Why do people hate the doctrine of Eternal Security?

It robs them of boasting rights!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Why do people hate Santa Clause? What kind of question is that? Just because people disagree with a perspective doesn't mean they hate it. I believe Jesus gave me salvation. I didn't give it to myself. Therefore I don't have the ability or authority to take it away. But that doesn't mean I'm not participating in some way with my own salvation (Ie work out your salvation with fear and trembeling.)

 

I have a problem with the question too.

Some people just arrive at a different position because of their conviction from Scripture.

I have an Arminian pastor friend who just loves the Lord and wants to do his will. But he's Arminian, not holding to the eternal security of the believer.

 

Think you are correct Jim. Those who do not believe in the eternal security of the redeemed are very close to a works based salvation.

 

Some think that it is too easy and thereforth they won't to help the LORD out. I don't fault them for their views. We are to love one another as GOD loves us.
They are our Brethern in Christ

 

If they are saying this, they seem to be forgetting what is said in Rom 5 and 6

It's a lame reason to reject OSAS to say it gives a license to sin. No true believer condones or teaches that.

 

drfuss: I think I can answer your question as to why people have a negative impression of eternal security.

Under General Baptist Discussions, Nicholas started a thread on 4 Views of Eternal Security. It was pointed out that a 5th view is Charles Stanley's view. Two of the four views in the book supported eternal security, i.e. Classical Calvinism and Moderate Calvinism which are similar for practical purposes of this discussion.

Charles Stanley's view is different in that he allows that a Christian can stop trusting Christ and still be forgiven (go to heaven) even if he dies not trusting Christ. This opens the door for all types of intentional sin after salvation and the person still goes to heaven. So by Stanley's belief, eternal security gives a person a license to sin and still go to heaven if he was once a believer.

To most of the rest of the Christian community, Charles Stanley represents what eternal security Christians believe. After all, he was president of the SBC for two years, wrote a book on eternal security, and is on TV probably more that any other Baptist. Before starting to attend a SBC church 16 years ago, Charles Stanley's version was what I believed about eternal security. I had never heard of the idea that a True Christian would NOT stop trusting Christ.

It is interesting that the rest of the eternal security community does not rise up against Stanley's belief. There seems to be a "circling of the wagons" in defense of anyone who claims to believe in eternal security. Unless you want Stanley's beleif to continue to represent you to the rest of the world, you need to expose and indentify Stanley's belief and proclaim it to be WRONG. Otherwise, don't wonder why the rest of the Christian community assumes you believe as Stanley, i.e. eternal security provides a freedom to sin.

 

Most of the "hate" of the OSAS doctirine and the opposing "conditional security" views stem from a misunderstanding of what they teach. Most posters on this forum are OSAS. From reading the post over the last couple of weeks, it is a common thought that people who hold to the "conditional secuity" viewpoint teach a works salvation. This is not the case. Most of the folks I know think that OSAS teaches that you you have an open license to sin after making a confession of salvation. As you know that is not the case. There are extremest who teach these extremes, but hey, there are nut cases everywhere. (I heard a preacher last night teaching that Christ was extemely wealthy when here on earth and want's you to be. Send him money and he will tell you how.)

Personally I do not hold to an Eternal Security point of view, but I have many Brothers and Sisters who do. I do not have an issue with their belief. I do have issues with those who just spew out a few verses and say, "the bible clearly teaches my POV". I have found it really hinges on how you interpet a few verses. If you interpet them correctly you will agree with me and if you don't then you won't.:laugh:

I don't understand the hatred either way. But it is there and on many more issues than just OSAS.

 

I realize Stanley's influence via TV and books, but I had never heard of this view, and I wonder if that many know about it. I consider it rather strange, having never heard any OSAS view that says what Stanley says.

 

I remembered I have a book by Charles Stanley entitled "Charles Stanley's Handbook for Christian Living".

Here are some excerpts from the chapter entitled "Eternal Security".

Does this help?

 

Jonah is my favourite book of the Bible. When I want to know something, I usually find it there.....or I can make it fit!

Jonah was told where to go and what to preach. He rebelled and said NO to God. God let him go his own way, but God did not leave him alone. He had Jonah tossed overboard only to find his way back to doing God's pleasure. Isn't the Christian life a lot like that? We do not lose our salvation, but we lose the joy of our salvation. When we return to obedience, even if by God's strong arm, we once again enjoy all the pleasures of redemption.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't know what someone must have mentioned a parallel of Santa Clause, but I believe that ONCE SAVED< ALWAYS SAVED
is taught in the bible so it is so. The mention of Santa Clause seems like, iF YOU WILL BE GOOD< THAN SANTA CLAUSE WILL REWARD YOU. As for myself, I don't won't to sin, but that is the nature of man even with the natural part of man. I don't won't to do it. I pray that I am so thankful for what he has done.. that I don't won't to sin as a convenience, it is sin any way you put it and I hate it. Those who do not believe OSAS, must keep working all the time for it appears to me that while that belief that GOD is voting for you and Satan is voting for you, and you( can be lost one day and saved the next day) then it would seem as if you are the most powerful over both, and you hold the deciding vote, making you the stronger one. I can find rest in knowing that GOD has saved me forever. I reap peace of mind knowing that everything is ok. I know I will get some very critical response, but please don't do it is my wish. We are all brothers/sisters in CHRIST and we are suppose to love one another whether those that ether one may be wrong. Please don't worry, GOD does the calling and everything will be alright.

 

Yes, it does, but I disagree with his idea. I think our faith goes up and down and often it is very weak. But I just don't know if I accept the idea of a believer losing faith in Christ to the point of willfully rejecting Christ. I am not sure if Stanley goes that far, or if he just says that one can lose faith. But that might be the same thing in the end as rejecting Christ.

 

drfuss: I first came across Charles Stanley's belief about six or eight years when he had the following example on his website (it hasn't been on his site for years):

"Consider the following example: A person accepted and trusts Christ as Savior, commits their life to Him and lives for him for two years. Then stopped trusting Christ as their Savior for some reason such as being converted to the Mormons or Muslims, and continues in this non-trusting state until this person dies. Will this person go to heaven?"

Charles Stanley believes this person will go to heaven regardless of their spiritual state when they die, even if he stays a Muslim. Charles Stanley believes that once God gives a person the gift of salvation, that person is no longer free to give it back even if they want to.

Stanley believes a one time Christian will go to heaven even if he has rejected Christianity and trusts in another route to heaven when he dies. Except for the univeralists, don't all other Christians believe a person must be trusting Christ when he dies to go to heaven?

 

One of my common snide remarks is "I don't mind folks believing in eternal security; it's when they go to practicing it that I get upset."

Everybody's doctrine has its weak side and when a person doesn't want to live for God, he'll exploit that weak side for whatever it's worth. Most of us probably have seen people mess with sin because they figured it couldn't hurt them too badly--after all, look at Joe and Jim and Susie, etc. Conditional security has many adherents who descend into a works salvation and live in sin while keeping certain rules, thinking that the obedience will outweigh the heart problems.

Psychoanalysis is best left to the professionals. "Why do people disagree with my interpretation of the Bible?" They just do. Christians have never agreed on some doctrines and they never will--until they are perfected in Heaven, when they will finally see that I was right.

 

Pipedude, I love you signature! :laugh:

 

If you have to interpret scripture maybe you need to consider the advice of God to consider Him in all your ways. Why interpret it when we have the Spirit with in to teach us. Ask Him for the meaning, don't assume you can reason it out all by your self
MB

 

The Prodigal Son may be the only reason that Stanley's point has merit. I personally think that if God ends that person's life without his willing return to faith in Christ, that person is lost. If a man goes his own way and never returns, the question becomes did he ever have genuine salvation in the first place? God has his elect.

1 John 2:19, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.