A colleague and myself were tasked to come up with a set up affirmations and denials regarding the doctrine of perseverance today. This is a draft of what we came up with and I would be interested to get your input.
Perseverance of the Saints
A. We affirm that true believers will persevere in the faith to the end of their earthly lives. (Matt 10:22, Heb 3:14, Matt 24:12-13, Gal 6:9, Col 1:21-23)
We deny that those who are true Christians can fall away permanently and end up in hell.
B. We affirm that professing believers who do not persevere to the end of their earthly lives were not true believers. (1 John 2:19, Matt 7:22-24, Luke 18:9-14)
We deny that those who fall away and stay away were ever genuine believers. (1 John 2:19)
C. We affirm that God is the One Who preserves Christians. (John 6:35-40, John 10:27-40, Phil 1:6, Jude 24-25, 1 Peter 1:3-5)
We deny that Christians preserve themselves in their own power. (Eph 2:8-9, Phil 2:13)
D. We affirm that there are biblical passages that appear to contradict this teaching by warning against apostasy. (Heb 2:4, Heb 6:4-9, Heb 10:26-29, Heb 12:4, Matt 10: 32-33, 1 Cor. 15:1-2, 2 Peter 2:1)
We deny that these passages actually contradict this teaching. Rather, there are exegetical explanations for these passages that do not contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
E. We affirm that these warning passages are legitimate warnings against apostasy that should be taken seriously by all believers. These warnings are prospective and are designed to elicit faith that perseveres to the end. (Phil 2:12, 2 Cor 13:5, 2 Peter 1:10)
We deny that these warning passages are not applicable to believers and can, therefore, be ignored. (Acts 20:27)
F. We affirm that the elect are saved through perseverance, not apart from it. (John 15, 2 Peter 1:10)
We deny that the cliché, “once saved, always saved,” is sufficient to adequately describe this doctrine.
I'll be interested in your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
That is very good. I especially appreciate your doing justice to the warning texts. I have heard those that affirm the perseverance of the saints take away the intent of the warning passages by effectively turning a warning into a promise and thus change the intent of the passage. Great stuff. Where do I sign?
Greg,
Very good work guys, and I agree with Vinnie. By the way, there was a guy on “Truthtalk Live” on Monday, I believe, and he was a Church of Christ pastor. His name was Dan Corner, have you guys heard of him? Though I didn’t hear all of it, he seemed to believe that those who believed otherwise (he used the Calvinistic model of sanctification and the Charles Stanley model of sanctification as “those who believed otherwise”) were preaching a different gospel.
In addition, he had a serious attitude and straw man problem; in fact I don’t think he accurately represented anything other than his own position, and that he did will a foaming mouth. The principle of debate over dialogue (like I mentioned in one of my blog posts) would have helped the guest host on that show, because a little cross-examination would have eaten Mr. Corner alive. I believe the “debate” on this topic should go back to our understanding of substitution and justification.
The reason I say all this is to ask you guys, if one denies that justification is final, and continues in that practice while deceiving others, can that man be regenerated? This is no doubt a serious error to say the least, but I had always assumed that those who affirmed that one could lose his salvation were wrong, but in the camp of God…that is, until now, until I became a Calvinist and began to study the work of Christ more in depth. What do you guys think; what about men like Zane Hodges? Don’t get me wrong, I am not eager to call men out, or to point out there false teaching, but I do think we should all be willing to do so, for the sake of the flock.
Again, I agree with the list and I guess you two had to have such teachings as those of Dan Corner and Zane Hodges in mind when considering it.
jAsOn
Vinnie,
I think you just did... :)
Jason,
That is an excellent question and one that I think I will chew on for a few hours...one thing I do know is that over the past 2000 years people got burned for discounting the work of Christ. We don't take attacks on the gospel nearly as seriously as men in times past (obviously don't conclude from that, that I want to burn Zane Hodges). If we answer no to your question, I guess that would include a guy like John Wesley in the unregenerate cateory, correct?
Here is a quote by Iain Murray on Wesley and Whitefield...I would seem that Murray and Whitefield would say that the person Jason described would still be a Christian:
Some evangelical writers have sought to minimize the division between Whitefield and Wesley by referring to their "minor differences." An impression is given that Whitefield abandoned the strong conviction he had about Arminianism in 1741; in proof of this we are referred to the fact that in 1742 their personal friendship was in measure resumed and that ultimately Wesley even preached Whitefield's funeral sermon. But all this is misleading. The truth is that Whitefield rightly made a distinction between a difference in judgement and a difference in affection; it was in the former sense that he differed from the Wesleys, and that difference was such that, as Tyerman writes, it "led them to build separate chapels, form separate societies, and pursue, to the end of life, separate lines of action . . . the gulf between Wesley and Whitefield was immense."[9] But while their public cooperation was thus seriously disturbed, his personal affection for the Wesleys as Christians was preserved to the last.[10] In this respect Whitefield teaches us a needful lesson. Doctrinal differences between believers should never lead to personal antagonism. Error must be opposed even when held by fellow members of Christ, but if that opposition cannot co-exist with a true love for all saints and a longing for their spiritual prosperity then it does not glorify God nor promote the edification of the Church.
That's right, I hadn’t really considered this topic outside our present context, and from what I read I believe Wesley was a child of God (though in serious error over several things); thanks for bringing the Whitfield/Wesley friendship into the discussion. Do you think that the dialogue between the Calvinistic and the Grace Theological Society models of sanctification could be better understood if we investigate how our views of sanctification are rooted in our understanding of the atonement, or is it not really that simple?
I love this. Do you mind if i post it on my blog (under your name of course)?
Caleb
Post a Comment