Free Will Baptist

drfuss, I made a post in a thread (it may be the one you're referring to) about Dr. Stanley's view. I have a book by him where he is quoted as saying that a person can be saved, become an unbeliever and still remain saved. So you are correct on that assumption. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Stanley, but I disagree with this view, even though I believe in eternal security.

 

I did not mean to imply that I didn't believe you. I did. I was merely expressing my ignorance of such a position.

 

Oh, I agree with you. Let me clarify by saying that an unregenerate man will not will to believe, outside of the work of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of my post was to call attention to the inconsistency of the non-Calvinist Baptist position, and the consistency of the FWB position. Even though I believe their position to be wrong, it's at least consistent.

 

I believe that this is what the Bible teaches.

Jhn 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

 

Educate me if you will please. In the General Baptist view, is it possible to sin enough to lose your salvation? Even though you may still trust Christ as Savior? Does sin by a believer constitute a willful rejection of salvation?

If yes, will you know which sin it is that tips you over the edge from a state of salvation to a state of lostness?

I suppose these same questions could be asked of Freewill Baptists, as well.

 

Actually I did not know such a belief existed until I read a book Dispensationalism, Rightly Dividing the People of God by Keith A Mathison who mentioned Zane Hodges.

 

drfuss: I don't know about the General Baptist view. But neither the Classic Arminians or the Wesleyan Arminians believe that committing sins can cause a Christian to lose thier salvation.

The Classic Arminians believe a Christains can forfeit, but not lose, their salvation by deciding to stop trusting Christ.

The Wesleyan Arminians believe a Christian can lose their salvation (while still trusting Christ) by refusing to confess, repent and be remorseful for known sins. Committing sins has nothing to do with it. It is resisting the Holy Spirit in dealing with known sins.

Most Arminians beliefs were Classic Arminians until John Wesley came along much later.

These definitions come from the book "Four Views on Eternal Security" written by four theology professors representing Classic Calvinists, Moderate Calvinists, Reformed (Classic) Arminians, and Wesleyan Arminians.

These represent the four main theological positions. Of course there are instances of both preachers and laymen who are supposed to fit into those categories, but have wondered into putting some emphasis on sins and works.

 

Thanks for those definitions. One of the reasons I asked the question is that many professing Christians (mostly Baptists) I have run into who develop doubts about their salvation, do so because of sin in their lives. They are usually out of church and out of God's will. They insist that they believe, but they're worried because they've been away from church, have fallen into sin. Their worry is about sin more than unbelief.

 

drfuss: Yes, I think you were the one that quoted from his book. Thanks for responding

 

drfuss: Tom, thanks for your responses.

I think their worry may be justified. Are "Christians" really believers who, over a long period of time, are living in inintentional sin and disregarding the things of God? I think all of these beliefs would say no. Of course, they would use different termnology to describe them, i.e. Not part of the elect; Orginally not a true Christian; Once believed, but has stopped believing; Has resisted the Holy Spirit and in danger of losing salvation.

All four believe the same important thing from a practical point of view. We must be trusting Christ when we die to go to heaven. All four beliefs approach this truth differently. One could say "much ado about nothing", but then what would we discuss and debate?

 

Many years ago, I was taught that whenever one had doubts about their salvation, I should try to take them back to that point where they made a profession of faith, and give them assurance that they were saved. However, I have come to the conclusion that many of those so-called professions were just that---so-called.

And I have concluded that I should never try to reassure one who has doubts. I want to deal the present. So I tell them, "I'm not interested in what you did 20 years ago. I want to know about today. Do you understand that we are all sinners. Do you understand the penalty of sin? Do you repent of your sins and trust Christ along for your salvation?" I try to help them understand that their salvation is not dependent on their profession, but on their trust in Christ and his finished work.

So, drfuss, I think you're right. One who has fallen into persistent sin and a disregard of the things of God should quite properly be worried if he was ever saved in the first place.

 

Some years ago I heard a very prominent Southern Baptist evangelist state regarding doubt and salvation: "If you are 99% saved you are 100% lost." I believe that to be ridiculous but it makes people jump out of their seats and head down the aisle. Is there anyone on this Forum who has never had any doubt about his salvation, particularly after they have sinned against God?.

What is faith? The writer of Hebrews tells us: Hebrews 1:1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I see faith and doubt as the opposite sides of a coin. Faith overcomes doubt.

I am reminded of the man whose son was healed by Jesus Christ: Mark 9:24. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

And then there is the Apostle Paul's declaration:
2Timothy 1:12. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

 

Tom - AMEN! (jumping to my feet and clapping)

 

You most likely misunderstood the point since this phrase is not 'typically' used about doubt but is regarding those who have a works based understanding of salvation. IOW - depending on how good they were determines whether or not one gets into heaven.

I do agree though with other concept that if you aren't sure of your salvation you are most likely lost, since your salvation is dependant upon Christ and His work. This is why you must speak with the person to find out if God is dealing with them on their salvation or with some specific sin. I have met some that doubt if they are saved NOT because of faith placed in Christ and His work but due to the fact they don't understand how a christian could do ??sin? IOW - they were grieved over their sin and angry with themselves for allowing it.

Scripture tells us that we can KNOW that we are saved. If a person doubts their salvation they have only to look back upon the scriptures, their faith, and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit to toss it aside within moments. No one who is saved can walk around not knowing because Paul also tells us to examine ourselves to 'know' whether or not we are in the faith.

 

From The FWB point of view...

If one trust Christ as their savior one can not forfeit this thru sin alone. Sin does not constitute a wilful rejection of salvation. We teach that the HS will convist the sin and guide the believer back to fellowship with God. We also teach that that the believer can "shipwreck" their faith by resisting the spirit and falling away from the faith. In other words, saved by faith and kept by faith. The big difference here is the same difference at ones salvation. Calvanist believe one can not resist the drawing grace of God, FWB believe that a person can willfully resist. So that willfull resistance is available throughout ones life and a person can willfull resist God and forfeit their faith.

 

No Allan I did not misunderstand the evangelist. He was clearly talking about doubt. Since you were not there your comment is condesending, gratuitous, and nonsensical It appears that whatever I say you want to be contentious.

 

On reflection I believe the statement, by Bailey Smith, was: "If you are 99% sure you are 100% lost." My response to the original statement is more applicable to the above correction.

 

Two things happened that caused me to re-evaluate the idea of giving assurance to one who doubts his salvation. The first was my own son, who agonized over whether he should be baptized again because he wasn't sure if he was saved as a nine-year-old, but is certain he is saved now.

The second is my brother-in-law, who frankly says he doesn't know when he was saved, so he can't go back to a firm day and date for a conversion experience.. He simply says that one day he realized that all his desires changed toward God. What was a chore to study the Bible became an insatiable thirst for the word of God. He is one of most godly men I know. He gives a clear testimony of his trust in Christ for his salvation. But he doesn't know when it happened, never "prayed the prayer," but he was changed, and remains so to this day.

It sort of reminds me of Wesley's testimony of his conversion, where he said he was "strangely warmed."

 

Not in the least

I said "you most likely misunderstood" not that you did misunderstand BECAUSE 'typically' it is used "regarding those who have a works based understanding of salvation". The fact I used the term "typically" should indate that it is not 'always' used in this manner, giving room for the speaker to possibly have used it in the manner you prescribed.

Lighten up and don't be so touchy. :thumbs:

The only things I know of that you and I have disagreed on is things like regeneration before faith, eschatology, what Dispensationalism actaully believes, and what the Pre-mil view held. Other than these (and it is mostly in the field of eschatology) that we have had any disagreements that I'm aware of.

 

On this one I understand and agree - that was me.

This one however would bother me if the above was his full salvation testimony.
For one there was no apparent conviction of sin nor was there any repentance in the above, just a cahnge to want to know God. Regardless of if a person says a prayer audably or not, there is according to scripture a 'calling out' to God because of God's conviction of sin and righteousness and our need to be saved from that sin and death at that moment. In the above he never states he placed any faith in Christ, only that he now is changed to want to know God.

As I said though, IF the above is his full testimony which I'm sure you simply paraphrased. However, I have never met a person who did not know when God touched them and changed their lives. It seems quite an impossibility in my mind (not that God can't) but how can one come into contact with one such as God, Him not only touch but radically change their lives (New Man) and indwell them, and they never knew when this occured - they only realized it must have happened later on.

But that is me. I don't question (per-say - meaning getting more info) their salvation but I do want to make sure that a person knows whether or not they are saved and why.