If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part III

Dispelling Folk Assumptions

I made clear in both Part I and II of this series that most 'lay' Christians (I have found) who hold to the idea of 'eternal security' do so in a folklorish fashion; in other words, they don't really know what Eternal Security teaches, and I have suggested that if they did they would either readily reject that system or else reject the facts and choose to live in blissful ignorance. But I have held off until now on the specifics of what distinguishes 'folk eternal security' from Eternal Security as a reflective theological model. So for starters it is important to dispel the 'folk' assumptions and then reveal the distinction between the ‘common folk’ view of eternal security and the actual Calvinistic teaching on the subject.

It is not uncommon to hear lay ‘Calvinists’ or lay adherers to eternal security, (and of course those Arminian folk who argue against them and who are also confused on what eternal security teaches), to use phrases such as ‘once saved always saved’ to crudely express this view. Unfortunately, what is often implied and otherwise communicated is the idea that once a person is saved they will remain saved until they die and go to heaven (i.e. eternal security) despite the lifestyle they choose to live in the here and now.

In other words, and to use an extreme example to make a point, if a person was to say the ‘sinners prayer’ (if there were such a thing) then spend some time in church singing ‘hallelujah’ and shock everyone with an obvious transformation of lifestyle, then sometime afterward declare that he was ‘brainwashed’ and emotionally drunk, that he believed in Christ during a period of mental weakness, and then openly declares that Jesus is a phony and God does not exist. Then suppose that this person was to go on to write polemic books against the Christian God, and imagine this became his life mission until one day he dies an old rich man in bed. We must assume (according to folk eternal security) that because he said a ‘sinner’s prayer’ and showed himself to be ‘saved’ for a time, he therefore went to heaven. This of course is all due to God’s tremendous grace. He was once saved and therefore was always saved.


Calvinism Does Not Teach That!
Two Calvinists theologians, Robert Peterson and Michael Williams wrote a book titled, Why I Am Not an Arminian ©2004. In the introduction the authors make it clear that the title they preferred was, “Why I Am a Calvinist” (p.13), for the simple reason that the book itself is more a reflection and articulation of what Calvinists believe then it is a polemical attack on Arminians (p.10-13).

Concerning the subject at hand, the authors write, “Arminians and Calvinists agree that professed Christians must continue to the end in three areas if they are to be saved”. Right away this sentence should cause the folk eternal security guy to get chills down his spine and ask the question, ‘are not all professed Christians saved all the way to the end, as in once saved always saved?’ Not necessarily, lets read on. What three areas must a professed Christian continue in in order that they be saved? These Calvinist theologians write that a person must continue “believing the gospel, loving Christ and others, and living godly lives” (p.77, Italics added).

So Calvinists and Arminians alike agree that one cannot simply say a sinner’s prayer, go to church, sing hallelujahs, and do that for twenty years or so, then one day openly declare that they have, 1) stopped believing in the gospel; and/or 2) stopped loving Christ and others, and/or 3) begin to live consistant ungodly lives, and yet expect to go to heaven when they die. This high view of 'holy living to the end' is a prominent theme among most (if not all) Calvinistic writings. “Easy believism,” says Peterson and Williams, “the view that persons are to be regarded as Christians who have made professions of faith but whose lives are unchanged, is incompatible with biblical teaching. On this point Arminians and Calvinists agree” (p.81).

So much for folk eternal security that so many believe in, it simply does not exist as a model for either the Calvinist or the Arminian. It is wishful thinking on behalf of many well intended (albeit misguided) believers.


What Calvinists Teach on Eternal Security
Now that we've answered the question 'what eternal security is not', dispelling commenly believed assumptions, the question we now turn to is, what does Eternal Security teach?


The Arminian perspective seems to provide little comfort for many Christians because it teaches that an individual can choose to ‘fall from grace’ (that may be too crude of a description, but for brevity sake I'll let it stand). A fanciful doctrine of Eternal Security seems to provide the perceived security that many Christians are looking for - the sense that when they die they will go to heaven (I don’t like limiting our scope of the afterlife to the vague term ‘heaven’ as I have been doing, but that will have to be a discussion for a later date). It is unfortunate for them, that no biblical and professional theologian (at least none that I have heard of) would agree with them simply because this view of eternal security is unbiblical.

So the question becomes, what do Calvinists teach regarding Perseverance of the Saints (i.e. Eternal Security)? Calvinists theologian, John Frame states that “When God intends to bring someone to faith in Christ, he cannot fail… When God gives his people a new heart, it is certain that ‘they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws’” (No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, ©2001, p.117). In other words, when someone does truly ‘get saved’ they will continue to believe, continue to love Christ and others and continue to live a godly life to the very end!


But then the question arises, what about the countless examples of those who professed Christianity and lived it for a time but then seemed to walk away from it all? This is an obvious scenario that no credible Calvinist (or any other observant and reflective Christian for that matter) would deny because it has been happening ever since the beginning of Christianity.

The answer, says Frame is that “there are also situations where people who appear to be elect turn away from God and prove themselves not to be among his people. There are also cases where God chooses someone for a task and for a limited kind of fellowship with him, without the intention of giving him the full benefits of salvation” (Ibid. See his footnotes. Italics added). Stop right there and read the Calvinists answer again and think about the implications. Are you a Christian? Are you truly saved? How do you know? You could be a pastor, a missionary, a global evangelist, and prayer warrior, but none of this means you have been called to eternal life. On the contrary, you may have been called to a ‘limited kind of fellowship with him’ for whatever purpose he may have, though his ‘intention’ may never have been to give you the ‘full benefits of salvation’!

So where is your security? You won’t know if you are one of the elect until after you breathed your very last breath. And hopefully in the moments leading up to that final breath you will not deny God, but you may not have a choice in the matter. If God has called you for a purpose, a limited fellowship with him, a life of appearant election, but not to eternal life, then rest assured one day (no matter how faithful you are today) you will surly deny him and go to hell. But take comfort in the idea that your decreed dismissal from Gods presence only brings more glory to God - and so you have served him will in going to hell.

Welcome to the God of the Calvinist.

“If they don’t believe to the end, they have not come to share in Christ. This indicates not a loss of salvation but a demonstration that the professed Christians had not really been united to Christ in the first place” (Why I Am Not an Arminian, p.80, Italics added).

Are you united to Christ?


For the Calvinist, the answer is to cross his fingers and hope for the best.
For the Arminian, one simply chooses to continue in relationship with his God.



I love my God and am sure of my hope and my salvation. Are you?


Just a thought.


Derek
http://www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com/

If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part II

In my last blog we defined the concept of 'folk' in general, and 'folk eternal security' in particular. I tried to make a distinction between it and what Eternal Security actually teaches, but I held off from showing exactley what this distiction involves until we could uncover who it is that teaches it (the subject of the current blog) and then what it teaches in contrast to the folk system we already hinted at.



Perseverance of the Saints:
The professional term for eternal security is Perseverance of the Saints and it is one of the five main tenants of a particular Christian belief known as Calvinism (named after its leader John Calvin). The five tenants of Calvinism are summed up (no matter how crudely) in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. (For the Calvinists model of T.U.L.I.P. 101 see R.C. Sproul’s book, Grace Unknown, ©1997, p.118 in particular) :

Tulip stands for:
Total depravity: We can never come to God apart from God’s first grace
Unconditional Election: God unconditionally elects some to heaven and some to hell
Limited Atonement: The atonement of the cross is limited to the elect only
Irresistible Grace: Whom God gives grace to is not able to resist salvation
Perseverance of the Saints: ‘Once saved always saved’

In the Calvinistic model above, 'Perseverance of the Saints' follows in logical sequence to the rest. Basically, if God wants to save you (unconditional election and limited atonement) he will make sure (irresistible grace) that when you are dead you will go to heaven (perseverance of the saints).

Arminians & Eternal Security
An Arminian (not to be confused with Armenian!) is someone who follows or at least agrees with the teachings of a Dutch Reformer named Jacob Arminius. Among other things, Arminius taught that humans have libertarian free-will, (defined as the ability to choose otherwise) to either accept the grace of God and thus be ‘saved’ or else reject the grace of God.

Now concerning the T.U.L.I.P. acronym, those who believe in libertarian free-will (such as an Arminian) accept the ‘T’ (Total depravity) but reject ‘U’ ‘L’ and ‘I’ and as a general rule they reject the ‘P’ as well. However, the latter one is not necessary. Some ‘Calvinists’ have abandoned the T.U.L.I.P. model as a whole while retaining the ‘T’ and the ‘P’ (Eternal Security). They still claim to be Calvinists (or Moderate Calvinists as they like to be called) but really they have jumped ship and become Arminians who happen to hold to the view of ‘Eternal Security’. Norman Geisler is such an Arminian who prefers the label ‘Moderate Calvinist’ (see his book Chosen but Free ©1999). Note: No such ‘blending’ of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible due to mutually exclusive belief systems. (For a full analysis of this see Arminian Theology ©2006 by Roger Olson and Why I Am Not an Arminian ©2004, by Peterson and Williams).

The point of all this is to say that while Arminians (those who believe that humans truly have libertarian free-will), at least some Arminians, may believe in Eternal Security, the doctrine itself is absolutely necessary for all Calvinists, in other words, from here on out I will refer to the doctrine of ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ or ‘Eternal Security’ as a Calvinist doctrine.

Recap:
Okay so let’s recap what we have so far: First of all, most lay Christians who hold to the doctrine of Eternal Security (otherwise know as Perseverance of the Saints) do not know what that doctrine truly teaches (I'll show this in my next blog). They have a folk understanding of eternal security, if you will, which is a caricature of its true teaching at best and a mutilation of it at worst. Secondly, the doctrine of Eternal Security is by and large a Calvinistic doctrine, the point being that the best way to express a particular view is directly out of the ‘horses’ mouth’ if you will. In other words, I as an Arminian may explain to you what Calvinists teach on the subject of Perseverance of the Saints, but anything I say could be tainted with bias. But what I love about many of the writings of Calvinists is their bluntness and clarity (usually) to stand behind a view no matter where it leads them (but not always). This will be the subject of my third and final part in this blogging series.

What is Eternal Security? Here it is as it is defined and understood by Calvinists…


Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part I

Hi friends,

In the spirit of changing gears, I've had something on my mind for several months now that I have been looking forward to getting out. So here it is in Thr3e parts.

Hey Folks!
I spent my formative Christian years engrossed in Pentecostalism, a movement that was born out of the Holiness movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Having roots in a holiness movement is by no means a bad thing; unfortunately many Pentecostal churches have been so concerned with the Holiness of God that they nearly leave out the Grace of God altogether - this speaks clear of the kind of personalities that I have attended church with for years; not always necessarily in the pulpit, by its leaders, or explicitly taught, but more of an undercurrent philosophy that speaks volumes in casual conversations mostly (though not exclusively) by the laity.

A holiness of God philosophy not seasoned with a grace of God philosophy, removed a hundred years from its roots combined with a conservative mindset which is slow to accept change and quick (almost anxious) to point out sin, (even maybe where there is none) can all work together to form a Fundamentalist environment where such small and insignificant things as card playing or movie theaters are raised from the status of ‘opinion’ to that of ‘dogma’ or ‘sin’. The situation becomes worse when double standards are added to the mix - solitaire is evil because cards are evil yet it is okay to play solitaire on the computer; movie theaters are evil yet it is okay to watch movies at home - resulting naturally in Pharisaical legalism, raising the traditions of man to the status of dogma. (See the difference between dogma, doctrine and opinion in Roger Olson’s book, Mosaic of Christian Belief ©2002, p.44).

It should not be that surprising from all this that when many Christians raised in the environment described above reach their ‘rebellion’ age, as I did around seventeen, they find a certain folk ‘eternal security’ philosophy appetizing to say the least. You see, on occasion folk Pentecostal religions boarder on semi-Pelagianism (that it is possible to attain God’s grace by works apart from the prevenient work of the Spirit), and what often results from this is the idea that when you sin you lose your grace status (and if you died soon after, before repenting, you would go to hell). Therefore you must ask forgiveness in order to receive that grace status again. Without given a viable and biblical alternative to this extreme imbalance, many Christians run full throttle away from this folk Pentecostal religion and straight into the arms of an equally disastrous folk ‘eternal security’ religion.

I have spent many-a-nights talking, working through and even debating with various friends over the years on this issue. Having that sense of holiness engrained within, and after reading the bible through and seeing both in the Old and New Testaments everywhere the motif that believers are to be image bearers of Christ, and not to mention two very explicit passages in Hebrews as well as elsewhere, I could never accept an eternal security philosophy that feeds into an easy-believism that pays little attention to a persons lifestyle. I think it is a great work of deceit on the part of the enemy to make someone believe they have obtained a one-way ticket to glory regardless of the lifestyle they live in the here and now. On the other side of the coin, I’m not prepared to say that just because someone has struggled with an issue for many years (such as smoking) that they are on a fast track to hell. There must be a balance between God’s Holiness and his Grace.

Deliberate Use of ‘Folk’
You may have noticed the term I deliberately and repeatedly used above: folk. Folk in most contexts means ‘common’, or ‘what the common people believe’ in this context. When I spoke of a ‘folk Pentecostal religion’ I was not targeting the official teachings of any particular Pentecostal denomination or its leaders (though they may hold to many folk ideas as well, I don’t know). So what ‘folk Pentecostals' believe may not be what is explicitly or officially taught by their creeds, but rather it is the assumed beliefs (such as clichés and the such) that many have handed down, held to and developed over the years, usually subconsciously and without reflection. (For a great discussion of the necessity of reflective Christianity and folk religion see Roger Olson’s book, Questions to all Your Answers, ©2007).

The same thing is equally as prominent among those who hold to a ‘folk eternal security’ philosophy - the way this philosophy is viewed by the lay Christian who holds to it is (I have found) a far cry from what Eternally Security actually teaches. Folk eternal security says that once a person ‘gets saved’ (whatever that means - another topic for another time I suppose), they will always be saved, irregardless of how someone chooses to live their life. I am convinced that if most lay Christians who hold to this view of eternal security knew what it actually taught, they would either turn a blind eye and deaf ear (preferring a belief system supported purely by emotions and fanciful or wishful thinking rather then proper biblical exegesis), or abandon the system altogether.

Before we answer what it is Eternal Security teaches, we must ask who it is that teaches it. This is the subject of Part II of this series.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com