Over at Arminian Invectives, Ben Henshaw has a running series on “unconditional eternal security.” Oddly enough, he has that filed under “perseverance.”
Problem is, Calvinism doesn’t subscribe to “unconditional eternal security.” There are some antinomian fundamentalists who take that position (e.g. Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Randall Gleason), but that’s in studied contrast to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.
I don’t know where Henshaw came up with the notion that perseverance of the saints is interchangeable with unconditional eternity security. I have noticed that some muddled Arminians detach adjectives from the TULIP acronym and misapply them to other Reformed doctrines. For instance, it’s not uncommon for Arminians to detached “irresistible” from “grace,” where it stands for monergistic regeneration, and then misuse “irresistible” as a general designation for Reformed soteriology.
Perhaps Henshaw is laboring under the misconception that if Reformed election is unconditional, then perseverance is unconditional. If so, his usage is idiosyncratic at best and illogical at worst.
In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.
In Calvinism, “eternal security” is contingent on sanctification, contingent on faith. Good works are a condition of salvation.
Of course, there’s a condition behind the condition. If “eternal security” is conditional on perseverance, then perseverance is conditional on God’s preservation of the elect. And that’s a sure thing.
Perhaps Henshaw is laboring under the misconception that if something is conditional, it must be uncertain.
If someone gave me a dollar for every time I had to explain the difference between the Reformed doctrine of persverence and unconditional eternal security (or once saved always saved as some call it) then they'd be able to bribe me into becoming a Calvinist!
ReplyDeleteVery well put, thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteJesus said: "My sheep hear Me, and they follow Me." The goats don't hear, and they may follow a goat-hearder, I don't know. But our Great Shepherd said we shall follow Him:-Never perfectly from straying, but nevertheless we will follow His voice. Wow. What a Shepherd we have! We are in His sovereign hands, and yet we are allowed to go out into the world to light and salt, and to bear fruit:-Peace, Joy, and Love.
ReplyDeleteHave a great week in Jesus' truth and promises.
Probably a dumb question, but what’s the difference between saying God preserves the elect and saying perseverance is unconditional? If God preserves the elect, then how is our perseverance conditioned on us? Does God put conditions on His preserving us?
ReplyDeleteYour question confuses God putting conditions on himself and God putting conditions on us.
ReplyDeleteBy definition, perseverance can't be unconditional. If you don't persevere, you won't be saved.
Unconditional eternal security would be fatalistic: you will be saved regardless of what you believe or disbelieve, do or fail to do. But that's not the Reformed doctrine.
Perseverance is unconditional insofar as it is depended "on God's preservation of the elect. And that's a for sure thing." If that's the case, any autonomous contingency is illusory, and if it is contingent, it's contingent on God's faithfulness to keep us. But that grinds away any teeth the apostolic warnings in NT may have.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you say that such paraenetic narratives are the "means" by which God preserves the elect, what is your epistemic justification for the assumption that the nature of the warnings are "means"? What's the epistemic source for this assumption?
Sarin
ReplyDelete"Perseverance is unconditional insofar as it is depended 'on God's preservation of the elect. And that's a for sure thing.'"
If it's *dependent* on something else, then its conditional rather than unconditional. Dependency implies conditionality. The outcome is dependent on the performance of someone else.
"If that's the case, any autonomous contingency is illusory..."
True. So what?
If that's the case, any autonomous contingency is illusory, and if it is contingent, it's contingent on God's faithfulness to keep us. But that grinds away any teeth the apostolic warnings in NT may have.
And if you say that such paraenetic narratives are the "means" by which God preserves the elect, what is your epistemic justification for the assumption that the nature of the warnings are "means"? What's the epistemic source for this assumption?
"...and if it is contingent, it's contingent on God's faithfulness to keep us."
Correct...in which case it's conditional. Conditional on God's ability and willingness to preserve his elect.
"But that grinds away any teeth the apostolic warnings in NT may have."
That's just your prejudicial assertion.
"And if you say that such paraenetic narratives are the 'means' by which God preserves the elect, what is your epistemic justification for the assumption that the nature of the warnings are 'means'? What's the epistemic source for this assumption?"
Even freewill theists admit that warnings have a deterrent value. Deterrence is a means to an end. Even freewill theists think warnings are a "means," in that respect.
If justification occurs at a moment of time in our past, and justification guarantees our peace with God, how can there be other needed conditions to guarantee our peace with God?
ReplyDeleteThere's more to salvation than sola fide. We are justified by faith alone, but we aren't saved by faith alone.
DeleteIn Calvinism, the conditions for salvation are coordinated in the plan of God.
Personally, I think it's better to distinguish between the senses in which security is conditional and those in which it is not rather than just say it's conditional. God's promise that He will protect us is not dependent on anything we do. At least in that sense, security is unconditional. But in that His protection keeps us in the faith, and that faith is a condition of salvation (not a condition for God's protection but of salvation per say), then security is conditional.
DeleteGod be with you,
Dan
Thanks for the reply. I’m having difficulty following your line of reasoning.
ReplyDeleteIsn’t it true that if one is justified in a moment of time in the past, then they have peace with God, i.e., they are eternally secure, having been delivered from the wrath of God (isn’t that what is generally meant by “saved”)? Yes, there is more to salvation than that, but it at least includes that, and, in that sense, wouldn’t it be appropriate to use the term “saved” or “eternally secure” to refer to those who have exercised faith alone in Christ alone. You wouldn’t say glorification is a “condition” of salvation, would you?
The explanation “the conditions for salvation are coordinated in the plan of God” isn’t helping me understand why justification itself isn’t a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation (peace with God / deliverance from the wrath of God).
Justification is not a sufficient condition for salvation. God has other requirements. Justification, all by itself, doesn't secure salvation. You're artificially compartmentalizing justification from other conditions. For instance, election is a precondition of salvation. All the elect will be saved. But that doesn't mean they will be saved apart from faith, regeneration, justification, sanctification, &c.
ReplyDeletemy 2 cents worth...
DeleteI agree with Steve's statement here. However, I do think there are special (rare) cases where sanctification isn't necessary for final/ultimate salvation. For example, someone who died immediately after exercising (God given) justifying faith. For example, someone who believes the gospel promises right before a nuclear bomb explodes and disintegrates him. There's literally no time for sanctification.
My understanding is that the Bible uses the word "saved" and "salvation" in different senses. Sometimes it refers merely to justification, which is enough to gain entrance to heaven. However, all things being equal (i.e. under normal circumstances), all those whom God justifies, God also sanctifies because most people don't die immediately after justification. They live long enough for the necessary evidence of justification to manifest viz. good works of sanctification.
Sanctification *ISN'T* necessary to earn or MERIT entrance into heaven.
However, in another sense sanctification *IS* necessary for final salvation in that:
1. it's a necessary part of the process of salvation that God normally works in the life of a Christian (with the rare exceptions of immediate death after justification). It's part of the "Golden Chain" of salvation that Calvinists refer to. So, in that sense, it's a necessary condition for (final) salvation, even if it isn't a condition for justification. I think that's why Steve states that justification is not a sufficient condition for entrance to heaven (under normal circumstances). Because most people live long enough that they should bear the good fruit of sanctification.
2. since someone justified is also regenerated (either at or before justification), this person will naturally produce good works as a result and as evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit's transforming power. I'm not sure exactly when one can say the Holy Spirit indwells a person. Is it (or can it be) synonymous with regeneration; OR is it normally after justification (regeneration only being an effect of the Holy Spirit, but not His actual indwelling)? I think the latter is usually the case.
We Calvinists don't want to fall under the accusation of some Catholics who say what we Calvinists kick out the front door, we let in through the back door in that we (Calvinists) reject the notion that sanctification is part of the process of justification, while at the same time affirming that regeneration precedes justifying faith. In which case (Catholics ask), why can't the exercise of justifying faith be part of the good works performed due to regeneration. Meaning, we Calvinists agree with Catholics that final justification is a combination faith plus works.
Also, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that Calvinism (in general) teaches that it's possible for a regenerate person to get to heaven without sanctification or even without having exercised saving faith. For example (maybe the only example?), in the cases of elect infants who die in infancy.
Though, the New Testament has many more tenses than the following I'll give, for English speaking Christians a good way to understand salvation is that:
We WERE saved (past tense) from the penalty of sin in justification.
We ARE being saved (present tense) from the power of sin in sanctification.
We WILL be saved (future tense) from presence of sin altogether in glorification.
Steve, how does your position not result in perseverance also being a condition of justification?
ReplyDeleteIf perseverance is a condition of salvation and salvation doesn’t exist apart from justification, then wouldn’t perseverance also be a condition of justification?
To say that perseverance is a condition of salvation, and justification is a condition of salvation, doesn't make perseverance a condition of justification. Likewise, to say that precipitation is a condition of snow, and freezing temperature is a condition of snow, doesn't make precipitation a condition of freezing temperature.
DeleteThanks for your patience. I’m still having difficulty grasping the issue.
DeleteIf "x is a necessary condition for y," means that if we don't have x, then we won't have y, and if it is the Reformed belief that where perseverance doesn’t exist, then justification doesn’t exist, then why wouldn’t perseverance be considered a necessary condition for justification?
If snow is dependent on two necessary conditions–precipitation and freezing temperature–that doesn't make freezing temperature dependent on precipitation, or vice versa. Same thing with various preconditions for salvation.
DeleteYes, but if there is no such thing as freezing temperature and precipitation that exist independent of each other (like you can’t have justification without perseverance), then the existence of the one depends on the existence of the other and vice versa.
DeleteWouldn’t that make justification a condition of perseverance and perseverance a condition of justification?
You're disregarding the asymmetrical relationships. For instance, in the afternoon the sun shines on a tree, thereby casting a shadow. All these conditions must be in place, but the relationships are asymmetrical, viz. the sun causes the shadow, not vice versa.
DeleteI’m not sure I understand what causation has to do with this. The relationship I was referring to is not one of causation but of existence. Justification does not exist apart from perseverance and perseverance does not exist apart from justification.
DeleteAnd because that is the case, doesn’t that make justification a condition of perseverance and perseverance a condition of justification?
I'm illustrating an asymmetrical relation. Dependence is an asymmetrical relation.
DeleteYou're also positing a false dichotomy between causality and existence, but these often overlap.
In Scripture, justification is conditioned on faith in contrast to works. According to Pauline theology, we are justified by faith rather than works. That's the dependence relation.
And it also goes to categorical difference between justification and sanctification. Justification is an objective, qualitative, one-time state or relation between the Christian and God. Sanctification is a subjective, quantitative process. A matter of degree. You can't arrange them on the same continuum in a symmetrical relation.
Steve:
Delete“I'm illustrating an asymmetrical relation. Dependence is an asymmetrical relation.”
But isn’t the existence of perseverance and justification a symmetrical relationship? If perseverance does not exist, justification does not exist, and vice versa. If perseverance exists, justification exists, and vice versa.
“You're also positing a false dichotomy between causality and existence, but these often overlap.”
Sure they often overlap, but if something doesn’t exist, it can’t be the source of causality.
“In Scripture, justification is conditioned on faith in contrast to works. According to Pauline theology, we are justified by faith rather than works. That's the dependence relation.”
Yes, but if works do not exist, then faith does not exist. That too, it would seem, is a dependence relation.
“And it also goes to categorical difference between justification and sanctification. Justification is an objective, qualitative, one-time state or relation between the Christian and God. Sanctification is a subjective, quantitative process. A matter of degree. You can't arrange them on the same continuum in a symmetrical relation.”
Why would the categorical difference between justification and sanctification make a difference? Regardless if they are a state or a process, one is not there without the other.
If perseverance is monergistic, what is the problem with saying perseverance is a condition of justification?
It's misleading to characterize the relation as mutual dependence. Justification and perseverance aren't linked to each other. Perseverance doesn't effect justification, or vice versa. Rather, both are dependence on divine agency. To say justification is dependent on perseverance has a retrocausative (i.e. backtracking counterfactuals) aura, as though, if you lost your faith, you'd lose your justification. But justification isn't something you can have, then cease to have.
DeleteLet's compare it to Cambridge changes. By fathering a son, a man can make his father's father a grandfather, even if his father's father is deceased. The relata go together: you must be a father for him to be a grandfather. But your grandfather's existence or nonexistence doesn't depend on that relation.
Delete"If that's the case, any autonomous contingency is illusory..."
ReplyDeleteSteve: True. So what?
Except for the fact that your denial is indistinguishable from materialistic notions of personhood, which in turn undercuts your supposed reliance on belief formation, intentions, and any other undertakings. Sam Harris would agree, but he'll just say you're a confused materialist. Given your late medieval views of meticulous providence, you're just an instrumental means to and end.
"But that grinds away any teeth the apostolic warnings in NT may have."
Steve: That's just your prejudicial assertion.
The apostolic warnings against apostasy are towards regenerate believers. They are not logically applicable to reprobates, any more than to warn a bachelor not to divorce. And the fact that they are real in the sense that regenerate believers, should they fall back into unbelief, would unergo the consequences.
Romans 11:22-23 "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to *YOU*, provided *YOU* continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in *AGAIN*."
Paul says that *YOU* continue by faith and not continue in "unbelief." Salvation is conditioned on *YOU* "provided *YOU* continue in his kindness. Who should I believe, you or Paul?
"And if you say that such paraenetic narratives are the 'means' by which God preserves the elect, what is your epistemic justification for the assumption that the nature of the warnings are 'means'? What's the epistemic source for this assumption?"
Steve: Even freewill theists admit that warnings have a deterrent value. Deterrence is a means to an end. Even freewill theists think warnings are a "means," in that respect.
First, for someone that agrees that "autonomous agency is illusory," you can't help but presuppose free will notions of having the power of spotenaeity to actually obey warnings of any sort from which "deterrence" is feasible.
Second, I didn't ask if "freewill theists' question if warnings have a deterrent value." (Learn to read.) Second attempt...I asked what is your epistemic justification for thinking (if it is you who is freely thinking?) that the *nature* of the warnings are merely for rhetorical purposes of deterrence? Why think this, and what is your epistemic source for this assumption? Provide a clear passage where scripture outlines the nature of the warnings as such.
Sarin
Delete“Except for the fact that your denial is indistinguishable from materialistic notions of personhood, which in turn undercuts your supposed reliance on belief formation, intentions, and any other undertakings. Sam Harris would agree, but he'll just say you're a confused materialist. Given your late medieval views of meticulous providence, you're just an instrumental means to and end.”
i) That’s a string of assertions minus any connecting or supporting arguments. You need to show how my denial is indistinguishable from physicalism.
ii) Why are you trying to connect Calvinism to physicalism? A number of non-Calvinists are physicalists (e.g. Nancey Murphy, Kevin Corcoran, Peter van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker).
“The apostolic warnings against apostasy are towards regenerate believers.”
No. They’re simply directed at readers, listeners, or congregations. There’s no presumption regarding the spiritual status of any particular recipient.In the nature of the case, mass communication is a shotgun rather than a rifle.
“And the fact that they are real in the sense that regenerate believers, should they fall back into unbelief, would unergo the consequences.”
So they have a counterfactual force, which is consistent with Calvinism.
“Paul says that *YOU* continue by faith and not continue in ‘unbelief.’ Salvation is conditioned on *YOU* ‘provided *YOU* continue in his kindness.”
Because there’s a condition behind the condition. Salvation is, among other things, contingent on faith, which is–in turn–contingent on grace.
Pocketing the 8-ball is conditioned on the cue ball, but motion of the cue ball is conditioned on the cue stick, which is conditioned on action of the player, which is conditioned on the player having eyes, arms, hands, and feet. Likewise, the player coming into the tavern is conditioned by many things as well, viz. having transportation, thirsty for beer.
Paul discusses prior conditions elsewhere in Romans. For now he’s exhorting Roman congregants. The exhortation functions as a psychological inducement (as the case may be). Using psychology in behavior modification is perfectly consistent with determinism or predeterminism.
“Who should I believe, you or Paul?”
False dichotomy.
“First, for someone that agrees that ‘autonomous agency is illusory,’ you can't help but presuppose free will notions of having the power of spotenaeity to actually obey warnings of any sort from which ‘deterrence’ is feasible.”
A predestined agent can obey a warning. Indeed, if he was predestined to obey the warning, his obedience is a fait accompli.
“Second, I didn't ask if ‘freewill theists' question if warnings have a deterrent value.’ (Learn to read.)”
That’s because you don’t know the right questions to ask, so I’m coaching you. (Learn to think.)
“Second attempt...I asked what is your epistemic justification for thinking (if it is you who is freely thinking?) that the *nature* of the warnings are merely for rhetorical purposes of deterrence? Why think this, and what is your epistemic source for this assumption? Provide a clear passage where scripture outlines the nature of the warnings as such.”
That’s a confused question. What makes you think the deterrent value of a warning is merely “rhetorical”?
Likewise, are you saying Biblical warnings don’t have deterrent value?
BTW, I don’t take the position that their function is limited to deterrence. They can also serve to inculpate or aggravate (the guilt) the offender.
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works so that no man should boast." Why did you say, Good works are a condition of salvation?" This seems dangerously close to works-based-Salvation. Please explain why it is not.
ReplyDeleteBut as Paul goes on to say in v10, good works are a necessary outgrowth of God's grace. Saving grace isn't merely something God does to us, but is also something he does in us. It changes us. Eph 2:10 also refers back to 1:4, where the purpose of election is to make us holy and blameless. That's the end-result. If you don't have good works, you don't have grace.
Delete