An excerpt from the book

by Lyndon Conn

Eternal Security: Can you be sure?

By Charles Stanley

      One of the most popular books written on the subject of Eternal Security, from a Calvinist view, is Charles Stanley's book "Eternal Security". The subtitle is "Can you be Sure?" I am going to take time to go through many comments that Stanley made in his book; as they are the same comments made by every other Calvinists heard on radio and television programs on this subject. His views on this doctrine are by far the most well-known and taught views on the subject of Eternal Security. Although a true Calvinist will not agree with these men on those areas concerning the five points of Calvinism, most all that is taught on the doctrine of "Eternal Security" are agreeable with them.

     Charles Stanley is a Baptist preacher, who was once an Arminian. He had battled with the Arminian view because of the fear of falling, or being backslidden even while preaching the Word. This fear and confusing tormented him, until he changed his view to the Calvinist view. He will say that his life was changed for the better when he changed this view, giving him the assurance of salvation.

 I do not doubt for a minute that Stanley felt much better after these things had taken place in his life. For certainly it is a horrible feeling to feel as if you are doing your best to serve God, but yet battling with the assurance of being truly saved or not. Every true Christian should know without a doubt in their mind that they are saved and going to spend eternity with Jesus. The lack of this assurance is not a result of rejecting or misunderstanding the doctrine of Eternal Security, as Calvinists assume. This problem results in not knowing what the Bible says about who we are in Christ, and not understanding that Christ loves us so much and will help us through every area of our lives, to keep us from falling, when we seek Him. Jude 24 "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy". It is important that every Christian knows who they are in Christ, and understands all that He has provided us with in order to live a holy life, walking in victory over sin. If we truly trust in Him, then we will not be hindered by sin, temptation, or any of our shortcomings. His grace is sufficient! Any Christian that lacks the assurance of salvation only needs to turn to Christ, His written Word, and know that they have done according to His command to follow Him. If we have a pure heart, willing to listen to Him as he deals with us, there will be ".no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1

It is not about total perfection, but about a heart that is after Him through faith and holiness. If our heart is right, then His grace will cover our natural human imperfections. These are things in our lives that may still displease God, and may even cause us to lose rewards on the Day of Judgment, but not to lose salvation. John said in 1 John 5:17 "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." We do not have to fear every imperfection in our lives; that they might send us to hell. But we do need to be aware that there is a sin unto death. These are sins that are in total rebellion to God, that crucify Christ afresh, bringing Him to an open shame. Some of these were mentioned by Paul in Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." I have never known a true Christian that did not know better than to do such things as these. If they did do such, they were in direct rebellion to Gods Word. The only exception might be a new Christian who is ignorant of such things; but they soon will receive such understanding. But once they do understand there is no longer any excuse; their interest is more toward the gratification of the flesh than toward pleasing God. It is this same attitude that keeps so many people from receiving Christ as their savior in the first place.

     Living the Christian life is not as hard as some make it out to be. It is as simple as asking Jesus to save us in the first place, and after the initial point of salvation we have the Holy Spirit to help us throughout our lives to overcome and to be fruitful. There really isn't any excuse for turning to such sins as these. But if we are living a life in Christ, even in our imperfections, we can have complete assurance of our salvation through faith in Christ. If we will live a life of repentance, always being willing to confess anything that has the likeness of sin, then we will most likely not have a problem with assurance of salvation. True repentance keeps us in relationship with Christ. Un-repentance is rebellion to God, in which assurance is a problem, since such a person would be cut off. Forgiveness is only possibly "if we confess our sins". 1 John 1:9

     Stanley goes to great lengths to show that those who do not believe in Eternal Security battle with lack of assurance. But I have known as many, if not more, Calvinists who battle with assurance than those of Arminian upbringing. And many who have been taught Calvinism have a false assurance! There certainly is and needs to be assurance in the heart of every true believer! And if they live a life as I just explained, they will have assurance. But to impart an assurance into the heart of a person who is not right with God is deception and a horrible thing to do! The purpose of the gospel is to lead people to salvation. But in doing what Calvinists have done, many are led to false security and eternal damnation through such a lie as this.

Faith Alone

 Charles Stanley brings up the point that our salvation is by faith alone, not faith and works. This was covered already, that true faith would result in works; else our faith would be dead. This does not indicate salvation by our works, but rather that because we have true faith in Christ, works must naturally follow. This all takes place as a result of Gods grace. Through these works we will never be able to boast, because they are works wrought through Gods grace, not our own talents, abilities, or goodness. These works are the fruit of our salvation, which was accomplished through the work of Christ. And therefore others will know us as belonging to Christ by our fruit. If we would forsake works, we would not have fruit, our faith would die, and we would fall from grace. 

     If we live in constant guilt and fear concerning our salvation, then we do have a problem with assurance. Unless we have a problem with sin: in which what we would be feeling is not unhealthy guilt, but conviction from the Holy Spirit. The answer is not the doctrine of Eternal security, which can certainly help in dealing with guilt. But it will go to the opposite extreme, causing a false security for many, a careless attitude, or a copout for sinful lifestyles. The answer is in knowing how much Jesus really loves us, knowing His promise to be with us, and being willing to follow, obey, and listen to the Holy Spirit as He deals with us. It is not only about His loving us, but also about our willingness to love Him. And if we love Him, we will keep His commandments! We will respond in obedience to the dealings of His Holy Spirit! If we avoid the conviction of the Holy Spirit, then we are in rebellion to God, and therefore we should feel guilty. But the awesome thing about Jesus is that all we have to do is truly repent, and He will take away the guilt, and heal our wounds.

      Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

      As mentioned earlier, holiness is something that is to be a part of our lives now, not only when we get to heaven. And we are commanded to be holy, for God is holy. In his book, Charles Stanley Says this: "If His holiness demands something in return from those He loves, it is clear that His holiness makes God incapable of unconditional love! If holiness is a condition, His love is not unconditional. If His nature forces Him to disassociate from certain types of people, His nature stands in the way of His ability to love unconditionally." God's love is certainly unconditional! But there is absolutely no indication in scripture that God ever stops loving anyone, no matter what they do. Arminians have never claimed such a belief! Just as God loves the sinner who has not received Him, He will love the backslider who rejects Him. But His loving them and their being saved from the penalty of sin are two different things. Stanley is trying to prove a point that is not at all valid. Unconditional love does not indicate an impossibility of falling away. It is salvation that is conditional, and not God's love. The Bible declares that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9. He loves those who do not love Him, as He is the creator of all mankind. It breaks the heart of God when a man chooses not to receive Him as Lord and savior. And it does the same when a man will fall away from His grace, because they are in the same spiritual condition as the lost people in the world. If His love alone saved us, then the whole human race would have nothing to fear, for they all would be saved. The demand of holiness does not place a condition upon God's love! But it does place a condition upon dwelling in His presence and obtaining eternal salvation. Saved or not, God loves every man: but every man must choose to obey or disobey Him. They will choose life or death. Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" God will record the choice of every man, in which this choice extends also to the eternal soul and destiny of man.

      Because Calvinists, such as Charles Stanley, believe that we do not have anything to do with salvation, subjects such as holiness, righteousness, and especially works, have much less importance to them than what the Bible gives us. Charles Stanley commented on this thought by saying, "As long as I have an ongoing role in the salvation process, my natural tendency will be to focus on my behavior rather than on Christ.but we are certainly not free to be the focus of our lives. We are never completely free to fasten our gaze on Him until we are sure our relationship with Him is secure" This would certainly be a problem if it were true. In many cases it is true, but not because of doctrine. It is a result of not focusing on Christ. When a person does not focus on Christ, they will focus on themselves, whether that is to change themselves as Stanley mentions, or to fulfill the lusts of the flesh, as the Apostle Paul mentions. But I know few people that focus on overcoming and growing in their relationship with Christ that have a serious problem with what Stanley brings out. Most people focus on areas of their lives "as a result" of their focus on Christ, not in hope of earning salvation or out of fear alone. Good works are done as a result of Gods grace, through faith, not our own goodness. It is after we are saved that we must look at our lives and clean up what we know displeases God, and examine ourselves inside and out. And because our focus is on Christ, we do not have a problem with this like Stanley suggests, but rather have the most earnest desire to be right. Not out of fear, but out of love for God. But in the case that we might begin to fall into works of the flesh, self-gratification, or things that do displease God, we should take the time regularly to examine our own lives in order to prevent sin from taking over areas of our lives.

     We must make sure that we are not deceiving ourselves by thinking all is okay, when things actually are not. Paul mentioned this self examination in 2 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." And then in 1 Corinthians 11:31-32 "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." This is not for those who are in the Church but not truly saved! He says that if "we" would judge ourselves, not "they". Paul knows he is saved, as well as those whom he is writing to. Their present salvation is not necessarily in question here. But as we continue on in our relationship with Christ, we must examine ourselves, be sure that we have not deceived ourselves at some point and gotten lazy in our spiritual life. If we do not judge ourselves, then we will be judged by God, or disciplined by God, so that we should not go into condemnation with the world. He does not say that we cannot go into such condemnation, if we were to rebel against God and His ways; but that God will be faithful to lead us or even discipline us, in order to keep us in the faith and from entering into the judgment of God. He is so loving and faithful to His people! It is truly amazing! But He still will not violate the God given will of man. He still wants us to choose Him, to choose right and wrong, and to love Him with all our heart. We are the only force in the whole universe that can separate us from salvation, through our own choice.

     To correct their often-quoted phrase "we can't, He won't; the correct phrase would rather be "we can, He won't". God will not take away salvation by His choice; but we can lose it through our own unfaithfulness. If we will examine ourselves daily, through prayer and Gods Word, then the Holy Spirit can speak to us, and we will be sure to lead by the Spirit, and not the flesh. If we do make a mistake, all we need to do is repent, and salvation will not be lost. Gods grace is awesome and sufficient, and He will always guide us to forgiveness, as long as we choose to follow Him. As long as we choose to abide in Him we are Eternally Secure!

     "Faith alone" is a concept commonly used by Stanley, which is not found in the Bible. The concept of faith alone is a valuable one if it is not used in the unbalanced and irresponsible way that Stanley teaches it. On this issue, Stanley presents us with a false dilemma. "Salvation by faith is at stake. Once good works are introduced into the salvation process, salvation is no longer by faith alone; it is by faith and works. To imply that salvation is maintained by good works (or not sinning) is to take the daily burden of our salvation upon ourselves". He hopes to establish Eternal Security through the application of this statement. He wants us to buy into his logic and definitions. If he can trouble the reader with the idea that a rejection of eternal security is a rejection of salvation by faith, then he has won the battle for our minds. For his theory to work, he must get us to buy into the understanding that works void out salvation by faith. That is why he subtly inserts the modifier "alone" to his concept of faith.

     Scripture is clear that salvation is by faith. It is equally clear that we cannot merit salvation through works. The problem lies in Stanley's misconception of saving faith. To him, faith can be nothing more than a brief moment in time, a passing thought upon the grace of God that blasts the individual into an irrevocable relationship with his Creator. But is this concept of saving faith the faith of the Bible? It is certainly not! As already stated, the Biblical definition of saving faith must include the fruit of faith; otherwise it is a false faith that does not save. Works that are the fruit of faith are the result of the Son of God working in and through us. We are His workmanship; we cannot do any meritorious good apart from Him. The inevitable, natural result of faith is works. They merit nothing because we are not the cause of the work; He is! Because we are the instruments in which He chooses to use for His glory, he gives us rewards for that faith. Not that we deserve anything; but that He may show His grace.

     The thief on the cross is a popular example used by those who teach Eternal Security. They claim that it proves faith alone. What we know about the inward faith of this criminal is shown to us by his outward actions, which are works. First, he showed his faith through works by rebuking the other criminal on the cross for jeering at Jesus' Divinity. And did he not repent openly that he was guilty and deserved this death? Did he not confess the purity of Christ? Did he not pray and request that Jesus would remember him in His kingdom? Were these not all works? Were they not the evidence and fruit of faith? There certainly is no indication of "faith alone" as Stanley so insistently teaches.

     The question in relation to this is, will God be judging us according to our faith? If it is "faith alone" that saves a person, then every person will be judged by their "faith" alone. The Bible is clear on this issue without exception. Jesus said in John 5:28-29 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation."  Paul writes in Romans 2:6-7 that God "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality; eternal life." Then in 2 Corinthians 5:9-10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad." Notice that we all will receive according to what they have "done", and not according to what they believed by faith. It is obvious that what we believe will cause us to act out our faith through works. As covered early in this book, to believe is much more than faith alone, but is acted out in obedience to what we say we believe. If I say that I believe that air travel is a safe mode of transportation, because I have many friends who have traveled by air for years without problems; but yet I myself will not step into an airplane because of fear of flying; would you be convinced that I really feel that air travel is a safe mode of transportation? To say it is one thing; to live it is another. If we say we "believe" I Jesus, then we must live out our belief, or we do not really "believe" at all. All men will be judged by what they truly believe.

     Peter says in 1 Peter 1:17 that the Father, "without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man's work."  And John concludes in Revelation 22:12 with these words: "And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works."  Observe that it is not once said, "according to their faith." It is evident through this fact that scriptures show that works are the sure evidence of saving faith. Otherwise, if faith alone is true, then a man could have faith without works, which is "dead"; and he could not be judged as having dead faith as James mentioned. But through the fact that judgment of our works is a sure fact in scripture, for every man whether they are good or evil, it is also evident that faith without good works is dead, having no power to save. We merit nothing in this salvation through our faith and works, but can only give thanks to God for His grace in sending His Holy Spirit to enable us to overcome in this life and to be fruitful.

When is salvation lost?

     The key to dealing with all sins is forgiveness through repentance. It is a continually repentant heart that keeps us in communication with God to receive forgiveness. Because through this relationship we have with God, we can then stand on scriptures such as 1 John 3:20-21 "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God." And Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." "If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart" means that if a true Christian is living in condemnation, they should understand that God is a forgiving God, and they are to be free from such condemnation. But the key is to have a "right heart": not a perfect life! If we walk after the Spirit, our lives may seem close to perfect at times, but there will still be those few areas that may pop up to condemn us. But as long as we walk in the Spirit there is no condemnation, even though we may feel condemned. If we feel condemned in our heart when we are living holy lives, then God is greater then our heart! But if we are living a life of sin without true repentance, then we are condemned because we are walking after the flesh and not the Spirit. If we sin willfully, knowing it is sin, then this is rebellious sin, which is unto death. James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This could indicate that if a person does not realize something is wrong, and then it will not be counted as sin unto death, until it is revealed to them and they have the opportunity to repent. Grace may cover the Christian, but they must be careful lest they fall from grace. Every Christian will be accountable for what they know and understand.

     Referring to the story of the prodigal son Charles Stanley says, "He did not say, "this was my son, and now he is my son again." On the contrary, there is no hint that the relationship was ever broken, only the fellowship".

    This again sounds good, but this thought comes in direct conflict with the teachings of scriptures. Stanley's understanding of this is faulty logic. John tells us what true fellowship is. It is not as Stanley supposes! According to John, fellowship with Christ is salvation; and through such fellowship we are cleansed of all sin by the blood of Jesus. 1 John 1:6-7 "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Fellowship and continued cleansing from sin are connected! If you do not walk in the light, you do not have fellowship; and if you do not have fellowship, you do not have cleansing of your sin, and cannot have a relationship with a holy God! Without this cleansing you cannot be saved! And without this fellowship you cannot be cleansed! If you are not cleansed of your sin, you will spend eternity in hell! To say that the son was still saved, but only "out of fellowship" with God is contrary to the teachings of scripture. Fellowship and salvation go hand in hand, since salvation is the restoration of lost fellowship between God and man. Sin brought separation between God and man, while the sacrifice of Christ brought restoration of this relationship by the removing of sin. But if a Christian does not deal with sin, then when relationship is lost, so is salvation.

     Stanley and other Calvinists want us to believe that fellowship and relationship are two different things in the Bible. Although the English definition of these two words are different, the Greek tells us something else. The Greek work for "fellowship" in the scriptures is koinonia (koy-nohn-ee'-ah); which means "partnership", i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: In its proper definition, what we have with Christ is much more than fellowship as we know the word. It is a very close relationship! If we lose this "fellowship" then what we have actually lost is our relationship with Christ. To say we are only "out of fellowship" with Christ is like saying that I am out of fellowship with my wife, but we still have a relationship. To be "out of fellowship" would mean that we do not ever talk, communicate our feelings, get to know each other's thoughts, feelings, or intentions, etc. With this loss of fellowship, there could not possibly be an ongoing relationship. So not only is this not possible by its English definition of these words; but it is certainly not possible according to the original Greek definition.

     Many will try to explain this with the fictional doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. They claim, without any Biblical warrant whatsoever, that the blood of Christ covers their sin so God cannot see their filthiness. All God can see is the righteousness of Christ. We cannot lose relationship, but we can lose fellowship. They appeal to this from 1 John 1:6-7. But they miss the message that John is trying to get across to them when he says that it is only those who have fellowship with Him that are cleansed by His blood. Without this cleansing there cannot possibly be any salvation at all! Although it may be possible for a Christian to lose fellowship with God through a lack of time spent with Him, while not losing relationship; this would not be so in regard to sin. Sin will separate the relationship! If we slack off in our prayer life, our study habits, or other responsibilities in our relationship with Christ, we could lose fellowship without losing relationship. But if we would continue in this sort of lifestyle, it could eventually lead to loss of relationship, as we will be overcome by the influences of the world, while not being fed spiritually and led by the Spirit.

     Another difficulty with this theory (besides the fact that it cannot be found in the Bible) is that if God can see their sin in order to separate His fellowship with them, then He must see their sin! If God, a holy God, can see this sin, and it is no longer being cleansed as this passage asserts, there must be a separation in relationship and from salvation!  Sin is not hid from God! On the contrary, David said in Psalms 66:18 "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:" Sin cannot be hid from God! The righteousness of Christ does not hide our sin from the Father, as if the God of love and mercy is actually a big angry God that would punish us all if He could possibly see our sin; but because of Christ He is blinded from seeing our sin and can only see Christ's righteousness. This is absurdity! It certainly is not scriptural based theology. The Father and the Son are One! Whatever attributes we will see in Christ are also in the Father. To make the Father an angry God, and the Son the savior of His anger is false doctrine. God sees all sin, and yet loves all men. But unless we are separate from sin through Christ (The sacrifice of the Godhead for the sins of man), then we cannot be saved.

Faith and Works

     Although as covered, there may be sins unto death and sins not unto death; the main way to bring a distinction between the two is that sin unto death is usually without question very obvious to most people, and is done out of rebellion to the commands of God to be separate from them. Sins not unto death may be things that are not rebellious, but rather arrears of our lives that need spiritual growth, but yet areas we are always willing to repent of and do our best to overcome, without excuse. The grace of God will cover a repentant heart, even if they sin; knowing that they will repent. It is obvious to God in knowing their heart. But rebellious sin is without excuse, being done out of a sinful, un-repentant heart. His grace is not that we cannot fall away and lose our salvation! His grace is that if we sin and will confess our sin with true repentance, He is faithful to forgive us, no strings attached, and no further conditions. Simply trust in Him! If we trust in Him, we will not go back to sin!

     Stanley's comment on this subject was this: "What about the sins you commit after He declares you `not guilty'? Which of your sins did Christ take on the Cross two thousand years ago? Which of your sins was He punished for? If He died for only part of your sins - for instance, the ones you had committed up to the point of salvation - how can you ever get forgiveness for the sins you commit after that? Would Christ not have to come and die again? And for that matter, again and again and again? If all your sins were not dealt with on the cross two thousand years ago, there is no hope for you!" The answer to his question is simple! Repent! " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9 It is ridiculous to infer that Christ would have to die again in order for anyone to be forgiven a second, third or even hundredth time. If such an analogy were accurate, then Christ would also have to die again for each sinner that would desire salvation. The offering for sin was given once and once only. If we sin, we only need to repent, just as those desiring salvation only need to repent of their sins and receive Christ. If anyone will refuse to repent, they are in rebellion to God, and will not be forgiven. And without forgiveness, no man can be saved, even if they were at one time. Stanley says, "If Christ died for one of them (Our sins), He died for all of them" This is absolutely true! But what he is saying is that all our sins are paid for, unconditionally. Stanley uses the commonly used "payment and punishment" analogies in an effort to prove his doctrine. No matter what we do we will still go to heaven, because all our sins were paid for: past, present, and future. Christ took our punishment. As covered already, these are false analogies, faulty logic, and bad extensions of what could be good metaphors. It is true that Christ died for all sins forever! But not all sins are automatically forgiven without confession! This is true for the sinner and for the Christian! There will always be those things in our lives that are not perfect, sins that we forgot about so we could not confess, and sins not unto death such as worry, fear, doubt, discouragement, etc., which all allow for learning experiences in our spiritual growth. But if the Holy Spirit deals with an area of our lives that must change, and we refuse, then that is when we are in danger of being cut off, unless we repent. Christ died for all sin forever, meaning the provision has been made completely. But we must receive the gift whenever it is offered. Not just once, but whenever the Holy Spirit deals with us. Most true Christians would not rebel against such dealings of the Holy Spirit! But some have! And those who would not change have fallen! They are those who once had all the blessings of God, but some are now far away from Him.

Adoption

     Adoption is used in terms of a metaphor to describe our relationship with Him, but not in terms of eternal salvation without condition. Those such as Stanley have taken yet another Good Biblical metaphor to its logical end, in a way that the Bible does not do at all, and never intended to do. Calvinists will hold to scriptures such as Ephesians 1:4,5, which speak of predestination. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." The phase "adoption of children" refers to a group or mass of people; particularly those who will choose to follow Him, thus becoming His children. It is the New Covenant through Jesus Christ that was predestined. Those who choose to follow Christ are part of this predestination as the adopted Children of God. It is important to see the metaphoric use of the word adoption. All Christians are Children of God, but all non-Jews are as adopted Children. This is not an individual elected choosing, but a "whosoever will" choosing. Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

     Adoption is not for whosoever God has chosen, and the rest can go to hell! But it is whosoever shall call on Him! But this is what the Calvinistic doctrine implies when they say that some have been elected for adoption, while others are not. Although many Calvinists do not blatantly teach Double predestination, you cannot have predestination of the saved without those who are not saved also being predestined to hell. It is impossible! But this scripture says whosoever shall call on the Lord, not whosoever the Lord has called! Predestination as Calvinists teach is not Biblically correct, and does not stand up to what other scriptures teach about the character of God. This was already covered in the Five Points of Calvinism and through this book concerning Gods love for all men. If predestination is not true, then unconditional eternal security cannot be true either. Since our eternal destiny has been left up to our decision to follow Christ, falling into sin could change our present destiny. Salvation is a destiny that was predetermined for all who will receive salvation; but never specific individual without their free will to choose. Predestination has to do with the predetermined will of God. Is it not Gods predetermined will that all men make it to heaven? Absolutely! But all men will not make it, regardless His predetermined will, unless they receive Him. But because we have received Him, we are part of this predestination as His adopted children. But a rebellious child can change his own eternal destiny by choosing sin over God. It is no more Gods will for this to happen than it is His will for a sinner to go to hell; but nevertheless it happens. Calvinists like Stanley take the adoption metaphor to an extreme. He asks the question: "Could you ever really put your total trust in a heavenly Father who may un-adopt you? It really isn't a question of Gods loyalty in this relationship. He is so faithful; there is no reason Biblically for us not to trust Him completely! God does not adopt, then un-adopt, and then adopt again, as many times as a person falls away and comes back.  Adoption was used to explain the close relationship with God that we are intended to have: not the inability to change the relationship.

     We can certainly be close to God when we are seeking Him with all our heart, but not close when we are sinning. In this case we are never "un-adopted", but it is more proper to say that we run away from home and die. This is never the will of God; but this was His way of salvation; that all men might choose Him over sin and this world. It is Gods desire to be as close as possible with man, but He can only do this as we choose to draw near to Him. The Bible says that if we will draw close to God, He will draw close to us. James 4:8 "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." If we do not draw close to Him, He will not draw close to us! We must purify our hearts! The closeness of this relationship is conditional! Adoption has to do with our closeness to God, which can be changed by our decisions. Although un-adoption sounds ludicrous, as Stanley puts it, to no longer be close to Him, or to have fallen away does not. This is certainly possible!

     Stanley asks, "Why would God choose before the foundation of the world to adopt someone he knew He would eventually have to un-adopt?" Let me answer this with another question. Why did He create man knowing that he would be an offense to Himself, and knowing that He would be sending the majority to eternal damnation and punishment in hell? Why didn't He just create a race that could not fall? Or why doesn't God just go to the end of time, save all He knows will be saved, and damn the rest? These all use the same logic that Stanley uses. But by giving man a choice, he becomes responsible for his own damnation. By living our lives out we will know that we deserve damnation if we are not saved. We will know it is all of grace if we do go to heaven. The Bible use of the word adoption was meant as a metaphor, and never meant to be used in a reverse mode by saying one cannot be "un-adopted".

     One of the passages that he quotes from the book of Romans gives us some interesting insights, if you actually read it in its context. Romans 8:14 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." But what if we cease to follow the leading of the Spirit? Verses 12-13 answered that, "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die."

     Stanley continues, "If our salvation can be lost, our adoption into the family of God is not permanent. We can be unadopted, so to speak. Such a process, however, is never described or even alluded to in the New Testament". Stanley is mistaken in the fact that he talks as if the believer's adoption is a finished transaction, and that this is so in the mind of God. In Romans 8:23 we are told that our adoption is not finalized until we receive our glorification." "Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (NIV). This was covered already when speaking of possessing eternal salvation, only as we endure to the end.  Stanley fails to notice that the Scriptures say that our adoption is not final until the redemption of our bodies. Then, and only then is the permanency of our adoption stated. We are also told in Revelation 21:7 that only "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."  Notice that the status of final and complete son-ship and adoption is not finalized until the future. Also note the implications of this verse! The one who does not overcome does not receive all things, and are not adopted as sons! So not only is "un-adoption" not a Biblical concept and a misuse of a metaphoric example, but our "adoption" is not final until we get to heaven. Therefore Stanley, as most all Calvinists, misuse this example along with the many others already mentioned, and more.

Can sin separate Christians from salvation? 

     When a child of God leaves the place of protection by the Father, they are spiritually dead and lost, like the prodigal son. Stanley says, "The son was literally lost. That is, the father did not know where he was. When the son returned, he was found." So Stanley says that his being lost was not spiritual, but literal. But if his being lost were literal, his being dead would have to be literal as well: since they are used in the same sentence and same context. What Stanley explains is not possible. So if the son were dead and lost spiritually, then that would mean that he was not saved. When he returned to the father, he was alive and found spiritually, because he chose to return to the fathers house.

     The Scripture says of the prodigal son, "for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again: he was lost, and has been found"(Luke 15:11-32). Stanley comments, "by "dead" Jesus meant "separated". That was clearly a figure of speech since the son did not physically die in the parable". It was a figure of speech, but not as Stanley would like it to be used! The son did die, just as Adam and Eve certainly did die when they fell! It is true that Jesus referred to being "separated" when using the word dead, but not in the way Stanley infers. To be separated from the Father is spiritual death! It is a broken relationship that has been separated by the choice to sin.

     Although there is reference to separation in this parable, the Bible never uses dead as meaning "separated." Greek grammar never uses "separated" as an option for dead. The Greek word for dead is nekros, which means "dead"! (Literally or figuratively). Since it was not a literal death, we could say that the "figurative" use of this word refers to spiritual death. Or we could say that it is speaking of a "literal" spiritual death. Either way we have the same conclusion; the son was dead spiritually in relationship to the Father. There was no present relationship between the father and the son; therefore, without relationship, the son was dead spiritually, being cut off from salvation. There is no life, no hope for salvation, or any security in a dead person; except through the resurrection power of Christ within an individual. This is only possible for a backslider by their returning to the Father; otherwise they are dead according to the wages of their sin. These are the only options given in scripture when speaking of death. Any other explanation is read into the passage or an attempt to change the meaning in order to fit ones own doctrinal beliefs. The Prodigal son was spiritually dead, and separated from salvation. His return to the Father restored his life, both spiritually and eternally. Both life and death are eternal. The one we choose is the one we will abide in for all eternity. You cannot be dead (away from God) and go to heaven, nor can you be alive (in Christ) and go to hell. Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap!

     The fact that he refers to him as his "son" should not be carried too far. What else would he call him? He is one who had known his fathers ways, once had a relationship with him, and still has the love of his father for him to return. This shows the grace of God for backsliders, and His ongoing love for them; but it does not prove eternal salvation for them while in a state of rebellion. Because the fact that the son was not literally dead, he also was not literally lost. The Son knew exactly where he was geographically. And it was the son who was lost; it is not said that the father did not know where the son was. Even though in this story it would appear to be the case, God always knows where every person is and has not lost location of anyone. This could not have referred to being physically lost at all; but rather that the son was both spiritually lost and spiritually dead. Any man that is lost and dead spiritually is not saved, since the very essence of salvation is life. You are even alive or you are dead, but you cannot be both at the same time. Although a person may be physically alive while being spiritually dead: he cannot be physically alive while physically dead, nor can he be spiritually alive while spiritually dead. But yet this is what Calvinists are saying the state of the backslider is! They are saying that the son was spiritually dead to the father, but yet still saved, which means he was also spiritually alive at the same time. This is like saying we are dead in our sins and trespasses, and alive in Christ at the same time. This is not at all possible! To assume as Stanley, that the Father said the son was lost because he did not know where he was, is to say that God does not know where the backslider is when they fall away. This does not fit the character of God at all! He knows all, and He sees all! The son was without a doubt lost and dead spiritually! He is a picture of a backslider who was separated from God, and from salvation!

     Stanley goes on some more by saying, "It is clear that he left as a son; otherwise he would have received no inheritance. It is equally clear that he returned as a son. Without a word between them, the father ran to him, embraced him, and restored him to the visible signs of son ship". Stanley however, neglects to mention that this restoration would not have occurred if the son did not return in repentance to the father! "The prodigal's father didn't disown his rebellious son". This is true. However, the son did disown his father. The result is the same! And as covered earlier, being a son is not enough to ensure salvation; just as it was not enough to ensure the son the blessings of his fathers house while being away from him, living in sin. Our only hope of salvation and all that comes with it is to "abide in Christ".          Stanley states, "Acting like God's child didn't get you in. Not acting like one won't get you tossed out". Fancy clich,'s like this may sound impressive and convincing, but it is faulty logic. But we are not talking about "acting" any certain way, but "living" in a certain way that is either pleasing or displeasing to God. This statement assumes that you can get saved while you remain unrepentant. I could say, similar to Stanley's phrase; that "Repentance got you in, so un-repentance will get you tossed out". This statement could sound like just as fancy as a clich,; but the main difference is that my statement is scriptural, while Stanley's is not! Repentance and genuine faith were necessary to get us in, as well as repentance for failures. And a fruitful faith is required as the condition of continuous salvation. If a true faith can get you in, then a dead faith will get you tossed out. These fancy clich,s sound good, but they prove nothing without the support of scripture. But we do know that faith without works is dead!

    Stanley says that sin cannot keep a Christian out of heaven. But as I have already shown through numerous scriptures, this is not true according to scripture. Paul said that those who do sin will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. He did not say those who have not received Christ as savior, but those who "sin". In another quote by Stanley he says, "It takes more than simply sinning to get to hell.It is not lying, cheating, stealing, raping, murdering, or being unfaithful that sends people to hell. It is rejecting Christ, refusing to put their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sin." It is true that not receiving Christ is what sends people to hell. But what does receiving Christ do for us? It washes away our sin! Sin is not covered; it is washed away. If we allow sin to return, then we are no longer clean, and in need of forgiveness again. But because Christ made the way so simple, all we need to do is receive forgiveness through confession of those sins. If we do the things that Stanley says will not send a person to hell, we prove that we do not have such faith in Christ that saves. Such sins prove that we do not put our trust in Him for forgiveness, but we reject Him through our actions. No matter how much a person says they believe and trust God for salvation, if they do such things they prove to deceive themselves, and they do not have true repentance, even though they were saved at one time. Stanley is saying that as long as a person has accepted Christ at some point in their life, they can be a murderer, rapist, thief, or any other horrible thing and still go to heaven. This must be so; since according to Calvinists, once a person is saved, they are always saved! With this same subject in mind Stanley uses the example of a married couple by saying "Salvation.occurs at a moment in time when we by faith accept God's free gift. At that point in time God declares us "not guilty". Just as there are married couples that act as if they are not, so there are Christians who show no evidence of their Christianity as well. But that does not change their eternal status, any more than a lost man can change his destiny by acting saved". Any married couple that has this kind of relationship, does not have a relationship at all! This kind of marriage even will not last or will be void of every blessing that comes through marriage. The Christian who falls into sin unto death will be void of all that comes with salvation. And in this they will have also lost faith, by which we are saved. If we cannot be saved without faith, then how can we be saved if we lose faith and become just like other sinners in the world?

     There was a pastor who had an affair with a woman in his Church. After deciding that he loved her more than he loved his wife he came up with a plan to murder his wife and make it look like an accident. He did so, but was discovered as the murderer and went to prison for life. According to Stanley he is still saved, even if he has not repented of his sin. But according to the Bible this cannot be so! Paul said "No murderer"! He did not say "with the exception for those who are Christians". But "no murderer will inherit the kingdom of God". Yes there is still forgiveness of sins even for this man. But he must confess his sin, acknowledging it a pure evil. This man not only ended his marriage, but also his relationship with Christ, through sin and lustful desires. James 1:14-15 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

The Carnal Christian

     Charles Stanley (as well as all other Eternal Security proponents) has a different view of carnality in the Christian life. They attempt to use the scriptures that speak about carnality to show that Christians will continually sin and yet remain saved. But they once again misuse scriptures and avoid the strict warnings that are given throughout the Bible. The Bible speaks of such carnality in just a few scriptures.

1 Corinthians 3:3-5 "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?"

    The Apostle Paul addressed the Corinthians as being yet carnal, which means that they were still living according to the nature of the flesh. They were said by Paul to be guilty of envy, strife, and divisions. But what Calvinists miss here is that living according to the flesh does not have to refer to a sinful lifestyle, especially not after having once been delivered from such a way of life. These Christians were not returning to the old sinful lifestyles that they were delivered from. They were guilty of attitudes of their human nature, that although were very wrong, were not sins unto death. They were being carnal in their actions, but not totally sinful in their lifestyles. They had given in to the human nature, but not necessarily the old sinful nature. Those things that did occur in some of the Churches of those days that were out of the sinful nature were many times things that they were ignorant of, not yet learning that it was not proper for a man to sleep with his father's wife. There culture allowed for such sinfulness, in which after coming to Christ some had to change these things in their lives. But once they were told that it was sin they must stop immediately! Paul's response to those who practice such sins is "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 1 Corinthians 5:5

     Paul was not saying that he wanted to just turn sinning Christian over to the devil as if he did not care for their eternal souls. It was the hope that after they might come to realize that their sin was truly sin, they experience the loss of their salvation (since they are backslidden through rebellion), that they will humble themselves and return with a repentant heart, beginning to live holy as scripture commands. If sin is so serious that they were instructed to put out certain individuals from among them (including fornicators and all the sexually impure), then it should be clear that sin was a serious issue all together. This carnality of the Corinthians was not willful, sinful, rebellious sin, but human nature overpowering the new nature through Christ. Although this human nature will certainly lead to the sinful nature if not dealt with, it is not sin unto death.

     There are many things that newer Christians will do out of ignorance, not yet having learned to crucify the old nature and allow the new nature to reign in them through Christ. The Corinthians were confronted here for arguing among themselves about who they thought was the best and most worthy Apostle to be followed. Some claimed to be disciples of Paul, and others of Apollos. They were not mature enough to understand that both Paul and Apollos were equals, and that Christ is the one we all follow. This was not willful sin by the Corinthians, by ignorance (Being sin not unto death). Willful sin is a completely different category from what these carnal Christians were guilty of.

     According to Charles Stanley, "you can't tell a carnal believer from a lost man. That is, you can't tell the cold from the carnal because the truth is, they're both acting the same way. Now, one of them is in Christ and one of them isn't. One of them is lost and the other one is in Christ. One of them knows about God and knows him in the experience of salvation; the other doesn't know him at all".

     This is the common teaching through the Eternal Security doctrine taught by most who hold it as the gospel itself. But the Bible in no way supports such a lie! There is a big difference between the human nature that will make mistakes occasional and the person who claims to be in Christ and continually and willfully sins; while expecting to remain saved even without repentance. The writer of the book to the Hebrews made this clear in Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins". Calvinists will always attempt to explain away such clear scriptural proof that even a new believer could read and understand. But this scripture does not stand alone. Many have been given throughout this book as proof to this fact.

Romans 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."

1 John 2:29 "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."

1 John 3:3-10 "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

     With these teachings being taught to all Christians from the beginning of the Church, there should be no doubt as to what Paul was referring to when speaking to the Corinthians. If they were sinning willfully, habitually, and continually as condemned by the scriptures continually, the Paul would have confronted them as being not of God, bound in sin and not free in Christ. It is convenient for the Calvinists to take this scripture and teach Christians will still sin continuously; because the Corinthians did, Paul did in Romans 7, and so do we. It is used as a justification for sin, which the Bible does not give us at all! Instead, what the Bible does say is that all those who sin are of the devil. There is no exception given here! This is not a sin of ignorance, but willful sin, rebellion to God's commands to live a righteous and holy life. This rebellion of attempting to give a license to sin will not go without being judged. God will judge sin! And the wages of sin will still be death, whether or not a person claims to be a Christian or had a real experience at one time in the life.

     Paul made it clear that certain lifestyles were never to be accepting in our Churches. 1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." These lifestyles are what Stanley and other Calvinist teachers are telling people every day that they can live in and still be saved. According to Paul we should not even eat with them, even though they call themselves brothers or sisters in Christ. There is a clear distinction given by Paul between one who might be carnal as these Corinthians were and those who are sinful as these mentioned here were. Any person that is saved should never be disfellowshipped from the Church! The Bible instructs us to support the weak! But these are not weak Christians, but sinful backsliders, or those who may have never really gotten saved to begin with. Either way, these are certainly not of the faith, the bride of Christ, which is without blemish.

Sealed By God

Ephesians 4:30 "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." In referring to this verse, Stanley avoids the warning of grieving the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seal, and it is implied that there is danger in offending Him. If there were no danger of disrupting this seal, then why does God bring this matter of grieving the Holy Spirit into the picture? But yet the Calvinist thought here is that once God seals you, nothing can unseal you. If a person were to grieve the Spirit by returning to sin, then the Spirit would not remain in that person. And since the Spirit is that seal, there cannot possibly be salvation because they are no longer sealed.

     Stanley interjects his theology into the later half of the verse saying, "We are sealed right up through the "day of redemption." The passage says nothing of the sort. Paul writes that we were sealed "for" the day of redemption. We can say that it is "in view of" the day of redemption. The vast consensus of Greek scholarship confirms that the word "unto" which is used in the King James Version, cannot be translated as "until" the day of redemption. There is not a single instance where Scripture defines the sealing of the believer as unbreakable or permanent. With the absence of any Biblical proof to back the assertion that we cannot break this seal, we must admit that their argument is purely a product of their own imagination.

     Too much is made of this issue of sealing when there is no evidence to establish the irrevocability of its application to us. The problem stems from people choosing to read things into it that are not there. Upon close examination we see that this "huge" argument for Eternal Security is really not a valid argument. The fact is that nowhere does the Scripture define sealing in the manner that Charles Stanley and other proponents for this doctrine force upon it. To say that the intent of this seal is to bring security, safety, and preservation, cannot be denied. But if a person is to be Honest, they must come to the conclusion that there is no warrant to interject the ideas of irrevocable, permanent, and everlasting, where the Bible never does. 

For Those Who Stop Believing

     In this Chapter of Stanley's book he attempts to show that a Christian can "stop believing" in Christ and still have eternal life. He says, "The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand". His proof text for this so-called fact is Ephesians 2:4-9, which speaks of God's love for His people and salvation by grace through faith. His proof biblical proof that a person cannot lose their salvation is based upon his further comment to this scripture saying, "Faith is not the reason God saves men. Love is the reason". If salvation is solely a work of God, with no part given to man, then nothing can reverse what God has purposed to do in saving a man. Stanley and other Calvinists have once again twisted the word of God to teach something that it is not saying at all. We know that God's love for man will never change. But He still does not force salvation upon anyone; and will not force anyone who is saved to "abide in Him". Although it is very true that God's "love" is the reason for salvation, "faith" is the way of salvation: while "grace" is the provision for salvation (forgiveness of sins). Love alone never saved anyone! And love alone will not keep anyone saved either! Stanley tries to convince us that continued faith is not necessary for continued salvation, since it is God's love that saves. He has no problem teaching that faith is required for initial salvation, but refuses to accept its continued operation in the life of a believer for continued salvation. This is nothing more than a convenient doctrine, which does not have any scriptural support. Faith is and always has been the very substance in a person that can please God. Without it we cannot please God, and we cannot obtain grace. God's love will always remain true for everyone; but each person must choose to believe unto salvation. Love does not save; it is merely the motivating factor behind grace. But without faith no man can obtain grace, and therefore cannot be saved. So if faith is lost, then so is salvation.

      Stanley says that "To hold to a theology in which man can do something that throws him back into a state of spiritual deadness, thus denying God His predetermined purpose, is to embrace a system in which man is in the driver's seat and God is the passenger". To say that this is not possible is another great assumption. Since man has been given a free will, if he takes over as driver and decides to make God a passenger, then that is his free will choice. God has a predetermined purpose of saving the lost: all who will receive Him and follow Him. Many have done so and will continue to do so. But those who do not are not in any way denying Him His predetermined purpose! People are still being saved, set free from sin, and used by God to do great things. This is God's predetermined purpose. But because predestination is for the Church and all who will receive and abide in Christ, the individual must continue in faith in order to be saved in the end. It is God's will that "all" men might be saved. But each person must choose who will be the driver. If they choose to take over as driver, they will refuse salvation by grace, since faith is no longer present.

      "A Christian who has expressed faith in Christ and experienced forgiveness of sin will always believe that forgiveness is found through Christ. But even if he does not, the fact remains that he is forgiven". Stanley has not established such as "fact". But the Bible has certainly established that the opposite is true! As covered several times, forgiveness is available only through repentance. Repentance is spoken through faith that God will hear us and forgive of our sins. To teach that a man will be forgiven of sins while living in them is so against the teaching of scripture that a person only needs to read a few chapters in nearly any book of the New Testament to find that such is far from being true. To teach such is a doctrine of devils!

      Stanley reconfirms his doctrinal stance by saying, "For once 100 percent of a man's or woman's sins have been forgiven, the potential for being unforgiven has been done away with. The risk factor is zero. There are no more fires from which the believer needs to be saved". Such a bold statement itself has a very high risk factor! For if he is wrong, those who do fall into sin after coming to salvation will be eternally lost; having been deceived by this doctrine. Many have been convinced that they are eternally saved no matter what they may do. Their own deception will send them to hell, with their blood on the hands of teachers such as Charles Stanley. This is not only a high risk factor, but to simply be holy as the Bible demands is the only possibly way of having a risk factor of zero as Stanley claims.

      Stanley goes on to explain that a gift from God cannot be taken away. If God gives a gift He will never take back that which He has given. Arminians will not argue this point, even though they are accused of believing such. A gift is given to us, but what will we do with this gift from God? Stanley argues that it does not matter, because whatever we may do with it, it still belongs to "us". "The fact that I don't take advantage of a gift says nothing about who it belongs to. It still belongs to me. You can take a gift and bury it in the back yard, but it is still yours. Once you accept a gift, you are stuck with it, like it or not" I am not certain how to express the ridiculousness of this statement. But first let me say that it is easy to use analogies that best fit your own doctrine, while ignoring all others. Stanley's analogies always keep the gift at home or close to the one who has received the gift. But in the case of salvation being forfeited by an individual, such a person may throw it aside, on the side of the road, in the trash can, or trade it for something they like better. In this case it may be sin. The believer may give up possession of the gift that was given to them. This in no way implies that God has taken back the gift He gave. The believer chooses to receive the Gift in the first place. This gift is never automatically given, but only offered to whosoever will receive it. If we can choose to receive it, then we can certainly choose to throw it away by choosing the lusts of the world. There is absolutely no scriptural support for Stanley's claim that we are stuck with salvation "like it or not".

     Stanley further comments that we cannot give the gift back. He says, "In the case of salvation God has a strict no-return policy" Here he goes again with faulty logic that the Bible never uses or infers in any way. It would make no sense whatsoever to say that a Christian could "give back" the gift of salvation. Salvation is something that is accepted or rejected, but never returned. A person who falls away does so because of their rejection of faith, grace, forgiveness of sins, and newness of life through Christ. Salvation is something done that cannot be undone on Christ's part; but may be rejected, as it is by much of the world today.

Final Judgment of Christians

     1 Corinthians 3:11-15 "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire." 

     Stanley comments on this portion of scripture by saying, "This statement is one of the strongest supporting eternal security to be found in the entire Bible. This passage is so powerful because we are presented with a Christian who at no point in his entire life bore any eternal fruit. And yet his salvation is never jeopardized."

     If this is one of the strongest proofs of eternal security, then we must conclude that the majority of Biblical evidence on this subject is not as sure, which is what is implied in his statement. So, if it can be shown that this has nothing to do with Eternal Security, then this must be a subtle admission of a lack of Biblical evidence for such a doctrine.

     Calvinist's usually focus on verses 10-15 as Stanley does. When in actuality the context of the argument starts at verse 4 thru verse 9. " For one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one; and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God; ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building."

     Stanley would like us to think that this verse is saying that a believer can be fruitless at the judgment, or that fruitlessness is in conjunction with saving faith; but in this he is fatally mistaken. Fruit must accompany genuine faith; fruitlessness cannot. The fruit of faith is not what is directly addressed here in this passage. It is talking of rewards for labors. More specifically, it is the labors of pastors and those in leadership positions, as shown in verses 4-9. This passage was written primarily to Church leaders who may have drifted from a pure motive. But it is for certain that fruit of faith and fruit of labor are two different things. The fruit of faith is when a person will obtain love, holiness, purity, righteousness, and a hunger for more of God in their life. Fruit of labor is the affect of works in the purpose of winning souls, building the Church, making disciples, and reaching the world for Christ sake. It is these fruits of labor that are in discussion here, not the fruit of faith as Stanley assumes. Salvation is not at all the discussion in these scriptures; but it is rather rewards for the labors of those who are saved.

     Notice that they "labored and worked". They were not idol and fruitless. There is nothing in this passage that indicates that the "wood, hay, and stubble "were sins, but there is every indication that although these Church leaders built, they did not always build well, and were thus going to suffer loss. Jesus points out in Matthew 6:1-20 that if we do our good works to be seen of men, we will only get the praise of men, and not of God. These works are "good" but do not count before God because the motive was not for the glory of God, but of men. These Church leaders may have been competitive and were in danger of losing their rewards, but not their salvation. Even Jesus said to the disciples that he who wanted to be greatest among them would be the least. Matthew 23:11-12 "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Mark 9:35 "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." To apply 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 to sinful living and the average Christian as Stanley does is to take it out of its context. The context may allow us to apply this to Christians today that labor and build. But to use this passage as an escape for fruitless or sinful living is absolutely incorrect and fatal!

    Stanley confuses the lack of rewards with the lack of any fruit whatsoever. The context shows that Paul is talking about the rewards for those ministers who work and labor. This is over and above what is required of the believer for salvation.

Stanley has a different view on these scriptures that should shock any believer. This is also evident in the following scriptures.

Matthew 8:12"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 25:30"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

     Stanley's explanation of what "weeping and gnashing of teeth," and being "cast into the outer darkness" is that neither refer to hell. Since these scriptures obviously speak of Children and servants of God, this is his only way to avoid the fact that a person can backslide and go to hell. His approach can only be explained by an utter disrespect for the Word of God! He has twisted and contorted Scripture to the point that darkness means light, and light becomes darkness. This is not a case of simple misinterpretation, but a blatant and willful disregard for truth! Stanley tells us, "It certainly does not mean hell in the parable. How could a master throw a slave into hell? This phrase appears in a similar parable in chapter 22. In that parable an unwanted guest is bound and thrown out of a banquet hall into the "outer darkness" (see Matt. 22:13); it clearly refers to being thrown outside a building into the dark." Charles Stanley has stripped the spiritual relevance of all of our Lord's teaching by reducing what He said about eternal judgment to the physical world.  What Stanley explains as simply being outside of the doors of the banquet is the figurative use of the example that Jesus used here. Jesus was explaining that those who are not prepared or are unfaithful will not be a part of Gods kingdom. They will be outside of the kingdom! To be outside or apart from God's kingdom only leaves one other possibility, which is hell. Otherwise, this would be a type of purgatory, since they would be neither in hell nor inside heaven. They would not be just outside the gates of heaven! There is absolutely not scriptural evidence for such teaching. The Bible teaches nothing other than heaven and hell, just like it teaches nothing other than good and evil, right and wrong, holy and sinful, and believers and unbelievers. But this is a typical Calvinist approach to difficult passages of scripture that without a doubt teach that a Christian can fall away and lose their salvation.

     To be outside the kingdom is to be away from God and His eternal blessings for the righteous. And to be cast into darkness could be nothing other than judgment. Surely there will not be total darkness just outside the gates of heaven! Darkness is a judgment! Thick Darkness was one of the plagues of Egypt. Darkness usually carries the idea of affliction. It also describes the unregenerate nature. Ephesians 5:8, 11 "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Christians have nothing at all to do with darkness. To be cast into darkness would certainly not be a place that a believer would go. If darkness is used to describe a location, it describes the grave or hell. It is never used in the manner that Stanley twists it to mean! Weeping and gnashing of teeth cannot be describing a mere loss of rewards. It is clearly the agony outside of the blessing of God, along with the pains of eternal torments. I think if a person made it to heaven, even if they were outside the door of the kingdom, if they did not go to hell then they would have more to rejoice over than to weep and gnash their teeth. But since there can be no darkness in or even around heaven, this obviously means that those who are not part of heaven will go to hell, in which it makes much more sense that there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. To teach as Stanley does on this issue is pure fabrication of doctrine in an effort to disprove obvious scriptural truth. Such false teaching should be avoided at all costs!

     When the Bible speaks about darkness it refers to the works of darkness (works of the flesh), those who walk in darkness, the rulers of darkness (demonic forces), the chains of darkness (bondage of the sinful life), to be cast into darkness, or in reference to the beast in Revelation 16:10 who is "full of Darkness". Darkness is always in reference to sin, evil spirits, or eternal judgment! It certainly is not ever used to describe a loss of rewards!

 FALLING FROM GRACE

 Stanley is quoted saying:

"At that point Paul stated, "You have fallen from grace." To clarify his meaning, let's ask a simple question: To what? If they have fallen from grace, to what had they fallen? Well, what has he been contrasting grace with all along? Works and law."

"In this context the opposite of grace is not lost. That does not even make sense grammatically. The opposite of grace is the works of the law. To fall from grace, then, is to abandon the salvation by grace model for justification and to adopt the salvation by works model. The New International Version says, "You have fallen away from grace." One commentator observes, "The issue here is not the possible loss of salvation, for grace is referred to not as salvation itself but as a method of salvation....If the Galatians accepted circumcision as necessary for salvation, they would be leaving the grace system for the Mosaic system. Paul wasn't threatening them with the loss of salvation, just a loss of freedom."

     In the case of Galatians, it is true that the thing that they had fallen to is "works and law". But this does not indicate that that is all one may fall to. Whether one would fall to "works and law" or to "sin and rebellion", the point is made that one may "fall from grace". Stanley says that we can lose grace but not salvation. But what relationship does the Bible say grace has to salvation? Ephesians 2:8 says, " For by grace are ye saved through faith." Grace and salvation are linked together in the salvation experience according to God. You cannot be saved without grace! In this quote by Stanley it is said that "grace is referred to not as salvation itself but as a method of salvation". But grace is not "a" method of salvation; it is "the" only method of salvation! Without grace there could be no salvation whatsoever! So if a person has fallen from grace, they have fallen from salvation itself.

     Galatians 5:2 sheds more light on this issue. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." If we attempt to be justified by the law, we are in essence claiming that grace and the blood of Christ are insufficient to save. If these believers were to take the step of being circumcised, then by that very act, Paul says that Christ will profit them nothing. Grace is no longer in effect for them! They have rejected Christ and the Gospel as the only means of salvation, in exchange for works of the Law! In this same manner, if a person was to return to a life of sin or faithlessness, they are in essence saying that what Christ did for them is not sufficient enough to sustain them or to do what the Bible claims He will do for a true believer. Through sin we make the truth of God to appear as a lie! In this we can say, "Ye have fallen from grace!" Salvation is the very thing that we "profit" from being in Christ. Therefore, if Christ profits us nothing when falling from grace, how then can we say that we are still saved?

     Paul says it again in verse 4, "Christ has become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; Ye are fallen from grace. Not only is there no profit to them who return to the old ways of life, but Christ also becomes of no effect to them. If Christ, who is our only hope of salvation, becomes of no effect to us, then how do Calvinist's presume that a backslider could possibly still be saved? It is because of their so-called "unbreakable Chain" of Eternal Security; false doctrine that they simply refuse to let go of. This chain has broken long ago, but so many want to deny it, holding on to this doctrine of devils.

     It is clear from this passage that those that have fallen were regenerated Christians. For it is a grammatical and logical impossibility to fall from something or from some place if you were not once there! Once again, how is it possible for Christ to be of no effect while at the same time they are being saved by Christ as Stanley's book argues? It is plain to see what theological gymnastics Stanley has to go through to save this failed doctrine! But yet so many people are deceived with this teaching, believing that those who teach it are so knowledgeable, well educated, and so convincing of truth. People need to know the lies they are being taught! Calvinism and its teachers need to be exposed for their lies! Let God be true, and every man a liar! (Romans 3:4)

Once For All             

    Stanley teaches that the death of Christ was a once for all payment. This would demand that salvation is a "done deal" for every man! As discussed already, this would exclude faith and belief for salvation, since it comes down to the matter of whether or not your sins were "paid for" at Calvary. In fact, if your sins were paid for (and unbelief is a sin), then salvation would be nothing more than waking up to the fact that you have been saved all this time and you didn't even know it!

     This theory of penal satisfaction renders the idea of evangelism as an utterly useless exercise. Either you were saved from the beginning, or you were not. God either loves you or He hates you. But if He did "pay" for all, then all who are "paid for" must ultimately be saved; which makes all our efforts of evangelism unnecessary foolishness. Why evangelize a world that is already saved, or is predestined for either salvation or damnation? If it is already a "done deal", then there is nothing at all that we can change about a person's spiritual condition and eternal destiny. Although it is certainly true that Christ died "Once for all"; there is no indication in scripture that this was a payment for sins, or that it is unconditional.

      In the Old Testament we can see the shadow of truth about the atonement of Christ through the sacrificial offerings. There is without a doubt a connection here according to the author of Hebrews. As offerings were made on behalf of the people, they were considered ceremonially cleansed from the sins they had committed. The following year, another offering was made on behalf of the people for their sins for that year. The fact that these offerings were for the "people" did not guarantee that they were forgiven. They must have had faith in order to be saved. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. There was no application of sacrifice on behalf of those who had no faith. Sacrifice never carries the idea of forgiveness of sins not yet committed. The Scriptures say that only the sins we have already committed were covered in the application of the atonement and not our future sins. (Rom. 3:25, 1 Peter 1:9.) Present sins must be acknowledged and repented of. To assume future sins are forgiven without repentance is contrary to scripture. And to assume that one can be saved without forgiveness is heresy.

     The Bible teaches us that Christ made a sacrifice of Himself, once for all. This means that no more sacrifices are required. There is no longer any need for continuous yearly sacrifice. It never meant that future sins were forgiven automatically, but that forgiveness is available by going directly to God, through Christ, for the forgiveness of sins. This coincides with the idea that the atonement is a provision, and not a payment. It must be acquired by faith. If faith ceases, then the provision is of no effect. For without faith it is impossible to please Him. (Heb. 11:6.) The fact that a one-time sacrifice has been offered does not at all indicate that future sins are forgiven without repentance. This only indicates that no more sacrifice for sins is necessary. It never meant that repentance is not necessary in order to receive forgiveness. We have a permanent Sacrifice for our sins, and so do all who follow after Christ. But a permanent sacrifice does not indicate permanent forgiveness. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices did not cover sins not yet committed, the Sacrifice of Christ does not provide automatic forgiveness apart from repentance and confession of sin. The idea of a pre-forgiveness is foreign to Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible. 1 John 1:9 tells us that, it is only if we confess our sins that He will forgive and cleanse us from our sins. The Scripture's never contradict this!

     The idea of a "once for all" sacrifice does not mean that if a believer sins, that Christ has to die on the cross again and again. The provision has been made, and the believer has provision for forgiveness that is available through the conditions of genuine faith, which produces repentance.

Stanley brings out that, "Two verses later he uses this same phrase again:"

"For by one offering He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified". Hebrews 10:14

"From this passage, two things are unmistakably clear. First, Christians were sanctified or made holy through the death of Christ - a process that never needs to be repeated. Second, those who were sanctified have been perfected, or had their guilt removed for all time. That means forever!"

     To assume that Christians are sanctified without being willing to forsake sin is total absurdity! To be "perfected forever" does not indicate a supernatural act of perfecting a person, but rather that we have supernatural ability from God to live holy lives apart from sin. We are perfected forever through faith in Christ. To say as Stanley, that "this never needs to be repeated", is to assign Christ's death to our holiness, without any need of repentance. Christians who sin are not holy, no matter how much they want to claim that Christ has made them holy. If they do not live holy, then they are not holy! Otherwise the Bible unnecessarily demands us to "be" holy as He is holy. Why do we need to be holy if we are cover by His holiness? What this belief is saying is that even though we have all the fruit of a sinner that is heading to hell, we are actually covered in the righteousness of Christ, as long as we truly got saved at some point in our lives. This holiness just can't be seen by anyone but God. I hope you can see how ridiculous this is! This is just like the Christian Science teaching that bad things don't really happen to us. All we need to do is refuse to accept such reality. If your leg is broken just keep confessing that it is not really broken. This is an actual teaching that is no different than this theory of God's holiness and righteousness upon us, without any evidence of any holiness in our lives. Although it is true that the word sanctify means to "make holy"; this is not to indicate that man has no part in this process. If a person will receive Christ as savior, repenting of their sins; then in receiving His Holy Spirit they will have the ability to overcome sin and "be" holy. Through His indwelling Spirit we are "being made holy" (sanctified). But if a person would fall into rebellious sin, there is no indication of holiness in their life, because they are not holy! This is not a failure of God's grace or His holiness, but rather of the faith of such a person.

     Notice that the verse in question never says as Stanley interjects; that "our guilt is removed for all time". This is theological interjection and pure hogwash! Since a person has been saved at some time in their life, in taking Stanley's advice they could just assume that guilt is not of God and shun what is actually conviction by the Holy Spirit to repent of sin. Should I assume that if I sin tomorrow that I do not need to feel guilty, since all guilt is taken away? To be "perfected" does not mean to "have guilt removed for all time" as Stanley says. Perfected simply means "to complete". Those who are saved are "complete forever"; not meaning that it cannot be lost, but that as we are being sanctified through Christ, nothing can change our destiny or the work of Christ done in our behalf. But this has to do with the present spiritual condition of a person, considering that they do not fall into sin. From Hebrews 10:12 on to the end of the chapter the writer says that although this is a work of Christ done in order to sanctify a people unto Himself; it is also evident that instruction is given along with warnings to continue in Christ, live a life of repentance, and to be holy, living apart from sin.

     The literal translation of this scripture could be gathered by the definition of the words "perfection" and "ever". "Perfection" meaning "to complete", and "ever" meaning "carried through". Then also the word sanctified, which means "to make holy", is used in a present tense. With these definitions this scripture would read, "For by one offering He hath carried through to completion them that are being made holy". This does not indicate an unchangeable state of being; but a state in which Christ has accomplished through His death and resurrection, such as when He said on the cross, "it is finished". This was accomplished before salvation by grace was offered. His work is complete, and we are also "complete in Him" through His accomplishments, but we still have to choose to be "in Him". The only way a person can be carried through to completion is by choosing to be made holy. If we walk away from holiness, then we could not continue to be made holy; therefore we can no longer be walking in the completion that He has provided for us.

Stanley goes on by saying, "To say that Christians can lose salvation is to say that the blood of Christ was inadequate to perfect for all time those whom God has sanctified...."Was the blood of Christ adequate?" During my own struggles with eternal security, this question used to haunt me. I knew then as I do now that to accept His blood as the adequate payment for my sin settled the question once and for all."

     It is not a question of whether the blood of Christ is adequate; it is whether He "paid for" sin as Stanley dogmatically states! To say that the application of the blood of Christ is conditioned upon repentance and a continuous belief is undeniably Biblical, but yet unaccepted by Stanley and most all Calvinists. He attempts to throw the reader into a false dilemma by implying that if we deny Eternal Security, we cannot possibly believe that what Christ accomplished upon the cross was complete. To say that salvation is a conditional provision is not a denial of the adequacy of the blood of Christ. His blood is certainly sufficient: but as mentioned many times, it is conditioned upon the willingness of a person to repent of their sin. To refuse repentance is to refuse the provision made by the shedding of His blood! This is the danger of the payment theory, which Stanley not only teaches, but also was deceived by in his early years; that if sins are paid for, then surely the blood of Christ is adequate enough to cleanse all sin; past, present, and future. For this reason it is always preferable to understand the sacrifice of Christ as a provision for forgiveness, and not