The Baptist Bend
 

Many Baptists and some other non-denominational groups agree that Calvinism is an incorrect doctrine, some to the point of calling it heresy. This is typical, since Calvinist are happy to call anything that doesn't agree with Calvinism as heresy. In fact, just about any group that has doctrine opposed by another will resort to calling the other's doctrine heresy.

Even though they call it heresy these Baptists and other non-denominationals still uphold the fifth point of Calvinism's TULIP. They term it eternal security or "onced saved, always saved", rather than Perseverance of the Saints. They disagree with the reasoning behind Perseverance of the Saints and have different reasoning to support their idea of eternal security.

These groups will give you the basics of salvation and link eternal security to it from the very beginning.

These groups appear to hold to an idea of man having the freedom of choice up until the time one surrenders himself to Christ. Believing that the sinner has now become the property of God, he now is a slave to Christ and has lost that freedom of choice.

Under this reasoning one would think that since God is TOTALLY opposed to sin, the slave would not be allowed to sin, yet sin is provided for in the life of this slave. To arrive at their conclusions these Unconditional Securists will try to uphold their version of the "Gospel" in the following manner.

"One must repent and believe in order to be saved." "Once saved, we can not lose our salvation because it is a gift, and to place conditions upon it turns it into a works salvation."

As you can see, in the first sentence the Unconditional Securist has definite conditions applied to receiving salvation, those being repentance and belief. (Some don't even include repentance, only belief in the Gospel. And note, NOT belief in Christ Himself, but belief in the Gospel which tells of Christ but more importantly, tells us to believe in Him. This "no repentance" stance is normally called "easy believism")

The second sentence deals with retaining salvation. To which they deny that any conditions are involved. The idea is that we are saved at a pin-point in time and nothing can change this.

Their dilemma is in showing that their's is not an argument of man. Where in scripture does it say that we are saved at a point in time in which it becomes irrevocable? And if the conditions of repentance and belief are required to gain salvation, then why are those conditions not required to retain salvation?

The Unconditional Securist's unspoken implication is that faith and repentance, after one is saved, mysteriously become works of merit. Once again, an idea that is not found in nor supported by scripture.

The problem in this argument lies in the fact that belief and repentance were NEVER works of merit, but works of faith.

The Unconditional Securist is amiss in his confusion of what Paul was speaking of when he declared we are saved by Grace through faith and that it is not of works. In this Paul was speaking of works that would merit one salvation, not works that one does as a result of faith, and certainly not belief itself.

If that had been Paul's intention how could he have claimed the following in Acts 26:20? "but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." Their reasoning for saying that placing conditions on salvation is the same reasoning of the Calvinist's. Many Unconditional Securists and Calvinists will argue that those who don't believe in eternal security HAVE to be subscribing to Catholicism, which they deem a works based salvation.

While Catholicism can be deemed as salvation by faith plus works, it doesn't follow that anyone that subscribes to a conditional salvation is Catholic. Those that profess that one can return to sin and be lost, believe this is the clear teaching of scripture. Salvation is a free gift that is offered to ALL men and gained by faith apart from any works, as the Securists believe. Our works have NO part in gaining  salvation.

The Unconditional Securists can accept this, yet the Unconditional Securist can't accept that it is possible for one to forfeit salvation through DISBELIEF. If one must believe in order to receive salvation, it is simple logic to assume that one will forfeit salvation if one STOPS believing. This is totally separate of any works. It's starts by faith and continues by faith, unless one can provide evidence that faith is a work of merit.

We see constant calls throughout scripture that back up this basic principle from Jesus saying "Abide in me, and I in you" and "IF anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." to Paul stating "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain" and "...to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight -- IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel...".

We are again reminded to continue in faith from the author of Hebrews telling us "For we have become partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." and "Take Heed, Brethren, Lest There Be In Any Of You An Evil Heart Of Unbelief, In Depating From The Living God."

John tells us "And now, little children, ABIDE in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming" and Peter confirms this with "Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to CONFIRM YOUR CALL AND ELECTION, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

I can only ask, "Is there any reason for these calls to persevere and remain in Christ if it is an impossibility NOT to?" It takes a good deal of imagination to accept that one CAN'T fall away and forfeit salvation through disbelief.

What is the Unconditional Securist's logic in answer to this?

When the Unconditional Securist finds that they can't effectively argue that one can or can not stop believing they will change to "If we place conditions on salvation, then it becomes a trade and is no longer a gift".

This is no more than an argument of man. Hasn't God said that His ways are not our ways? Can the Unconditional Securist provide the biblical evidence that a gift becomes a trade if conditions are attached?

The most horrendous question is, Are you willing to stand before God at the judgement and tell Him that He wasn't allowed to put conditions on keeping salvation? Even though you fully admit that you had to meet those conditions to gain salvation?

Charles Stanley made the claim in his eternal security book, that imputation is actually a trade. Does this mean that our righteousness is not a gift? What got traded for it? Stanley claims that our sins got traded for it. Some trade! Imputation actually means to reckon to ones account. If our sins were transferred to Christ and His righteousness transferred to us, then Stanley is actually implying that our sins are reckoned to us as righteousness! Sound right to you? What happened to faith being imputed as righteousness? Under the Unconditional Securists version of imputation, our sins are accounted to us as righteousness BECAUSE of faith!

Here's your homework assignment, show that the conditions that God placed on salvation didn't make it a trade before you received it. And then show how it becomes a trade after you have received it.

Your assignment is to be completed before God calls you home. I'm praying that you pass.

______________________________________________________________________