Eternal Security: Part 3

Another important area of evidence for eternal security is based upon the lengthy passage of Romans 8:1‑39.[1]

Verse 1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus means that the believer is no longer under any condemnation, no matter how often he may personally sin.

Verses 2‑8: the believer has been delivered from the Law, and the Law can no longer condemn him.

Verses 9‑13: the divine nature is present within the believer, and this divine nature is not capable of spiritually dying.

Verses 14‑17: the believer is an heir of God; as an heir, he will not lose his inheritance.

Verses 28‑30: the divine purpose is that the very ones who have been justified-and every believer has been justified-will some day also be glorified.

Verses 31‑33: Paul emphasizes the execution of the divine purpose, and indeed the ones whom He has justified He will glorify, because He will not accept any charges [against His] elect.

Verse 34: in light of the Messiah’s achievement, the believer’s security is guaranteed to be eternal.

Verses 35‑39: Paul points out the incompetency of celestial and mundane things to keep one eternally. Believers do not have the power to keep themselves, so God is the One who is going to keep them. On the other hand, these verses emphasize further that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – that can now separate us from the love of God. Nothing outside of us, nothing inside of us, not even we ourselves can separate us from the love of God.

[1] This post is a modified version of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s original Messianic Bible Study. The full version may be obtained here.

3 thoughts on “Eternal Security: Part 3

  1. I just wanted to say I have enjoyed the blog entries on eternal security. I also love my copies of the “Footsteps of the Messiah” as well. Keep up the good work and thank you for your solid teaching. 🙂

  2. As Ariel stated, for Mr Fruchtenbaum, “Limited atonement has nothing to do with limitations in the power of the Messiah’s death but simply means that it was designed for some but not all of humanity . . . . He provided atonement for all men but applied only to those who believe.” So, I have some questions.

    But God sent His Son to die so that none would perish. So that all might choose Him. So this is to the exclusion of those who won’t believe?

    God insists a soul have faith, or elese that soul cannot be saved. Seems God would not want to diminish a soul’s choice (or even remove free will). I can understand that God chose that soul first, that God, through grace, gave that soul the light to choose, but then there is a question about how God’s insistence of faith from that soul is required in order for that soul to receive salvation, which might also cause one to wonder what need there would be for any great commision to evangelize if God is saving believers that didn’t really choose Him so much as He chose them. Seems the “choosing” and “faith” elements are virtually nullified for the soul involved, which then seems to nullify how Jesus died for all.

    Why would there be any need for faith by a soul if predestination (and not just a foreknowledge by God) means God chose ahead of time a limited number of souls to save (and not all, so that none would perish) and thus remove a soul’s choice to believe in Him?

    How could Calvin not wrestle with the idea that God provided atonment for all, but not really all? Does Arnold not wrestle with this?

    I believe God has the foreknowledge of every soul that can be saved, and that every soul that can be saved will be saved because that soul can believe, by faith, through grace, but not to the exclusion of a soul’s own free will to choose to believe. If predestination has to mean that a soul did not choose on their own then we are essentially nullifying God’s insistence that any soul must show faith in order to be saved, as well as how His Son died for all, as well as any real need for a great commision to reach out to all and evangelize with the gospel, so that none would perish–so that all have a chance to hear and a choice to realy listen and have faith.

    Now, where am I going wrong? Maybe Mr. Fruchtenbaum would be the better person to answer, and not his staff, since this is really a very personal question answered so differently by everyone. I’d really like to know if Arnold personally wrestles with the limited atonement of Calvin’s tulip.

  3. A friend loaned me a copy of Footsteps of the Messiah over the weekend. I read the book quickly and hope to download onto my Kindle soon. In the meantime I have a question:
    At one point Frucktenbaum said that no Gentile listed in the Bible can be used as a “type of Christ”. Abraham was a Babylonian and in type represents God the Father. Please explain.
    Loved the book but wonder if Frucktenbaum has changed the way he views certain ideas held in 1982. For example, the Antichrist’s mother will be a Roman and he will be a Gentile?
    Also, should I be hesitant to download ebook from the ariel website? I’ve never had an issue with ebooks from amazon, but the mobi format on your site has given me trouble in the past. I would hate to buy and not be able to download.

Comments are closed.