Few theological questions generate more heat in Christian circles than this one. Ask it in the wrong room and you will walk out with fewer friends than you came in with. Eternal security, the doctrine popularly known as once saved always saved, is held with fierce conviction by millions of sincere believers and taught from thousands of pulpits across the world. To question it feels, to many, like questioning the faithfulness of God Himself.
But
sincerity is not the same as accuracy. And the popularity of a doctrine is no
proof of its faithfulness to Scripture. BereanLook exists precisely for moments
like this one: when a widely held position needs to be brought back to the text
and examined honestly, without the pressure of tradition, denomination or
sentiment.
So
let us ask the question plainly and pursue the answer through the full counsel
of God's Word: can a genuinely born-again believer, through wilful and
unrepentant sin, lose the salvation they once possessed?
The
answer, when you open the whole Bible and refuse to look away from any part of
it, is yes. And the evidence is not thin. It is overwhelming.
But
before we build the case, we owe the other side a fair hearing. The eternal
security position is held by serious, Bible-loving scholars and believers.
Their arguments deserve to be presented at full strength before they are
answered. That is the BereanLook commitment on every debate: no straw men, no
caricatures. The strongest version of every position, examined honestly against
the full text.
 |
The road of salvation is not a conveyor belt. It is a path that requires walking |
The Case for Eternal Security: Their Strongest Arguments
Eternal
security proponents build their case on a foundation of genuinely powerful
scriptures. Here are their strongest arguments, presented fairly:
Argument
1: The Explicit Promises of Jesus in John 10
This
is the cornerstone text of the eternal security position and it deserves
serious engagement:
"My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them
eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out
of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
— John 10:27-29 (KJV)
Eternal
security proponents argue, reasonably, that the double security of the Son's
hand and the Father's hand, combined with the word never (the Greek
double negative ou me, the strongest possible negation in Greek), makes
the security of the believer absolute and unconditional. If no one can pluck
them out, they reason, then the believer cannot fall out either.
Argument
2: Romans 8:38-39 and the Exhaustive List
"For
I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor
any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord." — Romans 8:38-39 (KJV)
Paul
lists what appears to be an exhaustive inventory of everything in existence and
declares that none of it can separate the believer from God's love. The eternal
security camp argues that this is comprehensive and unconditional.
Argument
3: The Irrevocability of God's Gifts
"For
the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
— Romans 11:29 (KJV)
God
does not take back what He gives. If He gave eternal life, He will not reclaim
it. This is a genuine theological argument rooted in the unchanging character
of God.
Argument
4: The Sealing of the Holy Spirit
"In
whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy
Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption
of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."
— Ephesians 1:13-14 (KJV)
The
Holy Spirit as a seal and down payment, they argue, represents a legally
binding divine transaction. A seal in the ancient world was not easily broken.
The earnest, or arrabon in Greek, was a legal commercial term for a binding deposit
guaranteeing the full payment to come.
Argument
5: God Will Complete What He Started
"Being
confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will
perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."
— Philippians 1:6 (KJV)
The
completion of salvation is God's project, not the believer's. If God started
it, He will finish it. The eternal security position argues that the security
of salvation rests entirely on God's faithfulness, not human performance, and
is therefore unshakeable.
Argument
6: Those Who Depart Were Never Truly Saved
"They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be
made manifest that they were not all of us."
— 1 John 2:19 (KJV)
This
is the eternal security camp's standard answer to every apostasy passage: the
people being described were never genuinely saved to begin with. Their
departure simply revealed what was always the case.
These
are not weak arguments. They are drawn from real scripture and represent a real
theological position held by real scholars. They deserve real answers. And the
full Bible gives them.
 |
One side of the argument is not enough. The whole Bible must speak |
The Biblical Case Against Eternal Security
Now
we open the full Bible. Not just the Pauline epistles. Not just the comfort
passages. The whole text. And when we do, a consistent, multi-strand,
multi-testament witness emerges that the security of the believer is real but
conditional on continued faith and repentance, not unconditional regardless of
wilful and unrepentant rebellion.
Case Study 1: The Angels Who Left Their First Estate
Before
we touch a single New Testament passage, we must deal with the most
foundational and theologically devastating argument against eternal security.
It comes not from a warning passage or an apostasy text but from the very
nature of divine life itself.
The
angels who fell were not spiritual outsiders who stumbled into God's presence
by accident. They were created beings who existed, by default, in the very
presence and glory of God. Not the presence of God as believers experience it
through faith on earth but the direct, unmediated, face-to-face glory of God in
heaven. The very state that every believer is aspiring toward and working
toward was their natural, created dwelling place.
They
had the life of God. They breathed the atmosphere of eternity. They inhabited
the very destination that salvation points toward. And they lost it.
"And
the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he
hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the
great day." — Jude 1:6 (KJV)
"For
if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."
— 2 Peter 2:4 (KJV)
The
language here is unambiguous. These angels kept not their first estate.
They left their own habitation. These are active verbs describing a
wilful departure. God did not remove them arbitrarily. They chose, through the
exercise of the very freedom that genuine relationship requires, to rebel
against the God in whose presence they lived. And the consequence was
devastating and permanent.
Now
here is the theological argument that eternal security proponents must answer
and cannot adequately answer: if the zoe life of God, the very life and
presence of God, could be forfeited by angelic beings who possessed it in its
most direct and unmediated form, on what basis do we claim that the same life,
received by human believers through the born again experience, is absolutely
immune to forfeiture through wilful and unrepentant rebellion?
The
angels were not in a probationary state. They were not being tested before
being admitted to something more secure. They were already in the most secure
state imaginable and they lost it through sin. If that is possible for beings
who inhabited the very destination of salvation, it cannot be impossible for
believers who are on the journey toward it.
Case Study 2: Adam and the Zoe Life
Adam
is the second irrefutable case study and arguably the most directly applicable
to the salvation debate.
Adam
was not created outside of God's life and relationship and then later invited
in. He was created into it. Genesis 2:7 tells us that God breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. That breath of life
is the zoe life of God. Adam's very existence was animated and sustained by the
direct life of God. He walked with God in the garden. He enjoyed unbroken,
unmediated fellowship with his Creator. He was, in the most meaningful sense,
alive in God.
And
then he sinned. And God, in Genesis 2:17, had already declared the consequence:
"But
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
— Genesis 2:17 (KJV)
Adam
ate. And Adam died. Not physically, not immediately, he continued to live for
hundreds of years physically. But the death that occurred on that day was
spiritual. The zoe life of God departed from him. The unbroken fellowship was
severed. God drove him out of the garden and blocked the way back to the tree
of life (Genesis 3:24). The life was gone.
Now
here is the point that must be pressed hard because it dismantles one of the
eternal security camp's most common escape routes. They will say: Adam was in a
different dispensation. He was under a covenant of works, a performance-based
arrangement that the New Covenant replaced. The New Covenant is structurally
different and therefore what happened to Adam is not applicable to the born-again
believer.
This
argument sounds sophisticated. But it collapses under scrutiny for one simple
reason:
The
entire point of salvation is to restore what Adam lost. The born-again believer
is not being brought into something categorically different from what Adam had.
They are being brought back to it. The garden is the template. Jesus came to
restore fallen humanity to the state Adam walked in before the fall, the state
of living in the unbroken zoe life of God. If the New Covenant restores the
believer to the Adamic state, then the Adamic state is the exact reference
point for understanding what the believer now possesses.
And
what does the Adamic state show us? That the zoe life of God, possessed in its
fullness and enjoyed in its most intimate expression, can be forfeited through
wilful sin and rebellion. If Adam could lose it, the argument that the believer
cannot lose it requires considerably more than a dispensational label. It
requires a clear biblical statement that the New Covenant makes wilful
unrepentant rebellion consequence-free. That statement does not exist anywhere
in Scripture.
 |
Adam had what believers are returning to. And Adam lost it. The argument from dispensation does not hold. |
The Warning Passages: Real Warnings, Not Decorations
The
New Testament contains a series of warning passages that have troubled eternal
security proponents for centuries. Their standard response is either to call
them hypothetical warnings or to say the people being warned were never truly
saved. Both responses, when tested against the actual language of the texts,
fail.
Hebrews
6:4-6: The Language of Genuine Experience
"For
it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the
good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away,
to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son
of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
— Hebrews 6:4-6 (KJV)
Read
the description of these people carefully and slowly. They were once
enlightened. That is experiential language. They tasted the heavenly
gift. Not sampled from a distance but received and experienced. They were partakers
of the Holy Ghost. Not observers. Not people sitting nearby while others
received. Partakers. They tasted the good word of God and the powers of the
world to come.
The
eternal security camp's response is that these people were never genuinely
saved. But this interpretation requires you to torture the text into saying the
opposite of what it plainly says. The writer is not describing someone who
attended church without commitment. He is describing someone who was genuinely
inside. The language used is the language of real spiritual experience.
And
the writer says they can fall away. He uses it as a real possibility with real
consequences. If it were truly impossible, the warning would be meaningless.
You do not warn people earnestly against something that cannot happen.
Hebrews
10:26-29: Wilful Sin After Receiving the Truth
"For
if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for
of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that
despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how
much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the
Spirit of grace?" — Hebrews 10:26-29 (KJV)
Notice
the phrase wherewith he was sanctified. The person described was
sanctified by the blood of the covenant. This is not a description of someone
who was never saved. It is a description of someone who was genuinely set apart
by Christ's blood and then deliberately and wilfully treated it as an unholy
thing. The consequence is not a warning about a hypothetical situation. It is a
sober declaration that wilful, unrepentant sin after genuine salvation puts a
person in the position of the adversaries who face fiery indignation.
2 Peter
2:20-22: Those Who Escaped and Then Returned
"For
if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of
the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and
overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been
better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they
have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is
happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own
vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
— 2 Peter 2:20-22 (KJV)
Peter
describes people who escaped the pollutions of the world through the
knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If these people were never
saved, how did they escape through Christ? If they were never in, what exactly
did they return from? The eternal security response that they were never truly
saved requires you to insert into the text a qualification that Peter
explicitly did not make. He says they escaped. He says they knew the way of
righteousness. He says they turned from the holy commandment delivered to them.
And he says their latter state is worse than the first.
This
is not the description of a false convert. It is the description of a genuine
believer who made the catastrophic choice to return to what they had been
delivered from.
Ezekiel
18:24: The Old Testament Settles It
"But
when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth
iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man
doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be
mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath
sinned, in them shall he die." — Ezekiel 18:24 (KJV)
God
Himself is speaking through Ezekiel. A righteous man. Turning away. Dying in
his iniquity. His past righteousness counts for nothing in that state. This is
not ambiguous. This is God declaring, in His own voice, that a genuinely
righteous person can turn from their righteousness and die in their sin.
The
eternal security camp cannot place this passage in a different dispensation without
undermining the entire character of God. The God who speaks in Ezekiel 18 is
the same God who speaks in Romans 8. His character does not change between the
testaments. His moral logic does not reverse itself.
Answering the Eternal Security Arguments
On John
10:28-29: Who Is Doing the Snatching?
ETERNAL
SECURITY ARGUMENT: No
one can snatch the believer out of God's hand. Therefore the believer is
permanently secure.
Jesus
says no one can snatch them out of His hand. This is absolutely true and must
be affirmed. No external force, no devil, no circumstance, no enemy can
forcibly remove a believer from God's protection against their will. The
security of the believer from external attack is genuine and should be a source
of real confidence.
But
notice carefully what the text does not say. It does not say the sheep cannot
choose to walk away. It does not say the sheep cannot wilfully depart. The
promise is that no one can snatch them. It says nothing about the sheep's own
freedom to leave. The very nature of genuine relationship, as we saw with the
angels and with Adam, is that it involves real choice. Love that cannot be
refused is not love. A covenant that cannot be broken by either party is a
cage, not a relationship.
Furthermore,
read the verse carefully again: My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.
The security described belongs to those who are actively following. The promise
is not extended to sheep who have turned and are deliberately walking in the
opposite direction without repentance. The condition of the promise is
contained within the promise itself.
BEREANLOOK RESPONSE: The promise is protection from external snatching, not a
guarantee against self-willed departure. The sheep who follow are secure. The
text makes no promise about those who wilfully stop following.
On
Romans 8:38-39: Paul Did Not List the Believer's Own Will
ETERNAL
SECURITY ARGUMENT: Nothing
in all creation can separate us from the love of God. The list is exhaustive
and unconditional.
Paul's
list in Romans 8 is majestic and genuinely reassuring. Death, life, angels,
principalities, powers, height, depth, things present, things to come. He
covers the entire created order as external forces that cannot separate the
believer from God's love.
But
here is what is often missed in the celebration of this passage: Paul does not
list the believer's own wilful choice to depart among the things that cannot
separate. He lists external forces and cosmic powers. The context of Romans 8
is the believer who is walking in the Spirit, not in the flesh. Romans 8:13 is
just fifteen verses earlier:
"For
if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."
— Romans 8:13 (KJV)
The
security of Romans 8:38-39 is spoken to those who are walking in the Spirit. It
is not a blank cheque handed to everyone who once prayed a prayer, regardless
of how they are now living. The chapter must be read as a whole.
BEREANLOOK RESPONSE: Paul lists external forces, not the believer's own wilful
departure. The security promised in Romans 8 belongs to those described
throughout Romans 8: those walking in the Spirit, not in the flesh.
On
Philippians 1:6: God Finishes What the Believer Cooperates With
ETERNAL
SECURITY ARGUMENT: God
began the work and He will complete it. The completion is God's responsibility,
not the believer's.
This
is a genuine and beautiful promise. God does not abandon His projects. He is
faithful to complete what He begins. This should produce real assurance in
every believer.
But
the promise is not given in a vacuum. The same Paul who wrote Philippians 1:6
wrote Philippians 2:12 just one chapter later:
"Wherefore,
my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much
more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
— Philippians 2:12 (KJV)
God
will complete the work in those who cooperate with it. The same Paul who trusts
God to finish what He started also calls believers to work out their salvation
with fear and trembling. These are not contradictions. They are two sides of
the same reality. God is faithful. And the believer's response to that
faithfulness is continued obedience, not passive indifference rooted in the
assumption that the outcome is guaranteed regardless of their choices.
BEREANLOOK RESPONSE: God completes His work in those who continue to cooperate
with it. Philippians 1:6 and 2:12 must be read together. God's faithfulness
does not override human responsibility. It empowers it.
On 1
John 2:19: The Text Does Not Say What They Need It to Say
ETERNAL
SECURITY ARGUMENT: Those
who depart were never truly saved. Their departure proves they were never
genuinely in.
This
is the eternal security camp's most used escape route when confronted with
apostasy passages and it is worth examining carefully. John says those who went
out were not of us because if they had been of us they would have continued.
Eternal security proponents read this as: departure proves you were never
saved.
But
this interpretation, if applied consistently, creates an impossible and
circular problem. It means that salvation can only be confirmed retroactively.
You are saved as long as you continue and if you ever stop continuing it proves
you were never saved. This effectively makes assurance of salvation impossible
until the moment of death. It also makes the warning passages of the New
Testament completely meaningless. Why would the writer of Hebrews 6 warn
genuine believers so urgently about falling away if all who fall away simply
prove they were never genuinely saved?
Furthermore,
this interpretation requires forcing a universal principle out of a specific
local situation. John was describing a specific group of people in a specific
context who had left the community over a specific doctrinal issue, the denial
of the incarnation. He was not making a comprehensive theological statement
about every person who ever departs from faith.
BEREANLOOK RESPONSE: 1 John 2:19 addresses a specific group in a specific
context. Using it as a universal principle to explain away every apostasy
passage requires the text to carry far more weight than John intended it to
carry. It also renders assurance of salvation impossible and warning passages
meaningless.
The New Covenant Argument: Does It Really Change Everything?
The
most sophisticated argument for eternal security rests on the claim that the
New Covenant is structurally different from everything that preceded it. The
angels fell under a pre-redemptive arrangement. Adam fell under a covenant of
works. The New Covenant, they argue, is secured by Christ's obedience rather
than human performance and is therefore categorically different. Under the New
Covenant, they say, the believer's standing is determined entirely by what
Christ did, not by what the believer does, and is therefore unconditionally
permanent.
This
argument sounds compelling and contains genuine truth. The New Covenant is
indeed based on Christ's finished work. Our standing before God is indeed
rooted in His righteousness, not our own. These are glorious and non-negotiable
realities.
But
the argument proves too much and then stops too soon. Here is where it breaks
down:
The New
Covenant Still Has Conditions
Jeremiah
31:31-34, the foundational Old Testament prophecy of the New Covenant,
describes God writing His law on the hearts of His people and remembering their
sin no more. Eternal security proponents cite this as evidence of unconditional
permanence. But read the full context. The promise is spoken to those who are
in the covenant. The covenant still has two parties. And Hebrews 8, which
quotes this passage extensively, does not remove the human side of the covenant
relationship. It strengthens and internalises it.
Jesus,
who inaugurated the New Covenant with His blood, spoke these words in John
15:1-6:
"Abide
in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide
in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the
branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the
fire, and they are burned." — John 15:4-6 (KJV)
This
is Jesus speaking. In one of His most intimate discourses with His disciples.
On the very night of the Last Supper, the same night He instituted the New
Covenant through the bread and the cup. And He describes branches being cast
forth and burned. If the New Covenant unconditionally guaranteed the permanent
attachment of every branch regardless of wilful departure, Jesus would not and
could not have spoken these words on the night He established it.
The
language of abiding implies the possibility of not abiding. The warning of
being cast forth implies the reality of being cast forth. Jesus is not
describing a hypothetical that cannot happen. He is describing a real
possibility that His disciples must actively guard against.
The New
Covenant Does Not Make God's Character Contradict Itself
God
is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). His character does not
undergo a moral renovation between the testaments. The God who removed His
Spirit from Saul in 1 Samuel 16:14, the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul,
is the same God who seals believers with His Spirit in Ephesians 1:13. His
faithfulness is absolute. But His holiness is equally absolute. And His
holiness has never, in any covenant, in any dispensation, in any era of human
history, declared that wilful and unrepentant rebellion against Him is without
consequence.
The
New Covenant makes salvation more accessible, more powerful and more internally
driven than anything before it. It does not make God morally unrecognisable by
turning Him into a Being who shrugs at deliberate, sustained, unrepentant wickedness
in those who bear His name.
The New
Covenant Produces Fruit, Not a License
Paul
anticipated the logical abuse of unconditional grace in Romans 6:1-2:
"What
shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.
How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in it?"
— Romans 6:1-2 (KJV)
The
question Paul addresses is the exact logical conclusion of eternal security
taken to its end: if grace covers everything regardless, why not sin freely?
Paul's response is not a gentle correction. It is a horrified rejection. God
forbid. The very phrase in Greek is me genoito, meaning may it never be,
let it not be, the strongest possible repudiation. The gospel Paul preached
produced a relationship with Christ so real, so transforming and so
comprehensive that sinning carelessly was not just inadvisable. It was
unthinkable.
A
doctrine that makes sinning carelessly thinkable, and the evidence is in plain
sight across the modern church, is not producing the fruit of genuine New
Covenant relationship. It is producing what Paul called license for the flesh
(Galatians 5:13).
The Real Security the Bible Offers
Having
worked through the full case, let us be clear about what the Bible actually
promises, because it is genuinely beautiful and genuinely secure.
God
is absolutely faithful. His commitment to the believer who is walking with Him
is total, unshakeable and inexhaustible. No enemy, no circumstance, no
spiritual force in the universe can tear you out of His hands. His love is
relentless. His patience with the stumbling, repentant believer is without
measure. His grace is sufficient for every failure that is brought to Him in
genuine repentance.
"I
will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
— Hebrews 13:5 (KJV)
That
promise is absolute and unconditional on God's side. He will never initiate the
departure. He will never grow tired of a genuinely seeking heart. He will never
slam the door on a repentant sinner who comes home. The prodigal's father was
watching the road long before the son appeared on the horizon.
But
the Bible is equally clear that the believer's side of the relationship is
real, that choices have consequences, and that the freedom which makes genuine
love possible is also the freedom that makes genuine departure possible. The
security God offers is not an automatic mechanism that runs without regard to
the state of the believer's heart. It is a living relationship with a faithful God
who sustains every soul that genuinely clings to Him.
That
is actually a higher security than eternal security offers. Because it is
grounded in reality. It is grounded in genuine relationship. It takes sin
seriously. It takes grace seriously. It takes both the faithfulness of God and
the responsibility of the believer seriously. And it produces what the New
Testament consistently calls for: a faith that endures, a love that perseveres
and a holiness that is worked out with fear and trembling precisely because the
stakes are real.
A Word to Every Reader
To Those
Who Hold Eternal Security
This
is not a personal attack on your faith or your relationship with God. Many who
hold this doctrine love God deeply and live holy lives. The concern is not with
them. The concern is with what the doctrine does in the hands of those who use
it as a license for careless living. If your eternal security produces in you a
deep reverence for God, a hatred of sin and a life of genuine discipleship,
then your life is already contradicting the most dangerous applications of the
doctrine. But the doctrine itself, when tested against the full counsel of
Scripture, does not hold.
To Those
Who Are Living Carelessly on the Assumption They Are Secured
This
post is for you most urgently. The angels who fell had more direct access to
God's presence than you currently do and they lost it through wilful rebellion.
Adam had the very life of God and lost it through one act of deliberate
disobedience. The warnings of Hebrews were written to genuinely saved people,
not to people on the outside. If you are living in wilful, unrepentant sin and
resting on the assurance that a prayer you prayed years ago has secured your
eternity regardless of how you live, the whole Bible is calling you to wake up.
Grace is available. Repentance is possible. The door is not yet closed. But the
assumption that it never will be, no matter what you do, is not found anywhere
in the full counsel of God's Word.
To Those
Who Are Walking Faithfully and Fearing Unnecessarily
The
security God offers is real and it is for you. If you are genuinely seeking
God, genuinely repenting when you fall, genuinely holding on to Christ as your
only hope and genuinely walking in His grace, you are held. Not because you are
perfect but because you are His and you are staying. The God who is faithful,
who started this work in you, who holds you in His hands and whose arms wrapped
around you in your darkest seasons, that God is not looking for reasons to let
you go. He is your Father. Rest in that. Walk in that. Endure in that. And you
will be saved, are being saved, and will be saved to the very end.
Back to the Text. Every Time.
BereanLook | bereanlook.com
Join the
Conversation
Where
do you stand on this debate? Has this post challenged, confirmed or deepened
your position? Share your thoughts in the comments below. This is one of the
most important conversations the church needs to have honestly and openly.
If
this post has been useful, share it with someone who is wrestling with this
question. And subscribe to BereanLook for daily posts. Send your questions
through the Reader Questions contact form.
Related Posts on BereanLook:
•
Salvation: What Does theWord Actually Mean? A Deep Dive into Sozo, Soteria and Yeshua
•
The Doctrine of God: Who IsGod and What Do We Actually Know About Him? Part 1
Coming Next
•
Drowning in the Midst of
Applause: A Lesson from Peter That Every Believer Needs to Hear
•
Grace: What Charis Really
Means and Why the Church Has Cheapened It
