There are two main views when it comes to the eternal security debate. The first view would be that of the eternal security view, which claims that once a Christian is saved, they are saved forever and there is nothing they can do to fall out of grace. On the other side of the spectrum there is the conditional security view, which claims that a Christian needs to continue to persist in God and move forward in their faith. In other words, the conditional view is more works oriented and biased towards Christians, while the eternal view is more of a simple faith ordeal. It is in my opinion that the conditional security view is the most logical and can be supported very well Biblically.
I think one of the most helpful passages that supports this position is found in Matthew 7:22-23. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”
Here we have people who are operating in the gifts of the Spirit, which obviously implies that these individuals do in fact have the Spirit, which implies that they are in fact Christians. Despite this fact, we also see that they were not persisting in their faith, but rather that they were “practicing lawlessness” and living in sin. For this reason we see that these very verses correlate entirely to the conditional view. The New Bible Commentary states this point quite well when it says, “Acceptance depends not on profession, nor even on apparently Christian activity, but on whether Jesus knew them. Note the extraordinary authority he assumes as judge; to enter the kingdom of heaven depends on his acknowledgment and consists in being with him.”
The conditional view is also supported by the famous story in Matthew 25:31-46. In these verses, God separates the sheep from the goats by placing people in groups based off of how much they did to help others. Notice that He did not place people in groups based off if they were saved Christians or not, but instead He placed them into groups based off works. Those who did not do such works (the goats) were placed into eternal punishment while those who did (the sheep) were brought into eternal life.
Many simply take this verse to mean that the Christians are the sheep and the goats are everyone else, but they fail to see what is really said here. Now I would not say that this means that those who are not Christians will go to Heaven if they did good things for others, because when one combines these verses with other verses we see that belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation as well. One commentary points out “The basis for entrance was faith, evidenced by works of kindness (25:35–39). No unbelievers (“goats”) would be permitted to enter.”
Outside of these Biblical reasons, I would say that logic is a big part of this argument. I feel that those who take the eternal security view have a wonderful hope and a beautiful story, but an illogical and irrational idea of what Christianity is. It is a watered down view of Christianity and it is part of the reason it becomes so easy for many to say say “Lord, Lord,” while practicing lawlessness. It is not that the eternal security debate is wrong in all aspects, because our Lord is full of more grace and love than we can fathom, but when we live like a pagan, we die like a pagan. To what degree of paganism we can live under is up to God as He is the judge. But when we love a person, we should expect ourselves to show it and we should not even have to ask “how pagan can I be and still get by?” We do not fall into a marriage and simply leave it at that, but we work for the other person’s love. Yet so many times people will apply this to anything except Christianity while they try to figure out how sinful they can be without going to far.
One author made a clothing analogy to salvation and grace. “God provides us with the clothes of Christ’s righteousness. We are saved as we put on Christ. And we grow in Christ the same way we receive Christ, by putting on what is provided for us.” To make a play off of this analogy, I would like to point out that the problem with many Christians is that they wear clothes other than the ones Christ gave them. Satan also has his own clothing store that is quite accessible. The more his lawlessness clothes us, the more we look like a goat and after awhile we eventually look nothing like a Christian.
The biggest objection some would have for the conditional argument would be that it cheapens God’s grace and love for us. I believe, however, that God’s grace and love are the same for us regardless of the conditional view. He still loves us dearly and wants to offer us all the grace He can give, but the mistake is not found in God, but rather in ourselves. It is not God who practices lawlessness or does not reach out to others, but it is we who do so. I would imagine He would want to offer as much grace as possible, but when we live a life like those outside of grace, we become one removed from grace. It has nothing to do with cheapening the attributes of God, but with ourselves cheapening our own attributes. The mistake is in us.
Bibliography
Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Mt 7:13).
Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.
Hughes, R. B., & Laney, J. C. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. The Tyndale
reference library (420). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Larson, B., Anderson, P., & Self, D. (1990). Mastering pastoral care. Mastering ministry
(122). Portland, Or.; Carol Stream, IL: Multnomah Press; Christianity Today.


