Eternal security and unpardonable sin

He is not saved...and the subject of eternal security is moot.

 

So it's grace all the way, then. I have discussed with a lot of non-ES's in other boards as well and I have come to the conclusion that they mistake the eternal penalty of sin which is what Christ paid for on behalf of the child of God, to the timely consequences of sin in a child of God's life which Christ never guaranteed against much the same way as many in Christendom especially among Baptists, both who adhere to ES and vice-versa, mistake eternal salvation which is what God through and in Christ secured for His children, and timely salvation which is what gospel preaching, gospel churches, and gospel instruction results in.

 

Webdog hit the key difference. We both say non-believers will not enter into heaven. But what if a man believes and is later decieved? Jesus said we must endure till the end. So the ES say this person was never saved to begin with while a non-ES might says that he once was, depending on the fruit he bore. Jesus said that all men will know that we are his disciples if we have love one for another. So if I saw the fruit and heard the confession of faith that falls in line with scripture, were they saved? maybe, maybe not. Either way they end lost.

So if the method of salvation is the same. The way we attempt to live our life is the same. The end result is the same. Is it a major difference? I don't see it that way and most of the people I talk to who know what the other side believes and teaches don't think so either. But we have a great deal of folks who know their side of the argument and are told second hand what the other side believes make it a big deal. It is no larger an issue than Pre-Mil vs Post-Mil vs A-Mill. Interesting to discuss but in the end, no big deal.

 

drfuss: I agree, the difference is no big deal. But those who only consider what others tell them and not actually check out what the other belief is, tend to make it a big deal. That is true for both sides.

BTW, some ES Christians, such as Charles Stanley and Zane Hodges, believe a Christian can stop trusting in Christ and is still saved even after he stops trusting in Christ.

Another variation within the ES community is between the 5 Point Calvinists and the Non-Calvinists that beleive in ES. In this case, the difference is terminolgy and justification for ES. So the ES Christians don't always agree with each other either.

 

Yes, I am aware of Mr. Stanley's belief. This is what I was taught that all ES believed before I arrived at the BB. There are also many non-ES who believe that each sin removes your name from the lambs book of life until you pray for repentance. Both positions are extremist and I dismiss them when speaking on the ES vs non-ES positions.

 

...so salvation is now based on whether one becomes deceived or not? Fallen humans, even redeemed ones WILL be deceived at some point. Have you ever studied the power of suggestion? It is quite powerful!
Your model has the human mind as the catalyst for salvation, and not the grace of God in keeping His own. Again, a circumcision cannot be undone, no matter how deceived we become in thinking it was a waste of time. Scripture teaches the absolute truth that by our fruits we will be known...not the converse of that statement as used by the non ES'ers.

 

drfuss: I have not had any experience with Christians that believe each sin can remove your name from the Lamb's Book of Life. That certainly is an extreme position. I don't know of any major Non-ES denomination that believes that unless it is the Catholic Church. I have checked numerous denominational websites in my studies on this issue.

There are more Non-ES people that think that all ES Christians believe as Charles Stanley does than what most ES Christiians on BB realize.

 

No not on decieved but on if one "believes".

I disagree with you on this but that's OK. Actually that's my point. It's OK for us to disagree. It does not change our faith in Christ. We can fellowship and worship together.

 

I don't know of any denomination that believes it either, but I do know a lot of believers who practice it. They also apply it only to sins that are big, not "mistakes". I have no idea how they determine which is which.

It is amazing how different many people in a church can believe from what is taught and preached. I think it may have something to do with selective hearing and selective application.

 

I think the crux of the matter is if one truly believes, and then "un-believes" through deceit of the father of lies, whether that person is still saved. You say no, but I believe Scripture teaches that no one can snatch us from the Father's hand...and no one includes us and satan.

Agreed :thumbs:
...but what is it that you disagree with...that the converse of absolute truth is also not automatically absolute truth, or that fruit is needed to be seen by us in order to understand someone's status with God? If the latter...how much fruit, and what kind?

 

I find it hard to believe that one who spent an entire life trying to destroy God and his people. Publicly denied the esistance of God, and denied the word of God, would be forced by God into eternal life because he believed when he was a teen. If I undersand the belief of ES, they would also. Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.

If I understood you correctly, you saywe are know by our fruits but not the converse of it. I say if one is born again there must be fruits of a spiritual nature. EX. Scripture says we must love each other. If we don't love each other, how can we love God? Many other scripture that speak of bearing fruit. Absence of fruit??

 

Webdog writes:
"I think the crux of the matter is if one truly believes, and then "un-believes" through deceit of the father of lies, whether that person is still saved. You say no, but I believe Scripture teaches that no one can snatch us from the Father's hand...and no one includes us and satan."

drfuss: It sounds like you agree with Charles Stanley. Do you?

 

No. Stanley believes in the "baptist purgatory" known as Millenial Exclusion.

 

It would depend if there was true faith present as a teen. Since we cannot crawl into the heart and mind of another, there is no way of knowing whether the faith was genuine or not.
Let's go at this in another way. A teen comes to Christ, is hit by a car, loses his entire memory, and later becomes an atheiset. Is he saved or damned?

Yes. That passage does not say if there is no fruit, they are not saved. This is like giving you the truthful statement everyone in my church likes chicken. The converse of that is everyone who doesn't go to my church doesn't like chicke. The first statement is true, the second is false.

How do we know if someone loves someone else? Love can be faked...is this the only measure of someone being a believer? Where does it state in Scripture one "must" bear fruit of a spiritual nature, how much, and what kind?

From Scripture, what fruit did Lot bear?

 

From the first part of the statement is where I am drawing the argument that it is more of a sense of terms, definitions, and interpetation. The question becomes, "Was he REALLY saved." And as you say, we can not crawl into the heart and know, only God and the individual can know, and the individual can be decieved. I may think a person like this was once saved, you may not. Either way the soul is lost.

As for the case of the car accident, an honest answer would be much like your answer to my hypothetical. I just don't know. I think if the loss of faith was from anger at God he may be lost, if from a physical cause maybe forgiven. once again only God knows.

I'm trying to avoid the ES vs Non-ES debate because I know I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, but I hope you see that the two are much closer than many would have you believe.

 

Webdog,

Sorry I forgot to address the fruit issue. Just off the top of my head. 1 Jn Chapter 2, John 15, Hebrews 6. There are others but I would have to look them up and I am too lazy to do so at the time. If you really want me to I can later tonight or over the weekend. (I'm currently trying to work on one screen and post on the other)

I know you will have a different take on these verses than I. I'm looking to unify the two "sides" instead of dividing.

 

drfuss: We all believe that our own belief is the "Truths found in God's Word". As I said before, you say it your way; and I will say it my way. The difference is really not that important. From a pracical perspective, we all believe the same thing except Charles Stanley.

Peace.