Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 9
Bercot ties unconditional eternal security to practical moral collapse, giving his church’s divorce example: strict teaching on divorce + “it won’t affect your salvation” led to many divorces; where do you see similar patterns today where a doctrine of assurance functions as permission to disobey, and what would repentance, accountability, and “fear of the Lord” look like in those exact situations?
Another way to ask: Where do you see people using “my salvation is secure” as an excuse to disobey today, like in Bercot’s divorce example? In those cases, what would real repentance, accountability, and “fear of the Lord” look like?

Direct Answer The transcript’s main pattern is that when people believe serious disobedience “won’t affect…salvation,” assurance can function like permission; the corrective Bercot points to is repentance, caution, and “fear of the Lord” that leads back to obedience.

Support from Transcript:

  • His example: the church taught divorce was “absolute sin,” yet also taught “absolute unconditional eternal security,” so people reasoned: “Is it going to affect…your salvation? No.”
  • The outcome he witnessed: “over half of the young couples…ended up divorcing,” which he calls “shocking…in a church of God.”
  • He concludes the cause wasn’t lax divorce teaching but eternal security: “Even this may be sin, but it’s not going to change anything in eternity.”
  • He generalizes: the doctrine “guts all of Christ’s teachings” if we can “willfully disobey… and still retain our eternal life.”
  • He quotes Tertullian’s logic: presumption removes fear, fearlessness removes caution, and without caution “there will be neither fear nor caution to save us,” adding “Fear is the foundation of salvation.”
Discussion Follow-ups The transcript doesn’t list modern examples beyond divorce. What areas in your church culture are treated as “serious, but not serious enough to matter”?