I think that if it is true, there are a great many verses that warn the believer to remain faithful, stand firm, not fall away, not turn away, etc, that are unnecessary.
Let me affirm, before anyone jumps on me, that I do NOT believe in "works" - we are saved by grace through faith.
I also think that "believing in eternal security" is not a "fundamental".
;)
BrianT, what passages do you think present a problem to the view of eternal security?
Is it possible you are not understanding the purpose behind warnings and encouraging passages?
Also, if you are not trusting in Christ for your salvation, what are you trusting Him for at all?
Salvation is more than the initial event.
No, not unnecessary at all.
Neither, Eternal security nor Calvinism equal antinominianism.
We are saved unto good works, not by them.
If we must do something to keep salvation then it is not Christ that saves us.
We would in fact be saving ourselves.
... and I am fairly certain that you are wrong... depending on how "fundamental" is defined.
If we allow the original fundamentalists to define it then eternal security and the doctrines of grace are very much "fundamental."
Well, I have to admit that, even with my dictionary's help, I don't know what you mean.
I sort of agree. I agree that we are not saved by works. But I don't think "not giving up our salvation" is a "work", and thus it is not works that keep our salvation either. I am not saving myself, but I can walk away from it.
... and I am fairly certain that you are wrong... depending on how "fundamental" is defined.
If we allow the original fundamentalists to define it then eternal security and the doctrines of grace are very much "fundamental."</font>[/QUOTE]But who are the "original fundamentalists"?
;)
Let me make my previous point in another way: if eternal security is true, do I have to understand it and believe in it to receive it? If yes, then salvation is dependent on our own understanding. If no, then it is not a "fundamental".
n : the theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral standards of the culture)
"all laws" would include the moral teachings of scripture as well.
Post-it comes pretty close to this position in the thread about homosexuality and scripture.
He claims that the sins listed in I Cor 6 do not apply universally to both the saved and unsaved.
This idea is not scriptural.
Once we truly become a new creature there is no mechanism for becoming the old creature again.
The core of the issue is the sovereignty of God.
If we are saved by Him then he is sovereign and we cannot "pluck ourselves out of His hand" moreover He will conform us to the image of His Son, Romans 8 (not conditional but certain).
If we can "walk away" then we are sovereign in that we can by an act of will thwart God's purpose and undo an act of His creative will.
A group of men who contributed to a work called "The Fundamentals" edited by RA Torrey and published about 100 years ago.
Works authored by BB Warfield, CI Scofield, Thomas Boston, G Campbell Morgan, RA Torrey, AT Pierson, and others were included.
No you don't necessarily have to understand or believe it to receive it... but you should.
It is fundamental because it is taught by the Bible not because it is necessary for salvation.
[ September 16, 2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
Ah. This is not what I was getting at. I simply meant that if it is impossible to fall away, the verses that warn again falling away not only seem unnecessary, but maybe even erroneous. If you believe eternal security, and I personally warned you not to fall away, you'd think that was a worthless warning (because of the impossibility), wouldn't you?
This idea is not scriptural.
Once we truly become a new creature there is no mechanism for becoming the old creature again. </font>[/QUOTE]I think it *is* scriptural. I've provided several scriptures that talk about falling away. Why would scripture warn against an impossibility?
No, it doesn't mean we are sovereign, it just means we still have free will.
A group of men who contributed to a work called "The Fundamentals" edited by RA Torrey and published about 100 years ago.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so there were no fundamentalists before the "original" ones?
;)
Two quick thoughts:
- whether or not it is taught by the Bible is what we're discussing in the first place.
- Just because something is taught in the Bible does not make something fundamental: Num 7:7 teaches that two wagons and four oxen were given to the sons of Gershon. This is not a fundamental to the Christian faith.
;)
Then maybe we should start at the beginning.
What scriptures are you referring to?
No, it doesn't mean we are sovereign, it just means we still have free will.
</font>[/QUOTE]
If God saves a person and makes them a new creature and that person can undo that work then it is much more than an act of free will.
The person is sovereign above God.
The only options you are left with is that we either save ourselves or we cannot lose our salvation.
[ September 16, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
You want to pluck any out of his hand... Then you have to overthrow the Godhead! All the Father giveth me shall come to me and him that cometh unto me I shall in no wise cast out... Brother Glen
Above, I mentioned 2 Tim 2:18, 1 Tim 5:15, 2 Pet 2:20-22, 1 Tim 3:6, Heb 4:11, 2 Pet 3:17, Col 1:21-23, and Luke 8:13 for starters.
How so??? Is the ability to exercise free will itself not something also part of God's plan, something under his will? Or do we become robots, locked in cages, the moment we accept Christ?
Those obviously aren't the only options, because I don't believe either of them.
If this comment is directed at me (I assume it is, because I'm the only one on this side of the debate in here right now), then you are not understanding my position or what I am saying.