( feeling, again! ) From that point he claims that he found that he was guilty of taking Scripture out of its context and that "they took on a different meaning." From this point, Stanley reevaluates everything in context of what he feels, and reinterprets what he knows. This is tantamount to hammering a square peg into a round hole, and when it is forced to fit, declaring it to be correct! And if feeling is the measure of truth, what do we say to those live content without ever knowing the Lord? They feel content, so are we to say that their status with God is true?

One way to tell if you are letting the Bible determine your beliefs is whether the whole of Scripture agrees with your beliefs. What I am asking you is not if you can explain away every difficulty the Scripture poses to your beliefs, but whether you are met with a difficulty to your position every other page of the Bible. You see, it does not matter one iota whether you can defend your belief in eternal security against difficult passages. The question that matters is whether the Bible posits and defends unconditional eternal security. When it comes to understanding the passages of the Bible, we must remember that the few do not void or determine the meaning of the majority.

" There never was or ever can be "a born Securitist." You reader, or any other truly born again Christian, cannot read the Eternal Security verses and get Eternal Security "out of" them. The only way that Eternal security can be attached to these verses is to "read it into" them. This proves that Eternal Security is an extra-Biblical, external philosophy, seeking Biblical sanction. People are "educated into" eternal Security, just as truly as atheists are "educated into" atheism."

If you have learned anything from the preceding argument, it is that Charles Stanley has a Pre-suppositional Theology - Accept a doctrine as truth, build your theology around it, then make the Bible prove it.

"Was the blood of Christ adequate?" During my own struggles with eternal security, this question used to haunt me. I knew then as I do now that to accept His blood as the adequate payment for my sin settled the question once for all. ( Bold emphasis mine.)

The strongest argument for eternal security is not Scripture, but this theory of the atonement. By Stanley’s own admission, this seems to be the crux of what turned him from his former position on the issue.

I posted his statements at length to allow a fair critique of his position. The fact that he hits this issue directly in three chapters in his book, ( more times than any other issue! ) shows us how essential it is to his argument. In his eyes, the inevitable result of the atonement of Christ demands the desired result - eternal security. Once he accepted this concept of the atonement, it became essential to disbelieve the overwhelming mass of Scripture that he used to believe. Everything had to be reinterpreted to explain away the difficulties it posed to his conclusions. We will see examples of this as we cover later chapters.

Anyone who listens to the sermons of Charles Stanley knows that his references to this argument are frequent and are presented with the air of irrefutability. What he sees as sound Biblical interpretation, I see it as intellectual suicide.

First, to derive key doctrines by inference and not by direct Biblical proof is just outright dangerous! It is also the mark of a poor exegete of the Scriptures! This is not teaching the Bible, it is teaching theology! It is never a sound practice to use the support for a belief as the foundation for that belief; this is pure circular reasoning! I have found in my dealing with Eternal Securists' that they routinely fall back on imputation and the payment of sins when they find that their few proof texts will not bear the weight of honest scrutiny. I find it shocking to watch a person who just found out that their belief was without Biblical support, fight so tenaciously for that failed doctrine! Knowing that it is not true, and is a lie, you would think that they would abandon it immediately! But this change of heart happens all too infrequently. The main reason is that they want a religion that is a blanket for their comfortable, sinning religion.

Pride also comes into play, "What will people say? How do I face people and admit that I have been wrong all these years"? No doubt this is a crushing change because is hits at the core of what we believe to be the gospel. I know that it is, I’ve been there.

By exposing some misconceptions, and making some observations about the atonement, I will be stepping on many toes, including many who do not believe in unconditional eternal security. This will be a touchy subject since, to most, I will be attacking what they have held as lifelong beliefs. I hesitate to embark on the issue since I cannot do justice to the doctrine within the scope of this discussion. But since it is the Key to the doctrine that Charles Stanley espouses and propagates, I am obligated to spend time on this subject in order to do justice to this article.

Let me start with the observation that there are many theories of the atonement. Throughout history, the idea of what was the "orthodox" doctrine has been determined by the widespread acceptance of its day. With the transition of time, teaching on this subject has moved from a very broad and basic understanding, to the very specific and detailed model we have today. Any expansion of the doctrine apart from the Scriptures is theory. All theories of the atonement delve into the area of speculation. The problem is, that we buy into the theoretical and accept it as if it were Scripture itself. Now, I am not saying that theory is bad, but that it is dangerous to accept the Biblically unsubstantiated parts as absolute truth.

The theory that Charles Stanley holds to is what is called the Penal Satisfaction View of the atonement. It is no doubt the most widely accepted theory today. Few have heard anything else, and that is why what I am about to write will seem so shocking and outright blasphemous to most. The problem is that most have blindly accepted almost every element of this theory as Gospel truth apart from any clear consensus from the Scriptures.

Nowhere does the Scripture say that Jesus paid for sin, or that he was punished! By this statement, I have probably shocked most of my readers! Stanley’s theory of eternal security demands that sins are "paid for." This ensures the end result, the salvation of the one who’s sin debt has been paid. This theory is nothing more than a mere assumption. There is not a singular statement in all of Scripture that unambiguously states this, so why would anyone dogmatically claim it as Scripture fact unless their doctrinal idol were threatened? The belief that Christ was punished also has problems. These difficulties and more will be discussed in the next section.

Several questions must be answered. If these doctrines are carried to their logical end, then where do they lead us? The first issue will be whether Jesus paid for our sins. Stanley said, "How can I lose Christ’s payment for my sin? Can God declare me "guilty" after he has declared me "not guilty"?

With careful questioning and logic, Stanley hopes to lead you down the primrose path. This is known as the sins paid for, past, present, and future approach. If your sins were paid for at Calvary, which sins? All of your sins! In fact all of your sins were future sins 2000 years ago! If all future sins were paid for, then there can never be a possibility of being judged guilty in the future. The result of this? Eternal security of course! This sounds surprisingly logical on the surface, but leads to some difficult questions.

If it was a payment, who was the payment made to? The Scripture does not tell us. So how can we build such seemingly conclusive doctrines based on this? In fact, I will state that the reason that the Bible does not tell us is because there was no such payment!

If it was a payment, who was paid for? The sins of the world! 1 Jn. 2:2, He gave Himself a ransom for all, 1 Timothy 2:6. Here is where the problem comes in. If this payment was real and absolute as Dr. Stanley argues, then we must ask some important questions. If the payment of sin is irrevocable, and the one who’s sin is paid for must infallibly make it to heaven, then we must accept Universalism. If Jesus paid for all, then all must be acquitted on Judgment Day. Since unbelief is sin, and all sin is paid for, then belief and faith are heretical additions to the Gospel! When were your sins paid for? Two thousand years ago! So, salvation is automatic, and the born-again experience is nothing more than waking up to the fact that you have been saved all this time! If you say that it does not come into effect until you have faith, then you have two problems. Show me where it is in Scripture that Jesus is an Indian giver and un-pays the sin in the unbeliever! If He can do this, then why can he not un-pay it for the one who falls away and ceases to believe? Secondly, if you are not saved before faith, then the payment cannot be real and absolute, it is figurative and cannot carry the guarantee eternal security.

Consistent Predestinarians' ( Augustine, Calvin and Beza, who took the existing commercial and ransom theories and developed them further to what we see today,) hold that the atonement is limited for only those who God has determined to save. If you believe that God is not willing that any should perish, and that salvation is available to all, you show your inconsistency with your use and application of this theory of the atonement.

If Jesus paid for all sin, then salvation cannot be of grace. The cause of salvation is by the merit of payment. Everyone therefore deserves to go to heaven!

If Jesus paid for sin, then there is no such thing as pardon or forgiveness! If I stand before a Judge, guilty of an infraction of the law, he has two options before him. He can pardon, and forgive me, or, he can levy a punishment or a fine. He cannot do both, it is one or the other. If he accepts payment for my violation from an outside source, then the interest of justice is satisfied, and I must be released without any further obligation. If my fine is paid, there is nothing to forgive! The opposite is also true. If he offers a pardon, he must forgo punishment. What the Penal theory must accept is, if it was paid, then God has never forgiven anything! The payment theory of the atonement voids the possibility of forgiveness.

The mercy of God is also voided by this theory. Mercy is the withholding of that which is due. But Stanley says that punishment was not withheld, that Jesus was punished for the world’s sins. This makes the concept of mercy within God nothing but cheap rhetoric. He is not merciful but demands His pound of flesh! We must conclude that this payment shows that mercy is nonexistent in the nature of God since He demands that every sin must be punished.

The conclusion of all of this is that in order for Stanley’s unconditional security to work, there must be a real and absolute payment at Calvary. If the death of Christ brought a legal satisfaction, then those who’s debt has been transferred at the cross, must from that point remain free from all obligation and punishment. If you believe the Scripture that Jesus "is the propitiation for our sins; and not for your only, but also for the sins of the whole world," then you must accept that there will be no one in hell but the devil and his demons. If all our sins are paid for, then everybody must be saved since unbelief is a sin! This is where Stanley's payment theory takes us! This conclusion can be ignored, but it cannot be escaped.

The idea that the atonement was a payment demands that Jesus was punished on the cross.

Charles Stanley boldly states that, "We trust that Christ was punished in our place." He can only "trust" this, since he does not have one unambiguous statement from Scripture to prove it!

The Bible never states even one time that Jesus was punished on the cross! So we must ask, what did happen on the cross? The Bible unequivocally and without exception reveals that Jesus suffered on the cross. Mark 8:31, The Son of man must suffer. Luke 22:15; 24:46; 17:25, Before I suffer. Acts 3:18; 26:23, That Christ should suffer. Hebrews 13:12, his own blood, suffered without the gate. 1 Peter 1:11; 2:21; 2:23; 3:18; 4:1; 5:1, because Jesus also suffered for us....suffered in the flesh. 2nd Corinthians 1:5, the sufferings of Christ.

Look them up for yourself, then try and find a statement of the "punishment" of Christ, that He was "punished" for our sins, or that the Son of man must be "punished." You will not find it because it is not true!

You may be thinking that I am splitting hairs here. Suffering or punishment, its all the same, right? No, it is not the same! In order for a man to be punished, he must be guilty. To inflict what is due for punishment upon an innocent man is an injustice. But if a man voluntarily suffers in another’s place to whom punishment is due, it is self-sacrifice and heroism. If it is inflicted by an arbitrary authority, it is injustice on one side, and martyrdom on the other. If I go to jail on the charge of murder, but I am innocent, then I am not punished, because I am not guilty. All I suffer is an injustice. Punishment is a legal term that presupposes guilt. It is an impossibility to punish the innocent.

But, you say, " Didn’t God transfer my sin to Jesus upon the cross?" Charles Stanley writes, God made a swap. Actually, the correct term is imputation. He imputed our sin to Christ and His righteousness to us. This doctrine may be popular, but it is pure theological fiction! Nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE! Is this hogwash found ANYWHERE in Scripture! Guilt and righteousness are personal and cannot be transferred. You can no more impute wisdom to a fool than you can impute courage to a coward. If you were a thief, I could not impute honesty to you anymore than you could impute or transfer your dishonesty to me. Impute means to "count" or "reckon." It never means to transfer character! Faith is imputed (counted) for righteousness. It does not say righteousness is imputed (transferred) because of faith. To get the transfer that Charles Stanley believes in, one must read that belief into the passages to come up with this.

Theologian, Richard S. Taylor comments on this theory saying, "This is the belief that God not only imputes our sins to Christ but transfers in His accounting all Christ's righteousness to us, so that God doesn't really see our sins; rather He sees us as spotlessly holy in Christ." (The Scandal of Pre-forgiveness) I have heard this theory propagated on more than one occasion that once we get saved, we are "covered" by the righteousness of Christ. So, when we sin, God looks at us but cannot see our sins because all He can see is the blood of Christ.  

Charles Stanley and others who have adopted this fiction must ignore the fact that God is all knowing and cannot be fooled as to the true character of an individual. It ignores the fact that God is the God of all truth, He cannot lie. So how can it be said that God can be the all knowing God of truth and call that which is unholy something other than what it is? If we are to follow this logic, many try to extricate themselves from this difficulty by saying that God can see the sin but it only effects our fellowship and not our relationship. But the idea of broken fellowship cannot be reconciled with this doctrine of imputed righteousness. Taylor says, " If God sees not my sin but my position in Christ, if He views me as clothed in Christ's righteousness, then how could sin - which has been put to Christ's account - "break fellowship?" This mysticism and unscriptural idea that character can be transferred from one individual to another is the glue that holds Mr. Stanley's false assertions together.

The logical course of the Eternal Securist who cannot find a clear and decisive Scripture to defend their position is to fall back upon their twist on the atonement. If sins are "paid for" in the atonement, the logical end is inevitably the salvation of the one who is "paid for."  The conclusion of such an atonement holds regardless of what the Bible may say or not say. It is a creation outside of the Bible and does not need the Bible for endorsement. 

This view of the atonement was developed to support and defend the conclusions of the Calvinistic system. The difficulty I have with this "theory" is that it was created to fill a "theological void" within the Calvinistic system. I could understand that if this view of the atonement was the clear and established understanding throughout all Christian history. If it was the only view, it may have more merit, but Church history validates the newness of this thought within Christianity. 

This idea of "payment for sins"  is so essential to the Eternal Securists' argument that it is assumed to be the truth without any critical examination. What follows in this mode of arguing that they have is, if they cannot prove their point from Scripture, they move onto the next step in their theology which is payment for sins, and if they cannot prove that, the next step is punishment.

If Christ was punished, then we must explain why.  We cannot imagine that this could occur without good reason. From this, they conclude that the punishment must be for the payment of sins, but this assumes too much. The idea of punishment does not prove in any way that sins were paid for.  To have a payment however, we must assume that there was a punishment. This circular logic of theirs is dogmatically asserted without any critical examination.

When arguing this issue of unconditional security, we will find ourselves going down a predictable road. Scripture cannot prove Eternal Security, so they fall back on the idea of a payment for sins. If they are challenged to prove this assertion, which they cannot, then they fall back on the next best thing they believe that supports their notion, which is punishment. 

Does it really matter if the Scriptures disprove the idea of Eternal Security and payment for sins? Does it really matter if that which we believe is nothing more than a baseless and unproven theory? I think it does!  

By now you have probably started to flip through your Bible and started to catalog the verses that you believe disprove my statements. This is good, and I hope to address some of these issues.

Payment: Let me state that propitiation, reconciliation, justification, redemption, being brought near, putting away sin, suffering, dying for sin, and offering oneself up, is not payment. This I hope will narrow the field to the more important passages.

Doesn’t the Bible say that we were "bought" with a price? That we are a "purchased" possession? That were "redeemed" and there was a "ransom?" This is without a doubt true! But none of the above statements say, show, or prove in any way that Jesus was punished or that there was a "payment for sins."

In what way were we bought with a price? This is in reference to the high "cost" that the Son of God took upon himself in order for us to be saved. The same terminology is mentioned every Veterans Day. Much talk occurs about the high "cost" of freedom, and how many "paid the price." Ask yourself, if only one person died on our side in World War Two, could we not still say that the individual that died "paid the price"? It is not that 200,000 deaths "purchased" freedom in any way. If only199,999 died, would we have lost the war? You see, it is not a mathematical equation, one Christ does not equal the value of "X" number of sinners. There was a cost, but it was not the payment for sins.

We are His "purchase." This also says nothing of a fictitious payment of sins. By the self-sacrifice of Jesus, that which was hopelessly lost on it’s own, became savable because of His death. Anyone that is ultimately saved is due to His atonement. His death on the cross gives Him the rights to whatever fruit it bears.

Some see the term of "redeem" as positing the necessity of a payment. The fact that the exchange of His life for those that believe explains this redemption. There was a cost, and it was not a payment for sins. Payment for sins can be assumed if it is read into this passage, but it cannot be drawn from it. Ransom can also be seen as an exchange without interjecting non-Biblical ideas of payment into it.

Punishment: This will take a little more detail. First, I want to cover a few arguments before we look at the Biblical passages.

If sin is personal, and as shown, cannot be transferred to another, then wouldn’t that make God the Father unjust by punishing the innocent? It certainly would!

Also, what would the punishment of the Son do to our concept of the Oneness of the Trinity? You see, if we go by Charles Stanley’s understanding, God the Father is seen as a Holy Being that must punish sin, and by necessity, desires that we would be the subject of His wrath. The Son on the other hand, is desirous of interceding and saving us. So by some strange imagination, God the Father is placated by "whooping up" on the Son. Can you see the absurdity of the Godhead punishing itself? It is tantamount to slapping yourself around and saying that makes forgiving others a possibility now.

According to Stanley, the Second person of the Godhead was separated from the First and Third while on the cross. Can you see the impossible contradiction here? The Trinity is One. If you can separate the Trinity, or take one Person from it, then you no longer have God. God is the Trinity at all times! The Oneness of the Trinity cannot exist if the other Two punished the Son. What we end up with are three Gods instead of One! How could Jesus be God if He were not part of the Trinity? This difficulty vanishes if we believe the Biblical data that Jesus voluntarily suffered for our sins instead of the absurdity of saying that He was punished.

How do we then reconcile the words of God who's voice burst out from heaven saying, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" and just before he went to the cross Jesus said, "not my will but thy will" and followed through with faithful obedience. How can we believe that the Son, who is the object of blessing could moments later become the subject of wrath while he was in full obedience? 

I find it much more tenable to believe that the entire Trinity was at work providing our salvation upon the cross and that God the Father was always well pleased with the Son. The cross was not the scene of the Father hurling the thunderbolts of wrath down upon the Son, but Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love. 

Another problem for this theory of punishment is that it pretends to believe in the necessity of retributive justice. The belief is that God must punish sin, and that this punishment must be eternal separation from His presence is the basis in which they believe the punishment of Christ is a necessity. The difficulty arises when we consider that the rules are unbending, and that Jesus is not being tortured in hell as we speak! If He is bore the punishment that is due to the whole world for sin, then he must be forever separated from God. Absolute, unbending justice demands this! Keep in mind, if He "paid" for just one person, this would be the result! 

Securists claim that the "quality" of Christ was sufficient to pay for the sins of the whole world, and to release Him from the obligation of eternal separation. This is pure invention and nonsense! No Scripture explains this problem away, and the fact that they admit a compromise in the rules they imposed upon God, proves that He was not sufficiently punished in order to atone for our sin! This requirement would render Christ’s work as questionable at best.

Now to the question of the Biblical verses. Doesn’t Isaiah 53:4-5, state that while Jesus was on the cross, God was going to punish Him? "Surely our grief's He himself bore, And our sorrows he carried: Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, Smitten of God and afflicted, But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed." This is without a doubt the clearest prophecy about the nature of the atonement the Messiah was to suffer. Most who see a penal theme to this have not ever read the prophecy without a preconceived bias. Notice that it says, we did esteemed him as stricken, smitten by God. Those who saw Christ suffer, instead of understanding that he was bearing the weight of the sins of others in a mediatorial capacity, imagined that he was suffering at God’s hands for his own sins. God knew that people would misconceive what was transpiring on the cross. The passage does not state implicitly or indirectly that God was to smite him in any way.

Many see the term of chastisement as carrying the idea of punishment. It can carry the idea of discipline and correction. Keep in mind that if someone bears the "chastisement" for you, does not mean that they were punished. Punishment requires guilt. To suffer the consequences of the penalty for another is not strictly punishment.

Verse 10 states that "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him." In what way was God active in bruising the Son? Genesis 3:14, 15, says, "And the Lord God said to the serpent....I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal." It states clearly that the devil will do the bruising. But the crucifixion could not have occurred apart from God willing, and allowing it happen. In view of this, and that God foreknew the result that atonement would bring, it can be said that God was pleased to bruise him. It brought the desired result; reconciliation between God and man. The Trinity, working as One to reconcile the world to himself.

 " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19

In Isaiah 53:4, God said that unbelievers would misinterpret the Son’s work on the cross, confusing it with the wrath of God falling upon Him. Today, false teachers misinterpret the work of Christ in the same way!

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Is used by Charles Stanley to vindicate the separation of the Godhead. There are two options that alleviate the difficulty of destroying the Trinity. First, the word "forsake’" does not always mean to separate. In this case it means to "leave in the lurch," that is, to withhold the hand of protection in the hour of Christ’s greatest need. This is "forsaking" without separating. It means to refuse to rescue from this situation. For many reasons we must consider viable options that coincide with Scripture and bring honor to God without causing a division within the Godhead, thereby preserving the Oneness of The Triune God.

Another option is that the words of Christ were cries of humanity in which he "felt" abandoned, when in actuality he was not.

The words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" refer back to Psalm 22, which is a prophecy of the gruesome death that the Messiah was to suffer. The Psalm illuminates our first option by stating "why are thou so far from helping me?" The question resides in which way was God "far from helping Him," and "forsaking" him. The text of Psalm 22 reveals this a little more clearly. The abandonment that was experienced was not a separation in the Trinity because of the Father's displeasure, but an abandonment to suffering. In Psalm 22:1, it was the feeling of the righteous man that God is "far from helping him." To say that this is depicting an actual separation from God is out of harmony with subsequent verses that express the righteous man's confidence in God's presence and help. (verses 4, 9, 19.) 

In this Psalm which is doubtlessly a prophecy concerning the crucifixion, we are told the exact opposite of what Charles Stanley is teaching us. Concerning the cry of perceived abandonment that we read in Psalm 22:1, we must balance this in the light of what follows in its context in 22:24, "For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard." Psalm 22:24

God the Father did not turn His back on Jesus, and there was no rift in the Trinity. God the Father and the Holy Spirit "forsook" the Son only in the sense that they did not rush in and rescue him during his immense agony and suffering. Also, take notice that nowhere in this detailed prophecy does it even imply that the atonement was a punishment or payment for sin. 

"For he hath made him to be sin for us." Many interpret this as sin-offering as most Bibles footnote this. This avoids the absurdity of saying that God is the cause of sin in Himself. The Father making the Son sinful in order to punish him. It is preferable to view Jesus as the sin-offering or sin-bearer for us. Whatever sense the becoming of sin is, it cannot be literally becoming sin, or sinful in any way.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Some equate being a "curse" for us substantiates that he was punished for us. This statement by Paul is from Deuteronomy 21:23, in which he purposely leaves off part of the verse, "accursed by God" in reference to Christ.

If that applied to Christ on the cross, Paul would have said so! So in what way was Jesus a curse? Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. Anyone condemned and executed before men is the object of this curse whether they are guilty or not. If they are innocent, they are still the subject of ridicule and shame, and thereby accursed by men. If guilty or possessing sin, they are considered accursed of God. By this passage, Jesus was not.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." This can be taken as a literal bearing of our sins, but because of the afore mentioned difficulties, it would be more prudent to interpret this as baring the responsibility of our sins. The Greek term can, and should be translated as "bare up" our sins. This is the preferable translation. This agrees with the prophecy of the atonement in Isaiah 53:12 where we are told that he Himself "bore up" the sins of many. We cannot support the literal idea of becoming "sin" when there is not any other passage that demands such a literal interpretation.

I have given you many reasons as to why this punishment and payment theory cannot work as Charles Stanley supposes. As I mentioned early on in this chapter, there are many theories as to how the atonement of Christ works, most of which do not make any reference to payment or punishment. Almost all have one thing in common, the death of Christ is the sole means by which we may be saved. So, to deny the Penal Substitutionary theory of the atonement is not a denial of the Gospel.

" God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19

There was no separation of God on the cross, just a united purpose of saving mankind. The atonement is a provision, and not a payment. With this we can still say that the atonement is for all, based upon the conditions of faith and repentance. If there are conditions attached to receiving salvation, then those same conditions must exist to remain saved.

This will encompass chapters 4 and 5 of Mr. Stanley’s book. On this subject, he deals with adoption and son-ship. These are called anthropomorphisms. This ten dollar word describes stating spiritual truths using human images. The problem however, is that many people take these images and run with them to extremes where the purpose of the image never intended to go. God never intended for us to build extensive theologies based upon these images.

The idea of adoption shows a change of relationship of the believer to God. Before we are saved, God is a distant Being. Through the death of Christ a reconciliation has become possible in which we can be drawn into a close relationship with God. So close in fact that we become sons by adoption! This is no doubt a glorious privilege.

Stanley believes that Paul’s reliance on the concept of adoption is a strong argument for eternal security. To lose one’s salvation, one would have to be unadopted! As to Paul’s "reliance" on this concept, I find to be a difficult thing to prove. It is not a secret that he liked to use this image, but as for the idea that he built an entire concept of eternal security out of it is entirely in the imagination of Charles Stanley. Almost all of the hearers of Paul believed that God was a "Holy Other," that is, a distant untouchable Being. To the Jews, the fact that Jesus claimed to be the "Son" of God was absolutely blasphemous! The revelation that God desires to draw near into a close personal relationship, even adoption, is what Paul was emphasizing. Paul did not go wild with the concept to where he thought that we should conclude anything more than this. There is no warrant to branch every direction with this by developing conclusions based upon human adoption. We are talking about a spiritual adoption, and unless we have direct statements relating to this adoption from Scripture, we are guilty of forcing ideas into the concept which were never intended to be there. By doing so, we have reduced ourselves from Scriptural revelation to mere human reasoning.

To lose one’s salvation, one would have to be unadopted! Stanley attempts to get you to reject the possibility of the loss of salvation by assuming that it sounds absurd. Unadopted? Who ever heard of such a thing! It is not a concept with a human example. But we are talking spiritual adoption, which he seems to forget. Human rules do not dictate the spiritual. God uses human terms so we can understand what He is saying. To go beyond the application that was intended is dangerous. This is what Stanley does with adoption.

In human terminology, we do not "unadopt" someone. We however, can disinherit them! He further states, " There is no scriptural support for the notion that the adoption process can be reversed." What he fails to acknowledge is that the opposite is equally true! "There is no scriptural support for the notion that the adoption process can’t be reversed." Neither one of these statements prove anything!

To believe we can be unadopted is to believe that man is able to thwart the predestined will of God! This is nothing but circular reasoning. He assumes that if we can become children of the devil once again, then we must be going against the predestined will of God. This assumes that it what the will of God is. According to Scripture, the predestined will of God is to save those who continue to believe, and have a genuine fruitful faith. It is also His predestined will that those who do not abide in the Son will be burned. The will of God is that those who endure to the end will be saved.

Why would God choose before the foundation of the world to adopt someone he knew He would eventually have to unadopt? Why not? Answer that please! It is the same reason as to why we must live our lives upon the earth. Why did He create man knowing that he would be an offense to Himself, and knowing that he would be sending the majority to eternal damnation and punishment in hell? Why didn’t He just create a race that could not fall? Why then doesn’t God just go to the end of time, save all he knows will be saved, and damn the rest? This uses the same logic that Stanley uses. By giving man a choice, he becomes responsible for his own damnation. By living our lives out we will know that we deserve damnation if we are not saved. We will know it is all of grace if we do go to heaven. Stanley’s argument poses an interesting question, but it proves nothing.

One of the passages that he quotes from the book of Romans gives us some interesting insights if you actually read it in its context. Romans 8:14 says, " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." But what if we cease to follow the leading of the Spirit? Verses 12-13 answers that, " Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die."

The strange logic of Stanley comes through in his use of a false analogy. He writes, If the former is true, we better cross our fingers and hope Christ ultimately defeats the Antichrist in the end. To say that the possibility of being disinherited equates to the possibility of prophetic failure is incredible! One has nothing to do with the other. This is a scarecrow that he creates to make those who deny eternal security think that they are denying the surety of the Bible. Upon close examination we see that his lame argument is nothing but straw.

The very foundations of Christianity begin to crumble once we begin tampering with the eternal security of the believer. Once again, the grand assumption! He equates eternal security with the gospel! I believe that it is the very doctrine of eternal security that is tampering with the gospel! I cannot "tamper" with eternal security because eternal security does not exist! I can no more tamper with eternal security than I could with Santa Claus.

If our salvation can be lost, our adoption into the family of God is not permanent. We can be unadopted, so to speak. Such a process, however, is never described or even alluded to in the New Testament. Mr. Stanley is also mistaken in the fact that he talks as if the believers adoption is a finished transaction in actuality and in the mind of God. In Romans 8:23 we are told that our adoption is not finalized until we receive our glorification. " Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (NIV). Stanley fails to notice that the Scriptures say that our adoption is not final until the redemption of our bodies. Then, and only then, is the permanency of our adoption stated. We are also told that only " He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."  Rev. 21:7. Notice that the status of final and complete son-ship and adoption is not finalized until the future. Also note the implications of this verse! The one who does not overcome does not receive all things, and are not adopted as sons! 

As we move a few pages further into Stanley's book he does something strange, he attempts to defuse this issue by explaining away the Prodigal Son.

The story starts with a father and a son. The son demands his portion of the inheritance immediately, and is granted that request. He squanders it all on loose living and ultimately finds himself slopping the hogs and desiring the hog slop for his own food. Thinking about it all, he realizes that even his fathers servants are better cared for and better fed, so he humbles himself, returns to his father. The father, overjoyed to see him, runs and embraces him. The son openly repents and begs to be a servant. The father quickly orders his slaves to bring out his best coat, some sandals and a ring and puts them on him. He also orders that a fatted calf be slaughtered and a party prepared.

His father, however, did not see things that way at all. In his mind, once a son always a son. Apparently, Charles Stanley does not believe that we must be born-again or regenerated to be saved. The Bible tells us that we are all the sons of the devil by nature. We all were born in sin and this condition. And as Dr. Charles Stanley teaches us, it cannot be changed. Once a son always a son! He has just proven that no one can ever get saved! Of course, Stanley does not believe this, but this one-sided saying comes in handy when he wants to save his idol.

He did not say, "this was my son, and now he is my son again." On the contrary, there is not hint that the relationship was ever broken, only the fellowship. Let me pause here and give you that hint. Fellowship in salvation are inseparable. To lose one, you lose the other. This lie that they propagate is refuted by one of the passages they regularly use to prove it. It is 1 John 1:6-7. "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Fellowship and continued cleansing from sin are connected! If you do not walk in the light, you do not have fellowship, and if you do not have fellowship, you do not have cleansing of your sin and cannot have a relationship with a holy God! Without this cleansing you cannot be saved! If you are not cleansed of your sin, you will spend eternity in hell!

Many will try to explain this away with the fictional doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. They claim, without any Biblical warrant whatsoever, that the blood of Christ covers their sin so God cannot see their filthiness. All God can see is the righteousness of Christ. We cannot lose relationship, but we can lose fellowship. They appeal to this from 1 John 1:6-7.

The difficulty with this theory, besides the fact that it cannot be found in the Bible, is that if God can see their sin to separate His fellowship with them, He must see their sin! If God, a holy God can see this sin, and it is no longer being cleansed as this passage asserts, there must be a separation in relationship!  Either this "imputation" blocks God's view enough that even fellowship cannot be effected or it is no mythical imputation at all!

Now, I do not know of any verses that say the exact words that by sin you "lose relationship," but I do know that to be a son is to know the truth, and if you trample under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith you were sanctified, an unholy thing, it would have been better to have not known the way of righteousness, than, after having known it, to turn away from it. ( Heb.10:29; 2 Peter 2:21 ). You see, on Judgment Day, your status of "son" will not avail you any privilege any more than being a "son" did for the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.....he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me...but Abraham said, Son, remember.

The Scripture says of the prodigal son, "for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again: he was lost, and has been found." Stanley comments, by "dead" Jesus meant "separated." That was clearly a figure of speech since the son did not physically die in the parable. I can understand why he must be creative and change definitions to meet his needs. It only makes me wonder what his definition of "is" is!

The Bible never uses dead as "separated." Greek grammars never use "separated" as an option for dead. The fact that he refers to him as his "son" should not be carried too far. What else would he call him? This is like saying, Joe Frazier, the boxer was in town. Now, Joe has not boxed for years, and that does not make him a boxer now. But "boxer" defines him, just as "son" defines the one that departed from the father.

Stanley is correct in saying that this was not a physical death, but he evades that this was a spiritual death! As far as the father was concerned, this wayward son was dead to him. The Scripture tells us that the son came to life again. He was once alive spiritually, died, and came back to life again. He was lost spiritually and physically, and was found both physically and spiritually. The bottom line? No repentance, no forgiveness. That’s Bible!

Have you noticed that eternal security propagates the same lie that Satan deceived Eve with in the garden? God says, "The wages of sin is death!" Eternal security teaches that sin no longer brings death! In the garden God tells Adam and Eve that "from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." Satan's response to Eve is the same answer as Charles Stanley! "And the serpent said to the woman, "you surely shall not die!" Adam and Eve did not die physically that very day. But they surely died spiritually the moment they sinned! I can see Stanley parroting the very argument of Satan saying  by "dead" Jesus meant "separated." That was clearly a figure of speech since the son did not physically die in the parable. The wages of sin still remains the same regardless of what Stanley or Satan says. The fact that we do not die an immediate physical death is not proof that we do not suffer an immediate and definite spiritual death. 

It is clear that he left as a son; otherwise he would have received no inheritance. It is equally clear that he returned as a son. Without a word between them, the father ran to him, embraced him, and restored him to the visible signs of son ship. He however, neglects to mention that this restoration would not have occurred if the son did not return in repentance to the father!

The prodigal’s father didn’t disown his rebellious son. That is true. It is true however, that the son disowned his father. The result is the same!

Acting like God’s child didn’t get you in. Not acting like one won’t get you tossed out. Fancy cliché's and faulty logic. Assumes that you can get saved while you remain unrepentant. Repentance and genuine faith was necessary to get in, and repentance for failures, and a fruitful faith are required as the conditions of continuous salvation. If a dead faith can get you in, then a dead faith won’t get you tossed out. This makes for interesting logic, but a dead faith will not save.

The wall of assumption continues to be built using the term "seal." It is no doubt a term that carries the idea of marking ownership and implying security. The word itself does not define permanency or unbreakableness because the word in itself does not imply the mode in which it takes place. Stanley quotes Ephesians 4:30 "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." Notice that he glosses over the warning of grieving the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seal, and it is implied that there is danger in offending Him. If there were no danger of disrupting this seal, then why does God bring this matter of grieving the Holy Spirit into the picture?

Secondly, Stanley interjects his theology into the later half of the verse saying, "We are sealed right up through the "day of redemption." The passage says nothing of the sort. Paul writes that we were sealed "for" the day of redemption. We can say that it is "in view of" the day of redemption. The vast consensus of Greek scholarship confirms that the word "unto" which is used in the King James Version, cannot be translated as "until" the day of redemption. If you have any doubts, check several translations and lexicons for yourself. You will also find by careful research that there is not a singular instance where Scripture defines the sealing of the believer as unbreakable or permanent. With the absence of any Biblical proof to back the assertion that we cannot break this seal, we must admit that their argument is purely a product of their own imagination.

Stanley proceeds to bring in another proof-text of eternal security with 1 Peter 1:5, we "are protected (kept) by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Again, we find that our salvation will not be complete until the end of time. But until then, we are protected by " the power of God." but he conveniently leaves off the condition of this protection! Through Faith!  If faith is abandoned, then the promise of protection is lost.

Too much is made of this issue of sealing when there is no evidence to establish the irrevocability of its application to us. The problem stems from people choosing to read things into it that are not there. Upon close examination we see that this "huge" argument for eternal security is really a non-issue. Wishful thinking may make this a proof text, but the facts are that nowhere does the Scripture define sealing in the manner that Charles Stanley and other proponents for this doctrine force upon it. To say that the intent of this seal is to bring security, safety, and preservation, cannot be denied. Honesty must bring us to the conclusion that there is no warrant to interject the ideas of irrevocable, permanent, and everlasting, where the Bible never does.