By Bob Wilkin

Most people recognize that religion and politics are divisive issues. Some families make it a rule not to discuss religion or politics at their family gatherings.

Many Christians recognize that doctrine divides. For this reason, some major ministries do not allow certain doctrines to be discussed in their Bible studies. Doctrines that are off limits might include tongues, prophecy, and the sign gifts. But did you know that some groups ban the discussion of eternal security? It, too, is divisive.

There are pros and cons to teaching on eternal security in your church or Bible study. Let’s consider both, starting with the cons.

The cons are:

1. Eternal security is divisive.
2. Some visitors will not come back if we teach on it.
3. If visitors leave, they won’t have a chance to hear our good teaching.
4. The church finances will suffer.
5. Attendance will suffer.
6. Unbelievers will be turned off and won’t keep coming.

The pros are:

1. A person cannot be born again until he believes in Jesus for everlasting life that can never be lost (John 3:16; 11:25-27; 20:31).
2. Believers cannot grow properly unless they remain sure that they are eternally secure (1 John 5:9-13).
3. God commands us to teach the whole counsel of God’s Word (Acts 20:27).
4. Sometimes visitors who hear about eternal security will be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11 and will search the Scriptures to see whether this is true. Some will come to faith as a result.
5. If the finances and attendance of the church suffer as a result, then that is as it should be. If we hide the vital truths of Scripture in order to increase attendance and finances, we lose our reason for existing.

The apostles were arrested and put in prison for preaching the message of life in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:17-18). The message of everlasting life was (and is) divisive.

Then an angel came and “opened the gates of the prison, and taking them out he said, ‘Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this life” (Acts 5:19-20, NASB95). The apostles did as they were told and started teaching at daybreak.

The Jewish authorities were furious.

The high priest, the most revered priest, said, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28, NASB95).

What the angel called “the whole message of this life,” the high priest called “teaching in this name.” When the apostles preached about Jesus, they preached the message of everlasting life to all who believe in Him.

Peter and the other apostles knew that the message of life was divisive. But they did not shrink back. This is how they responded to the high priest: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

The Jewish leadership was so angry that they “intended to kill them” (Acts 5:33, NASB95). Only the intervention of a famous teacher, Gamaliel, deterred them.

The authorities accepted Gamaliel’s counsel and did not kill them. Instead, the authorities beat them and “commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go” (Acts 5:40).

What was the apostles’ attitude after being beaten for doing what God told them to do?

They rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name” (Acts 5:41). And that was not the end of their preaching the promise of life: “…daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42).

Let’s say you’re part of a church of 500 that has a senior pastor and two assistant pastors. The senior pastor leaves, so the church calls a new pastor to take his place. This pastor boldly proclaims the promise of eternal security, and half the church members express their displeasure. A meeting is held, and it becomes clear that a church split is brewing. The elders back the pastor. They believe in eternal security. It is in the church’s doctrinal statement. The previous pastor rarely taught it, and when he did, he presented eternal security as an interesting but non-essential doctrine. The people who disagreed were undisturbed (and unconvinced) and remained in the church.

The hypothetical result is that half the church leaves. Church finances suffer greatly. All three pastors have to take pay cuts.

What would your attitude be if you were part of the half that stayed? Would you be upset that the leadership stood up for the clear teaching of eternal security? Or would you rejoice that you were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name?

For me, this is not a hypothetical issue. It happened to me and to GES.

At our 2006 annual conference, Bob Bryant and Zane Hodges gave messages in which they said that a person is not born again until he believes in Jesus for everlasting life, defined as “salvation that can never be lost.” It split the conference. Half the conferees voiced strong disagreement. There were 360 in attendance that year. The next year, we had 160 at our annual conference.

In my opinion, that has been the single most important event in the history of GES. It was instrumental in us moving forward with a unified vision and message.

I’m not suggesting that our tone is unimportant. If our tone is mean and nasty, then our tone, not our message, will drive people away.

But if our tone is loving and caring and our message still rubs some the wrong way, then so be it. Those who are open will receive the message.

The message of eternal security is not some unimportant doctrine. It is not a secondary issue. It is a primary issue.

To keep grace in focus, you must remain certain that you are saved once and for all simply by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from all works, including future works.

____________________

Bob Wilkin is Executive Director of Grace Evangelical Society. He and Sharon live in Highland Village, TX. He has racewalked twelve marathons.