Eternal security gone to far?

I haven't failed to grasp it DD!

You must realize that if you say faith is all that's required then you cannot make further requirements. Belief that salvation can be lost IS an incorrect belief. Many however do espouse it, largely because of the way they have been educated. In truth we all have errors in our beliefs since we are fallible humans. Indeed you are no exception (a fact you have convincingly proved multiple times ) and neither am I.

 

Chuckles, you have still failed to grasp it. Faith isn't positive thinking. It isn't some mythological idea. It is complete trust in another.

According to you, faith in Christ is all a person needs regardless of doctrine. You said it yourself that I cannot make further requirements.

Here is one:

If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Christ said that. So, he has the requirement of specifically believing in his deity as a condition of saving faith. If you aren't grasping this, I can type slower.

The facts of the gospel are undeniably tied to saving faith. One can't deny them and still correctly state that he has saving faith.

Now, Paul explicitly ties assurance to justifying faith.

The beauty of Scripture is that it is always true and only needs to be revealed. I will leave you to another hypothetical.

 

DD,

Christ is God; Christ was born of a virgin; Christ lived a sinless life and dies on the cross for sins; Christ rose bodily from the dead; Christ will return.

If one will trust Him as savior he/she is saved. It's just as simple as that! Many Christians (or lost people for that matter) are not smart enough to make associations like, "if Christ is God then for me to lose salvation means Christ isn't capable of holding His own sheep...." They may only realize that they are lost and need salvation.

You may have read the scriptures alot but you don't seem to have paid any attention to Jesus' life at all! Your posts are always so harsh on anyone who believes slightly differently than you do - and you do it with such confidence ( ).

Did you ever think about what kind of a witness for Christ that is? Aren't there already enough unfortunate lost people who think that all Christians are judgmental and spiteful?

By the way, I did grasp your point - but I threw it back down again!

 

Chuckles, again, it is the kind of faith in Christ. It isn't an addition. Many think they are saved but will be rejected because they did not possess saving faith. Sorry, but I don't really expect liberals to understand.

 

DD,

So let's take a guy who realizes that he's lost and begs Christ to come into his heart. He gives his life to Christ and begins to attend his mother's old timey Methodist church. The preacher explains to him that one could perhaps lose salvation and shows him Heb 6:4. The man believes his pastor and vows to live to be as much like Christ as he can possibly be.

Are you saying that he is not saved. Was Christ's blood not efficacious for him? He, from a pure heart, asks Christ to save his soul.

Yes or no, is his faith enough to save him?

After all didn't Jesus (Jn 6:37) say, "him that cometh to me I will cast out unless he believeth like unto the baptists"?

Oh wait he didn't say that. If actually trying to be true to Christ (and not to man-made hyperfundie Phariseeism) makes one a liberal - then give me a hippie wig and an ACLU membership card!!!

 

I have posted it many times very straightforward. Between your hypothetical stories and Chuckles' misrepresentations of me, I must repeatedly say the same thing.

Given Chuckles' many retorts, it is obvious he doesn't understand what I am saying. If you think it is arrogant to actually believe my own position, defend it as truth, and thus believe all others are wrong, that is your choice.

 

Chuckles, you demonstrate your ignorance over scriptural matters time and time again.

1. Eternal security is not a baptist doctrine. Many baptists do not agree with it. Most arminians don't. Some do.

All calvinists do. All presbyterians do. You liberals are an amazing bunch.

2. Since you want to be technical, faith does not save anyone. Faith is the means by which God justifies the ungodly. It is actually the righteousness of God which is imputed to the believing sinner.

3. One must come to God on God's terms, not his own. In your little story, you assume that just because a person says that he is saved, that he is.

Again, I give Scripture, you give stories. No wonder you liberals lost the convention.

 

Funny,

I never thought of myself as a liberal - I'm properly a moderate conservative!

My claim is this:

If one will trust Christ as savior he/she WILL be saved. I do not claim that anyone who has had an emotional experience at church camp or something is a true believer - but anyone who truly believes Christ died for his/her sins is!

Rom 10:9, Jn 6:37, Jn 3:15,16.

I think you ignore my "hypotheticals" because you don't want to admit that you that you have added qualifications for being a Christian!

By the way, you didn't answer my question from the last post - is the man, or is he not saved?

By the way, didn't Jesus teach using hypothetical siutations??

 

Chuckles, I have been away due to a little ole hurricane that just trashed the entire middle of my state.

Anyway, I must point out a few things that you are incorrect on.

1. Referring to Romans 10:9 does not help your cause any. Why? Because Paul already explained saving faith in Romans 4. By the time he outlines salvation in Romans 10, the kind of faith does not need to be explained again. Sorry.

2. Further, I must repeat that a person is not saved because of just any kind of faith or by simply saying he is saved.

3. Still further, please post the Hebrews 10 verse that EQUATES assurance with salvation. Thanks.

 

DD,

Sorry about that; I've seen the news. Up here in WV we've had a nice cool spell.

My point is thus:

We are saved by faith. Human faith means willingness to believe that which has not been seen. The average sinner may simply realize that he/she is lost! The concept of eternal security, and the implications of such, may not be something that he/she understands. It may be second nature to you to say, "well if you don't believe eternal security then you don't have an unwaivering faith - and you subordinate the Holy Spirit to your own will..." - but this is over the heads of many people. Really, it is.

I'd agree that simply saying, "I believe" is not salvific in itself. But one who truly puts his/her faith in Christ is not unsaved because he or she has some misconceptions about theology. A person's theology is generally a reflection of his/her education. By that same assumption I'd say you had some overly legalistic teachers in seminary!

 

Chuckles, I must say that you have no idea about my profs. None of them teach/taught my position in this thread. However, it is a historical position that I take, and it is not some recent phenomenon.

Also, it isn't a matter of having perfect theology. I know I have repeatedly stated that. Either you are trying to misrepresent me on purpose, or you still fail to grasp my point. Either way, I encourage you to study a bit more.

 

The question which started this thread:

"Those who do not understand or believe in eternal security do not understand or believe the GOSPEL. They are lost....Haven't they taken belief in eternal security too far?"

Response from Daniel David:

"Actually, it isn't too far. It is thoroughly biblical."

Daniel David after being challenged on the above statement:

"Either you are trying to misrepresent me on purpose, or you still fail to grasp my point."

Your statement seems purposeful enough, and easily grasped (though hopefully not held! ).

Dear DD - Didn't Jesus say in Jn 6:37 that anyone who sought him would not be turned away? You may be trying to capture Paul's zeal - but what about Christ's gentleness and kindness? You are (if I recall correctly) in a position of authority. Remember that your example may be worth a thousand words to someone who hears you.

You may call me and others liberal (although I certainly am not) - but I think by your statements even Jesus would be considered a liberal!

 

Chuckles, Paul simply explained the kind of faith.

No one here denies that faith is necessary.

This has all been covered. Despite your protest, the fact that you keep bringing stuff up that has been covered is proof you have no idea about this discussion.

Jesus required that a person recognize him as God. Therefore, one's faith must never question that fact. Get it?

Paul says that assurance is a necessary component of saving faith. Therefore, those who doubt God's ability to keep them saved is contrary to the proper kind of faith. Get it?

James tells us that a working faith will save but not a purely mental faith.

Inerrancy is a fundamental. You deny inerrancy. You are a liberal.

 

C'mon now DD,

"James tells us that a working faith will save but not a purely mental faith."

That statement is just plain wrong. If I were you I might condescendingly say that you have no idea and should study more. But I shall not say that.


James says that "faith" in Christ produces works by its nature. One who claims faith but whose life bears no witness is suspect in his/her Christianity.

In Romans 4 Paul shows how Abraham had strong faith (a good example for us).

In case you haven't noticed, it's human nature to waiver. If you think that a Christian with true faith will never waiver at all then you don't have enough experience with people! People are people and will be people as long as we're wearing human skin.

You said:

"Therefore, those who doubt God's ability to keep them saved is contrary to the proper kind of faith."

This is EXACTLY what I explained in the last post. A person saved in a Pentecostal or Methodist church who is taught that salvation can be lost may not mentally make that link (namely that conditional security questions God's ability to keep a soul). Jesus requires sincere faith. What you are demanding (whether or not you realize it) is that a person believe LIKE YOU DO, not just believe in Jesus. Didn't Paul have something to say about this in Galatians??????

Lastly, I believe in the inerrancy of scripture - but I reject the inerrancy of man made misinterpretation of scripture.

 

Hi guys! I guess I'll put my two cents worth in this debate. The "child-like" faith that salvation requires does not include a theologically sound understanding of doctrine! What other faith, besides the faith that names Jesus as God would a lost person depend upon to save him? Admittedly, I can be a little thick, so feel free to enlighten me. In Christ, WT

 

I believe in eternal security but I think that most baptists use this beloved doctrine of the Bible to make excuse for the sin of James 4:17, anyone who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin!

Every Church I visit almost the people claim eternal security will forgive them for their wrong, so in turn they do much wrong and neglect to do any right in the name of faithful service.

Oh I desire that all Christians will realize that whosoever does not go actually "Catch a fish" or does not "go a fishing" is NOT a fisher or men and is not following Christ as HE commands, thus he is in sin, not the will of God!