I like to find a different way to say “Eternal security is not true” than saying “Eternal security is not true.” I only do that because over the years I have discussed this false, dangerous doctrine with so many evangelicals that it’s been easy to come up with other ways to say “eternal security is not true,” trying all the while to circle them around to the apostle John’s opinion that only “the one who practices righteousness” has righteousness imputed to him by God.
John actually says not to be deceived about that (1 Jn. 3:7), but a rather large percentage of evangelicals are deceived about it anyway.
I’m older now, and I’m on my second bout with blood cancer, being treated with chemotherapy for the second time. Talking with people who refuse to look at the Scriptures any way other than the way they already look at them is pretty tiring to me, and seems kind of useless.
I’ve been enjoying wandering through a friend’s blog today, though, in between naps, and he has taken the time to use his keyboard on a hardened forehead. So if you like eternal security discussions, here’s a guy—Roman Catholic, sorry—who has taken the time to deal with the issue.
Oh, in case you don’t know, I definitely think Roman Catholics, at least in doctrine if not in practice, have a much better teaching on faith and works than the Protestants, pretty much across the board.
Anyway, here’s the post. It’s one in a series.
He apparently goes on a December silence from his blog, maybe for Advent or as a sabbatical, and I here I am on December 1 sharing posts of his. Sorry, RP.