Eternal Security Examined Historically
Did the Apostles Teach Eternal Security to the Early Church?By Nick Liguori
Previous Section: 3rd and 4th Century Fathers | More About Eternal Security | False Doctrine
1st and 2nd Century Fathers
(Or Return to 3rd and 4th century writings)The Calvinist is down, but not out. We increase the stakes with the following earlier writings. Indeed, these earlier writings are more likely to support eternal security than the previous ones -- if our assumption is true that the apostles taught eternal security.
Clement of Alexandria, Christian teacher and presbyter of Alexandria, c. 195After his conversion, he traveled throughout the Roman Empire, learning from towering men of the faith. Clement also learned in the catechetical school of Alexandria under such early men as Pantaenus. We should expect he held to eternal security.
Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father, who only of all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. "For by the state in which I find you will I judge," also, is what in each case the end of all cries aloud. So that even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him, since at the end of the drama he has given up his part; (2:602)Theophilus of Antioch, bishop of Antioch, c. 180
To digress, this early Christian writes that "the remains of the ark can be seen to this day in the Arabian mountains." (2:117) Here we find striking evidence for Noah's Ark. How about Calvinism?
For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption. (2:105)This may sound like man can save himself, but this is not the whole story. I doubt Theophilus is saying that obedience earns salvation, but rather that obedience is a condition of the gift of salvation (see my Eternal Security Re-examined). After all, he goes on to say that "faith is the leading principle in all matters." (2:91) But it is apparent that Theophilus was no Calvinist. Like all the early Christians, Theophilus was a believer in free will and conditional security -- a prehistoric John Wesley.
and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God. (2:108)
Athenagoras, Christian apologist, c. 177
We have in mind the Plea for the Christians written by this exceedingly brilliant man. Writing to the emperor on behalf of Christians being slandered, Athenagoras repudiates those false accusations and declares that Christians live godly lives. We read:
But we are so far from practicing promiscuous intercourse, that it is not lawful among us to indulge even a lustful look. "For," saith He, "he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart." Those, then, who are forbidden to look at anything more than that for which God formed the eyes, ... how can any one doubt that such persons practice self-control? ... On behalf of those, then, to whom we apply the names of brothers and sisters, and other designations of relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should remain undefiled and uncorrupted; for the Logos again says to us, "If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, he sins;" adding, "Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life." (2:146)In a footnote, the editor seems confounded at this agraphon (extra-biblical saying or oral tradition) of Jesus denying eternal security. The Calvinist should be alarmed, as Athenagoras claims that our Lord Jesus taught conditional security. Whether or not Jesus' words were preserved accurately, we will merely observe that Athenagoras and the Church of his day rejected eternal security.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France, c. 175
Irenaeus is widely valued as a vital link to the earliest days of the Church since he was taught by Polycarp, who was also taught by the Apostle John. This renders Irenaeus an expert on the question of eternal security. He also testifies that the Church had great unanimity in doctrine, even saying that he could go to an apostolic Church if a difficult question should arise.
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (1:417)In theory, Irenaeus is extremely likely to support eternal security -- two links removed from John, he writes about unanimously held, pure, apostolic beliefs in the Church, and he has visited apostolic Churches personally. The Calvinist is very excited to see what Irenaeus believes about eternal security. But after referring to a certain presbyter older than himself, Irenaeus writes:
For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. (1:331)
We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, "For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, (1:499)This statement of Irenaeus, combined with what we showed previously, is tantamount to saying that conditional security has always been the view held by the Churches, and therefore the same doctrine handed down by the apostles. The same can be seen in this single quotation, which we have abbreviated below. He directly states that the Church has always taught conditional security:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, ... and in one Christ Jesus, ... and in the Holy Spirit ...[and He will] confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, (1:330-331)
More quotations could be produced to show Irenaeus' belief in a conditional security (see also 1:500, 522, 525), but the previous two are sufficient. Again, this is not merely Irenaeus' personal view. Rather, it is the universal, pure, apostolic doctrine of the Church, and of his mentor Polycarp, and of Polycarp's mentor the Apostle John. In fact, the testimony of Irenaeus alone should be sufficient to cause our Calvinist friends to abandon their doctrine. Yet we will continue to search for eternal security among even earlier fossils.
Justin Martyr, Christian apologist, c. 160Many Christians have heard the name of Justin Martyr. He was a Greek philosopher who converted to Christianity. His writings are very spiritually edifying and attest to this man's brilliance. Yet our Calvinist friends will be hurt and surprised to learn that Justin rejected their doctrine. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin is asked whether certain people will enter the kingdom of God:
And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [Jewish laws], will he be saved?"Justin flatly rejects eternal security. But he continues in this same passage:
I said, "In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men, ... And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved. (1:218)
For the goodness and the loving-kindness of God, and His boundless riches, hold righteous and sinless the man who, as Ezekiel tells, repents of sins; and reckons sinful, unrighteous, and impious the man who fails away from piety and righteousness to unrighteousness and ungodliness. (1:218-219)
We see that Justin refutes eternal security twice in the same passage. There are two passages in chapters 18 and 33 of Ezekiel which clearly warn that salvation can be lost. The writer has shown these verses to Calvinists, but they sometimes counter that those verses do not apply to Christians under the New Covenant. We have refuted this view elsewhere, but let us notice that Justin disagrees with the Calvinist. He believes that these verses do apply to Christians. Additionally, Justin rejects predestination at length on page 177. Throughout his writings, it becomes obvious that Justin was a strong believer in free will and conditional security.
Hermas, early to mid 100sThe Shepherd of Hermas was written possibly before 100 AD, but certainly before 150 AD. The identity of this Hermas is also unknown, but Origen believes this was Paul's co-worker from Romans 16:14. One thing is certain, this writing was widely circulated in the early Church before 200 AD. Because of its very early date, we should expect to find support for the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security. But actually, the writer has found over two dozen passages which flatly reject eternal security. Consider these:
For the Lord has shown, by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed he will not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous have limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints. (2:11)Didache, early 100s
"Listen," he said: "they whose branches were found withered and moth-eaten are the apostates and traitors of the Church, who have blasphemed the Lord in their sins, and have, moreover, been ashamed of the name of the Lord by which they were called." (2:41)
The authorship and the date of this work are uncertain, but several second century Christians seem to quote it, and scholars are coming to a new consensus of 100 AD.[*] Some even believe that it could be as ancient as 50 AD. Suffice it to say this is a very early writing, and therefore we should expect to read about eternal security. But instead we read the following:
for the whole time of your faith will profit you nothing, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; (7:289)Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, c. 135
Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Jerome testify that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Polycarp lived to a very old age before being captured and killed by the Romans in 155 AD. An ancient writing gives an inspiring account of the martyrdom of this faithful servant of our Lord.[*] The authenticity of Polycarp's lone surviving work, his Epistle to the Philippians, is unquestionable.[*]
Finally, we have arrived at a disciple of an apostle! The Calvinist is certain that he will finally receive his reward -- an early reference to eternal security. In fact, if the Apostle John taught eternal security and he found Polycarp to be a studious disciple, sound in doctrine, and worthy of being promoted bishop of Smyrna, it is inevitable that we should find support for eternal security from Polycarp. But instead we find:
He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, (1:33)Polycarp definitely believes in a conditional security. Just count the number of "ifs" he uses in these two passages alone. In fact, a pervading theme in his epistle is fear and obedience. The second quotation above is significant because Polycarp refers to 1 Cor. 6:9-11, a passage which militates against eternal security. The writer has presented 1 Cor. 6:9-11 to a church elder who believes in eternal security. He took his final stand basically saying, 'that verse is addressing unbelievers. Paul's just saying that we should live consistent with our new identity, but even if we don't, we will still be saved anyway, just fewer rewards.' We've addressed this elsewhere (see my Eternal Security Re-examined), but the point to be made here is that Polycarp took it even further than Paul. He writes that those who do things inconsistent will not inherit the kingdom of God! That elder was clutching for dear life on the notion that 'the inconsistent Christian will still be saved.' But Polycarp goes even further than Paul, "nor those inconsistent," thus severing the last thread of the Calvinist argument. We are not saying that Polycarp is scripture, but he knew a guy who was scripture -- John! This is indirect proof that the Apostle John did not teach eternal security.
Knowing, then, that "God is not mocked," we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory ... If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, "we shall also reign together with Him," provided only we believe. In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit;" and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God," nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, (1:34-35)
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, c. 105
We will be drawing material only from the authentic Ignatian epistles. But even in these authentic ones, copying errors have resulted in shorter and longer versions of his letters. Therefore, we will only be presenting material common to both versions. Like Polycarp, Ignatius was also a disciple of the Apostle John and a faithful martyr. However, Ignatius was probably at least 20 years older than Polycarp and likely knew other apostles as well. The Calvinist who was quite disappointed with Polycarp now rises anew with optimism, confident that this Ignatius taught eternal security. It seems that he is even more likely than Polycarp to teach the doctrine of eternal security.
The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, that it tend not to our condemnation. For let us either stand in awe of the wrath to come, or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed -- one of two things. Only [in one way or another] let us be found in Christ Jesus unto the true life. Apart from Him, let nothing attract you, for whom I bear about these bonds, these spiritual jewels, by which may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, (1:54)The third quotation is especially interesting, as Ignatius says 'believers will not be saved if....' Also, who is Ignatius' audience in these epistles, to whom he gives such stern warnings? They are truly saved believers. After praising the Ephesians and the Philadelphians, Ignatius turns around and tells them they could yet lose their salvation in the first and fourth quotes above. We have yet another fossil of a prehistoric John Wesley!
but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God. (1:59)
The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us. (1:61)
Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (1:80)
The work is not of promise, unless a man be found in the power of faith, even to the end. (1:102)
Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome, c. 96
We have before us a very early work written by a disciple of Paul and likely Peter. The external and internal evidence for this epistle is very strong, and we cannot doubt that Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians is genuine. Origen believed that this was the same Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4:3. The Calvinist looks at Clement's resume and discerns that he is the most likely of any known early Father to teach eternal security. He reasons, "Paul's epistles are my favorite, especially Romans and Galatians. Paul is without a doubt the Doctor of Grace. Since Clement learned from Paul, he must believe in eternal security too." But the Calvinist is instead greeted by sobering statements like these:
Since all things are seen and heard by God, let us fear Him and forsake those wicked works that proceed from evil desires. By doing that, through His mercy, we may be protected from the judgments to come. (1:12)"Only a legalist would say that keeping the commands is required for forgiveness of sins!" The Calvinist is furious that Clement has betrayed Paul. "Foolish Clement! After beginning with Paul, are you now trying to earn your salvation with John Wesley? That wolf in sheep's clothing!" Clement of Rome definitely taught a conditional security, and his concept of forgiveness of sins reveals he did not hold to the satisfaction theory of Calvinism. We also have a passage on page 19 of volume 1 in which Clement denies the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. He believes that Pharaoh played a role in hardening his own heart, thereby preserving free will. There is also a Second Epistle of Clement, of disputed authenticity, which clearly denies eternal security. Whether it was written by Clement is debated, but it certainly is an early writing which reflects orthodox patristic views:
Take heed, beloved, lest His many benefits lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. (1:12)
Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, (1:14)
it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones." Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. (1:17-18)
Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. (1:18)
Let us, then, repent with our whole heart, that no one of us may perish amiss. For if we have commands and engage in withdrawing from idols and instructing others, how much more ought a soul already knowing God not to perish. Rendering, therefore, mutual help, let us raise the weak also in that which is good, that all of us may be saved and convert one another and admonish. And not only now let us seem to believe and give heed, when we are admonished by the elders; but also when we take our departure home, let us remember the commandments of the Lord, and not be allured back by worldly lusts, but let us often and often draw near and try to make progress in the Lord's commands, that we all having the same mind may be gathered together for life. (9:255)Barnabas, apostle, 70-100 AD
The external evidence from early Christians is that the author of this anonymous work was Barnabas, but most scholars deny that Barnabas wrote this epistle. But they too admit that the internal evidence argues strongly for an early date -- at least before 132 AD. In chapter 16, Barnabas writes about the recently destroyed temple, that "they shall build it up again." This optimism about it being rebuilt requires a date before the Bar Kochba revolt of 132 AD. And in chapter 4, the author writes:
And the prophet also speaks thus: "Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth, and a little king shall rise up after them, who shall subdue under one three of the kings." In like manner Daniel says concerning the same, "And I beheld the fourth beast, wicked and powerful, and more savage than all the beasts of the earth, and how from it sprang up ten horns, and out of them a little budding horn, and how it subdued under one three of the great horns." Ye ought therefore to understand. (1:138)J.B. Lightfoot writes, "No other epoch in the history of the Caesars presents this coincidence of the three elements in the image -- the ten kings, the three kings, and the Antichrist -- so appropriately."[*] Therefore, many scholars have argued for a date before 100 AD. This writing is very likely the earliest non-canonical Christian writing we possess. We should expect to find, if our assumption is true, the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security herein. But this Barnabas appears to have been a prehistoric John Wesley:
Let us then utterly flee from all the works of iniquity, lest these should take hold of us; and let us hate the error of the present time, that we may set our love on the world to come: let us not give loose reins to our soul, that it should have power to run with sinners and the wicked, lest we become like them. ... I have taken care not to fail to write to you from what I myself possess, with a view to your purification. We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becometh the sons of God. ... As much as in us lies, let us meditate upon the fear of God, and let us keep His commandments, that we may rejoice in His ordinances. The Lord will judge the world without respect of persons. Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. And all the more attend to this, my brethren, when ye reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus [at length] abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found [fulfilling that saying], as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen." (1:139)
The Gnostics
But this doctrine may have a source that even predates Augustine. For this reason, a discussion of the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security would not be complete without at least mentioning the Gnostics. It was noted briefly with Origen that the Gnostics taught some doctrines bearing resemblance to those of Calvinists today. Here we see that fact from one of their own writings:Therefore, we are elected to salvation and redemption since we are predestined from the beginning not to fall into the foolishness of those who are without knowledge, but we shall enter into the wisdom of those who have known the Truth. Indeed, the Truth which is kept cannot be abandoned, nor has it been.[*]
Many, if not most of the Gnostics held to a doctrinal system similar in many ways to Calvinism. We find striking parallels with the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity, predestination, and eternal security. Yet they were a heretical sect that none would dare even consider Christian. The Mormons are orthodox compared to the Gnostics! Because so few of the Gnostic writings survived history, we get much of our information on this heretical sect from early Christians like Irenaeus. A few writings are provided in which the reader may note some similarity between what the Gnostics were saying and what today's evangelical church is saying.
And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, (Irenaeus, 1:324)Irenaeus goes on to defend free will at length, refuting the Gnostics' misinterpretation of Romans 9 and offering an intelligent and contextually sound alternative. Yet modern Calvinists agree with the Gnostics on this passage and disagree with the early Church! Irenaeus called today's view heresy.
They also maintain that they have attained to a height above all power, and that therefore they are free in every respect to act as they please, having no one to fear in anything. For they affirm, that because of the "Redemption" it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge. (Irenaeus, 1:335)
"But," say they, "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants." Those, then, who allege such difficulties ..." (Irenaeus, 1:502)
I have quoted these remarks to prove in error those Basilidians who do not live purely, supposing either that they have the power even to commit sin because of their perfection, or indeed that they will be saved by nature even if they sin in this life because they possess an innate election. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. III, Ch. 1, Sec. 3)Today's eternal security advocates essentially teach the same as this second century Gnostic group.
[The Valentinians claim] that since they are already naturalized in the brotherly bond of the spiritual state, they will obtain a certain salvation, one which is on all accounts their due. For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure. (Tertullian, 3:517)Tertullian tells us that the Gnostics misunderstood Romans 9. He goes on to offer a scriptural explanation that supports free will.
God hardens the heart of Pharaoh. He deserved, however, to be influenced to his destruction, who had already denied God, already in his pride so often rejected His ambassadors, accumulated heavy burdens on His people, and (to sum up all) as an Egyptian, had long been guilty before God of Gentile idolatry, worshipping the ibis and the crocodile in preference to the living God. Even His own people did God visit in their ingratitude. (Tertullian, 3:308)
But even they congratulate themselves on account of this indiscriminate intercourse ... for they would have us believe that they are not overcome by the supposed vice, for that they have been redeemed. "And Jesus, by having redeemed Helen in this way," Simon says, "has afforded salvation to men through his own peculiar intelligence... and that they do whatsoever they please, as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by grace. For that there is no reason for punishment, even though one shall act wickedly; (Hippolytus, 5:80)The Gnostics actually said that they were free to sin, for they were saved by grace. This misunderstanding of biblical grace still prevails today among protestant-evangelical churches.
[On Marcion] Hoodwinking multitudes, he led on (into enormities) many (dupes) of this description who had become his disciples, by teaching them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin, but beyond the reach of danger, from the fact of their belonging to the perfect power, (Hippolytus, 5:92)
We have noted: (1) that Augustine taught something similar to Calvinism and eternal security; and (2) that the Gnostics taught something similar to Calvinism and eternal security. Actually, this is no coincidence, but (1) is the result of (2). It is unknown to many that Augustine spent nine years as a Gnostic before becoming a Christian. He belonged to the Manichean sect, an eastern group that was essentially Gnostic. Augustine's theology seems to have been influenced by his Gnostic background. For example, the Gnostics taught forms of total depravity and predestination. To be fair, Augustine did speak against Manichean heresy after his conversion. In any case, Augustine's theology became the basis for Martin Luther's and John Calvin's. Anyone who reads the Institutes will be amazed at how often Calvin quotes St. Augustine. Some have connected the dots to observe that the Gnostic theology of the Manicheans has made its way to today's evangelical church! Dear reader, this ought not be!
Conclusion
It may be objected that we have been selective in our presentation of early Christian writings. But as we've asserted before, let the Calvinist produce any early writing that endorses his doctrine. None exists. Although not exhaustive, this exhibit should be many fold sufficient to produce a clear verdict. The early Church unanimously held to a conditional security. We saw that this was the ancient belief of the oldest churches and the earliest disciples. And having shown that the early Church preserved the original doctrines of the apostles, how can we say that the apostles taught eternal security? The testimony presented above is proof positive the apostles never taught eternal security.
With unconditional assurance, we can declare that the apostles did not teach eternal security. Eternal security is shown to be a historical fluke. The early Christians, those closest to the apostles, unanimously rejected it. And the very fact that the Gnostics taught it should cause sirens to be going off in your head. Even Augustine, who first introduced a similar doctrine, came from a Gnostic background himself. We hope that we've been able to convince you of both the error and the danger of this doctrine.
We will not underestimate our enemy sin. As Richard Taylor writes, "Sin is always killing, damning, separating."[*] As a remedy, we believe God gives us the power, through His grace and Spirit to overcome sin completely in this life -- real, practical power to live godly lives. But the Calvinist disagrees. The writer has spoken to a Calvinist who believes that God keeps us by making us durable to sin. In other words, God changed the apple so that we can eat it without dying -- the same apple that He once said would kill us, we may now eat without dying. The lying words of Satan then become true, "you will not surely die." You may defile yourself in sin, but you will not surely die. You may swallow the deadliest poison of iniquity, but you will not surely die. As one eternal security advocate said, you may kill your wife and mother and commit suicide, but you will not surely die spiritually. There's nothing you can do to remove yourself from the Book of Life, but if you want to get there sooner, you can go on sinning willfully! Many Calvinists today are teaching that if you sin after salvation, God will kill you and take you to heaven earlier! Such vile doctrine ought to be buried deep in the theological landfill of demonic doctrines and carnal blasphemies. It certainly has no place in the Church of God!
Previous Section: 3rd and 4th Century Fathers | More About Eternal Security | False Doctrine