Security of the Believer Beliefs

drfuss: HP, I am gald to see you have opened another thread on the specifics of your questions. I will be monitoring it and may participate.

This thread is to provide an opportunity to establish and compare the general theologies of the various views on the security of the believer.

Post #119 above shows that all views have uncertainties when studied by others.

 

HP: I am looking forward to your responses on the other thread. I believe I have raised some questions that might have been touched upon, yet I do not believe we have examined them in such a way as to shed light upon possible presuppositions that might cloud ones ability to arrive at solid truth. Shall we walk and reason together yet a little while?

 

Beliefs Update

On another thread, Pipedude and JDale pointed out that Arminius did not take a position on apostancy or perseverence of the believer. Belief #3, listed below, was titled Arminius Belief which apparently is not correct. The possibility of a Christian forfeiting his salvation was adopoted in 1610 by the Remonstrants after Arminius' death and further promulgated in 1611 by Helwy's Declaration.

Accordingly, the titles of Belief #3 has been changed from the Arminius Belief to the Remonstrant Arminian Belief; and, for consistancy, Belief #4 from Wesley's Belief to the Wesleyan Arminian Belief.

The updated seven beliefs are listed below.


I know of at least seven different beliefs in the security of the believer. All believe that God is completely sovereign. All believe that the grace God provides is more than sufficient for salvation. The differences are in man's required response to God's grace.

The following are very abbreviated descriptions of the beliefs. Obviously more could be said about each one, but are put in this format so many could be included.

1. 4/5 Point Calvinist. - God unconditionally elects, man has no choice.

2. Eternal Security (non-4/5 point Calvinist). - Man must accept grace, then will not reject grace.

3. Remonstrant Arminian Belief - Man must accept grace, but can later choose to forfeit grace by not believing.

4. Wesleyan Arminian Belief - Man must: accept grace, confess and be remorseful for known sins, and not have long term un-forgiveness of others in order to not lose his salvation. Of course he can repent and be restored..

5. Sanctification Belief - Wesleyan Arminian Belief plus man must continue on the path to sanctification.

6. Roman Catholic belief - Accept grace by faith plus have some good works.

7. Augustine/Lutheran Belief - God unconditionally elects, man can then reject grace.

 

HP: First, there is no appreciable difference between views one and two. What two denies with lip service it holds to by logical inference.
Secondly, I see no meaningful distinction between three, four, and five. What Wesleyan/ Arminain would not believe that you can choose to forfeit God’s grace by not believing? I also have never found a Wesleyan/Arminian that did not believe that a born again believer could have any sure hope of eternal salvation apart from an active desire and aim of a holy sanctified life.


As far as seven goes, I personally do not believe that was Augustines view at all. If it was he was more inconsistent than I even thought. Is man greater than God, and can thwart a plan of God’s that was determined to happen regardless of nay efforts of man? You would have Augustine to believe that man could do something God did not determine could possibly happen. You have Augustine believing that mans will is greater and more powerful than God’s election. You have Augustine believing that man can do something even God cannot do, i.e., overcome necessitated fate!

If you took your #'s 1, 2, and 7 and shook them up in a bag, they would all end up #1's, logically that is.

 

HP: First, there is no appreciable difference between views one and two. What two denies with lip service it holds to by logical inference.

drfuss: For 4/5 Point Calvinist, God unconditional elects who will be saved. Man has no choice, he just thinks he does at the time since God has made His grace irresistible to the elect.

For Eternal Security (4/5 Point Calvinist), man actually has a choice since God's grace is resistible.

Sounds like a big difference to me. Remember, we are only considering man's role in accepting God's grace. We are not considering limited attonement, imputed righteousness, depravity etc. For purposes of this list, I consider these to be details.


HP: Secondly, I see no meaningful distinction between three, four, and five. What Wesleyan/ Arminain would not believe that you can choose to forfeit God’s grace by not believing? I also have never found a Wesleyan/Arminian that did not believe that a born again believer could have any sure hope of eternal salvation apart from an active desire and aim of a holy sanctified life.

drfuss: As I have stated before, the #1 though #4 beliefs were taken from a book entitled “Four views on Eternal Security” written by four theology professors. Each of the four presented his view and then commented on the other views. The differences between #3 & #4 are well documented. I have no documentation for belief #5, but the belief is based on my personal experience with these type churches years ago.

I notice that you only discuss the Weslsyan Arminian Belief. I think every OSAS Christain I have talked to initially had no idea that there is a belief that a Christian can forfeit their salvation, but cannot lose their salvation (Belief #3).

Concerning belief #5, I am referring to the "Holiness" churches which were numerous years ago, but there are still some today. I agree that Belief #5 can be considered an open ended type belief, because sanctification means different things to different people. There is something to be said for deleting Belief #5, since I could not find any current documentation. It would be interesting to see what others think about deleting Belief #5.

 

HP: As far as seven goes, I personally do not believe that was Augustines view at all. If it was he was more inconsistent than I even thought. Is man greater than God, and can thwart a plan of God’s that was determined to happen regardless of nay efforts of man? You would have Augustine to believe that man could do something God did not determine could possibly happen. You have Augustine believing that mans will is greater and more powerful than God’s election. You have Augustine believing that man can do something even God cannot do, i.e., overcome necessitated fate!

drfuss: We covered this on this thread in earlier posts. As stated before, I took my information from the following:

Augustine’s view:
http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/agustineonfallingfromgrace.html

Luther adopted the same view since he was an Augustine monk.

 

HP: Could you explain this distinction for us? Thanks.

HP: Holiness Churches have no significant doctrinal beliefs concerning sanctification than any other Wesleyan Holiness churches that I an aware of. Holiness churches are Wesleyan/Arminian, and I know of no Wesleyan /Arminian church that does not have its roots in the Holiness movement. If you think there is some significant difference, you might need to explain that to the list as well.

 

HP: Why do you try and categorize the views of Augustine separate from plain old 4/5 point Calvinism? You say, concerning Augustine, that ‘man can reject grace.’ What part of grace did Augustine believe you can reject, and how can a dead log floating down a stream that has no will and makes no choices reject something it is impossible to play a part in receiving?? Are you suggesting that Augustine believe that what God did foreknow, man could thwart, or that he believed that man actually had the ability to reject that which was irresistable?

 

drfuss: I didn't know grace had parts, so I have no answer to "what part of grace."

Concerning the consistancy of Augustine's belief, I am not the person to answer that. My Lutheran friend on th other forum said he did not understand it, but was told to take it by faith, i.e. man can not understand it, but God is sovereign and can take care of it. Something like unconditional election in Calvinism, yet Calvinist still pray for their loved one's salvation even though God unconditionally decided that before the beginning.

 

HP: Could you explain this distinction for us? Thanks.

drfuss: I assume you mean the difference between Beliefs #3 & #4.


3. Remonstrant Arminian Belief - Man must accept grace, but can later choose to forfeit grace by not believing.

4. Wesleyan Arminian Belief - Man must: accept grace, confess and be remorseful for known sins, and not have long term un-forgiveness of others in order to not lose his salvation. Of course he can repent and be restored..


I am not sure how it can be any more clear that the above descriptions. I will try to say it a little different.


For Belief #3, a Christian continues to be secure in his salvation unless he forfeits it by deciding to stop trusting in Christ as savior.


For Belief #4, A Christian continues to be secure in his salvation unless he does not confess and be remorseful for known sins or have a long term unforgiveness of others. Not confessing and being remorseful for known sins or long term unforegiveness of others can result in losing his salvation even though he continues to trust in Christ.

 

drfuss: Many Christians tend to limit their approach to Christianity only thouugh their own belief and their communications are primarily with others within their belief. It has been my observation that Christians consider other belief views only through the eyes of their own belief.

To illustrate: A Roman Catholic could consider all other's beliefs wrong since they are not Catholic and therefore see no real difference between the other beliefs. Similiarily, a Calvinist could consider all Non-Calvinist beliefs wrong and see no real difference between any of the Non-Calvinists beliefs. Etc.

All of the beliefs are based on interpretation of scripture. If anyone looks at other's beliefs only through the eyes of their own belief, there is a tendency to lump all other beliefs together. What is paramount in one belief, could only be a scriptural interpretation in another. IMO, it is important to realize that other beliefs put emphasis on different aspects of Christianity than our own. This does not mean we should change our belief, but we should try to understand where others are coming from by considering the relative importance of different issues within their belief.

For instance, as illustrated for each of the beliefs (post #119 of this thread), others see salvation security uncertainites in each belief.

 

HP: Where did you ever hear the Wesleyan Arminian position explained like this? It simply is a concocted notion with no validity to it. it makes absolutely no sense at all. To continue to trust in Christ yet one has lost his salvation???? Can you point to one Wesleyan Arminian that claims such an idea as true?

 

drfuss: Yes, Dr. J. Steven Harper. Dr. Harper is vice president and dean and professor of spiritual formulation and Wesley studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Orlando, Fla. He is one of the authors of the book "Four Views on Eternal Security", see pages #238 to #240.

BTW, where did you get your documented information, if any, on the Wesleyan Arminian position on the security of the believer?

 

HP: I grew up around a large range of Wesleyan Arminians. I have listened to literally thousands of messages and have numerous publications, pamphlets, and books written by many of their writers.

Could you give us a brief except from the book you are mentioning that would verify that Wesleyan Arminians believe that one can continue in their trust in Christ yet in reality have lost their salvation?

 

HP:

Could you explain to us in what sense you are using the word ‘regeneration, and how that differs from an ordinary Calvinist? What can regeneration mean other than the granting of the necessary abilities to either accept or reject the gospel if regeneration must precede salvation?

GE:

Here you exemplify a subtle yet obviously unconscious misrepresentation of 'Calvinism'. True Calvinism would have said instead,

'What can regeneration mean other than that it must precede conversion and be identified with salvation seeing it is the granting of the necessary abilities to ACCEPT the Gospel (no "either / or").'

 

drfuss: It is covered by more pages than just the three I looked at. Since my time is limited, I will try to find connected exerpts to reflect the context.

Since you apparently don't trust me, I will ask you to provide the same quotes and authors. Make sure your authors are competent Wesleyan Arminians (theologians) and not OSAS types which tend to misrepresent Wesleyan Arminians.

 

HP: I fail to see your point. I was simply showing that regeneration involves, not totally consist of, or is the sole end result of. You say nothing in this paragraph that I do not fully comprehend and understand concerning Calvinism. I in no way ‘misrepresented Calvinisim’ as you imply.

Your ‘acceptance’ or rejection of salvation is mere code words for necessitated fatalism. In the Calvinist scenario, one ‘accepts’ salvation about like one would ‘accept’ a skull fracture from a rock falling of a cliff onto their head.

 

HP: Nice try to shift the focus! :laugh: The problem is, the burden of proof lies upon YOU, not I , to prove that Arminians believe they still are trusting in God after loosing their salvation. I will wait for you to post your evidence. :thumbs:

 

GE:

You are completely superficial, and will go on misrepresenting free grace. You leave that element out of your formulas and equasions of (Islamic) fatalism for what Calvinism supposedly is. Slander of true Christian Faith is this, if not loath blasphemy of Divine Sovereignty.

In the Calvinist scenario, one's ‘acceptance’ of God's salvation is free grace, through Jesus Christ, by faith --- absolutely conditionally and exclusively. 'Calvinism' in this 'scenario', is the living, active, consequent contradiction, of fatalism.
Consequent fatalism, inevitably is, the lostness and damnation of each and all who - like the law of gravity demands - deserved their skulls should be smashed from a rock falling of a cliff onto their heads.
Fatalism is the wages of sin exacted without exception; grace defies its 'gravity' and all 'natural law. Free grace earns the law's undoing with the merits of the Saviour of sinners.

 

drfuss: You are the one who is challenging Dr. Harper, not me. So the focus is still on you to answer your claim of Wesleyan Arminian authors. Of course, if you have no authors, I can see your problem.

HP, you seem to be developing a pattern here on this thread.

In post #82, I cut and paste a section from the Lutheran website that said Lutherans believe a Christian can lose his salvation. You indicated it did not say that in post #84. It obviously did say a Chrsitian could lose his salvation which was agreed to by another poster.

In post #124, you said that there was "no appreciable difference" between Beliefs #1 & #2. That is so obviously incorrect that it does not warrant further comment.

In post #126, You again doubted that Augustine agreed with the Lutheran view, even though I had previously provided supporting documentation.

Also, in post #124, you said there is "no meaningful distinction" between Beliefs #3,4&5. I agreed Belief #5 was not well supported and perhaps should be deleted. However, there is a meaningful distinction between Beliefs #3 & #4.

Note that two theologians participated in authoring a 281 page book based on there being a difference between Beliefs #3 & #4 as well as between Beliefs #1 & #2. It there was no difference, I am sure they would not have wasted their time on the book.

I suggest that you buy the book and read it for yourself. I think you would find it very interesting. If you can convince the authors that there is no difference between Beliefs #3 & #4, then we will be receptive to your no difference approach. The book is entitled "Four Views on Eternal Security" published be Zondervan.

Based on the above, I am not inclined to type sections of the book for you to then put your own interpretation on what it says. The book is not written where excepts can be given without typing whole pages to get the total context. However, I will give you one small except from the book. On page #239, the paragraph is talking about "fall from grace, unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy". The last sentence of the paragraph reads: "To discount the possibility of either is to make us even more vulnerable to their occurrence".

BTY, I am still waiting to here about your Wesleyan Arminian authors.