Four Views on Eternal Security

Rating:
Summary: Not What I expected
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Refreshing
Review: I have read Four Views on Revelation in this series and it was exemplary. THe amillenial and premill views were powerfully argued and I sat on the fence for a long time because there was almost a stalemate in my mind. I bring this up because I believe this new book has too much history. There should have been more biblical exegesis to make their cases for most of the writers. I especially agree with Ed's writing that the methodist position of Harper was especially weak, and those from a Christian Church background can find better support of the ability to lose salvation. I know it may rankle some Protestant readers, but Robert Sungenis does a pretty good job of presenting a Catholic view of lost salvation, and he uses the family metaphor. While I vehemently oppose praying for the dead, the doctrine of purgatory, the power of Mary and indulgences, he hits it on the mark by using the family metaphor for our relationship with God, while Calvinists are stuck in the judge model.My point is , we try to pigeonhole God's character with our doctrines.
At the risk of oversimplification, I believe Calvinists listen to Paul and John's words of Jesus while Arminians tend to attend more to the synoptic Jesus (matthew mark and luke) as well as James.

Rating:
Summary: Best explanation I have read on the subject
Review: In this concise volume, the theological framework for the four prevailing views of the eternal security of the believer are given. Each writer delivers his opinion with clarity and humility illuminating one of the most difficult questions with which evangelicals grapple. The result should be an end to caricature and the beginning of real dialogue between those in different camps. At the very least this work should lead to a more realistic assessment of the various views. I highly recommend it for the serious student.

Rating:
Summary: My View of Four Views on Eternal Security
Review: In this conclusive collection of the four most accepted views on the perseverance of the saints, the contributing authors have not only approached their respective view, but have beautifully expounded upon such view. In this collection of writings, we gain insight into other views and interpretations. This work will encourage the reader to ponder and seriously contemplate what he believes by synergizing other schools of thought into one volume. God does not operate in a vaccuum, and thus a clear understanding of His salvific plan is, I feel, an impossibility if we only approach the subject from one slant. The compilation forces us to step outside of our own indoctrination and view salvation with an open mind. To predetermine that one view of salvation is proper, and all others are inaccurate is ludicrous. Why do we believe what we believe? This book, and more specifically, it's contributors, set out clearly why they adhere to one particular view of salvation, and I feel that each of us would benefit by following thier initiative. If one knows not why he or she adheres to a particular view on salvation, I submit that there belief is not a genuine contemplative belief, but a "monkey see monkey do" theology. The authors are to be commended for their work contained in this volume. The responses to each view are concise and poignant, and I feel that every reader will come away from this book with a greater respect for each view, and a renewed sense of devotion to their own.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best books on the issue of Eternal Security
Review: The four views books compile arguments from different authors representing different theological viewpoints on a selected topic. From the title of the book anyone can probably guess that this particular book deals with the controversial and heavily debated issue of Eternal Security.

The first author, Michael Horton, represents the traditional Calvinist view; In other words he defends the traditional five points of TULIP associated with Calvinistic theology. The TULIP acronym stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limted Atonement, Irresistable grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. For the purposes of this book, Horton attempts to concentrate on the last point, but his arguments often require digressions and tangents that deal with the other four points. I believe that Horton's arguments are strong, but there are several areas where his defense is lacking. First, Horton strongly advocates a system of covental theology, and then uses this system to explain problem passages such Hebrews 6: 4-6. Although his system has it's merits, it also has it's weaknesses. Arguing that the members of the church being discussed in Hebrews were only sacramental participants can be a hard sell since he is arguing from such a defined sacramental system that exists today, and then superimposing that system on the earliest church. Second, Horton doesn't do enough to support the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. He needed to illustrate that a believer's security does not rest on one instance of faith, but on a lifetime of continually growing in knowledge and coming to Christ. Overall, Horton's section was strong, but could have been better.

Second, Norman Geisler presents his system of Moderate Calvinism, or as some people have dubbed it, his Calminian theology. Geisler's arguments are very weak and his proofing is strained and repetitive. Geisler resorts to rapid fire proof-texting and attempts to deal with every verse that strengthens his position, and then discredit every verse that harms his position. The lack of any serious exegesis or sound Biblical reasoning make Geisler's arguments less valid. Furthermore, Geisler begins his section by claiming that he is a bonified 4-point Calvinist, saying he only eschews limited atonement. The problem with Geisler's claim is that he redefines all of the old terms from the TULIP acronym to meet his standards. Instead of having depravity be internally corruptive, it is only externally corruptive. Geisler doesn't even clarify what he means by this change and doesn't use scripture to bolster his claim. Salvation is still Unconditional from the standpoint of the giver, but conditional from the standpoint of the receiver because the receiver has to accept the offer of salvation. These alterations to traditional terminology in Reformed theology are unwarranted and practically untenable since Geisler doesn't support his claims. Finally, Geisler believes that the believer can rest assured that once he is saved, he will always be saved. Geisler argues that it takes only one instance of belief to receive eternal life, and once you receive the gift of eternal life it is yours forever. This argument has serious flaws though; Geisler completely ignores scriptures that speak of salvation in both present and future tenses, while also ignoring the fact that our salvation is predicated on our continually coming to Christ. A perfect example of this is found in John 3:16. In the original Greek the verb believe is rendered as a present participle which is best translated as believing; Therefore, it isn't whoever believed in the past that has eternal life, but those BELIEVING that have eternal life. More could be said on this issue, but needless to say Geisler's section was throughly uncovincing.

Third, Stephen Ashby delievers his defense of Reformed Arminianism. Ashby begins by differentiating his school of thought with that of the Weslyan tradition, which is the tradition followed by most Arminians today. Ashby is a follower of the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his body of followers known as the Remonstrants. Ashby also begins by discussing what tenets are shared by both Reformed Arminians and Reformed Calvinists. Both strongly believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity and that man cannot do anything to merit salvation or the grace of God. The difference arises in their beliefs on the grace of God. Whereas Calvinists believe that God's grace is irresistable and is only offered to the elect, Reformed Arminians believe that God's grace is prevenient and offered to every man and woman. Ashby uses scripture passages such as John 1:14 and 12:32 to support his assertion. Furthermore, Asbhy argues that election is not based on any intra-Trinitarian decree, but on the foreknowledge of God. God knows who in advance will respond to His gospel and then elects them based on that foreknowledge. Finally, Ashby strongly advocates the position that it is possible to apostatize from the faith and that once that decision has been reached it is irreversible. This is what distinguishes Reformed Arminians from Weslyan Arminians, who believe that a person can apostasize and return to the faith repeatedly. Ashby argues from the oft-quoted passage in Hebrews 6 and strongly supports the view that the individuals who have turned their backs on the faith have sealed their doom once and for all. Thus, Ashby's system does allow for some semblance of security because the believer will know he or she is saved as long as they haven't conciously and willfully renounced the faith. Ashby's position was strong and tenable, but still plagued by a few inconsistencies.

Finally, J. Stephen Harper argues for the traditional Wesleyan Arminian position. I believe that Harper's section was the second weakest section behind Geisler's disastrous section on Moderate Calvinism. Harper constantly resorts to the writings of John Wesley and not so much to scripture to support his views. Using Wesley to support your claims isn't a bad idea, but I think the combination of Wesley plus Scripture would have been more effective. Anyways, Harper argues that Wesley's movement sprung from the need for Reform in the Reformed churches of his day. Wesley saw the corruption and lack of practical rightouesness in so many men of God that he felt reform was necessary. Harper uses many sermons delievered by Wesley to support his ideas, and ties those in with reflections from John Wesley himself. He argues that Wesley strongly believed that a person can sin seriously or on several occasions and in doing so separate himself from the grace of God. Harper uses Wesley's sermon, A Call to Backsliders, to bolster this claim. In this sermon, Wesley used the biblical example of David to argue that salvation could be lost. Wesley argued that David committed adultery and murder, thus sinning so seriously that he cut himself off from the grace of God and lost his salvation. Nevertheless, David could still renew his relationship with God through contrite repentance and reestablishing a right heart before God. Although Harper argues passionately for the possibility of losing salvation, he doesn't do nearly enough to deal with the passages of scripture that do serious damage to his theological beliefs. Although interesting and informational, Harper's section doesn't do nearly enough to satisfy the reader that his position is both scripturally plausible and correct.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best books on the issue of Eternal Security
Review: The four views books compile arguments from different authors representing different theological viewpoints on a selected topic. From the title of the book anyone can probably guess that this particular book deals with the controversial and heavily debated issue of Eternal Security.

The first author, Michael Horton, represents the traditional Calvinist view; In other words he defends the traditional five points of TULIP associated with Calvinistic theology. The TULIP acronym stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limted Atonement, Irresistable grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. For the purposes of this book, Horton attempts to concentrate on the last point, but his arguments often require digressions and tangents that deal with the other four points. I believe that Horton's arguments are strong, but there are several areas where his defense is lacking. First, Horton strongly advocates a system of covental theology, and then uses this system to explain problem passages such Hebrews 6: 4-6. Although his system has it's merits, it also has it's weaknesses. Arguing that the members of the church being discussed in Hebrews were only sacramental participants can be a hard sell since he is arguing from such a defined sacramental system that exists today, and then superimposing that system on the earliest church. Second, Horton doesn't do enough to support the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. He needed to illustrate that a believer's security does not rest on one instance of faith, but on a lifetime of continually growing in knowledge and coming to Christ. Overall, Horton's section was strong, but could have been better.

Second, Norman Geisler presents his system of Moderate Calvinism, or as some people have dubbed it, his Calminian theology. Geisler's arguments are very weak and his proofing is strained and repetitive. Geisler resorts to rapid fire proof-texting and attempts to deal with every verse that strengthens his position, and then discredit every verse that harms his position. The lack of any serious exegesis or sound Biblical reasoning make Geisler's arguments less valid. Furthermore, Geisler begins his section by claiming that he is a bonified 4-point Calvinist, saying he only eschews limited atonement. The problem with Geisler's claim is that he redefines all of the old terms from the TULIP acronym to meet his standards. Instead of having depravity be internally corruptive, it is only externally corruptive. Geisler doesn't even clarify what he means by this change and doesn't use scripture to bolster his claim. Salvation is still Unconditional from the standpoint of the giver, but conditional from the standpoint of the receiver because the receiver has to accept the offer of salvation. These alterations to traditional terminology in Reformed theology are unwarranted and practically untenable since Geisler doesn't support his claims. Finally, Geisler believes that the believer can rest assured that once he is saved, he will always be saved. Geisler argues that it takes only one instance of belief to receive eternal life, and once you receive the gift of eternal life it is yours forever. This argument has serious flaws though; Geisler completely ignores scriptures that speak of salvation in both present and future tenses, while also ignoring the fact that our salvation is predicated on our continually coming to Christ. A perfect example of this is found in John 3:16. In the original Greek the verb believe is rendered as a present participle which is best translated as believing; Therefore, it isn't whoever believed in the past that has eternal life, but those BELIEVING that have eternal life. More could be said on this issue, but needless to say Geisler's section was throughly uncovincing.

Third, Stephen Ashby delievers his defense of Reformed Arminianism. Ashby begins by differentiating his school of thought with that of the Weslyan tradition, which is the tradition followed by most Arminians today. Ashby is a follower of the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his body of followers known as the Remonstrants. Ashby also begins by discussing what tenets are shared by both Reformed Arminians and Reformed Calvinists. Both strongly believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity and that man cannot do anything to merit salvation or the grace of God. The difference arises in their beliefs on the grace of God. Whereas Calvinists believe that God's grace is irresistable and is only offered to the elect, Reformed Arminians believe that God's grace is prevenient and offered to every man and woman. Ashby uses scripture passages such as John 1:14 and 12:32 to support his assertion. Furthermore, Asbhy argues that election is not based on any intra-Trinitarian decree, but on the foreknowledge of God. God knows who in advance will respond to His gospel and then elects them based on that foreknowledge. Finally, Ashby strongly advocates the position that it is possible to apostatize from the faith and that once that decision has been reached it is irreversible. This is what distinguishes Reformed Arminians from Weslyan Arminians, who believe that a person can apostasize and return to the faith repeatedly. Ashby argues from the oft-quoted passage in Hebrews 6 and strongly supports the view that the individuals who have turned their backs on the faith have sealed their doom once and for all. Thus, Ashby's system does allow for some semblance of security because the believer will know he or she is saved as long as they haven't conciously and willfully renounced the faith. Ashby's position was strong and tenable, but still plagued by a few inconsistencies.

Finally, J. Stephen Harper argues for the traditional Wesleyan Arminian position. I believe that Harper's section was the second weakest section behind Geisler's disastrous section on Moderate Calvinism. Harper constantly resorts to the writings of John Wesley and not so much to scripture to support his views. Using Wesley to support your claims isn't a bad idea, but I think the combination of Wesley plus Scripture would have been more effective. Anyways, Harper argues that Wesley's movement sprung from the need for Reform in the Reformed churches of his day. Wesley saw the corruption and lack of practical rightouesness in so many men of God that he felt reform was necessary. Harper uses many sermons delievered by Wesley to support his ideas, and ties those in with reflections from John Wesley himself. He argues that Wesley strongly believed that a person can sin seriously or on several occasions and in doing so separate himself from the grace of God. Harper uses Wesley's sermon, A Call to Backsliders, to bolster this claim. In this sermon, Wesley used the biblical example of David to argue that salvation could be lost. Wesley argued that David committed adultery and murder, thus sinning so seriously that he cut himself off from the grace of God and lost his salvation. Nevertheless, David could still renew his relationship with God through contrite repentance and reestablishing a right heart before God. Although Harper argues passionately for the possibility of losing salvation, he doesn't do nearly enough to deal with the passages of scripture that do serious damage to his theological beliefs. Although interesting and informational, Harper's section doesn't do nearly enough to satisfy the reader that his position is both scripturally plausible and correct.

Rating:
Summary: Needs More Exegesis But Fun Reading Anyway
Review: The topic of eternal security generates quite a bit of emotions from believers. Most fall into the Calvinistic camp of eternal security for all the wrong reasons such as sinful living, laziness, and out right disbelief. Many Arminians equally fall into their position by wrong motives such as legalism or dogmatism. However, the topic of eternal security always generates a tough debate.

This book expresses that argument. The book is best described as one long argument without any clear conclusions. Exegesis of the texts are ignored and instead the book is full of proof-texting (especially by Norman Geisler). I thought that Michael Horton and Stephen Ashby did the best jobs of presenting their views. I was highly impressed with the "Reformed Arminian" view of Ashby. His arguments are worth getting this book.

Overall, while I did not feel that the writers dealt enough with Scripture, the book is fun reading. You will enjoy the debate albeit it does little for the debate itself.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Introduction although the last essay is a bit weak
Review: This book follows the usual practice in the "Counterpoints" series of having a different author present his view on the topic and then have it critiqued by the others.

Michael Horton presents the view that Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints are one and the same doctrines. To him, it is both certain that a true believer cannot lose his salvation and that a true believer will certainly perseve in faith and good works to the end. Accordingly, Horton obviously disagrees with the view that it is possible for someone who was once a true believer to lose his salvation. Horton is equally clear to distance himself from the Antinomian views of people like Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, Charles Ryrie and Norman Geisler by stating that many of those who defend "eternal security" do not take the calls to perseverance seriously, and water down passages that speak of damnation to make them read as if they only speak of loss of reward (e.g. Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-29,36; Mt. 24:13). Horton argues that salvation does not merely result in the believer being saved from hell, but also results in the believer's life being transformed so that those who abandon the faith prove that they never truly believed in the first place. While Horton deserves praise in recognising that there are a number of passages which appear at first glance to teach that a true believer can lose his salvation, and in recognising that the defender of perseverance of the saints needs to take those passages seriously, he is too quick to suggest that Perseverance of the Saints can only be defended through a belief in Covenant Theology and the other four points of Calvinism. In doing so, he does a disservice to his defence of Perseverance of the Saints as he identifies it too closely with full-blown Calvinism while passing over the fact that conservative Dispensationalists like Ironside and MacArthur could reject Calvinism (in Ironside's case) or Coveanant Theology (in MacArthur's case) and still hold to Perseverance of the Saints. For example, Horton too easily assumes that if grace is resistible at the point of salvation, that the new birth must be reversible after salvation. After all, it seems logically possible to argue as follows: (1) man's will is free to resist and reject the saving grace of God, (2) Although man's will cannot come to God on its own, God's enabling grace can work on the will to the point where the will is able to receive God's saving grace, and (3) once this saving grace is accepted, God transforms the will to make it unable to subsequently reject salvation. Horton may want to attempt to argue against that position on the basis of his understanding of God's Sovereignty and more specific passages of Scripture, but it is difficult to see how he could think the above position is not logically consistent. If the above view is an error, it is not an error that is logically related to the Perseverance of the Saints question. Simply put, while someone who believes in Irresistible Grace will necessarily believe in Perseverance of the Saints, one who rejects Irresistible Grace will not necessarily reject Perseverance of the Saints.

Norman Geisler's article is disappointing. He persists in using the deceptively inaccurate label of "Moderate Calvinism" when describing his own views even though he is really either a 1-point Calvinist (as Ashby argues) or a 0-point Calvinist (as Horton demonstrates). And, while he deserves credit in attempting to distance himself from the nonsensical views of Charles Stanley and Zane Hodges, he ends up following the liberal Antinomian strand in Dispensational thought that relegates warning passages like Mt. 24:23; Jn. 15:4,6; Col. 1:23; 1 Tim. 5:15; 2 Tim 2:12; Heb 6:4-8; Heb 10:26-29; and Rev 3:15-16 to warnings of the possible loss of rewards. Simply put, that type of analysis leaves the reader with the feeling that Geisler is robbing the passages of any sensible meaning. And while someone more sympathetic to Geisler's position may think he defends it well, one would hope everyone would agree that he should drop the deceptive "moderate Calvinist" label.

Stephen Ashby's article rivals that of Horton's as an able defence of his position. In Ashby's view, a true believer can lose his salvation, but only through "a decisive act of apostasy", and if this happens he cannot be saved again. Ashby candidly concedes that the Calvinist position is "logically tight" and thereby concedes that if the first four points are correct, Perseverance of the Saints must be true as well. Ashby rejects all Calvinist points other than Total Depravity, however, and naturally interprets the "warning passages" as referring to salvation (contrary to Geisler's position) and being directed at true believers (contrary to Horton's position). Although Ashby rightly criticizes Geisler's deceptive use of "moderate Calvinism", and generally accurately represents Arminius' views on depravity, election, grace, justification and the will, he fails to mention that Arminius himself "sat on the fence" on the perseverance of the saints issue. Perhaps as a result of this, Ashby repeats Horton's error of thinking that if the will has some role to play in salvation, then one must conclude that the "falling away" position is correct.

Steven Harper is the last author and he unfortunately presents the weakest contribution to the volume. Although the level of civility in the discussion would have undoubtedly been reduced with Dan Corner contributing this chapter, one is left wishing that a stronger representative could have been found for the view that a true believer can lose his salvation either through abandoning the faith or through sinful acts, and that a true believer can also be saved and lost repeatedly. Far too much time is spent on the historical views of John Wesley and far too little time on Scripture, with the result that the reader is left wanting something more.

All in all, though, the book is well worth purchasing as an introduction to the various views on Eternal Security.

Rating:
Summary: If you've grappled with eternal security, you need this book
Review: This book is a "must read" for those who want to objectively study the doctrine of eternal security. You need this book if you aren't sure what you believe about eternal security and won't rest until you've arrived at your own informed conclusions based on scripture. It's also a great reference tool if you want a better understand of opposing viewpoints on this issue. Matthew Pinson's introduction alone is worth the price of the book (I'm not kidding). Four historical Protestant positions, two Calvinist and two Arminian, are defined and distilled in a manner that brings distinct clarity to this debate. I have to agree with Pinson when he states, "...seeing four views on perseverance compared and contrasted with each other will help clear up muddy thinking that too often characterizes popular evangelical teaching on this subject." In the following chapters, four scholars each state their case for one of the four prominent views on eternal security. Each view is presented by its proponent and then critiqued and defended. This book is a fair and unbiased treatment of a "hot button" issue in the church today. Every pastor needs a copy of this book in his library.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Read
Review: This book is a "must read" for those who want to objectively study the doctrine of eternal security. You need this book if you aren't sure what you believe about eternal security and won't rest until you've arrived at your own informed conclusions based on scripture. It's also a great reference tool if you want a better understand of opposing viewpoints on this issue. Matthew Pinson's introduction alone is worth the price of the book (I'm not kidding). Four historical Protestant positions, two Calvinist and two Arminian, are defined and distilled in a manner that brings distinct clarity to this debate. I have to agree with Pinson when he states, "...seeing four views on perseverance compared and contrasted with each other will help clear up muddy thinking that too often characterizes popular evangelical teaching on this subject." In the following chapters, four scholars each state their case for one of the four prominent views on eternal security. Each view is presented by its proponent and then critiqued and defended. This book is a fair and unbiased treatment of a "hot button" issue in the church today. Every pastor needs a copy of this book in his library.