If
you can lose your salvation
Of
Matt Slick of C.A.R.M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a lead post by Slick on the C.A.R.M forum under the title of "If You Can Lose Your Salvation." Matt Slick's straw-man argument is posted in black, and my responses are in red.
There seems to be a lot of hostility towards OSAS.
I think its interesting.
I do not find Matt’s calm appeal to not be
hostile to the devil and his lies to be very compelling! Instead of proving
that Eternal Security exists (which he cannot), he assumes the false doctrine
and seeks to paint those that believe God on the issue as “hostile” people.
Shame on him for this low tactic!
We who hold to OSAS do so because we put no reliance in ourselves to be able to remain pure enough, faithful enough, good enough, etc., in any way.
We who hold to OSAS do so because we put all our hope and
confidence in Christ's work on the cross. He is pure enough, faithful enough,
and good enough to ensure our eternal destiny.
We who hold to OSAS do so because are are confident in
Christ. We are not desparate. We are not seeking to use God's grace as a
liscence for sin. We simply acknowledge our total inability and rely on God's
total ability.
Even the faith we have we believe is his work (John
6:28-29) and we further believe we will never perish (John 10:27-28) because our
hope is completely in him and in no way in ourselves. That is why we are secure
-- because our salvation is complete in him, not dependent on us in any way. (A.K.A.
Fatalism!)
This is a false dilemma, for
just because someone does not believe Satan over God as Eve did in the garden,
they are somehow trusting in their works for salvation and not Christ? Slick is
a liar, a deceiver, and shows his affinity of character to be aligned with the
devil he defends, both in doctrine and his tactics!
The fact is most people believe in Eternal Security because that is what they were taught. It is the majority teaching in the Church today, the radio, and the television. It is the easy path of the majority; one does not have to think or weigh it out; it is a herd mentality. Instead of dealing honestly with the Scriptures, Slick just assumes that the vast majority of people will believe that Eternal Security is true, and uses that to attack those that disagree on the mere basis of an assumed doctrine that is unbiblical!
The second false claim in this
statement of his is, that people believe in Eternal Security because they are
"so" trusting in Jesus, and those that do not believe in
Eternal Security are not! That is a lie, for anyone could jump off
the
The painful fact is that most
Eternal Securists’ believe the doctrine because they are still yet
unregenerate! They claim to be saved, but have not the power of Christ in their
hearts to live above willful sin! They must cling to a doctrine,
and not Christ in order to justify their "sin
and win" philosophy! They go to Church, pray, give money, but
refuse to ever truly repent as God commanded. They have been told by "man" that
they are “saved,” yet display an inward powerlessness to live the Christian
life. Since they believe that they are “saved,” they must create a doctrine
that lowers the bar of Christianity to their unregenerate level in order to silence God
and their consciences which scream… “you’re not "really"
saved”!
Keep in mind, I have not
broad-brushed all Eternal Securists as unregenerates as Slick has impugned all
Non-Eternal Securists with the label of “Works Salvationists.” We do not
have to discount the salvation of all who disagree with us, because we believe in
grace,
where he obviously does not!
If defending the faith and
correcting error of Eternal Security is "hostility," then isn't
that what Christ commands? I
will choose to be like Christ, no matter what derogatory twist you put on His
character or mine!
If you believe you can lose your salvation, then it is
dependent upon you to keep it by doing something. Are you being pure enough,
faithful enough, good enough to keep yourself in the faith?
Do you believe that your maintenance of your salvation
really is by your ability to abide in Christ, your ability to believe in Christ,
your ability to be good enough in whatever way you need to in order to maintain
your position with God?
I can never take credit or affirm that I am good enough in any way to keep myself in the grace of God.
Of course, God commands through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that you are to “keep yourselves in the love of God.” (Jude v.21). Is God telling us to take credit, or is this just another false dilemma that Slick creates because it questions his presuppositions about Eternal Security? If he had never heard of Eternal Security, would he have any basis in which to suggest such unbiblical balderdash?
In Galatians, God says that
people have and can “fall from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The Eternal Securist must
twist the plain meaning of the passage to save their doctrine, but I could care
less about their assumptions and distortions; I will believe God!
Slick paints a false portrait
of all Non-Eternal Securists as being “Works Salvationists.” If faith is
required for someone to get saved, it no less “works” to require a present
active faith to
keep them saved.
What Slick implies is, we are saved by FATE,
not by GRACE
through FAITH as the Scriptures teach!
If having a present faith as a condition
of salvation is “works,” then I must go along with the Bible and say that
God teaches salvation by works! I have never met anyone who was saved by a
lightning bolt striking them with a gift of salvation as an act of unconditional
Fate! Such Fatalistic nonsense is the assertion of Slick's Gnostic Calvinism and not the Bible!
The Scriptures abound with
exhortations to abide in Christ, continue in the faith, remain, endure, and to
“hold on.” This is never painted as a negative thing as Eternal Security
sets its opposition to God by making faithfulness out to be an evil thing. God
says, “abide in Christ,” “remain in Him,” and Slick responds to God by
accusing everyone that follows God’s command to be “dependent
upon you to keep[ing] it by doing something.” To be
basing your salvation on “being pure enough, faithful enough, good
enough to keep yourself in the faith.” I see
nothing contrary to God’s commands in stating that a present tense faith is
required for salvation. What charge can be placed upon me for trusting every
moment of every day to the grace of God? How can the condition of relying upon
Christ for my salvation be merit, knowing that there is nothing within myself that could
earn or deserve salvation besides His death on the Cross for me? That without
His grace, I am forever lost? What possible merit can one append to that?
God forces no one into the faith
anymore than He forces them to stay there. God no more repents for us than He
believes for us! While God’s gift to us is the ability to repent and believe
by His grace, the responsibility is ours to enact that repentance and faith He
has given us. Salvation is never stated to be a one-sided, Fatalistic or unconditional affair
in Scripture.
I don't even take any credit for my believing.
And where do I?
I give all credit to Christ. I give all my hope to him. I put all my trust in Him. I don't look to myself in anyway to keep myself saved or keep myself in God's grace through my effort.
God says that the wages of sin is
death; The
soul that sinneth shall surely die; In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely
die. These are God’s words, which have never been amended! Like Eve in the
garden, Slick opposes God by siding with the serpent by calling God a liar! He
teaches the very doctrine the devil taught Eve. “Ignore God, he is out to
lunch! If you rebel and sin, surely, you will not die!” That is the very doctrine of Eternal
Security Slick espouses. It does not matter how good the argument sounds coming
from directly from a serpent, or from someone's theology, it is a lie that
always has and always will oppose God! I could be like Slick in broad-brushing things and say
that his faith is in this “doctrine” of Eternal Security and not
Christ! But I will not do so, and will not pontificate as if I knew the hearts
of men. I believed in Eternal Security at one time and can assure you that my
faith was totally in Christ. When I studied Scripture for myself, I found it easy
to abandon the false doctrine because my faith is in Christ, not in some
"doctrine"! My salvation and faith is squarely centered and
based upon Jesus Christ and His merit. I see nothing in Scripture that states
that salvation is to be based upon faith in a pet doctrine of assurance.., especially one
that is invented by the devil!
So, if there is any hostility, I think it should be against
the position that teaches that God's grace is maintained through human effort
and faithfulness and that our salvation is kept through human goodness (keeping
the law, continuing to believe, etc.).
Which position brings the greatest glory to God?
That is an easy answer! The
position that gives God the greatest glory is the one that encourages holiness
and obedience to Him! The one that completes what God commands; a full-time
faith, and not one of convenience! One that loves God all the time; not one that
allows us our rebellion and unbelief, and presumes upon the grace of God!
I believe that it brings more glory to God to believe Him, and not the devil’s doctrine! I believe that it brings God the greatest glory to believe His promise that He is able to keep us from falling, unlike those that distort this promise of this power to imply that God merely “keeps” the rebellious sinner "saved" regardless of faith! That His will is that we do not sin (1 Jn. 2:1). He that commits sins is of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8). We can create a false Eternal Security and say that “He or she who loves God and obeys Him, and successfully does so through His power.., is of the devil, for he or she has a salvation by works!” Eternal Security encourages unfaithfulness. It encourages sin. It presumes upon God’s grace without any Biblical sanction! How can this "Eternal Security" possibly bring any glory to God?
The concluding question that Slick should have been asked is...
WHAT POSITION BRINGS THE GREATEST GLORY TO THE DEVIL?
Is it the position that God expects us to repent and believe, continue in the faith, abide in Christ, and be more than overcommers though His power? Certainly not! That would rob the devil of his authority and influence over us and exalt God!
Or is it the doctrine of demons, A.K.A. "Eternal Security," that teaches that you can sin all you want, for you have no more power than the most unregenerate heathen to obey God or His commands? That you cannot live the Christian life, and that the devil can make you sin, but God's regeneration and inward assistance cannot defeat the devil and sin? Is it the doctrine that teaches that you have a free will to get saved, but then denies any such free will after you are saved; that once you are saved you are not "free indeed" as Jesus promised, but "less free" than you were before you were saved? You can get saved by an act of faith, but you cannot become lost by an equal act of the will in the other direction? Eternal Security and its inevitable conclusions proves that it is the devil's heresy! It glories in the power of the devil, and assumes that God is too weak to keep someone from committing evil! Some people look at Adam and Eve and shake their heads at the simplicity in which they were so easily deceived, yet many of these same people stake their eternal soul's on the very same doctrine of the devil, and hold it up as superior and more important than any other doctrine in the whole Bible! How sad is that!
Why be influenced by an argument that merely assumes Fatalism and Eternal Security to be true, without any honest examination to see if it honors God? What kind of doctrine is that which pits God against His own clear words?
The answer is easy, Eternal
Security is the
doctrine of the devil, and not the doctrine of God!
* I firmly believe that one person's approach does not speak for every believer in Eternal Security. I generally stick to attacking the substance of the matter, which is the false doctrine itself, and not the person. But in this case where Matt Slick's evil dealings do not stop with the doctrine, but with the truth concerning those that would oppose him; this demands an answer. If someone spews evil slander, and denies anyone the opportunity to freely respond, they must be "laid bare" for the sake of truth.
** Since this response has been posted, the C.A.R.M. Forum is no longer viewable to the public. You must now join it in order to view it.