear that salvation (justification) is not dependent upon the participation of man. Sanctification is dependent upon the participation of man. There is an enormous difference that synergists do not recognize or they wouldn't be synergists.

 

[DD2008]

A book I suggest reading if one can humble themselves enough to:

Amazon.com: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (9780830828418): Roger E. Olson: Books

It's a book that has helped me realize that Arminianism is not necessarily heretical, but obviously only one of the two are correct, or somehow both co-exist even if it seems illogical. Again, it wouldn't be the first paradox of scripture. And it logically debunks the works based, free will, anti-grace myths that people all spreading so generously.

If you have to do anything at all to get salvation that is a work. Faith is a sign of salvation that is given to us by God and counted as righteousness. It is not something we create naturally. Faith is our gift of assurance of our salvation.

Try ths one:



Amazon.com: Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (9780801064128): R. C. Sproul: Books

 

[DD2008]

I think you know that is not what I intended, as the rest of my post indicated. I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. [

I'm not on a hook. You are. You are the one placeing the sovereign almighty God on par with man.

If I said that God has no right to hate His enemies, what you said above would be valid. But far from setting myself up as judge of God, I am merely allowing Christ to give me the example of the Father's love to follow. This example goes directly against the idea that God hates His enemies, as the rest of my previous post you didn't include indicates.

Do you believe in hell? If there are people in hell for eternity do you really think God loves them? No, he is pouring out his just wrath upon his enemies.

"The answer to the question is that God would NEVER command us to do something He was unwilling to do or didn't do Himself.

Everyone including us are naturally the enemies of God. Because God loves some of us he elected us to salvation. The rest he did not. The rest go to hell.

Jesus tells us how to love our enemies, and gives us the example of the Father's love:

Right. When Christ died for the elect he died for his enemies who he gave the grace to be his friends. When we are regenerated the creator creates us again. He, by grace, gives us a new nature.

45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;...
[/color](Jesus gives us the example of the Father's love)

Who sent his son to die for us as stated above.

(Don't miss this statement this time)
If He commands us to love our enemies, we can be sure it is because He does the same.

As I stated, that applies to the elect who were once his enemies but by grace are now his family.

Remember, there are people in hell. Hell is awful. God doesn't love people in hell. He gives them what they deserve, and avenges his people.

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZKJSNVgqM

 

[dies-l]

I'm not on a hook. You are. You are the one placeing the sovereign almighty God on par with man.



Do you believe in hell? If there are people in hell for eternity do you really think God loves them? No, he is pouring out his just wrath upon his enemies.




Everyone including us are naturally the enemies of God. Because God loves some of us he elected us to salvation. The rest he did not. The rest go to hell.



Right. When Christ died for the elect he died for his enemies who he gave the grace to be his friends. When we are regenerated the creator creates us again. He, by grace, gives us a new nature.




Who sent his son to die for us as stated above.



As I stated, that applies to the elect who were once his enemies but by grace are now his family.

Remember, there are people in hell. Hell is awful. God doesn't love people in hell. He gives them what they deserve, and avenges his people.

Watch this video:

YouTube - Does God Love Everyone?

When you deny the truth of passages like 1 John 4:8 and John 3:16 (which you do when you say that there exists even a single person whom God does not love), then you deny the Gospel, and I can no longer take any of your other arguments seriously. While we may legitimately disagree about many things, the love of God for all mankind is so clearly pronounced in Scripture that anyone who denies such suffers from such a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture that all other conclusions that that person may draw from Scripture are intrinsically flawed.

 

[faceofbear]

Here is the biblical view.

First, before I continue reading on, I just want to say, this is your interpretation of the biblical view, it is not an objective infallible view of the Bible's view. I just want to make that clear before you get into circular reasoning as did the other poster.

1. All men are naturally evil since the fall and deserve hell.

No quarrels here.

2. God for reasons of his own has elected some men to salvation and not elected others. He has given grace to his elect and allowed them to see the truth by giving them a new nature. He has provided atonement for their sins by Christ's death on the cross.

I agree, but I believe His election was based on His foreknowledge and goodness, not some unknown reason. And that Christ died for the world and became the savior of all men (prevenient grace), especially those who believe (saving grace) 1 Timothy 4:10.

3. Christs death on the cross is sufficient for everyone who ever lived, however it is only effective for those who are elected to salvation so it is limited in application to those who are given the gift of faith.

I too, believe in a limited atonement. I do not believe in a universal at atonement, but I believe that there is a preceding grace whereby men can reject the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), or those who respond in faith are covered by the atonement. Again 1 Timothy 4:10.

4. A person can't love God until he is regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit regenerates a person that person will love God and will gladly and joyfully praise God for Christ.

Agreed.

5. Because God is sovereign all of his elect will persevere to the end by the power of God.

I believe the election is conditional and based on foreknowledge and those who persevere to the end will be saved by the power of God, but the perseverance is conditional, but that God doesn't forfeit His sovereignty in this. Rather, God is a God of goodness and love who is sovereign in this.

Also I noticed out of all of that long post that you feel like you are a teacher. You keep saying you are "teaching". Last I remember you were a seeker. Are you a memebr of a local church?

No, not yet, I'm waiting to go to member classes. However, I don't know what being a member of a local church has to do with anything as in no where it is commanded in scripture, and a church membership didn't come about until 300 years after Christ by Constantinople. But I do believe church is a healthy part of growth, hence why I'm waiting for the classes. And I don't think I'm a teacher, far from it. I think I'm an idiot who is ignorant. Nor do I consider myself a seeker, but a skeptic with an open mind who isn't adamant about my interpretation of scripture being infallible and wishing to help others avoid the same error of the pharisees.

Synergism is untrue. The bible is very clear that salvation (justification) is not dependent upon the participation of man.

I didn't say this anywhere.

Sanctification is dependent upon the participation of man.

But you just said God's sheep persevere so He would force man to participate, if we're talking about the Calvinist version of God.

There is an enormous difference that synergists do not recognize or they wouldn't be synergists.

I do not deny God's sovereignty. Rather, I do not believe that God is the author of sin and evil as Calvinists do. I believe that if God forces people to sin and decreed them to sin that God's moral goodness is questionable at best, especially for forcing people to sin and then forcing people to Hell. I believe this is completely contrary to scripture, yet it's what Calvinists so adamantly affirm, though they'll try to avoid agreeing with the fact that their view holds that God makes people sin. I believe that God allows sin, which doesn't deny His sovereignty, but does not will it.

The misunderstanding in all of this is a misunderstanding of what sovereignty means. You do not have to force people to do things to remain sovereign. However, I do believe that God influences and even forces certain decisions. I just adamantly deny that the God of the Bible forces people to sin and then makes them suffer eternally for it. I'll stick with the early churches view on rejection on divine determinism considering as Paul said, if the root is holy, all the branches will be. So, if referencing the whole early church collectively had more of a synergist view, I think I'll stick to that. Of course, I don't believe the early church is infallible, but it's probably fairly more accurate considering heterodox had more chance to evolve since then. But even if I'm wrong, oh well. It's not really damning to say that God loves the world and doesn't will sin, since it's what my Bible says so openly.

 

[faceofbear]

If you have to do anything at all to get salvation that is a work. Faith is a sign of salvation that is given to us by God and counted as righteousness. It is not something we create naturally. Faith is our gift of assurance of our salvation.

Try ths one:



Amazon.com: Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (9780801064128): R. C. Sproul: Books

I'm not really a Sproul fan, even when I high Calvinist. But when I'm done with a couple of books I have now, I'll look into it. But again, I don't believe in free will in the sense that I'm sure this book is writing against. I don't know how many more times I have to say that I deny free will in the sense of a humanitarian one without any grace whatsoever.

 

[DD2008]

First, before I continue reading on, I just want to say, this is your interpretation of the biblical view, it is not an objective infallible view of the Bible's view. I just want to make that clear before you get into circular reasoning as did the other poster.

Read the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions. Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Henry, Edwards, Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, Macarthur, Mohler, all agree with me.

I agree, but I believe His election was based on His foreknowledge and goodness, not some unknown reason. And that Christ died for the world and became the savior of all men (prevenient grace), especially those who believe (saving grace) 1 Timothy 4:10.

Foreknowledge just means that since he knows everything he forknew who he wanted to spend eternity with and how he wanted eternity to go.

I too, believe in a limited atonement. I do not believe in a universal at atonement, but I believe that there is a preceding grace whereby men can reject the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), or those who respond in faith are covered by the atonement. Again 1 Timothy 4:10.

The elect are elect. They can't defy God's election.

I believe the election is conditional and based on foreknowledge and those who persevere to the end will be saved by the power of God, but the perseverance is conditional, but that God doesn't forfeit His sovereignty in this. Rather, God is a God of goodness and love who is sovereign in this.

The bible and all of the theologians I mentioned above disagree with you.

No, not yet, I'm waiting to go to member classes.

Your primary spiritual growth is done in a local church not on the internet or in books.

But you just said God's sheep persevere so He would force man to participate, if we're talking about the Calvinist version of God.

Yes he does force man to participate the same way he forced man to exist in the first place. You didn't choose to be born but God in his wisdom gave life to you. It is the same in rebirth you don't choose to be reborn you just are by God's power.

I do not deny God's sovereignty. Rather, I do not believe that God is the author of sin and evil as Calvinists do.

Hyper Calvinists claim God is the author of sin. Normal people believe that sin is what men do against God's command and God has allowed sin because in the eternal picture the lesson of sin benefits God's elect.

The misunderstanding in all of this is a misunderstanding of what sovereignty means. You do not have to force people to do things to remain sovereign.

Soverign means that nothing happens at all unless you approved it. God didn't author sin. He allowed it.

However, I do believe that God influences and even forces certain decisions. I just adamantly deny that the God of the Bible forces people to sin and then makes them suffer eternally for it. I'll stick with the early churches view on rejection on divine determinism considering as Paul said, if the root is holy, all the branches will be. So, if referencing the whole early church collectively had more of a synergist view, I think I'll stick to that. Of course, I don't believe the early church is infallible, but it's probably fairly more accurate considering heterodox had more chance to evolve since then. But even if I'm wrong, oh well. It's not really damning to say that God loves the world and doesn't will sin, since it's what my Bible says so openly.

Paul was a monergist and so was Christ.

 

[Hupomone10]

Try ths one:



Amazon.com: Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (9780801064128): R. C. Sproul: Books

FaceofBear:
If you read this one, where you're at right now with your study and research of the issue, it will IMHO really turn you off at some points.

It did me, anyway, years ago when I read it. I got it and read it objectively in a study of Calvinism, thinking I was a Calvinist, not realizing some of the things Highs and Hypers believe. It shocked me at some of the beliefs Sproul had that were taken out of context of scripture to prove in line with his theology. Only some of it; most was accurate. His interpretations are deductive not inductive, as are many Highs and Hypers and any they can influence.

You're better just following the Spirit and doing your own study. Or if you get it, just understand that it is a book of agenda, not objective at all.

Blessings,
H.

 

[faceofbear]

Thanks Bill, I'll keep that in mind. As far as DD, again, your interpretation of what Paul and Jesus taught agree with you, but your interpretation is subject to error and is not objective. And as far as MacArthur, etc. goes... well, I lived in a area where MacArthur was thoroughly popular and lets just say I'd be wary of listening to anything of MacArthur ever again. But those people are not infallible. So saying so-and-so agrees with me doesn't matter. It matters what the Bible says. And this debate has been going on for quite sometime. I doubt we'll settle it here. However, if you want to begin naming names, Luther, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley, Greek Orthodox, the early church agrees with me. Augustines teachings were denied by the early church as by anything that has ever been taught by the forefathers. But it's also a mistake comparing Augustine to Calvin, as Sproul so often does. A lot of what Augustine taught is not reformed at all.

But the argument still doesn't work. Calvin also believed in infant baptism, I don't. It's not what I believe to be a solid doctrinal stance. So, it really doesn't matter to me what Calvin agrees with -- unless it's the Bible, and as I've mentioned, depending on interpretations you can end up in either camp.

anyways, I'll respond in a bit, I have to go pick someone up from the airport.

 

[dies-l]

FoB,

Don't let the hyper-Calvinists get you down and don't let them tell you what Scripture says. They do not have a monopoly on biblical interpretation, and it would appear that the most fervent supporters of a strict monergistic soteriology are wholly unaware that they are engaged in the process of interpreting Scripture. When I read such general statements like "The biblical position is . . . " or "Paul and Jesus clearly were . . . . [in their views]", then I see the statements of a person who is either unwilling or unable to grasp the nuances of sound exegesis. Clearly, many Calvinists are able to recognize the limitations of their hermeneutics, and I, in no way intend this statement to indict all who subscribe to monergistic view. However, I would merely point out that anyone, regardless of the view that they are promoting, who supports their positions with a spattering of proof-texts and generic statements about what "Scripture clearly teaches" is a highly ineffective advocate for their position.

The truth is that if Scripture "clearly" taught one fairly modern view of soteriology, then this controversy would not exist nearly as predominantly as it does. The very intensity of this controversy points to the legitimate basis of disagreement on this topic. I, for one, believe that the biblical evidence points strongly against the modern Calvinist notion of individual election and predestination. However, I certainly can acknowledge why some are inclined to interpret Scripture in this way. I see in Scripture far too much indication of personal choice and the need for a conscious and deliberate profession of faith, which while not a prerequisite for God pouring His grace upon us, is necessary for us to receive the benefit of God's grace. I see only a smattering of proof texts, that when read devoid of meaningful context, points to a concept of God who has consciously and deliberately elected specific individuals for salvation and other for damnation. More importantly, this interpretation of certain passages in the Pauline epistles, appears to contradict passages in the teachings of Jesus, as well as the epistles of James, John, and incidentally, Paul. Thus, I am inclined to disagree with DD's position that monergism is the most Biblically sound viewpoint, but I am willing to entertain reasonable and well-articulated arguments for it.

Anyway, I just encourage you to keep searching the Scriptures. It doesn't matter what I believe or what anyone else here does. What matters is what the Scriptures teach. And, while we may reasonably disagree as to specific issues, I do believe that we will ultimately find the Truth. The important thing is to acknowledge that none of us (except Jesus) has it all figured out, and anyone who claims that they do is more off track than the rest of us.

God bless.
D.

 

[DD2008]

FoB,

Don't let the hyper-Calvinists get you down and don't let them tell you what Scripture says.

I haven't seen any hyper calvinists post in this thread. Hyper calvinism is a heresy.

However, the bible is now and has always been very clear that God is sovereign and that is why you can trust what he says. It's not hard to interpret what it says if you're saved because it was written for saved people. No one else can understand it because they are dead in their sins and the bible is spiritually discerned by those who are indwelled by the spirit because it is the word of God.

So, back to the point of the thread, eternal security, (salvation) is a gift of the sovereign God. The saved are safe with God by the power of God forever because nothing can change God's plans and overpower him, thus eternal security.

 

[Hentenza]

As faceofbear stated it has to do with the individuals~not the plan. The plan doesn't change but if at some point I decide to turn away, in essence repent of being Christian, then my name can be blotted out of the Book of Life.

As you said below salvation is indeed by grace through faith, however, is salvation a free gift or not?

You say that the plan does not change but if God has granted you salvation, can you thwart God's plan? Can man alter God's plan?

Salvation is by grace through faith, unless I believe in the calvingod that says each individual is actually a lottery ticket that, if the calvingod scratches off and it's a winner, then that person gets his golden ticket to heaven and if calvingod scratches it and it's a loser then it's the hot place for you sorry 'bout your luck.

See, there is no faith there, just an arbitary roll 'o the dice and maybe your ticket will get punched, and if calvingod is real I'd rather go to hell.

That is not what Calvinism teaches. I certainly do not believe in double predestination, however, predestination is certainly biblical.

 

[Hupomone10]

I haven't seen any hyper calvinists post in this thread. Hyper calvinism is a heresy.

However, the bible is now and has always been very clear that God is sovereign and that is why you can trust what he says. It's not hard to interpret what it says if you're saved because it was written for saved people. No one else can understand it because they are dead in their sins and the bible is spiritually discerned by those who are indwelled by the spirit because it is the word of God.

So, back to the point of the thread, eternal security, (salvation) is a gift of the sovereign God. The saved are safe with God by the power of God forever because nothing can change God's plans and overpower him, thus eternal security.

Eternal life is a gift of God, not eternal security. Eternal security is the promise of God, sovereign God if you need that emphasis.

Assurance is not the gift of God and nowhere do I know of it referred to as such in the Word of God. Assurance is a result of believing in Christ and trusting His Word. God is faithful to His Word, it is a characteristic of His nature.

And MacArthur, one of the sources Dean included in his list, confirms that assurance is based on God's Word, he confirms this over and over and over.

 

[Hupomone10]

If you have to do anything at all to get salvation that is a work.

Not true.

Faith is a sign of salvation that is given to us by God

No it is not.

and counted as righteousness.

Yes, our faith is counted as righteousness.

It is not something we create naturally.

True. It is not created, for it does not need to be. It is not somehow "created" by God the moment before salvation and plopped down into your head either. Your eyes were blinded to God prior; your eyes are opened. You then believe. You are at that moment regenerated; and nothing in the Word of God disagrees with that. It is the overall message of the New Testament time after time after time. Your responsibility is simply to accept Christ, to believe in Christ, not to believe that God created faith in you.

Faith is our gift of assurance of our salvation.

Not true.

 

[DD2008]

Eternal life is a gift of God, not eternal security. Eternal security is the promise of God, sovereign God if you need that emphasis.

Assurance is not the gift of God and nowhere do I know of it referred to as such in the Word of God. Assurance is a result of believing in Christ and trusting His Word. God is faithful to His Word, it is a characteristic of His nature.

And MacArthur, one of the sources Dean included in his list, confirms that assurance is based on God's Word, he confirms this over and over and over.

One who has repented and trusts in Christ can be sure he has eternal life because God who gives eternal life says so and that can be believed because God is sovereign. Faith and assurance are the same thing. If you don't have assurance you don't really believe. If you really have saving faith you know christ has saved you. That's what faith is.

 

[DD2008]

True. It is not created, for it does not need to be. It is not somehow "created" by God the moment before salvation and plopped down into your head either. Your eyes were blinded to God prior; your eyes are opened. You then believe. You are at that moment regenerated; and nothing in the Word of God disagrees with that. It is the overall message of the New Testament time after time after time. Your responsibility is simply to accept Christ, to believe in Christ, not to believe that God created faith in you.

There is a difference between milk and meat. To be saved you just trust that Christ has saved you. To know God you learn that he is sovereign and chose you to salvation before the world began.

The faith you have is your faith given to you by God who regenerated you and allowed you to really believe.

Faith is not something you must produce to be saved. It is something you have that proves you were saved. God has made it so that you have comfort in him and believe things that others think are stupid.

 

[DD2008]

YouTube - Isn't it Enough? (Paul Washer's Secret)