Eternal Security

One of the earliest distinctions I knew between Arminian and Calvinist theology was the notion of Eternal Security. Pure Arminians argued that salvation could and was often lost. Calvinists held to the doctrine of "Eternal Security", "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), that sort of thing. They were quite sure that, once you had been born again, you had eternal life and that meant that you had life eternal. I mean, if you could lose eternal life, in what sense was it eternal?

Well, both sides have had various manifestations. On the "conditional security" side, it appeared in most cases like you could certainly lose it if you didn't remain faithful, but if you lost it, you could get it back again. No problem. Just repent again. Poof! You're saved again. Rarely did they face the specter of Hebrews 6, although they liked to use the passage as proof against the Calvinists.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt (Heb 6:4-6).

"There, see? If you 'have fallen away', then you lose your salvation!" Okay, fine, but note that it says that "it is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance". So if you go with "conditional security", rather than the "Once Saved, Always Saved" view, you would necessarily need to hold the "Once Lost, Always Lost" position. So some Arminians would concede the point and others would deny it.

Likewise, Calvinists vary in their view on Eternal Security. Some are happy with the OSAS view, not realizing its tacit approval of antinomianism. "It doesn't matter what you do; you can never lose your salvation." Really? It doesn't matter? What about all the warnings? Why bother, then, to be obedient at all? Are you sure you want to hold that extreme of a position? More "center" are the Eternal Security folks. They focus more on the certainty that it can't be lost without suggesting that "It doesn't matter what you do." That is, they rest on the certainty of salvation without examining the reasons for it. And, of course, then there are the "far right" types. They believe that salvation can be lost, but that it never is because God insures that it doesn't happen. That is, from a human perspective diligence and obedience and "working out your salvation" is required, but from the divine perspective, all of that happens because God is at work in His people. In this view, it does matter what you do, but in the end it is still God who accomplishes it in the Christian.

The notion of Eternal Security has always been problematic. Not that it was problematic biblically. It is a practical problem. Here's the standard complaint: "If you tell people they can't lose their salvation, they won't be obedient." That is, if you argue that we can't lose it, then you're giving people a license to sin. So how does one who believes that when Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36), He meant "has" and not "might have" or "has at least at the moment" ... how does someone like that defend this objection of license to sin? Well, usually they don't. They simply deny it. I'd like to suggest a better approach.

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).

This statement of John's is quite overwhelming. I suspect this is one of the reason we so rarely dwell on it. The statement has two components: There is a "does not" and a "cannot". The "does not" is the practice of sinning, and the "cannot" is "because he has been born of God". Indeed, connecting John's "born of God" concept, we also know, "Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world" (1 John 5:4). It would appear, then, that the Bible teaches that those who are true believers, those who are "born of God" -- those who have been regenerated, made new, filled with the Spirit -- that these genuine Christians cannot make a practice of sinning. Now, I'm not suggesting in the least that they can't sin. That's a given (1 John 1:8-2:1). We sin. No, it's the practice of sin that cannot be accomplished. It's the continuous, unaltered, unfettered sinning here, the habitual sin. It is contrasted with 1 John 1:9, the confession of sin. It is the position that, when faced with the fact one is sinning, would defend rather than repent of sin. "Yeah, I know it's sin, but I'm going to do it anyway and I think it's fine." According to John, this is not one born of God.

Does "Eternal Security" breed license to sin? Well, in a way, it does. It gives those who think they are saved an excuse to sin with impunity. John claims that those who are born of God cannot sin with impunity. So if it produces license, the likelihood is "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). The end game, then? "Brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:10).