[smitty2622]

I believe we resist the Holy Sprit every time we sin, that little voice telling you it’s wrong and you go ahead and did it anyway. I believe that is the Holy Spirit you are resisting. Not that you are rejecting completely or enough to lose your salvation, but you are resisting. Now resistance built up by more resistance and then even more can create a big problem. I have no idea how far this would have to go before you totally reject the spirit and do intern lose your salvation. But I do believe it is possible and fear I myself my have been as close as one can come if not beyond thank God that he is there and willing to take us back. I for one don’t plan on ever getting that close to the edge again. And would not teach a doctrine that may cause other brothers to fall into a false sense of security. A good healthy fear of the Lord never hurt anyone.


Peace

[Chico]

absolutely, but like you said yourself, you can't even say how far is too far. no one can. so how can you say that you can lose your salvation when there is no rule to measure it by. and i agree with totally, as we have discussed before about the whole responsibility thing and fearing the Lord. but why can't you teach both simultaneously. tell them that Christ loves them and will never let them go, but that if they truely love God and want to be a part of Him, then they need to follow His commands. i don't believe that we should fear a loss of salvation, but the wrath of an angry God. it is the discipline the Father gives the children that we should be fearing. i did a bible study on "Fearing God" with my youth. i will give you an outline of it if you like.

chris

[t.j]

Originally posted by smitty2622
Smitty: Sorry brother I didn’t really mean to attack you personally. It’s just your example seemed to be toward another brother.

Not a problem.

Smitty: Everyone partakes in God’s grace even the so-called un-elect. I believe the Calvinist refers to this as common grace. This is not the grace that is shared by those who are grafted in. Those grafted in actually drink the blood and eat the flesh; they are after all part of the tree and living if only for a time off the tree’s nutrients. But as the story shows some of them will be cut off. I don’t know if I know anyone like that or not, and neither do you my friend. We have no idea where people are in their walk or what the Lord is working in them at this time. I take my brothers at their word and pray that God will keep and guide them. The Bible speaks much more of man hardening his own heart then the hardening of God.

I believe in common grace. And I would argue that I do know a number of people with very hard hearts, yet they worship regularly, participate in the sacraments and call themselves Christians. Sadly, I'm not in a position to do more than pray for them, but they are falling away. Does that make them one of the unelect? You are right, I don't know. But I know from conversations with them in the past that they were never much different than they are now. There has never been a real evidence of conversion. That is, they never really lived for Him. They have always been about living for themselves.

Smitty: Really? Does not the doctrine say no matter what God will bring you back? Don’t you think that in someone’s mind that could play tricks on them? You don’t see yourself justifying any actions in this way? Don’t get me wrong here God can keep you, but you do play a part in that said staying. You will still face temptation, and my friend you will fall to temptation sometimes too. This is normal and expected but the doctrine of perseverance could give some an arrogant thought that it doesn’t matter I’m elect I’ll make it and that’s that. This is a false security, and leaves room for the justification of sin.

Of course. And one could fall deep into sin with the belief that "I covered" and still be one of His flock. But that thinking is wrong and it's not the doctrine of preservation. The promise of Scripture is that Gosdwill restore them into His fold. He will finish what He has started and He will forgive their backsliding and their ignorance of what His promises really mean. Those who are never restored were never saved. Their lack of restoration is the evidence that they were never really saved.

Smitty: And yet according to the warnings from God this can happen. How do we fit the two together? We take heart in God’s promises and remember the warnings; we don’t take sin lightly or become arrogant with our salvation.

Nobody, least of all Calvinists, are suggesting anything else. What you are suggesting is that Calvinism invariably leads to antinomianism. This is untrue and it's a result of this modern distortation of salvation. Following Christ is something that the Christian does because he wants to. It's what we do because nothing else is more pleasing to us. We do not do it simply out of obligation.

Smitty: yes it is scripture and true, however it has been used in a way that is unscriptural. If you love your neighbor as yourself, do you just let him go?

Of course not. And I didn't say that. We should always do all we can to restore them into the fold. However, we must always remember that it does not depend on us or on them. It depends on God's sovereign election. Why is that important? Because otherwise we might boast that our words lead our brother back to Him. You see, boasting isn't just a problem for the one who comes to Christ. It's also a problem for the one whom God uses to lead that person to Christ. And sometimes that's more dangerous. "We lead 1000 people to Christ at this rally." That's arrogance.

Smitty: I’m sorry but this is comical According to Calvinism they are either elected or not and nothing you or they do can change that.

But it's the God ordained means by which He leads men to Himself. That's not comical. And again, we do it because it pleases Him and that's our desire.

But According to the Arminian God can be asked to pull harder on a certain individual.

But according to the Arminian it doesn't really matter how hard God pulls. Ultimately, the decision is left up to man's free will.

If the Calvinist doctrine is taken literally then there is really no need for prayer, no need for any action from man. If everything is truly predestined before time no amount of prayer can help save anyone. It’s all already decided.

On the contrary. In Calvinism, prayer is a means, ordained by God to accomplish the task which He has ordained. He predestined the prayers and the call to election that follows it. He predetermined both the means and the end. In Arminianism, pray all you like, it doesn't help. It may make it easier, but in the end, it's still up to that person's will.

And actually Arminans don’t preach a free will as the Calvinists have described free will. No one can come to Christ of his own behalf Christ is the means and the way there is no other way to heaven than through Jesus Christ. What follows is the second article of Arminian faith Pay close attention nowhere does it say man can choose God of his own free will as the Calvinist likes to say it does. ...

But you see, that's the problem with Arminianism. They often sound like Calvinists. You cannot read the Bible and suggest that God is not sovereign over all things, including salvation. You cannot read the Bible and suggest that faith and salvation are not gifts from God, apart from anything that man can do. But then, where does the Arminian stand? If it is not "the working of his own free-will" but rather "necessary that by God, in Christ and through His Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed" then isn't God sovereign in salvation? Aren't you saying that God chooses whom He will save and thus leaving the rest in their sins? Arminians cannot possibly suggest that God performs this necessary work on all men. That would be universalism. And if it is His work, then He does it, not us. So, it's His work and He doesn't do it to everyone. That's Calvinistic soteriology.

Finally brother this is not meant to be an assault on you, but an attempt to show the other side of the debate. Personally I do believe in security but in a different way than what I believe these doctrines teach. I take faith in today I don’t look to tomorrow and yesterday is gone. Live each day for the Lord and stay strong your Father will help those who ask so ask everyday and walk in the light.

I wouldn't take it as a personal attack. Not a problem. I hope you feel the same. By the way, I'm not a Calvinist because I deny the third point (Limited Atonement) as Calvinists teach it. I do however maintain God's sovereign election.

[smitty2622]

Chico, yes I would like to see your study you can send it to smitty2622@cableone.net if you like, that’s my E-mail at home I don’t get to check it too often so It may be a while before you get an answer. And yes I agree if we are going to teach OSAS it must be done with a healthy dose of the fear of God. Nothing overboard mind you just a good rounded teaching.

Tj, I think we agree more than we disagree, I give that it is possible to lose your salvation however unlikely it may be the possibility is there. I am however curious as to how you can accept all the points of Calvinism without Limited Atonement. How do you come to this conclusion? When you say Arminians sometimes sound like Calvinists I would agree and say we are not as far apart as it might seem to an outsider we are after all brothers.


I have a little saying I like to use sometimes. Calvinism only works as a whole 5 points all is happy any other version is just an Arminian hiding in the flower garden. :kgrin:



Peace

[t.j]

Originally posted by smitty2622
Tj, I think we agree more than we disagree, I give that it is possible to lose your salvation however unlikely it may be the possibility is there. I am however curious as to how you can accept all the points of Calvinism without Limited Atonement. How do you come to this conclusion? When you say Arminians sometimes sound like Calvinists I would agree and say we are not as far apart as it might seem to an outsider we are after all brothers.

Yea, I've been told that before. "5 points or no points." But I don't think that limited atonement is a logical outworking of the other four points. This may be better in a new thread, but I'll post it here. If it goes futher, I'll repost.

I maintain that while God has sovereignly elected some to salvation, this does not necessitate that Christ paid the debt owed only for those elect. On the contrary, if the Gospel offer is universal, and Calvinists will agree that it is, then the atonement must also have been universal.

If, Christ paid the debt for only some, then supposing that one of the non-elect would believe, they would still be condemned because no payment has ever been made for their sin. Faith, belief, is not the condition of salvation. That is, faith alone doesn't save anyone. It must be faith and work, Christ's work. Faith is the condition by which Christ's life and atoning sacrifice is applied to the sinner. When we say "faith alone" we imply that by faith, we are saved in His work. Not that faith, without Christ's sacrifice, would ever be enough. Over and over again in the N.T., salvation is presented as conditional. "Believe and you will be saved." But how does that work in a Calvinistic system where salvation is unconditional on the basis of Christ's atonement. That is, Christ's death, in Calvinism, paid the debt and purchased faith for the elect sinner. But for the non-elect, it did neither. So, the offer to "believe and you shall be saved" to the non-elect (and I grant we do not know who they are) is ridiculous, because no payment was ever made. That is, they still owe a debt to God for their sins. Their belief would not wash all that away. It would take belief and Christ's atoning sacrifice, which Calvinists teach was not for them.

Yes, I understand that Calvinism teaches that all this happens at once. God knew whom He would elect and therefore those whom He did not elect will never believe because Christ never purchased their faith. Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the offer of salvation is still made to them, "Believe and you shall be saved." This is not a statement of fact, it's an offer to all mankind, and unless real payment has been made for all mankind, the offer doesn't make sense.

This clears up a verse that always bothered me in Calvinism, 2 Pt 2:1. How can it be said that the Lord bought them, if they are condemned? Only if Christ truly paid their debt.

So, Christ's death conditionally pays the debt that all men owe to God for sin. That death is applied conditionally on faith, a gift from God the Father. God eternally elected those to whom He would grant faith. He reveals Himself to them and He preserves them in His grace. Thus man, unwilling to believe, is unconditionally and irrestibly called. Yet, payment was really and truly made for all those whom God does not elect. They never meet the condition on their own and therefore die in their sins without ever having Christ's blood applied to them.

Finally, this does not in any way mean that Christ's blood was shed in vain. Even the Calvinist will admit that Christ's blood was sufficient to save all men without ever shedding another drop. His sacrifice was universally sufficient, even if only particularly applied. So, no drop of Christ's blood was shed in vain. He did not suffer more than He had to. Had it been one man or and infinite number of men, His single sacrifice was sufficient.

Now, the only thing I'm still looking at is, Was Christ's sacrifice the means by which God gives faith to the elect? Or, did Christ's sacrifice purchase faith for the elect? This would be akin to Luther's undeveloped view of the atonement (and close to modern Lutheranism), who suggested that in some aspects, Christ did not die for those who end up in Hell. Thus implying that in another aspect, He did die for them.

[smitty2622]

Thanks TJ nicely done. I agree as far as Limited atonement goes. Most of the arguments you use I have used too except I think I apply them more broadly. No need to start a new thread unless you want too. And you can keep hiding in the Flower garden if you like I wont make too much fuss.:kwink:




Peace

[TheJ15]

Joslar15,

Yes, Saul wasn't faithful to the message and he didn't like it all that much, but the fact remains, he believed in God. In that time he still sacrificed animals for forgiveness of sin, and no matter how far he got away, he always believed in God. If you read and study the greek, you will find that Samuel told Saul that tomorrow Saul would be with him. And the next day when Saul was in battle, he begged people to kill him because he knew he was going to Heaven. It was the easy way out of course, but to him it was the only way. God did not turn on those who believed in Him then, neither will He turn on them now. I hope this helps. You are awesome!

TheJ15

[joslar15]

Originally posted by TheJ15
You are awesome!

Surely this was directed to God, because I'm just a dumb, ignorant sinner working my way to salvation

[living for God]

thanks,

smitty i liked ephesians 5. i thought that was a really good verse,
How do you guys get so smart, because hardly know any of this stuff. so like i just said i really don't know much, i have a question what does OSAS mean.

[Bryan]

OSAS means Once Saved Always Saved. The idea that once you are saved you can't lose your salvation.

[living for God]

cool, thank