I have decided to share a discussion I had with some classmates regarding the eternality of salvation. I hope you enjoy this, and please share your thoughts below the text.
Topic: As evangelicals debate the merits of Calvinism and Arminianism, the one point where proponents of either side often abandon their system is in the area of eternal security. However, evangelicals are not all in agreement over this issue, and even those who affirm that one cannot lose their salvation due to sinful actions may nevertheless believe that one can lose their salvation due to apostasy (a willful rejection of faith in Christ). In this discussion, state and defend your position on eternal security, and in doing so, address particular concerns such as how your view of Christian fruit-bearing, backsliding, and apostasy play into your overall view of eternal security. Furthermore, address the differences and similarities between the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine of assurance, and how these doctrines impact one another.
Response:
Wow, this is a deep question. I would argue that out of all the questions posed throughout this course, here and in the text, this is perhaps the most complex and difficult to wrestle with. The issue of eternal security is one that must be approached carefully and not with haste in determining one’s position, as it has significant bearing on the rest of one’s doctrinal stances.
Growing up I had always been taught that “once saved, always saved”, and thus have been exposed to more support for this view than any other. One of the most difficult issues with this topic regarding Scriptural support is that either side of the argument can say the same thing; the other guys are misinterpreting the passages. I am one to not simply look at the passages themselves, but also weigh the logical flow behind them. With that, I have come to conclude personally that Salvation cannot be lost once attained. Even in the event of one turning away from the Lord in their life, I do not believe causes God to retract the free gift which has been given upon initial conversion. As the text (Boyd) pointed out in the essay supporting the eternal security view, eternal life is grounded in God, who Himself is eternal. To then say that an eternal gift can be removed fails to flow logically. As the text puts it, “A life that is eternal by definition cannot come to an end” (187).
Numerous passages speak clearly of the eternality of salvation, and words spoken by Jesus and Paul explain that this cannot be taken away (Romans 8:38; John 5:24 to cite a couple). The possibility of losing salvation undermines the power and authority of God, as the gift comes from and is sustained by Him. If it were lost this would in turn communicate something of God that is contradictory to what we find in Scripture, namely that He is not omnipotent. Yet as mentioned, Scripture is clear that this is not the case. I further believe with regards to an issue such as suicide, that such an act does not remove one’s salvation as many believe. This is a view I encounter regularly working with adolescents who have been suicidal, and cite this as a reason to continue living (While it helps prevent this tragedy from taking place, I believe it is theologically incorrect and impacts other aspects of their flawed view of God).
So what about the passages that seem to indicate otherwise, or the issue of fruite? First it is important to note that nowhere in Scripture does it expressly say that salvation can be lost for any reason; it simply can be taken as such by one’s interpretation of the passage. However, one rule of interpretation is to weigh our interpretations against Scripture as a whole, and when this is done I believe we find that an interpretation of conditional security does not fit in the context of Scripture as a whole, but rather contradicts not only Scripture, but the very nature of God Himself. Instead I think that these contradictory passages should be taken as they are written and openly agreed to be, that being warnings regarding how we live our lives as Christians and the choices we make. I do not believe that the eternal view supports a “cheap grace” mindset as is proposed by the conditional view. We are called to life a life holy and pleasing to God, as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2). When a believer “backslides”, I do not believe this jeopardizes one’s salvation, however I do believe it impacts their witness to others and the ministry of Jesus Christ through the church. But one must keep in mind that we are still human, and we have yet to reach glorification; thus we will continue to struggle with sin until we pass from this life to the next. This does not however grant us permission to act in such a way “...that grace may abound” (Romans 6:1). As mentioned we are called to live lives that are pleasing to God, not because we are forced, but out of reverence for what He has done for us. It is a life motivated by love, not force. This is primarily where I believe the conditional view becomes confused regarding the eternal view, and then makes the accusation that it fosters a mindset of “cheap grace”. Again, we are not to live a life of willful sin as followers of Christ, but be transformed to new life and seek after God out of reverence for what He has done, bringing pleasure and honor to Him through our actions.
In conclusion I would say that I do not particularly like declaring myself as a Calvinist or Arminian. I don’t like being put in a box. I believe that my salvation is secure in who God is, and by definition cannot be moved. I believe that regardless of the stupid choices I make, NOTHING will ever change the fact that my Father holds me in His arms and will not let go of me. I am at peace with the understanding that God knew from before time who I would be and what I would do, and in knowing this granted me grace and placed a call upon my heart. I know that if it were purely in my hands, I would have continued in sin, running away from Him forever, because before He took my heart I was a wicked sinner before God. Nothing but His power and will changed that. And I am eternally grateful for what He has done in my life, and because of this I want to seek after Him and bring Him all the glory.
Wow, this is a deep question. I would argue that out of all the questions posed throughout this course, here and in the text, this is perhaps the most complex and difficult to wrestle with. The issue of eternal security is one that must be approached carefully and not with haste in determining one’s position, as it has significant bearing on the rest of one’s doctrinal stances.
Growing up I had always been taught that “once saved, always saved”, and thus have been exposed to more support for this view than any other. One of the most difficult issues with this topic regarding Scriptural support is that either side of the argument can say the same thing; the other guys are misinterpreting the passages. I am one to not simply look at the passages themselves, but also weigh the logical flow behind them. With that, I have come to conclude personally that Salvation cannot be lost once attained. Even in the event of one turning away from the Lord in their life, I do not believe causes God to retract the free gift which has been given upon initial conversion. As the text (Boyd) pointed out in the essay supporting the eternal security view, eternal life is grounded in God, who Himself is eternal. To then say that an eternal gift can be removed fails to flow logically. As the text puts it, “A life that is eternal by definition cannot come to an end” (187).
Numerous passages speak clearly of the eternality of salvation, and words spoken by Jesus and Paul explain that this cannot be taken away (Romans 8:38; John 5:24 to cite a couple). The possibility of losing salvation undermines the power and authority of God, as the gift comes from and is sustained by Him. If it were lost this would in turn communicate something of God that is contradictory to what we find in Scripture, namely that He is not omnipotent. Yet as mentioned, Scripture is clear that this is not the case. I further believe with regards to an issue such as suicide, that such an act does not remove one’s salvation as many believe. This is a view I encounter regularly working with adolescents who have been suicidal, and cite this as a reason to continue living (While it helps prevent this tragedy from taking place, I believe it is theologically incorrect and impacts other aspects of their flawed view of God).
So what about the passages that seem to indicate otherwise, or the issue of fruite? First it is important to note that nowhere in Scripture does it expressly say that salvation can be lost for any reason; it simply can be taken as such by one’s interpretation of the passage. However, one rule of interpretation is to weigh our interpretations against Scripture as a whole, and when this is done I believe we find that an interpretation of conditional security does not fit in the context of Scripture as a whole, but rather contradicts not only Scripture, but the very nature of God Himself. Instead I think that these contradictory passages should be taken as they are written and openly agreed to be, that being warnings regarding how we live our lives as Christians and the choices we make. I do not believe that the eternal view supports a “cheap grace” mindset as is proposed by the conditional view. We are called to life a life holy and pleasing to God, as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2). When a believer “backslides”, I do not believe this jeopardizes one’s salvation, however I do believe it impacts their witness to others and the ministry of Jesus Christ through the church. But one must keep in mind that we are still human, and we have yet to reach glorification; thus we will continue to struggle with sin until we pass from this life to the next. This does not however grant us permission to act in such a way “...that grace may abound” (Romans 6:1). As mentioned we are called to live lives that are pleasing to God, not because we are forced, but out of reverence for what He has done for us. It is a life motivated by love, not force. This is primarily where I believe the conditional view becomes confused regarding the eternal view, and then makes the accusation that it fosters a mindset of “cheap grace”. Again, we are not to live a life of willful sin as followers of Christ, but be transformed to new life and seek after God out of reverence for what He has done, bringing pleasure and honor to Him through our actions.
In conclusion I would say that I do not particularly like declaring myself as a Calvinist or Arminian. I don’t like being put in a box. I believe that my salvation is secure in who God is, and by definition cannot be moved. I believe that regardless of the stupid choices I make, NOTHING will ever change the fact that my Father holds me in His arms and will not let go of me. I am at peace with the understanding that God knew from before time who I would be and what I would do, and in knowing this granted me grace and placed a call upon my heart. I know that if it were purely in my hands, I would have continued in sin, running away from Him forever, because before He took my heart I was a wicked sinner before God. Nothing but His power and will changed that. And I am eternally grateful for what He has done in my life, and because of this I want to seek after Him and bring Him all the glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment