If
you can lose your salvation
Of
Matt Slick of C.A.R.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!)
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
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!
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 “doctrine”
of 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...
WHAT POSITION BRINGS THE GREATEST GLORY TO THE DEVIL?
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 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!