A
NEW STRATEGY
FOR
REFUTING ETERNAL SECURITY
by
Mr. Jeff Paton
"We henceforth be no more children, tossed
to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men"
Arminianism has failed. We have ceased to succeed
in defending biblical truth, especially in the
realm of the issues of eternal security and
holiness. There have been fine polemics that have
been written, but for the most part their
circulation has been restricted within the Christian
retail marketplace. The main reason
that these works are not offered is,
to put it quite painfully,
is that they do not sell. Their style
tends to be considerably academic, which does not suite the
modern mind. One reason for the low
acceptance of Arminian ideas is that people by nature
want to have their beliefs affirmed
and not challenged. They want to be
part of the comfortable
majority because that is how "truth" is
decided in our generation. We have failed to capture the
heart of the public on television and radio
since we do not emphasize an easy "feel good"
version of the gospel. Telling people
that they need to repent has never been
a means of gaining popularity. So how do
we reach these "churched" people who
are comfortably resting in the
hopes of false doctrine? We must find
an effective way to approach this difficulty.
Our difficulty in reaching the
eternal security crowd stems mainly
from our refusal to change.
We have used the same apologetic
approach for over two centuries,
and since then, all of our
writings have been basically the same.
The pattern has been to assail our opponent with biblical
verses that posit the possibility of
apostasy and confirm a conditional salvation.
This for the most
part has brought dismal results, but yet
we refuse to change.
Were these technics at one time effective?
I believe that they have been effective and are still
effective to the one who has not already
been grounded in an opposing theology. These types of
individuals are certainly a minority.
Most are grounded in eternal security within a few short
weeks after a profession of faith. This
theological indoctrination is extremely
effective within the
Baptist camp and should be an example
of what we should be doing with our people also.
Since the average Calvinist will never
pick up and read our literature, we must find a better
approach. I feel that the key to our
effectiveness is to first, and foremost,
is to ground our people with sound theological
moorings as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.
Secondly, I believe that we must find
a more effective way of communicating
our message to those around us.
The traditional approach to Calvinism has
been predictable and unchanging. Calvinists are so
well conditioned to our approach that
they have standard works written to aid the eternal
securist in refuting any difficulty that
might come their way. Because of this, the seasoned
eternal securist is more than able to
counter the biblical passages that demonstrate that a
believer can fall away from the faith.
Even with all the overwhelming biblical evidence on our
side, we seem to be unable to convince
them of this biblical truth. How do we move the Eternal
Securist from their stronghold? Are
they all lovers of sin and haters of truth?
Do they all cling to this theory so they can
live a deplorable life of sin and have their
salvation too? From my experience, I have
found a small percentage in which this would be true,
but for the most part,
most Eternal Securists are not of this type.
Most eternal
securist's are at least partially open
to truth, and they honestly believe that their
expositors are giving them sound exegesis.
But even if convinced of their error, the road to
change is difficult, but change is not up to
us, it is up to them and God. Our job is to show them
the truth in love and then let the Holy Spirit
convince and convict them of truth. Winning an
argument is not to be confused with winning souls.
So what
needs to be done differently in order
to be effective? The very thing we lack, a strategy
that is different and unanticipated.
BACKWARDS
THEOLOGICAL THINKING
God is perfect.
God cannot lie. God is a rational being.
These statements lead me to the
inevitable conclusion that God must be
consistent. If God is inconsistent,
then we must come to the conclusion that
we can never know what is the truth about
the Gospel of Christ.
If God is perfect,
and cannot lie, then what is revealed to
us in scripture must be true. If we
perceive that there are contradictions in
the word of God, we must conclude that the error is
either in our understanding, or it is a
transnational error, but it is certainly
not the fault of God.
I conclude that if I find verses that
seem to be contradictory, I reevaluate
my understanding and thinking since the
problem is not the bible, but it is me.
Theology that
is inconsistent with itself is clearly not
the theology of God. If we must retain a
policy of interpretation that demands
that we do not cause the scriptures to contradict
themselves, we can no longer assume that
we can do otherwise when it come to theology.
Five point
Calvinism is a thoroughly consistent
system that could truly contend for the position
as the genuine theology of God. It
meets the criteria of consistency. Arminianism is the
theological opposite of Calvinism.
Arminianism is also thoroughly consistent forwards and
backwards within itself. The Arminian
system of theology is also a
contender as the true theology of God
since it is also non-contradictory.
"It is conceivable that both Arminianism and
Calvinism are wrong, but it is wholly
impossible for both to be right. The Bible offers no
contradictions, if one system is right,
the other is wrong. There is no compromise possible."
Chafer, Systematic Theology 3:274
There are only
two systems available to the Christian
that can boast of this consistency. All
other theologies are not truly
systematic and cannot have a legitimate
claim as the system of God. Only pure Calvinism
and Arminianism have the honor of this claim. The
question is not which of these two systems is
most appealing, but which system is biblical!
Chafer argues that it is Calvinism that is the
true theology of God, and that it is backed by the bible.
Calvinists have written countless volumes of books
in attempts to reconcile the bible to their system.
Arminianism on the other hand, has not. To
vindicate our position there is very little that one
has to dig into like, original languages
and historical sources. As one chooses a system they can
have Calvinism which has to twist and turn
the entire bible on its ear to maintain its scheme, or
you can have Arminianism which has the whole
of scripture on its side and only a handful of
verses in which to deal with as difficulties.
The question is not which theology appeals to our
situation, but which plan is the plan of the
Bible? Arminianism is the theology of the Bible!
Calvinism may
be an appealing and popular system, but it is not
biblical. Theology flavors and
dictates our beliefs, which is important to know,
but belief is only of value if it is based on truth.
There is no virtue in believing a lie.
Calvinism's
system is based on the presupposition
that man is elected from all eternity apart
from any foreseen morality or faith.
Those who are " chosen" are considered "elect", and the
elect are predestined to eternal salvation
with God. But the Bible is clear that not all will be in
heaven, so how does the death of Christ
work? It is a payment that is limited only to the elect.
The exhortation to man to "choose this day
whom he shall serve" must not really be a choice but
a verification of the elect and non-elect.
How will we know who is elect since man's will has
nothing to do with it? It is called irresistible
grace, a calling of God the man cannot refuse. In
their eyes it is "whosoever must" and not
"whosoever will". Since salvation in Calvinism is not
based on a moral transformation of the sinner,
so God must receive the sinner on the bases of a
moral transfer of the righteousness of Christ
called imputation. This is where God is somehow
blinded to the reality of our sin, but in
return He can only see the holiness of Christ when He
views our lives. This ignores the fact that
morality is not transferable. I cannot transfer
righteousness to you anymore than you can give
me your sin. Vincent Taylor wrote "imputation"
can never be anything else than an ethical
fiction. Since it is not a commodity, but
a personal state, righteousness cannot be
transferred from the account of one person to another.
Righteousness
can no more be imputed to a sinner than
bravery to a coward or wisdom to a
fool." (Forgiveness and Reconciliation P.57)
In a Calvinist view though, if one is elected,
predestined, paid for, irresistibly drawn,
the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, then he
must infallibly be saved. Calvin's
perseverence is more than modern eternal security.
Proof of one's election is that God ensures
the elect will not leave the truth, and the
self deceived will apostatize as evidence of
their damnation prior to their death.
Notice the
systematic continuity of this system.
If you are elect, you will be saved in the end no
matter what! Every essential in this
plan supports the whole. As a design it
is a superb one, but
not a biblical one.
Arminianism presumes that God is genuine in his
call to whosoever will. That in view of this, the
atonement of Christ is provision made for all.
God calls everyone in His own way and His own
time. Man is free to accept this gracious gift
or to resist and refuse the offer. This makes man
and not God responsible for the final
eternity of each individual. God hates sin, and the
atonement he provides must by nature remove
sin out of the believer in order to make man
acceptable to God. The new birth, or
regeneration, is designed to give us a new nature
and not a covering for our sin. Ultimately we
must endure in our faith unto the end to be saved.
There is no reward for the quitter or backslider.
Christ is who reforms us, works through us, and saves
us. We are not earning our salvation through works,
it is Christ working through us to salvation.
Baptists are the
predominant partial Calvinists of our day. They
are the norm of what we will
most likely deal with. Their theological system
is a conglomeration of Arminianism and
Calvinism. They seem to believe that they have
extracted the biblical truth out of both sides and
have resulted in the true Gospel of Christ.
They start with whosoever will, but deny the believer
freedom after salvation. They preach a theory that
their sins are "Paid in full" but seem to miss
the point that if the atonement of Christ paid
for sins forever, then we must accept Universalism.
If not,
they are yet to prove biblically when
and where these sins become "un-paid" in a persons
life. Either these sins were paid for
while Jesus was on the cross two thousand years ago in
reality or they were not. Payment that
occurs when one believes is just another unbiblical fiction
in their theological rapporteur.
The Baptist rationale is based solely on the
assumption that eternal security is true. They built
their self contradictory theology starting
with eternal security on back. They work from the end
result they desire, on backwards to whatever
else meets their fancy. If eternal security as a
doctrine can be disproved, their whole theological
system falls with it. If one is found to be
wrong in one area, and adjustment of belief
is crushing, then what must the failure of an entire
system be like? This is a higher cost that most
will be willing to pay. They cling to their comfort
and pride in exchange for truth and salvation!
Notice the inconsistency of starting with
the freedom of Arminianism but ending with
the fatalism of Calvinism. An atonement
that they say is a payment that guarantees
security, but somehow unpays itself somewhere and
somehow in the unbeliever. The payment must be real
to support unconditional security, but it must be
fictional if all are not ultimately saved... Curious.
No unbiased person
left alone with the Bible could ever come up
with the conclusion of eternal
security. "There never was or ever can be"
a born Securitist." You, or any other truly born
again Christian, cannot read Eternal
Security verses and get Eternal Security out of them.
The only way that Eternal Security can be
attached to these verses is to "read it into them."
"People are "educated into" Eternal Security, just as truly as an atheists are "educated into"
atheism." (Henry Shilling, The Gift Of The Gods).
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PARADIGMS
A paradigm is
a term that is used much in modern psychology.
It may be well defined as the
glasses in which we see the world. It is
the filter of presupposition that everything must pass
through to enable us to understand. Once an
Eternal Securist is taught that certain verses prove
the doctrine of unconditional security, it
is mentally untenable for any verse to contradict it.
They must contort any text that defies what
they believe to be the "gospel". This all seems so
rational to then since "Eternal Security is
the gospel". Since all of the Arminian "proofs" must
pass through the filter of their thinking, the
verses must be brought into alignment with there
presuppositions about the believers security.
Many an Arminian has been frustrated in his
inability to find a scripture to convince the
Securist of the truth. The Securist has a "bunker
theology". That is, if every attack can be
deflected, even if by mental trickery, then the Securist
feels that he must have the truth since you
could not stump him. If they can destroy all of the
numerous verses that oppose them, they
feel vindicated in their doctrine. In view of our current
method, this is why we usually fail in our task.
Breaking the
paradigm is the only way we can break
through to some of the most stubborn of
securists. We must avoid our old
tactics and adopt a new. I suggest that
we should put the fire
into their "bunker". Make them "prove"
Eternal Security! Stop bombing them with "Arminian"
verses, only to harden their position by our
defeat. We should make them perform the impossible,
that is, to prove Eternal Security to be a
fact. If we take refuge in our own "bunker" we can
devastate every proof they have, and by doing so, we gain
an opportunity to convince them of what these verses
really say without a Secrists presuppositions.
Refuse to move
from this posturing until they give
in and are defeated. Do not fall for their usual
ploy of diversion and distraction when
they are about to crumble. Remember, it is their false
doctrine that is on trial, and not any doctrine
of ours, so do not be tempted to give them an upper
hand in the discussion. They want you to argue
their way, the way they are prepared to defeat
you.
I have found
that an Eternal Securist is quite taken
back when approached this way. Most will
become very frustrated with themselves in
there inability to convince me. The fact that I am
"trying to understand" encourages them to
try even harder. I tell them " I would not base my
salvation on assumptions, but on sound,
biblical proof." Doubting their own belief is the
doorway to victory. The rest is up to God.
To be effective in
this tactic, one must be ready to give
a sound exegesis of all their "proof"
texts. We must be able to show what
the text does say, and what it
doesn't say!*
Am I saying that this is the only way to
deal with this issue? Of course not! Is this strategy
always effective? No, but it has been
ten times more effective than the old
"Arminian" approach. I would be curious
as to others input and experiences on
this issue. Is there a better way to
communicate the truth to those who are
deceived? I hope so. I would welcome and encourage a
continued dialog on this issue.
* See the article Eight Pillars of Eternal Security on
the editorial page of this web site for more information
This article was written by Mr. Jeff Paton. Mr. Paton has read and
studied many of the classic Methodist and Wesleyan theological writings. He is
a supporter of Bible Believing Methodism and IMARC. We thank
God for his insight and ministry. If you would like to
contact Mr. Paton,
you may feel free to do so.
