Eternally Secure ?

[PetrChelcicky]

I was at first brought up as a Lutheran and I still cling to the idea of a universal grace.(Lutheranism had a certain influence on Methodism which had a certain influence on Evangelicalism - so Lutheranism is not completely "outlandish".)
Grace and salvation are everywhere. The mistake in OSAS is not the AS, but the OS - we are not members of an elected minority who has "once" been saved. All others are saved, too, simply because they all are sinners, there's nothing more required. I am saved because "the man on the middle cross said I could come."
The differences in life rely on the question: How much do you let grace come into your heart? If you don't let it come into your heart, you cannot have the fruits of grace - which would be a shame.
For example I am a fierce controversialist; but at the same time I am convinced that those differences are temporary because I will be reconciled with my opponents in heaven.
Yet the "fruits of grace" are a matter of "more or less". Whereas "salvation" is obvioulsy seen as a matter of "yes or no". And that's why I make a clear distinction between "salvation" and "fruits of grace".

[PetrChelcicky]

Of course I know that we Lutherans are nearly always accused of a "false security".
Here I distinguish. I am secure that, warts and all, I am destined for heaven. On the other hand, I am not secure that, warts and all, I am fit for heaven.
Or rather I am secure that I am NOT fit for heaven.
Which leads me to the complete un-Lutheran consequence that there must be something like a purgatory - an interim period in which I can get rid of my rough edges and bad habits.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

So here's the problem I have with Perseverance:
I have been born again and believe I am saved. But do I know that I will endure to the end? God knows of course, but I do not. If there's a possibility that I will not endure, then there's an corresponding possibility that I am not truly saved. So there's no way of really knowing for certain in the present that I am saved. This looks more like eternal insecurity.

On the other hand:
I have been born again and believe I am saved. As long as I continue to follow Jesus, I know that I will continue to be saved, and he will give me the strength to endure to the end and receive eternal salvation. This looks more like eternal security.

I think the problem is that your first quote is phrased in a way that doesn't fit how the Bible talks about it, and your second quote does. If you phrase things a certain way, they can "look" one way or another. That's why I think they WAY we talk about these issues is just as important (or more so!) than our doctrinal conclusions.

The Bible speaks in a way that encourages us to follow Jesus: sometimes with harsh, challenging truths; other times with comforting promises.

Notice that when John talks about "those who went out from us". He speaks of "them". In contrast, assurances of perseverance are addresses to "you" or "us". Your first paragraph is co-opting the talking about falling away but replacing "them" with "me/I". Of course if you rephrase it this way, "it looks like eternal insecurity."

It's not just the truths we arrive at. It's how those truths are used. Are they used to encourage us? Are they used to comfort us when others fall away? Or are they used to give us a fearful sense of insecurity? One of the best things about the Anabaptist tradition I've learned is that theology is meant to be practical, experiential, not just theoretical and rigorously ontological. This helps our theology be guided by scripture. Systematic theology takes a backseat to biblical theology (in the reformed tradition, biblical theology is secondary to systematic theology).

[Sudsy]

Of course I know that we Lutherans are nearly always accused of a "false security".
Here I distinguish. I am secure that, warts and all, I am destined for heaven. On the other hand, I am not secure that, warts and all, I am fit for heaven.
Or rather I am secure that I am NOT fit for heaven.
Which leads me to the complete un-Lutheran consequence that there must be something like a purgatory - an interim period in which I can get rid of my rough edges and bad habits.

One argument that a truly born again person, who still has some sin in their life, is fit for heaven is stated like this -

Our relationship to God is not based on our perfection, but on Christ's. His perfect obedience is credited to us so when God looks at us, He sees us as perfect. If we could be perfect on our own strength, Christ's death would have been unnecessary.

So in this view there is no need for a purgatory. I tend to agree with this view but only in a way that includes being born again and a desire within to avoid all sin and a reliance of the power of the Holy Spirit to empower us to not continue in sinning. I don't believe if I died with some outstanding unconfessed sin in my life that this will forfeit my salvation. I don't believe one should live in this kind of fear but this was what I was raised to believe in my Pentecostal childhood.

[Sudsy]

So, the lady I mentioned in the previous post that thought she should wear a head covering but to fit in with her fellowship with other believers in her home church that does not require a headcovering, she does not wear one. Will she be saved ?

I don’t know her, is she on Menno?

No but she attends a Mennonite Brethren church where they do not follow the practise of head coverings. Will she and the other ladies in the church be saved with their beliefs about this topic when other Anabaptists regard this as deliberate sinning ?

[Pelerin]

If my salvation depends on being obedient in some area that I know I should obey, that, to me, sounds like a works salvation.

If you don’t want to be obedient to God, why on earth would you want to be saved? You’re just going to get to Heaven and find out it’s full of all the kind of stuff you don’t like.

I believe most, if not all of us, fail to be obedient at times in some area we know we should be and I don't believe the scriptures indicate this will jeopardize our salvation or none of us would be saved.

I probably should have included the next sentence in the quote which I had in mind when I wrote that. It was an example of a woman who believes she ought to obey God but consistently chooses not to obey God.

Evangelical salvation is sometimes described as a ticket. It’s something you have (maybe you can lose it, maybe not) and it gets you into heaven. Apart from that it doesn’t really do anything in itself, it’s just a pretty scrap of paper. Obedience is either a response to God “thanking” him for salvation or else it’s a list of good life advice that God wants you to follow so your life will be better. You should ideally also be transformed—but you (probably) don’t get kicked out if you aren’t.

What I meant in my first post is that salvation and transformation can’t be easily separated. You’re being saved from your sins: your mind is renewed, you are given a new spirit, eventually new flesh, your desires are changed. This is not to say it happens all at once (though sometimes it does), but it’s a process of constantly and consistently being obedient and willing to let God do as he wants. You’re being made into the kind of person who wants heaven and the kind of person who belongs there.

If you hate your brother and won’t give it up or if you’re selfish or a liar then you don’t want heaven. Heaven is the place where you have to forgive, love, and serve your brother, it’s a place of truth, but you’ve already rejected that. It might even look like eternal torment to you. You might say you want heaven but you’re just thinking of harps on clouds. You want hell. Hell is place where you’ll find the things you’ve shown you really love: hatred, selfishness, and lying. These are the things you’ve chosen. You won’t like it, but then even on earth these things torment you.

[Soloist]

No but she attends a Mennonite Brethren church where they do not follow the practise of head coverings. Will she and the other ladies in the church be saved with their beliefs about this topic when other Anabaptists regard this as deliberate sinning ?

I don’t know. If she was on Mennonet I could say as anyone here is suspicious.

I don’t go and make suppositions about people I don’t know. Do I think that a woman choosing to defy God is saved? No of course not, but I don’t know her mind and the reason is what you have given. We’ve certainly had discussions on your salvation and you don’t care what I believe so I don’t regard this as a curious question but rather trying to make some point.

When you get right down to it, you can always find someone who believes you are in sin and are doomed unless you follow their teachings. What I say, one who chooses not to follow teachings of Scripture they believe to be true, they stand on sand and I would not wish to be them.
I believe that Scripture is given for us to follow and if you don’t want to follow it, why desire heaven? Hell is for those who don’t want to follow God.

[Neto]

I was at first brought up as a Lutheran and I still cling to the idea of a universal grace.(Lutheranism had a certain influence on Methodism which had a certain influence on Evangelicalism - so Lutheranism is not completely "outlandish".)
Grace and salvation are everywhere. The mistake in OSAS is not the AS, but the OS - we are not members of an elected minority who has "once" been saved. All others are saved, too, simply because they all are sinners, there's nothing more required. I am saved because "the man on the middle cross said I could come."
The differences in life rely on the question: How much do you let grace come into your heart? If you don't let it come into your heart, you cannot have the fruits of grace - which would be a shame.
For example I am a fierce controversialist; but at the same time I am convinced that those differences are temporary because I will be reconciled with my opponents in heaven.
Yet the "fruits of grace" are a matter of "more or less". Whereas "salvation" is obvioulsy seen as a matter of "yes or no". And that's why I make a clear distinction between "salvation" and "fruits of grace".

Of course I know that we Lutherans are nearly always accused of a "false security".
Here I distinguish. I am secure that, warts and all, I am destined for heaven. On the other hand, I am not secure that, warts and all, I am fit for heaven.
Or rather I am secure that I am NOT fit for heaven.
Which leads me to the complete un-Lutheran consequence that there must be something like a purgatory - an interim period in which I can get rid of my rough edges and bad habits.

re: 'universal grace":
I know that some others here do not accept the idea expressed as 'original sin', but here's where I see these two things intersecting - Paul tells us (well, actually the congregation in Rome) that sin entered the world through one man, affecting ('infecting') everyone. Then the "Second Adam'" - Christ, by one sacrifice (Himself) brought salvation to all mankind. I don't think the second case means just something like "made salvation available". I understand it, in the context, to be speaking of the relief from the penalty of sin, the sin that came through Adam. That is, He extended grace to ALL mankind, those who have never heard, and also to those who have heard, but have rejected Him. This salvation is universal, leaving only one's own personal sin and rebellion as cause for damnation - SELF-damnation, I will add. No one suffers damnation for Adam's sin, the sin of their parents or grandparents, on up the line. The sin that condemns is disbelief, which is disobedience in the way the Bible presents it. It comes right home to personal responsibility - 'free will'.

re: the need for a place of purgatory, or 'cleansing after death':
I do not need to "get rid of my rough edges and bad habits". (I SHOULD be working on this with full determination NOW, in this life, but I don't think I'll completely reach that goal here on this earth, in this life. AND, my salvation doesn't fully depend on that.) This all also falls under the grace of God through Jesus Christ, in his death and resurrection. This is why we SO look forward to that time of being 'caught up' to Him in the air, when we shall be made like Him, seeing Him as He is. HE will remove the rough edges and bad habits!

[Josh]

So, the lady I mentioned in the previous post that thought she should wear a head covering but to fit in with her fellowship with other believers in her home church that does not require a headcovering, she does not wear one. Will she be saved ?

I don’t know her, is she on Menno?

No but she attends a Mennonite Brethren church where they do not follow the practise of head coverings. Will she and the other ladies in the church be saved with their beliefs about this topic when other Anabaptists regard this as deliberate sinning ?

The same as someone who harbours an offence, or is unforgiving of someone… or someone who has a sour rotten attitude towards government, always cheating on taxes and complaining the government is out to get them.

I don’t think we should evaluate such sins by “will it keep me out of heaven or not?” Instead we should try to follow Jesus day by day.

[Josh]

I don’t believe in original sin because it is obvious a newborn baby is not a “sinner”. Augustine invented this doctrine in order to justify a lot of other things, and I think it’s a major problem with most non Anabaptist doctrines.