Hi,
Many of you have brought up the issue surrounding Eternal Security and GES. My understanding of the GES view is that they have adopted Calvin's "Assurance is of the Essence of Faith" and misapplied it by 'logical extension'.
Basically, GES says that unless you are (1) Assured of your salvation at the moment of faith (you can lose it later but still be saved, and (2) Assured that you can never lose your salvation at the same moment of faith...without these, then you are not eternally saved; you have not yet believed unto salvation from hell to heaven.
Clearly this is problematical practically and scripturally; however, before I weigh in, I'd like to just make sure we understand the issue. Is this correct? Am I stating the view fairly?
Thanks,
FRL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fred, this could be a great topic. I'd be interested in reading what Wilkin says about this so that we would be sure to be discussing the GES's view.
ReplyDeleteI so want to weigh in.. because this is very close to a topic which my ministry is wrestling with right now.
Kev
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGoe, maybe you missed Fred telling you that this is the wrong article to be posting this discussion under.
ReplyDeleteFred has already answered you in the other thread.
I'm constantly amused at how people like to call Lou abusive... I'm reminded of how Scripture says something about a log in our own eye...
Kev
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the opportunity to respond to your question on eternal security.
The DOCTRINE of eternal security is NOT understood at the time of the new birth, but the CONCEPT is believed.
The DOCTRINE is something we learn AFTER we are saved. It's all the biblical reasons we can't loose our salvation.
The CONCEPT of eternal security IS believed by everyone the moment they pass from death to life. At that moment they KNOW that they will be with the Lord because of Jesus. They're not depending on their works from the past or looking to their works in the future to keep them saved. Eternity is settled! It's secure! There's no doubt about it because of Jesus. That's what brings them joy. If a person has doubts then that MOMENT of new birth has not yet occurred. Doubt and believe can not exist at the same time. Doubts can come AFTER belief, but not at the same time.
DON'T YOU BELIEVE THAT, TOO?
I'm sure there will be lots of comments on this. If people get back to saying that GES teaches that you must believe the DOCTRINE of eternal security in order to be saved, then they're arguing against something that GES doesn't teach. Remember.... It's the CONCEPT!
May God be glorified in all our words and actions.
Your sister in Christ,
Diane
:-)
Fred and Diane,
ReplyDeleteWelcome, Fred, to the Wild West; I think we met at ETS last fall when Rene Lopez introduced us.
Diane,
Please correct me if I am wrong in rephrasing what I think you are saying. But I think the word "concept" is too ambiguous; some might easily say that concept = doctrine. (NB: I am not stating my own position here.)
Would you agree to rephrase it this way: It is an awareness or consciousness of one's own eternal security that must co-exist at the moment of belief in order for a person to be saved?
Fred,
ReplyDeletePlease clarify: a) Do you uquate eternal security and assurance of salvation? b) do you differentiate between what God gives at the moment one believes in our Lord and what the believer perceives?
Before discussing what GES people say about eternal security or assurance, it is better to state in outline WHAT GOD ACTUALLY GIVES A BELIEVER AT THE MOMENT HE/SHE BELIEVES ON THE LORD WHO PAID FOR HIS/HER SINS. These irrevocable blessings are gifts at the moment of salvation--they are PREDICATED ON THE non meritorious VERB BELIEVE and NOT ON THE NOUN KNOWLEDGE--NOT conditional on the knowledge of the believer:
I see that AT THE VERY SECOND one belives on the Lord Jesus Christ who paid for his/her sins, whether she/he knows or not the God of all grace imputed to the person the following irrevocable eternal blessings:
1. The imputation of GOD'S PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS, 2 Cor 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin as a substitute for us so that we might become the righteousness of God through Him.”
2. The imputation of ETERNAL life. 1 Jn 5:11-12. Jn 3:16, 36, 6:47, 20:31.
3. Baptism of the Spirit, 1Cor 12:13. Can never be unbaptized.
4. Justification; Can never be unjustified. "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe." Rm3:22
5. Reconciled, 2Cor5. Can never be unreconciled.
6. EXPIATION, can never be UNexpiated. Colossians 2:14, "HAVING CANCELLED OUT THE CERTIFICATE OF DEBT consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He
has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
7. REDEMPTION, 1 Peter 1:18-19, “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable
things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”
8. ADOPTED CHILD OF GOD. Eps 1:5-6; John 1:12-13, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
9. SEALED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Can't be UNsealed. Ephesians 1:13, "In whom also, when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation; In whom also, when you believed, you were sealed by the Holy Spirit."
10. REGENERATED. Can't be UNregenerated. Titus 3:5, “He (God the Holy Spirit) saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done . . . but
according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”
These permanent irrevocable contents of grace given at the VERY SECOND of salvation IS NOT predicated on the NOUN of knowing or perceiving; but predicated on simple non meritorious VERB: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!
Who cares if GES is right or wrong. Just supposed hypothetically that Wilkins is wrong on his doctrine of assurance, but at the point Wilkins believeing in the Lord Jesus Who paid for his sins--AT THAT VERY SECOND he is FOREVER SAVED (Eps2:8-9.
I know all these and more are given at THE VERY SECOND of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. BUT all I tell an unbeliever IS, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you SHALL BE SAVED!" (Acts 16:31). I will teach the believer even his/her eternal security later; but his/her eternal security IS NOT predicated on his/her knowledge; it is a gift predicated on God's grace actually--received by MERE believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!
Lu Mo Nyet
Diane may be right- Bob made the statement. Here's the link: www.faithalone.org/news/y2006/wilkin3.html
ReplyDeleteBob has first said, "A person is not born again until he believes that simply by faith in Jesus he is eternally secure."
And in a newsletter article he clarify the above by saying, "I wasn’t saying that if you don’t specifically mention everlasting life or eternal security you can’t clearly explain the saving message. I was talking about the concept, not the precise words. Obviously the expression “eternal security” isn’t even found in the Bible. While everlasting life or eternal life is found repeatedly in John’s Gospel and elsewhere in the NT, other terms are used too. Paul speaks of “justification” in Galatians and “salvation” in Eph 2:8-9. Clearly he sees in those terms something that is once-and-for-all, irreversible. The concept of eternal security is there, even though the expression is not. If you never make it clear to a person that by faith in Jesus his eternal destiny is set and unchangeable, then he may well retain works-salvation thinking."
I wrote Bob about the above and never got an answer.
What is the difference in believing in something specifically (believe in Jesus for eternal life) and believing in a concept (believe in the concept of eternal security)?
Can a person be saved if they believe in the "concept" of Jesus for eternal life?
How much of the concept must be believed?
How do you know if you have believe in the "concept" enough?
I think Bob's view would have been better stated had he said somthing like, "It is an awareness or consciousness of one's own eternal security that must co-exist at the moment of belief in order for a person to be saved."
After all these years, it is still confusing to know what Bob means on a number of issues.
Rick
Fred, are you aware that Rokser and Stegall hold to the erroneous GES doctrine you are here blogging about?
ReplyDeleteAs to your question, let me pose a simple question:
Can one say that they believed Jesus and in Jesus according to when He says, "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" and not believe he has ETERNAL life?
If a man believes in Jesus and believes Jesus when He says John 6:47, he necessarily believes he has eternal life, for the guarantee is explicit in the promise that he is believing.
The only way that he would not know that he had eternal life would be to postulate that He DOES NOT BELIEVE JESUS. In essence, he is making Jesus a liar. I do not consider someone saved who denies Jesus' promise.
To substantiate this claim, shall we turn to Rom 4:20-22
20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV
Why was righteousness accounted to Abraham? Precisely because he was FULLY CONVINCED that what God had promised He was able to perform.
Why is justification of life given to us? Precisely when we are fully convinced that what Jesus has promised He is able to perform.
His promise is everlasting life to the believer in Him.
When we believe in Him, we are fully persuaded that what He has promised He is able to perform. We trust that Jesus makes good on His promise! And if we believe that Jesus is reliable, authorized, able, desirous, and willing to make good on His promise, when we believe in Him we KNOW we have that promise, or how else can we be said to be convinced that He makes good on His promises?
Included in all appeals to faith in Jesus is the necessary consequence. If we disbelieve the scripture that states that the believer in Jesus shall not come into condemnation and has eternal life, how is it we are believing Jesus?
In reality, Fred, we are not.
You may be comfortable in your position that someone can disbelieve Jesus in His offer of life and still be saved, but I, personally cringe at the thought, and it would be my hope that all grace people would see the problems your position engenders:
"Disbelieve Jesus and you may later find out that you have eternal life!"
Antonio
Rick to illustrate let me pose this:
ReplyDeleteJust talking to a child, my daughter, I said this:
In John 3:16, Jesus promises that anyone who believes in Him will not perish in hell, but presently has ETERNAL life.
Do you believe in Jesus?
"Yes dad"
What can't happen to you then?
"I can't perish in hell"
What do you have?
"eternal life"
what is eternal?
"it never ends"
Sweetheart, what would you say if you ended up in hell after believing in Jesus?
"Jesus lied then, dad!"
Can Jesus lie?
"no"
Antonio da Rosa
Is it the belief in the "concept" of eternal security, or a full understanding of it?
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
ReplyDeleteYes, that sounds good the way you worded it. Thanks.
BTW...... I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading your book, but I'm looking forward to it.
:-)
Antonio, you did it again. I'm going to use your illustration with your daughter. How WONDERFUL it was!!! My file with your writings are getting thicker and thicker all the time. Appreciate very much your insight and your perseverance in continuing to help us gain understanding. I met you first through your blog, and your writings have helped me to grow in my understanding of God's wonderful salvation given freely to me as a gift through faith in His Son.
It's not you I'm elevating. It's God's Word. You, like Zane and Bob and others are just the instruments that God has used to take me from passage to passage to see clearly His truth.
I love you for it!!! God has been so good to me. Thanking Him for you.
Thanking Him for all my friends who truly are seeking truth.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
:-)
Also, you said, In John 3:16, Jesus promises that anyone who believes in Him will not perish in hell, but presently has ETERNAL life.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean "presently" has eternal life?
Believe it is eternal (right now), and it is alright if you don't tomorrow?
That doesn't even get you to the "concept"of eternal security.
It used to be so simple and clear.
The problem in answering your questions is that we may use the same words & phrases, but GES has changed the meanings of terms that all in free grace used to agree on- For example the phrase, "believe in Jesus for eternal life..." or "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life..."
What you mean by it and what I mean by it, is the issue in this debate.
Rick
I think Antonio's appeal to Romans 4:20 is ideal, because the Greek verb here is properly rendered "waver" as the opposite of "belief"; the "wavering" here is in fact through unbelief. The problem arises when we try to equate this notion of "wavering" with doubting a proposition, i.e., anything short of mathematical (100%) certainty of the truth of that proposition.
ReplyDeleteThe Greek verb diakrinw (i.e., "waver, equivocate") is more accurately taken as the opposite of pisteuw "trust" and not as the opposite of "to be certain" (i.e., "to doubt"). The same Greek verb used in James 1:6 (twice) is usually translated "doubt" and thus gives (in English) the erroneous impression that when we pray for wisdom, we must have 100% certainty that we will receive it. This has caused untold grief, because "mathematical certainty" is not humanly possible.
Rather, when we "trust,"---i.e., appropriate a promise without "wavering" or "equivocating"---we are, as it were, "putting all our eggs in one basket"...we are granting God the sole prerogative of giving us what he promised, life in Christ. IOW, what we are not doing is wavering, equivocating, keeping one foot in the world or in our own devices to give us life, "just in case" his promise is not reliable.
IMO that is the nub of the meaning of "fear God" in the OT: In response to his promise of life we cede to him the sole prerogative of life or death. Does that mean we are 100% certain we will receive life from God? Again, I don't think that is humanly possible. I think it means, rather, that we trust God 100% to give us life; if he doesn't, we are dead. We must die to our own prerogative of choosing life from any other source in order to fully trust him for the life he has promised.
There may also be a danger in viewing Romans 4:21---"being fully persuaded"---as referring to the initial act of faith; rather, in the immediate context Paul affirmed that he was persuaded when "he grew strong through faith." My understanding, then of the next verse, "For this reason it was reckoned to him as righteousness," is that Paul here identifies the purpose of Abraham's justification (not its basis, as Paul lays out in 4:1-8); IOW the purpose of Abraham's justification was that he might "grow strong" in the confidence to live out his imputed righteousness by continuing faith in the promise, anticipating Romans 5 ("that we might reign in righteousness...") as a blessing to others (cf. Gen 12:2). Hence, there may be an analogy here with Eph 2:8-10, with Eph 2:10 the purpose of salvation in 2:8-9.
Does that make any sense to anyone else?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThis talk about faith is a rabbit trail from this original post. I don't see you gave your educated opinion on assurance being of the essence of saving faith, as Rene Lopez teaches.
But for clarity, let me state that in BAGD (I haven't bought BDAG) "being convinced" is the very first entry for pisteuo.
If you are convinced that something is true, you do not doubt. Doubt precludes being convinced. If you doubt something, how can you say you are convinced that it is true? If you doubt, you have something that falls short of being convinced/persuaded. You may be strongly inclined toward. But until you are convinced that something is true, you don't believe it, or you have the odd and ridiculous claim that someone can believe something he has not been convinced of and in which he expresses doubt.
Persuasion/being convinced, is when evidence is considered, deliberated upon, and one, through such consideration is convinced/persuaded that something is true. Now if you are convinced/persuaded that something is true, you do not doubt. Certainty is the absence of doubt.
You err, for waver is the antithesis of BOTH believe and being convinced, for they are synonyms.
Your mathmatical certainty is not germane to our discussion. One may be under the certain conviction that Christ will come again. He does not have a formula of 1+1=2. But the Word of God convinced/persuaded him that such was true. Now this has become his CONVICTION, wherein he is absolutely CONVINCED, and therefore in a state of absolute CERTAINTY that Christ will come again.
Furthermore, trust is not a distinct substance from belief but they are syonyms.
They all go hand in hand, my friend.
This is not the place for a discussion on faith, but, as I have proposed earlier to you, I would love to flesh this out more with you on my blog.
Taken from When Assurance is Not Assurance, By Bob Wilkin:
In an article entitled, "Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation," Dr. James Sawyer criticizes me for suggesting that assurance is certainty akin to the certainty that 2 + 2 = 4. His answer is instructive:
Certainty falls into several categories. (1) Mathematical certainty: In the abstract theoretical and ideal world, we can know things with absolute certainty. There are no contingencies to qualify a reality, thus, there can be certain knowledge in the truest sense. (2) Empirical certainty: This is demonstrated by the scientific method in the real world, as opposed to the ideal world of mathematics. (3) Legal certainty: This involves proof by evidence, given by witnesses. It, however, admits the possibility of error depending on the truthfulness and credibility of the witnesses. (4) Moral certainty: This is the realm of psychological certainty. It is obvious that nearly all human knowledge outside of the realm of mathematics fails the test of absolute certainty. Likewise, salvation is not something which can be analyzed in the test tube, thus it does not fall in the realm of scientific certainty. Salvation falls in the realm of contingent reality, the variety of which cannot be tested. Thus, it is impossible from a psychological perspective to achieve the mathematical level of certainty for which Wilkin seeks.8
For Sawyer all "certainty" outside of mathematical certainty is less than "certain knowledge in the truest sense." In other words, what he calls moral certainty is not really certainty at all.
Since all biblical truth falls into Sawyer's fourth category, if he is right, one cannot be certain of anything reported or promised in Scripture. In that way of thinking, we aren't sure that Jesus rose from the dead. Or that He is God. Or that the Scriptures are without error. Or that there really is life beyond the grave. Or that the gospel is true. The mathematician is lucky. He can be certain. The theologian, evidently, is not so fortunate. He is reduced to "the realm of contingent reality.9
It is fallacious reasoning to propose that the certainty I have that 1+1=2 is of a superior grade and quality of certainty than the certainty I have that I have eternal life.
Both are certainty in the 100%. Certainty is certainty.
But let me be quick to add that convictions may be strong or weak. Conviction, being convinced, being certain, believing is always 100%. But a conviction may be weak in the sense that it has a small foundation or basis. When greater evidence and proof for one's convictions are adduced, that certainty will become more impenetrable to wavering. But at the same time, if proposed evidence (even if false) is given to a weak conviction, there is the immediate chance that wavering can happen.
Faith and certainty are based upon moment by moment considerations. A person is said to believe something and this is true by the moment. The brain, musings, deliberations of a weak conviction may cycle one in and out of certainty.
Strong convictions, like weak ones, are 100% certainty. They are not easily if at all moveable.
Faith = faith = certainty = conviction = being persuaded/convinced = trust
When I view Christ's promise to the believer, and am convinced that what He has promised He is reliable, able, willing, desirous, etc to perform, I know at that very moment I have eternal life, for I believe what Jesus says!
Antonio
Rick,
ReplyDeleteI state presently because Christ's offer states that the one who believes in Him HAS (at that very moment) eternal life. The believer in Christ therefore knows that he presently possesses eternal life. As stated with my daughter, eternal means forever. This life lasts forever, and she knows that she can never ever perish.
Of course later on, when one takes their eyes off of Jesus, off of His objective promises, assurance can waver. But the remedy is to put one's eyes back on Jesus!
As to your question about what it means to "Believe in Jesus", I prefer to allow the Scriptures to define that. What did Jesus mean when He said that whoever believes in Him has eternal life and shall not perish?
Well in communication, whenever talk about believing in someone is expressed, there is a context to it.
In the context of John 3:16, one is relying upon Jesus for eternal life and salvation from perishing.
If that is not simple, I don't know what is!
Antonio
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I was not completely clear. I do believe that when someone first believes they are in fact persuaded that God can deliver on his promises. I just don't equate "persuasion" with "certainty" the way you are using the word. My point was that Paul was not speaking of initial faith in Rom 4:21 when he used the term "fully persuaded," and you get close to what I meant in your remarks about strengthening "conviction" over time.
Also, I think that faith is entirely relevant to the discussion of "assurance." And I have discussed the issue with Rene; he uses the terminology of "certainty" in largely the same way that you and Bob Wilkin do. I happen to disagree with the way you of those terms; I don't think we are talking about the same thing when we talk about "faith," "persuasion," "confidence," and "certainty." I believe your terminology confuses these issues.
In my post above I was (I thought) very careful to define what I believed was the biblical use of these terms in context. People often have "doubts" (in English) without "wavering" (in Greek) in their faith---they still "put all their eggs in one basket" = the promises of God; the "err" here is in challenging someone's trust in God in moments of (English) doubt. "Doubt" (English) is a consistent emotion experienced by the Psalmists in most of the Psalms and it is entirely consistent with the main points in both James 1:6 and Romans 4:20-21. Just as with the Psalmists, our doubts are soothed and our confidence increases when we return to the revealed promises of God and remember what he has already done.
If others feel that I was unclear and confusing, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.
Diane,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
The DOCTRINE of eternal security is NOT understood at the time of the new birth, but the CONCEPT is believed.
I suppose I could be clearer...doctrine is just a teaching...where concept is more of an idea (or even notion / theory).
What must be believed is not that you are saved and will go to heaven (I'm good with this), but rather that you must believe that you are saved and CAN NEVER LOSE IT.
Can never lose it is a doctrine, that is, a teaching. We generally call it "once saved always saved"...
Do people really need to believe something more than that they'll get eternal life with Jesus when they die?...adding...'and can never lose it?'
Thanks,
FRL
Fred,
ReplyDeleteHow about taking a stab at my question?
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteWhich question exactly...You tend to have a confetti of questions.
Some of your reasoning is difficult to follow because you claim I say things I don't say.
Try giving me a single question in a single sentence.
Thanks much,
FRL
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe reason for saying that you must believe that you are saved and CAN NEVER LOOSE IT is because we want to stress that the gift that Jesus is offering is a permanent gift. You can't have it if you think it is conditional upon the way you live. People who think they can loose their salvation have some kind of "works" mentality going on. It's not possible to believe in Jesus for eternal life and AT THE SAME TIME think that you might not make it to heaven for whatever reason.
My concern is for those dear lost people who believed in Jesus to take them to heaven but always thought that they had to do something to keep themselves saved or they'd loose their salvation. If they've ALWAYS believed that, then they've never been born again. They are still trusting in their works. All I want for them is to be saved. I care about their eternal destiny.
Fred, do you think it's possible to be born again with the mind set that you might not make it to heaven?
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this point.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
P.S. I know that there are SAVED people who do believe in Jesus Christ for His eternally secure gift but later have doubts because of bad teaching.
Diane,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts. I do not think it is possible to be born again with the mindset (this is 'not faith') that you might not make it to heaven. In this regard I agree with Calvin, though I don't agree with Bob.
The key here is to realize there is a third option to consider.
1. You can think you are saved, but can lose it.
2. You can think you are saved and can never lose it.
3. You can think you are saved, but not know whether or not you can lose it (e.g. you just haven't thought about it).
This third option gets missed a lot. People can believe and be excited they are going to heaven. But, if you asked them if they knew they could never lose it...they might easily say, "Gee, I never thought about it...I just know I'd go now if I died."
The gospel is about believing in Christ for eternal salvation (sometimes described as eternal life, etc.). Saying they have to really know that "...and they can never lose it"---is a surprising amount of detail (hence, what I'd call doctrine).
Grace,
FRL
P.S. I too know that there are SAVED people who do believe in Jesus Christ for His eternally secure gift but later have doubts because of bad teaching...or bad neurochemistry. But, I also there are people who are SAVED and have no doubts about getting into heaven, but can't say for sure they 'know they can never lose it'.
YE ARE HAVING BEEN SAVED!
ReplyDeleteEternal security is clearly presented in the grammar and syntax of the text of Scriptures.
For example: Eph 2:8-9, "for by grace YE ARE [present indicative active] HAVING BEEN SAVED [perfect passive participle], through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift, 9not of works, that no one may boast" (YLT)
“ye are having been saved” — A periphrastic is always made up of a participle plus the indicative mood.
The Greek perfect periphrastic in Eph 2:8 is composed of two verbs: the perfect passive participle of SOZO=HAVING BEEN SAVED. And the present active indicative of EIMI=ARE. He uses two verbal forms to provide a more forceful expression.
The first verb is the perfect passive participle of SOZO. The intensive perfect of SOZO emphasizes the present state from a past action. The past action is faith in Christ. So this indicates the completion of an action at the moment of faith in Jesus Christ with an emphasis on the existing results: once saved, always saved. It emphasizes the finished product, which means you are saved and have eternal security. The intensive perfect is a strong way of saying a thing is. The intensive perfect is the emphatic method in the Greek of presenting the fact of eternal security after salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
The present active indicative of the finite verb EIMI is added for duration. The gnomic present of EIMI expresses a universal doctrine (eternal security). It expresses a doctrine or fact, an absolute truth, a state of condition that perpetually exists and will never be changed. This is also a static present which represents eternal security as a condition which perpetually exists. The declarative indicative mood of EIMI is used for a dogmatic statement of doctrine, the doctrine of eternal security. Salvation is not relative; it is an absolute.
A periphrastic denotes a completed action with eternal results, and so teaches the doctrine of eternal security. The participle of SOZO denotes a completed action in past time, at the moment of faith in Christ. The perfect tense denotes the completed result of eternal security. The finite verb EIMI is added to give duration to that continuous and eternal result of faith in Jesus Christ.
Lu Mo Nyet
I remember Charles Stanley's excellent book on eternal security was dedicated to his deceased father-in-law who was saved late in life, but was not sure of his eternal security. Dr. Stanley had no doubts about his seeing his father-in-law in Heaven, & he certainly understood the truth of the Biblical concept. I believe he would be as bro. Fred spoke of option number 3.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Lu Mo Nyet, I have meant to welcome you since I first saw a post from you, but I have been negligent & I apologize! Great to meet you, brother (or sister?). So exciting to meet new siblings in the Faith!
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response to my comment on eternal security.
You said...
3. You can think you are saved, but not know whether or not you can lose it (e.g. you just haven't thought about it).
At the moment you are saved you have to know that your eternal destiny is secure BECAUSE of Jesus. You may not be thinking the words.... "and I can never loose it," but you KNOW that you will be with Jesus without a doubt. Absolute assurance!!! If that's what a person believes, then he is saved.
If you have ALWAYS believed that WORKS are necessary, then you could not have believed in Jesus for His gift EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU DID.
Grace and works can NEVER mix.
I'm sure there are lots of Christians who did believe in Jesus alone apart from works, knowing that He SAVED them forever and then LATER falling back under a works salvation mentality.
But I personally could never be comfortable being in the camp that teaches that it's OK to believe you can loose your salvation but still insist that you are saved. I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE WITH THEIR ETERNAL SOUL. I just want them saved.
I'll leave it up to the Lord to be the judge of their hearts, but on this side of heaven I'm going to tell them that the gift Jesus offers is permanent, and you can only take it as a permanent gift. He does not offer it as a conditional gift.
Remember, I'm not saying that people who today don't believe in eternal security are not saved. I'm saying that there had to be a moment when they did.
That's the only place I can stand with my conscious clear that I told them the truth.
But God alone sees the heart.
Thank you for your kindness in letting me comment.
Your friend because of Jesus,
Diane
Diane, forgive me for jumping in here, bro. Fred, please respond to Diane before me. I wanted to say first of all, Diane, that I genuinely appreciate your kindness & grace. We all talk about grace, but not only do you stand on it, you exude it as well. That is certainly Christ in you, & we could all learn from your spirit. I wanted to mention about something you said in your last post that I think hits a very important point. You mentioned that we trust Christ for His GIFT of salvation! When we receive it as His totally free gift, then it is understood that it is not of works. Our minds may not totally understand all of the workings of it at the moment of initial faith, but if we realize it is a gift, then we know we are saved, because He does His part perfectly! I hope I haven't jumped the gun here & interrupted your interaction with bro. Fred, Diane. Thank you again & may the Lord bless you!
ReplyDeleteHi David,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your kind words.
I personally could never feel comfortable letting somebody think he was saved without explaining to him that the gift Jesus offers is a forever gift.... permanent. If someone does NOT believe in eternal security, only God knows what was in his heart when he first believed. But WHAT he believed is the issue. And only God really knows.
I'm going to always tell them that it's permanent. I know I'm on safe ground doing that. And I know that it pleases the heart of God. God alone knows their heart.
May you experience the joy of knowing you belong to Him each day.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
:-)
Diane and Lu,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the truth of Eternal Security is clear in scripture (faith is a gift...Romans 11:29...game, set, match)...indeed, the very nature of the gospel means that one is saved in that moment for heaven. The nuance of "and can never lose it" is where the issue is; and, it is not apparent that one must believe in that type of nuanced clarity.
It is similar to saying, "I'm saved and I'll go to Heaven to live with Jesus." Well heaven will last forever...but the question of losing it is still an unknown or unconsidered to most people. Could I get kicked out? Could I commit some kind of sin? I thought just trusting in Him was all I needed...it sounds like I need to trust Him to accept me,and trust Him to keep me in...true? If one can't get saved without understanding (the doctrine of) Eternal Security...then imagine how this complicates our gospel presentation.
My point is that this issue of "and can never lose it" is not inherent in ones believing that they are saved. Should it be? I'd say 'sure'...makes perfect sense.
Similarly receiving the life of Christ is this way...we can know we have His (eternal) life indwelling us. But could he remove it? Well, we are contingent beings (as Geisler points out)...could He break that relationship? Yes, He could. Will He, not if He keeps His Word.
You see, in sharing the gospel, if we busy ourselves with trying to get them to really understand and believe that they can never lose it or they aren't really saved is a way to complicate the simple message (which oddly is what GES doesn't claim to want to do).
If you read Calvin, you'll find he did not mean what GES means by his idea about "assurance is of the essence of saving faith."
BTW...I agree with Calvin's view here.
Grace,
FRL
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteHow about “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for” (Heb. 11:1)?
Lu Mo Nyet
Hey bro. Fred,
ReplyDeleteI again want to thank you for engaging us & putting up with us! You are very kind to do that! I was noticing you mentioned off-hand at the beginning of this post that "faith is a gift..." Not trying to put you on the spot (as if that would be the 1st time!!) but I was curious as to whether you were saying that you believe faith is a gift? Thanks for your indulging me! God Bless.
Dear Friends,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I don't mean to sound like a broken record. But how could we tell anyone the saving message without making it clear that the gift Jesus is offering is permanent? That's what Jesus told the Woman at the well.
(From John 4.... Jesus said to the Samaritan woman.....) (whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will NEVER thirst)
Until she believed THAT she could not be saved.
Jesus was offering her the gift of eternal life.... one drink (believe) and she would NEVER thirst again. She had to understand the gift (eternal life which can't be lost) and the giver (Jesus). That's the only way she could have it. She had to believe what He was offering her, and it would spring up into everlasting life.
Those are Jesus' words. He makes it very clear here that eternal life is eternal. It is permanent. She would NEVER thirst again!!! How could we interpret that passage any other way? And why would we want to take the chance in our evangelism that a person might still be thinking in terms of works salvation..... Jesus plus their part.
John 3:16 says the same thing. "Whoever believes in Him shall NOT perish but HAVE everlasting life."
The gift that is being offered is a permanent gift. They will NOT perish! If they would ever perish after taking His gift, He would be a liar.
Let me ask you all a question.
*Are you OK with NOT making it clear in your evangelism that the gift that Jesus is offering is permanent and can never be lost?
If you haven't been doing it that way, don't you think this is the way you should start doing it now? I do because that's what Jesus did, and that's what Jesus is offering. A gift that can never be lost.
Thanks so much dear friends. I think I'm through now. Again, please forgive me for sounding like a broken record.
Rejoicing in His forever gift,
Diane
:-)
Diane,
ReplyDeleteAt the moment one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ Who paid for his/her sins, at THAT split second he/she is saved from sin forever. All sins ALREADY judged/paid 2000 years ago (1Jn2:2). The issue is ONLY believe and saved forever--eternal life imputed (past passive participle of Eps2:8 - have been saved; same as Rm5:1).
At the moment one believe in the Lord Jesus Who paid for his sins he is JUSTIFIED--unable to be unjustified; and BORN AGAIN (Tit3:5)--can never be unborn; and REDEEMED (Eps1:7)--can't be unredeemed; and BAPTIZED BY THE SPIRIT (1Cor12:13)--can never be unbaptized forever; SEALED BY THE SPIRIT (Eps1:13-14)--never unsealed forever. . .
On assurance, Calvin explicitly points NOT to subjective experience as means for assurance--but LOOKING OUT AT CHRIST. I think it is best NOT taking each word of Calvin as absolute authority on any or all doctrinal issue.
The trap of the SUBJECTIVE Experimentalism of Westminster Calvinism and Arminianism is the SHIFT from the OBJECTIVE assurance in the living Word and the written Word, unto a Subjective point of reference in experience, as determinative of assurance has caused havoc of insecurity.
I see that it is a major reason why some Calvinists such as Arthur Pink, John Gerstner, even Charles Hodge, etc. explicitly stated that if there is no sanctification, then there is no final salvation--meaning NOT saved from the start (hence they invented false faith vs genuine faith theory). Whereas the Arminians warn sternly that unless a believer persevere in holiness unto the end, her/his salvation will be revoked.
Experience of doubt caused by sin or sins and failure to grow spiritually or carnality has been used as a cardinal point of reference to negate the efficacy of the perfect Atoning Sacrifice for sins, namely eternal salvation. Both the calvinists and arminians have essentially the same position on this point: Calvinists say carnal Christians are not saved from the start; whereas Arminians say carnal Christians lose their salvation in the end.
I see this as not an isolated individual struggle with assurance, it is a classical Westminster calvinism's influence among the evangelicals. Jody Dillow's The Reign of the Servant Kings is a good book dealing with this issue. If my memory serves me right, Fred's view is similar to Dillows in one aspect: faith is a gift. But not as explicit as R.C. Sproul&Co. who said that we are regenerated in order to believe. They are consistent with TULIP to voice their theory that sinners must be regenerated and given faith in order to believe.
Scripture is our final judge of post salvation experience. I'd rather put the discussion of assurance as post salvation spiritual growth issue and not at all an issue of once for all POSITIONAL salvation.
Lu Mo Nyet
Good job Lu Mo Nyet! Great point about the shift from objective to subjective. I've struggled with this most of my Christian life. Thankful that the truth is outside of my changing feelings! God Bless you.
ReplyDeleteHi David,
ReplyDeleteYou have kind heart and words as always. Thank you. You've said more by few words. Because of sin nature arrogance it is difficult for me to stay filled with the Holy Spirit 24/7. I failed many times daily by means of arrogant words. So have to apply 1Jn1:9 each time.
It is difficult to teach assurance to the SAVED believers. Because of their self-importance and self-arrogance veiled by false humility they always want to DO things for God--good works mentality. The absence or rarity of good works make some think either they have not been saved or have lost it. It is a self-centered arrogant theology--an insult to the completed work of grace as per TETELESTAI (perfected in the past with the result continue forever).
It is kind of Evangelical back door to reject the completed work of Christ as sole Mediator Who perfectly paid for all and applied passively to believers at the moment of believe (posisitonal theology).
Salvation without assurance is a clever but gross insult to the integrity of our Savior's perfected Atoning Sacrifice--an insult to the integrity of His word; just as evil as an explicit rejection of HIM, since "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them." (2Cor5:19NASB).
Lu Mo Nyet
Wow, Lu Mo Nyet, I believe YOU are the one saying much truth with few words! Excellent theology & much grace in sharing it! Bravo & God Bless you!
ReplyDeleteAntonio,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Fred, are you aware that Rokser and Stegall hold to the erroneous GES doctrine you are here blogging about?"
I hope you are not calling the GES doctrine erroneous from your point of view (which would be odd since you hold to it)...though it sounds that way.
I'm confident you are mistaken about Rokser and Stegall. Do you have proof of this?
Thanks,
FRL
Lu Mo Nyet,
ReplyDeleteAs I read your posts I wonder if I am communicating clearly. Everything you write I basically agree with...I believe in assurance as the essence of faith (persuaded does mean sure). I do not believe what GES thinks assurance as the essence of faith means.
The difference is that the GES folks affix a meaning to being assured that goes beyond sure of heaven / salvation...they mean sure such that one must (a) Know that he'll (b) never ever lose that salvation.
I deny that assurance of salvation demands knowing such a thing...and...I deny that one cannot be assured if they think there is a possibility they could lose it someday (or God removes it).
However, assurance is decidedly a part of believing unto being saved.
Many thanks,
FRL
Hello Fred,
ReplyDeleteSomone earlier in this thread asked you if you believe faith is a gift. I'm very interested in your reply.
Also, if you don't mind, can I get your opinion on the P of TULIP theology (i.e. Perserverance fo the Saints)?
Thanks in advance,
Jimmy
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteI actually am very glad to share this, though it might need to be a different thread.
I do not believe faith is a gift...it is actually our own faith that we 'use' to believe unto salvation. The passage under debate is Ephesians 2:8&9 which is misunderstood from the translations (I'm pretty sure Calvin disagreed with the Calvinists on this one according to his commentary). Paul is referring to the whole package---that we are saved by grace through faith---not merely to the faith.
I do believe God woos us and does an enabling work to grace us in believing. The rabid-hyper-calvinsit view that God regenerates us and then we believe---is basically indefensible scripturally (I heard J.I. Packer give it a go from John three, but I sure wasn't convinced).
......
As to the "P" of TULIP. It really does have Eternal Security in view, but involves three different parts (this is in the Synod of Dort document).
1. Persevere in doing works
2. Persevere in believe in Christ
3. God perseveres in keeping His own saved
The hyper-calvinists tend to insist that it is the works issue that is in view, but that isn't what Dort is getting at in my opinion.
I'll have a book on this basic issue out in a couple of months.
The title is: BACK TO FAITH: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence.
Should be fun!
Grace,
FRL
P.S. I don't really make anyone happy...but I sort of think of myself as a 1.5 Arminian!
Brother Fred,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply.
I am glad to hear you do not believe faith is a gift. I couldn't have imagined that being the case, but wanted to confirm. As an aside, I was unaware (but do believe you) that Calvin agreed with this point. How he agreed with this point, yet went on to sacrifice mans free will on the alter of God's sovereignty is perplexing.
As for the P in TULIP, thanks for laying out the SOD view of it. This three-part view appears to me to be a futile attempt at "having your cake and eating it too". If the eternal security of the believer rests upon the believer "perservering in doing good works" and "perservering in believing in Christ", then God would have no need to "perservere in keeping His own saved". The SOD has made a BOTH/AND proposition where there is only an an either (1 and 2)/or (3).
Looking forward to your book!
Blessings to you in Christ,
Jimmy
P.S. I wouldn't consider my theology Arminian or Calvinistic, so I can relate to not making anyone happy;-)
Come to think of it, part 3 of the SOD view appears just as flawed as the other two parts. God "perservering" in keeping His own saved?
ReplyDeleteOur eternal salavtion is PRESERVED by the tri-une God. With regard to eternal security, there is certainly no "perservering" on the part of man, and furthermore, no "perservering" on the part of God. Thoughts anyone?
Jimmy
On the contrary...thanks for the question!
ReplyDeleteFRL