Security of the Believer Beliefs

drfuss

Hi drfuss,

With all due respect, I think it's unfair to make a blanket statement like that. I do not find your statement reflective of the majority of eternal security believers that I've known over the years. I've never heard of the New Ungers Bible Dictionary and had no idea who John Calvin was when I became convicted of eternal security 14 years ago. My conviction on this issue does not come from "blind belief" but came strictly from Scripture. Continued Scripture study over the years has only served to reinforce my conviction on this issue.

 

SDAs and most arminians do not believe that the degree of "confidence" that a Christian has about his salvation status - DETERMINES what his salvation status actually is. In other words no such thing as "saved by convincing yourself that you are saved" in that Arminian system.

Also - no such thing as "lost because you failed to fully convince yourself that you are saved".

The believer is saved at the moment of Justification regardless of his ability to convince himself of the fact.

Having said that - Romans 8:16 still exists and still points to an external source for infallible confirmation - "assurance" if you will.

No. we do not believe that failure to daily "convince yourself that you are save" means you are lost. We also do not say that failture to avail yourself of the Rom 8:16 benefit of "external, objective, experiential, confirmed assurance" means you are lost.

But we DO insist that you CAN (and many do) make choices tomorrow to leave your relationship with Christ and to become lost.

The trick is that they linke salvation to "assurance of salvation" as if you are not saved if you fail to be convinced of your assurance today. That is not the case for the consistent Arminian model. Being saved and KNOWING that you are saved are two different things.

In Matt 7 we see that the "MANY" are fully convinced that they are saved - and they are not.

No doubt there are some among the FEW of Matt 7 that are ALSO convinced that they are saved -- and indeed they are saved according to Christ.

But the ability to convince yourself - or assure yourself or even to BE assured - is not the measure of salvation.

I see. I agree that this could be a source of misinformation at some point.

In christ,

bob

 

drfuss

Hi drfuss,

I agree that, unfortunately, mud is thrown from both sides of this issue and others. We should stand firm in our Scriptural convictions, but as the bereans did, always search the Scriptures. A little less mud and a little more reading.
I would say that my personal feeling is that those who don't believe in eternal security miss out on some of the blessings of God's grace, but I firmly disagree with someone who would say that these same people deny God's sovereignty or would say that they are not in God's grace.

Gotta head for work.

Have a great day, drfuss:godisgood:

 

In the end there is no good shortcut past Rom 8:16 for objective assurance with the "Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit".

The doctrines that try to skirt that issue by saying that OSAS is based on God-in-a-lockbox where the entire Bible doctrine on perseverance can be ignored - rely on the reader's ability to willingly ignore certain texts.

Certainly we can see how the failing cases of Matt 7 "thought" they had God in a lockbox on that point - and had fully convinced themselves that they had assurance -- but they did not.

The doctrines that try to skirt tha issue by saying that OSAS and PERSEVERANCE are both correct and to make it work they "retro-delete" today's assurance if 10 years from today one fails to truly "persevere" result in no real assurance at all until you step into glory because today's assurance is always subject to being "retro-deleted".

In christ,

Bob.

 

Moody is not always consistantly Calvinistic. I have a book called Great Doctrines of the Bible, that was put out by Moody and it denies Limited Atonement.

That's why I asked where to draw the line, because according to the historic understanding, that's not a teaching included in the Canons of Dort, which is where the "five points" came from.

If one is not a Calvinist according to the historic understanding, then why misrepresent thier position by calling them something that they're not?


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

HP: Take Moody for instance. You say he did not believe in limited atonement. Did he believe in total moral depravity and election?

 

I wasn't talking about D.L. Moody himself, I was talking about the book I have that was put out by Moody Books or Press or whatever it's called. It denies limited atonement, which isn't the historical Calvinist position. I was making the point that Moody Books or Press isn't consistantly Calvinist and therfore should not be lumped in with those who are.

They are two different positions.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

HP: Are they? Does Moody Press or their books hold to total moral depravity from birth and election?

To say that one does not believe in a limited atonement but believes in total deparavity and election is like saying, “I don’t eat sugar due to the fact it is harmful to my health. I only eat brownies and drink sweetened tea. “:tonofbricks:

 

This book is called "The Great Doctrines of the Bible", written by a man named William Evans with eighty additional entries by a man named S. Maxwell Coder.original copyright, 1912.


In Coder's additional entries, he goes over election and predestination. It reads as follows:

These profound and controversial words are not to be confused with each other. Election looks back to God's choice of certain individuals to be His children, predestination looks forward to the destiny he has planned for them. Niether word is ever used in Scripture of unsaved persons.

Christians were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:4, in contrast with the people of Isael, who may be said to have been chosen on a particular day in time, Deut. 26:18, 19. Believers are chosen according to the foreknowldege of God the Father, 1 Pet. 1:2., but the Bible does not reveal what it was that God foreknew. The only way we may know that others are among the elect is on the basis of the way they recieve the gospel, 1 thess. 1:4-8.

Election is entirely by the grace of God; it is not related to human acts or works, Rom. 11:5,6. Believers are said to be chosen by Christ, John 15:16, and given by the Father to the Son, John 17:6.

The theme of the predestination of Christians appears only four times in the Bible. They are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ in glory, Rom. 8:29,30; they are predestined to be adopted as sons and to receive an internal inheritance, Rom. 8:15-23; Eph. 1:5, 11.

But Evans earlier in the book discusses a universal atonement. He goes over 5 different theories on it, laying out various views. It's much too much to type out, but it argues for a universal atonement.

Also, this may or may not mean anything, but both of these guys were dispensational premillinialists. All in all, not that much different from many Baptist congregations at the time. Dispensationalism was the new thing back then. But, it's very safe to say they weren't Reformed by any stretch. I wouldn't even call them Calvinists, though they do hold to total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverence of the saints. They have a synergistic view of regeneration, which denies irresistable grace and in turn, unconditional election. I guess these were "2 pointers."

They explain the position fairly well, and they're right on a lot of things, but it's inconsistant.

It's online, but I can't seem to get the link to work.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. They're also teetotalers, which leads me to believe they are either Baptists or Methodists.

 

HP: What do you think about this so-called distinction? What basis does the author, IYO, have to make such a distinction?

 

Sounds circular.

Arminians would require belief for salvation and would define ASSURANCE of salvation as the process whereby a BELIEVER "in Christ" (as opposed to the believer in security for example) finds confirmation of his current acceptance with Christ and being born-again.

But instead of referring to assurance the document you quote refers to "security". And then states "those who believe in security rely on their belief IN security to have continued security". It is sorta like saying "you can believe you win the lottery as long as you believe you win the lottery". Circular rather than substantive.

Having said that - 3 and 5 point Calvinists (reformed) have this concept of "assurance retro deleted" for those that do not "persevere" as the NT text says that a NT SAINT must do.

BTW - most Arminians are "2 point Cavlinists" when it comes to total depravity and perseverance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

My guess is, he's going with the ordo salutis in Romans 8.

I found an interesting article trying to find one I read once somewhere else here: http://theologica.worldmagblog.com/theologica/archives/2006/01/the_ordered_lis_1.html

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin


P.S. I took this one from monergism.com at this link: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Ordo-Salutis/

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.

Notice the crucial difference in the orders of regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even with the help of grace he still must find it within himself to believe or reject Christ. This has broad implications and raises questions like why does one man believe and not another? You might also notice that, according to Arminians, election is dependent on faith, not the other way around. This is no small matter ...understanding the biblical order, while keeping in mind its unitary process, is crucial and has a profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a whole.

 

A small edit to Dustin's list

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 0) election "God is not willing that ANY should perish".. "God so Loved the World" yes "really"
1) outward call
2) faith,
3) repentance,
4) regeneration,
5) justification,
6) perseverance,
7) glorification.

"Behold I stand at the door and Knock if ANYONE hears AND OPENS the door I WILL THEN come in and fellowship WITH him and he WITH Me"

Notice the crucial difference between the various Calvinist versions and this Arminian version?

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: Amen. Now, what do you see as the correct order according to Scripture?

 

That wasn't my comment. That was John Hendryx from monergism.com.

To answer your question, God chooses man before man chooses God according to Scripture.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

How long are you going to throw those verses so far out of context?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

HP: Very true in a sense, yet not to the elimination of the conditions that man must comply with in order to be saved. God’s desire and choice is to seek and save 'that which is lost.' That indeed lies antecedent to anything action on man’s part. Just the same, no man will be saved that does not willingly, without force or coercion, fulfill God’s conditions of repentance and faith via a voluntary surrender of ones will to God.