Removing the Eternal Security Controversy

[Wilson L. Deaton]

The primary thesis of Brian McClaren's, Secret Message of Jesus, is that we have for too long overlooked, or at least under-emphasized, the "present" part of the Kingdom of God.

I believe that this overlooking or under-emphasis is largely responsible for the entire eternal security controversy.

The idea of "making it to heaven" while not living a Kingdom life is only important if one thinks of salvation primarily in terms of escaping hell and going to heaven.

The question, "Can I be 'saved' and not live in the Kingdom?" is only a valid queston if "saved" only refers to the afterlife.

If being "saved" includes the present, then the question becomes non-sensical: "Can I be living in the Kingdom while not living in the Kingdom?"

Putting salvation into its proper perspective doesn't answer the eternal security question, it removes the question.

Wilson

[Randy Wise]

The primary thesis of Brian McClaren's, Secret Message of Jesus, is that we have for too long overlooked, or at least under-emphasized, the "present" part of the Kingdom of God.

I believe that this overlooking or under-emphasis is largely responsible for the entire eternal security controversy.

The idea of "making it to heaven" while not living a Kingdom life is only important if one thinks of salvation primarily in terms of escaping hell and going to heaven.

The question, "Can I be 'saved' and not live in the Kingdom?" is only a valid queston if "saved" only refers to the afterlife.

If being "saved" includes the present, then the question becomes non-sensical: "Can I be living in the Kingdom while not living in the Kingdom?"

Putting salvation into its proper perspective doesn't answer the eternal security question, it removes the question.

Wilson

Now go post this on a Baptist board and let me know how you made out <g>
Randy

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Now go post this on a Baptist board and let me know how you made out.
Randy

I'll pass on that one. I seem to have a hard enough time with my own tribe! ;)

Wilson

[Randy Wise]

I'll pass on that one. I seem to have a hard enough time with my own tribe! ;)

Wilson

Wise man.

People who teach once saved always saved, point out as in 1st John that the one born of God doesn't continue to sin because of Gods protection. If one continued to sin they never really belonged to the Lord. They don't teach it's ok to sin. Also they would note that Jesus said "I never knew you" to those that did evil while claiming to be christians and of course Jesus said no one could snatch His sheep from His hands. Jude also wrote to about the one who is able to keep you from falling. Jesus said, "if you love me you will obey me and me and my father will come and make our home with you." So if you have love for God and are born again receiving the promised Holy Spirit can you fall away? I guess that is the question that is debated.

Randy

[David Cash]

Actually, Wilson, depending on which Baptist board you posted, you might make out better than you might expect on this question.

One of the challenges I have faced as one who has been on both side of the fence regarding eternal security and who will never get very far from that "fence" is balancing the need to recognize that eternal life begins when we're saved with the fact that Scripture warns of dire results for those who leave the faith.

I usually haven't used the word "kingdom" in my thinking, but my conclusions have been similar to yours. While I believe that my entrance into Heaven will be on the merits of Jesus rather than because of my obedience, I also realize that salvation has already started and the same grace that will take me to Heaven is making a difference in my life right now. That difference isn't because of my effort any more than my eternal state will be, but it is as real of difference as the heaven I look forward to.

Thanks for your thoughts.

David Cash

[Martijn van Beveren]

The primary thesis of Brian McClaren's, Secret Message of Jesus, is that we have for too long overlooked, or at least under-emphasized, the "present" part of the Kingdom of God.

I believe that this overlooking or under-emphasis is largely responsible for the entire eternal security controversy.

The idea of "making it to heaven" while not living a Kingdom life is only important if one thinks of salvation primarily in terms of escaping hell and going to heaven.

That's just it, I know from first hand exerience that a lot of non-christians have trouble with this whole item. I also know that once the question is asked by a person who doesn't believe or is balansing, if someone goes to hell or not, I'm uncomfertable. why? because I don't know. Maybe even I don't want to know. But the story that Brian McClaren is telling with several of his books are defently giving me a deeper understanding of the Creator. Why do we still try to hold on to our current theology, and have trouble to see things in a different perspective. Is the fear of change too great? The "atheist" world is already far further in their thinking an reaction to God, Evolution, and so on. The history of the church has always try to keep their garden nice and clean, so they would prevale in power. When do we start not be concerned about keeping up with old theology and starting thinking in new theology. It's swim or sink.
Maybe I'm too liberal, postmodern or something like that, I don't mind. I want to let people see the Loving Father, the one that's always been here, is, and will be in the future.


Putting salvation into its proper perspective doesn't answer the eternal security question, it removes the question.

Wilson

[Joanne Vergin]

THanks for the food for thought. I especially like the part about putting salvation in the present. I am trying to live in the present and prepare for my eternity.