Four Views on Eternal Security

Counterpoints

by J. Matthew Pinson (Editor), Michael Scott Horton (Contributor)

Does the Bible support the concept of 'once saved, always saved, ' or can a person lose his or her salvation? How do the Scriptures portray the complex interplay between grace and free will? These and related questions are explored from different angles in this thought-provoking Counterpoints volume. The contributors each state their case for one of four prominent views on eternal security: classical Calvinist, moderate Calvinist, reformed Arminian, and Wesleyan Arminian. In keeping with the forum approach of the Counterpoints series, each view is first presented by its proponent, then critiqued and defended. This fair and respectful approach allows you to weigh for yourself the strengths and weaknesses of the different doctrinal stances. By furnishing you with scholarly and thoughtful perspectives on the topic of eternal security, this book helps you sift through opposing views to arrive at your own informed conclusions. The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two categories: Church Life and Bible and Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction

304 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2002

About the author

J. Matthew Pinson is president of Welch College in Nashville, Tennessee. He holds a master's degree from Yale and a doctorate from Vanderbilt and has authored or edited several books, including Four Views on Eternal Security and A Free Will Baptist Handbook. He lives in the Nashville area with his wife, Melinda, and their children, Anna and Matthew.

Reviews

[Mark Nenadov · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book with pretty high expectations, but it didn't satisfy my high expectations.

Firstly, as one other reviewer mentioned, the book spends very little time in exegesis of the key texts. Too much time is spent bickering back and forth about predestination and free will. Sure those two topics are foundational and need to be addressed, but I didn't like the way they distracted from the main topic. In an attempt to avoid "proof texting", I think the theologians forgot to go into in-depth exegesis. It seems to me that the authors were also slow to challenge errant interpretations of certain texts. Could this be because of length constraits? Perhaps. For example, take Revelation 22:19. Ashby uses the rendering chosen by the Textus Receptus, but nobody actually challenges him on that. One would think that the textual issues of Revelation 22:19 would be brought up, but they were not.

Thirdly, I think the "Moderate Calvinist" position is misapplied. Norman Geisler is an Arminian that believes in Eternal Security, not a Moderate Calvinist.

Fourthly, I don't mean to be rude, but Norman Geisler (or 'Giesler' as they call him on page 158) was really making things laughable. He goes along and tries to make a claim to being a Moderate Calvinist, when he really isn't one. Also, he makes some wacky statements, like "Even a casual reading of Arminius reveals the extent to which he was Calvinistic". This is just laughable! Arminius a Calvinist? OK, Mr. Geisler, we have just lost all hope in your ability to even understand this issue. And it doesn't stop there. Page 270 has another extremely wishy-washy statement by Mr. Geisler. He says "predestination is not conditional... The only conditional is our receiving it". Mr. Geisler, what will it be? Is it conditional or unconditional, it can't be both! Another classic statement by Geisler is "God's love is irresistible on the willing". The whole idea of the word 'irresistible' implies that it doesn't matter whether one is willing. That statement is plain double-speak. Is it irresistable or not? Again, you can't have both. Giesler is a respectable theologian, I appreciate his contributions to apologetics, but he doesn't seem to have a handle on this topic and can't seem to even use within their normative usages.

Fifthly, although Michael Horton had one of the more refined approaches in this book, I think he made a mistake in making his arguments too tightly dependent on the children of the covenant and his particular conception the covenants.

I think, independantly of what I believe (based on basic evaluation techniques), that Stephen Ashby's presentation was the most refined with Michael Horton coming in a close second.

I found Harper to be the least refined, with Geisler second worst. Harper probably did the least scriptural exegesis and spent most of his time exegeting Wesley instead. He was civil in the debate, but very unconvincing.

I acknowledge that this book may be the best book on the topic due to a lack of titles in this area. There aren't many good "point of view" books on this topic. Therefore, I will give this book 2 stars, while I feel it deserves only 1. I really wish the publisher was more careful with this book and put the effort to refine it. The book was interesting to me, but it wasn't very potent nor exegetically enlightening.

[Grace Burns · Rating 3 out of 5]

On one hand I enjoyed the book well enough I would like to buy it so as to re-read and annotate, but on the other can't really justify giving it above a three star rating. I can't concisely say why, so here is a list of my thoughts on the book with truly no rhyme or reason to them:
- I cannot from this say as confidently as I would like that I hold to a moderate Calvinist view of eternal security, but I can confidently say that I don't hold to any of the others.
- The last chapter, on the Wesleyan Arminian view I think gave the best overview of the belief with a good mix of what and why. It gave great insight into Wesley's thought, though was perhaps somewhat lacking in scriptural defense, which lead to it being the least convincing.
- I was left somewhat confused however as to why it is called Wesleyan Arminian at all and not just plain Wesleyanism, given that Harper even says that Wesley's use of the term Arminian in his Arminian Magazine "erroneously made it appear that Arminius was a more substantial theological source than he actually was" (127). Perhaps I just missed something there though that made the connection clearer.
- The strong/classical Calvinist chapter had a rather strange lack of explanation as to what Calvin himself had to say on the issue, and rather felt like solely an explanation of what Horton believes.
- Ashby's rebuttal of Harpers argument was by and far the most convincing, despite his arguments not being much more convincing to me, which I found interesting.
-I would have liked in the introduction to be given a recommendation as to whether to read the book cover to cover or to read each main chapter then all the rebuttals second. I can't decide if I liked my choice (cover to cover) or if I would have better been able to follow the rebuttals after having read the main chapters.
- I believe all (and if not all at least half) of the authors at one point or another gave a plea for the reader to analyze their beliefs critically and not rely on 'dogma', which to me in the ways they were phrased felt unnecessarily combative in a way that made me want to take their arguments less seriously. It felt almost name call-y, though I do doubt that was the intent. I just think it wasn't necessary. (No citations because I don't feel like finding them. I just remember thinking about this more than once and jotted it down to mention. If I re-read the book I will either put in citations here or take this point out if it is proven wrong.)

[Sarah Simpson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really cleared up the Classical/Reformed Arminian position for me. I don't know who won; if it had been a real debate, it would have been Ashby or Horton. Harper did a good job representing Wesley, but ultimately wasn't super convincing in his arguments. Geisler was terrible, so many inconsistencies, although I did like how he quoted a lot of scripture. The only disappointment I had was that I wished Horton would have spent a little less time on Covenant Theology. I did enjoy what he said about it, I just think his argument would have had more weight if he had elaborated on his other points more and used more scripture (there are a ton of verses he could have quoted, or at least referenced). Overall, it was a fantastic book and would be helpful for anyone who wanted to better understand the four main views of eternal security.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with all the books in this counterpoint series, it is always helpful to have a side-by-side comparison of different approaches to this topic. What is just as helpful as the essays where each of the four authors lays out their understanding is the responses to each view by the other three contributors. I found the chapters by Michael Horton (Classical Calvinist) and Stephen Ashby (Reformed Arminianism) to be particularly insightful and well done. The chapters by Norman Geisler (Moderate Calvinism) and J. Stephen Harper (Wesleyan-Arminianism) were comparatively weak but still helped with getting a grip on the full gamut of possible (mis)interpretations of this perennially debated topic.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 3 out of 5]

Horton wins, and I am not even a Horton fan. Horton frames his view under the Pactum Salutis. Secondly, he doesn't mention John Calvin at all. His Wesleyan critic admits he cannot even deal with Horton's position. The other detractor s a "Reformed Arminian." One wonders, now, how is position would compare with the Federal Vision.

The final position is Norman Geisler's, who defends a carnal Christian view of eternal security (once saved always saved, sin with abandon).

The editors should be commended for choosing to representatives of "eternal security." This way critics can see that the true position is not the carnal one of Geisler.

[Rachel Shallenberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like these types of books because they respond to each other right here in the same place. It allows all sides to be heard and ideas to be better worked out.

This one was not as enjoyable as the other one I read (which is... I don't remember. 😬). They seemed more confused over how to define each other's groups more than focusing on the theology and what Scripture has to say on the specific question of whether true believers can lose their salvation. Like, this guy claims to be Reformed Calvinist, but #doubt (or something). And only one contributor significantly addressed Scripture, though he simplified and generalized too much on many of them. Also, how does no one mention the work of the Holy Spirit upon receiving Christ? He doesn't even come up! Humans are not the SAME before and after salvation INHERENTLY because of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. How did none of them even bring this up (on either side)?

I was largely confused for much of the writing, which could be because I'm not actually a theologian and they may have been just talking over my head. But I also think it's a complicated topic and there may be some confusion on their sides as well. Maybe because Scripture isn't cut and dry on this, and maybe we could all be open to being challenged on our beliefs here.

At the end of it, I don't know if I changed my current leanings on the question, but I learned more about Wesley and Arminius than I did previously, I guess. I may actually look into Arminius' writings, since he has apparently been somewhat misrepresented in his beliefs by some who call themselves Arminians (that is to say, they have moved a little ways away from what he actually wrote, apparently?). But Wesley? Not a fan, I think. But on the question of eternal security, like, 🤷‍♀️ prob can't lose your salvation (because of the Holy Spirit and the whole death to life idea). So yeah, no change, I guess! 🙌

I recommend the series of books. Maybe start with a different topic, though.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

These books often leave something to be desired. With only one response to give, there really is no back and forth to clarify where people are essentially talking past one another and defining terms differently. Would love a debate format with just two authors at a time, but alas, that would end up being four books, not one. But I would not be opposed.

[Daniel Mann · Rating 5 out of 5]

I LOVE the format of this book and the content is really enlightening.

[Lucas Bradburn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok. Michael Horton's essay, while significantly shorter than the other contributors, stands head and shoulders above the other views presented in this book. Stephen Ashby, representing the Reformed Arminian viewpoint, comes in at second place. He helpfully clears up various misconceptions and offers a well-argued defense of classic Arminianism. I found Steve Harper's view (Wesleyan Arminianism) to be mediocre; while his chapter was illuminating in some ways, in other ways it misrepresented Wesley's own views and obscured the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Norman Geisler, representing the moderate Calvinist approach, had the weakest essay of the group. He not only repeatedly misrepresented his opponent's viewpoints, but he also made some of the most confusing (sometimes even downright contradictory) statements. Of the numerous examples I could point to, take this as an example: "...Predestination is not conditional, as Wesleyans claim. God gives saving grace unconditionally. The only condition is for our receiving it, not for God's giving it." This made me think, "Well, which is it Dr. Geisler, is predestination unconditional or conditional? If it has even one condition, then it is NOT unconditional. Astoundingly, Geisler maintains that it is. Here is another example of one of his perplexing statements: "Strong Calvinists believe God's love is irresistible on the unwilling" (which, incidentally is the definition of "irresistible," something that is NOT resisted), but then Geisler goes on to say, "Moderate Calvinists, however, affirm that God's love is irresistible only on the willing." This comment left me scratching my head. If God's love is irresistible, like Geisler wants to maintain, then it even has an affect on those who are unwilling. If it only is received by the willing, then it is not irresistible by definition. Despite his claims the contrary, Geisler's position is anything but Calvinistic-- as every contributor pointed out. Rather than being an alleged "four-point Calvinist," he is a half-point Calvinist at best (holding to only half of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints).

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I looked forward to getting a good overview of different views on eternal security. The strength of these types of books is that each view is articulated by a proponent, which often helps eliminate strawman understandings.

I was surprised by how Horton presented his Calvinist view. Rather than root it in Election, he grounds it in Covenant Theology. That is fine, but seems to leave out other forms of Calvinism that accept TULIP but not CT. I would have preferred that this book had someone present that view.

Geisler, an author I am familiar with and admire, did an awful job in his essay. He claimed to be Calvinistic yet redefined TULIP to get there. Most of the other writer's responses suggested he was arguing for a SemiPelagian view. He also presented what might be aligned with the Free Grace movement (like Charles Stanley advocates) seemingly arguing for it yet also trying to distance himself from it.

The standout essay was Ashby's on the classic Arminian view, which included the possibility of apostasy. It wad well written and persuasive and probably one of the best arguments I've read on this perspective.

In addition to lacking a classic Calvinist view, the book could have included a view that defended perseverance from a more Arminian/Baptist understanding which rejects the Free Grace view (that ignores passages on enduring faith) yet defends security.

[Rob Petersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The contributors are very polemical in that snarky, academic way; the views are adequately expressed, but all lacking in some manner to me. I wish there had been more exegesis of Scripture and less quotations of Christian pesher from Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley. The Scripture that is cited is usually done so in a prooftexting burst of machine-gun fire.

[William Bradford · Rating 4 out of 5]

All four did very well in presenting their respective views. I was able to more clearly understand where each derives their view. They were generally respectful of each other's position. Overall one of the more readable and thoughtful books in the series.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very helpful. I'm glad I didn't write off Grudem for his views on predestination, because his views on eternal security (i.e. the view labeled "eternal security") is the closest to my own.

[Jeremiah P · Rating 3 out of 5]

This helped me better understand the differences between the theology of Arminius and that of Wesley.

[G Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Adventures in missing the point and straining the gnat.