Why the Confusion Over Eternal Security

One of the most discussed threads on forums today is OSAS. I will give you three reasons why I believe many people today just can't seem to agree with the eternal security of the believer.

1. The person who disagrees with eternal security is quite possibly lost. Yes, I said, lost. This person may never have been regenerated and is still in his or hers natural state.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Lost people may quote scripture, pray, go to church, read a King James Bible, actively participate in forums, cut and paste all day long, and yet be lost as a goose in a snow storm. The lost man is blinded to spiritual truths ? he just can't see Calvary.

2 Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Unless there has been a true work of regeneration then the lost man will approach the Bible with a darkened mind and will not be able to make sense of doctrinal truths. So, to deal with a lost man regarding the Sabbaths, what to eat, the rapture, the gifts, divorce and remarriage, etc. is not redeeming the time. What the man needs is prayer along with the plain presentation of the gospel found in I Cor. 15:1-5 along with Romans and Ephesians.

2. The person who disagrees with eternal security may just not be grounded in sound doctrine and because of this has a very unclear and confused view of what took place at Calvary. Many fail to see the depravity of man vs. the holiness of God. Many think that the main reason God saved them was so they could go to heaven. The average saint today cannot sit down and write out a clear presentation of the gospel and what God did at Calvary on the sinner's behalf. Again, these people could be saved but because of not being grounded plus the heretical teaching of ?salvation stealers? these people turn their spiritual eyes from Christ to a man-centered salvation.

Now why are they so confused? Why are these people not grounded? Putting aside the ?salvation stealers? there is a third reason as to why people are confused on eternal security.

3. The person who disagrees with eternal security goes to the wrong Bible books to day to get his doctrine regarding salvation. The doctrine of Christ and justification is found in Romans. The doctrine of the believer's position in the body of Christ and the results of what God did for the believer is mainly found in Ephesians and Colossians. When you who seek to disprove eternal security the one place you don't seem to go to are Paul's epistles (except for the famous Gal. 5:4; Eph. 5:5; I Cor. 6:7-10). Just look at this forum and others and see where you spend all your time in seeking to prove a man can lose his salvation:

a. The Old Testament ? before Christ even died when people were under the law and no one was justified in the sense that saints are now (Romans 3-5).

b. The Gospels ? same above ? plus you are dealing with the kingdom being offered to Israel and again, Christ had not died yet, did not come to the Gentiles, and there was no body of Christ or a work of regeneration like that of Tit. 3:5. The favorite stomping ground is Matt. 24 and 25, which is dealing with the future tribulation and has nothing to do with the body of Christ today.

c. Hebrews ? doctrinally now dealing with tribulation truths and Jews who were not yet even saved.

d. James ? written to the twelve tribes of Israel scattered abroad (James 1:1) which puts this doctrinally again right in the tribulation.

e. Revelation ? a tribulation book that is an extension of the Old Testament with more revelation and details of the Old Testament and has nothing to do with the body of Christ.

But when it comes to seeking to prove one can lose his salvation you won't go to Paul because it is not there ? instead you will find just the opposite ? that the saint is secure in Jesus Christ. Just do a search and see where you get your verses from to talk somebody out of their salvation - it ?ain't? Paul!