Does the Bible teach Eternal Security

[christiancanadian]

1. ETERNAL LIFE IS ETERNAL! John 3:15, 10:28, Romans 6:23, 1 John 2:25, 5:11, 5:13, etc.; By definition eternal means never ending. Once a believer has eternal life it can never be taken away. If it could be it would not be eternal!
Eternal also means that it has no beginning! If you had to gain it, you don

 

[christiancanadian]

I take No credit for everything that follows, it's a friend of mine that heard about this debate and I find him very very good. He goes by the nick : 831. He wrote this to help those who are being mislead by what he says in false teachings that a GENUINE CHRISTIAN can lose their salvation. He strongly disagrees and provides the evidence. Here is what he says....
1. ETERNAL LIFE IS ETERNAL! John 3:15, 10:28, Romans 6:23, 1 John 2:25, 5:11, 5:13, etc.; By definition eternal means never ending. Once a believer has eternal life it can never be taken away. If it could be it would not be eternal!
Eternal also means that it has no beginning! If you had to gain it, you don

 

[NazariteNation]

Guys, I don't want you to think that because I don't believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security that I am somehow attacking your salvation. That's not my intention at all. In fact I commend those of you who are sincere about your salvation and are committed to your relationship with Christ. However, the problem I have with this doctrine is it's fruit.

You see, I've lived in Western North Carolina (Billy Graham Country) for almost 15 years now and I've seen and heard a lot of things that, as a christian, I can hardly believe, one of which is the obvious abuse of God's grace among those who profess "Eternal Security / Once Saved Always Saved". Now I know what you're thinking, there's a big difference between those who are truly saved and those who obviously are not and you would be right. However, it's not the people that are on trial here... It's the doctrine itself.

I know a lot of people who grew in this area who also grew up in churches that preach Eternal Security. The vast majority of them can tell you about some moment in their they past when they professed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Most have even gone so far as to have been baptized in water however, sometime during their life they decided to pursue their own selfish pursuits. Some still attend church on a regular basis however, when you look at the way they live out their daily lives and listen to the conversations that they carry it's pretty obvious that the last thing on thier mind is their relationship with the Lord.

I've seen married deacons chase after married women they work with. Other married folks cheating on their spouses. Married but seperated folks "shacked up" with someone other than their spouse, single folks living in fornication, people involved in witchcraft, I've even seen the mother of teenage boy with muscular distrophe curse God openly because of her son's predicamentet. Yet when you approach them about their current situation with the good news of Jesus and how He can transform your life, they just look at you puzzled and reply "...but I'm already saved."

I've kinda' gotten used to this response and am prepared for it with the following question: "If you already know that Jesus gave His life so that we can be forgiven, then don't you think after all He's done for us that we owe it to Him to live a lifestyle that is pleasing to Him?" This is the typical response: "Why should I? I'm already guarenteed to go to heaven. What's the point?"

Now for those of you who believe in Eternal Security, extreme cases like these may seem like the occassional bad seed. However, where I live, for every one person I meet that believes in this doctrine who I feel is sincere about their salvation, I meet 2 or 3 more who believe in this doctrine also that are not sincere.

While none of us may ever know just how many among them are supposedly saved according to your standards, what I do know is this: A lot of people are going to hell because they have put their faith in a doctrine that, at least on the surface, portrays sin as being acceptable. This to me, is the real fruit behind "Eternal Security" and it is nothing less than rotten to the core.

In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus warns us of false teachers and teachings and that we can identify them BY THEIR FRUIT. In Matthew 24 Jesus evens alludes to a time when even the elect will be deceived. In my opinion, the doctrine of Eternal Security safely falls in this category.

In ending, I do have one more question for those you who believe in this doctrine. Does it bother you in the slightest that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people are going to hell because of the way this doctrine so easily leads folks astray? It should because their blood could very well be on your hands.

Hebrews 10:30

"The Lord will judge His people."

May God have mercy...

 

[onwingsaseagles]

I take No credit for everything that follows, it's a friend of mine that heard about this debate and I find him very very good. He goes by the nick : 831. He wrote this to help those who are being mislead by what he says in false teachings that a GENUINE CHRISTIAN can lose their salvation. He strongly disagrees and provides the evidence. Here is what he says....
1. ETERNAL LIFE IS ETERNAL! John 3:15, 10:28, Romans 6:23, 1 John 2:25, 5:11, 5:13, etc.; By definition eternal means never ending. Once a believer has eternal life it can never be taken away. If it could be it would not be eternal!
Eternal also means that it has no beginning! If you had to gain it, you don

The problem with this theory is that it assumes you receive eternal life upon believing on Christ when in actuality you receive eternal life after living your life for Christ having endured until the end overcoming the world keeping God's word and staying faithful unto death.

Ps check out the thread when does one receive eternal life.

 

[Abing]

First of all, *i wanna hide my face* lol

Seriously, as a christian we have one destination. Heaven.
As for me, sin can cause a man to fall. Then, Jesus came and paid all our sins. But Jesus did not come to earth to give us an excuse to sin (to say because we're already forgiven, whatever sin we may commit). Especially to willingly commit a sin. (Matthew 4:17, Isaiah 59:1,2) Anyway, I will not go deep on that.

What I'm trying to say is, talking about logic...(and if in case this topic won't be clear to you 'till you reached the heavens)
Case #1
If I face the Lord and have lived a life without being cautious because of the belief once saved/always saved, what am I gonna say if God shows me what I did on earth? To see that I have made God's grace my excuse to (willingly/unwillingly) sin thinking that I was always saved.

If in case Eternal security is a false doctrine, then I'm in a bad situation. I could possibly go to hell.

Case #2
Let's say I wasn't sure of eternal security and has tried living a holy life here on earth. When I face the Lord and find out that I was wrong and that I've always been saved while I was on earth, am I still in a bad situation?

At least, I'm not. God will never send me to hell because I tried to live a holy life. It's not a sin.

On the other hand, If we obey sin, we will die spiritually! (Romans 6:16-23)
Now what does that mean? If we die spiritually, what happens to us? Are we gonna go to heaven with a dead spirit? That's why we need repentance.

You know, talking about eternal security is like saying, you don't have to repent. When in fact Jesus said, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near". Thinking that Jesus was the One who saved us all, HE even told us to repent. Maybe because He knows we aren't perfect, and with sin, we can fall?


Anyways, I just dropped by, I need to do my homework. gaaaah.
God bless ya'll

 

[Baptistrw]

The problem with this theory is that it assumes you receive eternal life upon believing on Christ when in actuality you receive eternal life after living your life for Christ having endured until the end overcoming the world keeping God's word and staying faithful unto death.

Ps check out the thread when does one receive eternal life.

And that's a gospel of works and you don't even realize it. Argh so frustrating.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

And that's a gospel of works and you don't even realize it. Argh so frustrating.

Actually you misunderstand what it means to not be saved by works. it means that we need Jesus not that we should not work out our salvation James tells us that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone. No man is good enough to save themselves and no man can keep God's word with out the infilling of the Holy Spirit, but God has commanded us to be Holy and to live righteously, and He has given us His Spirit to enable us to do so.

 

[NazariteNation]

Actually you misunderstand what it means to not be saved by works. it means that we need Jesus not that we should not work out our salvation James tells us that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone. No man is good enough to save themselves and no man can keep God's word with out the infilling of the Holy Spirit, but God has commanded us to be Holy and to live righteously, and He has given us His Spirit to enable us to do so.

I've deducted that there are basically two kinds of christians, Assertive and Passive.

Assertive Christians pursue God and in turn God pursues them ("the violent take the Kingdom by force"). We tentatively believe and recieve the spiritual gifts. We are willing to cut out whatever it is we need in order to enrich our relationship with God. And we are more likely to risk our lives on the missions field. We view persecution as a banner rather than a burden.

Passive Christians tend to be more catious. They find a church / belief system that they are comfortable with and stick to it. They rarely venture outside of personal "boundaries" and tend to be a bit more traditional. They prefer to pray in silence concerning a matter in the hopes that God will intervine in the matter. They don't like to make waves.

While there may be predominantly two different kinds of christians, the fact of the matter is that we are both christian. Some of us God has molded for the front lines, others He has molded for intercession. Rather than throw stones at one another... if I may coin a phrase... Know your role! *lol*

 

[MahogonySnail]

The real cruncher for the doctrine of eternal security and Calvinism in general, is that historical writings show that the early church did not believe in it. While we can't use early writings for doctrine, only the bible for that, we do have historical records of what the early church believed. It should be fairly clear that they were not Calvinist:

Here's a summary of what they believed before 500 AD:

a) re: eternal security:


120-205 AD Irenaeus "Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death shall no more have dominion over Him.... Therefore we should not be puffed up.... But we should beware lest somehow, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins but rather be shut out from His kingdom" (Heb. 6:4­6). (Irenaeus, pupil of Polycarp, Against Heresies bk. 4, chap. 27, sec. 2)


b) re: Free will:

260-315 AD Methodius "Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. " (Methodius The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16)

190 AD Clement of Alexandria "Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary." (Clement Miscellanies bk. 1, chap. 17)

c) re: "faith only":


30-100 AD Clement of Rome, who was a, wrote, "It is necessary, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of good works. For He forewarns us, 'Behold, the Lord comes and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.' ... Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised reward. But how, beloved ones, shall we do this? By fixing our thoughts on God by faith. By earnestly seeking the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him. By doing the things that are in harmony with His blameless will. And by following the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and sin." (Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians chaps. 34, 35 [companion of the apostle Paul and overseer of the church in Rome])

69-156 AD Polycarp "He who raised Him up from the dead will also raise us up-if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness." (Polycarp, personal companion of the apostle John, Letter to the Philippians chap. 2)


So Calvinists are forced to either
a) prove that so close to the time of the apostles, the church had already and quickly fallen into false doctrines,
or
b) admit that the modern doctrine of eternal security is a heretical doctrine, as it was not taught by Christ, the apostles, or in the early church.

 

[NazariteNation]

The real cruncher for the doctrine of eternal security and Calvinism in general, is that historical writings show that the early church did not believe in it. While we can't use early writings for doctrine, only the bible for that, we do have historical records of what the early church believed. It should be fairly clear that they were not Calvinist:

Here's a summary of what they believed before 500 AD:

a) re: eternal security:


120-205 AD Irenaeus "Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death shall no more have dominion over Him.... Therefore we should not be puffed up.... But we should beware lest somehow, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins but rather be shut out from His kingdom" (Heb. 6:4*6). (Irenaeus, pupil of Polycarp, Against Heresies bk. 4, chap. 27, sec. 2)


b) re: Free will:

260-315 AD Methodius "Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. " (Methodius The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16)

190 AD Clement of Alexandria "Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary." (Clement Miscellanies bk. 1, chap. 17)

c) re: "faith only":


30-100 AD Clement of Rome, who was a, wrote, "It is necessary, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of good works. For He forewarns us, 'Behold, the Lord comes and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.' ... Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised reward. But how, beloved ones, shall we do this? By fixing our thoughts on God by faith. By earnestly seeking the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him. By doing the things that are in harmony with His blameless will. And by following the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and sin." (Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians chaps. 34, 35 [companion of the apostle Paul and overseer of the church in Rome])

69-156 AD Polycarp "He who raised Him up from the dead will also raise us up-if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness." (Polycarp, personal companion of the apostle John, Letter to the Philippians chap. 2)


So Calvinists are forced to either
a) prove that so close to the time of the apostles, the church had already and quickly fallen into false doctrines,
or
b) admit that the modern doctrine of eternal security is a heretical doctrine, as it was not taught by Christ, the apostles, or in the early church.

I've done a little research myself online and historically, the earliest anyone in the pro-Eternal Security camp themselves can come with anything that even remotely resembles what has now evolved into "Once saved Always saved" are a couple of items from Saint Augustine (a catholic) who lived in the Fourth century A.D.

 

[EconGrad]

Can someone identify if there's a difference between the meanings of the terms "Eternal Security", "Once Saved, Always Saved" and perseverance of the saints?

I'm part of a Church whose confession includes the doctrine of perserverance of the saints (that those Christ has sealed are justified and will be sanctified and glorified as he has predetermined).

This doctrine seems different than OSAS and Eternal Security to me.

 

[MahogonySnail]

I've done a little research myself online and historically, the earliest anyone in the pro-Eternal Security camp themselves can come with anything that even remotely resembles what has now evolved into "Once saved Always saved" are a couple of items from Saint Augustine (a catholic) who lived in the Fourth century A.D.

Yeah. I read something somewhere how Augustines writings were the only ones that Calvin would have had of the early church writings . Which might have led him to assume (wrongly) that in the early church all christians believed those things.

Econ there's a big read here, it's wikipedia, may not be reliable, but probably the most detailed and unbiased..

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

 

[onwingsaseagles]

Can someone identify if there's a difference between the meanings of the terms "Eternal Security", "Once Saved, Always Saved" and perseverance of the saints?

I'm part of a Church whose confession includes the doctrine of perserverance of the saints (that those Christ has sealed are justified and will be sanctified and glorified as he has predetermined).

This doctrine seems different than OSAS and Eternal Security to me.

They are very simular, if there is a difference it is minimal.

 

[next_step]

It is a bit amazing that you think in hebrews 10 he speaks about born again true possesors of the holy spirit. There is a verse 39! We and they. Same like in 1. John 2,19. To say this biblical truth brings no fruit is simply false cause this thought does not consider the very fact of change and being born again.



But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Hebrews 10:39

They who never were born again. We who have the gift and we are his.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8:9 And it is self-evident in romans 8 how god views you in all eternity.

You claim enduring is a work, you make faith a work.

I am not a calvinist at all but armianism is the same unbiblical fallacy. Not good for your soul and not usefulfor edification. Simply confusing and because of unbiclical ways of thought.

 

[next_step]

And what would be the consequence for any who did not depend upon Christ for salvation but the law? Salvation? Are you saying a person is saved apart from God's grace and apart from Christ's effect? Can a person be saved if they keep the law? , if they are outside of God's grace?

Consider the meaning of grace in your daily life. You live thorugh it and Paul wishes always grace not because they need forgiveness but they need grace for their daily life. Grace for their way of living, for insight etc. Furthermore Paul makes clear in galatians that he still speaks to a church of real believers. Otherwise he would have said: "You are fallen from the grace, god has condemned you, now you have to go to hell". But wait! I remember the ending of galatians is slightly different. (he still speaks to them who have problems with grace in their life cause they try to live thorugh something that brings curse)

 

[MahogonySnail]

Gill commentary says:

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you,.... Or "ye are abolished from Christ"; or as others by an "hypallage" read the words, "Christ is abolished unto you"; for by their seeking for justification by their own works, it was all one to them as if there was no Christ, and no righteousness in him, and no salvation by him; they had nothing to do with him, nor he with them:

 

[next_step]

Let me quote A. C. Gaebelein

But as being in Christ, dead to the law, if they become circumcised Christ would profit them nothing and they were bound to fulfill the whole law. Going back to the law for righteousness, they had fallen from grace. This is the only time "fallen from grace" is used in the Bible. It has been strangely misapplied by a certain system of theology to deny the security of the believer in Christ. It is generally used to describe a Christian who has fallen in sin and, as it is claimed, lost his relationship as a child of God and is, therefore, once more under judgment. Falling from grace does not mean this; it means to give up the grace of the gospel in order to satisfy the requirements of the law. To go back under the law and its bondage is falling from grace. Verse 5 does not mean that a believer hopes for righteousness; he possesses righteousness by faith. Indwelt by the Spirit, the believer waits not for righteousness, but for the hope of righteousness by faith. And the hope of righteousness is the coming glory, when all those who are saved by grace will be glorified and be like Christ.

The root of this misunderstaniding is in my opinion that the character of the epistle to the galatians is miunderstood.

Let me quote F.B Hole about the greek meaning of this phrase.

The words "fallen from grace" are often taken to mean that such have fallen out of the gracious hand of God-that such are no longer saved. The phrase however, refers to what was produced in their consciousness, not to what is true as before God. The verse begins, "Christ is become of no effect unto you." Is Christ of no effect REALLY?-that is, IN THE SIGHT OF GOD? Far be the thought-an impossible supposition! But to them- in their experience and consciousness? Yes. If they considered themselves as justified on the principle of law, Christ was most evidently disallowed in their minds, and they had descended from the divine and lofty principle of grace to the far lower level of law. And the descent between the two is so pronounced and precipitous that it can only be described as a fall!

 

[NazariteNation]

It is a bit amazing that you think in hebrews 10 he speaks about born again true possesors of the holy spirit. There is a verse 39! We and they.

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Hebrews 10:39

They who never were born again. We who have the gift and we are his.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8:9 And it is self-evident in romans 8 how god views you in all eternity. .

That is merely your skewed interpretation of verse 39. The way I read verse 39, "WE" are those who remain committed to our faith. "Them" are those who fall away.

What's funny is how you are willing to overlook the last 15 verses which clearly describe someone in a back slidden state in exchange for on small verse near the end.

Hebrews 10:26

For if WE sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Hebrews 10:35

Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.

Hebrews 10:38

Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

The truth is people who tend to believe in Eternal Security don't want to face the fact that yes, God actually does requires something from us (#1. submission, and #2. co-operation) other than the occasional head nod in agreement while sitting in a pew at the back of the church counting the minutes until service is over so we can stuff out faces at the buffet down the street.

 

[NazariteNation]

That is merely your skewed interpretation of verse 39. The way I read verse 39, "WE" are those who remain committed to our faith. "Them" are those who fall away.

What's funny is how you are willing to overlook the last 15 verses which clearly describe someone in a back slidden state in exchange for on small verse near the end.

Hebrews 10:26

For if WE sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Hebrews 10:35

Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward.

Hebrews 10:38

Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

The truth is people who tend to believe in Eternal Security don't want to face the fact that yes, God actually does requires something from us (#1. submission, and #2. co-operation) other than the occasional head nod in agreement while sitting in a pew at the back of the church counting the minutes until service is over so we can stuff out faces at the buffet down the street.

Do you honestly think the author would have even brought the subject up, much less dedicated several verses of scripture, if it were not a possibility?

 

[next_step]

This is not the state of things. The way things are is presented in verse 39. The people that truly draw back are "them". How one could ignore "BUT WE ARE NOT OF THEM WHO DRAW BACK"? Hebrews is an epistle that requires a great knowledge of the old testament, primarily the tora. It is impossible to view hebrews 6 and 10 without looking at at the situation of the jews of the generation that rejected Jesus Christ as messiah.

Change comes always from inside. Not from outside. We change because we grow with him and to him. We are capable of anthing just because we give him room. The good works and the fruit do not come from us. It's the result of obedience and selflessness, and surrendering. The works and the fruit proof the renewal!

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8.9

Don let enduring and believing become a work. Galatians is so clear about it speaks about the freedom because of grace. We have to walk in the spirit and look at him. Not at our (non existent) part of salvation. Look at him! Not at yourself or you will be in the situation of romans 7. Yes, look at him then you will know how to live and you will live how he wants you be.