 Conditional security ignores the conditions. For the benefit of anybody who is unfamiliar with this issue, there are two broad categories of salvation doctrine known as eternal security and conditional security. So eternal security, and this may be known in various forms as one saved always saved, or this is the free grace and easy-beliefism understanding, or perseverance of the saints, which is the Calvinist version of it, and this is that salvation or saved unto eternal life is permanent and irrevocable. Once you are saved, you cannot go back to being unsaved. If somebody departs from the faith, depending on the school of thought, they are either never saved in the first place or still saved despite their unbelief, or still saved but God will chastise them somehow and bring them back to the faith. And then we have conditional security, and this is also known as losing salvation or loss of salvation, and this says that salvation, to be saved unto eternal life, is not permanent and can be lost. Even though you are saved, you can go back to being unsaved according to your free will decisionism. And depending on the school of thought, somebody loses their salvation either by stopping believing or drifting into gross heresy or believing a dead faith that doesn't produce efficient works of obedience or just sins too much or sins even once. So there are different schools of thought even within each side. And whoever they are, they all have a bunch of different verses that they like to quote. So eternal security advocates, for example, might quote from John 10 where Jesus talks about the sheep that have eternal life and no man is able to pluck them out of my hand. Or they might quote from John 6 where Jesus says I should lose nothing of those which the Father has given me. Whereas conditional security advocates might quote from, say, John 15 where he talks about a man that abides not in me is cast forth as a branch and bird in the fire. Or Romans 11, which contains a similar illustration but slightly different, that he won't spare the branches and God can cut them off. So you can see that both sides, I've only really quote two but they have a bunch of different verses that they like to quote and hopefully given enough time I'll work on videos to address those different verses eventually. But the key talking point today is that according to conditional security advocates there are certain conditions according to the verses that even eternal security advocates would use and they will say that you have to ignore these conditions to believe in eternal security from those verses. So let's take a look at an example. So we just looked at John 10 a moment ago. We see that Jesus gives eternal life to his sheep and upon that happening they shall never perish. Notice it doesn't say might not perish. Neither shall any man and most people proclaiming eternal security suggest that this includes one's self. Pluck them out of his hand or his father's hand in verse 29. And my father is greater than all and presumably we are not greater than the father. So you can see why somebody would use this verse to advocate for eternal security. If Jesus gives you eternal life the implication is that you cannot be plucked from his hand. So what happens then when you try to throw this verse at somebody who believes in conditional security? Well they'll say look at the condition. The verse has a condition associated with it. And technically there is a condition in the previous verse. Verse 27. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. So this is the condition if somebody followed Jesus previously but doesn't follow him anymore this condition is supposedly no longer in force for the next verses. So hence you see why they call it conditional security. You're only securing Christ if you meet the condition. But I submit to you that these people are hypocrites because they call their position conditional security but there's so many verses where they'll use those verses to proclaim conditional security but then they blatantly ignore the condition of those verses. Anytime you post a verse about eternal security of the believer they say but what's the condition? There's a condition associated with that verse. Look at the condition. But when we examine their conditions for some of their go-to verses you'll just see how they blatantly ignore these and just completely disregard them. So let's take a look at some examples. So one of their proof texts for example they might use 1 John 2, 24, 25 where it says let that therefore abide in you which you have heard from the beginning if that which you have heard from the beginning shall remain in you you shall also continue in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he has promised us even eternal life. So we have a condition if you do this and an outcome for the people that meet this condition you shall continue in the Son and the Father. And the context is eternal life. This is not talking about fellowship or discipleship or whatever. This is clearly talking about eternal life. Ergo conditional security. If this beginning message abides in you you shall continue in the Son or the Father and in doing so you have access to the promise of everlasting life. Else if you depart from this beginning word you stop continuing and in doing so you have forfeited the promise of eternal life that you once had. So in a roundabout way they are saying you are abiding in that which you heard before but then you stop abiding you don't continue you can't continue to have the promise of eternal life because you didn't continue. So you had eternal life before when you were abiding but because you stopped abiding you have now lost your eternal life. So in other words you have lost your salvation. You have lost your security because you had the condition before and now you don't meet the condition. Here's the problem with that is that to make that kind of an argument they have ignored a key aspect of the condition. Let's go back and see. It quite clearly says you have heard a message in the beginning that was the past tense. This message has to abide in you and the condition that follows if is that it shall future tense remain in you and assuming that condition will be met you shall future tense continue. It doesn't strictly say that you already have eternal life only that by continuing which cannot be determined in the present you have the promise of it. It's funny one because there are some verses in the Bible that say that we have eternal life already. Jesus said things like he that believes on me present tense has everlasting life present tense. John's epistle is worded slightly different though and it's somewhat retrospective. You can only really know for certain in hindsight whether somebody continued or not. But the condition is clear. If you shall continue you have the promise. So if somebody did depart from the faith then logically they did not continue. So logically they did not meet the condition to have the promise of eternal life according to this verse. So how can anybody say that they used to be saved? Well part of the reason they do this is they ignore the condition. They don't consider the implications of different authors or what different speakers are saying on different things. Why does Jesus say we have eternal life present tense if we believe present tense? Whereas John in a manner of speaking says this is the promise as if it were promised but don't have it yet. Conditional security just applies a lazy answer say well it's present in future tense you have eternal life today but you have to keep it you may be getting the end if you continue. But the answer is that John didn't actually say if you believe. That's not what John said. He said if that which you have heard which we assume to be a message of some kind so logically the gospel if that shall continue in you. Now Jesus knows the hearts of men. He can search the heart who knows the beginning from the end whether you will continue and there are scriptures that support that idea. So he can say well if you believe you have eternal life already because that's quite personal between you and him only you know with any degree of certainty whether you believe in him. John cannot necessarily search hearts in this same way he doesn't necessarily have a way of knowing for sure who will continue or at least we certainly don't. He would observe some people or show us how to observe them thinking that they are a believer and he doesn't know the end from the beginning so his dialogue is written as more of an observation if that shall remain in you and continuing is associated with the promise of eternal life not having eternal life itself. Having said all that they may dismiss this as not being a very compelling case because even if somebody doesn't continue for a while they did remain or abide for a time because we can point to all the scriptures in the Bible where abiding doesn't necessarily imply permanency. For example Jesus abode two days with Samaritans you wouldn't say that Jesus didn't abide just because he didn't continue there forever. Well fair enough you could make that argument in so far as the promise of eternal life that John is talking about but then Jesus couldn't really say that you have eternal life present sense he could only really say that you are currently meeting the condition to obtain the promise of eternal life eventually. But there are clearly Bible verses that teach that you already have eternal life and if that is already in force Jesus should lose nothing he will not let any be plucked out. So perhaps you think that's a weak case but let's look at some stronger verses. So here is a shorter verse and this is one that they'll often use. It says in Hebrews 3.14 for we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast onto the end. So we have a condition, hold our steadfast confidence onto the end and the outcome we are partakers of Christ. Now partakers of Christ is actually vague language that is open to interpretation but conditional security advocates are just usually theologically lazy and just make vague statements referred to salvation whenever they feel like it. But having said all that at least in this instance there are some verses in Hebrews 3 and 4 even 5 and 6 perhaps where you could argue in a more long winded way that maybe he's talking about eternal life in this chapter. So let's assume for the sake of argument that partakers of Christ means being saved and having eternal life. Let's look at the condition. It says onto the end and these last three words this is the bit that they ignore the implications of this is the important bit. If somebody had their confidence in Christ to save them but then did not hold onto that confidence and walked away from Christ if you want to call it that or will just say they believed for a while then stopped believing they didn't hold their confidence steadfast onto the end. If Hebrews 3.4 is definitely about salvation then it cannot possibly suggest that somebody who cast off their confidence was once saved and is now no longer saved because they did not meet the condition to be saved according to this verse. The condition to be saved is that they hold their confidence steadfast onto the end. Conditional security advocates take this verse as supporting their doctrine of conditional security yet they so hypocritically ignore the condition. And there's no way around that one. Anybody who still insists that this verse is teaching conditional security as they describe the doctrine is rejecting that verse because it's speaking against them, not for them. Let's take a look at another well-known example and this is quite a long reading but it's from John 15 and it says I am the true vine and my father is the husbandman every branch in me that bears not fruit he takes away and every branch that bears fruit he purges it that it may bring forth more fruit now you are cleaned through the word which I've spoken on to you, abiding me and I in you as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it's abiding the vine no more can you accept you abiding me I am the true vine you are the branches he that abiding me and I in him the same bring forth much fruit for without me you can do nothing if a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned now the mistake that most people make here is that they assume that fruit means works of obedience and turning from sin and stuff like that but as I've demonstrated plenty of times on my channel before fruit is not work, fruit is the product of work is what you hope to get from doing the work a farmer or a gardener sprens several years nursing a plant through which time it doesn't grow any fruit at all you water it, you tender it etc and the fruit is what you hope to get at the end of that and you don't always know with absolute certainty where the fruit will grow and even if it doesn't you still technically put the work in but once again for the sake of argument let's just entertain them by assuming that the fruit does mean works if you really wanted to there are only two types of branches in this illustration either they bore fruit or they didn't it's that simple conditional security invents this the third type of branch that produced fruit yesterday so the father purges it and does all that stuff so it would produce more fruit and what not it stopped producing fruit so now it gets cut off and cast into the fire but there are only two categories here it's either produced fruit or it didn't so even if it produced one tiny little fruit yesterday and it's never going to produce fruit again it's still met the condition not to be burned in this illustration furthermore when a branch is cut off it is withered then burned in fire in other words it's completely destroyed so why do all these people quote John 15 as promoting that you can lose salvation but then these same people more often than not the vast majority of people who believe that you can lose salvation believe that you can get your salvation back again how can a branch go back to being in Christ if it's already withered, burned, destroyed well Romans 11 it'll graft it back in well you try grafting in a branch that's withered and burned it's not going to work the Romans 11 illustration is not going to help you in John 15 because it's a slightly different scenario and here's another example verse that they use like clockwork and this verse has absolutely nothing to do with eternal life but there you go they don't care they quote Matthew 24-13 as saying but he that shall endure on to the end the same shall be saved once again conditional security advocates use this verse to teach loss of salvation which is ridiculous because if somebody didn't endure to the end they didn't make the condition to be saved so how can they say that such a person was ever saved I could go on for much longer about this with just loads of examples but hopefully by now you get the point you see how the very people that proclaim conditional security ignore the very conditions in most if not all of their go-to verses they are theologically lazy they don't actually do any serious study on the language used in these passages they just quote mine verses to make a different point than the author is talking about rather like Satan did when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness this is no nonsense Christianity reminding you all that when the Father gives somebody to Jesus for eternal life, Jesus should lose nothing