The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Eternal Security: Arguments and Rebuttals

The doctrine of eternal security can be defined, according to the Westminster Confession, as follows:

They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (Westminster Confession, XVII.I).

The basic thesis is that a Christian cannot lose his salvation. Once a person is justified, he is always justified. In my last post (HERE), I presented an argument against eternal security. In this post, I want to consider the biblical arguments for eternal security and to offer rebuttals to those arguments. In what follows, I will present passages of Sacred Scripture accompanied by arguments from the passages to the doctrine of eternal security as well as corresponding rebuttals to those arguments. I have attempted to be simultaneously comprehensive and concise. The scriptural passages are taken from the NIV translation. I have opted to use this translation because it is an Evangelical translation, which allows me to avoid the lame objection that I am using a translation with "Catholic bias."

John 6:38-40

³⁸ For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰ For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Argument: This passage makes it clear that the will of God is that Christ should lose none that the Father gives Him, i.e., none that place their faith in Christ. Jesus indicates that believing in Him (i.e., placing faith in Him) is what he means by the Father giving people to Him (John 6:64-65). Now, since God’s will does not fail (since He is omnipotent), all who place their faith in Christ will never be lost. But for this to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: We can understand God’s will in two ways. First, there is God’s absolute will (i.e., His positive will). This is what God positively desires to happen. Second, there is God’s conditional will (i.e., His permissive will). This is what God does not necessarily desire to happen but nevertheless permits to happen. (This is the Molinist distinction; the Thomist distinction is that between God’s antecedent will and His consequent will. A line of reasoning similar to the following applies to this distinction as well). And while God’s conditional will never fails, His absolute will can fail. To see this, we can ask ourselves whether God desires human beings to sin. Clearly, He does not. And yet, human beings sin. Thus, God’s absolute will fails in at least some instances. Is this an afront to God’s omnipotence? No, because omnipotence is, roughly, the ability to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Now, given that God has chosen to endow human beings with free will, He has placed restraints on Himself. For it is logically impossible to make someone freely do something. Thus, out of His desire to give us free will, there is the possibility that we will reject His offer of salvation and instead succumb to sin even though God does not desire this; nevertheless, He does (as is evident) permit it. Thus, we can affirm that it is not God’s (positive) will that Christ should lose any that the Father has given Him; nevertheless, because of His desire to give us free will, the Father may permit some people to freely choose to reject grace even after having previously accepted it. This passage, therefore, does not prove eternal security.

Furthermore, this passage must be contextualized within the overall Gospel of John. While God the Father may not desire for anyone that He has given the Son to be lost, we know from John 15 that if those He has given to the Son (who are the branches) do not bear fruit in the Son (who is the vine), the Father will take them away and prepare them to be thrown into fire to be burned (John 15:2-6). Since the branches united to the vine correspond to those who are in Christ and branches can be broken off the vine, this passage in John 15 directly militates against the doctrine of eternal security.

It is also useful to consider St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on this passage:

So, when our Lord says, the one who comes to me I will not cast out, we can understand this in two ways. In one way, those who come to him are those who have been given to him by the Father through eternal predestination. Of these he says: the one who comes to me, predestined by the Father, I will not cast out: “God has not rejected his people, the people he chose” (Rom 11:2). In a second way, those who do go out are not cast out by Christ, rather, they cast themselves out, because through their unbelief and sins they abandon the sanctuary of an upright conscience. Thus we read: I will not cast out such; but they do cast themselves out: “You are the burden, and I will cast you aside, says the Lord” (Jer 23:33). It was in this way that the man who came to the wedding feast without wedding clothes was cast out (Mt 22:13) (Commentary on John).

.

John 6:44

⁴⁴ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Argument: This verse makes it clear that all who are drawn by the Father are raised up at the last day. In other words, all who are drawn by the Father will be saved and enter into heavenly glory with the Lord. And since one cannot be glorified (i.e., raised up) without being justified, and no one can be justified without having been drawn, and all drawn people are raised up (i.e., glorified), it follows that all people who have been justified will be raised up. Therefore, no one who has been justified can fall away. But for this to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: This verse in no way implies that all who are drawn are raised up. What it says is that those who come are raised up. And of those people, they will all have been drawn because no one can come without having been drawn by the Father. In other words, the verse teaches that all who are raised up are drawn by the Father. And it does not follow from this that all who are drawn by the Father are raised up. This inference is a textbook example of the formal logical fallacy of illicit conversion. It would be like arguing that because all dogs are animals, it follows that all animals are dogs, which is clearly wrong. Furthermore, “come” here is a present participle connoting an ongoing, continuous action rather than a one-time act. Hence, this verse provides no support for the doctrine of eternal security. Moreover, if the proponent of eternal security’s interpretation of John 6:44 were correct, then this in conjunction with a later passage of John would entail universalism, and universalism is false. John 12:32 teaches that God draws all people to Himself (specifically, Christ, after the Resurrection/Ascension, draws all people to Himself). Now, if it is the case that John 6:44 teaches that all who are drawn are raised up, it would then follow, since all are drawn, that all will be raised up, i.e., universalism is true. But universalism is false. Hence, the proponent of eternal security’s interpretation of John 6:44 must be wrong.

.

John 10:26-29

²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. ²⁷ My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all^[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

Argument: This passage makes it clear that whoever believes in Christ is of His flock of sheep. And they are given eternal life by Christ and cannot be snatched out His hand nor the Father’s hand. This is a clear affirmation of divine protection over whoever believes in Christ. And since no one can snatch someone from God’s hand, no one who is in God’s hand can be lost. To be in God’s hand is taken to mean having faith in Christ and being in a state of salvation. Thus, this passage constitutes an affirmation of the doctrine of eternal security.

Rebuttal: Since it makes no sense to “snatch oneself” from God’s hand (i.e., the “snatches” relation is irreflexive), this passage does not prohibit someone leaping from God’s hand by their own free will. What is in view here seems to be protection of a believer from external threats (thieves, wolves, etc.), but not from one’s own free choice to reject God after at one time having accepted Him. And, to repeat from the previous rebuttal, this passage must be contextualized within the overall Gospel of John. Although, none can snatch a believer from God’s hand, God Himself may cast a believer from His hand if the believer bears no fruit and withers away (John 15:2-6). The sheep, therefore, can stray (cf. Matthew 18:12-14, Luke 15:3-7). Furthermore, Jesus’ real purpose in what He is saying here seems to be to draw from Old Testament passages (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39, Wisdom 3:1, Isaiah 43:13) in order to assert His divinity and oneness with the Father by expressing that He, like the Father, protects His people in His all-powerful hand. Finally, the sheep will never perish insofar as they are given eternal life (spiritual life), but such spiritual life can be forfeited by grave sin. Perseverance is necessary, as Jesus elsewhere says (cf. Matthew 24:13). Those who persevere in a state of spiritual life, i.e., in a state of grace, will never perish.

A possible reply to this rebuttal would be to suggest that while God may allow a believer to leap from His hand, i.e., while God may allow a sheep to stray from the flock, nevertheless God will always bring that sheep back to the flock. And thus, ultimately, anyone who has ever been of the flock will still be of the flock in the end. The Parable of the Lost Sheep might be pointed to in support of this claim. The problem with this suggestion is that the Parable of the Lost Sheep has nothing to do with eternal security. We know this because right after Jesus gives the parable, He explains what He means for it to teach, viz. what a joyous event it is in heaven when even one sinner repents (Matthew 18:13, Luke 15:7). Jesus teaches the same thing in the Parable of the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10). One could try to appeal to Matthew 18:14, but this verse merely affirms that it is not God’s desire that souls be lost. It does not state that God will not nevertheless permit souls to be lost. Furthermore, this reply ignores the second part of the rebuttal, viz. the appeal to John 15.

.

Romans 8:28-39

²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who^[a] have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

³¹ What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³² He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? ³³ Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? ³⁶ As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
    we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”^[b]

³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,^[c] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, ³⁹ neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Argument: This passage provides for a powerful defense of the doctrine of eternal security. Verse 30 clearly states that everyone who is justified is also glorified. To be glorified is taken to mean entering heavenly glory, i.e., eternal life with God. Thus, no one who has ever been justified will fail to reach heaven. But this is just what the doctrine of eternal security says. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true. Furthermore, Paul is clear that no power in the world can separate us from the love of God (verses 37-39). Now, to have the love of God is to abide in God’s love. And if we abide in God’s love, we are in a state of salvation (1 John 2:24-25). Since, therefore, nothing can separate us from God’s love, nothing can remove us from a state of salvation. But for such to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: Verse 30 is referred to by some in the Reformed tradition as the “Golden Chain of Salvation.” The interpretation being offered by the proponent of eternal security of this verse cannot be proven from the text for it relies on assumptions that are not in the text. The primary assumption is that this verse teaches that all who are justified are among the predestined. But this is nowhere stated in the text. A more economical and straightforward interpretation is that the verse is through and through speaking of the Elect, i.e., the predestined. What this verse is teaching, then, is that those who are predestined will be called, justified, and ultimately glorified. It does not follow from this that no one outside of the predestined is ever justified. Neither does it follow from this that no one who is of the predestined and who is justified can ever forfeit that justification. If you are of the predestined, you will die in a state of justification and be glorified. But this does not mean that you will never forfeit your justification. What it does mean is that if you are among the predestined, then if you lose your justification, you will regain it and ultimately persevere in it to the end. What verse 30 is teaching is the ordering of predestination. Predestination begins with the divine decree, which is accomplished by God calling the predestined, then justifying them, and then glorifying them. Since all of this is consistent with the possibility of forfeiting justification, therefore, this verse does not prove the doctrine of eternal security.

The rest of the passage speaks of God’s love and the fact that we cannot be separated from it. At face value, this provides no support to the doctrine of eternal security since God loves all who have been created by Him, including even the damned in Hell. With that being said, perhaps we should understand separation from God’s love in this context as separation from God’s good graces, which would entail being deprived of salvation. Even in this case, though, this passage would not prove the doctrine of eternal security. One thing that is conspicuously absent from the list of things that St. Paul says will not separate us from the love of God is sin. Now, it could be argued that Paul excludes even sin from things that can separate us from the love of God. For the final thing he writes is “nor anything else in all creation” (verse 39). Hence, nothing, not even sin, can separate us from the love of God. There are two things that can be said in response to this. First, it is not right to say that sin is part of creation. For creation consists in that which is created by God, and God does not create sin. Hence, sin is not a part of creation. Rather, sin is the privation of goodness. It’s a defect in creation, a hole in creation. It's a kind of anti-creation brought about by creatures. Thus, this clause in verse 39 does not include sin. Second, Paul explicitly warns about certain sins separating people from God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21), which further proves that his leaving off sin from this list is not a coincidence. For Paul, grave sin can separate someone from God.

For all of these reasons, therefore, this passage of Scripture fails to prove the doctrine of eternal security.

.

Ephesians 1:13-14

¹³ And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴ who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Argument: This passage says that the Holy Spirit guarantees our heavenly inheritance. If we could lose salvation (a.k.a. our heavenly inheritance), then it would not really be a guarantee. Thus, we must not be able to lose salvation. Hence, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: The Holy Spirit guarantees our inheritance in that, if He dwells within us, giving us spiritual life, then He will guarantee our entrance into heavenly glory. But, there is nothing in the verse that says that the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to dwell within us always after having dwelt within us at some point in the past. Hence, the Spirit guarantees our inheritance if He dwells within us, but we are not guaranteed to have the Spirit dwelling within us. As an analogy, a winning lottery ticket guarantees the lottery prize to the one who has it, but the winning lottery ticket can, of course, be lost. Therefore, this passage does not prove the doctrine of eternal security.

.

Ephesians 4:30

³⁰ And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Argument: The verse says that we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. Thus, we are guaranteed to possess the Spirit and have eternal life. So, eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: There is no indication in the verse that the seal cannot be broken. Thus, this verse, by itself, provides no support for the doctrine of eternal security.

.

Philippians 1:3-6

³ I thank my God every time I remember you. ⁴ In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy ⁵ because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, ⁶ being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

Argument: Paul is here teaching that the good work that God began (i.e., initial salvation) will be carried to completion (i.e., final salvation) by God. Hence, all who experience initial salvation will also experience final salvation. But then, once a person is saved, he is always saved. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: Just like St. John in the next alleged prooftext of eternal security (1 John 2:19), St. Paul is here addressing a particular group of people, namely, in his case, the Philippian Christians. Thus, it does not follow from this that what Paul is saying here necessarily applies to all Christians. Furthermore, Paul says that he is confident in the Philippians' salvation being completed. He does not say that he has complete certitude as if this were guaranteed. Indeed, in the very next chapter, St. Paul writes, "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12-13). If Paul were intending to teach the Philippians the doctrine of eternal security, then why does he go on to tell them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling? If the doctrine of eternal security were true, then there would be nothing to fear and tremble over with respect to salvation. Hence, Paul must not intend to teach the doctrine of eternal security in the first chapter of Philippians. Therefore, we may conclude that this passage of Scripture does not prove the doctrine of eternal security.

.

1 John 2:19

¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Argument: John is here talking about people who appeared to be Christians but by leaving the faith they proved that they were never really Christians (and therefore were never really justified) to begin with. For if these people really were Christians (and hence really were justified), they would have remained Christians (and hence would have remained justified). Thus, John is here teaching that all who have truly been justified will remain justified. But for this to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: There is no indication here that John is making a statement about all Christians, much less is there any indication that John is making a general statement about justification and salvation. John is talking specifically about the group of antichrists that were leading John’s flock astray before abandoning the flock. John is saying that, by leaving, those specific people showed that they were never really of John’s flock. There is no indication that he is talking about all people who ever leave Christianity. Thus, this verse provides no support for the doctrine of eternal security.

As an analogy, suppose I wrote a letter to a male friend of mine after he had a bad breakup in which his girlfriend dumped him. Suppose that in the letter I console him by writing that, by leaving him, she showed she never really loved him. Because if she had really loved him, she would have remained with him. Now suppose a third party reads this letter. Would it not be preposterous for this person to say that what the letter teaches is that all girlfriends who leave their boyfriends never really loved their boyfriends? And yet that is precisely the reasoning used by the proponent of the doctrine of eternal security with respect to interpreting this passage of Scripture.

.

1 John 3:6

⁶ No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Argument: John is here teaching that if someone were to (perhaps deliberately) keep on sinning, then this would show that he has never actually seen or known Christ. And if one has never seen or known Christ, then he has never been in a state of grace. So, if someone were to sin in a way that is incompatible with being in a state of grace, this would merely show he was never in a state of grace to begin with. So, in fact, everyone who is in a state of grace is incapable of sinning in such a way as to forfeit that grace. So, no one who is in a state of grace can fall from that state of grace. But for this to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: The first part of the verse poses no issue. For “lives in him” is a present participle. We would agree that if one keeps on sinning deliberately (particularly mortally), then one does not live in Him. The second part of the verse is more challenging. The first thing to be said is that if the proponent of eternal security’s interpretation is correct, then this verse would prove too much. For surely proponents of eternal security would not want to affirm that a truly justified Christian is, after being justified, without sin. Indeed, St. John earlier writes against this thesis: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). It’s plausible that John is here echoing Jesus’ teaching on discerning true from false prophets (cf. Matthew 7:15-20) and is alluding to the antichrists that led astray and ultimately abandoned his flock (cf. 1 John 2:18-19). If these antichrists were Gnostics of some sort as is likely, then this would be a rhetorically effective statement to make since the Gnostics claimed to have hidden knowledge about God. A plausible reading of this verse, therefore, is that John is saying that the Gnostics claim to have secret knowledge of God, but if we look at their consistently sinful behavior, it is clear that these people don’t know God at all. Consequently, they have, as St. Paul says, “what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). This verse, therefore, does not prove the doctrine of eternal security.

.

1 John 5:13

¹³ I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Argument: John is claiming that believers can know that they have eternal life. Now, if a believer knows he has eternal life, then he in fact has eternal life (since a proposition being true is a necessary condition of knowing that proposition). Since eternal life refers to everlasting life in heaven, believers know that they will make it to heaven and thus they will in fact make it to heaven. In other words, making it to heaven is guaranteed for genuine believers. But for this to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: There are a number of issues to untangle here: First, what does John mean by “know”? And how is it, according to John, that we are able to “know” we have eternal life? Second, what does John mean by “eternal life”? Starting with the former, it should first be stated that knowledge does not in general entail absolute certainty. We can know without having absolute certainty; indeed, if absolute certainty were a necessary condition of knowledge, then we would hardly know anything. Furthermore, “certainty” is really a psychological property of a person holding a belief rather than a property of a proposition that is believed. The only sense in which certainty could be construed as a property of a proposition would be to say that certainty refers to some sort of necessity (e.g., logical, metaphysical, or nomological necessity). But clearly we can know propositions that are entirely contingent. Thus, certainty, construed as some sort of necessity, cannot be a necessary condition of knowledge. So, we might be able to know that we have eternal life; nevertheless, we would not necessarily have absolute certainty that we have eternal life. Furthermore, John writes “so that you may know that you have eternal life” (emphasis added). So, John is not saying that all believers are guaranteed to know that they have eternal life; rather, he is stating that they may know that they have eternal life.

Now, how is it that we can know we have eternal life, according to John? Before answering this question, we should first attend to what John means by “eternal life” in this passage. It is overwhelmingly likely that John does not have in mind eternal life in the eschatological sense, i.e., everlasting life in heaven. John uses the phrase “eternal life” numerous times throughout 1 John, and he usually means by it the supernatural spiritual life of Christ abiding within us (cf. 1:2, 3:14-15, 5:1-12, 20). If we are to interpret John consistently, therefore, we should interpret “eternal life” in 1 John 5:13 to mean “spiritual life.” So, when John states that we may know we have eternal life, he is not saying that we may know we will make it to heaven; rather, he is saying that we may know that we have spiritual life within us, i.e., we may know that we are in a state of grace. This by itself is enough to refute the claim that this verse provides support for the doctrine of eternal security.

However, in the interest of being thorough, we will now consider how it is that we can know we have spiritual life within us. According to John, we can be sure we know God and have His life within us by our keeping the commandments (cf. 2:3-6, 29; 3:15-24; 4:12-17; 5:2-3). Thus, we may have a moral certainty that we are in a state of grace by reflecting on our spiritual life and the fruits of grace; however, we know from other passages of Scripture that we cannot have an absolute certainty (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:3-5, 9:27, Philippians 2:12). The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this as follows:

Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude [with absolute certainty] that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord's words—"Thus you will know them by their fruits" [Matthew 7:20]—reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty (CCC 2005).

Furthermore, Paul warns against having an overconfidence of one’s salvation (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11-12). So, for all of the above reasons, the argument from 1 John 5:13 to the doctrine of eternal security fails.

.

Revelation 3:5

⁵ The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.

Argument: This verse states that the Lord will never blot out the name of a person who is in the book of life. Now, the book of life refers to those who will persevere unto the end and be saved, i.e., the predestined. Thus, since everyone in the book of life will never be blotted out, those people are assured of persevering to the end. But for this to be the case is for the doctrine of eternal security to be true. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is true.

Rebuttal: We can grant that it is plausible that “the book of life” refers to the predestined, i.e., those who will in fact persevere unto the end. But even if that is the case, the fact that those people will never be blotted out provides no support to the doctrine of eternal security. For it is of course the case—indeed, it is tautologous—that those who will persevere unto the end will persevere unto the end! That’s not in dispute. The doctrine of eternal security states that anyone who has ever been justified by God’s grace will ultimately persevere in that grace unto the end. In other words, the once justified is coextensive with the predestined. And this verse provides no support for this thesis. The objector would have to prove that the book of life refers to anyone who has ever been justified, which has not been shown.

Furthermore, there is a condition placed on the promise to not blot out the name of a person from the book of life, viz. being victorious. “The one who is victorious…I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life” (emphasis added). What does it mean to be victorious? Plausibly, it refers to those who persevere unto the end. In the New Testament, making it to heaven is sometimes analogized to an athletics competition in which the victor (the Christian who perseveres unto the end) receives his crown and his prize (eternal life in heaven) (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24, James 1:12, Revelation 2:10). So, it’s plausible that this is what is in view in Revelation 3:5. If so, then Revelation 3:5 is consistent with the names of those who do not persevere unto the end being blotted out from the book of life. (As an aside, this seems to provide some evidence for the view that the book of life may not at all times exclusively contain the names of the predestined. Further evidence is found in Exodus 32:33 and Psalm 69:28).

Moreover, from the broader context of Revelation 3:5, we can see that the victors are those who have not “soiled their garments” (3:4). Rather, their robes remain white (same verse). This symbolism of wearing a white robe is present throughout Revelation (cf. 4:4, 6:11, 7:9;14, 19:14). Wearing a white robe symbolizes purity, victory, and being in a state of grace. It is an ancient practice of the Church (that continues to this day) to dress a newly baptized Christian in a white robe to symbolize the fact that these things (purity, victory, and being in a state of grace) have been gifted to the newly baptized by God’s transformative grace. And for those who do not soil their robes, their names will not be blotted out from the book of life. What does it mean to soil one’s robe? To soil one’s robe would be to sin grievously (i.e., commit a mortal sin) and to persist in that sin unto the end such that one would be excluded from God’s kingdom. The evidence for this is found later in Revelation:

⁷ Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. ⁸ But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death” (Revelation 21:7-8).

²⁷ Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 21:27).

¹⁴ “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. ¹⁵ Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Revelation 22:14-15).

Notice that in Revelation 21:7-8, the phrase “those who are victorious” is used, paralleling the opening of Revelation 3:5. So, the referent of “those who are victorious” is those who do not soil their garments but are instead dressed in white and preserve their white robes pure and spotless. And this is opposed to those who do soil their garments by being cowardly, unbelieving, vile, murderous, sexually immoral, etc. Thus, these sins soil one’s garments, causing one to forfeit one’s white robe and be excluded from the kingdom of God. And in Revelation 21:27, we are told that nothing impure will enter heaven. Since wearing a white robe symbolizes purity, we can understand this to be saying that only those who have preserved their white robes and have not soiled them by the kind of sins listed in 21:8 will enter heaven. Revelation 22:14-15 cements this understanding of the passage. Moreover, we are told that only those who are in the book of life will enter heaven. And since Revelation 3:5 tells us that those who have white robes will be in the book of life (and will not be blotted out), we have additional reason to conclude that only those who preserve their white robes will enter heaven. Thus it is that the Council of Trent declares:

“[W]hen receiving true and Christian justice, they, immediately on being born again, are commanded to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe, given unto them through Jesus Christ, instead of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting” (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII).

So, far from supporting the doctrine of eternal security, Revelation 3:5 actually serves as a steppingstone to the doctrine of mortal sin. For all of the above reasons, therefore, the argument from Revelation 3:5 to the doctrine of eternal security fails.

 .

Overall, then, the biblical arguments offered in favor of the doctrine of eternal security do not stand up to scrutiny. In a future post, I will consider the biblical case against the doctrine of eternal security and for the doctrine of mortal sin.