This is definitely an interesting thread.
“You mean to tell me that people can trust Christ as their Savior and then turn around and live any way they please and still go to heaven?”
In almost every online discussion I have seen concerning eternal security, this question has been asked in some form or another. For many, this is the real issue. The very idea that a person can trust Christ in order to get “fire insurance,” with no intention of changing behavior, makes the doctrine of eternal security repugnant to them.
Such thinking is viewed by some as an attack on the holiness of God. “A holy God demands holy living from His children,” they argue. “A man or woman whose life–style in no way demonstrates a desire for Christ likeness could not possibly have the Holy Spirit within, regardless of what was prayed or confessed in the past.”
Those who hold this view perceive the doctrine of eternal security to be a license for sin. For this reason they consider eternal security a dangerous doctrine. And to be honest, the behavior of many “Christians” provides them with ample evidence to make such a claim.
Along these same lines, I've heard it argued that the doctrine of eternal security allows people to “get by” with their sin. They get both the benefit of heaven and the pleasure of sin. Eternal security is seen as a loophole in God’s economy.
What bothers me about this line of reasoning is not only used to cast doubt on the salvation of others.