Why do people hate the doctrine of Eternal Security?

"All we have is faith." You don't seem to know what faith is. People, both saved and unsaved, practice faith everyday. Faith is based on facts; intellectual facts. Faith is based on the word of another. I have faith that when I go and put my key into the ignition of my car, and turn it, that my car will start. Why? The Ford Motor Company says it will. But faith is also based on experience. I have done it so many times that I know that it will do it the next time as well. However there is a problem. That principle only works 99% of the time. It fails the other 1%. Does that mean that when my car does not start my faith has failed? No, it means that man is fallible, makes fallible things that wear out and fail. But we serve an infallible God who has given us an infallible Book, whose promises never wear and never fail. I can always put my trust in them and they will never, never fail. He is an unchanging God, unlike man who is constantly changing, and prone to failure.

When you need to fly to some city other than where you live, do you go to the airport, to near the planes, and simply point to them, playing a child's game "eenie, meenie, mynie, mo" and then blindly point to the plane that you think will reach your destination. That is "blind faith," but in reality it is not faith at all but ignorance. Faith is based on facts. It is going inside the airport, inquiring from the right people which airline and which plane will take you to your desired destination, and then paying for that ticket, getting the boarding pass, going to the proper gate, and prceeding to board the plane with the others who are also going to the same place at the time of departure. Faith is based on facts; it is based on the word of another (in this case the word on an airline representative). It is not based on ignorance or superstition as your post seems to indicate. Faith is not blind, never has been.

Likewise Biblical faith. It is not blind. It is based on facts--the facts of the gospel: facts that can be known for 100% sure beyond any shadow of a doubt.

John wrote know lie when he wrote:

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

We know that we have eternal base on the facts the record that John has given us as an eyewitness:

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Is John a liar? Was he not telling the truth in that which he was writing about? The facts that he has set forth have been verified by many others. He is not the only one who claims these things.

 

Hey I used to live in Irving back in the early 80's.

 

That sounds a lot like a Free Will baptist doctrine. It is consistant with the scripture used to argue both sides of eternal security. I have a few questions for you if you don't mind.

When you were first saved did you learn to recognize the leading of the Holy Spirit? If so, when you broke fellowship with God was the Spirit still present? Just curious.

 

Nicholas! It's not a tough question. You answered it! You felt the presence of the Holy Spirit even when you were in rebellion to Him. That's what brought you back to God! If you had lost your salvation and been abandoned by His Spirit, you would have felt NOTHING. You would have just continued down that path with no conviction whatsoever.

O nce a
S on
A lways a
S on


:godisgood:

 

Not trying to trap you, just curious. I have a son who was once a strong Christian and lived for Christ. He now says he has no faith, he want's to believe God but has too many doubts. I thought your situation sounded similar and was trying to better understand his situation. When you were away from God was the Spirit leading as when you were first saved, or convicting as when God called you? Is there really any differance? Please do not answer if you feel I am trying to trap you.

I have posted in several of your threads on this issue and I think it is clear that I believe both extremes to be false. You say the FWB in your area is a lot like "works salvation". Is that based on the preaching or the congregation? The FWB doctrine is definitly not "works salvation". You do not gain, keep, or lose your salvation based on works. I do feel the Bible teaches you are saved by Faith. Can you lose faith?

 

I should have added that too many poeple base the condition of the soul based on the works or actions one does. If I sin then I am lost. If I am "good" then I get to go to heaven. Therefore I must be "good". Then being "good" becomes the law and condems me. (sound familier)

Yet, Christ(and the New Testament) taught just the opposite, that the works one does is a clear reflection of the condition of the soul. Christ cleans the soul and everthing else falls into place.

I really don't think it is a big issue unless someone is teaching the extremes, "go sin all you want that's OK", or "every little sin sends you to hell". What is being presented here sounds more like "if you die a backslider then you were never "really saved" vs "you were saved but walked away from God". The results are the same. Maybe I am too simple minded to see much difference. I would like to know all the different thoughts on the subject, but one at a time. Like if someone is Born Again can they live a Godless lifestyle? Just Yes or no, maybe a scripture or two, no comments like "I think" etc

 

Your question has no one answer. Most answers will be properly answered: "It depends...."
But to answer your question, I will just say this:
Did the thief on the cross ever live a Godly life style?

 

The question was did he live an UNgodly lifestyle? The answer would be no. BUt could he?

 

I am not going to speculate on that which is not said in Scripture.

The Bible declares Lot as righteous.
Do we have any indication in the Bible that Lot lived a Godly lifestyle?

 

Thank you so much for your honesty and testamony. It sounds so similar to my son. My wife and I keep praying for him and know that God can bring him back, but it is so good to hear the story from someone who has been through it. It strenthens my faith, so God bless you.

 

What do you look for when you say: "I did not feel any conviction from the Holy Spirit." God works in different ways with different people. We all have emotions, and we can't depend upon them. Our emotions are up and down. The Holy Spirit can't be equated with emotions. If you were away from God, how? If it was sin, then is there not guilt that accompanies sin.

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

One of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin. Even so, God has placed an innate conscience in the heart of every man, that when he does sin, he knows he has done wrong, and he feels guilty about it. A Christian ought to feel this even more so than an unbeliever. It is said that the most miserable person on the face of this earth is a Christian outside of the will of God--because of the chastening of the Lord. Thus it is not emotion that we necessarily look for. What has been happening in your life? Has God been putting roadblocks up, trying to direct you back to Him?
"feeling conviction" is perhaps a misnomer. Don't run your life by your feelings.

 

Thanks for your honesty. And you can look back and say: "those five horrible years..." You wouldn't consider them horrible if you were not saved. You wouldn't even care. The Holy Spirit working in you tells you of the sinfulness of sin. They were horrible years "almost ruined your reputation for a time", and "my personal testimony is why I struggle..." See the evidence of the conviction of the Holy Spirit now as you look back. Now you admit the grace and mercy that the Lord has on sinners like you and I. What a great God we serve.
God was there all the time prompting you, his child, to come back to Himself.
He was guiding, directing, disciplining. At times you would not listen, but in the end you came back. That is the principle behind OSAS. His children may stray for a time. But there is no sin so great that God cannot forgive. He loves His own. They may stray, but in the end, like the Great Shepherd of the sheep, He goes after them, brings them home, and they follow Him.

 

Maybe that's why I prefer the KJV it's a formal translation and more word for word than those you've mentioned.

I confess daily but not because I'm affraid I'll loose my Salvation.

I disagree the saved are not refered to as sinners. once saved we are sinners in the past but not currently.
As far as a saved person becomming lost in the book of James you'd have to give me a referance because I do not recall any such passage.

Fallen they are because they tried to live by the Law. They may have had Grace. but that doesn't change the fact they attempted to be justified by the Law. We are Justified by Christ. He is the only way.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The Law will not justify it will not save.
MB

 

MB said:

That is a whole different subject but I challenge you to find one reputable commentary that says "should" in 1 Corinthians 9:27 means "ought to". That is one of the problems with the KJV. It uses classical English that doesn't always mean the same thing as the same words mean in modern English.

Then MB said concerning 1 John 1:9:

That's OK. Ignorance is bliss and if you confess, you're forgiven anyway so it doesn't matter.

Then MB commented thusly on James 5:19-20:

You are right. The saved are not referred to as sinners. The formerly saved, who are now unsaved, are referred to as sinners. The epistle was written to all Jewish Christians. So when James says, "Bretheren, if any of you . . . ," he is referring to Christian brothers. So, once again I say these two verses portray a Christian who has fallen away, a fellow Christian who rescues him, and saves a soul from death. Don't you see? The saved Christian becomes unsaved and then is saved again. Why do you find this concept so repulsive that you can't even address it? It's in the Bible, accept it!

Finally, MB said this concerning Galations 5:4:

Again you find the concept of falling from grace so repulsive you can't even address it. OF COURSE, we are justified by Christ and Christ alone. No one disputes that. But what about those men who had fallen from grace? They had once been justified by Christ but they had lost that justification because of their reliance on the law. They had fallen from grace, that is they had once been saved but were no longer saved. It's so simple, yet you fight so hard to talk around it.

 

If one is justified by grace, he cannot fall from grace otherwise grace would not be grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

We are either saved by grace or not saved at all.
If we are not saved by grace then it is a religion of works, and no one can be saved by works; that is impossible.

For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works.