If grace is resistible and election is conditional, as Arminians claim, then there remains no basis for positing perseverance of the saints.
Calvinists can claim perseverance because it logically proceeds from unconditional election and irresistible grace. An apparent apostate would, in fact, be one who wasn't actually elect and therefore never saved in the first place. Though an Arminian would rightly oppose the Calvinist position on the matter, some Arminians claim something theologically similar to perseverance but founded, it seems to me, upon regeneration rather than election and irresistible grace.
To maintain such a view, a "once saved, always saved" Arminian has to posit a transition in God's governance of the believer along the lines that God initiated salvation according to Arminian principles (freedom and grace), but after rebirth continued salvation according to Calvinistic principles (determinism). Though a biblical mechanism for such a shift could be postulated on the basis of texts like Philippians 1:6, or John 6:39, there is no way to harmonize such a conception with the book of Hebrews or other passages warning that all is lost if one ceases to persevere in faith.
From God's perspective (either looking back from the end or seeing all at once), there is no issue. Of everyone who is finally and eternally saved it will be the case that they will have made it because of God's efforts to preserve them. For everyone who made a turn toward God, or even came to know him intimately, but ceased to believe in Christ and repudiated him, it will be the case that they fell irretrievably because of their own freedom to believe or not believe. If Adam was free and could fall from a state of perfection in relationship with God, anyone can fall from a similar state.
From God's perspective (either looking back from the end or seeing all at once), there is no issue. Of everyone who is finally and eternally saved it will be the case that they will have made it because of God's efforts to preserve them. For everyone who made a turn toward God, or even came to know him intimately, but ceased to believe in Christ and repudiated him, it will be the case that they fell irretrievably because of their own freedom to believe or not believe. If Adam was free and could fall from a state of perfection in relationship with God, anyone can fall from a similar state.
That God loses none of those he foreknew does not mean he will not lose some of those he knew along the way.
If it is intrinsic to God's will that mankind be free (as any Arminian would attest), then on what basis would a shift to Calvinistic precepts for the saved be justified? It seems to me, any such basis would have to be established by ignoring some scripture on its face in order to emphasize other passages of scripture. What would drive that? Emotion? Comfort? Make no mistake, any such effort thoroughly undermines the Arminian conceptions of soteriology in the first place. If one knows that God's grace is resistible, then one cannot posit a perseverance that isn't.
If it is intrinsic to God's will that mankind be free (as any Arminian would attest), then on what basis would a shift to Calvinistic precepts for the saved be justified? It seems to me, any such basis would have to be established by ignoring some scripture on its face in order to emphasize other passages of scripture. What would drive that? Emotion? Comfort? Make no mistake, any such effort thoroughly undermines the Arminian conceptions of soteriology in the first place. If one knows that God's grace is resistible, then one cannot posit a perseverance that isn't.
5 comments:
I wrote a long response and seemed to lose it when I tried to post. I will try again. If the first one came through you can delete this one.
"Perseverance," to me means that a person applies their personal effort and discipline to reach a goal. It means sticking to it when the going gets tough. Take the Biblical picture of running a race. I am trying to complete a marathon. In the Arminian view it requires me to discipline myself to training and conditioning and then going out and putting out the effort to run the course. In my view of Calvinism I am picked out of the crowd at the beginning of the race, put in a limo, and driven to the finish line. I then get a winners wreath and the poor slups who actually ran end up being ignored. One demonstrates perseverance the other is just secure.
In reading the second paragraph of your response I am not sure that we have that much divergence. I can agree with what you said. I understand that the Holy Spirit is the one who allows us to be free and makes us free. I understand that original sin makes it impossible to do anything on my own. I just have a different idea of who makes the choices after you get to that point.
At times I think the big difference is semantics. I hope so. I will be perfectly happy to have the Calvinists laughing at me when I am resurrected to life.
Does that make me more clear or just stir up the mud more?
Grace and peace.
SLW, I agree with you. If saving grace is resistible, as we both believe, then how could a saved person have no ability to reject reject their salvation? Saying that there is no way that a believer can reject their faith makes no logical sense when we say that the believer could have rejected their saving faith in the first place.
However, this same logic leads to a conundrum. If we say that a believer can possibly reject their faith on earth, then could we logically say that believers in heaven could never reject their saving faith?
JG,
Two things will make eternity a different kettle of fish entirely: 1) Believers will be remade without a fleshly nature that is antagonistic to God, and 2) Believers will experience a unity and participation with the Godhead that is not possible now. We will be like Jesus then, and he was able to face all challenges and temptations without fail.
SLW, I agree that the afterlife is a completely different fish. But if we believe that some angels sinned before the origin of humans (as I do), then we need an explanation for angelic beings in the heavenly realms sinning in the past while holy angels cannot do that in the future and angelic-like humans in heaven cannot sin in the future.
JG,
Yes, you are correct about that. Would it surprise you that I have some theories? ;-)
Theory one: we do not know the exact nature of angels' personhood. It is possible that some have more freedom than others. Certainly fallen angels had freedom; we cannot be truly certain about holy angels. What do we know about them but that they are ministering spirits?
Theory two: for those angels that did fall, they did so with their eyes wide open concerning God, and therefore cannot be brought to repentance. Hence they are not redeemable as are fallen humans.
Theory three: if beings opt for God with knowledge, they transcend such choice thereafter (the cosmic "been there, done that").
Post a Comment