Blog

People who have followed this ministry for a while will know that the topic of eternal security and apostasy is something I’ve always struggled with. While I always leaned towards true apostasy being possible, the proof texts marshalled in favor of eternal security (or “Once saved, always saved”) seemed somewhat compelling, and I never really knew what to do with them. The way OSAS folks handled the texts warning against apostasy seemed quite ad hoc and contrived. Eventually, I discovered a view in Kenneth Keathley’s book “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” that I found quite attractive. Keathley, drawing on the work of two Reformed scholars, argued that while a person COULD fall away, a person never WOULD fall away. This is because the biblical passages warning against apostasy were one of the means God used to ensure the perseverance of his saints. I called this “The Can/Won’t Model” and I defended it across a three-part blog post series here, here, and here.

I have now come to the full-on Arminian position that apostasy is both possible and that at least some have likely fallen away from a genuine saving faith they once had. I’ve held this position for about a year now, but after a brief mini debate with Pastor Miles Bridges at Powdersville First Baptist church on the topic, I have decided to put my thoughts into writing.

In this blog post, I’ll first point out issues in the Can/Won’t model, then look at some of the passages warning against apostasy, then talk about how I understand the proof texts for Once Saved, Always Saved afresh. Hopefully, this will serve as another example that I engage in Truth-First as opposed to Safety-First Apologetics. ^[1]See Joshua Rasmussen’s blog post, “Truth-First vs. Safety-First Apologetics: How to influence people without leading them astray.” Substack, December 25th 2025. –> … Continue reading Finally, I’ll address pastoral concerns related to this topic and try to alleviate the anxiety my position my cause for some.

The Can/Won’t Model Is Internally Incoherent

The first issue is that if the purpose of the warning passages (which we’ll examine later in this post) is to keep true genuine Christians from apostatizing, then what do we do about the existence of Calvinists and the so-called 2 point Calvinists (i.e Arminians, like my own pastor) who don’t think passages like Romans 11:17-32 or 2 Peter 2:20-22, for examples, are teaching that genuine believers can fall away? Now, I’m not going to examine the legitimacy of their alternative explanations here. I am, after all, trying to get back into the habit of writing normal-length blog posts (editor note: I failed again!). But these Christians don’t think these passages are warning against genuine apostasy. And so, if that is the case, how would such passages serve as a means to encourage them to hold steadfast?

How I would have responded to such an objection in the past is that God, in His middle knowledge, would have providentially guided these believers in other ways to keep them from apostatizing. That’s good as far as it goes; after all God meets all of us where we are. However, the problem is that Scripture itself doesn’t seem to teach the Can/Won’t model explicitly. That, in and of itself, wouldn’t bother me too much. Molinism itself isn’t explicitly taught in scripture, but is rather, a systematic theological conclusion putting together all of scripture’s teachings about divine sovereignty, divine omniscience, and human freedom and responsibility in a philosophically coherent way. ^[2]See Evan Minton, “The Case For Mere Molinism”, Cerebral Faith, November 7th 2018, –> https://cerebralfaith.net/the-case-for-mere-molinis/ And for an in-depth defense of Molinism, … Continue reading But I never once thought the human authors of scriptures were Molinists. I do think they believed humans have libertarian free will, that God is meticulously sovereign over all affairs, is omniscient, and that if you were to ask Moses, or David, or Solomon, or Paul how they can explain how these things can all be true at the same time, they would have responded with appeals to mystery. The Can/Won’t model, on the other hand, is different. This particular application of Molinism runs into trouble when we think about the authorial intent on the part of the human authors. Surely the human authors genuinely believed not just that apostasy was a possibility in the modal sense, but that there was a very real threat of it! And, if those passages seemingly supporting eternal security mean what advocates of eternal security take them to mean, then the biblical writers would have genuinely believed apostasy was impossible. If not in a modal sense, at least in a de facto sense. I can’t help but feel some discomfort with this idea as it makes the biblical writers out to be playing mind games with us. Like they are trying to manipulate us into perseverance by warning of us of something that, even if we don’t heed their warnings (because maybe we’re Calvinists or P affirming Arminians) ^[3]P. as in T.U.L.I.P, perseverance of the saints., God will do something to keep us from falling away anyway. But if God would do something to keep us from falling away anyway, even if we neglected the apostasy-warning passages, then one must wonder what the point of the apostasy-warning passages were in the first place.

What Does “Losing Your Salvation” mean?

I always cringe whenever this issue is framed in this way. “Can a Christian lose their salvation?” To say it like this makes it sound like apostasy is something you can accidentally stumble into, as someone might “lose” their car-keys or their wallet. Someone is not just going to wake up one day and find The Holy Spirit had vacated their body (see 1 Corinthians 6:12) without so much as a goodbye note. I prefer to use the word “forfeited” rather than “lost”. To forfeit your salvation means to willfully give it up. Also, one does not lose their salvation by sinning. Even the most atrocious of sins won’t make you unsaved. The sole exception of this is the blasphemy against The Holy Spirit, which many interpret as being apostasy. (see Matthew 12:22-25). For a Christian to forfeit their salvation is to stop having faith in Jesus Christ altogether. The assosiate Pastor of my church sometimes says, “Since there is nothing you could have done to get your salvation, there’s nothing you could do to lose it either”, to which my response is “You got it when you believed. You lose it when you stop believing.”

This is more sensible when we think about just what the nature of saving faith really is. Our key text is Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) which says “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” At the outset, it should be noted that my view that the “this” in “this is not of yourselves” is not the faith, but the grace and the salvation. Many Calvinists try to remove all human agency by making the “this” the faith. Although, given the reality of prevenient grace ^[4]see Evan Minton, “What Biblical Evidence Is There For Prevenient Grace?”, Cerebral Faith, March 21st 2016, –> https://cerebralfaith.net/what-biblical-evidence-is-there-for/, we couldn’t have faith unless God first drew us (John 6:44, John 12:32, Acts 7:51), so it can technically be said that our faith itself is a gift from God (cf. Psalm 91:4b), even though we can resist His Holy Spirit and not come to that saving faith, (see Acts 7:51). ^[5]The reference to Psalm 91:4 is interesting. In the ESV, this verse says “He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and … Continue reading

Saving pistis, often translated simply as “faith” or “belief”, is best understood as active, obedient allegiance to Jesus as King. If salvation requires placing our allegiance in Him, then losing salvation occurs when that allegiance is abandoned. There are three main points of argument supporting interpreting “pistis” as allegiance. They are as follows;

1. Pistis as Loyalty in Persecution
   Biblical scholar Matthew Bates, in his book “Gospel Allegiance: What Faith In Jesus Misses For Salvation In Christ”, highlights 2 Thessalonians 1:4-8, where Paul praises the church’s pistis during trials. ^[6]Bates, Matthew W. 2019. Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press: A Division of Baker Publishing Group. Here, pistis is directly tied to enduring hardship and obeying the gospel, making “loyalty” or “allegiance” to Jesus as Lord the most precise translation.
2. First-Century Usage of Pistis
   In historical Greek literature, pistis routinely denoted political loyalty. In 1 Maccabees 10:25–27, King Demetrius asks the Jews to “keep pistis” (allegiance) with him rather than his rival. ^[7]See Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 4. Similarly, N.T. Wright points to Josephus urging a rebel leader to “repent and believe in me” which is a clear demand to switch political loyalties. ^[8]This text is from Josephus, The Life 110, cited in Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 44. The exact phrase in Josephus is metanoēsein kai pistos emoi genēsesthai, which Wright renders as “repent and … Continue reading
3. The Royal Context of the Gospel
   The word euangelion (“gospel”) originally referred to a royal herald announcing a new Roman Emperor. By adopting this term, the Apostles proclaimed that Jesus, not Caesar, is the true King of Kings.

Because a king demands the loyalty of his subjects, passages like John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 carry royal overtones. We are saved by grace through allegiance to King Jesus, and just as allegiance can be given, it can be withdrawn.

Can Allegiance Be Withdrawn? – A Look At The Warning Passages.

“Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.” – Colossians 1:21-23 (NIV)

In this passage in Colossians, Paul mentions that his recipients were once alienated from God and were enemies because of the evil things they were doing, but then they got saved. Now, Paul says, they are holy in God’s sight and have had their record cleansed of all the sins they committed. They are free from any accusation of sin that could be lodged against them. But then Paul adds a disclaimer “If you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel.” This is a conditional statement, an if-then statement. Paul says that they have been cleansed by Christ’s blood and are now without blemish, but only if they continue to remain faithful to Christ, only if they don’t apostatize. Anyone who receives Christ is cleansed from their sins, but if they later reject Christ, any future sins they commit will be held against them. If salvation loss was impossible in a modal sense, this conditional statement is unintelligible. Why would Paul say “If you continue in your faith” if continuing in their faith was the only thing they could do. This conditional statement implies that the Colossian Christians had the potential to not continue in their faith.

In the next chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, he writes, “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” – Colossians 2:6-8 (NIV)

Once again, if it is impossible for a person to give up their salvation, why does Paul feel the need to tell us to continue living our lives in Christ, rooted and built up in Him? Why does Paul warn us to not allow anyone to take us captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy if a person really can’t fall away from Christ? It’s implied from the context that the “hollow and deceptive philosophy” isn’t simply accepting minor doctrinal errors, but accepting heresies, such as gnosticism.

The Book of Hebrews probably has more warnings against apostasy than any other book of The Bible.

Hebrews 2:1-3a says “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (NIV)

Hebrews 3:12-14 says, “See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.” (NIV)

Why would the author of Hebrews warn his audience not to have “a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God” if it was impossible for them to have one? And why does he say “if” indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the end? This seems to imply that there’s a possibility that we won’t hold our conviction firmly to the end.

Hebrews 4:14 says “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (NIV)

Finally, we have one of the most explicit passages in all of Hebrews, if not in the entire Bible. Hebrews 6:4-6 says, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss, they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.” (NIV)

It seems pretty clear cut. So, how is it that people can still deny that apostasy is possible? Those who advocate OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved) try to get around this passage by arguing that it isn’t talking about the falling away of true believers. Rather, it’s talking about the falling away of Nominal Christians or false converts (or “imposters” as my pastor likes to call it). While I do not deny the existence of Nominal Christians (I used to be one until I was 16, after all!), an honest look at this passage cannot leave one feeling that this is what the text is about. One issue in taking Hebrews 6:4-6 to be referring to Nominal Christians is the fact that the writer says that once they fall away, it is “impossible… to bring them back to repentance”. If these people “weren’t truly saved to begin with”, then it makes no sense to say that they can be “brought back to repentance”. If they weren’t truly saved, then they never really repented in the first place! How can they be “renewed” or “brought back” if they never truly repented in the first place? It makes no sense to talk about a second repentance unless there was a first repentance!

Moreover, it says that these people “have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in The Holy Spirit” How can a nominal Christian or a false convert be the type of person described here? Are false converts spiritually enlightened? Have false converts tasted the heavenly gift? If Hebrews 6 is talking about false converts, then why does it say that they’ve “shared in The Holy Spirit?” A person who (1) has been enlightened spiritually, (2) has tasted the heavenly gift, and (3) shared in The Holy Spirit, sounds like a genuinely born again believer to me! That does not at all sound like the description of a nominal Christian!

Now let’s look at Hebrews 10:26-31:

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (NIV)

Donald Guthrie, in his commentary on Hebrews writes ; “This verse introduces a new section (verses 26–31) which warns against the dangers of apostasy in much the same vein as the warnings in chapter 6. It is sparked off presumably by the mention of the day of reckoning in verse 25. The serious aspects of adverse judgment are vividly brought into focus. If we sin deliberately places the emphasis on responsible sin, the kind of sin into which people enter with their eyes open. The position of the word deliberately (hekousiōs) as the first word in the sentence adds weight to this. The Levitical cultus made provision for inadvertent sins, but not for wilful sins. At this point the writer’s use of the first person plural (we, hēmōn), identifies himself with those who receive the warning.

The knowledge of the truth is spoken of as a thing received, which suggests that it has an acknowledged form. Indeed the article with the word truth (tēs alētheias) makes clear that a definable body of doctrine is in existence which all Christians will know. It amounts to the whole Christian revelation. The apostle Paul has much more to say on knowledge (epignōsis) than the author of this epistle. In fact this is the only place in this letter where the word is used. It highlights the deliberateness of the sin if an intelligent understanding of ‘the truth’ had already been acquired.

Such a deliberate sin, following a grasp of ‘the truth’, implies a rejection of the truth, the cardinal feature of which is the uniqueness of the sacrifice of Christ. If that is rejected, no other adequate sacrifice remains. In the Greek the order of words is again significant, since the stress falls on the words for sins. Sacrifice there might be, but none of any effectiveness for the removal of sins. This vividly brings out the serious consequences of deliberate sin.” ^[9]Donald Guthrie, Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 15, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 219–220.

Given the context of the entire book of Hebrews, and the link to 6:4-6, it would seem that the “deliberate sin” here should, as Guthrie says, be seen as a rejection of the “uniqueness of the sacrifice of Christ”, or as I’d prefer to say, abandonment of allegiance to Jesus the King.

Finally, we have Hebrews 12:25 which says “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.”

There are other verses in the book of Hebrews that warn or imply that the apostasy of true believers is possible, but for the sake of making this blog post too lengthy, I have chosen to omit them. Finally, The ESV Global Study Bible says “The danger of apostasy. ‘Apostasy’ means to fall away from faith in Christ. More than any other New Testament book, Hebrews addresses the danger of Christians failing to persevere by faith to the end (Heb. 2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:1–29)” ^[10]J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, eds., ESV Global Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 1747. Did you ever wonder why we have such a large cluster of warnings against apostasy in the book of Hebrews alone? Well, as I’ve studied the book of Hebrews over the years, I have come to the conclusion that to prevent an apostasy from Messianic Judaism (Christianity) to a Christless Judaism is the primary purpose the book was written. As A.T Robinson says; “Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ … But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind.” ^[11]A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933).

And as E. L. Johnson writes in “Apostasy,” in “Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling”; “The danger of apostasy comprises a main theme of the Book of Hebrews (Hughes, 1977). The author admonishes the readers to beware lest they possess evil, unbelieving hearts that lead them away from God (Heb. 3:12). He argues for the possibility that one can fall away even after one has been enlightened, tasted of the powers of the age to come, been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:4–5), and sanctified (Heb. 10:29). The author urgently warns against apostasy because once persons have fallen away “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” (Heb. 6:6, nasb), since they recrucify Christ and dishonor his sacrificial death (Heb. 6:6; 10:29). The state of those who turn away from God’s salvation is worse than if they had never known it (2 Peter 2:20–21).” ^[12]E. L. Johnson, “Apostasy,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling, ed. David G. Benner and Peter C. Hill, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 92.

This is why my pastor, when we went through Hebrews in our pre-service Sunday school class had to constantly explain away various verses, frequently pivoting to John 10:28-29 to justify all his post-hoc rationalizations. While I love my pastor and greatly respect him, I do find it interesting that he has to filter so much of The Bible through one verse. However, it’s far worse than interpreting the majority of scripture in light of a couple of verses, to deny that apostasy is possible denies the rationale for the book of Hebrews to even exist in the first place!

2 Peter 2:20-22 says, “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.'” (ESV)

Of this passage, Robert Shank writes “Peter’s language leaves no room for the assumption that these people had only experienced a temporary, superficial reformation of outward conduct without genuine faith and regeneration… Their initial escape was accomplished through ‘the full knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’ To claim they were never truly saved is to strip Peter’s words of their natural, contextual meaning.” ^[13]Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989), p. 162.

The apostates in 2 Peter 2:20–22 didn’t just stumble into a moral slip; they had full, saving knowledge (epignōsis) of Jesus as “Lord and Savior.” They subsequently shifted their allegiance back to the pollutions of the world (“again entangled”), proving that salvation is maintained through persistent, loyal trust—and forfeited when that allegiance is abandoned.

There are many more passages in The New Testament that warn against apostasy, but rather than cite them all here, I will just end the treatment of the positive evidence and move on to the biblical passages that Eternal Security (or “Once Saved, Always Saved”) marshal in favor of their position, and how I, as an opponent of Eternal Security (or “Once Saved Always Saved”) understand them.

A Look At The Supposedly Pro-Eternal Security Passages

Now we come to the part of the article where we examine the biblical passages some Christians think support eternal security. It may surprise you to find out that while I could not deal exhaustively with all the positive evidence in favor of apostasy’s possibility, I can do that here. This is because there aren’t really that many passages that even appear – even at face value – to support the idea of eternal security. That in and of itself ought to say something. But we must form our theology from the whole counsel of God’s inspired, authoritative, univocal word (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And so it is to this topic that we now turn.

Proof Text 1: John 10:28-29

The first passage we want to examine is John 10:28-29. Here, Jesus says “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (ESV) The argument for eternal security here is primarily that we are in Jesus’/The Father’s hand, and Jesus says that no one can pluck us out of his hand. Satan and his forces will never draw us away from God. The world and the flesh will never draw us away from God. My pastor has used the analogy of when he was a child, his father told him that he could spend money on some toy or piece of candy if he was able to pry the money out of his clenched fist. And as a small child, with the hands typical of small children, he didn’t have the strength to open his dad’s hand. God is far stronger than our enemy. Additionally, there is a linguistic argument here; that since Jesus gives us eternal life, and there is a declaration that we will never perish, then that must mean that once you are saved, you will always be saved. Since it can’t be “eternal” life if you cease to have it.

In response to the first argument, I agree that no one can pluck us from God’s hand. But the imagery Jesus uses here does not seem to preclude a person freely choosing to apostatize. The imagery is of external forces trying to coerce or drag us away from Jesus. But this doesn’t mean Jesus is irresistibly causing us to persevere (or ordaining us to freely persevere via middle knowledge). It would be like if a man told his wife, “No one and nothing will ever take you away from me.” We wouldn’t take him to mean that he is going to chain her up in the basement to keep her from freely choosing to divorce him.

The linguistic argument is a bit trickier to respond to, and when I held to the can/won’t model, it is what persuaded me that this passage was teaching eternal security.

When opponents of conditional security argue that “eternal life wouldn’t be eternal if you could lose it,” they are making a fundamental mistake about how properties work. To clear up this confusion, it helps to distinguish between an essential property and a derived (or relational) property. An essential property is something an entity possesses inherently in and of itself; God alone possesses inherent, uncreated immortality (1 Timothy 6:16). A derived property, on the other hand, is something possessed only by virtue of being continuously connected to an outside source.

Consider the simple reality of plant life. A leaf on an oak tree exhibits life, flexibility, and growth. However, that life is not an essential property of the leaf itself, but a derived property drawn continuously from the tree’s root system. If strong winds snap the branch or if the leaf falls off, it isn’t long before it shrivels up, turns brown, and dies. The leaf did not possess self-sustaining life; its vitality depended entirely on an uninterrupted connection to the source.

Jesus used this exact botanical reality to explain how eternal life works in the kingdom of God:

“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” – John 15:5-6 (ESV)

The exact same logic applies to our salvation, and understanding this relies on a vital Johannine truth:

Jesus Himself IS the Source of Life: God does not hand us a detached “package” called “Eternal Life” that we now own independently of Him. Rather, Jesus is the life. As John writes, “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11–12).

If a believer chooses to walk away and sever their allegiance to Christ, they lose access to that eternal life. The life itself remains inherently eternal, but the individual is no longer participating in it. Our actual possession of eternal life depends entirely on remaining in vital union with Christ, the Vine (John 15:4-6).

Addressing how this applies to common security proof-texts like John 10:28–29, F. Leroy Forlines writes:

“The teaching is simply this: The believer’s relationship with God is a personal one between him and God. Though all the powers of the universe were to combine against the believer, they could not take the believer away from God… But it is also true that the passage does not state that faith cannot be renounced, nor does it state that any such promise of security is given to unbelievers. The promise of security in Christ described in John 10:27–29 is for believers who continue to believe and for them only.” ^[14]F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Theology for a Postmodern World (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2001), 316.

Ultimately, God’s protection in passages like John 10 is about defense against external invaders, not a mechanical imprisonment that overrides human covenantal response. As Roger E. Olson frames this personal dynamic:

“Calvinists often misinterpret Arminianism as teaching that a believer can ‘lose’ salvation accidentally, like losing one’s car keys. But salvation is a personal covenant relationship. God will never cast us out, and Satan cannot drag us out. However, a person can freely and deliberately renounce the covenant—just as a spouse can choose to walk out of a marriage even if no kidnapper forces them to do so.” ^[15]Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 186.

Ultimately, I find Jesus’ words comforting, despite that I believe I have the ability to fall away. I’ll talk about this more in a later subsection addressing the emotional distress I can imagine some readers having at the very thought that they could “lose” their salvation, and why such fears of potential future apostasy should not cause anxiety.

Proof Text 2: Romans 8:38-39

In Paul’s epistle to the Romans, he writes; “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:38-39 (ESV)

The argument here again is that nothing in all of creation can separate us from God’s love, so this means the devil can never draw you away from a relationship with Jesus. I remember one Calvinist woman in a Facebook group years ago who made the argument that not even the believer himself can separate himself from Christ since Paul says “nor anything else in all of creation”, and the believer himself is certainly a part of creation.

However, again, it seems to me that Paul, like Jesus in John 10, is speaking of external coercion, not a free giving up of faith on the part of the believer-turned-apostate. Notice that Paul doesn’t say “Neither belief nor unbelief”. That’s because unbelief would definitely cut you off from a relationship with Jesus, the special kind of love that God has for his children. But what about the point that Paul excludes anything in all of creation? Here, I’m inclined to say that Paul is probably using hyperbole, not at all intending the believer himself. This may, perhaps, appear ad hoc to the proponent of eternal security. But hyperbole is a perfectly valid figure of speech that people use all the time in ordinary discourse. In fact, I just used hyperbole just now! No one uses hyperbole literally “all the time” in the sense of every second of every day. Moreover, I am interpreting scripture in light of scripture. It is far easier to conform Romans 8:38-39 to the numerous warnings against apostasy than to make Colossians 2:8-9, Hebrews 2:1-3, Hebrews 3:12-14, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-31, Hebrews 12:25, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 11:17-32, and many others fit with an eternal security understanding of Romans 8:38-39. If anything is ad hoc, it’s the way eternal security advocates jump through hoops to explain (or should I say explain away?) these various passages.

Proof Text 3: Ephesians 1:13

In Ephesians 1:13, Paul writes “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,” (ESV)

In biblical times, a seal functioned as a mark of identification and ownership, carried authority and authenticity like official government documents, and appeared on deeds to demonstrate possession. ^[16]Costi W. Hinn, Knowing the Spirit: Who He Is, What He Does, and How He Can Transform Your Christian Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023), 55–56. Paul emphasizes two primary dimensions of spiritual sealing: security and ownership. ^[17]see ibid.

In his book “The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power In Your Life”, the famous preacher Billy Graham illustrated the seal’s protective power through an anecdote about an English consul who affixed England’s official seal to a missionary’s house, preventing looters from breaking it because the world’s most powerful nation stood behind it. ^[18]Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power in Your Life (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 82–84. He noted Old Testament parallels—Daniel sealed in the lion’s den and royal seals on documents that no one could reverse or countermand. ^[19]See Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power in Your Life (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 82–84. Most compellingly for Ephesus specifically, Graham explains that the city’s timber merchants stamped their selections with personal signets; agents later located all marked timbers using the corresponding impress to claim them as property. ^[20]ibid.

However, while a “seal” can sometimes denote protection in this sense, might it merely refer to God saying of the believer “this is mine”? Speaking of the signet rings, the signet ring a king would use to stamp a document didn’t keep someone from opening it. It was evidence that the letter had really come from the king. I think Ephesians 1:13 is expressing a similar thought as Romans 8:16, that The Holy Spirit bears witness that we are God’s children (cf. John 1:12), though in Eph 1:13’s case, it is bearing witness to the unbelieving world (cf. John 13:35). In light of the overwhelming number of texts that warn against apostasy, we must look at this verse in the light of all those others.

Proof Text 4: 1 John 2:19

1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (ESV)

I had a little mini debate with my pastor a couple of Sunday mornings ago during the pre-service Bible study and he brought this verse up. I didn’t have the chance to respond to it, as Pastor Miles didn’t want the conversation to be derailed by this debate and he wanted to continue on with the lesson, but I wouldn’t have had a response to it anyway since I forgot all about this particular proof text. Still, the fact that such a large quantity of warning passages against apostasy exist in The New Testament (a small sampling would include Colossians 2:8-9, Hebrews 2:1-3, Hebrews 3:12-14, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-31, Hebrews 12:25, and 2 Peter 2:20-22), I’m hesitant to filter so much of The Bible through one verse. And honestly, if I had had a chance to respond, that’s what I would have said.

One interesting thing I noticed when looking at this verse in context in Logos is that despite John’s seemingly ancient version of “Those people were never saved to begin with” in 1 John 2:19, the entire passage seems to be one big warning to the believers not to fall prey to the lies of the anti-Christ. He (John) concludes that section by writing “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.” John talks about the concept of abiding in Christ like what we find in John 15:4-6. It’s doubtful The Apostle John would talk out of both sides of his mouth (i.e saying “anyone truly saved can never fall way, if they do they were never saved to begin with. Also, be sure not to hate your brother, and be sure to abide in Christ.”). That said, what do we make of 2:19? After doing a little bit of research; this is my answer.

The author on the blog Arminian Perspectives notes in a study on this passage, flattening 1 John 2:19 into a universal axiom distorts John’s historical purpose ^[21]kangaroodort, “Does 1 John 2:18-19 Support the Calvinist ‘Never Saved to Begin With’ View of Apostasy?,” Arminian Perspectives, May 9, 2012 — > … Continue reading. The Apostle John is not writing a systematic theology textbook defining how apostasy works in every instance throughout human history. Rather, he is addressing a specific, localized pastoral crisis (i.e the emergence of proto-Gnostic schismatics, the “antichrists” of verse 18, who were infiltrating the church, spreading Christological heresy, and attempting to drag believers away from the truth).

To properly understand verse 19, we must look at the exact scope of the Greek phrase translated “of us” (ex hēmōn). In ex hēmōn, John is describing the schismatics’ lack of alignment with the apostolic community and their orthodox Christology at the time of their departure. Their voluntary withdrawal proved that they did not hold to the true gospel proclaimed by the apostles. John doesn’t say “they were never of us”, but that “they were not of us”. In other words, 1 John 2:19 could simply be stating their present status. If they were genuine Christians in the present, they would not have departed from the apostolic community. But they weren’t, and so they did. It might be if you caught a woman from my church teaching about how to put magical curses on people on TikTok, and making fun of The Bible’s prohibitions against witchcraft (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). And I said “She practices magic. She’s not a Christian like us. If she were of us, she would not have gone out from us [to do magic]”. Notice I’m not commenting on whether she was ever a real follower of Christ in the past. I am speaking of her present condition, her present mindset. In other words, John, in his own way of speaking, is saying what Paul said: “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus is accursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3, ESV). Applying John’s description of 1st-century Gnostic infiltrators to every Christian who ever drifts or falls away is an unwarranted leap in logic.

Furthermore, reading unconditional eternal security into 1 John 2:19 makes the immediate context antecedently improbable, as I said above. Throughout verses 24-28, John repeatedly commands his readers to abide: “Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you” (1 John 2:24), and “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.” (1 John 2:26) and “And now, little children, abide in him” (1 John 2:28). If 1 John 2:19 meant “true believers can never be lost, and unregenerate people will inevitably leave,” then John’s urgent warnings to abide and avoid deception become meaningless theater. Why command a believer to abide if failure to abide is impossible for the elect? John commands them to abide precisely because the threat of drifting is real!

Addressing the mistake of turning this pastoral passage into an absolute rule on apostasy, I. Howard Marshall emphasizes that John’s concern was resolving pastoral confusion over local heretical agitators rather than constructing a mechanical view of security:

“John’s purpose in verse 19 is pastoral reassurance regarding a specific schism, not the formulation of a general doctrine of perseverance. The departure of the false teachers showed that they did not truly belong to the Christian community in its essential nature and doctrine. It does not follow that every person who leaves a church was never a true Christian; elsewhere John recognizes the genuine danger of believers falling away if they do not abide in the truth.” ^[22]I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 151.

Why This Is Important – Pastoral Ramifications

What I am about to say, I say with all due respect to all of the great Christian teachers I’ve read and interacted with. From R.C Sproul to Charles Stanley to my own pastor. I’ve come to the conclusion that Eternal Security is not only unbiblical, but it’s a dangerous doctrine. Even when I wasn’t sure, or when I affirmed the Can-Won’t model, I operated under the assumption that the classical Arminian position was true. Why? I applied Pascal’s Wager reasoning. If a person is invincible, but lives as though he’s not, he will not get hurt. If a person is NOT invincible, but lives as though he is, he’ll probably be reckless and end up dying trying to cross a busy highway like in Frogger. But then, that was my approach. What about those who truly believe they are spiritually invincible? Now, it must be clear that eternal security advocates do NOT (typically) teach that you can live however you want and still be saved, just as Arminians (typically) do not teach that any particular sin with cancel your salvation. But if you are taught that nothing you ever do can cancel your salvation, especially combined with an easy-belivism disguised as justification by faith alone, something might not be taught, but it will be caught. Many might take this a license to sin. Or even if they try to live holy lives, they’ll expose themselves to spiritual danger loudly blurting that no weapon formed against them shall prosper. So they’ll go places they shouldn’t go, hang out with people they shouldn’t hang out with, and one thing leads to another, and all of a sudden the good Christian girl is a sexually promiscuous witch and her ex-husband is a drug addicted atheist.

It reminds me of a scene from the 1999 anime Digimon Adventure. Tai and the other Digidestined were chasing after an evil Digimon named Etemon. They came across an electric fence that would fry anyone who touched it. Izzy had just made the discovery one episode prior that they were in a realm completely made of digital data, which made Tai throw caution to the wind. Acting on that knowledge, Tai threw caution to the wind and became very reckless. Izzy cautioned that just because they had been configured into data, it didn’t necessarily mean they couldn’t be harmed. It could be the case that whatever happened to their bodies in the Digital World would affect them in the real world as well. How many Tai’s are running around like this, treating the battlefield of spiritual warfare like a playground?

Secondly, this belief makes assurance of salvation impossible. For there have been examples of apostasy where the person didn’t just profess belief that Christianity is true, but really bore the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). When these people fall away, and pastors and theologians go “Oh, well, I guess he was never REALLY saved to begin with”, the rational Christian goes “Boy, if THAT person wasn’t a true Christian, how in the world can I possibly know if I’m one! Maybe I’m an imposter too and just don’t know it!” There’s a catchy proverb that goes, “Arminians know they are saved, but are afraid they can lose it. Calvinists know they can’t lose their salvation, but are afraid they may not have it.” It would be funny if it weren’t tragic. Of what comfort does the doctrine of eternal security bring if you’re not even sure if you’re truly saved RIGHT NOW? While Calvinist pastors, and Perserverance-affirming Arminians have tried to help believers in different ways to figure out if they’re really saved, ultimately these answers prove hollow. And this is because any and all such proofs that the troubled person is a “real” Christian seem to apply to some of the people who apostatized.

While I myself am not a pastor, but a content creator and lay apologist/theologian, I care deeply about the practical implications of our doctrines. That is why I will go to bat for certain issues very strongly, even though theologically they are secondary issues (and not essential doctrines outlined in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds). I’ve seen all of these challenges come up from time to time.

Ultimately, as I argued in my blog post “How Gospel Allegiance Solves Two Of The Church’s Biggest Problems,” knowing what saves us—allegiance—is key. A person knows where their loyalty lies. While spiritual fruit can act as supplementary evidence of salvation, one shouldn’t depend entirely on that, as there are days when a person can appear more fleshly than Spirit-led on this non-linear walk of sanctification. If someone were to ask me, “How can I know I’m saved?” my response would be, “Well, where does your ultimate loyalty lie?”

As far as the fear that someday we might lose our salvation, that we might be persuaded by the spiritual powers of darkness to turn our backs on Christ, I would counsel that person to keep pursuing a relationship with Him. I would direct them to John 15:1-6 and tell them to abide in Christ. I would also walk them through Psalm 91, which I take to be a spiritual warfare text (and I have a whole lengthy essay on it titled “Psalm 91: Your Battle Anthem Against The Devil”).

Interestingly, Psalm 91 opens by declaring, “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty” (KJV). What does abiding look like? That could be an entire article or sermon in itself, but put shortly: it is maintaining an ongoing life of prayer and staying in the Word. Prayer is our way of talking to God; Scripture is God’s way of talking back. As long as we cling tightly to our Heavenly Father, the enemy will never be able to get us.

This puts John 10:28-29 in its proper applicational context. As long as you don’t leave the hand of Christ, the devil will never be able to snatch you away. As long as you make Yahweh your refuge and your fortress, you will be safe. But a person who leaves a fortress is vulnerable, regardless of how strong that fortress is.

I say this because the very idea of OSAS being false causes many Christians anxiety. Consider the pithy saying: “Arminians know they are saved, but are afraid they can lose it. Calvinists know they can’t lose their salvation, but are afraid they may not have it.” My aim at this point in the article is to split the horns of that dilemma. You can know you are saved, and there is something you can do to ensure you do not lose it: stay in constant connection with God!

If Eve had just called upon Yahweh in the Garden when the serpent was tempting her in Genesis 3, if she had just sought Him instead of depending on her own understanding—things might be very different today.

And while I said there is something “you” can “do,” technically it is God working in you both to will and to work for His good purpose (Philippians 2:12-13). Sanctification is synergistic, but it is the explicit will of God (1 Thessalonians 4:3). As James 4:7-8 says, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you” (ESV).

My friends, are you drawing near to God? Are you talking to Him daily? Multiple times a day? Are you praying long prayers, short prayers, medium prayers, casual prayers, earnest prayers, petitionary formal prayers, and casual conversational prayers? Are you talking to your Heavenly Father? Church, are you conversing with your Husband, Jesus Christ?

Are you reading the Bible? Are you studying it? If you own a physical Bible, is it starting to see some wear and tear? If you use a digital Bible like me (Logos fanboy that I am), is your digital translation getting increasingly marked up with highlights and attached notes as you continue to learn? When you need it, is the Holy Spirit bringing to your mind scriptures you’ve memorized, exegeted, preached on, taught on, or used in theological debates? When the devil comes at you, do you slash him in the throat with an “It is written,” or are you caught unarmed? (see Ephesians 6:17).

Are you attending church? Are you sitting under sound preaching? Are you studying the Bible in groups with your brothers and sisters? Are you participating in a Spirit-led community? Or are you, at best, watching a preacher at home every Sunday on YouTube in your pajamas?

If you said no to all of these, you’re not abiding in Christ. You need to take the devil seriously, and you need to take the threat of apostasy seriously, but you don’t need to let it terrify you. If you ask, “I know I’m saved today, but what if I fall in the future?”—you won’t, as long as you abide in Christ in the future!

When David fought Goliath, he took the enemy seriously. He went in armed with a sling and a stone. But he didn’t cower. Nor did he casually stroll onto the field thinking he was invincible. He rested in the power of the Most High, threw his stone, and felled the giant to the ground! The devil can roar and taunt and say, “I defy the God of Israel” all day long, but you, in the power of the Holy Spirit, can walk right up to him and ask, “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?”

Conclusion

Ultimately, we’ve seen eternal security is not biblical. There are numerous texts warning us not to fall away, and the proof texts for Eternal Security ultimately fail to provide biblical backing for the doctrine. For those to whom this article may be very upsetting, I have tried to bring comfort that has been displaced. Our security isn’t found in a mechanical lock or a theological safety net. It is found in the safe house of Jesus Christ. Stop worrying about whether you can fall out of a fortress, and just keep your eyes on the King. Abide in Him, draw near to Him daily, and walk in the confidence of His Spirit.

You don’t have to cower before the threat of apostasy, nor do you have to live in perpetual anxiety over your status before God. Your King has given you the armor, the Word, and His very presence. Pick up your sling, stay connected to the Vine, and stand firm in your allegiance.

Until next time, stay in the Word, stay in prayer, and keep using the brains that God gave you.