Eternal Security On What Basis?

The recent discussions of eternal security/perseverence on this forum has lead me to ask a question. This is a question I had to answer myself at one time and it is a question everyone who believes in a certain type of eternal security needs to answer. You ready? Ok, here we go...... :tongue3:

If you deny the points of Calvinism, the Doctrines of Grace, what basis do you "really" have for believing in eternal security?


As I said, I had to answer this question for myself a few years ago. What I have discovered, through my own experience, is that many people who believe in eternal security apart from the "Doctrines of Grace" (Calvinism) fall into at least two errors...

Antinomianism. This is the common no-Lordship view that is promoted by people such as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and Tony Evans. In this view, commonly refered to as "once saved, always saved", a person is saved by a one time act of faith. That one time act of faith, however, may not last. According to this view that person may, or may not, continue in their faith (ie...a true believer can commit apostasy and still enter heaven). Also, according to this view, that person may live an immoral lifestyle and still enter the Kingdom of God. This seems to be the most common trap for those who believe in eternal security apart from the Doctrines of Grace. It is, in fact, an error I myself spent some time believing. Interestingly enough, when I moved out of this error I moved towards the Doctrines of Grace. I have heard others say the same thing.

The God "has to" view. This view is common among the antinomians and among eternal security advocates who, while not antinomian, don't affirm the Doctrines of Grace. This view teaches that when a person trusts Christ as Savior, God is now forced to keep that person saved no matter how they "turn out". The person may turn out to be a rank heretic, apostate, or become immoral, yet God is still obligated to bring this person to heaven. While some in this camp would never go to the antinomian extremes I just mentioned, the majority do.

I think we have to ask ourselves, why do people who reject the Doctrines of Grace and believe eternal security often fall into such serious errors?

I think the reason is that they have their basis for believing in eternal security wrong. These people want to believe that salvation is a deal between God and man (form of Arminianism), yet they also want to believe in eternal security (without the Doctrines of Grace). Normally those who believe that salvation is a "deal" between God and man also believe that both sides must hold up their end or the deal is off (ie...loss of salvation). However since these folks don't "want" to believe in the loss of salvation, and since they don't want to believe that salvation is totally of God (Doctrines of Grace), they have to find a way around both positions. So they create this system where God saves a person forever (promising them total security) and then, for all practical purposes, is not able to sanctify them. Why not? Because that would be God "over-riding" mans "all important" free-will. So how does God deal with these apostates in His family? According to these teachers He brings them to heaven and then punishes them. Charles Stanley, Zane Hodges, and Bob Wilkin actually teach that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven! Amazed? Don't be, it is just the start of the troubles with this view.

Apart from the Doctrines of Grace we have NO Biblical reason to believe in eternal security. Why not? Because the Bible does not teach security apart from Divine election. Eternal security, or better the perseverence of the saints, is naturally linked to the doctrine of election.

If man is totally depraved,
and if God in eternity past chose to save some based 100% on His will and purpose and based on nothing within the person,
and if God sent His Holy Son, Jesus, to die on the cross and pay for their sins,
and if God draws them to Himself,
then it is the logical, and Biblical, conclusion that God would continue to work in that person's life.

Believers persevere in the faith because it is God who is at work in them (Phil 1:6, 1Thess 5:23-24). Believers are kept secure in the faith because God personally elected them and, through the Gospel, drew them to Himself (Jn 6:37-39).

Apart from the Doctrines of Grace there is no Biblical reason to believe in eternal security.

BTW...read my signature. Antinomianism is the very error Spurgeon is responding to in the quote.

 

That is sort of the "God has to" view of eternal security. Apart from election what reason do these people have for believing that they are eternally secure? Because one day they did God the favor of believing in Him? There is no Biblical reason to accept eternal security apart from the Doctrines of Grace. In fact almost every time eternal security is mentioned in the Bible it is mentioned in the context of the Doctrines of Grace (Jn 6:37-39, etc). So again I have to ask the question, on what basis do these people believe in eternal security? Apart from the idea that because they believed God is required to keep them?

 

==And what is the context of those statements?

The fact that God foreknew us, predestined us to be like Christ, called us to Himself, justified, and glorified us. Who will bring a charge against "God's elect" (Rom 8:33)? The context of the promise in Romans 8:38-39 is the doctrine of election. This election is not based on anything we have done, or anything within us (Rom 9:11), rather it is based on God's grace (Eph 1:3-6).

He, God, will finish the work He started in us, right? Right (Phil 1:6, 1Thess 5:23-24), but why did He start it? Simply put, He wanted to. It was, as Paul put it, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us" (Eph 1:7-8). Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2). We came to Him only because we were first given to Him by the Father (Jn 6:37, 17:2) and because of that fact, because we were given to Him by the Father, He will not lose us (Jn 6:38-39).

Eternal security, or rather and more Biblically the perseverance of the saints, cannot be seperated from God's sovereign work in salvation. I know, in the past I tried to hold that position and it just did not work Biblically.

 

==I don't know anyone who believes that God "forces" people to be saved. What God does, according to His Word, is change the heart of the person and then draws that person to Himself (Ez 36:26-27, Jn 6:37-39, 2Thess 2:13). However if God did "force" someone to be saved that would be His Sovereign right. Btw, I think Paul's conversion makes it very clear that God's plan and purposes will be done. Paul never debated with Jesus, he did not have the chance, he was thrown to the ground and told what he must do (Acts 9:3-4).

==Jesus stated that the reason believers will not be lost is because they are given to Him by the Father (Jn 6:38-39, 10:28-29). Paul links those two things as well in Romans 8:29-39. Does God love us? Yes, but we don't deserve that love. It is all of God's grace.

==That does not sound like a good idea to me (2Tim 2:15).

 

Good point but I did not get that from your original reply. Either way it is a good point. :thumbsup: