From beginning to end, the Bible is filled with encouragement, inspiration, and positive instructions, but another of its functions is rebuke. It frequently attacks false doctrines, even to the extent of singling out certain groups - and in some cases, people - who teach them. And as much as we take comfort in the positive parts, our flesh is naturally confrontational. As Paul, by the Spirit, asks us, "...where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:3).
This carnal behavior of mere men often manifests in what I like to call "dartboard theology". Pick a group you don't like, pin up a bunch of negatively portrayed groups from Scripture, throw a dart at the wall, and whichever group it lands on, that's who you compare your non-liked group to.
We see this a lot with the word "Pharisee". Being the most famous antagonistic group in Scripture, Christians often love accusing each other of being Pharisees. Take your faith too seriously? Pharisee! Don't take it seriously enough? Pharisee! Rely on tradition too much? Pharisee! Rely on tradition too little? Pharisee! Emphasise tithing? Pharisee! Oppose tithing? Pharisee! Pharisee, Pharisee, anyone you don't like is a Pharisee. Of course, in reality, the Pharisees were a specific group with a specific set of beliefs, and, more importantly, attitudes. You are not a Pharisee just because Karen or Nigel don't agree with your theology, and when we throw the term "Pharisee" around too loosely, we lose the meaning.
But of course, the Pharisees aren't the only negatively viewed group in Scripture. I remember a particular example I experienced a few months back. I made the mistake of commenting on a post attacking Eternal Security, which is the belief that one's salvation is secure in Christ - one cannot lose it.
Now, there is nuance to that. It's not like you can just pray the famous "sinner's prayer", then boom, you're a Christian, you're always going to be a Christian, and even if you stop being a Christian, you're going to Heaven because of that one space of about 5 minutes when you kind of felt like Jesus might be real. Eternal Security, otherwise known as Perseverance of the Saints, suggests that when one genuinely comes to faith and genuinely receives salvation as a result, God gives us the seal of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13, 4:30). He holds us to the faith, and of course it is faith that saves us. Therefore, the only real way to lose salvation would be to lose faith. Yet, Scripture indicates a true believer never will (Hebrews 10:38-39), and even that those who do leave the faith were never truly of it (1 John 2:19).
Having explained most of that to someone who took issue with my original comment, their reply was just one word: "Thyatira". Thyatira is one of the 7 churches who received a letter from John, on behalf of Jesus, in the book of Revelation. Verses 2:18-29 read:
"“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, ‘These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass: “I know your works, love, service, faith, and your patience; and as for your works, the last are more than the first. Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.
“Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden. But hold fast what you have till I come. And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations— ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’— as I also have received from My Father; and I will give him the morning star. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”"
Because my opponent merely named Thyatira, I obviously didn't have a lot to go on. How, exactly, was he linking what I had said to Thyatira? Most disturbing is the fact that, as I always do, I had backed up my case with the Scriptures that lead me to believe what I currently do. I do not believe in Eternal Security because of some false prophetess called Jezebel, but because of what I read in the word of God. Thus, rather than spitting out the name of a compromised church as if, somehow, I was supposed to know why, the appropriate thing to do would have been to explain alternative interpretations to the Scriptures I cited.
With an understanding of Conditional Security (the belief that salvation can be lost), and experience both debating and studying those who teach it, I did have some clues as to what this person meant. Thus, I did exactly what my opponent should have done. I provided an alternative interpretation.
First, I began by thanking him for the compliment. There is blame on Thyatira for their compromise, but also praise for their works, love, service, faith, and patience. Their works are even singled out as being more than the first. They were improving! So, while I ultimately reject the connection between me (and especially my view on Eternal Security) and Thyatira, I wasn't going to let my opponent accuse me of the bad without also crediting me with the good. The result is twofold. First, it establishes the necessity of taking Scripture as a unit. You don't get to treat it as a buffet, wherein you can take the bits you like and leave the bits you don't. If you cannot apply Scripture consistently (which, in this case, my opponent could not), you cannot apply it at all.
Second, it also establishes a bridge. Even if I could be charged with some error for my belief in Eternal Security, by selecting Thyatira in particular, my opponent had effectively admitted something major: I am still of the household of faith. That makes division carnal, and unGodly. As Christians, we are permitted to differ, but not to bicker. Enmity in this discussion is not acceptable.
With that out of the way, I began to project previous opponents upon him, guessing what he could possibly mean by comparing me to Thyatira. I ultimately concluded that he assumed Eternal Security means one can be saved, yet behave as if unsaved. This is a common misunderstanding of Eternal Security, which can be corrected with one simple point: There is a gigantic difference between "you don't need works for salvation" and "you don't need works at all".
One might compare this to marriage, or adoption, both of which are real Biblical analogies for our relationship with Christ. While it is possible, in our sinful flesh, to be less than adequate in these relationships, they are typically grounded on love. They are also legally binding, requiring actual effort to annul. Even when adultery occurs, which Jesus specifically singles out as a legitimate reason for divorce, the divorce must occur to end the marriage. One does not cease to be married just because of adultery.
But let's suppose a couple are not only married, but hold to a particularly extreme view of marriage wherein even adultery does not excuse divorce. Even in these circumstances, the couple will likely behave like a married couple. The husband will actively love his wife, and the wife will actively love her husband. They will get each other gifts, they will celebrate birthdays and anniversaries, they will perform the standard marital acts, not to ensure the marriage stays a marriage, but because they love each other.
In much the same way, Scripture makes it clear that, first of all, we have not been made perfect yet. We still sin, and if anyone denies their sin, they are self deceived, and the truth is not in them (1 John 1:8-10). That means unfortunately, this is a very one sided relationship. God is faithful, but we will inevitably fall. God picks us back up, but we still fall nonetheless.
But more importantly, it also means we will do good. Not for sake of getting saved, for our works could never do that. But we do good because that's why we are saved. In fact, when you look at the most obvious Sola Fide verse in the entire Bible, namely Ephesians 2:8-9, we see that it is immediately followed up in verse 10 with a call to good works. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
So we don't do good works to get saved, but precisely because we are saved. That means Eternal Security is not an excuse to sin. But this is how Thyatira, if you don't understand what's actually going on, seem to believe. Now, in reality, they may not actually have this understanding at all. As my pastor pointed out when he recently preached on this very letter, it may well be that Thyatira held a philosophy that barely preceded the Gnostics. These made a major distinction between the flesh and the spirit, indicating that as long as your spirit was saved, your flesh didn't matter. It was doomed anyway. There may even be some greatness in sin, since you could take part in it, yet still keep your spirit pure.
This, of course, is all utter hogwash, but it is a far cry from what Eternal Security teaches. Eternal Security, in theory, does allow for the possibility of a sinful existence. Indeed, no true doctrine could avoid this, as like I pointed out, Scripture denies the possibility of sinless perfectionism. If you believe you are without sin, the truth is not in you, and you have deceived even yourself. But where exactly the line is, no one can say. God searches the heart, and so He knows whether or not a person is truly for Him.
But as Scripture says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:1-4).
Notice two things here. First, Conditional Security would not merit the suggestion "let's continue to sin that grace may abound". This is the objection given to Eternal Security even today, yet here it is the objection Paul, through the Spirit, anticipates to his Gospel. Second, Conditional Security does not merit the answer to the suggestion. If, for some weird reason, someone suggested Conditional Security prompts one to sin that grace may abound, the answer is "certainly not, for you will lose salvation". Instead, Paul asks how we, who died to sin, shall live in it?
And that really is the distinction. There is a major difference between living in sin and warring with sin. But this actually causes a distinction between the saved, who cannot lose salvation because it is maintained by God Himself, and the unsaved, who cannot lose salvation because they never had salvation to lose.
The end result of this is that while Christians may well be sexually immoral, Eternal Security does not support the sexual immorality practiced by Thyatira. It's just not compatible with the doctrine, and indeed is the antitheses. Ultimately, it's all about which side of salvation the works come. In Conditional Security, works come before salvation, whether to earn it, or to keep it. Depending on how one views it, this may even be so severe that it constitutes a different gospel. By contrast, in Eternal Security, works are a direct result of salvation, both in showing that salvation is genuine, and as the very purpose of salvation.
We see, then, that in spite of my opponent's claims, there is no connection between the Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security, which is abundantly taught throughout the Scriptures, and the sexually immoral doctrines with which the Church of Thyatira had compromised. It is possible that my opponent actually had a completely different argument in mind, but as they did not say it (and indeed, "Thyatira" was the last thing I ever heard from them), I am forced to assume. I see no alternatives.