Am I the only one who gets annoyed by the thousands of Dan Corner, pro-CS, evangelical outreach.com and contenders.org pages that show up anytime one types in "eternal security," "once saved always saved," or "conditional security" in a search engine?

Satan, no doubt, is giddy with glee at all the turmoil that conditional security proponents like Corner create, since it hinders a Christian's effectiveness and spiritual walk.

Once Satan (or these eternal security opponents) has a Christian worrying about his salvation, said Christian is no longer helping others or witnessing to the unsaved. The Christian then begins to depend on his or her own abilities and works rather than depending on God and the Holy Spirit for his or her spiritual needs, growth, and maturity.

We definitely need more web resources (and books) demonstrating just how unbiblical Conditional Security is. Conditional Security is nothing more than a form of works-based salvation bandied about by modern day Judaizers, and as such, should be roundly condemned as a false gospel.

There used to be a small handful of webpages specifically refuting Dan Corner's works on Conditional Security and Eternal Security, but, I am sad to say, they are no longer on the web.

It also makes me sad to see that when typing in the phrases "conditional security" and "eternal security," that my web pages are one of the only pro-eternal security pages to show up in the search engine listing!

The Apostle Paul Would Condemn Corner if He Were Here Today

Corner and those like him are guilty of the very thing that Paul reprimanded Peter for, that is, for leading people to believe that obeying and adhering to laws and rules (being "objectively good") was what God wanted of His followers.

Insisting that one must follow rules and laws (and be "objectively good") in order to obtain or to keep one's salvation is actually in direct opposition to the true Gospel.

Apparently conditional security proponents either have not read, or do not understand the implications of, the following from Galatians chapter 2:

Paul Opposes Peter

(4) This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

(11) When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(12) Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

(13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

(14) When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

(15) "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' (16) know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

(17) "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin?

Absolutely not!

(18) If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. (19) For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

(20) I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

(21) I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Preying on the Spiritually Weak, Immature, or Confused: Using Fear to Sell Their Doctrine

On the bright side of things, Corner does rightly reject the heresy of "KJV Onlyism," and he has written works refuting rabid King James Onlyist Gail Riplinger.

Now if only Corner would stop needlessly scaring eternally secure Christians into thinking that they are probably going to Hell.

Conditional security proponents such as Corner are quite good at abusing and twisting Scriptures to make it look as though they have support for their view, but in reality, fear is what sells their agenda. That nagging fear of 'what if...,' as in, 'What if I'm not truly saved?'

Every Christian has these sorts of doubts from time to time, along with the idea of unworthiness:

'how could such an all powerful, all loving, holy God totally forgive me and accept me into His family forever, even with my faults and sinful nature and knowing that I may, even after being welcomed into this family, sin again?'

People such as Dan Corner prey on individuals who have these fears, which makes them lower than pond scum in my book.

Motives: Maybe Personal Doubt and Insecurity

Perhaps folks like Corner are insecure and doubtful about their own salvation and eternal destiny and truly believe they are providing a useful service to Christendom in warning Christians of our alleged Hell-bound destiny, but that is not justification for them to cram their twisted Scriptural views and doubts about salvation onto the rest of us.

Limitations of Misbehavior Too Vague

One problem with the conditional security view is that not a single one of its advocates can pin-point just how many sins, or what kind of sins, it takes for one to 'lose' one's salvation.

I am aware that a small percentage of conditional security backers may quote the bit (from 1 Corinthians 6: 10) about drunkards and such not being admitted into heaven, but they are still unable to tell us exactly what the limitations are. Will getting drunk once cause one to forfeit one's salvation? Or is it ten times? Three hundred?

One would think that if conditional security were true that God would offer some extremely concrete "do's," "don'ts", numbers, limits, procedures and such to Christians in the New Testament, rather than the vague statements about 'enduring to the end' and the like.

And why is it that conditional security supporters conveniently fail to go on and point out the remainder of that passage:

11 ...And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Motives Revisited: Pride?

Perhaps pride also drives those like Corner.

Maybe the idea of trying to be objectively good and holier-than-thou appeals to them. They, however, overlook verses such as the one that tells us that "being good" or doing good just does not register with God, for if it did, then anyone who makes it into His presence in the afterlife will be able to boast (see Romans 3: 21 - 31 and 1 Corinthians 1: 27 - 31).

The 'License to Sin' Straw Man Argument

Those who argue against "once saved always saved" sometimes bring up the straw man argument about it being a supposed "license to sin".

Anyone who has become a child of God, which is made possible, of course only by Christ's sacrifice, is more than aware of the ultimate price that Jesus paid (with His life), and would not, therefore, take it for granted and continually, regularly abuse his or her liberty in Christ.

We who support eternal security are quite aware of passages such as 1 Corinthians 6: 20, for example, which state that "...you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

The "license to sin" argument, used by those who seemingly hate God's free grace, ultimately proves to be an insult to God, since it was God Himself who decided that faith in His Son would be the only criteria for a person's salvation.

I have yet to see any of these sort explain the overall exception to their argument: people like myself who believe in eternal security but who do not abuse freedom in Christ and who do not commit what most people would consider vile sins.

I do not drink alcohol, I do not swindle, nor am I homosexual or any of the other things mentioned in the oft-mentioned 1 Corinthians 6: 10 passage -- and yet I believe in eternal security.

Dan Corner: The Elvis of the Conditional Security Debate (He's Everywhere)

Because Dan Corner has several different conditional security sites up, all of which appear to link to one another, one has to wonder if he is engaging in the practice of "google bombing," as the expression goes.

I encourage all like-minded eternal security proponents to make more pro-eternal security material available on the web.