Eternal Security and Apostacy

[RickD]

Ten Reasons Why A True Child Of God Can Never Reject His Salvation

Hey Narnia, I didn't realize this link I posted seems to be from a Calvinist's website. Since I basically agreed with these 10 points, does that make me a heretic, too?

[Byblos]

Ten Reasons Why A True Child Of God Can Never Reject His Salvation

Hey Narnia, I didn't realize this link I posted seems to be from a Calvinist's website. Since I basically agreed with these 10 points, does that make me a heretic, too?

Well no but at a minimum it negates your argument that salvation can't be lost unless you're a Calvinist.

[RickD]

Ten Reasons Why A True Child Of God Can Never Reject His Salvation

Hey Narnia, I didn't realize this link I posted seems to be from a Calvinist's website. Since I basically agreed with these 10 points, does that make me a heretic, too?

Well no but at a minimum it negates your argument that salvation can't be lost unless you're a Calvinist.

It's funny, because before DannyM became a Calvinist(or maybe before I realized he was), we were on the same side of the eternal security debate. We both used the same scripture to defend eternal security. I guess where I differ from Calvinism in this, is that calvinists get to eternal security, via the path of TULIP. While I agree with Calvinists on eternal security, I certainly don't agree with how they get to that belief, through TULIP.

[Byblos]

Ten Reasons Why A True Child Of God Can Never Reject His Salvation

Hey Narnia, I didn't realize this link I posted seems to be from a Calvinist's website. Since I basically agreed with these 10 points, does that make me a heretic, too?

Well no but at a minimum it negates your argument that salvation can't be lost unless you're a Calvinist.

It's funny, because before DannyM became a Calvinist(or maybe before I realized he was), we were on the same side of the eternal security debate. We both used the same scripture to defend eternal security. I guess where I differ from Calvinism in this, is that calvinists get to eternal security, via the path of TULIP. While I agree with Calvinists on eternal security, I certainly don't agree with how they get to that belief, through TULIP.

And as I've stated many times, I see elements of truth on both sides and will not dismiss Calvinism out of hand. Jac's position comes really close to resolving the issue I have with pelagianism (which anyone who is not a Calvinist will most certainly have to contend with) but it doesn't resolve it totally in my mind.

[RickD]

And as I've stated many times, I see elements of truth on both sides and will not dismiss Calvinism out of hand. Jac's position comes really close to resolving the issue I have with pelagianism (which anyone who is not a Calvinist will most certainly have to contend with) but it doesn't resolve it totally in my mind.

Byblos, I know you've discussed this before, but what issue regarding pelagianism, do you have with those who aren't Calvinist?

[B. W.]

Here is a netural article on Perseverance of the Saints from Wiki which explains all sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints

What does the bible say on this matter instead of men/women?

The bible alone does answer this.

The problem is with us, and how we misread people's intent. For example, mention eternal security, you are immediately assumed you are a Calvinist and thus a lot of wasted words are given by both sides. Or one is assumed a Free Willer in which human free will is the supreme measure of staying saved or not. Another is assumed as OSAS when it is not the case for the person writing, etc and etc so such discussions never get anywhere other than assuming and counter assuming in writing.

What did Jesus say on this matter, the OT, and the NT?

What happens if Jesus is actually right and we are wrong on this matter?

What then?
-
-
-

[Byblos]

And as I've stated many times, I see elements of truth on both sides and will not dismiss Calvinism out of hand. Jac's position comes really close to resolving the issue I have with pelagianism (which anyone who is not a Calvinist will most certainly have to contend with) but it doesn't resolve it totally in my mind.

Byblos, I know you've discussed this before, but what issue regarding pelagianism, do you have with those who aren't Calvinist?

Our mere cooperation, however passive, with God's grace still constitutes an action on our part which is necessary for salvation. We can argue all the semantics in the world but there's no escaping the semi-pelagianism charge.

[B. W.]

Concerning Semi-pelagianism... so people can know what it is...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-pelagianism

Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

Semipelagianism is a Christian theological and soteriological school of thought on salvation; that is, the means by which humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. Semipelagian thought stands in contrast to the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation (in which man is seen as effecting his own salvation), which had been dismissed as heresy. Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1] It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529.

The Roman Catholic Church condemns semipelagianism but affirms that the beginning of faith involves an act of free will. It teaches that the initiative comes from God, but requires free synergy (collaboration) on the part of man: "God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration".[2] "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."[3]

The term Semipelagian is used retrospectively by theologians to refer to the original formulation, and has been used as an accusation in theological disputes over salvation, divine grace and free will.

Pelagian and Semipelagian theology

Pelagianism is the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit, and therefore that salvation is effected by man's efforts. The doctrine takes its name from Pelagius, a British monk who was accused of developing the doctrine (he himself appears to have claimed that man does not do good apart from grace in his letters, claiming only that all men have free will by God's gift); it was opposed especially by Augustine of Hippo and was declared a heresy by Pope Zosimus in 418. Denying the existence of original sin, it teaches that man is in himself and by nature capable of choosing good.[4]

In Semipelagian thought, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.[5] This teaching is distinct from the traditional patristic doctrine of synergeia, in which the process of salvation is cooperation between God and man from start to finish

Semipelagianism in the patristic era

After this confusion had been deemed an error, the term Semipelagianism was retained in learned circles as a designation for the heresy advocated by monks of Southern Gaul at and around Marseille after 428. It aimed at a compromise between the two extremes of Pelagianism and Augustinism, and was condemned as heresy at the local Councils of Orange in 529 after disputes extending over more than a hundred years; the term Semipelagianism itself was unknown in antiquity.

Development of the term and subsequent use

Early use of the term

The Epitome of the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577) rejects "the false dogma of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can commence his conversion, but can not fully accomplish it without the grace of the Holy Spirit."[6]

Between 1590 and 1600 the term "semipelagianism" was applied to Luis de Molina's doctrine of grace, which at that time was accused of similarity to the teaching of the Massilians.[7]

-
-
-

[RickD]

In Semipelagian thought, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.[5] This teaching is distinct from the traditional patristic doctrine of synergeia, in which the process of salvation is cooperation between God and man from start to finish

The only difference between what I believe, and what this says about semi-Pelagianism, is that I believe man can't make the first move, unaided by grace. It's clear, at least to me, that the message of the cross of Christ, makes it possible for man to come to God. And I also believe God "woos" us, as well. As I can see it, both of those are acts of God's grace, and both of those precede belief in Christ.

[Byblos]

In Semipelagian thought, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.[5] This teaching is distinct from the traditional patristic doctrine of synergeia, in which the process of salvation is cooperation between God and man from start to finish

The only difference between what I believe, and what this says about semi-Pelagianism, is that I believe man can't make the first move, unaided by grace. It's clear, at least to me, that the message of the cross of Christ, makes it possible for man to come to God. And I also believe God "woos" us, as well. As I can see it, both of those are acts of God's grace, and both of those precede belief in Christ.

So let's jump right back into the never-ending circle, why does God's "woow"ing work with some and not with others?

[RickD]

In Semipelagian thought, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.[5] This teaching is distinct from the traditional patristic doctrine of synergeia, in which the process of salvation is cooperation between God and man from start to finish

The only difference between what I believe, and what this says about semi-Pelagianism, is that I believe man can't make the first move, unaided by grace. It's clear, at least to me, that the message of the cross of Christ, makes it possible for man to come to God. And I also believe God "woos" us, as well. As I can see it, both of those are acts of God's grace, and both of those precede belief in Christ.

So let's jump right back into the never-ending circle, why does God's "woow"ing work with some and not with others?

sorry, I'm not going down that dead end road again. Other than freewill, and hearts hardened towards God, I have no other answer. I have no issue with that at all.

[Jac3510]

sorry, I'm not going down that dead end road again. Other than freewill, and hearts hardened towards God, I have no other answer. I have no issue with that at all.

Look on the bright side, Rick. Neither does Byblos' own Church. They insist that free will plays an active part in coming to faith, and that is the issue that he's taking exception to. So your answer is at least as good as the Catholic one. So in that regard, you are more Catholic that he is.

Maybe you are about to start swimming after all . . .

[Byblos]

sorry, I'm not going down that dead end road again. Other than freewill, and hearts hardened towards God, I have no other answer. I have no issue with that at all.

Look on the bright side, Rick. Neither does Byblos' own Church. They insist that free will plays an active part in coming to faith, and that is the issue that he's taking exception to. So your answer is at least as good as the Catholic one. So in that regard, you are more Catholic that he is.
Maybe you are about to start swimming after all . . .

What you neglected to mention is a little thing called light of faith, which is also from God so I guess that makes both me and Rick Calvinists. You can stop swimming Rick .

[RickD]

sorry, I'm not going down that dead end road again. Other than freewill, and hearts hardened towards God, I have no other answer. I have no issue with that at all.

Look on the bright side, Rick. Neither does Byblos' own Church. They insist that free will plays an active part in coming to faith, and that is the issue that he's taking exception to. So your answer is at least as good as the Catholic one. So in that regard, you are more Catholic that he is.
Maybe you are about to start swimming after all . . .

What you neglected to mention is a little thing called light of faith, which is also from God so I guess that makes both me and Rick Calvinists. You can stop swimming Rick .

Ok, Byblos, you'll have to explain what " light of faith" means. I'm not familiar with it.

Byblos, is there a river one crosses over, into Calvinism?

[B. W.]

How does God 'woo'

Bible says it best...

Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool." NKJV

Below is an example of God reasoning (contending) from the OT system we can learn from:

Isa 43:22-23. "But you have not called upon Me, O Jacob; And you have been weary of Me, O Israel. 23 You have not brought Me the sheep for your burnt offerings, Nor have you honored Me with your sacrifices. I have not caused you to serve with grain offerings, Nor wearied you with incense. 24 You have bought Me no sweet cane with money, Nor have you satisfied Me with the fat of your sacrifices; But you have burdened Me with your sins, You have wearied Me with your iniquities.

25 "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. 26 Put Me in remembrance; Let us contend (reason) together; State your case, that you may be acquitted. 27 Your first father sinned, And your mediators have transgressed against Me. 28 Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary; I will give Jacob to the curse, And Israel to reproaches." NKJV

God argues - reasons - contends in this manner to show us how guilty and sin driven we really are - how we abandoned him - don't call upon him - don't even know him.. how we rebel... from that we state our case. Our case will either rest on Christ's saving act alone thus are acquitted by God or a person tries to acquit his/her own self by meritorious deeds which all fail. For those that fail to be acquitted by God are turned over forever to reproaches.

Basically put forth God woos by telling you the truth about yourself. Confronts us with a choice when before there was none.

This kind of Reason God engages humanity with has nothing to do with being subservient to human free will but rather confronting people, one person at a time, with the offer of a choice when before there was none.

God is the Author and originator of this type of choice because only Absolute Love would or could make such an offer known that puts the Lord back into our remembrance. The means used in such reasoning God employs is called truth: the truth about ourselves and God. (John 3:20, 21c)

Psalms 51:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.

7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me hear joy and gladness, That the bones You have broken may rejoice. 9 Hide Your face from my sins, And blot out all my iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. " NKJV

The truth that declares I need God alone from this a relationship is healed and born/ re-birthed … John 3:3

It is a sad state of affairs when people wrongly assume one must be a Calvinist, or Arminian, or a Free Gracer Eraser, Semi-Peligian, or a 4 minus a 1 pointer, having everything in a nice tidy spiffy box, yet miss what the bible is actually saying on the matter of eternal security.

What does Jesus say on this matter?

Notice anything unusual in his wording?

John 10:14, "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me…” NASB

A newborn baby’s eyes soon see Mama and Papa for the first time and they gaze upon them. The infant is held and fed, taken care of, and they grow a bit bigger. Soon they learn to walk, have boo boos. Then come the 3 to 4 year old stage when they learn to say to mama and papa, ‘I hate you, I don’t want you, I don’t like you' and have the worst temper tantrums ever seen.

Wow, if we human Mamas and Papas were anything like God, then, I guess we’d better kick our 3 and 4 year olds out of the house to honor their free will. We don’t do that, and neither does God. The reason for the fits and fuss, you guessed it has something to do with building a trusting (faithing) relationship between parent and child.

Our problem is that we Christians think we are all grown up when God still calls us children…

So what is missing from the dialogue on Eternal Security Jesus spoke of?

John 10:14, "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me…” NASB
-
-
-