Perseverance Founded On Divine Immutability

“Hence is the stability of grace, and perseverance of the saints; it is founded upon his unchangeableness. Not that they are so, though truly sanctified, if they and their graces were left to their own management; no, it is he who not only gives that rich portion to those he adopts to be his children, but keeps it for them, and them in the possession of it; He maintains the lot of our inheritance, Psal. xvi. 6. And to build that persuasion of perseverance upon his truth and power engaged in it is no presumption, yea, it is high dishonour to him to question it. 

 

“But when nature is set to judge of grace, it must speak according to itself; and, therefore, very unsuitably to that which it speaks of. Natural wits apprehend not the spiritual tenor of the Covenant of Grace, but model it to their own principles, and quite disguise it; and they think of nothing but their resolves and moral purposes: or they take up with a confused notion of grace; they imagine it put into their own hands, to keep or lose it, and will not stoop to a continual dependence on the strength of another; rather choosing that game of hazard, though it is certain loss and undoing, to do for themselves.

“But the humble believer is otherwise taught; he 'hath not so learned Christ.' He sees himself beset with enemies without, and buckled to a treacherous heart within, that will betray him to them; and he dare no more trust himself, to himself, than to his most professed enemies. Thus it ought to be, and the more the heart is brought to this humble petitioning for that ability, and strengthening, and perfecting, from God, the more shall it find both stability and peace, from the assurance of that stability.

“And certainly, the more the Christian is acquainted with himself, the more will he go out of himself for his perfecting and establishing. He finds, that when he thinks to go forward, he is driven backward, and sin gets hold of him, oftentimes, when he thought to have smitten it. He finds that miserable inconstancy of his heart in spiritual things, the vanishing of his purposes and breaking off of his thoughts, that they usually die ere they be brought forth: so that when he hath thought, 'I will pray more reverently, and set myself to behold God when I speak to him, and watch more over my heart, that it fly not out and leave me:' possibly the first time he sets to it, thinking to be master of his intention, he finds himself more scattered, and disordered, and dead, than at any other time. When he hath conceived thoughts of humility and self-abasement, and thinks, 'Now I am down, and laid low within myself, to rise and look big no more;' yet some vain fancy creeps in anon, and encourages him, and raises him up to his old estate; so that in this plight, had he not higher strength to look at, he would sit down and give over all, as utterly hopeless of ever attaining to his journey’s end.

“But when he considers whose work that is within him, even these small beginnings of desires, he is encouraged by the greatness of the work, not to despise and despair of the small appearance of it in its beginning; not to despise the day of small things, Zech. iv. 10; and knowing that it is not by any power nor might, but by his Spirit, that it shall be accomplished, he lays held on that word, Job viii. 7, Though thy beginning be small, yet thy latter and shall greatly increase.” 

Robert Leighton, Commentary on 1 Peter 5:10

The Certainty of Heaven For The Elect

Heaven is the great hope of Christians. However, hope with no certainty is no hope at all. No matter how excellent heaven may be, if there is no certainty of getting there, belief in it is of but little comfort.  This is a look again at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are elect and have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, will undoubtedly be preserved by God and will certainly enter that blessed place. In the words of George Swinnock, “Know, to the joy of thine heart, that as heaven is a place of unspeakable excellency, so thy enjoyment of it, new-born creature, is of unquestionable certainty.”  (Works, Volume 3)

Rather than fight against such a truth, we should rather show our gratitude to God for condescending to our frail capacities and affirming this certainty to us again and again. In His compassion, God confirms to us the certainty of our entrance into heaven when we die.

1.    By explicit promise:

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Luke 12:32;

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. 2 Corinthians 1:20;

“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.” Joshua 23:14;

In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began... Titus 1:2;

We should also note the passages which also imply the certainty of the elect's obtaining heaven. This would include passages such as 1 Peter 1:3-5, which reads: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” What is the sense of God keeping our inheritance in heaven for us if there is no guarantee that we will get there to obtain it? That is why the passage also informs us that not only is our inheritance  kept safe for us in heaven, but we also are guarded by God's power.

2.    By a Divine oath:

As if it were not enough for God to simply promise something, He has also bound Himself to the fulfillment of this promise by making an oath to boot

For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable nature of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.  Hebrews 6:16-18

The two unchangeable things are God's promise and God's oath. By confirming His promise with an oath, God demonstrated that the promise was indeed His eternal purpose. It is the Father's  good pleasure to give us the kingdom. Not only has Christ explicitly promised us this, but God further confirmed it with an oath, as if there were any reason to doubt God's promise in the first place!

3.    By His seals:

The Old Testament form of the New Testament sacrament of baptism was circumcision. On this point all Reformed have always been agreed. Colossians 2:11-12 confirms this. What are sacraments, but signs and seals of God's covenant promises. So in reference to the sacrament of circumcision, Paul writes: “He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Romans 4:11

Without going into a long exegesis of this passage, helpful as that may be, it is enough to note that righteousness was imputed to Abraham and that God swore to bear the punishment of being “cut off” (which circumcision signified), if the covenant were violated. Christ was, of course, “cut off” for sin, in fulfillment of this promise, when He was crucified. But circumcision was more than simply a sign. It also served as a seal of God's promise to Abraham. And this is the significance for us of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Table. They not only signify to us the promise of God's forgiveness of our sins and His promise to forever be our God, they also seal these promises to us. The sacraments are God's promise to us, not our promise to God. To make the sacraments signify our promise to God is like saying that the rainbow is our promise to God not to drown.

Ephesians 4:30 informs us that the Holy Spirit seals us to the day of redemption. So we are assured that if the hand and seal of God does it, heaven is guaranteed to all that are sanctified. Moreover, all who God regenerates, He unquestionably intends to sanctify and ultimately glorify (Romans 8:30).

4.    By an earnest:

Not only has God sealed His promise to us in the sacraments, He has given us the Holy Spirit as an earnest, that is, a down payment, as a further guarantee of His promise to us of eternal life. When you make a down payment on a car or house, that is your promise and guarantee that you will not default on the transaction, but will faithfully and honestly pay it off completely. An earnest makes the transaction certain. Hence Scripture says: “And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Corinthians 1:22). The King James renders this last word “earnest” The Greek word means “deposit” or “down payment.” It serves as a guarantee that the whole payment will be made.

5.    By the first-fruits

In Romans 8:23, Paul call the gift of the Spirit to us a “first-fruits.” This is an allusion to the Old Testament feast of First-fruits. At the commencement of the harvest, the very first samples of the crops, ergo the cream of the crop, were given to God. This was done in gratitude to God and demonstrated as thankful certainty of the harvest. In similar fashion, the Spirit is given to us, switching the metaphor, as a first-fruit guaranteeing the promise harvest of eternal life in heaven.

6.    By the death of Christ:

Heaven is given to the elect by virtue of a testament, or will. So Christ prays in John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me before the foundation of the world.” Here we find Christ, upon completing His part of the Covenant of Redemption, claiming His right to the promised reward (Isaiah 53:10 – “He shall see His offspring”). No doubt there is a tip of the hat here as well to Psalm 2:8.

Further, we find Scripture telling us: “For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will take effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive” (Hebrews 9:16-17). Here we see that Christ's death not only atoned for our sins, but it also established the “will,” so to speak. Because Christ, who made the will, died, the inheritance is guaranteed.

Perseverance of the Saints 5

In our final (for the time being, anyway) look at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, we will prove it by looking at the immutability of the Covenant of Grace.

Again, we should define our terms. By Covenant of Grace, we mean that covenant which God made with Abraham, wherein God swore that He would be cut off for the sins of His people. This is what was signified when, in the ratification of the covenant, God passed through the severed carcasses of the animals in Genesis 15. The significance of this event can never be overestimated. By passing through the animal body parts, God was as much as saying that if His people violated His covenant, God would be “cut off” as payment for such sin. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a cutting off, as a seal of this promise.

God frequently mentions this covenant in Scripture, and whenever He does, the eternal nature and immutability of this covenant is always reiterated or implied. In the following passages I have underlined references to the eternal and immutable nature of the Covenant of grace in order to demonstrate what I have just stated.

“This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you. (Isaiah 54:9-10 ESV)

           

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:26-27 ESV)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33 ESV)

I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:40 ESV)

For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, (Hebrews 8:8 ESV)

All of the above passages refer to the Covenant of Grace. It is said to be an “everlasting” covenant which God Himself has established. He swears that that He will be our God and that this covenant will not be removed.

Although I have treated this subject over the course of five posts, it could easily be expanded into a treatment a hundred times larger. This is a subject that appears everywhere in Scripture.

No doubt, those who reject the Perseverance of the Saints do so for the supposedly noble intention of protecting God’s honor and emphasizing the need for holy living. But as we stated back in our first post, Perseverance of the Saints does not lend itself to antinomianism. The fact that my salvation cannot be lost should fill me with unspeakable gratitude to God for the magnitude of my deliverance for my manifold sins and miseries. Whenever we become legalistic or self-righteous it because we have forgotten how great our deliverance from sin is, or we have forgotten how great our sins and miseries are.

1 Corinthians 1:30 assures us that Christ is not only our redemption, but he is also our sanctification. The Arminian belief in a losable salvation is a denial of the connected nature of regeneration and sanctification. God regenerates no one He does not intend to glorify. Therefore, if God has regenerated a man, He will undoubtedly sanctify this man. To say that Perseverance of the Saints is a license to sin with impunity is anathema. In fact, Jude says the person who reasons in this manner does so because he is predestinated to perdition (Jude 4). Harsh words, perhaps, but nevertheless true.

To deny the Perseverance of the Saints is to affirm that God is not immutable, that His decrees are fallible, that Christ’s mediatorial work is insufficient and not satisfactory, that the Spirit’s seal is revocable, and that the Covenant of Grace can and in fact, does fail. These assertions all fall far outside the boundaries of the Christian faith.

Perseverance of the Saints 4

This time our line of reasoning derives from the Spirit’s work in the life of believers. In Christ’s promise to the disciples that He would send the Spirit, He specifically states that the Spirit would abide with them forever (John 14:16). This is surely a significant statement.

Paul assured the Ephesian believers that the Spirit in us is a guarantee that we will in actual fact attain our inheritance. Here is how he put it:      In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14 ESV) He further states that the Spirit is the seal of our redemption (Ephesians 4:30).

Those familiar with Old Testament history will know that throughout many times of Israel’s history there was very little true worship. At one point Elijah thought he was the only true worshiper of God left. Because the Spirit abides in God’s people, it is impossible that there should cease to be a “remnant.” In fact, Paul says as much: So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. (Romans 11:5 ESV)

In the very context of Election, Paul asserts that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29 ESV). This is an extremely profound statement. It means that once God has called someone to Himself and granted them the Holy Spirit, He will never revoke it. Bear in mind that election is not coextensive with covenant. Just because someone was in the covenant community of Israel, it was not an iron-clad guarantee that this person was also elect unto salvation. This is why Paul mentions the “remnant.” 

In short, the Spirit’s abiding work in the lives of believers is a proof of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. The Spirit abides eternally in those He has sealed. His work is irrevocable and permanent. Therefore those who are sealed cannot apostatize and will most certainly be saved.

Perseverance of the Saints 3

Today, we return to our subject of the Perseverance of the Saints. But this time we will prove our point from the efficacy or virtue of Christ’s work as Mediator, which is comprised of three parts: His satisfaction for our sin, His intercession for His elect, and His preservation of those for whom He has made satisfaction.

Let us first consider Christ’s mediatorial work of satisfaction. When Christ cried out “Τετέλεσται,” (It is finished), He declared that He had both fulfilled God’s law perfectly and had fully borne in His body God’s infinite wrath against sin. Nothing more remains to be done about sin. All the sins of God’s elect have been atoned for and Christ’s perfectly obedient righteousness is imputed to them. To say that future sins can cause one to lose his salvation is tantamount to saying: (a) Christ did not make full atonement for the sins of the elect; (b) Men can commit sins that God was not aware of when Christ died; (c) Christ’s death for sin only counts against the specific sins which the sinner must acknowledge individually.

When God raised Christ from the dead He was vindicating Christ’s perfect righteousness and acceptable sacrifice of Himself as a complete satisfaction for sin. If there were even one sin left to be atoned for, Christ would not have offered a complete satisfaction for sin. Hence His resurrection from the dead assures the Perseverance of the Saints. If one of the elect could actually perish if would have to be because of sin. No one perishes for any other reason than sin. This would mean that Christ would not have died as an atonement for all of that person’s sins.

Let’s look at a few relevant Scriptures:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7 ESV)

Notice that John claims we are cleansed from ALL sin.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10 ESV)

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Colossians 2:10 ESV)

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV)

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14 ESV)

The second part of Christ’s mediatorial work is His intercession for those for whom He has made atonement. Here again we have an unbreakable chain. For one of God’s elect to actually perish it would require either Christ not making a full satisfaction for sin (which we have already refuted) or worse yet, having made a satisfaction, He cannot make effectual intercession for them. In other words, Christ can pray to the Father and have His prayer denied. If this is not blasphemy, nothing is.

When Christ stood at Lazarus’ graveside, He thanked the Father for hearing Him, and with the utmost confidence affirmed that He knew that the Father always hears Him (John 11:41, 42). Let that sink in. Christ intercedes only for those for whom He has made atonement. If one for whom He intercedes can finally fall away and perish, then Christ can intercede in vain, i.e., the Father does not always hear Him. This is not rocket science. In His high-priestly prayer in John 17, Christ explicitly states that He prays only for those whom the Father has given Him.

We present several relevant passages:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1 ESV)

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

(Psalm 2:8 ESV)

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

(John 17:11 ESV)

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

(John 17:24 ESV)

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

(Hebrews 7:25 ESV)

Finally, let’s look at Christ’s mediatorial work of preserving those for whom He made satisfaction and for whom He intercedes. For one of His elect sheep to finally fall away and perish, would mean that Christ is impotent to protect and preserve His own. Can anyone say that?

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:27-29 ESV)

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39 ESV)

Perseverance of the Saints 2

A couple of days ago, we looked at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints as demonstrated in two beautiful passages. Today we will approach the subject from another angle: the immutability of Election

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11 ESV)

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:30 ESV)

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, (Hebrews 6:17 ESV)

But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:19 ESV)

“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6 ESV)

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17 ESV)

For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27 ESV)

These verses need very little explanation for our present purpose. Election is an eternal decree. Because it was done by God, who never changes, it is an immutable decree. To suppose election to be mutable is to make God less than an idol. The only possible reason election could be mutable is if God could be mistaken. Since this is a blasphemous assumption, we can rule it out.

This is also why election cannot be along the lines of the cart-before-the-horse Arminian version of election based on foreseen faith. This travesty of reason makes the actions of a finite being the cause of the knowledge of the infinite God. Stupidity!

Here’s the gist of the argument: God has chosen a certain number of people to salvation. This choice was made without any reference to works, good or bad. This is an eternal and immutable decree because God is not a man that he should change His mind, either by miscalculation or false assumptions. He is sovereign over all things – and that says everything. If God has immutably elected someone to salvation, then there is no way in heaven or on earth that this person can fail to be saved. If he could, God would be either mutable or less than perfect and almighty. Case closed.

Perseverance of the Saints 1

We are going to look at the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. First of we, we should define our terms. Perseverance of the Saints is not equal to the once-saved-always-saved (OSAS) doctrine held in certain evangelical circles. The latter lends itself to antinomian, that is, lawless behavior. The former does not. Let me explain. Both teach the impossibility of one’s salvation being lost, but the emphases are different. OSAS is easily perverted into a license for sin because the basic assumption underlying it is this: No matter what I do, I am and always will be saved. Once I have accepted Christ, that’s it. My salvation does not hinge on my actions, thus they don’t matter. So OSAS seems to frequently look at ‘me’ and discount my life altogether. Perseverance of the Saints, on the other hand, strives to emphasize God’s preserving power over the salvation of His elect. Perseverance of the Saints also strives to emphasize the doctrine of sanctification. God does not save anyone He does not intend to sanctify. Therefore with the Reformed presentation of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints there is no question of antinomianism. We believe that behavior matters, but we also believe that God sovereignly brings trials into our lives to mold our character. Hence what matters is that our character is being molded into the image of His Son. Salvation depends on what Christ has done, not on what we do.

Having said that, let’s look at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. We will assess it from five different angles.

The first line of reasoning or form of argumentation for the Perseverance of the Saints is the express teaching of scripture. Although we will present numerous passages demonstrating this doctrine, we will first look at two main foundational passages.

I. The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when he delights in his way; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the LORD upholds his hand. Psalm 37:24

This Scripture speaks of a righteous man both walking and falling. The only presumable reason God casts anyone away is because of sin. Yet this verse explicitly tells of a man who God does not cast away because of his sins.

Much that passes for Christian teaching overlooks the basic underpinning of this passage of Scripture. Salvation from sin and regeneration do not guarantee a life of sinless perfection. This is not to say that we do not strive against sin. But we are not to expect sinless perfection in this life. God does not expect it either. He did not save us because of our moral uprightness. Many Christians profess to believe that salvation is by grace, that is the initial accepting of Christ and repentance of sins, but after that, you’re on your own. Salvation is not earned by works, they will profess. But they live as if they believed that salvation is maintained by works.

A second relevant passage is:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35, 38-39

I have heard raving Arminians claim that this passage does not say the word “sin,” hence this is not a statement proving the Perseverance of the Saints. Of course, this is idiotic exegesis. The point of the passage is that there is NOTHING anyone can possibly imagine that can separate God’s people from his chesed love. Either sin is a thing or it does not exist. If it is a thing, then it cannot separate us from God’s love.

Moreover, Arminians always fail to take into account the extent of the atonement. I know that sounds like a crazy thing to say since they are the purveyors of the so-called universal atonement. But what I mean is this: Christ’s death paid for all of the sins of the elect. If all my sins: past, present and future are covered by the death of Christ, then of course my sins cannot separate me from the love of God!

Often an appeal is made to Matthew 24:24 as if this verse undermines the clear-cut teaching of the whole of Scripture. What is obvious to any impartial reader is this: It is impossible for the elect to be deceived or led away. To read it any other way is to contravene the gist of the passage.

More Four Point Foolishness

Yesterday we looked at the faulty theology of 4-point Calvinism. Today I thought we might look at an even more bizarre theology: 4-point Arminianism.

Historically, Arminianism has always been a five point system as well, each point in direct opposition to Calvinism. It doesn't take much reflection to see why this must necessarily be so. If you deny Unconditional Election, for instance, you have no choice but to deny Irresistible Grace. All five points either stand together, or fall together in both systems.

Despite this rather obvious fact, a strange breed of Arminians exists (over and above the strangeness of Arminianism to begin with) which holds to the first four tenets of the Remonstrants, yet, in common with Calvinists, believe that salvation cannot be lost (what is traditionally called Perseverance of the Saint - the P in TULIP).

Try as I might, I cannot wrap my mind around this concept. No one is elect to salvation, free-will is all-powerful in making the decision to be regenerated, YET (and this is a humongous yet) once salvation is attained it cannot be lost. Pray tell by what line of reasoning does this make any sense at all? The lynch pin of Arminianism is its inflated (read: idolatrous) view of free-will. Yet it would appear that these folk slit the throat of their free-will once they get saved, since it can no longer stray from grace. How come the freedom or ability to fall from grace disappears once one has received salvation? Frankly, transubstantiation make more sense to me that this!

Logically consistent Arminians have always believed that salvation can be lost. The same free-will that decides to be saved can decide to walk away from salvation or sin away grace. This at least makes sense, even though it is thoroughly unscriptural.

P is for Perseverance

Perseverance of the Saints is not equivalent with "once saved always saved." This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. Perseverance of the Saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin have not been changed and saved by grace; they are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation.

The misrepresentation of the glorious truth of this doctrine that parades under the name “once saved, always saved” is more harmful to the cause of this truth than all the Arminian objections combined. The truth Scripture asserts and we proclaim is that a person who is unconditionally elected from all eternity is chosen to be “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Perseverance of the saints is not inconsistent with the truth that the believer may nevertheless fall into grievous sin and continue therein for some time. However, it does affirm that though the saint may fall, God will not forsake him and according to the promise of God’s Word, death will not take him before he has been recovered from his lapsed state. “Once saved, always saved” implies that a man may sin with impunity so long as he has accepted Christ as his Savior and he will still go to heaven when he dies. We reject this perverse caricature. The hypothetical “Christian” who accepts the Lord as Savior and then proceeds to live a life of sin based on the assurance that once he is saved, he can never sin away his salvation, is no Christian at all. We would deny the very existence of such a person. Scripture categorically denies that those who willfully persist in sin were ever elected in the first place because we are elected through sanctification unto obedience. In his frequent debates with the Arminian Wesley brothers, George Whitefield said, “I cannot think that they are clear in the notion of Christ’s righteousness, who deny the final perseverance of the saints; I fear they understand justification in that low sense…as implying no more than remission of sins.”

I have sat in on and participated in many discussions and debates on this subject. Every Arminian objection to the doctrine of Perseverance I have ever heard sounded as if it carried a latent umbrage at the notion that the objector should be placed on the same footing as some “backslider.”

The Parable of the Hired Workers in Matthew 20:1-16 perfectly illustrates, in my mind, the feelings that Arminians have toward the doctrine of Perseverance. The whole gist of the Parable is the unreasonableness of the resentment of the workers who put in longer hours. Their “faithful service” would never have happened had the landowner not called and chosen them to work in the first place. They did not apply for the job. Their long hours in the hot sun did not entitle them to look down on the workers who came on board later in the day.

It appears to me, from my experience with Arminian objections, that there is more than a little resentment displayed toward the hypothetical backsliders or lapsed brethren. Both this parable and that of the Prodigal Son address this feeling of resentment. The unspoken sentiment is, “Why should he/she get the same reward of eternal life after being backslidden for many years while I have always been faithful?” In others words, “These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.” Or, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”

St. Jude’s benediction becomes a malediction on the Arminian scheme. Jude is taunting us with an illusory and ephemeral assurance if he means that God is able to keep us from falling, but He won’t and our steadfast faithfulness “to the end” is entirely in our hands.

Jesus said, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” There can hardly be any plainer statement. Yet the Arminians would like to suggest imaginary “Christians” who leap from Christ’s hand! First of all, is the individual in question covered by the words “any man” or not? If he is, then even he cannot remove himself from Christ’s hand. If he is not, then no one can ever have the assurance of salvation that Scripture promises. Secondly, what kind of “Christian” makes this hypothetical experiment to see whether or not he really can remove himself from Christ’s hand? The notion is simply asinine. This is like a pardoned death-row inmate trying to see whether he can still get executed! Foolishness! It reminds one of the Sadducees’ imaginary woman who was married to seven brothers. The theory is a straw man and the question is simply a trick question, invented purely for the purpose of attacking the opposing view.

It is a noble and praiseworthy sentiment that wants to see holiness in the lives of professing Christians, but it is a selfish sentiment that would bar from grace those who fail to meet one’s own external standard. The ultimate Arbiter is God and it is true that “without holiness no one will see God,” nonetheless the true measure of a man’s sanctification is only known to God, for we cannot see the internal condition of anyone’s heart.

Incidentally, here is one of the most notable contradictions and inconsistencies in the Arminian system. First, they complain against Limited Atonement and would fling open the gates of Heaven to every single creature, then they complain against Perseverance and lock Heaven’s gates against everyone who doesn’t attain to perfection.

Covenant is Not Co-extensive With Election

Two factors have helped me come to, what I believe is a simple, yet thorough resolution to the troubling issue of apostasy in the book of Hebrews. They are (1) a consideration of the fuller context, more specifically, the occasional context of the book and (2) the doctrine of the Covenant.

A simple point to get is that the whole context of the book of Hebrews deals with the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament economy. The book was written, as its title suggests, to Hebrews – Jews, who might be tempted to return to the worship system of the Old Testament. I think all scholars are in agreement about this. This is the “occasional context,” as I called it; that is, the problem or occasion that prompted the writing of the Epistle. Hence the author goes to great lengths to constantly remind us that, despite all the glory of the Old Testament period and its ordinances, Christ is greater. Secondarily, we are informed of the abrogation of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system by Christ’s sacrifice.

Therefore if a person were wont to turn away from Christ to return to the sacrificial system of Old Testament worship, he would be going to something that had been completely evacuated of any meaning or efficacy. If one rejects the sacrifice of Christ, “there remains no other sacrifice for sin.” Not only so, but he would be denying the value of Christ’s sacrificial death. First of all, the Old Testament sacrifices were all forward-looking to the ultimate sacrifice Christ made for sin. Secondly, continuing in the practice of those sacrifices implies that atonement for sin has not yet been paid – hence it is a denial of Christ as our Surety.

As I said earlier, the doctrine of the Covenant provides a framework or paradigm which completely obliterates all difficulty in handling this passage. The key to understanding it is this: God’s covenant people are not co-extensive with the elect.

Let me elucidate that a bit. All of Israel was God’s covenant people. However, not every single Israelite was among the number of God’s elect to salvation. Every Israelite did experience certain blessings as a part of the larger community of God’s people, but not every Israelite experienced the spiritual blessing of God’s regenerating work in his heart. Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6b) Every Jew was circumcised and offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Law. Every Jew experienced the blessing of God’s protection of the nation from invading armies, etc. But not every Jew was a child of Abraham by faith in the Promised Seed.

When we come to the New Testament, things are no different. We all willingly acknowledge that church membership is not co-extensive with salvation. Just because a person is a member of God’s covenant people (the Church), this does not automatically mean that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, like the unregenerate Jew, he may partake of many things which are blessings to his life. But these are not necessarily the spiritual blessing of new birth.

Applied to the “apostasy passages” of Hebrews, the difficulty is removed by noting that the writer is telling us that (1) the Old Testament sacrifices are forever done away with by Christ’s all-sufficient death. Hence a return to them would be foolish, because there no longer is any efficacy in them – not that there ever was efficacy in the actual sacrifice of a bull or lamb. The efficacy was in the forward-looking faith towards the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundation of the world. If you don’t acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice for sin, that’s tough luck for you because there is no other sacrifice out there. The Old Testament ones have been abrogated. (2) Membership in the Christian Church is not co-extensive with membership in God’s elect. Therefore a person can attend at Christian worship and receive many blessings thereby and still perish, not because he lost his salvation, but because he was never among the elect in the first place.

This is why after the warnings given in chapter 6, the writer concludes by saying, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” (v 9). Understood any other way, this passage is impenetrable, I think, because we would seem to lest with a scenario wherein the writer warns about the possible of losing one’s salvation by apostatizing from the faith, then concludes his warnings by saying that salvation cannot be lost. Hence I feel confident that the doctrine of the Covenant is the only way to navigate this passage.

Covenant isn't Co-extensive with Election

Two factors have helped me come to, what I believe is a simple, yet thorough resolution to the troubling issue of apostasy in the book of Hebrews. They are (1) a consideration of the fuller context, more specifically, the occasional context of the book and (2) the doctrine of the Covenant.

A simple point to get is that the whole context of the book of Hebrews deals with the superiority of Christ over the Old Testament economy. The book was written, as its title suggests, to Hebrews – Jews, who might be tempted to return to the worship system of the Old Testament. I think all scholars are in agreement about this. This is the “occasional context,” as I called it; that is, the problem or occasion that prompted the writing of the Epistle. Hence the author goes to great lengths to constantly remind us that, despite all the glory of the Old Testament period and its ordinances, Christ is greater. Secondarily, we are informed of the abrogation of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system by Christ’s sacrifice.

Therefore if a person were wont to turn away from Christ to return to the sacrificial system of Old Testament worship, he would be going to something that had been completely evacuated of any meaning or efficacy. If one rejects the sacrifice of Christ, “there remains no other sacrifice for sin.” Not only so, but he would be denying the value of Christ’s sacrificial death. First of all, the Old Testament sacrifices were all forward-looking to the ultimate sacrifice Christ made for sin. Secondly, continuing in the practice of those sacrifices implies that atonement for sin has not yet been paid – hence it is a denial of Christ as our Surety.

As I said earlier, the doctrine of the Covenant provides a framework or paradigm which completely obliterates all difficulty in handling this passage. The key to understanding it is this: God’s covenant people are not co-extensive with the elect.

Let me elucidate that a bit. All of Israel was God’s covenant people. However, not every single Israelite was among the number of God’s elect to salvation. Every Israelite did experience certain blessings as a part of the larger community of God’s people, but not every Israelite experienced the spiritual blessing of God’s regenerating work in his heart. Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6b) Every Jew was circumcised and offered the sacrifices prescribed by the Law. Every Jew experienced the blessing of God’s protection of the nation from invading armies, etc. But not every Jew was a child of Abraham by faith in the Promised Seed.

When we come to the New Testament, things are no different. We all willingly acknowledge that church membership is not co-extensive with salvation. Just because a person is a member of God’s covenant people (the Church), this does not automatically mean that he is a member of the elect. Therefore, like the unregenerate Jew, he may partake of many things which are blessings to his life. But these are not necessarily the spiritual blessing of new birth.

Applied to the “apostasy passages” of Hebrews, the difficulty is removed by noting that the writer is telling us that (1) the Old Testament sacrifices are forever done away with by Christ’s all-sufficient death. Hence a return to them would be foolish, because there no longer is any efficacy in them – not that there ever was efficacy in the actual sacrifice of a bull or lamb. The efficacy was in the forward-looking faith towards the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundation of the world. If you don’t acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice for sin, that’s tough luck for you because there is no other sacrifice out there. The Old Testament ones have been abrogated. (2) Membership in the Christian Church is not co-extensive with membership in God’s elect. Therefore a person can attend at Christian worship and receive many blessings thereby and still perish, not because he lost his salvation, but because he was never among the elect in the first place.

This is why after the warnings given in chapter 6, the writer concludes by saying, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” (v 9). Understood any other way, this passage is impenetrable, I think, because we would seem to lest with a scenario wherein the writer warns about the possible of losing one’s salvation by apostatizing from the faith, then concludes his warnings by saying that salvation cannot be lost. Hence I feel confident that the doctrine of the Covenant is the only way to navigate this passage.

Thoughts on Romans 6:1,2

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1, 2 (KJV)

Defining our terms, it's easy to see that "continue in sin" = still live in it.

If Paul’s doctrine had been that salvation depends in any degree upon our good works, no such objection to it could have been made. We know from Romans 3:8 that it was brought against the apostles. We can also gather from Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16 and Jude 4 that some gave occasion to the charge. But it is a total perversion of the doctrine of Grace. That is what the apostle here proceeds to show. Chapter 1 establishes the sinfulness of the Gentiles. Chapter 2 describes the sinfulness of the Jews. Chapter 3 sums up this line of reasoning, and shows that only by free grace and justification by faith does the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ come. Chapter 4 portrays Abraham as proof of this doctrine. Chapter 5 demonstrates the blessings that flow from it. Then Chapter 6 takes on this error.

Continuing to live in sin once one has died to it is no more logical than to try to live in a house after you’ve sold it. A death row inmate set free, but who refused to leave his cell, would still be legally free even if he didn’t walk in it experientially. His not leaving the cell would not argue against his freedom, but against his understanding of Freedom. This is the situation of one who is saved but continues in sin. His freedom is not lost or retracted, but for practical purposes, it might as well have not been granted.

This would, in fact, never happen in the real world. Its opposite, however, is the actual state of every unregenerate man. Adam alone would have retained memory of his former state of Original Righteousness; the rest of us have been born in prison. Our natural enmity toward God causes us to deceive ourselves into imagining we are free when, in fact, we are in bondage. It is a billion times easier psychologically to convince yourself that you are free when you are not (sort of a moral “Stockholm Syndrome”), than to convince yourself that you are bound when you are actually free. There is nothing to motivate that delusion.

So to get caught up on the question of whether salvation can be lost or not (although one side is definitely correct), is to miss the whole point of this passage. The hypothetical “Christian” who accepts the Lord as Savior and then proceeds to continue in his same life of sin based on the assurance that once he is saved, he can never sin away his salvation, is no Christian at all. We would deny the very existence of such a person. Scripture categorically denies that those who willfully persist in sin were ever elected in the first place because we are elected through sanctification unto obedience. This is “putting God to the test,” and no Christian would ever do this! What kind of “Christian” makes this hypothetical experiment to see whether or not he really can remove himself from Christ’s hand? The notion is simply asinine. This is like a pardoned death-row inmate trying to see whether he can still get executed!

“Therefore it is a desperate adventure to try conclusions, to drink rank poison to experiment the goodness of an antidote, or to wound ourselves mortally to try the virtue of a plaster.” Thomas Manton

This false conclusion overlooks the following:
1. the fact that a Christian has a renewed nature;
2. that justification is more than just forgiveness of sins;
3. the difference between a lapse in Christian character and living in sin; and
4. the fact that justification by its very nature leads on to sanctification.


1. A Christian has a renewed nature.

The Christian life itself begins with death to the old life. It is when we are made partakers of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Moreover, the Christian life works from the inside out.

2. Justification is more than mere forgiveness of sins. This is the mistake Whitefield pointed out in Wesley’s theology. Justification is a change of status before God: from “in sin” to “in Christ.” We are translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ. Hence it is a change wrought in us by God whereby we are changed from in sin to in Him. It may even be considered a change of citizenship (Colossians 1:13).

Furthermore, justification, when God imputes Christ’s righteous to us, has a built-in principle of righteousness (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

3. There is a difference between a lapse in Christian character and living in sin.

It would be false to assert that a Christian will never lapse (David, Peter, etc.). However, equating a lapse in Christian character with an ongoing living in sin will always result in an absolute lack of assurance of salvation. We all know people who fear God will strike them dead with a lightning bolt every time they mess up. I have seen men who have been elders and deacons for decades respond to every altar the pastor gives! How can a man be of any service to Christ’s kingdom when he isn’t even sure if he’s in it?

It dishonors God when we cower in fear when we sin rather than coming boldly before the throne of grace. Christ commanded us to forgive 70x7 a day! Can we expect less of Him than He commands of us? It should be obvious that I am not advocating sin with impunity. That is precisely what Paul's foolish opponents accused Him of teaching. There is a difference between a cowering, servile fear of God that runs and hides from His presence and a healthy, sanctifying fear of God that is confident in the merits of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

4. Justification by its very nature leads to Sanctification.

The whole point of the New Covenant is to ensure holiness (Jer. 31:31-33). Where the Law lacked the power to work holiness in us, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit brings us by degrees into a progessively closer walk with God. Morever, God only justifies those whom He intends to sanctify (Rom. 8:29, 30). Any Reformed writer worthy of the name has pointed this out.

The order is “justified by faith,” not “justified by sanctification.” The later error gives birth to the objection Paul refutes in this passage! Sanctification is built on the foundation of justification: not the other way around.