Originally posted by lighthouse
granite now denies Christ. See your post following the one quoted above for a description of granite and Zakath.
Ok. So Zak denies Christ. If he remains in this state, he must not have been a believer. If he repents, and becomes a Christian, then it might mean he was a believer before or he is now becoming one for the first time. If he bears fruit for years, but then becomes bitter against God, and returns to atheism, then he must not have been a believer. If he does not fall away, then he must have been a believer after all?
Granite now denies Christ. What if he comes to his senses and returns to Christ? Then maybe he was a believer after all, or maybe it is his first time. If he persists in his denial, then he must not have been a believer? Really? Why is this so? It is not self-evident to me.
If one can move from unbelief to belief, why cannot someone move from belief to unbelief?
Your view of eternal security must presuppose a suspension of free will and the necessity of coercion at times.
For a non-Calvinist, you seem to have adopted their wrong assumptions (TULIP).
I do not definitively know Zak or Granite's previous heart state. It appears that they must embrace Christ now, regardless, or they will be lost. It is academic to quibble whether they were ever saved. If they were, they could have immunity and a false sense of security that it will wash in the end. If they were not, it means they have lived a lie for years? Satan must be better at deceiving
'Christians' into thinking they are following Christ, than Christ is at converting people and giving them assurance and keeping them in the faith?