Biblical Answers to Common Questions

                 About Eternal Security                 

                                 By Jeff Paton                                

This addition to the Eternal Security web-page seeks to answer many of the common questions and statements that are presented in defense of the doctrine of unconditional eternal security.

" They were never saved in the first place. The Bible tells us in 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be manifest that they were not all of us."

      Answer: Many have used this one verse to defend unconditional eternal security by saying that it posits that any departure from the faith is evidence that they were never genuine believers to begin with. Based on the presupposition that a genuine believer will remain to the end, and this lonely verse, they discard the many verses that establish the possibility of such an apostasy in favor of a singular proof-text.

 While it is a fact that there are many who wear the name of Christian are not really believers at all, this does not prove that those who defect from the faith were never genuine in the estimate of their salvation. They use this specific application of John to certain individuals as a blanket answer to any and all situations. The context of the verse in question is dealing with the false teachers who had infiltrated the church in which John is writing to. They wore the label "Christian," but it was the Gnostic version of Christianity.

Dr. Daniel Steele observed, "They were not of us." This means that they were not in sympathy with the church at the time of their withdrawal. It does not signify that they were never genuine Christians. The fact that there are withered and fruitless branches now in the true vine (John 15:2) does not prove that those branches were never alive, but, rather, it proves their former life. It is a case of manifest apostasy, beginning in the spirit and ending in the flesh." 

D.D. Whedon writes, "Alford, following Dusterdieck, has an elaborate dissertation on the passage, as if it had some bearing on the question of the necessary final perseverance of all true believers. He writes as if the apostle assumed a universal law in the kingdom of God, that a man once converted always continues a saved man. But St. John's word continued refers not to the continuing a Christian, but to the remaining in the Church, if you are a Christian. It does not say, or assume, that all Christians will forever stay Christians; but that it be assumed, when we know nothing to the contrary, that these men would have remained in the Church if they had been, and as long as they were, Christians.  Why not?"

In this passage we are left with several possibilities:

1. These heretics in this Christian assembly were never truly converted, and the assertion that many make that these "anti-Christs" were never believers  as evidenced by their departure. Even if we hold to this interpretation of this passage, we do not have any warrant to make a universal application outside of this specific scenario. To make every case of apostasy outside of the situation that John addresses to mean that certain people were never saved could not be proved from this singular text.  The passage does not say directly, or indirectly, that a true believer cannot fall away.  To draw that this verse proves that you cannot fall away and be lost if you are a believer is a mere assumption and theological interjection.

2. It is valid interpretation to say that this verse is asserting that those who leave the assembly of believers were not believers or in sympathy with believers at the moment of their departure. This does not prove that they had never been genuine believers. I believe this to be the most accurate interpretation of this passage.

3. It is true that both situations are evident in the Church. There are those who are in "membership" on a human level, but have never been a member on a "spiritual" level. They appear to be Christians, but have never been born-again. 

It is also evident from the Scriptures and experience that people who have had a vital and radical conversion to Christ at a certain point in their lives have abandoned their faith later on. This is partially evidenced in the constant exhortations and warnings to believers in Scripture that they must abide, continue, endure to the end, remain, and to avoid departing, apostasy, and not to drift away. These exhortations assert real commands and possibilities. If we were unable to fall away, then these commands and exhortations are useless. The argument that a true believer cannot fall away and ultimately be finally lost would certainly imply that God is confused about this issue.    

It is a confusing and contrary statement to make this passage say that, "If you ever fall away from the faith, then you were never in the faith." This is the same nonsense as saying, "If I ever leave Idaho, then I was never in Idaho." It is amazing to see how people will fly in the face of the whole of Scripture with the use of such illogical arguments, and wholeheartedly believe that they are actually making sense!    

We are to believe what the whole of Scripture is teaching us, and not to build what we believe about any issue upon any singular verse. 

The Greek tense of the word "sozo" (saved) in Acts 16: 31 is in the aorist tense which means we are saved once for all. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

      Answer:  This statement is taken from a website that defends unconditional eternal security. I present it here to show how sloppy scholarship is used to promote this doctrine to those that are ignorant of the Greek language. One would assume that this evidence from the Greek was accurate since the assertion tries to explain the Greek tenses to the common English reader. The falsity of this statement, and its lack of any scholarship is so glaring that I felt obligated to address it here.

First I would like to discuss the statement that is asserted here, I.E. "sozo" (saved) in Acts 16: 31 is in the aorist tense which means we are saved once for all. " The aorist tense tells us that this is an action that is to be completed in a moment. There is nothing within the aorist tense that establishes that the effect of this action is for all time, or that the action is irrevocable. Secondly, the text in question does not have the term "sozo" in an aorist tense, it is in the future tense. The passage exhorts jailor that if he and his household believes in the Lord, they may be saved. This had not yet happened and was yet in the future. 

The verse prior to this, verse 30, uses the aorist tense when it says, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (sozo). The Bible always uses the present tense of "believing" as a condition of final and future salvation. The Bible does have several examples of the aorist tense of "believe" and "saved" when it concerns an individuals stepping from death into life. We would call this "conversion," or being "born-again." This experience is accurately shown as a decisive act by the aorist tense. But stepping into salvation is not speaking of future or final salvation. That is not the context in these passages. Where the Bible speaks of a believers future and final salvation, we see a consistency of the Scriptural usage of the present tense which establishes that one must continue in this belief to have a present tense salvation.  

When looking at the Greek tenses, we must also remember to look at the immediate and surrounding context in order to see what the passage is talking about. A tense in any form does not prove anything apart from its context. 

In Ephesians 2:8 we read "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Saved is in the Greek perfect tense which means that we were saved in the past and will go on being saved forever.

      Answer:  What this argument is based upon is the perfect tense in the Greek which is like an aorist tense (a definite action) that continues from that point all the way to the present. As an example, if I wash my hands I can be doing it in the present tense. When they are cleansed, as a finished act, we would be using the aorist tense. If they remained clean from that point, I could say that they were clean by the perfect tense.

The passage in question says that it is by grace that we are saved (as an act in the past clear up through today) through faith. The condition of through faith defines what is meant by the use of the perfect tense in this passage. Salvation always has and always will be by grace. From the point of our regeneration, clear through to the end of our physical being, we are saved by grace on the condition of faith.

The perfect tense which means that we were saved in the past and will go on being saved forever, is a flawed argument in that the perfect tense does not say that "we will go on being saved forever." The perfect tense does speak of an action in the past (saved) that continues all the way to the present, and potentially into the future if we continue in the faith. Isolated as a Greek tense apart from the context, this would be an interesting argument, but this does not negate the condition of continuance through faith.  The Scriptures are consistent in the use of the present tense of believing and faith when it talks of future salvation. There is no exception to this rule in this passage.

If we say that we must continue in the faith to be saved, and continuing is a "work" that we do, does this not mean that we void grace for a gospel of works? Ephesians 2:8 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

      Answer:  Many have labeled Paul's words in this passage as an "anti-works discourse." By doing so, they pit Paul against James and Jesus since they both contend for good works and fruit as part of salvation. Upon a closer observation we can see that Paul was in no way against works as being concomitant with genuine conversion and salvation.   

You may be asking how I would reconcile Paul's statement in Romans 4:5 where he said "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."?

This is not a difficulty if we are to look at the greater context of the whole word of God. One isolated passage from Paul does not finalize any issue in itself. The error that many well intentioned expositors make is that they do not differentiate between the "works of the law" in an effort to merit salvation, and good works which are part of the fruit of salvation. The context is clear, Paul is arguing against earning salvation, and at this point, he has nothing to do with the works that accompany genuine conversion. In the preceding verse he said "Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." Which clarifies the meaning of the following verses. We could work forever and never repay our debt, but justification is a "gift" apart from any "meritorious works."

But what about Ephesians 2:8-9, " it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.?"

Once again the Apostle is correcting the erroneous theory of salvation by works, and is not contending that a Christian can live out a "workless" and "fruitless" salvation. Verse 10 illuminates the context by saying " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." It is clear that the Christian is empowered to do good works because Jesus is working them through us! This is the context of the verse at hand. Paul establishes that it has been ordained by God that we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works! We cannot do anything on our own. Good works can only be produced by us because Christ is working them through us! We are his workmanship. 

Jesus said in John 15:4-6, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: For without me ye can do nothing." 

Salvation and fruit bearing are inseparable; you cannot have one without the other. If we are saved, we must bear fruit because we are in the vine. If we do not produce good works, it is only evidence that we are not one of his! The works we do are accomplished from the fact that Christ is working them through us. He is the sap and energy of our spiritual life. We have a part in this work, but since our hearts have been changed to do them with a right motive through regeneration, God generously gives us rewards for what he produces through us.

Continuance in faith is not earning salvation through works. There is no merit is casting ourselves upon the mercy of God as sinners who are without any hope of earning our salvation. Many people speak as if "believing" after we are born-again is a horrible thing because they classify it as a "work." This issue can be cleared up is we are to ask ourselves if there are conditions in the Gospel. If "faith" and "believing" are essential as conditions to enter into salvation, then why should they not remain essential? And if we say that faith and belief are not requirements for salvation, we must ask ourselves as to why we should ever preach or need a Bible!

How can "believing" be required for salvation and not be classified as a work? How is it possible for belief to not be a work before salvation, and then have it somehow become a work after salvation?  It is because believing is not a work of merit! 

It is possible for a Christian to fall away. If a Christian falls away, that person can never again be saved. Hebrews 6:4-6

      Answer: This subject was touched upon briefly in a response to Charles Stanley. 

Many that agree with me about the possibility of apostasy take a different approach than I do. They believe that once someone commits apostasy from the faith, it is impossible for them to be recovered. They quote Hebrews 6:4-6. 10:26; 1 John 5:16, and Romans 1:24-32. The key to the issue, as they see it, is that the individual does not merely falter, but completely and intentionally defects from the faith. 
 
As for Hebrews 6:4-6, I see the key being verse 6. We are told that it is IMPOSSIBLE  to renew them. Why is that? The text tells us. They are crucifying the Son of God afresh. This is in the present tense in the Greek. It only remains impossible WHILE THEY ARE DOING THIS! If they cease to re-crucify Jesus Christ in their hearts and minds, there is no reasonable explanation why they could not find repentance and forgiveness. The reason I say this is based upon the observation that nowhere in the Bible do we see an individual truly seeking repentance where God has turned them away. There is however, a point in which God gives up on an individual and it becomes futile to even pray for them. Is this what Hebrews 6:4-6 is asserting? The text does not demand it here. The present tense removes the difficulty.
 

It is clear that from a psychological point of view that if someone believed it Christ, and took Him off the cross in their hearts and was saved, then later on became convinced that He was not the Messiah, and had put Him back up on the cross in their heart, it would be difficult to ever be convinced of His atonement for sin again.

 
This passage speaks of a real danger. God is not willing that any should perish, but ALL would come to repentance. The difficulty is not with God's willingness, but with the person's heart who rejects and re-crucifies the one and only hope for salvation from sin.

"Satan cannot get into my heart since it is covered by the blood of Jesus. To do so, the devil must pass through His blood to get to my heart, and we all know that's not going to happen."

Answer: This is part of a rebuke I recently received. It would be laughable if it was not so pathetic. Does the writer actually think that physical blood is covering their heart? It will suffice to say that this strange and unbiblical notion sounds logical, but all it can do for the thinking Christian is to teach them that you can get some people to believe ANYTHING if it is preached enough. With this ANYTHING I place the belief of an unconditional eternal security.

You have gone to such great lengths to try and prove that Christ’s work was not eternal and that we can lose our Christianity, unfortunately, like many others, you now cannot tell us when we lose our salvation or how we regain our salvation when Scripture clearly indicates that once lost it can never be regained.

Answer: I will attempt to answer this emotional, but kind response to my comments on a believers security. The writer forces his erroneous thoughts about salvation upon what he believes I have written. Where have I tried to "prove that Christ’s work is not eternal?" The writer’s preconceptions indicate that he equates the loss of salvation with a failure of Christ’s atonement. This confuses the provision of Christ with the idea that the atonement was a payment. Such a statement cannot be found in all the Scriptures. To assure all who read this, I believe in the once for all final atonement of Christ. He is never to die again! What I do assert is that the atonement is a provision that makes salvation available to all, while at the same time asserting that no individual’s eternity was set at the cross apart from their future trust in the work of Christ and their continued and final perseverance in the faith, which is the condition of the application of the atonement.

The second part of the statement poses the question: "you now cannot tell us when we lose our salvation or how we regain our salvation when Scripture clearly indicates that once lost it can never be regained."

Answer: Whether I can indicate how salvation can be lost and regained is irrelevant to the primary issue. Even if I could not elaborate on how this would occur does not prove anything. The possibility of forfeiting the gift of God once it has been received is clearly and indisputably established in the Scriptures. But to answer his concerns, let me be clear that salvation is received on the present tense condition of faith. This is true whether it is initial salvation or present salvation. Sin is unbelief; it is anti-faith. Confession and repentance are requirements of reconciliation. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9.

To say that "Scripture clearly indicates that once lost it can never be regained." This is based upon one sole misinterpreted passage, Hebrews 6:4-6. This says nothing of the sort as has been proven in the comments of Mr. Charles Stanley’s assertion, and the comments upon this same verse in this section. I refer the reader to those comments.

You are so anxious to prove that your salvation depends on you when in reality all you can ever do is accept or reject it. We are carnal by nature, we are never good enough or righteous enough only by having the imputed righteousness of Christ are we ever able to be saved and that is not something we put on and take off like a coat.

Answer: I believe that the idea that all we can do is accept or reject salvation is a half-truth that cannot be proven from Scripture. It is hard to argue with someone’s beliefs, no matter how flawed and unfounded, since they are believed as truths. It is as if I must beat the air to fight against something that does not exist with Scriptural evidence.

I will go along with the idea that we either accept or reject salvation. This however, is not an isolated act of the past, but a continuous act of every individual. We can make a decisive act of belief that moves us into a state of regeneration, but this cannot refute and discount the fact that without exception, the Bible always uses the present tense when it refers to faith as a condition of final salvation. For more on this, see the Pillars of Eternal Security, Part 2., and Hold On!

"We are carnal by nature, we are never good enough or righteous enough."

Answer: I have never contended for, or implied that anyone could merit salvation. It is clear that the writer who has taken the time to criticize my comments has never even read them! He could not make these accusations if he had done so.

As to his comment, " We are carnal by nature." Paul describes a unique situation in a pagan environment in Corinth that seems to deny the idea of conversion and regeneration. The Corinthians to whom Paul writes, were Christians, but to Paul's amazement, they were ignorant of the morals and standards that were associated with the worship of God. They tolerated one who was an open fornicator, "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father wife." (1 Cor. 5:1). Paul continues to be astonished by their ignorance of a common moral code saying, "did you not know?" (1 Cor. 5:6; 6:9; 6:15,16,19; 9:13; 2 Cor. 5:5.), and, "I would not have you ignorant," (1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1),"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." (15:34.) These verses show their limited exposure and light to the laws and morality of God. They did not have the basic moral knowledge and background of those that were Jewish converts to Christianity. They were not to remain carnal, but were to move forward as they had light! These "carnal" Christians had little light, and they are thereby judged by that light. They were not knowingly disobeying God, but were sinning in ignorance. This marks the difference between "carnal " Christians in Corinth, and so-called "sinning saints" who know the law of God and rebel against it anyway.  

To apply this carnality to Christians today when they are brought up in an environment where we generally know the values of God in our nation, just does not add up. We have much more light, and the Scriptures to know for ourselves. To say that we remain carnal is a denial that Jesus came to save us from our sins. Matthew 1:21. It is to contend for a conversionless-conversion. It says that God is too weak to change a person and that the atonement of Christ is a failure. This powerless "gospel" is the reason why our churches are filled with people who are Christians in name only. " Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.......In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God." 1 John 3:7-10. When we are born-again we have a new nature, we have been changed. Those who are not changed, and do not adjust their living in accordance to the light that they receive, have never been born-again.       

This letter asserts that the, "only by having the imputed righteousness of Christ are we ever able to be saved."

Answer: No one ever has, or ever will "have" the "imputed righteousness of Christ." This terminology and concept of a transfer of character is unfounded and foreign to the Scriptures. This is one of those ecclesiastical and theological sayings that is used so much that those who do not validate their beliefs by the Scriptures are easily swayed to believe that it is Biblical. It is not! You can find it in their theology books, but you will not find it in the Bible! The writer says that this imputation "is not something we put on and take off like a coat." To this I agree. You cannot take a myth and put it off and on like a coat. For more on this issue see my response to Charles Stanley, The Pillars of Eternal Security, Part 2, and Imputation and the Arminian Mind.

The Bible tells us that salvation is a GIFT of God, and you cannot lose that gift! "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God." And "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

Answer: This analogy of a gift and its supposed conclusions seems to convince many, but it is greatly flawed.

First, to say that because it is a gift, and that it cannot be lost, does not have any parallel in human or spiritual experience. People are given gifts at many times within their lives and have become careless and lost them. Many have discarded gifts that they have been given in favor of something that they would rather have. The appeal that because this is a "gift" more accurately shows us the possibility that one can abuse what has been given to them. The same is true of salvation.

Secondly, we are told by the Scriptures that this "gift" of eternal life is intended and available to all. There are conditions that we must meet in order that we should be able to receive this gift, namely, repentance and faith. If there are conditions that are given in order to receive this gift, does it not make sense that these conditions must be present in order to retain the gift? If we cease to believe, and if we cease to repent and remain in our rebellion, we are in essence casting off this gift for something else!

"The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." This has been called into the service of those who desire to say that any gift of God cannot be taken away. The problem with this "proof-text" is context, context, CONTEXT! Before we take any Scripture and run with it, we must examine the meaning of that verse within its own context. To make any Scripture serve a purpose outside of what the author intended, is to dishonor God and the truth that He has revealed to us. To wrench a verse out of context is dishonesty, or at best, sloppy exegesis!

The setting of this verse in Romans 11:29, is the issue of the salvation of Israel in light of the Gospel being given to the Gentiles. "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved......for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Romans 11:25, 26, 29. The context is that God has not turned His back on Israel. "God has not cast away his people which he foreknew." Romans 11:2.

Now, it is clear that not all physical Israel shall be saved, but only the spiritual. Only by faith shall they be saved. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.....that is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God." Romans 9:6-8. In conclusion, God’s gifts and calling to Israel are without repentance. His turning to the Gentiles for a time does not mean that He has reneged on his promises to them as a people. 

This verse has nothing to do with eternal security or the impossibility of God allowing us to cast away His gift of life! In fact, the CONTEXT paints an entirely different picture! We are told plainly that Israel was broken off because of UNBELIEF! Romans 11:19-24, "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, and thou STANDEST BY FAITH. Be not highminded, but FEAR: For if God spared not the natural branches, TAKE HEED LEST HE ALSO SPARE NOT THEE. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them WHICH FELL, SEVERITY; but toward thee, goodness, IF THOU CONTINUE in His goodness: OTHERWISE THOU ALSO SHALT BE CUT OFF." We too must not become high-minded or we are in danger of being cut off too! If we stand by faith, and continue in His goodness, we have no fear of being cut off.

We all sin each and every day. If we are not eternally secure, what does this mean? "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy, to the only wise God, our Savior be glory and majesty dominion and power, both now and EVER amen." Jude 24:25

Answer: One thing for sure, this verse is a glorious promise to the believer in Jesus Christ! Another thing that is for sure is that this verse does not establish an unconditional eternal security! While it is true that God is ABLE to keep us from falling, both now and FOREVER, the passage does not say that He WILL impose this upon on any free being. He is ABLE to keep us from falling if we have faith in Him. He is not ABLE to keep the rebellious one who refuses to walk in the light and guidance that God has provided.

It seems confusing to me that those who contend that this asserts an unconditional security, and argue that they sin each and every day, would boast of this promise. If God is unable to keep them from falling in their daily walk now, how can He be trusted to present them faultless later? It is a dangerous thing to believe only what you want to believe from the word of God. If God is not able to keep them now, then He cannot be trusted to keep them later.

The most reasonable proof that this has nothing to do with this false security in sin is the context. We are exhorted in verse 21, to "keep yourselves in the love of God." God is ABLE to keep us upon the CONDITION that we KEEP OURSELVES in his love! Perhaps it would liberate some that read this. Maybe they will see that God is ABLE to keep them from the sinful life that they have so eagerly defended in spite of the glorious promises of God to keep them from it! May they repent of their rebellion and unbelief in the promises of God!

If James 4 vs. 17 is true, which it is!!! If you fail to do what you should do all the time, then you are sinning all the time!! Have you obeyed the great commission?? Have you witnessed to everyone about Christ that you saw today?? And Everyday?? Have you visited all the hospitals and healed the sick in Jesus Name and Preached the gospel to every creature today?? Have you really Loved your neighbor as yourself and Loved the Lord God with all of your heart?? Every neighbor in your neighborhood that does not know the Lord will have their blood on your hands!!! By not believing in Eternal Security means you believe in works to get to heaven. You better have done what I have just wrote or you won't have a prayer of getting to heaven!!!! Jesus last command should be your first concern!!! If you have witnessed to every person at every street corner and fed everybody and were devoured in total 24 hour street ministry then I might say you are saved by your own works. But if you haven't done all of this, then you are a hypocrite!!!!!

        Answer: This is a unique railing against my website on eternal security and myself. It does have the one characteristic that most of these complaints have, that is, that those who usually write to complain have never read the argument the site presents. I know this because in their rebuke they make reference to passages that have already been proven to be wrenched out of their context and abused by those who believe in Eternal Security.

It is unique in the sense that I have not seen this approach used to justify a sinning religion before. James 4:17 says, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is a sin." The word "therefore" tells us that this statement is connected to the argument that precedes it. It will shock most readers to discover that the context has nothing to do with a sin of omission, but a sinning against the light. Sin is a willful transgression against a known law of God.

So, the fallacy of our anonymous writer’s argument destroys itself from the very beginning. The whole argument is based upon the error that James is saying that all omission is sin.

One comment: The passage of James is written to inform us of what sin is. I believe the purpose of James is consistent with the Scriptures in that it was written to keep us from sin. Our anonymous writer wants us to believe that it was written to prove Eternal Security, and to prove it by saying that this Scripture says that we are all hopelessly doomed to sin. The Bible is a book that is decisively against sin. From cover to cover we are told not to sin and that if we do there are horrible consequences. Any theory that twists the meaning of the Bible to make sinning essential to salvation as this does is surely a false "gospel."

Secondly: The anonymous writer is accusing me of being a hypocrite! At the same time he is saying that Paul, James, Peter, and John are hypocrites too! And the ultimate insult is cast upon our Savior Himself! By the unbiblical standard that Anonymous rebukes me with and calls me a hypocrite, he/she rebukes Jesus of the same failure! Jesus didn’t heal EVERYBODY He came across! He did not preach to EVERYBODY in His path! Jesus, nor the Apostles visited the hospitals EVERYDAY of their existence! God does not command impossibilities! He has never commanded us to the standard that Anonymous has imposed upon us!

Thirdly: Anonymous, do you believe the Scriptures? Do you believe that Jesus came to destroy the work of the devil and to save us FROM our sins? 1 Jn. 3:8, Matt. 1:21? That he who sins is of the devil? 1 Jn. 3:9-10? That we are commanded, "Be ye holy, for I am holy."? 1 Peter 1:15,16. That John believed this when he wrote, "My little children, I write these things unto you that you may not sin. (Gk. One time!)? If you don’t believe this, are you not still in unbelief? My conclusion from these Scriptures is that anyone who distorts the Holy Bible into a means for sinful living is not yet saved! They have probably never even been Born-Again and have not ever had the Holy Spirit within them! If they did, they would have power over sin, "for if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Romans 8:13. You obviously do not believe that "the wages of sin is death." God said that sin always brings death when He told Adam and Eve that "In the day you eat thereof, ye shall surely die!" But you choose to be in poor company by siding with the devil by chanting his soul damning lie, "Surely, you shall not die!" I choose to side with God, you choose to be with Satan! "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16, and to TRUE BELIEVERS, BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS, Paul says, "But now being made free FROM sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." But you Anonymous, do not believe this can be true, not because the Scriptures say so, but because you want to lower the standard of holiness and salvation down to your unregenerate level!

How many people are going to hell that you run into or see everyday and don't witness to?? Do you really love them by not sharing the greatest news they can hear in this lifetime?? Did the thief on the cross that said to Jesus, "remember me in your Kingdom" in Heaven or Hell?? If he's in paradise then to Heaven, which the Word supports, then he's better than you!!!!

         Answer: Anonymous, you act as if I go around comparing myself with other believers! You are sorely wrong. You seem to imply that since the thief on the cross died briefly after his conversion, that he did not have time to live in a deplorable state of failure as a "christian" by committing sins of omission. So, what you are saying is, that if one wants to be pleasing to God, the logical choice is to put off repentance and belief until we are on our death-bed. The longer we wait, and the closer we time this accomplishment before death, the holier we are before God! Absurd!

Anonymous, common sense tells us that the longer one is a Christian, the better chance they have of receiving more rewards in heaven. If I meet the thief in heaven, and I find that he has greater rewards than I do, then I will tip my hat to him and congratulate him since I know that God is just and he deserved it!

Ephesians 2 vs. 8-9 says that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, for it is a gift from God not of Works lest any man should Boast!! Unless you are your own God or Your own Saviour which I think you are, then you might be lost!!!! You love to manipulate people by fear and bondage, for it is the Gospel of Jesus that really sets a person free, "Free indeed". 1 John 5vs13 says that "you may know you have eternal life!!!" I know I do by grace and I am thankful that Christ is my Saviour and that I can't save myself!!! For he is God and I'm Not!! He does the Saving, that's why he's called Saviour!!! He saves from beginning to end, that's why it says in Philippians 1: 5-10, that "Being confident of this, that he who has began a good work in you shall complete it until the day of judgment." Who is He?? Is it you or Me. Of course not, For I know that it is Christ!!!! Enough Said!!!!

         Answer: I never have, and I never will contend that we can merit salvation! It is clear that you made little or no effort to read what I believe since this issue has been covered sufficiently in what has already been written. As for Ephesians 2:8-9, Philippians 1:5-10, I encourage you to get over your prejudice and laziness and read what I believe for yourself before you judge me as a hypocrite! I will not give you the answers to these verses that you have ripped out of their context. If you are too slothful to read it for yourself before you give such a harsh critique, there is little I can do. I never said that I was the source of saving myself! You say this without any proof.

You wrote, "He saves from beginning to end." which is true, but he does not save us apart from ourselves and without conditions! If we were saved without ever having to believe, trust, accept Him or receive His gift, then I could accept your warped logic. If there are no conditions required in order to receive eternal life, then I could believe that there were no conditions to retain it. The Scriptures prove your theory to be wrong!

 You also argue that Jesus makes us "Free indeed," but you ignore the context and make His words a license to sin! "How sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:32-36. Free indeed from what? The penalty of sin? Or, sin itself? It is sin itself! This is the Word of God!

You say that I manipulate people with fear and bondage. In this you are wrong! I present the Gospel message that we can have hope and be free from the bondage of sin and death! But you will not accept this because you do not believe the Gospel or the Scriptures! You would rather rely on theories that stroke your ego by saying that it is virtuous to be defeated in sin! You appeal to 1 Jn. 5:13 "That you may know that you have eternal life," and make it to mean "that you may know that you have eternal security" without ever looking at the fruit of your life to see if you were ever Born-Again and regenerated! Let no man suppose that he possesses any grace of God apart from the fruit thereof! "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." Anonymous, REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL!.........Enough Said!!!!

READ Hebrews6:4-6 it talks about losing REWARDS NOT SALVATION.

                                                                                                       Rev. W.H., M.A.B.A.

            Answer: This exhortation to re-evaluate my position on Hebrews 6:4-6 was contained in an e-mail. It was signed by a "Reverend" who posted that he had achieved a Bachelor and a Master’s Degree. The emphasis of large letters are presented as I actually received them.

First, it is clear that the Reverend did not write in an effort to discuss any matter of disagreement because he never makes any mention of what I have said or asserted. I make very little reference to the passage in question because it speaks for itself, and the center of my argument is not what I believe to be the key passages that are used to disprove this heresy, but to show that this doctrine of Eternal Security is an assumption of theology, and not a doctrine of the Bible. Reverend W.H. ( I have withheld his name) does not want to discuss, but wishes to rebuke or to argue that which he is afraid to examine.

This is the passage in question:

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame."

I assume that when he shouts "READ," I am to look at the verse anew and that I should see the error of my way. I am to see that this is not about losing salvation, but losing REWARDS! Now, I have met this request to re-examine this passage with the intent of seeing the truth of what it says. This is the conclusion that I have walked away with:

1. The subject of rewards is not directly stated in this passage.

2. The subject of rewards is not even implied in this passage.

3. The subject of rewards is not anywhere to be found in the immediate context in which this verse sits.

4. There is not anything within the Greek text that could lead us to this conclusion.

5. The plain English in this passage does not help us to find these "rewards" that the Reverend asserts are in this passage.

6. The only place that I can seem to find that this passage is speaking of rewards is to be found in the Reverends' imagination!

7. No matter what amount of exegetical magic we can conjure up, we cannot make this passage to have anything to do with the issue of rewards!

Since the Reverend is so concerned about the subject of rewards within the book of Hebrews we should pause a moment and see what this book has to say.

"For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward." Heb. 2:2

Notice that EVERY sin received a JUST reward! Do we really believe that this statement is to convince us that this is not true for those who think they are Christians? The following passage is connected to this subject of sin and its undesirable reward.

"How shall WE escape, if WE neglect so great salvation?" Heb. 2:3

The writer himself( includes himself in the statement "we") understands that there is a just recompense for sin, and that there is a danger if he were to neglect his salvation. The just punishment for sin is inescapable if he were to become indifferent to this great salvation.

The Apostate in Hebrews 6:4-6 does not "lose" rewards as the Pastor argues that this passage does not say. From what the book of Hebrews is saying, the Apostate "gains" the rewards of a just punishment!

Concerning the rewards of salvation the writer of Hebrews has something to say! To the one that would be tempted to fall away because of trials and tribulation he says,

"Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward." Heb. 10:35.

There is a great reward for the one who refuses to throw away their confidence in God! Great reward is promised to only those who do not cast it away!

Teachers and preachers are supposed to be directing people toward the truth. I cannot but be troubled at the damage that can be brought to souls that are deceived into believing this absurd approach of reading what they want into the Scriptures! I do not know what method that the Reverend uses to arrive at this interpretation of Scripture, but whatever it is, it is demonstratively absurd and dangerous!

It is finished!

In the Greek, Christ's cry from the cross, "It is finished!" is an accounting term, meaning that the debt had been paid in full. Justice had been satisfied by full payment of its penalty, and thus God could "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom 3:26).

          Answer: This is a fanciful approach to the idea of Eternal Security that has come into popularity in recent years. The argument seems like it is sound and is based upon the Greek term teleo which can be translated as "paid". This is a fact, and as a fact it cannot be ignored.

1. "In the Greek, Christ's cry from the cross, "It is finished!" is an accounting term." What we need to realize is that another important fact is conveniently ignored in this statement which is that the same word can mean finished, complete, accomplished, fulfilled, and to bring to an end. It is not always an accounting term as is implied by this post.

2. Because we have so many different meanings to this singular Greek word, we must look at the context to see which is the preferable translation. It is extremely doubtful that Jesus uttered this statement in an effort to apply any and all meanings of this one word to His death. If this is the case, then we must ask why no reputable translation of the Bible inserts "Paid in full" in place of "It is finished"?

A. The first reason is that the context determines the meaning of the word used in this passage. The obvious contextual translation is "It is finished," or accomplished/complete. His work on the cross on behalf of man has come to an end. To say "paid in full" would deviate from the direction the context is leading us. It is also significant to ask why those in the Apostolic Church, who read the Greek and were close to those who were taught by the disciples never seem to have pressed this interpretation into play. The reason should be obvious, such an idea of atonement never crossed their minds because the Apostles never taught this doctrine!

B. The second, and most important reason is that there is no Biblical warrant to make such an assertion. There are no passages in the entire Bible that states that anything was paid on the cross! The Bible never suggests that anyone was paid, or if they were, who it was that was paid. The entire Old Testament alludes to reconciliation through sacrifice, but never once does it make any reference reconciliation by a payment of an account. The New Testament makes references to the sacrificial system and to the judicial system, but never, not even once does it state that anything or anyone was paid. There are no parallel passages that would justify imposing such a translation on this passage! Any translator of the Bible that did not want to be laughed out of a job would ever insist on such a wild and unwarranted assertion that it should be translated "paid in full" as is evidenced in every translation that has ever received the acceptance of scholars and the believing public.

C. The reason for the suggestion that this should be translated "paid in full" does not come from an altruistic motive to faithfully bring forth the meaning of the Bible, but it is brought to our attention in order to salvage a theory that cannot be supported by Biblical language.

I just stumbled across your site, and have not had the opportunity to look into it in depth; but these are my questions. What organization are you attached to? Does it have a parent organization? If so, what is that? What are those organizations purposes? Can you send me some purpose statements? Also (and again, I have not yet had the chance to go into the site), but the coverpage is full of intellectual quotes, but no verses. Wouldn't it make sense to establish or refute a Biblical doctrine on bible? Especially since you "can't read out of" a verse a doctrine such as eternal security? Just wondering where these intelligent men can pull such nonsense, that's all. In Christ, A_____

                 Answer: The purpose of Biblical Answers to Common Questions is to answer those questions that arise from issues that are not covered in any of the article that have already been written, or to bring clarity to arguments and statements that require fuller coverage in order to satisfy the questions that arise from many statements. This letter is not one of those that asks any legitimate questions concerning the issue.

First, you will notice that there is an admission that he did not bother to even look at the rebuttal in any depth, which I have noticed to be a trend. It appears that the average Eternal Securist has no interest in challenging themselves to see whether their doctrine can hold up under the pressure-cooker of truth. They are so deceived that they cannot, and will not dare to look and see if the whole weight of the Bible, Church history, and logic has something to say that might destroy their precious idol. Without any admission as to their motives, I can only make an educated guess as to what holds them back from discarding lies and accepting truth. The main obstacle is that they have built an idol out of a doctrine. "Eternal Security" is equal to the "Gospel" in their minds. It does not matter what the Bible says, because the Bible must be forced to comply with their idea of what the "Gospel" is, even at the cost of truth; which amounts to willful deception.  If what you believed could hold up under brilliant light of Gospel truth, you would not have any fear of challenging this doctrine of Eternal security. The fact that the average Eternal Securist is afraid to do so, is a subtle admission that they already know that this doctrine is not a Biblically defensible one.  It is as if they know already that the Eternal Security answers to the difficult questions of perseverance and apostasy are nothing more than fanciful rationalizations and grasping at straws. Visiting challenges and refutations to their "answers" to these verses is something that they wish to avoid. They only want affirmation of what they choose to be the "truth" rather than facing the Scriptural fact that there is no security for those who live in willful sin.

Secondly, the letter writer immediately grasps at something outside of the articles at hand by seeking to find an Organization to attack. If he cannot defeat what he reads in these articles, then he can ignore their truths if he can pin the label of "cult" or "false doctrine" on something else that I believe, thereby finding justification to disregard whatever I would say on the issue of the believers security.

For those that are curious, I am an independent, I do not speak for or represent any organization. This is a personal page in which I take the responsibility for its content. As for a purpose statement, it is very simple and straight forward as spelled out on the first page!

A refutation of the heresy of Eternal Security, OSAS ( Once Saved Always Saved)

The purpose of this web site is to cause the believer in Christ to examine what the Bible says about sin and security, and not put faith into what some theologian thinks about it. One thing we can count on is that we will answer to the God of holiness on Judgment Day, and not the theologian!

There is no hidden agenda, no secret to my motive. In the interest of people’s souls I put this information out on the internet. The placebo of Eternal Security may make us feel more comfortable, but only truth has the power to save.

 

"Wouldn't it make sense to establish or refute a Biblical doctrine on bible? Especially since you "can't read out of" a verse a doctrine such as eternal security? Just wondering where these intelligent men can pull such nonsense, that's all."

It is clear that he considers any statement against Eternal security as "nonsense," but yet, he himself does not heed his own words about using the Bible in his refutation.

These "statements" are an appropriate prelude to the Biblical, historical, and logical refutation of the doctrine because it strikes at the true heart of the issue. These are philosophical statements that strike out against a philosophical invention. Even though an effort has been made to refute the doctrine from the Scriptures, it is an argument against something that does not exist. It is like arguing the non-existence of Santa Claus from the Bible, it can be done, but it is a better use of time to lay it on the line that it is a myth that cannot be proved from Scripture. If Santa Claus cannot be proved from Scriptures, like Eternal Security, then one must expose the flaws of its existence based upon the grounds that people use to prove it. 

To reject Eternal Security is much too costly. If they surrender to the Scriptures on this issue, their whole superstructure that they have built to support this doctrine starts to fold with it. Everything that they assumed to be true may come into question. It is predictable to watch an Eternal Securist fall back on theological presuppositions once they realize that they cannot grasp hold of any Scriptural proof. The doctrine is not a Biblical doctrine, it is derived from philosophical and theological arguments and nothing more.

What do you mean it cheapens Gods estimate of sin. God doesn't estimate sin you dumb***, God knows what sin is. Your basically saying that Gods grace isn't sufficient to cover all our sins for the rest of our lives.

John 10:28-29 "I give them eternal life, and they shall never parish; no can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." You better check you **** thinking.

 

                        Answer: This complaint is in response to the first statement in 200 Reasons Why You Should Not Believe In Eternal Security; it says, 

 

"Eternal Security..............

 

- Is nowhere taught in Scripture

- Cheapens God’s estimate of sin

 

Our Respondent could dispel much ignorance by referring to a dictionary. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says, "2 a: to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of . Syn to judge something with respect to its worth or significance.

While it is true that God does know what sin is, His estimate of sin is in the context of His judging the value or worth of that sin, for, "the wages of sin is death." The writer’s cheap grace theory invents a God that is not sure about sin. By his own statements and actions we can see that he believes that God does not convert the believer, but that God converts the believers sin! Sin is converted so it cannot ever receive the wages that it deserves! This not only cheapens God’s estimate of sin, but it cheapens man’s understanding of the holiness of a God who claims to hate sin but somehow accepts sin and winks at it on the condition of belief. Sin is never the object of conversion in the Scriptures! Man is!

Our writer’s abusive language (noted by the substitution of asterisks for the benefit of those that read it) speaks volumes about the character that this false doctrine allows. Deny if you want, but this doctrine encourages many people to use it as a license to sin!

This brings us to another point that is in 200 Reasons:

Eternal Security............

- Encourages sinful living and false assurance

I believe that this letter vindicates my position on the subject. In his effort to prove me wrong, he has proven that my position validates the attribute of sinfulness that this doctrine promotes.

As for John 10:28-29, this is answered in more than one place. For a brief treatments of this issue see The Eight Pillars Of Eternal Security.

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.  James 1:26

So you are made nervous by the doctrine of eternal security?  You could write from now until the Lord returns and, if this doctrine is true, you will have wasted a great deal of your time and money.  If it is false, it will disintegrate on its own.  Seems to me your time would be a great deal more productively spent concentrating on your personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and developing that.  Or is that secure?

In my original response to our writer, I made the following points:

1. The doctrine of Eternal Security does not make me nervous. 

2. In answer to "You could write from now until the Lord returns and, if this doctrine is true, you will have wasted a great deal of your time and money. " I responded that if I am wrong about my doctrine, then I am Eternally Secure and it will not matter. On the other hand, if he is wrong, and he uses his doctrine as a license to sin, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Thus, believing that Eternal Security is false provides the believer with the greatest measure of security of either of the doctrines!  The logical choice for the believer that wants security is to disavow Eternal Security.

3. The fact is, that many doctrines do not  "Disintegrate on its (their) own." Some seem to have life of their own. Do we sit back and do nothing? Do we allow non-believers and believers to continue to be deceived without comment? Only truth saves; there is no virtue in believing a lie. 

4. I agreed that the most important thing is a personal relationship with God.

5. To the statement, "Or is that secure?" I responded, "Or is that sarcasm?" 

 

The following is the second response, which became of greater value as the issue in question is clarified:

“IF, IF, IF eternal security is used for license.  I don't doubt that there are some who do, but then they are the ones who have to answer for that.”

           Answer: I have never said that everyone that believed this false doctrine falls into this category. I have pointed out that the theology behind it all makes that license an available reality, which I see as being contrary and impossible for it to be the theology of the Scriptures, which reveal the purpose of the mission of Christ was to save His people FROM their sins. Matt 1:21. Not ”IN” their sins.

 

“My responsibility according to scripture is to approach a brother whom I know to be sinning in an attempt to restore him to full fellowship with God and man.  Confession of sin and repentance is a part of that restoration process.  I would not want to be in his position if he should choose to not repent.”

          Answer: I do not see a difficulty in anything you have said here. I now understand the specific article that you are referring too which makes it easier to see where you are coming from.  He is referring to Charles Stanley, The Bible, and Eternal Security.

“But before we get too "holier than thou" here, I still believe that our time is better spent doing things that are constructive to the Kingdom rather than criticizing others. How will you answer the Lord when he challenges you about your critical attitude?  Or is this somehow a sanctified critical attitude? I urge you to work for the building up of the kingdom rather than working to pull down others.”

          Answer: First of all, the article is primarily addressing a doctrine and not a single man. The fact is however, that Charles Stanley is the embodiment and spokesman for those that believe in Eternal Security. This was considered the modern definitive work on the subject. Truth is paramount, and if someone is teaching lies, and has a flawed methodology, this is fair to expose the flaws in their approach. To leave an error unexposed for what it is, and to allow it to potentially deceive and send a soul to an eternal hell, when I could speak out and expose it, is thoroughly Christian and a responsibility. How will I answer the Lord? This I do not know, for there is no sin here. Charles Stanley implies that all who disagree with him are marked by legalism, self-deception, and pride. This is not any more true than to say all Eternal Securist’s are antimomians. He accuses us of a “works” salvation, which is no more true than that all Eternal Security proponents live in license and have a fruitless faith. He states that if we believe that our adoption can be revoked, and that we believe that we can thwart the predestined will of God. He mocks the Arminian position by erecting a straw-man argument by saying that we believe a man can be on his way to heaven one minute, and on his way to hell the next. He implies that if one can lose salvation, they must feel they have to earn it. He says that we believe that the atonement is inadequate, which is nowhere taught in anything anyone has written. He is adamant that we attack the gospel when we attack Eternal Security. Of course, he does not quote an individual in any of these cases, but is critical of all who do not believe as he does as fitting into these statements that he has no documentation for.

 John, have you written Dr. Stanley about his critical spirit??? Is he “building up the kingdom rather than working to pull down others?” I think that I see a double standard here.

 Keep in mind, that instead of inventing beliefs and arguments that are not made by real people, I thought it was proper in the interest of truth to examine real arguments by a real person. I said things which you believe are personal attacks on Charles Stanley. As I said, I chose to use real arguments made by a real person. To point out an error by one individual does not reflect on the whole class of individuals that believe this doctrine. I did not feel that impugning all Eternal Security advocates with what may be Mr. Stanley’s errors would be fair, even though this appears to be his method of rebuttal of other’s beliefs. I stated directly from what Mr. Stanley had written, that, He based his change of heart on this doctrine based upon FEELING and not Scripture. I clearly documented where he admitted to this. I said that, he had a pre-suppositional theology; that he arrived at Eternal Security not by Scripture but by pre-suppositions. I questioned his strange exegetical methods at several points, exposing that they were absurd and irrational. The most personal statements come when I questioned his integrity over the use of an invented quote, not as a personal attack, but to bring the falsity to peoples attention that they may not be deceived by his "quote."  This, he himself, nor any of his advocates have answered. If he found this in a revised edition and just misquoted it, I will be glad to recant this statement. Otherwise, all I can say is that for a PH.D., this is either sloppy research at best, or something worse. The strongest statement that I made was that his method of defending Eternal Security had advanced to what I must consider outright misrepresentation of certain facts and a willful distortion of the truth. The obscure comments he finds from the available resources on the passage in question is certainly in the minority, yet he boldly leads the reader to believe there is not any other possible interpretation. I feel justified in exposing Charles Stanley's exegetical falsities, and if this diminishes the value of his words, that is up to the individual who reads it. Once again, this is not a personal attack and I did not do anything out of malice, but in the interest of saving souls. 

How did Jesus deal with false teachers of His day? He called them Vipers, swine, white-washed tombs, and hypocrites, all of which are much stronger terms than I used in my rebuttal. May I have to answer for my critique because I was impersonal, or because I was too soft?

My statements are available for all to see just as Charles Stanley’s statements are. This leaves Mr. Stanley open to criticism, just as my statements leave me open to criticism, as is evidenced by your response.         

 

 “I think you will find that there will be many surprises when we get to glory - specifically those who will be there whom we did not think would be there and also those who are not there whom we were convinced would be there!  So please leave other people alone.  They are the ones to answer for their beliefs.”

             Answer: This may surprise you before we get to glory, but I believe that Charles Stanley is a sincere Christian and will probably be in heaven. I also believe that he is sincerely wrong about many issues. He does much damage in giving the unregenerate a false hope of assurance, and thereby, gives them soft theological pillows in which to rest their heads on their way to hell. I know that we will all answer for our beliefs, but do you consider that if we allowed false teaching to go unchecked, we will be responsible for allowing these false teachers to lead multitudes to hell? 

“Approach them according to scripture, first alone, then with another, then as a group if that is the desire of your "group".  That completes your responsibility.  To attack individuals publicly is, in itself, not serving any useful purpose and is certainly something that I would want to think seriously about in terms of how this works for the extension of the Kingdom of God and magnifies the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

              Answer: We are not dealing with a private sin, but a powerfully public falsehood that will not go away even if one individual changed their minds. Once again, this is not an attack on a person, but an attack on a doctrine. When one exposes an error in methodology or an outright falsity, this is attached to the individual and not all who believe in that doctrine. But to allow such an egregious false statement to deceive others without comment certainly cannot be right. 

I understand what you are saying and agree with the Biblical premise in which it is derived. Keep in mind that this is not a personal or an individual offense as much as it is a public danger. Even if Mr. Stanley retracted all of these statements, the damage is already done, and thousands will continue to be impacted by all the books that remain in circulation. Keep in mind that Paul rebuked Peter privately, and also announced it publicly in his letter. This was not an attempt to tear down the individual, but to warn others. 

 I thank you for the reminder of that very important injunction. It is easy to get caught up in the fervor of what we are trying to defend. I believe in “kingdom building,” but believe that this can also be done in several ways. We can be evangelistic and reach out to those that have not heard, and do not believe; this describes those who do not consider themselves part of the Christian fold. We can also reach those that are deceived into believing that they are in the fold when they are not. This second emphasis will be disallowed by those who have been led to believe that once one becomes a Christian, the journey to heaven is over, which shows how this doctrine “feeds” on itself and effects other areas of their theology.     

 

“Does this activity show how Christians love one another, which is attractive to the non-Christian?” 

              Answer: I understand what you are saying, but nothing that I have brought attention to cannot be seen by everybody, or validated by a little research. I believe that if you allow someone to go to hell, and to lead others to do the same is not love. Love intervenes. I have also seen the opposite of what you are recommending. Many people have used the excuse of rejecting the gospel because those that claim to believe in Christ are silent when a charlatan bilks unsuspecting people out of their money and souls in the name of Christ. While individuals are to be conscious that they are the ambassador’s of Christ in this world, the Scriptures are clear that it is the Holy Spirit that does the drawing and not us.

 

“Furthermore, is this doctrine essential to your salvation?  Ok, OK, I know what you will say to that - that you can lose your salvation by following this doctrine to the extent of license!  Well, I believe that my salvation is eternally secure in Jesus Christ, but I never want to be in the position of willfully sinning either! Yes, we are never beyond the reach of Christ's love and, yes, there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven, but no, we do not have any excuse for license to sin.”

              Answer: Believing the doctrine of Eternal Security is not a salvation issue. The difficulty is that if we follow the doctrine to its logical end, it can be a salvation issue. People fail to see the importance of the issue at hand. If the logical end of this doctrine leads to heresy and death, then there is no possibility that the premise of the doctrine has any hope of being correct. It must by nature be a lie, and a lie cannot be the doctrine of the Bible. Eternal Security is either true, or it is false, it cannot be neutral. You say that “we do not have a license to sin” but the doctrine you believe says that God has already pre-forgiven a believers sin, thus those sins can never damn them. Either Eternal Security is true and we can sin with impunity, or it is false, and we cannot. If it is true, then we have a free license to sin; this conclusion can be denied, but it cannot be avoided. People can live above their creed, and many do, but what we usually see is that most do not. This is the danger of Eternal Security. Some believe that they have a “Get Out Of Hell Free” card, but never intend to use it, and there are those that are constantly cashing it in.   

 

“One walking in darkness has never actually accepted the salvation offered by Christ.”  "This is in reference to 1 Jn. 1:7, "But IF we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." I presented this verse in my reply to the original e-mail stating:  "IF" we walk in the light....we have fellowship. And if we have "fellowship," the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we walk  in darkness, we cannot have fellowship; and if we do not have fellowship, we are not cleansed from all unrighteousness."

              Answer: This is not so, and cannot be so. It is utter nonsense to believe that position because it would make the Scriptures to be full of utter nonsense. If Christians are exhorted to “walk in the light,” it makes no sense to exhort them to do it when they cannot do anything but walk in the light! Jude 21, exhorts believers to “keep yourselves in the love of God,” while many people say that a Christian cannot do otherwise. If we cannot do otherwise, then why does God waste His time informing us of the impossible? All the exhortations in the Bible become useless if we have nothing to "do," and they are the inevitable result of all who are in Christ. The word “IF” is a small word, but if we remove it from the Scriptures, we no longer have a Bible.

 

“This is in line with the sometimes popular phrase "try Christ".  There is no trial period where one can get one's "money" back if one wishes.  Either there is complete repentance and salvation or there is very dangerous "playing at religion". 

                Answer: I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. The fact that there are many unsaved people that claim to be Christians does not prove that there are not any genuine Christians that have fallen from grace.

 

"Or is that secure?"  Yes, I must confess that my statement was somewhat sarcastic because I was thinking that it is an irony if one is opposed to the doctrine of eternal security but secure in the doctrine of "saved today, lost tomorrow".  That doctrine has no basis in scripture and is, indeed, contrary to the whole idea of crucifying Christ over and over again.  He died ONCE, for all.  However, I do apologize because a part of my thinking was sarcastic.”

                 Answer: No apology is needed, I just wanted to clarify what you said. The sarcasm was to make a point, and at times it is a strong exclamation made at the end of an argument. The comment “saved today, lost tomorrow,” and some add, “and everywhere in between,” is a common cliché, but does not represent what most people believe that do not accept the theory of Eternal Security. I know of no one, besides the Roman Catholic Church that contends for the idea of re-crucifying Christ “over and over.” This is the same straw-man argument that Charles Stanley uses to fight against an opponent that is easy to knock down, but does not really exist. If you like wrestling with scarecrows, go ahead, but you are not fighting against a real cause. By your comments here, it has become evident that you are “reacting” to the purpose of this site, and not “responding” to anything that I have said. By this, I see that you raise arguments that have been answered with sufficient proof in my critique of Mr. Stanley’s book. I believe that it is an appropriate courtesy to actually read and consider someone’s position before rushing to judgment in rejecting it. You say that you have “sought for truth and, as a result, embrace the fact that my eternal destiny is secure in Christ,” but is it seeking for truth when you will not examine the objections to your position? Please read the response I made to Charles Stanley and consider what has been said. If you walk away being assured of your Eternal Security, you have done your duty to God. If you find that something I said is not the weight of the whole Bible concerning the issue, I welcome hearing the reason why, and will re-evaluate my position.

 

“Please consider how you can fulfill your responsibility to Mr. Stanley so that you can move on to more productive service for the Lord and the extension of His kingdom and the multitudes in your community who do not yet have a personal relationship with the Lord.”

                 Answer: As covered before, I believe that by producing the response to his errors, I have fulfilled my responsibility to God and truth. I also believe strongly in outreach to those who have never known Christ. I see both angles as important. I do not see that the arriving at a personal relationship with Christ as the end of the road, but the beginning of a walk with Him. I hope that by explaining my perspective you can at least understand why I so vigorously fight against this heresy.

What follows is a sample of what I call the "My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy" argument, or the "Comparison" argument. This is usually posed in response to my Critique of Charles Stanley. This uses the logic that a person cannot criticize a PhD., unless they themselves are a PhD.  Let's take a sample of a few of these responses:

It's easy to criticize! 

Hi,

I read your critiques of Dr.Stanley. Before I even consider your arguments, what qualifications do you have? Anything less than doctoral, and I wouldn't even look at your reasoning. Some of your attacks were personal, not a good way to correct reasoning. It's no wonder your an independent voice and Arian.

        Answer: S_____, 

Yes, it is easy to criticize; but as you have shown, it is even easier to raise dust than it is to answer an argument!

I would love to hear your critique of my position. Before you do so, I would like to know from what institution your PhD comes from, and what you’re a doctor of. I ask this because I want to know for the record which Theological Institution does not know the difference between an Arian and an Arminian.

I’m looking forward to seeing your qualifications to see if you are an acceptable candidate to criticize my article.

Thank You

------------------------------------

Isn't it interesting that those that demand that one must have a PhD., in order to criticize "Dr." Stanley, see it fitting to criticize someone else when they themselves do not have same credentials! TRUTH DOES NOT NEED CREDENTIALS!

--------------------------

Another:

I came across the above critique today.

I am certainly going to read it carefully but would like to know what Jeff Paton's credentials are?

Please let me know.

A.K.

         Answer: Dear A___,

I respectfully request that you consider the reasoning for your question. Many people have erroneously equated education with accuracy and authority. I can show you many examples of PhD's that deny the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, and the atonement. I can easily find theological PhD's that promote homosexuality and the ordination of homosexuals. My question is: Do their credentials make their teaching true? Truth stands on its own. It does not need sanction from a college, or the approval of a consensus.

We must also consider what this line of arguing may come down to. If one is discounted because they do not have a doctorates degree, then what are we to make of the writings of those who did not have advanced degrees?  This would eliminate the letters of Peter, James and John. It questions the authority of the majority of preachers and teachers throughout history. This reasoning puts theology, or education over the Bible. 

A ___,  I am not going to get into a game of comparing education and degrees. I can give you assurance of this, that every proposition that is contained in this critique can be backed by either theologians, expositors, or language experts. 

No writing stands purely on the authority of the one who wrote it. It must stand on the merits that are contained in it. Either a statement is true, or it is not.  What I can say without reservation is that there has never been a challenge to the accuracy of the scholarship contained in this critique. Some disagreement, but never anything of substance that has caused me to amend, revise, or correct any of my propositions. This day may come, and I welcome it if it serves the cause of truth.

In Christ,

Jeff Paton   

Do you realize that with quotes like these:

 

"Since salvation in Calvinism is not based on a moral transformation of the sinner, so God must receive the sinner on the bases of a moral transfer of the righteousness of Christ called imputation. This is where God is somehow blinded to the reality of our sin, but in return He can only see the holiness of Christ when He views our lives. This ignores the fact that morality is not transferable. I cannot transfer righteousness to you anymore than you can give me your sin. Vincent Taylor wrote "imputation" can never be anything else than an ethical fiction. Since it is not a commodity, but a personal state, righteousness cannot be transferred from the account of one person to another.
Righteousness can no more be imputed to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool." 

 

You are arguing for the Tridentine infusion of righteousness? Do you seriously wish to support Rome's view of salvation? This is what the Protestant Reformation was all about! The Reformers stood shoulder-to-shoulder insisting that justification is a forensic declaration. Even evangelical Arminians understand that. I recommend some theological training at the collegiate level, Mr. Paton.

 

Answer:

 

Sir, have you really been fooled into believing that similarities with Romanism is an argument? I believe in the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, and so does the Roman Catholic Church. Does this mean that I have been hoodwinked by Roman Catholicism? I believe that these are Biblical positions, and that is why I stand by them. I believe that justification is forensic, but only for past sins (Romans 3:25), and is not a pass for all future sins. I also believe the Scriptures are clear that righteousness is imparted to the believer.
 

Mr. M____, When did God die and put the Reformed position in place of the Bible?  You can take the Reformers as your final authority if you wish, that is your option. You can also recommend that I should go to college and be educated into believing theological fictions, but I would rather believe the Bible.

 

Sirs, 

Where in the world did you get the idea that those who believe in eternal security through the shed blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also believe all the stupid things you have written in this document.

1. Once saved always saved.

                 Answer:  OSAS is synonymous with Eternal Security as is validated by Dave Hunt/ Berean Call.

2.  Christians are no different than other sinners, except they are saved.

                       Answer:  I have heard this on evangelical radio for years. Charles Stanley boldly stated, “God never intended for us to live the Christian life.” Tape #Ma-127.

3. God cannot see the Christians sin because they are covered by the blood of Christ.

Imputed Righteousness. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ's sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5:19 ff.; Rom. 4:25), (which says absolutely nothing for a mystical transfer of sin to Christ, or a transfer of His righteousness to us.) so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ. Second Helvetic Convention

The believer stands in the righteousness of Jesus Christ and his sins are not imputed to him. Not only are his sins subtracted, but Christ’s perfect righteousness has been added to the account of the believer.

Justification means that God accepts us and views us as perfectly righteous in Christ even though in our experience we will commit acts of sin or unrighteousness. Keathley, J. Hampton, III

By the grace of God we are accounted perfect and sinless in His merciful reckoning and our sinfulness and guilt are covered by His sinlessness. The Law of God finds nothing to condemn in the believer in Jesus and we have a standing of perfect righteousness in Christ. This is what the apostle Paul calls justification by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. Present Truth Magazine

Q. What is impossible for the Lord to do?
A. He cannot detect our sins when it is covered by the blood of Christ. The Sower – www.thesower.org.za
 
                 Answer: These show the doctrinal foundation for my statement. I have heard it stated exactly as I put it in this article. I have heard sermons that present the blood of Christ as a blanket in which God cannot see the sin of the believer.
 

4.   We can be filthy as a barnyard in body and still be saved and holy in spirit.

Justification means that God accepts us and views us as perfectly righteous in Christ even though in our experience we will commit acts of sin or unrighteousness. Keathley, J. Hampton, III

       Answer: Consistent appeals to Romans 7, and David, "a man after God’s own heart," are frequently used as an excuse for sin. I just state it more directly than defenders of sinful living do.

5.    We all sin in word, thought and deed, every moment and every day. etc. etc.

            Answer: I have heard this many times from those who contend for the necessity of sinning in the Christian life.

   

Ask Charles Stanley if He believes #5  I can tell you right now He does not. The person that continues in a sinful lifestyle such as that exhibits no characteristics of the truly converted.

             Answer:  I agree, he talks a good talk – double talk.  “God never intended for us to live the Christian life.” Tape #Ma-127.  In this he contends for moral failure, holy people that are yet unholy.  Stanley certainly would not contend for a bold continuance in sinning. However, doctrinally speaking, eternal security followed to its logical end must allow for the salvation of one who sins deliberately, boldly and knowingly, no matter how much or how long. If sins are “paid for” they can certainly do this and be just before God as Christians. This conclusion can be denied, but not disproved. 

Neither do the truly converted always live a life of sinless perfection. I would not say that this impossible for indeed nothing is impossible for God. Neither would one of God's children go about spouting of that they were sinlessly perfect or condemning every one who was not. I've never met a greater bunch of Pharisees than those who believe Wesleyan-Arminian theology.

            Answer:  Sir, please tell which Wesleyan theologian preaches “sinless perfection.” I have over 30 volumes of Wesleyan theology in my library, but have never read where they teach this. I hear of this straw-man frequently in Calvinistic theology. Calvinists like this fictional creation since it is easy to beat up. They misrepresent Wesleyanism as teaching this, but never seem to quote from Wesleyan sources. I have never met anyone that teaches this “perfectionism” that they so ardently fight. It is easy to defeat a non-existent doctrine. Please, tell me who condemns those that do not believe in “sinless perfection”? I will openly join you in condemning this teaching along with John Wesley and all other Wesleyans.   

 As with all opponents of the truth, you throw in many statements that are not true. Some of what is there is true, some is not. 

            Answer:  All of the statements are true. Some, such as point #4 are taking the doctrines and teaching of eternal security to its logical end, and are not statements from Eternal Securists. These points are speaking broadly, and cannot possibly represent all who teach eternal security doctrinally. 

 

 Just as "Once saved always saved" is not true, neither is the Arminian position of a performance based salvation. The proper position is one of a perpetual faith that believes daily to the end because it is of God and powered by a love that never fails. God supplies His children with everything that pertains to life and godliness including the faith to endure to the end. He expects nothing of us that He does not equip us to do.

             Answer:  I would not disagree with your explanation in the latter part of this statement. I contend for nothing more than this. The Arminian position never has been anything but this. Have you ever read Arminian theology? Where in Arminian theology does it say that our salvation is based upon “performance.” ?  

 

 In the section entitled "SEVEN REASONS WHY ETERNAL SECURITY IS FALSE" you've stated that, "It must "explain away" the vast majority of scripture" In truth the Wesleyan-Arminian position must deny every promise of God concerning our salvation.  

               Answer:  I believe every promise of God concerning salvation, and so does the Wesleyan-Arminian position. Your assertions that we deny these promises is certainly not based in any fact.   

 

Indeed there is no way that you can say that you believe God's word, are trusting in Him, and at the same time believe that you can be lost.

                  Answer:  I believe God’s word, to include that it says that believers must continue, remain, abide, and endure in the faith to be saved. I believe that one can apostatize from the faith and be ultimately lost, because the Bible teaches this is so. I do not question your salvation on the basis that you do not believe as I do. I honor your right to judge me as an unbeliever if you please. I find it quite strange that you contend for the "performance" of believing Eternal security for salvation, this sounds pretty "legalistic" to me.

 

You want to talk about heresy, the doctrine you propound will see many souls lost in hell believing in a works based salvation.

         Answer: Nowhere in anything that I have written speaks of doing anything to merit salvation. You, as with most people who respond to this site, have never read what I have written. You have not stated anything that I wrote to justify this charge, as you have not proven anything that I have said to be wrong.

 

You Sirs are desert dwellers. What you and your kind are not seeing is the life changing power of the gospel. Having spent much time in The Salvation Army I have met many who profess salvation, but are not trusting Christ. They are busy changing themselves. OH they believe that they are saved by grace through faith, but then after that you must do this and that and the other thing and maintain these things or God will turf you. They are not trusting in the life changing power of the gospel of Christ to change the heart producing a "New Creature" that actually wants to live godly and do the things that please the Lord God, as I can tell from what is in this site, neither do you.

              Answer:  I agree that there are many who are legalists that are far from salvation as surely as there are those that are “sinning saints” that are fooling themselves about their own salvation. Once again, nothing that I teach has anything to do with a performance salvation that you are speaking of. You may feel that you can see and judge the hearts of men apart from any clear evidence, but that is an issue I will leave between you and God.

 

Believe as you do, you will never have anything but a put on make believe Christianity that is not Christianity at all. You drive God's people by fear. Your doctrine paralyzes those who adhere to it with fear of lost salvation rather than faith in the work of Christ that truly saves and keeps. Indeed your doctrine results in false conversions that weaken the true church.

 Jesus saves and keeps, stop doubting and believe!

                Answer:  I am not the one that is confusing faith in Christ with faith in the inability to lose salvation, you are. Faith in a doctrine is not the essence of Christianity. The only ones that fear truth are those that aren't living it! For those that are seeking salvation while continuing in rebellion and sin, a little fear is Scriptural. They should fear the Holy God they claim to know. Maybe they have never been saved in the first place since they do not fathom the great suffering of Christ because of their sins.  Fear is a motivator for those who need it; those that have an antinomian faith.  For those who are walking in the light as He is in the light, we have a different motive, "For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7.

 

Trusting in Christ,

R.S.

(Pastor)

I could spend hours here expounding scripture concerning faith in Christ, but there is a big difference between being weak to the weak in order to win the weak and dealing with blatant unbelievers who are in need of a Damascus road experience to enlighten your darkened hearts. God help you!

              Answer:  I guess that by your parting remarks is that you put me in the camp of “blatant unbelievers.”  I am sorry for you that you cannot accept anyone as a brother in Christ because they believe in the promises and power of God to save “from” sin instead of salvation “in” sin.  You may base your unity on the doctrine of Eternal Security if you wish, but you will find in heaven that unity will be based on faith in Christ.

TWENTY LIES NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE 

1. Once saved always saved.
2. Christians are no different than other sinners, except they are saved.
3. God cannot see the Christians sin because they are covered by the blood of Christ.
4. We can be filthy as a barnyard in body and still be saved and holy in spirit.
5. We all sin in word, thought and deed, every moment and every day.
6. All who have ever fallen away were never saved in the first place.
7. That when one comes to Christ, their sins are paid for past, present and future.
8. You can only lose fellowship with God and not salvation.
9. God would never disown or damn one of His own children.
10. A sheep cannot become a goat.
11. If we sin we only lose fellowship and not relationship with God.
12. Salvation is unconditional.
13. If salvation cannot be earned it cannot be lost.
14. God will not begin a work that he will not finish.
15. Repentance is not required for salvation.
16. Christians who say we must remain faithful to stay saved preach a works salvation.
17. We can be "Sinning Saints" or "Backslidden Christians" and still be saved.
18. Only at death can we ultimately be saved from sin.
19. Christians are still sinners.
20. I am secure because Jesus paid my sin debt in full.


RESPONSE TO THESE TWENTY LIES

(This response is inspired largely by an essay found on the web site of Evangelical Trinity Lutheran Church. My personal view on this subject is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. The Lutheran view acknowledges that God promises to protect us from falling and sees these as legitimate promises.
It also acknowledges that God warns us against falling away, and sees these as legitimate warnings. Whereas the Calvinist and Arminian takes a side, the Lutherans remain the middle, content with the paradox. This paradox appears to me to be Scriptural. However, I do have a lot of sympathy towards the Reformed view, and that sympathy becomes obvious in the next 20 responses. Thank you for taking the time to read this).

              Answer: This is a warmly presented argument against the twenty propositions that are labeled “Twenty Lies Not Found In Scripture,” which is part of the article “200 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN ETERNAL SECURITY.”  The contention that I was arguing is that many of the arguments that are given by the Calvinist’s are not based on anything in Scripture, but their own imagination. Some are statements that are not things that antinomians would say, but sum up their argument without all the smoke and mirrors.

 

“Whereas the Calvinist and Arminian takes a side, the Lutherans remain the middle, content with the paradox. This paradox appears to me to be Scriptural.”

Answer: While I admire an attempt in some areas to find a via media, truth is rarely to be found by splitting the difference and arriving at an average. While you may be more comfortable with things that appear to be a paradox, paradox is at times an excuse for not reconciling the Scriptures as a whole. While there are some things that remain a paradox or a mystery, I do not believe that we can put the basics about salvation into such a category. God is not the Author of confusion. On the issue of Eternal Security it is clear. I assert that the Scriptures contend for security, but not an unconditional security. I also assert that many things that are presented in defense of the doctrine of Eternal Security have no Biblical foundation at all.

 

1. Once saved always saved


1) To say once saved, always saved is a lie not found in Scripture is to say that there is no Scriptural foundation to hope that true Christians will endure to the end. To say this is nave, (naïve?) and it is harsh. Once saved, always saved, may be a mistaken interpretation, but its not an all out lie.

     Answer: You may see it as harsh, but conditional security is the Scriptural truth. You may call such an accusation naïve, but I would say that that application should be used for those that believe that which is never stated in the Scriptures. Not all true Christians endure to the end. To say so is to render a large portion of the Scripture as useless. The Bible would not exhort us to that which is inevitable. If a “true” Christian can do no other than endure to the end, then why warn them to? Why speak of apostasy and falling away? If they are exhortations to those who are deceived into believing that they are Christians, then the passages still do not make sense. What good could come of enduring, continuing, or abiding in that which does not bring salvation? 

    

You say that Eternal Security is not an all out lie. To contend for it then would be foolish, for it is not sensible to guide your life by a principle of a half-truth. This is the devil’s greatest tool. He knows that people will not believe an outright lie, but will buy-in wholesale if there this a shred of truth. Security of the believer is a truth. Unconditional security is a lie.


2. Christians are no different than other sinners, except they are saved.


2) Christians are different, in the sense that they have Jesus Christ in their hearts, helping them to be new creatures. Even still, it is possible for Christians to fall into sin, and it is not Scriptural to assume that each fall results in loss of salvation.

Answer: I am glad that you can see that the Scriptures say that Christians are different. Now, I did not assert “each fall results in loss of salvation.” The Scriptures say clearly, “The wages of sin is death.” Rom. 6:23; and “The soul that sinneth shall die." Ezek. 18:4. It is problem of those that say otherwise to show from Scripture that this principle is not true. I know of no passage that says that sin does not bring separation.

 

3. God cannot see the Christian’s sin because they are covered by the blood of Christ.


3) When a person trusts in Christ, their sin is transferred to him, and God considers their sin dealt with. God is satisfied with the atonement Christ has provided. Not only is our sin transferred to Christ, but his righteousness is transferred to us. When God sees us, he sees the righteousness of Christ. If this were not true, then none of us would have any hope in approaching God. We can come to God because we’ve been declared righteous through our union with Christ. We are not coming on our own merits or own righteousness. If we disbelieve in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the soul of the believer, we shatter any foundation of hope concerning a relationship with God. It’s not enough to have a clean slate; we must be righteous. Christ didn’t merely take away our sin. If he had only taken away our sin, we still wouldn’t have been able to have a relationship with God. To interact with God, its not enough to be void of bad acts or neutral; one has to be totally perfect and righteous. If we do not possess that righteousness in ourselves, we must find it somewhere else. We must find it in Christ; we must not look for any righteousness outside of him.

Answer: To define “imputation” as meaning a mystical transfer is completely devoid of any Scriptural support. It is a myth, a theological fiction. I would suggest basing your belief on that which is asserted in Scripture, and not from that which created to fill the void in a flawed theology. You can no more impute righteousness than you can impute wisdom to a fool, or honesty to a thief.  Character cannot be transferred. Mystical transfer is not a Scriptural principle.

“We are not coming on our own merits or own righteousness.” Nothing in what I have ever written says that we must merit salvation in any way. This is a false suggestion.  

“If we disbelieve in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the soul of the believer, we shatter any foundation of hope concerning a relationship with God.” A “foundation of hope” that is not from the Scriptures is worth shattering. One would be better served by building a foundation for their hope from the Scriptures, not an unfounded theory.

“We must find it in Christ; we must not look for any righteousness outside of him.” If you are saying that Christ is the cause of any good work that is in us, I fully agree. If you are saying that righteousness of the believer consists of only an imputed righteousness, then you are contending for antinomianism.

 

4. We can be filthy as a barnyard in body and still be saved and holy in spirit.


4) This fourth proposition is true, and all of Christendom agrees, including Calvinists. To accuse Calvinists/Reformed people of being antinomians is unbelievably ignorant of history. To look at the Puritans and accuse them of being licentious is merely stupid.

Answer: I am not ignorant of history concerning this matter. I can justly contend that Calvinism, especially the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, has been the cradle of antinomianism in the church. I never accused all Calvinists of being licentious. These are your words that accuse all, not mine.  

I openly admit that no antinomian or Calvinist would say that point #4 was coming from their own words. They are much more subtle. They say, “David committed adultery and murder, yet he was called a man after God’s own heart. A Christian can commit murder and adultery and still be saved.” But they ignore the plain words of Scripture. David could not be "a man after God's own heart" while he remained unrepentant, for “ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers…….shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”

“God cannot see our sin, all He sees is the blood of Jesus.” This is the same thing, just a different way of saying the same thing. Nowhere does the Bible say that the atonement blinds God to the sin of the unrepentant “christian.”

 

5. We all sin in word, thought and deed, every moment and every day.


5) To deny the Scriptural teaching that Christians still struggle with sin is self-righteous. Think for a moment. Sin is not merely a deliberate breaking of Gods law. It is failing to measure up to Gods standards. Perhaps we haven’t intentionally offended God today. But can we honestly say that we have rightly met Gods standards today? To say that I’ve not sinned today would be the same as saying that everything I’ve thought, said, and did today was totally righteous, as perfect as God, utterly altruistic, completely void of any self interest, 100% humble, and totally innocent.
This is a statement I’m not willing to make. God’s greatest commands are to love God totally, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If this is the greatest command given, then not loving God totally is the greatest sin that can be committed. If we love God with 99.9% of our hearts, we are still guilty of the most heinous sin imaginable. When you look at things from this perspective, you realize how false it would be for any of us to say we are already perfect.

Answer: “To deny the Scriptural teaching that Christians still struggle with sin is self-righteous” There is no such “Scriptural teaching.” No passage says that a Christian must sin, and many say that they don’t.

 

“To say that I’ve not sinned today would be the same as saying that everything I’ve thought, said, and did today was totally righteous, as perfect as God, utterly altruistic, completely void of any self interest, 100% humble, and totally innocent.” Nowhere in the Scriptures does God command or make the standard that you assert. God commands, “Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Matt. 5:48. God does not command impossibilities. God does not damn anyone for not doing what is utterly impossible; He is a just God.  “Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.” 1 Jn. 4:17.  God says our love can be perfect. Paul said, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded:” Philippians 3:15. “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect:” 1 Cor. 2:6. “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect.” 2 Cor. 13:11. “Always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.” Col.4:12. “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:17. “Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” Heb. 13:21.  “But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” James 1:4. “He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” 1 Jn. 4:18.

 

Just because you have not attained such a state, is no reason to decry the Scriptures as being false. We cannot lower the bar of Scriptural standards to fit our experience. Our experience, while valuable, does not give us the right to interpret the Bible in a way that it proves something it is not saying.

 

6. All who have ever fallen away were never saved in the first place.

6) This is not without a foundation. Saint John, speaking about the apostates that left the church, said They went out from us, but they were not really of us. If they had been of us, they would have no doubt remained with us, but their leaving proves that they were not all of us.

Answer:  While it is a fact that there are many who wear the name of Christian are not really believers at all, this does not prove that those who defect from the faith were never genuine in the estimate of their salvation. While John was dealing with a specific problem in a specific church, it does not give us license to apply this as a blanket answer to any and all situations. The context of the verse in question is dealing with the false teachers who had infiltrated the church in which John is writing to. They wore the label "Christian," but it was the Gnostic version of Christianity.

Dr. Daniel Steele observed, "They were not of us." This means that they were not in sympathy with the church at the time of their withdrawal. It does not signify that they were never genuine Christians. The fact that there are withered and fruitless branches now in the true vine (John 15:2) does not prove that those branches were never alive, but, rather, it proves their former life. It is a case of manifest apostasy, beginning in the spirit and ending in the flesh." 

The passage in John does not prove that these people who left the church were never truly Christians. It does prove that they were not in sympathy with the church at the time of their separation.

I concede that for the most part it is true that that church is full of people that are deceived into believing that they are saved when they are not. I just take exception with using this passage, with that singular understanding, to apply to all who ever apostatized from the faith. 

 

7. That when one comes to Christ, their sins are paid for past, present and future.


7) If Christ’s death didn’t fully atone for all sins ever committed (even sins that occur tomorrow) then none of us have any hope. If conversion only means our past sins are dealt with, then that still leaves us trying to live the rest of our lives after conversion sinless; it renders salvation a work, not a gift. Christ’s death didn’t just forgive me; it justified me. In Gods eyes, I am pure through Christ. I can approach God because in Christ I’m not only forgiven, but declared righteous through the blood of Jesus. 

If God hadn’t declared me righteous through the blood of Jesus, then I would have no basis to approach God.

 

Answer: None of us have any hope if we do not believe an unbiblical theory? This is absurd! Nowhere do the Scriptures say that the atonement of Jesus Christ “paid for sins.” I would go on in greater detail, but the burden of proof falls on the one that makes such an assertion.

“If conversion only means our past sins are dealt with, then that still leaves us trying to live the rest of our lives after conversion sinless; it renders salvation a work, not a gift.”    It does nothing of the sort! It only establishes the fact that the vast majority of the New Testament exhorts believers to be pure, holy, without blemish, in all righteousness. It proves it to be a gift, for one cannot be all these things without the work of Christ being within them, causing it to be a reality in their lives. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Col. 2:10. Anyone who claims to be saved without the fruit of righteousness is deceived about their salvation.   

8. You can only lose fellowship with God and not salvation.


8) This is a proposition I’ll have to think more about before addressing.

 

9. God would never disown or damn one of His own children.

9) Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. The hope that none of God’s children will ever perish is not vain human reasoning; it is based on the words of Christ himself.

Answer: It is vain human reasoning to say that this verse asserts unconditional security. The passage says clearly who will never perish. It is only for those who hear (present tense) and follow (present tense). Those that cease to hear and follow do not fulfill the conditions that Christ himself has set for this security.  If one denies that one must be hearing and following in order to be a "sheep," then they are reading things into this passage, not gathering truth out of it.

 

10. A sheep cannot become a goat.

10) I do not understand what the point of this accusation is. If it is based upon Matthew 25, I do not see how it relates to the discussion at hand. 

Answer: Many Eternal Security proponents assert that a saved person (a sheep) cannot become a goat, (lost). This is based on human reasoning from nature, and not the Scriptures. Surprisingly, they have no problems believing that a goat can become a sheep.

 

11. If we sin we only lose fellowship and not relationship with God.

11) Again, I’ll have to think more about this one.

 

 12. Salvation is unconditional.


12) If salvation is based on anything other than the free grace and mercy of God, purchased for us by Christ’s blood, then none of us have any hope. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. To deny this is to embrace works righteousness instead of the righteousness God offers to impute to us through faith in Christ.

Answer: “We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.” The Scriptures never append the words “alone” to grace, or Christ. Luther added them to the plain Scripture statements. Faith alone is only found in one place in the entire Bible, James 2:17. "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."  A dead faith is not a saving faith.

Jesus says the same thing in John 15:5, “I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit."  Jesus declares without any doubt, that if we are truly in Him, we cannot but help bear good fruit. "Faith" that brings forth bad fruit, or no fruit, is not a saving faith. Even John Calvin could see this, as he is quoted as saying:  " It is faith alone that justifies, and still the faith which justifies is not alone." Fruit (works) and salvation are inseparable. Not for merit, but the genuine fruit of the life of Christ working in and through us. 

Salvation is conditional, you admit that by insisting upon faith. Faith is the condition. No faith, no salvation. The same condition that gets us saved, keeps us saved.

 

13. If salvation cannot be earned it cannot be lost.

13) There is a very legitimate concern on the part of Reformed teachers that failure to teach God’s promise to preserve us is the same as watering down the grace of God. What separates Calvinists from Arminians is that Calvinists say that the power and ability to persevere comes from God and his mercy, whereas Arminians attribute the ability to persevere to human free will. This gives credit to free-will where credit is due to God alone. Human free will is enslaved to sin. It can only do good when God compels it to do so. If one is so totally opposed to the theology that came out of the Reformation, then why not just go on back to Rome. I’m sure they would be happy to have new members.

Answer: The fact that some believers do not persevere has no effect of watering down the grace of God; it only waters down Calvinism.

Your statement of the beliefs of Arminianism shows a lack of understanding its position on this matter. “Arminians attribute the ability to persevere to human free will. This gives credit to free-will where credit is due to God alone.” The ability to persevere in Arminianism is based solidly on the grace of God. Grace however, does not destroy our freedom. Because of this, some do not persevere in the faith, not for lack of grace, but love of sin. They do not become lost as a little boy carelessly losing a ball. They make a deliberate choice against the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

“Human free will is enslaved to sin.” To this I answer that this is true for the unregenerate. After one is born-again, they receive a new nature. This is not enslaved to sin, but gravitates towards the Savior and righteousness. What you are contending for is a conversionless conversion! Sin gets converted (since it can no longer damn,) and the believers free-will remains corrupt. This clearly goes against Scripture.

 “It can only do good when God compels it to do so. If one is so totally opposed to the theology that came out of the Reformation, then why not just go on back to Rome.” We do not believe that the road to Rome goes far enough. We have taken the road to Truth, happily passing the road that leads to the stench of Rome. Arminians have taken the high road back to the early church and the Scriptures. The Reformers were the ones that stopped at Rome, through the person of Augustine, who brought Manichaenism and Gnosticism into the church, creating modern Catholocism and the foundation for Calvinism and the Reformers. The allure of Rome is for the Reformers. They should have scrapped the whole heap and returned to the ancient faith of the Scriptures.  

 

14. God will not begin a work that he will not finish.


14) Philippians 1:6 He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it. In another New Testament passage, the author of Hebrews calls Christ the author and finisher of our faith. Christ starts it, and he finishes it. Arminians say that Christ starts it but free-will must complete it. This is practically making an idol our of free-will. 

If Paul was correct  when he said in Romans 8, The natural mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law nor can it do so, then we must conclude that free-will is a delusion, with no basis in Scripture.

Answer: You mock free-will as you yourself are worshiping at the altar of Gnostic fatalism. Your vision is not clear, for no Arminian would claim that they were the cause of their own salvation. We only wish to say at the end of the race with Paul, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” 2 Tim. 4:7.

Nothing within this passage says that Christ has to finish a salvation that He started. It is just not there! The passage does not assert that Christ must finish (or save) the one that falters and does not continue in the faith. Paul had this confidence in them because they had "fellowship in the gospel from... The first day till now.” !!  Take note that the Scriptures never state this kind of confidence for those who are lukewarm or "sinning saints." This promise is only for genuine, obedient believers!  In verse 7, Paul says that he thought that it was "meet" or "just" for him to think this way about them. Paul said these words of confidence and assurance for a reason, and that reason was not in some doctrine of assurance, but in the grace of God on their behalf, and the track record of their faithfulness to Christ! They had given Paul absolutely no reason to doubt that they were genuine Christians. Would he say the same thing of you?

Paul was most certainly correct in saying that the natural mind is hostile to God. He said, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." Rom. 8:6. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." 8:9. Paul is not speaking of the evils of "free-will." He is speaking of the unconverted mind versus the spiritual mind in the one that is saved. God graciously offers, and enables us to believe and respond, but some resist the offer of God. "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51

 

15. Repentance is not required for salvation.

15) I will not address this accusation yet, because I don’t understand the point that is trying to be made.

 

16. Christians who say we must remain faithful to stay saved preach a works salvation.

16) Christians who attribute the ability to persevere to free-will, instead of Gods free grace, preach a works salvation. We persevere because God enables us, not because our own wills are so virtuous.

Answer: To this I agree. It is a free grace, not a forced grace. Salvation is possible because God enables us, but He does not save us against our wills. I do hold that the Scriptures do not state that continuance in faith is a works salvation. The Scriptures constantly exhort Christians to endure, continue, abide, and remain in the faith. The ability to do so is due to the grace of God. But God no more remains, abides, continues, or endures for us than He believes for us.

 

17. We can be "Sinning Saints" or "Backslidden Christians" and still be saved.

17) To say that Christians never backslide is merely nave.(naïve?). Of course, it happens. It doesn’t have to happen, and it isn’t Gods will, but it does happen.

Answer: I never stated that people do not backslide. What I do state is that the Scriptures never use the word “backslider” and “Christian” in the same context. If you are a backslider, you are not a Christian.

  

18. Only at death can we ultimately be saved from sin.

18) This is true. If we say we have no sin, we are claiming to already be as perfect as God, thoroughly righteous and in no need of further improvement. To say this is self-deception, Pharisaical, and unbelievably hypocritical. Read 1 John 1:8-10.

Answer: You conveniently rip John’s words out of their intended context to fit your theory. “If we say we have no sin, we are claiming to already be as perfect as God, thoroughly righteous and in no need of further improvement.” This is your assertion, and not the Scriptures. John is dealing with the Gnostic element within the church. They believed that you could sin, but the body sins and not the spirit. They were claiming that they has no sin to be cleansed of. V.8.They were saying the had not sinned, so they did not need a Savior. V.10. Verse 10 could no more apply to a Christian than verse 8. There is no such thing as a Christian that never believed that they had sinned.

Verse 8, never says that Christians do sin. It is just not there. In fact, how could John say in verse 7 that, “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from I all sin.” If “all” sin is cleansed, then how could there be anything left? No Christian is “deceived” for believing that “all” sin is cleansed.

John does not contend for sin. He writes, “My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not.” (Gk, a singular act of sin.) 2:1.  “ And if any man sin”(not “when”). 2:1.  “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” 2:4.  He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.” 2:10. “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.” 3:6.  “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” 3: 8.  “ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;” 3:9.  “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” 3:7.  “For whatsoever is born of God overcommeth the world: and this is the victory that overcommeth the world, even our faith.” 5:4. “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not.” 5:18. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” 1:6.

John’s battle was with Gnostic license, not with any form of legalism as most Calvinistic commentators have erroneously applied to verse 8. They do so in defiance of everything else John said about sin.

Death does not cleanse from sin. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” 1 Cor. 15:26. Death is an enemy, not a sanctifier. To say that sin is cleansed in death is to replace the Holy Spirit with that which is called our enemy. No passage in Scripture says that anyone is sanctified in death. All appeals to holiness and sanctification are directed to believers now. To hope in salvation from sin at death is to put your faith into a theory, and not Scripture.  

 

19. Christians are still sinners.

19) If we say that we are void of sin, we are saying that we are already as perfect as God. No Calvinist is as perfect as God, and no Wesleyan is as perfect as God. Anyone who says they are is the epitome of pride.

Answer: And no one will ever be as perfect as God, for we are not God! It is a flawed argument, for God never demands us to equal or exceed Him. God does not judge us as if we were angels, or even "Gods," but as men. It would be unjust to condemn someone for not being something that they could not possibly be. Paul writes, “Yet now hath he reconciled in the body of this flesh through death, to present you holy, and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.” Col. 1:21-22.. “To the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of out Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” 1 Thes. 3:13. He also said of himself and others, “ Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe.” 1 Thes. 2:10.

“Awake to righteousness, and sin not;” 1 Cor. 15:34. “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” 1 Jn. 2:1. You can call the statements and direction of Paul and John the epitome of pride, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were led to exhort and expect Christians not to sin. Why exhort Christians to this if it is impossible? 

The Scriptures never call Christians "sinners."

 

20. I am secure because Jesus paid my sin debt in full.


20) I am secure because Jesus paid my sin debt in full. I have no other basis for security. I cannot base my security on my own righteousness or work. If I did, I would be denying my desperate need of Gods grace. My security is only the blood of Jesus, shed for me. His wounds are my hope. I have no other hope. God forbid that I would ever boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.. (Galatians 6:14).

Answer: “I am secure because Jesus paid my sin debt in full. I have no other basis for security.” Unfortunately, your hope is built on sinking sand, the fables of men. There is not a single time in Scripture where it is said that Jesus “paid for our sins.” This may be good Calvinism, but poor Bible. Once again, I wish to set the record straight that Arminians do not put their faith in works for the meriting of salvation. Our faith is in Christ and His work on the cross on our behalf. Freely offered, and grace enabled to accept or reject the unfathomable love of God for us.

We both trust in the same Savior, and same atonement. My plea to you is to examine the Scriptures to see whether these assertions you make are true or not. The idea of payment for sins is not a Scriptural idea, it is a theological one. It is an invention that is designed to support and lead you to Calvinism. Do not draw your security from theories, but rather the Bible. Base your security on something the Scriptures do say, instead of something they never say. 

I READ PART OF YOUR STATEMENT CONCERNING CHARLES STANLEY, AND I CAN NOT BELIEVED THAT WITH SOMUCH TO DO IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN YOU HAVE TIME TO SIT DOWN AND TRASH A CHRISTIAN BROTHER DOWN.  IF HE IS RIGHT (WHICH I KNOW HE IS) OR WRONG LET GOD BE THE JUDGE.  EACH CHRISTIAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE TRUTH, HAVE YOU READ THAT IN THE BIBLE??? 

        Answer: I do not know what “PART” you read, if any at all, for if you did read it, you would have clearly seen that it was not an attack against Charles Stanley the man, but the teaching of Charles Stanley. I chose to expose an error that was real, unlike those from the Eternal Security camp who paint all Arminians with a broad brush and spend their time fighting with scarecrows of their own invention. I expose real errors, propagated by a real person. I do not say that all Eternal Securists are teaching the same as Mr. Stanley. I do not write to “TRASH A CHRISTIAN BROTHER DOWN.” I wrote to save people like you …. or should I say, people like you that read …. from the terrible soul-damning error that Charles Stanley teaches.   

 

AND THIS ONE IS FOR  YOU:  TO THINK THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN SOMETHING SO DIVINE AS SALVATION IS VANITY AND PRIDE.  TO THINK THAT A SIN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE REDEMPTION PERFORMED BY CHRIST AT THE CROSS IS A DEMONIC DOCTRINE.  YOU GET IT.  TO THINK THAT THE POWER OF A SIN IS ABLE TO UNDO THE WORK THAT JESUS DID ON THE CROSS IS CONTRARY TO THE SCRIPTURE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT EXACTLY HE DID HE CONQUERED OVER DEATH THE CONSEQUENCE OF SIN.  DA!  AND THEN HOW CAN YOU LOOSE SOMETHING YOU DID NOT EARN.  SOMEBODY EARN IT FOR YOU AND IT WAS FINISHED.

         Answer: “  TO THINK THAT A SIN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE REDEMPTION PERFORMED BY CHRIST AT THE CROSS IS A DEMONIC DOCTRINE. “ So, you must think that there is not a single person heading to hell! Unbelief is a sin, and you say the redemption by Christ is more powerful than sin. If what you say is true, Jesus taught a “DEMONIC DOCTRINE,” for He taught that some are damned already because of unbelief! Now…I am sure that you do not teach something so unbiblical and stupid as this! So why do you say that I teach “SIN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE REDEMPTION PERFORMED BY CHRIST AT THE CROSS ,“ or, “SIN IS ABLE TO UNDO THE WORK THAT JESUS DID ON THE CROSS.”?? Where do I say this? You fight against scarecrows, and I fight against the actual statements of Charles Stanley.     

 

1JOHN 3:15: "WHOSOEVER HATETH HIS BROTHER IS A MURDERER: AND YE KNOW THAT NO MURDERER HATH ETERNAL LIFE ABIDING IN HIM." 

GALATIANS 5:15: "BUT IF YE BITE AND DEVOUR ONE ANOTHER, TAKE HEED THAT YE BE NOT CONSUMED ONE OF ANOTHER."

1JOHN: 9-11: "HE THAT SAITH HE IS IN THE LIGHT, AND HATETH HIS BROTHER, IS IN DARKNESS EVEN UNTIL NOW.  HE THAT LOVETH HIS BROTHER ABIDETH IN THE LIGHT, AND THERE IS NONE OCCASION OF STUMBLING IN HIM.  BUT HE THAT HATETH HIS BROTHER IS IN DARKNESS, AND KNOWETH NOT WHITHER HE GOETH, BECAUSE THAT DARKNESS HATH BLINDED HIS EYES."

        Answer: Nowhere do I claim or incite hatred towards Charles Stanley. I hold no hatred, and you have not exposed me as stating any hatred! In fact, I say many nice things about his teaching ability. I also prove that many things that he says are inaccurate, and that one should be wary of inaccurate teachers of the Bible as he is. I just hope that you become as adept to finding the verses about false witnesses and liars as you are at finding those about hatred.       

 

AT LEAST HE IS USING HIS TIME TO BRING PEOPLE TO SALVATION NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

         Answer: I believe that he is responsible for more false conversions than real conversions. More people will go comfortably on their way to hell, being oblivious to the fact, by the very words that he propagates, and the horrid error that he is teaching.

 

WHAT A WASTE OF ENERGY, TIME AND MONEY ON YOUR PART.  JESUS SAID: GO AND PREACH THE GOSPEL, HE DID NOT SAY: GO AND TELL OTHERS HOW WRONG THEY ARE.  WHY DON'T YOU OBEY THE LORD FIRST, AND LIVE AND LET LIVE. 

           Answer: God says, “Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”  1 JN. 5:20. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Tim. 3:16.

“LIVE AND LET LIVE.”  This head-in-the-sand approach to Christianity is not a Biblical principle of Christianity. 

You are a confusing individual! You chide me for what you “think” I write about; Then you tell me what a waste of energy and time my efforts are; Then you tell me the correct way is to "live and let live"; all the while you are violating these same principles towards me! Astonishing!

 

HE IS VICTORIOUS AND HE HAS MADE US VICTORIOUS BY HIS GRACE, GRACE, GRACE.   WE ARE NOT VICTORIOUS BY OUR WORKS.  THAT IS PRIDE AND VANITY.  LET GO OF YOUR VANITY AND PRIDE AND PRAISE HIM FOR HIS VICTORY THAT HE HAS INHERITED YOU JUST BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU.  HE WILL TRANSFORM YOU NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE SO GOOD, BUT BECAUSE HE IS GOOD.  ACCEPT THIS AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND MR. CHARLES.

            Answer: I do not want to "understand" " MR. CHARLES" !  All I wish is TRUTH, which is to be found in the Scriptures, and not the fanciful theology and opinions of Mr. Stanley! "For I am determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1 Cor. 2:2.

"GRACE, GRACE, GRACE." I have never denied that salvation is all of grace. However, any definition or meaning of  "GRACE, GRACE, GRACE," must be grounded in TRUTH, TRUTH, TRUTH! Otherwise, it is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE!  Cheap grace is not a true grace, it is a FALSE GRACE! " He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 Jn. 2:4.

You need to get off the drugs. Ouch! I will pray for God to change your heart and give you eyes to see and ears to hear. (Are you kidding?) (WOW).

Enabled by the Father (John 6:44),

John W M___.

      Answer: Dear "Enabled by the "father" (John 8:44), I wonder.... if God changes my heart, and gives me eyes to see, and ears to hear, will I gain the same character as you? This would be a step down from the work that God has already done in my life. Couldn't you muster up the slightest defense without getting personal?   

 

Note: This shows what the answer is according to many Once Saved Always Saved people. To answer the argument Biblically, it would cause them to search the Scriptures, which would expose their error and lead them painfully close to the truth. It is easier to get personal than to answer an objection. It is easier to hold onto a pet doctrine that to search the Scriptures.  

Since your page is titled "Eternal Security: A Biblical Perspective," why do you spend so much time using the words of others instead of Scripture? 

       Answer: This is an astute observation! The reason for this is because Eternal Security is a theological argument, and not a Biblical one. It is a theological invention, and should be treated as such in the starting pages response. I believe that the doctrine of Eternal Security has been given its most appropriate position at the very start of this page.  

This objection that has been raised by many people is however an excuse, and not a reason for objecting to this page. I have given 179 Scriptural Reasons in the article "200 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN ETERNAL SECURITY!," and have exposed the exegetical fallacies that people use to "find" Eternal Security form certain Scriptures in the articles, "THE EIGHT PILLARS OF ETERNAL SECURITY," and "THE PILLARS OF ETERNAL SECURITY Part Two."  A candid examination is made of the Scriptures concerning the words of abide, hold on, continue, remain, and endure to the end in the article "HOLD ON!". The bottom line is, there are just too many Scriptural arguments against the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved to fit them all on the first page. I make all these things available for those that have the integrity to click beyond the first page before they criticize.   

I believe you are picking on the wrong enemy. The Calvinist are not our enemies the devil and his many cults are!

              Answer: While I consider most Calvinists as Christian brothers, I cannot agree that I have targeted the wrong enemy. My fight is more with Antinomianism than it is with Calvinism. The logical end of Calvinism leads to Antinomianism. The devil has inspired many cults. I believe that the singular doctrine of Eternal Security has been responsible for more lost souls that all of the other satanic cults put together. Truth is the friend of God, and lies are God’s enemy. Eternal Security is a lie, and therefore, the enemy of truth.

Hebrews 6 tells us that in order to be saved again Christ would have to be crucified all over again. Many Arminians believe we can be saved over and over and I believe this is very clear that it can not happen.

              Answer: I acknowledge that many Arminians differ as to whether one can be restored again to salvation. I believe that in many cases one can leave salvation and be restored. Nothing within Hebrews says that Christ would have to be re-crucified in order for this to happen. This I believe can only be found through the eyes of Calvinism, and not from the passage they wish to derive it from.

I would like to let you know I follow the middle of the road and don't try to argue with what others believe only that I need to know what I believe and rest in that. Thank You, here is my question, Why do you take such a self-righteous and condemning attitude with your ideas concerning eternal security, in the light of the fact that God the Holy Spirit reveals Truth to some one way and to others the another way?

              Answer: You seem to take assurance of doctrinal truth, and the exposing of doctrinal error as self-righteousness? Is passive mediocrity on doctrinal matters a Biblical approach? I don’t think so. Following the “middle of the road” is never presented as the path to truth by any of the writers of the Bible. The “narrow road,” while never popular, is the correct road according to Scripture.

The Holy Spirit does not “lead” Christians into error. Because some Christians are educated into believing Eternal Security is not evidence that this is by the leading of the Spirit. While it is possible that both the Arminian doctrine of Conditional Security and the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional Eternal Security to both be wrong, it is logically impossible for both of them to be right. Either Eternal Security is true, or it is not. If Eternal Security is wrong, which I am sure of, then it should be condemned as error. How can we answer God if we neglect to condemn that which robs souls from eternal salvation?


The important thing is that we are striving to serve God and many Calvinist are more concerned about their neighbor's lostness than most Arminians. They have better outreach programs and reach many more for Christ than the Arminians do, that is why the Southern Baptist Church is the largest protestant denomination and probably the fastest growing one. In the mission field many times they come along and start a new church only to find that the Armenians had placed a church there and built one, then left it to falter and die. Many times in the mission field they just move in where the Arminian church's have left.

          Answer: I think that you misunderstand historical Christianity and what constitutes salvation.. Southern Baptists are two point Arminians, and three point Calvinists. The emphasis on “whosoever will” is not Calvinism, but Arminianism. You say that they have “better” outreach. That would appear to be true if one gauges salvation as being eternally complete at the moment of a profession of faith. This is the standard that the Southern Baptists hold to. With such an unbiblical and low standard in which to gauge the success of their “outreach” programs, they will present greater numbers. But if the greater numbers on the books here do not reflect the numbers in heaven, then all of this bean counting is eyewash for denominations.

History has shown that both Calvinism and Arminianism have had periods in which revival has gone well. The difference? Calvinisticly based revival spread quickly, and died out almost as quickly as it began. Revival with an Arminian emphasis showed rapid growth, and an emphasis on discipleship and continuing in the faith. This resulted in longer revivals and less fallout than their Calvinistic counterparts. Calvinism and Arminianism both emphasize evangelism. Arminianism also considers that the evangelized must be nurtured in the faith, and remain in the faith to be saved. Because of this, an equal emphasis of discipleship is given.
Does this divided emphasis between evangelism and discipleship constitute that Calvinists are “more concerned about their neighbor’s lostness than most Arminians”? If continuing in the faith is just as important as coming to faith, then we can say that the Arminians are showing more concern for the souls of others. However, I believe that this approach is a poor standard in which to judge the concern of any group of believers. In the Arminian camp, God has called some to major in evangelism, and others He has called to discipleship. There is no right and wrong here, just a different calling.


We need to Love one another not attack each other and fuss about our doctrinal differences, the important thing is to Love one another as Jesus Loved us!

Gary, it is not “love” to be silent about damning doctrinal falsehood. If love for one another as Jesus loved us is described as “not fussing” over doctrinal error, then why do we teach any doctrine at all? To allow false doctrine to lead countless souls into an eternal hell and call it the love of Christ to be silent about it, is unbiblical, and a subtle apathy towards the terrible price of sin and the salvation of others.

SECOND RESPONSE

Dear Gary,

In your most recent response you say, “To whom it may concern, I sent a letter/question and received a confusing response.”

I am sorry if my response left you confused. Much of what I wrote in my reply was unclear because I was not sure whether I was answering the right question or not. The reason I was vague in my answer was to hopefully get clarification from you concerning which verses you were using as the basis for your comments. It looks as if you have given me more to work with.

“Concerning loving other Christians. I read what your web-site says about antinomianism because, I had never heard of it before. I believe very strongly and agree with you that a person can lose their salvation, but again according to Hebrews 6:4-6 plainly tells us that we can not be saved over and over again. I believe God is bound by his word and the word IMPOSSIBLE is plainly used here.”

           Answer: I do not see any such teaching in the passage that you have presented. The passage is dealing with the impossibility of repentance, not with whether one can be saved “over and over again..” It does beg the question as to where the impossibility lies. Does it lie with God? Man? Or both? To find this, one must focus on something more than just the word “impossible.” The context clarifies the point for those that wish to answer this question. The key I believe is to be found in verse 6. We are told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew THEM. The passage goes on to say why this impossibility exists, it is because….they are crucifying the Son of God afresh. The word “crucify” is in the Greek present tense, meaning that it is a current and persistent action in the case of those that we find it impossible to renew them to repentance. The context does not say that the inability is with God to restore one again to repentance, but that it resides in the individual in some way. The passage does not say that it was impossible under any or all conditions for these individuals, but that it remained impossible while they persist in crucifying the Son of God afresh. This is the only circumstance that Hebrews 6:4-6 asserts. To say that it means that one cannot be saved over and over again is not addressed in this passage.

“I believe God is bound by his word and the word IMPOSSIBLE is plainly used here.” I agree with you that God is bound by the word IMPOSSIBLE as much as He is bound to the condition of PRESENT TENSE RE-CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST as the reason for this IMPOSSIBILITY. Nothing within this passage states that if the action of crucifying afresh the Son of God were to cease, that repentance would remain impossible. In fact, the use of the present tense implies that if they were to cease, it would become possible for them.

"I rather believe that according to 1 John 1:8-9 says, if we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, but if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. The book of 1 John was written to believers not unbelievers. In chapter 5:13 it says "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

         Answer: You seem to contend that Christians are bound to sin. In this, I believe that you pull 1 Jn. 1:9 out of its context for this purpose. The first point that I wish to make is that this passage never says that Christians do sin. It speaks of the claims of the Gnostics that in spirit they had never sinned, (v.10) and that they had no sin for the atonement of Christ to cleanse. There is no such person that can be a Christian who believes that they have never sinned.


Verse 7 speaks of Christians that have been cleansed from all unrighteousness. It is not pride to accept this as a fact, and verse 8 and 10 have no application to a believer in Christ. John directly states the purpose of his writing was that we may not sin. (one time, Gk.) 2:1. He makes it clear that “he who sins is of the devil.” 3:9. And that he who claims to know Christ and does not do His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 2:4.
John says point blank that sinning, or walking in the darkness was incompatible with being a Christian. He says so at least 5 times throughout his First Epistle. The doctrinal error that is addressed in 1 John is with antinomianism, and not any form of legalism.

“The book of 1 John was written to believers not unbelievers.” Some have appealed to the fact that John’s statement is an appeal in the present tense. We must be careful not to apply the usage of the present tense to those that are outside of the context of the situation that John was dealing with. The letter is not only addressed to believers, but also to a local church. It was a mixed church; one with a problem. It is not a circular letter that had the intent of being understood outside of the context of their specific problems. To apply the words of 1 Jn 1:8 to the believers in the church instead of the Gnostics in the church, leads us to the conclusion that the interpretation of John's letter is an impossibility, for if this is so, John is hopelessly self-contradictory. In verse 7 he says that those that are walking in the light are cleansed from ALL sin. In verse 9 he revealed that IF we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. In verse 8 he applies a principle to a local problem. If any claimed not to have any sin, (in reference to verse 7) in which to be cleansed, they are liars. If this applies to believers that have already been cleansed from ALL sin, (verses 7 and 9), then all we can conclude from John is that he most likely not an inspired writer. He is the author of confusion, the creator of a contradiction sandwich in verses 7, 8, and 9. Somehow, those that contend that those believers that stand on the promises that the blood of Christ cleanses from ALL sin, and have been cleansed from ALL unrighteousness, are LIARS, AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN THEM! 1:8. They make “he who sins is of the devil.” 3:9, to mean, “he who sins is a Christian.”

The bottom line is that John could not write all the exhortations and promises in this single book concerning deliverance from all sin, and at the same time say that believers are never cleansed from all sin. Most people misapply the words of John in 1:8. They make what they believe 1:8 is saying apart from any consideration of the historical context, then they contort the VAST consensus of John's writing to fit their misinterpretation of verse 8. If one would look at all that John says concerning sin and the believer in this Epistle, and then looked again at what he said in the lonely passage of verse 8, I believe that they would see the significance of the Gnostic question.

Dismembering Scarecrows
“I do believe as long as we are trusting in Christ and following him we can have confidence of eternal life. Not in our own works, but in His shed blood and finished work on the cross. I have been set free from the worry of whether or not I am good enough to make it to heaven, because I am trusting in what Jesus did, not in what I do. I have the Love of God in my heart for all and as it says in Romans 8:16, His spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. I only wish you could have this same trusting relationship in Christ., I know if I am in the gutter He is there, if I am on the mountaintop, He is there too because He lives in My Heart! “

         Answer: I wholeheartedly agree with your statement as long as the statements, “I know if I am in the gutter He is there,” and, “ because I am trusting in what Jesus did, not in what I do,” are not meant to imply that God is with us while we are willfully walking in darkness. Too many people use statements as these to excuse sin.
“ I only wish you could have this same trusting relationship in Christ.” In this you imply that I don’t have a trusting relationship with Christ. Do you say this your because I disagree doctrinally with you? You cannot find anywhere where I have contended for a works salvation. I would prefer that you work with facts and not assumptions concerning what I teach.

“I do not agree that more have been sent to Hell because of eternal security than all the satanic cults and world religions out there. That comment is ludicrous. Many churches are filled with so called Christians, but they are only bench warmers, wanting fire insurance. In other words they don't want to go to Hell, but don't really want to serve God with their lives either. I believe if you want to use that argument then you need to start with your own church and realize how many are not true sheep of His pasture.”

            Answer: I am sorry that you believe that to teach the magnitude of this danger is “ludicrous.” While I agree with you that most of those who appear to fall away from the faith were not really believers at all, I disagree with your conclusion to minimize the danger that is inherent to this doctrine. It is hard to overestimate the effect that this false security has had throughout history. It has lead many to compromise, thinking that sin is not fatal, to ultimately find that this was the beginning of their path to total apostasy. I believe that the dangers of this doctrine have been validated through the multitude of letters and conversations that I have had with believers, and ex-believers, throughout the years.

“I read a statistic once that said only 10% of those who attend church are really true believers and what a sad thing that is, but it is not eternal security as a doctrine that is sending them to Hell, it is their own thoughts that their own goodness will get them their. That is the lie of Satan that you should be dealing with, the lie that we can earn Heaven on our own. This is the doctrine that is sending them to Hell.”

              Answer: You seem to imply that the only damning sin for the Christian is legalism! Sin is sin, whether it be legalism or license! Both are equally damning. The Scriptures address both issues. The problem in our day and age, is not legalism, it is antinomianism! There are numerous sites that attack the error of legalism. Most of them however, contend for the error of license in their attempt to show the dangers of trying to “earn” one’s salvation.

Dr. Billy Graham once said, he compared those who came forward at his crusades with the parable of the sower. Only 1/4 of those who go forward really get saved. I agree with this, but I also believe as it says in Isaiah God's word will not return to Him void, but will accomplish His will.

              Answer: It is interesting to see that Dr. Graham can see this problem. But this does not cause him to change his method. He continues along the path that he has always gone, not because it is more effective, but because it records the greatest numbers. One does not “decide” to believe Christ. Either you believe or you do not. If one is convicted by the Holy Spirit and believes, then the issue is whether they will obey. The best way I can describe most modern methods of evangelism is “Gospel lite.” They almost all have one thing in common, the absence of repentance. God does not just ask us to acknowledge our sin, He also commands that we repent!

This is another subject, so I will not dwell long here.

“Your attack of this doctrinal error does not convey the Love of Christ, but only shows your own worldly mind set. I would have to compare you with the Pharisees of Jesus time. They were so caught up in being right they missed the greater point, they crucified our Lord. I am glad God blinded them to the truth so we could have salvation, but I am sorry they didn't listen to His true words when he talked to them. I don't expect you to agree with my comments and that is OK, because I serve a Wonderful God and He Loves You too. In conclusion, I only wish you could have the assurance of salvation that I have..... Gary M______"

           Answer: “Your attack of this doctrinal error does not convey the Love of Christ, but only shows your own worldly mind set.” Your comments are quite revealing! I never accuse Eternal Security proponents of not having the Love of Christ. I do not say that they have a “worldly mindset.” But yet, you stand in judgment of me with these accusations! This seems quite hypocritical from my perspective.

I do not know why one would think that attempting to save souls from loss of salvation, eternal rewards, and a painful life due to sin would be considered as not conveying the Love of Christ. It would seem that the one who does not oppose these things would be giving the greater evidence that that love for other people souls is not there.
The style in which I write varies throughout the site. I attempt to use different methods of communicating this message. Some articles are aggressive and direct, and others appeal to those that are willing to reason the issue through. In order to make people aware of this danger, different styles have been employed that some people mistake for hatred. I only hate sin and the devil, and anything that could lead one to an eternity in hell.

You also assume that I lack an assurance of salvation. This is not so. However, my assurance is not founded upon some belief in a doctrine, but in the person, Jesus Christ, who empowers me, and guides me, through a vital relationship with Him. This is the source of my assurance, the witness of the Spirit.

In Christ,

Jeff Paton

 

THIRD RESPONSE 

Gary, Here is the response to your last question. Although we will probably remain at odds over this issue, I wish you God's blessings as you follow Him in the future.

Jeff

I can see by your willingness to argue each and every point that I have tried to make that you are not directed by the same Holy Spirit that I am. There is another Gospel and another Jesus as spoken of by Paul in 2 Cor. 11 although you will probably argue that point too.

             Answer: This statement is one of the most astounding and presumptuous statements that I have ever seen! Somehow, you are the sole arbiter of truth in the matter at hand. You easily sweep sound Biblical exegesis to the wayside and crown your own private opinion as the only one possibly directed by the Holy Spirit! Somehow, you feel that by dismissing instead of answering the well founded arguments that were made, that you are above correction, and do not need to continually challenge your thinking in interest of the truth. This has been your tone from the beginning. At least now we come down to the real objection at hand; your judgment of who is “Spirit directed” and who is not.

My Jesus is a God of Love and expects us to Love One Another despite disagreements.

             Answer: Once again, where have I ever said that I hate, or written anything hateful towards the people that I disagree with? You do not engage in dialog over the reasons that I have given you. Instead, you brush my answers off as error and return letters with suggestions that I am not saved, that I hate people, and say that the Spirit does not direct me. I am really curious, is this your demonstration of the love of Christ in your heart?


I know too if I continued to discuss the point further as I take the Bible literally and you obviously do not, but rather rely on your own teachings, we would get nowhere. If the Bible says blue you say it doesn’t' but instead you say it says red.

            Answer: You are amazing in your accusations! In one case I expounded from the Greek, which clarified unambiguously what the passage was saying. (Heb. 6:6). You ignore it and claim that I do not take it literally? In the other case, 1 Jn. 1:8, I appealed to the historical context of the passage, sought an interpretation that was literal and non-contradictory with whatever else John wrote within the Epistle. Yet you claim that I “obviously do not” take these matters seriously or literally. You choose the path of misapplying a passage to make it say something you wish it to say, all at the expense of the universal laws of hermeneutics concerning the consistency of Scripture, and the interest of truth. I seek the truth in greater detail than what you seem to desire to do. This is your choice and not mine. Please do not accuse me of not taking things literally, or twisting things to mean things that they are not supposed to, when I have given ample historical or exegetical justification for it. Instead of attacking my status as a Christian, I would have wished for some dialog as to your proof that that particular interpretation could not be valid.    


I am big enough to Love my brothers that follow eternal security as their hope, but you obviously know nothing about love unless everyone agrees with you.

             Answer: This too is amazing! You claim that I know nothing of love, but yet it is you, not me, that is casting forth the degrading and unloving accusations!
I do not hate, but I fully admit that I do have a problem with those that follow eternal security as their hope. The first reason is that one should not have their hope in a doctrine, but in the Person of Christ. Secondly, that there is no virtue in believing a lie. Believing falsities never brings forth as good a fruit as truth will always do.


I also know that my beliefs are not too left of center because I have visited with several world famous, and Spirit directed evangelists about my beliefs and they told me they agree with me.

           Answer: You’ve got to be kidding! Who gives a hoot if some “world famous” evangelists agree with you! People with all types of status, and all kinds of degrees can agree on an issue and still be dead wrong on that issue. But of course, these are “Spirit led” evangelists, just because they agree with you! From your prior statement, it is evident that anyone that does not agree with you would not be in that coveted category.
BTW, I have people that write in and praise the work the Lord is doing through the web site. Many of the people I know, agree with the things that are said in these writings. I have received the approval of people that have Doctorates degrees, Masters degrees, and just plain folk who love the Lord and His word. I am not alone on this doctrinal issue.

I say again, Baptist's are not the enemy, satan and his minions are, and all those who believe they can make it to heaven by their own efforts, which encompasses virtually every world religion out there.

                Answer: I agree, Baptists are not the enemy. Satan and his minions are the cause of lies and untruths. Baptist doctrine contains several unfounded presuppositions, which are unscriptural, and therefore lies.


You continue after all of these exchanges to still miss the point that being eager for the truth, and being straightforward about error, is not a personal attack against any group of people, but against what falsities they teach.    

I respect your opinion on eternal security but I also believe that If Charles Stanley was wrong about eternal security then I am certain God would speak to him about it.  He is a man of God and has led many souls to God's kingdom.

If his teachings were erroneous, do you think God would allow him to continue? There's nothing wrong with his teachings. 

Chris,

        Answer: Thank you for your comments. You are gracious enough to allow for some variance in this doctrinal matter. I however, would recommend that you take a closer look at the logic of your argument. For example: John Wesley was a man greatly used of God. He was a key figure in one of the greatest revivals of all time. The impact of his work still impacts us today. But yet, he did not believe in a doctrinal Eternal Security. Couldn’t I say as equally with you that since he has been even more influential in the leading of souls into God’s kingdom than Charles Stanley, God would not have allowed this success unless his doctrine was right?

You see, God’s use of an individual does not necessarily guarantee doctrinal accuracy. This would not be any truer for John Wesley than it would be for Charles Stanley.  Mormons could appeal to the doctrinal accuracy of Joseph Smith by using the same basis for truth that you are using.

You claim that there is nothing wrong with Charles Stanley’s teachings.  I would differ with you on this matter.  If what you say is so, then reading my rebuttal could give you opportunity to show me where I may be wrong.  I respect your opinion about Charles Stanley; I only appeal to you to find a much surer standard in which to weigh truth.  

"I Will Not Blot Out His Name Out of the Book of Life"

The Lord Jesus very plainly promises that He will not blot the names of overcomers out of the book of life: Rev 3:5 (KJV)  He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

That certainly means once saved always saved for overcomers. Who then are these overcomers? And do they overcome by their good works or by their faith in Christ? We are not left to guess.

1 John 5:4 (KJV)  For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:5 (KJV)  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

     ANSWER: I agree that the verses are correctly applied to "overcomers." However, our writer is arguing that the term "overcomer" is synonymous with the term "believer," or "Born-again." Thus, he redefines the obvious wording of "overcomer" as a noun instead of a verb in order to rescue his precious idol of Eternal Security.  "Rev 3:5 (KJV)  He that IS A BORN-AGAIN BELIEVER, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." This he seems to draw his argument from, " 1 John 5:5 (KJV)  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" 

If one takes more than a shallow view of who is defined as a "believer" and an "overcomer," they would see that God defines the character of true belief. If God meant "believer" instead of "overcomer," He would have said so! While a true believer overcomes, not all that claim to believe are overcomers! Scriptures reveal plainly who shall not be blotted from the book of life. They are those that overcome, not those that fail to overcome. The promise is to those that are faithful in their belief and show the fruit of that belief, they overcome!  

An appeal is made to 1 Jn. 5:4 and 5:5. The only way that he can distort this meaning is to play upon the readers ignorance of those who do not understand plain English, or the Greek.  

1 John 5:4 (KJV)  For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 

       Answer: He wants us to read this to say that all who are born-again are already seen as overcomers. In the logic of Eternal Security, we must distort the verb "overcomer" to become a noun "believer," in order to prove Eternal Security! This however is a shallow and biased view of the facts. Whatsoever is born of God overcomes (Present tense action in the Greek). Not as some distort it to mean that the one who is born-again overcame, past tense. "Overcoming" is a quality, an action, not a noun. "Our "faith" is defined as the victory, or cause it is overcoming. While the passage says that those that are "born of God" overcome, it does not say that all who ever were born of God infallibly overcome. It is a false dichotomy. While it is true that all who overcome are believers, nothing within this passage states that all who are believers remain so and continually overcome. You see, Eternal Security contends that one does not have to overcome to be saved. The Scriptures demand that to keep from being blotted out of the book of life, one must be an "overcomer," not a failure and an underachiever! While it is a Scriptural fact that true believers overcome, it is does not follow that those that do not presently overcome are still believers. Overcoming demands continuance in belief!

1 John 5:5 (KJV)  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

      Answer: This passage is used to somehow connect that belief and overcoming are one and the same. However, the passage itself differentiates between the two. "Overcoming" is the fruit of genuine belief. "Failing" to overcome is the evidence that "belief" is no longer present. This is why the passage uses the present tense in the Greek concerning belief. Who overcomes?  "He that believeth" (present tense, right now, continually). Not some act of faith in the past that counts as belief now, but a present, abiding, and overcoming faith in the present!  

To change the obvious use of a verb "overcometh" in Rev. 3:5 to be a noun that says, "He that (IS BORN-AGAIN), the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels," is dishonest exegesis. Those that would contort the word of God to their own destruction have proved their unreliability in the area of Biblical exegesis and interpretation.

Dear A____,

You seem to ignore some important scripture in your zeal to declare yourself/selves blameless.  Paul was indeed the chief of sinners.  He persecuted the church more than anyone.

         Answer: I agree that Paul was called the chief of sinners because he persecuted the church more than anyone. That however ceased upon his conversion.

What you seem to forget is that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us".  And until our carnal corrupted bodies put on incorruption (see 1 Corinthians 15), we will continue to sin.  Paul said he continued to sin.  "Why do I still do what I hate?"  But good news, Jesus Christ is the "Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)

         Answer: You need to take a closer look at many of the passages that you use for your defense. You will not find any statement of the inevitable need to sin. 

“While we were YET sinners, Christ died for us.” While we were sinners, Jesus still died for us. But look at what Paul is saying! The word “yet” carries the meaning of “still.” “While we were still sinners…”  The implication is that believers do not remain sinners.

1 Corinthians 15.  Paul states clearly in verse 34, “Awake to righteousness, and sin not: for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.” Paul would not have said “sin not” if it were an impossibility or if he were an utter failure in this matter. He did not put the timing of our departure with sin upon the resurrection of our bodies, in fact, he clears up that matter before he moves on. You misquoted verse 53, it does not speak of our “corrupt” bodies, but corruptible putting on incorruption. This is dated language that some have mistaken to mean as corrupt or sinful. Modern translations seem to have cleared this up by correcting this misunderstanding. “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable. The idea of the context of this passage is that in the resurrection we will be given bodies that will not die. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING within this passage speaks of  the resurrection as being the cleansing force of sin.

“Paul said he continued to sin.  "Why do I still do what I hate?" Paul never said that he continued to sin! Romans 7 does not speak of Paul, but of Saul as God convicted him of sin. Romans 7 cannot be reconciled with Paul’s spiritual statements in chapters 6 and 8. This is the early church view on this matter. 

 Romans Chapter Seven

Also, you can't lose your salvation.  You did nothing to obtain it, so you can do nothing to lose it.  You see, it's all about faith.  Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith.  God gives us faith, we don't conjure it up out of ourselves.  We either believe or we don't.  And that's not of ourselves.  We can't convince ourselves to have faith.  It's a free gift of God.

            Answer: “Also, you can't lose your salvation. You did nothing to obtain it, so you can do nothing to lose it.” Much dogmatism and fancy clichés do not prove any such thing. You have not given a single Biblical passage that says such a thing.

You act as if man is saved by fate and not by grace through faith. Your logic will only work if we are reduced to pagan fatalism. God no more believes for us than He repents for us. The Scriptures exhort people to believe, not God.  

“Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith.  God gives us faith, we don't conjure it up out of ourselves.  We either believe or we don't.  And that's not of ourselves.  We can't convince ourselves to have faith.  It's a free gift of God.” To this I absolutely agree. However, in order to be saved we must do something with that belief which is to obey it. We are able to choose whether to obey the Gospel call or to refuse it. 

John 1:13 says, believers are born not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.

            Answer: Man can no more give birth to himself than a child can birth itself. God must precede; it is God that initiates the process. But Biblical statements rarely stand alone. In the verse prior to this we see the human responsibility. “But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe on his mane. God initiates, but man must respond. 

Most of today's mainstream Christian biblical opinions are based on man's doctrines passed down from the Roman church, and not from a careful examination of the scriptures.

           Answer: To this I would disagree. Rome has had some place in propagating man’s doctrine, but clearly, the Gnostic fatalism of Augustine has had much more of a detrimental impact on man’s thinking. We wouldn't be having this conversation is this were not true.

 A Historical_Examination of Eternal Security, 

You should not jump to the conclusion that any disagreement with your theology suggests that it is "man's" doctrine. I have not come to my theology in a haphazardly fashion. Truth did not start with Augustine, but existed long before his changes to the historic Gospel. Augustine, the father of many errors, has not only deviated the doctrine of the church of Rome, but the pillars of Protestantism. 

14 steps to losing your salvation (if you could)

First off, I keep seeing 1 John 1:9 all over the place, which I agree, the bible stands as it stands: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." But I think it should be pointed out that the book of 1 John was "written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: ~1 John 5:13. You can't jump from "...forgive, and ye shall be forgiven..."~Luke 6:37 and "...having forgiven you all trespasses..."~Colossians 2:13. TWO DIFFERENT DISPENSATIONS. I suggest to whom it concern you learn what dispensations are before you try to get someone saved for confessing their sins, when that verse was written to someone who has had all sins forgiven; and is applicable for continuing in fellowship and Joy. Like John said in verse 4. NOW, 14 ways to lose your salvation, if it was possible.

Answer: First, I would discard the foolishness of "dispensationalizing away" the Scriptures you do not like. Just believe the Scriptures for what they say... to INCLUDE 1 John 1:9.

Secondly, I would be curious as to what pages we should be tearing out of our Bibles according to "dispensationalism?"

I.  IT WOULD DECLARE GOD’S GRACE AS INSUFFICIENT Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:20, Titus 3:5, and Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9

Answer: 1 Peter 1:5 declares that Christians are "kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH unto salvation."

Faith is required to enter into salvation, and faith continues as a condition for being kept by the power of God.

To say one can "lose" their salvation is equivalent to saying that God’s grace is insufficient is a false assertion. The grace of Christ is always sufficient, but that is no refection upon His character if our failure to trust in that grace is insufficient. 

II. FIND THE FAITH OF CHRIST TO BE FAULTY Ephesians 2:8, Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:22, Phil. 3:9

Answer: Romans 3:22, " Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all that BELIEVE..." It is not any reflection on the faith of Christ if one fails the grace of God by falling into unbelief. Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to then that BELIEVE." My friend, it is by grace we are saved THROUGH FAITH. God no more believes for us than he repents for us. To say that one could "lose" their salvation does not in any way imply a "fault" with the faith of Christ to save BELIEVERS!

III. GET CHRIST TO TAKE BACK HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS Galatians 3:13, II Corinthians 5:21, I Cor. 1:30, Col. 2:10, Phil. 3:9

Answer: Rightness, or righteousness through the atonement of Christ is a provision for all who acquire its benefit THROUGH FAITH. Nothing is said in these passages that you quote that assert that righteousness is not conditioned upon faith. What you imply is just not there. Col. 1:22-23, "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight: IF YE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH grounded and settled, AND BE NOT MOVED AWAY FROM THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL."

IV. HAVE THE PARDON REMOVED FROM YOUR SIN Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 4:32

Answer: To "lose" one’s salvation does not effect the forgiveness that has already occurred, and as such, is not "removed" as you attempt to imply. Only "past" sins are forgiven at salvation, clearing the list of violations that stand against us. With nothing on the list, we stand justified, righteous in Christ. Romans 3:25, "[Jesus Christ} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins THAT ARE PAST, through the forbearance of God." 2 Peter 1:8-9, "For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, AND HAS FORGOTTEN THAT HE WAS PURGED FROM HIS OLD SINS." Forgiveness for new sins is overtly stated as being conditioned upon bringing them to God for forgiveness. 1 John 1:9, "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."

I guess you have a few more pages to tear out of you Bible. 

V. CONVINCE THE FATHER TO FAIL IN HIS COMMITMENT II Timothy 1:12, I Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 1:6

Answer: Nothing within tany of these passages speaks of the Father’s commitment. Phil. 1:6, and 2 Tim. 1:12, speak of PAUL’S confidence. In Phil. 1:6, he shows his confidence in them SINCE they proved their faith by their "fellowship in the gospel FROM THE FIRST DAY TILL NOW...," It was "meet," or "fitting" that Paul would think this of them. Their perseverance IN the faith gave him this confidence for them. (Vv. 5-7). 2 Tim. 1:12, shows that Paul’s confidence is in God’s commitment to take into account his sufferings and sacrifices. NOTHING is said of God’s commitment in salvation.

1 Cor. 1:8 shows God’s commitment to BELIEVERS. This is illuminated by another verse which is more explanatory. Col. 1:22-23, "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight: IF YE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH grounded and settled, AND BE NOT MOVED AWAY FROM THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL." 

VI. BREAK THE FATHER’S SEAL OF THE SPIRIT Ephesians 1:13, II Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 4:30

Answer: Not being able to break the Father’s seal is a human argument and not a Scriptural one. The Seal is not something we break. The Seal is the Holy Spirit. (Eph. 1:13.) We are warned that we CAN "grieve" the Holy Spirit, which is breaking His hold on us. A useless statement if there were no danger. The Holy Spirit can be resisted, we are no coerced to cooperated with God in salvation. (Acts 7:51.)

VII. CHANGE THE MEANING OF +EVERLASTING+ Romans 6:23, John 3:15-16, John 3:36, John 5:24

Answer: The Bible NEVER associates "everlasting" with the believer’s possession of life. It only speaks of the quality and character of that "life." Everlasting, or eternal life is still everlasting or eternal whether one possesses it or not. John 5:24 states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, (present tense action in the Greek,) and believeth (present tense action in the Greek)

on him that sent me, hath everlasting life (present tense action in the Greek, based upon the conditions of present hearing and believing on Christ). John 3:36 also establishes the same conditions for possessing eternal life. "He that believeth (present tense in the Greek, "is believing, now") hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." If you cease to believe and trust with a saving faith, you shall not see life.

VIII. UNBIRTH YOURSELF FROM THE FAMILY OF GOD Titus 3:5, John 1:12-13

Answer: I suppose if you unstamp a postage stamp, you have a plain piece of paper! By using the argument that "losing" your salvation would mean that one would have to argue for "unbirth" is nothing more than an attempt to make the position look foolish. The only ones who look foolish here are the one’s making such a suggestion. A person who is fatally shot does not "unbirth"; They die! The same is in the spiritual word. One does not do something that is not even a word, which is "unbirth," but they die. The analogy is not only flawed, it is based on ignorance.

IX. NULLIFY YOUR ADOPTION BY THE FATHER Galatians 4:5-6, Romans 8:15-16, you were adopted into God's family out of "of your father the devil," John 8:44

Answer: If adoption cannot be reversed, then no one can be adopted by God! We are born into a family, the family of the devil. It is illogical to say that one, THROUGH FAITH, can switch over to a new family, and that through UNBELIEF, not be able to switch back. That is poor logic. Nothing in the Scriptures denies the possibility of one affiliating with Satan after they were once affiliated with God. Heb. 3:12, "Take heed, BRETHREN, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, IN DEPARTING FROM THE LIVING GOD."

X. SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE LOVE OF CHRIST Ephesians 3:19, Romans 8:35-39

Answer: Paul speaks exclusively of EXTERNAL things to the believer themselves that may give people the impression that they have lost the love and care of God. External experiences, such as persecution, are not to be understood as the displeasure of God. The promise is however only for those that are "IN" Christ. The statement in the verse "or any created thing" does not include the believer themselves, for it would violate the context of external influences, and it would violate the laws of grammar which would cause the verse to be self-contradictory, saying, "any created thing (ourselves) shall be able to separate us." To say that "ourselves" shall not be able to separate "ourselves" is a foolish interjection that does not make sense in the sentence.

My friends, fallow the exhortation of the Bible which says, "Keep yourselves in the love of God..." (Jude 21.) 

XI. REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE PROMISES OF HEAVEN Colossians 1:12-13, Ephesians 2:5-6

Answer: The passages say absolutely NOTHING about not being able to fail receiving the promise of heaven. We have the down-payment on heaven now, but we do not have it completely yet. 1 Peter 1:3-5, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again UNTO A LIVELY "HOPE" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. To an INHERITANCE INCORRUPTIBLE, and undefiled, and which fadeth not away, RESERVED IN HEAVEN FOR YOU, who are KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD "THROUGH FAITH." The promise that we hope in; an inheritance. When it is received; in heaven. On what conditions does one receive it? Through the grace of God in whom we are secure THROUGH FAITH.

XII. COMMIT SINS WORSE THAN INCEST AND BLASPHEMY... YEAH RIGHT!.

Read I Corinthians 3:15 and I Corinthians 5:5

Answer: I Corinthians 5:5; If he is "turned over" to Satan, then he is no longer part of God. The effort is to allow Satan to have his way with the unrepentant sinner that they may see the greatness of contrast in their loss that they "might" repent and once again be saved.

1 Cor. 3:15 Says NOTHING about "sins" being burned up and willful sinners being saved in spite of their rebellion. The context of the passage speaks EXCLUSIVELY about preachers who were WORKING in the realm of evangelism. Some were evangelizing out of the wrong motive. Their reward was wood, hay, and stubble which will be burned. They would not receive eternal rewards for their work, but they would be saved.

1 Corinthians is clear about many sins, to include, "Know ye not that the UNRIGHTEOUS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? BE NOT DECEIVED: Neither FORNICATORS, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, no drunkards, not revilers, nor extortioners, SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD." (6:9-10.) To Christians, Paul writes, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanliness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: FOR WHICH THINGS’ SAKE THE WRATH OF GOD COMETH ON THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE" Col. 3:5-6.

"COMMIT SINS WORSE THAN INCEST AND BLASPHEMY... YEAH RIGHT..." ? According to the Bible... RIGHT!

XIII. TAKE THE SPIRIT WITH YOU TO HELL Ephesians 1:13-14

XIV. TAKE THE SON WITH YOU TO HELL Romans 8:16-17

Answer: Once again, an application to verses that was never intended to be applied to that verse!

My friend, you are alone if you go to hell. Neither of these passages assert in the least that the believer cannot separate from God and ultimately end up in hell!

How small will your Bible be if you removed those things that disagreed with your theories?

The author makes an objection to the following quote of mine:

There are conditions we must meet in order that we should be able to receive this gift, namely, repentance, and faith’.

Note: The tone and tenor of my response was designed to match the logic and tone of the objector. I do not feel that the ad hominem arguments that I presented are a valid measure of truth, but the objector felt that they were. I returned the logic in turn to make a point. Please do not take these ad hominem responses as my measure of truth. 


Your assumption is that we can meet these conditions in and of ourselves. This is the foundation of what eternal security is based upon, that man does NOT have the ability to come to Christ (John 6:44), that God alone can regenerate the heart that man can do that which is pleasing to Him, and if it is God who began the work, the same will finish it (Phil. 1:6).  

      Answer: My assumption? Where have I ever denied that the Holy Spirit must precede with grace in order for man to respond? Of course, you didn’t look all that far to see what I believed,… now did you! Your intent is apparently to give me a lecture in Calvinism instead of responding to something I did say.

 

To believe otherwise would be to stand on the side of Pelagius, Arminius, and Finney, all branded as heretics; to believe otherwise would be to stand against the Word of God. Faith and repentance must occur after regeneration, for, ‘…no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.’  

     Answer: “Branded as heretics! By “who?” Calvinists? Great circular logic! You state that to believe that repentance and faith precedes regeneration makes me a heretic like Pelagius, Arminius, and Finney? That’s interesting… I don’t see where any of these people, or their followers went around burning people at the stake for disagreeing with them! But John Calvin… Oh, the “Christian love” of the Geneva Pope, now that’s a different story, now isn’t it! Since you seem to believe that ad hominem arguments carry so much weight, and your identification with the likes of John Calvin, it causes me to wonder at the fruit of YOUR theology! You identify with John Calvin and his followers who treated people that disagree with them with the same character as Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot… Boy, you and Calvin are in good company!

You throw the word around of “heretic” so freely, yet you impugn people’s good names without ever reading them for yourself! You only read from sources that share in the same ignorance. This is painfully obvious, since it is not a universal conclusion that all these men were “heretics” as you say. That’s the Calvinistic interpretation. I may read some of your Calvinistic proof to see if they are really “heretics,”… but why should I accept the word of hateful murderers?

To say that repentance and faith precede regeneration would be to stand against the word of Calvin, but certainly not the word of God. Scripture… let me repeat that so you don’t miss it… SCRIPTURE always places repentance and faith BEFORE salvation. It is Calvinism that placed regeneration before repentance and faith. It is Calvinism that “stands against the word of God.” So who’s the “heretic” now?

 

These conditions you speak of are wrought by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit by the power of God’s Word.  It is because our heart is illuminated that we willingly come to him for by our very nature we are rebellious. God does not drag any kicking and screaming into heaven, but rather changes the heart that it willingly goes.  We have no part in the work of our salvation, it is God alone who saves by the pleasure of His good will.  He is under no obligation to save any, but yet chooses to save some.

     Answer: God no more believes for us than He repents for us. These are conditions because God does not do it for us! You assume that God is so limited that He must coerce in order to give grace, and that all grace is grace unto salvation. God is not like the Navy recruiter who gets someone drunk so that they are happy to be Shanghaied! Since God does not believe or repent for us, and commands us to “do” these things. Wouldn’t it be more logical (and Scriptural) to allow that God would give grace to respond, and in that response we either accept of reject that grace?

 

In your system, it reasons that if you had a part in your salvation (some say 1%), then you ultimately can lose it.  The reformed faith teaches that it is God’s work, beginning to end. Of course we exercise faith and repentance, but it is God who changes our deceitful, wicked heart to do so.

     Answer: Arminian’s believe that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end. Even you seem to admit that faith and repentance are things that we do. These are conditions that God has set out as part of His plan. Conditions are not merit, for what merit is there in casting one’s whole self upon the mercy of God, trusting wholly in the work of Christ for every facet of their salvation, knowing that they are utterly and completely spiritually bankrupt? There is no merit here, no robbing God of His glory, just a trust in God’s work on our behalf by the enabling of His grace.

 

This argument has been refuted at length by greater minds than you and I, i.e. Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, C.H. Spurgeon, G. Gresham Machen, and a host of others. Does that mean they are right and you are wrong? Absolutely not! They all could be wrong and you right, but both cannot be right.

    Answer: It is debatable whether these men were “greater minds,” but it is not arguable that they were men of great influence. I agree wholeheartedly with the later part of your statement, (which is, by the way, the argument of the Calvinistic dispensationalist theologian, Lewis Sperry Chaffer.)

You may want to go back and read Martin Luther again. Beyond the “Bondage of the Will,” you will find that he does not conclude many of the things that these Calvinists do. Because you listed those who have written in defense of Calvinism, this does not prove anything more than they had a theology. I can list names of theologians who have written at length to prove the opposite, but that would not prove anything either.    

 

Most who disagree with Eternal Security have not read these authors, but base their whole system on what they feel.  One Sunday school teacher, after I brought up the opposing view remarked, “That means that God elects some to salvation and the others are damned.. well I HAVE A PROBLEM with that!’ But this is clearly what the Bible teaches.  

     Answer: It is patently false to say that “most” people who do not believe in Eternal Security do so based upon “feeling” and not the Bible. Just because someone does not refer to the massive evidence in Scripture against Calvinism at the drop of a hat, does not mean that they do not have any Scriptural basis for this conclusion. I could say the same of you! For in your response so far, you have not given much Scriptural proof for your assumptions. But I am a realist; I know that you have more than a few big names to throw around as your defense for what you believe. I know that you would not wish to have anyone assume that you do not base what you believe on Scripture because you did not quote it at length, and you spent the majority of your argument using ad hominem argumentation, and circular logic instead of facts. I could only hope that you would have the grace to understand that your Sunday school teacher may have summarized their conclusions from the Bible as “I have a problem with that,” as a means to disagree without engaging in a prolonged theological debate at that time.

Now, your conclusions about your Sunday School teacher may be true. Many people base their theology upon feeling and not fact. This is the case of most of the replies that I get in response to this site. Many people “feel” that God would not allow them to go to hell. They “feel” that God loves them no matter what they do. From this, am I to conclude that ALL Eternal Securists only have “feelings” for their evidence because I found ONE that did? This is the type of reasoning that you seem to employ here.

“Most who disagree with Eternal Security have not read these authors.” Yes, but most Calvinists have not read Arminian authors either. In fact, Calvinistic authors are notorious for arguing against Arminian theology, using only Calvinistic sources! And the Calvinistic sources in which they draw their “information” about what Arminians believe is by someone that has obviously never read what Arminius taught! Just because you can find a single deviant that wears the label of “Arminian,” does not mean that they represent the entire body of Arminianism.

It never ceases to amaze me how Calvinists always “suggest” that I should read certain authors to correct my thinking instead of the Bible. It is clear to me that their faith is in the “book of Calvin” and not the Scriptures!

I am not one of these people that you speak of that has not looked at the evidence. I have read extensively from Calvinistic sources. I am not ignorant about the system of belief that you are trying to promote in your letter. I have looked at the system, I have compared it with Scripture, and I have found it wanting. As perfect as the system may be, it does not make it Scriptural.   

 

But this is clearly what the Bible teaches. It’s not that they do not see it in God’s Word, but that they see it clearly and hate it.  Is this similar to the Pagan who clearly sees but suppresses the truth? Eternal Security of the believer is the only doctrine that upholds the Sovereignty of God, the other exalts man.  If this is true, then your entire website will need to change, but it won’t because man is arrogant…

      Answer: It is not what the Bible teaches… period! It is what your THEOLOGY teaches! There is not a single passage in all of Scripture that states that a believer is Eternally Secure. There is not a singular passage that states that anyone is predestined to heaven or hell. These are theological assumptions that must be believed in order to make certain passages agree with them. Am I to say that Calvinists “clearly hate the truth” just because they cannot see from the passages in Scripture, (which are in excess of 170,) that salvation is conditional? Since the Bible clearly states conditions are the responsibility of man, and not God, am I to say that you “hate” the truth?  Is it not “arrogance” for you to deny this fact?

You see, it is easy to take your vindictive and emotional arguments that you throw at those that don’t agree with you, and to turn that flawed “light” upon your own Calvinism. I don’t usually respond in this way, but apparently, this is the type of argumentation that passes for sound doctrine in your book.  

  

Eternal Security of the believer is the only doctrine that upholds the Sovereignty of God, the other exalts man.

      Answer: This is your Calvinism speaking. If God is sovereign, and He cannot choose to make men free to accept or reject given grace, then God is not sovereign! Calvinism forces a sovereignty upon God that is not represented in Scripture. It logically makes God the author of sin. It represents God as one who plays games with mankind, commanding that which man cannot do, then damning him for not doing that which he could not do. The circular logic of Calvinism limits the grace of God to a select few. God is represented as giving grace to believe to only that select few. God then commands men everywhere to “believe.” God then He damns those that He did not give grace to, not because He did not give grace, but because they did not believe! It is their fault that they are not saved! Some “sovereignty!” God cannot even take the blame for that which He is the cause of! Such fatalistic “sovereignty” does not exalt God it demeans Him! To impugn God with such “sovereignty,” is to exalt your doctrine above God. That is the true humanism! 

The notable fact that Calvinists, like yourself, always capitalize the term “Sovereignty.” You elevate your doctrine to the status of Godhood! “Sovereignty,” is a doctrine, not a “god.” But it is clear that the Calvinist cannot tell the difference, since their doctrine is their god. If that were not so, they would not consider a denial of their version of “sovereignty” as deeming someone as being “heretical.”    

Although I do not agree with the doctrine of once saved always saved, I also do not agree that the teaching eternal security is the same thing.

I believe we have eternal security based on scripture. But, I do not believe that a person who starts their walk with Christ & turns back - & continues going in that direction or has gotten into heresy (which all evangelicals would agree to as sound teaching) i.e. Carlton Pierce - that it means they would still go to heaven.

Yrs. ago I debated this with a man at work mistakenly thinking that the two was the same thing. The man I debated with believed in once saved always saved, but asked me the question, "Do you believe in eternal security?" I said "no". On Sunday, the pastor said, "We have eternal security, just we do not believe in the doctrine once saved always saved."

     Answer: While it is not an uncommon tactic to state it this way, it is not quite accurate in my opinion. Many try to reduce the term “Eternal Security” to a mere matter of semantics. As a doctrine, Once Saved Always Saved and Eternal Security is the same thing. The term Eternal Security was developed to state the same doctrine. It tries to evade the inevitable conclusion of license that the term of Once Saved Always Saved seems to be more direct in stating, but in essence, they are the same.

Most people that teach Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved would draw back in horror at the suggestion that a believer could go out and do anything that they please and still be a Christian. They declare that those that do so were never saved in the first place. They appeal to the adultery and murder of David, and the carnality of the Corinthians as people that are committing horrible sins, yet are totally secure. I cannot fathom how someone draws the line that separates the two ideas. They do not seem to be able to define the difference. Horrible sins are compatible with Christianity, while at the same time they believe that they are incompatible. One is secure in adultery and murder, while adultery and murder are not evidence that “they were not saved in the first place.”

[On Sunday, the pastor said, "We have eternal security, just we do not believe in the doctrine once saved always saved."] In this, I would say that the pastor is wrong. Eternal Security and Once Saved Always Saved is doctrinally the same thing. “Eternal Security” is a theological term, not a Biblical term. It is one thing to believe the Biblical idea of the security of the believer, and another to believe in “Eternal” Security. The believer is secure as long as they believe. There is nothing “Eternal” about this. Salvation is conditioned upon faith, and the one who has faith is secure.  

The Bible teaches:
1) He that began the good work in you will complete it.
2) That He will present us faultless.
3) We cannot keep ourselves any more than we could get saved.
4) Look unto Jesus, the author & perfector of our faith.

Answer:

1)  He that began the good work in you will complete it.  

Philippians 1:6 is commonly ripped out of its context, and the actual words are misapplied. “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” Many erroneously make the words to mean that God has declared that He will always finish the salvation that He has started in an individual. The passage says nothing of the sort. 

“Who” is confident? “What” is he confident of? “What” is this confidence based upon? The context will provide that answer. 

1. “Who.” It is Paul who is confident, not God. Paul’s confidence is a totally different thing than an unconditional promise of God.

2. “What.” Paul is confident that God will continue to work in the Philippian believers that He started. “What” was Paul’s confidence based upon? This is answered in verse  5. “For your fellowship in the gospel FROM THE FIRST DAY UNTIL NOW; BEING CONFIDENT OF THIS VERY THING…” They were FAITHFUL from the FIRST DAY UNTIL NOW. No wonder Paul had confidence in THEIR perseverance in the faith. No wonder Paul had CONFIDENCE that because of their consistency, that God would continue to work in them! How could he think otherwise?

3. “What.” This is the key to the passage. Paul’s confidence is based upon the Philippian believers consistency. In fact, the verse following the one in question states, “Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all…” It was “meet” of “just” of Paul to think this way. Not because of some imagined universal and unconditional promise, but because of these BELIEVERS faithfulness to the gospel. Paul states clearly that his confidence is based upon their faithfulness, and not upon any promise of God. Paul merely states what God will do for them as they CONTINUE in the faith.

2)  That He will present us faultless. 

     Answer: This is another passage that is so commonly wrenched from its context. Jude 24 says, “Now unto him that is ABLE to keep you from falling, and to present you  faultless before the presence of his glory…” It is amazing to see how many choose to believe that God will infallibly present them faultless, while they disbelieve that God can “keep [them] you from falling.” They assert the power of God in presenting them faultless, and deny that God can infallibly keep them from ever falling!

The passage must consider what is said before this statement. God is “ABLE,” not; God will “infallibly” do this! What God is ABLE to do in us is conditioned upon our willingness to continue with Him. Verse 21 says, “Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Those that stay in the love of God are ABLE, by God’s grace and by God’s hand, to “keep from falling,’ and in doing so, God is ABLE to present them “faultless” before the presence of His glory. 

It is erroneous eisegesis to change the statement that God is “ABLE” to do something upon conditions into, “God WILL present us faultless” unconditionally.

 
3) We cannot keep ourselves any more than we could get saved.

      Answer: To this, I give a hearty “Amen!”  The faith that is a requirement to “get saved,” is the same faith that is required to “stay saved.” Without faith it is impossible to please Him. (Heb. 11:6.) We are “kept” by the power of God THROUGH FAITH. (1 Peter 1:5.)


4) Look unto Jesus, the author & perfector of our faith.

     Answer: Another “Amen!” We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works…” (Eph. 2:10.) We can do nothing apart from Christ working in and through us. Those that abide in Him “will” bear good fruit; not because of their personal will or power, but because the power of the Vine pulses through them. We bear fruit because we are grafted into the Vine, and the life force of the Vine works through us. (John 15.)


The difference is I believe people can take the grace of God as a license to sin which the Bible warns us not to do; And allow heretical teaching (not speaking of controversial subjects that end up regrettably dividing churches).

Or simply choose to turn away from God - i.e. out of anger & not return back.

Over the yrs. I have learned more about the grace of God & the faithfulness of the Lord.  Just like one group can end up to far on one side - another group can end up too far on the other.

Believers do not go before the Great white throne judgment - only unbelievers go there Believers will appear before the Judgment seat of Christ - 2 separate events. 

     Answer:  Truth is not determined by moderation. We cannot take the extremes and split the difference, and somehow arrive at truth. I do agree that the truth usually falls between the utter extremes that we can see expressed. Not because it is in the middle, but because it is revealed as true.

 I do not necessarily disagree with you on the Judgment. My only reservation is that many arrive at doctrinal conclusions, which are based upon these eschatological speculations. Because Believers will be judged in a different way than non-believers, it does not indicate that God ignores sin in a believer. If a believer stands before God, it is because he is righteous before God. The one believing has confessed his sins, and is forgiven of his sins before he stands before God. Many take the eschatological aspect and arrive at the thought that a believer can walk in all sorts of sin shy of apostasy, and still stand before God as a believer. One can arrive at this conclusion through eschatological speculation, but not through the Bible.  

I READ YOUR PAGE ON ETERNAL SECURITY - HOW FOOLISH YOU PEOPLE ARE TO NOT BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF GOD.

I NOTICED YOU HAD A LOT OF FANCY QUOTES BY OTHER PEOPLE, BUT NO SCRIPTURE REFRENCES TO BACK UP YOUR BELIEFS - THAT MY FRIEND IS HERESY.

JESUS SAID, Joh 10:28 And I give unto them ETERNAL life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

EITHER THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS EFFICACIOUS AND SUFFICIENT OR IT IS NOT. 

HAVE YOU EVER SINNED SINCE YOU BECAME A CHRISTIAN?  HOW MUCH DOES ONE HAVE TO SIN IN ORDER TO LOSE THEIR SALVATION?

 

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH PEOPLE LIKE

* LOT - A WICKED MAN, YET A JUST MAN

* DAVID - COMMITTED ADULTERY - YET SAVED

* SOLOMON - TURNED FROM GOD AND SERVED IDOLS, YET HE WAS SAVED.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND I IS, I CAN PILLOW MY HEAD TONIGHT "KNOWING" (I JOHN 5:13, ROMANS 8:35 - 38) I HAVE BEEN SAVED FOR ALL ETERNITY.

 

PASTOR N. L.

  

Dear Pastor L____,

It is painfully obvious that you did not even make the least effort to get beyond the first page. If you had, you would have known that John 10:25-30 does not assert any such thing as an unconditional Eternal Security.

You claim that I gave a “lot of fancy quotes by other people.” I did so for a reason. Eternal Security is a philosophical doctrine that deserves a philosophical response. You claim that I am teaching heresy because you did not try to look at a single passage that was presented. In one article alone, I give 173 passages that prove Eternal Security to be a manmade doctrine. In another article I examine the so-called proof-texts of Eternal Security and show them within their context. It is inexcusable eisegesis for you to read Eternal Security into these verses and to deceive those around you by doing so. God will hold you accountable!

 

What do I do with Solomon, Lot, and David? I believe the Scriptural account of these three without reservation!

Solomon late in his life turned to idols, which if God was still worshipped, He was lowered to the level of other demons that Solomon worshipped. These are the facts: Solomon’s later life was marked by a dreadful apostasy. His death is mentioned almost immediately after, and without any comment that he ever repented or turned to God. With this in mind, no conclusion as to his fate can be dogmatically asserted. If he did not turn, then we must believe what is clear. What can be asserted is what God says about idolaters. “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters… shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:10.) “Be not deceived…” (1 Cor. 6:9.) You claim that he was “saved.” On what basis do you say that?

If Solomon did not repent, he did not enter into heaven. That is what God says.

 

Lot it seems had a rocky walk with God. Keep in mind that Lot was living in a time in which there was not the Law. As to his knowledge of the right and wrongness of his actions, only God knows. What does God say about Lot?  In 2 Peter 2:7, he is called “righteous.” He had some light as to right and wrong in that he was “vexed” by the lawlessness of his day. (v. 8.) He is declared a “godly man” in verse 9. In light of the later Law we find many things that may seem contradictory to what we know as right and wrong. God however, is the only true Judge of man’s state. In this case, it seems that if Lot faltered in any way, he ultimately recovered in his walk as to finish in a state of rightness with God.

 

David is appealed to as an example of so-called Eternal Security. David sinned greatly, murder and adultery being among his failures. I believe everything that is said in the Scripture concerning this matter. It is also stated that David was a man after God’s own heart. What is God’s heart? What is His statement on murder and adultery? 1 Jn. 3:15 states that “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” As surely as God is true, David could not have possibly been safe and secure at the time he arranged for the murder of Uriah. As for adultery, God says, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, idolaters, nor adulterers… shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10.) David was not a man after God’s own heart as long as he was in rebellion to God. He did not repent until after the birth of the fruit of his adultery. (At least 9 months.) This is not my opinion, but the documented fact of what God says about the state of those that fall into these sins.  David was saved only because he repented of his sin. If David refused to repent, God would have to hold true to his word that David would not inherit the kingdom or have eternal life. David was a man after God's own heart only in his repentance.    

 

“ THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND I IS, I CAN PILLOW MY HEAD TONIGHT "KNOWING" (I JOHN 5:13, ROMANS 8:35 -38) I HAVE BEEN SAVED FOR ALL ETERNITY.“

Pastor, The devil has fluffed up the soft pillow in which you have chosen to rest your head. If these are the proofs that you have to show Eternal Security, it does not surprise me, for it reflects the manner in which you look at Scripture; you only look at what you want to look at, and only see what you want to see.

If Christ did not die and rise again to give us salvation and eternal security then He died in vain. He gave us everlasting life according to the scriptures. What is everlasting life? It is everlasting. We are saved by Grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone and not of ourselves.

     Answer: Dear B., The Bible does say that Christ dies to give us salvation. But what warrant do you have to add Eternal Security to it? For the Bible knows nothing of the term or the concept. 

Secondly, you should actually read something before you comment on it. You are rushing to judgment without even looking to see what is said about Everlasting Life, and Grace Alone. If you are to ever help someone, it has to be based upon correcting what they said, not upon what you have never read.

One note to the reader: I published this here, not because it answers a Biblical question, but because it is an all too common response. If you feel that someone is in error, and you want to be effective in reaching them, give them the courtesy of reading their argument before you judge. Comment specifically where they are wrong so they can make correction. This post is an example of 90% of what I see. People that do not take the time to see if what I write is true, and the irrational attempt to "school" me instead of teach me. 

Mark 

I have no vote.  The bible clearly states the believer is secure.

     Answer: I agree, the Bible does clearly state that a believer is secure. It is also just as crystal clear that one who ceases to obey God and then continues in sin is not a believer. (1 Jn. 3:9; Heb. 10:26-31; Rom. 6: 16, 22.) A true believer hears (present tense) and follows (present tense) the Lord. (Jn. 10:27). Those that cease to hear and follow are not His sheep. One can become a believer and start hearing and following the Lord, thus, becoming a sheep. But later on, he can fall into unbelief and cease to hear and follow the Lord, no longer meeting the requirements of being a sheep.   

I once asked a woman who was not sure of this security of the believer if she WANTED to have the ability to give back her salvation.  She thought a minute and then said: "well, wait, if I say yes... I'm crazy".  We both laughed.  It was however, a very good conclusion.

     Answer: I once talked with a man that asserted that since God is love, everybody will be in heaven. He FELT that a God of love wouldn’t send anybody to hell. You see, it does not matter what man WANTS that establishes truth, it is what God SAYS that matters! The same goes for any notion in the mind of man concerning the believer’s security.

In my mind, the only “good” conclusion would be that they believed the Scripture, not their feelings.

Dear Friend,

What has Christ done on the CROSS. Has he not made an end to sin. 
IT IS FINISHED. You must know that the
Sole Purpose of Christ death was to connect back to
God , through His death. Now those that are saved are
no longer sinners. Not by their works they got saved.
Now if works could save you then Christ death is of no
use to you. When do you merit, no where, and at no
time do you merit anything by works. Now those who are
born again have no sin, because Christ has cleanse
their sin away. If you do believe in this, then it
means you are not saved yet, so you must surely lack
understanding. I do not blame you.

Now God demands 100 percent Righteousness and it is
only Christ that met that demand, so then we come to
God on the basis of what Christ has done for us and if
we believe this we put on Christ work of
righteousness.

So God sees us through the work of Christ. Not by
works of Righteousness which we have done.

Pray for God to lead your heart you are not yet
converted. We are Righteous because we believe in
finished work of Christ not our strength or struggle
to overcome sin. I marvel because though you profess
to overcome sin you still sin. But those who believes
that Christ has taken away  their sins with faith they
have no sin. May God lead your heart to read Roman
Chapter 5 and chapter 10 and Hebrews Chapter 9 and and
chapter 10

Listen you cannot stand before God with your works of
righteousness, only what God sees is Christ's, so
those who believes in Christ have Christ's
Righteousness.

Has has already dealt with sin, but You are still
crying over sin problems, this is the work of satan,
blinding people, I am sorry for your state now, may
God Humble your heart.
Your thoughts and head knowledge cannot save you.

May Christ Save

Dear Anonymous,

You call me "friend" with one side of your mouth then accuse me of teaching or depending upon my own righteousness to save myself with the other side. With the full weight of your arrogant Gnosticism, you judge me as unsaved.

"Now those who are born again have no sin, because Christ has cleanse their sin away. If you do believe in this, then it means you are not saved yet, so you must surely lack understanding. " 

- You side with the devil and not the Scriptures in stating the continuance of sin in the believer. God says, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;" 1 Jn. 3:9. If you have not experienced the victory over sin the Bible promises, then it is you that should be reading the Scripture to replace the man-made heresy that you have replaced it with. "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous, He that committeth sin is of the devil;" 1 Jn. 3:7-8, yet you try to deceive me into believing that "he who sins is a Christian." Pardon me, but I will believe the Bible.

"Pray for God to lead your heart you are not yet converted."

- You preach another "gospel." You believe that God is weak and powerless, that He commands us not to sin, yet you believe that the devil is more powerful than God, for the work of Christ which was to "save His people from their sins" is a failure, that is too weak to have its effect on man.

" We are Righteous because we believe in finished work of Christ not our strength or struggle to overcome sin. I marvel because though you profess to overcome sin you still sin. But those who believes that Christ has taken away their sins with faith they have no sin."

"Listen you cannot stand before God with your works of righteousness, only what God sees is Christ's, so those who believes in Christ have Christ's Righteousness."

- This is Gnostic fiction. Nowhere... I repeat NOWHERE can you show me in the Bible such a wishful thinking to be validated! The Bible never speaks of a mystical transfer of sins in which we can hide behind our cardboard picture of Jesus, and all God can see is Jesus as we sin. Hogwash! Unbiblical! Dishonoring and heretical! This is why you couldn’t produce a single verse to back up your statement. God is all knowing, He is not blinded to your sin. He knows, He is watching! You don’t need a theory of wishful thinking for your salvation, you need to repent and believe! "The soul that sins shall surely die."

I don’t have a "works" salvation, but I do have a salvation that works! It is not a dead faith that fails to change and convert a soul to righteousness. Unlike your theory, my belief can, and is supported by Scripture.

I don’t struggle with sin, and those that are truly saved do not struggle with sin. "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1 Jn. 5:3.

"Your thoughts and head knowledge cannot save you."

- And your wishful thinking that has its roots in the heresy of Gnosticism cannot save you. My thoughts are God’s thoughts on the matter. If you would rely on Scripture instead of some man’s theory, you could see that.

" May God lead your heart to read Roman Chapter 5 and chapter 10 and Hebrews Chapter 9 and chapter 10"

- And may God lead you to be honest enough to actually read someone’s argument before you accuse them of something they have never said or contended for! I could only wish and pray that you would make an honest evaluation, but more than likely, like most who have written to criticize, you will probably go on, justified in your own mind and continue to hold to pagan theories instead of the word of God.

To Jeff Patton

I saw your article concerning Bob George on the internet and thought you did a VERY VERY

 poor job debating the ideas he has set forth.The pompeous intellectual ideas of Calvin Wesley

 and Luther seem to be what you define as faith.Well lets see "Jesus only died for the elect"

 Calvin was a fool.Wesley didn't come to "TRUE" faith till he let go of trying to work for his salvation.Same for luther exept I wonder how a man who was supposedly "BORN AGAIN"

of the spirit could be a complete antisemite and have "HATRED FOR HIS BROTHER" the

 Jews.ITS simple all of these men were fallen beings just like you and me.I"ll put my faith in

 the "FINISHED" work of CHRIST,Thankyou!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

          Answer: That's the best you could do? An ad hominem argument?

It apparently does not take Scripture to make an argument for Gnosticism. What a surprise!

I will hold to the Bible, and the "pompous intellectual ideas" of those that agree with Scripture. You are apparently comfortable with the Scriptural ignorance of Bob George and the fictitious doctrines that he propagates.

Comments on Jeff Paton's criticism of eternal security:

I only had to read about a quarter of this paper before I realized just how unrevelated this Jeff Paton really is. I can't remember enough of it to quote all of the apostasy stated, but I can tell you that Dr. Charles Stanley is correct in his address of eternal security. Jeff seems to think a person can lose their salvation not truly understanding that salvation is a gift. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the GIFT of God..." (Eph.2:8) The Greek word for gift here means an "offering"...it's available... but not everybody has to accept it! Stanley's use of inference is not at all contradictory to scripture. You can conclude many things to be true [through the knowledge of one truth] that you don't necessarily have physical or written evidence of. What I'm saying is that just because you don't have concrete evidence, or because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's not true or valid. On top of that, you can't say that everything taught outside of what is written in scripture is invalid. Peter wrote: "...no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT." (2 Peter 1:20,21) So, if a person in modern times is "moved by the Holy Spirit" to understand something that isn't witten about in the Bible...does that make it heresy? I don't think so. Thus, just because you can't always find a scripture in the Bible to "back up" something that is true does NOT make it untrue. There are a lot of things pertaining to salvation that wasn't written in the Bible. What reference did the prophets of old use to back up their revelations? Nothing except signs and wonders. People in the old world didn't have the scriptures to try and prove theologies and doctrines... I'm pretty sure that not every Christian [in the old world] had there very own HANDWRITTEN scrolls of Isaiah. Therefore, this over-emphasis on whether or not scripture backs a teaching up or not is heresy in itself. Stanley's revelations about the eternal security of salvation are NOT "theologies". In light of this, I'm afraid that Jeff Paton is the one that struggles with heresy...not Charles Stanley. Salvation cannot be lost...and if you're at all uncertain about the security of your salvation, then you might want to make sure that you ARE saved! "...you have been saved through faith...it is the GIFT of God..." (Eph.2:8) "...the GIFTS and the calling of God are IRREVOCABLE." ( Rom. 11:29) Satan does not want Christians to understand their identity [how that salvation cannot possibly be lost] in Christ...because he knows that if he can keep Christians full of worry, fear, and guilt for sins, then he can effectively keep us from bearing fruit [displaying the manisfestations of Christ]. Sin is not bad behavior...sin is a nature [unbelief]. Faith is not a behavior...it is a nature or a state of being. In the same way that a person who attends church [regularly] is NOT necessarily a Christian, so is a person who sins not necessarily a "sinner". Some Christians, like Jeff, still struggle with Satans's lies...which are spawned out of the nature of condemnation, which is the result of unbelief. Some Christians are still taking Satan's bait because they haven't grown up yet. They're prideful "know it alls" that cannot be taught the truth until they depend upon God instead of their own understanding (Prov. 3:5).

In Christ,

M. H.

     Answer:  M.,

I have to admit that your approach has taken me back a little bit. It is without a doubt the most bizarre and nonsensical approach to truth I have ever heard! I will attempt to piece it together by the main points.

1. You believe I am "unrevelated" and that Charles Stanley is "revelated?" I would reserve Divine inspiration to the Scriptures and not to anyone else. I do not believe that even Charles Stanley would accept your claim. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but such thinking has led to the creation of Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a multitude of other cults. Truth becomes whatever you wish it to be with this standard.

2. You claim that I do not understand salvation as a gift. You bring in Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 11:29 to argue your point. First, a gift is something that is freely given, and received. By practical experience, we have gifts that we once cherished and at a later time we changed our minds about them and threw them out. If one chooses a life apart from God, it is not God’s fault that the person rejected it. As for God’s gifts being "irrevocable," we must read the chapter and not just take and run with Scripture as if it were proof-texts. The context is directed towards the Jews. Paul was indicating that God has not abandoned them and still has a plan for them. He states that God turned away from them because of unbelief, and that the gentiles have been grafted in. God cut off the Jews because unbelief, and He says in plain words that he will do the same to us if we do not continue in His goodness. (11:13-24.) Belief is the condition of receiving the gift, and unbelief is the rejection of the gift.

3. "Peter wrote: "...no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT." (2 Peter 1:20,21)" Your application is: "So, if a person in modern times is "moved by the Holy Spirit" to understand something that isn't written about in the Bible...does that make it heresy? I don't think so. Thus, just because you can't always find a scripture in the Bible to "back up" something that is true does NOT make it untrue. There are a lot of things pertaining to salvation that wasn't written in the Bible."

The passage from Peter that you use is saying the very opposite of what you claim. You should have emphasized the first part of the statement, not the last. We are not privileged to have our own little "private interpretation" of the truth. That is why God inspired the Biblical writers to wrote!

It is true that a Ford F150 is not in the Bible, and it is true that it exists. This does not however apply to spiritual truth. God may move people in certain ways, but He never has them move to teach doctrines that are not founded in Scripture. He cannot especially have inspired someone to teach CONTRARY to Scripture and have it to be "truth."

4. "In the same way that a person who attends church [regularly] is NOT necessarily a Christian, so is a person who sins not necessarily a "sinner"." This is certainly inspiration... of the devil! The Bible says it is so. 1 Jn. 3:7-10, "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil.: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

5. "Some Christians, like Jeff, still struggle with Satans's lies...which are spawned out of the nature of condemnation, which is the result of unbelief. Some Christians are still taking Satan's bait because they haven't grown up yet. They're prideful "know it alls" that cannot be taught the truth until they depend upon God instead of their own understanding (Prov. 3:5)".

It is astonishing to see this judgment of my spirituality immediately after you have clearly contradicted the plain statements of Scripture!

I can only hope and pray that you will someday trust the Bible as your guide for truth and not your own imagination or the theories of men. It is obvious that you cling to these theories and lower Scriptures inspiration to their level. This is sadly evident and dangerous, even to the point of defying God and claiming that sinning does not make you a sinner. It only makes me wonder how many murders one has to commit in order to be a murderer!

M., I would exhort you to heed your own advise, to "depend upon God instead of their own understanding (Prov. 3:5)." God’s understanding is to be found in the Scriptures, not the garbage that the devil has been so successful in bringing to your mind which you so easily confuse with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit never leads anyone to go so clearly against the plain inspired statements of the Word of God.

Question:
"If one can lose his salvation; how much sin does he have to commit to lose it?"  For Adam and Eve, it only took one. Too long people tell me, "Only if its wilful sin!"  All sin is wilfil.  Where in the Scriptures does it say to be re born again, and again?

You have outlined 100's of Scriptures out of context, so please read just one from me.  

Hebrews 6:4-6
"For it is impossible, for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

Point 1: "For it is impossible" means exactly that impossible. Impossible for what and for who?

Point 2: "for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come" these are BELIEVERS!!!  The world has not receive the Holy Ghost, only Believers have. Therefore, the Word of God is talking about BELIEVERS!  So, once a BELIEVER has tasted of the heavenly gift, been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost etc, etc, what is impossible for him?  hence IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM (Believer)

 Point 3:  "If they shall fall away" Ok, what is impossible for the believer if he should fall away.  (By the way sinning would equal such a way.  A believer living a sinful life = falling away right?)  Still what is impossible for this BELIEVER if he were to fall away?

Point 4:  "To renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."  To.......  RENEW THEM AGAIN unto REPENTANCE!!! seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. No where in the bible is the lost AND saved, then lost again
AND saved/Re born again doctrine.  If it were true, then Hebrews 6:4-6 is wrong, because you say they can repent and be put on track again, but Hebrews isn't wrong.  It states the truth, as do all Scriptures.

Answer:  If I am reading the statement correctly, your argument is around Hebrews 6:4-6, and that it disproves all of the texts that I cataloged for one to review on the subject. Nonsense!

1. On verse can certainly shed light on the issue, yet one verse does dismantle the meaning of all of them in one swoop. That would be presumption, not exposition.

2. You claim that the 100’s of Scriptures I used were all out of context. Accusations are cheap; proof takes a little effort.

3. I will concede that it only takes one sin. The effect of sin in the Garden has never been amended or modified.

4. There is an element of sin that must be willful for it to be a sin. If someone stops and asks for directions, and you tell them to “turn left on Maple Drive,” but they were supposed to turn right, this is not a sin, but an error in judgment, that is, unless you willfully attempted to deceive them. Legalism looks at the act; grace looks at the heart or intent.

5. Yes, “impossible” means impossible.

6. Those that read the passage out of context dwell on the “impossible” and append their own meaning to it without ever looking at the passage to see if it gives us the meaning of it. This is what you have done here.  

7. “what is impossible for this BELIEVER if he were to fall away? "To renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."  To.......  RENEW THEM AGAIN unto REPENTANCE!!! seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
So, I must conclude that you believe that a believer is hopelessly lost upon the first sin. Or you are taking the absurd leap of the intellect and by making the passage irrelevant by inventing an unscriptural salvation that it both unconditional and positional. Making the passage irrelevant to Christians does not change the horrible meaning of the passage.

8. Your implications are that the passage denies that once one slips up, they are hopelessly lost forever. Somehow you believe this to unravel the whole position that Eternal Security is false. This is far from the truth, for an honest exposition of the text proves the opposite of what you are trying to imply.  

As for Hebrews 6:4-6, I see the key being verse 6. We are told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them. Why is that? The text tells us clearly where the impossibility lays. It is that they are crucifying the Son of God afresh. This is in the present tense in the Greek. It [repentance] only remains impossible WHILE THEY ARE DOING THIS! If they cease to re-crucify Jesus Christ in their hearts and minds, there is no reasonable explanation why they could not find repentance and forgiveness. As long as they continue (present tense) to place Jesus back upon the Cross in their hearts, repentance remains impossible.
The reason I say this is based upon the observation that nowhere in the Bible do we see an individual truly seeking repentance where God has turned them away. There is however, a point in which God gives up on an individual and it becomes futile to even pray for them. Is this what Hebrews 6:4-6 is asserting? An honest examination of the text does not demand it here. The present tense not only removes the difficulty, it destroys the absurd notion that this passage is a corrective that disproves the truth that one can fall or apostatize from the faith. This passage speaks of a real danger. God is not willing that any should perish, but ALL would come to repentance. The difficulty is not with God's willingness, but with the person's heart that continually rejects and re-crucifies the one and only Hope for salvation from sin.

9. An appeal to absurdity by an absurdity is a failed logic. “If our walk in the Spirit faulter's, [sic] we can't be un Holy Ghosted!” The Scriptures do not speak of being “un” birthed, “un” Holy Ghosted, or any other “un’s”. God does not reverse the process. Romans 8:2-6, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.., That the righteousness of the  law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after flesh, but after the Spirit.., For to be carnally minded is death." My friend, one does not get “un-Holy Ghosted” when the choose to continue in sin. They do not get “un-born.” The Scriptures are clear, they die!

10.  "As for John 10:27-28.  My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish....  Question about you:  Are you his Sheep?  YES.  Do you hear His voice? YES.  Does Jesus know you? YES.  Do you follow Him today? YES.  Ok then, if you are following Him today, what has He given you? ETERNAL LIFE, YES that is correct!  So here you are, a Sheep following Him and you have Eternal Life, therefore what also is promised to you?  AND THEY (YOU) SHALL NEVER PERISH!!!!!  NEVER means NEVER!, not until, or as soon as, or if you do this sin.  No, NEVER PERISH means, NEVER PERISH.” 

Answer: Once again, you have seized upon a single word in a passage and try to lead its meaning around by the nose. The matter of security is not what is in question, but “who” are the sheep? The sheep are clearly defined: “My sheep hear [present active participle] my voice, I know them, and they follow [present active participle] me…” Jesus clearly states the conditions of being a sheep. Only those that are hearing and following Jesus right now, at this moment, are the sheep. Those that do so are secure. Notice that the Scriptures never give such grand blessings to those that do not hear, and do not follow. Only those that have a present tense hearing and following WILL NEVER PERISH. Only those that are hearing and following Christ have ETERNAL LIFE right now! Continual sinning is not hearing or following by any stretch of the imagination!

11. "He who the son sets free, IS FREE indeed!"  I suggest that you actually look at this passage in context and you will see what we are free from! It is form sin and the power of sin! It does not speak of some wishy-washy feel good freedom “in” sin, it is freedom over sin.

12. “The law of God wasn't given for us to live holy, even though the Scriptures are holy.  The law was given to reveal our sin.  Paul, asked in Romans 6:1-3 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  See even if you did sin, Gods grace will abound over sin, why because Sin is dealt with.  The life of ours that could of taken us to hell is in verse 3, baptized into Jesus death.  Its gone, behold all things are new.”

While I agree that law keeping cannot save you, your statement reveals several things. First, it is antinomian. Is makes the Law of no effect, which is in opposition to the Scriptures. “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4). There is no mystical hiding of the Christian’s life that shields them from sin. This is the heresy of Gnosticism. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that
committeth sin is of the devil;” (1 John 3:4-10). You are taking John’s correction against the error that grace over abounds sin as if it could be treated as a limitless reserve for the Christian. His warning implies that this error should be rejected. John is rejecting the idea that God’s grace will abound over willful sin.

“Just as a no amount of good works can get a sinner saved; also no amount of bad works of sin can a believer lose his salvation.  why? ANSWER:  "Not of works, but by grace are you SAVED!" Not getting saved; the word declares SAVED!” 

Answer: This is nonsense and not Scripture! The wages of sin is death! The soul that sinneth shall die! God has not amended the standard. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that God converts sin instead of people. That is what you are contending for! God takes the sin out of the believer so they can be holy, which is Scriptural; instead, you are saying that the same sin that damns an unbeliever does not have any affect upon the believer! People are not converted… sin is! “Therefore, BRETHREN, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. FOR IF YE LIVE AFTER THE FLESH, YE SHALL DIE: BUT IF YE THROUGH THE SPIRIT DO MORTIFY THE DEEDS OF THE BODY, YE SHALL LIVE.”  “Know ye not, that to whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY, HIS SERVANTS YE ARE to whom ye obey; whether SIN UNTO DEATH, or OBEDIENCE UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS?… Being then made FREE FROM SIN, ye became servants of righteousness.” "But now being made FREE FROM SIN, and become SERVANTS TO GOD, ye have your FRUIT UNTO HOLINESS, and THE END EVERLASTING LIFE."

The prodigal son went away from his father and sinned alot over a period of time, then he repented and returned.  The father declared his son was lost but is now found. Understand this.  what was lost?  his sonship or fellowship/communion with his family back home.  If i had a murderer for a son, and he went to jail unrepentant; yes I'd hate what he committed, nevertheless, there is nothing he can do, nor I to change the fact that I am His father, and he is my son.

Answer: Jesus makes it clear as to the status of this relationship. First, it speaks of a son. "Son" defines the previous relationship of one that has departed from the Father. God declares that “for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again: he was lost, and has been found." Dead people do not have a relationship. If this “son” did not repent and turn back to God the Father again, then he would have remained dead in his sins, lost forever! The Scripture tells us that the son came to life again. He was once alive spiritually, died, and came back to life again. He was lost spiritually and physically, and was found both physically and spiritually. The bottom line? No repentance, no forgiveness. No amount of appeals to family relationship would have saved him apart from turning from his sin.


Leaning on family relationship while he continued in sin would avail him nothing! If he died in that state, his “sonship” would not save him. To be a son is to know the truth, and if you trample under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith you were sanctified, an unholy thing, it would have been better to have not known the way of righteousness, than, after having known it, to turn away from it ( Heb.10:29; 2 Peter 2:21).  You see, on Judgment Day, your status of "son" will not avail you any privilege any more than being a "son" did for the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.....he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me...but Abraham said, Son, remember…

"If you still believe in the lost and saved and lost and saved theory, I finish this email with 1 last question, which was my first...."How much sin do you need to commit, to lose your salvation." Make sure your answer to the question is biblical, and not a wilful [sic] sin answer cop-out!

The answer? One! “For the wages of sin is death;” The finality of the Scriptures. “He who sins is of the devil.”  “Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.” If you wish to answer this, be sure it is Biblical this time! No more cop-outs by appealing to fictional Penal Theories and Gnostic myths of imputation instead of true righteousness. For “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.”

Don't you realize that by saying someone can lose their salvation your putting it into the category of "works" and therefore calling God a liar?
----
Answer: Unfortunately, it is you that is calling God a liar if you think that you will be judged according to you faith. Everyone will be judged according to their works. That is what God says.

Not once in all of Scripture does it even imply that the Biblical belief of a possibility of losing salvation is either a “works” salvation, or calling God a liar. Your refutation is a manmade defense that doesn’t apply to anyone I have ever met. Perhaps you should read something before you make unsubstantiated assertions.

--------------------------------------

Remember, "salvation come's from the GRACE of God not of WORKS lest
any man should BOAST".

-----

Answer: You need to continue on from Ephesians 2:8-9 and include verse 10.
Works are what we are created for.  

Do you believe that one must have faith to be saved? Then you are in the category of “works salvation” according to your own definition. If you believe salvation is by fate, that you either lucky or unlucky, then you are consistent with your own theory, but not the Bible.

-----------------

Ephesians 1:13-14 states:
"You also were included in the Messiah when you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" Can you anyway refute that?
-------------

Answer: This is addressed in several areas on my site. It is there for those that wish to find it. I soundly reject the idea that works merit salvation in any way on my site. You assume much by what you accuse me of without doing your homework. I don’t send this to “refute” any verse, but to “believe” every verse that sets it in context.

Pillar Eight
The final pillar remaining is starting to crumble into dust, since
without the support of any verses positing this fallacious teaching,
Ephesians 1:13-14 will render no support on its own.
In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy
Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the
redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
The only way that this can be perceived as a proof for eternal
security is to have the support of some verse where the doctrine has
already been proven. Standing alone as it does, it renders nothing
that teachers of carnal security can use. The verse does not say
whether believers can break this seal or not, but the whole of
Scripture proves that they can. Observe that the Holy Spirit is only a
down payment on our inheritance and that we do not possess the
fullness of this gift until the Lord returns. The fullness of this
promise is only to those who endure to the end. The Scriptures tell us
to "Be faithful until death and I will give you a crown of life."
(Rev. 3:5,21). The Lord preserves the faithful (Psalms 31:23), not the
unfaithful. This is the true perseverance of the Saints!

PILLAR ELEVEN                          
And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the
day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30

In a lot of ways this is the same as Pillar Eight. Much ado is made of
the word "sealed" within both of these passages as proof that the
carnal "christian" is secure. Also, much emphasis is put upon the
statement "unto the day of redemption."  Because of the inordinate
stress that the advocates of this theory put upon these words, I find
it necessary to give more attention to the subject than what was
already been given in the original Pillars.  
Once again I want to underscore that the word "seal" in itself makes
no allusion to a doctrine of unconditional security whatsoever. It
does speak of security which cannot be denied, but nowhere does the
word itself define the extent of that security. The word "seal" in
itself does not give us the mode in which we are sealed, nor does the
word itself give any indication whether the seal can be broken or not.
Many will charge that this is clarified by the clause "unto the day of
redemption." They read "unto," the Greek "eis" as till, or all the way
to the day of redemption. They see this as proving that the seal is
guaranteed through to the day of His coming. This stems from a
misinterpretation of the ambiguous "unto" of the King James version
and by not looking at the original Greek. All versions of the
Scriptures since the KJV, and the unanimous consensus of the Greek
scholarship of our day goes against this interpretation. Most
translate this passage as, "for the day of redemption." The idea of
the passage is that we were sealed with a view to the day of
redemption. The passage does not say that we are guaranteed this
sealing all the way to the day of redemption, or are sure of our
arrival at this designated end. The possibility of grieving the Holy
Spirit, which is the "seal", implies that this passage is meant as a
warning and not as a passage of assurance as the Eternal Security
proponents demand. This verse admits the possibility of grieving the
Holy Spirit, which implies that there is a real danger and that this
seal can be broken.
The substrata: Many allude to the ancient custom of using a wax seal
as a mark of ownership. There is also the idea of preserving an item
in a container, such as jelly or preserves. These references are not
complete ideas in which we can take every aspect of them and force
them upon Scripture. In fact, the Scripture never specifies how
this "sealing" is applied.
For example: A wax seal of ownership is independent of the object
which is sealed. Thus, many say that from this image, we cannot break
this seal ourselves. As for the jar of preserves; the item inside
remains uncontaminated as long as the seal is not broken, or, the seal
remains unbroken if the contents remain uncontaminated and do not
fester. Since the Bible makes no mention of exactly how this sealing
happens, it would be wrong to force any idea too far in either
direction. This would be reading too much into these verses.
Interjecting our preferred idea of what we think this sealing is into
this passage would prove a theory, but it would not prove that it is
the idea of Scripture.


SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED          

The wall of assumption continues to be built using the term "seal." It
is no doubt a term that carries the idea of marking ownership and
implying security. The word itself does not define permanency or
unbreakableness because the word in itself does not imply the mode in
which it takes place. Stanley quotes Ephesians 4:30 "And do not grieve
the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of
redemption." Notice that he glosses over the warning of grieving the
Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seal, and it is implied that there
is danger in offending Him. If there were no danger of disrupting this
seal, then why does God bring this matter of grieving the Holy Spirit
into the picture?
Secondly, Stanley interjects his theology into the later half of the
verse saying, "We are sealed right up through the "day of redemption."
The passage says nothing of the sort. Paul writes that we were
sealed "for" the day of redemption. We can say that it is "in view of"
the day of redemption. The vast consensus of Greek scholarship
confirms that the word "unto" which is used in the King James Version,
cannot be translated as "until" the day of redemption. If you have any
doubts, check several translations and lexicons for yourself. You will
also find by careful research that there is not a singular instance
where Scripture defines the sealing of the believer as unbreakable or
permanent. With the absence of any Biblical proof to back the
assertion that we cannot break this seal, we must admit that their
argument is purely a product of their own imagination.
Stanley proceeds to bring in another proof-text of eternal security
with 1 Peter 1:5, we "are protected (kept) by the power of God through
faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Again,
we find that our salvation will not be complete until the end of time.
But until then, we are protected by " the power of God." but he
conveniently leaves off the condition of this protection! Through
Faith!  If faith is abandoned, then the promise of protection is lost.
Too much is made of this issue of sealing when there is no evidence to
establish the irrevocability of its application to us. The problem
stems from people choosing to read things into it that are not there.
Upon close examination we see that this "huge" argument for eternal
security is really a non-issue. Wishful thinking may make this a proof
text, but the facts are that nowhere does the Scripture define sealing
in the manner that Charles Stanley and other proponents for this
doctrine force upon it. To say that the intent of this seal is to
bring security, safety, and preservation, cannot be denied. Honesty
must bring us to the conclusion that there is no warrant to interject
the ideas of irrevocable, permanent, and everlasting, where the Bible
never does.
-------------------


Refure [sic] this verse also please:  Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Answer: Sorry, not a single thing here to be found that would assert an irrevocable Eternal Security. Why proof-text out of context for that which you cannot prove?

Romans 8:1 is the conclusion to chapter seven. In chapter seven there is condemnation, and Paul (then Saul) pleads, “Who shall separate me from this body of death?” “Thank God through Jesus Christ” “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

You should look beyond your presuppositions to see what Paul means by “In” Christ. Romans 6 clearly states that those that are slaves to sin are not saved. Romans 8 states that those that live according to the sinful nature, you will die. (v.13).

 

---------------

I hope God corrects you for self-righteousness, so you can bring more people to heaven thru the LOVE of Christ!

---

Answer: I make no pretense to self-salvation. Is it really “love” that you speak of through your pre-judging and arrogance?   

 

 

SECOND RESPONSE

 

Yeah well say all you want to, but ask God to speak to you about this issue. See how he feel's about you turning away soul's from Christ who promises to give ETERNAL life to those who believe on his name. Could you please look up the word eternal and tell me what it means?

 

Answer: God would never lead someone to believe something that is not in the Bible.

I understand your passion for what you believe to be true. I’ve been there, and God led me out of the error. As passionate as I was for error, I could not be any less passionate for truth.

Consider the following from the site:  

"If Eternal Life can be lost, how can it be eternal?" This logic pivots on the meaning of eternal. If it is eternal, how can it then end? These are pertinent questions.

There is a point in time where one who believes receives eternal life.
If this life is "eternal" then it has no beginning or ending, but yet
we admit that we do not possess it until we believe! Does this mean
that it is not "eternal" since there has to be a beginning to our
possession of it?

If I receive an eternal Pearl of great price as a gift, it is mine;
I "have" an eternal Pearl. It is something that I should cherish and
rejoice in! But what if I trade it in for something I would rather
have? What if I no longer cherish the gift or the One that gave it to
me. What if I then become careless and then I lose it somewhere? Even
if I cast it away, the Pearl remains eternal! It just ceases to be my
possession!

Those that key in on the word "eternal" fail to see that the quality
of "everlasting" is connected to "life" and not to our "having" it
or "possessing" it! The "life" is "eternal," and not the believer!
Having Eternal Life does not mean that we have an irrevocable
possession of it! Whether we accept Christ and the gift of eternal
life has no bearing on the quality of the gift, "eternal life." The
gift stays eternal whether we possess it or not! The quality of
the "life" is "eternal," whether anyone would ever believe on Christ
or not.  

The logic of an Eternal Gift is interesting, but it cannot, and does
not, establish a fact of a Eternal possession or an Eternal Security!


 PILLAR NINE
                   
Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, and believeth
on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation: but is passed from death unto life.  John 5:24

Since the writing of the Eight Pillars of Eternal Security, this
passage has been quoted as the Goliath that must be overcome. The
emphasis that is made is- hath eternal life.....shall not come into
condemnation.....is passed from death unto life.
This is the same perpetuated error that eternal security proponents
make in their interpretation of John 10:27-29. The English does not
clearly exhibit the present tense of the Greek. The hearing and
believing are in the present tense. The condition of having
everlasting life is that we are hearing and believing now. This is not
some past act of a moment that secures these promises. It is
impossible for one who ceases to continue in the required hearing and
believing to have the blessings and promises connected to it.

The substrata: The conclusions derived from the Greek are definite and
unavoidable. To salvage this text for their cause they deviate from
the prior condition and argue the word "eternal." They say " If
eternal life is "eternal," how can it be lost? The believer hath
everlasting life, and that cannot end! If the everlasting life you
receive from God ever ceases for any reason, it was not "everlasting."
This assumes that eternal life exists as a possession apart from
faith. If someone possessed an eternal pearl of great price, then
later they cast the pearl off in favor of something else, which does
not make the pearl any less "eternal." It does however cease to be the
possession of the one who cast it off. "Eternal life" itself does not
lose its quality because of one’s unbelief. However, the possession of
this quality of life is no longer owned by the one who no longer meets
the Scriptural conditions stated. The fact that they now possess
everlasting life is because they are hearing and believing now.
This is not salvation by merit as some will charge, but it is the
consistent definition of saving faith throughout the Scriptures. The
one who clings to a lifeguard for rescue from drowning does not claim
their "clinging," or absence of resistance as the cause of their
deliverance. The lifeguard gets the deserved credit, but cannot save
the one who fights or refuses his help. It would also be foolish to
assume that since one was saved from drowning that it would be
impossible for them to become careless and fall in the water and drown
in the future! Such is the logic of eternal security.

"They shall not come into condemnation." The same condition applies.
If they continue to hear and believe, they have no fear of
condemnation. But is passed (perfect tense) from death to life. This
is truly the state of the one who presently hears and believes. He was
dead, and was made alive, and continues to live today as the perfect
tense implies. This is the abiding, continuing, and enduring that the
Bible exhorts believers to do. It is important to note that the verse
says nothing whatsoever about those who cease hearing and believing.
In fact, the Scriptures have no promises of blessings for those who
trample under foot the blood of Christ! Based upon the conclusions
already given it would be sound advice to follow Paul and Barnabas who
are in agreement with our Lord’s statement by "speaking to them,
persuaded them to continue in the grace of God." Acts 13:43.

Greek Scholarship consistently refutes the idea that a one-shot faith
that saves forever!  

BELIEF
 
2. The next fact which impresses us in our investigation is the
absence of the aorist and the presence of the present tense whenever
the conditions of final salvation are stated. Our inference is that
the conditions of ultimate salvation are continuous, extending through
probation, and not completed in any one act. The great requirement is
faith in Jesus Christ. A careful study of the Greek will convince the
student that it is a great mistake to teach that a single act of faith
furnishes a person with a paid-up, non-forfeitable policy, assuring
the holder that he will inherit eternal life, or that a single energy
of faith secures a through ticket for heaven, as is taught by the
Plymouth Brethren, and by some popular lay evangelists. The Greek
tenses show that faith is a state, a habit of mind, into which the
believer enters at justification. The widespread mistake on this point
in thus illustrated by Dr. John Hall, of New York: --

"Have you ever seen a young girl learn to fire a pistol? I will not
say, imagine a boy, for he would naturally he brave about it. I have
seen young ladies acquiring this accomplishment, and it is a very
curious thing. It may illustrate to you the false notion that many
persons have about faith. The pistol is loaded and handed to the young
lady. She takes hold of it very 'gingerly,' as if afraid it may shoot
from the handle. Now, she means to go through with it: there is the
mark: so she takes the pistol in her hand, and holds it out a long
way, and appears to take aim with the greatest exactness, but does not
shoot. She is a little afraid, trembles, and holds back. At last she
screws up her courage to the sticking-point, and, as you suppose,
taking the most exact aim, shuts her eyes firmly, and fires. The thing
is done, and done with. Well, now, many intelligent persons are led to
believe that faith is something like that-- something you end in an
instant. You muster up your courage for it, then shut your eyes, and
just believe once for all: then the thing is done, and you are saved.
Now, that is a mistaken idea about faith itself. That real faith which
is honest goes on from time to eternity."

Since we are writing for the English readers, we will refrain from
quoting the Greek verbs, which would make our pages repulsive to the
very people we wish to benefit. Scholars will appreciate our argument
if they accompany it with their Greek Testaments.

John 1:12: But as many as received (aor.) Him (by a momentary and
definite act), to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even
to them that are believing (present) perseveringly on His name. Here
the aorist participle would have been used instead of the present, if
a single act of faith secured ultimate salvation.

John 3:15: That whosoever is continuously believing in Him should not
perish (aor., once for all), but be having everlasting life. Here,
again, the present and not the aorist participle of the verb to
believe is used, as it is again in verses 16 and 36.

John 5:24: Verily, verily I say unto you, he that is always hearing My
word, and constantly believing on Him that sent Me, hath eternal life,
and is not coming into condemnation, but has passed over (perfect)
from death unto life, and so continues. Says Alford: "So in I John
5:12, 13, the believing and the having eternal life are commensurate;
where the faith is, the possession of eternal life is, and when the
one remits, the other is forfeited. But here the faith is set before
us as an enduring faith, and its effects described in their
completion. (See Eph. 1:19, 20)." Thus this great English scholar
rescues this text from its perverted use, to teach an eternal
incorporation into Christ by a single act of faith, and he
demonstrates the common-sense doctrine that the perseverance of the
saints is grounded on persistent trust in Jesus Christ. A wise General
does not destroy a captured fortress, but moves his troops in and
garrisons within it.

John 5: 44: How are you able to put forth a momentary act of faith
(aor.) that habitually receives (pres.) honor one of another, and
somehow, are not constantly seeking the honor which is from God only?
This interrogative question implies the impossibility of a single
genuine act of faith springing up in a heart persistently courting
human applause.

John 5: 47: But if ye are not habitually believing His writings, how
will ye believe My words?
John 6:29: The received text reads thus: This is the work of God, that
ye believe (aor., once for all) on Him whom He sent. When we first
noticed this aorist tense, implying that the whole work required by
God is summed up in an isolated act, we felt that there must be an
error in this tense. By referring to Alford, Tregelles, and
Tischendorf, we find that the aorist is rejected, and the present
tense is restored, so that it reads: This is the work of God, that ye
perseveringly believe, etc.

John 6:35: He that is perpetually coming (pres.) to Me shall not, by
any means (double negative), once hunger (aor.), and he that is
constantly believing in ME (emphatic) shall never, by any means,
(double negative), feel one pang of thirst (aor.). Says Bengel, "When
thirst returns, the defect is in the man, not in the water." He has
ceased to drink.

John 6:54: Whoever eats (pres., keeps eating) My flesh, and drinks
(keeps drinking) My blood, hath eternal life.
John 11:25, 26: He that believes persistently (pres.) shall not, by
any means (double negative), die (aor.) forever.
John 20: 31: That you might believe (aor.; but Tischendorf has the
present, continue to believe) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that, believing constantly (pres.), you might have life
through His name.

Acts 16: 30, 31: Sirs, what must I do to be instantaneously saved
(aor.)? Believe instantaneously (aor.) on the Lord Jesus. This is no
exception to the general use of the tenses. The jailer wished
immediate deliverance from his guilt, and was directed to a definite
and sharply defined act of reliance on Christ. But in Rom. 1: 16,
where future and eternal salvation is spoken of, it is promised to
every one that perseveringly believes (pres.). So also in Rom. 3:22;
4:24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor. 1: 21: Eph. 1:19; I Thess. 1: 7; 2:10,
13; 4: 14.

In 2 Thess. 1:10, we find, not in the received text, but in the best
manuscripts, an exceptional instance of the use of the aorist in
expressing the conditions of final salvation: "to be admired in all
them that believe" (aor.). Alford says it is used because the writer
is "looking back from that day on the past." probation being viewed as
a point.

A similar explanation he gives to the aorist in Heb. 4: 3, saying,
that the standing-point is the day of entering into the rest. We
prefer to teach that the aorist is preferred to the present in this
passage because the general state of trust is not under discussion as
the condition of entering eternal rest in heaven, but the grasping of
the definite fact of Christ's ability to be the believer's Joshua, and
to bring him into soul-rest in the present life. Hence the
exhortation, verse 11, "Let us labor (Greek, hasten) to enter (aor.)
into that rest." Other instances of the aorist, used when some
distinct saying is to be believed, are found in John 4: 21; and in
Matt. 8: 13.

Rev. 22: 14: Blessed are they that are constantly doing His
commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may
enter through the gates into the city. The best manuscripts read,
Blessed are they that are always washing their garments, etc. In both
instances the present tense is used. This is the last time the
conditions of final salvation are expressed in the Bible.
There is in the New Testament one remarkable exception to the use of
the present tense as expressing the continuousness of the conditions
of salvation. We will not dodge Mark 16:16: He that believeth (aor.)
once for all, and is baptized (aor.) once for all, shall be saved; he
that disbelieves (aor.) shall be damned. It may not be known to the
reader that the chief biblical critics, such as Westcott and Hort,
agree in rejecting as spurious verses 9-20 of this chapter.
Tischendorf drops them entirely from his edition. Dean Alford retains
them in brackets, but thinks that both the external and the internal
evidences are "very weighty against Mark's being the author. No less
than twenty-one words and expressions occur in these verses, and some
of them several times, which are never used by Mark, whose adherence
to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable."
Should we admit the genuineness of this text, its meaning, says Meyer,
is, "He who becomes a believer shall be saved," as in I Cor. 3:
5, "Ministers by whom ye became believers." This applies to Rom.
13:11. "First became believers."

Hence we conclude from a thorough examination of the above texts, that the Spirit of inspiration has uniformly chosen the present tense in order of teach that final salvation depends on persevering faith.
 

 

 

 

Reply #3

 

It says he became sin in our place for the atoning sacrafice [sic] for our sin. The only thing we can do to get salvation is accept that. Acceptance is not a work, if someone bought you a car for your birthday and you accepted it, you did not do any works to get it. Everything else is works. II Corinthians 10:5 "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge [sic] of God, bringing every thought into captivity into the obedience of Christ"
I John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the son of God that ye may KNOW that ye have ETERNAL life and that ye may believe on the son of man.

Ok think about when you were born again you were born into God's family right. So would you send your son or daughter to hell after they've been born into your family or maybe instead you would DISCIPLINE them. Family's family even the dysfunctional member's. Also it says that when Christ died there's no more sacrifice for sin. so it that case every time your WRONG or you tell a little white lie you've lost your salvation and on your way to hell with nadda to do about it OR it mean's Christ died for all sin past, present, and future.

 

 

Answer: You ask, “But I ask you how many sins did Jesus paid for when he died?

I ask you the same. How many sins does the Bible state that He paid?  

Since the payment of sins is so central to your idea of the Gospel, please help me a bit here.

Show me at least three passages that state explicitly, “Jesus paid for sin.” Surely, something so basic to the Gospel must have two or three witnesses at the least.

I am not looking for statements of the “cost” of Christ’s sacrifice, or the “price” we are “bought” with, but specifics: “Jesus paid for sin.”  

This could clear up the whole thing!

 

 

Response #4

 

II Corinthians 5:18-21 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gace us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has commited to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". II Corinthians 6:1 "As God's fellow workers we urge you not to recieve God's grace in vain".

 

Answer: why are you evading the question? You stated that in the atonement Jesus "paid for sin." I asked for the Biblical references and you keep on sending Scripture references about grace and
atonement, yet you do not send me anything to show that a payment was made. Are you sure that your belief is Biblical? I certainly would not base my eternal salvation on a doctrine that was not in the Bible..,
would you? 

 

 

 

Response #5

 

Tell me why do you think Jesus died for on the cross? Every Christian know's [sic] he died for sin even the ones who don't believe once saved always saved.
Atonment [sic] mean's the same thing as paying for sin. Have you even accepted Jesus as
savior? The scripture I sent states he became sin in our place, how much more clear can it be? What makes you sure your even gonna be in heaven? There's nothing we can do to get there. Too many Christian's fall prey to the spirit or pride and self righteousness which is why so many people are turned away from Christianity. Please don't belittle God he hold's on to his children whom he loves. God is not a tyrant waiting to torture everyone for the wrong they've commitied, [sic] he only reserves that for the unbeliver's. [sic] But once again I ask you, why do you think Jesus died on the cross?

 

Answer: “Tell me why do you think Jesus died for on the cross?”

I don’t believe that God leaves that up to our opinion, but has revealed the truth of the matter in the Scriptures. Any teaching as to what the atonement is should be based in Scriptural fact, not the whims of men’s theories.

“Every Christian know's he died for sin even the ones who don't believe once saved always saved.”

Dying “for” or because “of” sin is a far cry from saying that He “paid for sin” Truth is not established by common consensus, but only upon what God actually says.

"Atonement mean's the same thing as paying for sin.”

Once again you boldly make the claim, but you have refused to back it up with a Scriptural passage that states that atonement is a payment. Can I ask why you have so much faith in a theory that God has never endorsed?

“Have you even accepted Jesus as savior?”

Yes I have.

“The scripture I sent states he became sin in our place, how much more clear can it be?”

The passage is clear that was made sin for us. But what does that really mean? It does not even hint at payment of any sins. Bearing up of sins, which this speaks of, makes no claim to becoming sinful or guilty of sin in any way. You have to read that into the passage to get it out of it. It is clear that it says nothing of a payment.


“Please don't belittle God he hold's on to his children whom he loves.”

We are constantly warned and exhorted to remain, abide, and continue in Christ. These passages would be utter nonsense if they do not have meaning. Yes, we are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH. If we cease to have faith, the Scriptures warn us that we will not be saved. I would exhort you as Jude does, “to keep yourselves in the love of
God.”


http://eternalsecurity.us/hold_on.htm

This is not belittling God’s hold on anybody, but being honest with what God says his hold is.

 

Our contender for the Gnostic faith declined to answer once he was pressed to produce Biblical fact to back up his assertions. I felt that I gave him the courtesy of detailed answers to his questions. It is sad to say, but this represents a large portion of people whom the venerable John Fletcher described: “Persons, whose orthodoxy consists in obstinately refusing to peep over the wall of prejudice.”

Question:
"If one can lose his salvation; how much sin does he have to commit to lose it?"  For Adam and Eve, it only took one.  Too long people tell me, "Only if its wilful sin!"  All sin is wilfil.  Where in the Scriptures does it say to be re born again, and again?  


You have outlined 100's of Scriptures out of context, so please read just one from me.  
Hebrews 6:4-6


"For it is impossible, for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy
Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the
world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto
repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,
and put him to an open shame."

Point 1: "For it is impossible" means exactly that impossible.  
Impossible for what and for who?

Point 2: "for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come" these are BELIEVERS!!!  The world has not received the Holy Ghost, only Believers have.  Therefore, the Word of God is talking about BELIEVERS!  So, once a BELIEVER has tasted of the heavenly gift, been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost etc, etc, what is impossible for him?  hence IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM (Believer)

Point 3:  "If they shall fall away"  Ok, what is impossible for the believer if he should fall away.  (By the way sinning would equal such a way.  A believer living a sinful life = falling away right?)  Still what is impossible for this BELIEVER if he were to fall away?

Point 4:  "To renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." To.......  RENEW THEM AGAIN unto REPENTANCE!!! seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.  No where in the bible is the lost AND saved, then lost again AND saved/Re born again doctrine.  If it were true, then Hebrews 6:4-6 is wrong, because you say they can repent and be put on track again, but Hebrews isn't wrong.  It states the truth, as do all Scriptures.

Answer:  If I am reading the statement correctly, your argument is around Hebrews 6:4-6, and that it disproves all of the texts that I cataloged for one to review on the subject. Nonsense!

1. On verse can certainly shed light on the issue, yet one verse does dismantle the meaning of all of them in one swoop. That would be presumption, not exposition.

2. You claim that the 100’s of Scriptures I used were all out of context. Accusations are cheap; proof takes a little effort.

3. I will concede that it only takes one sin. The effect of sin in the Garden has never been amended or modified.

4. There is an element of sin that must be willful for it to be a sin. If someone stops and asks for directions, and you tell them to “turn left on Maple Drive ,” but they were supposed to turn right, this is not a sin, but an error in judgment, that is, unless you willfully attempted to deceive them. Legalism looks at the act; grace looks at the heart or intent.

5. Yes, “impossible” means impossible.

6. Those that read the passage out of context dwell on the “impossible” and append their own meaning to it without ever looking at the passage to see if it gives us the meaning of it. This is what you have done here.  

7. “what is impossible for this BELIEVER if he were to fall away? "To renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."  To.......  RENEW THEM AGAIN unto REPENTANCE!!! seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

So, I must conclude that you believe that a believer is hopelessly lost upon the first sin. Or you are taking the absurd leap of the intellect and by making the passage irrelevant by inventing an unscriptural salvation that it both unconditional and positional.

Making the passage irrelevant to Christians does not change the horrible meaning of the passage.

8. Your implications are that the passage denies that once one slips up, they are hopelessly lost forever. Somehow you believe this to unravel the whole position that Eternal Security is false. This is far from the truth, for an honest exposition of the text proves the opposite of what you are trying to imply.  

As for Hebrews 6:4-6, I see the key being verse 6. We are told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them. Why is that? The text tells us clearly where the impossibility lays. It is that they are crucifying the Son of God afresh. This is in the present tense in the Greek. It [repentance] only remains "impossible" WHILE THEY ARE DOING THIS! If they cease to re-crucify Jesus Christ in their hearts and minds, there is no reasonable explanation why they could not find repentance and forgiveness. As long as they continue (present tense) to place Jesus back upon the Cross in their hearts, repentance remains impossible.
The reason I say this is based upon the observation that nowhere in the Bible do we see an individual truly seeking repentance where God has turned them away. There is however, a point in which God gives up on an individual and it becomes futile to even pray for them. Is this what Hebrews 6:4-6 is asserting? An honest examination of the text does not demand it here. The present tense not only removes the difficulty, it destroys the absurd notion that this passage is a corrective that disproves the truth that one can fall or apostatize from the faith. This passage speaks of a real danger. God is not willing that any should perish, but ALL would come to repentance. The difficulty is not with God's willingness, but with the person's heart that continually rejects and re-crucifies the one and only Hope for salvation from sin.

9. An appeal to absurdity by asserting absurdity is a failed logic. “If our walk in the Spirit falters, we can't be un Holy Ghosted!” The Scriptures do not speak of being “un” birthed, “un” Holy Ghosted, or any other “un's”. God does not reverse the process. Romans 8:2-6, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.., That the righteousness of the  law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after flesh, but after the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death. My friend, one does not get “un-Holy Ghosted” when the choose to continue in sin. They do not get “un-born.” The Scriptures are clear, they die!

10. ”As for John 10:27-28.  My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish....  Question about you:  Are you his Sheep?  YES.  Do you hear His voice? YES.  Does Jesus know you? YES.  Do you follow Him today? YES.  Ok then, if you are following Him today, what has He given you? ETERNAL LIFE, YES that is correct!  So here you are, a Sheep following Him and you have Eternal Life, therefore what also is promised to you?  AND THEY (YOU) SHALL NEVER PERISH!!!!!  NEVER means NEVER!, not until, or as soon as, or if you do this sin.  No, NEVER PERISH means, NEVER PERISH.” Once again, you have seized upon a single word in a passage and try to lead its meaning around by the nose. The matter of security is not what is in question, but “who” are the sheep? The sheep are clearly defined: “My sheep hear [present active participle] my voice, I know them, and they follow [present active participle] me…” Jesus clearly states the conditions of being a sheep. Only those that are hearing and following Jesus right now, at this moment, are the sheep. Those that do so are secure. Notice that the Scriptures never give such grand blessings to those that do not hear, and do not follow. Only those that have a present tense hearing and following WILL NEVER PERISH! Only those that are hearing and following Christ have ETERNAL LIFE right now! Continual sinning is not hearing or following by any stretch of the imagination!

11. "He who the son sets free, IS FREE indeed!"  I suggest that you actually look at this passage in context and you will see what we are free from! It is from sin and the power of sin! It does not speak of some wishy-washy feel good freedom “in” sin, it is freedom over sin.

12. “The law of God wasn't given for us to live holy, even though the Scriptures are holy.  The law was given to reveal our sin. Paul, asked in Romans 6:1-3 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  See even if you did sin, Gods grace will abound over sin, why because Sin is dealt with.  The life of ours that could of taken us to hell is in verse 3, baptized into Jesus death.  Its gone, behold all things are new.”

While I agree that law keeping cannot save you, your statement reveals several things. First, it is antinomian. Is makes the Law of no effect, which is in opposition to the Scriptures. “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4). There is no mystical hiding of the Christian’s life that shields them from sin. This is the heresy of Gnosticism. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that
committeth sin is of the devil;” (1 John 3:4-10). You are taking Paul’s correction against the error that grace over abounds sin as if it could be treated as a limitless reserve for the Christian. His warning implies that this error should be rejected. Paul is rejecting the idea that God’s grace will abound over willful sin.

“Just as a no amount of good works can get a sinner saved; also no amount of bad works of sin can a believer lose his salvation.  Why?"

Answer:  "Not of works, but by grace are you SAVED!" Not getting saved; the word declares SAVED!” This is nonsense and not Scripture! The wages of sin is death! The soul that sinneth shall die! God has not amended the standard. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that God converts sin instead of people. That is what you are contending for!


God takes the sin out of the believer so they can be holy, which is Scriptural; instead, you are saying that the same sin that damns an unbeliever does not have any affect upon the believer! People are not converted… sin is! “Therefore, BRETHREN, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. FOR IF YE LIVE AFTER THE FLESH, YE SHALL DIE: BUT IF YE THROUGH THE SPIRIT DO MORTIFY THE DEEDS OF THE BODY, YE SHALL LIVE.”  “Know ye not, that to whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY, HIS SERVANTS YE ARE to whom ye obey; whether SIN UNTO DEATH, or OBEDIENCE UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS?… Being then made FREE FROM SIN, ye became servants of righteousness.” "But now being made FREE FROM SIN, and become SERVANTS TO GOD, ye have your FRUIT UNTO HOLINESS, and THE END EVERLASTING LIFE."

The prodigal son went away from his father and sinned alot over a period of time, then he repented and returned.  The father declared his son was lost but is now found.  Understand this.  what was lost? his sonship or fellowship/communion with his family back home.  If I had a murderer for a son, and he went to jail unrepentant; yes I'd hate what he committed, nevertheless, there is nothing he can do, nor I to change the fact that I am His father, and he is my son.

Jesus makes it clear as to the status of this relationship. First, it speaks of a son. "Son" defines the previous relationship of one that has departed from the Father. God declares that “for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again: he was lost, and has been found." Dead people do not have a relationship! If this “son” did not repent and turn back to God the Father again, then he would have remained dead in his sins, lost forever! The Scripture tells us that the son came to life again. He was once alive spiritually, died, and came back to life again. He was lost spiritually and physically, and was found both physically and spiritually. What is the bottom line? No repentance, no forgiveness. No amount of appeals to family relationship would have saved him apart from turning from his sin. Leaning on family relationship while he continued in sin would avail him nothing! If he died in that state, his “sonship” would not save him. To be a son is to know the truth, and if you trample under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith you were sanctified, an unholy thing, it would have been better to have not known the way of righteousness, than, after having known it, to turn away from it( Heb.10:29; 2 Peter 2:21).  You see, on Judgment Day, your status of "son" will not avail you any privilege any more than being a "son" did for the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.....he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me...but Abraham said, Son, remember…

”If you still believe in the lost and saved and lost and saved theory, I finish this email with 1 last question, which was my first...."How much sin do you need to commit, to lose your salvation."

The answer? One! “For the wages of sin is death;”  The finality of the Scriptures. “He who sins is of the devil.”  “Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.”

"Make sure your answer to the question is biblical, and not a wilful sin answer cop-out!"

If you wish to answer this, be sure it is Biblical this time! No more cop-outs by appealing to fictional Penal Theories and Gnostic myths of imputation instead of true righteousness. For “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.”

--------------------------

Thanks for the great site!
  
I realize that you get a ton of email, and probably won't be able to respond anytime soon, but if you could at least take a few minutes, I'd appreciate it.
 
I attend a Nazarene Church , and am very much a part of the Wesleyan Holiness tradition. I've been recently studying more about what our tradition and theology teaches, better to help myself, and to better understand what and why a good friend of mine believes in his theology (Baptist tradition).

In any case, I've been struggling with what happened at the Cross, mainly overcoming some of the feel good things I was taught as a child. I do believe that a provision for sin was what occurred when Christ was
crucified on the Cross. This is according to the prophesy in Is. 53:10, referenced in 2 Corinthians 5:21. As well as all the other scriptures that reference Christ's suffering, not punishment.

I however found 1 scripture that has given me pause for thought. I know that 1 verse does not make a good theology, and that all scriptures always without a doubt never contradict each other. That being the case, I'm trying to figure out what 1 Peter 2:24 means. It says "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." (ESV)

This seems to imply that my sins were taking on him and in him when he was hanging on the cross. This, on the surface, seems to contradict the idea that my sins weren't paid for on the cross only that a provision was
made on the cross. How can Christ bare our sins in His body, yet my sins not be forgiven? And if they are forgiven at that point in time, then they are already forgiven before I repent, thus leading down a path I'm not willing to go. Obviously there must me more here than what I'm reading because this doesn't seem to fit with all the other scriptures regarding what happened on the Cross.

Could you help me with this? It seems that the OSAS theology would rely on this to state that since Christ bore all sins in Him on the cross and not all are saved, Christ only bore all sins for those elect (I don't
like that idea, but it is one I've heard before).

Thanks for the great site, and wonderful information. God working through you has helped deepen my relationship with him. 

Answer: Hi Mike, I can understand your concern for the truth of the matter. For convenience, I did take the liberty of copying and pasting some remarks from my site.


1 Pet. 2:24, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body of the tree.”  In what sense did he bare our sins in his own body?  It is unfeasible that sins were transferred. He bore the weight of, or, bore up our sins a way that the responsibility for our burden was upon him as is the suffering for them were his own. Note that throughout the Epistles of Peter he is especially careful in emphasizing the suffering and not the punishment of Jesus Christ.  


"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." This can be taken as a literal bearing of our sins, but because of the afore mentioned difficulties, it would be more prudent to interpret this as baring the responsibility of our sins. The Greek term can, and should be translated as "bare up" our sins. This is the preferable translation. This agrees with the prophecy of the atonement in Isaiah 53:12 where we are told that he Himself "bore up" the sins of many. We cannot support the literal idea of becoming "sin" when there is not any other passage that demands such a literal interpretation.
The Peter reference is undoubtedly connected to Isaiah 53. The Greek and the Hebrew differ a little as it does with the lack of differentiation between sin and sin-offering. In this case, the Hebrew tends to be much clearer, and the Greek much more concise, but more ambiguous. One must ask then, is God self-contradictory? Do Peter and Isaiah disagree? I feel that it makes more sense to take the more descriptive to explain the more ambiguous. Not having anything else to hang its hat on, wouldn’t it be better to side with suffering and not punishment? If Jesus actually became sin, he was not God. God cannot be holy and sinful at the same time. If one part of the Trinity punished itself, this would be contradictory. If the Holy Spirit and the Father could punish Jesus, then the Trinity is a farce. This is the only way to extricate oneself from the conclusions of  punishment.  

In Christ,

Jeff

--------------------

Don't you realize that by saying someone can lose their salvation your putting it into the category of "works" and therefore calling God a liar?

Answer: Unfortunately, it is you that is calling God a liar if you think that you will be judged according to you faith. Everyone will be judged according to their works. That is what God says.

Not once in all of Scripture does it even imply that the Biblical belief of a possibility of losing salvation is either a “works” salvation, or calling God a liar. Your refutation is a manmade defense that doesn’t apply to anyone I have ever met. Perhaps you should read something before you make unsubstantiated assertions.

Remember, "salvation come's from the GRACE of God not of WORKS lest any man should BOAST".

Answer: You need to continue on from Ephesians 2:8-9 and include verse 10. Works are what we are created for.  

Do you believe that one must have faith to be saved? Then you are in the category of “works salvation” according to your own definition. If you believe salvation is by fate, that you either lucky or unlucky,
then you are consistent with your own theory, but not the Bible.

Ephesians 1:13-14 states: "You also were included in the Messiah when you heard the word of
truth, the Gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" Can you anyway refute that?

Answer: MJ, This is addressed in several areas on my site. It is there for those that wish to find it. I soundly reject the idea that works merit salvation in any way on my site. You assume much by what you accuse me of without doing your homework. I don’t send this to “refute” any verse, but to “believe” every verse that sets it in context.

Pillar Eight


The final pillar remaining is starting to crumble into dust, since without the support of any verses positing this fallacious teaching, Ephesians 1:13-14 will render no support on its own.
In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy
Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the
redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
The only way that this can be perceived as a proof for eternal security is to have the support of some verse where the doctrine has already been proven. Standing alone as it does, it renders nothing that teachers of carnal security can use. The verse does not say whether believers can break this seal or not, but the whole of Scripture proves that they can. Observe that the Holy Spirit is only a down payment on our inheritance and that we do not possess the fullness of this gift until the Lord returns. The fullness of this promise is only to those who endure to the end. The Scriptures tell us to "Be faithful until death and I will give you a crown of life" (Rev. 3:5,21). The Lord preserves the faithful (Psalms 31:23), not the unfaithful. This is the true perseverance of the Saints!

PILLAR ELEVEN    

                      
"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption" Ephesians 4:30.

In a lot of ways this is the same as Pillar Eight. Much ado is made of the word "sealed" within both of these passages as proof that the carnal "christian" is secure. Also, much emphasis is put upon the statement "unto the day of redemption."  Because of the inordinate stress that the advocates of this theory put upon these words, I find it necessary to give more attention to the subject than what was already been given in the original Pillars.  
Once again I want to underscore that the word "seal" in itself makes no allusion to a doctrine of unconditional security whatsoever. It does speak of security which cannot be denied, but nowhere does the
word itself define the extent of that security. The word "seal" in itself does not give us the mode in which we are sealed, nor does the word itself give any indication whether the seal can be broken or not.
Many will charge that this is clarified by the clause "unto the day of redemption." They read "unto," the Greek "eis" as till, or all the way to the day of redemption. They see this as proving that the seal is
guaranteed through to the day of His coming. This stems from a misinterpretation of the ambiguous "unto" of the King James version and by not looking at the original Greek. All versions of the Scriptures since the KJV, and the unanimous consensus of the Greek scholarship of our day goes against this interpretation. Most translate this passage as, "for the day of redemption." The idea of the passage is that we were sealed with a view to the day of redemption. The passage does not say that we are guaranteed this sealing all the way to the day of redemption, or are sure of our arrival at this designated end. The possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit, which is the "seal", implies that this passage is meant as a warning and not as a passage of assurance as the Eternal Security proponents demand. This verse admits the possibility of grieving the
Holy Spirit, which implies that there is a real danger and that this seal can be broken.
The substrata: Many allude to the ancient custom of using a wax seal as a mark of ownership. There is also the idea of preserving an item in a container, such as jelly or preserves. These references are not
complete ideas in which we can take every aspect of them and force them upon Scripture. In fact, the Scripture never specifies how this "sealing" is applied.

For example: A wax seal of ownership is independent of the object which is sealed. Thus, many say that from this image, we cannot break this seal ourselves. As for the jar of preserves; the item inside
remains uncontaminated as long as the seal is not broken, or, the seal remains unbroken if the contents remain uncontaminated and do not fester. Since the Bible makes no mention of exactly how this sealing
happens, it would be wrong to force any idea too far in either direction. This would be reading too much into these verses.

Interjecting our preferred idea of what we think this sealing is into this passage would prove a theory, but it would not prove that it is the idea of Scripture.
       

SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED          

The wall of assumption continues to be built using the term "seal." It is no doubt a term that carries the idea of marking ownership and implying security. The word itself does not define permanency or
unbreakableness because the word in itself does not imply the mode in which it takes place. Stanley quotes Ephesians 4:30 "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of
redemption." Notice that he glosses over the warning of grieving the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seal, and it is implied that there is danger in offending Him. If there were no danger of disrupting this
seal, then why does God bring this matter of grieving the Holy Spirit into the picture?
Secondly, Stanley interjects his theology into the later half of the verse saying, "We are sealed right up through the "day of redemption." The passage says nothing of the sort. Paul writes that we were
sealed "for" the day of redemption. We can say that it is "in view of" the day of redemption. The vast consensus of Greek scholarship confirms that the word "unto" which is used in the King James Version,
cannot be translated as "until" the day of redemption. If you have any doubts, check several translations and lexicons for yourself. You will also find by careful research that there is not a singular instance where Scripture defines the sealing of the believer as unbreakable or permanent. With the absence of any Biblical proof to back the assertion that we cannot break this seal, we must admit that their argument is purely a product of their own imagination.


Stanley proceeds to bring in another proof-text of eternal security with 1 Peter 1:5, we "are protected (kept) by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Again,
we find that our salvation will not be complete until the end of time. But until then, we are protected by " the power of God." but he conveniently leaves off the condition of this protection! Through Faith!  If faith is abandoned, then the promise of protection is lost.


Too much is made of this issue of sealing when there is no evidence to establish the irrevocability of its application to us. The problem stems from people choosing to read things into it that are not there.
Upon close examination we see that this "huge" argument for eternal security is really a non-issue. Wishful thinking may make this a proof text, but the facts are that nowhere does the Scripture define sealing
in the manner that Charles Stanley and other proponents for this doctrine force upon it. To say that the intent of this seal is to bring security, safety, and preservation, cannot be denied. Honesty must bring us to the conclusion that there is no warrant to interject the ideas of irrevocable, permanent, and everlasting, where the Bible never does.

Refure [sic] this verse also please:  Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Answer: Sorry, not a single thing here to be found that would assert an irrevocable Eternal Security. Why proof-text out of context for that which you cannot prove?

Romans 8:1 is the conclusion to chapter seven. In chapter seven there is condemnation, and Paul (then Saul) pleads, “Who shall separate me from this body of death?” “Thank God through Jesus Christ” “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

You should look beyond your presuppositions to see what Paul means by “In” Christ. Romans 6 clearly states that those that are slaves to sin are not saved. Romans 8 states that those that live according to
the sinful nature, you will die. (v.13).

I hope God corrects you for self-righteousness, so you can bring more people to heaven thru the LOVE of Christ!

Answer: I make no pretense to self-salvation. Is it really “love” that you speak of through your pre-judging and arrogance?  

-------

Second Response

But I ask you how many sins did Jesus paid for when he died?

Answer: You ask, “But I ask you how many sins did Jesus paid for when he died?

I ask you the same. How many sins does the Bible state that He paid?  

Since the payment of sins is so central to your idea of the Gospel, please help me a bit here.

Show me at least three passages that state explicitly, “Jesus paid for sin.” Surely, something so basic to the Gospel must have two or three witnesses at the least.

I am not looking for statements of the “cost” of Christ’s sacrifice, or the “price” we are “bought” with, but specifics. “Jesus paid for sin.”  

This could clear up the whole thing!

-------

Third Response

It says he became sin in our place for the atoning sacrafice [sic] for our sin. The only thing we can do to get salvation is accept that. Acceptance is not a work, if someone bought you a car for your birthday and you accepted it, you did not do any works to get it. Everything else is works. II Corinthians 10:5 "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowldege of God, bringing every thought into captivity into the obedience of Christ" I John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the son of God that ye may KNOW that ye have ETERNAL life and that ye may believe on the son of man." Ok think about when you were born again you were born into God's family right. So would you send your son or daughter to hell after they've been born into your family or maybe instead you would DISCIPLINE them. Family's family even the dysfunctional member's. Also it says that when Christ died there's no more sacrafice [sic] for sin. so it that case every time your WRONG or you tell a little white lie you've lost your salvation and on your way to hell with nadda to do about it OR it mean's Christ died for all sin past, present, and future.

Answer: MJ,

"Christ died for all sin past, present, and future."

Still waiting for even one passage that states this. Are you sure your believing the Bible, or just a theory that was invented to save Eternal Security? I certainly wouldn't want to bank on it if it's not Biblical!

You seem so sure of the assertion, yet you evaded giving me any of the passages you have found that state that Jesus paid for sin.

Eagerly awaiting the Biblical passages.

--------

Fourth Response 

II Corinthians 5:18-21 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and grace us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God".

II Corinthians 6:1 "As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain".


Answer: MJ, why are you evading the question? You stated that in the atonement Jesus "paid for sin." I asked for the Biblical references and you keep on sending Scripture references about grace and
atonement, yet you do not send me anything to show that a payment was made. Are you sure that your belief is Biblical? I certainly would not base my eternal salvation on a doctrine that was not in the Bible.., would you?

No response was given to show where the Bible states that sins are paid for. While such confidence and dogmatism gives people great assurance, it is based in a LIE! It is placing the opinion of man above the revealed Word of God! My efforts here were to have him discover for himself that such an assertion was not in Scripture. Unfortunately, he preferred to cling to a foundationless doctrine as the basis of his salvation. Sadly, that is what many do when they are forced to choose between truth and their theology!

-------

I recently read a two part study by  Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light Ministries.  He is the producer of the Analytical Literal Translation of the Bible. In any event, the study was on Acts  13:48 which says, "And when the Gentiles heard this,  they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained  to eternal life believed" (KJV).

This verse is somewhat confusing to me, and he makes some good points in favor of Calvinism from this verse. Perhaps you can offer me some help as to how this verse pertains to predestination, if it pertains to it at all.

Thank you,
Nick  

Answer: Hi Nick, This verse seems pretty convincing and has a strange evolution. The troublesome work here is "ordained." The Latin Vulgate added "pro" the term ordain, which has led many to say this asserts foreordination. There is no "pro" in the Greek.

The word used means to "put in order," to "appoint," to "arrange," or "set themselves" and "dispose oneself."  "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" This does not state a cause. It does not deny that belief or faith is required in order to be ordained unto eternal life.

"as many as were appointed to eternal life believed"

This would imply that the appointing was outside of themselves, but once again, were they appointed because the believed, or because they were elect?

"as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed"

This is my preference because it fits the context. Those that are not “disposed” to repent and believe judged themselves unworthy. (See in context with verse 46).

"as many as were set themselves to eternal life believed"

This is viable, and agrees with the same word (tasso) as is used in 1 Cor. 16:15. The KJV use "addicted" themselves to the ministry of the saints.The (NASB), (RSV), and (NIV), uses “devoted themselves.”   

All are viable translations. When this happens, we must look at the context for clues.

You will notice that in verse 46, that the Jews "judged themselves unworthy." Keep in mind that those who wish to force predestination on verse 48 believe that God judges people unworthy or worthy. The
Scriptures are clear that God is not the cause of their unworthiness to receive eternal live. It was because they deemed themselves unworthy through unbelief.

The passage does not say "foreordained" to eternal life. If it did, it would have removed any ambiguity to its meaning. God certainly would have said it if that is what He meant by it! But since there is no "fore"
before ordained, or disposed, one would have to read fatalistic predestination into it in order to get fatalistic predestination out of it!

I hope that this helps to balance the statements made out of the passage.


Blessings,

Jeff

------

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them
me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10:27-29.
 
Answer: Who are the sheep? Who shall never perish? Who is Christ giving (present tense) eternal life? Only those who are hearing and following right now! Whom do Jesus and the Father protect in their hands? Not the one who heard and followed, but only those who are actively believing now with an
obedient faith. Is this not works? No! It is genuine faith! This is true biblical security.

You do not give the Lord Jesus very much credit.  He knows his sheep.  Do you actually believe that the one who knows the heart, the one who knows the end from the beginning, the one who "is" the beginning and the end, seals people with the Holy Spirit by mistake? Surely you jest!

Answer: Dear Ray,

I am not taking away any credit from our Lord, just believing what He said. He that is presently hearing and following the Shepard is a sheep, no one else. This is what Jesus said. While you may not like this fact, it remains true whether you believe it or not. Doctrine is not established upon feelings of "how much credit" we give Christ, but by that which He states and promises.

The Seal is the Holy Spirit, which in context we are warned not to grieve. Being an Earnest or down payment indicates that the finality of salvation is yet to come. First of all, there is not a single passage that states that this Seal upon us cannot be broken. Secondly, the warning not to grieve the Spirit, who is our Seal, implies that grieving is fatal to the Seal upon us. Bottom line, there is no such thing as a permanent Seal in Scripture. Permanent or permanency must be read into the passage in order to get it out of the passage. There is no reason to interject thoughts that the Holy Spirit has not stated or implied in the passage.  

Acts:15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.  8: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Answer: The passage does not state or assert that God "knowing the heart" of anyone in a specific moment in time, establishes that that is their "heart' forever! Surely their "heart" was not pure before they were saved, and it is clear that it could change. There is nothing in this passage that would lead me to believe that one's heart cannot change after salvation! "Keep yourselves in the love of God" (Jude 21).

-------

You claim that no one that believes in eternal security uses scripture.

I don’t believe that is what I said. I don’t believe that one can produce a Scripture that unambiguously states such a concept. Eternal Security must be read into any Scripture before it can be read out of
Scripture.

You use many scripture references, but you re translate them into what you want them to say. You are adding to scripture.

If there is any deviation from popular translations, everything that I assert can be validated from linguistic experts and Greek Grammars. No adding is taking place, just allowing language, especially the detail
of the Greek to come through.  

Many of your verses are out of context and maybe the simple minded are confused.

I would sure like to know which one’s you speak of; especially any that you claim to assert Eternal Security. It is easy to accuse, but another thing to show why and where.

Of course I know that passage is in the book of John, and what isn't said doesn't count with you.

You are correct, what isn't said does not count with me. Doctrine is not based upon what God does not
say, but what He does say. If you wish to base doctrine on an argument from silence, then you must believe that God endorses homosexuality, bestiality, incest, drug use, smoking, going to strip clubs, and other vices since these things are never condemned in John. Basing doctrine on silence is a dangerous hermeneutic.  

Maybe you claim to be the only Christian. He states that if everyone doesn't agree with him, then they are lost. (The writer had previously compared the doctrine of the possibility of salvation being lost with the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Church).

To say that people are lost because they disagree with me are your words, not mine. I am not the one that gives a litany of groups or people that I believe that are lost because they disagree with me. I am not the one engaging in cultic behavior. I am curious whether one has to agree with you in order to be saved.

Jon, I do not believe that you have read all that deeply, for these accusations you make are assumed. Are you open to truth? Or do you read just enough to find an objection so you can condemn?

If you wish to dialog about specifics, I would be honored to discuss any errors. I am more than willing to consider any valid points and make corrections.

In Christ,

Jeff Paton

-------

David,

Thank you for your questions. I will try not to be too long in my
answers.  

1.How is one actually saved?

By grace through faith. But one must include what the Scriptures also
say about the quality of “saving faith.”

A. It includes repentance; turning from sin
B. It includes fruit; evidence that one is changed
C. It includes obedience to Christ

Ephesians 2:8-10, (most people leave off 10); 1 Jn. 1:9; 3: 6-10;
Titus 2:11-14; Romans 6:17, 22; John 15: 1-6.  


2. If you sin right before you die, do you go to Hell?

If an atheist trusts and believes Christ one minute before he dies,
does he go to heaven? Most people believe this is possible, but
strangely, they have doubts about the possibility of one going to hell
if one forsakes Christ just before dying.

When you speak of “sin,” in a question like this, you must look at how
you define it. Most people make sin a standard that would cast
everyone into hell, to include Jesus.

Sin that condemns is a willful transgression of a known law of God. It
speaks of knowledge and deliberation.

Scenario 1. A man plots an adulterous relationship. He leaves the
house of his mistress and gets hit by a car. I would say he goes to
hell, for the Scriptures say that such will not inherit the kingdom of
heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Scenario 2. A man crossing the street is surprised a split second
before a car strikes and runs him over. In that split second, he
blurts something out in fear. This is not willful, or premeditated and
intentional sin. It does not meet the standard of sin that
condemns.    


3. How does one keep their salvation?

1. “We are partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our
confidence steadfast unto the end.” Heb. 6:14.  “But Christ as a son
over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence
and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" Hebrews 3:6. “Take
heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in
doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” 1
Tim. 4:16. “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from
the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall
remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And
this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” 1
Jn. 2:24-25. “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh
away” Jn. 15: 2. “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth
in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without
me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a
branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the
fire, and they are burned.” Jn. 15:5-6.


I hope that this answers what you were looking for.

Blessings,

Jeff Paton

-----------------------------

A lot of information on your site, and it seems like you have really researched this topic. I have read and read, and was just wondering if you could quickly answer a couple of questions we were pondering:

1. How is one actually saved?
2. If you sin right before you die, do you go to Hell?
3. How does one keep their salvation?

David 

David,

Thank you for your questions. I will try not to be too long in my answers.  

1.How is one actually saved?

By grace through faith. But one must include what the Scriptures also say about the quality of “saving faith.”

A. It includes repentance; turning from sin
B. It includes fruit; evidence that one is changed
C. It includes obedience to Christ

Ephesians 2:8-10, (most people leave off 10); 1 Jn. 1:9; 3: 6-10; Titus 2:11-14; Romans 6:17, 22; John 15: 1-6.  

2. If you sin right before you die, do you go to Hell?

If an atheist trusts and believes Christ one minute before he dies, does he go to heaven? Most people believe this is possible, but strangely, they have doubts about the possibility of one going to hell
if one forsakes Christ just before dying.

When you speak of “sin,” in a question like this, you must look at how you define it. Most people make sin a standard that would cast everyone into hell, to include Jesus.

Sin that condemns is a willful transgression of a known law of God. It speaks of knowledge and deliberation.

Scenario 1. A man plots an adulterous relationship. He leaves the house of his mistress and gets hit by a car. I would say he goes to hell, for the Scriptures say that such will not inherit the kingdom of
heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Scenario 2. A man crossing the street is surprised a split second before a car strikes and runs him over. In that split second, he blurts something out in fear. This is not willful, or premeditated and intentional sin. It does not meet the standard of sin that condemns.    

3. How does one keep their salvation?

1. “We are partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.” Heb. 6:14.  “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence
and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" Hebrews 3:6. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” 1
Tim. 4:16. “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And
this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life” 1 Jn. 2:24-25. “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away” Jn. 15: 2. “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth
in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the
fire, and they are burned” Jn. 15:5-6.

-----

Scott,

Thank you for your questions. It is a difficult thing to try to understand things from a different perspective. The only thing I can recommend is that you try to remove any presuppositions from your thinking. This will give you better clarity as you look at other ideas about God and salvation.

First thing, I notice you spend a whole lot of time and energy punching holes in the Eternal Security issue presented by Bob George, Charles Stanley and others, but never really present your own interpretation of the truth. If everything they say is false, then how does one retain his salvation.

That is an astute observation. I do attempt to leave people with a “what now”? after they see the errors involved in the doctrine. I do give subtle hints as to my views throughout these refutations, but I
purposely leave many questions open. One must be aware of error in order to have a desire to be lifted out of it. To go into detail about my views in these articles would lengthen and distract most people from facing the issue at hand. If they see it as false, they tend to search the site further, or they ask as you have by writing. In the Eternal Security section, I attempt to be leading, not directing. Most of what you are looking for is in the Biblical Theology section, which is linked from the first page. Even there, I am usually leading and not directing.  

Second, Obviously you will agree that God is Sovereign, and is in control of His universe. If that is true, why has He allowed the ministries of Bob George and Charles Stanley to grow, and thrive, and reach literally millions of people worldwide and basically left yours in obscurity. Why would that be? If your position is really the truth, then why would God allow that truth to remain hidden?

Scott, we could ask the question you pose more broadly. Using the same logic, why would Islam be a larger religion than Christianity? Why would Catholics outnumber Protestants? Why would God bless the ministries of John and Charles Wesley, Charles Finney, in which the first and Second Great Awakenings were substantially connected? What are we to say of the popularity of the commentary of Adam Clarke? All these men denied any such thing as "Eternal Security," yet God blessed their ministries far beyond Charles Stanley and Bob George. 


The reason for the success of Stanley and George is not that they preach truth, but that  they tickle the ears  of of those who want an "easy gospel.” Most radio stations are owned by people or groups that are sympathetic to a certain position. Eternal Security is popular today, though it is a relatively new doctrine if we consider the past 2000 years. The Early Church did not know of it; in fact, they consistently preached things against it! What then are we to say about the first 1500-1600 years of the Church? They knew nothing of this doctrine! Is truth only to be known in the relatively recent 400-500 years? And “Eternal Security” as a doctrine for less than 200 years? Why would a Sovereign God do that? Why would the truth be hidden? 

What I believe is a minority position “today,” but it was the norm throughout most of Christian history. Many Churches exist that do not teach Eternal Security. Nazarenes, Wesleyans, Salvation Army, Free
Methodists, Independent Methodists, Free-Will Baptists, Bible Methodists, most Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and many smaller and lesser known bodies. The truth has not been hidden.  

Third, If a person confesses his sins today at 6:00pm, rises at 6:00am tomorrow, and in a rush to get to work commits a sin, gets into a car accident and dies with that sin unconfessed, does he die a lost man because of that one sin?

I am not fond of hypotheticals, they are too open ended. In your story, I must ask something in return. What if? What if God says something that does not fit into a preconception of what is fair, or the preconception that God can or cannot work a certain way? Are you willing to abandon a false supposition and believe God? I am not saying this to be harsh, but it does little good to raise a question, which its potential answer may already be predetermined to be rejected if it does not fit into our mold.

I see Scripture as defining sin as: A willful transgression of a known law of God. These are sins of acts or actions. I do not see God damning anyone for something that they did not do, or did out of ignorance, or lack of motive (accidents).

If for example, the man committed adultery and was killed on his way home, I believe he will spend eternity in hell. The condition of 1 Jn.1:9 is, “If” we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins…” This is dodged by Bob George on a daily basis on his radio show. His interpretation cannot be substantiated by the context, language, historic commentaries, or the view of Christian history. The
condition is “If” and only “if.” Contextually it follows, “if” any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father. If all was “finished” on the Cross as for forgiveness, then we would no longer need an Advocate. No passage in all of Scripture holds out salvation to anyone who continues in sin. The state one dies in, is the state they remain in for eternity. (Rev. 22:11).

Second scenario: A man is driving along and sees that he is just about to be hit by a fast moving semi. An unsavory expression slips out of his mouth in panic. There is not any evil motive, and it is questionable whether it was willful. There was no known and willful rebellion to a known law of God, thus there is not separation. He is in heaven.  

I would take a close look as to what is sin that separates according to Scripture. I would also look at how Scripture presents the work of Christ as freeing us from the power of sin, and has enabled us not to
sin.    

Fourth, Why did Jesus go to the cross, and when He said "It is finished" what did He mean? What was finished?

Jesus stated that the provision of atonement was complete. One has to read the finality of salvation into the statement to get it out of it. A provision was made for all who will in future history would believe
and endure to the end believing.

If salvation was “finished forever” then He atoned only for the elect, and did not atone for the non-elect. Salvation is by fate, not by faith. Those that are not atoned for have no hope of salvation, for it was never really offered. This would be the Calvinistic view.

The Baptist view, would appeal to, “when were your sins paid for?” The problem here is, God cannot unpay sin. If it were paid for on the Cross, you were already saved long before you were born. Belief and
faith are optional, for unbelief is a sin, and it’s either already paid for, or if it is not paid, all the belief in the world would leave you damned.  

This is why Unitarian Universalists exist.

Nowhere does it say a single sin was paid on the Cross. The “provision” was finished. We no longer have to sacrifice a bull to be forgiven, but in faith we can go to our Advocate and plead for mercy. His provision remains available for forgiveness.

-------

What do you make of Christ's promise, "I will never leave you or forsake you."?

Your site sets conditions on this verse. It appears to me that you are reading into the text and setting conditions on this verse, creating your own doctrine.

1. Christ does not speak in a vacuum, for all Scripture is by the inspiration of God. True, Jesus does not discuss any conditions, nor does He deny them. To say that He denies conditions is reading something into the passage that isn’t there, creating your own doctrine. He gives us assurance of His part of the relationship. He does not deal with ours at this point. It is clear that He will not leave or forsake us, but that we can leave and forsake Him. The result is the same. (Heb. 3:12-14; 5:9; 1 Tim. 5: 11-12; 2 Peter 2: 15).

2.The passage, "I will never leave you or forsake you," is in Hebrews 13: 5. Hebrews is chocked full of conditions. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. (Heb. 2:1-3, (speaking to Christians, “we”); 3: 6,
(if “we” hold fast); 3:12, (beware of departing or forsaking God); 4: 1-11, (especially verse 11, summarizes the passage with a warning that unbelief keeps one from entering in); 5: 9, (saves the obedient, no promise in Scriptures says that He saves the disobedient); 6: 4-12; 10: 26-31, 35, 38-39; 11: 13; 13: 15, (one can fail the grace of God).      

If the Holy Spirit promises to never leave the believer. Is the Holy Spirit then condemned to hell when a believer "loses" his salvation? Can God reside in Hell? Blasphemous!

1.It is an assumption that the apostate cannot separate themselves from Christ. It is an assumption, and not Scripture. Jude appeals to Christians, to “keep yourselves in the love of God.” (21). The Holy Spirit does not Go to hell with the apostate, He departs from the apostate the minute they commit apostasy! 

2.The scenario is an absurd suggestion. Proving it to be absurd would not prove that a person could not lose their salvation. Perhaps using Scripture to find Eternal Security would be a good place to base your
belief upon.

Salvation is dependent and conditional upon your behaviour?

1.Conditioned upon grace that delivers one from sin, resulting in obedience.

All I can find are passages that specifically say that our salvation is kept by God, not on our own accord.

1. True, God keeps, but only upon the condition of faith. (1 Peter 1:5). Sin is unbelief, not faith.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us."

1. It is clear to me that you have not read much of the site, for you interject things that are clearly refuted, and thing that are never denied.

“ There is none righteous, no not one."

1.Many are called righteous in Scripture. This is not directed towards Christians, but the self-righteous who claim not to need Christ. An entire article is dedicated to this on the site. http://eternalsecurity.us/there%20is%20none%20righteous.htm


“Was Paul not saved then because he claimed to be chief of sinners?”

1. Was he then a sinner? Read the context again. He refers to his past in the persecution of the Church. To say otherwise is to read your doctrine into the passage. Again, and entire article is dedicated to this singular passage on the site. http://www.eternalsecurity.us/Paul%20Chief%20of%20Sinners.htm

I think you are misunderstanding Romans 6

1. This is not helpful. Specifically, what doe you disagree with? What article are you referring to?

"What shall we say then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!!"

2. Paul is correct, sinning is not necessary, nor is compatible with being a Christian. The wages of sin is still death! http://eternalsecurity.us/wages_of_sin.htm

----

I want to thank you for making me believe in eternal security. Your ignorance and haste, not only yours but of every single website against eternal security, leads me to the more Godly men and women that preach the true Gospel.   Become less like a Pharisee and more like Christ, please.

Obviously you don't have any answers to the assertions and truths found on this site. I pray that someday you will be open to actually investigating truth instead of only looking for an affirmation of the lie you already believe.

Some may see my response as retaliation or bitterness, this is far from my intent. This is a letter from someone who is so closed to any evidence that might be against what they believe, that they have no intent of honestly looking. It appears that the only response left for them is to condemn without proof, and to assert their doctrine upon the shear strength of thin air! My response is an attempt to challenge them to return to Biblical ground: to be open to "truth" no matter where it leads. Perhaps it will sink in someday that salvation will not be based upon their confidence in a doctrine, but upon their faith in Christ and the truth of his Word!

-----

 “I'm a Christian now, so what happens if I backslide and lose my salvation. Can I regain it back again?”

Answer: I struggled with the same question 25 years ago. Let me assure you that the only sin that is fatal is continuous and unrepentant sin. Hebrews 10:26 states that “If we sin” (present tense), “If we go on
sinning willfully,” (NASB), we no longer have a sacrifice for sin. I stumbled at the ambiguity of the King James “if we sin,” as if one sin ended all of my chances.

If you backslide, it is recoverable. Nowhere in the Bible do we find an example where God refuses to take back the one that turn to Him in genuine repentance. One can go so far that God “gives them over” to
their own lusts. (Rom. 1: 24-32; 1 Jn. 5:16). Without the Holy Spirit’s convicting influences, that person will have no desire for reconciliation with God. The fact that one senses and desires reconciliation with God is an indicator that they are not beyond the reach of His grace and forgiveness.  

Though it is written to the Church of Ephesus, there is a practical message to the individual backslider in Revelation 2:4-5, “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.” (Jesus Christ).
“Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first…” (Rev. 2:4-5).

In 1 John 1:9 we read, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins…” And in 2:1, “And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” We have
an Advocate to turn to that will forgive “if” we confess our sin to Him. He is not only willing to forgive us, but will also “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

My advice to the backslider is to seek God. Repent and ask for forgiveness. Continue to do what they know is right, and God will eventually confirm that reconciliation to them through Witness of His
Spirit. (Romans 8:14).

Many people stumble at the word “impossible” in Hebrews 6:4-6. The problem is, they do not look at the context to see “why” it remains impossible. The “impossibility” does not reside with God, who is not
willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9), but with the one who is (present tense in the Greek) “crucifying the Son of God afresh.” Nothing within the passage indicates that they could not be recovered if they believed and repented of re-crucifying Christ in their hearts. While the Scriptures state that there is a point of no return, it is not stated in this passage.

Once again Jeff, if one is convicted and concerned, this indicates that God has not given up on them. I do not believe that one would ask the question about backsliding if they had crossed the line of God’s
reach. 

I pray that this helps you to see some hope for the backslider.

------

“Is there such thing as a backsliding Christian and what about backsliding? Is there any hope for them?”

Answer: I answered a similar question a few days ago, so I will rehash it for you.

First, the Bible does not know of a “backslidden Christian.” It knows of a backslider, and it knows of a Christian. If you state that one backslides from a state of being a Christian is what is meant, it would be somewhat accurate, but misleading.  The problem with the statement is that most would say that one is still a Christian while in a state of being backslidden. You are either/or.

(I copied and pasted the discussion just previously to this one). See above.

I pray that this helps you to see some hope for the backslider.

Murray, there is hope. A certain inward struggle is noticed and admitted by nearly every Christian I have met. God does want to do more in us. Nearly 1/2 of the New Testament is dedicated to exhort us
to holiness and purity.  This is addressed to the struggling Christian. While it is a lot of reading, I would suggest that you consider the issue of Entire Sanctification. The Bible speaks of this, and uses terms to suggest that the blessing is for us here and now.
Here are the links.

http://www.eternalsecurity.us/entire_sanctification.htm


http://www.eternalsecurity.us/understanding_christian_holiness.htm


http://www.eternalsecurity.us/The%20Biblical%20Basis%20for%20Entire%20Sanctification.htm

Hang in there; run the race, reevaluate your understanding, and seek the Scriptures for understanding. Insanity is defined as: doing the same things over and over, but expecting different results.
The same goes for spirituality. If what you are currently doing and believing is not working, test your beliefs; seek to see the path the Scriptures are exhorting you to do.

I pray that God helps you to find the stability and blessing of victory over sin.

-------

I have been reading the articles on your web site and I am so thrilled to finally have some solid scripture for the basis of my belief.  I do not believe in eternal security, but... trying to convince me he is right in his belief of OSAS. Can you help?  I cant get past this born unborn distorted logic.
 

When you accept Jesus as your Saviour, will it be the final choice you will ever make about your eternal destiny?  
 
 Yes!!!  When God made the absolute ultimate sacrifice of his Son for us to have "eternal" life, it wasn't for no flippum-floppum, nickel and dime salvation. It was for "eternity". He said nothing would be able to pluck them out of my hand. Not man, nor powers nor principalities, nor height nor depth nor anything could separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.(John 10:28)  When we get saved, we accept the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The Bible says all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.
 
 Can we change our minds about being saved?
 
 No. Once you are born, you are born. Just because a child gets mad at a parent because he or she thinks the rules are too strick or whatever else they might get upset about, they are still Our Father's child. You just can't be unborn.
 
 Does salvation consist of one grand, holy moment of decision,  
 
Salvation, or being born again does. Just as in the physical realm, you are only born once. And it is a grand and holy moment...not to be made fun of. Sanctification is a life long process. Sanctification is like the growing up and maturing process in the spiritual realm. Being set apart from the world unto God
 
or must we continue in the saving grace of Christ after that decision?
 
That's sanctification. Just as in the physical realm, you are only born once

And besides....Who in their right mind would ever say, "I think I've decided I want  to go to hell!"  If the person was truly born again, then they have an understanding of the depth of punishment one would receive in hell, and they would "never" choose to be lost even if they could! If they ever would say that, it would have to have come from the Father of Lies, Satan, and God said "no one" would be able to pluck them out of my hand. Not powers, or principalities.......When he was talking, except ye abide in the vine, he was talking about about our fruitfulness. Our doing the will of God that will gain rewards in our "eternal" life. When we sin, we'll be chastened as a child of God, but the "eternal" fact remains, we will "eternally" be a child of God.  1 PETER 1:23 says "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.  We are born children of God with an incorruptible seed (by Jesus Christ).  Incorruptible means something which cannot be contaminated or destroyed.  It is the divine nature of God Himself.

Answer: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer your question. While many arguments sound strong, they are no substitute for plain and unambiguous statements of Scripture. If Eternal Security were true, there would be at least three passages that would state it explicitly.

The following article should address the Scriptures that he is appealing to.

http://eternalsecurity.us/eight_pillars_of_eternal_securit.htm

The following is from “Eternal Security and Logic.”

"How can someone be Born-Again and become Unborn"? This argument takes many different forms: "How can a sheep become a goat"? "How can someone that has been adopted become un-adopted"? As for the first argument "How can the Born become Unborn," we answer: They do not become Un-Born, this is drawing on from something that is not a human concept. Isn't it more logical to say that that which is
Born spiritually can Die spiritually? The same is to be said of the logic of using adoption. We do not become un-adopted, but we can be disowned and disinherited! 

The most illogical argument in this group is: "How can a sheep become a goat."? The same people who believe that this cannot be done have no trouble believing that a goat can become a sheep! To follow their
thinking to its logical end, we would have to say that if the nature of someone cannot be changed, then regeneration and the New-Birth are impossibilities! In essence, they are saying that it is impossible to
be saved!

The faulty logic of saying one has to "un" birth or "un" adopt in order for the nature of believer to be changed back into an unbeliever, has to ignore that a process can be halted or cease to be
without having an exact parallel that shows a process of a reversal. A postage stamp is worthless to a post office once it bears the marks of cancellation. A stamp does not have to be "un-printed" to become
void of postal value. With Eternal Security "logic" we could stand at the counter and argue with the Postmaster that they must honor our cancelled stamps because there is no such thing as being "un-stamped"!!

"If Eternal Life can be lost, how can it be eternal?"
(This applies to the incorruptible seed also).
This logic pivots on the meaning of eternal. If it is eternal, how can it then end? These are pertinent questions.
There is a point in time where one who believes receives eternal life If this life is "eternal" then it has no beginning or ending, but yet we admit that we do not possess it until we believe! Does this mean
that it is not "eternal" since there has to be a beginning to our possession of it?
If I receive an eternal Pearl of great price as a gift, it is mine; I "have" an eternal Pearl. It is something that I should cherish and rejoice in! But what if I trade it in for something I would rather have? What if I no longer cherish the gift or the One that gave it to me. What if I then become careless and then I lose it somewhere? Even if I cast it away, the Pearl remains eternal! It just ceases to be my possession!
Those that key in on the word "eternal" fail to see that the quality of "everlasting" is connected to "life" and not to our "having" it or "possessing" it! The "life" is "eternal," and not the believer! Having Eternal Life does not mean that we have an irrevocable possession of it! Whether we accept Christ and the gift of eternal life has no bearing on the quality of the gift, "eternal life." The gift stays eternal whether we possess it or not! The quality of the "life" is "eternal," whether anyone would ever believe on Christ
or not.  

The logic of an Eternal Gift is interesting, but it cannot, and does not, establish a fact of a Eternal possession or an Eternal Security!

HE IS BORN OF INCORRUPTIBLE SEED! 1 Peter 1:23; The Christian’s new birth was from incorruptible seed. The seed is incorruptible, not the persons possession of that seed! See the previous verse to see whom this applies to! “ Seeing ye have PURIFIED your souls in OBEYING the truth through the Spirit unto UNFEIGNED LOVE of the brethren, see that ye LOVE ANOTHER with a PURE HEART fervently.” This cannot possibly describe those that continue in sin and rebellion. They are not pure, they are not obeying, they demonstrate that they do not love the brethren or God. They do not have a pure heart, and are thereby excluded from being possessors of this incorruptible seed.

A slick theological argument, no matter how convincing, is not a substitute for Scripture. A thousand such arguments can be appealed to, but they will not establish Biblical truth.
http://eternalsecurity.us/pillars%20part%20two.htm
There is a short discussion about anthropomorphisms near the end of this article that deals with an appeal to humanity as the symbol of spiritual realities. One must never press them further than the obvious one intent that is being appealed to in Scripture.


I recommend reading the following article. There is a pattern to the way that Eternal Securists are trained to argue. I have found it to be quite effective.
http://www.eternalsecurity.us/a_new_strategy_for_refuting_eter.htm

----

Love your teaching - really great stuff.  Am pretty good at seeing the "holes" in the eternal security stance, so I really appreciate seeing what someone who really knows the Word and has an excellent grasp on logical thinking does to this heresy.  

Having said that, most everybody I know sees what election, foreknowledge, predestination, etc ARE NOT ... but haven't had anyone really explain what the concept IS... What IS Paul saying when he says "foreknowledge" in Rom. 8:29?  I read that it doesn't mean just "knowing ahead of time" or just "intellectual knowing."  So what does he mean?  

And Rom 9: when Paul says vessels of wrath prepared for destruction or vessels prepared beforehand for glory?  Or 9:16 where Paul appears to be saying our will has nothing to do with what God does.  So salvation has nothing to do with our will?

Answer: Thank you for your kind words!

You asked, "Having said that, most everybody I know sees what election, foreknowledge, predestination, etc ARE NOT ... but haven't had anyone really explain what the concept IS... "

Thomas, you have a good point here. Allow me to take a stab at some of it.

1. First, foreknowledge, predestination, and election are all three distinct and should not be confused as synonymous terms.

2. Foreknowledge is just what it says… fore-knowledge. Knowledge is not causative. If I knew what you would be doing tomorrow at 2:00 P.M., this would not mean that I caused you to do anything, or that you were not totally free to do that precise action. My knowing what you will do does not lock you into any action, nor does my knowing it suggest that I was a cause in any way.

3. Predestination certainly speaks of something determined to be ahead of time. Predestination is mentioned five times in the Bible. Not once is it used in connection with the determination of anyone to heaven or hell. It does have a distinct theme; the predestination of Christians to holiness or sanctification.

4. Election, or choosing. This is a difficult concept for many to wrap their mind around. We must ask, “what” is elected, and not “who” is elected. Election is corporate, not individual, meaning, the Church, the Bride, the Body of Christ is elect. A person is elect only in their connection to the Body of Christ. The Body was elect before we came on the scene, and would still be elect if we departed from the Body. A Body is made up of many members, but keep in mind, there is only one Bride of Christ! We will be saved as a whole elect Body. Salvation and election, while touching individuals, is corporate.

5. Rom. 8:29? “To whom he did foreknow, he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son ( sanctification, not salvation).”

Open Theists claim that God just knows the possibility or contingency. I am more traditional in my approach to foreknowledge, not seeing any conflict here. If Paul is writing about the corporate Church, he is stating God knew before hand, and pre-determined that those within this Body would be conformed to the image of His Son, which is holiness.

6. Rom 9: Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction or vessels prepared beforehand for glory? Take a look at Paul’s writings in 2 Timothy 2:20-21, it explains that this is not predestination. One can “change” from a vessel of dishonor, to one of honor. Keep in mind that in Romans 9, Paul is dealing with errors of Jewish belief, and is repeating their assertions; not necessarily stating what is true according to God’s plan. The Jews saw themselves as the only “elect,” and because of that, they were secure. Sound familiar?
The Jews asserted that God made someone elect or non-elect. Paul answers, “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (verse 24). The Jews would assert that the only way to be elect would to be Jewish, and you were either blessed before hand, by being born a Jew, or you were born a heathen, fit for destruction. It is clear in 2 Timothy 2:20-21 that Paul does not mean any predestination to heaven or hell in Romans 9. In fact, he denies that the assertion is not true. One is not locked into what kind of vessel they are.

7. Romans 9:16. This does not state that we have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”  God is the Initiator of salvation. It is not to be attained by works
(running), or a matter of self-initiative of man, but by God’s mercy. This is stated in contrast to what is said before this. Paul tackles the view that the Jews were “born elect.” Verse 6, “they are not all Israel , which are of Israel .” “They which are children of the flesh (born Jews) these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise (salvation by grace through faith) are counted for seed.” Paul attacks the Jewish assertion of national and racial election by correcting their erroneous views of election and predestination.

Verse 16 is illuminated by Paul’s prior statement, and verse 11. “that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.” God is the Initiator in this salvation. He has no one locked in. That is the point that is being made here. Paul is answering the Jewish question, and his purpose is not to elaborate upon every detail here. We do know from other passages that Christ died for every man; that God is not willing that any should perish. Nothing within these words limits God from
initiating an offer of salvation for all men. “That the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.” He is not locked into a Jewish only salvation. See verse 25-26; 30-32. We cannot take these passages outside of their context and believe that we have Paul’s meaning. We must also be careful that just because it is a statement or assertion, it may not be a statement of truth, but a statement asserted by the Jews that Paul uses to set up his argument for truth.

------

Wow!  Free at last!
 
I never could quite pinpoint what was wrong with Bob George.
 
I am sitting here in amazing joy thanks to you and God, or course!
 
That awful thing he says about 1 John 1:9 and his assertion  of all
sins forgiven, past, present and future have been like little demons in
my head for the past 20 years!  I feel like I have just been truly saved!
 
Thank you.  Thank you, and thank you!

Praise God!

Answer: Thank you so much for your testimony! I assure you that I do not cherish exposing people and their doctrine in such an aggressive way, but feel that I only have one opportunity to reach the reader with the truth, and if I fail, they may be deceived forever. I truly believe that Bob George means well, and actually believes what he teaches. However, if he is wrong about what he teaches, the consequences could
be eternal.

I pray that what I write helps people to examine what they believe in a more deliberate manner. I desire the utmost blessings to you in your walk with Christ. May you be a light to others in these confusing times.

------

and THEN say that all sins are not forgiven for the saved individual.

All sins are NOT forgiven for you people who are trying in vain (I Cor
15:1-4) to gain access to Heaven.  You are and will stay lost (Mat 7:20-21).

Repent!

Rick

Answer: Rick, 

"You are and will stay lost..." So, why should I repent?

It is sad to see such contradictory advise from someone who desires to help me! Perhaps you should actually read what I have written, and give me specifics of how I am "trying in vain to gain access to
heaven."

Looking forward to understanding your concern.

Jeff
---

Second Response

You didn;t even read the verses, did you?

No sir, I am saved.  You people, on the other hand are trusting in your good
works.  Read Matthew 7.

ANd do not respond until you read these passages.

Get saved and quit leading your family to Hell with you.

Rick

"Read Acts 13:31 and I John 1:9... You didn;t even read the verses, did you?”

Answer: Acts 13:31- “And he was seen many days of them which came up from
Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.”

Read it. I see nothing here that would challenge anything I have written. It brings no conviction that I am wrong in any way. Rick, in your reading of the passage, what do you see that warrants such a
severe rebuke? What exegetical method are you using in your dealing with this passage? Do you have much success in leading people to repentance with this passage? What am I to repent of according to
this? 

1 John 1:9- “IF… (notice the condition) we confess our sins (present active participle in the Greek) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (Greek- to forgive us sins), AND to cleanse us from ALL
unrighteousness.”

All I see is a validation of everything I have written on my website. Forgiveness is conditioned upon the PRESENT confession of sins. But God does not stop there! He promises not only current PRESENT
forgiveness, but ALSO current cleansing from ALL SIN! Do you experience deliverance from ALL SIN?

I also enjoyed Matthew chapter seven, especially verses 15-1! “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

Amen! The ONLY one’s that will enter into heaven are those that DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER. Quite ominous, don’t you think? 

Now that I have fulfilled your request, would you grant me the courtesy of showing me specifics of where I have indicated that I advocate, or state that I trust in works as the means of getting to heaven? Surely you would not take your time to subject a Christian to such a rebuke without cause!

Eagerly awaiting an explanation for your actions,

Jeff

Note: I'm still waiting! Note to self:  Don't hold your breath! 

------

"instead of "once shaved, always shaved", or "once in grass, always in grass",  hey, let's stick to BIBLICAL analogies rather than cutesy, made up ones.”

Do you mean made up clichés such as “Once Saved Always Saved,” and “Eternal Security”? Perhaps you missed it, but you have agreed with the point that was being made.

“The bible tells us that those who are saved are dead to sin Ro 6:2) once dead, always dead. The bible says we are the sons of God (Jhn 1:12), once a son, always a son.”

John 1:12 does not even come close to saying “once a son, always a son”! Sorry, but one must engage in astonishing eisegesis to twist the meaning of the passage to make it state that!

“The bible says those who are saved are born again (how many times can a person ever be physically born?). If a person can only be born once physically and it's absolutely impossible to ever be born again
physically, then we must conclude from this analogy it is also just as impossible to be born more than once SPIRITUALLY. Thus, it's "born again", not again and again, and again.  Once you're born, always
born!”

Nonsense! Everything that is born also dies! So all who are born again must die spiritually! Right? You are taking an example from human life and forcing it upon Scripture as if Scripture states it as a fact! This is nothing more than reading what you want to see into Scripture.
While you may hang all truth on human analogies, the Scriptures beg to differ with you. "These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose FRUIT WITHERETH, without fruit, TWICE DEAD, plucked up by the roots;" Jude 12 Note here that these apostates (those who leave the faith they once knew and embraced) Jude addresses had previously had "fruit" which now "withereth." They are also "TWICE dead." The prodigal son was a son of his father then abandoned his father's house. OF him Christ said: "For this my son was dead, and is alive AGAIN; he was lost, and
is found...for this thy brother was dead, and is alive AGAIN; and was lost, and is found." Luke 15:24, 32 "BRETHREN, if any of YOU do err from the truth, and one convert him (bring him back to Jesus); Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death (hell), and shall hide a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20. (excerpt credited to Todd Tomasella of Safeguard Your Soul website @ www.safeguardyoursoul.com Galatians 4:19, Paul speaks, "My little children, OF WHOM I travail AGAIN IN BIRTH UNTIL CHRIST BE FORMED IN YOU." It seems to make much sense unless we look at the problem at hand. It appears that many of the Galatians had fallen off the wagon per se, concerning salvation through grace (Gal. 5:4). They had severed themselves from Christ; they had fallen from grace (which is impossible if they were not already CONNECTED to Christ)! Christ became of no effect for them (obviously He had to have had a previous effect in order for them to no longer be of one). They ceased to trust Christ as their sole source of salvation and trusted in Law keeping instead (Gal. 1-3), and Paul asks them if their prior suffering for Christ was all in vain! (v.4). It is easy to see contextually that Paul sought to recover these fallen children to be regenerated in birth AGAIN! If self-trust for salvation before being a Christian was hell-worthy, and required a new birth and an abandonment of self-trust for salvation in Christ the FIRST time, then there is no reason to doubt the same requirements the SECOND time!

“As to your point that there's no mention of eternal security in the bible, what about Hebrews 5:9 which says those who've obeyed the gospel have "eternal salvation"? The word "bible" doesn't appear in the bible. The word "trinity" doesn't appear in the bible, yet these doctrines are clearly taught in scripture, not just merely "read into" certain passages.”

Once again, I don’t believe that you have read very deeply into the article that you are complaining about. It speaks of the very thing you present as proof. First, Eternal Security cannot be derived as the doctrine of the Trinity can. There are clear statements that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are called “God.” They are also spoken of as not being one and the same, but distinct Persons. This is far different than finding Eternal Security. We have not a single passage that states that one can enter the faith and not depart from it. Not a single passage states that a believer cannot lose their salvation.There are no series of facts that can arrive at Eternal Security if viewed in context. Now, I find it interesting that you appeal to a passage that asserts that Eternal Security is false as proof of Eternal Security! Hebrew 5:9 promises salvation to those that “obey” Him! You twist this to mean that they “at one time obeyed the gospel.” The passage says nothing of this! In fact, “obeying” Him is in the present active participle, and cannot mean some former obedience in the past, but can only indicate that eternal salvation is given to all that obey Him right now!  

Sorry, but no Eternal Security can be found or based upon the meaning of “eternal” for “eternal” is appended to “salvation” and “life”; it is never appended to our “possession’ of it.  

-----

Seriously why do you name a site eternalsecurity.us and then have it be against eternal security?

This is dishonest and most likely a sin because you lie about the content. EternalSecurity.us makes you think that this is a site about eternal security, not a site against eternal security.

If you were an honest person you would have named your site: againsteternalsecurity.us or something of that nature. But since you're not an honest person, then it's not surprising you would do such a deceptive thing.

The shame is all yours proddy.

---

Seriously why do you name a site eternalsecurity.us and then have it be against eternal security?

Answer: Well Kristian@biblechristian.com, it IS about Eternal Security, now isn’t it!

This is dishonest and most likely a sin because you lie about the content. EternalSecurity.us makes you think that this is a site about eternal security, not a site against eternal security.

Answer: The site is about the TRUTH about the unbiblical doctrine of Eternal Security. Not one ounce of “dishonesty” is involved. If you were to actually read some of the articles, you would see that they have everything to do with the doctrine. The American Cancer Society owns www.cancer.org, yet they do not have one good thing to say about cancer. Are they dishonest in their name? Absolutely not!

Why do you name your site “biblechristian.com” when you teach the doctrines of men that are anti-Bible? Your hypocrisy is astounding!  

If you were an honest person you would have named your site: againsteternalsecurity.us or something of that nature. But since you're not an honest person, then it's not surprising you would do such a deceptive thing.

The shame is all yours proddy.

Answer: I do not find your unfounded accusation about my character to be any surprise, for those who do not have an answer or proof of Eternal Security have no where else to go but to attack with ad hominem arguments. Sadly, your pathetic assault does nothing in the least to convince me of the superiority of your doctrine, or the character that it breeds. You do not know me to be able to stand in judgment of my character or motives. If there is any sin involved here, it is your unchristian judgmentalism.

Being ignorant of your slang, I looked up the word “Proddy” on the internet. I certainly pray that you are impugning me with being a “Protestant” and not some other definition that I have found!

---

Second Response

I did not respond back since she asked me not to. She was clear that she would not consider being swayed by the Bible or truth. Here is her railing and my comments.

First off it's not my site so don't mix that up with me.
Separate e-mail addresses from sites.
You should know this having several sites yourself.
So no it's not my site but yes eternal security is the truth.

I was looking for sites that is for eternal security not sites that are against it and got irritated when I found a Reformed Roman Catholic site thinking it sits on truth (that would be your site), when in fact all you Protestants, Orthodox, Roman Catholics are all children of
Mystery Babylon the Great Whore.
And yes a proddy is a protestant or more correctly: a Reformed Roman Catholic. That is a heathen posing as a Christian. A wolf in sheeps clothing as the Bible calls you.
This is getting more and more common.

Answer: The vast multitude of all Christians throughout history are relegated to hell by this Fundamentalist cult member! ALL of the great Revivals, teachers, and preachers of all time are spiritually lost, and only those with her narrow mindset, who have not accomplished anything significant for Christ and the salvation of souls, are God's theological flag-bearers on earth. 

She gives a link to a site (which I will not print for the sake of truth and souls) that agrees with her, and is an arm of Pensacola Christian College, a King James Only Fundamental Baptist College.

It doesn't lead to Pensacola Christian College but to a site that much like yours is attacking something they don't like using a dishonest name for it.
It's funny you both use Galatians 4:16 aswell.
I've only seen cults use this as their defence aswell.
This one cult that says it's ok to drink alcohol, smoke and stuff like that
they love to use Galatians 4:16.
Just like the devil, "oh we're telling the truth, it's the truth". "Don't you trust us?". "Look we're using Galatians 4:16, we must be speaking the truth then."
All liars I've met has used this method. Same as communists, they always
claim to be speaking the truth. while someone speaking the truth don't need
to say they're speaking the truth.
That example was the weakest ever, they do the same dishonest thing as you.

Answer: She apparently believes that Gal. 4:16 is not Scripture and that Paul is a liar and not speaking the truth because he states it! What an incredibly ignorant hermeneutic!

Basically your whole silly site is just another version of the works salvation that the entire religious world uses.

Answer: She has no evidence of this, or she would have proved it! This is nothing short of spiritual slander! 

The religions the devil has created.
The muslims have the hajj (pilgrimage), they have their five times a day prayer and so on and so forth to take them to paradise. If they don't do certain religious works they can't go to their paradise.
You have your trying to hold on, do the best you can and endure until you die to take you to heaven, buddhists have all their religious deeds to bring them to nirvana.
Hindus have their religious work to take to whatever it is they think they'll go.
Roman Catholics (of which you apparently is a reformed one walking in the footsteps of the Catholic reformators) have their criterium of eating the eucharist, drinking the alcoholic wine and baby sprinkling to take them to purgatory and eventually heaven..
Mormons have a whole list of things they can't do.
And so on an so forth.
There's no difference between you and a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist, and all
the other garbage it's the same old works salvation. All you have is
religion.
Your site oozes of this self righteous look at me I'm so very smart, the
same attitude and spirit the atheists and evolutionists have. It's Romans
1:22 all over the site.
The quotes at the frontpage says it all. 

I mean 1 billion Catholics agree with you, 1 billion muslims agree with you, 800 million Buddhists agree with you, 800 million hindus also agree with you. 800 million Orthodox Catholics and Reformed Catholics (Protestants) agree with you.
They all say the same thing you do.
None of them agree with me.
The Bible says:
Matthew 7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat:
Matthew 7:14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Answer: I have nothing in common with any of the groups stated! I never state that anyone has to perform any specific act to be saved besides what the Bible states; repentance and belief. I find it quite contrary to her faith in Gnostic doctrine (Eternal Security) as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and not Jesus Christ! Faith in Eternal Security can not save you, in fact, it will most likely damn you! Eternal Security is not the Gospel! Our faith is to be in Christ, not a doctrine for salvation! She believes she is all about grace, but shows that her doctrine has no grace at all! 

How is it "Grace" or even Eternal Security if you are the only Christian in the world, and everyone else is going to hell? 

I could spend hours destroying your site and articles, but why should I you won't change you views seeing you're blind. So why waste time on a bunch of religious people?
I've dealt with people like you before, you guys always turn a blind eye to the scriptures when your cult teachings are destroyed. Just like with the Charimatics and Pentecostals. When their chaos is rebuked they turn a deaf ear, and so do you.

Answer: I do not think that she could muster up two seconds of actual rebuttal alone "hours" of "destroying" the truth's found on my site! She spent a good amount of time rebuking me, yet she could not find a single Scriptural argument to show that I am wrong! I have rarely encountered people like her who's faith in doctrine has been so strong! Don't confuse what I have said here; faith in doctrine for salvation, and not in Jesus Christ!   

I mean after all you're just another Catholic that doesn't even know you're a Catholic because you thought just because someone said they're a Christian then they're a Christian. If you'd been born again you'd see what I was saying here but since you're with 99% certainty not
then you can't understand what I say.
It's like I'm speaking in another language.

Answer: It is surely another language I agree! I can't quite place the exact language, but it is not Christian!  

So instead I leave you with a sermon for you dishonest religious man.
Perhaps it might have some effect on you but most likely not.

(Heresy Ommitted)

There's no need to discuss this further, either you get saved or you will
bust hell wide open with your religious garbage.

There's no need for a reply to this at all, I know you will be tempted but you won't sway me, you're material and your site in unconvincing and ofcourse it's a bunch of lies.
So don't contact me, you're only welcome to contact me IF you'd get saved
and take that site offline.
Because we don't have anything at all to discuss at the present. You got
your works salvation all cut out for you proddy and still the shame is all
yours.

Answer: I cannot expect anyone to be convinced by what they refuse to read. 

---

This exchange is in response to a statement that the "Pillars of Eternal Security" did not refute the meaning of "eternal," and therefore, did not debunk Eternal Security.  This is my first response:

W____,

You asked, "The one "pillar" I could not find refuted is the simplicity of Eternal/everlasting life.  Is it eternal/everlasting, or is it not. If eternal life is indeed eternal then how can it be lost??  If it is ever lost then it was never eternal."

Answer: We do not establish doctrine on the weight of definitions, but upon Scriptural assertions of doctrine. The "Pillar" you are looking for is covered here.

http://eternalsecurity.us/logic%20of%20eternal_security.htm

Blessings,
---

Second Response

Thanks for the reply.  Actually the definition of Biblical words are vital to the establishing of Biblical doctrines.  Otherwise we could make the Scriptures say whatever we want them to say depending upon "our" definition of a word.  Your own logic is faulty and you have yet to answer the question.  We are told that "I will give unto them eternal life (present tense, never ending) and they shall never perish." 

Answer:  

W____,

I agree that definitions are important, but it is a poor hermeneutic to grab hold of a word and to develop a whole doctrine based upon every possible nuance of that word. If I were to do so with the
anthropomorphic “son,” and apply it to Scripture, I would conclude that “once a son, always a son,” and therefore, I could never be a Christian, for I was once (and therefore must always be) a son of the devil. Context is much more important in determining what is being said. In the same way, people grab hold of “eternal” and seem to be able to develop a doctrine without ever looking at the Bible for any information on context. As I pointed out, (in the article referred too), the logic of this fails, for if “eternal means “eternal” then it not only never ends, but it also cannot begin. By the same logic I could build a doctrine on the word that would claim that if you did not always have eternal life, then you can never get eternal life because then it would have a beginning. I don’t believe that we are in great disagreement here concerning context and definitions, so I will move on.

You brought up the objection that, “We are told that "I will give unto them eternal life (present tense, never ending) and they shall never perish." But can you really accept the present tense and ignore the other present tenses throughout the whole passage? First, the present tense speaks of something that occurs right now, not the future. In Summer’s “Essentials of New Testament Greek,” we have, “The present tense indicates a progressive action at the present time.” (I place this reference here so you can see that I am not just giving just  my ‘opinion’ on the meaning of the present tense here). A perfect tense would indicate a past action with continuing results; a future tense would have been used if Jesus was indicating that this extended to the future without conditions. The present tense does not assert that which you are seeking to place here.  

Secondly, the passage has many present tenses. Here are a few examples: 


“My sheep hear [present tense] my voice, I know them, [present tense], and they follow [present tense] me: And I give [present tense] unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish…”

This is a condition to “having” this eternal life. Unless you are presently hearing and following, Jesus does not presently give you eternal life.

Allow me to contrast my understanding with yours concerning the present tense.

Mine:

“My sheep [are hearing, right this moment] my voice, I know them [as sheep based upon their hearing right now], and they follow [are following me this very minute] me: And I [am giving them this moment,
right now] eternal life; and they shall never perish…”

My conclusion? That only sheep have eternal life [right now]. Only those that are [right now] hearing and following Jesus are sheep. Jesus would be a liar if He were to give you eternal life apart from
the conditions He placed upon receiving present tense life. You may believe that you have done nothing in the way of condition to receive this life, but Jesus said that there are conditions. You may believe
that you are saved by an act of fate, not through grace by faith (which is a condition). Without faith it is impossible to please God.


We are saved by faith (as a condition) and we are kept by the very same condition… faith. (1 Peter 1:5).

Yours:

“My sheep [that hear never endingly] my voice, I know them, [never endingly], and they [never endingly] follow me: And I give [right now and never endingly] them eternal life; and they shall never perish…”

Even if you impose (as would assert) a future tense instead of a present tense, you have the same result as I do. If anyone ever ceases to hear and follow unendingly, they are not His sheep, and therefore
not recipients of never ending future eternal life. I believe that your emphasis on only one part of the passage only defrays the inevitable, and ignore the condition in which one is a sheep.

W___, you asserted, “He gave no conditions.  Don't sin, walk a holy life, etc.” We must be cautious here. Most “Eternal Security” verses come from John’s Gospel. The Synoptic Gospels constantly give conditions such as ‘repent and believe’ as other parts of Scripture clearly state these conditions.  It is interesting to note that John never uses the term ‘repent’ in his Epistles or Gospel, only in Revelation. I do not believe it is wise to ignore all Scripture in favor of a passage because “it has no conditions.” John does have a “condition” which is belief or faith. You can choose to believe that he disagrees with every other author that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and believe that you have the whole truth of the matter. Or, we can assume (and I believe correctly so), that John is not opposed to every writer in Scripture, but that his term ‘believe’ encompasses the fruit of belief as shown in the other Gospels. Just because he does not qualify the term is no indication that his usage if the term discounts the condition elsewhere stated. John’s ‘believe’ includes
repentance from sin, obedience to Christ, and remaining in the faith.


All these things are implied by the conditions of the very passage that you bring up, i.e., the conditions Jesus sets for being a sheep.

I do know that I have little chance of convincing you, for it seems like you have made up your mind on the matter. I don’t send this to you to beat you up theologically, but I would feel like I was remiss in my Christian duty if I were to not at least try to give you information that you may have overlooked in your quest for Biblical doctrine.

Blessings in Christ

---

Hi,

I was reading in your article entitled: Healing and the Atonement By Jeff Paton
where you state:

"We have the example of Jesus. When He healed, He did so immediately and completely." to support you stand that for healing to be authentic it must has immediate and complete effects.

I must disagree for there is scripture that demonstrates that this was not always the case as found in Mark 8:23-25

"And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" 24 And he looked up and said, "I see men, but they look like trees, walking." 25 (healing is at this point only partial and not immediate) Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26  

(it took jesus repeated laying on of his hands to accomplish this miracle, i would deduce maybe it was a faith issue with the recipient as they are some other instances of this) i.e. Mark 6:5,6...

5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching. (ESV)
Paul

Answer: 

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your concern. You quoted Matthew 8:22-25 as an example that healing is not always immediate and complete. Now, we can quibble about "seconds," but that is pretty immediate in most anybodies book. If you desire to press "seconds" as not being "immediate," you certainly can, but it would not justify or excuse healings that take days, months and years of process to complete. If it pleases you for
accuracy's sake to differentiate between "immediate" and mere "seconds, I will concede those two examples being in Scripture along with you.

Thank you for being observant and pointing our that which you see as a misstatement.

In Christ,
---

Read Acts 13:31 and I John 1:9...and THEN say that all sins are not forgiven for the saved individual.

All sins are NOT forgiven for you people who are trying in vain ( I Cor.15:1-4) to gain access to Heaven.  You are and will stay lost (Mat 7:20-21).

Repent!

Rick

Answer: "You are and will stay lost (Mat 7:20-21)." So, why should I repent?
It is sad to see such contradictory advise from someone who desires to help me! Perhaps you should actually read what I have written, and give me specifics of how I am "trying in vain to gain access to heaven."

Looking forward to understanding your concern.

---

Second Response

You didn;t even read the verses, did you?

No sir, I am saved.  You people, on the other hand are trusting in your good
works.  Read Matthew 7.

ANd do not respond until you read these passages.

Get saved and quit leading your family to Hell with you.

Rick

Answer: “Read Acts 13:31 and I John 1:9... You didn;t even read the verses, did you?”

Acts 13:31- “And he was seen many days of them which came up from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.”

Read it. I see nothing here that would challenge anything I have written. It brings no conviction that I am wrong in any way. Rick, in your reading of the passage, what do you see that warrants such a severe rebuke? What exegetical method are you using in your dealing with this passage? Do you have much success in leading people to repentance with this passage? What am I to repent of according to this?

1 John 1:9- “IF… (notice the condition) we confess our sins (present active participle in the Greek) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (Greek- to forgive us sins), AND to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.”

All I see is a validation of everything I have written on my website. Forgiveness is conditioned upon the PRESENT confession of sins. But God does not stop there! He promises not only current PRESENT
forgiveness, but ALSO current cleansing from ALL SIN! Do you experience deliverance from ALL SIN?

I also enjoyed Matthew chapter seven, especially verses 15-21! “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

Amen! The ONLY one’s that will enter into heaven are those that DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER. Quite ominous, don’t you think?

Now that I have fulfilled your request, would you grant me the courtesy of showing me specifics of where I have indicated that I advocate, or state that I trust in works as the means of getting to heaven? Surely you would not take your time to subject a Christian to such a rebuke without cause!

Eagerly awaiting an explanation for your actions,

Jeff

---

No Response Received. I appealed for another response in the following:

Rick,

I am awaiting your answer as to why you rebuked me as being unsaved, and how I am leading my family to hell. I have fulfilled your request to read certain verses and placed a reasonable request for a response
in return. Please, what are the specifics in what I have written that oppose the Gospel? I certainly want to know, for I too believe that I am saved and preaching the truth. But since it is obvious to a saved person like yourself that I am going to hell, and God has opened the door of opportunity for you to correct me, I would certainly hope that you would fulfill a saved person's obligation by caring for my soul.
Surely your rebuke was not out of hatred, but an effort to save my soul! Certainly, you would not just let me slip into hell by leaving me in my ignorance, would you?

By your taking the role of a watchman over my soul, I would not want to know that my blood would be on your hands if you did not do what is in your power to resolve my fatal error.
Ezek. 3:17-21.

Jeff  

Rick never responded in kind as he vowed to do. 

---

Why do the infamous attack the famous...Has Charles Stanley responded to your paper?
 
 You and Mr. Stanley make excellent points of view...However, I banking on what Jesus told me: Anyone who comes to me...I will not cast out! That's good enough for me...You have to receive HIM like a child...Not a theologian...
 
 Frank

Answer: 

Frank,

Thank you for your note of concern. I fully agree with the fact that we have to receive Him as a child and not as a theologian. In my article I attempt to make it clear that “theology” is not what determines whether one goes to heaven. Much of what is taught in certain theology however can be a barrier to a relationship with Christ. Even though I see the doctrine of Eternal Security as dangerous, not all who believe in it follow through in abusing it to their own destruction. I know many fine believers that live above the doctrine they are taught. That however, does not make the doctrine any less dangerous, or any more Biblical.

You stated something in which I am not sure how to take. “Why do the infamous attack the famous.” I think that you are questioning why it is the “unknown” are the one’s to respond, and not the famous? To this question I will answer: because of politics. If one famous person attacks another openly, they chance alienating a large number of their potential supporters. This affects book deals, and invitations to venues.

Now, the word “infamous” is stating “having a bad reputation,” or “having an evil reputation.” If I have such a reputation, I am unaware of it. If this is what you meant by “infamous,” I would be curious as to where I have derived such a reputation. I did not know that I was known well enough to have earned it! Secondly, I tried to keep the rebuttal to Mr. Stanley’s doctrine, not his “person.” The closest to a personal attack was where I could not understand how someone with a PhD could do such sloppy research or misquote another author to his defense. This raises a question that must be faced. Did he do it intentionally? Or did he do so because he is an unreliable researcher? Personally, I have always welcomed a reasonable explanation to the problem so I could amend the personal statement of character, but I have never had anyone respond to correct me.

“Has Charles Stanley responded to your paper?”

I don’t know. I have occasionally perused his site to see if there was a response, but I don’t think that he will respond. I would not have been surprised to have had at least a personal letter of disagreement, but I would guess that he is probably too busy to worry about my little paper.  

“However, I banking on what Jesus told me: Anyone who comes to me...I will not cast out!”

Frank, this passage is dealing with the statement before this, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me…” The question that is immediately put to rest is, “who are “given,” to Jesus?” “Is it limited to only certain people?” Nothing in the passage directs us to the issue of the believer’s security. The passage is just a promise that those that come to Christ have no fear of being turned away.

Salvation in Christ is not limited to just the Jews, but to “all” that would come.

I would not “bank” my security on a statement that is not speaking of security. Even if we force security on the verse, it says nothing that would prevent someone from forsaking the Lord and that security.

There are many passages that Mr. Stanley did not appeal too that I did not answer in the rebuttal. I was getting too long as it was, so I did not introduce anything that he did not argue. If you wish, I can refer
you to other articles that deal with they issues and proof-texts that Mr. Stanley does not. In my writing I tend to be aggressive because I only have one chance to make my point. I don’t have a radio show to
hammer home by point day after day. I don’t write to you to beat you up, but to reason.

In Christ,

Jeff Paton  

---

Second Response

Dear Jeff:
 
OK...Here we go...I'm not going to get into it with Charles Stanley only to say: He may not have even written that book...These "famous" people are too busy to write books...They will have others do it and pen their name to the book...(This may be why you see "such sloppy research or misquote another author to his defense")
 
"Even though I see the doctrine of Eternal Security as dangerous, not all who believe in it follow through in abusing it to their own destruction. I know many fine believers that live above the
doctrine they are taught. That however, does not make the doctrine any less dangerous, or any more Biblical."
 
 I have always view Eternal Security as an "in-house debate"...I know you don't believe in it and you know I do...You are the first person in my 19 years of being saved that has a very good argument on the subject...
 
 But, the word dangerous my be as bad as my word infamous...People who say I'm saved and secure and live like the world are in that special group "I never knew you" (Plus the false teacher's have sealed their fate also)...Jesus tell them...And John says: they went out from us because they were not of us...
 
 They were never saved in the first place, no change in their lives...They get a "liver quiver" at church accept Jesus and do anything you like...There is where your "dangerous" comes in...I think!?
 
 But, if you are "living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age" and you WILL have that blessed assurance that Jesus is mine...You are a new creation! You are different! You stand out! You are under new management...Then I have that confidence that I'm sealed unto the day of redemption...So I have that promise (not feelings) that He is not going to cast me out and I'm sealed etc...etc...
 
 That's the God of the Bible!
 
 If He can create the world by this word...Become flesh...Die for Jeff and Frank...Raise Himself up on the 3rd day...He can keep you and me secure!...No problem....
 
 Actually, it is kind of sad that you and I are talking about this subject when Jesus said: "Go out and make disciples"...
 
How are we doing Jeff with the good news that Jesus Saves...You are HIGHLY TALENTED, your writing gives you away!
 
 Are we (you and me) making disciples...I know I'm not...Oh, I share my faith when the time is right...I'm a Romans 1:16 person...(Believe it or not...Saved out of Romanism back in 1987...Praise the LORD)...
 
(I'm saying this in Christian love) with your talent the LORD has given you I bet if you channeled this intellectual talent towards reaching the lost instead of shooting your brother (Charles Stanley) in the LORD there would be more joy in your Christian walk...
(I sense this in your writing...Very close to are friends in Revelation Chapter 2 "you lost your first love")...I may be wrong, however, you decide...
 
"In my writing I tend to be aggressive because I only have one chance to make my point. I don’t have a radio show to hammer home by point day after day. I don’t write to you to beat you
up, but to reason."
 
Lastly, why do you have to be aggressive...Why to you have to make a point...How will all this matter "when we've been there 10,000 years bright shining as sun"...Would you like a radio show...Will that make you complete as a Christian...Remember: "We are just passing through..." I think you do a bit of beating up in your writing...I love your style and way of thought, however, is it edifying...I think Paul devotes Chapter 13 of 1Corinthians to this..."You have this and that and you know this and that but, no love what good is it"...
 
 I know I will never convince you that you are eternally secure and I know that you say I can lose my salvation...So, let agree that we need to reach the lost with the good new of the gospel...Not to have fellowship with false christian teachers and leaders who deny the essentials of the Bible...Eternal Security is NOT an essential of the Biblical Christian Faith...
 
 Respectfully yours,
 
 Frank

Answer:

Dear Frank,

I have not forgotten about you!:) You are correct, I do have a lot of e-mails to responses to answer.
 
”I have always view Eternal Security as an "in-house debate"...I know you don't believe in it and you know I do...You are the first person in my 19 years of being saved that has a very good argument on the
subject...”

Most people read that which confirms their beliefs, not that which challenges them! It is actually a brave step to consider whether what we believe is correct. I believe it is important to follow the truth wherever it may lead. I myself have gone from atheism to being a Christian with presuppositions in favor of Eternal Security, to where I am today. I cannot claim that adjustments have not occurred along the way, and I am confident that some adjustment will continue to happen along the way as I consider different issues and their impact on whatever else I believe.  
 
”But, the word dangerous my be as bad as my word infamous...People who say I'm saved and secure and live like the world are in that special group "I never knew you" (Plus the false teacher's have sealed their
fate also)...Jesus tell them...And John says: they went out from us because they were not of us... They were never saved in the first place, no change in their lives...They get a "liver quiver" at church accept Jesus and do anything you like...There is where your "dangerous" comes in...I think!?

I would be cautious here in the application of Matthew 7:23 and 1 John 2:19 as an answer for “every” situation. There are those that have a profession of salvation instead of a possession of salvation. I don’t
deny that such exist in the Church, but that it does not answer every occurrence in the Church. The context of 1 John 2:19 is dealing with a specific situation, to a specific people, in a specific Church. It does not state or claim that everyone who falls away “was never saved to begin with.” While it may be true in many, or even most cases today, it does not speak emphatically for all situations.  

I believe that there is a real danger involved; an example would be 1 John again, “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” (2:24-25). This is not an exhortation to unbelievers to “continue” or “abide,” and it would be nonsense if this were spoken to someone that could not cease to “continue” and “abide.”  
 
”But, if you are "living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age" and you WILL have that blessed assurance that Jesus is mine...You are a new creation! You are different! You stand out! You are under new management...Then I have that confidence that I'm sealed unto the day of redemption...So I have that promise (not feelings) that He is not going to cast me out and I'm sealed etc...etc...”

No disagreements here! I know of many who hold to the doctrine of Eternal Security that live the life of faith.  

“Actually, it is kind of sad that you and I are talking about this subject when Jesus said: "Go out and make disciples"...  How are we doing Jeff with the good news that Jesus Saves...You are HIGHLY TALENTED, your writing gives you away! Are we (you and me) making disciples...I know I'm not...Oh, I share my faith when the time is right...I'm a Romans 1:16 person...(Believe it or not...Saved out of Romanism back in 1987...Praise the LORD)...”

Frank, I fully understand you argument. I wish to give you a couple of things to consider here. First, I hope that you can see that this statement of yours reflects your assumptions. If once we are believers, we are irrevocably secure, then evangelism is the end of all evangelistic efforts here on earth. But, if a believer can have salvation and later lose it, then the continuance in the faith is as vital as entering into it. The New Testament speaks of the pursuit of holiness far more that it speaks of evangelism. There can only be one
center of the Gospel, and I believe the center is around holiness according to the Scriptures. Imagine for a second that Eternal Security is not in the Bible. On that assumption, we would think that salvation is not over with when we get regenerated spiritually. Then it would be just as important to encourage believers to remain in the faith, as it would be to get unbelievers to embrace the faith. 

Now, based upon this understanding, I can be involved in saving souls in several ways. I can introduce unbelievers to Christ, and I can save believers from false and dangerous doctrines that could encourage them to let their guard down and ultimately fall. The Internet is full of ministries that target the unsaved, but few are speaking to the later part of salvation. If ministers were physicians, we would have the
majority in obstetrics, and few in pediatrics.

Because of this, it is just as vital to save someone from the falsities of atheism, as it is to save someone from a false doctrine that if taken to its logical conclusion, will result in a loss of that precious salvation.

Now, concerning “joy.” I have lived on both sides of the fence on this one. I was once a committed Eternal Securist. It did not interfere with my zeal, nor did it impede my Christian living… for some time. I
was set up for a fall with the doctrine. I saw an opportunity to sin, feeling lonely and sorry for myself, I rationalized that I could sin, lose temporary fellowship, and be instantly restored through prayer
and repentance. Upon the sin, I knew without a doubt that the Spirit left me. It felt absolutely terrible! I stuck to my game plan and prayed, but I only felt worse. I opened the Scriptures for comfort, but God only revealed one passage after another that either stated or implied a horrible fate! Through God’s direction, I saw that I had been deceived by this doctrine. I was angry with myself, and upset with my friends and pastor for teaching me a lie, especially in their evasion of all of these obvious warnings and conditions (I was a Christian for around 8 months at that time). 

Yes, I had “joy” as an Eternal Security advocate, but I find more comfort and joy as one that does not believe that doctrine anymore. My joy is not hinged upon a doctrine, but upon a vibrant relationship
with the living God.

“Lastly, why do you have to be aggressive...Why to you have to make a point...How will all this matter "when we've been there 10,000 years bright shining as sun"...Would you like a radio show...Will that make you complete as a Christian...Remember: "We are just passing
through..." I think you do a bit of beating up in your writing...I love your style and way of thought, however, is it edifying...I think Paul devotes Chapter 13 of 1Corinthians to this..."You have this and that and you know this and that but, no love what good is it"...”

The aggressiveness is a technique based upon pragmatism. I started a web page entitled “Biblical theology” which approached a broader spectrum of issues and subjects. I attempted to reflect my personal
approach of being rational, reasoning with people from the Scriptures. Because of the broad spectrum and approach, I received little or no notice. I then wrote an article for another web site that took an
aggressive approach. I was uneasy about it at first, but I received a flood of e-mail either thanking me, or hating me for doing it. The comments were surprising in that many people expressed that it helped
them; far more than the one’s that disagreed. Because of this, I changed my style of writing, and narrowed the focus of the web page to get better targeting and placement. It does not matter how well you
write if people never get down far enough to find you.

Aggressiveness is not bad… look at the style of Charles Stanley. While he is less direct than I am, he shows his dogmatism by implication. “Eternal Security is the Gospel” is one of his quotes.
Now, note how exclusionary this statement is! Can you be a Christian and not believe in Eternal Security? Can one be a Christian without the Gospel? Generally speaking, most complaints I have received about
my style come from those who make equally aggressive statements. I choose to be straightforward in my statements. I see the use of implied dogmatic statements to be deceptive (because one can always
argue “that is not what I meant”), and it is unfair to the reader (they should not have to guess at the meaning of what I say). I believe in having my “yes” be “yes” and my “no” be “no.” Love is not
being easy or passive, but clear and direct in warning people about dangers that could lead them to hell. If I speak softly and timidly, and someone goes to hell because I did not convey the danger, it is not love. The Watchman has a responsibility. The tone in which he cries out “danger!” does not indicate an angry  mal-intent.

“ I know I will never convince you that you are eternally secure and I know that you say I can lose my salvation...So, let agree that we need to reach the lost with the good new of the gospel...Not to have fellowship with false christian teachers and leaders who deny the
essentials of the Bible...Eternal Security is NOT an essential of the Biblical Christian Faith...”

I am happy to hear that you do not make believing Eternal Security of the believer an essential to salvation. Though we may agree to disagree, I believe that the Good News goes beyond conversion, but must reach out to us through our entire life. The Gospel is not just forgiveness, but deliverance from sin. I see the commands to believers to remain, abide, and to continue in Christ to be relevant to the Gospel message. A drowning man can be rescued; but that does not mean that he cannot become careless again, fall in the lake, and drown in the future. As I have stated before, I know of many believers in Eternal Security that don’t use it as an occasion for being careless. Unfortunately, I have met many more that have, and seek to save their souls from the fire as I would those who have never heard the Gospel. This I see as equally “making disciples” since it involves the “teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” as part
of that process.
 
Blessings to you as you contend for the faith.

Jeff

---

Third Response

I was going over one of my favorite Hymns: Safe in the arms of Jesus, by Fanny Crosby...And found this:  
 Just an aside as I close. I have been to funerals of those who followed the Arminian belief of loss of salvation. I think it is interesting to note, that not one of them went to hell according to the preacher. Could it be that the Arminians really believe in eternal security? Loss of salvation theory offers no one hope, just as if a person dies in unbelief, but the eternal security of God does offer hope, because the Bible says that God has reserved us a place in Heaven. Loss of salvation theory is normally adopted by those who are young and healthy but when their body starts failing, they begin to cling to the reserved home in Heaven. (I like that Jeff)
   
 There is one bad consequence, among many, in the Arminian loss of salvation theory. If a person adapts to it when they are young, they will spend their whole life losing and regaining their salvation. They will never grow in the Lord and it will hinder their usefulness for the Kingdom of God. Those who believe in the biblical doctrine of eternal security are secure in the fact that they are saved and are resting in Calvary. They can build upon their salvation and be useful for the Kingdom of God. Those who believe they can lose their salvation with every sin will lose it 50 times a day and how can you build on an intermittent salvation? You can’t! This doctrine of loss of salvation is a stain on the character of God and should be refuted by every redeemed child of God because it has no biblical basis as we have discovered.
   
 “As grace is first from God, so it is continually from him, as much as light is all day long from the sun, as well as at first dawn or at sun-rising.”
                                                                                                         
 -Jonathan Edwards

Answer: 

“There is one bad consequence, among many, in the Arminian loss of salvation theory. If a person adapts to it when they are young, they will spend their whole life losing and regaining their salvation. They will never grow in the Lord and it will hinder their usefulness for the Kingdom of God.”

This is built upon the assumption that believers willfully sin, or that they cannot help but sin as an act of rebellion. I know of no Arminian that believes that there is a necessity for any believer to spend their whole life losing and regaining their salvation. The Arminian can scratch their head at how a Calvinist can go on through life never knowing if they are elect, or whether they are just deceived that God loves them. While the suggestion can be raised, is it not equally a false assumption about the other side? It is assumed
that a denial of unconditional Eternal Security equals a belief in insecurity. This is an accusation that does not represent any Arminian that I know of. Will not believing in Eternal Security hinder their usefulness? I doubt it! What about John Wesley? Adam Clarke? Charles Wesley? And may I add the countless numbers of Arminians I have met that do not fall into that category of spiritual paralysis.    

“Those who believe in the biblical doctrine of eternal security are secure in the fact that they are saved and are resting in Calvary.
They can build upon their salvation and be useful for the Kingdom of God.”

They are resting in a false assurance if they live in rebellion and sin. They are just as secure as the vast majority of people that believe in God, and that He will admit them into heaven because their good outweighs the bad. I have never met someone that believed that that was insecure about his or her salvation. Does teaching that salvation is a matter of scales in heaven that outweigh the good and the bad in a person validate that it is a good doctrine because they can be freed mentally to be useful for the Kingdom of God? The Bible does say that we will be judges according to our works, which would support that doctrine. That is more substantiation than anything I have seen in Scripture to support an unconditional Eternal Security!

“Those who believe they can lose their salvation with every sin will lose it 50 times a day and how can you build on an intermittent salvation? You can’t! This doctrine of loss of salvation is a stain on the character of God and should be refuted by every redeemed child of God because it has no biblical basis as we have discovered.”

One cannot discover if they do not look! Anyone that sins 50 times a day is not a Christian. Sinning is against the character of the Christian (1 Jn. 3:9). One can feel that the idea that it is a stain upon God if one can lose their salvation, but I believe that it is a stain upon God’s holiness if He allows sin in believers, but damns unbelievers for the same sin. I think that it is a stain upon God’s power if He says that He hates sin, yet He is impotent to save us from sinning here and now. I do wonder how those who find no power over sin when they were saved can believe that God can save them from sin when they get to heaven. If God can accept them as willful sinners right now, there is no reason to take it away sin in heaven.
 
“As grace is first from God, so it is continually from him, as much as light is all day long from the sun, as well as at first dawn or at sun-rising.”                                                                    
                    
-Jonathan Edwards

Any true Arminian would not find anything to disagree with in Edward's quotation here.

Blessings,

Jeff



--- 

Answers to common questions will be added as people e-mail questions into me and as I have time to respond to these issues. This page has been developed to fill the gaps that occurs as one writes specifically about any subject.  I pray that this format will help those that could not find specific answers in the articles already given.

 

 

INDEX TO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS  

KEY-

200= 200 Reasons You Should Not Believe In Eternal Security

H= Hold On

8= Eight Pillars of Eternal Security

8P2= Eight Pillars Part 2

CS= Charles Stanley, Eternal Security, and the Bible

Hist= A Historical Examination of Eternal Security

BA= Biblical Answers To Common Questions

T - Tense Readings in the Greek New Testament

A - Assurance and the Scriptures

O - Once Saved Always Saved, a Substitute for Grace

Glossary - Theological Glossary

50 - 50 Reasons a Saved Person Can NEVER be Lost

ABIDING- H, CS, 50

ADOPTION- CS

AORIST TENSE- CS, 200, 8P2, T

APOSTASY-BA, Glossary

ASSURANCE - A, O

ATONEMENT- CS, 8P2, Hist, Glossary

AUGUSTINE- Hist

CALVIN- Hist 

CONDITIONAL SECURITY- H, CS

ENDURING- H, 8P2, 50

KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD- 8, CS, 200, 50

PERFECT TENSE- CS, BA, T

PRESENT TENSE- 200, 8, 8P2, CS, T

SEALING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT- 8, 8P2,CS

STANLEY, CHARLES- CS, O

 

 

 

ETERNAL SECURITY HOME PAGE