Can Christians Lose Their Salvation? - Part 3
Calvinist vs Armenian Debate
My two previous letters seemed to encourage debate from those exploiting a Calvinist or Armenian position, to answer the question of eternal security. In correspondence, I was categorized in one camp or the other though I don’t agree with either view. Both positions seem to create tension with God’s relationship to humanity, and his character. The seven basic tenets behind each appear to be statements that contradict their presuppositions, including the words of both Jesus and God. While appearing to support free will they tend to confine it with limitations that invalidate any honest value. This might be expected when spiritual doctrine is controlled, by powerful religious institutions. Sadly, both achieved little more than replacing one religion with another and did more to inspire cynicism than anything else.
Below are the six essential tenets of Calvin and Armenian doctrine with my response in Red:
God's Sovereignty
1. Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will. God foreknew because of his planning. (There is no such thing as free will under Calvinist doctrine, everything is predetermined, planned, and controlled by God. Humanity doesn’t have a choice about life or salvation because God’s plan has already decided who will be saved. This statement alone challenges the reality of free will by suggesting that Jesus Christ, sent by God, was born, lived, died, and rose, only for those he had already decided to save. I would suggest this view compromises any truth in what the Bible has to say about the character of God).
2. Arminianism: To the Arminian, God is sovereign, but has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom and response. God's decrees (what he decides) are associated with his foreknowledge of man's response. (I Agree that election, justification and sealing stem from God’s foreknowledge of man’s response. However, in scripture, this response is to Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Armenian doctrine suggests this initial response and born-again experience is not secure, it’s conditional and judged on our perseverance as illustrated in No14. Thus, justification and sealing are not secure and this alone contradicts the entire New Testament narrative. Unfortunately, Armenians do not consider the foreknowledge of God when proposing the possibility of falling away and thus fail to see that foreknowledge ensures the possibility will never happen. The Bible speaks of justification and sealing in Christ occurring from the moment we are “born again” (born of the holy spirit), not later as a result of our perseverance. The Armenian view does not reconcile perseverance within the process of sanctification, and thus falls into the same error as those who preach conditional salvation today).
Man's Depravity
3. Calvinism: Because of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore, God must initiate salvation. (I disagree, but it is consistent with the Calvinist idea of everything being determined (refer No.1). In reality, this invalidates the words of Jesus Christ himself when he stated that he was the door that enabled all mankind to initiate their own salvation. We choose by responding to Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus statements concerning salvation were predicated on our ability to exercise freewill).
4. Arminianism: With regard to depravity, that people are depraved and corrupt, but they are able to provide the decisive impulse to trust God with the general divine assistance or call that God gives to all humanity. (I agree that God gave everyone the freedom to believe, accept, and receive the redemptive work of the cross. Salvation is justification, and sealing in Christ, and begins with our decision to believe in faith, but sanctification takes the rest of our lives. Unfortunately, there are those who refer to sanctification as a “continuous or conditional salvation” which is compelling until you consider what is meant by the condition referred to. Many Christians today agree with the Armenian view of conditional salvation through perseverance; however, this view creates an ever-increasing disharmony across the entire canon, because the texts used to support this view are applied incorrectly. Examples might be when referring to texts about, being saved, or continuously being saved, falling away, or persevering. The context in all these passages is sanctification not justification. Those supporting conditional salvation do not appear to accept that justification and sealing, are one-time events, with no suggestion of future removal by God, or the actions of those to whom it has been given. All born again believers are continuously being saved (sanctified), and generally through trials, hardship, pain and suffering).
Election
5. Calvinism: Before the foundation of the world, God unconditionally chose (or "elected") some to be saved. Election has nothing to do with man's future response. The elected ones are chosen by God. (Under the Calvinist doctrine there is no free will, it’s an illusion because everything is predetermined and orchestrated. Therefore, this doctrine suggests God’s grace to all humanity, through Christ, is not true (Acts 2:21 Jn 10:9) Refer No1.
6. Arminianism: Election is based on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him (predestination) of their own free will. Conditional election is based on man's response to God's offer of salvation. (This is only partially correct insomuch as the Bible states that God’s election is determined through his foreknowledge of any individual decision. However, I do have concerns about the Armenian interpretation of the word election when it's clearly applied under the condition of perseverance (No14). God can predestine, justify, seal and glorify before we are born, even though it takes place upon our acceptance into the body of Christ, but not if we're going to fall away at some point in the future. Thankfully, God’s foreknowledge already knows the outcome, and he doesn’t need the idea of perseverance to decide who will be saved, because there’s nothing unknown, that isn't already known? Perseverance theology mocks the sovereignty of God’s foreknowledge and I wrote about this in, “Are we totally determined”. The Armenian view of conditional election is predicated on its interpretation of words such as perseverance and free will, so the allusion to faith unto salvation is by in large meaningless because the matter of perseverance can never inspire certainty to those who follow this teaching. It’s one thing if conditional election refers to Christ as the condition, but quite another if conditional election refers to perseverance. (No 14). Therefore, the Armenian doctrine misrepresents the power and authority of the cross, incorrectly subjects justification and sanctification to conditional uncertainty, and relegates eternity to the whims of perseverance).
Christ's Atonement
7. Calvinism: Jesus Christ died to save only those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful. (I disagree, and this suggests the Calvinists have taken passages such as Jn 6:39 to mean that it’s God who decides for Christ, who will be saved. This undermines the gospel of Christ as the redeemer of all humanity. The phrase “given me” should be interpreted as God speaking through his foreknowledge, not because God decides and overrides the free will of anyone's decision to believe in Christ. Think of the uncertainty this view creates. It’s difficult to equate the idea with passages such as 2Cor 5:14 or 1Tim 2:4-6). If Christ did not die for all humanity, then how do we deal with passages such as Jn 12:46 “I have come into the world as a light so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness”?
8. Arminianism: Christ died for everyone. The Saviour’s atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ's atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe. (I agree that Salvation is secured through individual confidence in Christ, through faith, with signs following, BUT without conditions. Because Armenian doctrine applies conditions around perseverance, their statement here is undermined and incomplete. The consequence of this implies that Christ’s atonement (penalty paid) for those who believe in faith, is not enough to secure salvation, and to be consistent this tenet should say “for those who believe and persevere”).
Grace
9. Calvinism: While God extends his common grace to all humankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God's irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and make a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted. (I disagree, and what is the point of God extending common grace to all humanity if salvation is only for the elect? It seems to me that salvation is reduced to an exercise in pointless narcissism. However, it is consistent with the other Calvinist tenets, where it suggests our lives and will is controlled by God, but the elephant in the room is what on earth was the point in God suggesting we have free will at all? Irresistible grace cannot be resisted, so we have no ability to refuse.
10. Arminianism: Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by the Holy Spirit, man is able to cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects of Adam's sin. Because of "free will" men are also able to resist God's grace. (I agree that man is free to choose or resist God’s grace. The one concern I have about this doctrine is the convoluted nature of the words “prevenient grace” and “removed the effects” to describe what God does with sin. The question being, how closely are these terms linked to perseverance? Does prevenient grace refer to the atoning work of Christ through the Holy Spirit, or are they separate? Does “removed the effects” of Adams sin, mean the removal of separation and death, or the ability to respond? However, the word “prevenient” might suggest a grace that was given to all prior to Christ, or grace that came in Christ, thus removing the effect of Adams sin, so my question is what is this preparatory grace? I'd like to think it's Christs paying of our penalty for sin that enables God to save, through individual decision and faith. Nevertheless, the penalty for sin remains for all time, it is still death (separation from God). The sin that separates us from God is only covered by Christ, such that God does not see it, it’s not some magical removal as some like to suggest. While Christians become new creations in Christ, the keywords are “in Christ” and denote the person, in whom, our sin is covered. Covering is not the deletion of past, present, and future sin, it’s about God’s inability to see it. I’m not convinced by those who teach removal and perfection without the "in Christ", because their lives don’t demonstrate perfection? We don’t become perfect, but God sees us as perfect in Christ, and our unrighteous imperfections allow something to be sanctified from).
Man's Will
11. Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own. (It appears like irresistible grace is like a magic pill that switches on the selected ones! In my view, freedom of the will is fundamental to the purpose God created us for, and a given for any loving relationship including a relationship with God. Without free will, there is no love or relationship, only control and authority. What is the will if not a faculty of the mind that assists us in selecting from an array of good, bad, and indifferent choices at the moment of a decision? This doctrine isolates the will from reason, but also the soul and the spirit. While humanity is depraved, the will doesn’t commandeer authority from reason, or a rational mind, unless we permit it to do so. In other words, we make choices. Many of our choices result in bad decisions. Under Calvinist doctrine, the incapability of the will is the dominant faculty that's controlled by God and prohibits the mind from any decision about salvation. However, Christians come to Christ in many ways, some through supernatural experience, and some through a reasoned decision of the mind, not just the impulses of the soul or the will. The one aspect not mentioned in this doctrine is where the human spirit (knowledge of God) fits in this process?).
12. Arminianism: Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will. (I agree but with a caveat on the meaning of “prevenient grace”).
Perseverance
13. Calvinism: Believers (Those born-again) will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost. Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began. (I agree, BUT Calvinists will attribute this perseverance to God enabling and controlling their will to respond, thereby masterminding the salvation narrative, to fulfil his own purpose. We might ponder the one-sided nature of this, and perhaps grasp the selfish and contradictory nature of a God who manipulates his creation to suit his own purposes. In reality, genuine love and relationship cannot result from controlling authority figures. We know this to be true in human relationships and God talks about submission to each other at length, so why would the creator contradict his own creation. Why then do I agree with this statement? Because my underlying presupposition on this tenet is different, it’s based on the power of God through foreknowledge, justification, and sanctification. As this is the third letter in a series discussing the question of losing our salvation, I would refer you to the two previous letters).
14. Arminianism: By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation. (I disagree. Ironically this is the only tenet of Armenian doctrine I disagree with, but its influence on all other Armenian tenets produces considerably more contradictions than does any tenet in Calvinist doctrine. The point being made is not that God will reject us, but we can choose to fall away from grace and lose our salvation because of free will. I believe using the word grace in this manner is inflammatory, however, the tenet does state those who can turn away are already believers, which can only imply they're born again believers. But clearly, the tenet is stating that this born again experience can only be secured after demonstrating perseverance, with no rejection of God? So any Christian who says they are saved now must also recognise that at some time in the future they might lose it? And can we really disassociate God from this situation? God is responsible for believers being spiritually reborn in the first place, and then he rejects those who fall away? This idea creates a theological conundrum insomuch as why would God in his foreknowledge of all time, justify through spiritual rebirth those he knows will turn away and reject him? It makes no theological sense? Even so, if we argue that God allows us to fall away, rather than his rejection of us, the possibility remains inconsistent with both God and Jesus definition of salvation in the first place. A more consistent approach suggests God already knows that those he justifies (saves) will never fall away or reject him, BEFORE he seals us into the Kingdom of God, otherwise there's no power or point in sealing. To use a human argument there's clearly an intellectual possibility for the argument if you think humanity is responsible for the conditions of salvation? However, this situation doesn't eventuate because foreknowledge secures those who will not. And let's be clear, we don't know with any certainty who is born-again in the first place, and identifying others as examples of falling away is prone to presumption and judgement? If it were that easy, we could root out the weeds ourselves. Matt 13:25-30 typifies those we might use as examples, where the weeds were never “born again” in the first place. They remain invisible, and yet we see them everywhere in the world and every week as valid contributing members of the Church. However, when the wheat is ready to be harvested, the weeds will be left and separated from God. In His foreknowledge, God never knew them, and they never received him, even though, to us they may appear like any other good person. This is like the seed that is sown on the rocky ground in Matthew 13:5-6). Those who are truly born-again will never fall away or reject God because both Jesus and God stated very clearly, they would not let this happen (Jn6:37-40). If both Jesus and God are not stating the truth, all the promises are insecure.
For more information about other key points such as Foreknowledge, Predestination, Justification and Sealing, please refer to my two previous commentaries on “Can Christians lose their Salvation”.
