Featured Eternal Security, essential or nonessential?

I have a good friend of mine who agrees with me that God will NEVER let one of his go, but he also holds that God honors our free will so much that he allows us to be able to escape His grasp!

 

Exactly. And that is what the non-Calvinist denominations believe. And I have been studying them for nearly 40 years. And have been a member of a couple.

 

If eternal security is essential, it is automatically untrue. There is no example in scripture of anyone having to profess a belief in E.S. to become a Christian, and I have not been in a church where that was required. But if one has professed Jesus as Lord, then proclaimed he/she does not believe in E.S., then is shoved away as unsaved because of erring in an essential doctrine, E.S. was a required belief all along, and 'we' did not even ask the new convert if he/she believed it. Either that, or the believer in Christ who does not believe in E.S. has lost salvation, negating any truth to the doctirne.

So which is essential... belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, or belief in eternal security?

 

Welcome to the Land of the Lost.

But I never said you were lost... RIght.

WM

 

I would accept your challenge and submit that you do not know what you are talking about. I too studied the 'other denomination' having attended one of their seminaries, exhaustively read and studied Wesley's body of work and spent two-thirds of my pastoral ministry in one of their pulpits.

Consider Wesley's words, I cannot describe the nature of this faith better than in the words of our own Church: "The only instrument of salvation is faith; that is, a sure trust and confidence that God both hath and will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into His favour, for the merits of Christ's death and passion."

Take a few hours and read Wesley's sermon "Justification by Faith". He asserts there are no good works before justification. Works righteousness has never been part of the historic Wesleyan-Arminian theological understanding.

With a little study on your part you will also find that historic Wesleyans conclude that you cannot lose what you never had. Loosely translated into Baptist-speak, "They probably weren't saved in the first place."

You should learn to paint with a narrower brush.

 

I posted in another thread but will do so here also: I will no longer respond to those who question my salvation or charge me with teaching "another gospel" and "another christ".

I am warned that I will get an infraction if I keep responding to a person's doctrinal exposition with personal comments, but the doctrinal exposition is made up of the charges listed above! So be it. I have no power here. So, I will simply not respond or defend myself, no matter who says what about me or breaks the forum rules. From now on, neither attackers nor their enablers exist, as far as I'm concerned. So, for those few who fall into that category, knock yourselves out with your false accusations and attacks.

 

You probably don't want my acknowledgement but I agree with you. Also I think Wesley makes an interesting point

In both Wesley and in my view there is the point at which one is initially Justified which happens by faith. Yet necissarily sanctification must follow the initial entry into the ark of salvation.

 

The other branch followed George Whitfield.

 

Here's the only person's word I take on the topic.

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one."

 

Doesn't the idea of 'sinless perfection/second act of grace" factor into this OP somehow, as that is held by methodists/Wesylyns?

 

So they would see it as being the blood of jesus atones/covers all prior sins, but would have to be able to live 'well enough' to qualify to have his blood in the end cover their sins moviong forward?

And didn't wesley redefine sinless operfection as NOT we are able to liveperfectly, but will be able to love as God does, and see things sin wise as he does?