Eternal Security - The Peace of Mind You're Missing!

I have not always believed in eternal security.  I was raised in the Pentecostal church, a denomination that did not believe in eternal security and frequently preached against it.  As a child, I was not threatened by such preaching.  I always loved church.  I would arrive early to claim my second-row aisle seat -- ..in front of the pastor.

There were two reasons I chose to attend the Pentecostal church.  First, my grandfather was a Pentecostal pastor.  Second, it was my mother's preference.  I can remember as a young boy getting up on Sunday morning, eating breakfast, and walking to church.  Even when my mother was unable to go, I would be there.

June was typically revival month back in those days.  In June of 1944 our evangelist for the week was a Mrs. Wilson.  Women evangelists were not uncommon in the Pentecostal church.  As was my habit, I was there Sunday morning, front and center, with every intention of attending each night that week.  After the choir finished their song, Mrs. Wilson walked to the pulpit and preached a stirring salvation message.  I don't remember anything in particular that she said; I just remember feeling a strong desire to respond.  When the invitation began, I rose from my seat and went foward.  Before I reached the altar, I began weeping.  I knelt down and started asking Jesus to save me.  Several members of my Sunday School class gathered around and began praying for me as well.

When the altar call ended, the pastor of the church asked me to step up to the pulpit and share with the congregation what Christ had done for me.  Still crying, I stood behind the pulpit and said, "I don't know all that Jesus has done for me but I know He saved me."

The pastor put his hand on my shoulder, looked at me square in the eye, and said, "Charles, grow up and be a good boy.  And when you die, you will go to heaven."  [This pastor was telling Charles that his salvation must be maintained by being a good boy.  The implication is that if you are not good you can lose your salvation which is what the Pentecostal church teaches and believes.]

Easier Said than Done

It didn't take me long to realize that being good wasn't easy.  To compound the problem, just about everything a twelve-year-old boy considered fun was a sin according to the Pentecostal church.  I was continually confessing my sins, begging for forgiveness, and hoping I wouldn't die before I had time to repent!  

During that time I began sensing God's call in my life.  That meant one of two things in those days, becoming a preacher or a missionary.  The awareness of God's call in my life only darkened the cloud of guilt under which I lived.  How could I ever help anybody else when I am constantly waivering?  I would wonder.  What if I stood to preach and wasn't even saved?  

[Pentecostals never know at any given time if they are really saved because they believe they can lose their salvation at a moment's notice.  This teaching does not give their adherents any peace of mind about their salvation or their eternal destiny.  What is the point of salvation if it can be so easily lost?]

At age fourteen I joined the Baptist church.  My decision was purely a social one.  The Baptist church had a larger youth group than the Pentecostal church, and that meant more girls!  That was when I discovered not everbody believed as I did.  I first heard the phrase "eternal security" in that little Baptist church.  Even as a teenager I was a diligent student of God's word.  Armed with my list of verses, I was prepared and even eager to present my side of the issue.  No one made a dent in my theology.  And I never expected anyone to, because I knew the Scripture was clearly on my side.  

When I left home for college, I was a staunch believer in the doctrine that one could lose his salvation.  Often in our dorm the conversation would turn to religion.  Over and over I would pull out my arsenal of verses and present my case.  Frequently, I found myself standing alone.  But my view was strengthened by the carnal lifestyles of many with whom I debated.  Men who claimed to be saved and yet whose actions gave no indication of their having a relationship with Christ.  Intellectually, I was more persuaded than ever.  But deep inside a battle was raging. 

Despite my strong defense and quiver of verses, I couldn't make it all fit.  The events of that Sunday morning in 1944 were fixed in my memory.  I remember for the first time feeling that I was at peace with God.  I knew I had been born again.  The possibility that I could lose all I had gained that Sunday morning seemed a little farfetched.  And the idea that I could lose it and regain it repeatedly was difficult to comprehend.  

Although I was troubled by my internal struggles, I never felt alienated from God.  I had an inner peace even at my lowest times.  Somehow I knew He still loved me and accepted me.  My repeated requests for salvation were more a ritual than an heartfelt sense of need.  I never felt lost.  Yet the Scripture seemed to be so clear on that point.  Consequently, I remained resolute in my defense.

Seminary Days

In the fall of 1954 I entered Southwestern Theological Seminary.  Once again I found myself in heated discussions concerning the issue of eternal security.  I continued my study of what I considered the pertinent passages of Scripture.  For a long time I did not understand how anybody could think the Bible taught that the believer was eternally secure.  But slowly that began to change.  

Strangely enough, it was my intense study of the Scriptures that caused me to begin doubting my position.  This was not a sudden change.  It took time.  Nobody convinced me.  On the contrary, after a while, nobody even wanted to talk to me about it;  I had pretty much run the issue into the ground by that point.  But as convincing as I was, I had no peace about the subject.   So I continued to study.

Verse by verse I picked my way through the passages used to support each view.  Through this process two things became apparent.  First, I was guilty of ignoring the context of many verses I quoted to defend my view.  As I began digging deeper into the events and discussions surrounding these passages, they took on a different meaning.  Second, I discovered through my study that the concept of salvation through faith alone cannot be reconciled with the belief that one can forfeit his or her salvation.  If I must do or not do something to keep from losing my salvation, salvation would be by faith and works I specifically remember the day this particular truth dawned on me.  I found myself at a theological fork in the road.  To maintain my position, I realized I would have to abandon my belief in salvation by faith alone.  

It was as if a light came on.  Suddenly I saw it.  I wanted to shout.  I felt like a man just released from prison.  I began to thank God that I had been wrong all those years.  I thanked Him for the relentlessness that had kept me searching and praying.  Then I was struck with the most awesome thought of all.  I had been eternally secure since that day as a twelve-year-old when I prayed, asking Jesus to save me.

That morning was a turning point in my life.  It was far more than a shift in my theology.  It introduced me to the true meaning of unconditional love.  It was the beginning of my lifelong journey into the mystery of God's amazing grace.  Terms such as peace and joy took on a whole new meaning.  They became part of my experience not just my vocabulary.

I realized how little I had really trusted God.  You see, it is difficult to trust someone when you are never really sure where you stand with that person. Security came to mean a great deal more that a guarantee of where I would spend eternity.  It was the perfect word to describe the sense of intimacy I felt with Christ.  I was secure.  Secure in His love and acceptance of me.  Secure in His daily will for my life.  Secure in every promise He had made.  And of course, secure in where I would spend eternity.

I'm Not Alone

I continually meet people who believe as I once believed.  If it were simply a theological difference I would be content to agree to disagree.  It is far more than that.  I know the bondage to which that kind of thinking leads.  I have lived with the guilt and the fear fostered by that view.  Jesus said, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).  Freedom comes from knowing the truth.  Bondage results from missing it.  

. . . Hopefully you will be set free to enjoy the relationship God has paid so dearly to provide.  It is a relationship from which fear and worry are absent.  I know from experience that until you settle once and for all the question of whether or not you are eternally secure,  this quality of joy will elude you. . . hopefully you will be able to face life with the confidence that comes through knowing you are eternally secure.  

[If you are currently attending a Pentecostal/charismatic/Faith Movement/Victory Churches, and this subject has not come up recently, you need to ask them if you only need to be saved once or whether they believe you can lose your salvation.  If they believe and teach that you can lose your salvation you need to get to a Baptist church or one that believes in eternal security.  If you don't you will never have the peace of mind that salvation was intended to give you.]

By Dr. Charles Stanley

How Did Jesus Heal?

To make a comparison between the gift of healing being claimed today and what the Bible teaches, we simply have to go back and look at Jesus' ministry.  Our Lord set the pattern for the apostolic gifts, and He did a massive amount of healing.  In Jesus' day the world was full of disease.  Medical science was crude and limited.  There were more incurable diseases than we have now.  Plagues could wipe out entire cities.

Jesus healed disease to demonstrate his deity.  How did He do it?  Scripture reveals six noteworthy characteristics of Jesus' healing ministry:

First, Jesus healed with a word or a touch.  Matthew 8 relates that as Jesus was entering Capernaum, a centurion came to Jesus and asked Him to help his servant, who was lying paralyzed at his home and suffering great pain (v. 6-7).  Jesus told the centurion that He would come and heal the servant, but the centurion protested, pointing out that if Jesus would just say the word, his servant could be healed (v. 8).

The Lord was amazed at the centurion's faith, particularly because he was a Roman soldier, and not of the house of Israel.  Jesus said to the centurion, "'Go your way; let it be done to you as you have believed.' And the servant was healed that very hour" (v. 13).

When Jesus fed the 5,000 (John 6), He had spent most of the day healing people in the crowd who were sick.  Scripture does not tell us how many were healed -- it could have been thousands.  But whatever the number, Jesus healed them with a word.  There were no theatrics, no special environment.

Jesus also healed with a touch.  For example, in Mark 5:25-34 we find the account of a woman with chronic bleeding who was healed simply by touching Jesus' robe.

Second, Jesus healed instantly.  The centurion's servant was healed "that very hour" (Matt. 8:13).  The woman with the bleeding problem was healed "immediately" (Mark 5:29).  Jesus healed ten lepers instantaneously right on the road (Luke 17:14).  He touched another man with leprosy and "immediately the leprosy departed from him" (Luke 5:13).  The crippled man at the pool of Bethesda "immediately became well," took up his pallet and began to walk (John 5:9).  Even the man born blind, who had to go and wash his eyes, was healed instantly -- though for his own purposes, Jesus accomplished that miracle in two distinct stages (John 9:1-7).  The healing was no less instantaneous.

People often say "I've been healed, and now I'm getting better."  Jesus never did "progressive" healing.  If Jesus had not healed instantly, there were have been no miraculous element sufficient to demonstrate His deity.  His critics could easily have said the healing was just a natural process.

Third, Jesus healed totally.  In Luke 4 Jesus left the synagogue and came to Simon Peter's home.  Peter's mother-in-law was there, suffering from a high fever.  Possibly she was dying.  Jesus stood over her, "rebuked the fever," and immediately she was well (v. 39).  In fact, she then got up and began to wait on them.  There was no recuperation period.  Jesus did not advise her to sip a little honey and hot water and take it easy for a few weeks.  Nor did He goad her to "claim the healing by faith" despite unrelenting symptoms.  She was immediately well and knew it.  Her healing was instantaneous and it was total.  That was the only kind of healing Jesus ever did.

Fourth, Jesus healed everyone.  Unlike healers today, Jesus did not leave long lines of disappointed people who had to return home in their wheelchairs.  He did not have healing services or programs that ended at a certain time because of airline or television schedules.  Luke 4:40 tells us, "And while the sun was setting, all who had any sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on every one of them, He was healing them" (emphasis added).  Luke 9:11 records a similar example.

Fifth, Jesus healed organic disease.  Jesus did not go up and down Palestine healing lower back pain, heart palpitations, headaches, and other invisible ailments.  He healed the most obvious kinds of organic diseases -- crippled legs, withered hands, blind eyes, palsy -- all healings that were undeniably miraculous.

Sixth, Jesus raised the dead.  Luke 7:11-16 tells us that while Jesus was at a city called Nain, He came upon a funeral procession as a widow went out to bury her only son.  Jesus stopped the procession, touched the coffin and said, "Young man, I say to you, arise!" -- and the dead man sat up and began to speak!  He also raised a synagogue ruler's daughter in Mark 5:22-24, 35-43.

People who tout the gift of healing today do not spend much time in funeral parlours, funeral processions, or cemeteries.  The reason is obvious.

Some charismatics, as we have already noted, claim that people today do sometimes come back from the dead.  Those cases, however, are nothing like the biblical examples.  It is one thing to revive someone whose vital signs stopped on a surgeon's table.  It is entirely another matter to come out of the grave four days after being buried (see John 11) or to climb out of one's casket at the funeral (see Luke 7).  Those are resurrections that cannot be challenged.  Charismatics who make such claims today do so on hearsay and with scant evidence.  They are guilty of trivializing our Lord's miraculous works.  Why is it that the only miracles ever done on television are the kind that involve no visible evidence?

Note, by the way, that Jesus did virtually all His healing and raising the dead in public -- often before vast groups of people.  His gift of healing was an authenticating gift.  He used it to confirm his claims that He was the Son of God in a way that also displayed His divine compassion.  Dispelling demons and diseases was Christ's way of proving He was God in human flesh.  John's gospel clearly demonstrates that truth.  John said all the signs and miracles Jesus wrought validated His deity (John 20:30-31).

The Gift of Healing is Gone, but the Lord Continues to Heal

The gift of healing was one of the miraculous sign gifts given to help the apostolic community confirm the authority of the gospel message in the early years of the church.  Once the word of God was complete the signs ceased.  Miraculous signs were no longer needed.  The apostles used healing only as a powerful sign to convince people of the validity of the gospel message.

In Philippians 2:25-27 Paul mentioned his good friend Epaphroditus, who had been very sick.  Paul had previously displayed the gift of healing.  Why did he not simply heal Epaphroditus?  Perhaps the gift was no longer operational or perhaps Paul simply refused to pervert the gift by using it for his own ends.  Either way, healing Epaphroditus was beyond the purpose of the gift of healing.   The gift was not given to keep Christians healthy.  It was to be a sign to unbelievers to convince them that the gospel was divine truth.

We find a similar case in II Timothy 4:20, where Paul mentioned he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus.  Why should Paul leave one of his good Christian friends sick?  Why didn't he heal him?  Because that was not the purpose of the healing gift.  (see also I Tim. 5:23 and II Cor. 12:7.)

Healing was a miraculous sign gift to be used for special purposes.  It was not intended as a permanent way to keep the Christian community in perfect health.  Yet today most charismatics teach that God wants every Christian well.  If that is true, why does God allow Christians to get sick in the first place?

In a world where believers are subject to the consequences of sin why should we assume that suffering is excluded?  If every Christian were well and healthy, if perfect health were a guaranteed benefit of the atonement, millions of people would be stampeding to get saved -- but for the wrong reason.  God wants people to come to Him in repentance for sin, and for His glory, not because they see Him as a panacea for their physical and temporal ills.

-- John F. McArthur, Jr.

Again, charismatics are wrong!

What is the Difference Between the Baptism and the Filling?

Charismatics often confuse spirit baptism, which places the Christian in the body of Christ, and the fullness of the Spirit, which produces effective Christian living (see Eph. 5:18, 6:11).

Nothing in all of Acts, Chapter 2, says believers asked for the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:1-4 teaches two distinctive truths.  At Pentecost, Christian believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body.  Then the Holy Spirit filled those believers to give a miraculous testimony -- the ability to speak in other languages.  Believers since that time have all been baptized with the Holy Spirit by the Lord Jesus Christ at conversion.  How are we filled?  When we yield to the Spirit who is already there, we have access to the Spirit's power and fullness.  Paul told the Ephesians to be kept filled with the Spirit as a constant pattern for living (5:18).

Nowhere in Scripture is the Christian taught to tarry and wait for the baptism. Nowhere in Scripture are we taught to get with a group of people who can teach us to speak in tongues.  Christians are admonished to keep being filled with the Spirit, but that is not the same thing as waiting to be baptized by the Spirit.  There is one simple key to knowing the fullness and power of the Holy Spirit in your life:  obeying the Lord.  As you walk in obedience to the word of God, the Spirit of God fills you and energizes your life (see Gal. 5:25).

Not only have believers been placed into Someone (Christ), but they have had Someone placed into them (the Holy Spirit).  As Christians we have the Holy Spirit.  Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19).  God Himself indwells our bodies (II Cor. 6:16).  All the resources are there.  The promise of the Holy Spirit has already been fulfilled for us.  The Bible is absolutely clear on that point.  There is nothing more to wait for.  The Christian life consists of yielding to the control of the Spirit who is already in us.  We do that through obedience to the Word (Col. 3:16).

Significantly, charismatic writers are not all agreed on how believers are to receive the baptism of the Spirit.  Why all the confusion and contradiction?  Why is it that charismatic writers do not quote the Bible plainly and let it go at that?  The reason no charismatic writer can do that is the Bible never tells how to get the baptism of the Spirit; it only tells believers that they are already baptized with the Spirit.  

One of the greatest realities the Christian will ever have is contained in two brief and fulfilling statements.  One is by Paul,  The other is by Peter:

"In Him, you have been made complete" (Col. 2:10).  

"His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3).

There is no point in seeking what is already ours.

- John F. MacArthur

Pentecostals are wrong.  
Faith Movement are wrong.  
Victory Churches are wrong.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

Satan is responsible for what is going on in these churches -- not God.

Is Spirit Baptism a Fact or Feeling?

The charismatic notion of subsequence leads to other errors.  The belief that spirit baptism is a second work of grace has become a cardinal doctrine of the charismatic movement.  As we have seen, charismatic writers and teachers generally agree that "the baptism," evidenced by speaking in tongues, is the crucial next step after salvation.

Turning to the epistles yields quite a different view.  For example, as 1 Corinthians 12:13 makes clear, Spirit baptism is actually an integral part of every Christian's salvation experience.  Paul wrote, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."  That passage has nothing to do with water baptism.  Paul was not talking about the sacrament or ordinance of water baptism, important as that is in another context.  Paul was talking about the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God.  He used the word baptizo, which is the same Greek term used in Romans 6:3-4 and Galations 3:27 to refer to spiritual immersion.

Spirit baptism brings the believer into a vital union with Christ.  To be baptized with the Holy Spirit means that Christ immerses us in the Spirit, thereby giving us a common life principle.  This spiritual baptism is what connects us with all other believers in Christ and makes us part of Christ's own body. Baptism with the Spirit makes all believers one.  It is a fact, not a feeling.

Unfortunately, the tremendous truth of that verse has been greatly misunderstood.  Paul was blending two vital thoughts here.  One is that the church, the body of Christ, is formed through Spirit baptism and the other is that the life of the body is sustained as we all are made to drink of one Spirit.  The twin ideas of immersion by the Spirit and drinking of the Spirit picture the all-sufficient relationship with the Spirit of God that bonds each believer to Christ and the rest of the body.

1 Corinthians 12:13 opens with the phrase, "For by one's Spirit."   That is where much of the charismatic confusion begins.  The Greek text uses the tiny preposition en.  This term can be translated "at," "by," or "with" -- and some scholars might even translate it "in."  Greek prepositions are translated differently depending on the case endings of the words that follow the prepositions.  An accurate translation in 1 Corinthians 12:13, and the most consistent in the context of the New Testament, would use either by or with.  In other words, at conversion, we are baptized by or with the Holy Spirit.

This must not be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit is the One who does the baptizing.  Nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit spoken of as the baptizer.  In Matthew 3:11, for example, John the Baptist told the Pharisees and Sadducees he could baptize [them] with water but someone was coming later who would "baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire and His winnowing fork is in His hand and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:11-12).

A common charismatic interpretation of this verse takes "fire" as a reference to the cloven tongues of "fire" seen on the day of Pentecost but it is obvious from verse 12 that John was referring to the fires of judgment, the unquenchable fires of hell. Obviously the cloven tongues like fire at Pentecost cannot be equated with the unquenchable fire that burns up chaff.  This is clearly a fire of judgment and its agent is not the Holy Spirit but Christ (see John 5:22).  So what John was really saying here is that there are only two kinds of people in the world:  those who will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and those who will be baptized with the unquenchable fire of hell.  Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:16 contain similar expressions.  Likewise John 1:33 says of Christ, "This is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." In all those passages, Jesus does the baptizing.

In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter said of Christ, "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear" (Acts 2:33).  Again, we see Christ as the baptizer, who "pours forth" the Spirit in the miraculous event of Pentecost.

In Romans 8:9 Paul says, "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."  If we take away the concept that every believer is baptized and indwelt by the Holy Spirit we destroy the doctrine of the unity of the body.  Why?  Because we have some people who aren't "in."  Where are they?  What kind of limbo is it to be saved but not a part of the body of Christ?  Is is possible to be a Christian and not a part of Christ?  No.  Paul's whole point in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 is that all Christians are baptized with one Spirit into one body.  We are all in one body possessing one life source, indwelt by one Christ. 

The charismatic view of Holy Spirit baptism actually redefines the doctrine of salvation.  According to that view, salvation does not really give us everything we need for spiritual victory.  We are still lacking; we need something more.  Although they sometimes concede that every believer has the Holy Spirit to a limited degree, they believe the full power of the Spirit is withheld from those who have not yet experienced Spirit baptizm with the evidence of tongues. That is the perspective of Larry Christenson, a noted Lutheran charismatic.  Yet his point of view seems to overlook the clear meaning of 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13.  Christenson has stated:

Beyond conversion, beyond the assurance of salvation, beyond having the Holy Spirit, there is a baptism with the Holy Spirit.  It might not make sense to our human understanding anymore than it made sense for Jesus to be baptized by John . . . .  We are not called to understand it, or justify it, or explain it but simply to enter into it in humble obedience and with expectant faith.

Is Christenson embracing something that does not make sense rather than admitting the truth of 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13, which clearly does make sense?  Jesus' baptism by John certainly did make sense.  In being baptized, Jesus identified Himself with the repenting Israelites who were looking for their Messiah.  Christenson went on to say:

Sometimes the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs spontaneously, sometimes through prayer and the laying on of hands.  Sometimes it occurs after water baptism, sometimes before.  Sometimes it occurs virtually simultaneously with conversion, sometimes after an interval of time . . . .  But one thing is constant in the Scripture, and it is most important:  It is never merely assumed that a person has been baptized with the Holy Spirit.  When he has been baptized with the Holy Spirit the person knows it.  It is a definite experience.

In making those claims Christenson was trying to base truth on experience.  As we shall see the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a spiritual fact not a physical experience related to some emotional feeling.