By D. Anthony Jones, April 26, 2012
This blog post was submitted to a Facebook group as a “must read” concerning Calvinism, the perseverance of the saints, and Assurance. I have taken the challenge to answer it from a biblical and logical position. It is not meant as a personal attack on Brother Derek. It is a critique of his soteriology, for the purpose of continued discussion. Derek’s post is in the plane font, my response to his points, are in grey italics. It is my Prayer that God may be honored by both of our efforts.
_______
I want to put aside for a moment the question of the validity of Calvinism. There are many Calvinists I respect – none of which I would consider to be in the same camp as the neo-reformed. Mike Bird, Michael Patton, Denny Burk, to name a few. But rather than argue against the validity of Calvinism, I want to zero in on one tiny but enormous point Calvinists would rather seekers just not know.
Often when people convert from one intra-Christian tradition to another, it’s usually for reasons other than doctrinal validity as the book Journey’s of Faith reveals clearly enough. People convert for many reasons, not least because they have a sense of incompleteness. They feel that another tradition offers something that their current tradition lacks. Whether it be a worship style and attitude, freedom or liturgical structure, perhaps sacraments, people are always moving back and forth between traditions in search for a sense of something.
In the case of Calvinism, I believe the number one feature which draws people to it is the doctrine of the preservation of the saints.
The phrase "I Believe" tells of two things that we need to keep in mind: 1. He is stating a personal conviction 2. It is an opinion. Is there any actual statistical data that would support his claim? He supports this claim by giving three examples seen below
They want to feel eternally secure. Exhibit A: I have grown up with people personally who have become Calvinists because of the attractiveness of this very doctrine. I knew one man whose brother, a Pentecostal minister, was decidedly Pelagian when he taught. As a result my friend, who had difficulty managing those things he desired most – women, alcohol and popularity – wanted to find eternal security. Obviously his brothers Pelagian tendencies, and the insecurity that comes with it, lended itself to my friends decision to become a Calvinist. Of course there were other complex factors involved, but escaping a perceived Pentecostal Pelagian insecurity seemed to be a vital one.
It appears that this young man’s convert to Calvinism, was for the sole reason of dealing with the insecurities concerning the sin in his life. How genuine was this conversion? Did he share his brother’s theological persuasion? I ask this because the point of this conversation is that the conversion is from "one intra-Christian tradition to another." Did He share his brother’s convictions? If he did, did he completely renounce his Pelagian beliefs and embrace the doctrines of Grace as a whole, being that Calvinism is practically the polar opposite of Pelagianism? Did he take upon himself the convictions of total depravity and limited atonement? Did he acknowledge the truth of an election according to the will of God, and an effectual irresistible grace? Or was he a backslidden Christian who became a Calvinist because one of the five points helps him to deal with his insecurities. If the only reason he became a Calvinist was to feel secure in the guilt of his sin, He did not become a Calvinist. Calvinist as a norm embrace the doctrines of grace as a systematic whole concerning their soteriology. The fact is, one does not have to embrace Calvinism in order to believe in the Eternal security. Fundamental Baptists, as one example, believe in eternal security. They are VERY anti-Calvinistic, to the point of editing the Calvinism from Spurgeon and Edwards sermons posted in their literature.
Exhibit B: I am a member of an online Arminian group where a few months back William Birch, upon announcing his resignation from the group (and before his recent heart wrenching shenanigans) had stated that his views on the preservation of the saints had changed. He had hoped that holding to a doctrine of once saved always saved will help make his Arminian soteriology more palatable to his Baptist Calvinist brethren. The general response among the Arminian group was to cheer and applaud this move, acknowledging that less people would convert to Calvinsim if more Arminians embraced once saved always saved. Or, to put that backwards as the very idea suggests, many Baptists Calvinists are Calvinists primarily because of the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. People want to feel secure and Arminianism doesn’t offer that (supposedly).
1. It appears that this man William Burch did not embrace Calvinism as a whole, but sought to use the preservation of the saints to make his soteriology of Arminianism more palatable, to his "Baptist Calvinist" Brethren. He was not drawn to Calvinism as a whole, just to the one point. This is not an example of someone who is drawn to Calvinism because of the God’s Sovereignty in salvation. He was drawn to the preservation of the saints alone. Once again, you don't have to become a Calvinist to hold to the belief of Eternal security. I also find it sad that an entire group of Arminians would be willing to embrace his supposed change To the believers security, not because he is seeking the truth, or seeking deeper common ground with his Calvinistic Baptist brothers, but to keep people from converting to Calvinism. Applying one point of the doctrines of grace to prevent others from embracing the other four points and Calvinism as a whole is nothing more than compromise, shows a lack of conviction concerning the Arminian "truth" of conditional salvation..2. This quote “Many Baptists Calvinists are Calvinists primarily because of the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. “Once again comes without any statistical evidence. Most Baptists believe in a form of eternal security without ever converting to Calvinism. To say that a the reason a person is a Calvinistic or Particular Baptist is because of the desire to be eternally secure, is Thus far an unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more
Exhibit C: On the progressive scholarly front, Michael Bird embraces this view as a part of the package of his Calvinist soteriology. Scot McKnight rejects the Calvinist soteriology at preciously this point. Since Hebrews teaches that someone can abandon their faith, the Calvinist soteriology must be wrong. N.T. Wright chimes in, coming up the middle between these views since it seems he doesn’t embrace a Calvinist soteriology wholesale, but he also pushes back a bit on McKnight by saying of Hebrews, “that’s not the right question.” (But I think if it’s not the question Hebrews is asking, it is at the very least precisely the issue Hebrews takes up.)
He now goes on to show the theological positions of three scholars concerning the security of the believer. Nothing in the paragraph points to his belief that people convert to Calvinism on the basis of the preservation of the saints.
Sooo. He believes that the primary reason people come to Calvinism, is because they want to feel secure in their faith.... What evidence does he give for this? Nothing really. Exhibit A, a man who "Converts to Calvinism “for no other reason than to assuage the guilt of his sin, Exhibit B, a man who Compromises his Arminian convictions to make his Arminianism more attractive, never actually converting to Calvinism as a whole, and Exhibit C, offering nothing to show his stated belief as true. At best I'd give him 1 out of 3. And would highly question Exhibit A...
But no matter where you land on this issue, whether you believe in the perseverance of the saints or you believe that it is possible for an individual to abandon the faith to which they once clung, one thing is certain: the idea that God elects some to salvation and “passes over” most others is not the most difficult idea that Calvinism has to offer. No. The most difficult idea Calvinism has to offer is that there is no way in this life that you can know if you have been passed over or not. No way to know if you are one of the elect!
I feel like repeating that last three sentences. Read it again.
As a person who is, or has been, a part of many Facebook discussion rooms, I can tell you from personal experience that the most difficult and hotly debated topic is LIMITED ATONEMENT v. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT followed by the issue of free will. Discussions on How a person knows he is elect are few and very far between...I have no exact numbers, but a simple examination of any Facebook Calvinist/Arminian group will show this true.
The most terrifying part of Calvinism’ soteriology (and it’s best kept secret) is that there is no way to know if you are one of the elect. None. Read on.
While documenting the rise of the so-called new Calvinism, Collin Hanson interviews many young Piper cubs who admit that the most difficult part to accept while journeying towards Calvinism was the idea that God elects to salvation some and passes over others. This is Exhibit D that many people who convert to Calvinism have not thought through it’s doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Because surely I would think the most difficult part to accept while journeying to Calvinism wouldn’t be that God passes over others, but that God may have passed over you! And there’s no way to know.
You mention Collin Hanson’s documentation, but you do not reference where we can find this information...For reasons we need not discuss here, I refer to this as a "Rob Bell" maneuver. You should not give documented facts concerning an issue without providing reference to that documentation, so that it can be verified. Most people will take your word for it, much need to see for themselves...
Exhibit D, once again states an opinion? Evidence? The phrase "Because surely I would think" This phrase shows everything following it is, once again, an opinion...
Let me say this another way – and yes, I am hammering home this point until you get it! – Calvinism offers about as much security to the believer as full blown Pelagianism!
Let's see if we can find some actual EVIDENCE that this statement is sound... he come up short thus far...
Let me explain how by making three points about Calvinism:
1. Calvinism fits squarely within the holiness tradition (as does Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism). That some people run around claiming to teach that someone can make a sincere confession of faith and then live their life nilly-willy any way they wish and still get to heaven is patently not Calvinism. Whatever it is – and yes, I have people like Charles Stanley in mind – it is not Calvinism.
This is a telling statement, and brings to mind a question. Since you give no indication that your friend in "Exhibit A" repented of his womanizing and drinking, can we assume that his conversion to Calvinism is at best, questionable?
In the book Why I Am Not An Arminian the co-authors – both Calvinists – Robert Peterson and Michael Williams write:
“Easy believism, 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, emphasis mine)
2. Calvinism teaches that if God has elected someone for salvation, that person will be saved by the grace of God. There is no chance that they will not be saved. No one can snatch them from the Fathers’ hand (John 10:28).
Hmmmm. This is not quote from any of John Calvin’s writings, it is a quote From Jesus Christ himself. The entire context of John Chapter 10 states that Jesus gives his life for a specific group of people, his sheep. Through His sacrifice they are given ETERNAL life and secured by the power of the Father, as well as Christ himself.
3. If someone who was among God’s people walks away, this is clear evidence that this person was never really saved in the first place (1 John 2:19). Peterson and Williams write again:
“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.” (p.80, emphasis mine)
So far this is pretty standard stuff. Calvinism does not shy away from teaching that if someone “falls away” it is clear proof that they were never saved in the first place. But there’s a catch. An emphasis that is never brought up either by Calvinists, Arminians or otherwise.
Let’s look at the verse in First John:
“They went out from among us, but THEY WERE NOT OF US; for if they had been of us, they would have CONTINUED WITH US. But they went out, that it might be made apparent that they were NOT all of us”
This did not come from some Calvinist textbook, it is BIBLE doctrine. This verse, within the context of the appearance of many Antichrists, tells clearly why an Apostate does not continue in the faith. They do not continue. Why? They were not of the “Little Children.”
Its easy to judge a person who walks away as being someone who was never saved after the fact. But what about before they walk away?
The person comes to church week after week, singing with all sincerity of heart. Perhaps preaching or teaching your children in Sunday School. Perhaps they lead your Churches mission and evangelistic programs. Or maybe they were your worship leader. And how did they get to those positions unless others around them also saw “fruit” of their salvation. Are we to say that through all of those years they were just pretending? Perhaps for some small portion of them that is true, but it is beyond reason to suggest that every person who has shown clear fruit of a life devoted to Christ was just faking all along. No. Rather these people – at the time – where as sincere a follower of Jesus are you are today. But for whatever reason – perhaps church abuse, tragedy in their lives or any number of other reasons – they were never saved in the first place.
The above is an appeal to emotions, with no scriptural basis. Matthew Chapter 7:21-22 make it clear that many will stand before judgment proclaiming the wonderful works they have done, only to be condemned. They can be as fruitful and sincere as any True Christian, even up to their death, but if Christ does not know them, and remember John 10, Jesus knows his sheep, they were never saved…Calvinism’ teaching is clear enough. If they do not hold firm to the end, it is proof that they were never saved in the first place. Once again, he takes the clear didactic statement in scripture, and attributes it to “Calvinist Teachings”
But then what were they, if not genuine Christians?
1 John 2: 19. Those who leave the faith are not Christians, and Antichrist.
2 Peter 2 ends the chapter by saying those who deny the Master (reference to God the Father) are dogs who return to their own vomit and sows that return to their pigsty. They are Apostates.
Or perhaps, the more pressing question is, if they were as sure in their salvation then as you are now, how can you be certain that you are really saved?-
That is a big “If.” If they were so sure of their salvation, why did they fall away? No one who is an apostate will just toss their bible in the trash and say “I am out of here.” There are periods of doubt, perhaps some abiding sin, or some tribulation that causes them to doubt their faith. It comes to the point that the desire to be a Christian no longer exists, and they apostatize. And there is scriptural basis for this. You will find it in the Gospel of Luke. Luke 8:5-6 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. Notice the interpretation of the parable. They received the Word with joy, and believed, but when a time of testing came, they fell away. Why did they fall away? The seed had no depth because the ground was not good. Continued examination of the parable will show that the ground of the parable is a metaphor for the heart of man. They fell away because they did not have a change of heart which comes from regeneration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, this person is not a Christian.
Ezekiel 36:26-27, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Once again, a person who falls away was never saved to begin with.
How does Calvinism answer this question? Have you read any books by Calvinists where the doctrine of the preservation of the saints is dug into deep enough to acknowledge this dilemma and offer some type of answer?
The certainty of any Christian’s salvation comes from the truth of God’s word. The New Testament is full of passages that speak of the Assurance of Salvation. And the basis of that assurance is the believer’s security. If God does not keep his people secure, which the bible is clear that He does, THEN you can never KNOW if you have salvation. Conditional salvation can never offer assurance, because your salvation will require you to maintain a standard of righteousness with no guarantee that you are righteous enough. “Enduring to the end,” Which should be considered a RESULT of salvation, becomes a condition for salvation, and assurance, if there is any, is based on WORKS. The bible is clear that salvation is not of works; therefore conditional security is a false gospel. It is not the Calvinist who has to worry about assurance….
Because the unspeakable answer seems clear enough. It’s terrifying really. The Calvinist John Frame, in his book against Open Theism titled No Other God, does reveal Calvinism’s answer to this question, albeit in a footnote:
“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.” (p.117, n.9, emphasis mine)
Read that answer again.
How do you know that does not describe you? How do you know that you have been given the “full benefits of salvation” and not just a “limited kind of fellowship with him”?
First of all I would have to see some biblical evidence that God will “Fellowship” with someone who is not redeemed. Our fellowship is based on the reconciliation we receive as a result of Christ’s Atonement. That is not to say that God does not used unsaved people as a means to accomplishing his will, but to say that God has fellowship, without giving the full benefits of salvation, is at best highly questionable. And this brings us to a problem. Because we cannot establish this as biblical truth, with what little was referenced, the question boils down to one of assurance. How do you know that you’ve been given Full benefits of assurance? The Promises of the Holy Word of God.
How?
For those who convert to Calvinism because in it they think will have obtained a teaching of eternal security that offers them assurance in their faith, answer that question:
How can you know?
You can’t.
Really?
John 20:30-31, And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:11- 13, And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life. These things have I written unto you, that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.
Ephesians 1:13-14, In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the GUARANTEE of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
You can know you are saved, because you have God’s guarantee.
In Calvinism you may have been chosen for a limited fellowship with God, a specific task of – say – a missionary or pastor or evangelist, and not for the “full benefits of salvation”.
Even if the quote from John Frame were biblical, A person who has "Temporary Fellowship" without the full benefits of salvation is NOT SAVED. You would not be a Christian who loses his salvation, you would be a man who never received the full benefits of salvation, and you would be unsaved.
And for Arminians who think that we need to adopt a doctrine of eternal security to make Arminianism more palatable, I suggest you think again.
In Closing, He failed to show any statistical evidence that people become Calvinists to be eternally secure. He brushed off Clear didactic bible passages as “Calvinist teaching”, while making an appeal to emotions as proof a Christian could walk away from the faith. Also, he failed to recognize the characteristics of an apostate, according to God’s word, and used an obscure quote, which is biblically questionable to try to rob the Calvinist of his assurance. He does all this with amazingly little use of Scripture. I can not see at all, based on his post that Pelagianism and Calvinism have any agreement.
