The Believer's Conditional Security Refuted

Does he back up this statement about belief in eternal security being a requirement for salvation with scripture? I'd be interested in seeing that.

 

Very well, you and Faust agree. I, John Wesley, and all others who believe as we do are lost.

No big deal. Have a nice day.

 

James, wouldn't you like to retrench and let me and Wesley into Heaven after all?

Joey Faust said that one cannot be saved without believing in the doctrine of eternal security. As I wrote earlier, He said "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus."

And you agreed, didn't you? You wrote "When you say 'I believe that Christ saves me IF I DO blah blah blah' then by definition what you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you."

The doctrine of conditional security, as you surely know, says that Christ saves me so long as I believe (which you summarized in Greek as "DO blah blah blah"), as your quote from Wesley demonstrates. You agreed with Faust that the faith of a conditional securitist cannot save: "What you believe is conditional security, otherwise known as works salvation which will not save you." Wesley and the Methodists were conditional securitists. So have been the General Baptists and their progeny since the seventeenth century. You have said that our faith is "works salvation" which cannot save us--so we're lost.

This doesn't surprise me. I've met people like you before and I expect to meet more, both in this life and in the life to come. Although most Christians think that the sentences I have quoted from you and Faust are preposterous, you do not; and no amount of contravening empirical data can affect your belief that we who do not believe in eternal security cannot be saved.

If you can believe that, the only response I can think of is "Well, I'll be damned."

 

Aha!

So you DO believe that the millions of Christians who do not, and never did, believe in OSAS can still be saved, even though they came to Christ with the idea that the salvation they were seeking could be forfeited, and never believed in OSAS before, during, or after their conversion?

...And such people, creepy though they may be, have not come to Christ seeking to be justified by their works or intending to be kept by their works, but instead have come seeking to be saved by grace through faith, and to be kept by the power of God through faith?

...And so your earlier allegation that conditional security is "works salvation that will not save you" was just an honest mistake because you didn't really consider the true nature of the doctrine of conditional security, but instead were expressing the logical implications of a popular caricature?

...And you now refuse to endorse Joey Faust's statement that "If you do not know that you are eternally secure" or "unless you once believed you were secure in the past," then "you have not yet properly trusted in Jesus," because you acknowledge that it is totally indefensible to limit saving faith to OSAS faith?

Well, James, I'm just stunned. I've never known of someone capable of making the claim that the non-OSAS people haven't yet trusted Christ, who could then turn around after reconsidering and admit that the earlier claim was uncalled for. There's just something about the worldview (and perhaps the personality makeup) of such folks that usually makes them impervious to common sense and empirical evidence. When their ideas run them into absurdity, they just clasp the absurdity tightly and repeat the ideas all the more.

Are you SURE you believe that Fanny Crosby could be saved?

 

Don't you think that claiming that y'all are the only ones who are saved is a pretty salient point?

I'm used to people holding that only OSAS people believe the gospel and are saved. It isn't all that rare. I was cheek to cheek with various Texas/Landmark/Arlington/IFB subspecies when I was saved, baptized (by immersion, once, backwards, like the Bible says) and grew up in Texas churches. This type of shoot-from-the-hip theology was as common as grass burrs.

I've learned that it's a big world and we aren't all going to agree, and I've lost interest in opposing Calvinism and noncalvinist OSASism. Believe whatever you please. It's none of my business. To your own master you stand or fall.

Apparently, by claiming that someone somewhere sometime has made a "less carefully crafted statement" about something, you are conceding that believers in conditional security are saved if they trust in Christ alone for salvation, even if they despise the doctrine of OSAS intensely.

I thought the statements were crafted just fine, myself.

But I've probably overstayed my welcome already, so I'll exit here and go do some good works. Having perturbed unnumbered lurkers in this thread, and thereby offending against charity, I have a gnawing fear that my account upstairs may be running low.

 

As I said, debating OSAS doesn't interest me. Those who believe it are okay by me, so long as they don't start practicing it.

So if somebody wants to respond to Faust's "kingdom" defense, they're welcome to try. I just think it's one of those topics that are beyond reasonable discussion. No matter what one side says, the other side is unmoved. It's like playing chess where all of the pieces are superglued to the board. Why even start?

 

God is not the author of confusion, but both those who hold to OSAS and those who don't use the same Bible to "prove" their side. Why the confusion? Exactly because of what James is saying here: Applying passages concerning the coming Kingdom to spiritual salvation is going to be confusing, because they will then contradict each other.

 

James, if you would slow down think, you'd remember that you know almost nothing about me and you'd refrain from insulting my character.

You've been kind enough to sorta/kinda/sideways back off from your pastor's original claim that only those who agree with you have saving faith, even though you're unwilling to just come right out and say that you and he were spouting arrant heresy and now you've changed your mind. Why not build on the progress you've made and try to reign in this OSAS arrogance whose ugliness is so far from what you normally consider proper?

 

This thread sounds like the usual OSAS debate where the debaters have misunderstandings about what the other believes.

On the BB Other Christian Denominations, there is a thread that list the six types of salvation assurance beliefs and how they relate to each other. It is titled Salvation Assurance Beliefs. You may find it interesting.

 

That would be a discussion for which I have neither the time nor the appetite.

I know I'm saved for the same reason that you know that you are; nothing esoteric.

No debate on OSAS will make any progress on either side. I've seen people change their views on the subject, but never because of a debate. What I've seen in debates is a torrent of abuse, insult, idiocy, ignorance, evasion, equivocation, and asininity.

And it really gets ugly once my opponents have a chance to respond.

My earlier comparison with the superglued chess pieces says it best.

(Y'know, I made that one up on the fly; but after stepping back and looking at it, it occurred to me that it's a pretty good picture of Calvinism :tongue3: )

 

Pipedude, you are funny. You are what I wish I was. Can I have your autograph?

 

Sure.

Pipedude
1 Chron 28:9

 

Oh, I see now --- "Pipedude", as in "pipe" and "dude". OH NO! You smoke a pipe? Gasp! Choke! Sputter!!! Here, take back your old autograph, I don't want it now!


(attempted humor - what do you think, funny?)