Again, we may not peer into the hearts of men. We may only accept their witness. If a man is not sure of his salvation, then neither may we be sure. Belief in the doctrine of eternal security is definitely not necessary for salvation, but many Baptists have made it necessary for church fellowship. We do this precisely because we want to be separate from the world, which means making sure that our members know they are separated from the world. We do this because it is a disservice to others to assure them of salvation when they themselves are not sure of their salvation. Your church has the option of being open to membership with people that are not sure of their salvation, whether today or tomorrow, but we in good conscience may not. We are free to restrict our membership and its concomitant communion accordingly, precisely because we feel this is honoring of Christ and His will for the churches as expressed in His Word.

Thanks for the conversation. The Lord’s blessings on you as you prepare to lead your church to the throne of the Lamb, tomorrow.

In Christ,
Malcolm

These are good things to consider for everyone. I am glad we can reason together.

Psa 146:5-10 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the LORD his God, (6) Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps faith forever; (7) Who executes justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free. (8) The LORD opens the eyes of the blind; The LORD raises up those who are bowed down; The LORD loves the righteous; (9) The LORD protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked. (10) The LORD will reign forever, Your God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the LORD!

Blessings,
Chris

I agree. God saves. We respond. Sometimes those who respond with saving faith are confused as to the implications of their response. This is true with both eternal security and the call to love your brother, as we have shown. Still, it does not negate their response necessarily. To sum all of this up, if we go beyond accepting the response of a person when they place their faith in Christ, repent of their sins, and seek to walk in fellowship with God, we are treading on dangerous ground. Let us hold up the precious doctrine of eternal security, but unless we have firm biblical basis, to make it necessary for salvation is inviting much error. What else will we require for salvation.

I have presented my case imperfectly. I also promised to just seek to understand Dr. Yarnell’s position. Like Middle East, I will also leave this conversation. Thank you all again for presenting your views here.

I appreciate your work and tenacity, but not how you project your circular reasoning (which is rare, but effective) even in your last statement to me. In the case of salvation you and I have no vote, …yet in any circumstance we have responded. (Romans 1)

1 John 5:7-10 For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (9) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. (10) The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

Contrary to your thinking or wanting there are those that have less confidence concerning their salvation and those that are over confident concerning their salvation, yet none-the-less the testimony of God is greater. So we try to be careful and make our aim as a congregation to worship God in spirit and in truth and to love one another. We are concerned that we as Christ followers preach the gospel, because that is the power of God unto salvation. All that have been baptized in our congregation have confessed Christ as Lord and based upon Christ’s work we are members one of another (confession, then baptism). On the other hand,.. we are less concerned to judge how effective God has done His work, but there are always folks that err in that direction, …so I caution those folks to not fall prey to those of false circumcision principles that look to the flesh and outward signs to verify God’s work. It is dangerous to preach a works based sanctification, when the reality is that we have been sanctified unto good works.

Hebrews 2:10-11 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (11) For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Philippians 3:1-7 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. (2) Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; (3) for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, (4) although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: (5) circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; (6) as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. (7) But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.

I am just glad we do not disagree that Christ is the Savior!

Blessings,
Chris

I do understand your position as evidenced in 129. You may want to reread your comment in 132 and consider whether or not you are representing others’ position accurately as well.

Again, I do understand your position that we cannot know if the person is “saved” or not for we cannot peer into the heart of a man. We must only go by his/her testimony. However, it seems inconsistent to me to say this and to then refuse to believe they are sure of their salvation at this point though they could possibly “lose it” at some hypothetical point in the future. If we are going to take them at their word, we must do so.

Along with you, Brother Alan, and, I would suspect, most of the readership here at SBC Today I do agree that the concept that one may “lose his salvation” is an unhelpful, even destructive, teaching. That being said, I find no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that a belief in eternal security is essential to begin a living relationship with Jesus.

Finally, in order to be consistent my comments in 95, I am officially bowing out of this conversation (unless you object). I told you I simply wanted your perspective and that is all I truly wanted. The blogosphere can so easily suck me in! The last word to you my dear brother.

His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East

PS – I have only enjoyed one cup of coffee this morning. You have my apologies if all, or part, of the above comment is incoherent. But I assure you it makes perfect sense to me ;^)

Back to what you said in your first paragraph: I want to be clear that I believe that a lack of assurance of salvation is a problem. I agree with you on this. Also, I have been very critical of the Assemblies of God and other groups who proclaim that you can lose your salvation. I have repeatedly said that it is an unbiblical doctrine. It does great harm to the believer, I feel. However, I would not question a person’s salvation on the basis of a lack of belief in eternal security. I never tell anyone that they are saved. When I counsel with people for baptism, I do not tell them that they are saved. No man can tell another that they are saved. That assurance must come from the Lord. As I have previously said, there are many AG people who can tell you right now without a doubt that they are saved. Because they have been taught that if they apostasize they could lose that salvation, that does not mean that they do not have assurance. I understand what you are trying to say, Malcolm, but you are only looking at this from your point of view here by what makes sense to you, I feel. Ask the AG person if they are assured of their salvation. Many will tell you yes and it will be a salvation by faith.

Because of this, I would not withhold communion from this person if they were visiting. It is the Lord’s Table. Membership in the church would be another issue, however, because they would not be of like faith and practice. If they came to believe in eternal security, I would not ask for another baptism. If there baptism was one where their faith was in Christ for salvation, why rebaptize? Do we not all come to a greater understanding as we grow? Do we really think that every child that we baptize as Baptists understands eternal security when they are baptized? Doubtful. Should they be rebaptized when they come to understand it?

As for your comment about paying taxes, the difference between your analogy and salvation is that paying taxes is something that we do and salvation is something that God does. Of course, we respond in faith and confession, but if a person has done this, is this not what we are looking for? Romans 10:9-10 should come into play here as the evidence we seek, should it not? If I am explaining the Gospel to someone, of course I will endeavor to proclaim eternal security. But, if someone did not hear that truth when they heard the gospel, I would not necessarily question their salvation if they give testimony to faith in Christ and repentance of sin. God is the one who saves us. We respond in faith to His saving grace. Taxes are something that we pay so you can go and check on the transaction. Salvation is free and the evidence is found in the confession and in a changed life.

I fully agree with your stance on our racist past. Actually, what you said is quite refreshing and I have heard few say it. Yes, what if we would have had a better understanding of the necessity of loving our brother? What if we had taken 1 John 3 and 4 seriously and preachers would have warned those filled with hate to fear for their souls? I know that some did, but you are right! Revival could have broken out and much destruction could have been avoided. At the very least, there would have been a remnant that would have carried a clear witness in the South. This is why it is so important that we be Biblical instead of cultural. Thank you for your consistency on this.

I guess that we differ because I place weight on the confession of faith in Christ by AG and you look for his belief in eternal security in addition to his confession. I place a belief in eternal security in the realm of discipleship/sanctification and you push it up to the front as a foundation issue that could affect his salvation. If he is depending upon his own works to save him, then I would agree with you and question if he has ever trusted Christ. But, there are many AG, Methodists, Lutherans, etc., who really have trusted in God’s grace alone for salvation. The belief that they can lose their salvation is more of an abstraction regarding what could happen if someone denied the faith and apostasized. They are wrong, no doubt, but I would not question whether or not they are saved if they gave a good confession. Based on their confession of faith in Christ I would allow them to take Communion with our church. If they belong to Christ, then it seems that the Lord’s Table should be open to them. He is the head of the Church and we are just His servants.

Reading Article VII again, however, I can see a case for “closed” communion only in that it says that communion is for “members of the church.” Is this talking about the local church, a member of a church of the Baptist persuasion and doctrine, or a member of the Universal Church? I know that you do not believe in a Universal Church, per se, so how do you read the second half of Article VII? Can non-church members participate? From our discussion, I am reading the BFM more closely on this issue and this question arose.

I never said that this man is not saved. I said, this man is not sure he is saved. After all, he said to me himself that he is not sure he is saved. Please note that at this point there is a great difference between what I said and then what you reported I said in 135. Interestingly, by the way, you began to read me correctly in number 129, but then you did not in 135.

Thanks for praying for my friend. I wish I could say more, but cannot. Your concern and prayers are deeply appreciated.

Chris,

We will have to disagree. My church believes it is important that a person knows he is saved. Yours apparently does not and that is your church’s prerogative as a free church, and I honor that prerogative, even as I disagree with your conclusion.

Alan,

Again, the point is that this man thinks he is saved today, but may not be saved tomorrow. He is of two opinions regarding the surety of his salvation. That means that ultimately he is unsure. In your pastoral counseling, you may not believe this is a problem. But I do! I do not want to affirm somebody in their doubt when they could have assurance, especially when the lack of assurance may point to an even deeper issue.

Think of a different context. Frank says he is sure he paid his taxes, but then says he is not really sure that he paid his taxes. If I am his tax adviser, should I say, “Oh, don’t worry about it. You paid it.” Should I assure him of his payments, even though I have no idea whether he paid it or not and only have his own words as my proof? He is sure one minute and unsure the next. Now, he may have paid it, but it is unprofessional of me to assure him that he paid it. It is best to go and check and get it right!

Sadly, your comment about unregenerate Baptists is likely true. What surprises me is that you are willing to be critical of Baptists, but you are apparently, at least so far in our conversation, not willing to exercise the same critical discernment toward an AG.

I agree with you that eternal security as a doctrine on its own does not provide salvation. However, one who repents, believes, and has been born again can be sure and therefore should hold to eternal security. The biblical issue is faith/repentance/regeneration, which should result in the assurance of election, or eternal security. If one lacks that assurance, that may be an indicator that there is not true faith/repentance/regeneration. Then again, it may not be an indicator; it may just be a faulty doctrine. But how do you know, and shouldn’t you help the man to make sure he is really saved?

As for past racism among Southern Baptists, like you, I would make a distinction between regeneration and sanctification. When a person is born again by faith in Christ, he is justified before God and this cannot be taken away. However, he will still struggle with sin and he must be constantly sanctified. Indeed, whole communities of redeemed men will still struggle with sin, as your example indicates.

Providentially, God has been sanctifying southerners of their racism. For this, we should praise God. Yes, slavery is a blight on our history. But fortunately, it is not a blight shared by all Baptists and free churches, for there were many who stood against slavery. Indeed, the drive for abolition arose first among the free churches in England and then crossed over into America! The problem is that Southern Baptists violated their own free church principles in accepting slavery.

By the way, take a moment to review the last chapter in my book on the Formation of Christian Doctrine for more on this issue. You will find that we share the same concerns. As for whether we should have encouraged our ancestors to consider the peril of their position, I most certainly wish that some prophetic Southern Baptists (other than Pendleton, bless his heart!) would have confronted their brothers and called them to consider their position before God because of how they treated their brethren.

Think of the benefits of confronting sin or bad doctrine boldly yet with love, Alan. Perhaps if a revival had swept the Southern Baptists regarding the sin of racism, slavery and the Civil War may not have been providentially necessary. Perhaps the centuries of pain and destruction would have been forestalled if some brave souls had stood and said, “This is wrong. You are wrong. You must repent. You cannot be sure of your salvation if you do not love the brethren, and these Africans are your brethren! Let your brothers, whom you have enslaved, go free! Be true free churchmen!”

Now, you will have to explain the following sentence to me. There are so many negatives used that it is hard to follow your meaning: “But, when you have someone who hears the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ that they can be forgiven of their sins and that Christ can save them, I do not believe that they do not necessarily experience salvation if they were not taught eternal security.”

Perhaps we will continue our correspondence tomorrow. Thank you for engaging in conversational theology with me. Fun, hugh? Blessings on each of you.

In Christ,
Malcolm

I would also encourage you to think long and hard about what you are saying when you say, “I do not believe that my brother is saved,” even as they are telling you, “I am saved” and demonstrate it by a life filled with fruit.

Remember that we as human beings are not to play God. We cannot judge people’s hearts; but we can judge their confessions. If a person tells you he is sure of his salvation, then you must not pretend to be God and tell him that you are not sure of his salvation.

If you do claim that a person is not saved when they are sure that they are saved, then you are saying that you know their heart better than they do. Either that or you are saying that you have had a personal revelation from God. Do not tread on such dangerous ground if you truly have not had a divine revelation regarding another person’s eternal welfare. Unless you are divine yourself, it is best for us to take people at their own word about their own spiritual condition.

My “anti-spam word” was “gentleness.” I pray that this comment is taken as a gentle encouragement to continue to examine your beliefs as we do ours as it was most certainly typed out in a spirit of gentleness and love.

Continuing in prayer for your friend. How is he/she?

Peace to you my brother,
From the Middle East

I assure you that I read far more than blogs. I would imagine that Chris does as well. Warfield had his own problems, but that is another subject for another day.

Chris makes an excellent point. If someone is professing faith in Christ and is telling you that they know they are saved, how are you to question that just because they do not accept the doctrine of eternal security. We are not dealing with someone who says, “I don’t know if I am saved.” You are confusing the issue. We are dealing with someone who says that, based on faith, I am confident that I am saved. But, what if I one day stop believing? Then, I could lose that salvation. We both disagree with that line of thinking. The difference is, their fear and confused theology at that point should not cause us to question the validity of their testimony today.

There are many Baptists who are certain that they are saved because they prayed a prayer, got baptized, and believe the doctrine of eternal security. Yet, many of them will split hell wide open because they have never been regenerated. They have never truly trusted Christ as their Savior. They believed a doctrine and were told they were okay. I know that you don’t believe that either, but I find no guarantee that those who believe eternal security are necessarily immune from being deluded.

The biblical issue is faith in Christ. The Galatians had accepted the Law as a means of justification before God. Paul rebuked them but did not question their salvation. He treated them as Christians that had erred. You are basing the salvation of people who have been convicted of sin, cried out to Jesus, believed in Christ, confessed their sin, repented, and have sought to live for Christ, on the teaching of eternal security. Assurance of salvation is important, but that assurance does not provide salvation. Jesus provides salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates and testifies to us that we are saved.

One question, Malcolm: You say that believing in eternal security is necessary before a Baptist church should recognize a person as a Christian. I would ask, should we look back on our history and declare that all those who were racist and believed in racial slavery and segregation to not be Christians? Should we question the salvation of W.A. Criswell when he made his famous speech to the South Carolina state legislature? Should we question the salvation of all those who did not love their black brothers and ran off preachers who dared to apply the parable of the Good Samaritan to race relations? Should we despise our beginnings as a racist denomination and question if our founders were saved?

1 John 3:16-24 says, “16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.”

1 John 4:7-12 says, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”

Malcolm, you referred to 1 John earlier in our discussion when you said that we could have assurance. This passage says that assurance comes as we love one another. How could our Baptist forefathers have had assurance of salvation when many of them despised a whole race of people living in their midst? How could we have had true churches if they did not preach love for others?

To be clear, I do not question the salvation of our forefathers based on their unbiblical behavior. I believe that they were heavily deceived and needed to grow in knowledge and sanctification. But, I believe that I can make a stronger case for a lack of assurance of salvation based on not loving your brother than you could on whether or not you believe in eternal security. But, I would not make either case.

I do believe that Christians can be deceived by false doctrine. This is why it is so important that we teach the truth. But, when you have someone who hears the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ that they can be forgiven of their sins and that Christ can save them, I do not believe that they do not necessarily experience salvation if they were not taught eternal security. Or, if they were not taught that they were to sacrificially love black people in the 1950′s. Hopefully, they would be taught both things and that would be part of their discipleship. But, does an absence of those teachings and a call to faith and obedience in those areas keep them from being accepted as brothers? Perhaps, but if so, we have our own history to deal with. Are we prepared to be as hard our Baptist forefathers as we are on the Methodists, or will we pick and choose Scripture to suit us?