Is it possible to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am going to heaven? If my salvation really is secure, can I commit any sin and still go to heaven? Dr. Stanley helps believers understand the issues of grace and works in a compassionate, straightforward manner.
Previously published in hardcover (0840790953).Publishers Description
Do you ever find yourself wondering . . .
- Is it actually possible to know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I am going to heaven?
- If you say that my salvation is "eternally secure" and that I can never lose it, does that mean that I can commit any sin and still go to heaven?
- How can an understanding of "eternal security" make a difference in my Christian life?
With the wisdom and skill of a man who has personally wrestled with these questions, internationally-known pastor and bestselling author Charles Stanley addresses the age-old issue of grace vs. works in this compassionate, straight-forward book.
With questions at the end of each chapter, "Eternally Secure" is an excellent choice for individual or group study.
"I know from experience that until you settle once and for all the question of whether or not you are eternally secure, joy will elude you. Therefore, it is my prayer that God will use this book in your life and that in the very near future you will be able to face life with the confidence that comes through knowing you are eternally secure. ―Charles Stanley
Previously published in hardcover (0840790953).
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 8.4" Width: 5.4" Height: 0.7"
Weight: 0.55 lbs.
Release Date Sep 3, 2002
Publisher Thomas Nelson
Availability 0 units.
Reviews - What do our customers think?
|Painting Oneself Into The Calvinist Corner Jan 24, 2007|
|Stanley certainly has some Biblical truth to write in this book which certainly proposes to be for the common layperson with litte theological training. A huge misconception here is that theology is for the pastors, the professionals. Not relevant or important for the layperson. Reality is, everyone is a theologian, just some better than others. Stanley is not that good a theologian, a heterodox theologian as Calvin.|
Their problem, they let logic rule over the Scripture. It all has to make logical sense in the end. As one of my history professors said, after examining the life of Calvin and Luther for forty years, the difference was that both started law school, and only one graduated. Calvin is bright man who insists that all his doctrine be wrapped up into little neat, logical arguments. Luther let Scripture be true, even if it went against human logic. Thus, Calvin lets himself get painted into the unbiblical corner of double predestination, causing all his doctrinal system by necessity to ride upon election and the soverignty of God. Luther lets his theological center not be this soverignty, but rather the cross.
Thus, Luther won't play the unbiblical game of having to answer unanswerable questions of why some saved and others not? He let's God have all the answers to these which He chose not to reveal in Scripture.
In my reveiw of another book on the topic (Four Views on Eternal Security) I mention that the four debaters square off as Calvinist vs. Arminian lines, with some being more truer to their theological namesake than others. They battle it out over such as total depravity, resistable grace, etc. One than comments on the macro view of such: "Logic becomes a substitute for mystery; explanation a substitute for wonder."
Stanley seeks in this work to take all the mystery of whose saved and who might fall away (apostasize) from salvation from God and explains it through manipulation of the Greek text as others have commented. He also is severely guilty of making outlandish statements without any Biblical proof or valid exegeis offered, e.g. commenting on Heb. 6:6 he uses the NASB translation in verse 6 of "then have fallen away" and interprets it insisting that it means that this threat of not to apostasize is made to those who have fallen away. Look carefully at the Greek here folks. Better translation would be "if they fall away." This is the critical part of the argument and yet here at the passage Stanley says is most critical, he skates right over it. His critique of potential of apostasy, falling away from salvation rests upon faulty translation. Assuming correctness of "if" this certainly allows for proper intended reading of this passage, to warn the believer not to apostasize, for repentance then is impossible!
His radical statements about no need for continuing faith fly in the face of Biblical evidence, i.e. John 15 remaining attached by faith. He seems at times to want to play faith against grace, which is inexcusable. Also, saying that a believer's sins are all paid for at the moment of first belief "no matter what the believer's faith record follows" doesn't square with Scripture. Rallying faulty arguments from Galatians 5 as other reviewers have pointed out weakens a reader's confidence in his shaky exegesis. The common person enamored by his voice, and Scriptural quotes and TV personage might be fooled, but the discerning Christian will not.
Jesus clearly says that such apostasy, falling away from salvation will be and is a sign of the end times. Stanley's further false teaching envinces itself here as well, with his false millenialist positions proclaimed as truth. To tell Christians there is no chance of falling away from salvation and include proof such as sequence of Parable of Ten Virgins and Parable of the Talents and Final Judgment sequence of Matthew 25 stating that "is to be in the kingdom of God but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority" is most dangerous! Throughout ages church has used these correctly to declare the danger of losing faith (not having enough oil in our lamps/being good stewards), not some system of rewards in an earthly millennial kingdom.
Truly a dangerous book for the Biblical undiscerning. Two stars rather than one only due to at times declaring that one is saved by believing by faith in gospel apart from any works of law, but than takes all that away by false doctrine exemplified above in this review.
|Above Average Dec 23, 2005|
|As much as I like Dr. Charles Stanley this book is just above average to me. He gives some good arguments and then some real desperate arguments on other verses such as Hebrews 6:4-6. His exegesis of Hebrews 6:4-6 is a very poor one indeed. He has the word "impossible" as implying difficult as he gives an example of a pastor that fell into sin but Charles Stanley realized that this guy knew what he was doing and that it was virtually impossible to change that man's thinking. The only problem with that is the word "impossible" is the same word when we hear that it is "impossible for God to lie." Are we now to translate that verse as it is difficult for God to lie? We know that the word "impossible" in Heb. 6 means just as it says.|
If you are looking to get a series of books on Eternal Security then this book should be added to your library since he does give some very solid arguments elsewhere. Charles Stanley himself used to believe in the erroneous and damning position of Conditional Security and later rejected it as false teaching. This book will help you to see how he came to see what many problem passages were actually teaching.
The funny thing is, the book that actually confirmed to me that Once Saved Always Saved was true was a book by Dan Corner called The Believer's Conditional Security. I approached that book with an open mind and ended up sending the Evangelical Outreach Society a thank you letter for putting the debate to an official end in my head. I read many books on Eternal Security but it was reading arguments from the other point of view that had me to realize that OSAS was indeed the true position.
In Dan Corner's book, that is if you decide to purchase it, please take note as to how he runs to different Bible versions to prove his case. His book reads a lot like the material that I have from the Jehovah Witnesses for they too have done the same thing. If one version gives a strong argument for OSAS then Dan will find and quote another version that reads the same verse a little different, this way he can try to weaken the argument that is against him. JW's did the same thing concerning the Trinity and would quote different versions that supported them. Also Dan quotes the anti-nicene father's as proof that nobody believed in OSAS during early church history as well the Jehovah Witnesses who uses them to prove that nobody believed in the Trinity during that time. If Dan likes the anti-nicene father's then I wonder why he is not Catholic since the Catholic's will and do quote the anti-nicene father's as proof that their teaching has been around since the first century and we (protestants) were a later invented teaching.
Dan Corner often dodges OSAS proof texts by smothering it with verses from other books of the Bible. The Jehovah Witnesses do the exact same thing when they are confronted with Trinity proof texts. Example would be "In Him dwelleth the godhead bodily" would be our argument and they will turn around and quote another book of the Bible and say "Jesus said "Why callest thou me good for none is good but God"" and then say as to how Jesus could be literally God when making such a statement. Dan Corner will many times ignore our proof texts by saying "Hey, look over in this book...See how Paul couldn't really have meant that there??" (My wording there but easily seen in many of his arguments).
Be sure to read Dan's argument's concerning Eph.4:30. He has something to say on pages: 117,446,459,473,541. You will find that 3 out of 5 of those pages will appeal to your emotions and not the Bible. He quotes some lady that wanted to kill herself and was asking if she still would go to heaven and then the OSAS believer as telling her that she is eternally secure and will quote Eph.4:30. Abortionists resort to such extreme measures to win their arguments. An abortionist hopes to win you over that abortion is OK by telling you "What if your daughter was raped and became pregnant??" Does that situation make abortion acceptable according to Scripture even though such situations do occur?? Now does Dan's extreme argument really refute OSAS view of Eph.4:30 or was that some isolated extreme case that Dan was using to appeal to your emotions? Is that arguing from Scripture or reasoning and emotions? In another page, Dan will simply says "Does the Bible say Christians are SEALED unto the day of redemption or SAVED unto the day of redemption?" Amusing argument since God the Holy Spirit does the sealing and HE IS THE EARNEST OF OUR INHERITANCE and it does say sealed unto the day of redemption with no exception clauses added. Dan tries in another page to tell you that you can break a seal by showing how the seal over Jesus' tomb was removed. Now Dan equates our physical world to the spiritual. Yes, man can remove a physical seal but where can a man remove a spiritual seal? It is God that does the sealing so where in the Bible does it say that we can't break the seal of God? Dan certainly has man as being able to break the seal that God Himself has placed upon us and can show no biblical proof that a spiritual seal can be broken. That was all Dan had to say in his refutation of Eph.4:30. Dan was obviously desperate for something and tried his best to keep his heresy. I mention these things so that if you buy that book then your eyes will be aware of his tactics. For an excellent study on Sealing, please visit www.bereanbiblesociety.org and email them for a copy of Ricky Kurth's article on the Sealing of the Holy Spirit. You might not agree with that sight but the article is worth getting!!
Some of Dan's arguments were so out there that he convinced me that he does not know Christ and will be lost by what he believes. The sad thing is that he is bringing many with him with his erroneous and dangerous teaching. He sounds like a Roman Catholic in how he presents a person is saved and kept. He definately has a faith and works gospel to be saved and reading his book that conclusion is undeniable. Sometimes I laughed out loud in disbelief as I examined some of his proof texts. Many are taken out-of-context and he tends to add what he believes really happened. He will tell you that King David and Solomon lost their salvation and I challenge anyone to show one verse of Scripture that states that??? Dan will read it in there and you know what happens to those that ADD to the Word of God.
He has Judas as a saved man that lost his salvation and that was by far the most laughable argument that I could find. He based his arguments on his own reasoning. He thinks that Judas had to be saved because Jesus couldn't have an unsaved man as his disciple. That was by far the silliest argument that one could ever give since nowhere do we ever see Judas being praised. We have Jesus saying: "Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?" Now going along with Dan's reasoning, do you not find it then strange that Jesus would permit Judas to continue to be a disciple when he was stated to be a devil PRESENT TENSE? Judas was considered a thief and was still allowed to be a disciple. This is another example of Dan adding to the word of God.
Dan is great for quoting Young's literal translation as proof about the word "believe" being used in the present tense. BUT DAN NEVER QUOTES YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION ON THOSE VERSES THAT HAVE "BELIEVED AND SAVED" IN THE PAST TENSE. Acts 16:31 is one of those examples where the word "believe" is not being used in the present tense. In fact, Dan doesn't argue Acts 16:31 nor even gives the OSAS arguments for it. He has only one thing to say about it in his entire 801 page book that you can find on page 87 which is a little footnote at the very bottom which says: "Another verse that refers to initial salvation in Acts 16:31." That is all he gives and he certainly can't run to Greek scholars on that one since the verse cannot be argued that way without first twisting it as does crisis-pub website. He can't use Young's literal translation since it argues against him. Dr. Charles Stanley will talk about that verse and deals with it honestly.
Dan Corner's book has allowed me to confidently and effectively debate and easily refute Conditionalists. I have came across many Dan Corner disciples that have quoted Dan Corner's arguments to me. I have seen several Dan Corner disciples lose confidence in their guru when I have them examine Dan's arguments from the Scripture. (GURU: I said that because Conditionalists always quote this guy and have him as some scholar which he is as far from as the east is from the west). I show them how Dan has either added or ignored the context and would get them to admit it out-loud. When you get them to say: "Yes, Dan took the passage out of context" more than once then watch how they lose confidence all together in their guru. I had one man that said that he will need to re-study what he was taught since he saw how Dan's arguments only looked good but in fact were garbage. It's like a shiny red apple that is rotten on the inside.
I can play the same games Dan plays and argue according to your reasoning. Here are a few examples: 1st, if man needs continual faith to be saved then what about those on their death-bed? Most Conditionalists struggle intensely with whatever assurance that they thought they had. According to James, don't expect a man to receive anything if his faith "WAVERS." 2nd, I find it amazing that the over 95% of all Greek Scholars and Biblical protestant scholars---NONE OF THEM HOLD TO CONDITIONALISM. 3rd, OSAS does not believe that most Conditionalists are saved because they see their gospel as a perversion while Conditionalists believe that OSAS will be saved if they "endure to the end." That scary for both sides I guess. 4th, I find it strange that NO CONDITIONALIST can offer a single verse or passage that states that a man lost his salvation and then got it back. It is like those that believe that infants MUST be baptized but can't give one verse showing a baby being baptized. If losing one's salvation was a possibility then I find it strange that in all 66 books there is not one verse that states that. Instead, we have Dan reading it in everywhere that he feels that a person had lost it. Everywhere we do have verses that say: Sealed unto the day...eternal life (present tense which they argue present tense for believe as never ending faith but not eternal life in this world). 5th, Conditionalists believe that OSAS is a doctrine of devils that Satan is laughing as to how he is convincing us to relax and sin away because we are "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED." Here is the strange thing about such an argument: If the devil is the deceiver of the "WHOLE WORLD" and can take captive whomsover he wills, then why do so few believe in OSAS??? Catholics, most Lutheran's, pentecostals, presbyterian, and most other religions believe what Conditionalists do. If you were to ask an athiest what his opinions are concerning this then he would even tell you that one could lose his salvation. If the devil is the deceiver of the whole world then I find if funny that only a small number even believes in OSAS. Even OSAS believer's have struggled with this universal religion of Conditionalism. It sounds like Conditionalism is the teaching the world offers and is the doctrine of demons and that would scare me when I belong to the majority opinion that even agnostics and athiests believe. Must be nice for Dan Corner to have the "WHOLE WORLD" (majority opinion) supporting his Conditional theology. Now were these arguments biblical or my opinions? Buy Dan's books and be sure to high-light the page every time he uses his opinions, appeals to your emotions, Bible version hopping, verse out-of-context, resorts to reasoning, doesn't answer the OSAS argument but only runs to other verses to cloud the true meaning. When you are done, remove all the pages that are highlighted and you might have a 10 page book (index and appendix). I know that was an exaggeration but do review how many pages you high-lighted and you will be surprised. Buy a bunch of high-lighters!!!
Dr. Stanley's book will be helpful in some of Dan's ridiculous arguments since Charles Stanley will make a mockery of the "present tense believe" position. Another book to help you understand the gospels a lot better is Dr. Charles Baker "Understanding the Gospels." Everytime Dan quotes a passage from Matt-John then look it up in Dr. Charles Baker's book and see who has the correct argument. Also, when Dan quotes an argument, ask yourself several questions: 1st, Is this Bible or Dan's reasoning? (that makes up alot of his book). 2nd, is that what the passage is teaching? (Read verses prior and after) 3rd, Is Dan really arguing the passage or just bringing verses from everywhere else to cloud the actual meaning of the passage? 4th, Is Dan appealing to your emotions? (Most Conditionalists will try "scare you to death" tactics in getting you to believe in their teaching as the safest route to be saved. I heard a Conditionalist tell me "I rather be safe than sorry" which he said after he ran out of arguments. I told him "No, I rather be right than eternally wrong." Dan Corner will not plead for those that go to hell believing his "other gospel." 5th, is Dan's teaching a works gospel? 6th, does Conditional Security promote works as a means to be saved? If you answered "yes" because that is what you believe, then you have no hope of ever being in heaven. You can't believe Dan's book and then hope that maybe OSAS is right. OSAS will require nothing but pure faith and trust in the death, burial and resurrection which many call "easy believism." It really is not that easy since SO MANY stumble over its simplicity.
Get Dr. Stanley's book and Dr. Baker's book. Get Dan Corner's book and I am sure that you will have full assurance of salvation which is something that Dan Corner's teaching can never offer or ever have. Their's is a day to day assurance that usually shakes and crumbles in the hour of death. Use these books to overcome your doubts concerning your salvation.
|Eternal Security misleads many by skipping key scriptures Oct 16, 2005|
|When a friend who believes in "once saved, always saved" gave me Charles Stanley's book on Eternal Security, I was looking forward to reading it in hopes that it would shed some new light and a different perspective on the numerous passages that seem to contradict this "once saved, always saved" notion. What I found instead was that most of these passages were not even referenced. Instead, the author references earlier passages in letters and books and ignores subsequent passages that shed additional light on belief, faith, and salvation. A few that were referenced were treated like anomalies or exceptions. For example, he referenced Hebrews 10 as if it were alone, "For if we go on sinning willfully ...", then changed these words into "a single willful sin" and makes the point that we can't lose our salvation for a single willful sin. He also said "weeping and gnashing of teeth" was not depicting Hell but us feeling bad about what we have done, but still being in heaven, even though 1) there are 3 references where "weeping and gnashing of teeth" are directly tied to Hell, and, according to scripture, there will be no weeping in heaven.|
Here are some examples of what are NOT referenced, perhaps because they don't support Stanley's misleading message:
ý Matthew 7:21-27 - People proclaiming Jesus as Lord, and doing mighty deeds in his name, but aren't saved because they 1) aren't doing God's Will, and 2) they practice "lawlessness" or sin.
ý Matthew 25:31-46 - People who were "with Christ", but didn't take care of the needy (hungry, thirsty, stranger, needing clothes, sick, in prison) and were cast into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels
ý Luke 18:25 - A rich man who would not depart with his wealth and follow Christ.
ý John 14 and 15 - If you believe in me, you will do what I do ... if you obey my commands, you will remain in my love ... (and so much more)
ý Rom 6:1-15,18 - We died to sin. How can we live in it any longer? ...
ý Rom 12 - Surrender ourselves totally and unconditionally to God.
ý 1 Cor 5 - Someone is living in sin - put him out of the church. Do not associate with someone living in sin (different from someone fighting / avoiding a sin).
ý 2 Cor 13:5 - Look closely at yourselves. Test yourselves ... are you living in the faith? Jesus Christ is in you, unless you fail the test.
ý Gal 5:13-14, 19-26 - those who live in sin will not inherit the kingdom of God
ý Eph 5:3-7 - No immoral, impure, or greedy person has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. (labels imply a pattern of sin as opposed to someone repenting and actively resisting sin)
ý 1 John 3:6, 9 - NO one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
ý 1 John 5:16-17 - If you see your brother in sin, should pray for him that his sin does not lead to death.
ý 1 John 2:3-6 - anyone who claims to "know him" but does not obey His commandments, is a liar.
As far as alternatives, a few books come to mind that don't dance around the tougher issues of Salvation, but there is only 1 book I would recommend reading, and that is The Holy Bible - God's Word. Too many books about the bible are < 5% scripture and, without a very strong foundation in God's Word, it is easy to be lead astray. Since God's Living Word is our sword to combat evil and sin and help us distinguish between the Holy Spirit's whispers and Satan's whispers, why not let God talk directly to us. After all, the Holy Spirit is alive in God's Word as well. And, rather than reading excerpts from different New Testament books and letters, read a book or letter all the way through to get a balanced, more complete understanding of the disciple's writings and of Christ. Study it with friends as well as by yourself with prayer. Some of the letters are quite short, but quite powerful.
|I hoped there were better arguments than presented here Sep 28, 2005|
|If these are the best arguments evangelicals have to support the doctrine of once-saved-always- saved, this is very bad news for evangelical Christians. As evangelical Christian myself, I have long accepted church teaching on this matter but as a result of carefully studying the Bible without the use of any study aides I've begun questioning it. What surprised me most about the book is the scarcity of Scripture that Dr. Stanley cited to affirmatively support eternal security and the serious interpretation gymnastics he went through to explain away some of the verses that literally suggest the opposite. Just one or two examples may suffice to show what I mean. There are several statements in the New Testament warning Christians not to "fall" or "fall away" or "fall from grace." Revelation 2:4-5, for example states: "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lamp stand from its place." And In Hebrews we read at chapter 4:1-2: "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it." In dealing with another verse about falling away, Dr. Stanley quotes Galatians 5:4 as follows: "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." I was hoping to see a solid explanation for why these references and the many, many more similar to them do not mean what they say. But here is his explanation: "Paul stated, `You have fallen from grace.' To clarify his meaning, let's ask a simple question: To what? If they have fallen from grace, to what have they fallen? Well, what has he been contrasting grace with all along? Works and law. In this context the opposite of grace is not lost. That does not even make sense grammatically. The opposite of grace is the works of the law.... Paul wasn't threatening them with the loss of salvation, just a loss of freedom. He didn't say they were falling from salvation. His concern was that they were falling away from God's system of grace, which in turn would lead them right back into the frustration of living under the law." (p. 142).|
Wow! All Christians, whether Evangelical Protestants or Roman Catholics teach that salvation is by grace and that without grace it is impossible to be saved because the works of the law model is not an alternative at all. So when Dr. Stanley says that a person falls from grace, what does he mean when he says they are still saved but will have to suffer under the "frustration of living under the law." This makes no sense.
Another example of interpretation gymnastics that achieves an absurd result is at p. 127 where Dr. Stanley tries to explain the meaning of the parable of the talents where the unfaithful servant buried his talent instead of investing it and the King told the others to take the unfaithful servants one talent and give it to those who had been faithful. The verse in the NIV version at Matt: 25: 29-30 reads: "... Whoever does not have, even what he does have will be taken from him. And throw out that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The King James version reads similarly. It is interesting that Dr. Stanley quotes from a version that substitutes "outer darkness" in place of "outside." This apparently allows him to devise s creative argument which he makes as follows: "Before we can understand the full impact of the parable, we must first determine what the "outer darkness" refers to in the context of the parable. It certainly does not mean hell in the parable. How could a master throw a slave into hell? The phrase appears in a similar parable in chapter 22. In that parable an unwanted guest is bound and thrown out of a banquet hall into "outer darkness"; it clearly refers to being thrown outside a building into the dark. The same interpretation would fit in the case of the lazy slave...." And here is Dr. Stanley's answer to the riddle. He says "To be in the `outer darkness' is to be in the kingdom of God but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority." Then he goes on to say, "Picture yourself watching saint after saint rewarded for faithfulness and serve to the King-and all the time knowing that you had just as many opportunities but did nothing about them. We cannot conceive of the agony and frustration we would feel if we were to undergo such an ordeal; the realization that our unfaithfulness had cost us eternally would be devastating. And so it will be for many believers."
Is it realistic to believe that is what heaven is going to be like - Christians weeping and gnashing their teeth, and eating their hearts out in remorse? How is that consistent with joy and peace in heaven? I think Dr. Stanley has gone to the well of interpretation within "context," as he puts it too many times. It is ironic the Dr. Stanley who otherwise professes to believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture must find a way around the literal words of so much text on this important issue and resort to such convoluted interpretations and arguments to make the case for eternal security.
A thoughtful student of this important matter is not likely to be persuaded by this book to accept the once saved always saved doctrine but instead is more likely to seriously question it if this is the best argument that can be made for it. Although not impressed with the quality of the arguments, I'm giving the book three stars because it has value in that it reveals the nature and quality of the arguments available in support of this doctrine.
|CALVINISM and Eternal Security is a very deceptive teaching! Jan 25, 2005|
|CALVINISM and Eternal Security is a very deceptive teaching!|
This book is a discusting blow to grace!!!! I am first and foremost a Christian seeking truth. Neither am I fully convinced by Arminianism, nor Calvinism. I am but a fellow brother searching for Gods truth, and more open to believe it is the Holy Spirit who leads, guides, directs, and convicts us more than relying upon mans doctrine and interpretation of Gods Holy, and fully inspired word. I would think that we all agree that the word of God is Holy inspired from the front to the back cover. Don't let those who tell you that once your saved, your always saved, and your sins in the future have already been forgiven! (though you had not yet sinned and repented!)They will tell you that you can do whatever you want and you will still go to heaven, EVEN if you turn your back on God and deny him, some will even say you can do anything, NOT LIMITED to worshiping another God in another religion OR Satan!!!!!!! Charles Stanley, John Macarthur, D James Kennedy all seem to be very good preachers, yet their indoctrination of John Calvin, and Martin Luther are leading sincere searching people to a theology that waters down Grace and what Christ did on the cross! Many others are preaching this damnable false security. Gods grace is a wonderful gift to ALL mankind. Ask a Calvinist if Christ died for every person, man and woman, your Mother and Father, Sister and Brother, and you will be amazed that their answer is NO! They will tell you that he died for only Certain people, NOT for ALL mankind! Good Bye John 3:16??? They will also tell you that God created many people intentionally to go to hell! Now what kind of Loving and Just God would judge and condemn a person to hell if they had no chance to accept or deny him? It is amazing that they will tell you that you, and all mankind has no free will! Reading Genesis, we clearly see that Adam and Eve did indeed have a free will. Many will even tell you that God caused them to sin!!! DO NOT Believe this! Read: James 1:12-16 "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
Jas 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
Jas 1:14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Jas 1:16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers."
My friends, Please be careful when any person, Church, Denomination, Group, Cult, "ism" or etc. tells you that the Bible you are reading does not really mean what it says "UNLESS" you allow them to tell you what it means! Though I would never tell someone that they are going to Hell if they believe in Calvinism, for I do not know their heart, only God knows and they profess to be a Christian. I have heard Calvinists say, "While I am one that believes that a person can be an Arminian out of ignorance and be a Christian, I do not believe Arminianism is Christian at all." Talk about contradiction!!!
In other words, an ignorant Arminian is saved and will go to heaven, but one who is confronted by Calvinism and does not agree is NO LONGER a Christian? This implies that the Blood of Christ was then not enough!
We hear the worst of everyone who disagrees with Calvinism, BUT we never hear what "Saint Calvin" did, when he sought to condemn a man to death through a brutal half hour torture burning the man alive as he begged them to stop. THIS MURDER was over someone who only disagreed with his beliefs! Though the man was clearly wrong in his beliefs, never the less Love should have been given, NOT MURDER! Calvin NEVER repented publicly of this great sin to his neighbor! Then we have Martin Luther who did a lot to help the Church of today, yet because of his indoctrination of Calvinism announced that the book of James was NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, and only worthy to be burnt! Luther also leaned in this direction towards the book of Jude!!!!!
You may have been told all your life that eternal security is taught in the Bible, then these scriptures might come as a bit of a surprise to you. I would simply encourage you to pray for Wisdom and Guidance from the Lord as to how to interpret these verses, and I am sure that the Lord of ALL TRUTH will bring you to an understanding of this dangerous and divisive teaching.
if the Calvinist is right, the Arminian will have lost nothing... but if the Arminian is right, the Calvinist may have caused the loss of many souls!
Save your money! Pray and buy a book called The Believer's Conditional Security" a 801 page book that will open your eyes to the truth, and ask God to help you to see the truth. CHeck out these sites for REAL Eternal Security Information!
May your eyes and heart be opened brothers and sister! Christ Blessings!
Write your own review about Eternal Security
Add This Product Widget To Your Website
Looking to add this information to your own website? Then use our Product Widget to allow you to display product information in a frame that is 120 pixels wide by 240 pixels high.
Copy and paste the following HTML into your website and enjoy!