Eternal Security: NOSAS Versus OSAS (Part 1)

Eternal Security -NOSASvsOSAS

Eternal Security: NOSAS Versus OSAS (Part 1)

I have debated many people on the topic of eternal security among them atheists, Calvinists, Muslims, Afrikaner Israelites, Seventh Day Adventists, Sabbatarians, Charismatics and, believe it or not, even Christians.

None of them made such a profound impact on me than the one I had with a group of Christians who tried to convince a young man that he can lose his salvation. The young man actually believed that he had already lost his salvation and was so stricken with despondency, I thought he was on the verge of committing suicide.

During my conversation and attempts to convince him that a saint cannot lose his salvation, the other members of a well-known Bible forum attacked me head-on, accusing me of all kinds of things. I could sense that Satan was really doing his utmost to keep the young man in bondage to a lie so many Christians believe to be true.

By the grace of God, the dark cloud of misery and uncertainty lifted from the young man and he eventually knew for certain that he never lost his salvation. We must remember that our younger generation of brothers and sisters in the Lord are exposed to immense temptations and many of them do succumb to them.

The ensuing battle with Satan and his host can be so intense that the saint begins to contemplate suicide. “You call yourself a Christian. Look what you’ve done now. Look at you, you wretch. You’ve lost your salvation.” It is always a good thing to remind ourselves of these words:-

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

The mere thought that you are standing is proof that you may have already fallen. If you have, don’t remain there. Get on your knees, enter into the holy of holies through the blood of Christ and ask forgiveness (Hebrews 10:19-23). Then, get on your feet and continue to follow Christ Jesus. Why is Satan so keen to sow doubt in the hearts and minds of God’s saints?

His main purpose is to get you to distrust Jesus Christ, your only Saviour. If he can get you to turn your eyes away from Jesus where He is seated at the right hand of God and turn them inwardly to yourself, he has gained a foothold that can cause havoc in your life.

A brother in Christ, whose acquaintance I was privileged to make on Facebook, asked me to critique an article he had written on free-will. A comparatively large part of his article included his thoughts on eternal security. At first I was a little reluctant but quickly realized that Louis was a man of gentle persuasion who could throw and receive punches with dignity.

With his permission which he granted me without any hesitancy, I now present to you our little debate for you to make your choice for or against eternal security. Please choose your words with placid gentleness when you comment. Thank you.

The believer’s security

LOUIS: No other issue arising from Augustinianism/Calvinism is of wider interest today than that of “eternal security,” or perseverance of the saints (also called once ‘saved always saved’). True Calvinists still hold on to this 5th doctrine of TULIP as a logical part and conclusion of their theology.

Many who have abandoned or minimizing the other four doctrines, have generally held firmly on to this one, even when its logical foundations have been removed. In their minds it followed as a necessary conclusion from their view of divine sovereignty, predestination and unconditional election.

It is certain that the elect can never be lost. The mild Calvinistic position includes all those who have departed from strict Calvinism but who still hold to unconditional security for the believer. There are serious problems with this modified view.

TOM: I can assure you that my belief in eternal security is not some kind of residue of TULIP or any other Calvinistic doctrine. It is based entirely on the promises of God in Scripture. I wouldn’t call the Calvinist’s view of eternal security “Once Saved Always Saved.” I would rather refer to it as “Once allegedly Elected Always allegedly Elected.” Allow me to explain. True repentance involves a godly sorrow (sorrow approved by God when His Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment).

This happens when the sinner realizes that he/she is lost (bound for hell) and of his own volition comes to Jesus to seek forgiveness and redemption because he/she knows they desperately need a Saviour. “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The elect cannot possibly know that they are sick and that they need a Physician to heal them. Dead men aren’t sick. They are dead and cannot possibly know that they are terminally ill.  (To a Calvinist “dead in sins and trespasses” means that the sinner is as dead as a corpse and completely unable to hear and respond to the Gospel Call. To substantiate this view they use the resurrection of Lazarus as an example of regeneration. Read here.)

I notice that you have failed to mention one of the most important passages in Scripture dealing with eternal security and that is 2 Corinthians 7:10 “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”

The truly converted sinner will never regret his or her conversion/ repentance/ salvation and turn his/her back on God, no matter how difficult the road ahead may be. Only those who had a “conversion” inspired by the sorrow of the world eventually turn their backs on God because they are not genuinely saved. They are usually the ones who say: “I used to be a Bible-believing Christian but I no longer believe in God and His Son.”

Pharaoh had such a “conversion.” “And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” (Exodus 9:27) “Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you.” (Exodus 10:16).

An unbeliever’s mere acknowledgement of sin means nothing. Pharaoh proved it. People do that every day. An unbeliever’s acknowledgment of sin without a conviction of being lost (hell-bound and deservedly so) cannot save. Jesus can only find and save sinners who know, realize and acknowledge that they are lost (Luke 19:10).

I usually ask Calvinists: “When were you convicted of judgment – before or after your monergistic regeneration?” They can’t answer: “Before regeneration” because a corpse cannot be convicted of anything. And they cannot answer: “after regeneration” because what’s the point in being convicted of judgement and hell when they have already been delivered from it? That’s preposterous. The only answer they can give, is the one a Calvinist once gave me:

The bible never says that God’s people were ever bound for hell, it says they were chosen “in Christ” before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). The conviction of sin is usually misinterpreted by God’s people to be the conviction that they are hell bound, the gospel explains to them that they are not, because of what Christ did FOR them.”

“Conviction of sin is the belief in the reality of sin in light of God’s holiness and perfection. Many of God’s children believe this to mean that they are going to hell. They are not. That is why they need to hear the good news of their salvation, so that they can believe it, rejoice in it, and profit from it.

The gospel doesn’t make their salvation true, their salvation IS TRUE and the gospel proclaims it to the Lord’s people who receive it by faith and profit from that understanding.”

So you see, Calvinists have always been Jesus Christ’s sheep, they’ve always been saved (God’s elect). They only need to be made aware that they are saved (elected) and live accordingly (perseverance of the saints). There is absolutely no difference between them and the Emerging Church who claims that Jesus already dwells mystically in sinners and they only need to be made aware of it.

Is this not perhaps the reason why Neo-Calvinists like John Piper and Mark Driscoll have penchants for the mystic practices in the Emerging Church? I’m no prophet but I predicted more than seven years ago that this was going to happen. Sadly, Total Depravity (Total Inability) deprives the Calvinist of true repentance and salvation.

They are deceived and don’t know it. I have tried for many years to figure out why they cling so tenaciously to John Calvin’s doctrines and have come up with two answers. They are deathly afraid to violate God’s sovereignty and the other reason is simply “The Mystery of Iniquity.” I, therefore, wouldn’t associate “Once Saved Always Saved” with “Once allegedly Elected Always allegedly Elected.”

Logical inconsistency

LOUIS: Logical inconsistency In his Institutes vol. 1, p. 8-9 Calvin makes a long statement which plainly means that laymen reading the Scriptures are to interpret them according to his doctrine. Jacobus Arminius discovered the same priority of doctrine at Leyden University.

Gomarus, the professor of New Testament studies, insisted that the Scriptures should always be interpreted according to the creed, while Arminius held to the Word of God as the final authority. The doctrine of security, then, was not derived from the Bible but from philosophical and logical considerations.

TOM: I beg to differ. If eternal security was derived from philosophical and logical considerations and not from the Bible, then we should consider the death and resurrection of Jesus (the very foundation and bedrock of eternal security) from a purely philosophical and logical angle instead of from the revelation given to us in the Bible.

If the death and crucifixion of Jesus is the bedrock/foundation of our salvation, which of course it is, then we need nothing else to secure our salvation, least of all philosophy. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). In fact, your entire discourse on the issue of eternal security is based purely on philosophical presuppositions. Your following statement proves this.

LOUIS: One cannot insist on unconditional eternal security of the believer, while neglecting or denying unconditional election and irresistible grace (See TULIP). When Calvinistic evangelicals preach the Biblical Gospel to all men and declare that people are genuinely free to receive or reject it; they are denying the Calvinistic concepts of unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace.

And when they say that once a person has repented and received Christ through a free, voluntary act of faith he is no longer free to renounce Christ through a voluntarily act of unbelief and disobedience into apostasy, they are taking a position unsupported by Calvinism, the Bible or sound reason.

TOM: Your train of thought is fallacious. You cannot assume that because TULIP says that unconditional election requires no free-will that it debunks free-will in unconditional eternal security. You seem to be saying that TULIP’s unconditional election is the only barometer by which eternal security must be assessed.

That’s a pure philosophical argument which, to my mind is, holds no water. To draw a parallel between two things just because the same word “unconditional” appears in both is not kosher. I have already proven to you above that the Calvinistic view of eternal security (“Once allegedly Elected, Always allegedly Elected”) is worlds apart from “Once Saved, Always Saved,” simply because the Calvinistic foundation for salvation is a false one.

The premise that If man is free to receive or renounce Christ’s death on the cross as the only means for his salvation, it follows that he is also free to renounce his salvation once he has been saved, is also fallacious. I have already shown earlier, that the truly repentant sinner who realized that he/she was lost without Jesus will never regret his/her salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Those who regret their “salvation” were never saved in the first place because they built their “redemption” on a false foundation. This happens frequently within the ranks of the Charismatic fraternity where health wealth and prosperity doctrines are put out as proof for one’s salvation.

When most do not experience what they’ve been told, they grow despondent, renounce God and turn their backs on Him. As you can see I tend to base my conclusion on biblical facts rather than on philosophical arguments.

LOUIS: The modern “eternal security people” are inconsistent when they declare that sinners are free to repent and exercise faith in Christ (through the aid of the Spirit), but once having been saved, they are no longer free to reject Him (through resisting the Spirit).

TOM: I have already dealt with your assertion in the previous paragraph. One more thought will suffice. You call the “Once Saved Always Saved” crowd the “modern ‘eternal security people.'” Is there any difference between Paul’s and the other apostles’ views on eternal security and the modern day “eternal security people?”

I don’t think so. Paul said: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12). Paul uses the past tense, as you may know, not because he once believed and then fell into unbelief.

He was referring to the day in Ananias’ house in Damascus where he called on the Name of the Lord for his salvation. To him, and this should be the case with all the truly saved believers, faith is to commit your entire being – spirit, soul and body – into the hands of Jesus Christ on the basis that He has paid the penalty for all of your sins.

It was this commitment (the relinquishing of his own authority on his life) by faith alone that gave Paul the absolute assurance that Christ Himself would preserve him until that day. It ties in perfectly with what he says in Philippians 1: “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6).

Was there any possibility that Paul could renounce his faith in Jesus Christ, turn his back on him and turn away? Absolutely! But I think the issue here is not whether he could renounce his faith but rather whether he wanted to, and the answer is a resounding “no” because he knew from the very outset into whose hands he committed his entire life.

May I ask you whether you would ever want to renounce your faith in Jesus Christ and turn your back on him never to return again? No? Why then would anyone else who’s had a true salvivc encounter with Jesus Christ even contemplate such a disastrous thing? Ah, of course, it is always the other person who loses his salvation and not I.

Some cliches of eternal security

LOUIS: Some cliches of the security doctrine To promote this doctrine, the mild Calvinists have made popular a number of brief statements “Once a child, always a child” or “once a son, always a son” This is not binding in a spiritual sense.

All believers were once children of the devil. If the analogy is binding, we must always remain so. Since children of the devil can become children of God, the analogy is obviously not binding. John 8:42, 44 and Ephesians 2:3 say that we were children of the devil and by nature children of wrath. If that cliche is true, that would prevent any unbeliever form ever becoming a believer and being saved.

TOM: Having been a child of the devil can hardly be used as an analogy against the “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine. If anyone, who is being held captive in the clutches of Satan, must remain there because of a manmade binding analogy “once a child, always a child” or “once a son, always a son,” then Satan is the omnipotent God and not YAHWEH.

Moreover, salvation would have then been a cruel hoax and YAHWEH the author of it. What did Jesus say to his disciples when they asked Him “Who then can be saved?” He said: “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” (Luke 18:27). Nonetheless, is it possible with God to save someone without them having to put their trust in Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross?

Doesn’t that limit God’s sovereignty and omnipotence? (Hebrews 11:6). Indeed, nothing is impossible with God but in his salvivic work He has sovereignly and omnipotently decided to accomplish his salvation – which has never been impossible with Him – through faith and faith alone. If faith could limit God’s omnipotence and sovereignty, we would again squarely be in the Calvinist camp and we don’t want to go there, do we?

If the analogy “once a child, always a child” or “once a son, always a son” could be applied to both God’s and Satan’s security systems, we would have to say that Satan’s security system is equal to or just as good as that of God and vice versa. Needless to say, that would be disastrous for God and a resounding and eternal victory for Satan.

As you yourself said “that would prevent any unbeliever from ever becoming a believer and being saved.” However, the millions upon millions of sinners who’d been saved throughout history prove beyond any doubt that not only is God’s salvation but also his security system magnanimously superior, greater and stronger than that of Satan. (Matthew 12:29; 1 John 3:8; Colossians 2:15).

The phrase “ex agorazo” is used several times in the New Testament and denotes Christ’s formidable and irreversible redemption. It conveys the meaning of someone going into a market place, purchasing slaves and taking them into his home never to sell them again.

While it is hypothetically possible that the analogies “once a child, always a child” and “once a son, always a son” may be applied to Satan because it is so easily applied by saints to God’s salvation and his preserving grace, the maxim “once saved, always saved” cannot possibly be used of Satan. It can only be applied to God.

Yes, it is true that we would have remained sons and daughters of Satan IF Jesus Christ never became flesh. Yes, if He hadn’t paid such a magnanimously high price for our deliverance from the clutches of Satan we would still have been Satan’s sons and daughters. Therefore, the notion that a saved saint can lose his salvation and forever remain a son or a daughter of Satan demeans the magnanimous salvation of Jesus Christ on the cross.

It would mean that Satan is stronger than Jesus Christ. If Christ’s sacrifice has satisfied God the Father for all eternity why wouldn’t it satisfy the saved sinner? Indeed, it does because he would never regret his salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10)

“A person who is once born cannot be unborn”

LOUIS: “A person who is once born can never be unborn. This is also a subtle way of convincing those who are not careful in their thinking. The Bible never uses the term “unborn,” for the opposite of being born is to die, not to be unborn. The Bible clearly teaches that one who has been born can die. Life does not end by “unbirth,” but by death.

A fire that is once kindled is never “unkindled,” but it can be quenched. A fish that is once caught is never “uncaught,” but it can be cast away as worthless. Likewise, a person who is once born can die, both spiritually and later physically. Nothing at all is proved by the fact that we do not use the term “unborn” to express the end of life.

Yes, I too have heard children of God using this analogy to substantiate OSAS but must admit that I myself do not like it. Nicodemus fell into the same carnally minded trap when he asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (John 3:4). He too thought that man first had to be unborn before he could be born again.

Jesus didn’t make it any easier for him to understand when He said: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:5-8).

However, in this instance Jesus did not refer to the spiritual water in Revelation 22. That would probably have confused Nicodemus even more. In respect of Nicodemus’ question whether he must enter into his mother’s womb again to be born again via the breaking of her water, Jesus answered him in terms of birth through water.

Note the expression “of water and of the Spirit.” Many believe that “water” is a reference to baptism by immersion in water but that would make rebirth a mixture of something physical and spiritual while God Himself says that physical phenomena profit men nothing (is void of any salvivic properties) (John 6 :63).

Therefore, the “water” must refer to a spiritual phenomenon that is equally potent in salvation than the dynamic work of the Holy Spirit. And indeed Jesus confirms this in John 4, Revelation 22:17 and John 15:3. The reason why I am making such a spiel about spirit verses physical is to illustrate that as soon as we mix the two we are immediately prone to error. And you seem to be doing just that. You say: “The Bible clearly teaches that one who has been born can die. Life does not end by “unbirth,” but by death . . . . Likewise, a person who is once born can die, both spiritually and later physically.”

In this case, however, Jesus’ reference to water is to the breaking of a pregnant woman’s water at the birth of her sibling. He does this to show Nicodemus that the second birth is not the mere repletion of the first birth via water, but a spiritual phenomenon from above that can only be consummated through an act of faith in Him who is from above. (John 3:13).

And then you conclude: “Nothing at all is proved by the fact that we do not use the term “unborn” to express the end of life.” The fact that a saint dies physically does not in any way prove that he can also die spiritually. Physical phenomena cannot prove spiritual phenomena.

If physical phenomena (science) were able to prove spiritual and supernatural phenomena we wouldn’t have a single atheist left in this world. But let’s assume that physical phenomena such as organic death can in some way represent spiritual death and as a result we may use the inevitability of physical death as an example for the inevitability of spiritual death whenever saints fall away.

At first glance this seems to be quite feasible when we take into account what Jesus once said, “Let the [spiritually] dead bury their [physically] dead.” (Matthew 8:22). The difference, of course, between the two is that the spiritually dead are still physically alive and have every opportunity to be made spiritually alive through faith in Jesus Christ while the physically dead have no opportunity whatsoever.

Now, to get back to Nicodemus. Look again at Jesus’ answer: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6). He was saying: “That which is born of the flesh is corruptible (given over to death and decay) and no-one can escape death by re-entering the womb of the mother or by being unborn again.

But that which is born of the Spirit is wrought in the deepest being of man, his spirit, where the seed of the Spirit remains forever. “You have been regenerated (born again), not from a mortal origin (seed, sperm), but from one that is immortal by the ever living and lasting Word of God.” (1 Peter 1:23)

“Eternal life has no end; so a person who has eternal life can never lose that life”

LOUIS: “Eternal life has no end; so a person who has eternal life can never lose that life” We must realize from the Bible that what is eternal has neither beginning nor ending. If eternal life cannot be lost because it has no ending, then it cannot be gained either, for it has no beginning.

Accordingly, a person cannot be saved unless he was eternally saved without a beginning. The fact is, eternal life is in the quality of life which is in Jesus Christ. It has its origin nowhere else. “…God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; and he who does not have the Son of God does not have not life” (1John 5:11-12).

If we receive Him, we have eternal life; if we lose Him we lose eternal life. It can have both a beginning and ending in us – a beginning when we repent and believe on Him for personal salvation; an ending if we fall away in apostasy (cease to believe and follow Him). This need never happen, but it is a possibility the believer is often warned against and urged to avoid.

TOM: Your statement “If eternal life cannot be lost because it has no ending, then it cannot be gained either, for it has no beginning. Accordingly, a person cannot be saved unless he was eternally saved without a beginning” makes no sense, at least to me. But bear with me to see whether I understand you correctly.

Eternal life is a Person, and I think you acknowledged this when you quoted 1 John 5:11-12, “and this life is in His Son.” In the first place, eternal life cannot be gained by man. That is a given and indisputable fact. It is given without price to everyone who believes, as the first part of 1 John 5:11 and 12 plainly say.

As such, eternal life in a repentant sinner has a specific beginning, i.e. when he/she puts their trust in Jesus in whom eternal life has no beginning. Thus, there are two features closely interwoven in the one concept “eternal life” – the one with a beginning and the other with no beginning. Yes, of course there can be no eternal life if it had a beginning from God’s point of view. God is eternal and, therefore, life in and through Him is eternal.

If eternal life had a beginning, it follows that Jesus who is the essence of eternal life must have had a beginning. The logical supposition, if eternal life had a beginning, would be that it also has an ending. But now, since it has no beginning in Jesus Christ it cannot possibly have an ending.

Voila, the eternal life that was begun in a repentant sinner the moment he/she put their trust in Jesus for their salvation cannot possibly have an ending because the beginning of the saint’s eternal life is grounded in Jesus Christ in whom eternal life has no ending.

If it were possible for a saint’s eternal security to cease or come to an end, it would mean that Jesus Himself would have to cease being the essence of eternal life. Impossible! The fallacy of your argument lies in the supposition that saints need to do something to maintain their salvation. Such a view must inevitably lead to the notion that a saint can lose his/her salvation because failure is commonplace in the lives of frail human beings. Had they not been frail and prone to failure, they would not have had any need for an Advocate and a High Priest. Continuation at:

  • DTW/WAP obtained written permission from Louis Matthys Ackermann to quote him in this series.  Thanks Louis.
Please share:

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Tom Lessing is the author of the above article. Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.

111 Responses

  1. Carolyn wrote

    Thomas, you ran together some of my thoughts when you said: “In which Bible book do we find this verse: “Manifest the life of God in your life like Abraham did and you shall be saved”. and came up with a total distortion.

    So everything I wrote to explain what it means how to be saved and how to know whether you have genuine faith, is a distortion? OK, please go ahead and believe with all your heart that you can and probably want to lose your salvation. To believe that Judas was saved and then lost his salvation is the real distortion here.

    You are twisting Scripture. Mark 13: 13 does not say that a saint can lose his salvation. Jesus refers to the tribulation saints who are going to refuse to take the mark of Antichrist. Most of them are going to be slaughtered but those who endure to the end of the tribulation will safely enter the Millennium age of peace on earth in their natural bodies.

    Carolyn said:

    Apart from that, I can offer nothing more than what I’ve already said. I’m not angry, just done. And gone . . . till we meet on the other side.

    I really don’t want to see you on the other side if you are going to lose your salvation.

  2. Carolyn

    Ok it’s clear you wont BELIEVE those verses. This is what the gospel is all about. BELIEVING. I would rather BELIEVE those verses than not believe them. This is called genuine FAITH.

  3. Redeemed says:

    Carolyn, I took the time to comment because I cared, even tho’ I am heavy burdened at the moment and hard-pressed. You tossed aside my charity and grace extended to you and took a dig at one thing I said.That was hurtful dear sister. You did not address what I said about our Lord Jesus interceding for us in heaven. You are the one not facing the issue honestly. You did not address what I said about being born again – an irreversible event.

    Contrary to what Thomas said, I DO hope I see you in heaven and that you have genuine saving faith and only God can judge what is in your heart. And I do pray He opens your eyes on this important point of doctrine – and it is NOT dogma!

    I am sorry to see you go as you added many good comments in other threads. But dear sister, the eternal security of the believer is an important doctrine (although not essential for salvation) that is essential for a solid Christian walk. Christ died for ALL our sins, past present and future. We are to fight the good fight and be faithful, but it is not to earn our salvation – that is a settled issue.

    I know personally people who believe you can lose your salvation. They lack true peace and joy because they believe God holds the big eraser in His hand when a believer crosses that imaginary line of no return. You would not discuss backsliding because you didn’t know how to address it. It is not compatible with your belief. But it is in the Word.

    You keep mentioning Billy Graham. He has compromised from the very start, preaching one thing but practicing another.

    I wish you well, and I hope you will not leave with a closed mind. When we see each other in heaven, all will be revealed. Until then, blessings to you.

  4. Redeemed wrote:

    Contrary to what Thomas said, I DO hope I see you in heaven and that you have genuine saving faith and only God can judge what is in your heart. And I do pray He opens your eyes on this important point of doctrine – and it is NOT dogma!

    I too truly hope to see Carolyn in heaven but she seems to be uncertain whether she is going to make it to heaven. Should she lose her salvation, which she believes is possible, then I don’t want to see her on the other side of heaven. Do you?

    The doctrine that a saint can lose his/her salvation is one of the most dangerous doctrines there is. It demeans the Name of Jesus Christ in its suggestion that HE is not a perfect Saviour. It suggests that He lied when He cried out with a loud voice “IT IS FINISHED.” Those who believe in conditional salvation say: “IT IS NOT FINISHED. IT IS ONLY PARTIALLY FINISHED. JESUS DID NOT DO A PERFECT WORK ON THE CROSS. I HAVE TO DO THE REST.” Roman Catholics believe the very same thing and that’s why they’ve invented purgatory.

  5. Redeemed says:

    Thomas, don’t you believe that someone can be genuinely saved but be confused about whether one can lose their salvation?

    A friend of the Nazarene faith once said, “We believe you can lose your salvation, but we don’t recommend it.” I do believe he is saved and not that all those in the Nazarene denomination are unsaved. They are off base in their baptism mode as well, but are not dogmatic about it. It does tend to foster legalism, but I don’t think there is any intent to demean the Savior’s sacrifice.

    On the other hand I know people in the Church of Christ who believe in baptismal regeneration and that you can lose your salvation. That belief stems from a false gospel of works which is a deadly combination.

    I don’t think Carolyn’s eternal destiny depends upon whether or not she believes in eternal security, do you? I think she is confused on the issue, but I don’t question her salvation based on that. I didn’t get the impression that Carolyn thinks she is on the verge of losing her salvation, but that she has questions about those whom she thinks are saved but have fallen away such as Judas. She is just very confused on this issue and needs help sorting it out.

    She is not receptive at this time, but hopefully her eyes will be opened at some future time. We did our best and have to let it rest. And this will have to be my last word as I said, I can’t devote time right now and only got involved because I cared about Carolyn and her blindspot on this issue.

    Grace and peace to you with appreciation for all the good work you do for the Lord through your articles.

  6. Redeemed

    Thomas never questioned her salvation, if you read carefully he stated that, if she believes she can lose her salvation, (and if she ever does – because she believes she can) then we don’t want to be meeting her on the other side, because she will be in hell; and we are not going in that direction. He is not questioning her salvation, just questioning her logic 🙂

  7. Hi Redeemed

    You wrote:

    Thomas, don’t you believe that someone can be genuinely saved but be confused about whether one can lose their salvation?

    Where does confusion begin? We learn from Scripture that our God is not the author of confusion (instability) (1 Cor 14:33). Now, if He’s not the one who causes confusion, who then is it that does? I suppose it will have to be Satan because he’s the one who likes to tell lies. Of course I believe that people can be genuinely saved and still be confused about their salvation (It’s usually a problem young Christians encounter when so-called mature Christians tell them that they can lose their salvation). But then, as I explained, we must look for the source of this confusion, not with God but with Satan. Jesus never said or even implied that a saint can lose his/her salvation. Yes, there are some passages in Scripture that seem to suggest that saints can lose their salvation (Hebrews 6 for instance). The only way to test the validity of your interpretation of those passages is to weigh them against other passages in Scripture. That’s why I have been making such a fuss of John 10:28-30. I cannot for one moment imagine Jesus saying or teaching something that would contradict other scriptures in the Bible. If that were possible, we’d have to reject Him as a false prophet and most certainly as a Savior. Who wants a Savior who has no scruples and tells lies? This is precisely why I get so upset about the conditionally saved saints. They are attributing to Jesus what originated with Satan – damnable lies. Of course they would begin to doubt a Jesus who is not without sin (albeit a subtle liar) and begin to doubt his ability to save them to the uttermost. This is not the Jesus of the Bible, but another Jesus. Would the real Jesus of the Bible say something like ” And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish” and then be a real turncoat and say “I’m sorry, that’s not what I meant. What I really said was that I have given them eternal life but it will only remain an eternity when they themselves make it an eternity. Cause, you see, my eternity is contingent on their own efforts to sustain my eternity as an eternity and not merely as something temporal.

    You continued to say:

    I don’t think Carolyn’s eternal destiny depends upon whether or not she believes in eternal security, do you? I think she is confused on the issue, but I don’t question her salvation based on that. I didn’t get the impression that Carolyn thinks she is on the verge of losing her salvation, but that she has questions about those whom she thinks are saved but have fallen away such as Judas. She is just very confused on this issue and needs help sorting it out.

    No, Carolyn’s or anyone else’s eternal security does not depend on whether they believe in eternal security or not. They must depend on Jesus Christ for their eternal security and nothing else. But that’s the whole problem. They do not depend on Jesus for their eternal security. They depend on their own performance and track record. In fact, they are building their house on shifting sand and not the Rock of our salvation. No, of course Carolyn does not think that she is on the verge of losing her salvation. As I said, it is always the other person, someone like Judas, for instance. How anyone can believe that Judas was saved and then lost his salvation, is beyond me. Didn’t the Old Testament prophesy about this man? Surely, Carolyn must know these prophecies. If Carolyn needed help she would have remained here to seek help but she flipped her lid and left. I have grown weary of people who get mad at you and leave without really saying goodbye.

  8. Redeemed says:

    Thomas, I just didn’t want your words to be miscontrued and add to the confusion. The intent was to give you opportunity to clarify.

    We know that regardless of what Carolyn believes about eternal security, if she is truly the Lord’s, she is secure no matter what she thinks.

    Thomas, we must be patient and gentle in our responses and longsuffering no matter how weary we are and I surely understand how frustrating it can be. We reasoned with Carolyn and she did not receive it, so we did our part. But let’s not throw her under the bus – perhaps something that was said will resonate with her and open her heart and mind and she may return and even thank us.

    Oftentimes when presenting the Gospel, it is not immediately accepted, but eventually is. And there are times when it is even rudely rejected but then someone else comes along and waters and the person ends up surrendering to Christ for their salvation.

    I think we have to be firm and clear, but season with grace – otherwise the person is offended and closes their mind. Whenever one presents the Gospel and is rejected, if we get upset at the person, it could slam the door shut. Soemtimes no matter what we say and how graciously we say it the other person still is offended, but that is not on our account.

    I pray that the things you and others stated and verses given will sink into Carolyn’s heart and she will do further study and come to know that truth.

    Now this really will be my last word as I am so hard pressed at the moment and my advanced years are catching up with me.

    Again, grace and peace to you brother for all your labors for the Lord and His truth.

  9. Sharon says:

    Deb-ster take out my last comment above. I hit the wrong button and didn’t mean for it to post yet.

    Carolyn, if you are reading this. I’m sorry you were offended but to me it seems that you are very troubled on this issue of once saved always saved. I gave you no denominational dogma unless you consider the Baptist teachings I know of are based solely in Scripture.

    I will leave you one simple verse again that decides the answer or not if we can lose our salvation. Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Don’t grieve, just believe. :o)

    To try to undo what God has said is futile. God the Holy Spirit says he has sealed us until the day of our redemption.

    When I was a little girl, the grocery store my mom went to gave stamps based on the amount you spent. She would wet the back of the stamps and put them in books. When she had the amount of stamps she needed to get a new toaster or what ever we would go to the “redemption center” and we would redeem our stamps and get the gift in full.

    Heaven is our “redemption center”. When we arrive via our death or the rapture our redemption will be complete and we get eternities gift in full. Until that day…God the Holy Spirit seals us.
    I do hope you will return. You are important, wanted here and no one was bashing you. We just believe the Book and when one has questions we’re supposed to help.

    Peace to you, His peace.

  10. Thanks Redeemed

    I tried my level best to be gentle, kind, courteous and long-suffering. I’m sorry if I came across anything less than that. Not my intention. I’m not saying that Carolyn is not saved. Never said that. What I said is: Anyone who believes that he/she can lose their salvation is not trusting Jesus to take them through to glory. That’s precisely what happened to Israel. They saw and experienced his great salvation out of Egypt but when they stood at the brink of entering the Promised Land, they started to doubt God. The result? They could not enter into his rest. As long as one looks unto oneself to keep and maintain one’s salvation, their is no rest. They are not resting in the Lord. They are in turmoil because they are trusting themselves. “Am I going to make it?” . . . “At what stage is your faith genuine?” are all questions that point to a life that is not at rest in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    They themselves must do it. What does the Bible teach? “Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Php 1:4-6). HE is the One who began the good work (salvation) and only HE can complete it. If the good work (salvation) is a work only Jesus can do, then the maintenance of that salvation must of necessity also be a good work only HE can perform.

    I did not chase Carolyn or anyone else away. They themselves decided to leave because the questions I asked seemed to have made them a little too uneasy.

    For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Gal 1:10).

  11. Redeemed says:

    Thomas, those called to expose false teaching rattle the cages of those who are entrenched in the comfort zone of their delusion. Sometimes it causes them to respond in anger and sometimes it causes them to run away or both. You are right, they made that choice.
    But we can hope that seeds planted will at some point germinate.

    I fear that there are a good many Christians who are not resting in Christ Jesus. They trusted Him for their conversion, but they don’t grasp what it means for them to trust Him for the duration. They confuse fighting the good fight and righteous actions with what has already been accomplished. They don’t fully understand God’s grace, His discipline and the rewards that await the faithful that have nothing to do whatsoever with their salvation. They fail to understand that it is a settled issue.

    Like I tried to tell Carolyn about being born again – irreversible event. She refused to discuss that or the fact that there exists the backslidden condition. But at some point I hope that it resonates with her.

    Please forgive me if I misjudged your remarks – but I am glad that we can have an honest discussion and clear up any possible misunderstanding of your intentions. That is what we are called to do for one another. I know I certainly need it as I have made statements that might be misunderstood as Sharon mentioned on another thread. She asked me and I was able to clear it up.

    Once again, please know I appreciate your articles and what you bring to DTW. It is not easy in stay the course in this growing state of apostasy that is so very discouraging. As I grow older, I find it more difficult and the longing for the return of our Saviour grows more intense every single day. But as long as He tarries, we must press on. I have reneged on saying this is my last word, but I didn’t want to leave you with a negative, but rather with an exhortation and encouragement. May the Lord grant both you and Deborah strength to carry on.

  12. Hi Redeemed

    I sincerely appreciate your comments and I thank you for your kind words.

    Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2)

  13. Sharon says:

    Redeemed, How are you dear Sister in Christ? I saw where you spoke of a heavy burden. I prayed for you, the grace to endure and that the outcome be what our Lord wills for your life. We have a Savior who is touched with our infirmities. I find comfort knowing that Jesus really does understand my physical pain, my emotional pain and my loneliness. Who ever suffered more than He did? Who was more emotionally torn when he prayed Not my will but thine? Who was ever more lonely when the Father had to turn away whe Jesus became sin for us? That thought just gave me goose bumps on my arms.

    Have a blessed weekend.

    Love in Christ Forever,

  14. Redeemed says:

    Sharon, thank you for caring and praying. In weakness we see His strength that helps us to find a way to press on even if it is crawling. I apologize for calling attention to myself and my situation but wanted to provide a reason for my inability to get involved in comments and didn’t want to give the impression I am upset or have lost interest. Neither is the case. I still like to check in and read the comments and articles when I can. Thank you again and blessings to you.

  15. Sharon says:

    Never apologize for sharing a bit about your burdens. How do we know how to pray for someone if they don’t tell even a tiny bit. Sometimes burdens overwhelm us. King David would often say, why is my soul disquieted within me, hope thou in God. Rest in His great love. God is love and has so very much love for ALL of mankind and yet his love is small enough to meet us individually.

    Be Blessed.

    Redeemed wrote:

    Sharon, thank you for caring and praying. In weakness we see His strength that helps us to find a way to press on even if it is crawling. I apologize for calling attention to myself and my situation but wanted to provide a reason for my inability to get involved in comments and didn’t want to give the impression I am upset or have lost interest. Neither is the case. I still like to check in and read the comments and articles when I can. Thank you again and blessings to you.

  16. Joy Michael says:

    The words Eternal Security does not exist in the WORD of GOD. But the words “EVERLASTING SALVATION”. Check
    Isa_45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
    What does that verse mean? Is it only for Israel or for The Church and also Israel??

  17. Joy

    You are right, the words Eternal security does not exist in the bible, does that mean that it does not exist? The words Eternal Security is nothing but a way or means to group all verses that pertain to one receiving salvation and being secure in it.

    The words Bible does not exist either in the bible, does that mean the bible is now null and void too?

    The words EVERLASTING SALVATION is different from Eternal Security. Let’s break this down:

    1. If you don’t believe in Eternal Security and you believe you have to work to keep your salvation to one day receive everlasting salvation.
    2. If you believe in Eternal Security then you are saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit to receive everlasting salvation.

    Which one do you believe in?

    >> You said: Isa_45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
    What does that verse mean? Is it only for Israel or for The Church and also Israel??

    This verse is primarily to the Jews in Babylon, but affirming the universal truth that the true Israel that is, the people of God, shall be saved from all their trials, and shall be brought to his everlasting kingdom.

  18. Alina says:

    I am interested in your comments about this video. This man makes a lot of sense. I have been struggling with finding logic with OSAS and how a Christian could continue sinning and think he is still born again. That is not true repentance. Please review the video and others from that channel and if possible let me know your comments.

  19. Hi Alina,

    I viewed the video but haven’t had much time to evaluate it in depth. I will view it again as soon as I can and let you know what I think of it. However, to address your statement, “I have been struggling with finding logic with OSAS and how a Christian could continue sinning and think he is still born again. That is not true repentance” I would like to ask you a question. Paul says in Romans 7:14, For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, SOLD UNDER SIN .”

    Was Paul saved when he said this or was he feigning repentance, or had he lost his salvation and, therefore, not a true Christian? I am not saying that Christians should continue sinning and neither does Paul. When you have answered my first question, I would like to ask you another one.

    By the way, have you stopped sinning completely? If you do believe that you have stopped sinning, you are already sinning. In fact, if you do believe that you have stopped sinning altogether, then, actually, you are not saved.

    If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 Jn 1:8)

    One last question: Are you a big fan of Joyce Meyer?

  20. Scott says:

    Hi– Can I ask a question about eternal security? Jesus said on the cross that it is finished so doesn’t that mean that all past, present, and futre sins of a believer are forgiven( God’s Grace)!!! If somone believes in conditional eternal security then couldn’t you say that they are taking Jesus off of the cross(figuratively) and putting themselves on the cross in replacement of Jesus because if you can lose your salvation then your looking to yourself and your performance(probationary salvation) and not looking to Jesus’s death on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins(imputed righteousness)? That would mean that works keep your salvation- would it not? With that being said– if you can lose your salvation then isn’t that mocking the finished work of the cross saying that it wasnt a completed atoning work for the forgiveness of ones sins? Would it not be blasphemy because your basically saying that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was’nt good enough to atone for all of your sins so you have to step in and finish(atone) for your future sins by not committing certain sins or whatever criteria that they believe keeps them saved? This is only my opinion and thoughts and I am not accusing of anyone who believes in conditional eternal security of blaspemy and I do not want to hinder anyone’s faith that believes in conditional eternal security but I wanted to ask someone wiser in the Lord of their opinion on my train of though which is usually black and white! If you think that these questions will hinder anyone’s faith that believes in conditional eternal security then please do not publically post my question but could you just privately answer it to my email address? Actually i think that these questions could hinder or make someone stumble in their faith so if possible then could you just answer me privately to my email address? Thanks very much

  21. Dear Scott

    If questions hindered someone or make someone stumble then we all just better keep quiet and close this site down… 🙂

    We believe in Eternal security, in that when you are born again you are SEALED by the Holy Spirit, your salvation is secure. Jesus keeps you!
    People who do not believe their salvation is secure believe in a works based salvation, and yes you are right as you said, “if you can lose your salvation, then your looking to yourself and your performance(probationary salvation) and not looking to Jesus’s death on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins”

    I have noticed a direct correlation between people who believe they can lose their salvation, also being anti pre-trib rapture, as they think they have to go through the tribulation as a means of purification. Do you see how dangerous and evil a doctrine it all of a sudden becomes? Jesus’ blood on the cross is not what saves them, washes them – it will be their martyrdom that supposedly purifies them and pays the price.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *