Introduction
ONE
“Shall Never Perish”
J. F. Strombeck
Part One
MY SHEEP listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:27-29). For the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, no passage in the Bible has more assurance in it than this one. In it is found an unconditional statement by our Lord that those who are his are his for all eternity, because they are in his hand, under his care, and are in the Father’s hand, under his care. The strength of the Father is that which guarantees this condition of safety. There are those who are not willing to accept this simple and clear statement without modifying it. Thereby they not only lose the assurance that might come to themselves; but they rob others of that assurance which is so greatly needed by every one of God’s children. God makes two kinds of promises to his children: conditional and unconditional. He always makes it clear whether or not they are conditional or unconditional. When conditional, he uses the word “if” or its equivalent; but when his statement is unconditional, he leaves out the “if”. This is therefore an unconditional statement. Yet there are many who, claiming to accept the Bible as being God inspired, nevertheless insist that this is a conditional statement, and that “if” the sheep follow they shall never perish. By what right do they add the word “if”? As it is neither stated nor implied by the context, it is clearly a case of tampering with God’s word, and changing its meaning. Five separate statements are made concerning “My sheep”: (1)Listen to My voice, (2)I know them, (3)they follow Me, (4)I give them eternal life and (5)they shall never perish. These are five distinct things said about those who are his sheep. Not one is conditional upon any other. By adding the word “if” to the third statement, the fourth as well as the fifth must become conditional upon it. Thus not only the question of perishing, but also that of receiving eternal life would be conditional upon following the Lord. Then, to make the words “follow Me” mean the living of a life as the Lord Jesus lived his (as some assert), makes this mean that the one who lives as he lived will thereby receive eternal life and shall never perish. This is nothing less than modernism grown to full fruitage. It is salvation by works. Thus this addition of the word “if” denies salvation by grace through faith; it is a denial of the grace of God. It is dangerous to tamper with God’s word! As though this light handling of God’s eternal truths were not enough, it is further being preached and taught that while no one can snatch one of Christ’s own out of his hand and out of the Father’s hand, it is possible for one to jump out by his own willed action. By what scriptural authority is that statement made? Does the wording of the passage permit such a statement? Only two conditions could make it possible for a sheep to jump out of his own accord: (1)that he be given the freedom to do so, or (2)that he have the power to do so against the purpose of God. Are either of these possible? The sheep belong to Christ; they are “My sheep.” They are his because he, the Good Shepherd, gave his life for them. He purchased them with his own blood and they have been given to him by the Father. Ownership means lordship. That which is owned has no right of will contrary to the will of the owner. It has liberty to go, only within the limits granted by the owner. It is perfectly clear then, that the Good Shepherd does not grant to any sheep that has cost him so much to place in his own hand for safety, the privilege of jumping out of it. God’s hand is not an open hand. It is a hand that holds. When a father or a mother holds the hand of a small child to lead him safely through some place of real danger, that father or mother will not let that little hand go, even though the child might try to pull away. No, God does not grant the sheep the liberty to jump out of his hand. It would disgrace a human shepherd of sheep to say that he allowed his sheep to stray away from him. How much more does it disgrace the Good Shepherd to say that he allows his sheep to go away from him? The only question left then is, has the sheep the power to leap out of God’s hand contrary to his will and purpose? To admit this, would be to contradict Jesus’ words: “My Father . . . is greater than all.” The “all” necessarily includes the sheep. It would also contradict his words, “they shall never perish,” for if they did jump out they must perish. What a perversion of God’s word it is to add the little word “if” and to limit God by saying that a sheep can jump out of God’s hand! It denies salvation by grace through faith; it denies the fact of a believer’s eternal life; it makes the will of man stronger than the will of God; it discounts the keeping power of God, and it robs the believer of his assurance. Yet men, who are called to be ambassadors of God, to be stewards of the many and diverse grace of God, often very earnestly and zealously, but mistakenly, do that very thing. Jesus made another statement concerning himself and his sheep. He said, “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”(John 10:11). This statement and the one, “My sheep shall never perish,” are inter-dependent upon each other. They are to each other as cause and effect. The one cannot be touched without touching the other. To deny the effect – the absolute safety of the sheep – is to question the effective power of the cause – the death of the Good Shepherd. When Jesus says, “My sheep shall never perish,” it is unconditional and final. It is to be accepted in simple faith and made the subject of rejoicing and thanksgiving.
TWO
Why This Discussion?
THE TRUTH that “My sheep . . . shall never perish,” and that ” no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” is the substance of the doctrine of eternal security of the believer. Some object to a discussion of this doctrine on the ground that it engenders controversy and is not essential to salvation. It is true that as far as those who have been saved are concerned, they are still saved whether they understand this doctrine or not; but it has been the experience of multitudes that they have not known whether or not they are saved until they have come to understand this precious truth. In fact, without spiritual understanding of this doctrine it is impossible for anyone to be assured of eternal glory with God.
There are some who claim to be certain that they themselves shall be in heaven, but refuse to accept the doctrine of eternal security. By what special dispensation of grace shall they be saved? Are they not resting upon their own stability? Do such people have stronger characters than some weaker brothers who are frequently stumbling? Does salvation make this distinction? It is to be feared that these people do not clearly see that salvation is by grace and grace alone, for the one of strong as well as the one of weak character, and that none are kept because of the slightest human merit.
The principal reason, however, for this volume is that unless one understands and accepts the doctrine of eternal security, one can not accept without a great deal of reservation the doctrines of the grace of God. The whole body of grace truth loses very much of its meaning to those who reject the doctrine of eternal security.
Some year ago, a minister of national reputation in this country was asked the question: “It makes considerable difference, does it not, how a minister preaches, whether or not he accepts the doctrine of eternal security?” The immediate answer was: “A vast difference.”
If there is a vast difference in preaching due to acceptance or rejection of this doctrine, then it surely is important to discuss it. Speaking generally, those who reject this doctrine will in their sermons emphasize works. It becomes: “You must do this and you must not do that.” The emphasis is on self and their preaching often causes hearers to question their own salvation. Fear is used as a motive for godly living. Those who accept the doctrine of assurance, tell of what God has done and offer their hearers a finished work of salvation by Jesus Christ. Their appeal to holiness is based on what God has done for the saved one. they magnify the grace of God. Truly there is a vast difference.
WHY USE THE TERM “ETERNAL SECURITY”?
There are those who accept the truth of the eternal security of the believer; but feel that this truth should be taught without reference to that expression, and that the name of the doctrine, because of the resentment against it, should never be used. It is true, because of misrepresentations of the doctrine, that it is wise to follow this course under certain circumstances, especially when it is impossible to deal extensively with the subject. But that does not do away with the need for a frank discussion of the whole subject. There is a great deal of anti-eternal security agitation. Much is preached and written against it. Gross misrepresentations of the doctrine are made. Some of the best Bible teachers and most spiritual Christians in the land are being labeled in certain quarters as “eternal security men” and doors, which otherwise would be open, are closed to them. Thereby congregations, sadly in need of being taught grace truth, are not having the opportunity to hear it. Some of the best Bible teachers are being kept out of summer Bible conferences because of their belief in eternal security, and the young people who so greatly need to know the doctrines of the grace of God are not being taught.
This seems enough to demonstrate the real need of squarely facing this anti-eternal security agitation. That can only be done by using the term eternal security. It is impossible to expose the error of this teaching without using the words that are used so freely.
Some say that the expression eternal security is unbiblical and should not be used. If that is true, so also are the expressions, The Trinity or the Triune God, the Vicarious (or Substitutionary) Death, Omniscience, Omnipresence, and others that are freely used. These identical words are not in the Bible, but the meaning is there. The Bible teaches that the believer is included in the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:10, 11); he has “eternal life” (1 John 5:13); his salvation is called “eternal salvation” (Heb.5:9); he has been redeemed by an “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12); and he is assured an “eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15); and he is called “to eternal glory” (1 Pet. 5:10). In view of these expressions, it is surely correct to speak of the “eternal security” of the believer for each and every one of these conditions does make him eternally secure.
THREE
The Issued Clarified
The strong antagonism against the doctrine of eternal security found in some groups is largely due to a misunderstanding of it. There has been much misrepresentation of this doctrine coming from what might be classified as three different sources.
There seems to be a small number of persons who make use of the doctrine as a license to sin. There are not many of these; but those that there are, are being held up as proof that eternal security is something to be shunned. Whether or not such persons have ever been saved is a question that God alone can answer. It is certain, however, that it is not fair to judge a Bible doctrine by the misrepresentations of men who try to use it as a cloak for their wickedness. To point to such men and argue that eternal security is an evil teaching to be shunned is just as reasonable as it would be to hold up a counterfeit United States twenty-dollar bill and insist that because of it, all good twenty-dollar bills should be rejected. When counterfeit bills are found, they are taken out of circulation so as to protect the sound money. Likewise when someone uses the precious doctrine of eternal security as a license, the error should be exposed that the truth might be retained.
There is a second source of information about eternal security that results in misunderstandings. This is presentation of the doctrine that is not erroneous, but unfortunately is only partial. The whole truth is not explained and some of those who hear draw wrong conclusions. This presentation comes from persons, often young people attending either a Bible school or summer Bible conference, who have received the truth of their security in Christ as a new revelation previously unknown to them. Being overjoyed in the assurance that has come to them, after years of uncertainty as to their salvation, they are eager that others should share the same joy and peace into which they have entered. It is regrettable that there should be this incomplete presentation of this comforting doctrine, but who is to blame for that? While it may be a severe charge, it is none the less true that had there been proper teaching of Bible doctrines in the home churches attended by these persons, such faulty presentations could never have been made. Who is to blame?
The third reason, and probably the greatest, for the antagonism to eternal security is because of the misrepresentation of the doctrine by some who are opposed to it.. This may not always be intentional, but it is none the less harmful.
Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal security say that this doctrine teaches that one who has been saved can not be lost; it makes no difference how he lives. The emphasis is usually placed on the last clause. This is what most uninformed Christians in many churches think is being taught as a doctrine, and they naturally resent such teaching. So do also those who accept and cherish this doctrine. This is a very unfair and misleading statement. In fact, the last half is a pure falsehood.
Those who hold and understand the doctrine teach that through the infinite sacrifice of his Own Son, God through the riches of his grace, saves the one who comes to him in simple faith; and that every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, God through his own power, shall bring to glory.
There is a vast difference between these two statements. The one is on a human plane, the other is on a divine. The former centers attention on the believer’s life and implies that salvation is dependent thereon. The second centers attention on God’s love and sacrifice and makes salvation dependent thereon. The first calls attention to the failures of oneself; the second to God and his infinite power. The first suggests a license to sin; the second an appeal to holiness. The first temporizes with sin; the second glorifies God. The first is an appeal to human reason; the second an acceptance of divine revelation.
It is a dangerous thing to so misrepresent God’s revelation.
LOST OR SAVED
In all disputes, much misunderstanding is cleared away by a proper understanding of the terms used. To be lost is a condition before God of every individual member of the human race before he is saved. This condition is described as “dead in trespassed and sins” and “by nature the children of wrath” (Eph. 2:1, 3). Such are under the condemnation of God’s holy law. To be saved is to have passed from this state of condemnation and death into a state of eternal life (John 5:24). The lost are under the reign, or power, of sin to death; the saved are under the reign, or power, of grace to eternal life. The transfer from the one position to the other is by an act of God and not of man. A more detailed explanation of what it means to be saved is found in Chapter six. It is in this sense that the words lost and saved are used when it is said that one who has been saved shall not be lost.
Salvation itself is not an outward condition but a heart relationship with God. As a result of it come outward expressions. In the lives of some, these are more manifest than in others. Abraham and Lot are both spoken of in the Bible as justified (saved) men, but there was much more outward evidence of a heart relationship with God in the life of Abraham.
On the other hand, there may be much of what to man appears as evidence of a new life within, which is not that at all. There are many who profess to be Christians, who take part in religious work, or have joined some church, who have never been saved. Going forward in a revival meeting, weeping or passing through emotional periods, does not constitute being saved. These may and sometimes do accompany salvation, but they are not salvation. it is even possible for men to preach in the Name of Christ without having been saved (Matthew 7:22, 23). A moral reformation is not salvation. In fact, it may be quite the opposite because it may be the result of human will power and action and not of God.
Because man judges the outward being and not the heart, there are many mistakes made in judging persons as saved or unsaved. The doctrine of eternal security has nothing to say about this vast number of people who only give outward show, but who lack the heart relationship with God.
As the salvation of an individual is a matter entirely of God’s doing, so also is the security of every one that has been saved. It follows then that man’s knowledge of both the fact of salvation and security must primarily comes as a revelation from God.
To many, it seems most unreasonable that one who has been saved is not lost because of his sins and failures. It truly is unreasonable, but it is equally unreasonable that God should save one who has sunk to the lowest depths of sin; yes, even a very intellectual and moral person but still a sinner, and raise him to the highest position in glory far above all other creatures of God. Yet it has pleased God to reveal that fact to man. He has also revealed the fact that he has made provision to keep every one that has thus been saved. There is but one thing to do: accept that which God has revealed through his word, however much that may differ from what one has been taught in the past. In the discussion of this question, then, no such statements as, “We know from our experience” have any weight. It is only a question: “What does God say?”