You might be surprised to learn what the Roman Catholic Church considered to be the greatest heresy coming from the Reformation. Salvation by faith alone? They disagreed, but it wasn't the greatest heresy. Scripture as the sole authority on matters of faith and practice? They believe in tradition and the Church as equal sources, but, no, that wasn't it. No pope?! Well, of course they thought they were wrong on that point, but, no, that wasn't it either. No, the greatest heresy was ... assurance. Yes, to the Roman Catholic Church, the notion that anyone would claim to have assurance of salvation was a horror.
They weren't alone in that. Arminius agreed and others, like John Wesley, followed. Assurance of salvation is a dangerous thing. It allows for antinomianism -- lawless Christianity. It suggests you can get saved and then sin to your heart's content. Bad! Bad, bad, bad!
And that is why I don't actually believe in Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS). That doctrine is a popular one among today's Christians and anathema among today's Arminian-leaning believers. Assurance of salvation allows you to sin without restraint. It's close relative, "Eternal Security", is only slightly different and still offers no restraints. Sin away, my friend, because once you're "in Christ", there's nothing you can do to lose it. So I don't go with those. I go with POTS. Okay, I never use that. I go with "Perseverance of the Saints".
In short, this doctrine holds that those who are born of God, renewed, regenerated, given the Holy Spirit, that those who die with Christ and die to sin necessarily have changed lives. Martin Luther, a champion of salvation by faith alone, argued that we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Martin Luther was right, but he wasn't alone. James wrote that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). Paul wrote that when we are baptized, we are baptized into His death and rise with Him "so that we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:1-4). He says, "He who has died is freed from sin" (Rom 6:7). (Isn't it odd that so many make such a big deal about "no longer under the law" but almost nothing is said about "dead to sin"?) He instructed us to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" predicated on the fact that "it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). He wrote, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor 5:17). John assured us that "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). Over and over again the Bible tells us that those who are in Christ are something new, something different, incapable of remaining in sin, unable to finally and ultimately stray from Christ. Thus, biblically a person who is born of God cannot "sin to his heart's content" because his heart would not be content with it. There is an internal and eternal force at work moving all true believers toward greater holiness. All true believers will persevere.
"Well, look," I've been told, "they end up in the same place, right? I mean, you believe that believers persevere and ultimately cannot lose their salvation and I believe that once you're saved, you can't lose your salvation, so what's the difference? Same end, right?" That's like saying, "Well, we both left Los Angeles and ended up in New York, but you flew and I drove, so it was the same trip, right?" No, of course not. The question ignored by OSAS (and "Eternal Security") is what happens in between. That question is answered by the Perseverance of the Saints. God is at work, developing your sanctification, conforming you more and more to the image of His Son. Forget about antinomianism. Forget about free sin. Doesn't happen. The trip between "saved" and "heaven" is long. This one answers the question of what kind of trip it is.
12 comments:
I'm sure OSAS and Eternal Security had their beginnings in the proper place, meaning the same thing as Perseverance of the Saints, but as with all maxims, the true definition gets lost to the shorter one. TULIP, Separation of Church and State, OSAS, all meant one thing as a means of saying something longer, quicker. Eventually the longer definition becomes lost and the concept becomes corrupted. When I think about OSAS and Eternal Security, I define them the same way you defined Perseverance of the Saints in this post. However, I am aware of the wrong definition as well, and the misunderstanding of Perseverance of the Saints, so all 3 of them have become useless in my opinion.
There is likely some truth to that, David. There are, however, those who will vehemently argue that you're wrong and that the real point is exactly that you can sin to your heart's content once you're saved. There is no "law". They actually argue specifically in favor of antinomianism.
I'm torn, myself. I see, as you do, the number of places (and it's everywhere) that the shorthand we use ends up losing the meaning of what we intend. On the other hand, if I actually had to spell out every single time what I mean when I say ______, it would get so tedious. Sometimes communication is tenuous at best, but I suppose we should eschew obfuscation.
Then what would their answer to Romans 6 be? "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" It seems Paul directly answers the question about sin in the life of a believer.
Wait ... you're asking me how someone that far off in their theology is going to answer? It seems to me that Paul, Peter, John, James (just to name a few) all answer that question directly, but that doesn't stop them.
I wonder how many false theologies have crept back into the church because of how free we've been. We have so many "followers" in the church that have no real reason to question the theology they are taught, if they are even taught theology. I wonder if at the height of persecution of the church, did we see the least of aberrant theologies?
As we're all aware, the earlier "church policy" of "kill the heretic" was a bit extreme. Still, I wonder how far the "let's all be nice to the heretic" approach has worked in its place.
I'm not thinking it was a matter of "kill the heretic", but that people were more careful about their theology because it mattered more. If what you believed didn't make sense, why risk your life for a religion that could get you killed?
No, of course not, but the "kill the heretic" approach certainly viewed theology as more important than most do today.
Does that strike anyone else as ironic? "Kill the heretic" approach viewing theology as more important? Wouldn't "kill the heretic" be bad theology? :P
I see your :P and answer anyway. If the death penalty is imposed for the most egregious assaults on humans and heresy breeds damnation, then that would seem to be something that someone at sometime might have thought a good idea.
Oh, I don't deny that. People take things to extremes all the time. I just found it amusing and poignant when talking about making false theology to cover for false theology.
Without endorsing the position, I thought I should point out that "kill the heretic" is not a theology. It's an activity. It's a result of theology, perhaps ("What we believe is important and preaching things that send people to hell is dangerous."), but not an actual theology.
Post a Comment