Chapter Overview
We will begin with the falsehood. The wages of sin are not eternal death. I will use just one source, a book written by Charles Stanley. I will attempt to address Stanley’s arguments chapter by chapter and argument by argument.
I will spend a considerable amount of time refuting Stanley’s statement that believers are never once threatened with a loss of salvation in scripture. I will go to great lengths to prove, from the Bible, that this statement is false to the core. This chapter is lengthy because I attempt to address each argument that Charles Stanley presents, which he believes proves that believers are eternally secure or that salvation is unconditional.
Introduction
You might be surprised to know that I think believers are eternally secure. However, I do not believe salvation is unconditional. Do you understand the difference? I believe those who follow God can stop following Him and be eternally lost. Eternal Security[1], as it is most commonly understood, means unconditional salvation, which is not true.
THE FALSEHOOD = THE WAGES OF SIN, FOR THE BELIEVER, IS NOT ETERNAL DEATH.
It isn’t hard to imagine that Satan and his followers believed they, too, were immune from the damnable effects of sin. As you read the arguments proposed by Charles Stanley and other advocates of eternal security, please keep in mind that God didn’t spare Angels when they sinned. They were kicked out of heaven and the family of God. Please read Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. This statement about being kicked out of the family of God is a critical argument, so please keep it in mind as you proceed.
At the dawn of human history, we have this word, “And the serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely shall not die” Genesis 3:4. Satan told Eve thatsin wouldn’t damn a child of God. The devil wanted to convince Eve that she was eternally secure because the love of God was unconditional. “You shall surely not die,” said the enemy.God said that on the day Adam or Eve ate of the tree, they would die. They didn’t die physically that day, but they did die eternally that very day. Do you understand why I conclude that eternal security (unconditional salvation) is the father of all lies? It’s the very first recorded lie told by the father of lies. Some might argue that Adam and Eve were not children of God, and therefore, once a person is a child of God, they can’t cease being a child of God. Wasn’t Adam a child of God? He walked with God and had fellowship with Him. Both Adam and Eve clearly knew God intimately. They were children of God. Then there is explicit biblical evidence that records Adam as a son of God, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38).
Throughout history, many have believed the lie that sin is not deadly for a select group of persons. Adam and Eve believed the lie. Similarly, the Jews thought that because they were offspring of Abraham, they were eternally and physically secure and Jerusalem would never be destroyed. (Read Jeremiah 7:1-10. Do the dates 722 B.C. and 586 B.C. ring a bell? How about 70 A.D?) Real children of Abraham and God are children of abiding faith (as opposed to one momentary act of faith or physical descent). How many professing Christians believe the same lie? Throughout history, some have taught and many have thought that they can live a life of sin and still go to heaven. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
I will be referring, in particular, to one book for this study titled “Eternal Security.”[2] However, the main thrust of this chapter will be to examine common arguments used to support the doctrine of eternal security. If I can prove these arguments are wrong Biblically, then I will have addressed the most often accepted justifications for the dogma of eternal security.
Charles Stanley was raised in a belief system that rejected the concept of eternal security. Later, he changed his view and accepted the doctrine of eternal security. His story is the opposite of mine. I was brought up in an evangelical faith, believing in eternal security, and later rejected that doctrine. We have both changed our position to the one that we genuinely believe corresponds to the Word of God. Yet we have arrived at opposite conclusions. Let me say at the outset that I don’t doubt Mr. Stanley’s love of God. I assume the very best about him, although I believe he is unintentionally misleading many in a critical area of doctrine. He would undoubtedly say the same thing about me. Unfortunately, this is not a subject that can be disregarded to avoid an uncomfortable and often divisive controversy. It’s too important. If I didn’t think this was of utmost importance, I wouldn’t bother with it. But what is more important than the salvation of a soul and the honor of God?
DO YOU FEAR FOR YOUR SOUL?
How can you trust someone when you really never know where you stand with that person? In other words, how can we trust God if we aren’t eternally secure and consequently fear for our souls? This is one reason why some advocates believe in eternal security. Our “eternal security” friends, including Stanley, often present an emotive argument rather than a biblical one. For the Bible has no such difficulty in attaching security and trust with fear. “Who is the man who fears the Lord? He will instruct him in the way he should choose. His soul shall dwell at ease, and his seed shall inherit the earth. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and he will shew them his covenant” Psalm 25:12-14 KJV emphasis added. God declares that we shall dwell at ease, and His secret is with those who fear Him. It’s conditional. Those who fear Him will dwell at ease. God’s standards aren’t arbitrary or hidden so that we are in doubt about where we stand with Him. Everyone knows where they stand with God, or can learn at any time if they genuinely want to know or are unsure.
Those who should fear for their souls are those who live with one foot in the world and one foot in the church. No wonder they lack assurance of their standing with God. They are often taught that God accepts them while they persist in sin.
In the book of Jeremiah it’s written, “Will you steal, murder and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal, and walk after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say “We are delivered!”-that you may do all these abominations?” Please reread Jeremiah 7:1-10. Similarly, today we are told we are eternally secure, ‘we are delivered,’ notwithstanding our practice of the same sins Jeremiah mentions. He, too, was trying to overcome false teaching on the security of the “believer”. I suspect I’ll be as popular as Jeremiah.
IS GUILT A BAD THING?
Stanley has written his book to free those held in doctrinal and practical bondage, just as I am. Some advocates of eternal security think that any other view, such as conditional salvation, creates fear and guilt, and God wants to free us from guilt and fear. When we understand the truth about eternal security, we will no longer experience fear and shame. After all, didn’t Jesus say the truth will set us free in John 8:32?[3] I have two concerns with Stanley’s argument. First, it is a misuse of this passage of scripture. Second, it assumes that most people who don’t hold to eternal security live in fear and guilt. But why do advocates of eternal security, such as Stanley, live in fear and guilt? Is it because they are hoping to be justified while they continue to sin? Let God correct them, “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!” Galatians 2:17.
With all due respect to those who believe in eternal security, I must conclude, in the final analysis, that the doctrine of eternal security makes Christ a minister of sin. If not because of personal sin, then what is all the fear and guilt about? If so, then guilt is appropriate. Or is it because they call every little defect in knowledge and performance a sin, as many of this perspective do? I don’t live in fear and guilt. Ultimately, this becomes an argument based on a person’s experience. And if my experience is different, what does that prove? Nothing at all. Advocates of eternal security have guilt and fear; therefore, eternal security must be proper because everyone knows guilt and fear have nothing to do with God. Not true. The fear, and yes, the dread of God (Jer. 2:19), is the beginning of wisdom according to the Bible. Guilt is the God ordained consequence of sin. It’s God’s voice saying, ‘ Repent while you still have time. ‘ Guilt and fear are gifts of God. Far from indicating something contrary to God, guilt and fear are often, though not always, His means of redemption.
The passage John 8:32, used in defense of this position, is surely misleading. Stanley and many other advocates of eternal security believe children of God sin often. Isn’t someone who “sins often” a slave of sin? At the very least, aren’t they involved in the practice of sin or living in sin? Of course, they are. Isn’t habitual sin, sin as a way of life? It is. In this passage, Jesus is attempting to show the religious leaders that the truth, when received, will release them from the practice and slavery of sin. Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, ‘Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin” John 8:34. Advocates of eternal security suggest that verse 32 teaches us that we are now free to live in the slavery of sin without losing salvation. This interpretation is inexcusable, isn’t it, or is that too judgmental? Shouldn’t our leaders be held accountable for their statements?
CAN WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?
I am saddened to say that advocates of eternal security, including the author Stanley, advance another travesty. Sometimes they use the book of 1 John to support the idea of eternal security.
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life” 1 John 5:13.
I welcome the assurance of salvation when we meet the conditions of salvation. The book of 1 John is about the conditions and purifying effects of salvation. It’s not about unconditional salvation, for it teaches the exact opposite of this doctrine. Do you want more evidence? Please read on.
Moreover, it’s written, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” 1 John 5:3. But do Stanley (and other advocates of eternal security) believe that we can, without burden, keep the commandments? Apparently, they do not. They think we “sin often,” not that we “often not sin.” If there is joy in heaven when a sinner repents, is there sorrow in heaven when spiritual leaders on earth teach that sin is an acceptable Christian experience and lifestyle and that we are safe (eternally secure) in our sin?
John has also said, “No one who is born of God practices sin” (1 John 3:9). I wish it weren’t true, but the advocates of eternal security teach the opposite of this truth. They teach that almost everyone, if not everyone, except Jesus, who is born of God, practices or repeatedly sins. To repeat something is to practice it. Isn’t that true? To practice something is to make it a way of life. I make this statement because I have heard it said that this passage implies sin is not a way of life for the true believer, even if they often sin—more double-speak, to avoid and evade the apparent meaning of this passage. The Word of God clearly says that no one who is born of God habitually sins.
John also said, “No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him” 1 John 3:6.
Over and over again, John tells us that living in sin is a sure sign that we are not born again. Remember that this book was written for those who consider themselves Christians. We don’t abide in Christ and therefore don’t have eternal life if our lives continue to be characterized by sin. The book of 1 John was written to refute the wickedly seductive doctrine Charles Stanley and other advocates of eternal security promote, if I am not out of my mind entirely. They do believe that those who are born again continue to practice sin and still possess eternal life. A more direct contradiction to this book (I John) can hardly be conceived of.
“Why do my people say they are free to roam?” is written for us as well as for the Jew in Jeremiah’s day, Jeremiah 2:31. I answer, “Because our ministers say we are free to roam.” That is what the doctrine of eternal security pronounces. God’s people are free to roam. Sure, they may lose rewards, but they are free to roam in that they will never die eternally, no matter how much sin they commit. Stanley’s explanation, which many advocates of eternal security widely accept, is, in my opinion, a sad commentary on accurate biblical interpretation. I can’t help but think God must be disappointed, even angry, in this misuse of His word.
WHAT IS SALVATION?
Believers in eternal security argue that if salvation is not a settled issue, how can we have assurance and not be anxious? How is that possible? When salvation is correctly understood, it’s obvious how we can have assurance, be anxious for nothing, and have a love that casts out fear. For advocates of eternal security, salvation is not such a radical change that “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old things passed away, behold, new things have come” 2 Corinthians 5:17. For them, things don’t really become ‘new’ in reality and practice. For them, things become new by fictional imputation only, and possibly a very gradual, near-invisible, fundamental change in character. More specifically, things are new and not new at the same time. A person can be born again (new) and continue the practice or lifestyle of sin (not new). That is not Biblical salvation. It is salvation “in sin” not “from sin.” Salvation, correctly understood, is to stop living for yourself and start living for God. In this way, all things become new from the heart, not by some imagined imputation. If God is truly enthroned in a person’s heart, will that person knowingly sin? Of course not. Many believers in eternal security want the assurance of salvation while they live in sin. The only way to have any degree of assurance is to believe the falsehood that we are eternally secure by the imputed righteousness and imputed obedience of Christ. Consequently, sin no longer damns the sinning saint.
WHICH SINS DID CHRIST DIE FOR?
An argument used to advance the doctrine of eternal security is that Christ paid for all sins, not just those committed up to the point of our initial salvation. If post-salvation sins can cause eternal death, then clearly Christ didn’t pay for those sins. Calvary isn’t sufficient.[4] This is so silly, I can hardly believe it. If Christ’s death literally paid for all sins (past, present, and future) and Christ died for all men, both truths most believers in eternal security accept, then all men are saved. But not even believers in eternal security, such as Stanley, accept the heresy of universalism. Apparently, they are okay with the glaringly obvious contradiction. The truth is, Christ died for all men, but His death secured the salvation of no man. We receive the gift of salvation by God’s grace through our personal self-originating faith. Mankind is provisionally saved at Calvary, and that is it. Even our friends who accept eternal security believe that we receive the gift of salvation when we meet the condition of faith. The atonement, without self-generated faith, saves no one. If I understand them correctly, that is their position. (They actually appear to believe it both ways.) I think the truth is that I was forgiven for the sins I had committed up to the moment of salvation and for no other sins. Future sins require that same exercise of repentant faith on my part to appropriate forgiveness made available exclusively by the atonement of Jesus Christ. Are these the words of a heretic?
Does the judge, in our court of law, find a person guilty for acts not yet committed? Similarly does God, upon our first expression of faith, find us innocent or not guilty of future acts of sin not yet committed? Do you really believe these ideas are logical, reasonable and Biblical?
SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE
Salvation by faith alone is compromised when we say that “good works or not sinning” is needed, according to advocates of eternal security. Do they believe in unconditional salvation? No, they generally don’t, unless they are hyper-Calvinists. They think we must exercise faith in Jesus to be saved; that is the only condition. And it’s only a momentary condition. One momentary act of faith secures eternal salvation for us forever. Is not this momentary act of faith a “good work?” Sure, it is.[5] Our friends have a very distorted view of faith. They usually maintain that faith doesn’t necessarily produce obedience or good works when both are inseparable attributes of faith. Please read the book of James. Faith without good works is dead. The book of James also teaches that a person is not saved by faith alone, but by faith and works as well. If good works or obedience are not present, then saving faith is absent. The author Stanley believes a dead faith (disobedient faith) is saving faith in contradiction to the Word of God, reason, and common sense.
UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
The next thing that is at stake is love, according to Stanley. Believers in eternal security think that rejecting eternal security makes God’s love conditional. We often love unconditionally, which means we demonstrate pure love to a greater extent than God. How ridiculous to state such a thing as if it were even possible. Is God’s love unconditional? I suspect most believers would answer that it is. Is what God did to Satan (or Adam), when he sinned, an example of unconditional or conditional love? The truth is, God’s love is both conditional and unconditional.[6] The love of God that causes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on both the wicked and the good is unconditional. It is the love of benevolence. The love that gave us the atonement is unconditional. But the love of God that expresses itself in actual personal salvation is conditional. The love of complacency or the salvific love of God is conditional and only bestowed on sinners who become truly righteous by grace through faith.
We are told, “Keep yourselves in the love of God” Jude 1:21.[7] Why is that necessary or even possible if God’s love is unconditional? There must be an aspect of God’s love that is conditional. ‘Keeping ourselves in the love of God’ is something we must do. It is not automatic. Dear reader, if you believe this passage doesn’t state that the love of God is conditional, I will question your objectivity.
Moreover, those who promote unconditional love don’t really believe in it anyway. It just sounds good. It’s politically correct, religiously speaking, that is. On careful examination, very few persons, if any, really believe all love is unconditional. I sure do not. Husbands, is your love for your wife unconditional? “Yes,” you say. Well, if she commits adultery time and time again, will you really stay married to her and love her unconditionally? Wives, what about you? How many times will you allow your husband to commit adultery before you kick him out? How often will you let him beat you and sexually abuse your children before you divorce him? If your marital love is truly unconditional, then there is no limit to the abuse you must take.
My love for my wife and her love for me is conditional, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. The condition is faithfulness, and it works both ways. With this said, there is an aspect of our spousal love that is unconditional. We will not leave each other when one is sick, gains weight, has a bad hair day, is in a bad mood, or makes mistakes (by the way, we have been married for many years). Jesus even recognized the conditional nature of the marriage contract when He said divorce is permitted in the case of immoral behavior, Matthew 19:9. God hates divorce. It’s never His desire or preferred will. But Jesus recognized that unfaithfulness is a legitimate reason to end a marriage. God divorced unfaithful Israel. Please remember that divorce is not merely a picture of broken fellowship. It’s a picture of a relationship and a covenant that has come to an end.
The author Stanley states that even one condition makes the love of God conditional, which negates the concept of eternal security. But does he really believe there are no conditions to salvation? No, he doesn’t. He believes that faith is the sole condition. Regrettably, he contradicts his own view without apparent recognition of the contradictions in his statements. This is true for Stanley and other promoters of eternal security.[8]
If God’s nature allows Him to turn away from those “believers” who continue to sin, then His nature prevents Him from loving unconditionally, which advocates of eternal security can’t accept.[9] This proposition proves too much. What about God’s love for the unbeliever? Is it unconditional? Does God disassociate with the unbeliever? I believe advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, would say, “Yes, God does because the unbeliever goes to hell.” Well, doesn’t this stand in His way of loving the unbeliever unconditionally? Of course it does, when we are talking about salvation. God’s salvific love is conditional, contrary to the position advanced by believers in eternal security. As long as you believe some persons will go to hell, you must recognize the conditional aspect of God’s salvific love unless you embrace the heresy of universalism or state the absurd notion that God loves those in hell unconditionally. If it is true that God loves those in hell unconditionally, then what is the value of His love for those who suffer eternal death and eternal torment? Only those who know God’s love of complacency will go to heaven. Hell is full of those who have known, but not acknowledged, God’s benevolence. With the love of benevolence, God has blessed even those in hell. This aspect of His love is unconditional. It should bring us to repentance and faith so that we can be saved and experience God’s complacent love or salvific love.
The issue I have with this constant unconditional love propaganda is that it’s a blatant appeal to our emotions, rather than our reason or intellect. If God truly loves everyone unconditionally, then how can He allow anyone to go to hell? How can we avoid falling into the trap of presuming on God’s grace if we genuinely believe His love for us is unconditional? If God is going to take us to heaven, no matter how we live, then why bother with repentance from sin? While it’s true that some aspects of God’s love are unconditional, it’s not true that everyone goes to heaven. Salvation is conditional and so is God’s salvific or complacent love.
IS MY BEHAVIOR RELEVANT?
Stanley writes, “As long as I have an ongoing role in the salvation process, my natural tendency will be to focus on my behavior rather than on Christ.”[10] With all due respect, what kind of psychobabble is this? Yes, we are commanded to have the mind of Christ, to focus on Him. Thus far, I agree with Stanley. Does this mean our personal behavior is irrelevant, as Stanley suggests? Obviously not. Our individual behavior will either validate genuine faith (having the mind of Christ) or expose it for a fraudulent faith (disobedience). Perhaps the organized Christian church should focus a little more on the behavior of its members so that it might be elevated above the rest of the world.
In the book of Jeremiah, we have this word, “Also, among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they strengthen the hands of evildoers, So, that no one has turned back from his wickedness…” Jeremiah 23:14.
Isn’t it a disgrace that the organized or visible Christian church lives like the rest of the world? Yet many teachers make it doctrinally orthodox. Unfortunately, the doctrine of eternal security all too often “strengthens the hands of evildoers, so that no one is turned back from his wickedness.” Is that mean-spirited of me? Or could I be speaking the truth in love? Most Christians, I fear, don’t know the difference between true love and false love.
Often, I hear “Christians” talk about their weaknesses, failures, and sins in such a way that I think they are proud of it. Righteous disgust is conspicuously absent. They wear their sins like a badge of honor or a sign of their humility. If some poor saint might suggest that a life of sin is inconsistent with a real profession of faith in Christ, some of these so-called Christians act as if this person is arrogant, deluded, or just plain stupid. This thought appears to disgust them more than the thought that they are worldly and bothered little by it. Anyone claiming to live without habitual sin is regarded as an enemy and one who causes strife and division. Some “Christians” are more offended by a holy Christian than one who boasts of his carnal failures. Oh God, will you ever forgive us!
WILL THE REAL LEGALIST PLEASE STAND UP?
Individuals who are preoccupied with their spiritual health tend to become legalistic, according to advocates of eternal security. Legalism usually includes self-deception and pride. In other words, we deceive ourselves into believing that some “evil” things are not sinful. The inference is that people like me are constantly examining ourselves and redefining sin so we don’t slip out of salvation. Thank you for being so concerned, but I assure you, I am not at all worried about my salvation slipping away from me. I say this because I reject one of the greatest of all deceptions of the enemy, which is unconditional salvation (eternal security or once saved always saved).
Stanley and most believers in eternal security would probably call me a legalist because I believe salvation is conditional. I think they are legalists because they define sin according to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Students from this school (the school of eternal security) define sin so broadly that to exist as a human being is simply sinful. Sin to them is not just a transgression of the law of God, it’s anything short of the glory of God, whatever that means. What it usually means is that human mistakes, shortcomings, emotional flaws, and errors in judgment are sinful. Now, who is the real legalist after all? Do you really think of God as a judge who damns people to everlasting hell and torment because they speak an angry word, are sometimes impatient with their children, or unwittingly break the speed limit? Stanley and those who believe as he does apparently have no problem believing in a God that condemns us for being born human, subject to all the frailties of humanity. However, at the same time, they insist that His love for them is unconditional. Seriously, how much sense does that make? To make being human the same as being sinful is to destroy the notion that God is love. Doesn’t God look on the heart? If our motive is right, then all is well. Doesn’t scripture say that if there is a willing mind, it is accepted? When we make mistakes and errors, all is well if our motive is right. If not, then all is wrong. Perfect performance, without mistakes or errors, is worthless if our motive is bad. Are you living for God? If so, then everything you do will be acceptable to God. If not, nothing you do will be satisfactory to Him.
PRIDE
The next danger, according to believers in eternal security, is that of pride. Just what exactly can I be proud of? Should I be proud that I fulfilled the conditions of receiving God’s free salvation? Will I boast that I accepted His gift and am healed? Remember the obedient slave in the gospel of Luke had nothing to brag about or be thanked for. He had just done his duty. The story that follows illustrates this truth.
STORY
Emma just returned from the doctor. An infection she developed due to her careless behavior is worsening. The doctor prescribed medication that will cure the disease. Three times a day, she must take the drug if she wants to be healed. She understands that if she neglects her doctor’s orders, complications, including death, could be the result.
How does this story end when Emma has faith?
Emma did as the doctor ordered, and in a few days, she was feeling better. In a couple of weeks, she was fully recovered.
How does this story end when Emma has no faith?
Emma didn’t believe the doctor, and she didn’t take the medicine. Within a couple of months, she died as the infection spread throughout her body.
The first ending, where Emma exercises faith, depicts a typical scene in which the doctor’s advice is followed and healing occurs. Can you imagine Emma bragging to everyone that she healed herself? But it’s true, in one sense, that she did heal herself because taking the medication was an indispensable condition of her being healed. Could she not be healed unless she followed her doctor’s instructions? Who saved Emma? First and foremost, it was the doctor who correctly diagnosed her condition. Secondarily, Emma saved herself as she followed her doctor’s orders. Lastly, the medicine healed Emma. Without the proper medicine, the doctor would be powerless to help. All three (Emma, the doctor, and medicine) were needed for healing to take place. Even one unfulfilled condition, and Emma dies.
The second ending, in which Emma withholds faith, depicts an improbable scene where she refuses to yield to her doctor and allows the infection to grow in her body, believing she will be healed in some other way. (Here is where the issue of pride is a concern.) Did the doctor kill Emma? Of course not, she killed herself by refusing to take the medication prescribed by her doctor. If Emma is responsible for her death, then why isn’t she responsible for her healing? She is, but it takes more than her own will to be healed. It takes a doctor and medicine.
When we take the Great Physician’s advice and receive healing for our souls, it’s no different than the story about Emma. Yet Stanley would have us believe Emma would go around bragging that she healed herself and deserved all the credit. What nonsense is such a thought! Emma, to be healed, must exercise obedient faith in the doctor and meet the conditions of her healing. If she refuses, then she dies from her infection. To be saved, we must exercise obedient faith in God and meet the conditions of our healing; otherwise, we will die.
The author has written that Christ died for all sins, so I need only believe once, even if just for a moment. Future sins are already forgiven before I even commit them. In the story about Emma, it means that she needs to take the medicine only once (not three times a day over several days) to be healed and become immortal. Do you believe that?
HOW MUCH SIN CAN YOU GET AWAY WITH?
For many of those who believe in eternal security, no amount of sin will separate them from God. Believers could sin many times every day, in thought, word, and deed, for the rest of their lives and still go to heaven according to this view. By the way, Satan couldn’t sin more than this. There are no other ways to sin than in thought, word, and deed, are there? Moreover, how can anyone sin more often than every day? Never mind that the Word of God stipulates that those who practice sin are not born of God, 1 John. To those who believe in eternal security, sinning every day doesn’t mean they practice sin or that sin is a way of life, I suppose. I think my daughter, who played the piano, would disagree. Playing the piano regularly means that she practices it. What we do often is what we practice. It’s what we are enslaved by: either sin, resulting in death, or righteousness, resulting in life.
What about you? What do you think? Can Christians sin habitually and still go to heaven? Is there any limit to the amount of sin Christians can commit before they lose salvation? Stanley and most other advocates of eternal security would say no, but what about you? They are forced to argue that if a Christian exceeded the sinning of a demon, the Christian would still be saved.[11] Who knows, Stalin and Hitler may have been born-again Christians. Anyone who is thinking about how much sin in their life is acceptable to God is far from the kingdom of God.
Arminians don’t all agree on how many sins it takes to lose salvation. A few believe one sin is sufficient to separate us from God. They reason, “How many sins did Adam commit before he lost his place with God?” How about Satan? How many sins did God let him commit before he was kicked out of the family of God? I suppose the vast majority of Arminians believe it takes more than just one sin before salvation is lost. How many sins it takes before a Christian is lost is usually not mentioned. But at some point, the person loses salvation. The answer to the question depends on how sin is defined. We will explore this subject further in a subsequent chapter.
CAN WE FOIL GOD’S WORK?
Can a person undo what God did at Calvary? If God secured our salvation at Calvary, then how can a person be lost? It seems ridiculous. This is the thinking of those who believe in eternal security.[12] Obviously, we have no power to undo anything that was done at Calvary. Salvation was not accomplished for anyone at Calvary. The salvation of the lost is made possible by Calvary. When we accept God’s gift by meeting the conditions, then salvation is ours. Our “eternal security” friends believe this as well, except they believe that one momentary act of faith secures salvation for eternity. I could accept this statement as at least being consistent and non-contradictory if they believed in unconditional salvation, as R. C. Sproul does. However, Stanley and others do not believe in unconditional salvation. You see, Stanley and others do think that we do have “the power to undo” Calvary by not believing in Christ.
Suppose it seems ridiculous, to believers in eternal security, that a believer could undo what was accomplished at Calvary. How do they explain that Satan and Adam had the power to undo God’s perfect created order by sinning?
WHAT ARE THE WAGES OF SIN?
As a result of being born a sinner and then by physical and moral necessity, sinning in actual practice, we come to the result of all this sin. The author quotes Romans 6:23, “The wages of sin are death.” What frustrates me is that the book of Romans was written to Christians in Rome. Do advocates of eternal security believe “the wages of sin are death” for Christians? No, they don’t think that the Christian can ever die eternally. This verse doesn’t qualify its statement by stating something like this, “The wages of sin are physical death for Christians and eternal death for non-Christians,” as advocates in eternal security might have us believe. For all who sin, “the wages of sin are death,” and it makes no difference if you call yourself a saint, a Christian, a priest, a holy person, or a Jew. Sin results in eternal death. Those who confess and forsake their sins will find mercy, and only those who meet these conditions. Does that sound harsh? If so, then the Word of God is harsh, for this is precisely what the Bible abundantly teaches.
But what is sin? Sin is not just an act. The act of sin must first come from a heart of sin. Sin is the decision to live for self and not God. It’s to put our own interests first. Sin is to love oneself too much. The motive of the heart, the purpose of life, is self-gratification. Sin starts here and manifests itself in habitual law-breaking.
Those who believe in eternal security agree that our sin deserves eternal death. However, they believe that Christ died in our place, and if we trust that Christ was punished in our stead, then we are forever saved. How is this possible? They would say that God declares us not guilty because Christ paid for our sins. How could God then declare us guilty when He has already declared us not guilty?[13] This is how advocates of eternal security understand the gospel. Regrettably, I must disagree. I have already refuted the idea that we are declared not guilty. It isn’t true. Sinners are by definition guilty persons. Sinners can’t ever be declared not guilty. This is their argument. It is their understanding of faith. On the contrary, faith is so much more than trusting that someone else paid for our sins. The scripture declares that those who confess and forsake their sins will find mercy (Proverbs 23:13). Apparently, believers in eternal security want us to believe that confession, if that is all that is needed, is sufficient. I could trust Christ was punished for my sin and still not follow Him. With all kindness, I must say this is unbelievably shallow. Can they really believe this? Do you think it is Biblical?
ARE YOU ALWAYS INNOCENT?
Advocates of eternal security think that Christ can’t possibly declare me guilty after once declaring me not guilty. They believe that a person who was saved twenty years ago and declared not guilty can never again become guilty, even when they sin like the devil. What court verdict today implies that forever a person is either innocent or guilty? Remember my example of Paul the bank robber? If Paul is found guilty of bank robbery, does that mean he is guilty of every other broken law from then on? Of course not, and no right-thinking person believes that. The opposite is also true. If Paul was found innocent of the charge of bank robbery last week, does that mean he is always not guilty? What if Paul robs a bank three months from now? Is he innocent or guilty? When we sin, we are guilty.
WHICH SINS DID CHRIST DIE FOR?
Advocates of eternal security think that post-salvation sins must require another Calvary if my position is accurate. They believe that Christ’s death must literally and exactly pay for all sins so that future sins must be already paid for in full even before we commit them. If this isn’t true, then how can we be forgiven of new sins? Christ paid for past sins with His death, literally and precisely, so how can we get forgiveness for future sins not covered by Christ’s death? This is the question posed?[14] This is such convoluted thinking. As I have said already, Christ died for all the sins of all mankind for all time, but that makes salvation possible for us. It’s not a quid pro quo commercial transaction. To receive the gift of salvation and reconciliation, certain conditions must be met, including repentance and faith. Advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, assume the truth that the atonement was a literal and exact payment for sins. It was not for reasons already mentioned. Please refer to Chapter 4. Advocates of eternal security want to make the atonement a commercial transaction. Christ paid the exact amount due for all sins (even those we will commit in the future); therefore, we are eternally secure. Nonsense.
ADOPTION[15] CAN A PERSON BE UNBORN?
The premise is that adoption implies permanency, which is, in essence, eternal security. Let me ask a question: “If salvation is permanent, and by that, I mean unconditional, why use the concept of temporal reconciliation, conditional legal justification, and a conditional covenant to describe it?” Why does Scripture use so many “ifs” if salvation is unconditional? As we have seen, the Bible uses a variety of metaphors to describe the restoration of a right relationship with God. Each metaphor describes the transaction just a little differently. Marriage can end in legal divorce (God divorced Israel). Justification implies conditions and temporality. Being born again is one such metaphor. I have heard it argued, “Can a person be unborn?” which is used to prove eternal security. The real question is, “Can someone alive die?” Can parties who are reconciled today become estranged tomorrow? If so, then we can be spiritually unborn. Can an adopted person be unborn? Obviously, an adopted person can be disowned. Adam was a child of God before he sinned. He ceased being a child of God; he was disowned when he sinned, for he died eternally. What about Satan, do you dare say he wasn’t an adopted member of God’s family before he sinned? Is he still a member of God’s family? If Stanley is correct, then Satan and his demons are forever part of God’s family. Once in heaven, always in heaven isn’t true. Once in the family of God, always in the family of God is equally false.
DOES GOD THREATEN BELIEVERS WITH THE LOSS OF SALVATION?[16]
The author makes this unbelievable statement: “Never once are believers threatened with losing membership in the family of God.”[17] Even though I love Mr. Stanley, I regard this as a falsehood of the blindest order. It is a mystery to me how anyone familiar with the Bible can make such an outrageous comment. It’s almost like we have different Bibles.[18] To the best of my knowledge, he is a good man and a devout believer. That’s not the issue. Jesus rebuked Peter when he became the unwitting spokesman for Satan. Was Peter really transformed into Satan, as Jesus seemed to indicate? Of course not, but he was standing in the way of the truth and unwittingly doing Satan’s work. I believe that is true of Stanley, and he must think it’s true of me. The New Testament is full of warnings to believers. Let me list many of them for your consideration. I will go to great lengths to justify my strong reaction to his fallacious comment.
Matthew 3:7-12
“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” Matthew 3:7-12.
The Jews believed in eternal security. They were Abraham’s offspring, therefore, the children of God. John was warning them that they were not eternally secure because they came from the line of Abraham. They needed to personally repent and bring forth fruit in keeping with that repentance, or else they, as chaff, will be burned up with unquenchable fire. Did John say they would personally be safe, but their works would burn up? He did not say that. Reread it. He said they must show the fruits of repentance in their lives or they, not their works, would be destroyed. Ryrie writes in his footnote to verse nine that the accepted Jewish teaching of the time was that the children of Israel shared in the merits of Abraham. As a result of Abraham’s acceptance with God, all their prayers were acceptable, the wrath of God was appeased, their sins were removed and forgiven, and they were guaranteed a place in God’s kingdom. Now we understand why the Jewish religious authorities were offended when John and Jesus taught the necessity of repentance.[19]
Were the Jews, old covenant believers, threatened with “losing membership in the family of God?” Obviously, they were, but Stanley says “never once” does this occur.[20] I can hear advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, claim that these individuals were not part of the family of God to begin with. Do they really believe the covenant Jew was not in the family of God? Isn’t that a contradiction, for they believe salvation is without conditions; therefore, all “circumcised” Jews were part of the covenant automatically, weren’t they? Let’s say it’s true that those threatened were not believers. Are we to assume only unbelievers are to heed the warning about bringing forth fruit? How backwards does it get? Unbelievers are to be repentant, but believers can remain impenitent. Does that make sense to you?
Matthew 5:29-30
“And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go to hell” Matthew 5:29-30.
Who was Jesus preaching to? He was speaking to the covenant Jew, wasn’t He? He gives no hint that they could practice sin and still go to heaven, as advocates of eternal security would have us believe. In fact, Jesus says to the covenant Jew (believer) that sin is so dangerous, as it leads to condemnation, that it would be better to cut your hand off if that would get sin out of your life than to perish in hell with all parts of your body intact. This is clearly a warning that sin will separate us from God. We will lose our membership in the family of God as the covenant Jew lost his when he continued to sin and refused to repent and believe.
The author Stanley maintains, “Never once are believers threatened with losing membership in the family of God.” Wasn’t Jesus speaking to believers in this passage? If not, then am I to assume only unbelievers are those who have to be concerned about sin? Am I to believe the unbeliever sins and goes to hell, but the believer sins and goes to heaven? Stanley says (his book, chapter 7) that sin alone won’t send unbelievers to hell. He thinks their state of unbelief is what sends them to hell. Unbelief is a state, not a sin, according to Stanley. But in the passage, Jesus declares that sin alone will send a person to hell. Jesus doesn’t even mention unbelief per se.
One more observation for your consideration as you study this passage. Dispensationalists often divide the Word of God into artificial time periods. For instance, some teachers insist that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are two distinct periods, even though they appear to refer to the same period using slightly different labels. They also divide up the Word of God between what was supposedly penned for believers and unbelievers. Many of the passages that warn of the peril of apostasy are, of course, written to unbelievers, according to Ryrie, Stanley, and advocates of eternal security, like the one above, which allows the author Stanley to say that never once are believers threatened. I suppose he would argue that Jesus was talking to unbelievers in this passage and therefore his statement remains true. Think about it for a moment. Who is the Bible written to? Is it not written to those who are searching for the truth? Is it not written for those who are deciding whether to pay the cost of embracing the truth? When did unbelievers start searching for the truth? It’s more logical to read the Bible and believe it’s written primarily, not exclusively, to those who profess faith or are at the very least seeking God. Apparently, the only reason they divide the word in this manner is to preserve the doctrine of eternal security.
Matthew 6:14-15 (Matthew 18:21-35)
“For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” Matthew 6:14-15.
Ryrie believes this is the forgiveness that pertains to fellowship, not the forgiveness that leads to salvation. I bet Stanley and other advocates of eternal security would agree. However, the passage does not state that. If God the Father will not forgive our transgressions, then how can He do just that and forgive our transgressions by allowing us to stay in His family and only lose fellowship with Him? The precise meaning of the passage is that our relationship with the Father is conditioned on our forgiving others as He forgives us. Forgiveness is to set aside the penalty of the law, which is condemnation. Is this not the most apparent meaning of this passage, as it would usually be interpreted? Advocates of eternal security must have it mean a loss of fellowship, or it would destroy their much-loved doctrine. Here is another passage that states we will lose our membership in the family of God if we don’t forgive others. Being forgiven by God is conditioned on forgiving others. What about you? From your heart, have you forgiven those who have hurt you? If not, stop reading and repent. Make this right while you still have the chance.
Although I will not quote this parable, I encourage you to look it up. In the gospels, we have a parable of a servant who was forgiven an enormous debt. This same man then refused to forgive the insignificant debt owed to him by another. This terrible act of unforgiveness was reported to the Lord, who told his servants to arrest the man and throw him into prison until he repaid all that he owed. The lesson is clear but hard to accept. You see, God will not forgive us if we don’t forgive others. Forgiveness can be repealed and retracted. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Matthew 7:13-29
I can’t quote all of this passage for it’s too lengthy. Let me quote just a couple of verses.
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord’, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Matthew 7:19-23.
These “Christ” followers did many religious things to commend themselves to God and man. However, they did not cease from the practice of sin, which is a condition of entering the kingdom of heaven. The author Stanley teaches that we can “practice lawlessness” and still enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says He will say to “Christian” lawbreakers, “I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”
Let me quote Ryrie’s footnote to verse 21, “Obedience to the will of God comes first.”[21] What does he mean, “obedience comes first?” Does he mean it is a condition of entering heaven? No, I don’t think so. Then what does his statement mean that doing the will of God comes first? That is Ryrie’s way to appear to uphold the meaning of the text, yet at the same time destroy the plain meaning of the text. He can then hold onto eternal security, which teaches that practicing lawlessness will not keep us out of the kingdom of heaven. Are there others who are saddened by this apparent attempt to manipulate the meaning of the Word of God?
Matthew 8:11-12
“And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” Matthew 8:11-12.
Jesus is again teaching them that they are not eternally secure because Abraham is their biological and religious father. Jesus states, “The sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness.” Jesus denies the supposed truth of eternal security, for He declares that the sons of the kingdom are cast out. The covenant Jew is being threatened with expulsion from the family of God. Could it be any clearer? The covenant is conditional. Failure to meet the conditions of the covenant will result in eternal death, regardless of their biological or religious ties to the patriarch. Then again, maybe they are weeping and gnashing their teeth because they have lost their rewards in outer darkness! What do you think?
Matthew 10:21-42
I will quote a couple of key verses.
“And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end that shall be saved” Matthew 10:21.
“Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whomever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” Matthew 10:32-33.
“And he who does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me” Matthew 10:38.
The one who endures to the end shall be saved from eternal death. What else could Jesus mean? It certainly can’t mean we shall be saved from persecution as this text is all about the cost of following Christ including persecution. He is telling them to expect suffering. It’s very clear what Jesus is talking about. Saints throughout the ages have interpreted this verse to mean they must remain faithful even unto death or suffer damnation. Maybe these martyrs were wrong. It seems brother Stanley would have us believe this relates to special recognition and rewards for those who remain faithful. Unfortunately, this passage of scripture in no way suggests special reward or recognition whatsoever.
Is living a sinful life a denial of Jesus? It is, most assuredly. Stanley and many other advocates of eternal security might even agree. However, he must say that even if we deny Him, we remain saved. For advocates of eternal security, denial must mean a loss of fellowship, reward, recognition, or some such thing. But it clearly implies that if we deny Christ, He will deny us before God the Father and say, “Depart from Me, for I do not know you.”
Do advocates of eternal security believe we must, as a condition of salvation, take up our cross and follow after Jesus? Unfortunately, no, even though this is clearly what Jesus teaches in this passage of Scripture. Ryrie’s footnote to this verse clearly states that Jews understood that allegiance unto death was the requirement to be a follower of Jesus.[22] The question naturally arises, “What if I withhold ‘allegiance even to death?’ What happens if I don’t comply with the demands? He would have to say I am still saved, but lose something such as my reward. So in what sense is it demanded of a follower? Bottom line is that we can refuse to take up our cross and still be saved. In other words, we can still be “worthy” of Jesus in direct contradiction to His statement.
Matthew 12:30
“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters” Matthew 12:30.
What does it mean to be ‘with’ Jesus? I believe Stanley would argue it means we trust that Christ paid the penalty for our sins and that is all. But you see, Jesus has been explaining what it means to be with Him. It includes all of His teachings, and never once has it meant that we trust that He paid the penalty for our sins, and that is it. Jesus is saying that a condition of salvation is being with Him, a positive position, not just a neutral position. If neutral is not an option, what about backsliding? Stanley believes backsliding is a permissible option. According to him, a backslidden Christian is saved, no matter how stubbornly backslidden they remain.
Matthew 13 and Luke 8
“And those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away” Luke 8:13 emphasis added.
This is a warning to us who believe. Let the Word of God take root in your heart, so that when temptation comes, as it surely will, you will be able to stand firm and not fall away. If this is not the plain meaning of this text, then I am incompetent or insane. These people are believers. They are not unbelievers, for the verse declares that they “believe for a while.” Please don’t try to argue that this is written to unbelievers. They believe for a while, that is, it’s temporary, which doesn’t mean their belief was short-lived necessarily, for they may believed for months, even years. The point is, they don’t persevere in their faith. Perseverance is a condition of final salvation. These believers fall away in times of temptation and are lost.
Why am I quoting all these verses? Remember that brother Stanley proclaims the Bible never once threatens believers with a loss of salvation or membership in the family of God, which is untrue. Is it hateful or mean-spirited of me to say that an untruth is the same as a lie? For those who refuse to believe the truth, no combination of words will suffice. They will twist them until they mean the opposite of what they state. The Jews did this over and over again. God sent them many prophets to warn them. They ignored the warnings, believing their election and salvation were unconditional and their security eternal. The frequent and horrific slaughter of the Jews is a well-known and unbelievably sad history that they were not eternally secure, unconditionally saved, unconditionally adopted, and unconditionally loved.
Matthew 13:50
“For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” Matthew 13:50.
Does this verse imply that we can do the will of the Father once or even a few times in a lifetime and still be part of the family of God? It doesn’t. Yet Stanley believes one momentary act of faith, which is to do the will of our Father, secures membership in the family of God forever. But is believing in Jesus the total will of the Father? It isn’t. Was Jesus revealing something other than the will of the Father in the first thirteen chapters of the book of Matthew? Of course not, for Jesus was showing the will of the Father in everything He taught. This should be too obvious to need proof. Membership in the family of God is conditioned on doing the will of the Father habitually throughout one’s entire life. This is the real meaning of this passage. It’s a promise and a threat. Suppose we do not do the will of the Father, then we are not part of His family. Stanley believes that we can remain part of God’s family even when we fail to do the will of the Father, despite it being in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus. Who are you going to believe?
Jesus preached against the false ideas of unconditional salvation, particular predestination, particular election, and eternal security. This is one of the reasons why the religious folks of His day wanted to kill Him. And history repeats itself throughout much of the Christian church’s story. Anyone who teaches against these false ideas on security is regarded as an enemy of the truth and of God.
Matthew 19:16
“And behold, one came to Him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” Matthew 19:16. Jesus responds to him by saying, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17. The man asks, “Which ones?” Isn’t that typical of us? We don’t want to keep any more of the law than we have to. That alone reveals a heart that is far from being honestly religious, which is not in tune with God. Apparently, Stanley disagrees with Jesus, as he believes that all that is necessary to obtain eternal life is to believe in Jesus, even if only for a moment. I wonder if he would call Jesus a legalist, for He is teaching conditional salvation. If you won’t believe Jesus, you unquestionably will not believe me. How could Jesus make it any clearer? Please tell me.
Advocates of eternal security sometimes refer to the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus. Jesus tells him he must be born again. Believers in eternal security state that Jesus didn’t require anything but belief in Him. Why don’t they quote this passage, Matthew 19:17? Isn’t that obvious? To quote this passage would destroy their doctrine of eternal security. If what Jesus said to Nicodemus is applicable, why isn’t what Jesus said to this man applicable? Again, why don’t proponents of eternal security quote this passage, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments?”
Let me quote the author Ryrie, for his footnote is a magnificent specimen of the blindness that attends the false doctrine of eternal security. “Jews of the time believed that performing some single act would guarantee salvation.”[23] With all due respect to Mr. Ryrie, Mr. Stanley, and other advocates of eternal security, can you believe how confused they are? All of them also think that “performing some single act would guarantee salvation.” And what is that act? Believing in Jesus is the single act that guarantees salvation according to these men. However, Jesus teaches that keeping God’s commandments is what it takes, and it’s not just a single act of faith or commandment-keeping. Notice what else Jesus didn’t say. He didn’t tell this man to believe to obtain eternal life, did He? No, he did not. Does that mean we don’t have to believe in Jesus? Of course, we must also believe in Jesus. It all starts with faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life. I love the exclusivity of the gospel. By definition, the truth must be exclusive. It will not share the throne with any falsehood, error, or lie. Isn’t that beautiful? Praise God. Bless His Holy name. Let every knee voluntarily bow and every tongue voluntarily confess that Jesus is Lord God Almighty!
Matthew 21:28-32
I will quote only one verse of this section, but please read the entire passage. “Which of the two did the will of the Father?” They said, “The latter.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you,” Matthew 21:31.
Remember this parable is about a man who had two sons who were both required to work in the vineyard. One of the sons did the will of the father, and the other did not, but both were sons of the same father. Jesus said that the obedient son will find eternal life and the disobedient son will find eternal death. Honestly, could it be any clearer? Please also recall that Jesus said only those who do the will of the Father are part of the family of God. Beautifully consistent, isn’t He? Is it wrong of me to wish that theologians, including the author Mr. Stanley, were likewise consistent?
This is another obvious instance where Jesus taught against the Jewish idea of eternal security and predestination.
Matthew 21:33-46
This is a parable about God the Father rejecting the covenant nation of Israel. Why is God rejecting them? “Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” Matthew 21:43. The Jew didn’t produce the fruit of the kingdom of God. What is the fruit of the kingdom of God? Obedience, from the heart, to the law and will of God is the fruit of His kingdom. What will the Father do when those of the New Covenant fail to produce the fruit of it? If God is impartial, must He not reject us as well?
We are just as “eternally” secure as they were.
Matthew 24:4-14
“But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved” Matthew 24:13.
Does this verse state that the one who endures to the end will save his rewards? Does it imply it? Does this passage and its context suggest that the one who endures to the end, even in the face of persecution, will get special recognition and approval? It most certainly does not. We must be faithful even if it costs us the ultimate sacrifice of our lives. Many will fall away because they refuse to suffer for Him. Have I given you an accurate interpretation of this passage, or have I manipulated it to mean something it does not?
Is this not a warning to believers that the peril of apostasy is real?
Matthew 24:45-51 (Luke 12:35-48)
In this section, Jesus tells us that we must stay alert because we don’t know when He will return, “for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matthew 24:44). He then gives us the parable of the wise servant. The wise servant will be doing the Master’s will when the Master returns.
“But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time, and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth” Matthew 24:48-51.
To whom is He talking? Is Jesus talking to one or two slaves? He is talking to one slave, isn’t he? Jesus says this slave will be assigned “a place with the hypocrites” if he starts to sin.
Is it not clear that Jesus is talking to those who profess to follow Him? He is telling us to keep watch and be faithfully engaged in doing His will until He returns. There is no hint of eternal security in this passage of scripture. Just the opposite is true. Again, Jesus is teaching us the doctrine of conditional salvation. We must persevere in doing His will until He returns. Or could Jesus possibly mean that when we are “assigned a place with the hypocrites,” that we are weeping and gnashing our teeth because we have lost out on our rewards, but don’t worry, because Christian hypocrites go to heaven? Is that the message Jesus wants to convey?
Why am I quoting all these verses? Remember that Stanley proclaims, and many other proponents of eternal security believe, the Bible never once threatens believers with a loss of salvation or membership in the family of God, which is untrue. I am going to great lengths to prove that the Word of God repeatedly warns believers about the very real peril of apostasy. I am letting the Word of God speak for itself without any clever interpretations.
Luke 13:18-35
“Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets,’ and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; Depart from Me, all you evildoers.’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out” Luke 13:26-28.
Here again, Jesus declares that Jews of the covenant, who were evildoers, will not enter the kingdom of God, irrespective of their biological lineage. He does not say faith in Him is the sole condition of salvation. Jesus was telling the religious Jews they were in danger of being rejected because they would not enter by the narrow gate. And once the gate is closed, they have no hope. There is an urgency in His words because He was warning them that they, not their works, were in danger of being “cast out” of the family of God. The one who does evil is an evildoer. They are not imputed to be good doers, are they?
Luke 20:9-18
In this parable of the vineyard, we have an explanation of God’s dealings with the covenant nation of Israel. The owner of the vineyard expected a return for renting it out. When he sent his representatives to collect his share of the produce, they were mistreated. Then the owner sent his son, expecting better treatment, but they killed the son, hoping that they would receive the inheritance.
“And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, therefore, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others.” And when they heard it, they said, “May it never be!” Luke 20:15-16
If salvation were unconditional and eternal security true, then giving the vineyard owner some of the produce would not be necessary to keep the covenant (vineyard). Mr. Stanley says genuine believers may not have any fruit but are still saved. This parable contradicts the author, for clearly, the vineyard owner had conditions attached to their relationship. If the doctrine of eternal security is true, then the story should read that the vineyard owner would destroy the works of the vine-growers, not the vine-growers themselves. How crazy does it get? What did the owner of the vineyard want if not the fruit? Would the owner destroy the very thing he wanted? But what does the Word say? It declares that the vineyard owner destroys the vine-growers and gives the vineyard to others. This is a picture of the covenant people of God losing the kingdom of God because the conditions were not met.
How could it be clearer? Yet Stanley can write; never once are believers threatened with losing membership in the family of God.
John 3:36
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” John 3:36.
Obedience is a condition of not experiencing the wrath of God, according to Jesus. I am aware that the KJV uses the word ‘believe’ in place of the word ‘obey’. In this and many other passages, it’s clearly stated that only an obedient faith is a saving faith, contrary to what Stanley teaches. Should we understand this passage to mean that we need to obey the Son once for just a moment, and then we will never experience the wrath of God? That is what Stanley and other advocates of eternal security want us to believe, for they insist one momentary act of faith secures us against wrath for eternity. Clearly, Jesus is teaching that only those who continue to obey Him are justified and saved.
John 5:24-29
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” John 5:24.
Then speaking of the resurrection of the saved and unsaved, Jesus says in verse 29 about those raised from the dead, that they will all hear His voice, “And shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.”
Believing in verse 24 is cited as the only condition of obtaining eternal life. However, in verse 29, Jesus proclaims that only those who live righteous lives will be saved, for the unrighteous will be judged. The author Stanley would have us believe that the saved can be unrighteous in contradiction to this word from Jesus. Sinners who believe in Him will purify their lives. We are not to choose between obeying and believing, for they are inseparable. To talk of a disobedient faith is to proclaim a contradiction. Obedience is an essential attribute of faith. Stanley says it’s not. Isn’t he dead wrong?
John 8:51
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall never see death” John 8:51.
Is Jesus promising those who obey Him physical immortality? He is talking about eternal death, isn’t He? Mr. Ryrie believes that this verse means the believer will avoid spiritual death because, through their faith, they have spiritual life.[24] Here, Ryrie states that one who ‘obeys’ and a ‘believer’ are the same thing. But does he really believe that? Yes and no is my guess for it appears Ryrie, Stanley, and most other advocates of eternal security all believe in contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas at the same time. They believe a believer may or may not obey Jesus. They think we tell the truth and lie simultaneously. Never mind that Jesus declared a house divided against itself couldn’t stand. Brothers Ryrie, Stanley, and others teach that a house divided does stand. Jesus declares that those who keep (retain and observe) His words shall never see death. And yes, those who meet these conditions are indeed believers. However, it’s not true that a believer can reject these conditions and still be a justified believer. Mr. Stanley states, and many other proponents of eternal security believe, that a believer may not keep the word of Jesus and be a genuine believer. He thinks we can be unbelieving believers. Now, who are you going to believe?
Remember, this chapter in the gospel of John contains the passage that reveals that the truth will set us free from the slavery of sin. Yet, Charles Stanley believes the truth will not set us free from the slavery of sin. For all practical purposes, he believes Christians continue to be slaves of sin.
Let me attempt to tie this all together. Real children of Abraham do the deeds of Abraham. Genuine disciples of Jesus abide in His word. They keep His word. Disciples obey Him, and they shall never see death. I wish it weren’t true, but Stanley declares that believers will not see death even if they don’t do the deeds of Abraham or keep the words of Jesus.
Why am I quoting all these verses of scripture? Stanley said that believers are never once threatened with the loss of salvation or membership in the family of God. What do you think? Have I given you sufficient evidence to the contrary? If not, please read on.
John 10:27-28
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” John 10:27-28.
This is a favorite passage for advocates of eternal security. Without a doubt, Jesus proclaims that His sheep shall never perish. I believe it. His sheep shall never perish. The question is, “Who are His sheep?” Advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, state that believers are His sheep. I agree. Then why don’t I accept their doctrine of eternal security? According to them, a “believer” may seldom, if ever, fully obey Jesus. But Jesus declares, in this passage, that His sheep hear His voice and “they follow Him.” Hearing His voice and following Him clearly indicate obedience. Stanley argues that believers may not follow and obey Him. Jesus unmistakably proclaims that the two conditions to never perishing are hearing His voice and following Him. Hearing His voice and following Him make a person a genuine believer. No one else is a believer.[25] Charles Stanley declares that even one condition depreciates the love of God. He also states that a believer is a person who trusts that Christ paid for their sins, whether or not they habitually hear His voice or follow Him.
Let’s assume, for a moment, that Stanley is correct. One momentary act of faith secures salvation forever. Then what is Jesus talking about in this passage? He should have said His sheep “heard” His voice once and believed unto salvation forever. As for the condition of “following Him,” Jesus should have qualified His statement by stating that those who follow Him will have a special reward. But did Jesus say anything about rewards? No, He didn’t. True sheep hear His voice and obey Him. Stanley believes His sheep believe once, even if for just a moment, and may seldom obey Him. This thinking must hurt God deeply.
Mr.Stanley’s position means that his sheep love him even when they constantly disobey him. Can that be true? What does it mean to love Jesus? Let’s let Jesus respond in the verse that follows.
John 14:21
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me, and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him” John 14:21.
Can a professing Christian, who doesn’t love Jesus, go to heaven? What would Stanley and other advocates of eternal security answer? Jesus declares that only those who keep His commandments love Him. Will Jesus love those who don’t keep His commandments? Clearly, this aspect of His love is conditional. Only those who obey Jesus will be loved by God the Father. Then Christ will reveal Himself to them and only to those who obey Him. I ask again, will Jesus love those who do not love Him by obeying His commandments? Please open your mind to the truth. This aspect of His love is conditional, as it clearly states (refer to my earlier comments about the different aspects of God’s love). So how does this relate to Stanley’s contention that believers are never once threatened with losing membership in the family of God? In all kindness and love, isn’t it obvious?
Doesn’t reason tell us that only those who love God will go to heaven? And what does it mean to love God? Jesus said that it means we keep His commandments. Now, does that mean we keep His commandments once or twice over the course of our lives? Or does it mean we habitually keep His word? It obviously means that we habitually keep His commandments. What happens if we start, then stop, keeping His commandments? Will He still love us? His word declares that He will not.
John 15:1-6
“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” John 15:6.
In the second verse, Jesus says every branch “in Me” that does not bear fruit is pruned so it will bear fruit. Since when are unbelievers in Christ? The only way for believers to bear fruit is to abide in Christ, for apart from Christ we can do nothing of eternal significance. This passage instructs the reader, the believer, to abide in Christ. This is our part. It’s our responsibility. If we abide in Christ, we will bear much fruit, but it’s conditioned on our abiding in Him. Abiding in Christ means we keep His commandments, as written in verses 9 and 10 (see below). These are conditions of salvation, not the ground of it. These are the conditions attached to receiving the gift of salvation freely. But without meeting the conditions, we cannot be saved.
Let me refer to Mr. Ryrie’s footnote to verse 6 for it’s truly an amazing, but unfortunate, example of rewriting scripture to fit a predetermined theology. He writes of verse six that the reference is to a believer’s work, which is burned up. The believer is saved; it’s just his work that is destroyed. He cites 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 as evidence of his position. Does this verse really teach that the works of the believer are burned up? If so, where is that written? The word explicitly states, “He is thrown away as a branch.” Did it say, “he is saved, but his works are thrown away as a branch?” Apparently, Stanley, Ryrie, and other proponents of eternal security would have us alter the very words of Scripture so that the Word agrees with their theology. Is this not inexcusable? If I do this, I want to be informed and corrected. What about you?
Years ago, when I first read Ryrie’s explanation, I was persuaded by his dogmatic statement. Why would anyone question someone who has a Bible named after him? It’s hard to ask those who have credentials we don’t have. How many people reading their Ryrie Study Bible take this footnote as the gospel truth? For a long time, I did. I pray that the God, who created all things, will open our minds to the truth.
Now, if this passage of scripture said that our works were burned up, but we were saved, then I would argue for that interpretation. But the Word of God clearly instructs us that “he,” not his works, is burned up. Furthermore, it makes no difference if another passage of scripture (1 Cor. 3:11-15) teaches that works are burned up. In this passage, it states that the believer is burned up because they do not continue to abide in Christ.
How can the author Stanley make the statement, “that never once are believers threatened with losing membership in the family of God?” What a falsehood that is, for this passage unmistakably threatens believers with permanent loss if they are unfruitful. Is my comment unwarranted? Is it unloving? (Maybe it’s too candid. A few years ago, the want of candor was seen as a vice, but today it’s often thought of as a virtue.) Remember, Stanley teaches that believers may not have any fruit. Who are you going to believe?
John 15:9-10
“Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love” John 15:9-10.
Is this written in such a way as to infer that abiding in the love of God is unconditional? If so, then I don’t understand plain English. The passage clearly states we are to abide in the love of Christ by keeping His commandments. It’s conditional. Yet Stanley says even one condition maligns the love of God. Furthermore, this verse and its immediate context undeniably threaten so-called believers with hell for unfruitfulness or not keeping the commandments of God. Then again, maybe I am wrong. Perhaps the trained theologian is the only one qualified to understand this passage and its complex grammar! Let us believe God and not man.
Romans 2:13
“For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified” Romans 2:13.
This passage is similar to the one in James, which states that believers are not justified by faith alone, but by faith and works as well. “Was not Abraham justified by works and not by faith alone?” James 2:24. It seems Stanley would have us believe that works are unnecessary and that doing the Law is not a condition of justification. This passage in Romans pronounces that hearing the law and then not doing it will not justify anyone. He believes that faith may not necessarily produce obedience to the law, but we will be justified if we trust that Christ has paid for our sins. In all kindness, I must ask how anyone can believe such a thing? The grace of God will always produce obedience to the law of God. Could it be any other way and make sense?
The apostle Paul writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the law” Romans 3:28. Are these two verses contradictory? Of course not, and the context of each reveals its meaning. In Chapter Two, the author condemns the hypocrite. You see, the hypocrite professes to serve God while they disobey Him. Many Jews were like this. Many so-called Christians are like this. They are like this because of teachers who tell them they are eternally secure even while they persist in a sinful, lawless life. That is why Paul says, “but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek” Romans 2:8-9. Apparently, the author Stanley can’t accept this statement as it stands, for the believer may do evil habitually, and avoid wrath and indignation according to his theology.
Let’s examine the apparent contradiction with Romans 3:28. Simply put, this verse states that the law condemns lawbreakers. The Jews were expecting the law to save them while they broke the law. Once the law has been broken, salvation must come some other way, for the law can only condemn those who break the law. The law is no savior to the lawless. How then does the lawbreaker find forgiveness? Repentance and faith in Christ are the ways of righteousness, the path to right standing with God. Does faith then mean the forgiven can continue to abuse the law and still be forgiven? I wish it wasn’t true, but isn’t that what Stanley wants us to believe? Apparently, advocates of eternal security want us to believe “the hearers of the law are justified” and the doers of the law don’t exist. The truth is, saving faith will purify the heart and turn the lawless into the lawful. That’s the gospel, and it’s excellent news! Gospel justification is the pardon of sinners who turn away from their sin. Lawbreakers become lawkeepers. Legal justification is the declaration of not guilty. No sin has been committed. We are discussing the justification of guilty individuals. Lawbreakers have become or returned to lawkeeping, for not the hearers of the law will be justified, but the doers of the law will be justified in grace.
“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written in Romans 2:24. In the same chapter, Paul is chastising the Jew for an empty profession of faith. It was empty because they proclaimed to love God, but by their commandment-breaking, they dishonored God. As a result, the name of God was held up to open ridicule among the Gentiles. The doctrine of eternal security allows for and, consequently, indirectly promotes the same fleshly theology, which declares that we can love God and live as if we love the devil more. Is there any wonder why the name of God is blasphemed among non-believers in our present culture?
“And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?” Romans 2:3 KJV.
Advocates of once saved always saved do, in fact, believe that they will escape the judgment of God in direct opposition to this verse of scripture.
Romans chapter 6
I want to quote the entire chapter, as it all applies. It’s a warning to believers that sin destroys our relationship with God, contrary to Stanley’s assertion that “never once are believers threatened with losing membership in the family of God.” Let me quote just a couple of verses.
“Do you know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” Romans 6:16-18.
Could it be any clearer? The truth sets us free from the personal bondage and slavery of sin. Yet Stanley maintains that it does not. According to his theology, believers do practice sin. Notice that Paul declares they “were” slaves of sin and had now become slaves of righteousness. Regrettably, Stanley can’t let that stand as it’s written. What is clearly presented as past tense becomes present tense in his theology.
Paul ends this chapter by declaring that being freed from practicing sin in sanctification, the outcome is eternal life, Romans 6:22. But for those who are not freed from the practice of sin, he has written this, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” Romans 6:23.
In verse 22, the outcome is eternal life, and in verse 23, could the outcome be other than eternal death?
Romans 11:19-23
“You will say then, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity but to you, God’s kindness; if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again” Romans 11:19-23.
The author and many other teachers of eternal security believe God will spare us, for once we believe, we may lapse into lifelong unbelief and are eternally secure. The Word of God says just the opposite. Do you think the Jews, the natural branches, were broken off yet saved? That must be the case if proponents of eternal security are correct. The fact is, most Jews refused to produce the fruit of belief, which is obedience. The word states we stand by our faith, not the faith of Jesus or Abraham. Also, does it in any way suggest that one momentary act of faith is what the author is talking about? It doesn’t. We stand or remain in God’s favor if we continue to believe. Obviously, this means we obey God. If we do not obey Him, we will be broken off just like the Jew. If God is impartial, then He must break us off just like the Jew. I don’t know how it could be any clearer.
Is this passage a warning to believers that the peril of falling away permanently is real? Stanley and others say not even once are believers threatened with the loss of membership in God’s family. What do you think is the truth?
Notice, all of us are admonished not to be conceited because God won’t spare us either. He didn’t spare the recipients of the Old Covenant, and neither will He spare the recipients of the New Covenant. How is it possible for believers in eternal security not to be conceited when their doctrine declares that God will spare them above all others? Sin damns their unbelieving brothers and sisters but not them. Is that not the foundation for pride and conceit?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
This is another warning to believers that a sinful lifestyle will result in them missing out on the kingdom of God. In the theology of those who believe in eternal security, this isn’t true because a sinful lifestyle is the norm. All unrighteous Christians will inherit the kingdom of God.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
“Such were some of you”, is the message. That is past tense, not present tense. We must understand that a sinful lifestyle is inconsistent with present salvation. We are told the unrighteous (those who are committing the sins listed in this passage) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Still, Stanley and many other advocates of eternal security declare that unrighteous “Christians” will inherit the kingdom of God. How do they accomplish that? They would say, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinning saint. When God the Father sees us, He sees not our sin but Christ’s obedience. May I bring to your attention just one small problem? This verse contradicts that idea completely. The theology of those who espouse eternal security means the believer may be a practicing thief, adulterer, or homosexual and still go to heaven in direct contradiction to the Word of God. There are no exceptions given in this passage; it applies to all of us. This sloppy interpretation bothers me. How about you? It saddens me because it is dishonoring to God and destroys lives and souls that Jesus died for.
1 Corinthians 9:27
“But I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” 1 Corinthians 9:27.
What does it mean to be castaway or disqualified? Advocates of eternal security must maintain that it means a loss of service, a loss of reward or recognition, or some such convenient interpretation. Paul is using the metaphors of boxing and running in this text to convey the idea that in the Roman games, only those who prepare themselves stand a chance of winning. Winning in the games is all that matters, for only one gets the crown. Paul is buffeting his body so he will not become careless and indifferent to sin and be disqualified or rejected by God. Do you really think Paul is saying he buffets his body so that after he has preached to others, he might not lose his special reward or be disqualified from Christian service, as some suggest?[26]
Is it unkind or inaccurate of me to state emphatically that this passage is one of many that clearly threatens believers with the loss of membership in the family of God? Stanley and many others say that believers are never once threatened. What about it? Did Paul feel threatened?
1 Corinthians 10
This chapter reviews Old Testament examples. Many, perhaps most, covenant Jews were destroyed because they didn’t comply with the conditions of the covenant. Their destruction provides an example to us “that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved” 1 Corinthians 10:6. Many thousands of Jews were destroyed because of disobedience. Were they destroyed and sent to heaven? Is that the example we are to learn from? Advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, would probably say yes, for those of this school actually believe a Christian can sin to the point God kills them and takes them to heaven so they can’t continue to sin so much here on earth. Now, if that is true, then just what exactly is the purpose of the example? Is the destruction of the Jews meant to teach us to curb our sinning so we don’t get killed and sent to heaven before we live a whole carnal life? Is that the message of this chapter? Is this passage teaching us not to interrupt the pleasures of sin prematurely? Is it telling us to slow our sin down so God doesn’t punish us by sending us to heaven? In all kindness, how is it that the religious can believe such nonsense!
The message is that we, too, will be destroyed and sent to hell, just like these Jews, if we don’t break off from our sin and “not crave evil things, as they also craved.” Is this not a warning to believers that sin will damn their souls? Remember what Mr. Stanley said, “Never once are believers threatened with the loss of salvation.” Is he correct?
Galatians 5:16-26
This passage is similar to the 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 passage just mentioned. Paul warns, “Those who practice such things (the sins listed in verses 19 and 20) shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21). Proponents of eternal security argue that believers will inherit the kingdom of God, even if they continue to practice these very sins. Who are you going to believe? I know the arguments of the false understanding of imputed righteousness will be used to argue that God the Father sees Christ’s perfect righteousness and obedience instead of our sin. Unfortunately, this verse, along with all the others I have quoted, makes it clear that anyone who personally sins is unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul is writing to those who profess to know God. He in no way suggests God will “overlook” their sin and “look over” and see Christ’s obedience. Please refer to my earlier comments regarding imputed righteousness and imputed obedience.
Galatians 6:7-8
“Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap,” Galatians 6:7.
Advocates of eternal security must, of course, say this passage is talking about rewards, recognition, or some other thing of diminished consequence. It can’t mean that if a believer sows to the flesh, eternal death is what that person reaps, for the so-called Christian is eternally secure. The carnal Christian will lose something else, such as rewards or fellowship, not eternal life. If this passage were alone and nothing more definitive was said, then that interpretation might be acceptable. But what is the context? Does it clarify the meaning of verse seven? “For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life” Galatians 6:8. Isn’t it clear, the one who sows to the flesh will reap ruin, destruction, and eternal death and the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life? Must not the one who sows to the flesh reap eternal death? It would be very inconsistent and contradictory to argue that the one who sows to the flesh will reap eternal life, just like those who sow to the Spirit. It would, but that might not stop advocates of eternal security from such a convenient interpretation. This is another warning to believers. Their faith better produce obedience to the Spirit, or the result is eternal death.
Ephesians 5:3-6
This passage is similar to Galatians 5 and 1 Corinthians 6. It categorically states that those who live in sin will not inherit the kingdom of God. Stanley, like most other advocates of eternal security, says they will if they have believed, even if only for a moment, in the distant past. Again, let the Word of God separate the truth from the lie.
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” Ephesians 5:6.
God pronounces that His wrath will come upon the sons of disobedience. Who are the sons of disobedience? Those who live in disobedience are the sons of disobedience. They are the sons of the devil, for He is the father of those who believe but don’t obey. They may consider themselves Christians. You may think of them as Christians. They may have once genuinely exercised faith in Christ. But they have lapsed into a life of sin, under the permissive teaching of those who espouse eternal security. (That is not what they want, but it is the unavoidable consequence of their doctrines.)
Remember this passage, along with all the others I am quoting, doesn’t in any way suggest these warnings apply exclusively to the unbeliever. The Bible was written to those who are interested in the things of God. Since when is the unbeliever interested in the things of God?
Colossians 1:21-23
“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul was made a minister” Colossians 1:21-23.
If this doesn’t teach the truth of conditional perseverance, then I don’t know how else it could have been said. The Word declares we must continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not move away from the hope of the gospel. If we do this, then Jesus will present us to the Father, holy and blameless, because we are really holy and blameless. We will not be imputed to be holy and blameless when, in truth, we are not. This passage declares that being engaged in evil deeds is a thing of the past for those who are reconciled to God: “You were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds.” Now, honestly, does that sound like they continued to practice evil deeds after they were reconciled to God? Isn’t that what Charles Stanley, among many others, would have you believe?
Colossians 3:5-9
In this passage, Paul is telling the Colossians to consider themselves dead to the practice of sin. He is telling them that genuine believers do not continue to sin.
“For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them,” Colossians 3:7.
Is the wrath of God to be understood as wrath that will sweep away their rewards or fellowship because they continue to sin? With all charity, may I say, how utterly ridiculous is such a thought? What will happen to “believers” when they have not “laid aside the old self with its evil practices?” Will they lose a reward or two but go to heaven? This passage was written to those of us who think of ourselves as followers of Christ. God’s wrath will be our reward if we don’t lay aside the old self and its practice of sin. The wrath of God is to be understood as the eternal displeasure of God, of God rejecting us.
Notice again the phrase “in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.” Clearly, the expectation is that they no longer walk in them (sinful practices). This is a warning that the peril of experiencing God’s wrath is a real threat.
“Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness” 2 Timothy 2:19.
The author Stanley, and many others, believe that everyone who names the name of the Lord will not abstain from wickedness but will practice sin all the days of their life. This must break God’s heart.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
“And for this reason, God will send upon them a deluding influence (strong delusion-KJV) so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness” 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.
Ryrie dismisses the plain meaning of this passage with the heading in his study Bible. He ascribes verses 10-12 to unbelievers and assumes that takes care of it. It’s not that easy. Teachers of eternal security preach that believers usually do “take pleasure in wickedness,” yet they still go to heaven. This passage states they will be judged, and it’s not a judgment to determine rewards. The distinguishing characteristic is that these persons do not receive the love of the truth, which sets them free from the practice of sin. They continue to take pleasure in wickedness, and as such, they will be judged and sent to hell. Apparently, genuine believers are free from the practice of sin. Sin is an exception, not the rule, in their lives. When they do sin, they repent of it. Stanley and many other proponents of eternal security say genuine believers practice sin and may not even care that they are impenitent and in bondage to sin.
Let me suggest a very radical question to you. Could imputed obedience and unconditional salvation (eternal security) be the “deluding influence, strong delusion” referred to? Those who continue to take pleasure in wickedness are the very ones on whom the deluding influence (strong delusion) is sent. It’s written that God wants them to believe what is false because they refused to repent of their sins and took pleasure in wickedness. It seems God wants to confirm their choice of self-gratification by giving them false doctrines to believe. This is precisely what the doctrines of imputed righteousness and eternal security teach, despite the good intentions of their advocates. This passage reminds me of the time God hardened Pharaoh’s heart after he refused to let God’s people go.
1 Timothy 4:1
“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” 1 Timothy 4:1.
If you tell me these people never had faith to begin with, I will lovingly correct you, saying you are mistaken. How could this be any more straightforward? Apostasy is a very real concern. Some saints will fall away from, that is, drop out of, the faith to their own damnation. Our friend Stanley says believers are never once threatened with losing membership in the family of God. Similarly, the Jews didn’t believe God’s word of threatening applied to them, just the Gentile or overtly apostate Jew.
1 Timothy 4:16
“Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” 1 Timothy 4:16.
We must persevere in the faith to be finally saved. It saddens me to think advocates of eternal security believe that we may have a total lapse of faith and still be saved. I can’t help but think Satan couldn’t have thought of a better lie than that of eternal security, which declares that perseverance isn’t a condition of salvation. Could it be that the Great Deceiver’s best ideas are imputed obedience and righteousness, unconditional predestination, and unconditional salvation (eternal security)? Are my comments without justification? I do not say these things to be hurtful or unkind. Could these be the words of love?
What would you think of a person who refused to attempt to rescue a friend who was about to partner with a person known to be a crook? Would you call that person a friend because they held their tongue so they wouldn’t have to hurt their friend’s feelings by telling the truth?
What would you think of a doctor who refused to tell a cancer patient that they must undergo chemotherapy and radical surgery to have a chance of healing because they didn’t want to upset that person? Is that what you want from a doctor? Or do you like the truth even if it is unpleasant?
What would you think of a Pastor who refused to tell you the truth, for fear of offending you, when withholding it could cost you eternal life? I believe these false doctrines are condemning many to everlasting death. I care too much about God and you to withhold the truth from you. I am genuinely sorry that I must challenge something you have come to believe. I wish there was another way.
Titus 1:15-16 and the Grace of God
“To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient, and worthless for any good deed” Titus 1:15-16.
Proponents of eternal security teach that by their deeds they might very well deny Him, but they are still saved nonetheless. They want us to think that our deeds don’t necessarily indicate whether or not we are saved. The saved, according to them, may in fact deny our Lord by their deeds, but that doesn’t mean they are damned. What incredible blindness to believe the grace of God doesn’t make us holy in our personal behavior! “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” Titus 2:11-12. That is the objective of the grace of God, our personal holiness. Not an imputed holiness but the real thing is promised. Not only is it promised, it is required.
Those who talk about the grace of God as if it were a license to continue to sin and not be sent to hell are either ignorant of this truth, deceived, or intentionally blind. Very rarely have I heard it taught that the purpose of grace is our personal holiness. When was the last time you heard it taught that the goal of grace is to make us obedient? Often, these same teachers insist that no one who is born of God consistently obeys God, yet they are recipients of God’s grace. How sad it is. Titus then writes, “Who gave Himself for us, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds, Titus 2:14. The grace of God will ‘redeem us from every lawless deed.” Why do disobedient Christians talk so much about the grace of God? According to Titus, they are not participating in God’s grace. They are deceived. They have believed the lie that God’s grace is God overlooking their sin and not holding them accountable for it.
If you tell me these passages don’t teach us that grace cleanses us from the practice of sin, then I will wonder about your objectivity and desire to know the truth. This is what I love so much about the truth and the grace of God. Both cleanse us from the reigning power of sin in our lives. Sinning causes all the hurt in the present world and leads to damnation in the next. What mankind needs is a Savior from the practice of sin, not a Savior who “saves” us in the practice of sin. That is only partial salvation. Thanks be to God who has provided complete salvation or none at all.
Like all the other passages of scripture I have quoted, this one tells the reader that sin threatens our relationship with God, contrary to Stanley’s assertion.
Hebrews
My subtitle for the Book of Hebrews is the Book of Warnings, for it contains so many warnings about the peril of apostasy. I will mention just a few of the passages.
“But Christ was faithful as a Son over His house, whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and boast of our hope firm until the end” Hebrews 3:6.
“Take care brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today”, lest anyone of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, for we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end” Hebrews 3:12-14.
Is there any hint of the loss of fellowship, recognition, Christian service, or reward in these passages? Of course not, for they warn believers of the very real possibility of falling away from God into everlasting torment. Furthermore, these passages clearly indicate the conditional nature of our relationship with Christ. We are Christ’s house if we hold fast our confidence until the end. To the end of what? Isn’t it the end of our lives? Could it possibly mean to hold fast till the end of the moment of faith? Advocates of eternal security wouldn’t even resort to such a defense even though they actually believe it! Instead, I think, they will teach that this relates to fellowship, rewards, and so on. However, there is no mention of these whatsoever. To be Christ’s house is to be part of His family.
In the second passage, we are told we are partakers of Christ if “we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” Again, there is no hint that this is a reference to fellowship, rewards, or recognition. To be a partaker of Christ refers to having a relationship with Him, not to special rewards for some. If that is not the most reasonable meaning of the passage, then I am crazy. Furthermore, this passage clearly teaches the doctrine of conditional perseverance, not the opposite dogma of eternal security. The children of Israel were destroyed for unbelief, which is the same as saying they were destroyed for disobedience. Were they destroyed and sent to heaven? Advocates of eternal security and the author Stanley must believe that, as it’s the only way I can see, to reconcile their doctrine with the destruction of Israel. But remember the passage declares we are partakers of Christ if we hold fast our assurance firm until the end. Advocates of eternal security would have us believe that we are partakers of Christ, even if we do not hold fast to our assurance firm until the end. Could the error of this position be any more obvious?
“And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation” Hebrews 5:9.
Proponents of eternal security, including the author Stanley, believe that we don’t need to obey Christ to have eternal life. This passage declares that those who continue to obey Christ find Him the source of eternal salvation. What about those who do not continue to obey Christ? Is He the source of eternal salvation for them as well? To believe so would destroy the plain meaning of this statement. Yet Mr. Stanley and many other believers in eternal security maintain that salvation is unconditional, despite this passage, like all the others I have quoted, stipulating the conditions of salvation. Conditional salvation, by definition, contains an implicit threat. Those who believe in eternal security, including Arminians who deny the doctrine but live as though it were true, remind me of the Jews who refused to take God’s warnings seriously.
Hebrews 6:4-6
“For in the case of those who have been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame” Hebrews 6:4-6.
How many misguided interpretations have you read concerning this passage? Some theologians even teach that this passage is not in reference to genuine believers, as if unbelievers “have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.” What lengths people will go to in an effort to make the simple statements of scripture mean something other than what they appear to mean. Without any doubt, this passage is one of the many that warn believers of the peril of apostasy. Stanley assures us that believers are never once threatened with losing membership in the family of God. Isn’t that what this passage is all about?
What is the meaning of this passage of scripture? I suggest to you that it’s written to genuine believers, perhaps very dedicated believers, as a warning not to neglect so great a salvation. In this biblical passage, the author speaks about those who “have then fallen away.” They have fallen away from following Christ. The expression “have then fallen away” must refer to a complete departure from Christ, not an occasional or momentary departure from Christ. These once dedicated believers have fallen away and settled into a life of rebellion. They have seared their conscience beyond repair. With these persons, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. They have heard it all, experienced it all, and will not be convinced to repent. “Why then has this people, Jerusalem, turned away in continual apostasy? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return,” Jeremiah 8:6. Is this verse from the book of Jeremiah not what Hebrews 6 is referring to?
The apostles give ample evidence that it’s not impossible to be renewed unto repentance. Then there is the apostle Judas, who provides proof that those disciples who have completely departed from Christ cannot be brought back to repentance. It becomes impossible when we have fallen away into a life of rebellion, a total rejection of Christ after having known intimately the deep things of God. This passage is closely related to another one in Chapter Nine, which we will now examine.[27]
Hebrews 9:26-27
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” Hebrews 9:26-27 emphasis added.
I will now quote Charles Ryrie as an example of how one’s predetermined theology requires that scripture be manipulated to mean the opposite of what is written. In his footnote to verse twenty-six, he writes, “If a person rejects the truth of Christ’s death for sin, there is no other sacrifice for sin available and no other way to come to God. Only judgment remains (v.27).”[28] That’s a very creative interpretation. May I bring to your attention one small problem? The verse says “they receive the knowledge of the truth,” but Ryrie declares they “reject the truth.” In all kindness, which is it? Surely receiving and rejecting are opposite ideas, and only one is true. If you want God to speak, then let the verse stand as it is written. Apparently, the author Ryrie is rewriting scripture, so it appears this passage is intended for unbelievers, not believers. If it were written to believers, then it would obviously jeopardize the doctrine of eternal security. Unfortunately, he alters the words and meaning of the passage so as not to harm the doctrine of eternal security. With all due respect to Mr. Ryrie, is this not a blatant rewrite of God’s word? This verse teaches that final salvation is conditioned on not “going on sinning willfully.” However, Stanley, among many other proponents of eternal security, says that all believers do go on sinning willfully, and a sacrifice for sin remains. I wish it weren’t necessary to be so blunt. However, if I am not brutally candid, I fear you will overlook my remarks and not take them to heart. What would love do? Would love be still and watch a neighbor walk off a cliff, or step into a lethal trap, or drink poison?
Hebrews 10:38
“But my righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him” Hebrews 10:38.
What is the point of this passage if it doesn’t warn believers of the peril of apostasy? The only way that I know of that advocates of eternal security can interpret this passage is that the danger of apostasy is real. Still, it regards rewards, fellowship, recognition, or some other blessing. Yes, they can lose faith, they can shrink back to destruction, but they are still saved. Does the context tell us whether this is a valid interpretation?
“But we are not those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul” Hebrews 10:39.
Those who continue to have faith preserve the soul. What about those who shrink back from a life of faith? Proponents of eternal security must also argue that they preserve the soul, as they remain saved. But that is not what the word says. It declares that those who shrink back do so to destruction. Is destruction about something other than the soul in hell? It can’t be and remain consistent with the last half of the verse, can it? I can hear advocates of eternal security say the destruction pertains to their physical bodies. Where does that interpretation take us? Does the phrase “preserving the soul” mean preserving the body? If true, wouldn’t that mean those with faith must not die physically? No one believes that, do they? If the author of Hebrews meant preserving the body, why didn’t he say so? Why did he say preserving the soul?
Then, what do we do with the words from Jesus in Matthew 5:29-30, referred to earlier? In that passage, Jesus says sin is so dangerous that it would be better for us to cut off our hand and go through life disabled, if that would prevent us from sinning, than to be cast into hell with our entire body. Jesus declares that the bodies of those who continue to sin will be thrown into hell. Advocates of eternal security dismiss this passage in Hebrews by assuming the destruction talked about here is the destruction of their physical body. But even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that person goes to heaven. In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus stated that the entire body would be thrown into hell. Also refer to my comments regarding James 5:20, which follow Hebrews 11 and James 1:21.
Hebrews 11
Youth today rave about extreme sports and adventures. Hebrews 11 is about extreme faith. This chapter is one of the most critical discussions of faith in the entire Bible. How anyone, with a teachable mind, could read this chapter on faith and not realize that obedience (even when it costs a great deal) is the key ingredient is beyond me. Can you imagine the author mentioning Noah, Abraham, and Moses as examples of a faith that is habitually disobedient? Why didn’t the author mention King Saul? Please remember that the faith Stanley and advocates of eternal security in general promote is consistent with perpetual disobedience. Obedience is not an essential element of their faith. I believe this theology is hurtful to God.
James 1:21-22
“Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word and not merely hearers who delude themselves” James 1:21-22.
If you tell me that being a doer of the word is not a condition of salvation, I will ask you to reexamine these two verses. First, we are instructed to put away “all that remains of wickedness.” Was James teasing, knowing that we could not, in fact, put away “all that remains of wickedness?” Who can honestly believe that? James is telling us that those who think just hearing the word will save them are deluded. Stanley and all those who follow him must be deluded, for they believe that doing the word is ultimately optional. What gross darkness is being taught as truth! In love, I must say, for a teacher in Israel to be so blind is truly remarkable.
Although there are other verses in the book of James that address the conditional nature of salvation, I will end with just one more reference.
James 5:20
“Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins” James 5:20.
I don’t know how it gets clearer. Read on to understand how Ryrie explains away the apparent meaning of this text. “The reference is evidently to Christians, and the death is physical death which sin may cause (I Cor. 11:30).”[29] There you have it. Turning a sinner from the “error of his way will save his soul from death,” meaning he will not prematurely die physically. Who can’t see that this explanation is forced on him because he has already determined that the Christian is eternally secure and his soul can’t die? Therefore, this passage must refer to physical death, not eternal death. Mr. Ryrie is wrong again.
At least Ryrie was forthright enough to admit that this scripture is written to Christians. That’s a good start. But how can anyone believe James is concerned about someone’s premature physical death as he suggests? In James’ era, believers often met with physical death and understood well that the cost of discipleship may very well mean an early death. The passage teaches us that the one who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul, not his body, from death. If James meant body, why didn’t he say so?
Who is the sinner James is referring to? The one who walks in disobedience is a son of disobedience, and the one who lives in or practices sin is a sinner. They may call themselves a Christian or a saint, and you may think of them as a born-again follower of Christ. However, James says they are sinners and if they do not turn from their sin, they will be condemned. But the one who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from eternal death.
1 Corinthians 11:30
Ryrie refers to 1 Corinthians 11:30. This passage declares that some believers “are weak and sick, and a number sleep” because they eat the bread or drink the cup in an unworthy manner. It’s apparent that under certain circumstances, sin may cause physical death. It’s clear from the context that this is about the body. Then it’s written “But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world” 1 Corinthians 11:32. What a senseless comment if we are eternally secure and can by no means whatsoever be “condemned along with the world.” Don’t you see that this is, in fact, a warning to believers that it’s possible to be “condemned along with the world?”
Please allow me to make another point. Even if it is true that certain sins may cause physical death, as Ryrie, among many others, suggests, that alone doesn’t mean those killed are going to heaven. But that must be the case if, like Ryrie, you believe in eternal security. Ryrie has begun his interpretation of this passage with the belief in eternal security; therefore, this verse can’t mean what it clearly states. How can we avoid the conclusion that he must invent an interpretation that will square with his doctrine rather than letting the Word of God dictate the proper interpretation? In his theology, sin may be so egregious that it causes us to be killed and sent to heaven. Does that sound like a punishment or reward for committing the most sickening sins? It makes more sense to interpret this as physical death and eternal death for committing the worst of sins. Remember the passage of scripture where Jesus said we should fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
I am quoting all these verses to prove that the peril of apostasy is very real and the biblical authors repeatedly and unmistakably warned us of this possibility. Far from indicating eternal security, whatever the professing believer does, there are many warnings quoted for your consideration.
2 Peter 2:20-21
“For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them” 2 Peter 2:20-21 emphasis added.
I quote this passage because it is so similar to Hebrews chapter 6 and 9. It speaks of a settled rejection of Jesus after having once known Him intimately. The knowing referred to is not a causal knowledge but full, intimate knowledge. Earlier in the chapter, the author says God didn’t spare Angels when they sinned but cast them into hell. God didn’t spare the ancient world either, nor did He spare Sodom and Gomorrah, “having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter. 2 Peter 2:6. This passage is about the condemnation that sinning brings to Jews, Gentiles, and Christians. It’s not about loss of fellowship, physical life, rewards, service, or recognition.
2 Peter 3:17
“You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness” 2 Peter 3:17
This means they might fall out of a position of steadfastness. It clearly indicates the conditional nature of salvation. I repeat, this book is about the condemnation that sin brings. God is warning us that He didn’t spare angels, the ancient world, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but cast them into hell because of their sin. Proponents of eternal security, including Stanley, want us to believe that God will spare sinning Christians. God didn’t spare all these others, but He will spare us. If God is truly impartial, then He can’t spare us. If God does, then doesn’t He owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology?
1 John 2:29, 3:7, and 3:10 KJV
“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him.”
“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
“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.”
I grouped these three passages because they share a similar message. The person who actually lives a righteous life is born of God, and the one who does not live a righteous life is born of the devil. There is no question that the author expected his readers to understand that when it comes to living a virtuous life, it must be done personally. Someone else can’t do it for you or for me. So much for the fiction of imputed obedience and imputed righteousness taught by many today. And so much for the idea that Christians can live an unholy and unrighteous life habitually and still go to heaven.
I John 3:6 and 3:9
“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.”
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, because he is born of God.
I linked these two passages together because they address the issue of a sinning Christian, which is a topic that is widely accepted today. Stanley says that believers are never once threatened with the loss of salvation or membership in the family of God. The apostle John made it very clear that the person who is really born of God is not a habitual sinner. It doesn’t get any clearer. I suggest that we heed the warning.
1 John 3:24
“And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”
This verse states that keeping God’s commandments is a condition of “dwelling in him.” If we dwell in him, whether or not we keep his commandments, then this verse is meaningless. Dwelling in Him and abiding in Him clearly convey the idea of being born of Him. Not keeping the commandments means that a person is not abiding in Him or dwelling in Him. This passage is another warning, contrary to Stanley’s statement that believers are never once threatened with the loss of salvation or membership in the family of God.
1 John 5:18
“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”
Again, the apostle John tells us that the person who is genuinely and honestly born of God is not a habitual sinner, but is a habitually righteous person. Contrary to Stanley’s assertion, this passage and all the rest do in fact threaten the “believer” with loss of salvation and membership in the family of God.
Have I proved my point?
I may have wearied you with all the quotes. However, Stanley’s statement serves as the foundational premise for the doctrine of eternal security. Do any of the passages quoted above support Stanley’s thesis that never once is a believer threatened with losing membership in the family of God?
I could go on and on listing verses, which clearly warn believers that the peril of apostasy is a real threat. Salvation can be lost. But God leaves very reluctantly. His patience and lovingkindness are overflowing, abundant, and generous. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. I have not even quoted any Old Testament verses, of which there are hundreds, or verses from the books of Jude or Revelation. Living a life of sin, which is to continue the practice of sin, is inconsistent with salvation, contrary to the teaching of Stanley and Ryrie and many others. Charles Stanley argues that believers are never once threatened with the loss of salvation. Unfortunately, I must conclude that his statement is blatantly untrue. Have I given you enough evidence to correct his erroneous proposition?
Luke 18
What does the parable in Luke 18:9-12 have to do with eternal security? “God, I thank thee that I am not like the other people…” Advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, say the Pharisee looked down on those who were not as committed or disciplined as he was. While this is true, what does it say about the truth of eternal security?[30] The religious leaders of the day were outwardly religious, but not inwardly so. Christ came to show us that only an inward righteousness is acceptable to God. This parable neither proves nor disproves the doctrine of eternal security. The argument in favor of eternal security is that those who don’t believe in eternal security tend to be like the Pharisees and look down on those who are not as committed or disciplined as they are. Therefore, opponents of eternal security must be wrong and self-righteous. May I mention a serious problem for those who advance this argument? The Pharisee believed in eternal security. They accepted it. And one might even say that a belief in eternal security causes one to think of oneself as better or more favored than all others. This argument, promoted by proponents of eternal security, actually backfires on them.
Is there a difference between righteousness and self-righteousness?
“I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over the ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” Luke 15:7.
The Pharisees believed they were righteous. Jesus came to save the unrighteous. But were the Pharisees really righteous? No, they were not. Most refused to recognize their sinfulness and to submit to Christ’s authority. They were self-righteous, thinking they were predestined as God’s elect and therefore eternally secure. Possessing an outward conformity to the law, they were full of pride but devoid of virtue. Do you believe there is joy in heaven when a self-righteous person admits their sin and repents? But does Stanley believe repentance is necessary for salvation? No, he doesn’t think repentance is a condition of salvation or that it is necessarily a fruit of salvation. Why would Jesus refer to repentance if it were not essential? Now, to suggest, as does Stanley, that God had no joy over real righteousness is another falsehood. God delights in true righteousness, and that should be obvious. God doesn’t delight in pseudo-righteousness or the self-righteousness of religious persons. Jesus came to save those who acknowledged their need for salvation. Could it be that the ninety-nine righteous in this parable are deluded? The Pharisees and many others in our day are the ninety-nine who think they are virtuous enough. They hide behind a fictional cloak of another man’s (Christ’s) righteousness and obedience and maintain they are eternally secure. I do believe God earnestly seeks sinners especially those who claim to be Christians. But God does have a limit, as we shall see.
Under the definition of salvation defined by perhaps most proponents of eternal security, repentance is not required. A Christian can commit sins and stubbornly refuse to ask for forgiveness. A Christian can even continue to sin and still be saved. In all charity, please tell me how Satan could improve upon this religious scheme?
The prodigal son or prodigal unbeliever
“A certain man had two sons and the younger of them said to his father, “Father give me the share of the estate that falls to me” Luke 15:11-12.
Stanley’s interpretation of this parable is that the son would have lost all of his rights by the standards of the Pharisees. But God isn’t like that. God is like the Father in the parable who welcomed his son back with open arms. This doesn’t make eternal security accurate, for I believe the same thing. This parable contrasts God the Father with the Pharisee, the father. But note well what Stanley unfortunately overlooks. The son returned to the father. And that is clearly a picture of repentance. The Father welcomed a repentant son home again. That is a picture of the saved being lost, then found, of the living dying, then living again. Stanley and other advocates of eternal security interpret “my son was dead” as an interruption in fellowship, not relationship. He says “dead” means separated and it was clearly a figure of speech since the son did not physically die in the parable. But the son was eternally dead, and it was not just a figure of speech. Then Stanley declares the expression “was lost and now is found” is not a figure of speech. Is it wrong of me to question this wonderfully convenient interpretation? One expression is a figure of speech, and the other is not. He says the son is literally lost. What a strange comment! The son could not have found his way home again if he were really lost, could he? I must say this is trifling. Both descriptions describe a son who became eternally dead and then alive again. How can we not praise God knowing this truth?
The author Stanley writes that there is no hint of rejection by the father in the parable. Even if true, it doesn’t make eternal security accurate. God delights in sinners repenting. I agree. Stanley teaches that the father didn’t require anything like a probationary period or an apology from the son, which is not true. The son had to return to the father before he could be restored. If he didn’t return, he would still be lost and dead. Stanley asks, “To those who believe salvation is maintained by good works, I would ask, what good works maintained the relationship between the father and the son in the parable?”[31] You might recall that I just answered that question. The son had to return to the father, in other words, repent. In fact, the Word of God in the book of Luke declares that the son admitted his sin and asked for forgiveness. The son didn’t stay lost; he came home again. That is the “good work.” It merits absolutely nothing, as I have said repeatedly. However, it’s a condition of fatherly restoration, a sine qua non.
I trust this isn’t too harsh, but it’s simply not true to state that the son’s relationship with the father never changed, even while the son was away. Yes, it’s true that he was physically a son and would always be one. But the son was dead, according to the father. How did the son die? The son was eternally dead and spiritually lost. Besides all that, we are not God’s children by physical generation. It’s at that point that the human illustration fails. We are children of God by adoption, not natural birth. Again, if a son of God is eternally secure, then Adam has always been a Son of God. Moreover, God’s statement about death if Adam ate the forbidden fruit was meant only to scare Adam, for God never really intended to let Adam suffer eternal death. If true, think of the implications for the doctrine of total depravity. If Adam has always been a Son of God, then he could not have passed a totally depraved nature on to us unless a Son of God can be totally depraved. Who really believes that?
God’s seal?[32]
Stanley discusses the concept of the seal. He believes that the seal must be a permanent thing or else God is playing games with us and teasing us. Stanley says it would be like a man giving a woman an engagement ring when he doesn’t really plan to get married.[33] I hardly know what to say. This is so foolish. We all know God isn’t playing games with us, so why would He give us the promise of the Holy Spirit if salvation weren’t permanent? Let’s see, could it be that the Holy Spirit is our helper and our guide? Could it be that we need God, and the seal represents God’s promise toward us who walk by faith? Who needs help more than those who don’t believe in eternal security? Contrary to Stanley’s statement, the seal is “no insurmountable obstacle” in rejecting eternal security. We are His and sealed as long as we meet the conditions. It’s just that plain and simple. It’s our choice. Do we want to become children of God by accepting the gift of salvation? Do we want to continue as children of God? Do we decide to get into the family of God and then lose the decision-making prerogative once we are saved? Heavens no, but Stanley says we do!
Will sin send a person to hell?
Why do some people go to hell?[34] Why do some sinners make it to heaven while others do not? Stanley’s point is that sin alone is not the answer. There must be another reason why some go to heaven and others do not. He says the severity of sin is not the reason. I agree. God forgives all kinds of sin.
The impatience of God?
Stanley asks, “What about continual repetition of sin? Will God forgive that?” According to proponents of eternal security, including Stanley, God’s patience never runs out, even if our repentance is bogus and continues to be insincere. In other words, God always forgives us even if we fake repentance.[35] To be sure, we are to be forgiving people just as God forgives us when we sin. But can God forgive our sin when we have no intention of stopping it?
Is there no limit, or are there no conditions to God’s forgiveness? Stanley and proponents of eternal security believe there is no limit to God’s forgiveness. That is false. The destruction of Jerusalem is a vivid example of God’s patience running out. Furthermore, God divorced Israel, which indicates the end of His forgiveness (Jeremiah 3:8). For those who believe God’s patience never runs out, we have this word. It is written, “A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy” Proverbs 29:1. Below are a few of the many other verses that refute the idea that God’s patience never runs out and that He always forgives. His patience runs out, and He will not always forgive, even though He is full of patience and compassion.
Proverbs 1:24-32
Psalm 34:15-16
Psalm 95:8-11
Jeremiah 11:8-17
Jeremiah 13:12-14
Must forgiveness be conditioned on repentance?
What would you think of a parole board or judge who set the guilty free time and time again when the criminal’s repentance was bogus? Don’t we have this problem in our court system? How often have you heard of a guilty man being set free and then repeating his crime? Those set free pretend to be repentant. Don’t they? Our prisons would be empty if we ran our judicial system as the author believes God runs His. Doesn’t the exercise of mercy require genuine repentance at the very least? Our judges are human and can be deceived or act wickedly. But God can’t be fooled and is never unjust or wicked. What does that say about Him? According to Stanley, God continually exercises mercy even when He knows the repentance is not genuine. Please don’t think it unkind of me, but isn’t his view an assault on the integrity or intelligence of God?
Any judge who lets a child molester out of prison when he knows the molester has not changed (repented) should be thrown into jail. Do you disagree?
Will sin alone send a person to hell?
We return to the fundamental question: “What sends a person to hell?”[36] For Stanley and others, sin alone will not send a person to hell. Can you believe that? He then uses the story of Nicodemus as the lesson. Jesus didn’t tell Nicodemus not to commit certain sins but rather to believe in Him. Note well what Stanley writes, “His only condition was belief in Him.”[37] Remember, Stanley said, if there are any conditions, “even one”, to God’s love, then we love more fully than God. Here, it’s plain he contradicts himself, which I am saddened to say, he does often. Stanley believes God’s love is unconditional, but then he says there is only one condition. One must wonder what Stanley actually believes. Let’s get back to the issue. Is not unbelief or a refusal to trust Christ a sin? Sure, it is. Ryrie believes that unbelief is a sin, “The greatest and basic sin.”[38] Stanley’s comment is without merit, for sin alone is sufficient to send someone to hell because unbelief is a sin, not just a state. Can’t sin also be thought of as a state? Of course, it can.
The author Stanley argues that Jesus only required belief in Him. Jesus didn’t require that he stop sinning or even promise to stop sinning someday. According to the author, this is all that Jesus needed, so why do some people, like me, add things such as repentance?
Stanley pulls this verse from the Bible and states that Jesus listed only one thing for Nicodemus to do, and that was to believe in Him. Therefore, that’s all we have to do. Please let me quote a couple of passages where Jesus answers the same fundamental question regarding personal salvation and responds differently. You will recognize some of the verses. “From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” Matthew 4:17. Ryrie agrees that repentance is a prerequisite for getting into the kingdom of God.[39] It seems that Ryrie and Stanley disagree. Ryrie quotes the reference to John 3, which tells the story of Nicodemus, referred to by Stanley, and notes that repentance is included in the expression, “You must be born again.” Of course, it is.[40]
“For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” Matthew 6:14-15.
Jesus declares that forgiveness is a condition of being forgiven. He didn’t say anything about believing in Him. Nor did Jesus imply this relates to broken fellowship. If you want God’s forgiveness, then you must forgive others.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven” Matthew 7:21.
Jesus says that a condition of entering the kingdom of heaven is doing the will of the Father. He said nothing about believing in Him. Does that mean we don’t have to believe in Him? Of course not.
Elsewhere, Jesus told a lawyer that if he wanted to live, he should keep the commandments. He said nothing about believing in Him. I think the point is clear. We are not to choose between believing, forgiving, obeying, and doing the will of God. All of these conditions are included in the expression “you must be born again.” Advocates of eternal security and Stanley, in particular, very unfortunately but true to form, quote only those passages that don’t contradict their theological viewpoint. I have attempted to include all relevant passages, as each is essential to a proper understanding of salvation. Even though Jesus didn’t tell Nicodemus to repent and forgive, we should not assume that he could neglect either and still be saved. Then why did Jesus ask Nicodemus to believe, rather than the other things, like repent? Jesus often tailored his response to fit the individual or group. He told the rich young ruler to give away all he possessed because he knew he was greedy. Jesus said nothing about believing in Him, did He? He told Nicodemus to believe in Him. He knew the religious leaders’ sin centered in their refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah and submit to His authority. They were unwilling to do this because of envy.
Doesn’t trusting in Christ mean more than simply believing He died for my sins? Isn’t salvation conditioned on making Christ Lord and Savior?
What then sends a sinner to hell, according to Stanley? Pay close attention to the following quote. I hope it shocks you. “Sinners who do not put their trust in Christ perish and miss eternal life. In fact, sinners who reject Christ have done it to themselves; they are as good as there! They would have nothing to do with Christ in this life, and so they will have nothing to do with Him in eternity. It is not lying, cheating, stealing, raping, murdering, or being unfaithful that sends people to hell. It is rejecting Christ, refusing to put their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sins.”[41]
Please forgive me, but I must say this statement is as wicked as it is ridiculous. Are we to assume we can commit the sins Stanley lists and trust Christ and go to heaven? Yes, according to the author Stanley! He means that when a person trusts Christ, they trust that Christ has paid for their sins and forgiven them, whether or not they repent. Dear reader, I don’t want to offend you, but that is a lie. Do you really think you can continue to lie, steal, fornicate, murder, rape, commit adultery, and sodomy and go to heaven? Is that the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ? If that is true, I am altogether ignorant of the truth and the Bible.
If trust in Christ doesn’t yield obedience to the law of God, it will never save anyone. I don’t expect anyone to listen to me, but I ask that you listen to the Word of God. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God,” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. I honestly do not know how it could be written more clearly. Trusting or believing is so much more than Stanley states. In fact, he has missed the most essential attribute of faith. This passage and many more declare that those who continue to sin, especially so-called Christians, will not inherit the kingdom of God. Stanley, like the Jewish leader of Jesus’ day, thinks they will. Reread his statement; it’s positively obscene and must be highly offensive to God. That is powerful language, but I really don’t know how else to react without compromising the truth of God. His statement must be counteracted with straightforward, uncompromising language. The nature of the case dictates the needed response.
Is marriage a picture of salvation?
Stanley, as a representative of those who espouse eternal security, believes marriage is a picture of salvation. It is, I agree. But any metaphor can be misapplied. This is an example. He says acting like you are married doesn’t make it legally valid. I think he is again mistaken. In some, perhaps most states, it was called common-law marriage. In the eyes of the law, acting like you are married could, in fact, make it legally valid. He also believes that whether or not we act like we are married is irrelevant, for legally, we are married. I wonder how many married couples see their spouse’s behavior as irrelevant? What if your spouse divorces you? Is that a picture of eternal security? His point is that even if we don’t act like we are saved, we are saved. Never mind that Jesus said you shall know them (believers) by their fruits. Stanley believes they may not have any! “Just as there are married people who act as if they are not, so there are Christians who show no evidence of their Christianity as well. But that does not change their eternal destiny by acting unsaved.”[42] After reading his explanation, I can’t help but think, by his logic, that Satan himself is saved. Satan acts unsaved, but according to Stanley, “that does not change his eternal destiny by acting unsaved.” Didn’t Jesus also declare that a good tree couldn’t bring forth evil fruit? Mr. Stanley apparently disagrees. He teaches that good trees bring forth evil fruit habitually.
Can we stop believing?[43]
Those who believe faith is a condition of salvation wonder what happens when someone withdraws faith. How can that person still be saved? Advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, believe that a person can indeed walk away from the faith, but they have nothing to worry about. God loves them so much that He will not let them slip out of his hand.[44] As we have already seen, this is not true. God’s love is multifaceted. The love of God, which accompanies actual salvation, is conditional. In the book of Jude, we are told to keep ourselves in the love of God. Why the injunction if His love is unconditional and there is nothing we can do or we must do to keep us in the love of God?
In John’s gospel, Jesus said, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and My Father shall love him who loves Me, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him” John 14:21. “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love…” John 15:10.
These passages explicitly teach the conditional nature of God’s salvific love. The Bible clearly teaches the exact opposite of what proponents of eternal security and Stanley maintain it teaches. Many advocates of eternal security, including Stanley himself, believe salvation is conditional. But for them, it is a momentary condition that forever changes things. We have the responsibility to believe, but then we can never change our minds. God’s grace is resistible until we are saved, then it becomes irresistible. How much sense does that make? We have free will until we are saved. Then we lose it. Remember, Augustine first defined free will as the ability to choose between good and evil, or God and oneself. If we continue to have that choice in heaven, we’d better decide now whom we shall serve, hadn’t we?
A picture of salvation (jumping from a burning building)
Stanley then examines the connection between salvation and faith. He describes a scene where a woman jumps from a burning building into a fireman’s net below. He thinks the net and the fireman alone are responsible for saving the woman who jumps out of the window to avoid being consumed by the fire. After all, if this woman jumped out of the window and there were no firemen with a net, she would obviously die.[45] Unfortunately, that’s not the whole truth. I would argue that the woman saved herself. She did, in truth, save herself. She alone decided to trust and then take the leap. How many have died in fires because they refused to trust the fireman and the net and wouldn’t jump? I would credit her and the firefighter for saving her life, not the net. The net is a totally passive, non-intelligent instrument. Actually, all were conditions of her salvation. Leave out any one of them and she would be dead. (Remember the story about Emma and the need to believe her doctor and take the medicine.) Stanley has painted a good picture of the salvation process, which destroys his own argument.
Remember the false teaching regarding imputed righteousness and imputed obedience, which declares God doesn’t see our sin but Christ’s obedience? His obedience is imputed to the disobedient, so they aren’t required to obey God. In Stanley’s example, why wouldn’t an imputed jump (where she was credited with jumping even though she didn’t jump) work for the woman? Why did she actually have to jump from the building into the net below? In all kindness, it seems to me that his illustrations aren’t even consistent with his own beliefs. And how can they be when his theoretical doctrines vary so greatly from real life? If a doctrine does not make sense in the context of real-life experience, it is not a doctrine of the Bible but of some man’s mind.
Can a gift be returned?
If there were a contest for stretching an illustration to its illogical end, Stanley might be in first place; with all due respect to Stanley, his example borders on the comical. Stanley doesn’t believe that a gift can be returned. He also believes that gifts have no strings attached. Whenever a condition is placed on the receipt of a gift, we no longer consider it a gift. In other words, putting a condition on our salvation makes it a trade rather than a gift. And we know that salvation is a gift of God; therefore, there can’t be any conditions, and eternal security must be true.[46] Once again, does he believe salvation is unconditional? He does not. Apparently, he has no problem contradicting himself. Stanley believes salvation is conditioned on a one momentary act of faith, as I have shown repeatedly. He himself has made the gift of salvation no gift at all. He later amends this statement by suggesting that only when we “place conditions on the permanency of our salvation” do we nullify the gift. Dear Mr. Stanley, for the sake of clarity and the pursuit of the truth, please clarify whether salvation is conditional or not.
The author discusses salvation as if it were a literal gift, akin to a wristwatch. He states that when I am given this watch, I am stuck with it whether I like it or not. Is it unchristian of me to ask if anyone really believes this foolishness? If someone might say, “I give the watch back,” Stanley says you can’t give the watch back unless the giver of the watch takes it back, for God has a strict no-return policy. (Stanley made this one up out of thin air.) It’s a wonder to me that a serious person can accept this explanation. What would Stanley say if I threw the watch away or gave it to someone else? Does God have a strict, “It’s rubber, we’re glue” policy as well? (Forgive me if I have stepped over the line of theological etiquette.)
Many inheritances contain conditions that must be met before the gift can be received. Age may be, and often is, a condition for receiving an inheritance. Sometimes, an inheritance is contingent upon completing an education. Do any of these conditions change the nature of the gift? I don’t think so. It’s still a gift, even if it requires certain conditions to be met before the gift is distributed. Reaching the right age or completing an education qualifies us to receive the gift. It does not mean that we have earned it.
If you don’t think about God 24/7, you’re not saved.[47]
The point of this chapter is to correct the Arminian idea that faith and believing are continuous, uninterrupted, present-tense actions. Stanley’s refutation is that no one can sustain faith uninterruptedly. As proof, he cites the story of Jesus talking to the woman by the well, “Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again.” If the word drink is in the present tense and the present tense signifies continuous, uninterrupted action, it makes no sense for who would be thirsty if they were drinking all the time? Stanley again stretches the example beyond reason. Believing and drinking are distinct, yet they share similarities. They are not the same. To suggest they are, as does Stanley, is silly. To have faith in God or to believe in Him is to yield to His rule in our lives. It doesn’t mean we have a glass of water up to our mouths all the time. In other words, it doesn’t mean we are always thinking of Him. At times, I am not even conscious of God because my mind is on my work. My employer rightfully expects that of me. Does that mean my faith is interrupted and non-continuous? Of course, it doesn’t.
2 Timothy 2:11-13 Proof positive of OSAS
Next, the author Stanley sets out to prove that the Bible directly and positively teaches the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, also known as Eternal Security.[48] It appears that he is so blinded that he can take a passage of scripture, which clearly teaches the conditional nature of salvation, and interpret it to mean just the opposite. How unbelievable. The author uses 2 Timothy 2:11-13, which reads, “It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.” True to form, he interprets these statements as a reference to recognition and approval, rather than salvation. His interpretation is forced on him because he has already decided that the believer is eternally secure. He takes the statement, “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him,” and makes it mean a special reward for those who remain faithful through persecution. There is, however, one small problem: there is no biblical justification for this interpretation. The passage means those who persevere through persecution will be saved. “And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end that shall be saved” Matthew 10:21. The Amplified Bible explains that this is salvation from spiritual death. The context of this passage doesn’t even remotely suggest anything to do with recognition and approval.
What does brother Stanley do with the phrase, “If we deny Him, He also will deny us?” Not surprisingly, he admits that some teachers interpret this to mean the possibility of apostasy, but he disagrees. He and others who advocate eternal security believe that the faithful will receive special recognition and approval, while the unfaithful will not receive special recognition and approval.[49] I wonder why I am still amazed at his torturous interpretation of scripture. Whenever we come to the Bible knowing what it must say, we all, like the advocates of eternal security, will force the Bible to conform to our predetermined theology. Be on guard, for this has caused most, if not all, the errors in theology. I pray God will unsparingly correct me if I am doing the same thing.
Let me quote a passage of scripture that deals with this phrase, which Stanley quotes. I will quote more of it so we can see if the context, however, suggests that “means a loss of special recognition”.
“And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore, do not fear, you are of more value than many sparrows. Everyone, therefore, who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven” Matthew 10:28-33.
This passage is more suited to conditional salvation than it is to eternal security. Special recognition is conspicuously absent. Instead, Christ declares that only those who remain faithful and don’t deny Him before men, but in fact confess Him before men, will be saved from hell. Isn’t this just the opposite of Stanley’s interpretation?
The final error by the author is the fourth statement, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself.”How does Stanley interpret this phrase? He thinks a real Christian can become, in reality and practice, an unbeliever or unchristian person and not risk his salvation at all. Why is that true? Jesus will always be faithful even if a believer stops believing, according to Stanley and many other proponents of eternal security.[50] Of course, this passage in no way infers what they say it does. It simply states that God remains consistently righteous even when we are unrighteous. We might think that since we cheat God, He does the same to us. But He will never do that to us. He is good even when constantly provoked. Ryrie, Stanley, and many others interpret this passage similarly with respect to eternal security. This is no surprise. Yes, it’s true, Mr. Stanley, the apostle’s meaning is evident. It teaches nothing about rewards, recognition, or the eternal security of the believer. The first three statements, however, clearly infer the conditional nature of salvation in my unprofessional and not highly regarded opinion.
The apostle Peter is an example of?
Stanley believes Peter is a good example of a person who has lost faith but still retains salvation. His argument, unfortunately, but conveniently, overlooks one key fact. Peter denied the Lord, but later turned back. He argues that the Arminian view (as if there were a single accepted view) implies that there can never be a lapse of faith. That, of course, is not true, but it sounds convincing.
John the Baptist is an example of?
According to the author, John the Baptist lost saving faith. While it’s true that John asked if Jesus was the expected one after he seemed so sure at an earlier time, it does not mean he lost saving faith, as the author affirms. While it may be attributed to a doubt on John’s part, it surely doesn’t need to be viewed as a loss of faith. It could have been a lack of understanding about how the Messiah would work, and he needed clarification. Then again, John may just have needed reassurance. Put yourself in John’s place. You’re in prison facing death. Might you also need reassurance?
Please read Matthew chapter 11 for a complete treatment of the supposed loss of faith by John the Baptist. Isn’t it curious that Jesus didn’t rebuke John as He usually did when He encountered a lack of faith? Those familiar with the Bible will recall Christ’s words to those who lacked faith. Jesus seldom withheld correction when He encountered unbelief. In this passage, Jesus not only doesn’t condemn John, but He goes out of His way to tell everyone how great a man John is.
“Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist: yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” Matthew 11:11.
You will search in vain for any scripture where John the Baptist lost faith, as Stanley maintains. His argument is a necessity of his position on eternal security. Have I been too harsh and overstated the truth?
What does Satan want?
“Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world” 1 Peter 5:8.
How do many advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, interpret this passage? They believe the enemy is out to destroy our faith, as opposed to our souls and eternal life. If our faith is weakened or destroyed, we become useless in the kingdom of God, but never fear, for we can be ineffective and without any fruit whatsoever and remain saved according to these blind guides.[51] If this idea weren’t so disappointing and misleading, it might be worthy of serious consideration. They want us to believe that this passage is simply about our usefulness or fruitfulness in God’s kingdom. He thinks we can be totally useless and without fruit and still go to heaven. However, the text says, Satan wants to destroy you. He wants you and me in hell with him. The passage does not tell that the devil wants to destroy your faith. Our friends want it to be that way to support their doctrine. They believe our faith can be destroyed, and we will still be saved. However, the peril of apostasy is very real as our enemy is very real. Satan is not an enemy without teeth. Please reread this passage. It declares the devil is “seeking someone to devour.” Does it say he is trying to destroy your faith? It does not say that. Satan wants to destroy us. How do we defend ourselves so he can’t destroy us? We resist him, firm in our faith, that’s how. Have I rewritten scripture, like the author, to make it say something it does not intend to say?
What is the test of faith?
Stanley and others believe our faith can be useless and still be a saving faith, in direct opposition to the biblical authors John, Peter, Paul, and James. What saddens me is that Stanley quotes the apostle Peter as if he agrees with this false doctrine of eternal security. Let Peter refute him.
“For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?” 1 Peter 4:17-18
It appears Stanley has leveled a direct assault on this truth. His doctrines indirectly encourage believers to become godless sinners while promising them eternal life. Peter writes that those so-called Christians who disobey the gospel are dead in their sin. Could it be any clearer for those with an open mind, those who have ears to hear and eyes to see? The test of our faith is whether it produces godliness in us. If not, then know for sure we are dead in sin and will spend eternity in hell unless we repent of our sins and give our whole life to God unconditionally.
Would you like to discuss something that should be understood as unconditional? How about our commitment and obedience to God? Why do we seldom hear advocates of eternal security talk about our unconditional commitment to God? What I have heard repeatedly is about our inability to do as God commands, including being unconditionally committed to Him. In Stanley’s theology, we can do all things through Christ except be unconditionally committed to Him, and live without habitual sin in our lives. The blood of Christ is inadequate according to his teachings.
Isn’t eternal security a license to sin and still go to heaven?[52]
Stanley, the author, and many other advocates of eternal security believe that the conduct of many so-called Christians confirms the danger of the very doctrine they advance. The once-saved-always-saved doctrine teaches that a person can trust Christ and then live as they will and still be saved and go to heaven. The “believer” may not even attempt to repent of any of their sins. For this reason, many, like me, see this doctrine as perilous.[53] Advocates of this doctrine also agree, generally, that the behavior of these “Christians” is a blight on the name of Christ, but that doesn’t mean they are not saved.
My question is, why don’t they see this as a false and dangerous doctrine, for they admit the behavior of many “believers” is evidence of it? Why do they usually put the word “Christians” in quotes as if it were somehow inconsistent in their theology for genuine Christians to live in sin? What is the explanation for this seeming duplicity? Apparently, they would rather have people like them or feel secure than tell them the truth. A gospel, which offends no one, except those few who believe obedience is a condition of salvation, requires little courage to preach, in my humble opinion.
How could the gospel of salvation, in the present commission of sin, offend anyone?
How do Stanley and others of his persuasion respond to those like me who have these concerns? It is often suggested that we don’t understand holiness as God does and that we have forgotten what the Bible teaches about rewards in heaven. These two errors prevent us from seeing the truth.[54] We will come back to this in a moment.
Stanley argues that eternal security is supported by the belief that “there is nothing-not one thing-we can do to attain or maintain our salvation.”[55] Love of the truth compels me to remark that this is a blatant contradiction, for the author teaches there is “one thing” we must do to “attain” salvation, as I have repeatedly shown. What is that one thing we must do to attain salvation? Believe. Yet he maintains this will depreciate the holiness of God.[56] Is it wrong of me to question why Stanley isn’t even consistent with his own beliefs? This statement applies to Stanley and others, as he is a representative of this school.
What happens to Christians who sin?[57]
In this chapter, the author wants us to understand that Christian sinners will suffer for their sins, but not face eternal damnation. According to many believers in eternal security, heaven will not be the same for everyone. Some will experience many more rewards and have a higher rank in heaven because they acted more like Christ than others. That should dispel the notion that eternal security is just a safety net and a license to sin. He understands how this attitude forces some of us to reject the doctrine of eternal security.[58] And this is precisely why eternal security (unconditional salvation) is a false doctrine. All truth, according to the Books of Titus and 1Timothy, among many texts, encourages godliness. Eternal security, despite the good intentions of its advocates, has the opposite effect. This Stanley says is true. But will he reject this doctrine?
And the consequences of sin are?
The author Stanley believes those who reject eternal security have a point if there are no long-term consequences to sin. Those consequences, according to him, involve rewards or our future position in heaven as you might have already guessed.
Does Mr. Stanley really not see the infinite difference between losing rewards and losing eternal life? Are heaven and hell the same?
To use Sproul’s language, Stanley has erected a straw man of prodigious proportions. This is a very critical distinction. Please understand it before you read on.
Does God require more of us than Himself?
If God makes salvation conditional, then why can’t we put a condition on our faithfulness to God? He does it to us, why can’t we do it to Him? The author poses this question and suggests that this means that God requires more of us than He does of Himself.[59] I really wish Mr. Stanley would be consistent. He teaches that God puts one condition on salvation, so what is his response to his own question? Is God expecting more of us than He does of Himself? Please let me answer the question. No, we don’t have the right to put a condition on our faithfulness to God. However, it’s much like the marriage contract as we have seen. God will never cheat on us, and He expects the same from us. Does God ever expect more of us than He does of Himself? Is this not an incredibly irrelevant (even silly) question? What does it really mean? It implies mankind may be faithful while God is unfaithful. Who, in their right mind, can think such a thing? If it doesn’t mean that, then please tell me what it does mean?
The injustice of God?[60]
In the author’s strange theology, he can write that God keeps track of all that we do, so in justice, He can reward us. God keeps a careful record of those who are faithful and those who are not. He forgives even the worst of us. God’s grace and justice work together.[61] Yes, God keeps a record, but it has nothing to do with heaven and hell, according to Mr. Stanley. The justice he speaks about is the justice regarding rewards.
But what about the justice of God as it pertains to sending some sinners to hell and some sinners to heaven? Stanley is careful to maintain the justice of rewards. Still, he must scramble to make a sound argument about how God can be just while He sends “Christian sinners (those presently practicing sin)” to heaven but “non-Christian sinners” to hell. Refer to my earlier story about the King who had a traitor as a son. Can the King set aside the penalty of law for a son when he doesn’t do it for anyone else and remain a just King? Of course, he can’t. But in Stanley’s theology, he can do just that.
A proof text for eternal security, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15[62]
I am happy now to address what Stanley and others teach regarding this passage. This verse is very often used as conclusive proof for the doctrine of eternal security.[63] I am also pleased to say I can finally agree with something the author believes. He says this passage is about two kinds of Christians: one who suffers the loss of rewards but is saved, and the other who receives many rewards for his service on behalf of Jesus Christ. That is as far as my agreement goes. So, where do Stanley and I part company? As is sadly expected, he does not mention exactly what kind of person is saved “yet by fire.” He says he didn’t produce anything worth keeping. It’s all burned up. What he really believes is that this so-called Christian may have lived a life of gross habitual sin. In my Bible, I flip over two pages from the passage he thinks is a stronghold for eternal security (this passage), and I read the following passage.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God” I Corinthians 6:9.
I have already pointed out that the author Stanley believes the unrighteous do, in fact, inherit the kingdom of God, which is in direct contradiction to this passage. He thinks that “Christian” thieves, fornicators, and the sexually immoral all inherit the kingdom of God. But Paul is declaring that continuing to sin is inconsistent with present salvation. In verse ten, he says,
“And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” I Corinthians 6:10.
Did Paul say, “And such are some of you?” Please reread it, sinning was in the past, not the present. What else could the statement mean? Sinners, those engaged in the present practice of sin, will not inherit the kingdom of God, whether they call themselves Christians or not.[64] Stanley teaches that they will. Am I motivated by love or hate when I write so candidly? Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. Did I make that up, or is it a truth of scripture?
Was the author of the third chapter of 1 Corinthians the same as the one in chapter 6? Did the Apostle Paul, the author, contradict himself? He says, in Chapter Three, that some will be saved, yet their works will be burned up. Then, in chapter six, Paul declares that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Is this a contradiction? Of course, it isn’t. In Chapter Three, Paul is not referring to the sinful habits he mentions in Chapter Six. Chapter three is about those in ministry leadership who must carefully build on the foundation of Christ Jesus, and he figuratively applied this to himself and Apollos. He is not talking about professing Christians who are living in sin. Paul covers that subject in chapter six in unmistakably clear language.
Does the wicked, lazy slave really go to heaven?
The author refers to Matthew 25:14-30, which describes what 1 Corinthians chapter 3 is talking about. Please read the entire passage. It’s a parable about three slaves to whom the master gave talents and then went on a journey. When the master returns, he checks with the three to see how well they have done with the money he entrusted to them. The first two produced a profit, while the last slave produced nothing at all but returned the original investment. The master complimented the profitable two but not the other one. To that slave, he said, “You wicked, lazy slave” Matthew 25:26. “And cast out the worthless slave into outer darkness; in the place where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” Matthew 25:30.
What does Mr. Stanley believe about this slave? This slave is saved but will have less rank and privilege in God’s kingdom. You see in his theology, this “wicked, lazy slave” is going to heaven. Don’t you think it is absurd to believe the impenitent (the wicked, lazy slave) go to heaven? If the unrepentant wicked go to heaven, then who in heaven’s name is in hell?
Will most of us be gnashing our teeth in heaven?
If that was not enough, the author then tries to make a case for interpreting the phrases “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to refer to something other than hell. He says this is certainly not a reference to hell. If not hell, then what? Stanley says it’s not so much a place as it is your influence in heaven. You see, these persons are “weeping and gnashing their teeth” because they have lost out on rewards and position in the kingdom. They see others being rewarded for faithful service, while sinning Christians are not. That is why they are weeping and gnashing their teeth. He assures us the weeping won’t last for eternity. How does he know we won’t forever feel like hell in heaven? He believes that God will eventually comfort us. Don’t ask me where he finds Biblical support for such a statement because I think this is just wishful thinking, inventing a doctrine out of thin air.
He says the expression “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is a figure of speech, not denoting pain in hell. “Gnashing of teeth” can simply mean frustration. He quotes Acts 7:54 as proof. With all due respect, and I don’t mean to be harsh, but I must say this is less than compelling evidence. Allow me to refer you to two passages, which use the same expression, where it clearly means hell. I am referring to Matthew 24:48-51 and Luke 13:26-28. There can be no doubt that in both of these passages, “weeping and gnashing of teeth” refers to hell. It appears there is no limit to the manipulation of scripture for advocates of eternal security. According to the author, this threat of “outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth” is about the loss, not of salvation, but of rewards. Do you honestly believe this very weak explanation?
Is unbelief a sin or a state?[65]
Is any sin unpardonable? Stanley writes that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin, but there is a state of being in which there is no forgiveness. That state is the condition of unbelief.[66] We are back to his conveniently strange distinction between sin and unbelief. Those who go to hell go there for unbelief, not because they are sinners. Isn’t unbelief a sin? Isn’t sin a state as well as an act? It is. Why does Stanley strive so hard to make this point? I wish it weren’t true, but it appears he needs to play word games to sustain his cherished doctrine of eternal security. Even Ryrie writes that unbelief is sin, but not according to Stanley. Unbelief is not a sin but a state. Thereby, he can say sin doesn’t send us to hell, but unbelief does. Is this not trifling?
Severed from Christ but saved?[67]
The author argues that Galatians 5:4, which refers to believers who “have been severed from Christ” and “have fallen from grace,” have not lost their salvation. The bottom line is that being severed from Christ has nothing to do with salvation, but rather with falling into error. He interprets the passage in a way that deviates from its plain meaning, so it no longer means what it states, an all-too-common tactic, unfortunately. Since I have not used this passage as a warning to believers of the peril of apostasy, I will not spend much time refuting his arguments. I will, however, examine a favorite passage for those who believe in eternal security.
Can anything separate us from the love of God?
Stanley believes Christians may fall from grace, but they will never fall from salvation. How does he know? He argues that Paul, in one place, warned them about falling from grace, but in the passage in Romans 8, he assures his readers that they might fall from grace, but that doesn’t mean they will lose their salvation. The author quotes Romans 8:38-39 as proof, “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angles nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, not height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[68] He believes Paul didn’t leave anything out. Therefore, nothing can separate us from the love of God. Is Stanley correct that nothing can separate us from the love of God? Please note that this section of the book of Romans does not declare “nothing can or will separate us from the love of God.” Please reread it. Does it imply that?
Please recall our earlier discussion of God’s love. The love of God that pertains to salvation is conditional, while the benevolent love of God toward all humanity, both good and bad, is unconditional. The love of God is both conditional and unconditional, depending on the context. The general benevolent love of God is unconditional, but the salvific or complacent love of God is conditional. God can not and will not continue to love those who refuse to repent of their sins, with His complacent or salvific love. That love is reserved for the truly repentant and holy.
Were Adam and Eve separated from the love of God?
The passage in Romans 8 proclaims that not even Angels can separate us from the love of God. But what does that mean? Did Satan, an angel type if not an actual angel, separate Adam and Eve from the love of God when he convinced them to sin? If you answer “Yes,” then the statement in Romans 8:37-39 is a lie, or it’s a conditional statement, for an angel can separate us from the love of God if he convinces us to sin. Furthermore, if you answer “Yes” to the question, this passage must then only apply to those who are actually in Christ by meeting the conditions, such as not sinning. For these truly holy persons, nothing and no one, including Satan himself, can separate them from the love of God. I agree.
If you answer the question “No,” then Adam and Eve were not separated from the love of God when they sinned. But not even Stanley would suggest they remained saved. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the notion that not even Satan could separate Adam and Eve from the love of God by encouraging them to sin. Yet Adam and Eve died eternally or spiritually as a result of their sin, did they not? If they died in their sin, then how much sense does it make to believe that God continued to unconditionally love them while he condemned them at the same time? Now, tell me this is proof that children of God are eternally secure, and I will lovingly question your thinking.
“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love” John 15:10.
Many passages can be quoted that teach essentially the same truth. Will we abide in His love if we don’t keep His commandments? If we abide in His love, whether or not we keep His commandments, then this verse is meaningless. Jesus says that failing to keep His commandments will separate us from the love of God. Jesus declared that we must do something to abide in His love. It isn’t automatic. Some conditions must be met.
Will sin separate Christians from the love of God?
In Romans 8, Paul did not say, “Sin will not separate us from the love of God,” but rather that “any other created thing” will not separate us from the love of God. Jesus clearly said we must keep His commandments to abide in His love. Moreover, Paul was addressing those who have been set free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1). For these truly holy persons, no created thing can separate them from the love of God. But sin will separate us from the salvific love of God, or at the very least, God’s benevolent love, which will not prevent us from being condemned, as in the case of Adam, Eve, Satan, and other fallen angels.
Paul writes that no created thing can separate us from the love of God. Is sin a created thing? No, it isn’t. Sin can and does separate us from the love of God, for in Romans, Paul declares, “For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” Romans 6:23.
The apostle Paul also says, “For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit of God, you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” Romans 8:13-14.
Let me use a tactic of the author and say, “the same man who warned one group against falling from grace” told the same group the wages of sin are eternal death. The same author said that if Christians are living in sin, they will die, but if they are “putting to death the deeds of the body,” they will live. However, Stanley believes that the Spirit of God may not lead Christians, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t children of God. Paul states that only those who the Spirit of God is leading are sons of God. Who are you going to believe?
“For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Romans 8:3-5 emphasis added.
How does it get any clearer? Believers walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the law in practice and in truth.
The book of warnings![69]
The author begins to address the many warnings in the Book of Hebrews. He admits these warnings were given to believers so they would not abandon the faith. Without reading further, we already know that he will be forced to interpret these warning passages to mean a loss of recognition, reward, position, or some other explanation. He can’t allow them to be interpreted in reference to salvation, no matter what the text indicates. When we come to the Bible already knowing what it must say to fit into our theology, what do you think will direct our interpretation?
Isn’t sin the number one concern?
Stanley writes that the warnings in the book of Hebrews were never intended as a threat of losing one’s salvation as a result of sinning. No, the warnings are about the consequences of abandoning faith in Christ for Judaism, sin, or some other religion. For Stanley, a person can reject faith in Christ and still be regarded as a Christian.[70] Even if it be granted that the author of Hebrews was concerned that those he was writing to would not return to Judaism, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t primarily concerned about them falling into sin. Neither does it suggest the warnings are not about sin and its consequences, including eternal death.
As proof that sin is the primary concern, not a return to Judaism per se, the author of Hebrews writes, “But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today” lest anyone of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” Hebrews 3:13. In addition, a return to Judaism is a return to the Old Covenant, which was not successful in cleansing the heart from sin. Please reread Hebrews chapter 8. To postulate that a return to Judaism is only a return to a different form of religion is to miss the point. A return to Judaism is a return to sin and an apostate position in which Christ is rejected as the Messiah. Disobedience, sin, and unbelief are the primary concerns of the author of Hebrews, contrary to Stanley’s comment. The warnings themselves will prove this beyond a doubt, for they clearly cite sin, not the religion of Judaism, as the problem.
Why does Stanley go to such lengths to prove this point? Only when he convinces his readers that the author is primarily concerned with a return to the old religion can he argue that sin and salvation are not the primary concerns. Therefore, the many warnings are not about a possible loss of salvation. It’s just another diversion; sin is the real issue. Sin has always been the issue. Furthermore, the old religion is a metaphor for a return to a life of sin, as the old covenant was generally unsuccessful in making people holy. The new covenant is to write the laws of God on our hearts, Hebrews 8:10. Why does God want to write His laws on our minds and hearts? If loving obedience to His law is not the answer, then what is? Apparently, an imputed fictional holiness didn’t satisfy God.
The height of sophistry, confusion, delusion, or deception is the assertion by Stanley that, besides the book of John, the book of Hebrews is the next best example in the New Testament in favor of eternal security.[71] I must say his assertion is less than convincing. How incredible to suggest that the book of Hebrews “argues so conclusively in favor of” the false doctrine of eternal security. Maybe there is another book of Hebrews in the Bible, for I can’t understand how he could make such an outlandish comment. Some cults teach that Jesus isn’t God in human form and that there is no such thing as the Triune Godhead. They must have a different Bible, for I find it almost impossible to conceive how anyone could come away from studying the Bible and believe such things. On what basis does Stanley make such a statement?
Is the blood of Christ adequate?
The author Stanley believes that Christ’s death accomplished what the blood of animals couldn’t and His death was once for all. While all that is accurate, it doesn’t make eternal security true. Mr. Stanley believes that the whole thing rests on the adequacy of Christ’s blood.[72] His point is that Christ, by His blood, paid the penalty for all my sins (past, present, and future) with His once-for-all sacrifice. We are back to the atonement being a quid pro quo commercial transaction and the PSA theory, which is false. I ask the reader to refer to my earlier comments. What I will now take issue with is the idea of the adequacy of Christ’s blood. Stanley believes Christians often sin. Therefore, I conclude that Stanley must consider Christ’s blood to be inadequate to cleanse us from the practice of sin. This is the only thing that is impossible for God. However, His blood is sufficient to remove all guilt, even without repentance. Have I misstated his position? I wish I had. Christ’s blood is adequate to save us from the guilt of sin when we don’t confess and forsake our sin, but Christ’s blood is inadequate to cleanse us from the practice of sin. Now, who really believes the blood of Christ is insufficient? I think the blood of Christ is adequate. It cleanses us from both the practice of sin and the guilt associated with sin, when and only when we confess and forsake our sins.
Think of all the professing Christians who believe the blood of Christ is adequate to make them happy, healthy, and wealthy but not truly holy. Selfishness reigns in some Christian circles. How far have we fallen? Lies, not truth, prevail in the land. I wish it weren’t so.
Stanley then uses an example to make his point. He writes about a missionary who didn’t believe in the idea of once saved always saved. The missionary said that, of course, Christ’s blood was adequate, but we also have to do our part, which means a consistent walk with Christ. He writes that this adds the condition of works to salvation, which means Christ’s blood is not adequate. Again, I repeat: Does Stanley believe in unconditional salvation? No, he doesn’t, as I have shown many times. He believes that we are made perfect by the blood of Christ and God’s unconditional love for us. Therefore, we can add nothing to it. It has all been taken care of. In the next breath, Stanley tells us that “our part is simply to respond with reverence and obedience”, never doubting that we are eternally secure.[73] Did you catch that blatant contradiction? We add nothing to it, but our part is to respond. For the sake of the truth, which is it, Mr. Stanley? Do we really add nothing to it, or must we “respond” in faith and obedience before salvation is ours? As I have repeatedly shown, he doesn’t believe in unconditional salvation, so he knows we must add faith as a condition of salvation.
Isn’t it interesting that Stanley can correct the missionary when he adds ‘works’ to salvation? But Stanley does the same thing by adding the ‘work’ of faith and the ‘works’ which will be commented on in the paragraph that follows.
If salvation is unconditional, how can we have a part in it?
Aren’t these two ideas (conditional or unconditional salvation) mutually exclusive? Stanley has written that our part is to respond to His unconditional love with reverence and obedience. Here, the author contradicts himself again. Earlier, Stanley said Christ’s blood was adequate without our least cooperation. We have no part in it. However, he now states that we have “our part.” He has maintained the opposite throughout his book. What happens if I don’t respond with reverence and obedience and don’t do my part? He should rewrite his statement and say that it actually doesn’t mean I am not saved. Therefore, it really isn’t necessarily my part, for I can withhold reverence and obedience and still be saved. For love of God, I must say this is a tangle of words, religious double-speak, and contradictory statements. By definition, if we add nothing to it, then we have no part in it. Stanley isn’t even consistent with his own beliefs. Stanley is just a representative of many others who hold the same views.
We finally come to an analysis of the warning passages in the Book of Hebrews.[74]
“For this reason, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard? Hebrews 2:1-3
Stanley argues that this passage is vague about the exact penalty for neglecting such a great salvation. His point is that if it were the loss of salvation, then surely the biblical author would make that clear, wouldn’t he? For Stanley, it’s not enough that the author is talking about neglecting salvation. We can neglect salvation and still possess it, according to the author. I think it’s clear that we are talking about the real possibility of drifting away from a position of salvation. To drift away from it is to lose it.
The author, Charles Stanley, has argued that we must not take these warning verses out of the entire Hebrew text. I agree. I wonder if he would agree that the context is really the New Testament and even the Bible as a whole? What exactly does the statement mean about the “word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense?” Will it help us to understand the meaning of this verse in Hebrews 2?” Let me quote another passage that has bearing on this Hebrew passage.
“Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” Jude 1:5-7.
That seemed pretty clear to me. Were those Jews who were saved out of Egypt and subsequently destroyed sent to heaven, while angels and Sodomites were sent to hell? How convenient for advocates of eternal security to believe that’s true. Maybe they were all saved through fire! Is it not appropriate to interpret this passage about neglecting so great a salvation as about a possible loss of salvation?
Mr. Stanley writes that this verse applies to the Mosaic covenant era. I agree. But it also applies to the pre-Mosaic cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as they too had the Word of God “spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense.” He argues that the Mosaic Law had nothing to do with salvation. That is incorrect, and I covered that subject in an earlier chapter. Are we to believe the system of sacrifices and atonement in the Law had nothing to do with salvation in the Mosaic Law? Stanley says that breaking the law has nothing to do with one’s salvation. Let me remind the reader that any Jew sinning presumptuously was booted out of the covenant nation. He neglects to mention this punishment along with loss of life and property.
Let’s rethink justice!
The author is almost correct in writing that all of us can backslide and that we will not escape the consequences. However, the truth is that he believes “Christians” will escape the most critical result of sin, which for the non-Christian is eternal death. He limits the consequences for Christians to anything short of losing salvation. They will escape that consequence, contrary to Stanley’s assertion. How then do we correctly define the justice of God? Sin damns some but not others; how is that just?
When repentance is impossible, Hebrews 6.[75]
We now turn to Hebrews chapter 6, which I have already referenced. Please refer to my earlier comments. At least Stanley acknowledges that we are discussing genuine believers in this passage. Other advocates of eternal security are not so accurate or willing to admit the obvious. They usually go to great lengths to save their precious doctrine. I honestly believe that some of them love the doctrine of eternal security more than the truth itself. I do not write this to be offensive, but to state what I believe is the unfortunate truth.
Stanley believes this verse teaches that there are no second chances. Therefore, this goes a step beyond what most Arminians believe. I don’t know about Arminians, but I would like to reiterate what I said earlier. Hebrews 6 is referring to a settled state of apostasy and rejection of Christ, not a momentary or occasional lapse of faith. The Apostles themselves give ample evidence that there are second chances with God. Peter is a good example. He denied the Lord but returned. Christian literature throughout the ages has given sufficient evidence that God is a God of second chances to those who want a second chance. But those who have fallen away don’t want God’s mercy as they are given over to self-gratification. There is no second chance for those who have fallen away. They don’t want a second chance. Judas may be an example of this. This verse is similar to 2 Peter 2:20-21, which refers to those who “have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome.” They are not entangled in them momentarily but are overcome.
One final thought: I ask you to consider this. When the passage states, “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance,” it appears the author believes that God won’t allow them to repent. That may be true because His patience does wear out. But it more likely means that it’s impossible only because they refuse to turn from their sin as they are settled into their apostasy. The impossibility refers to man’s unwillingness to break off from the sin he has returned to. In that state, it’s impossible to renew him to repentance. You see, these persons have tasted both Egypt and the Promised Land, but they have returned to Egypt. Consider this: would you return to Egypt? I have tasted both, and I will never return to Egypt, for there is nothing there but death. Even Stanley agrees that these persons are beyond convincing. They have made up their minds and rejected God completely.
Isn’t repentance an attribute of faith?
The author Stanley writes that just because the author of Hebrews uses the word repentance, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are talking about salvation. In this context, repentance is simply changing one’s mind about Christ. Stanley believes these folks can be forgiven and restored because this passage doesn’t come right out and say they can’t. In other words, these individuals used to think Jesus was the Christ but now do not and they won’t change their minds about Him. Even so that has nothing to do with repentance unto salvation according to Stanley.[76] Stanley then recounts a story about his visit to a Pastor who was committing adultery. He challenged the man, but he refused to repent. His mind was made up. Now he believes this man of God was saved all the while he was committing adultery, in direct contradiction to the Word of God. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, we are told the unrighteous, including those who commit adultery, will not inherit the kingdom of God. Stanley believes they will. One of them is wrong. For my part, I gladly defer to the plain truth as revealed in the Bible.
Stanley’s explanation about repentance is just a necessity of his predetermined theology regarding eternal security. That is as obvious as the white hair on my head. In his theology, a person doesn’t need repentance for forgiveness in direct contradiction to the Word of God. Pay close attention to this passage: “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4). Here, it’s plain that without repentance, there is no forgiveness. Stanley maintains that repentance means a change of mind. I agree. It can mean just that, but it more often signifies a change of will and heart, and an amendment to one’s life. Even Ryrie states repentance bears fruit in a changed life. Stanley assumes that with respect to this passage, repentance has nothing to do with salvation. Very convenient. And do Stanley and other proponents of eternal security really believe that a person can remain saved if they reject Jesus as the Christ? Isn’t that Stanley’s absurd proposition?
Then Stanley tries to make the connection that these people were retreating to Judaism. They wouldn’t change their minds. Stanley assumes the reader is convinced the issue in Hebrews is a return to the old religion, not sin. Thereby, he can argue that sin and salvation are not the primary concern of the author.
Fellowship versus relationship
Listen to this outrageously seductive comment. Stanley actually believes this warning (Hebrews 6) is a positive affirmation of eternal security. Yes, you heard me right. He thinks that a Jew could find salvation in Jesus and then reject Him and walk away from Him without any possibility of losing his salvation. So then, what do we have to fear?[77] I get the impression that Stanley wants me to believe something that reason could never accept. To say the author of Hebrews is assuring his readers that they could walk away from Christ, reject Him, and put Him to open shame and still go to heaven is the epitome of delusion, in my humble opinion. He believes these persons are running the risk of backsliding beyond the point of no return. According to Stanley, this is not a reference to a return to salvation, but rather a return to fellowship with God. You see, a “believer” can become an unbeliever, and the only consequence is that this person will lose fellowship with God, but remain saved and on their way to glory.[78] In the theology of Ryrie, Stanley, and many other advocates of eternal security, fellowship and relationship are two distinct arrangements. We can be related to God and have no fellowship with Him. In fact, we can openly reject Him and fight against Him. That’s precisely the kind of relationship Satan has with God. I find it hard not to believe that this distinction is not just another convenient theological invention to save the doctrine of eternal security.
If we continue to sin willfully, what happens?[79]
Before us is a review of Hebrews 10:26-31. The author’s point about this passage is that one willful sin means salvation is lost forever. That is how he interprets this passage. He correctly states that it is unlikely any Arminian would accept this meaning. I suspect the reason is that it makes no sense and is not in line with the Word of God.
He contends that there is nothing in the Greek language that would lead us to believe the author has in mind a lifestyle of sinning, not just one sin. Let’s test Stanley’s statement. If he is accurate, then this phrase “For if we go on sinning willfully” does not mean “we go on sinning willfully”. It doesn’t mean our sinning is continuous or habitual. It means, according to the author, that if we sin once, there is no longer a sacrifice for sins. Can he be serious? Doesn’t the expression “if we go on sinning willfully” convey the idea of the ongoing practice of sin? Am I way off base to say this phrase clearly connotes, not one sin, but ongoing sinning? Arise and think, dear friends.
Now notice what the Biblical author declares, “If we go on sinning willfully,” there is no longer a sacrifice for sin. But what if we break off from our willful sin? Does the author of Hebrews 10 declare that we can’t break off from our willful sin? No, he doesn’t say that at all. He says that if we don’t break off from willful sin, then all that remains is the prospect of judgment. Hebrews 6 discusses those who have fallen away and have settled into a state of apostasy. These persons can’t be renewed unto repentance because they refuse to repent. In Chapter 10, we are not necessarily referring to those who have entirely rejected the faith, as in Chapter 6. They are included in this warning, but the warning applies to those who are sinning and who may be renewed unto repentance. There is nothing in the context of chapter 10 that excludes the possibility of repentance unto salvation. If we continue to sin willfully, we can’t count on Christ’s sacrifice, and no other sacrifice will work and secure forgiveness. Once forgiven, always forgiven is not true.
Now we come to a critical point in our discussion. Stanley believes one sin means we lose salvation for all time if the Arminian interpretation is correct. This verse doesn’t teach that, but he wants it to be true, for it helps him argue for a different meaning of this passage. I am one of the very few, I suppose, who believe that one sin which is not repented of is enough to exclude a person from heaven. I understand sin to be more of an issue of the purpose of one’s life than a singular act or behavior. Sin, as I know it, is a matter of who we are living for. If we are truly living for God, then all we do will be acceptable to Him as long as we continue to live for Him. However, if we are living for ourselves, then nothing we do will be acceptable to Him. Even our religious exercises will be rejected because they are performed for personal gain. Sin is to love oneself too much. Holiness is to love God supremely or more than yourself. The heart reveals what we are living for. Acts of sin reveal a heart that loves self supremely. That person is not saved or justified. It starts with one sin. One act of sin reveals a heart that has turned from God to self. Sin, not repented of, will cause that person to continue to sin. If I am living for God, I will not sin. When I stop living for God, I will sin in act because I am in a state of sin. When I stop living for God, I must repent or be lost. Stanley states that this passage teaches that with one sin, we cannot find salvation again. But this passage does not teach that we can’t stop sinning willfully. No, it doesn’t. The prodigal son was a son who became lost and dead. He later returned to his loving Father and was joyously accepted.
Is it arrogant of me to believe that we can live without habitual sin in our lives? Is it my pride that makes me trust the word, “No one who is born of God sins?” 1 John 5:18. Or could it be that I believe:
- The blood of Christ is adequate to cleanse us from living in sin, and,
- Nothing is impossible for God, and,
- The Holy Spirit, using the truth, can set us free from the law of sin and death.
What could I possibly be arrogant about? Those who believe in eternal security are more likely to be arrogant than those who believe in the conditional salvation I have referred to. How can a believer in eternal security avoid pride when the wages of sin, for them, are no longer eternal death as it is for everyone else? Pride is the likely fruit of unconditional salvation, predestination, and perseverance. Above all others, God chose them and rejected everyone else. Sounds like a basis for pride.
HOW TERRIFIED ARE YOU?
How does Stanley change the plain meaning of the rest of this passage? He assures us that it will be terrifying to fall into the hands of the living God when we go on sinning willfully.[80] Yes, it will be terrifying for all your works will be burned up. But rest easy, for you will be saved. Now, how terrified are you? The passage declares If we go on sinning, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, “but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” Hebrews 9:27. In Stanley’s theology, the fire, which consumes the adversaries, means the fire that consumes a “believer’s” works. Does the passage state that the works of believers are consumed? It most certainly does not. Do you honestly believe that the fire, which consumes the adversaries, refers to God’s real children? Are God’s children His adversaries? If His adversaries are in heaven, then who in heaven’s name is in hell? Isn’t hell populated with His unrepentant adversaries?
He who overcomes[81]
“He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels” Revelation 3:5.
Isn’t the following idea preposterous? Stanley doesn’t believe this passage is a warning or that there is anything in this statement that should cause us concern. On the contrary, this passage makes a powerful affirmation of the believer’s eternal security. Erasing names from the book of eternal life is foreign to the biblical author’s intent, according to Stanley. How the author Stanley can be so deceived as to make such a statement is a marvel to me. I don’t understand it at all. Moreover, if he isn’t deceived, then I am.
I will now let the reader decide if Stanley has done an accurate job interpreting this section of scripture. To do so I must quote the passage.
“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of My God. Remember therefore what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. If therefore you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. But I have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments and I will not erase his name from the book of life…..” Revelation 3:1-5.
The author Stanley believes this verse was never intended as a warning, which is obviously not true. Furthermore, he says there is nothing for us to be concerned about, as this passage actually teaches eternal security. Excuse the repetition, but let Jesus respond to that ridiculous position and reread the quote above.
Seriously, anything foreboding in His words? Jesus proclaims that if they don’t wake up and repent, He will erase their names from the book of life. Obviously, the names left in the book of life are only those who overcome, the few who are worthy. Lastly, please point me to the strong statement of eternal security, as I missed it.
Doesn’t this passage in Revelation remind you of the parable in Matthew? “But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time, and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and gnashing of teeth” Matthew 24:48-51. Nothing foreboding in this word, either, is there? If you’re asleep in deception, these words may not be foreboding. And if you’re beguiled by the false doctrine of eternal security, like Stanley, you will probably find in this passage in Matthew, “a strong statement in favor of eternal security.” Does the defense of the truth ever justify such strong language? Would love respond differently? If so, how?
Jesus said to them that they have a name that they are alive, but they are dead. Eternal security, all too often I fear, produces the same thing: a name that you are alive all the while you are dead in sin because you presume on the grace of God by refusing to repent of sin. Could it be any clearer?
He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death
You will recall that I did not cite any passages from the book of Revelation regarding the real possibility of apostasy. Mr. Stanley said that believers are never once threatened with the loss of salvation, which is not true. Since Stanley has used Revelation, chapter three, to defend the doctrine of eternal security, I will also cite one passage.
“Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death” Revelation 2:10-11.
Advocates of eternal security, including Stanley, I assume, would attempt to argue that the crown of life is a special reward for those who remain faithful under persecution. This verse doesn’t support that idea, for the crown of life represents eternal life, which is what those who overcome receive. Those who don’t overcome are hurt by the second death, which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. Ryrie says of the crown of life that it is a reward for those who faithfully suffer.[82] If this is true, that there is a special reward for those who remain faithful under persecution, what happens if a believer doesn’t remain faithful under persecution? Stanley and Ryrie would say they are saved, but they don’t get this special reward, which is reserved for those who overcome.
One small problem for those of us who like to think about what we are told to believe. Jesus declared that the second death hurts those who don’t overcome. Jesus left no middle ground. Either we overcome unto eternal life or we do not and suffer eternal death. Once saved, always saved isn’t true.
Conclusion
The reader will have to decide if I have accurately interpreted the Word of God. I don’t have the credentials Stanley has to commend myself to you. I have nothing to offer you but a searchingly teachable heart. I am not trying to win friends on any side. I don’t care if Arminians or Calvinists do or do not agree with me. Their support or lack of it is not critically important to me. Standing in love for the truth of God is all that matters. The truth will set us free from the bondage and wages of sin. That is what we all need. Could it possibly be that I care enough to tell the whole truth? “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” Proverbs 27:6. Friends are those who love us enough to tell us the whole truth, even if it hurts, as wounds do. An enemy will say to us what we want to hear. Tell me the doctrine of eternal security is not the kiss of the enemy, and I will wonder about your safety. Didn’t the apostle Paul say, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” Galatians 4:16. If what I say is not the truth, why would that bother you in the least? But if what I have written is true and it penetrates your heart deeply, then ask God to search your heart and see if there is any wicked way in you. Then repent and find God’s forgiveness and cleansing while there is time.
Stanley’s arguments greatly sadden me. Many of them are so preposterous that I am almost speechless. If our leaders are so far off base, then there is little hope for the masses of churchgoers, who will not take the time to think for themselves. Haven’t Protestants created for themselves a new papacy?
Bottom line in Stanley’s theology is that I can be saved and on my way to heaven while I love myself supremely. The person you see committing adultery may be a saint. The one you hear about who is a practicing pedophile might be a born-again Christian, on his way to glory. Christianity like this is worthless. Unless I am greatly mistaken, this is truly a doctrine of demons. This kind of Christianity will destroy the world, not save it. I genuinely believe that. That is why I write with such candor and passion. Immortal souls hang in the balance, as does the honor of God. Try to imagine an eternity of torment, then be silent and keep the truth to yourself. May it never be!
[1] I use the phrase “eternal security” interchangeably with the phrase “Once saved always saved” or “unconditional salvation.”
[2] Eternal Security, Charles Stanley, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990.
[3] Ibid. p. 5. Not a quote, reference only.
[4] Ibid. p.11. Not a quote, reference only.
[5] Willing to Believe, R. C. Sproul, Ibid. p. 25. Sproul discusses the Arminian view of faith and contends that faith is transformed into a meritorious work. Arminians deny this charge. Sproul asks, “Is it a good work? Certainly, it is not a bad work.” In a sense, faith is meritorious because it is the right thing to believe and do. But faith is simply a condition of justification, not the ground of it. Faith is our duty to God, and in that sense, it is not meritorious as I have said repeatedly.
[6] I have heard it taught that God’s love has two aspects: the love of complacency, which Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines as pleasure, satisfaction, and gratification, or possibly joy/delight. It can also mean respect, admiration, and esteem. God loves only the truly righteous with the love of complacency, not the wicked. He loves the evil and the good with the love of benevolence.
[7] Jude tells us to guard against the evil of antinomianism, which is the turning of the grace of God into excuses to sin. Eternal security turns the grace of God into licentiousness. It appears to be the unavoidable result in many, not all, cases.
[8] Ibid. p.32. No quote, reference only.
[9] Ibid. p.12. No quote, reference only.
[10] Ibid. p.13.
[11] Or they would argue that this “Christian” was never saved in the first place. And in many cases, that might be true.
[12] Ibid. p.26. Not a quote, reference only.
[13] Ibid. p.34. Not a quote, reference only.
[14] Ibid. p.34. Not a quote, reference only.
[15] Stanley’s book, Chapter 4.
[16] Stanley’s book, Chapter 5.
[17] Ibid. p.45.
[18] There are, of course, real and nominal believers. A nominal believer is a hearer and not a doer of the law. A nominal believer is not justified in grace. A nominal believer may well be part of the visible or organized church. What I regard as a nominal believer, Stanley thinks is a genuine believer. Real believers are those who, when they hear the Word of God, lovingly do it. For genuine believers are doers of the law, not just hearers who delude themselves. Are genuine believers threatened with a loss of salvation? Yes. Obviously, nominal believers are threatened with hell for they are self-deceived. Stanley writes that believers are never once threatened with the loss of salvation. According to him, believers are assured of their salvation, not threatened with the loss of it. Interestingly, Finney writes that genuine believers or saints are threatened with a loss of salvation, but they, as the elect, are never in fact lost. Finney’s view of God’s foreknowledge means that God saw in advance the exact number of saints who, in fact, persevere by meeting the conditions. If they sin, God foreknows their repentance. He doesn’t cause it, but He knows in advance that He can secure it. For Finney, the warnings are real and possible, even though, with respect to the saints/elect, they never happen. Scripture contains passages that make this view very plausible. However, other passages suggest that God doesn’t know what we will do before we do it. Can future undecided acts be known before they occur in real time? I lean toward Finney’s view of God’s foreknowledge, but I also find it difficult to completely dismiss those passages that suggest that God doesn’t foreknow everything. That discussion is beyond the scope of this work.
[19] Ibid., Ryrie Study Bible, pg. 1449. Not a quote, reference only.
[20] Among other writers of the New Testament, the apostle Paul, in the book of Romans, especially chapters 9, 10, and 11, wrote extensively against, not in support of, the common religious teaching which espoused particular election, particular predestination, and eternal security. I know this is contrary to most interpretations but I believe it is the best and most accurate one. In Romans chapter 9, Paul was arguing against their belief in particular predestination, election and the eternal security of the Jew. They believed these lies and Paul was attempting to convince them that they were deceived. These three chapters in Romans have been seen as the foundation for these doctrines when the opposite is true in my opinion. Ryrie writes that the common teaching of the day was that the Jew was “eternally secure” because God choose the Jew, Abraham being their father, and not the Gentile irrespective of their unfaithfulness to God or the Gentiles faithfulness to God. That unfortunate pitfall is all too often the unavoidable consequence of believing in these ideas.
[21] Ibid. p.1456.
[22] Ibid. p.1462. Not a quote, reference only.
[23] Ibid. p.1479.
[24] Ibid. p.1617. Not a quote, reference only.
[25] In the book of James, we learn of the intellectual “believer” who is no better off than the demons, who also believe and have even greater knowledge of God than do most of us. They don’t see the necessity of repentance. Then there is the emotional “believer” who experiences strong feelings about spiritual things from time to time and believes there is good in them because of those feelings, but doesn’t repent of their sin. They are just as lost as the intellectual believer. Only when belief in Jesus moves the will to action, including repentance from all sin, is there genuine faith. All others are deceived.
[26] If I am not mistaken even John Calvin interpreted this passage as disqualification from salvation not Christian service.
[27] Also refer to Stanley’s book, chapter 20, page 214, for a fuller treatment of Hebrews Chapter 6.
[28] Ibid. p.1849.
[29] Ibid. p.1863.
[30] Stanley’s book chapter 5.
[31] Ibid. p.53.
[32] Stanley’s book, Chapter 6.
[33] Ibid. p.58. Not a quote, reference only.
[34] Stanley’s book, Chapter 7.
[35] Ibid. p.65. Not a quote, reference only.
[36] Ibid. p.67. Not a quote, reference only.
[37] Ibid. p.67.
[38] Ryrie Study Bible, Ibid. p.1632, footnote to John 16:9.
[39] Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1450. Not a quote, reference only.
[40] However, as we shall see, Ryrie will dilute the meaning of repentance. Repentance becomes a synonym for a faith without faithfulness.
[41] Eternal Security, Ibid. p.70.
[42] Ibid. p.71.
[43] Stanley’s book, Chapter 8.
[44] Ibid. p.74. Not a quote, reference only.
[45] Ibid. p.79. Not a quote, reference only.
[46] Ibid. p.81. Not a quote, reference only.
[47] Stanley’s book chapter 9.
[48] Stanley’s book chapter 10.
[49] Ibid. p.93. Not a quote, reference only.
[50] Ibid. p.93. Not a quote, reference only.
[51] Ibid. p. 99. Not a quote, reference only.
[52] Stanley’s book chapter 11.
[53] Ibid. p. 101. Not a quote, reference only.
[54] Ibid. p. 102. Not a quote, reference only.
[55] Ibid. p. 102.
[56] Ibid. p.103. Not a quote, reference only.
[57] Stanley’s book chapter 12.
[58] Ibid. p. 106. Not a quote, reference only.
[59] Ibid. p. 109. Not a quote, reference only.
[60] Stanley’s book chapter 13.
[61] Ibid. p. 118. Not a quote, reference only.
[62] Stanley’s book, chapter 14.
[63] Ibid. p. 120. Not a quote, reference only.
[64] How is a sinner defined? The gospel transforms sinners into saints. In one sense, all of us are sinners because we have sinned. However, saints of God are those who are not presently practicing sin and are not sinners in the sense intended in this passage.
[65] Stanley’s book, chapter 15.
[66] Ibid. p.133. Not a quote, reference only.
[67] Stanley’s book, chapter 16.
[68] Ibid. p.141.
[69] Stanley’s book chapter 17.
[70] Ibid. p.148. Not a quote, reference only.
[71] Ibid. p.150, Stanley’s book, chapter 18.
[72] Ibid. p.154. Not a quote, reference only.
[73] Ibid. p.155. Not a quote, reference only.
[74] Stanley’s book, chapter 19.
[75] Stanley’s book, chapter 20.
[76] Ibid. p.166-167. Not a quote, reference only.
[77] Ibid. p.169. Not a quote, reference only.
[78] Ibid. p.169.Not a quote, reference only.
[79] Stanley’s book chapter 21.
[80] Ibid. p.176. Not a quote, reference only.
[81] Stanley’s book chapter 22.
[82] Ryrie Study Bible, Ibid. p.1897. Not a quote, reference only.
