"He Was Never Really Saved
To Begin With!"

In many Christian circles, the phrase, "He was never really saved to begin with" seems to be overused in an effort to defend the widespread teaching of eternal security. This is usually cited in conjunction with a religious person, apparently saved (perhaps even for many years), who later turns to adultery, greed, drunkenness and/or some other similar sin or doctrinal heresy which denies his past Christian profession. It has also been used with certain Biblical characters such as the Apostle Judas Iscariot who, behaviorally, had displayed the same similar thing. Though this phrase has some validity based on Matt. 7:21-23, it doesn't cover all cases.

Unwittingly, the proponent of unconditional eternal security (or just eternal security) who uses (even OVERUSES) this phrase has spent little or no time pondering the life of the Patriarch David and/or meditating on passages like 1 Cor. 6:9,10 and Rev. 21:8. Without question, David started off as an ultra-committed child of God, during which time he was enabled to kill Goliath, the enemy warrior, with a stone from his sling shot because he so trusted in his God (1 Sam. 17:50) and even before this, killed a lion and bear (1 Sam. 17:36); yet, years later, after becoming King of Israel, he committed ADULTERY and successfully plotted the MURDER of the woman's husband (2 Sam. 11) to prevent their joint sin from being openly known! Furthermore, David LIVED A LIE for at least nine months, during which time the child conceived in sin was born, for it wasn't until AFTER this point in time that he repented due to Nathan's confrontation!

With all these facts in mind, can one rightly say of David, "He was never really saved to begin with" because he committed the sins of ADULTERY and MURDER? Obviously not! WHY then does this flawed and Scripturally-inconsistent defense of the present-day MYTHICAL teaching of eternal security continue to be regularly uttered as an airtight, irrefutable answer by those who have been eye-witnesses of a Bible-defined Christian of our day who died spiritually right before their eternal security eyes? The answer is obvious -- for logically, if there can be found just one example of a saved person who later lost his salvation, then their beloved teaching is nothing more than a FALSE SECURITY taught under the banner of grace and the finished work of Christ!

It must also be cited that, WITH NO EXCEPTION, ALL the sexually immoral and murderers will NOT inherit the kingdom of God, according to 1 Cor. 6:9,10 and Rev. 21:8, that is, unless they repent. This former passage reads: "Do you not know that the wicked will NOT inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Remember also that we should always interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. Therefore, David's acts of adultery and murder would certainly have excluded him from the Kingdom of God, if he had not repented, according to the Apostle Paul! To believe otherwise is to reject the Biblical evidence regarding this.

Furthermore, true GRACE teaching is best described in Titus 2:12: "It teaches us to say NO to ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age."

Besides David, there are other Biblical examples which sheds spiritual light on the phrase, "He/She was never really saved to begin with."

Another example is 1 Tim. 5:14,15 which read, "So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan." Please note that one can NOT "turn away to follow Satan" unless he/she was first following someone else! Since there is only one other possibility, the widows Paul wrote of must have been following Jesus before they turned to start to follow Satan! Also, verse 11 declares that these same widows originally had a "dedication to Christ." Clearly, then, their "dedication to Christ" came to an end or died. Then they started to "follow Satan." This is the Biblical record -- like it or not!

In contrast to Paul, many eternal security proponents of our day, if present then, would have been forced to comment that those same widows were "never really saved to begin with" or forfeit their beloved doctrine! Paul, however, clears this up for all time for those of us that have "ears to hear."

Another refutation is Jam. 4:4b which reads, "Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world BECOMES an enemy of God." Notice how James declares that one can "become" an enemy of God. One is either saved or unsaved; with Jesus or against Him; a child of God or an enemy of God. Now, for one to "become an enemy of God" must imply he was, just before that spiritual condition, a child of God. There is no other spiritual condition to be in! Furthermore, RAGING FIRE will consume all the ENEMIES of God (Heb. 10:27)! So if one "becomes" an enemy of God from his former spiritual condition of being saved, then he can't be saved any more, especially since RAGING FIRE will consume him! Also, the argument "once a son, always a son" is refuted by the possibility of a saved person becoming an "enemy of God!" In other words, James cites in condensed form that a Christian can come to love the world and show himself no longer saved. He also described what happened to Demas (2 Tim. 4:10)! This, too, is the answer for those who say, based on the Old Testament, that "Christ is married to the backslider," but fail to say, "I gave faithless Israel her CERTIFICATE of DIVORCE and sent her away because of all her ADULTERIES," Jer. 3:8!

To cite another similar Scriptural proof which refutes this eternal security answer, please consider the following:

The Parable of the Sower declares there are four different types of people who hear the Word of God. The second type mentioned "believe for a while but in time of testing fall away," Lk. 8:13. In Matt. 13:21, the explanation of this type of person is given: "But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persectuion comes because of the word, he quickly falls away." This type of person does not continue to live spiritually, though there was once LIFE produced by the Word of God and personal faith, as the context shows. Also, the Scriptural meaning of "fall away" in context is DIE as evidenced by the "WITHERED" plants. To "fall away" is equated here with ceasing to "believe." In review, such people after believing through the Word of God in such a way as to produce life, CEASED BELIEVING (which is likened unto 'withering'). For someone to say of such "They were never really saved to begin with" is to contradict the plain teaching of Jesus Christ!

Moreover, regarding this same parable, the eternal security teachers are also wrong to say it was "a false faith" that such people had, since it didn't endure. Friend, how could a false faith produce spiritual life? Obviously it can't!

Finally, sometimes 1 Jn. 2:19 is misapplied to teach, "He was never really saved to begin with." This verse says: "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." Regarding that passage, please consider the following:

1. If the unconditional eternal security (UES) interpretation of 1 Jn. 2:19 was correct, then we could NEVER know at this moment if someone was REALLY saved or just a professing Christian, who might NOT be saved.

2. If the UES interpretation of this key verse is correct, then how could there be at least fourteen clear, Biblical examples of people and types of people who did indeed experience genuine salvation, then afterwards turned away from Christ to the point where they experienced spiritual death? This too would be an impossibility! Therefore, by allowing the immediate context of 1 Jn. 2:19 and these other Scriptures to interpret this Scripture in question, we must reject the UES view of this verse. Without a doubt, Saul, Solomon and the unnamed disciples of Jn. 6:66 were all saved then later turned from God and never came back! With all of the aforementioned in mind, 1 Jn. 2:19 cannot, therefore, be a spiritual principle as so many use it, but a specific example.

[Excerpts are taken from our book, The Believer's Security, Conditional or Unconditional?, which is now out of print. It has been replaced by our much more exhaustive book, The Believer's Conditional Security, which is 801 pages. This newer book, which deals with this important issue, also names, quotes and refutes the present-day eternal security teachers; answers over 110 OSAS arguments; cites important spiritual safeguards to help assure that you and your loved ones will be ready to meet the Lord when He comes; and contains much, much more.]

For a FREE questionnaire of over 100 questions addressing the believer's security from a Biblical perspective, please send a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Your comments, questions and/or criticisms are welcome. GOD BLESS YOU.

Return to top