3 comments (Add your own)

1. Pr. Jed Maclaurin wrote:

You've asked a tough question, and a difficult one to answer succinctly, so please excuse both the length of my response, and its inadequacy at fully addressing your question. Your question gets right to the heart of the single most divisive theological dispute that exists among orthodox Bible-believing Christians. Basically, there are two perspectives on free will and predestination, and the two positions totally disagree on several directly related issues ("once saved, always saved" being just one issue amongst several that results from our different perspectives on free will vs. predestination).

Sadly, instead of acting out of humility and Christian love for one another, there are extremists on both sides of the issue who insist the other group are heretics who are going to hell for their false doctrines, etc. Sadly, the devil has been very successful at dividing the church against itself in this way, by getting us to focus on our differences, instead of our common ground (the two groups agree on basically every other essential point of doctrine concerning salvation, God, Christ, etc.). The only difficult point is the issue of human free will. Unfortunately, the two perspectives are completely incompatible, so you end up having to fall on one side of the issue or the other, even if you respect and love those on the other side of the "theological fence." I have many close friends who disagree with me on this issue. They're great people who truly love God, are doing great things for God's kingdom, etc., we're just from different theological traditions. Thankfully, this issue doesn't seem to matter much in the practice of Christian faith, it's just a very divisive issue in discussions of doctrine and theology.

So, the choices basically boil down to either:
a) side with the Calvinists (including your friend), who believe that God created two groups of people: one group (the "elect") was fore-ordained to obedience and salvation, while God intentionally created another group of people who were predestined to rebel and suffer the eternal consequences of that rebellion, as a punishment for their sins which they were foreordained to commit. This position seems to come from the idea (influenced by Greek philosophy) that God is either completely in control of every aspect of creation (including our own decisions), or He is not truly omnipotent, in control, etc.

So the Calvinist position is that we cannot lose our salvation, because either God originally created us to be predestined to salvation, or he created us originally predestined for damnation. Therefore we can't do anything about our salvation, except that from our human perspective, not knowing which group we belong to (either the saved or the damned), by our actions and decisions in this life we can demonstrate which eternal destination God predestined us for. So, when Calvinist pastors or laypeople apostasize (renounce their faith, fall into sin and turn away from God and never return), then Calvinists claim that they were never really saved in the first place, because from their perspective, there's no way to be predestined for salvation, and then turn your back on God. Either you were in or out from the beginning. Hence, "once saved, always saved." I like the sound of that ("once saved, always saved"), because it leads to a more relaxed trust in God's love. Except, that doctrine seems to be inseparable from the rest of their theological system, which does not seem to do justice to the God of Scripture.

In contrast,
b) the Wesleyan-Arminian position (which includes the Nazarenes) would say that a person who is saved can still at any point decide to turn their back on God and renounce their faith (i.e. "lose" their salvation). If a teenager genuinely accepts Christ into their life, we can still imagine them getting lost in drugs, falling away from God completely, and then later in life choosing to come back to God. So, Wesleyan-Arminians believe God created us with genuine free will. This is understood as a decision on His part to limit His omnipotence in this one area, because unless we are truly free to choose to love Him, our love means nothing. If you program/predestine a robot to love you, it's not genuine love, because it's not a free choice.
Also, we believe that Jesus truly died for the sins of all, not just a certain special group predestined to be saved. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 tells us: "He [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." We believe that God truly desires everyone to be saved, if only they will repent of their sins and embrace the free gift of salvation freely offered through Jesus Christ. God certainly knows that many people will reject Him, and I can certainly imagine Him fore-knowing which ones will reject Him, but that is not the same thing as saying that He intentionally created people specifically intending for them to reject Him and suffer eternally as punishment for the decision He made to create people incapable of faith. We all have the choice, but many will choose to remain in the darkness (John 3:16-21).

When Wesleyan-Arminians look to Scripture and find the word "predestined" (in Romans 8:29-30 and Eph 1:5,11), it is generally assumed that this (Greek) word in Scripture is implying that God fore-knows (knows ahead of time what we will do, since He is omniscient). The question is whether God fore-ordains everything (pre-decides everything, including sin) or does He merely "fore-know" it. For example, if you know your child well, you may be able to predict what he or she will do in a given situation. That doesn't mean your child is a robot you've pre-programmed to behave in a certain way. You just know your child so well you can predict their behavior. That's similar to how we understand those biblical references about predestination.

Regarding your friend's claim that Nazarene doctrine leads to works righteousness, Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine (which Nararenes subscribe to) is in complete agreement with the Calvinist doctrine in declaring that we are saved by faith alone (all Protestant groups assert this, unless they're some weird sect). However, to Calvinists it appears that our doctrine is about works-righteouness, because we emphasize the importance of living a life of holiness (after we are saved). Good works (prayer, compassionate service to the "least of these," Bible Study, etc.) have great value in helping us to progress in our relationship with God, but our salvation depends on faith alone, not works. Works are just a good thing to do, after the fact, out of gratitude to our Creator (and Savior). They're even a good thing to do before you're saved, though of course they don't "purchase" your salvation, which is a free gift that can only be accepted by faith. Good works are beneficial for helping us to progress in what is referred to as "sanctification" (growth in Christlikeness (cf. Ephesians 4:13)), but that is distinct from salvation (forgiveness of sins, receiving eternal life, etc.).

So, on the one side, the Calvinists accuse the Wesleyan-Arminians of works righteousness (falsely I would say), while we see their doctrine of predestination as making God seem cruel, even if it gives comfort that a Christian's salvation cannot be lost, once gained.

I hope this has been helpful more than it was confusing. It is an important issue, but it gets complicated because it's not possible to separate out that one doctrine of eternal security ("once saved, always saved") from the larger issue of predestination and free will. I wish things weren't so muddied, but the influence of Greek philosophy and other cultural forces has created a lot of confusing debates that people have to sort through to figure out what we believe.

Trying to be as generous as possible to the other side, I sometimes wonder if the two groups are just talking past each other because we use words differently. But sadly, I really see no way to harmonize (bring together) the two perspectives. Calvinists desire more than anything else to emphasize the omnipotence and sovereignty of God, which is a worthy intention. But in the process, they seem to go too far, and deny our obvious free will.

While it is important to understand why we believe what we do, as Nazarenes, it is equally important that we demonstrate an attitude of humility, kindness, and love in all our interactions with other believers (and non-believers for that matter), even when we disagree strongly about issues of theology and doctrine.

In Christ,
Pr. Jed Maclaurin

May 4, 2009 @ 3:58 PM

2. Jim Giordano wrote:

These are just a few thoughts I've had on the subject of once saved always saved, eternal security, apostasy, and numerous warnings that we see in Scripture about falling away or departing from the faith. I have a feeling this will generate some comments. I know there are very sincere believers on both sides of this doctrinal issue. If you come from the "once saved, always saved" position, I highly recommend that you read the book Life in the Son by Robert Shank. It is EXCELLENT and worthwhile reading for any person who cares about this subject. It is simply a great (and very thorough) scriptural study of the doctrine of persevereance! OK. These are some of my thoughts...

1. How can we know who are our brothers and sisters in Christ? I believe that the Holy Spirit gives us discernment as to who our brothers and sisters are and who aren’t. Of course, we are sometimes fallible in our discernment but the Holy Spirit is never wrong. I have known too many Christians who have turned away from the faith and denied Christ. Those who believe “once saved, always saved” will either claim these people are still saved (in spite of any sin they wallow in) or that these people were never saved in the first place. If that is true, then we can’t ever really know who are our brothers and sisters in Christ and who are not.

I think an alternative position that aligns much better with Scripture is that some people do in fact walk away from the Lord after having confessed with their mouths that He is Lord, received Him into their hearts, and born real fruit for the kingdom while they were abiding in Him and fellowshipping with other believers.

2. We know a tree by its fruits. If a person has good fruit (the fruits of the Spirit) and then falls away from the faith (as evidenced by a denial of Christ and consistently bearing sinful fruit), how do we explain the good fruit that he once bore? If you claim it was false fruit, then we simply can’t tell a tree by its fruit as Jesus said we could.

3. Ironically (for the once saved, always saved folks) it seems to me like assurance of salvation would be impossible or an illusion if we can only truly know we (and others) were truly saved after we see if we (or they) ever fall away. The Bible clearly teaches that we can have assurance though. It is assurance that we are completely safe and secure if we abide in Him by faith.

4. Does God play games with us? Does he warn his children about things which really are not a danger? Doesn’t this make Him less than honest or somewhat deceitful? We know He is not. The alternative then is that God is not playing games with us and warning us about things which are not dangerous. Falling away is a danger.

5. If a person throws me a life saver when I am drowning and I grab onto it as he pulls me onto the deck of a rescue ship, have I saved myself? No. I have no more saved myself than a person who has chosen to put his faith in Christ and follow Him has saved himself. Rejecting the "once saved, always saved" position does not mean that one believes we somehow save ourselves. We are saved by grace through faith. It is an active, living, abiding faith though rather than a one-time event. It is important that we start the race properly but it is equally important that we finish the race (through faith) that the Lord has enabled us to run.

6. If man exercises no agency (or choice) whatsoever in entering into relationship with God, then are we not like robots? Surely man has free will and we are not simply machines or robots. The "once saved, always saved position" seems to remove man's ability to freely reject God. Love relationships are never maintained by force or removal of one's free will.

7. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Man has always had to respond to God with faith for salvation. People who lived before Christ by faith looked forward to His sacrifice. We who live after his death and resurrection by faith look backwards to what He accomplished for us. The point here is that terms of salvation have not changed. And we find examples in the Old Testament where people apparently lost their salvation. In fact, David prayed that the Lord would not take His Spirit from him. Why would God allow people in the Old Testament to lose their salvation but not allow people to lose their salvation after He died and was resurrected? I don’t think He does. I believe salvation is a free gift from God that we can accept or reject by faith. We must abide in Christ by faith. By faith, we look backwards to His death and resurrection. By faith, we abide in Him now, we fellowship, we take communion, we pray, we see people healed, and we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” By faith, we look forward to the day of the Lord in which He will come for his bride, the Church. We were saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. It is a past, present, and future reality for us but we must abide in Him by faith.

As I mentioned, an excellent book on this subject is:
Life in the Son by Robert Shank
It is really one of the best books I have ever read!

July 24, 2009 @ 12:39 AM

3. Jed wrote:

Excellent post Jim. I couldn't agree more.

July 26, 2009 @ 6:28 PM

Add a New Comment

Your Name:

Your Email/URL (Optional):

Your Comment:

Enter the code you see below:

 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.