The book brings some sanity to this important topic which, as we all know, too often is treated haphazardly.
The contributors lay out their argument, and then each has a turn at criticizing the others' arguments, and to offer rejoinders. This is a delightful and helpful feature.
The book is worth its price simply on the basis of the editor's (J. Matthew Pinson) historical/theological overview of the theological systems represented in the book. A part of this essay is a much needed discussion of Arminius' Arminianism which is much closer to Calvin than Wesley's Arminianism, but is much less known.
Horton, in good Covenantal fashion, ties eternal security to infant baptism. I'm not a Covenantalist, but obviously, I must not have enough theological or exegetical expertise to understand his argument. Perhaps, a Reformed Baptist might have better argumentation for a consistently Calvinistic view of eternal security.
The one point Calvinist, Geisler, gives the impression that he threw together a bunch of prooftexts on eternal security at the last minute, the exegesis of which is questionable. He really doesn't give a good sustained argument as to how this doctrine fits into any system of theology, nor does he show in good exegetical fashion how these prooftexts fit into the contexts of their authors' larger argument.
Ashby's article is welcome relief after the almost esoteric chapter by Horton and the superficial treatment by Geisler. Ashby briefly fits eternal security into the system of Reformation Arminianism, and provides good exegetical analysis of the texts, as well as a treatment of texts which might be difficult for his position.
Harper gives the impression that his urgency is to cite Wesley as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is done outside a framework of systematic theology, and one is left looking for a serious discussion of biblical texts.
There probably is no other book which will challenge your view of eternal security as much as this one.
Amazon needs to change its presentation of the book to give explicit credit to Pinson as its editor. The book is not "by" Horton, Geisler, Ashby, and Harper, as suggested in various places in Amazon's pages; rather, it should present the book as "edited" by Pinson in the first place.