Satan hates Permanent Security

Satan does not agree with God about lost and saved. God says to those who do not have the righteousness required: ye shall surely die. Satan says: let’s discuss that, let’s find a way to verify that empirically. Satan says: nobody knows for sure.

Satan says: do you think you are God that you know for sure? Then Satan says: and who are you to think you know for sure what God has said? Satan says: and who is God to say for sure you will die. Satan says: that was a generalization about people dying, but on this historical occasion, we can’t know for sure what will happen, since future grace is conditional and nothing is finished yet.

I am not saying that the liberals have denied my freedom of speech. I have no desire to sit down at the liberal’s table and “cast my vote” and “say what I have to say” and then agree to whatever happens.

God’s gospel is clear and is not a matter for negotiation. I have no desire to talk to anybody if the cost of talking is to agree with them first that they are saved even if they don’t agree with me about the gospel. I have no desire for an apologetic which lets the enemies of the cross decide what counts as the evidence of assurance or as .the condition of perseverence.

You can call us fanatics if you like, but we know that nobody can know the truth we know until they believe the gospel we do. And the truth we know is not a partial truth which is only true for us. Even though we are sinners, even though we do not know anything exhaustively, nevertheless we know the truth.

When evolutionists talk of a “fallibilism” by which they are self-corrected by the “facts”, they are not confessing sins but only confessing again that there is no God who will tell them what the facts are and what the facts mean.

So when I talk about the gospel to liberals, I refuse to agree first that they might be right. If they agree with me about the gospel, then they will learn to repent of being wrong.

Explore posts in the same categories: arminians, election


You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

6 Comments on “Satan hates Permanent Security”

  1. David Bishop Says:

    This is very, very good.

  2. markmcculley Says:

    Is there a place between

    “being truly reformed has nothing to do with the gospel”


    “i you don’t believe in definite atonement, you don’t know or believe the gospel”?

    Does being “truly Reformed” mean watering babies?

    Can you be “Reformed” but not preach election as having decided whose sins were imputed to Christ?

    Can you be “reformed” and deny the right of Christians to kill as magistrates?

  3. markmcculley Says:

    A Lutheran: Some people really do have eternal life before they lose it. I guess I have never doubted this, and it has always been something I have had some concern about— making shipwreck of my faith, not just being “faithless” but disowning him.

    mark: So when you say “eternal” life, you are thinking in some qualitative way, not of a life that necessarily continues forever? It seems to me that there is a distinction to be made between now having “eternal life” and that time on the last day when God will raise up the justified elect and give them immortality. But isn’t “eternal life” now the verdict declared already of “immortality in the age to come”? Isn’t it the verdict that a person will not come into the judgment?

    John 5:2 4 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

    And so the Reformed question: how can a person who has passed from death to life, then pass back to life? What is the practical difference between accusing the Reformed of not knowing if they have life (or if they now believe) and a Lutheran saying: I know I believe now, but that does not mean I will keep believing. I know I have eternal life now, but it might not be eternal forever, it might not be life forever.

    1. I don’t see how Lutherans have escaped the Reformed problem–how can you really know that you even really believe now? You go to church? Well, Reformed people do that also. 2. It’s the old Cromwell question. Supposedly he relied on a syllogism on his death bed–if I believed once, then I cannot lose my justification, and I know that I believed once, therefore….

    But there are problems with that
    1. He’s believing in his belief. He’s looking at himself believing, not at Christ.

    2. So Lutherans think the solution is to get our eyes off of themselves, off of the question if they are believing, and think to do this by telling everybody that they all are justified, before believing.

    3. But it does not work for more than a moment, because Lutherans (at least those who are not universalists) also say that they can’t be sure that they themselves (previously justified) will keep believing and will keep the “eternal life” they once had.

    4. So they have come around to the same place as the Reformed–—are you believing now? And you can’t prove it with your living, since that attempt is not believing.

    5. So what was the difference? It was the gospel, the object being believed. The Reformed say, you are not justified apart from believing, not justified before believing. (And I agree with this, even as I insist that God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness is before new birth and faith.) But the Lutherans tell us— believe that you are justified, instead of believing to be justified

  4. David Bishop Says:

    If you are really the Son of God, then why not turn these stones into bread?

    If you have really been made righteous, then why don’t you get better results?

  5. markmcculley Says:

    rom a Reformed perspective the Lutheran system represents an inconsistent monergism

    Storms vs Horton—Horton’s argument is best seen in his treatment of the notoriously difficult Hebrews 6 passage. He contends that the blessings listed in vv. 4-5 are experienced neither by the “saved” nor the “unsaved” but by those persons who belong to the covenant community but who have not been regenerated or come to saving faith in Christ. Horton believes that a “covenant child” (i.e., the child of a believing parent who was baptized as an infant into the covenant of grace and thus is exposed to the “sanctified sphere of the Spirit’s work” can experience everything mentioned in vv. 4-5 without being saved.

    In other words, by virtue of infant baptism, a person can become a “member” of the covenant without “truly embracing the word that is preached” (37). It is to such persons that the warning passages, threatening the consequences of apostasy, are addressed. Such a person “belongs to the covenant community and experiences thereby the work of the Spirit through the means of grace, and yet is regenerate” . He faults the other views for failing to recognize “a category for a person who is in the covenant but not personally united by living faith to Jesus Christ” . Such persons, “born into the covenant of grace….merely to belong to the covenant externally but to embrace the reality that the covenant promises and conveys by the Spirit through the word and sacraments” (37).

    This is evidently why Horton feels no need to exegete in detail the many passages that speak of “falling away” or “making shipwreck of faith” or the like. All such folk who “fall” in this way are unregenerate “members” of the covenant by virtue of their baptism as infants of believing parents who, in the final analysis, utterly reject the promises of cleansing and forgiveness that both baptism and the Eucharist proclaimed.

    Storms– I find this entirely unpersuasive. There is no indication in the New Testament that anyone was regarded as a member of the New Covenant (as promised in Jeremiah 31 and instituted by Christ at the last supper) apart from a personal, conscious act of faith in the redemptive work and resurrection life of Jesus Christ. …
    Horton’s attempt to connect the warnings with the supposed spiritual benefits of infant baptism (one of which he identifies as the “sealing” of the Spirit is perhaps the principal flaw in all forms of traditional covenant theology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: