What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

Conditional Security

By the Book

Registered
I've found some older threads on this topic and would like to start a new discussion.

I've gone back and forth on the issue of eternal security over the years. I'm not a pastor or theologian and am not coherent in the original languages; however, I have studied the works of many of the greats that have come before me. What I write here will be the result of my studies.

To kick things off, I will present a section of Scripture that is frequently cited, with the expectation that more will be brought up along the way.

Colossians 1:21-23 (NKJV)
And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

There are some who see this as a condition—that is, we must continue to will ourselves to exercise faith. Others, like myself, see this as a statement of fact. In Koine Greek, "if" is frequently used as a first-class conditional clause, which assumes the condition is true for the sake of argument, functioning more like "since." It functions similarly to saying, "If 2 divides evenly into 4, then 4 is an even number." In this context, "if" does not imply uncertainty but rather establishes a known factual relationship.

I'm also of the opinion that the many verses that suggest salvation can be forfeited are rather ambiguous.

2 Peter 2:1 (NKJV)
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

All verses in the Bible that are specifically discussing the atonement usually mention the price (His blood) of what is bought. Peter seemingly makes a passing remark in the middle of an entirely different subject. We also don't know if "The Master" is referring to the Son or the Father. It's possible that he is making reference to the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 32:6 (NKJV)
Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?

I believe it is unwise to create a doctrine by interpreting certain texts in ways that may not be intended. Instead, we should allow the more straightforward and clear texts about eternal security to remain authoritative. If indeed we continue in the faith, it is because God is the one keeping us from stumbling.

Jude 1:24-25 (NKJV)
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that whatever side of the fence you land on, the doctrine of eternal security is not an essential issue that should divide the Kingdom.
 
the doctrine of eternal security is not an essential issue that should divide the Kingdom.
Eternal security of a born again, spirit-sealed believer should be fiercely defended by any pastor claiming to be a shepherd of the sheep.
Jesus commanded Peter to protect and feed His sheep.

John 21:15-17

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.


There is no way any believer can have fullness of joy in the Christian life without being assured that their salvation is secure forever and they can do nothing to lose it. Yet throughout the NT all of the apostles/writers are constantly assuring believers to see how powerful God is and how secure they are in Him
Pastors, shepherds, overseers of the souls are to do their job.


1 John 1:3-4
3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
 
In conclusion, I firmly believe that whatever side of the fence you land on, the doctrine of eternal security is not an essential issue that should divide the Kingdom.
I agree that, theologically, the doctrine of conditional security should not divide the kingdom. However, I strongly believe that, in practice, it does do a lot of harm in the kingdom. It brings into salvation both fear and works, where neither should exist. And that is why as a pastor I always speak out strongly against it, fervently contending for the true Bible teaching that our salvation by faith in Christ and His finished work is unconditional-- both in how it is received and how it is kept. We who are Christ's are eternally secure. Glory to God!
 
I've always viewed Pastor Chuck Smith as an excellent role model for anyone aspiring to become a minister of the Word. However, he did change his stance on eternal security after witnessing Dan Barker's apostasy. Although he altered his views, that does not diminish my admiration for him whatsoever, and I feel that I will never be able to measure up to his example.

My conscience is absolutely clear in agreeing to disagree with him on this particular issue.
 
Back
Top