The end result of eternal security

[sagz4Christ]

Sagz,

After reading your post, I have to say two things:

1. You didn't even address any of my points.

2. I do not deny security in Jesus.

Key word 'IN JESUS!'

I realize that, I was writting that post as you were adding yours! Just so you know, they didn't go un-noticed and I intend to answer them fully when I have time. (My fiancee' just arrived and I gotta spend time with her.) You know...bible study and praying and what not....

I am interested in responding to your questions and adding my insight as well.

be blessed

~sagz

[endure4salvation]

...My fiancee' just arrived...

be blessed

~sagz

Sagz,

How wonderful!

I am very happy for you! Keisha and I just got married 3 1/2 weeks ago. Jesus has really blessed us. Praise the Lord!

Talk to you soon!

Jake

[sagz4Christ]

If your intrepretation of 'eternal life' is correct, then by its own definition, it doesn't exist! You see, the word eternal means without beginning or end. So if it didn't exist in eternity past, then it isn't eternal after all.

What definition of eternal life did I give? If I may quote from myself:

Christ gives eternal life to His sheep. This means life that will last forever. It is not life that is conditional on their behavior. It is eternal life, and that means everlasting. Note these next words carefully; "They shall never perish." If any sheep of Christ ever perished, then the Lord would have been guilty of failing to keep His promise, and that is not possible. Jesus is God, and He cannot fail. He has promised in this verse (v28) that no sheep of His will ever spend eternity in hell.

I believe this is what you were refering to. I don't understand how you got to your conclusion based upon what I said. Unless you are talking about something else. Of course eternal life has no beginning or ending! I never said otherwise. And you are right. Our possession of eternal life is not eternal....until we put on the righteousness of Christ.

OK, please explain to me the following passage:

QUOTE 

Matthew 22:2-14

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, "Tell those who are invited, 'See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.'" But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, "The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding." So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, "Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?" And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, "Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." For many are called, but few are chosen

.

There is but one marriage in the Bible that this could be speaking of--the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. And notice that a real Christian made it all the way to this Supper and was lacking something and was cast into hell. What are these wedding garments that God is speaking of?

This is the marriage the parable is in fact talking about. But where does it say this man is a real Christian? Does not the parable say that the servants gathered the good with the bad? Man cannot come to God with his own righteousness for it is concidered as filthy rags to God. We MUST cloth ourselves with the Righteousness of God which is imputed to us through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!

While we are speaking of salvation through faith, let me say this again because I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. Either that, or you are trying to twist my words around and I very much doubt that is happening here....so back to

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast

The faith spoken of in this context cannot be attributed to man. It is not in man to believe in God through faith. That kind of saving faith has to be given to us by God. It is said best here:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace; and this faith is not the produce of man's free will and power, but it is the free gift of God; and therefore salvation through it is consistent with salvation by grace; since that itself is of grace, lies entirely in receiving grace and gives all the glory to the grace of God: the sense of this last clause may be, that salvation is not of ourselves; it is not of our desiring nor of our deserving, nor of our performing, but is of the free grace of God: though faith is elsewhere represented as the gift of God, (John 6:65) (Philippians 1:29)

QUOTE 

Revelation 19:7-8

Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory!  For the wedding of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.  Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.  (fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

Am I reading this right? If we don't have enough good works we will be cast into hell?

Sagz, I would like your intrepretation of this passage please.

From the same book as my last quote.

for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints,

or "righteousnesses"; not good works, or their own righteousness; for though these are evidences of faith, by which the saints are justified, and are what God has prepared for them, that they should walk in them; yet these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints: and though it is but one, yet it may be called "righteousnesses", or "justifications", in the plural number; partly because of the several seasons in which the act of justification passes, first in God's mind from eternity, next on Christ as the surety, when he rose from the dead, and on all the elect in him, and then in the consciences of the saints when they believe, and the sentence of it will be notified and declared to men and angels at the last judgment; and partly because of the many persons that are justified by it, as also because of the excellency of it; so the Jews use the word in the plural number: the Targumist on (Zechariah 3:4) paraphrases the text, "I will clothe thee" (Kwkz) , "with righteousnesses" ; upon which words Jarchi has this note,

``change of beautiful garments is all one as if it had been said (twykz) "righteousnesses": and because sin is like to filthy garments, righteousness is like to garments beautiful and white.''

Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white, because of its spotless purity; those that are arrayed with it being unblamable and irreprovable, and without spot and blemish, and without fault before the throne; with this the Jewish church will be clothed; all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, which was despised by the Jews in Christ's time, who refused to come to the marriage feast; and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it; and so Christ's righteousness is called the gift of righteousness, the free gift, and gift by grace, and abundance of grace; and faith, which receives it, and puts it on, is the gift of God, (Romans 5:15-17) (Ephesians 2:8) . Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4) .

Again, I do not deny we have a secure salvation. I don't deny John 10:28, Romans 8:38-39 or any other passage that shows a secure relationship with Jesus.

There is security in Jesus, but it is based upon our faith.

I fully understand that you believe there is security in Christ. I fully agree with you. I fully agree that we need to accept Him through faith. Where we differ though is WHERE that faith comes from. You say it comes from ourselves. Ephesians, Phillipians and John clearly say that the faith required of us unto salvation is a GIFT FROM GOD!! So we have at least (and by no means limited to) three gifts from God pertaining to salvation.

1. Salvation itself.

2. Grace

3. Faith

You don't have to say you disagree with me on this because I said it first! So there! ~*~na-na!~*~ :x: I believe deeply that this is taught in the Bible.

This is what I personally think. I think (and am probably wrong) that you say that everyone who professes to be a believer in Christ is a true believer. If that is the case, I can see your concern for the doctrine of eternal security. Unconditional as it is. I happen to be of the mind that not everyone IS a TRUE Christian and that at the judgment seat, there will be ALOT of upset and whailing ministers, evangelists, and self-professed prophets on their way down south!

I also see you taking an incredibly rigid and literal interpretation of Scripture. Admitedly, you are much more versed in it and a great deal more eloquent with words and the tactics of debate, but to me, that doesn't make you any more right than I am.

I am not going to refute every Scripture you add to your argument. Suffice to say that I will probably disagree on your interpretation.

You said that God provides the grace, and we provide the faith. I disagree. According to Ephesians, the faith is provided by God as well.

In the passage in Revelations you quoted, I saw no reference to saints taking the mark of the beast. And even if I pretend that a professing Christian DID take the mark, then there could be no way that that persons regeneration was ever there! The Unconditional Eternal Security is not for unbelievers. It is not for self professing Christians that THINK based on works or some other set of rules or regulations they have an inheratence in the kingdom of God. It is for the HONEST-TO-GOODNESS-BONAFIDE-BOUGHT-WITH-THE-BLOOD-OF-CHRIST-NOT-GOING-DOWN-WITHOUT-A-FIGHT SAINTS.

Finally, as to your sensative question on where my faith is resting. I can answer from a true heart and clear conscience that;

my faith has found a resting place

not in device or creed.

I trust the Ever Living One -

His wounds for me shall plead

I need no other argument

I need no other plea

It is enough that Jesus died

and that He died for me.

Enough for me that Jesus died

this ends my fear and doubt

A sinful soul I come to Him

He'll NEVER cast me out

CHORUS

My heart is leaning on the Word

The written Word of God

Salvation by my Saviors name

Salvation through His blood

CHORUS

My great Physician heals the sick

The lost He came to save

For me His precious blood He shed

For me His life He gave

CHORUS

My faith is in Christ, His Blood, and His promise that He will NEVER cast me out.

yours in Christ;

~Sagz

[Guest im4him]

I don't normally get involved in online debate unless I am dragged into to it, but I have watched this thread go back and forth and every which way without the focus being adhered to.

There are SO many responses that needed to be addressed that no one focused on any single item without another being brought up.

I have always been one to try to get to the heart of a matter and in this I saw the heart of the matter brought up, but never addressed.

First, let me make two things very clear. When I refer to conditional salvation, I am referring to the belief that one can forfeit salvation by abandoning or making shipwreck of ones faith. i.e. apostasy.

Second, when I refer to eternal security, I am referring to a teaching that one becomes irrevocably saved at a pinpoint in time.

I understand that there are different understandings among those that profess either of these basic beliefs.

I don't know who it was, but one poster stated that this issue has been debated for over 500 years and has never been put to rest.

I would think that this should be your starting point. How did this debate get started in the first place? Not this particlular thread, but the original debate?

If it is a debate that started AFTER the church was founded, then false beliefs must have come into the church at some point in time to cause this debate.

Going back to the early fathers I have not found any teachings that support eternal security. Does anyone here have references to any of those teachings?

I have found many teachings of the early fathers that support that salvation is conditional, but nothing that suggest eternal security. It would be of the utmost benefit to those that subscribe to eternal security to be able to point to these teachings and show that it was the teaching handed down by the early church fathers, but none have made any effort to show this which leads me to believe that eternal security must be the theology that was introduced into the church AFTER it was established, causing the debate, rather than the church being established under the teachings of eternal security. If this is the case, then the church must have been founded on the teaching of conditional security.

As hard as I have looked, I can find no evidence that any of the church fathers taught eternal security, only that they fought against gnostic beliefs that can coincide with eternal security teachings.

Tracing back eternal security I can't get any further than Augustine teaching personal predestination, yet Augustine also taught that perseverance was a gift that some received and that some that were predestined to believe would finally fall away into disbelief and forfeit salvation because they hadn't recieved that gift.

This was over 400 years AFTER the church came into existence!

This brings up the following questions:

1> If eternal security was the teaching of the original fathers, then how did it become so overtaken by the belief that one must remain in faith to retain salvation that it became the predominant teaching for those four hundred years?

Paul stated that many would not tolerate sound teaching and bring one teacher after another to themselves to foster errors they hold and to satisfy their own likings.

Does a teaching that one can forfeit salvation sound like something that is pleasing to the ear? I would certainly like to accept eternal security as the original teaching set down by the original fathers, but it truely sounds so soothing in contrast to what Paul said.

2> As stated before, I can find NO evidence that a teaching of eternal security overtook eternal security teachings. There is no evidence I have found that speaks of anyone in the early church that opposed eternal security teachings over conditional security teachings. I can find no evidence that anyone or any movement within the church caused it to leave the teaching of eternal security in favor of a conditional security. Does anyone here have any historical evidence that this was the case?

The bottom line I have come to is that conditional salvation beliefs can not be traced to any starting point in the church's history since there is ample evidence of it in the early church fathers teachings (I consider the early fathers as being up to 200 years after the church was founded), yet the opposite is true for eternal security teachings.

They can be traced back to Augustine and yet no further that I can find. So eternal security teachings can be assumed to have been introduced into the church around 425AD(?) by Augustine who also taught puragtory and infant baptism.

His other teachings were

1> Men are saved by the divine decree predetermined in the secret council of God's inscrutable will. (particular predestination)

2> Man is saved by the Church's Baptism. (works)

3> Man is saved by faith in Christ. (faith alone)

All three being contradictory to each other, yet all professed by Augustine.

Should we not accept the teachings of our early church fathers rather than those that came later when there was a chance that scripture could become misinterpreted and erroneous theologies introduced? Our early fathers were not much removed from the time of Jesus and one, Clement, was believed to have been in Phillipi with Paul, learning from him. This is a quote from Clements teachings:

"On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture. For Lot's wife, who went forth with him, being of a different mind from himself and not continuing in agreement with him [as to the command which had been given them], was made an example of, so as to be a pillar of salt unto this day. This was done that all might know that those who are of a double mind, and who distrust the power of God, bring down judgment on themselves and become a sign to all succeeding generations."

and

"Let us, then not only call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He saith, 'Not everyone that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness.' Wherefore, brethren, let us confess Him by our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery, or speaking evil of one another, or cherishing envy, but being continent, compassionate, and good. We ought also to sympathize with one another, and not be avaricious. By such works let us confess Him, and not by those that are of an opposite kind. And it is not fitting that we should fear men, but rather God. For this reason, if we should do such wicked things, the Lord hath said, 'Even though ye were gathered together to Me in My very bosom, yet if ye were not to keep My commandments, I would cast you off, and say unto you, 'Depart from Me; I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.'"

As I stated at the start of this post, I don't get involved in these debates unless I am dragged into it, and I will not change and allow myself to be drawn into this one. This is my only post, so that you may all have information to ponder and discuss, but I do wish that some of you could address what the history of our faith seems to reveal.

I would enjoy any evidence anyone could share with me that confirms that eternal security was THE teaching set down by our early church fathers as it can make a drastic change in some of my own personal theology.

As I also asked at the start of this post, isn't the point in time that the debate started VERY relevant to the debate you are engaged in now? If so, shouldn't this relevance be the start of your discussion?

[Guest dove2]

First, let me make two things very clear. When I refer to conditional salvation, I am referring to the belief that one can forfeit salvation by abandoning or making shipwreck of ones faith. i.e. apostasy.

This is a great probability. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Why are we to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling?

[tsth]

This is a great probability. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Why are we to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling?

(Because that is how our holiness is perfected?)

2 Cor. 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Rev. 14:7 saying with a loud voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."

Psalm 2:11 Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling.

2 Cor. 7:15 And his affections are greater for you as he remembers the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling you received him.

Eph 6:5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ;

Php 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Verses to think about.

Good point Dove!

In His Love,

Suzanne

[tsth]

This is a great probability. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Why are we to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling?

I really like that post above. It goes to show that IF we truly believe and ARE SAVED, we believe that God does have wrath towards disobedience, therefore we work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Ro 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Do we believe what Jesus says by His Holy Spirit, about ungodliness and unrighteousness? Do we believe that He will judge unrighteousness? Do we truly believe?

Job 28:28 And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, And to depart from evil is understanding.' "

Psalm 2:11 Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling.

Psalm 19:9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

Psalm 25:14 The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him, And He will show them His covenant.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the Lord,

In His Love,

Suzanne

[godrulz]

There is a distinction between reconciliation/justification/salvation/redemption and sanctification and glorification. If we blur the distinction and equate degrees of obedience/sanctification with having an ongoing relationship with God, we may have weak arguments and wrong conclusions.

[tsth]

There is a distinction between reconciliation/justification/salvation/redemption and sanctification and glorification. If we blur the distinction and equate degrees of obedience/sanctification with having an ongoing relationship with God, we may have weak arguments and wrong conclusions.

Does that mean you take issue with what I posted godrulz?

Let's talk about it, if so.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[tsth]

In regard to fear:

Romans 11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.

Ro 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

In His Love,

Suzanne