'25 SUMMER READING LIST, #6 - "FOUR VIEWS ON ETERNAL SECURITY" EDITED BY J. MATTHEW PINSON

I've read several of Zondervan's Counterpoints series. This wasn't my first (that one was on Apologetics), but it's my favorite. I enjoyed reading the authors' talking about our great and wonderful salvation. The four views dealt with were Classical Calvinism by Michael S. Horton, Moderate Calvinism by Norman Geisler, Reformed Arminianism (yes, that exists) by Stephen M. Ashby, and Wesleyan Arminianism by J. Steven Harper. 

One of the reviewers were unhappy that the two Arminians didn't rip the two who believed in eternal security in purposes. Actually, that's a plus in the book. I shook my head when Geisler divided the views into Strong Calvinist, Moderate Calvinist, and Arminian, putting oneself in the happy medium view while aligning with Calvin and assuming Arminians can be put in one box (fellow Moderate Calvinist Ron Rhodes takes a similar approach. For me, this book convinced me of what I believed, which is that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are without variation, as well as both are trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - IS GOD BOTH WILLING AND ABLE TO KEEP US SAVED? (PART 5)

 

The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich

In the previous installment, I mentioned the book Four Views on Eternal Security, and that the four authors are identified as "Classical Calvinist," "Moderate Calvinist," "Reformed Arminian," and "Wesleyan Arminian." So I ask you: is "eternal security" (aka "OSAS" or  "Once Saved Always Saved") an expansion on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate?

I say no. Why?

1. There is a difference between what is referred to as OSAS and the Calvinist belief of Perseverance of the Saints. The latter is the saints will persevere. I heard one person state that early Calvinists believed the elect could not lose their salvation, that the elect would live godly lives, and that no one - even yourself - can know if you're part of the elect. Thus, they lived good lives in hope of being saved. 
2. On the other side, Dave Hunt wondered if Jacobus Arminius could have believed in eternal security. In his book Arminian Theology: Realities and Myths, author Roger Olsen stated that the early Arminians did not have an official statement on security; thus, you can be Arminian and also eternal security (Hunt was an example).
3. Views on eternal security/losing your salvation, like most other views, are not simply A or B. Again, the book I referred to dealt with four views. Before I read it, I thought there was a nice line starting with Classical Calvinism and ending with Wesleyan Arminianism. By the way, there are subjects where the views form a nice line (e.g. Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Whether Supernatural Gifts Exist Today). 

In the above book, author Norm Geisler painted the line with three points - Strong Calvinists, Moderate Calvinists like himself, and Arminians. I read a book by Ron Rhodes that made the same division. I find this view problematic because 1) it shows a bias toward Calvinism, even though in the above book Reformed Arminian Stephen Ashby refers to Geisler as a 1 point Calvinist and Classical Calvinist Michael Horton called him a 0 point Calvinist. 

One major difference between Arminians is what causes someone to lose their salvation if they could. Some would say you can sin your way out of the Kingdom, requiring you to regain your salvation and hopefully not lose it. Others state that they are given free will to believe and be saved and maintain that free will so they can choose to walk away from the salvation. Though most of my life was influenced by those who believe in eternal security, I went through a period of time I was more like this latter Arminian view.

Did someone ask that I'm hinting that I returned to being an eternal security advocate? Well, I'm not sure it was a hint, but yes, I'm back in believing in eternal security. Why? Because I believe that's what the Bible teaches. Let me look at three verses:

• 2 Corinthians 5:17. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, all things have become new." I heard this view from Bob George, and I think he's onto something. Opponents of eternal security come across as thinking we need the possibility of losing our salvation to keep us in line. No, we've been changed. All things have become new, as this verse says, and that includes our desires.
• John 10:27-28. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me; and I give to them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." One of the first verses I memorized, my favorite verses, as well as a strong verse on us not losing our salvation. First, this verse says we belong to Christ. Second, it says those who are His sheep WILL follow Him. Third, we're given eternal life and shall never perish (contrary to being able to lose that life and perish). Finally, in response to the view that we can crawl out of His hand, it's hard to do that when you're following Him."
• Galatians 5:4. "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Anti-eternal securityists talk about "falling from grace" as "losing your salvation." But is that what it means in this verse? No, falling from grace is seeking works (or law) to save us. How about other times that phrase is used in Scripture? Unfortunately for that theory, there isn't any.

Not just because I held that view, but I see a difference between those who say we can renounce our faith and those who think we can lose our salvation due to sin. One friend of mine asks how much sin causes us to lose our salvation, and not getting an answer backed by Scripture. I asked another person whose tag-line was "OSAS is wrong" if you could lose your salvation by pride or worrying or judging others; he said no, and that if it did, no one can be saved.

As I mentioned in the title, I believe that God is willing to keep us saved (2 Peter 3:9; see also Ezek. 18:32) and able to keep us saved (Jude 24); if both are true, eternal security is the rational conclusion. 

Of course, opponents of OSAS have the example of people claiming that since they're saved they can live however they want, which is unbiblical and more Gnostic than Christian. I don't fault them for opposing this. However, in my case, I sometimes think that I'm not worthy of being saved; for me, eternal security is not license but much needed hope. In other words, I need to trust Christ to save me, not my feeble finite flawed efforts.

MY FAVORITE SCRIPTURE PASSAGE, AND WHY I'M 100% SURE IT TEACHES SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER

From Live Nativity, Castleton United Methodist Church, Indianapolis, Dec. 5, 2016

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." John 10:27-28, NKJV

What was the first Bible passage I memorized? Good question, but sometime between when I moved to the booming metropolis of Skull Valley, Arizona (15 people in my classroom: that was 4th, 5th, AND 6th grade) and a little over a year and a half later when we moved to Prescott I memorized John 10:27-28, quoted above.

This verse is regularly used to defend "Eternal Security," which some term "OSAS" (Once Saved Always Saved), usually to insult their brothers and sisters in Christ (Boo! Hiss!) True, there are some who disagree, but there are others who despise this teaching with an attitude that makes me think there could be hatred of Christians who hold this view (see 1 John 3:14-15).

Let's look at why people oppose "eternal security." First, we need to realize that people who don't believe in eternal security come to that conclusion from diligent Bible study, just like those who do believe in eternal security.

Second, there is the free will/Sovereignty debate. If free will is involved in us believing on Christ getting saved, why would God forbid us the free will to stop believing and renounce our salvation. For the record, there are those who believe in free will who also believe in eternal security.

Third, there's the righteous indignation of those who claim to be Christ's and willfully live like an unbeliever. They feel God's grace in muddied by a life of sin, an attitude that they can do what they want and still be saved.

Let me start by the most frequent argument I've heard against eternal security in looking at this verse: "No one can snatch us from Christ's hand, but that doesn't mean we can't crawl out." Actually, that's the only real argument. The only other objection is "This verse doesn't deal with security of the believer," with the reason why being "Because I said it doesn't." Sorry, but that latter one is a cop out. 

So why do I consider this verse definitely teaches eternal security? I'm glad you asked!

The first word is "My." What kind of word is "My?" A possessive pronoun. Who's speaking? Jesus. Thus, He's talking about His sheep, that is, the sheep that belong to Him. What can make one of His sheep become not one of His sheep? Theft? No, legal ownership is the same. Can His sheep decide to change owners? We're not talking about cats! No, the sheep have no voice in who owns them. Thus, we're talking about those who are Jesus' possession.

His sheep hear His voice. In the context of John 10, Jesus was telling the Pharisees they did not believe because they weren't Jesus' sheep (vv. 25-26). In 1 John 4:6, the Apostle states those who were of God heard them, and those who weren't did not hear them.

His sheep follow Him. This answers the complaint of those who are worried about ungodly Christians - true Christians follow Christ. It also counters the objection to eternal security mentioned above - if we're following Christ, we're not simultaneously trying to crawl out of His hand.

Let's define three words. 1) Perish - means dying, and in context it obviously isn't saying we won't physically die, so it must mean spiritually. 2) Eternal. Means everlasting, neverending, but also refers to a character of life. But eternal life does not end. 3) Never. Is it possible never means never? If we lose our salvation, we perish, and that means Christ's words are false.  That is not an option.

No, this is not the only verse that teaches eternal security. There is a strong Biblical base for it, which is the reason many believe it. But this blog is long enough - not enough space to go through others.

I do want to end with this blog with two questions: 1) Is God ABLE to keep us saved? 2) Is God WILLING to keep us saved? Am I wrong for thinking that believing we can lose our salvation requires God to either be unable or unwilling to keep us, both options contrary to Scripture and God's character?

IS GOD REALLY GOING TO JUDGE THE EARTH? (Zephaniah Part 2)

 

 "The Great Day Of His Wrath" by English painter John Martin, 1851-1853.

Last week I looked at the first verse of Zephaniah last week, which merely introduced Zephaniah. As far as geneology, it was the most detailed of any prophet, but not much more than that. So what is Zephaniah's message?

 "'I will utterly consume everything From the face of the land,' says the LORD." Zephaniah 1:2, NKJV.

First question is what this is referring to. Is it talking about the near event of Babylon conquering Jerusalem? Or is it describing God's ultimate judgment on the nations in the last times before He returns as King? I believe the answer is yes.

Psalm 24:1 states the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. In both Testaments, it deals with God punishing the nations as well as His chosen people. God is capable of bringing catastrophic judgments on the earth.

But most people fall into two groups. One are those who believe a God of love cannot cast the lost into hell or send physical judgment on the earth. Others believe God will punish the wicked (meaning our enemies) but not His people (that's us).

Peter tells the believers to "conduct yourselves throughout your stay here in fear (1 Pet. 1:17). Paul wrote that we should "cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the body and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1).

Whenever we hear about fear from most preachers and teachers, it is to tell us to fear not, quoting "God has not given us a spirit of fear" (2 Tim. 1:7) and "Perfect love casts out all fear" (1 John 4:18). It is true through the Scripture we're to trust God to protect us and that is to not fear.

But then we read repeatedly we're to fear God, and so we take the encouraging message to not fear and apply it to those texts to say it doesn't mean what it seems to say but is really telling us to be reverent and honor Him. So we end up letting our conceptions dictate the meaning of Scripture.

The reality is that we sometimes have no fear for God in the literal sense, which may result in not having fear in the sense of reverence either. Many who oppose eternal security/"once saved always saved" claim the adherents of that view are saying we can do anything we want and still be saved (and unfortunately some of those adherents have that mindset). 

We don't expect chastisement (Heb. 12:5-11) and don't seem to tremble at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:10-17; 2 Cor. 5:9-11). As an eternal security advocate, I don't fear losing my salvation, because this is a judgement of works, not sin like the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). But believe me, my knees are knocking at giving an account of my life before my Lord and Savior.

I do believe that while there are applications of Zephaniah 1:2 and following having taken place when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C., the complete fulfillment will take place in the future. Both believers and unbelievers will face the consequences of their answers.

So if we believe that God will someday judge the world, how will that affect the way we live? What effect will it have on how we relate to others?