There was a quote of Jude 3-4, last week, in one of Pastor FM Riley's letters.

It caused me to wonder about something.

A month or so, ago, I entered into an interchange with Doug L.

If you read any of those, then you realize that I'm one who believes in the doctrine of eternal security.

There are many Christians who also believe this doctrine.

And there are many Christians who believe the doctrine to be false.

What I've wondered, is what I seemed to have noticed, about the weakness of both sides of this.

Not the weakness of the particular points of the argument, but the weakness of us Christians.

(I'm not referring to Doug L and myself, by this, but to the general groups of Christians on both sides of this doctrine)

Do not those groups of Christians, on each side of this doctrine, have their particular weakness, related to this?

That weakness is something that we seem to struggle greatly with, our besetting sin, so to speak.

Am I wrong about this?

On the one side, which does not believe in the doctrine of eternal security, is a particular temptation.

For those who believe that they, themselves, must maintain their standing, the temptation is related.

That is the temptation to self righteousness.

I have had struggles with that, with my tendency to be like the Pharisees.

Then, on the other side, is the temptation, similar to what is pointed out in Jude:

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The weakness on the other side is that of antinomianism,  (i.e. "I'm under grace, so I can sin without consequence")

Is this not what turns the grace of our God into lasciviousness?

Was this not what early Christian writers believed to be the sin of the Nicolaitans?

Is this also what seems to be descriptive of what is pictured by the church of the Laodiceans?

I have struggled, also with the temptation on this side of the doctrine, as well.