Can ANY Arminian KNOW that Heaven is his home?

If the condition of their assurance is "while they are christians" it is a worry. Most of the examples I had when I was believing in that doctrine were counter factuals, some of them were so far fetched but it all involved a situation where someone at one time was confessing faith in Christ but later denying their faith. Other examples involved people that commited outrageously evil acts and were said to be at one stage "saved"....

Darren

 

[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by drfuss
The best way to answer a question is to relate to something that the one asking the question is familiar with. Since one who believes in eternal security asked the question, my answer is given as it relates to the same issue in eternal security. The answer is applicable to both the Arminian belief and the eternal security belief.

Eternal security Christians see an uncertainty in the Arminian belief concerning knowing that you will arrive in heaven one day. Arminians see an uncertainty in the eternal security belief in not knowing that one is a True Christian and arrive in heaven one day. The fact that most eternal security Christians will not acknowledge the uncertainty as seen by others, does not mean it is not there.

Since both beliefs have uncertainties as seen by others, the answer to the question is the same for both beliefs.

The question is- does Arminianism teach that you can KNOW that you will arrive in heaven one day? YES.

The question is- does the eternal secuirty doctrine teach that you can KNOW that you will arrive in heaven one day? YES.

If you cannot understand how the answer for Arminians is yes, then you should not be able to understand a yes answer for the Christians who believe in eternal security.

All of these uncertainties are made certainties by faith in Christ and His keeping power within each belief.

Most of us in Baptist Churches (SBC in my case) have only heard one side of this issue in our churches and that over and over again. I think it is good to consider the other beliefs on this issue; however, this is sometimes difficult to do.

 

Drfuss,
I was a Free Will Baptist. I was educated in one of the FWB colleges. I preached in FWB churches for better than a decade. I began making the shift when I thought through the illogical implications of this particular Arminian tenet.

You CANNOT know you will be in heaven one day if you don't know for sure that you are NOT going to lose your salvation. The FWB believes a Christian can forfeit (but not lose) his salvation by stopping believing according to Dr Stephen Ashby - Assistant professor of philosophy and religeous studies at Ball State University, who represented the FWB position in the book on 4 views of Etermal Security. Sounds like the FWB doesn't have its act together on this one.

You CAN KNOW that you will be in heaven one day if you KNOW that God has promised he will get you there. Both eternal security believers and Arminians agree on this.

It's as simple as that.

This "uncertainty" business that you keep throwing in the mix just muddies the water of the debate at hand.

It seems clear to me that it is illogical to promise heaven to converts if you are not sure that they or yourselves are actually going to endure to the end OR IF YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY SURE THAT YOU ARE A TRUE CHRISTIAN SINCE SOME WHO THINK THEY ARE TRUE CHRISTIANS, LATER STOP BELIEVING.[/QUOTE]

Above I helped you include the uncertainties that others see in the eternal security belief. You talk about what you see as an uncertainty in the Arminian belief, but you refuse to acknowledge the uncertainty that others see in the eternal security belief. You seem to keep denying it, but it is still there.

It is illogical to accept the uncertainty in one side of the issue, but deny a similar uncertainty on the other side of the issue.

 

Regardless of whether you are Calvinist or Arminian, if your assurance is based on the faithfulness of the believer, you can never be sure you will be saved.

But if your assurance is based on the faithfulness of Jesus you can be absolutely sure you are saved.

I KNOW I am saved because Jesus is faithful. He made a promise to me and Jesus cannot lie. Have I always been 100% faithful to Jesus? NO. And isn't all unfaithfullness to Jesus unbelief? YES. We do not trust Jesus as we should. I say that to my own shame.

We see examples in the scriptures, Peter denied Jesus. This was unbelief. Yet Peter was saved, because he was kept by Jesus's faithfulness. We see another example of Peter's unbelief when he tried to walk on water. He took his eyes off Jesus and began to doubt. He started to sink. Did Jesus let him perish? NO. Jesus reached down and pulled him up. We are secure because Jesus is faithful, not because we are always faithful.

Matt 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

If Jesus says "Come" and you obey him, he is not going to allow you to perish.

 

I agree with this 100%. And if I may weigh in with this thought:

IF you are truly born again, you cannot be unborn. My father and I may not always have the closest relationship, but regardless I will always be in his family. I believe the same holds true in this case.

Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The implication is if you are born again you WILL see the kingdom of God. IF God is your Father through faith in Jesus Christ, He cannot cease to be your Father.

I could be potentially led astray, by some unforseen circumstance in my life, quit reading my Bible (from which comes faith) and backslide and become like Lot, living and prospering in Sodom. Yet, like Lot, God will save me though I will not recieve any crowns in heaven for exempliary service.

 

It is true that most of those who argue salvation can be lost through one's choice to forfeit or walk away from their faith in Christ.

That view demonstrates a fundamental error regarding the role of faith in salvation. Faith is not the cause of salvation. We are not saved because we have faith. Faith is the conduit through which we receive salvation. Paul says we are saved by grace through faith.

Secondly, it demonstrates a fundamental error in terms of understanding the nature/character of salvation. Salvation is a transformation of the heart. We are new creations in Christ and we have or should have, a sincere desire to serve the Lord. While it is true that all Christians stumble at weak moments in their lives or during times of discouragement and in some cases live in sin for a season, that does not constitute full or final rejection of the Lord.

All of us let the Lord down almost daily. We are weak, flawed human beings. That does not excuse us or our sins, but God knows our frailty and if salvation were to be determined by our faithfulness to Him, none of us would have any hope. The argument that we have to have enough faith to stay saved makes salvation a product of human merit. It makes salvation a reward and not a free gift.

We are not saved because we are good; we are saved because God is good and because he is slow to anger, rich in mercy and abundant in grace. We are saved because God demonstrated his love for us by sending Jesus to satisfy his justice and to remove the curse of death that hung over the collective head of mankind.

 

Luke writes:
"This "uncertainty" business that you keep throwing in the mix just muddies the water of the debate at hand."

I was not the one who brought up this "uncertainty" business. Luke brought it up in the OP which is based on an uncertainty that Luke sees in the Arminian belief. The OP didn't use the word uncertainty, but that is what the OP is about. I simply pointed out that the Arminians see the same type of uncertainty in the eternal security belief.

 

Well, you and Luke keep speaking of Arminians. To most Calvinists, anyone who is not a Calvinist must be an Arminian. That is not so.

I believe in freewill, in this respect I am in agreement with Arminians. I do not believe in Limited Atonement, in this respect I am in agreement with Arminians also. But Arminians generally believe in perserverance of the saints. This is where I and many others disagree with Arminians.

Saying that you will persevere is just another way of saying you keep your own salvation. You can argue that, but the word persevere is defined as meaning to persist or maintain some act. That is what persevere means.

No, I believe in preservation of the saints. I am kept by Jesus, not by perservering.

Look at the times Peter failed. When he said "I go a fishing" (John 21:3), he had given up in discouragement. He had given up on the ministry given him and returned to his previous worldly occupation. Who came after him? Jesus (John 21:4).

When Peter was sinking in the water because he doubted, who reached down and immediately grabbed him? Jesus.

Yes, those who believe they must persevere will always have some doubt. This applies to either Calvinists or Arminians. But if you rely on Jesus's faithfulness and not our own, you can be sure.

 

Totally false. Completely illogical.

If not a then not b does not mean if a then b

Example:
If it does not rain tommorrow it is not Friday is true
If it rains tomorrow it is Friday is not true.

Sorry, I'm Just a computer geek I guess.

 

So, you believe a person can be born again and not see the kingdom of God?

 

Winman writes:
"Well, you and Luke keep speaking of Arminians. To most Calvinists, anyone who is not a Calvinist must be an Arminian. That is not so."

I am aware of the names mix up problem that you speak of. That is the reason that I used eternal security believer rather than Calvinist in most if not all of my posts. Christians who believe in only some of the 5 points of Calvinism sometimes call themselves Moderate Calvinists.

To me, an Arminian (Classic) is a Christian who believes he can forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing, or a Wesleyan Arminian who believes he can lose his salvation by long time continual resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit about sin in his life, while still believing.

 

Well, it is not that the Arminians do not have legitimate arguments. There are many verses in the scriptures that can be interpreted to seem to say a person who is saved can lose their salvation. Probably the greatest passage to this effect is Hebrews 6:4-9. I believe that it was Pastor J. Vernon McGee who said this is the most fearful passage in all the scriptures.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

This is a very fearful passage of scripture, because it speaks of persons who were one enlightened, have tasted of the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come who have fallen away.

The Arminian will say, "See, this person has been born again, they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, yet they can fall away"

The Calvinist will say, "No, the writter (most likely Paul) is stating an impossibility" and point to the word "if" that starts verse 6.

But this is a very weak argument, as many scholars agree. Why go to all this trouble to express something that is impossible? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In my opinion (and others), the problem is both sides are wrong. They are not truly understanding what this passage says.

The Calvinist cannot understand this passage because they think it impossible for the unregenerate man to be enlightened and be a partaker of the Holy Spirit. Therefore they conclude this passage must be speaking of a regenerate, born again person.

The Arminian cannot understand this passage because they believe it is speaking of a person who has been born again.

In reality, they both believe the same thing. But I believe both are wrong.

This verse is not speaking of someone who has been born again. It is speaking of a person who has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. They have "tasted" of the word of God, but they have not "eaten" of the word of God.

There is a difference between tasting and actually eating. If you were starving to death, it would not help you to simply taste food. No, you need to actually eat food to nourish yourself.

So, this is a person who has been brought to the understanding that they are a sinner and that Jesus died for their sins. They clearly understand that. But for whatever reason they will not fully eat, that is, trust on Jesus. There is some sin in their life they do not want to give up. They choose this sin over Jesus.

I believe a person like this will never be brought to this point again. They will be hardened. They have heard the truth, they understand the truth, but they reject it because of their love of sin. From this point on, they will become hardened to the gospel. It will never convict them to this degree again.

Matthew Henry agreed with this interpretation.

The funny thing is, Calvinists and Arminians actually believe the same thing, but see from a different perspective. The Calvinist cannot imagine an unregenerated person being enlightened, so this passage has to be speaking of a regenerate person, the Arminian also cannot understand that this is not speaking of a person who has not been born again. They believe the same thing from a different perspective, or from opposite direction.

I do not believe this passage is speaking of someone who has been born again. They have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, but they have only tasted, not eaten.

John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

To eat means to trust, to depend upon for sustenance.

 

Many make the mistake of thinking that man's reward is his being saved so they work real hard and fail constantly. True Salvation isn't about what man does but about what God does in the man. Being a saint couldn't be easier just let God do what only He can do. You can work your self into the grave but the gift is free.

 

That's not what I said. One must be born again. What I said was the logical assumption of (IF !a then !b) does not equate to (IF a then b).

Nothing to do with scipture, just simple logic.

 

This is one of those scriptures that a Christian can get out of it what he takes to it. There have been many innovative interpretations of this scrppture so that people can get out of it what they want it to mean. This includes famous preachers, theologians, etc.

My interpretation is that it was sent to Jews that rejected Judaism by becoming True Christians and were being pressured by the unconverted Jews and family to return to Judaism. It was a warning that if they publically rejected Christ and returned to Judaism, they would find it impossible to be convinced to return to Christ. It does not mean that God would not take them back again, but that it would be impossible to convince them to return to Christianity because they would consider themselves mocking Christ.

I think my interpretation is different that any you listed above.

 

I heard an old, old sermon once and have always followed that man's explanation, something as simple as, if it was possible to "fall away" so that you are as unsaved as before you were saved (reversing everything God did for you) it would be impossible to think you could be saved again via the sacrifice of Christ (His blood) as you can only accept it once for all. Best explanation I ever heard and one that I've always held to....

Therefore it would be impossible to be renewed to repentance again...

Those that teach they can lose their salvation also teach they can be re-saved again, totally baloney...

Darren

 

If we were judged by our life to get into Heaven, then Paul would have been a liar. Also, nobody would see Heaven because none of us are perfect. It takes perfection to be in the presence of God. We are judged by Christ's righteousness. Hence being "IN CHRIST". That is the ONLY way we can attain salvation. Man CANNOT do good enough to merit their own salvation. Pelagians believe it is their works alone that get them to heaven...semi-pelagians believe in human works plus grace. Both are damnable hereseys! The only works you are saved by is Christ's works. When the apostle James referred to works, he was illustrating what a saving faith is vs a dead faith. A christian does good works BECAUSE they are saved and made anew by the Holy Spirit @ regeneration. Someone who claims to be a Christian but bears no fruit, is a liar, and the truth is not in Him. What I am saying is that "good works" are a gift from God prepared beforehand that we would walk in them. They arent something to "merit" your way to heaven. It is Christ Jesus ALONE who did that already.

 

I'm in your camp. The Hebrews now had a better covenant and they were being warned about returning to the old covenant.

 

If it were a case of simple logic, don't you think Nicodemus would've picked up on that? Jesus was not appealing to his logic, he was appealing to the spirit.
The spirit is the key in this discourse.

Indeed, it is not logical to be born again from a physical perspective, which Nicodemus clearly points out. However, Jesus states it is a necessary requirement to see the kingdom of God.

I submit scripture is the basis for the argument. Jesus compared those born of the Spirit to the wind. There is no way to logically prove this.

The facts we do know are these:

(1) Jesus is God
(2) God cannot lie
(3) Jesus said except a man be born again he Cannot see the kingdom of God

It is logical to conclude based on these deductive arguments, If a person is born again he will see the kingdom of God.

You have tried to point out I have commited a fallacy of confusing cause and effect. Perhaps you could explain yourself further?

Based on the premise that we both believe scripture to be true, and Jesus to be God in the flesh, I do not see a basis for a fallicy. I believe I have put forth a valid and sound argument.