home
site map
 

It is basic to life. It is basic to death. A fundamental question that everyone must face: "Where will I spend eternity?"

According to the Holy Bible, there are two places in eternity and I will spend eternity in exactly one of them. I have, on the one hand, the loving heart of God. I have, on the other hand, the hateful heart of God. We all stand between only these two places – for there is no middle ground in the holy heart of God. It is either the blissful shores of heaven, or the fiery blasts of an eternal Hell – no stops in between.

Nothing exists beyond the presence of the Almighty God. Everything in His presence will either be loved very intensely by Him, or hated very intensely -- and very furiously -- by the Sovereign Lord of Sabbaoth. There will be no mere acquaintances or strangers with God in the next life. There is no lukewarmness in His heart… even now.

Quite evidently, given this "all or nothing" eternal potential, a natural question presents itself: Can I be absolutely sure of avoiding eternal Hell?… totally assured of being in God's eternal love… instead of His eternal wrath? Can I be absolutely and ultimately assured in this life of a resting place in the loving arms of the Father of Lights? a place of eternal acceptance in His heart?

Certainly, it is an obvious question – and an extremely important one. It plainly has only two possible answers: "Yes," and, "No." This is a fact due to the nature of the question. Either we can be absolutely sure of eternal life, by some means or path, or we cannot ever be absolutely sure so long as we are still in this life. It is "all or nothing." You have an opinion about it, surely, and are either completely right or completely wrong in your answer. There is no middle ground in your final answer here.

What are the current opinions and beliefs surrounding assurance of eternal salvation? Perhaps an overview would serve us well to establish a broad context in which to explore this.

Of those who would say, "No," we have those in the Catholic religion, those in many of the Protestant religions, the Methodists, the Calvinists and such. There is Judaism, the Muslim religion, the Mormon religion, the Watchtower religion (JW's), most all of the Charismatic and Pentecostal groups… really, most all of the independent factions of what those in the West will call Evangelical Christianity, and all of its cultish variations. It seems that nearly all people on the earth who call themselves Christians in our day would answer this basic question, "No." Joining them would be a vast number of folks from other world religions. Actually, quite nearly every human being that does believe in any type of fixed eternal bliss and punishment would be in agreement on this basic point: "No, you can't be absolutely sure until you get there."

The most common reasoning that produces this answer is quite simple. If salvation is dependent in any fashion whatsoever upon what I do between the current time and the time of death, then I can conclusively reason that I may make choices before I die that will exclude me from heaven. Nearly everyone will confess that being destined for heaven is in fact at least somewhat dependent upon current and future choices. This choosing is nearly universally considered to be voluntary, a function of the free human will, subject to a reasonable and attainable standard, and such that it remains under the control of the individual at all times. It is also commonly understood that those who really want to go to heaven and try diligently and carefully to achieve that end will eventually succeed. If one makes mistakes along the way, they are told that they can always repent and return to the Lord and find their way back, so long as they are sincerely willing to obey Him and have any breath left in them. God will turn no one away that is truly seeking Him. It is this conclusion to our question that is most commonly taught in the churches, and most commonly believed..

Those holding this position would certainly include those who openly confess to some form of salvation by works and effort, Muslims and Catholics, Mormons and Methodist's, the JW's and such. Yet, strangely, this group must also include most Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many other evangelical groups who openly deny holding to any form of salvation by works… professing to depend entirely upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ and the unmerited grace of God for their salvation. When one maintains that salvation, once actually obtained, can finally be lost by any means -- however rare, extenuating, or severe the circumstances, as most in these evangelical circles believe, they unwittingly include themselves in a salvation by works classification.

There is a fundamental sense in this basic line of reasoning that we control our own eternal destiny, that our salvation is ultimately left up to our freedom of choice at all times, and that God is actively seeking the salvation of each and every sinner. God has (in this view) already done everything He can do to save Mankind, and will not violate free human will in the matter salvation, leaving the final choice up to the individual. In this freedom there is an ominous responsibility: we may in fact choose to forfeit our eternal reward. Since eternal life is left up to us at all times, we are ultimately in control of our own eternal destiny, we become fully responsible for the decisions we make concerning our eternal welfare, and we must be willing to accept the consequences of our decisions.

The inevitable and logical implication of such a position is uncertainty with respect to eternal life. One cannot be absolutely certain of finally resting safely in the arms of God until one is actually there in His arms, so long as one is capable of making choices that could prevent this. This is due to the plain fact that one cannot know tomorrow's choices of a fickle heart. It appears that this understanding and belief is fundamental to nearly all world religion, even the bulk of what we would frame as Christian.

A rather unique group exists outside this vast group, remarkably, that does actually hold strictly to a salvation totally apart from works and yet does not guarantee a personal knowledge of this salvation. These even teach that we are elected to – chosen to – salvation outside of our will, going so far as to claim that all of our choices are set and predetermined. Yet, still, such persist in saying that one cannot know that one is an heir of salvation in this life: these are traditional Calvinists. Calvinists are included with the above groups, even though they do maintain that salvation is by election and grace and not by works, since they teach that the special knowledge of one's individual salvation hinges upon a completed life of good works.

While claiming that one can actually be safe from the danger of hell fire, Calvinists insist that one's personal eternal salvation cannot be known for sure until the entire life has been lived out and spent. Only when the entire life has been spent for the glory of God is salvation evident. While such teachers link good works to salvation only as a necessary consequence of salvation, and do not see works as the cause or basis of salvation itself, they must finally join with the vast majority and teach that one cannot be totally sure of eternal life in this life. At least for the practical duration of our present existence, they would claim that assurance of eternal safety cannot be found as an earthly experience.

Of those who would even superficially say, "Yes, we can be totally sure," we have a small, rather mixed and sorry lot. Generally of some conservative Baptist persuasion, or perhaps rooted in various strains of modern Bible churches, such students have apparently found some formula or pattern that if followed or experienced once, unconditionally guarantees personal salvation regardless of any subsequent choices or experiences. This is a "once saved always saved" type of thinking.

It may be that the formula is repenting of sin and asking Christ to come into the heart, getting baptized, asking to be saved, asking for forgiveness in deep repentance, taking communion or some other supposedly holy sacrament, etc. It could be any of a number of things or a combination of things. Whatever the pattern, the theoretical result in such teaching is that one can expect to be eternally safe as a result of the act or experience, and that this is in no manner whatsoever subject to the voluntary will of the individual from that point forward. There is absolutely nothing that such an individual could do to lose their eternal safety after obtaining it.

However, even many of these "eternal security" folks, practically, do not have a personal knowledge and assurance of this safety for themselves, having little more then a mere theological statement based on their shallow wresting of some biblical text. In practice, such folks are generally taught to live with doubt and uncertainty with respect to their own personal eternal fate as a perfectly natural consequence of being human and being attacked by the devil: "don't rely on your feelings," etc. This is generally due to the fact that the formula defined to guarantee entrance into heaven, for some reason, does not always supply an internal witness that is consistent with the claim.

Holding to a belief in eternal security, the "once saved, always saved" position, is admitting that once a person qualifies for heaven -- someone meeting this "formula" criteria – that they are – at that instant -- as safe from the eternal fire of hell as Jesus Christ Himself, the perfect Son of God. It is the bold claim that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that can be done by anyone or anything (including themselves, demons, angels, etc.) to alter their safe eternal condition in any degree at all, at any time at all. All those of this persuasion, once adequately completing the "formula," would theoretically consider themselves to be as eternally safe in their current earthly bodies as they will be after they have already been in heaven for many rich millenia. To answer the question of being certain of eternal life with, "Yes," is to actually claim such an awesome thing. There are VERY few people who will actually hold fast to such a claim with any real integrity.

Regardless of the various proponents… or opponents… or what proportion of the temporal population falls on which side of this issue, there is, logically, only one very real correct position. One side is completely right, and the other side is completely wrong. The subject of ultimate and complete knowledge of personal salvation is, surprisingly, seldom explored with any real insight and conclusions drawn in this realm are most often pale and weak. Further, it is quite common now for this issue to be so controversial and intimidating that it is seldom discussed in the churches, in Bible studies, or even in casual communion among the saints. It frequently is considered to be divisive and uncharitable to pursue the topic at any level of detail and rigor.

However, the possibility of knowing for sure that one has eternal life is quite evidently a subject very worthy of our diligent study and earnest inquiry for one simple reason: regardless of the position taken, no one can afford to be wrong about eternal life if there is such a thing.

In exploring this subject then, given that there are only two possible answers to this question, and that the VAST majority of people answer, "No," let us first consider the importance of the issue -- the importance of knowing for sure that one has eternal life.

I presume it a reasonable thing to accept the following: not meeting the necessary criteria for obtaining eternal life – however it is defined or understood, and thereby spending eternity in -- if it really does exist as the Bible declares -- a lake of fire … is a mistake. Agreed? Missing heaven and finding Hell is a… bad… mistake! It is a… great… mistake!! If such a place as Hell exists, and it can be avoided, and it is not avoided, this cannot be a good thing by any measure. In fact, one might be so bold as to say that this is not a mistake that one can afford to make at ANY cost at all. Enduring the wrath of God for eternity is simply not an option. It cannot be rationally negotiated for any comfort or privilege or convenience at all whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing that one could sanely trade for this end. It cannot be.

Why is this so? If there is any positive probability that Hell exists as described in the Bible… if there is ANY chance at all that it is there… however remote… this possibility must be soberly considered for one reason alone: the loss experienced if one finds an eternal home in such a place is infinite in two degrees. Experiencing the fierce wrath of the Creator Himself… the ALMIGHTY GOD Who made the stars with His breath… Who deems the heat of the sun a paltry thing… to be tortured infinitely by this Being for even an instant is unthinkable. There is no more ferocious and cruel an enemy to be avoided and feared in any land today… the most heinous accounts of human torture sing sweetly to us in the presence of such vast suffering. No one can describe it... or even imagine what God Almighty would do to His enemies when all grace and mercy flees, leaving only hatred and eternal vengeance… abandoning one to face the undiluted wrath and fury of the God of the universe.

Just how strong is this God? His strength is not known. There is no known record of an instance of His full strength being deployed... ever. His strength cannot even be theoretically measured. It is equivalent to measuring infinity with a yardstick. It cannot be done, or even begun.

Further, one must ponder just how much God hates His enemies. This is not known either. While it is often and boldly asserted that there is no trace of hatred in God at all, it is clearly stated in the Holy Bible that He does hate the wicked (Ps 5:5), that He is continually angry with them (Ps 7:11), and that He intends to judge His enemies in unbridled fury. (Is 63:3) If He does hate, it is certainly possible that His hatred is as vast and brilliant and extreme as His love for His own Son and children; as in any other quality about this eternal Being, it is a quality that is impossible to fathom or measure.

Consider for this a moment. To be swallowed up in the fierceness and wrath of an omnipotent Being is one thing… it would cause any sane person to literally collapse in dread at the thought of it. Yet, to spend a limitless eternity, a boundless duration in this condition is simply beyond comprehension. Forget about time and space as you are being mercilessly tortured and crushed and rejected by the Almighty. It will… NNEEVVEERR EENNDD! As boundless and timeless are the potential beauties and comforts of heaven, so there is a potential of boundlessness and timelessness in the pangs and anguishes of Hell.

But the physical suffering, as vast and immeasurable as it is, would be – I say this carefully -- the mild part of this dismal end. As Voltaire, the great French atheist is said to have gasped so eloquently at his last, "Oh! Thou much despised and blasphemed God, Hell would be a refuge… if it would hide Thy FACE from me!" You and I cannot even begin to grasp what it would be like to be continually confronted by the holy rejection and hatred of Almighty God after having disdained and rejected His beloved Son so. The heavens and the earth themselves will desperately flee the face of God when He begins to judge Mankind, and there will be no place for them to hide. (Rev 20:11)

After one has trampled under foot the precious Son of God… after one has counted the blood of the covenant that could have sanctified him / her an unholy thing… after one has done despite unto the Spirit of grace – after one has disdained the love and provision of this Being during the length and breadth of earthly sojourn – to face Him squarely for eternity? It will break… and crush to powder… the most stubborn and rebellious mind, and hold it screaming infinitely, boundlessly… insanely.

Though Hell itself be a silly fable fawned by fiendish souls to captivate the shallow souls of men… unless one can show plainly and clearly that this end is NOT possible… ANY positive probability that it is true should cause one to soberly explore the subject until one is absolutely certain of their safety.

To labor this point, if one is preparing to board an airplane and a bomb threat occurs concerning the flight, what crew will go lightly on their way and hope for the best? What passenger will carelessly board such a suspect ship and hope that all will turn out pleasantly in the end? Though the actual probability is quite small that there actually is a bomb on board the plane, will not the flight be delayed until an extremely diligent search is made of all of the cargo and its environs? Likely, the plane will be replaced and sent off for overhaul. Will not every possible effort be made by the airline to secure the safety of its passengers?

Why is it that in eternal things we think so very differently?

Why did Paul say, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men?" (2 Cor 5:11) Why did Jesus Christ Himself say, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." He said that all of the morbid inventions of men to bring a torturous and bloody end to our physical lives should be counted a light thing in view of the terror of God. Christ continued, "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:5) Even of Himself Jesus Christ said, "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." (Luke 20:18) God is not to be taken lightly: He "is a consuming fire." (Heb 12:29) Where are you with Him?

Be you atheist or priest, until you can show that the probability of this miserable end is absolutely zero for you, then any positive probability assigned to its reality implies that your expected loss is infinite. My thesis is this: if there is any possibility whatsoever that you will spend eternity in such an awful state, and knowing this should you not seek at all times with all of your being to escape it, you are insane.

To further this point in the temporal realm, to enable your firm grasp of it, suppose I lay out a gamble for you. I have an honest six-sided die and offer you a dime if I roll any number but a six, so long as you agree to pay me 10 dollars if I do happen to roll a six. Most can see that this is not a lucrative game to play. Your net expected outcome is the probability that you will win times the reward for winning (which is 5/6 x 10 cents = 8.3 or let's say 9 cents) less the probability of losing times the reward of losing (which is 1/6 x 10 dollars = $1.67). Thus, if you played the game, you would expect on average to lose 1.67-.09 or 1.58 each time I rolled.

Though it is likely that you could play with me once and make a dime, you would probably think twice about doing so because the penalty is so great if you happen to lose. Obviously, if you played the game with me 100 times, I would certainly make in the neighborhood of $160 off of you. This would not be considered a reasonable game for those of you who value money: most people do. The truth is you should not play any game in which your expected loss is positive unless you can clearly afford to lose, and only then if you view the loss as your cost to enjoy the game.

To generalize this to our subject here, assign any small probability to the existence of your eternal suffering in hell, and we will create a die with enough sides to represent this probability on one damning face. We are going to roll the die once to determine your eternal destiny. If that face shows up, into the lake of fire you go forever, body soul and spirit. If not, you get a dime to spend any way you like. Want to play?

Certainly, one might resist the comparison... "But there is much more reward than a mere dime for living my life the way I want to here and now, and neglecting assurance of eternal life! It is unreasonable to represent my temporal gain with such a paltry sum!" Not so. A finite temporal gain is paltry when staked against an infinite loss. Regardless how small the probability of eternal suffering is, or how large a value you assign to your temporal enjoyment of carelessness here, the limited gain is dwarfed by an unlimited and infinite loss. Any tiny positive fraction of probability of eternal hell for you is multiplied by infinity, and this product is your expected loss: it is larger than any finite reward you can express.

Most can readily see that any temporal pleasure is finite and not truly infinite. Actually, it is the truth that a life lived for Jesus Christ is vastly more pleasurable and rewarding than a life of sin could ever be. Regardless of that, I can make your earthly "gain" as small as I like in comparison to infinity – it makes no difference what sum I offer you for winning our little game so long as it is a finite reward. The theoretical result is the same: you should not play such a game.

To deliberately choose to live for any minute length of time with any higher prospect at all of going to Hell than what is ABSOLUTELY necessary… is to live in profound insanity. I claim this without reservation and without subtlety. To play with liberty that one has not carefully defined, to be careless on the edge of an eternal cauldron… this is insane, if anything is insane. To scoff, to ridicule, to dismiss, to wave the hand and turn the head away… we do not do this in any other realm. When presented with any potential of danger, every sane soul takes sincere precaution, explores, tests, seeks… in all honesty and integrity… to ensure safety as best it can be had. Only in the spiritual realm do we behave differently. It shows our spiritual insanity plainly. Those who behave this way in the earthly realm are, as we say, "locked up."

Thus, the atheist and the agnostic have a mathematical dilemma. Also, anyone who believes that absolute assurance of eternal life is not achievable in this life faces the same dilemma. Fundamentally, the position is an insane one.

To be sane in this matter, we have only one recourse: prove that the possibility of finding one's end in eternal Hell is zero. This can be done, potentially, in two ways. The first is to prove that such a place does not exist at all. The second is to obtain an absolute assurance that one is safe from it if it does happen to exist.

The first option is implausible. One cannot prove that something does not exist unless one is able to explore and search out every possible location, or prove by some logical deduction that conditions required for such a place to exist are impossible to construct. This is clearly not an option. If there is a God, He can certainly make such a place as we describe. We would be left to prove that He does not exist, another impossibility, since, being God, He could define the reality of any comprehensible condition we could construct to prove His absence and be beyond and outside the realm of such a metric. Philosophically, the atheist is stuck here. Regardless of the tact, the probability of the existence of an eternal Hell will always be positive. It does not matter how small the probability is, so long as it is not zero. Any positive number multiplied by infinity is... infinity. Until we prove that our probability of landing in Hell is absolutely zero, we find ourselves face to face with infinite loss. We are therefore obliged to search out and avoid this end with all diligence.

Therefore, if we are sane, the EXACT requirements of God for finally obtaining and entering into eternal life will be understood and met at any cost, at all costs, if in fact these conditions can be understood and met. In other words, one must be of the mind that one will do all within one's power, anything at all, with the utmost care and diligence and minute thoroughness… to establish and ensure eternal safety at all times. It is, by definition, the most important personal consideration in which one my be employed.

The violence of this discussion begs a second set of questions, naturally. Can eternal salvation really be obtained? If salvation exists and can be obtained, exactly how is this done? If there are, in fact, eternal spiritual realities... we will find out how eternal safety is obtained and we will obtain it -- if this is at all possible and we are sane. If salvation cannot be lost, then we will be victorious; we will have obtained our objective of eternal safety. Only when we do come to know this state of safety experientially can we afford to relax in our pursuit of safety if we desire.

However, if salvation CAN be lost, and it seems most everyone will admit that it can be lost, exactly how can it be lost? We cannot rest in any form of sane comfort until we know exactly and for sure what the specific requirements are to retain salvation once we have it. What is the absolute minimum requirement here? Are we absolutely sure that we have met that minimal requirement? If we happen to be wrong, we may be eternally decimated: again, this is simply not an option.

This second set of issues is quite simple for those who believe in heaven. Of course salvation can be obtained, or heaven will be quite empty!… and I am aware of no one who believes in an eternally empty heaven. The Bible certainly indicates that heaven will be richly populated. Virtually no one will argue this point, if they believe in heaven at all: there is no apparent reason to expect that salvation cannot be obtained. It is how salvation is to be obtained, and whether it can be lost, that is the central issue, and one is back to where one started: either it depends upon current choices and behavior or it does not.

If it does – if salvation does depend upon current or future choices -- then one can lose it and one is not safe unless one knows exactly under what circumstances one could lose salvation and how. Even then, meaningful safety cannot be achieved unless one can be assured of actually meeting this minimum standard at all times. One is then, if it is sane to believe that one can in any way lose salvation, forced to discover the absolute minimum requirements of God in this matter, and one is obliged to ensure that one is always well within this bound. One does not even want to be close here. Given the profound and infinite degree of the danger if one happens to err in negotiating this bound, the only sane position to be in is one of absolute and perfect safety.

While one might argue passionately that "once saved always saved" is ludicrous and unscriptural, considering unrepentant adultery, murder and suicide in the life of the hypothetical "saint," those who teach that salvation can be lost are faced with a monumental task indeed. How would one go about discerning the absolute minimum requirement of God for the maintenance of eternal life? If this basic requirement cannot be found, and verified beyond all possible uncertainty, then NO assurance whatsoever can be had of eternal life in this life at any time. No one will be able to know if they have met the minimum requirement of God in all of its facets unless this minimum requirement is precisely and completely defined in all of its detail. There is no doubt that this subject has not been carefully considered by "temporary lifers." No one has ever successfully documented this minimum requirement precisely. I claim this since, when the task is attempted, it is quickly found that success is impossible.

The simple minded, in defining this minimal requirement for the maintenance of eternal life, might start with suicide, mass murder, or some sort of violent crime against humanity, claiming that so long as one does not die unrepentant in such a sin as this that one must be safe. In doing so, they will not be strong to reference any Scripture, for their claim is only hopeful conjecture based upon what seems reasonable and attainable for most. They find it convenient to forget that actions are not good or bad in and of themselves generally, but are judged based on motive and intent. Mass killings of defenseless people have been done in perfect righteousness and recorded in the Scriptures, and are not necessarily wrong. Consider Elijah's slaying of the 850 defenseless prophets of Baal. It is the motive and intent behind the slayings that makes them evil.

Suppose one literally intends to sin in a truly heinous manner, internally committing to and planning to carry out some wicked act against humanity, yet dies accidentally before the feat is accomplished? The motive is there indeed, but not the act. What then? Suppose the thought just crosses the mind and is contemplated thoughtfully, but is not aggressively pursued, and then death comes before repentance? Where is the line to be drawn? Suppose the wickedness merely flits into and out of the mind but is not violently and passionately rejected?

Killing is not always wrong, sex is not always wrong. Some would even claim that stealing and lying are not always wrong. Every act must be judged for its motive and intent, as these qualities really define the work itself. Each thought and act occurs within a unique disposition, temperament, knowledge and responsibility. Moses deeply displeased God when he struck a rock to get water from it instead of merely speaking to it and was judged quite severely. On the other hand, David fully intended to murder an entire community of innocent people and God never once mentioned it to him! Motives and intents are always on a continuum, perhaps always mixed with some taint of sin at all times, unless one happens to be evaluating Christ Himself. No one else is absolutely perfect in motive and intent at all times... or perhaps at any time. How can anyone properly judge an act, and determine how God evaluates it?

And why are these artificial boundaries of tolerance in God nearly always drawn along humanitarian lines?? There is only one pure motive: the love of God. There is only one pure intent: the desire to please God. Love and desire are on a continuum. How much deviation from the extreme of utter and absolute perfection is acceptable to God? The extreme is perfection: perfect, absolute love for God and total commitment to His pleasure alone. How much less than absolute perfection will He tolerate in these motives concerning any particular activity? How far off is too far?? ALL that is done outside of these bounds of perfection is sinful – when is it TOO sinful for Him to receive... precisely and exactly? All humanitarian effort, committed outside of this centrality of God, is simply spiritual adultery and humanism in some ugly form. Sins against humanity are not nearly so devastating as sins against God Himself… and EVERY single sin is against God Himself! Any willful sin is a slap in His incredible face, a marring of His holy Heart, regardless of whether it is at the expense of some boundless mass of humanity or not. Our daily neglect of Him is profound… and it is truly heinous.

Perhaps, in making some feeble step out of the quagmire of humanism, one might claim that so long as one does not arrogantly deny God and openly turn against Him, then salvation is secure. How much of a turn against Him is acceptable? How little of a straying from the "straight and narrow way" is tolerable? Is any slight deviation from His perfect will, "turning" from Him? Technically, it is. Must one turn completely to lose their salvation? Almost completely? Halfway? Perhaps the denial is not complete, perhaps it is severe, but not complete… what then? Perhaps only a partial wavering is present and not open denial of God's existence, purpose and/or will. Maybe the doubt is just barely discernible… perhaps it is totally unnoticed by the believer. Where will the line be drawn? … exactly?!

Perhaps another will argue that so long as one repents and seeks forgiveness then one is safe. How deep is the repentance? how desperate and sincere the seeking? how pure the heart? Are not all of these experiences on a continuum as well? What if a sin is overlooked? Unrecognized? Do you know all of your sins? Can you measure their severity and/or depth? Are you certain that you know all that is sinful? Can you perfectly discern between good and evil and are you always able to recognize sin? No? Then what about those sins that you do not recognize? The ones you continue to commit against Him because you think you are doing the right thing and have no clue? Will not many come to Jesus in that last and fateful day and complain – as He begins to cast them away, "Lord! Lord! Have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?" Do not they hear the unexpected, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity!"?? (Matt 7:23) Do you really think that God approves of all that you do? That He thinks just like you do about righteousness? Think again. You are sadly, yea badly, mistaken.

Continuing in one final thought in this regard, let us look at the continuum of sin. On a scale of zero to one hundred, with zero being utter depravity, a total lack of love for God, a total desire to displease Him as much as possible, a total rejection and denial of Him, equivalent to the very devil himself, and with one hundred being a measure of perfect love for God, a perfect desire to please only Him in all things, perfect faith and confidence and trust in Him at all times and in all circumstances and situations, equivalent to Jesus Christ Himself… where does a "normal" Christian generally fall from day to day? Where would you fall if you were measured on this scale on any particular day? Have you ever seen or experienced either ultimate extreme of depravity or perfection in this continuum? Do you know this for sure? How can you know where any particular act or quality of yours will fall on this scale? How can anyone else know? All anyone can do here, at best, is guess.

Perhaps you are generously modest and say that your average score is eighty so far today. Suppose you are more humble and will settle for a score of ten.

Suppose I claim that when you were at your very, very best this last decade, perhaps when you think you were filled with the Holy Spirit and walking in the Holy Ghost, or when you were the most holy and righteous… closer to God than at any other time… that you were given a rating of one-half (1/2, 0.5) by God on a scale from zero to one hundred… can you show me that I am wrong? And if I follow this by saying that at your very worst you received a rating of 0.49? Can you demonstrate clearly and precisely that I am wrong again? I would be claiming that in your tiny perception of the vast difference between your worst and your best behavior, that you range only over one ten thousandth of the entire range of the goodness/badness continuum, and that you are on the extremely sinful end of the continuum all the time, in the worst one percent of all possible measures of goodness! You cannot show me that I am wrong. No, you cannot.

If I did measure you in this way, by the way, I WOULD be being quite generous with you. You have no clue at all how absolutely sinful you are, nor how high the expectation is of the absolute holiness of God. The stars are not pure in His sight! How much more abominable and filthy you are -- you drink iniquity like it is water! (Job 15:16) You would not dare rate yourself at anything above zero if you feared the Lord, and were careful not to think too highly of yourself. (1 Cor 4:3)

Friend, I have felt my sin, I have felt yours… until it literally forced me to scream in violent bewilderment to be in the presence of another sinner… to be anywhere near them… or near myself. I have felt the loathing, the writhing, the utter hatred of sin within me, to the very brink of insanity. I felt it under the hand of Almighty God… as He pulled back the searing blindness of my eyes for a moment. I screamed until my strength was spent. I wept until my eyes were dry. I came very close to death in it. The infernal blackness of sin, the intolerable filthiness of it, the desecration of it… it is overwhelming. It is cutting and agonizing to the holiness of God. There is no place to hide it, no way to cover it up or dilute it. We are filled with sin and rebellion in a way that we cannot even begin to fathom on our own, as we strut about in His presence and continue in it. If we are thinking we are probably safe... this is insane, truly insane.

If you cannot show me that I am wrong in my estimation of your sinfulness… and you cannot… then, even if you do not fully agree with my conclusions and my measurement of you, you must agree that there is some positive probability that I am correct. If I am correct in my evaluation of you and me, and if this evaluation is valid for all people, where is the line of God to be drawn in maintaining eternal life? If He were to only require a score of one on the above scale, you would never attain it, in your very best state, for even an instant. Is God required to lower His standard because of our inability to keep it? I think not. Tell me, exactly where should He draw the line of His absolutely minimal requirement for the maintenance of your salvation? Unless you claim that it is 100, you cannot tell me where it should be drawn. I think that is the correct answer, by the way: 100... perfection.

No one can define the minimum requirement of God for protecting and maintaining eternal life, regardless of how one believes eternal life is initially obtained, unless perhaps they claim it is perfection. The careless deceit of all who are outside a "once saved always saved" mentality is evidently quite profound. It is wildly insane to hold to such a position that salvation can be lost and not be meticulously careful about defining the bounds of eternal safety. It is – in plain fact -- absurdly common for folks to passionately defend whatever requirements they happen to feel they can safely meet, and then cast them about as the ultimate standard of God. No reference to the holy character of God, not even a feeble attempt to find any evidence of this wishful thinking in the Holy Bible… it is just mindless arrogance and deceit, spiritual insanity in the extreme. The standards are ALWAYS humanistic in nature, and the claim is ALWAYS that God's standard MUST be within our reach.

Mired in the definition of sin itself, and lost in the complexity of such a vast continuum of goodness and badness – not to mention how very FAR we are from true perfection in our very best state – the exercise of defining the absolute minimum requirements of God in this matter of obtaining and maintaining salvation… it is academic at best. It cannot be done in the reality and complexity of life as we live it. The minimum requirements of God cannot be precisely defined… unless of course He demands complete and utter perfection, as in the life and works of Jesus Christ, which would make this whole discussion pointless anyway if we can lose salvation… as no one finding and obtaining salvation could ever hope to keep it by works of any kind… for even an instant.

Once the truth of how to acquire salvation is claimed, if one does not believe in "eternal security", admitting that God has some minimal standard to be kept in order to persist in a state of salvation, and is then asked, "Are you going to heaven when you die?"… what could one say? Since one cannot perceive or define the minimum requirement of God for keeping salvation, how can one know that they have still have salvation regardless how they have been living?

No one believing they can lose their salvation can have any clue whatsoever where the minimum requirement of God is with respect to damnation, and so cannot know with any certainty at all upon which side of the requirement they fall. This will be true no matter how good one is, or thinks they are, or what they have done, or not done. Truthfully, such a person must say, "I have no idea at all if I am a Christian, or if I will go to Heaven or Hell when I die. I have no clue whether I am a child of God or a child of the devil himself. I cannot even begin to discuss the potential of my personal salvation at all. I will do my very, very best and hope I make it." This places all such people in very serious, grave, and eternal danger. The terror implied in it is profound, if one properly understands and appreciates eternal things. Such folks must ignore their immediate danger in order to function in the normal course of daily life: one must be blinded to it to even begin to function with any degree of normalcy.

In all of this discourse, as involved as it has been, one might as well be asking, "What must I do to be saved?" as to ask the question we began with: "Can I be sure of eternal life?" They are one and the same question, when considered carefully. To actually be finally saved, I MUST keep it, or get it back after the last time I lose it, or I will not be finally saved at all: I will be LOST. Can one ever be genuinely "saved" if in fact it is true that they will spend eternity in the lake of fire?

To be "saved" truly, is to be utterly safe from all that would condemn me, including myself. Short of that, I am merely un-judged, awaiting final judgment and living in uncertainty, so long as I am alive. Answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?" must include also, "What must I do to stay saved?" in order to be of any value or to have any real meaning to a sinner. Without it, being "saved" or "lost" is merely semantics. Salvation has effected no true freedom from the danger of Hell fire if it can be lost. If we cannot answer, "What must I do to stay saved?" with any degree of integrity, we are also left without an answer to, "What must I do to be saved?" Certainly, the Apostle Paul was not without an answer to this basic question.

To say things plainly, we are talking about the Gospel itself in this matter. Each of the two answers to the question, "Can I be sure of eternal life?" implies a fundamental difference in the Gospel itself. To say, "No," in answer to this question is to believe one gospel, which implicitly requires a dependence on human will and works to obtain (or in the awkward place of the Calvinist, to merely know of) the final salvation of the soul. To answer, "No," as we have carefully established, is to live in completely blind uncertainty concerning eternity, with no indication of salvation at all. To live in uncertainty is to live either in insanity or in blind ignorance.

One cannot function rationally under the terror induced by such immediate and eternal danger. Unless God has intended for us to live in fantastically desperate dread every waking moment of our lives, we must deduce that we are supposed to be blind to our eternal danger by design. Is it so that we must be deceived and falsely and carelessly comforted in order to live and move upon the earth? or else we must live in spiritual insanity – undeceived and unconcerned? And is it so that our mental and emotional state is nothing bettered even if we are doing everything within our power to love and please God every second of our lives? We are left with no real hope of having obtained anything but condemnation the entire time? How absurd!

By this measure, we draw an inescapable conclusion without any subtlety: all who believe that salvation can be lost are either deceived or are spiritually insane. No one is living sanely as such an insecure state demands. Evidently, no one can. If we are to be sane about this, there must be a way to be sure that we have eternal life, and to maintain this assurance.

From what we have seen, the only way to be absolutely sure of eternal life is to completely distance the security of salvation from dependence upon human works, once this salvation is obtained. Likewise, this is comparable and equivalent to understanding that salvation is initially obtained entirely apart from human works, as well as to understand that no works performed or failed after obtaining salvation can jeopardize this state. In short, only a salvation that is obtained altogether and entirely independently of human works of any kind -- at all times -- is sane.

Given that so few people will admit to a full acceptance of a "Yes" answer to our first question indicates that VERY few people accept a Gospel that is not based upon human works in some fashion. Very few people can even make a valid theoretical claim of assurance of salvation. And even those who do claim this, having latched on to some "formula" to at least live sanely, may easily be doing so falsely, not having understood the correct "formula."

If these statements are correct, and I believe them to be, then nearly every member of the human race is spiritually insane. The world, for all practical purposes, is spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb – entirely dysfunctional in eternal realities, stumbling and bumbling about upon an unsteady rotten fabric above the eternal furnace of the fury of God… and thinking nothing of it. This includes nearly ALL of what we call Christianity, which is mostly nothing more than the world dressed up in fancy religious garb. If this is inconceivable, and perhaps it is, then something I have said is amiss. There is a mistake in the reasoning somewhere, some fatal flaw that makes this all an empty noise. It is one or the other. There is no middle ground. I challenge you: find this flaw or listen very carefully to me now.

I suppose it would be tempting to look into the Scriptures for the truthful answer here... peruse the Holy Book of God. Can we, in fact, be completely sure of eternal life? Absolutely sure? Right now? If the crowds are correct, we might expect that the implications of the traditional teachings of the churches would be consistent with the Word of God. If the majority are in truth, we would expect to find that there actually is no promise available concerning certainty of eternal life. If tradition of men is to save us, if so many people "just can't be wrong," then we will find by God's design that we are to live in careless ignorance of our eternal danger so as not to be terrorized by any positive potential of being lost. We would conclude that it is His design that we live in spiritual insanity. Sound reasonable?

Then again… we might not find it so: it just may be that the vast majority – claiming you cannot know for sure -- are all wrong. Let us turn to the Word of God and seek to find His truth in this matter.

Quite plainly, written in the book of 1 John, is the following statement:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life."

We are told here that we may know that we have eternal life if we are among those that "believe on the name of the Son of God." Whatever this means, "believing on the name of the Son of God" is critical in this matter of salvation. It may be true that many believing on the name of the Son of God might not know that they have eternal life, we cannot tell from this passage alone. All we can certainly tell is that there is a way for those who believe on the name of the Son of God to know that they have eternal life, and to know this for sure. This shows us several things.

First, it is possible to believe on the name of the Son of God. We have here an indication that John wrote to people who were in this condition. He wrote to them when they were in this condition for the purpose of verifying and establishing in them a real and personal knowledge that they actually had eternal life.

Second, we can dismiss the idea that any general failings of our lives with respect to our daily works can cause us to lose our salvation -- so long as we are believing on the name of the Son of God. Believing on the name of the Son of God is the only condition given in the text to establish and maintain the knowledge of eternal life. Salvation cannot be lost by anyone believing on the name of the Son of God, for such believers can know that they still have eternal life if they are in this condition of believing on His name.

If salvation can be lost, it must be in the lives of those who are not believing on the name of the Son of God. If there is a minimum requirement in maintaining eternal life, it must be found simply in this matter of believing on the name of the Son of God and continuing in that believing. Can someone who is believing on the name of the Son of God come to the place where they are not believing on the name of the Son of God? If the Holy Bible is the Word of God, then this is where the state of our initial question lies at this point – no more and no less.

Thirdly, the believer must be able to discern when they are believing on the name of the Son of God and when they are not believing. This is implied from the text, that one may know that they have eternal life if they also know that they are among those that believe on the name of the Son of God. We may prove it by contradiction: if one cannot certainly know that they are believing on the name on the name of the Son of God, then one cannot know that John's words are directed to them and that they themselves have eternal life. However, John wrote unto them for the express purpose that they might know that they have eternal life. By implication then we have, of necessity, that one be able to discern whether or not they are actually believing on the name of the Son of God.

There is real substance and reality to these words of God, they do not leave us dreaming in the clouds. If one cannot know that they are believing on the name of the Son of God, then one cannot know that one has eternal life, and John wrote to them so that they could know this. Clearly, if one cannot know they are believing we must contradict John's purpose in writing. Therefore believers must be able to discern their own state accurately.

Fourthly, it must of necessity either be true that this eternal life cannot be lost at all once it is obtained by believing on the name of the Son of God, or, if it can be lost, it must be true that the believer is able to know immediately that the minimum requirement of believing on the name of the Son of God has not been met. Otherwise the believer could not ever know for sure at a certain time that they did indeed have eternal life and that they had not already come into a state of not believing on His name.

Fifthly, since it is actually possible for one who believes on the name of the Son of God to know that they have eternal life, in order to live sanely if salvation can be lost, the believer must know that they will keep believing on the name of the Son of God to confirm that this minimum requirement of God will be continuously met in the future. If this were not the case, the believer could not know for certain that they would continue in eternal life from any particular moment to the next and the believer would have to live in conscious and continual awareness of being in constant, urgent danger of hell fire at all times. This would cause insanity if followed through consistently, and therefore be inconsistent with the joy purposed in believers in the writing of this text: "And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." (1 John 1:4)

Sixthly, if the loss of salvation is dependent on the human will, then believing on the name of the Son of God is a matter of the free human will, and those that believe on the name of the Son of God must continue to live in insane danger of eternal hell at every moment, even with the knowledge that they presently have eternal life and that they know how to keep it, since at any moment they might exercise their will to cease believing on the name of the Son of God. This would imply that one should continue in constant fear and that they actually would continue in eternal danger even while they had eternal life, and really would make the above words meaningless. The life would not be "eternal;" it would be "temporary life." Also, there would be no joy in this at all. Again, this would be inconsistent with the passage we are studying. Thus, believing on the Son is not a matter of the will, and it is not subject to any of our faulty decision making facilities.

Finally, we find that nearly everyone in the world that has answered this question, "Can we know for sure that we have eternal life?" has answered it wrong!

What is clearly induced here is that believing that one can lose salvation is insane. One cannot live sanely and hold to such a teaching consistently. This teaching of the temporary nature of salvation is impossible for anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ to hold in good conscience; it violates the Word of God, logic and sanity as well. It is a devastating error that shatters the fundamental pillars of our temporal and eternal welfare.

We ARE able to know that we have eternal life. We will know that we have eternal life when we believe on the name of the Son of God. If we do not yet know what this means, we may seek God until we do understand what it means and enjoy the practical reality of it in our lives. God intends for us to seek this state, and seek Him, until we find Him... and find ourselves safely in this state. We may be sure, knowledge of eternal life will bring a deep and lasting joy to each of His elect in this life.

Since we can know that we have eternal life, and since we know that this knowledge is intended to produce joy in us, we may reasonably conclude that there is no minimum requirement for the maintenance of eternal life once we have obtained it, that our believing on the Son of God is not a matter of our free human will or agency. We may safely conclude that salvation can actually be obtained via the mercy and grace of God, that it is sustained by Him once it is obtained, that we ourselves in particular can obtain this salvation by obtaining mercy and grace from God to believe in the name of the Son of God, and that once eternal life is actually obtained in this manner it cannot ever be lost.

I must say, THAT is good news!

home
site map
top