Post by MrsDeweySmith on Oct 27, 2005 14:23:53 GMT -5
...you wake up and see the thorns in the bush, so to speak.
I had not, honestly, looked much into a particular group I have visited online many times. It has been a wonderful blessing to me from a fellowship stand-point and honestly, that was all I saw.
Well, now I see the depth of the group. Here is a recent article thrown in the mix, due to someone mentioning some correspondence Bible study she went through and enjoyed. It was noted that one of the beliefs of that study group was eternal security...someone right away countered that was a false teaching, and then this article came through (along with one on Hebrews 6....funny how that book and chapter keep coming up in my life...what am I supposed to learn from that?)
You have all heard this -- I know there are many articles in the group here concerning this as well. I guess it just shows that I need to be more discerning in my fellowship and discussions at times.
Sister Deanna
I had not, honestly, looked much into a particular group I have visited online many times. It has been a wonderful blessing to me from a fellowship stand-point and honestly, that was all I saw.
Well, now I see the depth of the group. Here is a recent article thrown in the mix, due to someone mentioning some correspondence Bible study she went through and enjoyed. It was noted that one of the beliefs of that study group was eternal security...someone right away countered that was a false teaching, and then this article came through (along with one on Hebrews 6....funny how that book and chapter keep coming up in my life...what am I supposed to learn from that?)
You have all heard this -- I know there are many articles in the group here concerning this as well. I guess it just shows that I need to be more discerning in my fellowship and discussions at times.
Sister Deanna
>> Sermon: Unconditional Eternal Security & Its Related Errors
By Merle Ruth
As Christians, part of our calling is to contend for the faith which was
once for all delivered to the saints. But there's a wrong way, and a right
way, to do this. The right way is to contend for the faith in a
non-contentious way. Though I may fail, my purpose is to do it that way on
this occasion.
Everyone craves security. God made us that way. There are many reflections
of this fact in life today. Think of all the attention that is given to
national security, financial security, old age security. Generally,
however, spiritual security gets a back seat. But in religious circles,
this also is recognized. Although that is good, something is happening in
today's religious world that is not good. People who claim to speak for God
are offering to professed Christians an unconditional eternal security.
Hopefully by the time I get through, you will understand why we view this as
a dangerous teaching. My sermon title is rather long: "Unconditional
Eternal Security AND its Related Errors." I've chosen to word it that way
because it is hard to isolate this teaching from the package to which it
belongs.
From here I'm moving to a premise that is widely acceptable. I'm stating it
this way: The security of a man's soul for time and eternity depends on
whether or not he is in good standing with the Lord. I think this would be
acceptable to people on both sides of the issue. Whether a man's theology
leans toward Armenianism, or whether it leans toward Calvinism -- I think
he would view that as an acceptable statement. The security of a man's soul
for time and eternity depends on whether or not he is in good standing with
God. There would be, however, a difference of opinion as to what is
required of US in order to remain in good standing with God.
Next I'm going to pose this question: Can I KNOW how I stand with God? If
I'm in good standing with God, can I know it? If I'm safe and secure in
Christ, can I know it? In relation to this, there are two extremes. At the
one extreme are those who contend that, here and now, one cannot know with
certainty his actual standing with God. There are, I believe, some
good-living Christians in this category. For one reason or another, they
are not real sure of their acceptance with God. Consequently, they lack
assurance of salvation. At the other extreme, are those who are living in
almost the same identical way as the unconverted, but because of a one-time
decision for Christ, somewhere in their past, they claim to be a child of
God with NO POSSIBILITY of ever being lost. As I see it, those are the two
extremes. Opposite extremes. Neither one is Biblical, but in my opinion,
the second is the more dangerous because it breeds spiritual carelessness.
It appears to me as though the first group is overlooking 1 John 5:13. That
verse reads as follows: "These things have I written unto you that believe
on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life."
This entire epistle was written for the express purpose that persons who are
saved might have a proper sense of security. We have a built-in need for
knowing that God accepts us and, praise His name, He meets that need when we
meet His condition.
The second group I've described appears to be overlooking something, too.
They're overlooking passages like this one: Matthew 7:21-22, "Not everyone
that sayeth unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but
he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto
me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy
name have cast out devils, and in thy name have done many wonderful works?'"
On this basis, we must conclude that many are entertaining a false sense of
security. The unconditional eternal security teaching does that. It
promotes a false sense of security. People are made to feel as though they
are in good standing with God when, according to the Bible, they are not in
good standing with the Lord.
Why do some people have this false sense of security? The reasons are
numerous. Jesus related to a people who felt secure because of who they
were. Jews were the people of God. Really, any member of a highly
privileged group is inclined to feel secure on that basis, and Mennonites
are no exception to that rule. A sacramental-type religion can do the same
thing. Such persons reason this way, "I'm doing all that God requires. I'm
taking communion every Sunday, surely I'm in right standing with God." Some
people claim to have had their old nature eradicated by a second work of
Grace. Along with that would naturally go a feeling of security.
I'm not attempting to be exhaustive. As I already indicated there are
numerous factors that may contribute to a false sense of security. There
is, however, one that I am now going to enlarge upon because, in my opinion,
it is perhaps the major source for this kind of deception: namely Calvinism.
This system of theology gets its name from the man responsible for its
formulation: John Calvin. Calvin was a contemporary of the early
Anabaptists. He became influential as a protestant reformer while living in
the city of Geneva, Switzerland. Around the year 1536, Calvin put his
theological views into writing in what has become known as "The Institutes
of Christian Religion", and those volumes are still being published. It is
now recognized that some of what we would call "Calvin's erroneous beliefs"
were actually borrowed from Augustine, an influential fourth-century Bishop
who helped to pave the way for Catholicism. Many European people, during
the Reformation period and following, preferred Calvinism over Catholicism,
and so Calvinism spread from Geneva to France, from France to Holland, from
Holland to England. There, in England, the Calvinists became known as
Puritans. In Scotland, they became known as Presbyterians. In America
today, the Presbyterians and the "Reformed" churches would be strongholds of
Calvinism. But it's by no means limited to these groups. Many Baptists and
so-called Fundamentalists are strongly Calvinistic.
In the field of theology, the contrast to Calvinism is Armenianism, and this
gets its name from Jacobus Armenius, a Netherlands theologian who
disassociated himself from Calvin, became quite influential in opposing
those elements of Calvinistic teaching that he viewed as being erroneous.
Generally, people who are non-Calvinistic have the Armenian label pinned
upon them, and we are no exception to that rule. However, on the question
of the believer's security, it was not Jacobus Armenius' influence, but
independent Bible study that led our Anabaptist forefathers to adopt the
stance they have adopted.
In order for this message to be true to its title, I will need to devote a
part of it to a description of the Calvinistic package. For some of you
this might be a review of what you already know, perhaps you know it better
than I do, I beg your forebearance if that should be the case. Before I
get started, I want to also make this acknowledgement: It has been
demonstrated repeatedly that one can become a devout Christian in a
Calvinistic setting. But, in my opinion, a non-Calvinistic setting is a lot
more conducive to holy living. The reasons for this opinion will soon
become obvious.
Historically, Calvinism has consisted of five points. One means of
remembering these five points is to visualize them as forming an acrostic
based on the name of a very common flower, namely the TULIP. Each letter of
the word TULIP begins the spelling of one of these five points:
The T stands for: Total depravity.
The U stands for: Unconditional election.
The L stands for: Limited atonement.
The I, for: Irresistible grace.
And the P, for: Perseverance of the saints.
Now, this last point, "perseverance of the saints", is simply another label
for the eternal security of the unconditional type. Now, generally
speaking, there has been a de-emphasizing of the first four points of
Calvinism. They don't have the popular appeal that point number five has.
But, because the five points are so inter-related, points one through four
continue to serve as the foundation for point number five. They are like
the unseen part of an iceberg, points one through four.
I will warn you, as you well know, that the Calvinistic theologians are not
at all apologetic. They represent themselves as the very standard of
orthodox Christianity. It can be very, very persuasive. If you would go to
the widely circulated Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, a volume to
which many writers have contributed, if you would read there the article on
"The Doctrine of Election", you'd quickly come upon typical Calvinistic
teaching. The writer of that article puts it this way: "A man is not
elected because he is going to believe, he believes because he is elected."
That article makes the divine act of election an arbitrary, non-conditional
act. It repudiates our claim that election was based on God's foreknowledge
of an individual's favorable response to the divine call. In that article,
favorable responses on the human level are not represented as a condition
for election, but as an inevitable consequence of God's election. And this
is the heart of Calvinism. God supposedly chose, arbitrarily, out of the
mass of humanity, certain ones whom He determined to save, irrespective of
ANYTHING that He foresaw in them. Others he excluded. Christ supposedly died
for ONLY this number: those whom God arbitrarily, unconditionally chose to
be saved. Consequently, a non-elect person will inevitably be lost, even
though he dies while he is still an infant. The elect person, like everyone
else, is supposedly so totally depraved, that he would be incapable of
responding to God's call, so God comes to this non-responding person, and
with irresistible grace, saves him. Being one of the elect, this person
will inevitably make it through to heaven regardless of how he lives.
A Calvinist once told a non-Calvinist, "Your God is a ________. (sorry, I
can't tell what he said here.) When my God sets out to save a man, He SAVES
him." They glory in that view of God. Their view of God's operating
supposedly magnifies the power of God's sovereign grace. But for other
people, their view of God's way of operating creates a lot of problems.
Well, having looked at the heart of Calvinism, we are ready now for some of
the other features of Calvinism. Upon receiving eternal life, you supposedly
become eternally secure because that life is eternal--eternal in
duration--and they say it cannot be lost. They claim that we dare not view
believing and repenting as conditions for salvation, because that makes
those acts - believing and repenting-that makes those acts meritorious, and
puts salvation on a works basis. They will try to make you believe that
there could be no sense of security for believers if losing out, becoming
eternally lost, was a possibility. According to their doctrine, no matter
how much he may sin, the elect person will never fall into disfavor with
God. Why not? Because the Calvinist looks at it this way: God won't ever
punish me for he has already punished my substitute. Supposedly, God
doesn't notice the sins of the elect Christian because he is said to be
covered over with the robe of Christ's righteousness. Along with that, they
generally teach that, in addition to your past sins, God has already
pre-forgiven all your future sins. They claim that a lot of those people
whom we would view as having backslidden, they would claim they never really
were Christians in the first place. Although that may, in some cases be
true, they push that point REAL hard because backsliding doesn't very well
mesh with their "once saved, always saved" philosophy. Reluctantly, some
will admit that a one-time Christian may backslide, and even die in that
condition. However, they commonly claim that such persons--although they
may lose much--can never lose their salvation, they can never lose their
good standing with God. Supposedly, they still enter heaven as a saint.
Yes, there are variations in beliefs among the Calvinists. Some hold to
only point number five, and they try to disassociate that from the former
four points. There is also among them those who teach that, in some cases,
a backslider may become so wicked, so much a liability to God, that God may
actually shorten his life and take him to heaven prematurely. If God would
indeed operate that way, then it could truly be said, "The more you sin, the
quicker you get to heaven."
Well, that was a hurried review of the teachings and claims of those who
insist that one's title to heaven cannot be lost. But how does all this
square with the Bible? Well, you can make it square if you are selective,
as they are, in their choice of passages. But when you take an
all-inclusive approach to the Bible, you discover some passages with which
it does NOT harmonize. There are passages that THROB with warning, such as 1
Corinthians 10:12, "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed,
lest he fall." Promoters of this doctrine either overlook such passages, or
they water down their meaning.
Let's bring into focus again their "unconditional election" concept, and
their "limited atonement" concept. And let's put alongside those concepts a
passage like Mark 16: 15-16, ".Go ye into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned". Now we put their concepts
alongside of that passage. If Christ died only for a select number, why
then preach the gospel to every creature? The truth of the matter is,
Christ died for ALL. Those exact words, "for all" occur twice in 2
Corinthians 5: 14-15, ".. He died for all." Now, a second question: If
God's election to salvation was made irrespective of any foreseen human
fact, why does this passage represent believing as the condition for being
saved? Why? Because, contrary to their claim, salvation is conditional.
People don't get saved until they respond favorably to God's call. But, in
Calvinistic thinking, man is so depraved, so spiritually dead, that he can't
even respond. Consequently, in their theology, regeneration comes before
believing and repenting. Before he can even respond, God supposedly must
move in and regenerate this sinner so he can respond. The non-Calvinist
views that as a false concept. It robs man of his freedom of choice. It has
God doing FOR man that which man, himself, MUST do with God's assisting
grace. Repeatedly, the Calvinist will say that, "our salvation doesn't
depend on what we do, but on what Christ has done for us". We can accept
that, insofar as it relates to the provision for salvation, but that
statement ignores the fact that in appropriating the provided salvation, man
must have a very active part.
On the day of Pentecost, those who were pricked by Peter's sermon came with
their question, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Was that treated as a
wrong question? Did Peter tell them, "don't worry, just relax. In God's own
time and way he'll do it all. Really, there's nothing for you to do." NO!
Peter said no such thing. That was not a wrong question. Peter did give
them something to do, "Repent and be baptized." The Bible repeatedly has
God calling upon sinners to act, "Look unto me"; "Seek ye the Lord"; "Save
yourselves"; "Return unto the Lord". In every instance, an act of the will
is needed to trigger the response that God will then enable the person to
make. But an act of the will--God waits upon that act of the will.
Contrary to the Calvinist, we do not view believing and repenting as an
attempt to earn salvation. A thing can be necessary without being
meritorious. The mere act of reaching out for a gift does not make one
worthy of that gift, but you will never get the gift if you do not reach out
for it when it's offered. Contrary to Calvinistic teaching, we believe that
no sinner is saved until he really wants to be. God's saving grace is
offered to all, but it is forced upon no one. Those who stoned Stephen were
allowed the liberty to resist the Spirit of God. They were doing precisely
that. And with few exceptions, they probably continued to do that--they
probably died that way-resisting the Holy Spirit. So, the concept of
irresistible grace is likewise a false doctrine.
Now, possibly I've devoted.. (tape turnover) to the getting saved process.
This subject, the believer's security, is related more directly to the
matter of staying saved. For the Calvinist, staying saved is inevitable.
We disagree, and on Biblical grounds.
In Ezekiel 18, God through his prophet speaks directly to this point.
Ezekiel 18:24, "But when the righteous turneth away from His righteousness,
and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that
the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath
done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in
his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." Although this is found
in the Old Testament, it appears to be God's uniform way of operating
because we have virtually the same thing in the New Testament in Romans
8:13, and it's addressed to Christians! ". If ye (you, who are already
Christians) .. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die." And that surely
has in view a spiritual dying. Whether or not you live after the flesh, you
die physically, so it can't mean that. It must mean, it must be talking
about, a loss of spiritual life.
I'm turning now to that familiar parable at the end of Matthew 18. Here is
this king who began to take account of his servants. After discovering that
one owed him a large sum of money, and after that servant begged for mercy,
the king graciously forgave that enormous debt. However, that servant then
went forth, and treated a fellow servant in a very unmerciful way. What
happened? Verse 32. Matthew 18:32, "Then his Lord, after he had called him,
said unto him 'Oh, thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt,
because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on
thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?' And his lord was wroth, and
delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto
him." Now, underscore these words, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do
also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother
their trespasses." The pardon that had been granted was revoked. Clearly,
that pardon was revoked.
Turn with me now to Colossians chapter 1. Colossians 1, let's begin in verse
21, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by
wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through
death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from
the hope of the gospel." Notice that word, "if". "If ye continue in the
faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away". It plainly shows that
true security is conditional in character.
There are many "ifs" scattered throughout the New Testament. 1 John 1:9,
"If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins."
The condition we meet to become saved is, or must. put it this way: The
condition we meet to become saved must be maintained in order to remain
saved. Most Bible readers are familiar with the "vine and branch" passage,
John 15. A very significant truth emerges from that passage, namely this:
The new life that is received in regeneration is not an independent life. It
is a life that Christ shares with us as we abide in Him. Let's listen to a
verse there in John 15. John 15:6, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them in to
the fire, and they are burned." I don't think it would be like Jesus to
warn of a danger that is nonexistent. It wouldn't be like Christ to do
that, would it?
When one is baptized as a Christian, he enters into a covenant relationship
with God. Solemn promises are made. Now visualize for a moment a person
who no longer honors the terms of that covenant. On what ground can he
still claim the security of that covenant? In the New Testament, true
security is always associated with present tense, up to date, Christian
experience. In that much-used passage, John 10, this dimension gets
overlooked very often. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me" and as
they thus believe and follow, they are wonderfully secure. But, ask any
shepherd and I think he will tell you, that now and then a sheep gets lost
because he doesn't do this. It's the sheep nature to wander away.
For our Calvinistic friends, this insistence on security being conditional
creates a problem. They are taught that if there is any possibility of
losing out and being eternally lost, then all ground for assurance is swept
away. Let's take a moment to examine that logic. Consider, for example,
these parallels. It would be possible for me to commit suicide. It's being
done every day. The break-up of our marriage is a possibility. It's
happening every day. But, I'm not disturbed in the least by either of those
possibilities. In the same way, although our security in Christ is
conditional, we can still enjoy a wonderful Christian experience. But what
about their slogans? They sound so convincing, "once a sheep, always a
sheep; once a son, always a son"; "Once you're born, you can't be unborn".
Again, I would urge you to closely examine that logic. If their logic is
correct, then we should be able to add, "once a child of the devil, always a
child of the devil." Wouldn't that be only consistent? If that were true,
then you might as well close the churches and call home the missionaries.
In the second place, their logic breaks down, too, because there does not
exist an exact parallel between the natural realm and the spiritual realm.
We do not choose our physical father, but as we arrive at the age of
accountability and beyond, we do choose our spiritual Father. Furthermore,
one's physical birth occurs without his choice being involved. Is it that
way with a spiritual birth? No. Our will is very much involved in our
second birth. Again, in physical birth, one receives a life independent of
his parents. Your parents die, you live on-because you have a life
independent of them. But, the new life that is received in regeneration is
different. Apart from Christ, we can't maintain that life.
So, let's not be intimidated by the logic of their arguments. Let's stand
firm in the Word of God. As I see it, Calvinistic teaching is dangerous
because it fosters a too-permissive attitude towards sin. Actually, their
teaching removes the most urgent reason for practicing Christian
carefulness. It removes that.
Now, there are those who try to convince their audience that Calvinism and
Armenianism represent nothing more than polarities of truth. And that,
however opposite they may seem to be, both positions lie within the circle
of truth, and that either one can be substantiated as well as the other.
Well, I don't deny that there are polarities of truth, but I also know that
when you move too far to the right or to the left, you get outside the
circle of truth. Although I regret having to do it, I don't apologize for
insinuating that the builders and maintainers of Calvinism have gone too
far. They've gone outside the circle.
Down in Egypt, on the first Passover night, that Israelite behind his
blood-sprinkled door, was secure. But it was a conditional security offered
to him on the condition that--in obedience to God--he stay behind that
blood-spattered door. I'm thankful that that kind of conditional security
is still available.