September 16, 2024
In my article titled “Calvinism and Eternal Security,” I made mention of Dr. Leighton Flowers and his YouTube site called Soteriology101. In my previous article, I questioned whether Dr. Flowers has truly rejected Calvinism or merely adopted a modified view of it due to his belief in eternal security. Dr. Flowers has been called a 1-point Calvinist, but I actually believe he, and others like him, are closer to 4-point Calvinists. For more details, please refer to the article.
In this article, I want to focus on Dr. Flowers’s video regarding “Once Saved Always Saved?” Years ago, I refuted all the main arguments that Dr. Charles Stanley used in his book titled “Eternal Security”. I also wrote another article refuting the doctrine of Eternal Security, as taught by Dr. William P. Grady.
Dr. Flowers is a wonderful man, which is evident in the way he presents his information. He is immediately likeable, kind, and reasonable. He is not at all contentious, unlike some. He is doing an excellent service to the Christian world by exposing the many errors of Calvinism.
My most significant disagreement with him is with the Calvinistic doctrine we call Eternal Security, or Once Saved, Always Saved. Dr. Flowers claims to reject all the points of Calvinism but still embraces Eternal Security, which is very similar to point five of Calvinism’s TULIP. The P in TULIP is the perseverance of the saints, which has much in common with Once Saved, Always Saved or Eternal Security.
My format will be this. I will address each of Dr. Flowers’ main points individually. My comments will follow that. I encourage you to listen to his video, which is less than an hour in length.
Leighton Flowers’ video on Once Saved Always Saved
As a Southern Baptist, he believes in the doctrine of Eternal Security. Dr. Flowers doesn’t think we should divide over this subject. And practically speaking, it doesn’t make much difference in how he interacts with others. He admits that some think of the P in TULIP, Perseverance of the Saints, as being the same as eternal security, but he doesn’t see it that way. Eternal Security is somewhat different than the Perseverance of the Saints. (See my article, Calvinism and Eternal Security.)
My response
Dr. Flowers doesn’t think this subject is all that important because it doesn’t change how he would interact with a person whose faith was questionable. The reason he feels this way is that he has already determined that those who have genuine faith in Christ will persevere to the end. If a person doesn’t persevere to the end, they were never saved to begin with. He doesn’t believe an honest Christian will ever abandon the faith. (Despite the testimony of many who say that this is not true). Even if a person exhibits the fruit of a saving relationship in Christ and then walks away from it, beginning to show the opposite fruit, Flowers would say that this person was never saved in the first place.
While it may be true that a person who at one time exhibited some fruit of salvation may walk away, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they were saved and are now lost. It might be a situation where the person was never saved to begin with. That’s a possibility. But I have, and so have lots of other Christians, known those who were as real a Christian as most other Christians, who later walked away from the faith. I heard the testimony of someone lately who, through multiple compromises, became a practicing sinner all over again and believes they lost their salvation. This person has returned like the prodigal who was lost and dead.
I agree with men such as John Wesley and Charles Finney that the doctrine of eternal security has sent countless numbers of men and women to hell. They thought it was imperative to rescue Christians from this false doctrine, which had deceived many. Why is it so dangerous? It tells believers that they can presume on the grace of God while they refuse to repent of their sins. It is a false and deceptive security that continues to lead many astray, ultimately leading to eternal damnation. The Word of God plainly states that no person born of God continues in sin. The doctrine of eternal security states that all born-again Christians continue in some sin and will all inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5, as well as numerous other New Testament passages, these texts refute that false idea.
Flowers continued:
The “P” is actually best described as Predestination by God, according to Flowers. A Calvinist defines predestination as God predetermining all who are elected and chosen to salvation and all who are not selected and who will go to hell. Flowers means that Biblical predestination is that God invites all men to salvation, not just the elect. God’s foreknowledge or prescience knows who will respond in saving faith and who will not respond in faith and receive His gift of salvation. In the final analysis, if a person is not saved, it is because that person rejected God’s offer of salvation, according to Flowers. (And I agree with Mr. Flowers on this point).
Flowers continues:
Leighton prefers to describe ‘Eternal Security’ or ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’ as “Once Saved, then Saved Eternally”.
He states that even Arminian theology acknowledges a point of no return. By that, he means that, once we get to heaven, even the Arminian will no longer need to worry about losing salvation. For the typical Arminian, once we are glorified, apostasy is no longer a risk, for our nature has been changed permanently. We are eternally secure. We can’t sin in our glorified state.
Flowers believes this ‘point of no return’ applies to the present moment in life. Once we truly believe, we can’t be lost again. When we reach the ‘point of no return,’ by exercising faith in Christ, we are eternally saved because we are eternally justified.
My response
I have written about this subject before in numerous other articles. Many Christians, like Flowers, believe that death is our savior. And this idea of “a point of no return” is one aspect of that belief. Most Christians, and especially carnal Christians, believe that we will sin habitually for the remainder of our lives, and not until we die will we have victory over sin.
In other words, we lose our free will in heaven and become robots for Jesus, who can’t love God any longer. They will, of course, deny that, but it doesn’t change the fact that in heaven we no longer need to persevere in the faith. That, they believe, is paradise for us and God. That makes no sense whatsoever, if you think about it for a moment.
As I wrote in my article, ‘Calvinism and Eternal Security’, Leighton Flowers appears to be a modestly modified Calvinist (a neo-Calvinist) despite his contention that he is not. He believes men and women have the free will to accept God’s grace in salvation, but once they do, they lose their free will to decide differently thereafter. Before salvation, the grace of God is resistible (with our free will, we can say no to God), but after exercising justifying faith in Jesus Christ, even if just for a moment, the grace of God is now irresistible (with our free will, we can’t say no to God-only yes), just like in Calvinism. Does that make any sense at all?
For several reasons, I do not call myself an Arminian, even though I agree with them that a genuine Christian can lose or walk away from their salvation and end up in hell. I am relatively certain that I have personally witnessed some genuine apostasy. I have seen and read about Christians who exhibited genuine faith and trust in Christ, only to walk away from it, never to return. Some of these souls may indeed have just put on a good act for an extended period, but it must also be admitted that some may have been real Christians but lost it all under the force of great temptation. Flowers thinks this is impossible once we have actually known God. Why? Because we lose our free will, once we exercise faith in Christ. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Flowers thinks it is impossible to leave God once we get to know him. But what about Satan, Adam, Eve, and the other fallen angels? They knew God better than all of us, yet they all rejected God. What about Solomon in his old age? His argument loses some credibility when considering the numerous apostates throughout history. The only reason Flowers can’t believe a real believer in Christ loses salvation is that he is still a partial Calvinist at heart.
Moreover, death is not our savior from sin, but Jesus Christ is. The angel announced the birth of Christ and said that Jesus would save His people from their sins, not in their sins as most evangelicals think. The message of the gospel is salvation from the bondage, practice, guilt, and damnation from sin, not salvation in the present commission of sin. Most Christians believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is salvation in the present practice of sinning, but with all the guilt and damnation removed. I regard that as the doctrine of demons. And it explains why the institutional church is so weak and ineffective these days. It explains why the churches are filled with unsaved hypocrites.
Last point, can anyone actually believe that death is the ‘point of no return’ from being able to love God? If we lose our free will in heaven, then don’t we lose our ability to love God in heaven? Do you think God wants us to become robots for Jesus in heaven, obeying Him because we have no choice? How might God find pleasure and joy in any of that? Death is not our savior; Jesus Christ is.
Flowers continued
His camp of Provisionism says that a person can’t lose salvation but can walk away from salvation. That pithy saying lacks substance. If we walk away from salvation, by definition, we lose it. Many believers in eternal security believe that Christians live like the devil, but that doesn’t mean they are actually children of the devil. But Jesus said that a good tree can’t bring forth evil fruit, while others, such as Flowers, maintain that good trees (Christians) bring forth the evil fruit of sin repeatedly.
Dr. Michael Brown, whom Flowers says is Arminian, says salvation can’t be easily lost. The implication is that one sin or even a few sins is not sufficient to lose salvation. Loss of salvation must occur if sin becomes habitual, whatever that means. We will look into more details on this subject in this article.
Flowers states that the better question is, can a person leave salvation? He says a Christian can lose salvation but retain it simultaneously. Say what? Flowers says a person can’t lose salvation because that is like losing justification (his words) or being unborn (my words). Flowers’ explanation for this is as follows. “We can only see the fruit, but God sees the root.” God saw Peter’s repentance after his three-fold denial. Peter was always saved, according to Flowers.
Judas was also an apostle like Peter. Judas was a follower of Christ, but then became a traitor. Was he always a traitor? Why must we assume Judas was never a real believer? Christ would have seen his apostasy, as He proclaimed, without that meaning that Judas was never a genuine believer at any time. Jesus foresaw Peter’s denial, then repentance, and Judas’ betrayal and lack of repentance. Is that not a fair interpretation?
The other problem with Flowers’ statement about us seeing the fruit and God seeing the root is the fact that Jesus taught something contrary to this statement. As just mentioned, Jesus told us that we would know the tree by its fruit. Jesus said that we will know the tree by its fruit, not by its root, in direct contradiction to what Flowers believes. In the world according to Dr. Flowers, former Dr. Charles Stanley, and many others, a Christian may not have good fruit, but that doesn’t mean they are not saved. Apparently, Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about if you believe what Flowers just told you.
Dr. Flowers’ position that a person may lose (leave) salvation but not lose salvation at the same time sounds very much like the standing and state theory. It also sounds very much like religious nonsense. The standing and state idea is that our standing in heaven is that of a saved person, while our state on earth may resemble the walk of an evil person or a person who is not saved. In Flowers’ words, you left your salvation, but you did not lose it. Your earthly state is a wicked person (wicked saint) who walked away from salvation, but you didn’t actually lose it. Your standing in heaven is that of a saint, even while your state on earth may be evil. Again, Jesus was wrong if you believe them.
How many sins?
In my observation, many who call themselves Arminian are neo-Calvinists, who believe in eternal security but don’t want to admit it. They have no idea how many sins a person can commit before salvation is lost. It can’t possibly mean that one sin forfeits salvation and justification, because God would never condemn anyone for just one sin, would He? Seriously, would He?
How many sins did Adam and Eve commit before death became the consequence? The Bible says it was one sin. Is that correct? How many sins did Satan and the other angels commit before God judged and condemned them? What was Adam and Eve’s main crime (one sin) against God? Was it idolatry or murder? Did Adam and Eve explode a bomb in the garden? Did they use WMDs? What was their major crime? They ate from the one tree that God specifically told them not to eat from. Death was the punishment.
In our fleshly minds, that appears much like a venial sin and not a mortal sin. But not in God’s perspective. That one sin was a capital crime against God and His rule over the universe. Other parts of scripture emphasize that one sin is enough to bring God’s judgment and condemnation. Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, for example.
How many times can we commit adultery before we’re considered adulterers? How many times can we commit rape before we’re labeled rapists? How many people must we kill before we’re called murderers? How many things must we steal before we are thieves? And how many lies must we tell before we are considered a liar?
Sin separates us from God. It all begins with one sin, and a single presumptuous sin that goes unrepaired will always and rapidly lead to many more. I’m including an excerpt from my book, When Lies Become Truth, to address this vital subject.
“ETERNAL SECURITY (Unconditional Salvation-once saved always saved)
According to this doctrine, the unrighteous “righteous” can never die eternally. God speaks through Ezekiel, “When I say to the righteous, he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die” Ezekiel 33:13. Does it sound like the righteous was eternally secure? Does it sound like he was unconditionally loved and unconditionally saved? No.
I am not trying to be contentious, but doesn’t the doctrine of eternal security encourage us to “so trust in our righteousness” (the false imputed kind) that we carelessly and presumptuously commit iniquity? There can be no doubt about this. Then we are assured that we shall not die. Sounds like what Satan told Eve. Satan first got Eve to doubt the plain truth by putting a question in her mind: “Hath God really said you will die when you sin?” First the doubt, then the lie, as Satan told Eve, “You surely shall not die” the day when you sin against God, Genesis 3:4. This is being replayed in our day under the teaching of once saved always saved in the same way, first the doubt, then the lie.
How often could the righteous in this passage sin before they would die? Maybe Stanley is correct; a near-endless amount of sin will not separate professing Christians from God. What does the passage declare? “And you son of man, say to your fellow citizens, ‘The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the dayof his transgression…whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.” Ezekiel 33:12, emphasis added.
I don’t know how to improve upon this word. It’s written, a righteous man dies the very day he commits sin. Please notice the clarifying emphasis, “in the day” coupled with “on the day” all within the same verse. It really couldn’t be clearer what the author was saying. I know some will say this is an Old Testament principle and it no longer applies. Explain away this passage if you will, but it will not change the apparent meaning. Very few seem willing to accept this statement as it is written. All too often, the plain meaning is interpreted away. Try something new for a change. Don’t think about what this means to you personally. Now reread this section and let it speak for itself.
Many of us seek a word from God, but this word is not what most of us have in mind, is it? First, the doubt;
- about the timing (the day) and the,
- consequence (eternal death), and then,
- The lie (eternal security) that sin will not immediately condemn when you commit it. This has always been the doctrine of the god of this world.
How many Christians, especially those of an Arminian persuasion[1], question the meaning of the Word of God spoken to Adam when He declared that Adam would die, “the day” he ate of the forbidden fruit? Yet when it comes to the same expression in Ezekiel, “the day,” we aren’t to take it literally. It now means that at some unknown date in the future, our sins will catch up to us and we will die. But in Genesis, we are to take it literally. Could it be that Adam was a unique case? Adam died for one sin on the very day he committed it, but we die when we commit more than one sin, possibly a great many sins, at some future, unknowable date. Is it unreasonable of me to doubt the accuracy of this interpretation?
I believe my next point is impossible to refute. In this passage from Ezekiel 33, we also have the promise that the wicked will be pardoned “in the day” when they turn from their sin and practice justice and righteousness. On the very day the wicked repent of sin, they are forgiven and will not stumble because of past sins. What a beautiful promise, “in the day” we repent, we are saved! I can’t believe anyone would disagree with this truth that the wicked are forgiven “the very day” they repent, not at some future unknown date or after some indeterminable amount of justice and righteousness has been practiced. Still, the very day they turn from their sin. Now, can this same expression “in the day” mean something different for the righteous person who turns from righteousness and starts to sin? No way!
Though I think it is impossible to refute the above point, I certainly understand that some will simply disregard my comments and refuse to believe it. Therefore, please allow me to pose a few questions for your consideration.
The reason this discussion is critical is that most people, including professing Christian’s, seek to get by with the absolute minimum. If they can get away with some sin, that is what they want to hear. But don’t tell them how much sin it is; it’s much better not to know and leave it open-ended. They want to say that we are all imperfect and that we all fall short and sin every day. For if that is true, then we all must be safe. If they can delay repentance for an hour, a week, a month, or a year, they will wait until the last minute to repent. The following questions about sin and its consequences are of critical importance. Our sinful natures (created by us, not inherited from Adam) want to minimize the amount of self-denial we must put into practice. If your theology allows you to hold back anything from God, then you are deceived. God will not be mocked.
Is it possible to live without sinning for one whole minute? Who would deny that this is possible? How about one hour? If we can live without sinning for one hour, can we live without sinning for an entire day? Or must we sin every hour of every day in thought, word, and deed?[2] Before I became a disciple of Christ, three sins characterized my life. By the truth and grace of God, I have not committed these sins in many years. If a person can live for years without committing three sins, can a person live for years without committing more than three sins? Or are we doomed to be incorrigible sinners? Is the blood of Christ adequate to cleanse, not whitewash, us from all unrighteousness or not?
How many times have you heard this portion of God’s Word, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?” Romans 3:23. We are told that we must take this passage literally, even though we know that Jesus, a real man in every sense of the word, is an exception. All doesn’t mean everyone.[3] However, concerning this passage in Ezekiel, we should not take the expression “in the day” literally. It doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It means that only Adam died the day he sinned. On the one hand, we know that the very real man, Jesus, is an exception to the statement “all have sinned,” and on the other hand, all of us “Christians” are exceptions to the statement “a righteous man dies the day he sins” and only Adam and Eve died the day they sinned. Does this make any sense at all? Or am I just splitting hairs?
Is God harsh?
For some Christians, it seems unbelievably harsh of God to let us damn ourselves for sin on the day we commit it. It seems unreasonable, unfair, and unkind. Is God really like that? As you are aware, I have been advocating for the proper use of reason and logic throughout this book. But remember that reason must always give way to the clear teaching of God’s Word. It’s the foundation. Let’s let the Word instruct us, as hard as it will be, to consider the following facts.
Was God too harsh in the destruction of the Philistines when entire families were killed under His direct orders? Was God too harsh, unfair, and unkind in the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem when women and children were brutally slaughtered? By the way, how many sins did those infants commit? What about the flood in the day of Noah, when only eight persons were saved? How many young people perished in the flood? Are you in a place to criticize and judge God and declare that He was too harsh? We can be sure of this. God is so wonderful, kind, holy, and just that He had no other viable option, or He would not have destroyed the world.
Many Christians mistakenly think the New Covenant is more lenient than the Old Covenant. Isn’t that the difference between the two testaments? However, in the New Testament, we find the story of two people who were struck down by God as an example to all of us, for just one sin. Was God excessively harsh in the death of Ananias and Saphira? Acts 5. They were killed for lying. Does God condemn Christians for “one small sin” such as lying? Are we out of God’s family for just that?[4] That, too, seems so very harsh of God. According to the book of Revelation 22:15, all liars have their place in the lake of fire. I kindly ask how many lies we can tell before we become liars?[5] Is it three, six, nine, fifteen, or more? What is the number?
How many sins did Satan and his followers commit before they were damned? How many sins did Adam and Eve commit before they died eternally? The evidence suggests that it was a single sin. Maybe God held them to a higher level of accountability than He does us. Where is it written that this is true? Can it be true and God be impartial? Was Adam’s case unique? Should we assume that one sin brought condemnation to Adam, but somewhere between one sin and too many sins (whatever number that is), all the rest of us are damned? If not one sin, then how many? Isn’t that an important question, which deserves to be answered by those “Arminians” who refuse to accept this truth as revealed in this passage in Ezekiel, among other passages?
Two Standards!
I have been asked this question: “What happens to a Christian who commits a sin and is suddenly and unexpectedly killed in an accident? Does that Christian go to hell?” I will answer your question if you answer mine. What happens to unbelievers (non-Christians) when they are suddenly and unexpectedly killed and miss a last opportunity to repent? Do they get to heaven anyway? Christians don’t usually have a problem when the unbeliever is suddenly killed and goes to hell. But when a sinning “Christian” is suddenly killed and doesn’t have at least one more opportunity to repent, no matter how many opportunities they might have squandered over many years, it seems unreasonable to think that God will send that person to hell. Are we not back to a double standard and God’s partiality? If unbelievers die for one sin, then must that not be true of believers also? The opposite is also true. If believers are not condemned for an unspecified quantity of sin, then that must be true of unbelievers as well. Or do you believe that God has two standards, a tough standard for the unbeliever and an easier one for the believer? If not one sin, then how many does it take before unbelievers (non-Christians) die eternally?[6]
What are the wages of sin, exactly?
What do we do with Romans chapter 6 verse 23, which states that the wages of sin are death? Are the wages of sin eternal death for non-Christians but eternal life for sinning “Christians”? Is the believer saved until he commits an unspecified number of sins? Is it true that at some unknown future time the sinner “believer” dies, and it is finally accurate that the wages of sin are death? Or is it true that no amount of sin will separate a so-called Christian from eternal life? If it is true that no amount of sin will separate a Christian from eternal life, then the wages of sin are not death, and scripture is a lie.
In the book of 1 John, we are repeatedly told that the one who sins is born of the devil. We are also told that no one who is born of God sins habitually. All flesh wants the false idea of imputed righteousness, imputed obedience, and eternal security to be accurate. Then we could live with one foot in the kingdom of heaven and one foot in the world. But there is no peace for the wicked, including the wicked “Christian.” Peace with God is everything; why stop short of it? “I will not justify the wicked,” Exodus 23:7. Cease from wickedness, all you who call on the name of Christ, for He never changes and He will never justify the wicked (those presently sinning).
When Jesus states that the lawless and evildoers will not inherit the kingdom of God, are we to interpret this to mean that they will, in fact, inherit the kingdom of God, if they don’t exceed a certain number of sins? Maybe we are not technically lawless and evildoers when we commit just a few sins. Or even a bunch of sins. Perhaps it takes a big basket brimming with sins to be classified as lawless and an evildoer. Is this trifling on my part?
Richard Taylor wrote a book that I recall vividly. I was an ardent believer in eternal security, and a friend of mine asked me to read Taylor’s book, A Right Conception of Sin.[7] Even today, I can remember how upset and angry I was over that book. It rocked my world, and I wasn’t going down without a fight. Fight as I did, I couldn’t resist the truth and eventually bowed my knees, heart and mind. In Taylor’s discussion about sin and the doctrine of eternal security, his premise was that the false theology of once saved always saved changed the very nature of sin. Sin, in this false system, no longer produced its deadly effects. But how can the atonement of Christ change the nature of sin? Where in the Bible is such a thing even hinted at?
What about sin causes it to produce eternal death? Sin has already been defined. Sin is lawlessness and a departure from God’s will and ways. Sin results in eternal death. What is eternal death? Eternal death involves 1) separation from God, 2) depravity, and 3) just punishment. Eternal death is the unavoidable effect of and is always produced by the cause of sin based on these three considerations:
- The holiness and justice of God.
- The choice of evil, or unholiness, or injustice on man’s part.
- The principle of the intrinsic antagonism between good and evil, holiness and unholiness, justice and injustice, and light and dark.
The holiness of God demands that the choice of evil results in separation, for how can God have fellowship with sin?[8] The justice of God, combined with our free will and the inherent antagonism between good and evil, results in just punishment. How could God fail to attach a penalty for sin without violating His justice? The combination of these three facts always results in eternal death, characterized by separation, guilt, and depravity. The effect is instantaneous, and it remains unchanged. Also, it can never change unless God Himself changes. Items (A) and (C) will never change. The gospel, contends Mr. Taylor, removes the second consideration (B), which is the only principle or consideration that can be altered. Men must cease from evil and learn to do righteousness. This is what the truth does by grace through faith. It turns lawbreakers into lawkeepers.
Revival impossible!
If we “Christians” are not condemned for sin, then what do you tell sinning believers? Do you tell them that somewhere between one sin and many sins, they are damned? Or do we resort to the teaching of eternal security[9], imputed righteousness and imputed obedience, and state that no amount of sin will eternally separate a Christian from God? Do we tell them all true Christian’s sin daily contrary to Scriptural statements such as, “the one who commits sin is of the devil,” and “no one born of God sins?” Why then do we sit back and wonder in amazement, not understanding why the visible church is as wicked as the rest of the world? Under such teaching real revival is impossible.
Ungodly counsel-our words
The Word of God declares that by our words we will be justified or condemned. Matthew 12:37. I will never tell a sinning “Christian” that they have time to repent and that while they think it over, they are saved and safe. If they were suddenly and unexpectedly killed, they would perish. Every moment they refuse to repent, their heart hardens, and the wrath of God mounts as His love is repudiated. To say anything else is to encourage their impenitence, and their blood will be charged against the one who deceived them with a false sense of security.
“Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:1-2 KJV.
Those who tell others that they have an indefinite period to repent or that they are eternally secure in their ongoing sin are guilty of this offence, whether they acknowledge it or not. Jesus said Woe to them who cause others to trifle with sin in any way. Listen to what Jesus said, “It would be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one of these little ones.” By our words, we will be justified or condemned.
Sin in the Old and New Testaments
In the Old Testament, how often could a Jew sin before atonement was required? Was atonement required for every sin or just after some unspecified number of sins had been committed? If you are even remotely familiar with the Old Testament, you will know that every sin required atonement. Even sins committed unwittingly or in ignorance required general atonement, followed by specific atonement when discovered.
Sinning Jews were still part of the covenant and the nation of Israel unless and until they sinned with a high hand or refused God’s remedy for atonement and stubbornly refused to repent. What did the covenant represent for the Jew? It represented God’s intentions toward them for good, not evil. By the covenant, He committed Himself to correct, discipline, instruct, redeem, and encourage His children. But only repentance would keep the sinner in the covenant. The impenitent lost all the benefits of the covenant. In a limited sense, there is a covering for “sins” committed in ignorance, unintentionally, or unwittingly. However, once the sin had been discovered, it required atonement for forgiveness and to remain in the covenant. The application today is that we may technically do or neglect something that is a “sin,” but God doesn’t condemn us for that “sin” if it was done in ignorance or unintentionally. However, once God shines the light on that behavior, act, or attitude, we must repent; otherwise, we will not receive forgiveness and remain unrighteous.
Even if we can’t agree that sins of ignorance, unwitting sins, or unintentional sins are New Testament sins, I think we can all agree that sin proper is a voluntary transgression of the law. If we willfully disobey God, we sin. I think almost all of us would agree on that. I think we could all agree that violating the 10 Commandments is a sin. We might disagree about the Sabbath laws, but the other nine would, I believe, yield a general agreement.
We might disagree that all worry is sin, that all doubt is sin, that mistakes are sin, that eating a little too much is sin, and so on. But we can all agree that things such as fornication, adultery, stealing, gossiping, sexual perversions, lusting, covetousness, taking God’s name in vain, telling lies about our neighbor, worshiping idols, etc, are real sins in both the Old and New Testament.
I am writing about the deliberate, intentional type of disobedience that we all agree is sin. Please keep this in mind. Author Dan Corner believes that there are certain sins, such as worry, that are genuine New Testament sins but not sins that condemn us to hell.[10] The Roman Catholic Church also differentiates between venial and mortal sins. Let us not focus on venial sins, whether defined by Protestants or Catholics. Let us focus primarily on mortal sins, those sins that destroy eternal life and result in eternal damnation. You can call the other venial sins if you like, or lesser sins that don’t destroy eternal life. I don’t believe venial sins are real sins in God’s eyes. Why? It makes it very hard to reconcile the teachings of 1 John, among many other passages, which state that children of God don’t sin habitually. If we can unknowingly sin or if human frailty is sinful, then how can these passages be actual? In other words, if venial sins are real sins, how can we intelligently understand those New Testament passages of scripture that tell us that Christians don’t live in or practice sin? The New Testament doesn’t say that children of God don’t commit mortal sins, but do commit venial sins. Who could make sense of that?[11]
There is a sin unto death
“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself and that the wicked one toucheth him not”. 1 John 5:16-18 KJV.
Mr. Corner contends that there is a sin unto death. Eternal Security teachers often tie this passage to 1 Cor. 11:27-30, which discusses those who partake in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, resulting in physical death: “A number of you have fallen asleep.” Please recall my earlier discussion about this passage. Even if it is true that some sins cause physical death, it doesn’t mean eternal death is not the consequence at the same time. Moreover, once saved, always saved teachers might draw attention to the physical death of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5:3-10. The fact that eternal security teachers generally tie death to physical death and not eternal death has been illuminated often in these pages. Mr. Corner’s point is that some sin leads to eternal death and others do not, and this passage in 1 John is about eternal death, not just physical death.
New Testament sin is an intelligent and deliberate refusal to obey a known law or command of God. To insist that sin includes unknown acts is to make sin consist of the letter versus the spirit of the law of God. If there is a fundamental difference between the Testaments, it is this: God looks on the heart, not just the letter. Calvinism’s legalistic definition of sin is according to the letter of the law, not the spirit. The New Testament is all about the spirit and not the letter.
If we can sin without knowing it, then 1 John and many other passages must be lies because none of us can knowingly live without habitual sin in our lives. If we sin in thought, word, and deed daily, then the blood of Christ is not sufficient, and the most challenging problem in our world, salvation from sin, is impossible for God. Seriously, what do you think a loving God is concerned about? Do you think He is upset about our mistakes, errors, and miscalculations done from a pure heart? Is God judging us according to the letter or the spirit of the law? What do you make God out to be? Would you treat your children that way? I pray not.
The Sin of Adultery
If you commit one “not so small sin”, such as adultery, are you still saved? Do you really believe that if you commit adultery, you are in a justified state? Someone I talked with admitted that one act of adultery is sufficient to damn the “Christian’s” soul, but he just can’t accept the idea that on the day we sin, we die. If this is true, what we are left with is that certain sins cause us to die the day we commit them but lesser sins don’t cause immediate condemnation. This sounds very similar to Mr. Corner’s and the Roman Catholic idea of mortal and venial sins already referred to. Maybe the Roman Catholic Church has been right all along. Brother Stanley doesn’t believe that adultery kills eternal life. He believes that you can continue to commit adultery and still be a child of God. I am not being mean-spirited, but could Satan think of a better deception? If so, what?[12] If not one act of adultery, maybe after the fifth time, you are condemned. Who knows, perhaps you can commit adultery, murder, and other such sins twelve hundred times before you are damned.[13] Then what do we do with passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, which states emphatically that those who commit these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God? Was the apostle mistaken in that unrighteous “Christians” do inherit the kingdom even if they commit the very sins listed in the passage, as long as they don’t exceed some unspecified number?
King David
Was King David in a justified state after his sin of adultery? The sin of adultery then led to the sin of murder. Was David saved all the while he was an unrepentant adulterer and murderer? I know the once saved always saved crowd claim that he was, but it is not true. If impenitent David were suddenly and unexpectedly killed, he would have gone to hell. Or did God give David a grace time out between his sin and repentance before he stood condemned? Where is it written that such a thing is true? Is this not just wishful thinking of a carnal mind? And if it is true that God gave David and gives all of us sinning “Christians” some period to repent, then how much time do we have? Is it an hour, a day, a month, a year, or what? In my untrained minority opinion, only the religiously gullible could believe such a thing. If a man steals a car, is he guilty when he commits the crime or only when a certain amount of time has elapsed without his repentance? Does the judge give criminals a free pass for hours, days, or weeks before they are actually guilty? Can you think of any crime that isn’t a crime the moment it is committed? Can you think of any criminal who isn’t a criminal the moment they commit a crime? This is ridiculous.
The word tells us that David was a man after God’s own heart. Could anyone possibly believe this to mean that while David was an unrepentant murderer and adulterer, he was a man after God’s own heart? Surely, we all understand this to mean that for most of his life, David loved God supremely, and his conduct revealed that love. However, when David committed these sins, he was a man after his own heart, not God’s. Praise God, David repented of his sin and found forgiveness and salvation.
David prayed that God would restore unto him the joy of his salvation. I know that some say we can have salvation without the joy, but the real meaning is that David lost the joy of salvation because he lost his salvation as a result of his sin. The joy returned when he repented of his sin. The joy of salvation is inseparable from the reality of salvation. This joy is more than just a fleeting feeling. It is a heart and mind consciously aware of God’s acceptance. No unrepentant murderer or adulterer has the joy of salvation.
Definition of an adulterer and murderer
Let me draw your attention to the law of God, which clearly and irrefutably tells us that one act of adultery makes a person an adulterer and that one act of murder makes a person a murderer; both sins subject the guilty to death. In the New Testament, we have the Word of God telling us that no murderer or adulterer has eternal life abiding in them (1 John) and that they (murderers and adulterers) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Without repentance, David would have gone to hell. God’s Word is obvious.
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with is neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10. KJV.
“And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he dies, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with a throwing stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.” Numbers 35:16,17 KJV.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but you were washed, but ye are sanctified…”1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8 KJV. The second death is eternal death, to be separated from God forever.
The role of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth. Would the Spirit of God interpret these passages differently? Would God tell anyone what amounts to the exact opposite of these truths? Preachers and teachers all across America are contradicting the Spirit of God. When God says the wages of sin are death, eternal security teachers tell us that the wages of sin are not death for sinning Christians, only sinning non-Christians. When God says murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, once saved always saved teachers tell us that Christian liars, Christian murderers, and Christian whoremongers will not have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. They are making the Word of God void.
How many times can a person be born again?
Then there are those believers who just can’t accept the idea that they are born again and die when they sin. This is repeated over and over. That seems ridiculous to them. Is our relationship with God like that? Are we constantly in and out of His family? Doesn’t the Bible declare that God’s mercies are new every morning? Isn’t He full of compassion and longsuffering? Doesn’t God discipline His children? Yes, yes, and amen. All of these statements are true. Yes, all of these are true, along with what Ezekiel wrote: a person dies the very day they commit sin. It is not an either-or proposition.
The new birth is a reconciled relationship with God. What is reconciled today can be undone tomorrow, requiring a new reconciliation. God does not want us to be condemned along with the world. To that end, He earnestly seeks those who are lost, especially those who claim to love Him. God is not willing that any should perish; therefore, His mercies are new every day for all of us who meet the conditions. Those who confess and forsake their sin will find mercy, and no one else. Yet to maintain that we can commit some unknown number of sins or postpone repentance for an indefinite period, before the wages of sin is death is to say that confessing and forsaking are not required to find mercy. Clearly, this is a direct contradiction to this truth.” (End of the excerpt.)
Even if scripture said nothing on this subject, let us reason together to see how irrational it is to suggest that we can commit an unspecified number of sins, as a Christian, before we lose salvation. Take, for example, a man who is charged with the crime of murder. Does the judge care one wit about the fact that this person has never robbed a bank, or raped anyone, or is not a thief? Of course not. A righteous Judge will determine guilt or innocence of the one crime for which this person is accused. And if he is found guilty, he will be sentenced accordingly. The judge may take into consideration the fact that the defendant has never been charged or convicted of any crime before this one, but the judge will still sentence this man for the crime of murder. Anything less would be injustice, wouldn’t it? Is God’s system of justice any different than this? Most Christians think it is entirely unreasonable of God to judge a Christian for a few sins, no matter how awful those sins are. All sin against God is a capital crime, and God did not alter Adam and Eve’s sentence based on the fact that this was their very first sin, did He? No, He did not.
The main issue with eternal security is that it gives Christians a license to sin with eternal impunity. The loss of rewards is infinitely different than the loss of eternal life. Carnal Christianity was birthed in hell. Sinful and carnal Christians may lose a few rewards, but no big deal, because they still go to heaven, no matter how immoral and wicked they live here on earth, and no matter how many other people they turn into hell with their evil lifestyle. If that makes sense to you, then I am fearful for your soul.
Flowers continued
God sees the eternal picture, and all of our lives are in His view. When God declares us justified, He sees both the end and the beginning. He knows where we will end up. In other words, justification is present and future justification at the same time. Forgiveness must extend to present and future sins, not yet committed. (I added that comment to his thoughts because it is a logical extension and because many believers in eternal security actually do believe that Christians are already forgiven for sins that they will commit in the future.)
Apostasy is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief, according to Flowers. What category of apostasy is hard to determine in someone’s life? Flowers gives us three (3) categories of apostasy.
- Once saved, now lost.
Dr. Michael Brown says you can be justified, sealed, and then become unborn, and unjustified. Flowers doesn’t see this category as being described in scripture. Falling from grace is a possible example, but it is not falling from salvation, according to Flowers. Mr. Flowers reminds us that we can only see the fruit; God considers the root.
“Justification is a forensic declaration of one’s new status in Christ, and not one’s moral state (as varied as that can be), then I think we can rightly understand the difference in the temporary fruits of one’s behavior and their everlasting status in Christ”. Judas initially appeared to be a good person, but then he betrayed Christ. Peter didn’t always look or act right, but he came back to Christ after his denial. Justification is a status forever, not a process. God sees that Peter will be renewed and Judas will not. Even if a man begins to sin, God sees the eventual fruit. That may mean the carnal believer may lose rewards.
My response
Dr. Flowers doesn’t see scripture addressing the possibility of someone losing salvation or being threatened with the loss of salvation, as Charles Stanley wrote in his book on eternal security. In my book, When Lies Become Truth, Chapter Six on Eternal Security, I addressed Stanley’s assertion that believers are never once threatened with a loss of salvation or membership in the family of God. In much detail, I gave over 40 verses of New Testament scripture that refute what Stanley and Flowers assert. Rather than swelling this article by including all that information, I simply ask the reader to consider those many passages from my book. I will, in the following couple of pages, excerpt my comments about passages from the Book of Hebrews that are a small part of the 40 passages I just mentioned.
Flowers’ belief in ‘standing and state’ becomes clearer with these last comments of his. Our ‘standing’ in heaven remains intact even if we sin like the devil. Heck, we Christians can have evil fruit, not just no fruit, and be saved and on our way to glory. Could the devil think of a better way to deceive us? What might that look like?
While it may be true that, as observers of people who claim to be Christian, we know very little for certain when it comes to apparent righteousness. People are good actors and excellent liars. The Arminian, Calvinist, and Provisionalist will welcome back any sinner who truly repents. It makes no difference what category of apostasy they are in. While that may be true about how we see, treat, and deal with apostates, it doesn’t change the fact that some may be Christians who have lost their salvation.
Flowers makes an interesting comment about our nature being permanently changed with the new birth and justification. Yet, the new birth and new nature, according to him, do not necessarily mean that a person will now live a righteous life where sin is the exception and not the rule. The believer will still sin habitually. Many theologians and ordinary Christians agree. What kind of a new nature is that? It makes no sense because that was the nature of the old man. The new man is supposed to be different from the old man. In the theology of most Christians, there is no material difference between the old man and the new man. But that is not what the Bible or common sense tells us. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things have passed away and all things are new.” Sin is the old man of the flesh, not the new man of the Spirit.
Before the new birth, we are habitual sinners; that is our character or nature. After the new birth, according to believers in eternal security, we are still sinners who may still sin habitually or very frequently. But we are now Christian sinners with saving faith in Christ, according to Dr. Flowers. Really? And then when we die, we get a new good nature, that can only do good and can’t sin. That is what we need for justification, but God didn’t give us that, and we must wait until we die. Why would God wait? That is neo-Calvinism and a denial of the gospel of salvation from sin.
Flowers makes reference to Hebrews 6 and quotes David Allen, I think, who believes the individuals referred to were never saved in the first place. I will address this position in the excerpt that follows.
Flowers argues that Hebrews 6 implies a person can’t be saved again, so the Arminian interpretation must be incorrect. What follows is an excerpt from my book, When Lies Become Truth, regarding passages in Hebrews that warn believers of the real possibility of apostasy contrary to what Stanley and Flowers teach.
“The Book of Hebrews
My sub-title 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! Rather, I believe, 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 is it not?
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 is in reference to having a relationship with Him not 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 we are partakers of Christ even if we do not hold fast 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 and the author Stanley believe we don’t need to obey Christ to have eternal life. This passage declares 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 salvation is unconditional when this passage, like all the rest I have quoted, stipulate the conditions of salvation. Conditional salvation, by definition, contains implicit threatening. Those who believe in eternal security, including the Arminian who denies 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 this passage is not in reference to real believers as if unbelievers “have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.” What length 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 never once are believers 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 real 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 not what Hebrews 6 is referring to?
The apostles give ample evidence it’s not impossible to be renewed unto repentance. Then there is the apostle Judas who gives evidence that those disciples who have completely departed from Christ can’t be brought back again 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 very close to another one in chapter nine, which we will now look at.[14]
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).”[15] Now that is a very creative interpretation. May I bring to your attention one small problem? The verse says “they receive the knowledge of the truth” but brother 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 written to unbelievers not believers. If it were written to believers then it would obviously jeopardize the doctrine of eternal security. It is sad that he changes the words and meaning of the passage so it doesn’t 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.” But Stanley among many other proponents of eternal security says all believers go on sinning willfully and a sacrifice for sin remains. I wish it wasn’t necessary to be so blunt. But if I am not brutally candid, I fear you will just pass over my remarks and not take them to heart. What would love do? Would love sit back and watch a neighbor walk off a cliff, or step into a lethal trap or drink poison?
There is nothing in this passage that states believers can’t stop sinning willfully and repent. But if they don’t stop only judgment remains.
Hebrews 10:3
“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 peril of apostasy is real but 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 say they also preserve the soul for they remain saved. But that is not what the word says. It declares, 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 word 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 body 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 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.” (End of excerpt.)
Not surprisingly, Flowers believes the person in Hebrews 6 was never saved to begin with. Flowers believes that if a real believer does sin, even once, they can’t be renewed again to salvation according to his interpretation of this passage. And no one believes that, including me. The excerpt above is my refutation of that position.
Dr. Flowers says that Christians, including the Arminian, would welcome a sinner back with open arms if they wanted back. That is true, but he misses the point. These believers in Hebrews 6 do not want back in unlike in Hebrews 9, where the backslider can be renewed again unto repentance.
Flowers states that Christians shouldn’t be adding requirements to the gospel. While I agree with him, I would also add that Christians should not be eliminating conditions that are explicitly mentioned as part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, such as repentance. He admits that he could be wrong about this issue. However, it doesn’t change his behavior towards backsliders or apostates at all. He treats them all the same, regardless of which of the three categories they fall into. I mean no offense, but so what! How he relates to someone in any of these categories is one thing, but how God sees them is another. In any category, Flowers is going to tell the person that as a Christian, they may lose rewards by their constant sinning, but not eternal life, and that is the problem. He is going to let them believe they are safe in their sins. I have a big problem with that. I think God does too.
Flowers continued: the second category of those who appear to be apostate
- Backslidden Christians
Peter denied Christ, yet he came back. Flowers then begins to talk about what he calls Carnal Christians who are ‘saved yet by fire’. The passage he refers to is 1 Cor. 3:11-15. If their work or fruit is burned up, these “Christians” suffer loss but are saved. These Christians will be saved, even if their fruit is bad and they engage in sinful activities, which will be burned up; however, they will not lose their salvation. They get fewer rewards or a lower rank in heaven.
My response
In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul is not referring to Christians who are unrighteous and living in sin, contrary to Dr. Flowers’ understanding and the prevailing view among believers in eternal security. The unrighteous “Christians”, who are living in sin, will not inherit the kingdom of God as Paul made abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Flowers, like other believers in Eternal Security, attempts to convince us that the sinners described by Paul in chapter 6 are those Paul was describing in Chapter 3, which is utter nonsense. Below is another excerpt from my book, When Lies Become Truth.
A proof text for eternal security, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15[16]
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.[17] 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 that suffers the loss of rewards but is saved, and the other that receives many rewards for his service on behalf of Jesus Christ. That is as far as my agreement goes. So, where do brother 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 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 read the next 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 inherit the kingdom of God, which is in direct contradiction to this passage. He teaches 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.[18] 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 just make that up, or is it a truth of scripture?
Was the author of the third chapter of 1 Corinthians the same author as 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.” (end of the excerpt).
Flowers continues: The third category of apostasy is those who were never saved to begin with.
- Never saved.
He refers to Matthew 7 and the verse where Jesus said to them, “I never knew you”. These souls had some fruit that most of us would probably call good fruit. Flowers adds that it was not real fruit, from a good root, according to Jesus. God sees more clearly than we do about these persons. Flowers also cites 1 John 2:19, which refers to those who have left the faith, and assumes they were never genuine believers to begin with.
He then provides an example illustrating the difference between intellectual faith and genuine faith. Intellectual accent versus real faith. Flowers again states that when you and I see God step into our lives, it is unlikely or impossible to leave our faith after experiencing God. He doesn’t believe this kind of relationship can ever be lost.
My Comment
We have already covered this. Can you imagine Satan, Adam, Eve, and men like Solomon, who all knew God and experienced Him like none of us ever has, and yet they walked away from God. Judas walked with Jesus for a long time before he betrayed Christ. Flowers didn’t think of these examples, or he would not have made that statement. I know of some who had genuine faith and good fruit, but later backslid. Flowers wants me to believe they were never saved in the first place.
Let me start by quoting Matthew 7 in more detail so we can understand the phrase Flowers uses, “depart from me, I never knew you”.
“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:17-23
What Flowers neglects to mention is that these believers were rejected because the fruit that God was looking for was not signs and wonders but obedience to the will and law of God. And that is why God rejects them. Jesus said to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Flowers and those who believe in eternal security believe that Christians are those “that work iniquity” and Jesus welcomes them into heaven with open arms, in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own words in this passage. Unbelievable.
Flowers also uses 1 John 2:19 as an example. “They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Flowers and others believe these people were never real Christians to begin with. That may be the case. But it doesn’t change the fact that some others may leave the faith of Christ and never return. Once saved, always saved is not true.
According to the Got Questions website, the following is the answer to the question, “Can you lose your salvation once saved?” Website response is “And God desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Every individual has the choice to accept or reject God’s offer of forgiveness. Once a person is saved, that salvation cannot be lost through one sin, or even a series of sins.” Jan. 3, 2016.
I would be surprised if Dr. Flowers disagreed with this quote. And this is the problem with this neo-Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security. As I have mentioned, they believe that once we make a free will decision to accept Christ, we are saved and justified permanently. We can never change our minds. In other words, before we are saved, we have free will and God’s grace is resistible. But after we are saved and justified, we no longer have free will, and the grace of God is now irresistible. Both ideas stem from Calvinism’s doctrine of determinism.
The response that “salvation can’t be lost through one sin, or even a series of sins” leaves the reader to wonder what the author means by a series of sins. It is intentionally vague to make it appear that there must be some putting off of sin, so that it isn’t a series of sins, but no one knows how many sins are considered a series of sins. Is it 100 sins over 100 days? Or is it 1,000 sins over a decade? I think this response is pathetic. I also think that all who believe in eternal security would agree with the author of GotQuestions. Please refer back to what I said earlier about one sin and the reason why every sin is a capital offense against God.
Flowers continues:
Biblical love never fails. It doesn’t end. Love that gives up was never love to begin with. If you persevere, then it is real, but if you leave faith, it was never real to begin with.
He thinks there are only two conditions of apostasy, not three, for a person who is once saved can never be lost.
My Response
Flowers says that love that fails was never love to begin with. Biblical love never ends, according to Flowers. He proves too much. Does God love those in hell? And if you say God does love those in hell, then what exactly does that mean?
Flowers suggested that marriage is a good example. If we love each other, we will not get divorced. Wait a minute. Didn’t Jesus say that divorce was permissible if your spouse was guilty of adultery? God Himself told about apostate Israel, “I will love you no more.” Didn’t God divorce Israel? He did. Was God’s love never real? Please.
This is another failed argument by Flowers for the dogma of eternal security.
Final Comments
Dr. Flowers appears to be a fine and likable man. I know I could be friends with him, despite our disagreements. Praise God for the fact that he came out of Calvinism and now attempts to warn others about the unbiblical doctrines of that system.
I have attempted to show the reader that Dr. Flowers and others like him are still mostly Calvinist (neo-Calvinist) because they believe in the dogma of eternal security. Eternal security is based on some of the same deterministic beliefs that support Augustinian Calvinism. The doctrine of eternal security is a dangerous and false doctrine. It tells “Christians” that some amount, even a large amount of sin in their life, is acceptable to God and will not send them to hell. From the root of eternal security, we have the branches of “easy believe-ism” and “carnal Christianity” so prevalent today in most of our Christian Churches. As long as Christians continue to believe that they will live in sin the rest of their lives, real revival is impossible. And as long as Christians believe that a sinful lifestyle is compatible with a saving profession of faith, hell will open its mouth very wide to receive all those who have been deceived.
If only Christians would believe what God says. Amazing things would happen.
[1] Some “Arminian’” hold to a position that is indistinguishable from Calvinism in that it allows for a certain amount of sin or an indeterminate length of time in sin before condemnation arises. I use the term Arminian in a general sense to indicate those who reject the doctrine of once saved always saved.
[2] At this juncture I am not addressing what the Old Testament refers to as sins of ignorance, unwitting sins, or unintentional sins. I am referring to willful sins (intelligent, deliberate and intentional), which are described in such passages as 1 Cor. 6:9, Gal. 5:21 and Eph. 5:5-6.
[3] Romans 3:23 is often used to argue that Christians sin every day in thought, word and deed. But doesn’t the Word of God say that in every generation there is a righteous remnant? Are we to assume that even the righteous remnant sin habitually? What about Noah, Job and Moses did they sin every day in thought, word, and deed? Where is it written that is true? What does scripture say about the parents of John the Baptist? God said they were blameless and holy. They certainly didn’t sin every day.
[4] Or did God punish them by sending them to heaven before they lived a full carnal and wicked life?
[5] Again, a liar is a person who intentionally deceives another to gain a selfish advantage. A person may unintentionally “lie” by teaching or telling a falsehood all done in ignorance. I don’t believe that God views such a person as a liar. Their heart isn’t against the truth nor are they trying to deceive.
[6] You will recall that Charles Stanley believes that the unsaved are condemned for unbelief and not sin as if unbelief isn’t a sin. Stanley says it is not adultery and such sins that damn us but unbelief. He also believes that a person can cease believing and still be saved in contradiction to his own theology.
[7] A Right Conception of Sin by Richard S. Taylor, Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City. Page 25-27. Not a full quote, reference only.
[8] OSAS advocates acknowledge this much; there is a break in fellowship between God and the sinner. However, they believe that fellowship and relationship are two distinct arrangements. A person can be child of God but have no fellowship with his father. Please see previous comments.
[9] Some proponents of eternal security believe that a person who sins habitually or doesn’t persevere was never saved in the first place while the radical no-lordship crowd believes a real Christian may act exactly like the unsaved and still go to heaven.
[10] The Myth of Eternal Security, Dan Corner, Evangelical Outreach, P.O. Box 265, Washington, Pa. 15301.2005. See also his book, The Believers Conditional Security, Evangelical Outreach. Mr. Corner lists things such as worry, unthankfulness, and lack of humility as examples of sin that don’t exclude us from heaven and are not sins unto death, page 126.
[11] I well remember the distinction given in a Roman Catholic booklet regarding the difference between venial and mortal sins. The Church stated that getting slightly drunk is a venial sin whereas getting really drunk is a mortal sin. Go figure!
[12] The two extremes are a sinner’s salvation by works alone and salvation by a faith alone without works of loving obedience. Both are wrong. Our enemy uses both extremes to deceive mankind.
[13] If a person can commit a sin and not repent for a time without condemnation, then the principle of imputed obedience must be true at least to a degree. If a person can commit many sins before condemnation arises then the principle of imputed obedience is true. If a person can sin and refuse repentance for a period of time then imputed obedience must be true. I disagree with the principle of imputed obedience and all the other errors of Calvinism, therefore sin must result in condemnation.
[14] Also refer to Stanley’s book chapter 20 page 214 for a fuller treatment of Hebrews Chapter 6.
[15] Ibid.,p.1849.
[16] Stanley’s book chapter 14.
[17] Ibid.,p.120. Not a quote, reference only.
[18] How is a sinner defined? The gospel makes or changes 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.
