Theologically Thinking
Objections To Eternal Security by Gerald B. Stanton
W e have previously considered extensive Biblical evidence in favor of the security of the child of God. It is our purpose now to summarize the three major objections which have been brought against this doctrine. First and most common is the argument that security produces laxness in conduct and indolence in service. But security must never be construed as license to sin, for “ . . . Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6: 1,2.) Although Christians are not sinless people, the Scriptures make it clear that a true child of God will not habitually sin, nor will he delight in the things of the flesh after the fashion of one who knows not the Lord (1 John 1:6; 2:4-17; 5:3-5). He “ does not practice sin,” because he is begotten of God (1 John 3:9). Let it be noted that among the founding fathers of this land were the Puritans, so named because of their rigid code of con duct and purity of life. Yet the Pur itans held strongly to security! While any doctrine may be mis applied and abused—and certainly security has been no exception— when properly taught and under stood, security produces Puritans and not Libertines. As to the idea that security causes slothfulness in service, the charge is entirely without warrant, for the doctrine is held by many evange listic branches of the Christian church. As Thiessen comments, “Whereas the soul that is never sure of its security is timid and half-hearted, the believer who has the confidence that he is eternally secure in His keeping is impelled to do something for others.”
from personal faith. Many verses indicate that the end time will be marked by apostasy, but these de partures are among those who have not the Spirit (Jude 19; cf. Rom. 8:9). 1 Corinthians 9:27 warns Chris tians against unfaithfulness. We may be disapproved before the judgment seat of Christ and thus lose our reward (2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 3:12-15), but this again is not the loss of salvation. Similarly, John 15:1-6 deals with service and Christian unfaithfulness, not with soul salvation. Christian profession is shown by fruitbearing. Those who do not bear fruit will be “ lifted up,” possibly in the sense of the “ sin unto death” (Acts 5:1-11; 1 John 5:16). A favorite passage for those of Arminian persuasion is Hebrews 6: 4-9. Admittedly, the passage is a difficult one, but if the loss of sal vation is in view, it is far more difficult for the Arminian than for the Calvinist. No Arminian wants to prove that if he sins it is impos sible to be renewed again unto repentance! Verse nine indicates that the privileges of verses four and five fall short of that which ac companies true salvation. Evident ly, the passage describes Jewish professers who departed from the early Christian community, not in dividual Christians who today may part company with their salvation. Space has not permitted an ade quate dealing with this most im portant and somewhat difficult sub ject. The warnings of Scripture should cause us to give heed to our fellowship and service, but the promises of Scripture should cause us to rejoice in the assurance of eternal salvation. END.
A second objection often stated is that security is contrary to Chris tian experience. The argument fol lows the formula: “ I know a man who professed Christ and then fell into deepest sin . . .” But profes sion is not necessarily possession (see Matt. 7:21-23), for many of great religious profession are yet entirely unsaved. Others, although truly born again, may slip into sin and must be rebuked and restored, but neither case implies the loss of salvation. Christian fellowship may be lost. A believer may walk in darkness and be chastened of God. Rewards may be forfeited, but son- ship—never! A third and most noteworthy ob jection against security is that cer tain Scriptures seem to teach the contrary. There have been enumer ated some 25 “ insecurity passages,” and these have been made to con tradict a much larger body of some 150 Scriptures which cond ition eternal salvation upon faith and not human behavior. All insecurity passages may be reconciled with those which teach eternal security, the following being a brief sugges tion of that reconciliation. For a larger discussion, the book Salva tion by Chafer is recommended. Matthew 24:13 is an example of a verse dispensationally misapplied. It is addressed to Israel in the trib ulation and has to do with the pres ervation of life and not with the security of a soul. 1 Timothy 4:1 speaks of men who shall “ depart from the faith,” but in the light of Jude 3 this speaks of a departure from Christian doctrine and not
A b o u t t h e A u t h o r Dr. Stanton is Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot Theological Seminary, Los Angeles.
23
J A N U A R Y , 1 9 5 6
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter