The Unconditional Security Debate With Independent Baptist Debater Kent Brandenburg
I came across the blog of an Independent Baptist named Kent Brandenburg who recently debated a man named Larry Hafley on the issue of Unconditional Eternal Security. After several nights of debate, Mr. Brandenburg announced the end of the debate and declared Eternal Security to be a biblical doctrine that was "up for the challenge." If you are indeed the victor, then I see no problem with proclaiming victory, but I found his explanation for Revelation 22:19 to be a bit below par,
"First, the text does not say that God will take someone's name out of the book of life. It says He will take someone's "part" out of it. This verse is prospective. It is talking about the potential of someone being in the book of life, not speaking of an actual inclusion in the book of life. They could be in the book of life, but they will not be in it. Their part is taken away. You ask, how do I know it is prospective? Verse 19 goes on to say that someone's part shall also be taken out of the holy city. Is it possible that someone already in the New Jerusalem will be removed from the holy city? Of course not. Again, their part is being removed, only speaking of the prospects of their being in the holy city being taken away. A question I asked Mr. Hafley that he would not answer because it would totally expose him was: "Will people be removed out of the holy city once they are already there?" You see, if they can be removed out of the book of life, then it follows that they also will be removed out of the holy city. Neither of them is true..."
You can see the rest of his explanation if you like. Well, I knew how to counter that, and was eager to see how one so devoted to arguing eternal security would respond, so I posted a comment on his blog on Nov 28, 2006 to get things rolling:
"The Bible supports eternal security? Where did you get that idea? Revelation 22:19 alone is enough to refute such a doctrine."
Granted, I didn't state my entire case there, but I was quite prepared to. My comment showed up the next day with a rebuttal by Mr. Kent Brandenburg himself (talk about fast service), which said,
"Revelation 22:19 doesn't teach that one can lose his salvation.
It is not someone's name written in the book that is taken out, but his "part." You should do a study on the Greek word behind "part." Here's a question for you. Do you believe then that someone who is in the Holy City, in the New Jerusalem, can be kicked out? If you believe the one, that they can be removed from the book of life, then you must also believe that they can be ejected from Heaven once there too. Look at Revelation 22:19 again."
"Look at Revelation 22:19 again"? Perhaps he should have looked at my URL again. His whole argument was based on splitting hairs about the terms 'name' and 'part,' after which he tries to confuse the issue by claiming that being able to apostatize on earth means that one is not fully secure once he reaches New Jerusalem. Such a non-answer was easily blown cleanly out of the water. I responded on Nov 29, 2006,
The word for 'book' is most likely a textual corruption of 'tree,' but that is beside my point. The only ones with any part in the holy city (any right to enter therein) are those whose names are in the Lamb's book of life (Revelation 21:27), it follows then that if one did take away from the words of God's prophecy, that he would lose his part in the holy city, which would also indicate that his name was no longer in the book of life. It would be further indication that one who has no part in New Jerusalem is no longer a saint by the fact that those who are in Christ after He comes will always be with Him (1 Thessalonians 4:17), and Christ Himself will be in the holy city (Revelation 21:2-3).
As to your question, it's a typical slippery slope with no logical support. It does not follow that the possibility that one could do a thing on earth in a state beset by temptation and a sinful nature, thereby forfeiting his eternal reward in heaven necessitates the possibility of transgression in like manner with like consequence after being made as Christ is (1 John 3:2). The possibility of apostasy unto perdition before the redemption of our bodies is warned of again and again in scripture: It is unwise to ignore it.
I waited for the response...and waited some more...I think their fast service in stomping out the 'evil' of conditional security suddenly ground to a halt. The first comment was responded to in less than 24 hours, but as of the time of my writing this document (Feb 2, 2007), it's been over 2 months with nary a peep from him -- he didn't even post my rebuttal. There you have it, the conditional vs unconditional security debate in 2 posts.
Update:
August 21, 2007 - Kent Brandenburg has finally sent me a response; he asserts that he either never got my last post or forgot about it. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and call it a server error. His rebuttal was pretty much just a "you didn't really answer me" type response, which was easily shown to be untrue. I won't publish his email here, but if Mr. Brandenburg wishes to respond to the issue further, he is welcome to have it posted here in addition to his blog or site.
September 14, 2007 - By mutual consent I present both sides of our debate by email.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.
"In Europe, I'm revered as something of a god -- but then again, so is David Hasselhoff." - J.C. Thibodaux