INTRODUCTION

This book is a result of a sermon series I preached in Bridgeway Bible church that lasted over one year. I started the series in the spring of 2005 and ended it in the summer of 2006. The series was titled "How Can I Deny The Master Who Bought Me?" The title of the series was derived from 2 Peter 2:1, where the series originated when we were going verse to verse through 2 Peter. As I was preparing for the sermon on 2 Peter 2:1, I decided to take a short detour from that passage and do a sub-series on the theme of eternal security. Over the years I had become familiar with a few common passages of scripture that some people quote as proof texts to support their view that salvation is not secure. Those were the passages I had in mind, but as I started into the series, I realized that there was a need to cover more passages. Rather abruptly, I decided I needed to cover all the main passages in the New Testament that are wrongly interpreted to support the philosophy that salvation is not once for all time, and is able to be lost. It was then that the year long sermon series was born and matured as one of the most comprehensive sermon series to be preached on the subject.

Many books have been written concerning the Biblical doctrine of salvation. Some have been written to prove that once a person is saved, the person's state of being saved is unstable. The primary philosophy behind these books is that one's salvation status is in danger of being lost. Further, the philosophy suggests that one can not truly know one is eternally spiritually saved until one is before the judgment throne of God in the afterlife. I refer to the theory which under girds the philosophy of insecurity in Christ as The Not Eternally Saved Theory. In this book, I refer to the Not Eternally Saved Theory with the acrostic, NEST. Over, and against the philosophy of the NEST, Other books have been written to defend the great Biblical doctrine of eternal security in salvation. In this book, I treat the doctrine of eternal security in Christ as a Biblically supported fact. I refer to it as being Once Saved In Eternal Spiritual Salvation. The acrostic I use for this Biblical doctrine is OSIESS.

The approach I am taking in this book is essentially the same approach I take when analizing passsages for preaching. The book deals primarily with going verse to verse through passages in their intended contexts. I use the grammatical, historical, and contextual, method of interpretation. I believe that scripture helps interpret scripture, and so the reader will find that I rely upon this as a rule in my exegesis of Biblical texts. The passages I am dealing with in this book are those that I have found to be the most common ones used for the NEST. If I have not covered a particular passage that is considered a foundational passage for the NEST, then there are two possible reasons for such an oversight; 1) I did not know that the passage is one that is used for the NEST, or 2) I did not think it important enough to merit comment. This book mainly deals with the New Testament writings. There are some exceptions where I cover some Old Covenant figures that are typically pointed to by the NEST as people who were supposedly spiritually saved once, and then later on, lost spiritual salvation. I also cover quite a bit of material in the Old Covenant section of the gospel records, mainly out of Matthew, but for the most part, this book is primarily focused upon New Covenant writings.

There are other works on the subject of eternal security that are more scholarly in their approach. In them, you will find pages of footnotes, references, and many quotes. The direct quotes, footnotes, and name citing is rare in this book, but such things are not absent. They are only used where I think they add something that helps get a point across. Further, some of the approaches I have taken to interpreting a text may not be the same as others who defend and assert eternal security. There are two possible reasons for this. The first is that I disagreed with the other interpretations. I may not always mention when, and why, I disagree with another interpretive view, as I think that what I have written suffices to support the view I present. Secondly, I may not be aware of some other interpretations of a text, of which, someone else may think is the right one, or at least, more plausible. I have written this book with the openness for revision if necessary, and so if I become aware of interpretations that clearly destroy mine, (at least if I am convinced), or are worthy of mention as an alternate consideration, then I will not hesitate to state them in a future edition.

I have sought to reflect the basic arguments presented by the NEST for each passage I cover. When giving a statement of a particular interpretation of a passage according to the NEST, I am giving, what I call, the typical interpretation. My approach to this book is one in which I have handled the doctrines of grace, the text, and the opposing views in such a manner that I may have not repeated every detail of a NEST proposition in such a manner as to satisfy everyone. I anticipated this, realizing that I have written in such a way, that what I have covered will more than suffice to destroy the core of the NEST arguments for any passage, even if I have not reiterated a typical NEST argument exactly to everyone's liking. I am confident, that once the reader follows along in the chapters by critically analyzing each text in verse to verse contextual honesty, while recognizing that scripture interprets scripture, then the reader should, in my estimation, be able to understand the intended meaning of the Biblical record enough to recognize that the NEST is wrong. This should be the case even if the reader does not agree with every single jot and tittle of the exegetical insights and interpretations I have presented. Further, the consideration I have already stated above concerning the fact that I do not mention various interpretations of passages by those who recognize eternal security in actual salvation, also holds true for the NEST. Namely, I may have ignored another suggested interpretation simply because I found it to be too shallow, or unimportant to mention. As I have stated, I may not always mention when, and why I disagree with another view, as I think that what I have written suffices to support the view I represent. More, I may not be aware of some other NEST interpretation of a text that others may think is the right one. Again, the consideration for revision for future editions is something that may happen if I am convinced of a beneficial merit of such and effort.

Once saved in eternal spiritual salvation,
K Kinchen