. . . I’ve heard this phraseology twice this last week. Once from a blogger in a comment meta — saying that he does not believe in it, and further, believes that it is a damaging teaching for the body of Christ at large — and then second in conversation (just yesterday) with a brother in Christ who informed me of something he heard from a prominent voice in American Christendom, who said the same thing as this blogger I just mentioned. Both of them had the same rationale; viz. they believe that belief in once saved-always saved provides the possibility for lax moral living by Christians (anti-nomianism), and that these Christians will potentially try to use this concept as a license to live in sinful lifestyles (or see salvation as fire-insurance and a license to sin). Let me highlight why, for a variety of reasons, this is wrong thinking (seriously flawed); from both parties.
- The first problem with this kind of reasoning, just at a logical level, is that its premise argues from the consequences (which is a formal fallacy of logic); and thus it is a non-starter (this is all I would really need to say in order to provide a “defeater” for this kind of argument).
- It is theologically un-tenable: If God’s life in Christ is salvation; then the concept of once saved-always saved never gets off the ground since it presupposes that salvation is centered in “me” (and thus “I” can lose it) and not Christ.
- It presupposes that the Arminian paradigm of conditional election is the only Biblical alternative to understanding God’s role in the provision of salvation.
- It ignores passages of Scripture that make it clear that we are born again of an imperishable seed (cf. I Pet. 1.23; II Jn. 2; etc.)
- It bottoms out in a works righteousness salvation that I must procure by maintaining a certain indeterminate level of good works.
- And there are more problems . . .
I just wanted to quickly address this; these are some of the issues and problems with this kind of thinking. If salvation hinges on “my choice,” then God is at my behest; and “my choice” takes precedence and shapes His choice — thus by implication, the creation (me) shapes who God is in salvation; or in other words, shapes His life. He is now held captive by me, and is no longer sovereign, free-self determinate God; because “my choice” theology determines how he must act, and thus he is determined to be who He is by me . . . yikes!
Bobby seems to me you have made a straw man caricature of what free will and choosing means… Throughout Scripture there is a theme of choice… Choose this day whom you will serve!
The NT continually warns us to continue in the faith and not chuck it away or trample on it like their forebears did… either this warning is rhetorical rubbish or it’s an actual fact?
In your conclusion you have failed to place into the equation the finished work of Christ – it is finished. Salvation was worked out on the cross and Christ’s subsequent resurrection. This is the framework of our salvation and forgiveness. Your yet to actually state how those who believe in free will dishonour God and diminish the work of the Cross by saying God has given us the ability to choose to accept HIS method of salvation for us or not.
As a freewill proponent – I do not say I am saved because I have chosen to believe. Instead I say Lord, thank you for dying and living for me! For this is central to our salvation.
Craig,
Before you say that I’ve created a straw man of what I was arguing against you need to demonstrate how it is a straw man; saying so doesn’t make it so.
Your appeal to the NT is circular since you assume your position and read it into the NT before you actually prove it from the NT (as if its as straightforward as you presume).
My point really, though, has nothing to do with “free-will” (at least not primarily), it orbits around the nature of salvation itself (relative to God’s life). I.e. you’re reading more into my post and even thesis than I am trying to argue against. In other words, you have moved the goal posts; I’m playing at another stadium, in fact I’m playing baseball not football (so I don’t have goal posts to be moved).
Beyond all of this, Craig; if I were going to talk about freewill I would do so from a theological-anthropology grounded in Christ, and work from there. I would interpret Scripture through a theological lens on this question (since I think we must — since Scripture doesn’t self-evidently seek to directly speak to the issue of “free-will”). I would argue that free-will is a myth outside of Christ. I would argue that human freedom is a coordinate reality (or contingent) upon God’s life of freedom in Christ for us (who alone is truly free). These are some of the contours I would hit upon if I were arguing upon what you assume that I’m addressing with this post (which I’m not, in the main).
Bobby,
It seems that most times I hear this phrase, it is from someone who doesn’t agree with “it” (whatever they have understood some sort of eternal security theology) and it is often their own “straw man”
I get the idea that this argument you heard twice was based in consequences, so it starts at the wrong point.
I don’t understand at all what you were trying to say with point #2. Read it several times, and is just doesn’t click.
So I ask: Understanding that Christ is central to everything, is there a way to know assurance in ones own personal daily life?
Scripture is clear that He will complete the work He started, and this verse (Phil 1:6) is addressed specifically to people – is a foundational presupposition in Paul’s attitude and method of writing the book in fact.
It seems to me that where people go with the “free will” argument is to agree that it is possible to have assurance, but then they effectively put it out of reach . . .
In attempting to answer this I always fall into man centered arguments again.
How do we approach this keeping Christ at the center?
Craig J.
Just realized I called something a “straw man” and didn’t explain it. When I discuss assurance of salvation, often I hear the rebuttal of, “I don’t believe in “once saved always saved” and then they make the type of statemtent you spoke of. Rather than find out what I am actually saying. They seem to argue against the idea that someone who shed a tear or went to an alter call sometime is automatically saved and eternally secure, as though “assurance” is a logical deduction. When I speak of “knowing” assurance, I am speaking of something more than a logical deduction, or a receipt I carry in my wallet. I am speaking of that peace within my soul that came from outside, and stills my fears in the night. I remember a time in my life when some awful accusations were made against my father in a public forum. I knew he was not guilty. Not as a logical deduction, but from a life spent with him. Sort of a “if you think that, you couldn’t possibly know him like I do. He isn’t like that” type of ” knowledge.
Craig J.
@Craig J.,
My point with #2 is to say that both sides of salvation are grounded in the person of Jesus Christ as the God-Man; i.e. the objective and subjective side. So thinking about “assurance” then, would necessarily start from looking at and from him vs. starting with ourselves and then him (so it has to do with an order). If this is the case, the method usually assumed by folks who don’t believe in “once saved-always saved” never gets off the ground because it starts in the wrong place; as a result of the fact that it has the wrong theory of salvation in the first place (e.g. it’s not Christ-centered but man-centered).
I don’t think the usual categories appealed to for “assurance” issues from either a classic Calv/Arm ever get off the ground, because I don’t think those theories are remotely viable in light of a properly framed doctrine of God and thus salvation. Which is what my point was back to Craig B. I’ll explain that a bit more later today, hopefully.
@Craig B,
Also, I just wanted to make sure that you know that I still like you, and I’m not mad at you or anything; I’m just trying to shift the burden back to you a bit, because I don’t think you actually addressed what I was getting at in my post (maybe I was unclear, which is entirely possible). π
Looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.
How many times we argue back and forth on topics when we are really just falling off of different sides of the same horse. . .
Craig J.
Bobby your premise is really tied up in free will. For the once saved always saved has to be tied up in this debate… for the Calvinist will say you are saved whether you like it or not and thus cannot lose your salvation.
Whereas those who believe in free will say that we have to continually chose to accept the way of Christ… which is something the Calvinist has to disagree with – therein lays the paradox. If a Christian cannot lose their salvation – then they don’t have a choice in how they are to live… Whereas for the Christian who believes that the journey is a continual one – of being saved and continually being saved – they therefore need to ensure they are walking in the light every day..
You can’t actually have an discussion about the eternal / limited aspects of salvation without bringing into the discussion the area of Free will for it is foundational to that discussion.
“Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for “argument to the consequences”), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy (Informal under the red herring type), since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise’s truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise’s desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.” Wikipedia
While I agree with what you say about God and choice in this post, I have to say, I don’t think the people who are saying this are stating it in a syllogism, but rather as type of ethics, which does seem to be deeply biblical.
@Craig J.,
Indeed.
@Craig B.,
Yes, but how one gets to the “free-will” question is my point; so the more important question to me is a methodological one that stems from a doctrine of God. I didn’t say, in my response to you, that I don’t see free-will involved in this kind of discussion; instead I qualified it with the language of “primarily”.
@Kenny,
Yes, there is definitely theological questions of nomism vs. anti-nomism tied up in this issue; but the “way” I usually here it stated still fits into a consequences of belief fallacy. Even if a person (anyone) is not intentionally using a syllogism; in fact in the end we all do when we make an argument (or talk) — its just enthymemic so that the major premise or minor premises are left un-articulated. Nevertheless, the way each of the situations I am referring state this is not really from any kind of informed theological view — instead it is being used to scare people into holiness, and that’s unbiblical.
Pingback: Elsewhere (06.20.2011) « Near Emmaus
Out of interest, where was the formal logical fallacy?
It looks like standard deductive logic to argue:
1: (Once saved always saved)=>(People can be saved and remain sinners)
2: Β¬(People can be saved and remain sinners)
Then apply the formal rule below(technically this only works in non-constructive logics where the law of excluded middle applies – but we normally assume this to be the case)
Formal rule: (a=>b)((Β¬b)=>(Β¬a))
So apply the rule to statement 1 to obtain:
3: (Β¬(People can be saved and remain sinners)) =>(Β¬(Once saved always saved))
Apply modus ponens to statements 2 and 3:
4: Β¬(Once saved always saved)
It doesn’t seem to be a logical fallacy – it has false premises instead, but it generally good to be wary of playing the fallacy card.
@Simon,
If the major premise is grounded in an subjective assertion that finds its shape from the consequences of belief, like:
MP: If we let people believe they can be saved and live in sin, they will live in sin.
Then I don’t see how this doesn’t fit the consequences of belief fallacy. Please explain how it doesn’t.
@Simon,
So if the consequences of belief serves as one’s major premise, I ask again, how would you surmise that this does not of necessity fit the consequences of belief fallacy (in disjunctive form)?
Bobby, to say that belief in “once saved, always saved” provides the possibility for lax moral living should not bear on the truthfulness of the doctrine itself. Many saints have believed in “once saved, always saved” and not therefore embarked upon lax moral lifestyles. I would agree with you that the argument from the consequences is false, and primarily because the premise itself is not true.
Moral laxity in the Christian life seems to me to be less determined by one’s belief about eternal security and more by one’s orientation to the person of Christ and one’s commitment to the renewed mind and heart as the work of the Spirit in the new creation. Since our salvation is obtained for us by Christ’s work in atonement and in his vicarious life of obedience and faith and coming into that salvation is a work of the Spirit through whom we are placed into Christ and renewed in the inner man, it would follow that our salvation is not dependent upon us, but upon Christ alone. If our salvation is dependent upon Christ alone and our perseverance is also dependent upon Christ and the Spirit working in us to keep us as our faithfulness is in his faithfulness. Walking with Him, in Christ, in the Spirit , also then allows the Spirit to do his work of sanctification in the process of transforming us into the very image and likeness of Christ.
Can the new nature be undone? Having once been placed in Christ can we be placed outside of him? Having been once raised into new life in Christ can we now be put to death again? Isn’t this new life the beginning of our eternal life as an inheritance in Christ forever? When we look at the objective work of Christ for us and in us, then I think the obvious answer to these questions is “No!”
However, if it were that simple and clear from the texts then the debate would not have been carried on for many, many centuries. We do have to wrestle with understanding those many verses in the New Testament that warn us against falling away, returning to our own vomit, abandoning the faith, etc. I have met people who once believed in Christ and have now turned away from the faith and rejected Christ. I heard a former evangelical pastor speak last year, who is now an atheist and travels the country arguing against Christ and Christian faith. I know others who once believed and have wandered off into error, others caught in moral failures, and believing themselves condemned, find it hard to return to Christ. These situations are real challenges to the church. My personal approach to them is not to discuss the question of their eternal salvation, but to call them to repentance, because of the love of God, the mercy of God and the truth of who Christ is and what He has done for us. Warning them of hell may or may not be effective in returning them to Christ. I think it is the love of God and the mercy of God that leads people to repentance and so that is my approach.
Bobby and here lays the rub…
The Barthinian, Calvinist, Arminian, Wrighteon and other calathumpians each have a different frame work in how they approach the Scriptures. It is no use trying to use ones personal interpretive framework when discussing the issue with another – or even in interpreting another’s believe system – without first recognising the differences involved….for the result will always be a caricaturization of the others beliefs and not a true representation of ti.
@Craig,
I understand the differences. You seem to understand my belief enough about how I approach others in order to make a judgment about it; if so, you have just violated the same standard you are trying to hold me to — which is self-refuting and circular.
I’m not a nihilist. I believe I can understand various beliefs systems w/o owning said systems myself.
@Jon,
Good words!
Prior to my becoming aware of “EC” I followed and grew up under what is called Free Grace Theology. While I have rejected the method that produces that system; I still think it provides a helpful corrective for the warning type passages you’ve noted. I see loss of “reward,” as a reality (which most Reformed theologians of any stripe gloss over); i.e. he who is faithful in little things will be made faithful over great things etc. He who is not faithful will experience loss of “reward,” or from my perspective loss of sweet communion (vs. union) with the Savior. That’s how I deal with the kinds of passages you mention.
I have really enjoyed reading through some of the replies here..;-)…I must say that the EC-Trinitarian approach has really liberated me theologically and practically…To me the ultimate flaw with both the Arminian and Classic Calvinist approach is that neither of them begin with and remain grounded in Christ-His vicarious life and death and ongoing life for us as our High Priest and Mediator. So what happens in the working out of both the Arminian and Classic Calvinist approach is that everything collapses on the individual, instead of flowing from Christ.@ Jon Sellers..Thank you…I really appreciated your response..I was very encouraged and blessed….Excellent, well thought out, and thought-provoking…
Bobby,
You are absolutely correct in stating the Calvinist position of ‘Once Saved-Always Saved’
This is all about the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, which most arminians struggle to understand.
If we fail to understand the full impact of the Sovereignty of God, we leave ourselves open to the ‘man-made’ doctrine of ‘Free Will’ which becomes, by it’s very nature, an opponent to God’s Sovereignty.
I also, was once steeped in Arminianism doctrine, and believed that I had a choice when it came to salvation.
I fortunately, found out through personal study, and through reading many books, that the Calvinist position is by far, the more biblical and correct position.
Salvation, starts and ends, with God choosing whom He wills.
We have no choice.
When we go further, we find that we in fact do not have Free Will, with regard to salvation.
We may have Free Will, with respect to many other choices within the christian life, but NOT salvation.
The Bible is very clear about that.
Of course, if you believe in “Open Theism”,[ which most arminians do] then this is a direct attack on the Sovererignty of God.
cheers
DavidR
@Chris, thanks for your encouraging comment. I am glad my comment was a blessing to you.
@Bobby, a friend of mine just finished reading Dillow’s book “The Reign of the Servant Kings”. He supports eternal security of salvation and treats the loss passages as loss of rewards also. Do you have a book or two that you think treats the passages honestly and thoroughly that you would recommend?
Jon,
I read Dillow’s book (one of my dad’s favorites) quite a few years ago; I also own a copy. Other than that book I don’t have any books that really get into that so much (it’s pretty much a “Free Grace” development, exegetically). I have profs from Multnomah who also hold to what Dillow articulates (one of those profs is a well known Greek-Hebrew scholar). Unfortunately for Dillow’s approach he ties his exegesis into a dispensational premil framework (as a primary assumption); although, I think his particular exegesis of passages can still stand in principle w/o assuming a premil/dispy mode.
Bobby,
I think I’m slowly making my way to understanding. I’ve been trying to read as much as I can of Amyraldianism today (can’t read french so it is limited), and I find myself liking what I read…moreso than the typical 5-Point Calvinism. Am I making a slippery slope towards EC? Haha.
I’ll have to read some Richard Baxter…or someone. I do not even know any modern theologians that write on Amyraldianism. Do you know any?
I just noticed I was in the wrong thread. My apologies!
@Ryan, I am curious what sources you have found for Amyraldianism? I found an Amyraldian Association that has audio lectures available and meets annually. http://nrchurch.limewebs.com/aa.html
Also, this blog reported on the 2009 meeting. http://thereformedfaith.blogspot.com/2009/04/amyraldian-association-conference-2009.html
The classic Calvinists treat it as heresy, but on the surface it seems to be something worth investigating more thoroughly.
@Jon: Wow, you found more than I have found all day. I am not entirely knowledgeable of the position besides the point that it denies the “L” in TULIP which is my biggest problem with Calvinism, therefore it is already attractive in my eyes. As a result, I am in now way shocked that classic Calvinists treat it as heresy, but they seem to treat everything outside of their opinion as heresy too.
Ryan,
Actually EC is not Amyrauldianism; I’m sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet, would you mind if I just addressed your questions in a post? Because I think they are good ones.
The standard read on Amyraut’s theology is: Brian Armstrong’s: Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France http://www.amazon.com/Calvinism-Amyraut-Heresy-Scholasticism-Seventeenth-Century/dp/159244640X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308681981&sr=1-1 . I would highly recommend this book to you and Jon and anyone else interested. I also have a few posts based on Armstrong’s book, just check my category “Brian Armstrong”.
Hope we don’t end up hijacking this thread. π but I also found this post which sources another work on Amyraut. http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=5000
Bobby, I will look up your posts on Armstrong. It would be interesting to know how EC differs from Amyraut on the atonement. Looking forward to your comments on that.
Jon,
One quick difference is that EC holds to the ontological theory of the atonement; which is inimically tied to a doctrine of God that thinks in personalist terms. While Amyraut was still working through a more substance metaphysic.
My posts from ARmstrong have more to do with defining scholasticism than anything. Richard Muller takes Armstrong to task, often, on Armstrong’s definition of scholasticism as an conceptual system (more than just a method like Muller believes).
Bobby,
You can address my questions in a post and then we can dialogue in that manner. I know Amyraldianism is not EC, but are they are not closely in relation to each other? I don’t know much about EC so it is hard for me to make the correlation or distinction.
I will have to get that book because Amyraldianism is certainly intriguing to me as it seems to answer (in my opinion) one of my objections to Calvinism (remember my Achilles Heel?).
I’m beginning to think I know nothing about EC, even from the little I have read. Haha.
Ryan,
Do you know anything of Barth’s recasting of election/predestination?
How much historical theology have you studied?
Bobby,
Quite honestly, and this may be heresy to some, I have not read all that much of Barth. In the same manner, I have not committed myself very much to historical theological study. I’ve done some historical theological study, but nothing extensive to the point where I would consider it a great deal of help.
Ryan,
Okay, that’s what I needed to know; that will help me in shaping my response to some of your questions. Some times things just take time though π .
Jon,
Thanks for the audio links!
***The classic Calvinists treat it as heresy, but on the surface it seems to be something worth investigating more thoroughly.***
Which doesn’t mean all that much since there isn’t anything Classic Calvinists have not treated as heresy.
From my understanding of Amyraldianism, they hold to the double decree or double predestination, correct? If so, I don’t like it anymore.
Ryan,
Amy. follows decree theology, yes; and this is illustrative of what distinguishes EC from it.
Bobby,
I stop reading when I encounter decree theology. Back to square one…
I could be wrong, but don’t all the theologians in the line of Dutch, Swiss, English, French and other Reformed groups follow some kind of decretal theology? All the standard confessions and catechisms are decretal in nature. Even Arminius believed in version of decretal theology.
Did Knox and the Scots escape that? Since Calvin himself put forth the doctrine of decrees, all who follow him must deal with it. Following Barth and Torrance to reformulate the decree of election from particular individuals to the person of Jesus Christ allows us to avoid the bind of particular election.
Ryan,
No, just back to Evangelical Calvinism.
Jon,
Yes, they are all decretal. Yeah, neither Knox or Calvin escaped decrees. And TFT and Barth, I think TFT even more, focus on personalising the decrees; in effect if their is a decree it is only the person of the Son electing our humanity for Himself — e.g. there really is no decree for TFT. Predestination/Election become pre-temporal realities finding their referent in God’s life in Christ; which is then given temporality in its execution or externalisation or actualisation in salvation history. TFT (and then EC) could still hold to “particular election,” it’s just that its particularized in Jesus’ humanity for us (and not individuals as in the decretal way).
Ryan, I meant to throw one of these π up too.
Bobby,
I don’t even know what Evangelical Calvinism is! Haha.
Ryan,
Have you checked out my page “Themes of EC” yet? That might give you a little better idea. What I need to do is try and put together a precise 250 word description of what EC is; although I’m not sure that’s totally possible. The main thing to realize about “EC” is that it centers everything in Christ, in a principled way. So that if we were to revamp the TULIP it would be to see the kind of humanity that Jesus assumes for us in the incarnation as Totally depraved, that he is the one who is Unconditionally elect for us, that the atonement is Limited to him for us, that his choice to be for us is Irresistable, and that his person and relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit is unbreakable thus salvation Perseveres. I’m just trying to get creative to illustrate EC for you π .