Why is "eternal security" a big deal?

Psalm 69:28 states that " May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous". So to be "blotted out" your name must first have to in there to begin with. Thus, if one's name was written in the book (one was saved) and then one's name was blotted out (now one is unsaved) then this is the perfect example of one first being saved, and then losing one's salvation. And there you have it ...directly from scripture and that's NOT a false Gospel!

WM

 

So your answer to John 6:37-39 is to pit scripture against scripture?

Whenever a person uses this tactic it is a confession that you understand neither text because if you did, you would simply provide a contextual based interpretation showing that both texts harmonize with each other and with the context they are found within. Having said that, now I will practice what I just preached.

Notice that the book referred to by David contains the names of both the wicked and the righteous. In this book the wicked still have their names along "with" the righteous and thus this is not the book of "eternal life" which contains only the names of the righteous.

Notice the context is a request for God to take immediate judgement upon the wicked. In the Old Testament there is the book of THE LIVING and when one PYSICALLY DIES that is being blotted out of that book. This is what David is referring and this book is mentioned several times in the Old Testament and always in a context of those LIVING UNDER THE HEAVENS not a book of eternal life in the heavens:

Psa. 139:16 also refers to the book of the PHYSICALLY LIVING along with Exodus 32:32-33; Deutronomy 9:14 and 25:19; 29:20; 2 Kings 14:27.

Notice that the last four reference contain the phrase "blot their name FROM UNDER HEAVEN" proving it refers to a record of those PHYSICALLY alive and to blot out is to remove them from the living under heaven.

However, I doubt that any kind of contextual evidence will change your mind. It would be refreshing to be wrong about that.

 

Notice how in Luke 10:20, our Lord tells the disciples that their names are written in Heaven:

"Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven."

Oops....

WN

 

Why don't you slow down and just read my last post till you understand what I said. There is more than one book of "the living" just as there is more than one kind of life. The book in Luke 10:20 is the book of SPIRITUAL or ETERNAL LIFE in heaven. The book in Psalms and the other passages I gave is a book of PHYSICAL life and to be removed is to PHYSICALLY DIE. Read the passages and you will clearly see that as this is a book of those living UNDER THE HEAVENS not in heaven.

 

...................

 

Deal with the evidence. This is a debate forum so deal with the evidence that has been placed before you.

Again, how is the will saved? It has not been saved from sinning. It has been saved from apostasy and Christ's words prove it. All that the Father gives do come and "of all" that come NONE are lost - Jn. 6:37-39.

And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

 

There is plenty of scripture that refutes eternal security, and I have cited some of it in other places. Eternal security is a johnny-come-lately doctrine that accompanies all the other errors of Calvinism. Scripture and history disprove it.

 

So YOU say but the scriptures do not say what you say. If you could refute John 6:37-39 you would but you can't - end of story.

 

Alright, let's lay it on the line:
If failing to believe in "eternal security" is another gospel, can one be saved by more than one gospel or is belief in eternal security a requirement of salvation?

 

Agreed that it is a johnny-come-lately, but not that it comes from Calvinism. It is more a reaction to the Calvinist turmoil of uncertainty as to whether one is "elect."
Read Calvin's sermon on the sower and the seed. As Wesley said, there was not a "hair's breadth" of difference between them on justification, and in the end, they would agree about a person being lost, only difference was whether such a person was "saved" in the first place.

"...One pet theology that re-enforces the lack of urgency stems from good intentions. But while holding onto some truths found in the New Testament, it fails to hold onto other essentials. The holy conjunction is lost. And, thus, it distorts an historic doctrine--the perseverance of the saints.
Its good intention lies in giving assurance to those who struggle with their sense of being saved. Today, many seasoned Christians will tell those who make a profession of faith (whether by a prayer or by going forward at a church or crusade) that they have eternal security. A popular slogan rings out: “Once saved, always saved.”
And other Christians will assure those who have been baptized and confirmed that they are heaven bound no matter what may follow. Though many of these converts might never live by faith, this assurance will again be affirmed at their funerals.
But a new idea enters here. By leaving out New Testament essentials, these teachings depart from the historic Christian faith. This new idea leaves behind the holy conjunction; it fails to hold essentials together. Faith and obedience are sundered; forgiveness and repentance divided.
While some differences arise among great saints of the past, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley, they all agreed that we are saved by faith alone through God’s unmerited grace. On this point, Wesley said of Calvin, “I do not differ from him an hair’s breadth.”4
So, too, the seasoned Christians mentioned above affirm this. But where is the difference?
Martin Luther observed that “the world and the masses are and always will be unchristian, although they are all baptized and nominally Christians. Christians, however, are few and far between . . .”5
Luther pointed to “the divine promise which says: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’ [Mark 16:16].”6 (Note the holy conjunction.) But he also warned, “Unless faith is present or comes to life in baptism, the ceremony is of no avail; indeed it is a stumbling-block not only at the moment we receive baptism but for all our life thereafter.”7
John Calvin affirmed, “Only if we walk in the beauty of God’s law do we become sure of our adoption as children of the Father.”8 (What a contrast that is with the assurances given by those who march under another banner.)
Furthermore, he wrote:

The apostle denies that anyone actually knows Christ who has not learned to put off the old man, corrupt with deceitful lusts, and to put on Christ.
External knowledge of Christ is found to be only a false and dangerous make-believe, however eloquently and freely lip servants may talk about the gospel.
The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life.9


The key point here is succinctly summed up by J. I. Packer: “Scripture holds out no hope of salvation for any who, whatever their profession of faith, do not seek to turn from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8).”10
--from http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/love-prayer-and-forgiveness-now-also-in-ebook-format/

 

Ha ha. I have refuted it several times.

Your problem is that you interpret those verses through your Calvinistic fatalistic determinism, making them say what they do not.

The answer is easy. Those whom the Father gives to Jesus are the ones who stay faithful to the the end. Jesus says that the ones who come to Him, He will not cast out. Of course He will not! But He doesn't say that they cannot leave by their own free choice. He never said He compels them to stay. Jesus goes on to say that of all the Father has given Him, He loses nothing. Again, the ones whom the Father has given Jesus are the ones who choose to keep the faith and endure to the end.

False Calvinism says all the saved will endure to the end -- fatalistic, deterministic, character of God denying, free will denying false gospel.

The true scriptural Gospel says all believers who endure to the end will be saved.

These are diametrically opposite views. One is the true Gospel and taught from the beginning; the other is a false doctrine unknown for the first 1500 years of church history.

End of story, indeed.

P.S. After reading a good thread in the "Baptist" section, I wasn't going to comment on the eternal security issue any more, but you just had to challenge me.

 

You do not know what you are talking about. Your accusations about determinism and Calvinism creating the biblical doctrine of eternal security is wrong. I am neither and I hold to eternal security.

Our salvation is not kept by our own power according to scripture therefore we cannot just walk away from it. How that works scripture does not say other than "who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

 

I know exactly what I am talking about, and that's what gets under the skin of some of you so much.

If you hold to eternal security, you got it from Calvin. He was the originator of it. This is not a Biblical doctrine. It was not held in the earliest churches and not held for 1500 years. That is an irrefutable fact.

Do you really understand the verse you quoted? Yes, believers are guarded by the power of God, but what does the next part say? "Through faith". As long as they willfully continue in faith, God guards them; if they turn their backs on that faith, they cease to be guarded.

Any warped theological system that declares at any point that God takes away a person's will is a false gospel which denies the very character of God.

 

You have ridiculed it several times but you have NOT ONCE exegetically answered it. If so, where, what post on what thread?

There are no conditiions set forth by Christ in this text. He said "OF ALL" that the Father gives him "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING." You directly contradict his words and claim HE SHALL LOSE SOME given him. However, according to Christ's words, by virture of merely being GIVEN to the Son secures their eternal salvation.

If your position had any truth to it, Jesus could never had uttered these words as the words of Christ do not provide any conditional, provisional exceptions that SOME given might be lost - which is your position.

 

That is not my position. Can you not comprehend that the ones given are all those who endure to the end? Those believers who willfully turn away, reject their faith, and do not endure to the end are not among those who are given. Is that too simple for you to grasp?

Got to stop for now and try to get a few hours sleep.

 

Look at verse 36. Verses 37-40 are given as an explanation by Christ for why they saw him and yet did not believe in him. You reverse it.

 

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Note that verse 36 begins with those who see and don't believe whereas verse 40 ends with those who see and do believe.

Verse 36 is an assertion of fact - they saw him and yet did not believe
However, ALL whom the Father gives to him do see and do believe in him. Being given by the Father is the CAUSE for coming/believing in the Son not the consequence as your position demands. You reverse what the Lord says to make his words mean the very opposite of what he is teaching. You have them being given to the Son by the Father BECAUSE they believed whereas Jesus contributes coming/believing because the Father gave them to him. Likewise, in verse 44-45 coming is the consequence of being drawn not vice versa. Likewise, in verses 64-65 believing is the consequences of being given not vice versa.

This causual effect is again repeated in John 6:44-45 with 64-65 where once again some did not believe BECAUSE it must be given unto them by the Father. The only ones who come/believe are those given, drawn by the Father.

 

It is sad when you falsely accuse people like this and then continue to make statements that you cannot prove.

I would like you to cease and desist from making any such statement as

"If you hold to eternal security, you got it from Calvin. He was the originator of it. This is not a Biblical doctrine. It was not held in the earliest churches and not held for 1500 years. That is an irrefutable fact. "

1. It is a false accusation against RevMitchell (and myself). We did not get it from Calvin. We are not Calvinists, as we have told you. You owe us an apology.
2. Eternal security did not originate with Calvin. It was taught more than 1500 years before that time.
3. It was held in the earlier churches, and if the fact that it wasn't, was so irrefutable you would be able to provide such irrefutable evidence. But you don't have any, and cannot provide any.
4. What you have provided is a universal negative--a statement that cannot be proven because it is illogically stated. You cannot prove your own statement to be true no matter how hard you try. It is impossible.

"Eternal security is a false doctrine originating with Calvin, and never taught for 1500 years before that time."
Prove it.