Is a Gradate of Northwestern University in 1911
ANSWERS TO many of the arguments against eternal security have been given throughout the preceding chapters. These answers need not be repeated here, but it might be helpful to some to have the arguments mentioned and references made to the chapters where answers to them can be found.
One of the most familiar arguments against eternal security and one that meets with much sympathetic reception is the statement: "To teach that a saved person is eternally secure and cannot be lost causes worldliness in the church and loss of spiritual power." This argument is not only answered in chapters 18-22; but it has been shown that denial of the security of the saved one robs God's appeal for a holy and godly life of their force, and thus it is in fact those who oppose the doctrine of eternal security who are responsible for that condition.
Another criticism is that young people, who go away from home and are taught eternal security at a Bible institute or conference, come back and enthusiastically, but unwisely, spread the doctrine in their home church. In the first two pages of chapter 3, it is pointed out that the responsibility for this condition rests upon those who have been responsible for the Bible training in that church, because they have failed to teach properly the doctrines of the grace of God.
The statement that, while Christ will not cast out one that comes to him, it is possible for a saved person voluntarily to go away from God, has no basis whatever in scripture. It is purely human imagination and cannot be accepted as an argument to decide a question, the only known facts of which are to be found in God's own revelation. That it is impossible for a saved person to go away from God.
The argument that a sheep can jump out of God's hand and be lost is also of this same class. No direct statement from the Bible has ever been offered to sustain it. The only authority backing it is the reasoning of the fallible human being that makes it. The impossibility of such an action is shown in the third and fourth pages of chapter 1. As the freedom of man's will is here involved, the answer to the last preceding argument applies here also.
It is argued that while eternal life is eternal, it is possible for a saved person to lose that eternal life, and that under certain conditions (which are never clearly defined), God will take back the eternal life to himself. This argument entirely ignores God's revelation concerning the new birth. (See chapter 29.) It would be just as reasonable to say that a mother can take back to herself the life that she has given to her child. Furthermore, it has been shown (Chapter 6) that eternal life is a gift from God and that he never revokes his gifts.
It is often said that a saved person can lose the Holy Spirit. This is a direct denial of John 14:16, which clearly states that he stays forever.
It has been argued that as the physical life can be starved until it dies so also the spiritual, if it is not fed, will starve to death. This is offered as proof that a saved person can be lost. The fallacy in this argument is that comparison is made between two absolutely dissimilar things: physical life and the life that comes through the new birth. That physical life is universally mortal (subject to death) is clearly taught in the Bible. Death has come to all men (Romans 5:12). But that spiritual life, which is given to someone who is born again, is by God said to be eternal. This it must be, for it is of imperishable seed (First Peter 1:23). Comparing these two kinds of life and saying they are similar in this essential respect is to contradict God's declaration that they are diametrically different.
It is contended that of the two views, it is more reasonable to hold that someone who has been saved can be lost. That statement can be freely granted, but it must be remembered that that which springs from a loving heart is not the result of reason, even when on a human plane. Salvation is completely unreasonable. Why should God give his only begotten Son, and why should that Son voluntarily give his life so that mankind, who had rebelled against him and was worthy of nothing but everlasting separation from him might throughout all eternity live - not as restored to the originally perfect state that he was created in - but as a being like the Son himself, higher than all others of God's created beings? Salvation is made all of love and mercy. Where then is there any room to argue the reasonableness of any part of God's plan of salvation? In the light of God's own revelation of his infinite love, the argument from human reason instantly fades into nothingness. It is, however, most unreasonable to accept God's revelation concerning his love and sacrifice in saving a person, and then deny that he "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11), has not provided for the keeping of that for which he has sacrificed so much.
But why weary the reader (further) by multiplying refutations of these purely human arguments? Enough has been given to demonstrate that these arguments are without support in God's word. In fact, are contrary to it. Nor, as has already been said, does the proof of the controversy lie in answering all such arguments that the human mind might conceive. The real proof is in God's own revelation which has been presented at considerable length. It is, as someone has said: "We are not governed by reason but by revelation."
As a help to those who have been confused by what has been offered as biblical proof against eternal security, a few more arguments will be answered. Certain "musts" are imposed upon those who are saved in order to remain saved. Two will be mentioned. It is said that a believer is secure as long as he remains in Christ, but he must remain in Christ or he shall be lost. For a consideration of this "must," the reader is referred to (Chapter 28 paragraph 21).
Another is, "the saved person must continue to believe." If he ceases to believe he is lost. Few who make this statement realize that if this is true, then a saved person is lost the instant he harbors a doubt. One argument which is hardly worthy of recognition, except for that fact that it has been quite freely used in certain quarters, is that the ending -eth of believeth (KJV) makes the word mean continuous believing. If this is true, then all verbs ending in -eth (in the KJV) also signify continuous and incomplete action. It is suggested that the reader try this out by reading John 4:5, 7 and 13 and 11:28, 38. But there are some who are truly concerned about this point. For those, assurance will be found in John 5:24, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." This verse makes it clear that saving faith is not a process, but an act. Anything that is brought to pass by a process cannot be spoken of as accomplished as long as the need for the process continues. When a thing has been accomplished, then that through which it was brought to pass is no further needed. In this verse eternal life (which cannot end) is said to have been given. It is not being given. It is also stated that whoever believes "has (already) crossed over (past tense) from death to life." Salvation from the penalty of sin, that is from the condemnation of the law, is by no means a process; it is an instantaneous act of God in response to a single act of faith on the part of the sinner.
It is taught in Ephesians 1:13, 14, that after a person has believed (a finished act) he is sealed with the Holy Spirit until the redemption of the purchased possession. This passage once and for all rules out the argument that one must continue to believe.
There is a need for continuous faith on the part of the saved person; but that is not in relation to the question of eternal life (being saved) or everlasting condemnation (being lost), and therefore is not a part of this discussion.
It is said that sin in the life of a saved person will result in that one's being lost. There are not many who are willing to go so far as to say that any sin whatsoever will cause a saved person to be lost, especially if they are reminded that, "everything that does not come from faith is sin," and "anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins" (James 4:17). In fact anything that falls short of the glory of God is sin (Romans 3:23). Yet it is maintained that there are certain kinds of sins: unconfessed sins, willful sins, or continued sinning that will result in the one who commits them being lost. To accept this condition is to acknowledge that there are degrees of sin. It is to say that there are sins which a saved person can commit and still remain saved, but there are others which must be avoided or you will be lost. To make this concrete, the following list of sins is given: an unkind thought, a slight snub of a fellow Christian, a bit of envy because someone else has been more highly honored, a hasty unkind word, a misrepresentation of someone else, a white lie, pride, envy, jealousy, resentment to another, a root of bitterness, greed, hatred, wrath, strife, theft, falsification, idolatry, drunkenness, revellings, fornication, adultery, murder. From the above list, which sins can be safely committed and which not? Where is the line to be drawn and by whom? And where is the Bible authority for the classification when it is finished? Those who contend against eternal security are unwilling to state clearly their position in this matter. They are not as frank as is the Roman Church which classifies sins as venial and mortal.
But one need not be bewildered by this indefinite presentation of the sin question. God in the death of Christ made an absolute and full provision for sin and satisfied all demands of his law. This has already been explained in chapters 8 and 9, and need not be repeated here.
And this leads on to the next argument: "If a saved person cannot be lost, what of backsliders?" This word is greatly misunderstood. In the first place, the word never occurs in relation to the saved of the Church era. It is exclusively an Old Testament word and, with one exception (Proverbs 14:14 which is a different word in the original), is applied nationally to Israel and Judah. As the things that are recorded concerning God's chosen people Israel, are examples to believers of this era (First Corinthians 10:6), it seems entirely proper to speak of a saved person who has departed from a life of obedience to God as a backslider. But when this is done, to be consistent, such person must necessarily be considered in the same light as God considered his Old Testament backsliding people.
In connection with the first mention of backsliding, it is written: "Your wickedness will punish; your backsliding will rebuke you" (Jeremiah 2:19). Rebuke then is connected with backslidings. this at once suggests chastening through which God corrects those saved persons who do not judge themselves.
In the next chapter are found these words, "'Return, faithless people,' declares the LORD, 'for I am your husband'" (Jeremiah 3:14). Here the Lord speaks of that which he regards as an unbreakable tie. Then follows a prophecy of that restoration of Judah and Israel to their own land which has not yet been fulfilled. Then in verse 22 is a loving entreaty: "Return, faithless people; I will cure you of backsliding," and they answer: "Yes, we will come to you, for you are the LORD [YHWH or Jehovah, the redemptive name for God] our God."
In this passage surely there can be found nothing on which to base the statement that a backslider is lost. On the contrary, it teaches that a backslider is in an inseparable relation to God and will be restored.
In a second message God says (Jeremiah 5:6) or Judah, "Their rebellion is great and their backslidings many"; and then tells of what another writer calls punishment, "with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men" (Second Samuel 7:14) that are to happen to them; but also adds: "Yet ... I will not destroy you completely" (verse 18). Yet again God pleads: "Why does Jerusalem always turn away?" (Jeremiah 8:5) and again more corrective punishments are predicted. They shall be melted like in gold refining, and tested (Jeremiah 9:7); they will be made to "eat bitter food and drink poisoned water" (verse 15). The student of history well knows how hard the rod has been and how severe the floggings; how they have been melted and refined by the fires of persecution and how bitter the food and drink. It has all been chastening, but not everlasting separation.
More than six hundred years later, it was written: "Did God reject his people? By no means! ... God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew" (Romans 11: 1, 2). "And so all Israel will be saved" (verse 26) because "as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs" (verse 28).
And so also the backslider, while chastened by the Lord, is never driven away (John 6:37), because he also is "chosen (elect) according to the foreknowledge of God" (First Peter 1:2). "For God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29).
While here is comfort, there is also a warning of the most solemn kind. God's mercies can not be trifled with. One who trifles with the grace of God, though not lost, because salvation is of grace, will suffer the just consequences of his sins.
You have read a chapter from the book _"SHALL NEVER PERISH" by J. F. Strombeck you can read the entire book at.
Shall Never Perish - By J. F. Strombeck
Grace Bible Church (Click Here)
(A 10 Minute Video)
How
God Saves Men
Believing
Christ DIED, that’s HISTORY.
Believing
Christ DIED for YOU SINS and Rose again that’s SALVATION.
Read
Romans 1:16, Romans 10:9-10 and 1. Corinthians 15:1-4
(A 10 Minute Video)
E-mail
this BIBLE STUDY to all your friends
No comments:
Post a Comment