Biblical Eternal Security vs 'Calvinistic Eternal Security' -by Gregg Jackson
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
No, it reflects badly on the person. You seem tired. Bedtime for both of us.
if the person becomes untrustworthy. Our faith in them flounders and can eventually stop altogether
my faith in you is dependent on you. Nit myself. If my faith was in myself it
Means I have no faith in you
I'm sorry you're having such difficulty.
Maybe you just aren't clear enough. Which is why I asked my question. btw, I didn't ask WHAT they left. You made a comment about "what else" they left, which seemed to be an insinuation that the group that left also left salvation. I was trying to draw out what you meant by "not only".
Are you offended by confidence? I know my Bible. And I use verses that say what I believe. I know that does offend those who can't support their claims with Scripture, but that's the way it goes.
You need to be more clear. We all have our problems.
I can read it very easily. But some people just seem unable to use plain English in cognizant ways.
Maybe you just aren't clear enough. Which is why I asked my question. btw, I didn't ask WHAT they left. You made a comment about "what else" they left, which seemed to be an insinuation that the group that left also left salvation. I was trying to draw out what you meant by "not only".
Are you offended by confidence? I know my Bible. And I use verses that say what I believe. I know that does offend those who can't support their claims with Scripture, but that's the way it goes.
You need to be more clear. We all have our problems.
I can read it very easily. But some people just seem unable to use plain English in cognizant ways.
So, do you believe what Jesus said or not?
He said those who believe HAVE eternal life in John 5:24. He also said recipients of eternal life shall never perish in John 10:28.
If you believe salvation can be lost, then how is it possible that you believe what Jesus said???
Those who believe salvation can be lost must jettison both verses, because they REFUTE such an idea.
A person receives the gift of eternal life the MOMENT they believe in Christ for salvation. Therefore, eternal security is based solely on being given the gift.
Lifestyle has NO EFFECT on one's salvation. But lifestyle has a HUGE EFFECT on how God treats His child.
And God is not a casual Parent who isn't paying attention to His children.
He said those who believe HAVE eternal life in John 5:24. He also said recipients of eternal life shall never perish in John 10:28.
If you believe salvation can be lost, then how is it possible that you believe what Jesus said???
Those who believe salvation can be lost must jettison both verses, because they REFUTE such an idea.
A person receives the gift of eternal life the MOMENT they believe in Christ for salvation. Therefore, eternal security is based solely on being given the gift.
Lifestyle has NO EFFECT on one's salvation. But lifestyle has a HUGE EFFECT on how God treats His child.
And God is not a casual Parent who isn't paying attention to His children.
FreeGrace2 said:
Leaving the church does not mean leaving salvation. Is that your view?
Sorry, but this does not answer my question clearly.
Are you saying that a person has the power to undo their regeneration? Kinda like being UN-born. Where in the Bible is such an idea taught? I know many people seem to have this opinion, but I'm interested in where Scripture supports such a view.
Leaving the church does not mean leaving salvation. Is that your view?
Sorry, but this does not answer my question clearly.
Are you saying that a person has the power to undo their regeneration? Kinda like being UN-born. Where in the Bible is such an idea taught? I know many people seem to have this opinion, but I'm interested in where Scripture supports such a view.
FreeGrace2 said:
Losing faith does not mean losing salvation
Then you will need to prove this notion from Scripture, with CLEAR verses.
adokimos: not standing the test, rejected
Transliteration: adokimos
Definition: not standing the test, rejected
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from alpha (as a neg. prefix) and dokimos
Definition
not standing the test, rejected
NASB Translation
depraved (1), disqualified (1), fail the test (2), rejected (1), unapproved (1), worthless (2).
To abuse this verse into support for loss of salvation is quite sad.
First, salvation is NOT a "test". It's a condition. It includes a number of things.
1. born again, regeneration, new creature. That cannot be undone.
2. sealing of the Holy Spirit. That cannot be undone.
3. child of God. That cannot be undone.
Paul was referring to living up to God's plan for him, which is clearly stated in Acts 9:15. Paul was a "chosen instrument to carry the gospel to the Gentiles". Paul was stating that he HAD lived up to God's plan for him.
John 5:24 SAYS those who believe HAVE (as in possess right NOW) eternal life. Do you think the gift of eternal life is corruptible?
Care to repent of your erroneous opinion?
Losing faith does not mean losing salvation
Then you will need to prove this notion from Scripture, with CLEAR verses.
adokimos: not standing the test, rejected
Transliteration: adokimos
Definition: not standing the test, rejected
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from alpha (as a neg. prefix) and dokimos
Definition
not standing the test, rejected
NASB Translation
depraved (1), disqualified (1), fail the test (2), rejected (1), unapproved (1), worthless (2).
To abuse this verse into support for loss of salvation is quite sad.
First, salvation is NOT a "test". It's a condition. It includes a number of things.
1. born again, regeneration, new creature. That cannot be undone.
2. sealing of the Holy Spirit. That cannot be undone.
3. child of God. That cannot be undone.
Paul was referring to living up to God's plan for him, which is clearly stated in Acts 9:15. Paul was a "chosen instrument to carry the gospel to the Gentiles". Paul was stating that he HAD lived up to God's plan for him.
John 5:24 SAYS those who believe HAVE (as in possess right NOW) eternal life. Do you think the gift of eternal life is corruptible?
Care to repent of your erroneous opinion?
The whole issue of "abiding" (John 15) is about fellowship with the Lord. Read 1 John 1. It's all about fellowship. Sin breaks fellowship, just as an offending spouse offends the other.
When out of fellowship, which is through sin, the believer MUST confess those sins to restore fellowship.
That was Jesus' point in John 15. Believers who are out of fellowship (not abiding) CANNOT bear fruit. It's impossible.
In fact, Jesus assured all of the 11 that they were "clean", meaning saved. v.3
When out of fellowship, which is through sin, the believer MUST confess those sins to restore fellowship.
That was Jesus' point in John 15. Believers who are out of fellowship (not abiding) CANNOT bear fruit. It's impossible.
In fact, Jesus assured all of the 11 that they were "clean", meaning saved. v.3
FreeGrace2 said:
Let's just cut to the chase.
Do you think the ones who left lost salvation or never had salvation?
You complain about having a discussion with me yet you won't even answer a rather simple and straightforward question.
Did the leavers lose salvation or never had it? This is not a difficult question. Or do you just not know?
Doesn't answer my question.
After pages and pages, it's hard to keep track of everyone's views. Why is answering questions so hard for you?
That's why I finally posted my "cut to the chase". And even your initial answer to my question was vague.
But thanks for finally clarifying.
I question why unbelievers would be IN a 1st Century church. Back then, this was the general view of the population:
1 Cor 1-
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
So, other than "false brothers" who were infiltrating churches, why would unbelievers be interested in attending them?
Gal 2:4 - And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage
And John didn't describe the leavers as "false brothers".
In my opinion, John could have referred to either unbelievers who were initially curious about the church but finally left, or believers who got into false doctrine, which I've proved from Acts 15.
So, what's the problem? It could be either or both. That would make us both correct.
Let's just cut to the chase.
Do you think the ones who left lost salvation or never had salvation?
You complain about having a discussion with me yet you won't even answer a rather simple and straightforward question.
Did the leavers lose salvation or never had it? This is not a difficult question. Or do you just not know?
Doesn't answer my question.
After pages and pages, it's hard to keep track of everyone's views. Why is answering questions so hard for you?
That's why I finally posted my "cut to the chase". And even your initial answer to my question was vague.
But thanks for finally clarifying.
I question why unbelievers would be IN a 1st Century church. Back then, this was the general view of the population:
1 Cor 1-
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
So, other than "false brothers" who were infiltrating churches, why would unbelievers be interested in attending them?
Gal 2:4 - And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage
And John didn't describe the leavers as "false brothers".
In my opinion, John could have referred to either unbelievers who were initially curious about the church but finally left, or believers who got into false doctrine, which I've proved from Acts 15.
So, what's the problem? It could be either or both. That would make us both correct.