Passing Thoughts on Eternal Security
Two things regarding eternal security: one a question and the other an observation.
1. Been talking to some folks about the new IMB policy on baptism that came out a couple of years ago. One of the changes was that a IMB candidate must have been baptized in a church that believes in eternal security. I am just curious as to why this particular doctrine was selected to the exclusion of others. Anybody care to chime in on this? I mean, why not the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ as a requirement? Are doctrinal matters such as that just assumed?
2. One of the criticisms leveled against Calvinists (though wrongly I might add) is that a belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation negates true human freedom/responsibility. In other words, they would say that the commands to repent and believe are incompatible with God’s choice and work of regeneration. I have grown up in churches all my life who have taught eternal security and that one is “once saved, always saved.” The idea is that the moment you “accept Jesus into your heart,” everything is done then and there. This is the distinction between eternal security and perseverance of the saints, which argues for human responsibility in progressive sanctification as necessary evidence of having been born again. So, it is not ironic that, non-Calvinists who conflate Calvinists with Hyper-Calvinists (especially in regard to duty faith) are guilty themselves of removing human responsibility when it comes to eternal security? If you are “once saved, always saved,” then are you not giving a false assurance that dismisses human responsibility to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” and “make your calling and election sure?” Or am I missing something here?
Tags: eternal security, human responsibility, IMB, perseverance of the saints
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
April 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm
You’re not missing a thing, Timmy. You nailed it. The easy-believism / cheap grace crowd has put their own twist on “eternal security” to the extent that THEY negate human responsibility.
It disturbs me greatly when someone lives an immoral, ungodly life with no evidence of salvation and then dies, to hear a loved one say: “Well, at least they said the Sinner’s Prayer ‘x’ years ago. I know they haven’t lived for the Lord, but I feel they are in heaven …”
That is why, as a Baptist, I now say it this way: “IF saved, always saved.”
April 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Amen! It is this milktoast theology that I was warned about my entire life regarding Baptist practice and teaching. I was not raised in a Baptist church and it’s for this primary reason that I’m glad I was not.
I whole-heartedly embrace historic Baptist doctrine and I do believe that the founders of the Baptist movement would have serious problems with this teaching exactly as you and I do.
April 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Having been raised in a Baptist church, I have often heard “Once saved, always saved” messages. They have ALWAYS included the caveat that it depends on IF your salvation was genuine. That said, I have been at funerals where the believers took great comfort that the deceased was in Heaven because of having said the “magic words” regardless of lifestyle.
I think what happens is that people hear what they want to hear. This selectiveness is why Calvinists so quickly take issue with this doctrine and the shallow Baptists give us other Baptists a bad name!
All that said, I am adopting Glenn’s phrase for future clarity: “IF saved, always saved.”
April 29, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Timmy, agreed. That’s _precisely_ why I’m _against_ “once saved, always saved” and “eternal security”, and _for_ “perseverance of the saints”.
April 29, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Great post. I also have always heard the “once saved, always saved” more than I can remember. I’ve seen too many people, get “saved” fly high, crash and birn and walk away from it all. I see the discrepancy…well, they weren’t saved then. Then they die and become Mother Theresa.
The IMB policy bothers me because we’re developing outside of Scripture (my primary objection) and outside of the BFM (not too important to me). Regardless of the motivation behind the policy (which I personally think is because they’re afraid we’re out teaching these muslims they can lose their salvation….and drink wine), they’re going beyond scripture to try to get others to conform to their beliefs. Jesus had issues with this when the Pharisees did the same thing.
April 29, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Glenn,
Yeah, when you do not subscribe to perseverance of the saints, then the alternative to justify “once saved, always saved” is the idea of the “carnal Christian.” You know, it is the belief that you can make a decision as a child, deny Christ for 30 years, and chalk up that period as “carnal.” Of course, there are times when one backslides, and the two are not the same. But I am just fascinated by the fact that the very camp who mistakenly derides the doctrines of grace as a failure to do justice to human responsibility in fact do injustice to the grace in which we *stand*. Consider how Paul puts it:
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” – 1 Cor. 15:1-2
The gospel in the Christian life is to be preached, believed, stood upon, being saved, and holding fast. “Once saved, always saved” embraces the first two verbs but fails to account for the last three.
April 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Camel Rider,
I am just curious about the addition of eternal security to the list of requirements for IMB candidates. I know that Baptists have always believed this, but if we are going to pick and choose doctrines that are non-negotiable and rise to the level of dividing lines, then why not other doctrines as well, such as the exclusivity of Christ? I remember when the rules were changed, but I cannot remember their rationale behind it.
April 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Timmy,
I will check into that. The new policy went into effect between our 2 year term and our return as career. The way we were questioned was “Were you baptised in a Southern Baptist church?” We both responded yes so no more questions were asked beyond the pastors name and the name of the church.
I understand having some requirements theologically for people but this goes beyond this. Whats next? What if the person that led you to Christ doesn’t have SB beliefs 100%….do you need to get re-saved? I know people on the field that were baptized post-conversion and had to get rebaptized in a Baptist church….this is crazy.
April 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Camel Rider,
Well, I also wonder about how this affects IMB partnerships with other mission agencies. Where does SIL, NTM, Pioneers, Wycliffe, YWAM, CCC, and others stand? If they differ in their understanding of these issues, does it affect our ability to partner with them?
April 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I think so many times, “eternal security” is the right answer to the wrong question.
If the question is, “Are the truly regenerate secure?”, the answer is “yes.”
But, it’s usually the wrong question. Rather, the question should probably be, “Was the person saved in the first place?” Per Calvin, “We’re saved by faith alone, but not faith that’s alone.”
April 30, 2008 at 8:38 am
I’m very interested in wanting to serve through the imb but I had no idea about this requirement. I became a Christian at a young age and was baptized in a Church of God church. The gospel was very real to me then and I truly believe I was genuinely converted. My Christian growth and understanding has matured and I don’t believe everything in the Church of God, and I am a Southern Baptist. I was not required to get re-baptized in the southern baptist church. It truly was a believer’s baptism I had as a youth. I have no idea where they stand on eternal security. Would I have to be re-baptized in a southern baptist church in order to go through the IMB? That seems like it would be a charade and a disgrace. what do you think?
April 30, 2008 at 9:19 am
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but I’ve been under the impression that perseverance of the saints means that a person could, in theory, live such a life that they would lose (not never have had) their salvation but in practice that doesn’t happen because God sovereignly does not allow it.
(That understanding, which I know may be mistaken, sure sounds like salvation by faith, maintained by works through the grace and Spirit of God — kinda Catholic.)
Eternal security is essentially magnifying God’s grace — the gift He has given will not be retracted. But it is always, from the pulpit at least, taught with the caveat that “the faith that saves will produce good works.” Do the folks in the pews misunderstand or forget that caveat? All too often. That doesn’t mean the doctrine is itself wrong.
April 30, 2008 at 9:21 am
I certainly would not support any position that looks to man to validate my position in Christ. I would much rather be a saved man who doubts his conversion, than an unregenerate sinner with a false assurance.
“Assurance is the result of a competent spiritual knowledge of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the gospel, and a consciousness of dependence on Him and His work alone for salvation.”
Anytime we look for temporal proof of an eternal reality, we run the risk of taking our eyes off Christ (the author and finisher of our faith) and focusing instead on a man-centered quality control check list. I want no man or doctrine to stamp me on the head ‘SAVED” for any outward displays of righteousness or for any verbal profession of faith.
April 30, 2008 at 9:22 am
Paul,
I was raised and saved in an Assemblies of God church and then came on staff at an SBC church. It was one that held to landmarkism and therefore I had to be re-baptized to become a member. I almost refused but after much prayer and searching the scriptures, I went ahead and submitted to this unbiblical practice.
Through the entire situation, the church ended up changing its practice on the matter and no longer requires a baptism in an SBC church but only a scriptural baptism by immersion.
I agree with you that for you to have to be rebaptized, it would be a shame and a disgrace as well as, more importantly, unbiblical.
April 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm
As a pastor I’ve taught our church that a biblical baptism must be by immersion (vs sprinkling), after a credible profession of faith (vs. infant baptism), and viewed as non-salvific (vs. baptismal regeneration). I would hope that if a person’s baptism met these criteria it would be considered valid. I have no idea why “eternal security” was the one doctrine picked out and tied to baptism. Gene Bridges has written a pretty thorough critique of this guideline (I’ll see if I can find it).
As far as baptism being affiliated with a local church, I think it is normative in Scripture, but I can think of one or two exceptions (a friend leading a friend to Christ in a Muslim culture, for instance, where there is no local congregation, and then baptizing him – upon further examination I could see this as valid). If I were asked to baptize someone who did not wish to become a member of our local church, I would have to quiz him about why he did not desire church membership. I can’t imagine many answers that would lead me to feel comfortable baptizing him.
Regarding the IMB guidelines, as I understand them Paul (comment #11) would indeed have to be re-baptized either by his own SBC church or another willing SBC church (if his church refused) in order to serve with the IMB. I may be mistaken. I don’t think this requirement has any biblical validity.
April 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Gene Bridge’s treatise can be found at:
http://historyoflandmarkismandthesbc.blogspot.com/
April 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Gene Bridges’ treatise can be found at his blogspot, A Southern Baptist History Primer
April 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm
To teach that you are saved based on a decision and a prayer which was sincere and you truly meant business resulting in a condition of being ‘once saved always saved’ is to teach salvation by works and not by grace. It makes God the debtor to your work of praying and decision making so that he must save you regardless.
Better to say once elect always elect and ground our salvation in the sovereign work of God. Perseverance of the Saints recognizes both the electing love of God and the reality of a lively faith bearing fruit, a faith which is itself a gift and work of God. True saints will finally persevere to the end but there is not merit or favor or acceptance earned with God by persevering.
sda
April 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Timmy,
Your second point is very insightful an very helpful. I am sure it will show up in my teaching someday.
Now about your first question. Here is what I have heard as part of the reason for making the church’s belief in eternal security a requirement. This whole requirement that a person be baptized in a certain kind of church is connected to an ecclesiology that emphasizes baptism as a church ordinance (not just an individual act of obedience/faith). Therefore the beliefs and proclomation of the church about a baptism play into the baptism’s validity. So, if a church affirms baptismal regeneration the baptism is not biblical, since the church is not declaring what the Bible commands about the sign.
Now, eternal security. THe argument goes like this: the ordinance of baptism has been given to the church to declare a believer’s death to the old self, crucifixion with Christ, and the resurrection to new and eternal life. It is a declaration of a decisive act of God bringing the believer from death to life. If a church does not believe in eternal security, so the argument goes, they are believing and declaring an unbiblical truth about the ordinance of baptism. Rather than believing an declaring that a person has been decisively raised to new and eternal life by the regeneration of the HOly SPirit and union with Christ in His death and resurrection, the church is falsely saying the person has been raised for now but could soon fall away. They are declaring that this person may not be resurrected to life in the end, which goes against the truth that baptism is supposed to declare. There may be more to the reasoning, but I think this is at least part of it.
For the record, I agree that when a church thinks a believer can lose their salvation they are believing something that goes against what baptism is meant to declare. However, I do not think this deviation is sufficient to negate the validity of a baptism if the church affirms the other important truths about baptism. I appreciate the IMB’s desire to think through ecclesiology, but I think they have gone too far which may drive many away from taking ecclesiology seriously. And they have already driven worthy candidates out of teh SBC.
May 1, 2008 at 10:55 am
Timmy,
Your second point is very insightful and very helpful. I am sure it will show up in my teaching someday.
Now about your first question. Here is what I have heard as part of the reason for making the church’s belief in eternal security a requirement. This whole requirement that a person be baptized in a certain kind of church is connected to an ecclesiology that emphasizes baptism as a church ordinance (not just an individual act of obedience/faith). Therefore the beliefs and proclomation of the church about a baptism play into the baptism’s validity. So, if a church affirms baptismal regeneration the baptism is not biblical, since the church is not declaring what the Bible commands about the sign.
Now, eternal security. THe argument goes like this: the ordinance of baptism has been given to the church to declare a believer’s death to the old self, crucifixion with Christ, and the resurrection to new and eternal life. It is a declaration of a decisive act of God bringing the believer from death to life. If a church does not believe in eternal security, so the argument goes, they are believing and declaring an unbiblical truth about the ordinance of baptism. Rather than believing an declaring that a person has been decisively raised to new and eternal life by the regeneration of the HOly SPirit and union with Christ in His death and resurrection, the church is falsely saying the person has been raised for now but could soon fall away. They are declaring that this person may not be resurrected to life in the end, which goes against the truth that baptism is supposed to declare. There may be more to the reasoning, but I think this is at least part of it.
For the record, I agree that when a church thinks a believer can lose their salvation they are believing something that goes against what baptism is meant to declare. However, I do not think this deviation is sufficient to negate the validity of a baptism if the church affirms the other important truths about baptism. I appreciate the IMB’s desire to think through ecclesiology, but I think they have gone too far which may drive many away from taking ecclesiology seriously. And they have already driven worthy candidates out of the SBC.