November 20, 2025

I recently bought a book titled “Misled: 7 Lies That Distort The Gospel (And How You Can Discern The Truth).” The author, Allen Parr, is a Christian Bible teacher, ordained minister, and graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He operates the ministry ‘Let’s Equip’ and the YouTube channel ‘The BEAT,’ where he aims to help Christians discern biblical truth from cultural distortion. There are doctrines on which I would agree with him. I do not doubt that he is very likable and earnest in his beliefs. I know nothing about him personally, and my comments will focus on his theology as it relates to a single critical subject.

In his 2023–2024 book *Misled: 7 Lies That Distort the Gospel*, Parr exposes widespread misconceptions within modern evangelicalism, including false teachings about grace, works, and assurance of salvation. Chapter 6 is particularly significant, as it reveals Parr’s conviction that genuine believers will persevere in faith, a view consistent with the Calvinist doctrine of ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ (the ‘P’ in TULIP). While Parr denies being a strict Calvinist, he affirms many of its practical conclusions and its tenets regarding eternal security. Could Allen Parr, the author, be ‘misled’ on the Doctrine of Eternal Security? Is that possible?

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Mr. Parr is indeed misled and very deceived on the subject of eternal security, which he believes is a fundamental truth of scripture. I thought that the book on Eternal Security, written by the late Charles Stanley, was terrible, but Mr. Parr’s chapter might even be worse. And that is hard to believe even for me. I have read some extraordinary and unbiblical ideas supporting the once-saved-always-saved doctrine, and this chapter doesn’t disappoint.

Chapter 6 contains his ideas on the question, “Can I Lose My Salvation?” Let us examine what he believes in detail and see if it holds up under scrutiny. He begins the chapter by relating a story about a young man who became a Christian and struggled to fit into the church world. And because he was not able to find the right church he fell back into the sins of fornication and pornography. Even while he was a Christian, he struggled with these sinful desires and habits from before he became a Christian. But in the church, he was encouraged and helped to control these lusts. Now that he was no longer attending a church, he fell back into these sinful habits. One of his questions was, Why don’t I have the power to overcome these sinful temptations? We will revisit this question later. Was this young man asking the right question? Was it that he couldn’t or wouldn’t refrain from these sinful behaviors?

As Mr. Parr tells the story, this young man reached out to a friend who also had a somewhat similar experience. His friend explained that he had lost his salvation when he relapsed into his former sins. His friend asked the young man if he thought he had lost his salvation. His friend said that those who are actually saved will not continue in willful sin, and that because you are continuing in intentional sin, you must have lost your salvation. His friend told him that he had lost his salvation several times.

The story written by Mr. Parr continues. This young man felt even worse after talking with his friend. His anxiety turned into fear, stress, and confusion. He wondered if he had, in fact, lost his salvation as his friend had told him. And if he had, might it happen again? And how many sins does it take before a Christian loses their salvation? How perfect do I need to be? was another question he asked. How can I know if I am living in willful sin? These are questions Mr. Parr posed on behalf of this young man. (Please see my book titled, When Lies Become Truth, Chapter 6 on Eternal Security on my website, seekgodintruth.com, for a complete treatment of these and similar questions. The article is under the page called Salvation.)

This young man did not want to lose his salvation, so he determined to fight for it. But no matter how hard he tried, he could not master sin. He could not overcome the lust for pornography and fornication. He always fell back into these sins, despite having been successful at times in the past. (Was it that he couldn’t stop or wouldn’t stop?) He finally concluded that he had lost his salvation and was ready to walk away from it and the Christian faith.

Mr. Parr says this is all too often what Christians have been told, and it is all wrong. It is a lie that a Christian can lose their salvation, according to Allen Parr. In fact, some churches actually teach that it is impossible to know or have the assurance of your salvation, according to Mr. Parr. Allen asserts that the Bible itself affirms our assurance of salvation, citing 1 John 5:13 as a proof text. This lie that we can lose our salvation or not know if we are saved “is a perversion of the true gospel, and it hinders believers from living in and embracing the freedom, peace, and joy the gospel promises.” Page 154. Mr. Parr believes it is hazardous for anyone to deny the doctrine of once saved, always saved (eternal security). More on this later, for it is false, and the hazardous position is to embrace (not reject) the doctrine of eternal security. His reference to 1 John 5:13 is equally untrue.

The author asserts that if you fear for your salvation, you will not be able to relate to God based on faith, but only fear, and that fear will be your only or central motivation. Denying the doctrine of eternal security leads inevitably to legalism, which demands that you perfectly adhere to a set of rules to keep your salvation in tack. “It also suggests that God’s love for you and his acceptance of you fluctuates depending on your behavior.” Page 155. God doesn’t want this for you, according to Mr. Parr. We will revisit these thoughts later. It all sounds somewhat reasonable, but it just appears that way on the surface. Remember, all that glitters is not gold.

Before we get into Parr’s proof texts, let us take a moment and examine his story about the young man. His opening story is emotional and will resonate with most of us. It does with me. And this is precisely why he told this story: to emotionally convince us not to look into it more closely or Biblically. And that is what we must do now.

Let us suppose for the moment that believing in eternal security is a good thing, and this young man should accept it. How does that belief help this young Christian man? It tells him that he is safe and secure in his ongoing and willful lusting after pornography and fornication with his girlfriend. And they do love each other. How can that be wrong? Does it not convey to this young Christian man that God understands and allows him to continue these sins, yet he still inherits the kingdom of God? That is the message that all those who espouse eternal security communicate. And I maintain that it is nearly impossible for this false message of eternal security not to result in impenitence and more sinful behavior.

Therefore, if this young Christian man can continue to fornicate with his girlfriend (or the next girlfriends) and lust over pornography and still be justified in God’s sight, then it must also be true for other types of sins. Is that not accurate?

Now reread the story and insert the following scenarios into it. Let us suppose that the Christian young man is a thief, and no matter how hard he tries, he can’t stop stealing from others. He is addicted to it. He stops for a while, but always returns to stealing. Like a dog, he always returns to his vomit. According to Mr. Parr, he is saved even if he never stops stealing or fails to make restitution. Do you really believe that?

What if the Christian in the story is an older Christian (not a young man) who habitually abuses alcohol and drugs? He has attempted everything, but he frequently falls back into the sins of drunkenness and drug abuse. Is he really saved and on his way to inheriting the kingdom of God, all the while he is a drunkard and drug abuser? Can that really be true?

What if this Christian young man is a rapist? Is he eternally secure, even if he never completely stops his raping? Do you honestly believe that such a person is a genuine Christian on his way to heaven’s glory?

What if this is not a young man but a middle-aged ‘Christian’ man who is a child predator and pedophile? No matter how hard he tries, how much he prays, and how much he wants to be different, he can’t stop his sexual abuse of children. According to Mr. Parr (and many other evangelicals), he must also be saved and eternally secure, and should have the assurance of his salvation. Do you believe any such thing?

What if this is a Christian pastor who is having an adulterous affair with another woman? Does he not need to stop that affair to find forgiveness and redemption? According to Mr. Parr, God wants this pastor to have assurance of his salvation, even if he never stops committing adultery. Even so, we are asked to believe that this man is eternally secure and a genuine Christian. Charles Stanley related this same story in his book on eternal security. Mr. Stanley thought the adulterous pastor he talked with was going to heaven even when he refused to repent of his adultery. Does that make any sense to you?

And if this man or woman is a Christian homosexual who returns to that lifestyle regularly, are they also saved and eternally secure if they never stop it? They have tried and prayed about it, and want to stop, yet can’t find victory. Mr. Parr wants us to know that God understands and has done it all for them. There is nothing they need to do but trust that Christ died for them; repentance from their sins is helpful but not essential to their salvation. That is how strong His love for us is. If you believe that message, you are at significant risk of losing your soul.

Apparently, there is nothing inconsistent with being a Christian homosexual, Christian drunkard, Christian child abuser, Christian fornicator, Christian adulterer, and Christian thief, according to the gospel of Jesus Christ as understood by Mr. Parr and other advocates of the doctrine of eternal security. May I suggest to you that this is not the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ? In a few words, the good news of the gospel is what the apostle Paul said, “And such were some of you.” Paul did not say, Such are some of you.

So much for the emotional story that the author, Mr. Parr, relates to us, proving only that the right story can illicit the wrong feelings and the incorrect conclusion. Do you disagree? I do not believe that even gullible Christians would sympathize with the young man in this story if he were a ‘Christian’ pedophile. Nor do I think that most Christians would have a hard time not believing that the ‘Christian’ pedophile was either never saved to begin with or that he lost his salvation. What do you think?

So far, we have not yet considered even one verse of scripture. Please consider this verse.

 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? (Mr. Parr thinks they will) Be not deceived: neither fornicators (Mr. Parr’s example of the young man), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God. And such were (Mr. Parr insists that such are) some of you: but ye were washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, KJV, emphasis added.

The author, Mr. Parr, flat-out contradicts this passage and many others. He believes that this young Christian man, who is presently committing the sins of pornography and fornication, will inherit the kingdom of God in direct and explicit contradiction to the Word of God. Who are you going to believe? And this should forever dispel and refute Mr. Parr’s position. But for those who hold fast to the false doctrine of eternal security, despite the evidence to the contrary, not even the Word of God or the God of the Word can correct them. They have eyes but do not see, and ears but do not hear. It never occurs to them that they are deceived. Guys like me are the ones who are deceived.

Eradicating false teaching, like eternal security, is like trying to eliminate wild blackberries. They must be nuked several times and killed at the root, or you will never rid your property of wild blackberries. False teaching dies hard, also.

Before I forget, let’s revisit a few other statements the author made earlier.

You will recall that the author wrote this question regarding the young Christian man who asked, “Why don’t I have the power to overcome these sinful temptations?” Why would this young man think that he did not have the power to overcome these sinful temptations? He was successful some of the time, according to the story. Is it that he couldn’t or wouldn’t stop these sins? Even Parr tells the story so that we understand this young man once stopped these sinful behaviors, but now he is supposedly unable to stop them. We are asked to believe that the young man tried and tried but was not always able to withstand temptation. Do you honestly believe that? Is this really a question about his inability, or is it a question of his lack of faith and confidence in the promises of God? Or was it a question of his actual love for God? Or is it a question about the meaning of salvation and repentance? Sounds like the young man wouldn’t stop, but wants us to believe he couldn’t.

Could it be that this young man never actually became a child of God through repentance, but was told he was a child of God when he asked Jesus into his life and said a quick prayer? Might that be the problem? What does it mean to repent and believe? What does it mean to be born again? What does the Word of God actually teach about all this?

And what about the passage of scripture that tells us that no temptation will overtake us that is not common to man, and that God will provide a way of escape so that we can endure the temptation, 1 Corinthians 10:13. The promise tells us that it is never that we can’t stop but is always that we won’t stop sinning. Temptation is neither unique nor irresistible, as the young man in the story mistakenly believed, and Mr. Parr affirms. Is that promise from God a lie, or is it an absolute promise from God that we will be able to overcome temptation? It is never the case that we are unable to do right and avoid sin.

Then there is the promise that we can do all things through Christ, who gives us strength, in Philippians 4:13. Are we to assume that we can do everything (be content in want, in abundance, and even be faithful in persecution) but Christians can’t resist certain temptations to sin? Is that really what we should think and believe?

Or could all of falsehood be rooted in the author’s belief in Original Sin and our inheritance of a sinful nature, which makes us unable to stop sinning? Might that be why Mr. Parr related this story about the young Christian man who ‘could’ not overcome these sins?

Let us now consider another statement by the author. He says that this lie that we can lose our salvation or not know if we are saved (1 John 5:13) “is a perversion of the true gospel, and it hinders believers from living in and embracing the freedom, peace, and joy the gospel promises.” Page 154. Mr. Parr believes it is hazardous for anyone to deny the doctrine of once saved, always saved (eternal security). I think the opposite is true, and I can also support my position with compelling evidence from the Word of God. Are you willing to consider it? I know you can (you are able) to evaluate my evidence. The question is, are you willing to consider it?

In my not highly esteemed opinion, it is very dangerous to believe in the lie of eternal security and imputed obedience. But why would a Christian be hindered from living in and embracing the freedom, peace, and joy of the gospel promises if they were actually walking in the light and not in the darkness of sin? Is it foolish to believe that a genuine Christian walks in the light (truth and righteousness) and has the freedom, peace, and joy the gospel promises? But Mr. Parr and other teachers of eternal security want carnal or sinful ‘Christians’ to have peace, happiness, and freedom to continue their sinful lives. I think that is disgusting. How about you?

These Christians wouldn’t question their salvation if they were actually faithfully walking with God. Mr. Parr wants us to believe that Christians who walk in darkness and do evil should have the assurance that they are going to heaven, even if they never repent of their deeds of darkness. That is why he wants us to believe in eternal security. This false hope will cost many professing Christians their souls.

Jeremiah and other prophets warned the Jews that they were not eternally secure because God chose Israel as His people and placed His name in the temple in Jerusalem. Yet they refused to believe the prophets and chose instead to believe the lies of the false prophets who told them they were safe and secure in their sins, just like Mr. Parr and many others are telling Christians today. The false prophets told the Jews that God would not destroy Jerusalem, the temple would not be destroyed, and that they would not die or go into Babylon for 70 years of captivity. Does 586 BC ring a bell? Mr. Parr, along with all those who teach the false doctrine of eternal security, bears a striking resemblance to the false prophets that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah rebuked many centuries ago.

And for Mr. Parr to use 1 John 5:13 as a passage to assure sinning Christians (unrepentant Christians) that they have eternal life is almost too hard to bear. The book of 1 John is all about the sin-purging effects of the truth by stating repeatedly that those who are truly born again do not sin but live righteously. And those who continue to sin are children of the devil, not of God. All that is contrary to what Mr. Parr teaches and believes, according to his story of the young Christian man living in the sinful practices of pornography and fornication. Mr. Parr is going out of his way to convince all Christians whose story is similar to that of the young man that they have nothing to worry about. What grand deception that is. We now turn to the Word of God.

1 John 1:7

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

At best, all Mr. Parr and others who believe in eternal security can say is that Christ cleanses us from all sin, but by fictional imputation only, or that we are forgiven even if we don’t repent of our sins and walk in the light as he is in the light. No matter what they say, it is obvious they do not believe this passage means that those truly born of God stop sinning and that they are cleansed from all sin.

1 John 2:29

“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him”.

Mr. Parr and other advocates of eternal security do not know that everyone who doeth righteousness is born of God, for they believe that there are Christian thieves, Christian homosexuals, Christian fornicators, Christian adulterers, and so on. They think Christians can’t walk in righteousness and stop sinning to the point where sin is the rare exception in their lives and not the constant rule.

1 John 3:6-9

“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God”.

Advocates of eternal security do not believe any of this as it is written. They deny it all. They do not think that:

• Born-again Christians have ceased from sin, so that they sin not
• Born-again Christians walk in righteousness and not sin
• Those who sin are born of the devil, if they profess to be Christians

They actually believe that all born-again Christians sin constantly and are not of the devil, in direct contradiction to this passage and many others.

1 John 3:10

“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”.

The author and other advocates of eternal security do not believe this either. They actually think that the young Christian man in Mr. Parr’s story, who is living in the lust of pornography and fornication, is a child of God. These verses state that he is a child of the devil. Mr. Parr says he is a child of God. This thought comes to mind: woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

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”.

The apostle closes his letter by repeating what he has communicated already. Those who are born of God do not live in sin. Could it be any clearer? Mr. Parr and other advocates of Eternal Security, and almost all evangelicals, believe that all Christians sin in thought, word, and deed every day or nearly every day. And all this is why the Christian Church is full of unsaved hypocrites and unrepentant backsliders.

Let us now turn to the author’s proofs of eternal security. The following ‘Pillars’ come from the author, not me.

Pillar 1. Perseverance of the saints

The first pillar is Perseverance or the Preservation of the saints. This is the P in the Calvinist doctrines, which we call T.U.L.I.P. We do not persevere in our own strength. It is the Spirit of God that equips us and brings us to heaven, according to Allen.

Mr. Parr quotes Philippians 2:12-13, which tells us the apostle told them to continue to obey him even in his absence and to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who is working in you both to will and to work according to his good purpose.”   Mr. Parr says we are told to work out our own salvation, not work for it. Say what? According to the author, working for our own salvation implies that we must do something to earn or complete it, which is unthinkable. Working out our own salvation means our salvation is already sealed and guaranteed, and we are simply trying to grow in our faith and holiness. What do you think?

If we are guaranteed salvation because we are eternally secure, then why the admonition by the apostle to work out our own salvation “with fear and trembling”? If salvation is guaranteed, the fear and trembling make little sense. There is nothing to fear or tremble about if your salvation is assured and unconditional.

 The author, Mr. Parr, might suggest that the ‘fear and trembling’ is about our loss of rewards in heaven or our loss of a better position in heaven, which other partial Calvinists think. But do you really believe that? The phrase ‘fear and trembling’ clearly implies that salvation is not guaranteed and can be lost. So much for the false doctrine of eternal security. The apostle Paul, who wrote this book, is the same one who wrote that we are not to be deceived, that the unrighteous (including professing Christians) will not inherit the kingdom of God and Christ (1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, and Galatians 5). It appears that Mr. Parr wants us to be deceived and believe the lie that the unrighteous Christian (as depicted in his story of the young man) will, in fact, inherit the kingdom of God, directly contradicting the truth of God. Who are you going to believe?

The author correctly distinguishes between genuine and professing (nominal) Christians. But he claims that genuine Christians can live in sin and are eternally secure, and they can never walk away from the faith. Is it impossible, as Mr. Parr indicates? This is another tenet of Calvinism. Grace is irresistible once we are saved, but resistible until we are saved. However, since he appears to be a partial Calvinist, he believes that we must have exercised faith in Christ, which is a condition resting on our shoulders, not God’s. When grace becomes irresistible after we believe in Christ, even if just for a moment, then we no longer have free will. Mr. Parr rejects the doctrine of irresistible grace before we believe in Jesus, then he embraces it. Convenient. That is a tenet of determinism and Calvinism, no matter what he claims to the contrary.

Next, Mr. Parr talks about Matthew 7:21-23. These people did things that appeared to make them followers of Christ, such as prophecy, casting out demons, and performing miracles in Jesus’ name. At the final judgment, Jesus responds, saying, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you lawbreakers”.

Allen Parr takes from that passage that some appear to be genuine Christians but are not. They may say the right things — like Lord, Lord —but they do not belong to Him. These may also appear to be doing the right things, such as healing the sick and casting out demons, but they are not truly saved. And based on what they said to Jesus on judgment day, they seem to depend on those religious activities and successes to get them into heaven. But that doesn’t save them, according to Mr. Parr. And I agree with the author. But there is much more to the story.

But what does save them? I believe that Mr. Parr would say their faith in Christ saves them. But what kind of faith are we talking about? Mr. Parr’s idea of saving faith is a faith without faithfulness, as in consistent obedience to God and His laws. Remember Allen Parr’s example of the young Christian man who was walking in unfaithfulness to Christ (pornography and fornication), all the while claiming to be a genuine follower. And that is what Allen Parr wants this young man and others like him to believe and be assured of. What a travesty. Woe to those who cause the young to sin.

And lastly, Jesus said I never knew you. The author wants us to know that Jesus did not say, ‘I don’t know you anymore.’ That would likely be what Jesus said if they were to lose their salvation. His words reveal that He never knew them, and they were not real Christians to begin with. Jesus responds, “I never knew you.” Therefore, a genuine Christian can’t lose their salvation. That is not true, as we will explain. And yes, it might be true that this person was never saved to begin with, because they may have heard the gospel according to those who teach a false gospel, such as those who teach a faith without faithfulness and the eternal security of sinning believers.

The author adds that those who are once saved can never lose their salvation. According to Parr, Christians may walk away for a while (even a long time), but real Christians will always return and will never renounce their faith entirely. But what exactly does that mean? My interpretation of Parr’s positions is that these Christians may return to a lifestyle of sin (lawbreaking), but eventually they will come back. But does that ever mean they will stop all sinning? I do not believe Allen Parr believes that, nor do most other evangelicals. But even if they don’t cease lawbreaking (contrary to what Jesus said, Depart from me, you who are lawless), they still go to heaven, even if they have unrepentant sin in their lives. Most believers in eternal security believe just that. (See my other articles on Eternal Security and my book referred to earlier, Chapter 6, Eternal Security. All articles are on my website.)

It is possible that some of these individuals were not genuine Christians. Mr. Parr may be right about that. But notice what Mr. Parr did not comment on. Jesus finished His comments by saying, ‘Depart from me, you lawbreakers’. Mr. Parr is careful not to mention that truth in his explanation because he actually believes that God does know ‘Christians’ and does save those ‘Christians’ who live and die as lawbreakers. They go to heaven according to him, but not according to Jesus. Who are you going to follow?

Next, Parr says that like babies who have nothing at all to do with their physical birth, when we are born again by the Holy Spirit, we have nothing to do with that birth either. I do not think he actually believes what he is saying, for he is not, to the best of my knowledge, a five-point Calvinist. Therefore, he knows that our personal faith is a condition of salvation that we are responsible for. Consequently, and contrary to what he stated, we do have something to do to be saved or born again spiritually, unlike our physical birth. We must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. His analogy breaks down quickly.

And the author, Allen Parr, insists that once we are born, nothing can change that. That is not true. What is born can die and will die. Besides that, we are not literally born into the family of God; we are adopted into it. That which is born can and will die; it will not be unborn. That which is adopted can be disowned. God also likens this covenant with His people to marriage. Because of Israel’s perpetual adultery, God divorced Israel. He said that those who were once His people are no longer His people. If once in the family of God, always in the family of God, then God made a grave mistake in telling us that He disowned His people, that He divorced Israel, and that He would love them no more.

The author, Parr, suggests three possible explanations for a professing Christian leaving the faith. The first is that they were never saved to begin with. (But how can you leave something you never had?) The second possible explanation is that those who leave the faith will be severely disciplined by God (Hebrews 12). Believe it or not, but some individuals actually think that God might kill stubborn and sinful Christians and punish them by taking them to heaven prematurely. Imagine that! That threat will surely get His children back on the right track with the threat of being sent home to be with God. Seriously? And the third possibility is that they are in an extreme but temporary state of backsliding and rebellion, but God knows they will return to Him at a later date. God knows this by His foreknowledge, or He knows it because He decreed it as part of five-point Calvinism. He goes on to say that it is God who empowers us to do what needs to be done, and it is something He has already given us (salvation) that He won’t take back. He makes it sound like it is God’s complete and sole responsibility to save us and keep us saved, and we have no part in it. Not even he believes that because he is not a hyper Calvinist, but it sounds so pious. I wonder if he actually understands Biblical Salvation. I have my doubts. And if he does, then I don’t.

Pillar 2. Preservation

He claims preservation is all about God’s power to keep us saved despite ourselves. Most believe that perseverance and preservation are interchangeable, but Parr sees a subtle difference, which is why he lists them as separate pillars.

What then does he mean that this is about God’s power to keep us saved despite ourselves? What else can it mean but God saves us even if we walk away from the faith and live in open rebellion and sin against God and His laws? Christians can refuse to depart from lawlessness and still be saved, contrary to what Jesus declared in Matthew 7, according to many believers in Eternal Security. That appears to be Allen Parr’s position as well.

He thinks that there is nothing we can do to thwart God’s determination to save us. Even if we sin willfully and refuse to repent, it will not stop God from saving us. Yet again, we are asked to believe that God will save even those who reject Him and put Him to open shame. At times, Parr sounds like a five-point Calvinist, but he apparently doesn’t subscribe to that part of Calvinism. Consider this: if there is nothing we can do to get saved and keep saved, then why didn’t God determine to save everyone? Why leave the majority of mankind unsaved, facing an eternity of hellfire?

Mr. Parr says that God’s power to keep us saved is greater than our sin or even our attempts to walk away from Him in moments of doubt or weakness. Page 159. That sounds like something a hyper Calvinist would say, but Parr insists he is not a Calvinist. What a bunch of religious speak that sounds heavenly but is not. If salvation is conditional, as Parr seems to believe, then we must know and adhere to the conditions to be saved and remain saved. Allen Parr suggests that we have free will until we are saved, and then we lose it, which is another tenet of deterministic Calvinism.

Mr. Parr mentions other verses that he thinks complement his position, such as John 10:28-29 and Romans 8:38-39. Please refer to Chapter 6, Eternal Security, in my book, When Lies Become Truth, for my responses to these and other passages used by proponents of eternal security. You will find these and other articles on my website, seekgodintruth.com.

Pillar 3: Predestination

Predestination means to determine something beforehand. He says if God predestined something beforehand (like our salvation), what makes us think we have the power to override what God has predetermined? Of course, we don’t have that power; that is the logical conclusion, according to Parr. I think we all agree on that, but that is not the question. This is the position of a hyper Calvinist or determinist, which he claims he is not.

But what if God predestined that only those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus are saved? Is God allowed to determine that these conditions are necessary for initial and final salvation? Fulfilling the conditions of salvation does not earn it, but they do qualify us to receive the gift. Think of an inheritance that contains conditions before the gift is distributed. The conditions do not nullify that the inheritance is a gift. Most evangelicals get this wrong and assume that meeting the conditions is the procuring cause of our salvation, and it is not. They incorrectly believe that meeting conditions means we work our way into heaven apart from God and His free grace. (See my article titled, “That For The Sake of Which and That Not Without Which.)

Mr. Parr uses Romans 8:29-30 as proof of eternal security. He says this verse shows that it is all of God and not in any way dependent on us. That is not true, but he believes it is. He also uses the following scripture as proof texts: 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 2:4, Romans 9:21-23. See my many articles on Augustinian Calvinism and Salvation. See also my book, When Lies Become Truth, all chapters. In these you will find a refutation of Romans 8:29-30 as taught by most evangelicals.

According to Parr, God sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau, and this choice was made for the sake of personal salvation. God chose them not for anything either of them did, but because He is God and can do whatever He wants. But the election of Jacob and not Esau is not about personal salvation but about which line would bring forth the Messiah. God does not predetermine (elect by decree) which souls He will save and which ones He will not save, as the author implies and all good hyper Calvinists believe. Parr states that if God doesn’t know (by His decree or foreknowledge), then He is not omniscient. And if we think a Christian can lose their salvation, then God is not omniscient. And if God saved us from before the foundation of the world, He was unaware of the sins we’d commit if we could lose our salvation. He says that is a breakdown of logic. If it is a breakdown, it is on his part. To assert that a Christian can lose their salvation means we are declaring that God is not all-knowing (which is not true), that God didn’t predestinate us to salvation apart from what we do (that is true), and that we can undo what God predetermined or decreed (not true because God leaves the choice up to us, who are free moral agents).

I ask you to consider the articles I have already written, which refute all of his positions. See my book, When Lies Become Truth, chapter 6, Eternal Security. See also my articles on Understanding Calvinism, especially part 1. There are other articles on the pages “Augustinian Calvinism” and “Salvation” that refute his arguments. All of these are found on my website, seekgodintruth.com.

Pillar 4: Propitiation

Mr. Parr argues that God’s wrath against sinners must be appeased or satisfied, and that is done in the atonement of Christ. When Jesus shed His blood on the cross, He satisfied God’s wrath and His justice. He is a believer in the PSA theory of the atonement, as most evangelicals seem to believe. To say that we can lose our salvation means that Jesus’s sacrifice was not sufficient to cover all our sins. According to the author, it only covered some sins. None of us believes that. Jesus died once for all the sins of all mankind. That makes salvation possible. To inherit the gift of salvation, we must meet the conditions as I just mentioned.  

Parr asserts that once we go beyond the quota for which Jesus died, His sacrifice no longer works. But Jesus died for all sin for all of us, including those who will die in their sins. There is no quota as the author suggests. Parr says the lie that we can lose our salvation perverts the gospel. It does not. It only refutes his false understanding of the atonement and of salvation.

He uses the quote, “Jesus plus nothing equals salvation.” Unless Allen is a five-point Calvinist, which he claims he is not, he knows that statement is false. Partial Calvinists believe that a condition of salvation is believing in or having faith in Jesus Christ. That is a condition we must bring to the table (Jesus plus our faith equals salvation is what I think Allen really believes). Only the hyper Calvinist actually believes that we contribute nothing at all to our salvation. Mr. Parr is sounding increasingly like a hyper-Calvinist. He is also advocating for the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory. Please see my articles on this subject under ‘Augustinian Calvinism’ on my website.

Mr. Parr thinks that the problem with Christians today is that they believe: Jesus + my works = My salvation. He asserts that the apostle Paul vehemently denied that when he wrote, “You are saved by grace through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God, not from works, so that no one can boast” in Ephesians 2:8-9. I wrote an entire article on this often-misused passage, refuting the various false Calvinistic explanations. See the page on the website ‘Salvation’ and scroll down to this article, ‘Saved by grace, through faith’. Once again, come back to this observation. Mr. Parr doesn’t understand the gospel. And if he does, then I do not understand the gospel. One of us is very wrong. Judge for yourself. I believe that Parr’s ideas about grace, saving faith, and salvation differ significantly from mine, and only one of us is correct.

Pillar 5. Permanence

Allen claims that the New Testament writers state that salvation is permanent. This is the same argument that was covered under preservation and perseverance. He uses John 5:24, which states, “Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life.” He says that eternal means forever and that this is not contingent upon our ongoing faith and obedience. But is he correct? Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. He also quotes John 3:16, which says that everyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. And eternal life means that we can’t lose our salvation because it is permanent.

But elsewhere in scripture, we are told that there are conditions that we must meet, and salvation is not an unconditional guarantee. He, of course, never mentions any of those passages. It is the one who endures to the end that shall be saved, not those who fall back. Two passages come immediately to mind. There are many such passages in the Bible, but these two stand out as being very relevant.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (KJV)

“For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries”.

This passage warns believers who deliberately reject or abandon Christ after having come to know the truth. Such willful sinning—apostasy—is not a momentary lapse but a hardened, continual rebellion. Since Christ’s sacrifice is the only means of atonement, there is no other offering left for those who reject Him after once knowing Him. This verse clearly refutes Parr’s belief that salvation can’t be lost.

Hebrews 6:4–6 (KJV)

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

This passage describes the grave danger faced by those who have fully experienced the blessings of salvation and yet turn entirely away from Christ. Their falling away is a willful repudiation of Him, not a mere spiritual struggle. The “impossibility” of renewal (repentance) reflects the state of their hardened heart while they persist in rebellion, not an absolute prohibition if they genuinely repent.

Interpretations of these two passages

Calvinist View:

As to be expected, Calvinists interpret these warnings as addressed to professing believers within the church, those who have shared outwardly in the blessings of the gospel but were never truly regenerated. They hold that the elect cannot finally fall away, a view similar to that espoused by Allen Parr. Thus, Hebrews 6 and 10 describe people who experienced the external operations of grace but not its inward saving power. The warnings serve as a means God uses to preserve the saints in perseverance. But if they are the elect, then aren’t the means unnecessary?

Arminian View:

Arminians understand these texts as genuine warnings to true believers who can indeed fall from grace through deliberate apostasy. “Sinning willfully” and “falling away” are seen as the result of rejecting faith and the Spirit’s sanctifying work. For Arminians, these verses confirm the conditional nature of salvation; it must be maintained by abiding in Christ through faith and obedience. Parr of course rejects this interpretation.

Early Church Fathers:

Writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Chrysostom took these passages as literal warnings against apostasy by baptized believers. They saw them as exhortations to maintain holiness and steadfastness, emphasizing repentance and perseverance. Most Fathers believed that restoration was possible if repentance was sincere, though it was difficult after a deliberate rejection of Christ. And it seems that Parr, along with many other evangelicals, rejects all of this.

Eastern Orthodox View:

The Orthodox tradition sees these warnings as directed toward believers who sever themselves from divine life by persistent, willful sin and apostasy. Salvation is understood as participation in Christ’s life; to abandon Him through sin is to cut oneself off from grace. Yet through genuine repentance, reconciliation remains possible, as the Church consistently calls sinners to return to communion with God. I must repeat myself. Parr, along with many other evangelicals, does not believe any of this.

Although he apparently denies being a Calvinist, it appears that Mr. Parr is, at a minimum, a partial Calvinist.

Pillar 6. Promises

God had made promises to His children. And if we can lose our salvation, then His promises are worthless. According to Parr, it means that God reneges on His promises if we can lose our salvation. He uses Ephesians 1:3 to substantiate his claim. In this verse, we are told that the Holy Spirit seals us. Therefore, a seal indicates permanence and serves as a guarantee or a down payment. That is akin to entering into a contract—or, even better, a covenant—with God. Since God covenants with us, He can never go back on His promises. That sounds somewhat reasonable, but it is not the truth. Salvation is conditional and is promised only to those who meet the conditions. God never reneges on any of His promises, but he holds us to our part of the covenant.

Let us not forget that God divorced Israel and broke His covenant with Israel because of their continued unfaithfulness. God was not unfaithful; Israel was.  God was no longer obligated to keep the covenant with Israel because they broke the covenant with God first by their constant adultery. We are also told that God divorced Israel. That is not merely a picture of broken fellowship, as some partial Calvinists would have it, but the picture of a relationship that has ended. A covenant that is finished and terminated, as in a legal divorce. Once married, always married is not true. Once saved, always saved is equally false.

Pillar 7. Prayers

Jesus now sits at the right hand of God the Father and intercedes for us in His high priestly ministry in heaven. He uses Hebrews 7:25 as proof. And because Jesus is constantly interceding for us, we can never lose our salvation. But why isn’t Jesus interceding for all humanity and not just us? If His intercession can save them, then who can explain why he isn’t praying for them as well? Only the five-point Calvinist would offer such an argument. If Jesus can pray someone into heaven without their approval or consent, then the only reason everyone is not saved is because Jesus doesn’t want to save everyone. That is the God of the five-point Calvinism, not the God of the Bible.

Pillar 8. Pictures.

When we were saved, we were also adopted into God’s family. Mr. Parr makes the false argument that ‘once adopted, always adopted’. Eternal security is once saved, always saved. But children can be disowned. Moreover, what is alive can die. He assumes the truth of his own position. Who can’t do the same thing? Once dead, always dead is not true (praise God for that), and neither is once saved always saved, true.

Mr. Parr says that we were slaves of sin but have now been redeemed. We had no power to break free from the commission of sin (that is, his belief in Original Sin and inbred sin coming to the surface). Still, Jesus stepped in and broke the power of sin in our lives, and we will never return to that slavery, according to Mr. Parr. He actually doesn’t believe what he is saying. Let us remember the opening story that Allen Parr told us about the young Christian man who went back to the slavery of sin in the form of pornography and fornication. It appears Mr. Parr just contradicted himself. (If you are willing to reconsider the 5th-century Augustinian myth of Original Sin, please see the page titled Original Sin – Sin Nature on my website. The church fathers, before Augustine, rejected the idea of Original Sin, a sinful nature, and being born a sinner.)

  The author, goes on to say that Christ redeemed us, and do we think that God would allow us to ever return to sin’s bondage? Apparently, he does just that, according to the story Mr. Parr opened with. If someone were truly set free from sin, would they want to return to the bondage or slavery of sin? He says no on both counts. But in your story, Mr. Parr, the young man did just that, he wanted to and did return to fornication and pornography. Allen, what is your response? Yet again, the author makes it sound like God is in complete and total control of what we do or don’t do. That is hyper-Calvinism, and Mr. Parr insists he is not a Calvinist.

Let me drive the point home. Mr. Parr began this chapter with the story of a young Christian man who fell back into grave sins.  It was the picture of a young man who had stopped his pornography and fornication when he became a Christian, but then returned to his bondage and slavery. Did he want to? What difference does that make? The fact is that he did return to that former life of sin and bondage. That is the issue. Either the young man did this on his own initiative or God decreed it. Mr. Parr is not even consistent with his own pictures and stories. Parr believes this young Christian man is eternally secure even while he willfully and voluntarily remains in bondage and slavery to sin.

The last picture Parr gives us is that of a criminal. In Christ, we criminals are freed from the guilt and punishment of the crimes we have committed. Jesus cancels our debt of sin and serves the life sentence we deserve in our place as our substitute. (But why does Jesus need to serve the life sentence we deserve if He cancels the debt?)  

Parr asks, would this person want to return to a life of crime? Or would they want to spend their lives expressing their joy and gratefulness to the one who paid the price for them?  Going back to the author’s story of the young Christian man reveals the foolish nature of these questions. Parr told the story about a young Christian man who returns to his former sins of pornography and fornication. Mr. Parr, why didn’t this young Christian man want to spend his life expressing joy and gratefulness to the one who paid the price for him? Why did he want to return to a life of crime against God? And it is not about what we want but about what we do or don’t do.

Why do criminals return to a life of crime, which happens much of the time? Why do so many people refuse to come clean with God in the first place when they know that He offers them freedom from the guilt, condemnation, and reigning power of sin? Why did the young man return to fornication? Why does anyone return to sin, which is a crime against God? It might be that they were never saved in the first place, or it might be that they believed for a while, and the temptations of the world proved to be their undoing because of their selfish heart.

Does Eternal Security Teach a License to Sin With Eternal Impunity?

The author says the Bible doesn’t teach this at all. Really? Many of us know that the Bible doesn’t teach this, but you, Mr. Parr, and others like you do, in fact, teach this ugly falsehood as truth. You teach that Christians may continue to live in sin and are eternally secure, even though these same Christians refuse to stop sinning. That sounds precisely like a license to sin with eternal impunity because it is!

Mr. Parr says that in Romans 6:1-2, it is made clear that a person who experiences God’s grace would not want to take advantage of it and continue to sin. That attitude is not what the Bible leads believers toward, according to the author. And I respond, so what! That is contrary to what Allen thinks and believes, as I have demonstrated more than once in this brief article. He believes that Christians do take advantage of God’s grace and presume on it, in their ongoing unrepentant sins. They mail claim they don’t want to do it, but they do it anyway. And the devil also leads Christians to that attitude, but so does the false doctrine of eternal security. He quotes Romans 6:13, which instructs believers to offer themselves to God as living sacrifices of righteousness. Our new nature prompts us in this direction, not toward sin and unrighteousness. Obviously, that is true, but that is not the issue, nor is it what Mr. Parr actually believes. The problem is that the teaching of Eternal Security tells believers that sin will not send them to hell, which sounds very much like what the serpent said to Eve in the Garden of Eden, “You shall surely not die when you sin against God”. That is the theme song for eternal security.

What must we do to be saved and go to heaven when we die?

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thought: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7.

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Proverbs 28:13.

Those who espouse the doctrine of eternal security do not believe either of these two verses or any just like them, and there are many such passages. Generally speaking, they think the only condition for our salvation is to have faith in Jesus Christ, which includes acknowledging that we are sinners (confession). If a person does that (confession), they are saved even if they never forsake any of their sins, and they most certainly will never forsake all of their sins, because they are taught that it is fanaticism and impossible, since all of us are born sinners.

Was the apostle Paul the ‘chief of sinners’ his entire life?

The author, Allen Parr, tells the reader that even the great apostle Paul struggled with sin (Romans 7:14-25). Paul even claimed he was the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Parr wants us to know that Paul was describing his current situation, not the past. If we are saved, according to Parr, we are no longer happy and content to continue in our old, sinful lifestyles (though we often do). We don’t want to take advantage of God’s grace (but do it anyway!). And I quote the author: “That abundant grace is not a license to sin but an insurance policy. And we are grateful to have it in case we need it, but we would prefer not to use it.” I am trying to be charitable right now. If you believe any of this nonsense, there is little hope for you. Your eyes have been blinded to the truth.

We are asked to believe that because a sinning Christian is not “happy” to continue in the old sinful lifestyle (but does it anyway), that means we are genuine Christians and are eternally secure. Can Allen Parr really be serious? He then goes on to say that this abundant grace is not a license to sin, but just an insurance policy in case we need it, as if the insurance policy itself is not a license and invitation to sin with impunity? These comments are beneath the author’s integrity and are beyond pathetic.

Let us not forget that the Apostle Paul also said that he fought the good fight and his conscience was clear before God in all matters. Why doesn’t Mr. Parr quote any of these passages? Let me do the honor of mentioning those passages that absolutely refute the author’s position about the apostle Paul and Romans 7.

Many who believe in the doctrine of eternal security point to Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 1:15 that he was the ‘chief of sinners’ as evidence that even the apostles remained in continual sin after salvation. However, a careful reading of Paul’s later writings reveals that this phrase reflected his humility and his remembrance of his former life as a persecutor of the Church, rather than a description of his ongoing condition. In multiple passages, Paul affirms his clean conscience, holy conduct, and readiness to meet the Lord. These verses demonstrate that Paul walked in righteousness, maintained a good conscience before God and men, and lived as one who had crucified the flesh and was led by the Spirit of Christ.

1. 2 Timothy 4:6–8

“For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing”.

Paul’s words here show triumph and faithfulness, not a continual state of sin. There is no picture of Romans 7 in these words.

• Acts 23:1

“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day”.

Paul publicly declares that his conscience is pure before God. Does that sound like he considered himself the chief of sinners?

• Acts 24:16

“And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men”.

Paul actively maintains a clear conscience, demonstrating ongoing righteousness. To suggest that Paul considered himself to be a willful sinner or the chief of sinners is ridiculous.

•  
• Philippians 3:12–14

“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus”.

Paul describes spiritual progress, not habitual sin.

• 1 Corinthians 9:27

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway”.

Paul lives in disciplined obedience to avoid disqualification. Paul was no hypocrite as Mr. Parr wants us to believe. Nothing in any of these verses resembles Romans 7.

• Philippians 1:21

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain”.

Paul’s life is devoted entirely to Christ. That is not a picture of Romans 7.

• 2 Corinthians 1:12

“For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward”.

Paul rejoices in his clean conscience and godly sincerity, which no chief of sinners could ever boast about.

• Galatians 2:20

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me”.

Paul testifies that the old sinful self has been crucified; he now lives by the power of Christ. Is Christ the chief of sinners that Paul emulated? Please.

• 1 Thessalonians 2:10

“Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe”.

Paul calls God as a witness to his holy and blameless conduct. No chief of sinners would ever make such a claim.

1. 2 Corinthians 7:2

“Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man”.

Paul affirms his moral integrity and freedom from wrongdoing.

Now we understand why the author, Mr. Allen Parr, didn’t quote any of these passages: each undermines his argument that the Apostle Paul continued to live as the chief of sinners after becoming a Christian.

Romans 7 is not the experience of a genuine born-again Christian, especially not the apostle Paul.

Allen Parr’s comments about Romans 7 are entirely false, and I wrote an article proving that point. Please see my website, seekgodintruth.com, and the Salvation page for the article titled “Romans 7.” Paul was not saying this about his current condition, contrary to what Mr. Parr stated. This passage is not about an honest, genuine Christian at all. For more detailed information, please refer to the article on Romans 7.

The True Grace of God

If you continue to sin and treat it casually, you must remember that Christ paid a significant cost to free you from sin, and that purchasing your forgiveness wasn’t cheap, according to the author, Mr. Parr. And if you don’t and continue to treat sin casually, then remember you have an insurance policy called eternal security. Does Mr. Parr somehow believe that his comments will shake us out of our dependence on the insurance safety net of eternal security? Do you think any of this will convince the Christian sinner to stop sinning, which most proponents of eternal security flatly deny is even possible?

The tighter one holds to grace, the less attractive sin becomes, according to Allen Parr. But I think it is just the opposite: if you believe in the false and presumptuous grace that proponents of eternal security teach, it will lead you into more, not less, sin.

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”. Titus 2:11-14.

This grace —the true grace of God —is very different from the grace that Allen Parr and most adherents of eternal security teach. Their grace is a license to sin with eternal impunity. It is that false grace he describes as an insurance policy. The grace that Titus talks about is the sin-purging grace of the one true God. That grace turns sinners into saints who walk not after the flesh but according to the Spirit. Those who experience the true grace of God stop sinning and live godly, righteous lives. I do not believe that proponents of eternal security believe what Titus proclaimed. They teach something much different than this.

 Christians who continue to sin care nothing about God’s sacrifice and His grace unless that grace allows them to continue to sin as they will. And that is what Mr. Allen Parr is offering them. God offers them freedom from sin, not freedom to sin, as Parr advocates, as do all those who peddle the lie of eternal security.

The false doctrine of being born with a sinful nature is the best excuse for sin ever devised by the devil. And the false doctrine of eternal security is the final nail in the coffin.

 

 

 

 

Allen Parr’s View of Perseverance of the Saints per ChatGPT with (my comments)
(from Misled: 7 Lies That Distort the Gospel)

1. Introduction

Allen Parr is a Christian Bible teacher, ordained minister, and graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He operates the ministry Let’s Equip and the YouTube channel ‘The BEAT,’ where he aims to help Christians discern biblical truth from cultural distortion. In his 2023–2024 book *Misled: 7 Lies That Distort the Gospel*, Parr exposes widespread misconceptions within modern evangelicalism, including false teachings about grace, works, and assurance of salvation. Chapter 6 is particularly significant, as it reveals Parr’s conviction that genuine believers will persevere in faith — a view consistent with the Calvinist doctrine of ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ (the ‘P’ in TULIP). While Parr denies being a strict Calvinist, he affirms many of its practical conclusions regarding eternal security.

2. Summary of Chapter 6 (with page references)

In Chapter 6 of *Misled*, Parr teaches that salvation, once genuinely received, cannot be lost. He defines perseverance as the believer’s ongoing faithfulness that naturally flows from true regeneration. According to Parr (see pp. 169–182), those who permanently fall away were never truly saved. This is not merely a matter of weak faith or temporary doubt; instead, he distinguishes between authentic conversion and superficial emotional responses. Parr argues against the Arminian belief that genuine believers can forfeit salvation (pp. 175–178), stating that God preserves His own through both divine grace and the believer’s continued obedience. (But he actually believes that Christians walk in disobedience.) He appeals to texts such as John 10:28–29, Romans 8:38–39, and Philippians 1:6 as evidence that salvation, once initiated by God, will undoubtedly be brought to completion. Parr’s focus is pastoral: true faith endures, and perseverance is the evidence of salvation rather than its condition.

3. Doctrinal Analysis

Parr’s theology affirms that genuine believers are eternally secure, but he resists framing this within strict Calvinist determinism. (But he does, at least to a degree.) He does not teach that God irresistibly forces perseverance; instead, he sees perseverance as the natural result of authentic regeneration. (What’s the difference?) In this way, his view closely resembles the ‘Free Grace Calvinism’ position — affirming the security of the believer while emphasizing the moral fruit that confirms faith (Yet he also believes that genuine Christians can walk in sin and still go to heaven). He diverges from Arminianism by rejecting the notion that a believer can lose salvation, yet diverges from rigid Calvinism by allowing space for human cooperation with divine grace (Not really). His teaching emphasizes assurance rooted in Christ’s power to preserve, rather than in human effort to maintain faith. (How is that different from the irresistible grace of Calvinism? It isn’t.)

4. Comparison Table

Doctrine	Allen Parr	Classic Calvinism	Arminianism
Total Depravity	Affirms sin’s depth but maintains human responsibility.	Human nature totally depraved, incapable of seeking God apart from grace.	Human nature corrupted but grace restores ability to respond.
Unconditional Election	Leans toward conditional or corporate election.	God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation.	God elects based on foreseen faith.
Limited Atonement	Rejects limitation; believes Christ died for all.	Christ died only for the elect.	Christ died for all, applicable through faith.
Irresistible Grace	Rejects irresistibility; grace can be resisted initially.	Saving grace cannot be resisted by the elect.	Grace is resistible.
Perseverance of the Saints	Affirms perseverance: true believers endure to the end.	Affirms: the elect cannot finally fall away.	Denies: believers can fall away and lose salvation.

5. Early Church Comparison (Pre-Augustine)

Before Augustine, the early church fathers generally taught that perseverance was necessary but not guaranteed by decree. Clement of Rome (1 Clement 32–35) emphasized endurance in righteousness as the mark of those who will be saved. Ignatius of Antioch urged believers to ‘run in harmony with the will of God’ (Ephesians 14), implying active cooperation. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.27.2) warned that believers must remain steadfast, for faith and obedience are inextricably intertwined. Origen and Cyprian both acknowledged the possibility of apostasy, although they believed that God’s grace enables perseverance. Allen Parr’s view aligns most closely with this early moral perseverance rather than with Augustine’s later doctrine of irresistible grace. (I do not think so.) Like the pre-Augustinian fathers, Parr defines perseverance not as divine coercion but as faith proven through steadfast obedience. (Not true for Parr, who doesn’t see obedience as an inseparable attribute of saving faith.) However, unlike Origen or Cyprian, Parr explicitly denies that a true believer can ever finally fall away — a distinction that situates him between the early fathers’ conditional perseverance and Calvin’s guaranteed perseverance. (Not so. His position more closely aligns with Calvin’s guaranteed perseverance.)

6. Conclusion

Allen Parr can rightly be described as a partial Calvinist. He accepts the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints but modifies its emphasis to focus on practical assurance rather than metaphysical predestination. (So what!) His focus on evidence of salvation (which is not true for his story in Chapter 6 of his book, about the young Christian man falling back into sin, refutes this distinction) through endurance mirrors the moral rigor of early Christian teaching (not really) while upholding the eternal security characteristic of modern evangelical Calvinism. In rejecting the Arminian view of conditional security, Parr’s theology affirms that salvation, once genuine, is irrevocable, yet authenticated by a life of perseverance. (Not really, because he thinks believers can walk away for all practical purposes and live in sin and still be saved.)

7. Endnotes

1. 1. Clement of Rome, *First Epistle to the Corinthians* 32–35.
2. 2. Ignatius of Antioch, *Epistle to the Ephesians* 14.
3. 3. Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* IV.27.2.
4. 4. Origen, *On First Principles* III.1.23.
5. 5. Cyprian of Carthage, *On the Lapsed* 24.
6. 6. Allen Parr, *Misled: 7 Lies That Distort the Gospel* (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2023), ch. 6, pp. 169–182.