SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - IS GOD BOTH WILLING AND ABLE TO KEEP US SAVED? (PART 5)

 

The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich

In the previous installment, I mentioned the book Four Views on Eternal Security, and that the four authors are identified as "Classical Calvinist," "Moderate Calvinist," "Reformed Arminian," and "Wesleyan Arminian." So I ask you: is "eternal security" (aka "OSAS" or  "Once Saved Always Saved") an expansion on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate?

I say no. Why?

1. There is a difference between what is referred to as OSAS and the Calvinist belief of Perseverance of the Saints. The latter is the saints will persevere. I heard one person state that early Calvinists believed the elect could not lose their salvation, that the elect would live godly lives, and that no one - even yourself - can know if you're part of the elect. Thus, they lived good lives in hope of being saved. 
2. On the other side, Dave Hunt wondered if Jacobus Arminius could have believed in eternal security. In his book Arminian Theology: Realities and Myths, author Roger Olsen stated that the early Arminians did not have an official statement on security; thus, you can be Arminian and also eternal security (Hunt was an example).
3. Views on eternal security/losing your salvation, like most other views, are not simply A or B. Again, the book I referred to dealt with four views. Before I read it, I thought there was a nice line starting with Classical Calvinism and ending with Wesleyan Arminianism. By the way, there are subjects where the views form a nice line (e.g. Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Whether Supernatural Gifts Exist Today). 

In the above book, author Norm Geisler painted the line with three points - Strong Calvinists, Moderate Calvinists like himself, and Arminians. I read a book by Ron Rhodes that made the same division. I find this view problematic because 1) it shows a bias toward Calvinism, even though in the above book Reformed Arminian Stephen Ashby refers to Geisler as a 1 point Calvinist and Classical Calvinist Michael Horton called him a 0 point Calvinist. 

One major difference between Arminians is what causes someone to lose their salvation if they could. Some would say you can sin your way out of the Kingdom, requiring you to regain your salvation and hopefully not lose it. Others state that they are given free will to believe and be saved and maintain that free will so they can choose to walk away from the salvation. Though most of my life was influenced by those who believe in eternal security, I went through a period of time I was more like this latter Arminian view.

Did someone ask that I'm hinting that I returned to being an eternal security advocate? Well, I'm not sure it was a hint, but yes, I'm back in believing in eternal security. Why? Because I believe that's what the Bible teaches. Let me look at three verses:

• 2 Corinthians 5:17. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, all things have become new." I heard this view from Bob George, and I think he's onto something. Opponents of eternal security come across as thinking we need the possibility of losing our salvation to keep us in line. No, we've been changed. All things have become new, as this verse says, and that includes our desires.
• John 10:27-28. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me; and I give to them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." One of the first verses I memorized, my favorite verses, as well as a strong verse on us not losing our salvation. First, this verse says we belong to Christ. Second, it says those who are His sheep WILL follow Him. Third, we're given eternal life and shall never perish (contrary to being able to lose that life and perish). Finally, in response to the view that we can crawl out of His hand, it's hard to do that when you're following Him."
• Galatians 5:4. "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Anti-eternal securityists talk about "falling from grace" as "losing your salvation." But is that what it means in this verse? No, falling from grace is seeking works (or law) to save us. How about other times that phrase is used in Scripture? Unfortunately for that theory, there isn't any.

Not just because I held that view, but I see a difference between those who say we can renounce our faith and those who think we can lose our salvation due to sin. One friend of mine asks how much sin causes us to lose our salvation, and not getting an answer backed by Scripture. I asked another person whose tag-line was "OSAS is wrong" if you could lose your salvation by pride or worrying or judging others; he said no, and that if it did, no one can be saved.

As I mentioned in the title, I believe that God is willing to keep us saved (2 Peter 3:9; see also Ezek. 18:32) and able to keep us saved (Jude 24); if both are true, eternal security is the rational conclusion. 

Of course, opponents of OSAS have the example of people claiming that since they're saved they can live however they want, which is unbiblical and more Gnostic than Christian. I don't fault them for opposing this. However, in my case, I sometimes think that I'm not worthy of being saved; for me, eternal security is not license but much needed hope. In other words, I need to trust Christ to save me, not my feeble finite flawed efforts.