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.

ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CHRISTIANS, YET NOT A SAINT? A LOOK AT TERTULLIAN

 

When I first read Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction, I was able to describe nine of the twelve church leaders with one sentence... or less! (There were three I knew nothing about.) Two of the three were men I consider heroes of the faith, and the third was Augustine. 

In a previous installment, I mentioned doing a term paper on six early church movements, and Tertullian had connection with two of them - a positive connection with Montanism (some believe he joined the group, others thought he just accepted them), and an advesarial relationship with Marcionism. 

As my title stated, Tertullian was not canonized as a saint - more about this later. Regardless of that, he is an important figure in church history. Pope Benedict XVI lists this non-saint in his book on church fathers. While Irenaeus was the first to mention a collection of Christian Scripture, Tertullian was the first use the term "New Testament." Another term he was the first to use is "Trinity" relating to the relationship of the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (he was also the first Church Father to write primarily in Latin). You may have heard Tertullian's question "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem" and more likely to be familiar with the line "The blood of Christians is seed" (more commonly rephrased as "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church").

In this series I've mentioned the seven letters of Ignatius, the three writings of Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus' two classics. Tertullian's bibliography consists of more than twice the listings of the other trio combined - a total of thirty one in the original Latin.  His biggest is a five volume set titled Against Marcionism.

Who is Marcion? He was a wealthy shipmaker, and had enough money to spread his heretical doctrine. Marcion is included in lists of Gnostic teachers because his theology is similar (especially in a non-physical Jesus who came to forgive sins but didn't pay for them on the cross). However, most Gnostics used their own writings as well as Scripture. 100% of Marcion's Bible is contained in our Bible.

Marcion was the first to give a canon of New Testament books, which consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's letters (excluding the Pastoral Epistles). He believed there were two different gods - the Creator who the Jews worshipped, and the true God who sent Jesus. Thus, Marcion rejected the Old Testament and anything "corrupted" with Jewish thought in our New Testament.

One reason I'm a Tertullian fan is because of how he dealt with Marcion. Two of the five books against Marcion refuted the shipmaker's teachings from Scripture - Volume 3 using Marcion's edited version of Luke, and the next one using Paul's letters. In other words, even Marcion's limited Scripture was enough to disprove him.

When I did my term paper, Tertullian was considered to have joined the Montanists. His version differed from the movement's founder Montanus version, and the authors I read gave three possible reasons: 1) Montantism mellowed between Montanus' time and Tertullian's; 2) North African Montanism which influenced Tertullian was more orthodox than the Middle Eastern Montanism of Montanus; and what I consider the most likely theory, 3) Montanus was Montanus and Tertullian was Tertullian.

If Tertullian was a conservationist, he'd probably be another Crocodile Hunter. Then, maybe you might call him the Rush Limbaugh of Church Fathers. Tertullian could be very harsh and legalistic. He wrote a list of what women could and could not wear, for example.  His crusty personality may be why he wasn't canonized as a saint. Of course, if you use the NT definition of saints as being all of Christ's followers, then Tertullian would definitely be a saint.

One last comment. In dealing with heretical movements, Tertullian said they had no authority to use Scripture. Scripture belongs to the church, and it is ours to use, not those who twist it.

Do you have any heroes of the faith that, while orthodox, can be controversial?

 

A GAME CHANGER IN CHRISTIANITY - A LOOK AT IRENAEUS OF LYONS

 

In case you've lost track in counting, this is part four of a beginning of the year series looking at the church fathers, using Getting to Know the Church Fathers: an Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin as a guide. 

One thing we often forget is that we didn't always have hundreds of Bible translations or a clear cut guide on what Christians believed. With the combination of persecution from the outside and false teaching on the inside, we can see the need for a catholic (small 'c', representing the universal church), as well as people defending against false teaching.

A primary form of false teaching was Gnosticism. In college, I wrote a 30 page term paper looking at six early church movements: Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanists, Novatianists, and Donatists. The Gnostics took up half the paper.

Gnosticism has always been a threat to Christianity. The books of Colossians and 1 John in particular dealt with early Gnosticism. Additionally, the Gnostic emphasis on knowledge shows up in two different ways: 

1. False sects that rehash old Gnostic theology (not to mention groups that call themselves Gnostic), and 
2. Individuals and groups that are orthodox theologically but have the same Spiritual elitism that was in Gnosticism.

What are some beliefs of Gnostics? They divide people into three groups - 1) the pagans who lack knowledge; 2) those with some knowledge who will save themselves by doing good; and 3) the Gnostics, who have a complete understanding and thus are free to do whatever they want. You may remember my mentioning the belief of Docetism (denying the humanity of Jesus Christ) in an earlier blog - Gnostices were Docetists. They believed that matter is evil and the spiritual is the true reality. Unlike historical Christianity, the God of Gnosticism is not the Creator of the world; the earth was made by a false god. 

If you compare Gnostic teachings with evangelical beliefs, you'll see it wasn't merely a competing form of Christianity, as we consider denominations to be. Rather, it is a different religion with differing views on creation, sin, the reason for Jesus to come (to be a wise teacher as opposed to the once-for-all sacrifice for sin). They also had their own writings contained in the Nag Hamadi library, the best known being the Gospel of Thomas. This book differs from the four canonical Gospels - the Gospel of Thomas was not a telling of the life of Christ but a collection of 114 sayings attributed to him, ending with one where Peter questioned Jesus allowing Mary Magdalene to be with them since she was a woman, and Jesus replied that He was making her male. (And you think today's Christianity is misogynist?)

This was the time of Irenaeus (pronounced Eer-eh-nay-us; I still struggle to pronounce his name correctly). He was born in the Middle East and then became bishop in what is now called Lyons. When he was young, he sat under Polycarp. Scholars consider him to have good relationship with the Bishop in Rome, and encouraged the Bishop not to ex-communicate the Asia Minor church over a disagreement on the dating of Easter, pointing out that while a previous Bishop of Rome and Polycarp had disagreements, the Bishop invited Polycarp to officiate the eucharist. Other than that, we don't know of the details of his life, including whether he died a martyr or not.

We best know Irenaeus not from historians but a pair of his writings. The better know is known under the title Against Heresies, and until the mid-20th century description of the Nag Hamadi Library it was the primary source on Gnosticism. In Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, Alisa Childers mentioned reading Against Heresies as a step of strengthening her faith after it was challenged.

One modern day fable is that our current Bible won out over the Gnostic views due to the politics of the day. But Irenaeus' defense against Gnosticism was 0% politics and 100% doctrinal.

 Irenaeus felt there were three defenses against error:  the Church, the Scriptures (Irenaeus was the first two see a second, Christian, collection of Scripture we now refer to as the New Testament), and the Creeds. He refers to a Rule of Faith, which was a predecessor to the Apostles Creed.

 When it comes to the balance between truth and love, many Christians prioritize one over the other. Irenaeus did a great job of dealing with both truth and love, of promoting unity among the Church while fighting against false teachings.

Do you tend to favor either truth or love above the other virtue? What are you doing to promote unity in your church? Likewise, what are you doing to protect yourself, your family, and other believers from error?