If you can lose your salvation

 A Response To The Shallow Hostility 


 Matt Slick of C.A.R.M


Matt Slick is the administrator of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. He offers much that is desirable and helpful, but behind the scenes he is doing nothing less that pushing his under-the-table Five Point Calvinist agenda. He gives all the appearance on the surface of being balanced and fair, but on occasion he reveals his agenda more clearly. This is one of those situations. This site has a Forum in which the moderators are given a free hand in silencing Biblical truth and Arminianism. If a Gnostic Calvinist blatantly states that all Arminians are going to Hell, it is openly applauded. If an Arminian uses the very same words to say that a Calvinist is lost because of what they believe, they are rebuked and threatened with being banned! When a Calvinist straightforwardly says that God is the Author of sin, the Creator of both good and evil, it passes for sound "theology." But when a Biblical defender of the character of God responds and says, "The Bible says that the devil is the author of sin, so the "god" of Calvinism is the devil by their own admission!", the inevitable and irrefutable truth of that person's post is swiftly deleted. If they reply about the obvious inequity, or complain about the bias of the Moderator, they are summarily banned. The Cult of C.A.R.M silences truth by forcing their one-sided God dishonoring doctrine on the public by way of strategic censure. It is appropriate that someone should expose them for their evil practices.   

The following is a lead post by Matt Slick on the C.A.R.M  forum under the title of "If You Can Lose Your Salvation." Matt Slick's straw-man argument is posted in black, and my responses are in red.                                    

He states: There seems to be a lot of hostility towards OSAS.

I think its interesting.

If a doctrine is in opposition to Scriptural Christianity, should a Christian remain passive and just wave people by on their way to Hell? Certainly not! This is why I do not find Matt’s "calm" appeal for us to not be hostile to the devil and his lies to be very compelling! Instead of proving that Eternal Security exists (which he cannot), he gives us the subtle suggestion that any opposition to the doctrine of Eternal Security is innately "wrong." It is unwarranted "hostility." In his assumption of this false doctrine, he rashly paints those that believe God on the issue as “hostile” people. Shame on him for this low tactic!

We who hold to OSAS do so because we put no reliance in ourselves to be able to remain pure enough, faithful enough, good enough, etc., in any way.

We who hold to OSAS do so because we put all our hope and confidence in Christ's work on the cross. He is pure enough, faithful enough, and good enough to ensure our eternal destiny.

We who hold to OSAS do so because are are confident in Christ. We are not desperate. We are not seeking to use God's grace as a license for sin. We simply acknowledge our total inability and rely on God's total ability.

Even the faith we have we believe is his work (John 6:28-29) and we further believe we will never perish (John 10:27-28) because our hope is completely in him and in no way in ourselves. That is why we are secure -- because our salvation is complete in him, not dependent on us in any way. (A.K.A. Fatalism!)

So, why the hostility?

This is a false dilemma, for just because someone does not believe Satan's words over God's, as Eve did in the garden, they are somehow by default "trusting in their works" for salvation and not Christ! Slick has created a scarecrow of his own imagination; he is liar, a deceiver, and shows his affinity of character to be aligned with the devil he defends, both in doctrine and his tactics!

The fact is most people believe in Eternal Security simply because that is what they were taught; they have never really investigated otherwise. The doctrine is clearly the majority teaching of radio and television preachers, and also in the Church today. It is the easy path of the majority; one does not have to think or weigh it out! It is deemed "Biblical" by mere repetition and familiarity. Basically, when it comes to "doctrine," many people just defer to their so-called "experts" and follow with a passive herd mentality. Instead of dealing honestly with the Scriptures, Slick rightly assumes that the vast majority of people already believe that Eternal Security is true, and uses that fact to attack those that disagree on the mere basis of an assumed doctrine!

The second false claim in this statement of his is, that people of faith believe in Eternal Security because they are "so" trusting in Jesus; and those that do not believe in Eternal Security are not! That is a lie, for anyone could jump off the Sears Tower claiming they would be proving that they totally trust God for their safety, but they would be quickly proven to be a fatally misplaced faith in a doctrine that is not true! Jesus refused to be suckered into the prideful ploy of the devil to do the same, because "jumping off a cliff" is never what God commanded Him to do! So, why would it make any sense to place our faith in yet another lie of the devil? What good can come from believing Satan’s Eternal Security? No more than jumping off the Sears Tower I tell you! Believing the lie of Eternal Security will not prove your trust in Christ, but it will prove your gullibility to trust in a false doctrine!

The painful fact is that most Eternal Securists’ believe the doctrine of Eternal Security because they are still yet unregenerate! They claim to be saved, but have not the power of Christ in their hearts to live above willful sin! They must cling to a doctrine, and not Christ in order to justify their "sin and win" philosophy! They go to Church, pray, give money, but refuse to ever truly repent as God commanded. They have been told by "man" that they are “saved,” yet display an inward powerlessness to live the Christian life. Since they believe that they are “saved,” they must create a doctrine that lowers the bar of Christianity to their unregenerate level in order to silence God and their consciences which scream internally… “you’re not "really" saved”!  

Keep in mind, I have not broad-brushed all Eternal Securists as "unregenerates" as Slick has impugned all Non-Eternal Securists with the label of “Works Salvationists.We do not have to discount the salvation of all who disagree with us, because most of us who don't believe in Eternal Security believe in grace, where he obviously does not!

So, why all the hostility Matt?

If defending the faith and correcting unbiblical error is to be labeled as ugly "hostility," then shouldn't we all get "ugly" about it like Christ? Isn't that what He commands? Then shouldn't all who believe truth become Biblically "hostile" towards false doctrine, as Christ gave us example? I for one, will choose to be like Christ, no matter what derogatory twist Slick places on His character or mine!

If you believe you can lose your salvation, then it is dependent upon you to keep it by doing something. Are you being pure enough, faithful enough, good enough to keep yourself in the faith?

Do you believe that your maintenance of your salvation really is by your ability to abide in Christ, your ability to believe in Christ, your ability to be good enough in whatever way you need to in order to maintain your position with God?

I can never take credit or affirm that I am good enough in any way to keep myself in the grace of God.

Of course, God commands through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that you are to “keep yourselves in the love of God.” (Jude v.21). Is God telling us to take credit, or is this just another false dilemma that Slick creates because it questions his presuppositions about Eternal Security? One fact is true, if he had never heard of Eternal Security, he would not have any philosophical basis in which to suggest such unbiblical balderdash!

In Galatians, God says that people have and can “fall from grace,” and actually become "severed from Christ." (Gal. 5:4). This is just one example of  a myriad of Bible verses that the Eternal Securist must twist the plain meaning of in order to save their assumed doctrine! But I could care less about such assumptions and distortions; I will believe God! Will you just tap-dance and "explain away" every verse that threatens to destroy your precious idol of Eternal Security? This is what you must do in order to continue to believe in that doctrine. What I urge you to do is, believe God! Don't just assume, but start afresh and evaluate the facts without the baggage of the presuppositions of a doctrine that is not to be found in the Bible!

Slick paints a false portrait of all Non-Eternal Securists as being “Works Salvationists.” If faith is required for someone to get saved, it no less “works” to require a present active faith to keep them saved! What Slick implies is, we are saved by FATE, not by GRACE through FAITH as the Scriptures teach! If having a present faith as a condition of salvation is “works,” then I must go along with the Bible and say that God teaches salvation by works! I have never met anyone who was saved by a lightning bolt striking them with a gift of salvation as an act of unconditional Fate! Such Fatalistic nonsense is the assertion of Slick's Gnostic Calvinism and not the Bible!

The Scriptures abound with exhortations to abide in Christ, continue in the faith, remain, endure, and to “hold on.” This is never painted as a negative thing in Scripture, although Eternal Security advocates blindly set faithful obedience to be in opposition to God, by making faithfulness out to be an evil thing. God says, “abide in Christ,” “remain in Him,” and Slick responds to God by accusing everyone that follows God’s command to be dependent upon you to keep[ing] it by doing something...” to be basing your salvation on “being pure enough, faithful enough, good enough to keep yourself in the faith.” I see nothing contrary to God’s commands in stating that a present tense faith is required for salvation. What charge can be placed upon me for trusting every moment of every day to the grace of God? How can the condition of relying upon Christ for my salvation be smeared as "merit," knowing that there is nothing within myself that could earn or deserve salvation besides His death on the Cross for me? Concluding that without His grace, I am forever lost? What possible merit can one append to that?

God forces no one into the faith anymore than He forces them to stay there. God no more repents for us than He believes for us! While it is God’s gift to us to have the ability to repent and believe by His grace, the responsibility is ours to respond to Him with that repentance and faith He has given us. Salvation is never stated to be a one-sided, Fatalistic or unconditional affair in Scripture.

I don't even take any credit for my believing.

And where do I?

I give all credit to Christ. I give all my hope to him. I put all my trust in Him. I don't look to myself in anyway to keep myself saved or keep myself in God's grace through my effort.

God says that the wages of sin is death; The soul that sinneth shall surely die; In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die. These are God’s words, which have never been amended! Like Eve in the garden, Slick opposes God by siding with the serpent by calling God a liar! He teaches the very doctrine the devil taught Eve. “Ignore God, he is out to lunch! If you rebel and sin, surely, you will not die!” That is the very doctrine of Eternal Security Slick espouses. It does not matter how good the argument sounds coming directly from a serpent, or from someone's confident theology, it is a lie that always has and always will oppose God! I could be like Slick in broad-brushing things and say that his faith is in this doctrineof Eternal Security, and not in Christ! But I will not do so, and will not pontificate as if I knew the hearts of men. I believed in Eternal Security at one time and can assure you that my faith was totally in Christ. When I studied Scripture for myself, I found it easy to abandon the false doctrine because my faith is in Christ, not in some "doctrine"! My salvation and faith is squarely centered and based upon Jesus Christ and His merit. I see nothing in Scripture that states that salvation is to be based upon faith in a pet doctrine of assurance.., especially one that is invented by the devil!  

So, if there is any hostility, I think it should be against the position that teaches that God's grace is maintained through human effort and faithfulness and that our salvation is kept through human goodness (keeping the law, continuing to believe, etc.).

Which position brings the greatest glory to God?

That is a good question that has an easy Biblical answer! The position that gives God the greatest glory is the one that encourages holiness and obedience to Him! The one that completes what God commands; a full-time faith, and not one of convenience! One that loves God all the time; not some doctrine that allows us our rebellion and unbelief, and presumes upon the grace of God!

I believe that my position brings more glory to God, because it proves that someone believes Him, and not the devil’s doctrine! I believe that it brings God the greatest glory to believe His promise that He is able to keep us from falling, unlike those that distort this promise of this power to "keep from falling" to mean that God merely “keeps” the rebellious sinner "saved" regardless of faith! The Bible says that it is His will is that we do not sin (1 Jn. 2:1). He that commits sins is of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8). He can work this in us; He can "keep us from falling"! Will you believe it?

We can create a false Eternal Security and say that “He or she who loves God and obeys Him, and successfully does so through His power.., is of the devil, for he or she has a salvation by works! The fruit of the doctrine of Eternal Security is that it encourages a dangerous latitude for sin, and excuses personal unfaithfulness. It presumes upon God’s grace without any Biblical sanction! How can this doctrinal "Eternal Security" possibly bring any glory to God?

The concluding question that Matt Slick should have asked is...


Is it the position that God expects us to repent and believe, continue in the faith, abide in Christ, and be more than overcommers though His power? Certainly not! That would rob the devil of his authority and influence over us and exalt God! 

Or is it the doctrine of demons, A.K.A. "Eternal Security," that teaches that you can sin all you want, for you have no more power than the most unregenerate heathen to obey God or His commands? That you cannot live the Christian life, and that the devil can make you sin, but God's regeneration and inward assistance of the Holy Spirit cannot defeat the devil and sin? Is it the doctrine that teaches that you have a free will before you get saved, but then denies any such free will after you are saved; that once you are saved you are not "free indeed" as Jesus promised, but "less free" than you were before you were saved? You can get saved by an act of faith, but you cannot become lost by an equal act of the will in the other direction? Eternal Security and its inevitable conclusions proves it is the fruit of the devil's heresy! It glories in the power of the devil, and assumes that God is too weak to keep someone from committing evil! Some people look at Adam and Eve and shake their heads at the simplicity in which they were so easily deceived, yet many of these same people stake their eternal soul's on the very same doctrine of the devil, and hold it up as superior and more important than any other doctrine in the whole Bible! How sad is that!  

Why be influenced by an argument that merely assumes Fatalism and Eternal Security to be true, without any honest examination to see if it honors God? What kind of doctrine is that which pits God against His own clear words? 

What position brings the greatest glory to the devil? The answer is easy, Eternal Security was birthed out of the mouth of the devil himself, and believing it brings him the utmost satisfaction and unfathomable glory! It is not possible for God to get glory from Satan's version of "truth"! 

I wish to encourage the truly regenerate believer, that no matter how influential the person appears to be that would abuse you or question your salvation, it is not coming from God, but from your soul's enemy, the devil and his minions! If you are what God intends every believer to be, the world will hate you. Don't be surprised when a doctrine comes along that brings the low unregenerate standards of the world into the Church, and that the worldly "church" will then stand against you and condemn you; for your love and obedience to God speaks volumes in condemning them and their Hell-honoring doctrine! Haters of holiness will always find the truth to be offensive! They will try to sneak into heaven "another" way, whether it be excusing sin instead of God's plan of freeing people from it, or using heathen philosophy to assume that salvation is by some mystical lottery of Fate. Substitutes for the truth abound everywhere, especially at Matt Slick's "C.A.R.M."!!      

* I firmly believe that one person's approach to this doctrine does not speak for every believer in Eternal Security. I generally stick to attacking the substance of the matter, which is the false doctrine itself, and not the person. But in this case where Matt Slick's evil dealings do not stop with the doctrine, but with the truth concerning those that would oppose him; this demands an answer. If someone spews evil slander, and denies anyone the opportunity to freely respond, they must be "laid bare" for the sake of truth.    

** March 22nd, 2011 post-script. It appears that Matt Slick has changed his post to (thankfully) something a bit more kind to the opposition. His older argument however, reflects the underlying organizational attitude of C.A.R.M. He clearly states his position that belief is something God does. Imagine that! God believes in Himself, and we as chosen puppets blurt out (repent and believe) as God pulls our string! He further clarifies that what he believes is absurd Calvinian nonsense! God no more believes for us than He repents for us! I am in agreement that God enables and gives us the ability to repent and believe by grace, yet I see it as Biblically and philosophically  insane to say that when God commands men to repent and believe, that they have nothing to do with their own actions in response. Otherwise, all commands in Scripture are frauds; all life... faith and sin, are the result and responsibility of God's fickle finger of fate! It makes no sense to tell man to do something that he cannot or could ever do. It is even more evil than the devil himself to punish man for that which he is not responsible for doing of his own volition! Matt's whole scheme continues to make the Bible and God to be irrelevant to all humanity!  



Eternal Security