My personal experience with once saved always saved

[AbideWithMe]

I am glad to hear that. It was not my experience though in four different evangelical, friends, or baptist churches in Southern California.

All I can say is that’s really unfortunate.

 

[Jon_S_1]

All I can say is that’s really unfortunate.

Which evangelical church do you belong too? I thought all evangelicals believed in eternal security?

For example my evangelical church would teach that Christians are called to do good deeds and grow n holiness.

That is a far cry from saying that if you don’t grow in holiness your salvation is at jeopardy.

 

[MacQ]

“Being a Christian is more than just an instantaneous conversion—it is a daily process whereby you grow to be more and more like Christ.”—Billy Graham

Oneofmany, you’re misunderstanding both Billy Graham and Protestants.

Yes…I had the same thought. He used a poor example, IMO.
I don’t think Rev Graham ever preached that you were one and done after his service. Seems to me he preached the opposite.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Which evangelical church do you belong too? I thought all evangelicals believed in eternal security?

For example my evangelical church would teach that Christians are called to do good deeds and grow n holiness.

That is a far cry from saying that if you don’t grow in holiness your salvation is at jeopardy.

I’m still a member of the Evangelical Congregational church in Pennsylvania in which I grew up and was confirmed. It was organized in the early 1800’s as the Evangelical Association, a Methodist-based church for Pennsylvania German speakers (when Methodists were still quintessential Evangelicals). I also attend an Evangelical Free Church of America along with the Evangelical Congregational church. The EC church is thoroughly Evangelical and explicitly states people, once saved, can turn away and refuse to repent if they so choose.

Hmm…my church probably would say that a person who does not grow in holiness whatsoever but calls themselves a Christian is a very confused person. A person may wander, argue with God, become angry with God and childishly “act out” that anger, and struggle with sins which they may not overcome in this life, but no growth whatsoever doesn’t make sense for any Christian.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m still a member of the Evangelical Congregational church in Pennsylvania in which I grew up and was confirmed. It was organized in the early 1800’s as the Evangelical Association, a Methodist-based church for Pennsylvania German speakers (when Methodists were still quintessential Evangelicals). I also attend an Evangelical Free Church of America along with the Evangelical Congregational church. The EC church is thoroughly Evangelical and explicitly states people, once saved, can turn away and refuse to repent if they so choose.

Hmm…my church probably would say that a person who does not grow in holiness whatsoever but calls themselves a Christian is a very confused person. A person may wander, argue with God, become angry with God and childishly “act out” that anger, and struggle with sins which they may not overcome in this life, but no growth whatsoever doesn’t make sense for any Christian.

But you would agree that someone who commits unrepentant sins is saved. Right?

If not, what is the line?

 

[Indifferently]

We aren’t saved because of our faith and repentance. We have faith and repentance, however meagre, because we are saved.

 

[AbideWithMe]

But you would agree that someone who commits unrepentant sins is saved. Right?

If not, what is the line?

First, it’s not for me to say. My job is to ask God to help me repent of my own daily sins; even if my heart is hard and I’m doubting, I can ask Him to turn me around when I can’t turn myself around.

To answer “where is the line?” —I don’t know if you’re familiar with the “Fundamental Option” theory of Catholic theologian Karl Rahner. IIRC, St. JPII reviewed Rahner’s writings on the idea and said it had some merit but was ultimately heretical. But basically (hoping I’m not butchering this in my brief synopsis), the idea is that we make a fundamental option for God with our whole life, and one unrepented mortal sin does not change that “Yes” we’ve given.

To give an example from my own life, at different times two of the people most dear to me have been killed in car accidents. The second sudden death occurred exactly at a time when on totally different grounds my faith in Christianity was greatly shaken down to just about nothing–far, far worse than any faith crises before or since. Between almost entirely losing my faith in Christianity and the trauma of the death, I gave up and lived in what would count as mortal sin…for years. And yet, deep down I knew I didn’t belong there. And in truth, though as I said I don’t believe in OSAS in an absolute way, the former deep conversations I’d had with Presbyterian friends kept alive a small hope that God would come looking for His lost sheep because I was His and He knew me.

And it was a line from a novel I’d read years earlier by a Presbyterian minister named Frederick Buechner that helped me. In the story, a man is touring a home for intellectually disabled and emotionally disordered people. On one wall, a resident had drawn a heart with “I hate you” inside. The man asks his guide what that means and who drew it. The guide answered that a resident drew it for him because “I help him become more human, and it is the pain of becoming more human for which he hates me.” But then the guide goes on to say the heart drawing was an artless and innocent gift; it meant, “I hate you–here’s my heart.” I remembered that story from Buechner, and it helped me acknowledge how angry and bewildered I was, unable to turn myself back to God, unable to pull myself up by my own will and break off of living in sin… but that still somehow my heart was not my own–it had belonged to God since I’d committed my life to Him at 15, in a conversion that could not be undone.

 

[MacQ]

I think it s much much more prevalent than you think.

One of many many examples.

JON: Thanks for posting this. I have encountered such ideas (online) and the folks who post them never…not every…claim a particular tradition (as in I am an evangelical, or I’m a Baptist). Nor do they tend to put their beliefs in their own words…alot of cut and paste…and alot of …well, zeal, I’ll call it. So it’s hard to discern what the theology is. I have been curious about them. I hasten to add that the folks I’m referring to are quite radical and hateful, and I don’t in any way think they are “mainstream” protestants at all.

 

[MacQ]

First, it’s not for me to say. My job is to ask God to help me repent of my own daily sins; even if my heart is hard and I’m doubting, I can ask Him to turn me around when I can’t turn myself around.

To answer “where is the line?” —I don’t know if you’re familiar with the “Fundamental Option” theory of Catholic theologian Karl Rahner. IIRC, St. JPII reviewed Rahner’s writings on the idea and said it had some merit but was ultimately heretical. But basically (hoping I’m not butchering this in my brief synopsis), the idea is that we make a fundamental option for God with our whole life, and one unrepented mortal sin does not change that “Yes” we’ve given.

To give an example from my own life, at different times two of the people most dear to me have been killed in car accidents. The second sudden death occurred exactly at a time when on totally different grounds my faith in Christianity was greatly shaken down to just about nothing–far, far worse than any faith crises before or since. Between almost entirely losing my faith in Christianity and the trauma of the death, I gave up and lived in what would count as mortal sin…for years. And yet, deep down I knew I didn’t belong there. And in truth, though as I said I don’t believe in OSAS in an absolute way, the former deep conversations I’d had with Presbyterian friends kept alive a small hope that God would come looking for His lost sheep because I was His and He knew me.

And it was a line from a novel I’d read years earlier by a Presbyterian minister named Frederick Buechner that helped me. In the story, a man is touring a home for intellectually disabled and emotionally disordered people. On one wall, a resident had drawn a heart with “I hate you” inside. The man asks his guide what that means and who drew it. The guide answered that a resident drew it for him because “I help him become more human, and it is the pain of becoming more human for which he hates me.” But then the guide goes on to say the heart drawing was an artless and innocent gift; it meant, “I hate you–here’s my heart.” I remembered that story from Buechner, and it helped me acknowledge how angry and bewildered I was, unable to turn myself back to God, unable to pull myself up by my own will and break off of living in sin… but that still somehow my heart was not my own–it had belonged to God since I’d committed my life to Him at 15, in a conversion that could not be undone.

Much of what you’ve written (so beautifully I might add) is not inconsistent with Catholicism or other mainstream Christian beliefs. We don’t think He ever gives up on any of us…that He does indeed go after the lost sheep. That’s why we pray for people even after they’ve died.

But many of the folks who adhere to OSAS seems to have a different take…one I find to be unacceptable. Which is that all you have to do is claim faith, and then you are done. I asked one what he does about his sins, and he replied that Jesus’ cross wiped them all clean, and he is now forever “snow white” thereby. He was critical of catholics doing what we call works of mercy, saying we’re trying to work our way into heaven (even after I explained that we’re only doing what Jesus asked us to, and not denying faith).
What I find most unacceptable, tho, is their stern assertion that no one else is ‘saved’. Muslims for example cannot go to heaven, in their view. Nor can catholics (because we are heretical for traditions not written verbatim in scripture)… nor can gay people, (regardless of their sins, unless they stop being gay. Yes.)
I rankle at such exclusivity. There seems to be no love, no mercy in it.

 

[MacQ]

We aren’t saved because of our faith and repentance. We have faith and repentance, however meagre, because we are saved.

So…who didn’t He save? Who was excluded?

 

[Indifferently]

So…who didn’t He save? Who was excluded?

Those who never have faith.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Those who never have faith.

Yet since God is all knowing and the creator of their souls, he created them to not have faith. He created them so that they would not only not choose, but could not choose. He created them to send them straight to ETERNAL TORMENT and destruction.

And you can live with the understanding that if we follow the odds you are likely one of them. You just “think” you have faith.

You certainly can have zero assurance that you are elect.

The gate is narrow and few find it.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yet since God is all knowing and the creator of their souls, he created them to not have faith. He created them so that they would not only not choose, but could not choose. He created them to send them straight to ETERNAL TORMENT and destruction.

And you can live with the understanding that if we follow the odds you are likely one of them. You just “think” you have faith.

You certainly can have zero assurance that you are elect.

The gate is narrow and few find it.

Indeed. Especially when you’ve been created blind and have zero chance of being made to see.

Calvinist “grace”,
How dark the sound,
Condemned not because of me.
God made me lost and would not find,
Made blind, but won’t help me see.

What “grace” is this from secret decrees,
Made from this God within?
Created unable to hear God’s voice,
Condemned before I sinned.

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have gone through alone.
God tempted me more than I could bear,
To justify my place in my home.

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Because of what God’s done.
We’ve no less days to scream in pain,
Than when we first begun.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Indeed. Especially when you’ve been created blind and have zero chance of being made to see.

Calvinist “grace”,
How dark the sound,
Condemned not because of me.
God made me lost and would not find,
Made blind, but won’t help me see.

What “grace” is this from secret decrees,
Made from this God within?
Created unable to hear God’s voice,
Condemned before I sinned.

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have gone through alone.
God tempted me more than I could bear,
To justify my place in my home.

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Because of what God’s done.
We’ve no less days to scream in pain,
Than when we first begun.

Wow if that doesn’t say it all.

I was thinking of the narrow gate and broad path. It seems the Calvinist would say God throws you through one gate or the other.

 

[mackbrislawn]

We aren’t saved because of our faith and repentance. We have faith and repentance, however meagre, because we are saved.

That’s odd. Paul said “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” But you say it the opposite, salvation comes first, then faith. “Be saved and you will have belief”!

 

[marywarfield]

Those who never have faith.

That s really truly awful. It wars with the whole concept
of who God is and what God does.
If you want to be all SS about it how about
Genesis?
“And He saw that all He created was very good.”

God only creates that which is good. How can He
possibly create something worthy of damnation which
is really all strong predestination teaching is saying.
That for whatever bizarre pathological reason God
creates that which is evil and requires Hell.
Really?

 

[ltwin]

Jon, I’m 47, I’ve been in many churches, read much, traveled a lot, and quite honestly I’ve never heard such shallow theology in an Evangelical church. (I’m not saying I haven’t heard some shallow theology in churches at times, just not that spectacularly shallow as what you’re saying.) It’s basic “Christian Discipleship kindergarten” to understand that we are saved by Christ to be conformed into the image of Christ, and part of that includes taking up your cross, complete with pain and denial of self, as the Master led the way.

I’m not dismissing what you’re saying, Jon, about your own experience.

This, this, this, this! There is a lot of shallow theology being presented as the evangelical norm on this thread.

I thought all evangelicals believed in eternal security?

No, all evangelical churches do not teach eternal security. Those evangelicals on the Wesleyan-Methodist side of the evangelical spectrum, in fact, are often accused of being semi-Pelagians because we believe salvation can be lost.

Much of what is being presented as evangelical soteriology on this thread is really antinomianism.

I think it s much much more prevalent than you think.

One of many many examples.

I don’t think any evangelical on this thread would deny that there are people who believe OSAS. However, I think we sometimes get frustrated when this is presented as the norm or default evangelicalism. It is truly an aberration and radical misunderstanding of evangelicalism.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This, this, this, this! There is a lot of shallow theology being presented as the evangelical norm on this thread.

No, all evangelical churches do not teach eternal security. Those evangelicals on the Wesleyan-Methodist side of the evangelical spectrum, in fact, are often accused of being semi-Pelagians because we believe salvation can be lost.

Much of what is being presented as evangelical soteriology on this thread is really antinomianism.

I don’t think any evangelical on this thread would deny that there are people who believe OSAS. However, I think we sometimes get frustrated when this is presented as the norm or default evangelicalism. It is truly an aberration and radical misunderstanding of evangelicalism.

Thanks.

Both you and Abidewithme. Come from Methodist leaning Evangelicalism. It makes more sense that you would believe what you do. That is why Wesley created his method. My background was in Baptist and Pentecostal leaning which seemed much more OSAS. What percentages of evangelicals are on one side or the other I am sure is highly debatable.

 

[Per_Crucem]

No, all evangelical churches do not teach eternal security. Those evangelicals on the Wesleyan-Methodist side of the evangelical spectrum, in fact, are often accused of being semi-Pelagians because we believe salvation can be lost.

Wasn’t it a chief tenant of Arminian theology that the perseverance of the saints, as taught by the Dutch Calvinist theologians, was in error? i.e., the Remonstration.

 

[ltwin]

Thanks.

Both you and Abidewithme. Come from Methodist leaning Evangelicalism. It makes more sense that you would believe what you do. That is why Wesley created his method. My background was in Baptist and Pentecostal leaning which seemed much more OSAS. What percentages of evangelicals are on one side or the other I am sure is highly debatable.

Pentecostalism is “Methodist leaning Evangelicalism.” The original Pentecostals were all Methodists or former Methodists who had left (or been kicked out) to join the Holiness Movement. We hold John Wesley in high esteem. His teachings on sanctification laid the foundation for our teaching on the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

The Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, is opposed to Once saved always saved. It’s position paper on the issue, The Security of the Believer, quotes from its Article IX, Section 1 of the General Council bylaws:

In view of the Biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6), in view of the Bible’s call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.

It goes on to say on page 5:

The believer must also be careful that he does not take a light attitude toward sin. He dare not use the grace of God as a license to sin.

“Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” asked Paul (Romans 6:1). The answer is an emphatic negative. Paul knew and taught that continued sin will adversely affect a believer’s faith, and faith is the very thing that makes a relationship with God possible.

Continued sin becomes presumptuous, high-handed, and is evidence of rebellion. (See Numbers 15:30, 31.) Rebellion is the opposite of the trust and obedience of faith.

Believers must be on guard constantly, “looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God” (Hebrews 12:15). The Bible’s exhortation is: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Why such precautions and concern? These repeated warnings are meaningful only when it is recognized that the loss of faith means the eternal loss of the soul. For while it is true that the believer’s salvation is not earned by his righteous deeds nor his salvation maintained by them, it is equally true that as the believer obtains his salvation by faith, so he can lose it by unbelief!

Another way to phrase it which considers the broad Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, not just Pentecostalism, is the section of A Theology for the Church, written from a Southern Baptist perspective (so not Wesleyan at all). On the whole, I think it explains the difference in a pretty accurate way, though a Wesleyan Arminian may or may not believe in the governmental theory" of the atonement. Other than that, it’s essentially accurate. p. 750:

A third distinction of the Wesleyan Arminian view of justification is that it sees sanctification as part of justification, or more precisely, sanctification as necessary to remain justified. Since the governmental theory holds that only one’s past sins are forgiven and that there is no positive imputation of righteousness, then the believer must maintain this state of grace through holy living and confession of sin. Arminians conclude that it is possible for a Christian to lose his salvation… . . .

Wesleyan Arminians believe unconfessed sin will damn a Christian but generally are vague about how much or how serious sin must be in order to cause such shipwreck of faith. . . .