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.

BOOK REVIEW - "BATMAN: ONE BAD DAY - THE RIDDLER #1," WRITTEN BY TOM KING, ILLUSTRATED BY MITCH GERADS

 Which is the first Batman villain you remember? For me, it was the Riddler. Frank Gorshin played Batman's opponent in the first two episodes of the '60's TV series and was in 8 of the 34 episodes of season 1 (the Joker and the Penguin had a half dozen each in that first season, and the Catwoman only appeared in two). My all time favorite villain was Gorshin's Riddler (I was disappointed with John Astin's take on the role in the second season). I will admit that I am not a Jim Carrey fan, but I enjoyed his portrayal in Batman Forever. That being said, I had NEVER seen him in the limited comic book viewing I've done.

Needless to say, we're not in the '60's anymore, and "Batman: One Bad Day - The Riddler" is proof of that. I would grade this story with a D: Dark, Depressing, Disgusting, Deplorable, Disconcerting, Disappointing. The story is interesting, and gives some of Edward Nygma's back story, but it left me torn between being sympathetic to the abuse he faced as a boy and utterly despising a totally evil character.

If this is what modern Batman is like, I'd rather stay with the past.

BOOK REVIEW - "COUNTERFEIT KINGDOM: THE DANGERS OF NEW REVELATION, NEW PROPHETS, AND NEW AGE PRACTICES IN THE CHURCH" BY HOLLY PIVEC & R. DOUGLAS GEIVETT

"Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church" by Holly Pivec and R. Douglas Geivett is a well written expose of the New Apostolic Reformation (aka NAR). 

You may be uncomfortable with the type of books because of it taking a negative view. I hear you - I don't enjoy books like this. But is it needed? The authors make a good case why. Additionally, in "Chapter 2: Who Are the New Apostles and Prophets," it includes a short auto-bio of the authors, stating why they have concerns about this movement.

Some might take this book as presenting a cessationist view (i.e. that gifts like prophecy and tongues have ceased). However, the authors clearly state that this is not the case, and point out that many Pentecostals and Charismatics are worried about the NAR. 

Two chapters caught my attention. "Chapter 7: The Passionately Wrong 'Bible,'" the authors look at how the recent Passion Bible contain NAR teachings. I was in a Sunday School class where we shared different translations, and at times I brought three translations including the Passion Bible, and the teacher referred to it as "The Hollywood Bible" because of how it read. 

As a songwriter and music lover, I also paid attention to "Chapter 8: Toxic Worship Music." The author point out that a major producer of today's worship music is via a prominent NAR church. Their concerns are that NAR ideas show up in the song, as well as the music creating an interest in the church. Other chapters that would be of interest are "Chapter 10: Deception-Proofing Your Children" and "Conclusion: Joining the Resistance."

Are the authors on target? I would advice reading this with an open mind, praying for God to give wisdom (James 1:5) to know if there is a real danger from the NAR or not.

 

BOOK REVIEW - "WITNESS IN PERIL" BY JODIE BAILEY

 Why are a Federal Marshall and a Swift River policeman trying to kill estate lawyer Ivy Bridges, and how did they know about her four year old daughter Wren? Is Special Agent Jacob Garcia able to protect them from a notorious killer and her gang? Does the fact that Ivy was a college girl-friend and Wren the daughter he didn't know he have affect this mission?

Love Inspired Suspense's "Witness in Peril" has a lot going for it. First, it's written by Jodie Bailey who has become one of my favorite novelists. Second, its Grand Canyon setting makes me homesick for the state where I grew up in. 

As I would expect from Bailey, there are characters you care about and exciting plot twists. Likewise, this story has Christian themes which are organic to the story but not at all preachy.

This is a stand-alone story, though there is a reference to her novella "Missing in the Wilderness," part of Love Inspired Suspense's collection "Canyon Standoff."

Is there a Jodie Bailey novel I would not highly recommend? Thus far, not at all, including this one.

BOOK REVIEW - "SHADOW CHRISTIANS: MAKING AN IMPACT WHEN NO ONE KNOWS YOUR NAME" BY JEFF IORG

Have you ever felt that you have no impact on the world? I have, even in the age of social media. If you're a Christian, you may feel that you have no value in serving the Lord, and even wonder how God could love a nobody like you (I've often felt that way). 

"Shadow Christians: Making an Impact when No One Knows Your Name" by former president of Gateway Seminary and current President/CEO of the SBC Executive Committee Jeff  Iorg (pronounced like "forge", without the "f") is a major encouragement for those dealing with such thoughts. 

Iorg deals with people in the New Testament that we're familiar with but we don't know their names (e.g. the leper Jesus healed, or the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment), and applies them to us. He divides the book into two parts:
1. God loves Shadow Christians

2. God uses Shadow Christians

This book is written so the everyday Christian can read and follow it, and so they can be encouraged by it. I recommend this book.
 

SATURDAY REVIEWS - IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE DEBATE BETWEEN CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM SHOULD UNITE AND NOT DIVIDE BELIEVERS? (PART 4)

 

The Day of His Great Wrath by John Martin

"Lord, my heart is not haughty 

Nor my eyes lofty, 

Neither do I concern myself with great matters,

Nor with things too profound for me."

Psalm 131:1, New King James Version

Is it possible trying to figure out if the universe is big enough for both God's Sovereignty and human free will and their relation in salvation is a great matter, too profound for us, past our pay grade?

I wish people debating this issue would:

1. Realize that this is a family squabble between people who are trusting God alone for their salvation.
2. Recognize those on both sides have studied Scripture with equal depth and love for the Word of God and the God of the Word.
3. Remember that Satan and Persecutors don't care which side you're on but are out to defeat you because you believe Jesus is Lord and not them.

The reality is too many overestimate human freewill. It's not as great as proponents think it is, nor is it the bogeyman Calvinists make it out to be.

You know, free-will makes me think about a '70's song called "Best of My Love." But who did it? I think it was a group that starts with the letter "E." Wait, I hear someone say The Eagles? "Best of My Love" by the Eagles is a great though depressing song, but I'm not talking about that song; the one I'm referring to is more upbeat with some girl singers. Oh, I remember. It was by the group The Emotions. 

Likewise, when I hear "free-will," I hear two different things. Some boast God is a perfect gentleman and would not violate our free-will. This theory makes me sick to my stomach - it can be described as "self-sovereignty." And while we can debate if Calvinists are right on their view of God's Sovereignty, it's evident God is Sovereign, not us.

To others, free will means God gives us the ability to choose whether we will be obedient to Him or disobedient. We can call this "human responsibility." The focus is on God, as it should be.

One of my all time favorite books is "Four Views on Eternal Security." It was uplifting to read the four authors - who identify themselves as Classical Calvinist, Moderate Calvinist, Reformed Arminian, and Wesleyan Arminian - as they talked about the wonder that God saves us. One author mentioned from the start he was convinced that John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and the other authors were all saved, and later stated his responses to the other three were written not to win but to learn.

Folks, we've spent half a millennium debating this subject as Calvinism vs. Arminianism and a full millennium before that dealing with the theologies of Augustine and Pegaleus, and I personally feel it's arrogant to think we can solve it now. But if we look over the horizon, we see the real war we're fighting, and it's not against each other!

BOOK REVIEW - THE COMPLETE DICK TRACY VOL. 3 (1935-1936) BY CHESTER GOULD

My interaction with Dick Tracy has been sporadic. I saw some parodies from Mad Magazine (such as "What if Gilbert and Sullivan wrote Dick Tracy?"), had a few times when I was able to follow the strip ('81-'84, '86-88, and some in the 2000's), saw a few books reprinting a story, and seeing the old movie "Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome" (co-starring Boris Karloff) and the 1990 feature starring Warren Beatty. So it was fun reading some of the old strips.

I have a hunch that volume 2 ends with Dick Tracy and friends arresting Boris Arson. (I've only read volumes 3 and 4 at this point, and don't expect to read most of them). This collection starts off with Boris escaping with the help of his sister Zora, followed by three other stories (I was surprised that the stories lasted 5 months; I'm more used to 3 month stories in comic serials). 

I only recognized one of the villains: Lips Manlis, who was in the 1990 movie, played by the late Paul Sorvino. Besides large lips, the only thing in common between the movie version and the original comic character was they started out as a gangster. In the film version, he was bumped off early. In the comics, Dick Tracy offered him a chance to go straight with a new name ("Bob Honor"). I loved seeing the development of the character. He rescued some of his former gang members to keep them from dying in a fire. This volume ends with Bob recovering and one member at large. How long to get that lone wolf into custody? You'll have to read volume 4 for that answer.

P.S. You'll find it amusing that when I was writing in "former gang members" in the above paragraph, I almost typed "former band members." Yep, you'd expect that from a music lover!