Eternal security and unpardonable sin

Our church as a whole believes in eternal security, so it's not really an issue. But we've had a few that do not believe in ES. They usually do not stay very long.

 

I'm still amazed this is an issue in the church today. Since Scripture states our hearts become circumcised, which is permanent...like the physical, the spiritual is irreversible.

 

Ignorance is deadly. I have to admit that it's a hard thing to do to convince someone of something they already think they know all there is to know about. Eternal Salvation is proven to be true in so many places in the Bible yet there are some who will still take passages out of text to prove there false doctrines of loosing the same. Ignorance is certainly Satans best tool used against us.
MB

 

I am a non-ES believer and I find it amazing that this thread sounds exactly like what non-ES believers say about those who believe ES. I also wonder why it is such a huge issue for the church. There are many beliefs that differ across christian churches but this one seems to be VERY devisive. While there are many scriptures you use to support ES, there are just as many that Arminians use to support their view. Neither is as clear cut as both sides pretend.


I'll use Webdog as an example since he is a fellow Browns fan.:thumbs:
He uses circumsicion as an argument for the permanance of salvation yet Romans 2:25 says;

I am not debating that ES is false, or that it's true. Just that it would be benificial to move past this, win souls for Christ, and ask Jesus about it when we get to heaven.

Just my 2 cents

 

I don't think that passage refutes the one stating God circumcises the heart from Deut. 30 and Rom. 2. What God circumcises, man cannot uncircumcise.

 

I'm just throwing it out there as an example of how one can pull scripture for both sides. Your's says our's is out of clear context. Our's says your's is out of clear context. We explain away anything that disagrees with our side and say how ignorant those are who disagree with our conclussions(per MB's post). Most of us are taught to be on the side of the issue we are on from early in or christain walk or maybe even sooner. Some have come to conclussions on their own, but they are few.

 

The Bible is a book of laws, and law is one thing few people understand.

Suppose you were caught for speeding, paid the fine, next day caught again, now you have to pay another fine, why, because the fine for all your future speeding tickets wasn't paid with the first ticket.

The "fine" for sin is "death", that's the law, repenting/forgiveness won't pay the fine,

without the shedding of "Blood" (death) there is "NO REMISSION" of sin. (fine paid)

Jesus is only dying "ONCE" to pay our "sin ticket", and that payment includes all future sin tickets as well, scripture record this as us being "SEALED" by the Holy Ghost.

I had people said they sinned/repented and God forgave (REMITTED) them of their sin, that's not true,

I ask them if there was a pool of blood on the floor when they finished praying, they look at me like I'm crazy, but no shed blood, (death) no remission.

Sacrifices, (OT) Repenting/Forgiveness only serve to purified the flesh,

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:


But to have sins "actually remitted" to "purify the soul" of sin, the "fine" of a"death" for sin, as required by the law, had to be "Paid".

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

People are under the impression that animal Sacrifices/Repenting/Forgiveness can remit their sin, but if that were true,

Jesus died for "NOTHING".

One other point, if we lost salvation each time we committed a sin, (and who doesn't sin) "Chastisement" would not exist,

God only "chastise" his own, the saved, and having lost salvation, we wouldn't be "HIS OWN", and no chastisement.

 

Mmm... I disagree.

The clear context regarding these scripture passages are just that - clear (if one will maintain the context).

What Web stated is in fact correct in that God does the circumcising of a mans heart, and what God does 'no man' can undo. All of the above is clearly taught in scripture. (if you disagree, please show where and we can disuss it).

Yet the scripture passage used to 'seemingly' refute/dispute what Web said isn't speaking of something God did but something man has done. Thus what a man does/lives estiblishes who the man is. And it is precisely this reason God is the one who does the circumcising because man can only try to 'modify' his behavior, only God can change it (New Man). Secondly you must remember that Paul here is speaking specifically about an ethnic Jew and how circumcision relates to their position as a people of God. So you have Paul stating this at the end of the chapter with regard to what a true Jew (ethnic and spiritual) is:

In other words - A person can not claim a relationship to God simply because they are ethnically a Jew who was circumcised (which identifies them as being of God's chosen people). One can only claim a relationship to God if God is the one who changed our status in relation to Himself. Thus what God does can not be undone by any man especially when that change is in the very nature of the man himself (spiritually changed = permanent).

 

"Win souls" for Christ. Uhhhmmmm.
But since you are a "non-ES", as you said, how many of those souls you "won" for Christ do you think will actually get to heaven, since non-ES means basically "try-to-avoid-sinning-as-much-as-you-can" which is just as basically impossible given the flesh we live in.

So, basically basically, you will be the only one you're sure will get to heaven, no thanks to Jesus' absolutely unshakable work, since you intend to ask him. Right ?

 

The Eternal Security of the believer is a sweet doctrine of Scripture.

 

TCG, I can agree with that! :thumbs:
(while saying the above I am wiping the spiritual honey from my mouth)

 

Wrong,
This post alone shows the misunderstanding of the differences. I don't get saved by "try-to-avoid-sinning-as-much-as-you-can" nor do I know anyone who teaches this. I only get there by the Blood of Christ.

 

"Spiritual honey," I like that. :thumbs:

 

I disagree because those who believe they can loose there Salvation do not consider all of scripture. For you to say there are just as many scriptures to prove we can loose our Salvation as there is to prove we can't is false. You have to read what comes before and after the scripture that says what you think it does in order to understand it. Paul wrote;
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Salvation is a gift and you can't have it with out the calling. Once you have it you can't turn from it. I don't see how this could be anymore convincing. I have been purchased by the blood of my Savior and no one or thing can pluck me out of His hand. I was saved by an act of God not by my actions.
Try reading all of Romans 8 would be my recommendation.
MB

 

Still missing my point. I am not debating who is correct. What I am wondering is why is this such a major issue on both sides? There are other doctrinal differences that people look past, but this seams to be a HUGE division in the body of Christ. Should it be?

 

I think it is a huge issue, particularly in fulfilling the great commission. What would you rather "buy"...eternal life, meaning life that is eternal, or "eternal" life with an asterisk, where the eternal part being placed on man (who WILL fail)?

 

Only one of many divisions IMHO. The reason for such a major issue is there is only one truth and those who don't have the truth are convinced they do and will not submit to the truth because of pride.

Maybe what you should of asked is "how do we know if we have the truth?". We know it's true when it lines up perfectly with scripture and we know with in out hearts. The best way is to let God lead you to it.

Men make mistaken guesses based on what other men have taught them. The whole truth is in scripture and if we want truth we can't let our own ideas or the ideas of another to influence what scripture teaches us. To have truth we must be open to God's leading in order to receive it.

This is my opinion and no doubt someone will disagree with it.
MB

 

Are you saying that we can not fullfill the Great Commision if we do not believe the doctrine as you understand it? I don't see that. I think both side present the Gospel correctly and that God's call to man is easily understood from both POVs.

Remember, I am not speaking of a "works" gospel where God erases one's name for every sin and then puts it back when one says a prayer, just as you are not defending a gospel that teaches one can continue to live a sinful lifestyle and walk over the grace of God.