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?