Resequitur
Javier
clboltFirst of all I want to express how much I have come to hate this phrase. It does not emphasize the power behind our Salvation and what Salvation actually is. I do agree that once one has received genuine Salvation from The Lord God, who authored it, that no force on earth can deny you of it, and my life bears witness of that very truth.
That being said I want to express the problems with the “Once Saved Always Saved” theology, as it derives from a bad, unbiblical theology known as “Non-Lordship Salvation” or “Easy believism”.
First of all the underlying logic behind this, is that one can exercise one’s will and choose to have genuine faith in the Lord, and of course there is an underlying contradiction to this belief to Scripture. Let us take a look at Scripture here : “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)
So right here we see that a man dead in sin (As we are described in Ephesians 2:1-5) and does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. So relative to this verse, how can one make a choice to understand the Spirit of God, when that person is dead spiritually? You cannot decide NOT to be dead once you are dead. This applies Spiritually, you cannot just simply decide to be Spiritually alive. It must be God’s decision. Which we see that he decided before time,if it is to be called time, (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4) And for the ones known as the “Red Letterists” (John 6:44) Which reads (Jesus Speaking) “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day”. So Christ unpacks two HUGE truths for us right here. Lets look at it :
A) No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him;
This particular sentence is mind blowing. NO ONE can come unless the Father has drawn him. This is perfectly in line with Paul’s teachings in Romans, Ephesians, and 1 Corinthians listed above. So these scriptures do not contradict. We must look at the Scripture that explains a particular subject and use them to interpret others. Scripture interprets Scripture and we have this perfectly in what Jesus teaches and what Paul teaches.
B) and I will raise him up on the last day
This is another HUGE promise made by Jesus. There have been many a time when reading this text I have glossed over it, which I have been learning now to always read the Scriptures carefully. The same “him” in A) is the “him” in B) . This “him” is the group known as the “Beloved” in 1 and 2 Peter also referred to by Paul as the group know as the Elect. From here we see the ones drawn by the Father are the ones raised up on the last day. Jesus makes that promise. This Group of very many individuals which are greater in number than the stars in the sky (From every tribe, Tounge, Kind of people, and nation, whether Jew or Gentile) will be raised up on the last day.
So we should come to the conclusion that God chose us, and this is why we have chosen Him. He did not choose us because of something we good we have done, He chose us for the good intention of His will.
This had to be covered before we got to Salvation. We know from all of Scripture (specifically the ones listed above) that Salvation is the complete work of God. The book of Hebrews proclaims this wonderful truth. Lets look at a couple of verses :
” Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1-3)
The author obviously knew of the weight sin has on a man. Even after putting one’s belief in Christ, the weight of sin can be heavy, but look at the continuation of his thought : “let us run with endurance that the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith”. So from this we see that Christ has FOUNDED (To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence) our faith. This is harmonious with Ephesians 1:4 and Romans 8:28-30. Not only does He create or author this salvific faith, He PERFECTS it. Again this is harmonious with (John 6:39,44; Romans 8:28-30) So right here we have the perfection of The Triune God’s perfect salvation, perfect meaning He will save who He has willed to save, The Father entrusts the Son with the ones chosen, and The Son raises them ALL up on the last day.
There is one more thought dealing with man’s responsibility. There is a time between God’s drawing the man to The Son, and the man being glorified by Christ Jesus on the last day:
“ Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13).
Notice Paul saying “My beloved“. This (as mentioned earlier) is a reference to the invisible church aka the elect, or the ones believing in Christ etc. He goes on to say “as you have always obeyed” He is saying this to signify the nature of those who have believed in Christ. Christ describes us (the Elect) as “His Sheep” and Himself as “The Sheppard” (John 1o:11) He goes on to says in v. 10 and the latter part of v. 12 that His sheep know his voice and listen to Him, or that His sheep obey Him. This is who Paul is referring to. So going back to Paul we finish his though out “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you , both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” So it is right here we are told to work out the Salvation (given to us by God’s Grace) , then he reminds us that it is GOD who is really working in us through the Holy Spirit. So this really hits it home for man’s responsibility. Having Grace through Faith, we are to WORK this faith out. God give us this power through the Holy Spirit because remember “for it is God who works in you” this part is really important to understand; The reason being that God is using us by His Grace “both to will and to work for His good pleasure”
O the power behind God’s Mighty Grace. These scriptures do not conflict with themselves. They are in Harmony with each other. Through His Word is the Life giving power of Faith. So in this we see that “Once Saved Always Saved” doesn’t really cut it in describing our Perseverance through God’s Grace, and His Grace alone. Not simply just our choice. It is His Grace that is empowering us not only to Choose but to Endure in the Faith He has given us.
Sola Gratia
-Justin
Filed under: Soteriology
The below is part of an article that Justins friend wrote against Calvinism, particularly the Doctrines of Grace…at least so she thought she was arguing against the Doctrine of Grace.
What about the verse, “WHOEVER believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect.
I don’t see how this is relevant, ‘whosoever’ doesn’t mean all can come but rather those who come will have ternal life. I don’t see how citing a small portion of a passage in John 3:16 helps her attempt at arguing against the doctrines of grace.
Verses like John 15:13-14 states that Jesus died for his friends.
I find this one interesting, afterall, doesn’t an Arminian believe teachings on how we were enemies of God? Children of wrath? or God haters, Like Paul teaches in Romans? This isn’t an argument against Calvinism, its an argument for. Afterall only those who believe are friends of God, and Jesus died for his friends therefore Jesus died for those who believe – not all.
He also tells us that we are his friends if we obey his commands.
Obedience assumes salvatioin, since obedience cannot be done before salvation.
Various verses describe Jesus as the Savior of the WORLD, and the savior of ALL MEN. In 1 John 2:2, it says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the WHOLE WORLD.”
Yup. She’s right. Lets take her wooden interpretation of world and apply it to all other verses, by world we mean every single person that has lived past present and future. So lets read world into all of these passages.
John 12:19
So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”
Wow!? The whole world, all humans living past present and future have gone after Jesus. Of course this is impossible but we cannot interpret world to mean anything less than everyone at all times, in all places.
Of course, the fact is that an Arminian will allow one to interpret world in other senses, in other times but when it comes to passages that say ‘world’ for the death of Christ, somehow it means all people at all times. For some reason, they don’t allow Calvinists to interpret the word with similar qualifications they use in interpreting the word ‘world’ in other places.
God does NOT predestine people to go to Heaven or go to Hell. It is man’s choice to either accept God’s path or reject it.
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he[a] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. Ephesians 1:4-6 (And thats the NIV 
)
I’m a Calvinist, and by Calvinist I mean one who affirms the soteriological position of one John Calvin. Historically speaking this position was affirmed by the Synod of Dordt in response to the Remonstrants who sought to ratify the soteriological position of the Reformed Church at the time. I’m a ‘new Calvinist’ apparently, I’m a ‘new Calvinist’ because I’ve been branded by the ‘Old Calvinists’ as a ‘new Calvinist’ I don’t know exactly what it means, indeed the definition remains aloof.
The definition seems to be pitted against another, after all, Baptist, and Reformed (another example) have argued that ‘new Calvinism’ is a departure from historical confessional Calvinism or blended with ‘worldliness’. So, us ‘new calvinists’ have to be branded either as a conglamoration of paganism with Christian truth, or non-Reformed ecclesial bodies with Reformed soteriology.
One, R. Scott Clark has fought for the definition of Calvinism so much that the amount of posts about how ‘new Calvinists’ are not real Calvinists has already created a bitter taste it my mouth so much that he can take the name back. I don’t want it, you can have it. Another, Baptist minister Peter Masters of Spurgeons old church has called the new Calvinists syncretists because of Christian Hip Hop with Reformed lyrics, or flashy lights during worship service. Indeed, both have offered sharp critiques. The reason I write this is because I’m almost disappointed at the seemingly graceless attitude that has been taken by the ‘Old Calvinists’.
So, whatever it is it sure ain’t Calvinism! Granted the Baptist (Masters) and the Reformed (Clark) would also argue over who is truly Reformed amongst themselves.
First, let me make this clear I don’t agree with what a lot of what Mark Driscoll said about why ‘new calvinism’ is better. One of the reasons is that to compare Old Calvinism to New Calvinism fails to take into account historical context. Old Calvinism fought more with Rome than with Rob Bell, Old Calvinism despised the Pope and his blasphemies and not Rick Warren and his compromise. Indeed, the contexts are different and the theological atmosphere is different. While we can encounter vestiges of Rome in Warren, Rob Bell and most Evangelical Arminianism its not profusely Romanist. So that we cannot fault Old Calvinism for what it didn’t do, indeed New Calvinists should learn (and they do) from Old Calvinists.
Secondly, new Calvinism didn’t come out of a vibrant American Christian community that proclaimed the Gospel and spoke truth into a dark society. New Calvinism was birthed out of a depraved, immoral and doctrinally dark age of American Christianity. We can fault much of this on the revivalism and Arminianism of Finney. The inability of ministers to defend the church of God at that time shines through in the fruits of this doctrinal dark age we have endured in America for the last few decades. New Calvinism didn’t come out as a response to Old Calvinism, rather it arose out of the doctrinally depraved American Evangelical culture. Indeed, we all know of Horton’s book Christless Christianity where he cites that the de-emphasizing of doctrine doesn’t only exist in the more mystical, or experiential churches but rather exists also in the staunchly Reformed, Baptist and Lutheran churches. So, that New Calvnism arose out of a church that took its focus off of doctrine and became the metaphorical trendy fourteen year old girl, who wants to look cool, please her friends, has developed text message arthritis – oh and loves American Idol.
Finally, I find the issue petty. Its akin to the new ‘five pointer’ who just discovered God’s sovereignty in salvation and wants to make everyone a Calvinist, its the guy who needs to be kept in a cage, the guy who calls everyone else an Arminian and perhaps goes too far. Its when a Calvinist becomes a Hyper Calvinist, when they demand strict doctrinal precision to every doctrine they affirm. Indeed, if I’m a new Calvinist the old Calvinists are the New Hyper Calvinists.
Filed under: Soteriology
An email to Professor Nunnally.
W.E. Nunnally, Ph.D., professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri.
Greetings,
I was browsing through issues of the enrichment journal, and stumbled upon your article Defective Views of Salvation – http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200803/200803_128_DefectSal.cfm – in it you called the historically Protestant (and arguably ancient) doctrine of Limited Atonement heretical. Can you tell me exactly what you meant by calling it heretical? Its one thing to call something ‘error’ and another ‘heresy’. Now, the Assembly of God was my former denomination and you are published in the AG Enrichment Journal and are teaching men that these doctrines are heretical concerns me, perhaps you were not as clear as you could’ve been, unless of course you meant that the doctrine is indeed damnable.. Can you please clarify? I’d appreciate it.
Grace alone saves,
Javier Hernandez
