... Eternal security is a johnny-come-lately doctrine that accompanies all the other errors of Calvinism. Scripture and history disprove it.
Agreed that it is a johnny-come-lately, but not that it comes from Calvinism. It is more a reaction to the Calvinist turmoil of uncertainty as to whether one is "elect."
Read Calvin's sermon on the sower and the seed. As Wesley said, there was not a "hair's breadth" of difference between them on justification, and in the end, they would agree about a person being lost, only difference was whether such a person was "saved" in the first place.
"...One pet theology that re-enforces the lack of urgency stems from good intentions. But while holding onto some truths found in the New Testament, it fails to hold onto other essentials. The holy conjunction is lost. And, thus, it distorts an historic doctrine--the perseverance of the saints.
Its good intention lies in giving assurance to those who struggle with their sense of being saved. Today, many seasoned Christians will tell those who make a profession of faith (whether by a prayer or by going forward at a church or crusade) that they have eternal security. A popular slogan rings out: “Once saved, always saved.”
And other Christians will assure those who have been baptized and confirmed that they are heaven bound no matter what may follow. Though many of these converts might never live by faith, this assurance will again be affirmed at their funerals.
But a new idea enters here. By leaving out New Testament essentials, these teachings depart from the historic Christian faith. This new idea leaves behind the holy conjunction; it fails to hold essentials together. Faith and obedience are sundered; forgiveness and repentance divided.
While some differences arise among great saints of the past, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley, they all agreed that we are saved by faith alone through God’s unmerited grace. On this point, Wesley said of Calvin, “I do not differ from him an hair’s breadth.”4
So, too, the seasoned Christians mentioned above affirm this. But where is the difference?
Martin Luther observed that “the world and the masses are and always will be unchristian, although they are all baptized and nominally Christians. Christians, however, are few and far between . . .”5
Luther pointed to “the divine promise which says: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’ [Mark 16:16].”6 (Note the holy conjunction.) But he also warned, “Unless faith is present or comes to life in baptism, the ceremony is of no avail; indeed it is a stumbling-block not only at the moment we receive baptism but for all our life thereafter.”7
John Calvin affirmed, “Only if we walk in the beauty of God’s law do we become sure of our adoption as children of the Father.”8 (What a contrast that is with the assurances given by those who march under another banner.)
Furthermore, he wrote:
The apostle denies that anyone actually knows Christ who has not learned to put off the old man, corrupt with deceitful lusts, and to put on Christ.
External knowledge of Christ is found to be only a false and dangerous make-believe, however eloquently and freely lip servants may talk about the gospel.
The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life.9
The key point here is succinctly summed up by J. I. Packer: “Scripture holds out no hope of salvation for any who, whatever their profession of faith, do not seek to turn from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8).”10
--from
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/love-prayer-and-forgiveness-now-also-in-ebook-format/
