Eternal Security is Biblical and True

Conditional Security is a False Teaching and Dan Corner and Other Modern Day Judaizers* Are Full of Beans

by Lion of Judah site owner - essay revised and expanded October 2003

This essay is an editiorial- type piece and is not intended to be a scholarly refutation of Conditional Security (though it does contain some observations about what I perceive to be its shortcomings). For detailed, scholarly refutations, please see the Conditional Security is a False Teaching page.

---

The Need for More Once Saved Always Saved Sites and Books

Am I the only one who gets annoyed by the thousands of Dan Corner, pro-CS, evangelical outreach.com and contenders.org pages that show up anytime one types in "eternal security," "once saved always saved," or "conditional security" in a search engine?

Satan, no doubt, is giddy with glee at all the turmoil that conditional security proponents like Corner create, since it hinders a Christian's effectiveness and spiritual walk.

Once Satan (or these eternal security opponents) has a Christian worrying about his salvation, said Christian is no longer helping others or witnessing to the unsaved. The Christian then begins to depend on his or her own abilities and works rather than depending on God and the Holy Spirit for his or her spiritual needs, growth, and maturity.

We definitely need more web resources (and books) demonstrating just how unbiblical Conditional Security is. Conditional Security is nothing more than a form of works-based salvation bandied about by modern day Judaizers, and as such, should be roundly condemned as a false gospel.

There used to be a small handful of webpages specifically refuting Dan Corner's works on Conditional Security and Eternal Security, but, I am sad to say, they are no longer on the web.

It also makes me sad to see that when typing in the phrases "conditional security" and "eternal security," that my web pages are one of the only pro-eternal security pages to show up in the search engine listing!

The Apostle Paul Would Condemn Corner if Paul Were Here Today

Corner and those like him are guilty of the very thing that Paul reprimanded Peter for, that is, for leading people to believe that obeying and adhering to laws and rules (being "objectively good") was what God wanted of His followers.

The conditional security promoters have simply moved the concept of doing good works (and/or avoidance of committing sin) one step further by placing the works after the initial acceptance of Christ. What they fail to realize is that it matters not where one places the works-for-salvation requirement, whether it be before coming to Christ or after.

Insisting that one must follow rules and laws (and be "objectively good") in order to obtain or to keep one's salvation is actually in direct opposition to the true Gospel.

Apparently conditional security proponents either have not read, or do not understand the implications of, the following from Galatians chapter 2:

Preying on the Spiritually Weak, Immature, or Confused: Using Fear to Sell Their Doctrine

On the bright side of things, Corner does rightly reject the heresy of "KJV Onlyism," and he has written works refuting rabid King James Onlyist Gail Riplinger.

Now if only Corner would stop needlessly scaring eternally secure Christians into thinking that they are probably going to Hell.

Conditional security proponents such as Corner are quite good at abusing and twisting Scriptures to make it look as though they have support for their view, but in reality, fear is what sells their agenda. That nagging fear of 'what if...,' as in, 'What if I'm not truly saved?'

Every Christian has these sorts of doubts from time to time, along with the idea of unworthiness:

'how could such an all powerful, all loving, holy God totally forgive me and accept me into His family forever, even with my faults and sinful nature and knowing that I may, even after being welcomed into this family, sin again?'

People such as Dan Corner prey on individuals who have these fears, which makes them lower than pond scum in my book.

Motives: Maybe Personal Doubt and Insecurity -- and a Bit of Ego

Perhaps folks like Corner are insecure and doubtful about their own salvation and eternal destiny and truly believe they are providing a useful service to Christendom in warning Christians of our alleged Hell-bound destiny, but that is not justification for them to cram their twisted Scriptural views and doubts about salvation onto the rest of us.

They may also be of a more legalistic mindset, thinking that the best way to curry favor with God, or the best way to serve Him, is to be perfectly good all the time and to expect it of others.

Such people also tend to equate loving God with being zealous for, and overly preoccupied with, biblical commands (i.e. trying to live by them to the smallest letter, discussing them endlessly with other Christians, pointing out the supposed shortcomings of other Christians, etc).

These types of Christians also try to be zealous for living holy lives, for encouraging others to live holy lives, and for being infuriated about sin. (How do I know all this? I used to be a little on the judgmental side myself, though I was never a believer in conditional security.)

Jesus made it clear that only God is completely good all the time, during a conversation He had with a rich, young man, who thought he could keep all the commandments and thus merit salvation (Matt 19: 16 - 26). This point seems lost to the Dan Corners of the world.

(I should mention that Paul went on to explain in Romans 3: 20 and elsewhere, that consistently, always following the commandments, even if it were possible for people to do so, is not what saves.)

On the one hand, the New Testament does tell us that after we come to Christ, we become new creatures, and that the man or woman of God will not go on sinning.

However, one of the main premises in the Gospel is that man is not good, nor can he be good.

Even after coming to Christ, man cannot be good all the time (recall that the apostle Paul said that he sometimes did things he did not want to do and that he still sometimes sinned; see Romans 7: 15 - 24.).

Hence our need for the Holy Spirit to lead us during our lives, and for God to chastize us when we misbehave (notice that the Scriptures tell us that sinning Christians are disciplined; it says nothing about being cut off from God for all eternity; see for example Hebrews 12: 6).

The Bible seems to teach, then, that a believer will be changed for the better but that the believer will not be perfect -- at least not in this lifetime. Sanctification is a life-long process.

Your average conditional security defender, however, thinks that one should be perfect all the time -- or wonder of wonders -- that it is even possible.

I wonder how arrogant some of the conditional security advocates are (and please note that I said "some," not "all"), since many of them no doubt believe that they are one of the ones who will not be going to Hell, and all due to their performance.

I believe that there is probably not a single conditional security proponent who thinks that he or she is going to Hell. All conditional security proponents are going to Heaven, don't you know. So in their own odd way, "conditional security" advocates actually do believe in "once saved always saved," albeit in a twisted, warped, and round-about way.

For more on that bizarre phenomenon as well as the "license to sin," argument, please see my other essay, Do Conditional Security Advocates Believe in Once Saved Always Saved? Yes, Actually, They Do

"Look at me," the conditional security believer says, "I'm a better Christian than you, since I follow all the rules all the time! My Christian performance assures me a place in Heaven!"

Conditional security adovcates bring to mind Luke 18: 9 - 14, "The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector."

The conditional security teaching, is of course, contra to 1 John 1:8, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Limitations of Misbehavior Too Vague

One problem among many with the conditional security view is that not a single one of its advocates can pin-point just how many sins, or what kind of sins, it takes for one to 'lose' one's salvation.

I am aware that a small percentage of conditional security backers may quote the bit (from 1 Corinthians 6: 10) about drunkards and such not being admitted into heaven, but they are still unable to tell us exactly what the limitations are.

Will getting drunk once cause one to forfeit one's salvation? Or is it ten times? Three hundred? Does it count if you get drunk on "light beer," or does this apply only if it's whiskey? Of course wine was big in Paul's day, so who's to say.

One would think that if conditional security were true, that God would offer some extremely concrete "do's," "don'ts", numbers, limits, procedures and such to Christians in the New Testament, rather than the vague statements about 'enduring to the end' and the like.

And why is it that conditional security supporters conveniently fail to go on and point out the remainder of that passage:

Motives Revisited: Pride?

Perhaps pride also drives those like Corner.

Maybe the idea of trying to be objectively good and holier-than-thou appeals to them. They, however, overlook verses such as the one that tells us that "being good" or doing good just does not register with God, for if it did, then anyone who makes it into His presence in the afterlife will be able to boast (see Romans 3: 21 - 31 and 1 Corinthians 1: 27 - 31).

Does Dan Corner really expect me, or anyone else, to believe that he is more pure, holy or "good" than, for example, defenders of eternal security / osas, such as John Ankerberg, James R. White, Charles Stanley and all the others whom he critiques on his web site? (Remember, authors such as Corner rely on the straw man argument that those who adhere to osas are sinful heathens.)

Is Corner "more saved" than someone who rejects 'conditional security?'

Further, isn't it arrogant of Corner and his comrades to assume, as I believe they do, (judging from their attitudes and writings), that those who believe in osas are bound for hell unless they accept 'conditional security?'

The 'License to Sin' Straw Man Argument

Those who argue against osas ("once saved always saved") sometimes bring up the straw man argument about it being a supposed "license to sin". This is such a "moldy-oldy" and such a misrepresentation of what 'once saved always saved' is that one wonders why conditional security believers bring it up.

Anyone who has become a child of God, which is made possible, of course only by Christ's sacrifice, is more than aware of the ultimate price that Jesus paid (with His life), and would not, therefore, take it for granted, and continually, regularly abuse his or her liberty in Christ.

You will always have block-headed, lazy Christians who abuse any doctrine, and 'osas' is no exception. The fact that your Christian friend Billy Bob back in college used osas as an excuse to shoot heroin or get wasted on Jack Daniel's does not mean that 'osas' is false. It means that Billy Bob is an idiot.

We who support eternal security are quite aware of passages such as 1 Corinthians 6: 20, for example, which state that "...you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

The "license to sin" argument, used by those who seemingly hate, limit, or who misunderstand God's free grace, ultimately proves to be an insult to God, since it was God Himself who decided that faith in His Son would be the only criteria for a person's salvation.

I have yet to see any of the conditional security camp explain the overall exception to their argument: people like myself who believe in eternal security but who do not abuse freedom in Christ and who do not commit what most people would consider vile sins.

I do not drink alcohol, I do not swindle, nor am I homosexual or any of the other things mentioned in the oft-mentioned 1 Corinthians 6: 10 passage -- and yet I believe in eternal security.

People Who Use 'Conditional Security' as a License to Sin

Hello, pot? I'd like to introduce you to the kettle.

I have read of pro- cs (conditional security) advocates who use cs as a "license to sin." They can get drunk on Saturday and therefore lose their salvation, they believe, but then turn around on Sunday, ask God for forgiveness and once again "be saved."

Even had I not read of such examples, it is a natural and possible outcome of the condtional security belief.

In reality, conditional security advocates are not too different from those who believe in osas.

Conditional Security Advocates Redefine What is Integral to the Gospel

Since operating this site, I have received e-mail from those who insist that I must be unsaved, or that I will possibly lose my salvation, if I do not agree with them on their pet doctrine, whatever that may be. I have experienced the same thing, or have seen others go through this, at other sites or on discussion boards.

Many King James Version Onlyists, for example, will come right out and say, or else imply, that those who are not KJV Only cannot be, or are most likely, not Christians. There is a small minority of the KJV Only group that teaches that unless one has read the Gospel in the KJV that one is not saved.

I have seen those who are against the Pre Tribulation Rapture view claim that individuals who do believe in it are deluded, lost, or demonic, or else will be if the belief is not rejected. Just recently, I receieved one such hate e-mail from what I presume to be a "post tribber" who informed me that if I continue on as a pre-tribber that I will be "lost," meaning unsaved.

I fail to see what completely separates these crack pots from people like Dan Corner who teach that one can, or will, lose one's salvation if situation "x" happens or doesn't happen.

I realize that some on the conditional security side will limit which sins can supposedly cause a loss of salvation by way of specific biblical passages, but the problem is that plenty of others do not see any reason to limit this to Scriptures.

What, really, is there to stop people such as Dan Corner and those like-minded from taking this concept and applying it to whatever belief they choose?

Let's take, for example, the discussion in the Bible about women not wearing men's clothing. Someone such as Corner could argue that if a female wears a pair of jeans that she will lose her salvation (never mind that in the days in which the New Testament was written, men and women wore the same basic ensemble anyway, i.e., sandals and robes).

Another problem with issues such as this one is that all Christians do not agree that "rules" which appear to be time- and culture- specific apply to Christians today in every part of the globe.

We are living in the 21st century in which women in Western cultures wearing pants is seen as being quite normal. Women wearing pants has not led to a surge in lesbianism, or confusion about gender. Most of us can tell a man who is wearing a pair of Levi's jeans apart from a woman who is wearing a pair of Levi's jeans.

One clue that there is something amiss with the conditional security teaching, then, is that so many who believe it apply it only in so far as it matches their preferred, though not necessarily correct, Scriptural interpretations and doctrinal beliefs (or in addition to passages like 1 Corinthians 6:10).

Who will be the final arbitrator, then, on what deeds or beliefs causes a loss of salvation? Are the KJV Onlyists correct in that I can lose my salvation if I continue using a NIV? What about the post tribbers who say I will be "lost" if I continue believing in a pre trib rapture?

The only thing that Scriptures say that is required of a person to gain and to keep salvation is to believe in Christ. Insisting that one must do "x, y, and z" or believe in pet doctrine "x" to keep his or her salvation is adding to the Gospel.

Dan Corner: The Elvis of the Conditional Security Propaganda (He's Everywhere)

Because Dan Corner has several different conditional security sites up, all of which appear to link to one another, one has to wonder if he is engaging in the practice of "google bombing," as the expression goes.

I encourage all like-minded eternal security proponents to make more pro-eternal security material available on the web.

---

* I am not using he term "Judaizer" in the strictest sense of the term. I use the term in a more general sense of someone who teaches or believes in a works-based salvation, one that may or may not include the view that one must obey Old Testament biblical laws, or do good deeds, to gain -- or "to keep"-- salvation