If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part I

Hi friends,

In the spirit of changing gears, I've had something on my mind for several months now that I have been looking forward to getting out. So here it is in Thr3e parts.

Hey Folks!
I spent my formative Christian years engrossed in Pentecostalism, a movement that was born out of the Holiness movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Having roots in a holiness movement is by no means a bad thing; unfortunately many Pentecostal churches have been so concerned with the Holiness of God that they nearly leave out the Grace of God altogether - this speaks clear of the kind of personalities that I have attended church with for years; not always necessarily in the pulpit, by its leaders, or explicitly taught, but more of an undercurrent philosophy that speaks volumes in casual conversations mostly (though not exclusively) by the laity.

A holiness of God philosophy not seasoned with a grace of God philosophy, removed a hundred years from its roots combined with a conservative mindset which is slow to accept change and quick (almost anxious) to point out sin, (even maybe where there is none) can all work together to form a Fundamentalist environment where such small and insignificant things as card playing or movie theaters are raised from the status of ‘opinion’ to that of ‘dogma’ or ‘sin’. The situation becomes worse when double standards are added to the mix - solitaire is evil because cards are evil yet it is okay to play solitaire on the computer; movie theaters are evil yet it is okay to watch movies at home - resulting naturally in Pharisaical legalism, raising the traditions of man to the status of dogma. (See the difference between dogma, doctrine and opinion in Roger Olson’s book, Mosaic of Christian Belief ©2002, p.44).

It should not be that surprising from all this that when many Christians raised in the environment described above reach their ‘rebellion’ age, as I did around seventeen, they find a certain folk ‘eternal security’ philosophy appetizing to say the least. You see, on occasion folk Pentecostal religions boarder on semi-Pelagianism (that it is possible to attain God’s grace by works apart from the prevenient work of the Spirit), and what often results from this is the idea that when you sin you lose your grace status (and if you died soon after, before repenting, you would go to hell). Therefore you must ask forgiveness in order to receive that grace status again. Without given a viable and biblical alternative to this extreme imbalance, many Christians run full throttle away from this folk Pentecostal religion and straight into the arms of an equally disastrous folk ‘eternal security’ religion.

I have spent many-a-nights talking, working through and even debating with various friends over the years on this issue. Having that sense of holiness engrained within, and after reading the bible through and seeing both in the Old and New Testaments everywhere the motif that believers are to be image bearers of Christ, and not to mention two very explicit passages in Hebrews as well as elsewhere, I could never accept an eternal security philosophy that feeds into an easy-believism that pays little attention to a persons lifestyle. I think it is a great work of deceit on the part of the enemy to make someone believe they have obtained a one-way ticket to glory regardless of the lifestyle they live in the here and now. On the other side of the coin, I’m not prepared to say that just because someone has struggled with an issue for many years (such as smoking) that they are on a fast track to hell. There must be a balance between God’s Holiness and his Grace.

Deliberate Use of ‘Folk’
You may have noticed the term I deliberately and repeatedly used above: folk. Folk in most contexts means ‘common’, or ‘what the common people believe’ in this context. When I spoke of a ‘folk Pentecostal religion’ I was not targeting the official teachings of any particular Pentecostal denomination or its leaders (though they may hold to many folk ideas as well, I don’t know). So what ‘folk Pentecostals' believe may not be what is explicitly or officially taught by their creeds, but rather it is the assumed beliefs (such as clichés and the such) that many have handed down, held to and developed over the years, usually subconsciously and without reflection. (For a great discussion of the necessity of reflective Christianity and folk religion see Roger Olson’s book, Questions to all Your Answers, ©2007).

The same thing is equally as prominent among those who hold to a ‘folk eternal security’ philosophy - the way this philosophy is viewed by the lay Christian who holds to it is (I have found) a far cry from what Eternally Security actually teaches. Folk eternal security says that once a person ‘gets saved’ (whatever that means - another topic for another time I suppose), they will always be saved, irregardless of how someone chooses to live their life. I am convinced that if most lay Christians who hold to this view of eternal security knew what it actually taught, they would either turn a blind eye and deaf ear (preferring a belief system supported purely by emotions and fanciful or wishful thinking rather then proper biblical exegesis), or abandon the system altogether.

Before we answer what it is Eternal Security teaches, we must ask who it is that teaches it. This is the subject of Part II of this series.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com