The False Security of Eternal Security

[Butch5]

Hey Butch, are you not the one who believes that all believers in Christ Jesus goes to hades? That might effect your opinion on this thread, dont you think?

How so?

 

[Mitspa]

I have no problem with the belief that believers go to hades, as hades isn't gehenna.

I guess your the umpire here, so do you also believe this? and not sure what gehenna is but I know "hades" is a term used by most to descibe "hell" or a place of torment.

 

[Free]

I guess your the umpire here, so do you also believe this? and not sure what gehenna is but I know "hades" is a term used by most to descibe "hell" or a place of torment.

I'm not the umpire. It's not as though what I say doctrinally is what goes.

I will say that what you are incorrect about is that hades is never used to describe the place of torment that Jesus so often referred to. That is what gehenna is. That many translations translate hades as 'hell' is a big error on their part, especially since they also translate gehenna as 'hell'. This causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and incorrect doctrine.

 

[Mitspa]

I'm not the umpire. It's not as though what I say doctrinally is what goes.

I will say that what you are incorrect about is that hades is never used to describe the place of torment that Jesus so often referred to. That is what gehenna is. That many translations translate hades as 'hell' is a big error on their part, especially since they also translate gehenna as 'hell'. This causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and incorrect doctrine.

I just learned something! Thanks 100 million more to go!:eeeekkk

 

[Mitspa]

How so?

Well then I guess I should ask you what you mean by the term "hades"
It might seem to relate to this thread? I know If you think we all go to "heck" whats the point in being secure anyway?

 

[rrowell]

I just learned something! Thanks 100 million more to go!:eeeekkk

I'm not the umpire. It's not as though what I say doctrinally is what goes.

I will say that what you are incorrect about is that hades is never used to describe the place of torment that Jesus so often referred to. That is what gehenna is. That many translations translate hades as 'hell' is a big error on their part, especially since they also translate gehenna as 'hell'. This causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and incorrect doctrine.

I could not agree more Free, I covered this in detail in this thread I started a while back :

Re: Confusion about what the scriptures say about the condition of the dead?

 

[Free]

I just learned something! Thanks 100 million more to go!:eeeekkk

You're welcome. Hades is often thought of as the equivalent of the Hebrew sheol as it is used in place of sheol in the NT, and I'm quite sure in the Septuagint as well:

Psa 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.

Act 2:27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.

But I do not think that it necessarily is always to be thought of as the same.
Here is an example of how hades is incorrectly interpreted:

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (KJV)

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (ESV)

The NIV and NASB (and likely others) also use 'Hades' instead of the KJVs incorrect translation of 'hell'. One can easily see how this coiuld effect ones doctrine.

I could not agree more Free, I covered this in detail in this thread I started a while back :

Re: Confusion about what the scriptures say about the condition of the dead?

And this is why in any discussion on hell it is so necessary that everyone understands what hell is being discussed.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not the umpire. It's not as though what I say doctrinally is what goes.

I will say that what you are incorrect about is that hades is never used to describe the place of torment that Jesus so often referred to. That is what gehenna is. That many translations translate hades as 'hell' is a big error on their part, especially since they also translate gehenna as 'hell'. This causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and incorrect doctrine.

Agreed! Translating Hades and Gehenna both as hell has caused many problems.

 

[Cassian]

Danus,

...Maybe this will help. Conditional means, Subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.
The word Free, in the context of "FREE GIFT" means without cost, IE without condition, or in exchange for NOTHING!
You can't say that one must meet a condition by obeying in order to gain a free gift. That's an oxymoron.

Both you and Ernest are arguing about the same thing, or aspect of our salvation, but neither is understanding that there are actually two aspects of our salvation, and you are mixing them or confluting them.

The Gift of salvation, God's great act of mercy was to mankind, not to us as individuals. Christ came to overcome the fall, not save you from hell or whatever you might think you might be saved from. YOu were saved from death, the condemnation of Adam.

Because Christ gave the world life, and eternal existance, God can now offer union with Him for an eternity which was the original purpose of creating us.
Danus, if you want to argue for eternal security, then all men are the recipients of eternal life, meaning a physical existance, the fact that all men will be raised in the last day to stand in judgement.

On the other hand, Ernest, if you want to argue for obedience, it has nothing to do with the Gift Christ gave to the world, all men, but the offer He makes to enter into His Kingdom, to be joined with Him in a mutual, covenental relationship. That is all based on conditions, actually obligations. Obedience, starting with repentance. That relationship has no guarantee from man's side of the relationship. Man can have assurance because he would know if he is being obedient, is loving all men, is being faithful in keeping the commandments. But this has nothing to do with recieving the Gift of salvation which is given to all men.

In fact, one does not even need to accept it or even believe it in order to get it. It is why Acts 24:15 can say all men will be raised, the just and the unjust. It is why Rev 20:12-13 can also say that all the dead will be raised. Christ gave life to the world, It is why there will be a new heaven and a new earth because Christ saved it all from death. II Cor 5:18-19, or I Cor 15:22, John 6:39, and others.

If Salvation is a free gift then it is unconditional, meaning there is nothing anyone can do in exchange for it. Your position is that someone must Do something to then be saved. The bible says there is nothing anyone can do to be saved, and that it is God who does the saving by his choice, by his own good pleasure to do so. That's not what you have expressed that you believe.

Salvation is a free gift. A gift that was given to all men. Rom 5:18. And you are also correct that there is no condition in getting it except that all men were condemned to death and to accomplish His purpose in creating man, God needed to give life to the world again.

And you are correct in that it is all God and all at His pleasure and man has absolutely nothing to either effect his salvation or affect his salvation FROM DEATH.

However, God is now calling all men to repentance. It is up to man to freely accept that offer of union and communion for an eternity. It is all up to man to be faithful to that committment and endure to the end. These are obligations God requires if we, as believers, are going to inherit the promise at the end, I Pet 1:3-5.

What are the consequences of our choice, either heaven or hell. God is not the one that sends anyone to either place, He does not choose who goes where. That decision is solely man's and his desire to be either in a relationship with Christ or not to be. Choose you this day, life or death. The meaning here as it was to Isreal is spiritual existance, heaven or hell.

 

[Deborah13]

That's the conclusion behind the OP's idea of being saved, then thinking your not at some point.

No one who experiences the grace of God in Salvation by faith, looses it. Ever. We're either saved, or not. There can be doubt. Satan loves to wispier in our ear that we are not saved, and that we are not good enough, but that's not what is being expressed here on this thread.

What this thread is about, what the OP is about, is infused righteousness in place of imputed righteousness. Notice the title; "The False Security of Eternal Security." The OP does not believe that that anyone stays saved if they "mess up" in some way. The OP, believes in following some sort of legalistic pattern to be saved and stay saved.

There is no biblical defense for infused righteousness. None. Many posting here may not even know they hold the view, but theologically that's what it is.

No one who is saved, by faith, walks away from it.
No one who has experienced the Grace of God by faith from God, looses that.

This thread should be titled "The False Security of Eternal Security in infused righteousness" Then it would makes sense.

When we began to think think that God does not Love us, or accept us because of things we have not done, or do, or the church we belong to, then that is only evidence of a lack of true faith in God. A misplaced faith. Quote

I'm sorry Danus, I must disagree with you about your statement of "misplaced faith." Receiving wrong doctrine does not mean someone has misplaced faith. They may have faith in God but they believe what they have been taught. That God judges you by what you do not by what Christ did. They believe that each sin causes them to be separated from God until they repent. That's what they believe.

 

[Deborah13]

And to keep this in the context of the topic, the only eternal security one has is that Christ was raised, thus all men will have an eternal existance. However where man will spend that eternity depends on man, his faith, his endurance. It is the same "salvation" that Adam was participating in with God before the fall, and death, decay and corruption entered into this world. The fact that Adam fell, fell from his personal relationship with God, refutes the whole argument of eternal security of a beleiver. If it was actually true, Adam would never have fallen.[/QUOTE]

Where does the word say that Adam fell from his personal relationship with God. Quite the contrary. God made Adam and Eve cloths of animal skins. God killed animals for the first time in the garden, for them, covering their sin. God was still talking to him. God talked to Cain, "Why has your countenance fallen?" If Cain had answered God and talked it over with Him he would have known God's grace.
Jesus' work at the cross was a completed work. Why do you think that man can improve on it by saving himself with works.

 

[Deborah13]

Was the apostle wrong?



There is security for the now believes and obeys as long as they continue in that.

So you are saying that what Jesus did at the cross was not enough. I still have to do the same things that I had to do under the law. So if I don't ask God to forgive me for everything sin I will loose my salvation?

 

[Cassian]

And to keep this in the context of the topic, the only eternal security one has is that Christ was raised, thus all men will have an eternal existance. However where man will spend that eternity depends on man, his faith, his endurance. It is the same "salvation" that Adam was participating in with God before the fall, and death, decay and corruption entered into this world. The fact that Adam fell, fell from his personal relationship with God, refutes the whole argument of eternal security of a beleiver. If it was actually true, Adam would never have fallen.

Your response...

Where does the word say that Adam fell from his personal relationship with God. Quite the contrary. God made Adam and Eve cloths of animal skins. God killed animals for the first time in the garden, for them, covering their sin. God was still talking to him. God talked to Cain, "Why has your countenance fallen?" If Cain had answered God and talked it over with Him he would have known God's grace.
Jesus' work at the cross was a completed work. Why do you think that man can improve on it by saving himself with works.

You interpretation of the fall is not scriptural. The reasn God created man is not shown in your comments either.

God created man to be eternal and in union with Him. But God wanted a creature that would freely respond to Him. Thus the commandment God gave to Adam. Adam's sin of disobedience is a relational separation. For that sin, man was also condemned to death, dust to dust.

Death was the loss of life, an eternal existance. Man became mortal, subject to decay and corruption. It is this death of all mankind that Christ came to redeem, to save us from death, the world from death, being dissolved into dust from whence we came.

Man never had a problem relationally with God. But having a relationship only in this temporal world is NOT what God had in mind. He wanted and eternal relationship. In order to have that, He sent Christ, Incarnate, to become man, to assume our human nature and raise that nature to life, to an eternal existance.

Now, we can get back with God in a personal relationship and it will have eternal consequences, either heaven or hell, solely based on man's desire to be in union with God and answer his call to come. Your example of Abel and Cain is the second example of man making a choice spiriitual life or death.

Christ's work on the Cross is completed, it is finished. He did what God sent Him to do. Save the world from sin, free mankind from the bondage to death and sin.

For what reason. In order that God might have an eternal relationship with man as He purposed. That relationship has always depended on what man does, not God. See Adam again. Christ did not actually put you into a relationship with God by virture of dying on the Cross. He made it possible for you to have a relationship for an eternity. The relationship is all about you and God, not only God, and surely not only man. It takes two to save your own soul.

 

[Cassian]

So you are saying that what Jesus did at the cross was not enough. I still have to do the same things that I had to do under the law. So if I don't ask God to forgive me for everything sin I will loose my salvation?

I completely fail to understand your scriptural logic here. If Christ saved you individually from the Cross, how would your salvation be an different than every other soul that ever lived.

If Christ saved you individually from the Cross, then why does scripture say that we are saved by and through faith? Are these concepts just fodder, theater, meaningless?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hey, you're not supposed to read that in context.

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. :eeeekkk

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

...Maybe this will help. Conditional means, Subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.

The word Free, in the context of "FREE GIFT" means without cost, IE without condition, or in exchange for NOTHING!

You can't say that one must meet a condition by obeying in order to gain a free gift. That's an oxymoron.

So far you have said that salvation is obtained by the believer in exchange for their doing something, IE obeying. That's you position Bass. You can't have it both ways.

If Salvation is a free gift then it is unconditional, meaning there is nothing anyone can do in exchange for it. Your position is that someone must Do something to then be saved. The bible says there is nothing anyone can do to be saved, and that it is God who does the saving by his choice, by his own good pleasure to do so. That's not what you have expressed that you believe.

You said there is no security in salvation, you said that's all false, yet God says you are saved. You don't believe that. Other people on this thread also do not believe that. So for you and them, salvation is not a free gift.

Free gifts can and do come with conditions and the conditions do not take away from the 'freeness' of the gift.

In Jn 6:27 Jesus said to work for everlasting life which He shall give unto you.

Jesus gives everlasting life so it is free but one must meet the condition of working (believing) to receive the free gift.


Naaman cleansing was free, it was of grace yet he had to do the conditional work of dipping to receive this free gift.


From other posts of mine, one recevies/accepts the free gift of salvation by hearing, believing, following, coming to Christ. All these verbs are present tense so as long as one is faithful by having a sustained, ongoing state of hearing, believing, following, coming to Christ, God is faithful to save him. If one quits hearing, beliving, following, coming after Christ he gives up that free gift for God never promised to unconditionally save those that quit.


If you argue that if a Christian quits hearing, believing, follwoing and coming to Christ, that quitting proves he was never saved to begin with, then you are really arguing salvation is conditional upon those work of hearing, believing following and coming. For if eternal security were true, then not only could the Christian quit hearing, believing, following and follow Christ but live a life in sin and still be saved.

Charles Stanley says:

"The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand." (a)

"Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy." (b)

"... believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation ...." (c)


(a) Eternal Security Can You Be Sure? (P. 74).

(b) Ibid. (p. 93).

(c) Ibid. (p. 94).


In 1949 Sam Morris, a Baptist preacher in Stamford, TX, preached a radio sermon that he later turned into a tract entitled Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul? Morris stated:

"We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude towards other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul … All the prayers a man may pray all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger."
​

Bill Foster, a Baptist preacher in Louisville, KY, wrote in the March 12, 1959, edition of The Weekly Worker:

"If I killed my wife and mother and debauched a thousand women I couldn’t go to hell–in fact, I couldn’t go to hell if I wanted to."


​

So if one is not really saved to begin with due to some sinful action, then that is making salvation dependent upon action/works. So do you agree with Stanley where one's salvation is not dependent upon anything he does or is one "really" saved only if he behaves, acts in a certain way?

In other words, can (1) a Christian lie, steal, murder, fornicate etc and still maintain his salvation or will you say (2) he was not really saved to begin with as evidence by these sinful actions? Charles Stanley, Sam Morris, Bill Foster would go with #1, what say you?

 

[Danus]

Free gifts can and do come with conditions and the conditions do not take away from the 'freeness' of the gift.

In Jn 6:27 Jesus said to work for everlasting life which He shall give unto you.

Jesus gives everlasting life so it is free but one must meet the condition of working (believing) to receive the free gift.


Naaman cleansing was free, it was of grace yet he had to do the conditional work of dipping to receive this free gift.


From other posts of mine, one recevies/accepts the free gift of salvation by hearing, believing, following, coming to Christ. All these verbs are present tense so as long as one is faithful by having a sustained, ongoing state of hearing, believing, following, coming to Christ, God is faithful to save him. If one quits hearing, beliving, following, coming after Christ he gives up that free gift for God never promised to unconditionally save those that quit.


If you argue that if a Christian quits hearing, believing, follwoing and coming to Christ, that quitting proves he was never saved to begin with, then you are really arguing salvation is conditional upon those work of hearing, believing following and coming. For if eternal security were true, then not only could the Christian quit hearing, believing, following and follow Christ but live a life in sin and still be saved.

Charles Stanley says:

"The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand." (a)

"Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy." (b)

"... believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation ...." (c)


(a) Eternal Security Can You Be Sure? (P. 74).

(b) Ibid. (p. 93).

(c) Ibid. (p. 94).


In 1949 Sam Morris, a Baptist preacher in Stamford, TX, preached a radio sermon that he later turned into a tract entitled Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul? Morris stated:

"We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude towards other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul … All the prayers a man may pray all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger."
​

Bill Foster, a Baptist preacher in Louisville, KY, wrote in the March 12, 1959, edition of The Weekly Worker:

"If I killed my wife and mother and debauched a thousand women I couldn’t go to hell–in fact, I couldn’t go to hell if I wanted to."


​

So if one is not really saved to begin with due to some sinful action, then that is making salvation dependent upon action/works. So do you agree with Stanley where one's salvation is not dependent upon anything he does or is one "really" saved only if he behaves, acts in a certain way?

In other words, can (1) a Christian lie, steal, murder, fornicate etc and still maintain his salvation or will you say (2) he was not really saved to begin with as evidence by these sinful actions? Charles Stanley, Sam Morris, Bill Foster would go with #1, what say you?

OK. Good luck to you then.

 

[Deborah13]

You interpretation of the fall is not scriptural. The reasn God created man is not shown in your comments either.

God created man to be eternal and in union with Him. But God wanted a creature that would freely respond to Him. Thus the commandment God gave to Adam. Adam's sin of disobedience is a relational separation. For that sin, man was also condemned to death, dust to dust.

Death was the loss of life, an eternal existance. Man became mortal, subject to decay and corruption. It is this death of all mankind that Christ came to redeem, to save us from death, the world from death, being dissolved into dust from whence we came.

Man never had a problem relationally with God. But having a relationship only in this temporal world is NOT what God had in mind. He wanted and eternal relationship. In order to have that, He sent Christ, Incarnate, to become man, to assume our human nature and raise that nature to life, to an eternal existance.

Now, we can get back with God in a personal relationship and it will have eternal consequences, either heaven or hell, solely based on man's desire to be in union with God and answer his call to come. Your example of Abel and Cain is the second example of man making a choice spiriitual life or death.

Christ's work on the Cross is completed, it is finished. He did what God sent Him to do. Save the world from sin, free mankind from the bondage to death and sin.

For what reason. In order that God might have an eternal relationship with man as He purposed. That relationship has always depended on what man does, not God. See Adam again. Christ did not actually put you into a relationship with God by virture of dying on the Cross. He made it possible for you to have a relationship for an eternity. The relationship is all about you and God, not only God, and surely not only man. It takes two to save your own soul.

Sorry Cassian, I messed up by not posting the full quote of another poster. I completely agree with you. "By grace ye are saved, through faith...not by works.."

 

[Deborah13]

OK. Good luck to you then.

Great scripture to pick Brother Ernest,
John 6:27-29

If you choose to make believing in Christ Labour/work you are entitled to your work. However, many of us do not see believing as work. We are drawn to the Lord by the Holy Spirit's work and saved by Jesus' work at the cross.
Take into the context of whom Jesus was talking to. They were Jews, they understood legalism and works of righteousness in order to earn their place with God. They asked what works they could do and He said believe on Me.
This didn't seem to satisfy their need to feel that they could do something or their need to feel they were righteous by their own doings. Of coarse they were angry because Jesus said He basically was their provider, the bread from heaven.
I know people who will do favors all day for others but they won't ask someone else to help them. They don't like to feel indebted to someone else. Their pride gets in the way.

 

[Mitspa]

Sorry Cassian, I messed up by not posting the full quote of another poster. I completely agree with you. "By grace ye are saved, through faith...not by works.."

Dont feel too bad Deb13 it seems many have a new doctrine for each day?
I wonder what kind of doctrine it takes to replace the witness of the Holy Spirit? Glad I dont have to make up my salvation, It lives in me!