-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question of the "eternal security of the believer" is often raised in letters we receive. This subject has been the cause of much controversy in the church for centuries- and still creates confusion and distress for many Christians. It is too much to expect to dispel this problem completely for everyone in a brief tract, but perhaps we can at least help in that direction. (Hunt)

Those who believe in "falling away" accuse those who believe in "eternal security" of promoting "cheap grace." The latter in itself is an unbiblical expression. To call it "cheap" is really a denial of grace, since it implies that too small a price has been paid.

Answer:  Calling the Eternal Securist’s doctrine "cheap grace" since it teaches the inevitable conclusion that one can sin all they want and still be "secure" in their salvation, is somehow a denial of grace? This is absurd! Just because many Eternal Securist's treat the blood of Christ so cheaply as if it were a license to sin, does not mean that their doctrine of grace is true! "Cheap Grace" is a "False Grace." To call this grace a "cheap grace" is not to fight against truth, it is to defend "Biblical Grace!"

Grace, however, must be absolutely free and without any price at all on man's part; while on God's part the price He paid was infinite. Thus for man to think that his works can play any part in either earning or keeping his salvation is what cheapens grace, devaluing this infinite gift to the level of human effort.

Answer: First of all, Mr. Hunt has no Biblical proof for the THEORY that he rests his conclusions on. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that the "price He paid" excludes any responsibility in man! In fact, Mr. Hunt denies fatalism, yet he contradicts his own statements by asserting that there are no conditions to receiving salvation. You had to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). No faith, no salvation. The same faith one needs in order to get saved is required to stay saved! You must continue to repent and believe in order to retain the benefit of the Gospel to be saved (1 John 1:9). You cannot say that salvation is "conditional," requiring faith at its inception, and then accuse the Biblical standard of "continuing" in the faith as a condition of salvation as somehow "earning or keeping" your salvation. Continued faith is not "earning" your salvation. Faith that continues is the Biblical definition of saving faith.

Answer: Mr. Hunt confuses the "conditions" of salvation with the "meriting" of salvation. His THEORY can only be true if there are no conditions to salvation whatsoever! If one can be saved WITHOUT faith, then one can rightly say that there is nothing one can do to "fall" from it. But, if FAITH is required to have "grace," then it possible to lose grace if faith ceases. Either Hunt’s THEORY is true, and faith and belief have NOTHING to do with salvation, or, the Bible is true and faith is essential to salvation. "Without faith it is impossible to please him:" (Heb. 11:6). 

Answer: Mr. Hunt believes that works have nothing to do with salvation. This is clearly an overstatement that goes far beyond the Bible. He has convoluted the idea that since the Scriptures state that one cannot merit salvation by works, that this somehow eliminates works from the Gospel scheme. The Bible clearly says that salvation cannot be merited by "works," and it just as equally demands that "works" accompany salvation. The balance here is that true conversion and faith will and must produce good works in order to evidence itself as genuine conversion or faith. The Scriptures constantly state that "works" are part of the Christian walk. The Bible is not a book that is "against" good works in any way. 

Mr. Hunt tries to equate the idea that believing that one can fall away from the faith is equivalent to believing that one is saved by works. Those that believe the Biblical teaching that salvation can be lost or forfeited, do not believe in meriting or earning salvation either! The truth of the matter is that those that believe that one can fall away from the faith also believe in salvation by grace just a thoroughly as he does! They however, do not discard the other half of the truth by ignoring what the Scriptures say about works and the believer. Just because "works" cannot "earn" salvation does not mean that "works" have nothing to do with salvation. It is deceptive lie to say that salvation has "nothing" to do with works. What does the Bible say concerning the role of works and salvation? The Bible says that those that are truly saved WILL bear fruit (John 15:5), and those that cease to abide in the vine (Jesus Christ) fail to produce fruit and are "taken away" and "burned." (John 15:2, 6). James states that "faith, if it has not works, is dead..." (James 2:14, 17). A "dead" faith is not a "saving" faith.

Mr. Hunt, along with most Antinomians, misapplies Ephesians 2:8-10 by ignoring verse 10. We are saved by grace... TRUE; We are not saved by merit of works... TRUE; But verse 10 says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS, which GOD HATH ORDAINED that we should walk in them." If one’s faith does not produce good works, then it is no saving faith at all. A Biblical, saving faith demands good works! If one can be saved without good works, then the promise of Christ is a failure! If we can fail to produce good fruit or works, then the "workmanship" of Christ is a failure! Being in Him, (the Vine), has resulted in nothing. The life giving sap of the Vine has proven to be  ineffective. If Christ cannot do something as easy as producing good fruit and good works in us, then it is questionable whether He could ever be effectual in saving us from our sin at all! This shows how Mr. Hunt’s THEORY destroys the hope of the Gospel! The Bible contends for a work producing faith; Mr. Hunt contends for a fruitless "devil’s" faith (James 2:19).

Mr. Hunt, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:20).

..if salvation from the penalty of breaking God's laws cannot be earned by good deeds, then it cannot be lost by bad deeds. Our works play no part in either earning or keeping salvation.

Answer: Mr. Hunt’s THEORY further complicates the clarity of the Bible. Here he attempts to deceive the very elect with the lie of the devil. Notice that his argument is based upon his THEORY and the logic of that THEORY, and NOT any teaching from the Bible!

Sin is the barrier that separates man from God. The "wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The "wages" have never changed. In order to have our past sins forgiven, we must repent and believe the Gospel (Romans 3:25; 2 Peter 1:9; 1 John 1:9; Mark 1:15, Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38, 17:30). To "repent" is to turn from that which separates us from God. The forgiveness of sins is received through trust, or belief in the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ. What happens then if one ceases to trust and believe, and refuses to repent? (Ezek. 18:4; 24-32). The Bible says that the soul that sins shall surely die; the wages of sin is death; without faith, it is impossible to please God. My friends, turning from sins in faith is not in any way "earning" salvation; it is true faith! Repentance is part of  Biblical faith. Many people are ignorant of this need. God says, "And in the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness..." (Acts 17:30). Paul exhorts those that were ignorant of the need of works and repentance saying, "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26:20).

Works do not "earn or keep" salvation- Faith does. But what kind of faith saves? One that turns from sin, one that produces good works. No other kind of faith will save you! That is Scriptural.

"salvation can be given to us as a free gift only if the penalty has been fully paid."

Answer: This is patently false. Mr. Hunt seduces us with logic and not Scripture. The atonement of Christ was a provision, and not a payment for sin. The atonement of Christ is a provision for all who will repent and believe. It is not limited to a few people that are mystically "paid for." Viewing the atonement of Christ as a provision instead of a payment expands and enhances the idea that the grace of God is truly a free gift to all. The idea of payment is the one that puts limits on God’s grace.

Therefore God, in love and grace, through the virgin birth, became a man so that He could pay the debt of sin for the entire human race!

Answer: If Mr. Hunt's THEORY that sins were "paid for" on the cross is true, then no one can end up in hell! If a sin was paid for on the cross, then that sin cannot be punished again. If "ALL" the sins of the human race were paid, then "ALL" must be saved! Nowhere in Scripture does it say that God removes this assumed "payment" from those who do not believe. God cannot "unpay" a payment that He has already paid. If it is a payment as Mr. Hunt dogmatically states, and some are ultimately lost, then one of two things must have happened. 

1. The blood of Christ failed these individuals, and thus, His blood will most likely fail all! 

2. The atonement of Christ was not for all (which is a false statement; 1 John 2:2), but limited to a mystical "few." This would destroy the Gospel as "good news" for all, to be a "bad news" for most. If the atonement paid for only a few, then we cannot know if we were "paid for" or whether we have any chance since God does not offer salvation to "all." Salvation becomes a lottery that no one can know if they are the winner until they reach eternity! This is the undeniable conclusion of Mr. Hunt's THEORY. His own THEORY which is supposed to provide assurance, ends up destroying assurance for ALL!

In the Greek, Christ's cry from the cross, "It is finished!" is an accounting term, meaning that the debt had been paid in full. Justice had been satisfied by full payment of its penalty, and thus God could "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom 3:26). On that basis, God offers pardon and eternal life as a free gift. He cannot force it upon anyone or it would not be a gift. Nor would it be just to pardon a person who rejects the righteous basis for pardon and offers a hopelessly inadequate payment instead-or offers his works even as "partial payment."

Answer: This is a fanciful approach to the idea of Eternal Security that has come into popularity in recent years. The argument seems like it is sound and is based upon the Greek term [teleo] which can be translated as "paid". This is a fact, and as a fact it cannot be ignored.

1. "In the Greek, Christ's cry from the cross, "It is finished!" is an accounting term." What we need to realize is that another important fact is conveniently ignored in this statement which is that the same word can mean finished, complete, accomplished, fulfilled, and to bring to an end. It is not always an accounting term as is implied by his statement.

2. Because we have so many different meanings to this singular Greek word, we must look at the context to see which is the preferable translation. It is extremely doubtful that Jesus uttered this statement in an effort to apply any and all meanings of this one word to His death. If this is the case, then we must ask why no reputable translation of the Bible inserts "Paid in full" in place of "It is finished"?

A. The first reason is that the context determines the meaning of the word used in this passage. The obvious contextual translation is "It is finished," or accomplished/complete. His work on the cross on behalf of man has come to an end. To say "paid in full" would deviate from the direction the context is leading us. It is also significant to ask why those in the Apostolic Church, who read the Greek and were close to those who were taught by the disciples never seem to have pressed this interpretation into play. The reason should be obvious, such an idea of atonement never crossed their minds because the Apostles never taught this doctrine!

B. The context uses the same term twice; once in verse 28, and the one in question in verse 30. Tetelestai in verse 28 is, "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, (tetelestai) that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith..."This sets the meaning of "it is finished" (tetelestai) in verse 30. Jesus is confirming in His own words what was accomplished. If the meaning in verse 28 is "accomplished, finished, completed," it makes little or no sense to deviate from its purposeful meaning of "accomplished, finished, complete," in verse 30. If we say verse 30 must mean "paid in full," then verse 28 must have the same meaning, for it is talking about the same thing. Observe the awkwardness if this approach, "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were paid in full, (tetelestai) that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith...""he said, paid in full." (tetelestai). If this were not awkward enough, note that verse 28 specifically states, "that the scripture might be fulfilled." Not once does the Scripture speak of the Cross being a payment, so it is impossible that verse 28, and consequently verse 30 can be translated that way and be true to a fulfillment of Scripture!

C. The most important reason is that there is no Biblical warrant to make such an assertion. There are no passages in the entire Bible that states that anything was paid for on the cross! The Bible never suggests that anyone was paid any amount, or if they were, whom it was that was paid. The entire Old Testament alludes to reconciliation through sacrifice, but never once does it make any reference reconciliation by a payment of an account. The New Testament makes references to the sacrificial system and to the judicial system, but never, not even once does it state that anything was ever paid. There are no parallel passages that would justify imposing such a translation on this passage! Any translator of the Bible that did not want to be laughed out of a job would ever insist on such a wild and unwarranted assertion that it should be translated "paid in full" as is evidenced in every translation that has ever received the acceptance of scholars and the believing public.

D. There is a serious lack of any linguistic history for the argument that the meaning is "paid in full." Such a translation has been missed by the greatest commentators and linguists if the past 2000 years if this is true! It would not surprise me that we cannot find such a translation before 16th century since the Penal Substitution Theory had not been invented yet. But it is astonishing that I cannot find any evidence or suggestion for this translation until the late 1900's; the last 50 years! If such a translation were viable, a credible expositor would have seized the opportunity to support the interpretation of "paid in full" long before now!

E. I conclude that the reason for the suggestion this should be translated "paid in full" does not come from an altruistic motive to faithfully bring forth the meaning of the Bible, but it is brought to our attention in order to salvage a THEORY that cannot be supported by the context of Biblical language.

Salvation is the full pardon by grace from the penalty of all sin, past, present or future; eternal life is the bonus thrown in. Denying this cardinal truth, all cultists, such as Jehovah's Witnesses...

Answer: "Denying this cardinal truth"? How can it be a "truth" if it is not in the Bible? How can he be so dogmatic and crass towards genuine believers in Christ by aligning them with cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses? All because of something the Bible NEVER says? Where does it say past, present, and future? This is truly an attempt to misguide his readers! Apparently his precious THEORY means more to him than unity on Biblical grounds. Why believe Mr. Hunt when you can believe the Bible? If there is anyone that is aligning themselves with the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults, it is Mr. Hunt who seems to be so familiar with their deceptive scare tactics and preference for theories over Scripture! 

Answer: "They teach that salvation is kept by good works." This is apparently so obvious that Hunt cannot even produce a singular proof that those that believe that salvation can be lost actually teach this! These accusations and falsities have a name; it is called slander!

Salvation is not kept by "good works." The believer is "kept" by the power of God THOUGH FAITH." (1 Peter 1:5.) As we have already seen, true saving faith always results in fruit and good works! Only a fruitful faith will save. My friend, if you have a "faith" that has never produced any change in you, you do not have a "saving" faith. Do not settle with false hopes from convincing writers that attempt to get you to disbelieve the Bible in favor of their pet THEORIES. Repent! And Believe the Gospel!

We are truly saved by grace. Salvation is not lost by works, but by loss of faith, which manifests its unbelief by sin. The wages of sin is still death, contrary to popular humanistic THEORIES.

Answer: I agree... Hunt’s false interpretation is FOLLY! The passage never says what he tries to make it say. The passage clearly gives the reason for the impossibility of renewing them to repentance, it is impossible, "since they crucify (present tense Greek) to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (V.6) The verse states that it is IMPOSSIBLE since they are PRESENTLY crucifying Christ. Nothing in this verse denies that they could not stop this action and repent. It only states that it remains IMPOSSIBLE while they continued to do it. The very One that could save them is the very One that they put back on the cross in their hearts. It could only be when they stopped doing so, and admitted the sufficiency of Christ’s death and atonement that they could be renewed.

This is not "hypothetical" as Hunt tries to get you to dismiss a frightful reality. This is not a portion of Scripture that states something that never could happen, for the Bible NEVER warns us of something that is not a real danger. Mr. Hunt wants you to disbelieve the Bible and its grave warnings. This my friend is a poor exchange. He would rather have you believe his THEORY than allow you to believe a warning that was meant to save you from the loss of your eternal soul!

Answer: Hunt ignores portions of these passages that he does not want to be brought to your attention. He conveniently left off the conditions within these verses. In John 5:24 we read that "He that believeth" shall "not come into condemnation," or "ever perish" on the condition, "IF" they are Hearing and Following Christ, and Believing on Him. You see, these conditions are all in the present tense, which means that they must be presently occurring for the desired result to be following. This is what the passage says; Only the one who is presently "hearing" God’s word, and "believing" at this moment, has (present tense) everlasting life (John 5:24). The one who’s belief and hearing of God are past tense do not have the present tense everlasting life. A past tense belief will get you nothing. God demands faith in the present tense!

In John 10:26-29, Jesus surely speaks of the security of the sheep. The question is not whether the sheep are secure, but what is a "sheep?" The passage does not disappoint us by not giving an answer to this vital question. It states, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep..." There we have part of the answer, those that are not sheep do not believe. So the opposite must be true; to be a sheep, one must "believe." In verse 26, the term "believe" is in the present tense. So, one must be believing this moment, right now, continually, or they are not a "sheep."

"My sheep are "hearing" (present tense) my voice, and I know them, and they "follow" (present tense) me:" It is only to the sheep that Jesus gives eternal life. To be a "sheep," one must fulfill the conditions of being a sheep, which are a present abiding faith or belief. Constant present tense listening or hearing of Christ’s directions, and, a present tense following of this guidance. Continuing in sin is NOT listening or following Jesus Christ, and according to this passage, it is not "Believing" in any sense of the word. The bottom line? Those that are not presently hearing, following, and believing are NOT sheep! That is what Christ says! (V.27).

To say that those who say that salvation can be forfeited "make Christ a liar," is to show the greatest contempt towards our Savior’s words! In fact, it would "make Christ a liar" if He were to save anyone that did not meet these qualifications that He set in stone!

In essence, Mr. Hunt is calling Christ a liar since He does not bow to Mr. Hunt's man-made THEORY!

Answer: Hmmm... what about the example of Adam and Eve? How many sins did it take? I don’t think that anyone reading this needs to open their Bible to know how many sins it takes! God gives us His view of sin through the example of Adam and Eve. He does not amend His standard anywhere in Scripture. Once again, you can believe God, or you can believe Mr. Hunt’s THEORY, but you can’t believe both.

Answer: While it is true that 1 John 1:9 would include any sin, it does however do so upon specific conditions. 1 John 1:9 states that, "IF (and only IF) we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..." Nothing is automatic. NOWHERE in Scripture is automatic pre-forgiveness stated! To say so is to put your faith in THEORY, and not the Bible.

"Hebrews 12:3-11 tells us that every Christian sins..." Hunt is so in love with his THEORY that he makes a passage say something that it never says! The BIBLE states that Christians do not sin in practice; it is not their nature. (1 John 3:9). But IF they do, they can confess their sin to the Advocate and be forgiven. (1 John 1:9; 2:1-2). There are convictions and light that the Holy Spirit brings upon the believer. The believer may be unaware of these sins. But because they do not sin out of knowledge and rebellion, the Lord "winks" at their ignorance and chastises them until they understand and repent (Acts 17:30; John 9:41). If one realizes their sin and continues in it with the refusal to repent of it, we are warned in Heb. 10:26-31, "For if we sin willfully (present tense, keep on sinning willfully,) after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins... how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of covenant, wherein he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace..." (See Bible for all verses.)

The Scriptures everywhere exhorts believers not to sin (1 Cor. 15:34; 1 John 2:1; John 5:14; 1 John 8:11; Ps. 4:4; 1 John 5:18). No one sins by necessity (1 Cor. 10:13). We are exhorted that, "Take heed brethren, lest there be in any you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (Heb. 3:12), and to, "Keep yourselves in the love of God" (Jude 21).

Answer: Another passage distorted to support an unbiblical THEORY. Hunt says that it is the believers works, when the context speaks of the works of certain pastors. He also suggests that "works" in this passage are "sins." This is something the passage nor the context ever admits!

These "pastors" were evangelizing, and sometimes with the wrong motive. It was not necessarily sinful to be competitive (as many pastors of churches are today,) but because the motive was not the proper one, they had their reward here on earth instead of in heaven. Notice that these pastors worked, not "sinned!" Nothing in this passage warrants the distortion of the text to say that "The person who hasn't even one good work (all of his works are burned up) is still "saved; yet so as by fire." This is an entirely dishonest interpretation. All the people spoken of had "works," some of what burned, some which did not. "If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon" (V. 14). Notice that the Scriptures know nothing of an idol or unfruitful Christian. But the Scriptures do recognize and describe an idol apostate from the faith who’s reward is damnation! (1 Timothy 5:11-13). Also notice that it said nothing of sins in the passage, so how could they be the "wood, hay, and stubble?" Surely, as these pastors built, it is evident that they did not always build well. Their reward would be lost, but that did not take away their salvation. This passage is not dealing with sinning and rewards, but working and rewards!

Hunt brings up the judgment seat of Christ. He tries to imply that at the judgment seat we will not be judged for works, but our faith. Jesus said, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation." John 5:28-29. Paul writes that God "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality; eternal life" (Romans 2:6-7). "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor. 5:9-10). Notice that the idea that we will be judged according to our deeds, and not for our belief. But beliefs usually help to dictate the deeds that we do. This is the problem with Hunt’s THEORY. What dangers are there if one believes that they can sin all they want and all they lose are rewards? Notice that these passages state that we will receive according to what is done, and not according to what we believed. Peter asserts, that the Father, "without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man's work" (1 Peter 1:17). And St. John concludes with these formidable words: "And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works." (Rev. 22:12). Observe that it is not once said, "according to their faith."

We should not be afraid to stand on Biblical ground that good works are a good thing. It is when they become a means of earning salvation there is a problem. Asserting that one must have a fruitful salvation that produces good works in order for it to be a saving faith is Biblical. It is not "earning" one’s salvation. We must ask why a teacher would fight so hard against good fruit and good works when the Bible spends so much time exhorting us to do so!

Answer: This is the conclusion of Mr. Hunt’s THEORY. He presents this conclusion with great confidence and gusto! Unfortunately, it is not passion and dogmatism that makes such statements true, but the Bible and its contained truths that are the standard of correctness. We have seen that the "gospel" that Mr. Hunt gives us is not the Gospel of the Bible. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what the Bible says on the issue.

To build a doctrine upon the sinking sands of THEORY is dangerous ground. God emphatically says that sin is dangerous. Mr. Hunt says that sin is of little consequence besides "chastisement" and "rewards." To elevate this human THEORY above Scriptural truth is to set up an idol over God. My "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21.)

I can only conclude that many have been given a strong delusion when they show the consistency of always favoring a THEORY for their source of truth instead of favoring the Bible's light on any subject. The Bible is not to be fought; it is not to be explained away; it is to be believed.  

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY     ETERNAL SECURITY.US

For more on the "Gift" of Grace    More on the Atonement