Some Lies that the Conditional Security Crowd Preach

For one, I am an opponent of Antinomianism and I am also an opponent to conditional security.  I for one believe in the eternal security of the believer which is better defined as "the perseverance of the saints" as defined by John Calvin that the Christian will certainly endure to the very end.  I am going to tackle on some lies and misrepresentations of the conditionals security crowd against the belief that Christians cannot lose their salvation.  Of course, I would also dare put a huge question mark on somebody who claims to have eternal security but has no change in life either.  

1.) We don't teach works salvation

This is really the top one lie that I am sick of hearing from them.  By looking at it, they say they do not teach works salvation and are relying upon the perfect work of Christ.  However it goes like this, "We are initially saved by faith then... if a Christian commits a sin, they have lost their salvation."  If that were the case, the Christian then needs to do his/her part in keeping his salvation then that is still works salvation.  It's the heresy of "faith and works salvation" vs. to the doctrine of "salvation is by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone."  I believe that every true Christian will never fail to produce some good works as proof of salvation like a change in lifestyle even if they may still struggle with other sins.  In fact, sins like habitual adultery, habitual homosexuality, habitual drunkenness, habitual thievery, and habitual blasphemy are proofs that a person was never saved to start with- I see no reason to embrace such people who claim to be Christians but are living with no remorse for sin to be true Christians.

2.) Christians must continue to do good works to be ensured of Heaven

There is a difference between Christians doing good works because of God's imputed righteousness and justification vs. to that of Christians having to do good works to keep themselves saved.  They tend to misinterpret verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 but ignore 11 (or sometimes mention 11 then focus too much on 9-10) when in fact connected to Romans 3:10 nobody is really worthy to inherit God's Kingdom.  The wicked cannot inherit God's Kingdom because of this fact- ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23) and in Romans 3:10, no one is righteous.  

They also misquote Romans 2:7-9 which says, "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil of the Jew first and also of the Gentile."  So they really ignore the fact we're all doomed sinners becuase of that fact in Romans 2:12 which says, "For as many as have sinned without law shall perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."  Some quote the King James, others the NIV.  While I don't use the NIV due to various deletions and omissions but even some NIV using preachers can be aware how out of context conditional security preachers are.  They also misquote James 2 by saying, "See this proves works is needed for justification."  Listen Paul and James DO NOT contradict each other.  James if he taught works salvation would then not mention James 2:10 that says you may try to keep the whole Law but offend at one point you are guilty of all and James 2:23 that says all Abraham needed to do to do was believe and he became a friend of God.  What James is addressing is the evidence of authentic faith, not salvation by works.  

Also looking at this, they FAIL to see the difference between imputed righteousness vs. self-righteousness. So here's how it works- I am a guilty sinner and I realize my own guilt because when I broke even one of the ten commandments, I have broken them all (James 2:10).  I get saved not because I entered into religion but because when I repented of my sins, I threw myself at the mercy of Jesus Christ who saved me from my sins.  According to 2 Corinthians 5:17 I am basically a new creation in Christ.  In Ephesians 2:10 it is revealed that I am now equipped unto good works while some argue this verse supports works are needed for salvation, no it does not.  Ephesians 2:8-9 is clear that salvation is NEVER by works yet it results to good works in Ephesians 2:10.  Hebrews 9:14 declares that by the blood of Christ I have been redeemed from dead works (doing good works in the hopes to merit salvation) to doing good works in serving the living God not as a prerequisite of salvation but as a result of salvation.  That is I bear the fruits of good works like I have the desire to do good works for God and hate sin, I feel bad when I sin only because of the imputed righteousness.  Also if I sin, I do not lose my salvation instead God will chastise me (Hebrews 12:5-6) to which makes me apart from the lost sinner who is allowed to sin all he please and live the way he wants. I cannot live the way I want anymore because it's a result of salvation.  On the other hand, self-righteousness is trying to establish their own righteousness while being ignorant of the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3).  The problem with self-righteousness is that it really contrasts James 2:10- it's more about doing more good works than bad in hopes of gaining God's favor when God demands sinless perfection in His standards if man is to ever earn salvation which makes salvation impossible for man apart from the saving work of Christ.

3.) Proponents of perseverance of the saints cannot teach righteous living

I've already heard of this lame accusation for the nth time.  I don't care really who says it but this is an outright lie just as much as it is a lie that a Christian can live like the rest of the world and still be saved- because no Christian even if they fall down, cannot live like the rest of the world like Lot was in Sodom but he didn't sin with Sodom, sin vexed him a lot.  It becomes this that preachers like Paul Washer, John Macarthur, Aizen Towzer, Arthur Pink, Charles Spurgeon and Ray Comfort are called teachers who give license to immorality.  Then again, have these proponents of conditional security bothered reading through the Bible and compare the Bible to the teachings of some of the preachers I mentioned.  For one, I disagree with that lie because if a person cannot lose their salvation then God does not stop sanctifying them either.  If a person loses their salvation then they lose their daily sanctification as well.

Philippians 1:6-7 says, "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: Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all because I have you in my heart inasmuch as both in my bonds and the defense and confirmation of the Gospel ye are all partakers of my grace."  The NIV EVEN says in Philippians 1:6 saying, "Being confident of this that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."  That is when God has saved a person, He will definitely start a good work and He will definitely finish it.  Can that give any room to reject holy living?  No, no and no.  In fact as said if proponents of eternal security can't teach holy living then what about Ephesians 2:10 which I just mentioned that despite salvation being by grace will result to good works? Also Titus 2:11-14 is clear that God's grace has appeared to teach men to do HOLY LIVING.  That is salvation by grace without any good works needed for salvation will however result to a changed life.  This is nothing more than a gross misrepresentation of eternal security as a license to sin.

As said, with eternal security a person has DAILY sanctification, has DAILY monitoring from God and what God has started with the person, by grace alone the person cannot fall away nor live the way he or she would want but rather because of imputed righteousness, has power over sin by again God's grace.  I definitely stand for the fact that righteous living being taught and done by Christians is not a self-merit but by God's merit that saved from sin.  In fact, 1 John 2:19 is clear that many people who left the flock for whatever reason were never truly saved, just false converts.  The real irony is also that a lot of people who teach works salvation and believe it however are very sinful- talk about the Pharisees who despite their righteous appearances had a lot of secret vices (today such hypocrisy is very prevalent in the Roman Catholic institution), some are even homosexual preachers like the Ang Dating Daan cult, adulterers, drunkards, etc. and are living sinfully as they have no grace from God to have genuine holy living.

If you are teaching a doctrine that eternal security is you can be saved regardless how you live and have no change for Christ, that is false security and as bogus as conditional security.  If you have eternal security, you may sin and slip BUT actions speak louder than words.

Also a closing note, I am not going to respond to debates.  Period.