Eternal Salvation???
One of the great debates in Christianity today is the question of whether or not a person can lose their salvation. Of those who believe that a Christian can not lose their salvation, there are generally two varieties. Variety #1 are the 5 point Calvinists who hold the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, sometimes also referred to as eternal security. Variety #2 are commonly referred to by the acronym OSAS, Once Saved Always Saved. I will look at each of these views in the course of this post.
My own belief on the matter is that it is possible to fall from grace. I don't particularly care for the phrase "lose salvation" because evokes images of misplacing something, like your car keys, or your remote control. As with any issue there are extremes on both sides and I must make clear that making mistakes and failing, even repeatedly doesn't cost a person their salvation. In the bible (proverbs if memory serves) it says that the righteous man is he who falls seven times and seven times gets up and continues on.
The issue is not that you fall, but whether or not you get up. Jesus also told the apostle Peter that we must forgive those who offend us seventy times seven. In otherwords, to the Nth degree. Can we imagine that God would do less?
Having said that there are simply too many statements in scripture which make it clear that we can fall from grace, for me to deny them. In addition to that, I find some of the views which hold eternal salvation to be both logically and theologically flawed.
The first point from scripture is that the scripture, both old and new testaments are repleat with warnings to guard faith zealously less we fall away, or be lead astray. In my opinion it defies reason to believe that the bible repeatedly warns us to be on our guard agaisnt something which is impossible, or that the bible repeatedly makes what would amount to idle threats.
I am well aware that no matter what veres I toss out to support my views here, there are plenty of counter arguments and counter interpetations. I've heard most of them, if not all. Some of them have some merits, but in my opinion, most of the ones I've seen are simply examples of what happens when people begin seeking to defend or prove their school of doctrine, rather than seeking the truth.
These are just a few refrences off the top of my head (paraphrased)...
Paul says - The Spirit speaks expressly that in the later days many shall depart from the faith, giving head to doctrines of devils and seducing spirits.
It is impossible to depart from a place you never were to begin with. If they are departing the faith, they must have been part of the faith.
Paul also tells Timothy to be diligent that he "not make a shipwreck" of his faith as some others had already done.
Paul, in Romans, compares Jesus to an olive tree. Jesus it he root, and the Jews were the natural branch. Paul tells us that God plucked out the natural branch and grafted a wild branch (the gentiles) into its place. Paul's main point in this is teaching on the relationship between Israel and the Church, but he adds another point important to our discussion here. He tells the Romans, essentially not to get cocky about being grafted in and says - if God plucked out the natural branch and put you, the wild branch, in you better believe he will also pluck you out if you fall into unbelief.
James tells us that we can be lured away by our desires, which give birth to sin, and sin gives birth to death. Remember that the unsaved are already dead in sin. James here can not be referring to them. Further it is crystal clear in the context of the chapter that James is writing to believers.
The writer of hebrews says, specificly using the word "brethern" making it clear that he is talking to beleivers, to beware lest an evil heart of unbelief take root in us and cause to depart from God. He also warns us to hold earnestly to what we have been taught "lest we drift away".
The list goes on and on. I believe that people should search these things out for themselves in the word. So my challenge to you is to read through the new testament specificly keeping in mind to watch for verses which warn believers about falling to unbelief, departing from the faith, and being decieved.
This topic naturally leads into a discussion of the human condition.. our fallen state, the nature of redemption etc. I will discuss those topics in my next post.
As I said earlier there are two general views which hold that a believer can not fall from grace. I will look first at the OSAS, once saved always saved, view. Some people who use this acronym may infact fall into the second group, neat catagorizations seldom work neatly in real life.
This group, in general, tend towards arminianism. That is to say they generally believe in free will and some degree of involvement of the human will in salvation. They believe that the believer chooses to accept Christ etc.
There are alot of variations but the two most common views in this group are...
#1 you can not lose your salvation because God's love is so great that once you make the choice to accept christ, no matter what you do after that point, God will not let you go and will forgive literally any act you commit or decision you make. They do not go so far as to say that we are "free to sin" because of grace, but they say that there is nothing you can do, including turning your back and rejecting God that will cause God to remove his grace. They usually teach that actions have temporal consequences.. if you do bad things it will make your life here worse, but it will never cost you your salvation.
#2 The second group are a slight variation which actually comes close to harkening back to one of the original heresies in the church. This group teaches that Christians can not sin because we are no longer under law and all things are lawful for us. Thus there are things you probably shouldn't do because its unwise, and its not what God wants, but it is not sin because there is no law by which it can be counted as sin anymore for the believer. Since you can't sin, you can't lose salvation.
At the risk of offending, neither of these views is very good, or reasonable. The first one ignores vast amounts of scripture, and along with that ignores large portions of God's character as revealed by scripture, turning God into some kind of celestial Dr. Phil/Oprah episode.
Its not that this view over estimates God's love, rather they really don't understand the nature of love, and don't have a biblical view of love. They do severly under estimate God's holiness and his justice.
The second view here is actually very similar to the heresy of the early church known as "nicolaitanism". This heresy is referred to in scripture. There is some debate as to what nicolaitanism was, but the only clear historical refrences we have tell us that it was a sect which followed teachings from the deacon Nicholas. Nicolaitanism was a form of gnosticism and taught that sins were carnal (of the physical flesh) , while the christian believer is spiritual. They taught that since sin was fleshly, while Christians were born again in spirit, walked by the spirit, and salvation was of the spirit, sins which were carnal did not affect, or touch the spirit. Thus they taught that christians were free to engage in any carnal sin without fear or concern for any spiritual or eternal consequences.
If you look for the nicolaitans in scripture you'll find them referred to in revelation and you'll find that Jesus says he hates their teachings.
Both of these views are born largely out of drastic short-falls in understanding the basic issue of the fall of man, and our redemption from the fallen state. If you go back into the traditional churches, and look prior to the reformation you will find that there was a great deal of understanding on the fallen state of man, and redemption which has simply been ignored, lost, and forgotten by most of the protestant world. I'll go into that in my next post.
That leaves the other major camp of people that believes it is impossible to fall from grace. This group is the Calvinists. John Calvin was one of the main figures of the protestant reformation. Calvinism today is usually defined or summed up by the "5 points" of calvinism. The 5 points are represented by the anagram T.U.L.I.P.
Total depravity - man is totally depraved in his fallen state and unable to even seek God
Unconditional Election - The elect (believers) are chosen by God based soley on his discression and it has nothing to do with any merit or participation on our part.
Limited Attonement - Christ attoning sacrifice is only applicable, or effective for those whom God chooses to be among the elect (ie believers).
Irresistable Grace - When God chooses a person he gives them saving grace, and they can not choose to reject it. If God chooses to save someone, they have no choice in the matter.
Perseverence of the saints - When God chooses someone and makes them one of the elect, he also preserves them and upholds them without fail, thus they can never fall from grace.
Now, the Calvinist view is by far the more logical and harder to refute of the two Eternal Security views. The Calvinist view is internal consistent logically, and it has many supporting verses in scripture. The problem is that there are also many contradicting verses in scripture. Calvinists would, of course, disagree and they have plenty of arguments to explain away any verse their opponents bring up. After all, this debate has been going on for 500 years or so. After that amount of time there really aren't any surprises left.
There are three big problems for Calvinism.
#1 the bible has many verses and examples which clearly support, or even require the idea of free-will and human choice.
#2 Calvinism requires that God desires to send people to hell, the bible tells us clearly that God does not desire to send people to hell
#3 Calvinism works in the world of philosophy, it does not work in the real world. In the world of philosophy you can argue free-will verses determinism etc.. but in the real world you still have to make your own choices. The simple fact is that we live out free will every day, pondering whether you really make your own choices becomes a foolish pointless exercise in sophism when you stand in the moment trying to decide.
A.W. Tozer, who technically agreed with calvinist teachings on this matter pointed out in his book persuit of God that while Calvinist teaching may be technically correct (a point I would not entirely agree with) it is not conducive to producing great saints. The reason being that it is not practical. It doesn't help anyone make right choices, or motivate them to take action, or challenge them to take responsability for their lives.
On problem #1 for Calvinism, The bible clearly has passages which support predestination. I don't deny this, or try and explain them away. The bible ALSO clearly has passages which state free-will. I don't deny them either or explain them away. If you take an honest look at scripture, you will find that it supports both predestination and free will. My only choice then is to accept that both are true to some degree. That may seem like a contradiction to some, but I disagree.
On problem #2, the bible clearly says that God does not desire that anyone should perish. The most readily known quote to this effect is from the new testament. "God is not willing that any should perish". Calvinists counter this by arguing that the passage is referring specificly to believers, not to everyone. Thus it is really saying "God is not willing that any believers should perish". (this passage in is 2nd Peter 3)
The Calvinist interpetation here is possible, but not in the least demanded, or even implied. The only way you would come to that understanding is if you already held calvinist doctrine to be true. The far more natural understanding of the passage is that God delays his wrath because he wants to save everyone possible, and does not wish to condemn anyone.
But I grant the Calvinist that this verse COULD be interpeted reasonably within their view point.
The problem is that there are other scriptures which bear witness against this, and clearly show how this verse should be understood.
In Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33 God says - I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would rather that they turn from wickedness and live
Now, the calvinist will undoubtedly be quick to point out that these verses were given to Israel, warning them to return to God. Thus the argument again comes that these verses refer to the elect.
However, this creates more problems with Calvinism. Many of the reformed churches (infact all that I've ever encountered) hold some form of replacement theology. They believe that Israel was cast aside and replaced by the church.
These verses were given to Israel during a time of apostasy.
Point #1 - These verses are clearly a warning that if they do not turn from their wickedness they will die, in other words God will cast them out, and they will lose their status as his people. Something Calvinists claim can not happen. This is also true of the verse in 2nd Peter. If you demand that these verses refer specificly and only to the elect, then they clearly imply that the elect CAN fall from grace. If the elect can not fall from grace, then there is no point to any of these verses.
Point #2 - Paul tells us, as we saw earlier, that the Jews did indeed eventually fail to turn from their unbelief and as a result they were set aside, exactly as God had warned them in Ezekiel. Thus if these refrences refer only to the elect, this proves beyond doubt that the elect CAN fall from grace because they did. The Jews were elect, they departed into unbelief and wickedness and God warned them to return, they did not and thus they were plucked out. Now, either they were God's elect or they werent. If they were then the elect can fall from grace, if they weren't then the verses in ezekiel do not refer only to the elect.
On a further note, this view becomes very problematic in how people view God's character. This view demands that God creates people specificly to send them to damnation and eternal torment. It requires further that God desires this, and in the past it has produced teachings that God even enjoys this, and that one of the heavenly pleasures of the redeemed wil be to watch the wicked roast in hell. I think these views are clearly inacurate portrayals of God's character.
Well I've rambled enough for this post. :)
My own belief on the matter is that it is possible to fall from grace. I don't particularly care for the phrase "lose salvation" because evokes images of misplacing something, like your car keys, or your remote control. As with any issue there are extremes on both sides and I must make clear that making mistakes and failing, even repeatedly doesn't cost a person their salvation. In the bible (proverbs if memory serves) it says that the righteous man is he who falls seven times and seven times gets up and continues on.
The issue is not that you fall, but whether or not you get up. Jesus also told the apostle Peter that we must forgive those who offend us seventy times seven. In otherwords, to the Nth degree. Can we imagine that God would do less?
Having said that there are simply too many statements in scripture which make it clear that we can fall from grace, for me to deny them. In addition to that, I find some of the views which hold eternal salvation to be both logically and theologically flawed.
The first point from scripture is that the scripture, both old and new testaments are repleat with warnings to guard faith zealously less we fall away, or be lead astray. In my opinion it defies reason to believe that the bible repeatedly warns us to be on our guard agaisnt something which is impossible, or that the bible repeatedly makes what would amount to idle threats.
I am well aware that no matter what veres I toss out to support my views here, there are plenty of counter arguments and counter interpetations. I've heard most of them, if not all. Some of them have some merits, but in my opinion, most of the ones I've seen are simply examples of what happens when people begin seeking to defend or prove their school of doctrine, rather than seeking the truth.
These are just a few refrences off the top of my head (paraphrased)...
Paul says - The Spirit speaks expressly that in the later days many shall depart from the faith, giving head to doctrines of devils and seducing spirits.
It is impossible to depart from a place you never were to begin with. If they are departing the faith, they must have been part of the faith.
Paul also tells Timothy to be diligent that he "not make a shipwreck" of his faith as some others had already done.
Paul, in Romans, compares Jesus to an olive tree. Jesus it he root, and the Jews were the natural branch. Paul tells us that God plucked out the natural branch and grafted a wild branch (the gentiles) into its place. Paul's main point in this is teaching on the relationship between Israel and the Church, but he adds another point important to our discussion here. He tells the Romans, essentially not to get cocky about being grafted in and says - if God plucked out the natural branch and put you, the wild branch, in you better believe he will also pluck you out if you fall into unbelief.
James tells us that we can be lured away by our desires, which give birth to sin, and sin gives birth to death. Remember that the unsaved are already dead in sin. James here can not be referring to them. Further it is crystal clear in the context of the chapter that James is writing to believers.
The writer of hebrews says, specificly using the word "brethern" making it clear that he is talking to beleivers, to beware lest an evil heart of unbelief take root in us and cause to depart from God. He also warns us to hold earnestly to what we have been taught "lest we drift away".
The list goes on and on. I believe that people should search these things out for themselves in the word. So my challenge to you is to read through the new testament specificly keeping in mind to watch for verses which warn believers about falling to unbelief, departing from the faith, and being decieved.
This topic naturally leads into a discussion of the human condition.. our fallen state, the nature of redemption etc. I will discuss those topics in my next post.
As I said earlier there are two general views which hold that a believer can not fall from grace. I will look first at the OSAS, once saved always saved, view. Some people who use this acronym may infact fall into the second group, neat catagorizations seldom work neatly in real life.
This group, in general, tend towards arminianism. That is to say they generally believe in free will and some degree of involvement of the human will in salvation. They believe that the believer chooses to accept Christ etc.
There are alot of variations but the two most common views in this group are...
#1 you can not lose your salvation because God's love is so great that once you make the choice to accept christ, no matter what you do after that point, God will not let you go and will forgive literally any act you commit or decision you make. They do not go so far as to say that we are "free to sin" because of grace, but they say that there is nothing you can do, including turning your back and rejecting God that will cause God to remove his grace. They usually teach that actions have temporal consequences.. if you do bad things it will make your life here worse, but it will never cost you your salvation.
#2 The second group are a slight variation which actually comes close to harkening back to one of the original heresies in the church. This group teaches that Christians can not sin because we are no longer under law and all things are lawful for us. Thus there are things you probably shouldn't do because its unwise, and its not what God wants, but it is not sin because there is no law by which it can be counted as sin anymore for the believer. Since you can't sin, you can't lose salvation.
At the risk of offending, neither of these views is very good, or reasonable. The first one ignores vast amounts of scripture, and along with that ignores large portions of God's character as revealed by scripture, turning God into some kind of celestial Dr. Phil/Oprah episode.
Its not that this view over estimates God's love, rather they really don't understand the nature of love, and don't have a biblical view of love. They do severly under estimate God's holiness and his justice.
The second view here is actually very similar to the heresy of the early church known as "nicolaitanism". This heresy is referred to in scripture. There is some debate as to what nicolaitanism was, but the only clear historical refrences we have tell us that it was a sect which followed teachings from the deacon Nicholas. Nicolaitanism was a form of gnosticism and taught that sins were carnal (of the physical flesh) , while the christian believer is spiritual. They taught that since sin was fleshly, while Christians were born again in spirit, walked by the spirit, and salvation was of the spirit, sins which were carnal did not affect, or touch the spirit. Thus they taught that christians were free to engage in any carnal sin without fear or concern for any spiritual or eternal consequences.
If you look for the nicolaitans in scripture you'll find them referred to in revelation and you'll find that Jesus says he hates their teachings.
Both of these views are born largely out of drastic short-falls in understanding the basic issue of the fall of man, and our redemption from the fallen state. If you go back into the traditional churches, and look prior to the reformation you will find that there was a great deal of understanding on the fallen state of man, and redemption which has simply been ignored, lost, and forgotten by most of the protestant world. I'll go into that in my next post.
That leaves the other major camp of people that believes it is impossible to fall from grace. This group is the Calvinists. John Calvin was one of the main figures of the protestant reformation. Calvinism today is usually defined or summed up by the "5 points" of calvinism. The 5 points are represented by the anagram T.U.L.I.P.
Total depravity - man is totally depraved in his fallen state and unable to even seek God
Unconditional Election - The elect (believers) are chosen by God based soley on his discression and it has nothing to do with any merit or participation on our part.
Limited Attonement - Christ attoning sacrifice is only applicable, or effective for those whom God chooses to be among the elect (ie believers).
Irresistable Grace - When God chooses a person he gives them saving grace, and they can not choose to reject it. If God chooses to save someone, they have no choice in the matter.
Perseverence of the saints - When God chooses someone and makes them one of the elect, he also preserves them and upholds them without fail, thus they can never fall from grace.
Now, the Calvinist view is by far the more logical and harder to refute of the two Eternal Security views. The Calvinist view is internal consistent logically, and it has many supporting verses in scripture. The problem is that there are also many contradicting verses in scripture. Calvinists would, of course, disagree and they have plenty of arguments to explain away any verse their opponents bring up. After all, this debate has been going on for 500 years or so. After that amount of time there really aren't any surprises left.
There are three big problems for Calvinism.
#1 the bible has many verses and examples which clearly support, or even require the idea of free-will and human choice.
#2 Calvinism requires that God desires to send people to hell, the bible tells us clearly that God does not desire to send people to hell
#3 Calvinism works in the world of philosophy, it does not work in the real world. In the world of philosophy you can argue free-will verses determinism etc.. but in the real world you still have to make your own choices. The simple fact is that we live out free will every day, pondering whether you really make your own choices becomes a foolish pointless exercise in sophism when you stand in the moment trying to decide.
A.W. Tozer, who technically agreed with calvinist teachings on this matter pointed out in his book persuit of God that while Calvinist teaching may be technically correct (a point I would not entirely agree with) it is not conducive to producing great saints. The reason being that it is not practical. It doesn't help anyone make right choices, or motivate them to take action, or challenge them to take responsability for their lives.
On problem #1 for Calvinism, The bible clearly has passages which support predestination. I don't deny this, or try and explain them away. The bible ALSO clearly has passages which state free-will. I don't deny them either or explain them away. If you take an honest look at scripture, you will find that it supports both predestination and free will. My only choice then is to accept that both are true to some degree. That may seem like a contradiction to some, but I disagree.
On problem #2, the bible clearly says that God does not desire that anyone should perish. The most readily known quote to this effect is from the new testament. "God is not willing that any should perish". Calvinists counter this by arguing that the passage is referring specificly to believers, not to everyone. Thus it is really saying "God is not willing that any believers should perish". (this passage in is 2nd Peter 3)
The Calvinist interpetation here is possible, but not in the least demanded, or even implied. The only way you would come to that understanding is if you already held calvinist doctrine to be true. The far more natural understanding of the passage is that God delays his wrath because he wants to save everyone possible, and does not wish to condemn anyone.
But I grant the Calvinist that this verse COULD be interpeted reasonably within their view point.
The problem is that there are other scriptures which bear witness against this, and clearly show how this verse should be understood.
In Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33 God says - I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would rather that they turn from wickedness and live
Now, the calvinist will undoubtedly be quick to point out that these verses were given to Israel, warning them to return to God. Thus the argument again comes that these verses refer to the elect.
However, this creates more problems with Calvinism. Many of the reformed churches (infact all that I've ever encountered) hold some form of replacement theology. They believe that Israel was cast aside and replaced by the church.
These verses were given to Israel during a time of apostasy.
Point #1 - These verses are clearly a warning that if they do not turn from their wickedness they will die, in other words God will cast them out, and they will lose their status as his people. Something Calvinists claim can not happen. This is also true of the verse in 2nd Peter. If you demand that these verses refer specificly and only to the elect, then they clearly imply that the elect CAN fall from grace. If the elect can not fall from grace, then there is no point to any of these verses.
Point #2 - Paul tells us, as we saw earlier, that the Jews did indeed eventually fail to turn from their unbelief and as a result they were set aside, exactly as God had warned them in Ezekiel. Thus if these refrences refer only to the elect, this proves beyond doubt that the elect CAN fall from grace because they did. The Jews were elect, they departed into unbelief and wickedness and God warned them to return, they did not and thus they were plucked out. Now, either they were God's elect or they werent. If they were then the elect can fall from grace, if they weren't then the verses in ezekiel do not refer only to the elect.
On a further note, this view becomes very problematic in how people view God's character. This view demands that God creates people specificly to send them to damnation and eternal torment. It requires further that God desires this, and in the past it has produced teachings that God even enjoys this, and that one of the heavenly pleasures of the redeemed wil be to watch the wicked roast in hell. I think these views are clearly inacurate portrayals of God's character.
Well I've rambled enough for this post. :)
posted by Simon Templar | 3:29 PM
10 Comments:
Without trying to sound crude, this is one of the most unjust posts I've read by you yet, Josh, but I'll try to address it in a collected manner:
There are three big problems for Calvinism.
#1 the bible has many verses and examples which clearly support, or even require the idea of free-will and human choice.
As you name them we can address them, but if you remain vague we can't debate.
#2 Calvinism requires that God desires to send people to hell, the bible tells us clearly that God does not desire to send people to hell
The Bible also clearly tells us that God creates some people for destruction: "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires...What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." (Romans 9:18,22) So clearly from this passage, God can destroy or He can choose to have mercy. I admit that there are many verses for your point of view, but I just had to qualify your sentence which made it sound as if Calvinists had abstractly pulled up this idea from their own heads. It is interpreted from Scripture. I don't care for it, but it seems to be right there.
#3 Calvinism works in the world of philosophy, it does not work in the real world. In the world of philosophy you can argue free-will verses determinism etc.. but in the real world you still have to make your own choices. The simple fact is that we live out free will every day, pondering whether you really make your own choices becomes a foolish pointless exercise in sophism when you stand in the moment trying to decide.
To an extent I see your point. However, the absolute sovereinty of God also helps us to live out our lives more practically. Instead of always worrying whether this or that sin has alienated us from God and we've lost our salvation, we are able to live securely in Christ, knowing that one day we will see that beautiful shore, and that what God has promised He will be faithful to complete.
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." Romans 8:28-30 (NASB)
You may accuse us of not seeing the truth because we are seeing things through the lens of trying to prove Calvanism. Is it possible that you may be doing the same thing? We are both honestly seeking truth.
Jonathan,
I began responding to your comment but then realized that my comment was going to be long and decided to make it into a full fledged blog post. :) So see the next post.
Okay. I will patiently await your response, and in anticipation of some of the passages you may pull up, I may be looking into Calvin's Commentaries. :-)
I sort of take both positions regarding eternal security. That may seem like a contradiction, but it doesn't really feel like it. Let me explain, if I can. I agree that someone who makes a decision for Christ, "really means" the sinner's prayer (which is where modern preachers usually put their emphasis, misguided or not), and lives as a Christian truly loving God and following him can renounce their faith and aposticize later. I do not believe that an apostate is a Christian, whether he was before or not.
One of my friends had a brother who had said the precious sinner's prayer as a child, but who later renounced Christ because of the medical condition of his girlfriend (he felt God had abandoned her). So my friend was sad and worried about her brother. She confided this sadness to me and another friend, and the other friend told her that if her brother had really been saved, it didn't matter what he believed now. I had to restrain myself from commenting loudly. This is what most "once saved, always saved"-er's end up believing if they allow themselves to go to that logical conclusion. (He fits into the "once saved, always saved" camp, not the calvinist one. He's a baptist.) I don't think I said anything at the time(I was being considerate of our friend's feelings, right or wrong), but I probably should have told him that he was wrong. Hebrews 6:4ff would have been a good verse to bring up.
However, I don't want you to forget God's power and grace in this discussion. The question is, can someone fall away, and if they do, to what extent were they really Christians to begin with?
Before closing this discussion, I think it would only be fair to consider the insight that 1 John 2:19 provides on this subject:
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
1 John 2:18-20 (NASB)
This is what most Baptists (I attend a Baptist church) are likely to appeal to if you mention the possibility of falling away. The will say that if someone falls away, then either they were not saved or they will inevitably return - one or the other. I'm not sure I entirely agree. Hebrews 6:4ff suggests that someone who has even "tasted of the heavenly gift" can still fall away - and never return!
So yeah, I kind of agree with both positions, but in a loose kind of way. I feel the same way about free will actually. The Bible is clear about free will - but I believe in election as well (The Bible teaches it). I would only disagree with Calvinism about who is elected what they are elected two. For one thing, Abraham was elected, but those around him were not doomed - God said that all nations of the earth would be blessed by through his seed! The elect today are also elected for the purpose of leading others to Christ! Also, Paul doesn't say in Romans 9 that election is arbitrary - he only says that it's because of God's grace not man's desire or effort. So perhaps God chose Paul not in spite of the fact that he was a horrible sinner, as Calvinists might say, but rather because he was a horrible sinner! So, God's election is not based on our merit, but that does not mean that God ignores us in making the decision!
In conclusion,
The Bible says that we are secure, and yet it also says to be careful not to fall away, as some have and will.
The Bible says election, and it also says free will.
Welcome to the mysteries of the faith!
By the way, nice blog. I'll be reading.
Ooh, the parable of the seed is also relevant to eternal security - some of the seed may cause a plant to sprout, but if there are thorns and shallow soil involved, then it may die.
Jonathan,
Regarding 5-point Calvinism, there are two things that prevent me from accepting it besides free will:
1. Limited atonement goes against many scriptures. So if you're a 4-point calvinist, then maybe we'll understand each other better. But Limited atonement has to go. It contradicts the Bible, plain and simple. I'm not sure where Calvin got it from anyway - his position doesn't need it or depend on it to support its claims, so why did he invent it when it contradicts the Bible and isn't in any way necessary for Calvinism.
2. Strict Calvinism also denies such scriptures as 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.
Also, Romans 9 is followed by Romans 10 and 11, and 11 says that even the non-elect can later come in! Next time you read Romans 9 to get comfortable with Calvinism, read Romans 11 right afterwards and see how comfortable you stay!
Simon:
Very insightful and articulate comments on "runaway Calvinism"; I wish more people had your discernment.
I was raised with this kind of teaching, but I now believe that it is perhaps the most insidious deception to ever find its way into the church.
Here are some of my own thoughts on this subject:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/eternalosas/index.html (Once Saved, Always Saved? Sign Me Up!)
Regards,
Bryan
Bryan,
thanks for the comment :) I agree that the OSAS doctrine is very dangerous and its in-roads into the evangelical church are disturbing.
It used to be that most people who believed OSAS believed a more calvinist version where a person wasn't free to sin. If a person lived an evil life they were never really a christian etc. I have been very disturbed to see a growing trend towards a version of OSAS which teaches that once a person becomes a christian they can literally live like a devil and still be a christian.
One local pastor, who is a good fellow, and someone I would consider a friend if I knew him a little better, in discussion with my brother went so far as to say that if a person were born again, they could then proceed to become a second Hitler and they would still be saved.
In his view, living in such evil and sin had no eternal consequences at all. He believed that such actions would have consequences in his life, but none in the next.
This view is actually trending towards one of the heresies that sprang up almost immediately in the church, and is condemned in scripture. Many people are familiar with the "nicolaitans" but not many know what they actually taught. The Nicolaitans were a sect that followed teachings from Nicholas who was appointed one of the first deacons. Their teaching centered around the idea that salvation was a spiritual matter and once a person was saved their spirit was redeemed and could not be affected by the things they did physically. They believed that sins were of the flesh only. As a result they began to teach that people could live any way they wanted and still be saved. Their teachings lead to rampant sexual immorality, and they taught that such was essentially ok because it was only of the flesh and did not affect the spirit.
There are obviously a few philosophical differences in the details, but I think that many in the OSAS camp are beginning to head down that road.
Austin,
I just wanted to comment briefly here as well to address the scripture from 1st John about "if they went out from us, they were never of us.."
As you point out this scripture is often used by calvinists to argue that those who 'fall away' were never really christians to begin with.
The problem with this verse in specific is that they are taking it out of context.
That statement from John is specifically said in context of anti-christ teachers and deceivers. It is not said in reference to people who 'fall from grace'.
That passage is also often misused by the prideful and rebellious because it says "you have been annointed and have all knowledge" and "you have no need that anyone should teach you".
They all ignore the fact that John says in verse 18 that he is talking about THE antichrist, and the many 'lesser' antichrists who have come to deceive the church.
In verse 26 he specifically says "I write these things to you ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU".
Those who went out from among us and never were of us, are the antichrist decievers.
The annointing of knowledge we are given, and what we do not need to be taught is the knowledge to discern when someone is denying Christ with false deceptive teachings. We already know the truth of Christ... anything different than that truth, is falsehood.
Have you heard of the Puritan concept of visible sainthood? Puritans said that you could tell who the elect were by their behavior after they became Christians, so they would argue that your "second Hitler" could not have been truly elect because his sainthood is not visible, and therefore not real.
Re: Jonathan's mention of Paul's teaching about predestination for destruction
Paul said, "Possibly some who will be destroyed were predestined that way." Calvinism says, "Definitely ALL who will be destroyed were predestined that way." Just something worth mentioning.
One key point often missed is that we are predestined - but what does this phrase actually mean?
People often use it to mean "predestined to be Christians." but that isn't what the passage is talking about.
It is actually talking about what Christians are predestined to become like. He calls us, justifies us and conforms us to the image of His Son - but the only part of this is predestined to conform. Or we can fight our destiny and fall away.
We also know from other scripture that He calls everyone and by His death justifies all who call on His name.
Post a Comment
<< Home