It’s been a while since I have blogged on the topic of “Conditional Security”. Probably too long.
I admit, I struggle with the topic, and yearn for the days when I was convinced of the “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS) belief.
But I have considered what “those other believers” teach (as if there is such a group as “those other believers”!), and have found their argument to have some strength.
How do you handle other opinions and teachings within the church? Are they a threat? Do you automatically consider the source heretical?
Generally, when a believer teaches something your denomination avoids or condemns, do you assume your group is right, or do you test the teaching by studying the Word? Simply refusing it since you may not have been taught it seems shortsighted, and kinda arrogant.
I fell into that religious swamp for far too many years, and I thank God that He gave me the willingness to consider opposing teachings. I was in a religious ghetto, an echo chamber that was creating a spirit of deadness in me.
Don’t live in da ghetto brudder!
Consider some opposing view that good Christian men and women believe. Be challenged by it and do not avoid it. Search the Scripture to see if it be so.
Okay, enough of my rant. Back to conditional security.
This particular set of verses may seem to argue against conditional security, and if that be, that be good. We all need to be corrected by the Word, to be humble enough to admit that our knowledge base is tiny, somewhat full of hot air, and shot through with bias’s and wrong motivations.
If the Bible teaches something that we are to rely on, it needs to be clearly taught and without contradictions. The rest is potential fodder for destructive argument and distractive red herrings. But I digress (again).
Let’s consider the passage.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.