Eternal Security Parables

[Excerpt from Charles Stanley's book, "Eternal Security"]

 

The religious leaders of Jesus’ day did not hold to the doctrine of eternal security. They believed righteousness was gained and maintained through keeping the Mosaic law. According to their theology, if a man abandoned the law, God abandoned him. That belief deeply affected their attitude and behavior toward persons who were not keeping the law in the manner the leaders thought they should. As religious leaders and shepherds of the people, they took it upon themselves to visibly model God’s disdain for those who did not keep the law. Consequently, they would have nothing to do with certain classes of people.

For that reason it was not uncommon to hear a Pharisee praying the way Jesus described:

And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax–gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax–gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ ” (Luke 18:9–12)

The Pharisee looked down on those who were not as “committed” or “disciplined” as he was. In his way of thinking, he was simply mirroring God’s attitude. That distorted view of God’s attitude compelled Christ on several occasions to focus His teaching on the subject.

Despite His clear teaching, some people are still confused. This confusion has driven some away from believing in eternal security. Like the Pharisees of old, some Christians believe their eternal security rests not on the finished work of Christ at Calvary but on the consistency of their good works. To put it another way, they have been adopted into the family of God by grace; but whether or not they remain in the family hinges on their willingness to act like family members. They live with the threat of being unadopted.

In Luke chapter 15, Jesus gave three parables. Some different reasons have been given on why He taught these parables. But I believe that the major point Jesus was making in these stories is to show “once saved, always saved”. Let’s go into some depth with each of the parables.

Jesus was being swamped by tax gatherers and sinners. And His interaction with them really got under the skin of the religious leaders. They could not figure out how a Teacher who claimed to be from God could fellowship with those whom they believed God disdained. They began to complain to one another, “This man receives sinners and eats with them” -Luke 15:2. Sharing a meal in that culture was a sign of acceptance and genuine fellowship.

Jesus knew their thoughts and took the opportunity to draw their attention to the error of their thinking through a series of parables. In each parable something precious was lost. And in each parable the owner put aside everything else and focused attention on finding it.

In the first parable a man lost a sheep (see Luke 15:4–6). When he realized it was gone, he left the rest of the flock and searched until he found the one lost sheep. Jesus applied the parable by saying,

I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repents, than over the ninety–nine righteous persons who need no repentance. —Luke 15:7

The point of the parable was clear. And it flew right in the face of the Pharisees’ twisted theology. God (the shepherd) was concerned about the sinner more than He was the righteous man! But how could that be? Why would He have such concern over sinners when they, the Pharisees, had so faithfully sought to abide by even the most detailed portions of the law? Didn’t their righteousness merit God’s attention over the unrighteousness of sinners? It didn’t make any sense to them at all.

Before they had time to sort it all out, Jesus presented a second scenario. A woman lost a valuable coin, and she put aside all her other household chores until she found it (see Luke 15:8–10). Even at the risk of appearing irresponsible, she searched until she discovered her prize. Again Christ applied the parable to God the Father’s attitude toward sinners. In spite of what the religious leaders thought and taught, God’s concern at that time was not the righteous but the unrighteous. The source of His joy was not the righteous deeds of the godly but the restoration of the sinner.

The Pharisees would have ended the parables differently. The shepherd wouldn’t have gone out of his way to find the missing sheep. Instead he would have written the sheep off as lost for good, no longer a part of the flock. Their attitude would have been, “That sheep knows where to find us. If it wants to rejoin the flock, fine. But it will have to come to us. Besides, it should have known better than to wander off.”

In the same vein, the woman who lost her coin would have been content with the coins she hadn’t lost. She certainly wouldn’t be pictured diligently searching for it. After all, it was just one coin.

Think About It

The authors of the New Testament left us with detailed explanations of how one becomes a child of God; if that process could be reversed, doesn’t it make sense that at least one of them would have gone into equal detail explaining that as well?

The Pharisees had no comprehension of God’s true view of sinners. They were so caught up in their own pseudorighteousness that they had come to believe their good works were actually

the grounds for their acceptability before God. To put it in more modern terms, they believed their salvation was maintained by their good works.

The Lost Son

To drive His point home even further, Christ gave one more vivid illustration:

A certain man had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.” —Luke 15:11–12

With those words Jesus had His audience’s undivided attention. From what we understand of first–century Jewish culture, no son with any respect at all for his father would dare demand his share of the inheritance. It was customary for the father to choose the time for the division of the inheritance. To make things worse, the younger son was making the request. What he did was unthinkable!

Jesus continued,

And he divided his wealth between them. And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. —Luke 15:12–13

Not only did he demand his share of the inheritance, the younger son left town with it. Apparently, he had no concern for his father’s welfare. He was concerned about only himself. So he took the money, went to a distant country, and partied it all away.

No doubt Jesus’ listeners were all rehearsing in their minds what they thought the disrespectful brat deserved. How dare he take such a large portion of his father’s hard–earned estate and throw it away! According to the law, a son who cursed his father or was rebellious and stubborn was to be put to death (see Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18–21). The death penalty was the most likely verdict reached by many who listened that day.

But then the story took a surprising turn:

Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need. And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. —Luke 15:14–16

The crowd must have become almost nauseous as Jesus described the condition in which the boy found himself. The Pharisees would not even go near swine, much less feed them. By their definition, the young man was hopelessly ceremonially unclean. That is, he would probably never get clean enough to enter the temple and offer sacrifices. And to think he would even consider eating with the pigs. To them, he had gone over the edge, but then, he deserved it.

At the same time, however, many who stood there that day could relate to the story of the prodigal son. They had abandoned their heavenly Father. Like the lad in the story, they were in situations that caused them to be alienated from the religious community. By the practiced standard of the day, they were unacceptable to God. They listened carefully as Jesus went on,

But when he came to his senses, he said, “How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.’ ” And he got up and came to his father. —Luke 15:17–20

I imagine everyone who heard Jesus that day had an opinion about what the father should say or do when the boy began his speech. At the same time, I doubt any of them would have ended the parable the way Jesus did:

But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him. —Luke 15:20

The Pharisees must have cringed at the thought of embracing someone who had spent time feeding swine. Jesus then added,

And the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.” —Luke 15:21–24

A Worst Case Scenario

Culturally speaking, what Jesus described in the parable was a worst case scenario. The boy could not have been more disrespectful. He could not have been any more insensitive. And he certainly could not have been a greater embarrassment to the family.

No one would have blamed the father if he had refused to allow the boy to join up as one of his hired men. The son didn’t deserve a second chance, and he knew it. He recognized how foolish it would be to return with the notion of being allowed back into the family. That was not even a consideration. In his mind, he had forfeited all rights to sonship. He was of the conviction that by abandoning his father and wasting his inheritance, he had relinquished his position in the family.

Once a Son, Always a Son

His father, however, did not see things that way at all. In his mind, once a son, always a son. The father’s first emotion as he saw the son returning wasn’t anger. It wasn’t even disappointment. He felt compassion for him. Why? Because the young man was his son!

The father said: “This son of mine was dead and has come to life again” (Luke 15:24). He did not say, “This was my son, and now he is my son again.” On the contrary, there is no hint that the relationship was ever broken, only the fellowship. By “dead” Jesus meant “separated.” That was clearly a figure of speech since the son did not physically die in the parable.

Christ’s next words have been used by some to argue that salvation can be lost. He went on to say, “He was lost, and has been found” (v. 24). To say that “lost” and “found” refer to eternal

salvation is to assume that they are being used figuratively. But there is no evidence for such a use from the immediate context. The son was literally lost. That is, the father did not know where he was. When the son returned, he was found.

A Missed Opportunity

Since the point of the three parables was to illustrate God’s attitude toward sinners, Christ had the perfect opportunity to explain how one could lose his or her place in the family of God—if such were possible. That is especially true when we think about the characters in the third parable. The parallels are too obvious to miss. The father is the heavenly Father, and the son represents sinners of all kinds.

If ever there was a son who deserved to be disowned, it was the son in the parable. If ever there was a set of circumstances within a family that called for extreme action, that was it. Yet there was no hint of rejection on the part of the Heavenly Father. The father in the story was not portrayed as one battling in his heart over what to do with his sorry son.

Jesus did not depict the heavenly Father as One waiting to be asked for permission to reenter the family. Instead He was described as One who felt compassion for the returning sinner, One who at no time viewed the son as anything less than that—a son. He was pictured as One who took immediate action to restore His wandering child to a place of honor and dignity. He demanded no explanation; no apology; nothing. There was no probationary period, just acceptance and joy.

What Is the Connection?

To those who believe salvation is maintained by good works, I would ask, What good works maintained the relationship between the father and the son in the parable? It is clear that he left as a son; otherwise he would have received no inheritance. It is equally clear that he returned as a son. Without a word between them, the father ran to him, embraced him, and restored to him the visible signs of sonship.

What maintained the son’s relationship with the father? He certainly wasn’t acting like a son. He didn’t manifest any signs of sonship. He didn’t perform good works. If anything, his life–style was characterized by the very opposite! Yet his relationship with the father never changed. Why? Because the father’s love and acceptance of the son were not contingent on the son’s works. The father’s love was unconditional. He loved the son because he was a son, because they were related.

That was Jesus’ point exactly. The shepherd didn’t kick the wandering sheep out of the flock. The woman didn’t just forget about her lost coin and turn her attention to ones she still possessed. And the prodigal’s father didn’t disown his rebellious son. In every case, the opposite was true.

God is not looking for people He can throw out of His family. He is looking for people who are willing to be included. And once they are included by faith, He continually looks after them through all their ups and downs. He is the Good Shepherd, the compassionate Father. He is love.

If you have placed your trust in Christ’s death on the cross as the payment for your sin, you are an eternal member of the family of God. Acting like God’s child didn’t get you in. Not acting like one won’t get you tossed out. God’s unconditional love is eternal.