Friday, February 23, 2018

Jimmy Akin, Answering Arguments for Eternal Security

I have addressed and refuted eternal security/perseverance of the Saints many times on this blog, including some of the common "proof-texts" used to support this doctrine:







Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, has a very good article on his Website:


One rather appreciated how he did a good job at refuting the claim that, unless you believe in eternal security (and often Calvinists will throw in monergism into this, too), you hold to a man-centered theology that robs God of any glory. While the entire article should be read, I will quote those sections:

God-Centered or Man-Centered?

Prejudicial language also occurs when advocates of eternal security characterize their position as offering a “God-centered gospel” and conditional salvation as offering a “man-centered gospel.”
The idea is that, if God prevents the believer from losing his salvation, that puts the emphasis on God, but if we can lose our salvation through our actions, that puts emphasis on man.
Making it sound like you are God-centered and those who disagree with you are man-centered is rhetorically slick, but it’s just more prejudicial language.
Ironically, the name “perseverance of the saints” is man-centered. It describes what the saints must do: persevere. That’s why some Calvinists prefer the name “preservation of the saints,” since it focuses on God’s preserving action.
However, both eternal and conditional security acknowledge that both God and man have a role in salvation. God gives us his grace, and man responds, at least by making an act of saving faith. Eternal security advocates thus don’t reject man’s role. They simply ignore it for rhetorical purposes when making the “God-centered vs. man-centered” claim.

Further, since all acknowledge that God’s grace is indispensible and must precede man’s response, both positions are fundamentally God-centered.

What happens after initial salvation, and whether it can be lost, must be decided by looking at the biblical evidence, not simply by which position sounds like it’s attributing more to God.

The prejudicial nature of the “God-centered” language can be seen by applying it in a different context—say, to the problem of evil. One could say it would be more “God-centered” to attribute evil directly to God, so that he would be the author of all evil, even moral evil. By contrast, it could sound “man-centered” to attribute moral evil not to God’s divine choices but to man’s creaturely choices.
On the rhetorical level this might sound like it’s glorifying God, but it would be charging the all-holy God with moral evil—with sin! Thus the fact something may superficially sound like it’s more glorifying to God is not a test of which position is true.
And, as before, the language is reversible. One could argue that if God can create free will in man, such that man may freely accept or reject salvation, then this brings more glory to God than the view God can’t create such free will. Conditional security thus can be framed as more God-glorifying because of what it says about God’s creative power.

God Glorifying Himself

Advocates of eternal security often argue that God saves people to bring himself glory and say a person losing salvation would not bring him glory. It would represent divine failure.
But what about the case of those who are never saved—people who lived and died without responding to God’s initiative of grace? If one too closely identifies the salvation of souls with God’s glory then those never saved would represent cases of divine failure as well.

The logical alternative is to say that the never-saved also bring glory to God, not by being examples of his mercy upon the repentant but of his justice upon the unrepentant.
However, if this is the case then it means God brings himself glory even in the case of someone who is not saved, and if that’s true then God also could bring himself glory through someone who is initially saved and who then loses salvation.
Such a case would serve to illustrate both God’s mercy and his justice—as well as his creative power by giving that person free will.

Ultimately, all of God’s actions bring him glory, and he seems to have chosen to glorify himself by creating and permitting a wide variety of things in the world. He thus may choose to glorify himself by saving some, by allowing some never to be saved, and by allowing some to switch between these states.

Divine Failure?

Sometimes advocates of eternal security argue that if God is the perfect savior, if he is omnipotent, then he should be able to save those he chooses. He cannot fail.
This begs the question of whether God intends to bring everyone who experiences initial salvation to final salvation.
If God intends to allow people who experience initial salvation to freely choose to change their mind, to return to sin, and to fall from grace then such people do not represent divine failure.
It is only if you presuppose that God intends to cause all believers to persevere to the end that their failure to do so would represent divine failure—but that is assuming the thing that needs to be proved.

I have addressed these and other presuppositions underlying Reformed theology at length, including my article:


Akin’s colleague at Catholic Answers, Trent Horn, debated James White back in January 2017 at the G3 Conference on this doctrine. In my view, Horn won the debate, 6-4 if not 7-3. While I strongly disagree with Horn on the topic of “Mormonism,” he is a very skilled Catholic apologist (one should read his The Case for Catholicism [Ignatius Press, 2017] to understand how informed Catholics defend their theology [and LDS will appreciate somethings in the book, including his very sound discussion of baptismal regeneration]) and he is simply brilliant in the realm of pro-life issues:




On James White and eternal security, I wrote an article refuting White's (and John Owen's) incredibly eisegetical and lame approach to Heb 10:29 which he has used for many years now, and even trotted out in this debate (which Horn destroyed him on):