I've been speaking and writing about the early Christians for quite some time. But before now, I've never spoken on the subject of eternal security, which is ironic because that was the very subject that got me into the early Christian writings in the first place. Let me explain. Actually, in a way, the story really began 23 years ago. At that time, I was a Jehovah's Witness elder. I had been raised to Jehovah's Witness and my wife as well.
And up to that time, we had both been perfect, J.W.'s, never questioning anything the Watchtower taught. But now I was beginning to have some doubts about some of the Watchtower's teachings. Now, like just about everyone else, Jehovah's witnesses claim that they go just by the Bible. In fact, they believe that they're the only ones who follow the Scriptures. According to them, all of the rest of us twist the Scripture.
Well, one night, back when I was an elder in Jehovah's Witnesses, I was leading an adult study class using one of the Watchtower books that was dealing with the Kingdom of God. And that particular night, we were looking at Jesus' parables about the kingdom. Let me just read to you the parables that we were looking at that night. The text was Matthew 13, verses 31 and 32, which reads, and I'm reading from the New King James.
Another parable he put forth to them saying," The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds, but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches." Well, it would seem fairly obvious that Jesus there is saying that the kingdom of God was going to start out very tiny and would grow and eventually fill the whole world.
But no, the book that we were using that night said," What this means is that the counterfeit kingdom of God would that's all the churches would grow and fill the earth. And then the birds of the air would nest in it." Well, that represents the demons. But Jesus didn't say the counterfeit kingdom of God. He said the kingdom of God. He didn't say anything about a counterfeit kingdom.
Well, then we went further in the book in the next parable we looked at, Matthew 13:47 through 50, where Jesus said," Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind. Which when it was full, they drew to shore and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire.
There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Well, again, it seems pretty clear what Jesus is saying there that in his kingdom, there would be good and bad and that the wicked would be taken out from among the righteous at his return. But oh no, we're misreading that. According to the Watchtower publication, what Jesus is saying is that there are two kingdoms, a genuine one and a counterfeit one. And the genuine one is like a dragnet that brings in just clean fish.
And the counterfeit one brings in all of these bad fish. And Jehovah's witnesses in their door-to-door ministry, will they find any good fish that are in the wrong net and bring them over into the right net, the real kingdom of God? Well, that's all very interesting, but that is not what Jesus said, is it? He didn't say anything about two dragnets, a counterfeit kingdom, a real kingdom.
He didn't say that the righteous would be taken out from among the wicked, but the other way around, that it would be the unjust in his kingdom who would be taken out not by Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door, but by the angels. Well, that night was the last time I ever went to the Kingdom Hall because I realized if I can't pick up the Bible and read it and believe it for what it obviously says, what's the point of having a Bible?
If every verse can be interpreted in a way that is seemingly the opposite of what it apparently says, well, then the Bible is of little use. What we need is the Watchtower and the Watchtower publications because we would never come to those conclusions by reading God's Word. And so I left Jehovah's witnesses, both my wife and I did and started us on a search for God and for truth. And that led to our conversion as evangelical Christians.
And so I found my feet, my faith again in Scriptures and in God and in Jesus Christ. But things were different this time. As I mentioned, when I was a Jehovah's Witness, I never questioned anything. I was the perfect model witness until right at the end. And as soon as I started questioning, I realized that they couldn't be true. And so I was determined I would never again just gullibly accept whatever was taught me by whatever church it was, by whatever minister it was, without first testing it.
And what I found was evangelicals had their proof texts just the same way as Jehovah's Witnesses had their proof texts. And you could take almost any subject and come up with a bunch of proof texts to, quote," prove your point of view." But is that really the way that we arrive at truth? I was quite troubled by that, that even after leaving the witnesses, I was finding much of the same sort of thing.
For example, as an evangelical Christian in the church we were going to, I was part of a men's discipleship class that met on Tuesday nights. And we used as our study book entitled" Major Bible Themes," written by Lewis Sperry Chafer and John Walvoord who are professors or were professors at Dallas Theological Seminary is my understanding. Now, unlike a class with the witnesses in this men's discipleship class, we were allowed to question. And we went through the book. It was quite interesting.
It was a very enjoyable experience for me to be able to study the Bible and this time not have to take everything blindly, but be able to say," Well, wait, is that really what the Scriptures say?" And to really thrash it out with others and hear their feedback, etc. We did this you know week after week meeting on Tuesday nights.
Finally, we reached chapter 33 of this book, Major Bible Themes, which was entitled" Security of Salvation." And early in the chapter, the author says this," As many as 85 passages are listed by those holding the Arminian view as establishing the doctrine of conditional security," and then goes on to list all 85 passages. Well, all right. I thought that was good. You are putting forth some of the evidence that's contrary to the position you're taking.
But what was disturbing is that the authors then went on to try to explain away all 85 of those passages. And I was sitting there thinking," Wait a minute. I've been down this road before." For example, paragraph three of the chapter said this," Many passages quoted in support of the insecurity of believers are in the form of warnings against superficial belief in Christ.
Jews in the New Testament are warned that since their sacrifices have ceased, they must turn to Christ or be lost." And for proof of that, it cites Hebrews 10:26. So we looked up Hebrews 10:26, which says," For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought-worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace. Well, after reading that, I scratched my head. The writer was talking to unbelieving Jews the way this book claimed.
Paul says that this person counts the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, an ordinary or a common thing. Yeah, I went back to the first chapter of Hebrews to see, well, who was this letter addressed to? Am I misunderstanding that? Chapter 2, verse 1 says this," Therefore, we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard lest we drift away." He's writing to Jews that they're to give earnest heed to the things they've heard lest they drift away from Judaism.
Verse 1 of chapter 3 says," Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Christ Jesus." That's addressed to unbelieving Jews. Chapter 10:23 says," Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." As I said, this was deja vu. Well, this is just the way the witnesses went through the Bible.
You take things and you say it means something that common sense would tell you. It's saying just the opposite. The book went on to say," In like manner, unsaved Jews as well as Gentiles are warned against falling away from the illuminating converting work of the Spirit." And there it quotes Hebrews 6, verses 4 through 9 or cited it.
We looked up that verse, those verses which read," For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put Him to an open shame." Now, is that true that that verse is talking to unsaved Jews and Gentiles?
Are unsaved people partakers of the Holy Spirit? Have they been once enlightened? Have they tasted the heavenly gift and the powers of the age to come? I don't think so. Well, what was wonderful about that men's discipleship class is we could discuss these things and talk out loud and say," This doesn't seem to fit Scripture." Well, unfortunately, that pastor moved away to serve in the mission field, and we obtained a new pastor for our church who was just a few years right out of Dallas Theological Seminary.
And with him, there wasn't the option of saying," Well, I don't see that in the Scripture, so therefore, I don't have to believe it." No, this is what our church stood for, and you were expected to believe that. So I talked with him about that. I mean, he was a nice brother, and you know we could at least talk about it. And one of the things he told me was that the view of eternal security, that this was the historic belief that Christians had always held. Well, that set me back for a moment.
I thought to myself," Well, that's a good point. I had seen the errors that Charles Russell had made. He's the one who started Jehovah's Witnesses because he felt he knew more than all of the pastors and teachers in the whole church before him." And so I saw that danger of being a maverick and just deciding," Well, I think the Bible means this and I don't have to listen to anyone else." So I thought," Okay.
If this is truly historic Christianity, the doctrine of eternal security, then I don't want to fight against that. I want to be submissive to the church." On the other hand, having been burnt once, I wasn't going to just accept his statement that it was the historical teaching. No, I was going to have to see for myself. So I bought a set of the ante-Nicene fathers, which at that time sold for about $100. And I started reading them. They're not light reading. But it was very important to me.
I wanted to know what was true here. I didn't want to spend my life questioning historic Christianity and fighting against historic truth. Neither did I want to spend my life being misled by this group and then next being misled by another one and that sort of thing. I wanted to see what was historic Christianity? What was it really like? And it took me a whole year to read that entire 10-volume set of their writings.
And what I discovered was that none, not even one of the early Christian writers held to the doctrine of eternal security.
For example, Justin Martyr writing about the year 160 said this," I hold further that those of you who have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the legal dispensation," he's talking about the Mosaic Law, and have denied that this man is Christ and have not repented before death, you will by no means be saved." Basically, just paraphrasing Hebrews.
Irenaeus, an overseer or bishop of a church in modern what's today, France, writing about the year 170 or 180, said this," These men of old time, for whom the Son of God had not yet suffered, when they committed any sin and served fleshly lusts, were rendered objects of great disgrace. Accordingly, what will the men of the present-day suffer who have despised the Lord's coming and have become the slaves of their own lusts? Truly, the death of the Lord brought healing and remission of sins to the former.
However, Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin. For death will no more have dominion over Him. We should not therefore, as that presbyter remarks, be puffed up nor be severe upon those of olden times. Rather, we should fear ourselves. Lest perchance, after we have come to the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sin, but are shut out from His kingdom.
And for that reason, Paul said," For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also not spare you." End of quotation. Can you see what they're saying is basically just paraphrasing what is said in the Scriptures in Hebrews and other places. The Apostolic Constitutions, which were compiled after the time of Constantine in the 300s, say this," How do you know, O man, when you sin, whether you will live a sufficient number of days in this present state in order that you will have time to repent?
For the time of your repentance out of this world is uncertain. And if you die in sin, there will remain no repentance for you." Those are just a few examples. It's very clear to me just even in my first week of reading the early Christian writings that these people did not hold to eternal security. And they took these the 85 verses that that book tried to explain away. They took them very literally at face value for what they say. All right, now back to the book I was telling you about.
It goes on to say," A number of passages offered in support of insecurity are simply misinterpreted like Matthew 24:13. He that endures and to the end, the same shall be saved." The book says," This refers not to salvation from the guilt or power of sin, but deliverance from enemies and persecution." The verse refers to those who survive the tribulation and are rescued by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming." End of quotation. Oh, really? That doesn't have anything to do with our salvation.
Well, if that's the case, the early Christians certainly misunderstood their teachers because they all understood that it did deal with our salvation. For example, Clement of Alexandria, writing about the year 195, says," It is neither the faith nor the love nor the hope nor the endurance of one day.
Rather, he that endures to the end will be saved." Tertullian wrote about the year 197," No one is a Christian, but he who perseveres even to the end." Cyprian, writing about the year 250, he was an overseer or bishop in Carthage in North Africa, where Tertullian had lived. He wrote," There remains more than what is yet seen to be accomplished.
For it is written, praise not any man before his death." And again, quoting from Scripture," Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life." He says," And the Lord also says," He that endures to the end, the same will be saved." Again, Cyprian wrote," Whoever that confessor is, he is not greater, better, or dearer to God than Solomon." Solomon retained the grace that he had received from the Lord as long as he walked in God's ways.
However, after he forsook the Lord's way, he also lost the Lord's grace. For that reason, it is written," Hold fast that which you have, lest another take your crown." Assuredly, the Lord would not threaten that the crown of righteousness might be taken away if it were not that the crown must depart when righteousness departs. He that endures to the end, the same will be saved. So whatever comes before the end is a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation.
It is not the finish where the full result of the ascent is already gained. But see, when the book just dismissed that verse of Jesus," He that endures to the end will be saved." Well, they weren't following historical Christianity. That's not how primitive Christians understood that verse at all. Actually, every single one of the early Christian writers expressed similar views to this. And just to impress this on you, I want to take about 10 minutes now.
I want to read to you from just about every writer that we have. So you can hear for yourself what these people who were so close to the age of the apostles, who were reading the Scriptures in Greek themselves, how they understood the teachings of the New Testament. To begin with the letter of Barnabas written maybe as early as the year 70, no later than the year 130, where he writes," We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation.
Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life." Another writing from Clement of Rome. Now, Clement had lived and ministered under the apostle Paul. His letter is one of the earliest, perhaps not the earliest, but one of the earliest that we have outside of the New Testament, written about the year' 96.
And he was writing to Christians, and he said," Since all things are seen and heard by God, let us fear Him and forsake those wicked works that proceed from evil desires." By doing that through His mercy, we may be protected from the judgments to come. For where can any of us flee from His mighty hand.
The earliest sermon we have, sometimes called Second Clement, dating back to probably no later than the year 150, there the speaker said," Let us therefore repent with the whole heart so that none of us perish by the way." Again, let us then practice righteousness so that we may be saved until the end. Hermas, a very early writing, maybe as early as the year 100. Certainly no later than about 150.
He writes," If you do not guard yourself against anger, you and your house will lose all hope of salvation." And again, the apostates and traitors of the church have blasphemed the Lord in their sins. Moreover, they have been ashamed of the name of the Lord by which they were called. These verses, therefore, at the end were lost unto God.
Irenaeus, who we quoted from earlier writing about 170 or 180, said," Those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him have ceased to be His Son." Tertullian writing about 198," The world returned to sin, and so it is destined to fire. So is the man who, after baptism, renews his sins." Origen, writing about the year 245," He who has not denied Himself but denied Christ will experience the saying," I also will deny Him." Those were Jesus' words. A Christian leader writing about the year 240.
Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ. Cyprian, writing about the year 250, says," Let fear be the keeper of innocence so that the Lord, who of His mercy has flowed into our hearts in the access of celestial grace, may be kept by righteous submissiveness in the home of a grateful mind.
Otherwise, the assurance we have gained may beget carelessness, and so the old enemy will creep upon us again." Again, he wrote," It is clear that the devil is driven out in baptism by the faith of the believer, but he returns if the faith should afterwards fail." Again, he wrote," There is need of continual prayer and supplication so that we do not fall away from the heavenly kingdom as the Jews fell away to whom this promise had first been given." A work whose author we don't know, written about the year 257,
it's on the subject of rebaptism, says this," As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing can be effective to Him for salvation.
For any one of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged." All of those things that he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated. And finally, from the apostolic constitutions, written in the 300s," He who sins after baptism, unless he repents and forsakes his sins, will be condemned to Gehenna," that is, the lake of fire. And I could go on and on. I mean, I could read to you hours of quotations.
And I am representing to you that this is what the early Christians believed. I'm not just picking quotes here and there to fit a particular view. This is what they all believed. This is what they all taught. Of course, what these early Christian writers said doesn't mean anything if it isn't strongly supported by Scripture. I'm certainly not trying to argue that what they say carries the same weight as Scripture or something like that. Now, the important thing is to go back and see what are the Scriptures say.
Well, I'm not going to read to you today all 85 of those passages, but let me read to you just a few. 2 Chronicles 15:2," The Lord is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you.
But if you forsake Him, He will forsake you." Ezekiel 33:12," The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression." Luke 9:62," Jesus said to him,' No one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:12," If we endure, we shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He will also deny us." 2 Peter 2:20 and 21." For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world to the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome. The latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than having known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
Revelation 3:5," He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life, but I will confess His name before my Father and before His angels." Well, now, if our names can't be blotted out of the book of life, no matter whether we're overcomers or not, then that's a little misleading for Jesus to have said," I won't blot your name out if you overcome. Even if you don't overcome, He's not going to blot it out as well. And these are the verses.
These are six of them that the early Christians quoted. They're just repeating what the Bible itself says. You know I can't help but notice when I read the New Testament, how many passages there are concerning salvation, concerning our relationship to God, that contain the word if.
For example, John 8:31," Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him," If you abide in My Word, you are my disciples indeed." John 15:6 10 and 14," 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. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.
You are my friends if you do whatever I command." 1 John 1: 7," If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin." Finally, 1 John 2:3 and 4. Now by this, we know that we know Him if we keep His commandments. He who says," I know Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in Him." And again, I'm not protesting the New Testament.
You'll find quotes like that all throughout the New Testament. And so many of them come from the lips of Jesus Himself. Does this mean that the primitive Christians lived in continual insecurity? Well, let me ask you this. Does a loving, obedient child fear that he's going to be disinherited by his father? Let me give you an illustration. Suppose that a wealthy man had a son.
And told his son one day," Listen, when I die, all of this that you see, the home, the land, everything I own is going to be yours." Now, what would you think of this son if then the next day he came to his father with a tablet and a pen and said," Father, you know yesterday you said you were going to leave all of this for me, that this is my inheritance." Well, I've drawn up a little contract here I'd like you to sign saying that you're never going to disinherit me no matter what I do, that this is definitely
mine, even if I renounce you and do a lot of wicked things.
What kind of son would that be? What kind of relationship would that reveal if he wanted to have that sort of guarantee from his father? I mean, only someone like Absalom would have to fear that he would be wrongly disinherited by his father. Lactantius wrote, writing about the year 300," A son who deserts his father in order not to pay him obedience is considered deserving of being disinherited and of having his name removed forever from his family.
How much more so does a person deserve to be disinherited who forsakes God in whom the two names meet that are entitled to equal reverence that is Lord and Father. Of what punishments, therefore, is He deserving, who forsakes Him who is both the true Master and Father. End of quotation. Hermas wrote on this, saying," Put away doubting from you, and do not hesitate to ask of the Lord, saying to yourself,' How can I ask of the Lord and receive from Him seeing I have sinned so much against Him?
Do not reason with yourself in this manner. Instead, with all your heart, turn to the Lord and ask of Him without doubting. For then you will know the multitude of His tender mercies and that He will never leave you, but will fulfill the request of your soul. For He is not like men who remember evil's done against them." Now, we'd read earlier from Hermas making it clear he did not believe in eternal security, that is unconditional eternal security, but he obviously believed in security.
These Christians didn't live in fear every day that they were going to be disinherited. Somebody walks in the Spirit of God in whom the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit dwells, doesn't live with daily fear of being disinherited. Lactantius wrote," We believe that our children have been corrected when we see that they repent of their errors. And though we may have disinherited them and cast them off, we again receive, cherish, and embrace them.
Why then should we despair as if the mercy of God, our Father, might not be appeased by repentance. He who is both the Lord and a most indulgent Father promises that He will remit the sins of the penitent. He promises that He will blot out all the iniquities of the One who begins afresh to practice righteousness. The uprightness of one's past life is to no avail to Him who lives badly, for the subsequent wickedness has destroyed His works of righteousness.
Likewise, former sins do not stand in the way of Him who has amended His life, for the subsequent righteousness has wiped away the stain of his former life. Again, they weren't living in insecurity. The position they held to would perhaps be correctly referred to as conditional security. No faithful Christian should ever live in insecurity and fear. However, a baptized Christian who is living carnally should live in fear. More importantly, he or she needs to repent. And this was a message of the early Christians.
God's grace is there. He will cover your sins if you repent. But if you die in unbelief or in an unrepentant life, then you're lost. It isn't unconditional eternal security. It's conditional eternal security. Okay. Now, if you're someone who grew up believing in eternal security or that's the position you hold at this time, this has probably all been a bit annoying to you what I've been reading, I would say," Please don't take my word for this. Go and do some digging yourself.
See for yourself what historically the church believed, what Christians believed when the church was still young. Now, you may be saying to yourself," Okay, maybe these guys didn't believe in eternal security, but maybe they weren't the true church. Maybe these writings are actually a false Christian." Perhaps there is some other group that did teach the doctrine of eternal security back there in the early centuries. And those are the real Christians. Well, actually, you're right.
There was a group back then who taught eternal security. Unfortunately, they were the Gnostics. Who were the Gnostics? Well, they're the group whom the apostle John calls the Antichrist because they're the ones who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. Their basic premise was that the material world, this earth and everything on it was created not by the Father, but by an inferior God. And that therefore everything in the material world is inherently flawed and incapable of salvation, including our human bodies.
And so Jesus never took on genuine flesh because he couldn't have clothed himself with something that was from this other inferior god. The Gnostics taught, therefore, that the God of the Old Testament was this inferior creator who is very different from the Father of Jesus, the God of the New Testament. They said the New Testament God never gets angry at His children the way the Old Testament God did.
In fact, many of the Gnostic sects taught that once you have been saved by the real God, you can never be lost because He is only kind and merciful. He's never harsh. He's never judgmental. Let me just read to you some quotes just illustrating what the Gnostics believe. Tertullian writing against them the year 200 says this," The Valentinians claim that since they are already naturalized in the brotherly bond of the spiritual state, they will obtain a certain salvation.
One which is on all accounts their due." See the Gnostics, they saw it as their due. We believe therefore it's due us that we're going to get salvation no matter what happened. The Valentinians were one of the Gnostic groups. Hippolytus wrote about the year 225," Hoodwinking multitudes, Marcus, he was a heretic Gnostic, deceived many persons of this description who had become His disciples. He taught them that they were prone no doubt to sin.
However, he said that they were beyond the reach of danger because they belonged to the perfect power. Subsequent to baptism, these Gnostics promise another, which they call redemption. And by this, they wickedly subvert those who remain with them in expectation of redemption, as if persons after they had once been baptized could again obtain remission. See, eternal security, unconditional. Origen writes about them in the year 225.
Certain ones of those heretics who hold different opinions misuse these passages, talking about some of the verses they would prove to. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. Sounds very familiar to what is so often taught in our churches today.
You may be wondering, well, okay, if the primitive church did not believe in unconditional eternal security, but rather that was a doctrine that originated with the Gnostics, when and how did this doctrine come into the church? Well, the answer is that it came in with Augustine. And it's interesting because Augustine or Augustine, as some say, came from a Gnostic background. He had belonged to a group called the Manicheans, who were basically Gnostics who lived in the 300s, 400s.
That was a period of their greatest strength. Also, they were around in the 200s as well. And Augustine was the very first person inside the visible church to preach predestination. And of course, if you are elect by predestination, you can't be lost. But now, Augustine taught that you can never be sure that you're of the elect. So even his unconditional security didn't make you very secure because you couldn't know for certain that you were of the elect.
However, at the time of the Reformation, Augustine's doctrine was revived by Luther and was promulgated by Calvin. Now, their doctrine was a little bit more palatable. They took what Augustine said, but they changed one little thing. They said," You can know positively that you're of the elect." Uh-huh. So for the first time now, you have unconditional eternal security. I mean, you had that theoretically with Augustine. It's just that you didn't know. And so you were very insecure.
With Luther and Calvin, you could know. Everything's wrapped up. Nothing to fear, no matter how little of your life you give to Christ, how much you denied Christ by the way you live. And the doctrine of unconditional eternal security has spread far and wide because it's obvious this is what most people would rather believe. It's an appealing doctrine. I don't know that I would have been dismayed if I had read the early Christian writings and found that the primitive Christians taught eternal security.
I mean, that would have been great. I mean, it would have been a surprise because there seemed to be so many verses in Scripture that said otherwise. But I mean, hallelujah, if that's the historic teaching of Christianity, who wouldn't like that? Our flesh would certainly like to believe it. It even Luther realized that what he was teaching didn't square with Scripture.
For example, in his preface to the book of Hebrews in the translation he made of the Scriptures, he said this," There is a hard knot in the fact that in not K-N-O-T, in the fact that in chapters 6 and 10, this is of Hebrews, it flatly denies and forbids sinners repentance after baptism. And in chapter 12, it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems as it stands to be against all the gospels and St.
Paul's epistles, and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient. My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way. Now, after going on running down the book of Hebrews, he goes on very hypocritically to say," However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle.
Therefore, we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw, or hay may be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor. Though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles." Luther at least realized and was honest enough to take note that what he was teaching did not fit the New Testament. So his answer was," Well, we just changed the New Testament.
We don't accept certain books as being on the same level of other books." For example, he said Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not on the same level as the Apostle John. Book of James, he called it a gospel of straw and said," It's not on the level of Paul's epistle." Well, you know we can do that.
We can either tear down the Scriptures or we can take verses that plainly say one thing and say," No, they mean something else." Or we can be honest and say," This is what the Scriptures teach." Well, does it really matter what you believe on the subject? Let me say at the outset that I've known and know today some very fine Christians who hold to the viewpoint of unconditional eternal security.
I certainly don't think that they or other ones I don't know are outside of God's kingdom because they hold to this doctrine. On the other hand, I think it's a very dangerous doctrine. I mean, I've witnessed this in the evangelical church that my family and I were part of. For example, the church taught a very uncompromising stand on divorce that divorce was not allowed in the New Testament. It was absolute sin for Christians to divorce, let alone remarry.
On the other hand, they taught absolute unconditional eternal security. So it was like," Well, yes, it's wrong to do that. Is it going to affect your standing with God, your salvation?" No. So what did everyone do? Well, over half of the young couples, people who were you know close friends of my wife and I ended up divorcing each other. It was shocking to have that happening in a church of God. And there is no doubt in my mind that the reason it certainly wasn't because we had a lax teaching on divorce.
It was because of eternal security. They reasoned," Well, even this may be sin, but it's not going to change anything in eternity." The doctrine of eternal security guts, all of Christ's teachings. If we can willfully disobey Christ and never turn around and still retain our eternal life, most believers are not going to live obedient lives, particularly if it's going to require great sacrifice. Some will.
I mean, I know people who hold to unconditional eternal security who make great sacrifices out of their love for Jesus Christ. And they don't do it because they think that this is required for salvation. They do it out of love. And that's wonderful. I mean, that's where we should all be at. But my concern is for people who don't have that burning love and what the doctrine does to them. The early Christians noticed the effect it had on the Gnostics who were teaching this.
For example, Tertullian wrote," He said," We ought indeed to walk so holy and with so entire substantiality of faith as to be confident and secure in regard of our own conscience, desiring that it may abide in us to the end. Yet we should not presume that it will. For he who presumes feels less apprehension. He who feels less apprehension takes less precaution. He who takes less precaution runs more risk. Fear is the foundation of salvation. Presumption is an impediment to fear.
More useful then is it to apprehend that we may possibly fail than to presume that we cannot. For apprehending will lead us to fear, fear to caution and caution to salvation. On the other hand, if we presume, there will be neither fear nor caution to save us. And that may sound unscriptural to you, but that's what the Scriptures say that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Also wrote something, and he's talking about the Gnostics, that God is under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy what He has promised to give. So they turn His liberality into His slavery. For do not many afterwards fall out of grace? Is not this gift taken away from many? These no doubt are they who, after approaching to the faith of repentance, build on the sands a house doomed to ruin.
Okay, we've talked about what the early Christians believed on eternal security, and we've looked at the scripture verses that they based their belief on. Now, I want for the final 10 minutes or so to look at some of the main arguments that are put forth by proponents of eternal security and see what the Scriptures are really saying. One that's quoted a lot is John 3:16. Well, this is what the book that we were studying on that Tuesday night said.
Scripture reveals the sovereign promise of God which is unconditioned and which promises eternal salvation to everyone who believes in Christ, and it cites John 3:16. He went on to say," The infinite love of God not only accounts for God's eternal purpose, but assures that His purpose will be fulfilled." According to Romans 8 or citing, rather, Romans 8 verses 38 and 39. Let's look up those verses and see, do these teach unconditional eternal security?
John 3:16, I think probably all of us know it by memory," For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Romans 8:38 and 39 says," For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Well, I think, really, John
3:16 answers the meaning of Romans 8.
John 3:16 says," God loves the whole world." But that doesn't mean the whole world is going to be saved depth. God doesn't stop loving us when we disobey him or rebel against him, but that doesn't mean he's going to give us eternal life either. If a congregation has to put someone out of fellowship and communion for reasons of church discipline, does that mean they don't love the person anymore? Because we can never be separated from the love of God.
It doesn't mean that we're going to be saved because again, John 3:16 says that God loved the whole world, the world that the Scriptures say is passing away. The book from Dallas Seminary also cited John 10:29 saying," The infinite power of God is able to save and keep eternally," and it cited John 10:29 as its support. Well, of course, the issue of eternal security being conditional or unconditional has nothing to do with the power of God. I think all of us acknowledge that God can save whomever he wants.
And if he wants there to be unconditional eternal security, then he's got the power to do that. There's no issue about what God is able to do. The issue is, what does he do? How does God work? What does he say? What does his Son Jesus say? Well, John 29, chapter 10, verse 29, says," My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of my father's hand." Well, I should hope not.
I mean, that would be pretty scary if Satan or somebody else, a third party, could come in and snatch this out of God's hand. But none of those passages that the book quoted and that are often cited in support of eternal security, none of them are addressing the question of what happens when a baptized Christian does not obey Christ's commandments or even worse when he totally loses his faith in Christ. Maybe even denies him.
This is really playing games with Scriptures, ignoring 85 passages that specifically deal with the issue of disobedient or apostate persons, while then selecting two or three verses that aren't even addressing the subject and say," See, this is what the Scriptures really say." It's exactly the kind of things that Jehovah's witnesses so often did. When we play these types of games, then what value is the Bible?
If we can read 85 verses and, oh, they don't mean what they very clearly say, but these other verses that are talking about something else, well, they mean this and they cancel out all of those verses. Well, so what do we need the Bible for then? We need the Watchtower or we need Dallas Seminary or somebody else, a pope or somebody to tell us this is what the Bible means because in itself, it has no life. It doesn't mean what it says in its plain meaning that is.
Yeah, ironically, I've been criticized many times of people saying," Oh, I put too much emphasis on the primitive Christians and what they believe." People even said," I make them more important than the Scriptures." But what I find is that it's always the opposite. The early Christian writings have enabled me to know that I can look at the totality of Scripture and what Scripture teaches. And know that this is just how Christians originally handled the Scriptures.
I can read the Bible with confidence that I can believe what it says, that everything isn't garbled and needs a special interpreter to say what it actually means because the meaning is underneath the surface. Now, I can have confidence that what the Scripture literally says is what it means.
And so often, the people who make this accusation are the very ones who play these kind of games with Scriptures, proof texting, pulling this verse out of here and that verse out of there and ignoring whole passages that say something different. That's really the beauty of the pre-Nicene writings, why I've devoted so much of my life to getting this information out to my fellow believers. These writings don't pull us away from Scripture. No, they bring us back to Scripture where we need to be.