Do You Believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved"

[HAZARD]

Dear Thaddaeus and WhSoBlind.

Thank you for your responses. The Scriptures do not lie and it pleases me that there still are some men who actually believe what they say and not what men think they say. Also, when reading responses, one can discerne who actually has the Holy Spirit working in them and who thinks they have Him working in themselves, by their attitude alone if nothing else.

For those who believe they have unconditional eternal security, please be aware of these facts. Under the guise of honouring the finished work of Christ on the cross, some teachers lead many to believe that once a person is in grace, he will always be in grace, regardless of how much he sins thereafter. Such teachings masquerade under various names, and are believed by a great many people because they seem plausable; and furthermore they are sometimes championed by Bible scholars of national reputation. Regrettably, for too many people the teaching of eternal security becomes eternal security, for they laps into a sinning-saint religion which will truly bring them dissapointments on Judgment Day. Many people accept the arguments because of the ignorance of the full scope of Scriptures on the subject, while there are no doubt others who, being fully blind will praise it because they want an excuse to sin.

That there is a true sense in which every believer can have "everlasting life" and be "eternally secure" cannot be denied fir they are possible whenever God's conditions are met.

The foremost question involved in the doctrin of the Christians eternal security is: On whom does this responsibility rest to bring about this coveted state? To this we may add: Under which conditions, if any, may it be obtained? Are there "any strings attached" as we would commonly say? Could it be unconditional, or is there a possibility that somewhere in the Bible, we are to find conditions that belong to the doctrin as well as the blessings of security forever?

The Bible does teach conditional eternal security, which is the only kind of security a sane man can expect and a just God can tolorate and promis. But to teach an unconditional eternal security and maintain this position in the face of overwhelming scriptural authority to the contrary is to make God the most unjust tyrant of the universe. To do so, one must manufacture and maintain many other false doctrins to support the sinking-sand foundation of the man made false doctrin. One must twist, contort, misrepresent, missapply, take from, and add to many Scriptures to support such teaching.

Every Bible doctrin should be measured by plain facts and by plain principles and true examples of life; not be erroneously interpreting a few texts in total disregard of other scriptures on the same subject. It is vital for one to get God's thought on the subject as a whole as expressed in all Scripture. The Devil has always used Scripture to cloak his teachings, and he can wrest it and twist it until whatever he teaches appeares to be quite scriptural. Just because the theory has a few passages that seem to sustain it is no proof that it is scriptural. Anydoctrin that is opposed to the true principles of life, or to one plain Scripture, rightly divided, is bound to be wrong.

Teachers of unconditional security, like teachers of other false doctrins, do away with all Scriptures that are not in harmony with their pet theory. Their usual procedure is to explain all Scriptures that plainly contradict such teachings as referring only to the Jews and not to Christians, or as refering to some past age and not to the one in which we live, and to quickly divert attention from other Scriptures written to Christians as of no importance on the question. On the other hand, Scriptures written to both Jews and gentiles that can be twisted to harmonize with this theory are emphasized beyond all true meaning under the guise of accepting just what the Bible says.

WE are told to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). and to compare "spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13). When this is done to the very few passages that are used to teach unconditional security they will be found to be inperfect harmony with the many hundreds of passages that plainly teach conditional security. On the other other hand, these many hundreds of passages cannot be possibly harmonized with the wrong interpretations of the few that are used to teach unconditional security. To teach unconditional security is to leave an irreparable breach between two sets of Scriptures, but to teach conditional security is to have perfect harmony between all Scriptures.

If all Christians would be willing to believe all Scriptures on the subject and be as zealous to defend all truth then there would be no division over the question of true Bible security.

The truth is that the Bible does teach a true, just, and a lasting security for the believers who will put forth an honest effort to remain secure in Christ, if they will meet a few simple conditions of God which are clearly stated and which every man can meet by the means of grace provided in the gospel.

[Guest shiloh357]

The New Covenant was not cut with God and Man. It was cut between the Father and Jesus. It is up to them to maintain the covenant, and bring it to completion, not me.

No, it wasn't.

Hebrews 8:6-8 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Yes, but it was cut in Jesus' blood. The New Covenant is between the Father and Jesus. Jesus was the covenant representative for both Israel and Judah. God was the sacrificer and Jesus was the sacrifice. It was bewteen those two. Not between man and God. Read your Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

For those who believe they have unconditional eternal security, please be aware of these facts. Under the guise of honouring the finished work of Christ on the cross, some teachers lead many to believe that once a person is in grace, he will always be in grace, regardless of how much he sins thereafter.

Actually, if you bothered to pay attention that view has not been propagated on this thread. In fact, the opposite has been said. Those who are truly in grace, wrestle against sin. They dont look for ways to sin. They have a new set of desires, and a new desires of want tos.

Part of the problem in debates like this is when people like you poison the well by attributing to your opponents a position they do not hold to. It is dishonest, and demonstrates a lack of real integrity. It seems the only way you have anything to say, is to put the lie in our mouths and then argue against it.

As worried as you are about losing your salvation, it does not stop you from sacrificing your integrity to win a debate.

[HAZARD]

For those who believe they have unconditional eternal security, please be aware of these facts. Under the guise of honouring the finished work of Christ on the cross, some teachers lead many to believe that once a person is in grace, he will always be in grace, regardless of how much he sins thereafter.

Actually, if bothered to pay attention that view has not been propagated on this thread. In fact, the opposite has been said. Those who are truly in grace, wrestle against sin. They dont look for ways to sin. They have a new set of desires, and a new desires of want tos.

Part of the problem in debates like this is when people like you poison the well by attributing to your opponents a position they do not hold to. It is dishonest, and demonstrates a lack of real integrity. It seems the only way you have anything to say, is to put the lie in our mouths and then argue against it.

As worried as you are about losing your salvation, it does not stop you from sacrificing your integrity to win a debate.

I am not worried at all. Did you fully read and understand what I have posted.

Man is a free moral agent and man can at any time choose to serve God or as a free moral agent he can freely choose to return to sin and serve the devil. The first thing to settle is the question of whether man is a free moral agent or not, for if man is not a free moral agent then God can be held entirely responsible for sin, rebellion, sickness, and all the effects of sin, as well as the damnation of men and angels, as unconditional security men teach.

A saved man has the same power of choice as he had before salvation. His desires are changed in salvation, but he can again permit the same old desires to take hold of him again and the flesh can gain ascendency over him again and he can choose to live in the old sins again. If he chooses to sin again he incurs the same death penalty and will be damned as much as if he had never been saved (Read Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:14-23; 8:1-13; Gal. 6:7-8; James 5:19-20).

In matters outside the moral realm in which man has no choice, such as the case where man is not free to choose to be born, such has nothing to do with free moral agency which every man has when he is born. He is, as he grown up, free to choose his own destiny by choice of the life he lives serving God or Satan. It is only when man becomes a free moral agent that he is held responsible. To say that a man has no will power when he chooses to go back into sin and becomes overpowered by sin and Satan is to state a falsehood. If man can resist sin at all it proves will power on his part. If he is exercising will in the least degree concerning moral things it proves he is a free moral agent. To be a servant of Christ does not do away with will power. It proves that the man does have such power or he could not have chosen to turn from Satan and sin. To believe otherwise would make God an unjust tyrant holding slaves in greater bondage than Satan ever did. God always gives men freedom of action to serve Him. When they volintarily turn to Him He delivers them from Satan and sin and permits perfect freedom of action as to whether they will continue to serve Him or go back into sin.

[Guest shiloh357]

The covenant wasn't between God and Christ. It was between God and man with Christ as their mediator.

Wrong, and none of the verses you string together prove such an erroneous belief. The New Covenant was typified by the Abrahamic covenant which was not cut between Abraham and God, because Abraham did not walk between the halves in Gen. 15. The New Covenant like the Abrahamic covenant is not based upon man's performance but upon God to perform, and to sustain it. You are not good enough to be in covenant with God. You have nothing to offer God. You can't live up to God's standards enough for Him to cut a covenant with You. I am amazed at how arrogant people can be as to think they are fit to be in Covenant with God, when in reality they are not even fit to take the next breath.

[Smalcald]

God will not remove His grace from a believer because they sin or sin "too much" which is a meaningless term to God. ANY sin is too much to provide salvation.

How we deal with our sin is a sign in fact of whether or not we have faith. If we struggle against sin, if it causes us remorse and we repent of it and move forward this is an indication of faith. Now, I do think there are self delusional people out there. For example a guy who is married and claims he loves his wife, but beats her up every now and then, do his words of love mean anything? Of course not, he does not in fact love her. He may be in love with love, or in love with controlling her or in love with the power he has over her, but he does not even know what love is. The person who lives happily in sin and loves his sin without any real desire to repent, does not have faith, regardless of what they may say, just like the wife beater's worthless claims of love

[Guest shiloh357]

The covenant wasn't between God and Christ. It was between God and man with Christ as their mediator.

Wrong, and none of the verses you string together prove such an erroneous belief. The New Covenant was typified by the Abrahamic covenant which was not cut between Abraham and God, because Abraham did not walk between the halves in Gen. 15. The New Covenant like the Abrahamic covenant is not based upon man's performance but upon God to perform, and to sustain it. You are not good enough to be in covenant with God. You have nothing to offer God. You can't live up to God's standards enough for Him to cut a covenant with You. I am amazed at how arrogant people can be as to think they are fit to be in Covenant with God, when in reality they are not even fit to take the next breath.

Then you must not really believe the bible as it is written in black and white. The scripture plainly says that Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant but you say different. I would rather believe my bible.

He is the mediator of the New Covenant. That does not mean the covenant is between God and man. Jesus is the testator, who has been resurrected to mediate the covenant that was cut in his blood.

For the covenant to be cut with regular, sinful men, it would have had to have been cut in the blood of sinful men. The New Coveanant was not cut in our blood, but the blood of Jesus. It was Jesus who went to cross, not man. That was the point. Man could not make a covenant with God. If God wanted to make a covenant with man, He would not have needed Jesus. Any old person would have done just fine. God and Jesus made the New Covenant. You are the one not believing your Bible. Frankly, you know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.

[Guest shiloh357]

You have nothing to offer God. You can't live up to God's standards enough for Him to cut a covenant with You. I am amazed at how arrogant people can be as to think they are fit to be in Covenant with God, when in reality they are not even fit to take the next breath.

I certainly have nothing to offer God, but God clearly established his covenant with Noah,

Clearly God established a covenant with Noah.

Genesis 6:18

But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Genesis 9:12

And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

Wow. God said twice that the covenant was between him and Noah, and all future generations...

Thank you Whysoblind,

I didn't even think of that one.

It is a bogus example because the covenant of Noah was not a covenant of grace whereby men are saved, It is promise of protection. It was not cut in Noah's blood nor was it based upon Noah's conduct. It was an unconditional covenant and the sign was simply a rainbow in the sky. God was making a promise.

My point has been that you are not good enough to be in covenant with God where the New Covenant is concerned because unlike the Noahic covenant, the New Covenant is redemptive, and man is not fit to be a redeemer. To make the New Covenant between God and man, then man becomes a co-redeemer with God, and man becomes responsible for salvation, and robs God of His glory. It completely nullifies the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

[Guest shiloh357]

You are the one not believing your Bible. Frankly, you know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.

This is funny seeing his post was virtually copy and past, and the verse itself used the exact same language he is using.

Maybe you are just tired and need some rest? Maybe you will read more closely in the morning.

No, I just understand hermeneutics better than you, Cardcaptor, Thaddeus, or Hazard. I certainly do not accept theological instruction from the likes of you.

[Thaddaeus]

Christopher John,

Unfortunately you are incorrectly attributing these verses to "Believers".

2 Peter 2:14-15

2 Peter 2:20-21

Luke 9:62

These verses clearly define the individuals who find Christ but never fully opened their hearts to believe, they attended Church, got baptized in Church, worked for the Church but ultimately after time never truly believed because their hearts were hardened, their heart was to hard to let Christ in. It's not difficult to understand that these refer to Non-Believers, there knowledge is greater than those who flat out rejected God and never participated with the Church but, there are those who came not only heard the word but studied the word but still rejected it...they never achieved Salvation in the first place,

You are absolutely correct that they are referencing or implying unbelievers. That is the whole point. They had been believers. You cannot be both at the same time.

It just amazing that you want to make your statement so strong, you actually have included the only bonified way we can even know who is a beleiver or what constitutes a believer per scripture.

Here it is. "got baptized in Church,". Acceptance of Christ, or belief, repentance and baptism defines a believer in scripture. Baptism is the SEAL of your conviction and promise to God upon entering His Kingdom, the Body of Christ. After this it is either improvement, faithfulness, growth, or "fall from". We fall from faith, which is salvation. We are saved through Faith. You verbiage denies your own view. You are practically rewriting scripture just to redefine what constitutes a believer and what faith consist and what is necessary for salvation.

...they never achieved Salvation in the first place,

Of course, none, even the most faithful does not achieve salvation until death. It is a matter of remaining faithful after all. What initial faith we gave was being held in trust upon the completion of that enduring faith. You have a lot of correct statements but trying to use them to support a non-scriptural teaching.

Romans 7:14-25 This is a declaration of the Spiritual War that resides in each and every person. The Holy Spirit resides in us all (Believers) it is in direct conflict with our flesh because the origin of our sinful nature is in the flesh Galatians 5:17 "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."

Gal 5:17 defines the battle of Spiritual Warfare within each and everyone of us, no one person can then say "The Devil made me do it" ( James 1:13-15 ) because the spirit resides within us and is surrounded by the flesh. What you are implying, is if any believer commits one sin, they have lost their Salvation, there is no getting around it any other way. Your implication of failure to abide by the Law is immediate condemnation without redemption, that being said we are all condemned...every last one of us.

You have an uncanny way of attempting to support a view, but using all the wrong verses, but instead support the opposing view.

However, your explanations of these verses shows your confusion and use of terminology. You have moved the discussion regarding Gal 5:17 wholly outside of beleiver/unbeliever realm. You have moved it to the Gift itself, redemtion and salvation of mankind. This is not even in the discussion. It is totally irrelevant to OSAS and the discussion of believing or not believing. We, mankind cannot ever lose redemption. We were saved, redeemed, reconciled, justified by the Work of Christ to God. Man had nothing to do with it, cannot add, subtract anything. Absolutely and impossibility.

But you are very correct though that one sin, unconfessed can lead to sliding down the slope and giving in to the flesh. Satan constantly plys your will. He works hard at trying to get you to leave the Spirit and do his bidding rather than that of the Holy Spirit. In fact, believers have far more freedom or maybe one should say, more ability to use it than unbelevers. They do not really exercise a choice. They have, in fact, become slaves to sin. We are, as believers, to become slaves to Christ, but man that spiritual warefare is waged by Satan against Christians.

That brings us to all those warning again. BE YE FAITHFUL. It is our responsibility to be FAITHFUL.

We already know the previous verses so I'll stick with the end of 1Cor. 3:15 " If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

These are speaking ONLY OF BELIEVERS. They are the beleivers that did endure to the end. None of us endure perfectly. None of us will achieve that perfection Christ demands of us. Many things we do in faith but still we also do many we would rather forget. But a believer must first arrive at that point, which is being faithful to the end.

yes it is because of Gods Grace that we are saved by faith,

Incorrectly stated. We are justified BY FAITH, but we are saved THROUGH FAITH. A massive difference. the Through part is works righteousness, as much as you might cringe at the concept of doing something. It just so happens that you were specifically created to do them.

Salvation is not the reward, it is the free gift,

Another teltale sign you do not understand the difference between the Gift and the response. The fall and from what we fell. Salvation and to what we are saved to.

The salvation to which you are referencing, namely the Gift, is given to every man. It is our reponse to that gift that defines a beleiver and an unbeleiver. Christ's work on the Cross does not address beleivers and unbelievers directly. This is also referred to as what we fell from. Not something form which we needed to be saved. We needed to be saved from the fall. The fall is death and sin, the bondage to it. Nothing else, though that is a lot.

The Salvation we work for is our Faith,

quite the opposite. We all have faith, it is the salvation of our souls for which we are working out with fear and trembling.

The Salvation we work for is our Faith, our growth, without that growth you will stagnate and fall away because to believe is to have faith, if you lose faith you never had it from the start because you did not believe.

Even though incorrectly stated, you eventually still get to a massive contradiction with your own explanation. Really, "if you lose faith you never had it. Can I really lose a ring, a ball, a toy, a tool, if I never had it. How about thinking about what we are actaully saying. You are actually saying two different things as well.

To work out ones Salvation is to come to terms with Faith, what it means and how to grow with it and not against it.

That is acceptable. But how you got there from the above statements is beyond me, unless in writing this you have a totally different meaning that I see a hint of here.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Thaddaeus