The recent series on "TULIP," culminating, of course, with "P" -- the perseverance of the saints -- has stirred up all sorts of questions and challenges. There are two main objections to the notion that, if we are once born again, we can never become ... unborn again. One is, "I don't think so. It is a clear violation of human reasoning." Let's set that one aside for the moment and agree to go with Scripture on this. The other is, "But, doesn't the Bible say ...?" There are, we must all acknowledge, texts that seem to say you can lose your salvation. The aim, then, must be to align the two. That is, we must figure out a way to understand the "You can't lose your salvation" texts with the "You can lose your salvation" texts and not "against.".
If you're thinking I'm about to do that for you, I'm afraid that's beyond the scope of my writing. It would be a long piece, indeed. Perhaps there is an easier approach. There is a technique in which one goes from the known to the unknown, from the explicit to the implicit. Maybe that will help. So, we read, "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6). Option 1: Paul was wrong. He had a false sense of confidence ... in God's abilities. That's obviously not possible if Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says ... which seems like the only option. Or we can look at Jesus when He said, "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). Option 1: Jesus didn't mean "No one is able to snatch them out of My hand." It was hyperbole. He meant "almost no one." But, if not "no one," who can? "Well, at least every believer can snatch themselves out of His hand." That's a very large "no one." If it was hyperbole, it was poor hyperbole. Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says. Or we can ponder what he meant when Jude wrote, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25) Option 1: Jude said God is able to keep you from stumbling. That doesn't mean He actually would. No, you can stumble and He won't interfere. But ... what's the point if God does not do it? Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says.
Just three examples. The texts regarding God keeping His own, from "foreknown" all the way to "glorified" (Rom 8:29-30), leave no room for our interference. They are explicit, clear, and unequivocal. If, therefore, we know that God will complete what He began, doesn't lose any, and is able to keep His own from stumbling, we know that salvation cannot be lost because God is keeping us. If we accept that premise from these (and many more) texts, then I would contend that the "warning" texts aren't as clear or explicit, and it is entirely possible, even necessary to see how they fit in with what we know about God keeping His own rather than arguing that He does not, even cannot.
4 comments:
I've seen someone argue against this simply on the basis of experience. We've all known people that confessed Christ, but later turned away. Rather than understanding it was originally a false confession, they take the person at their word rather than what God says, and must change or ignore what Scripture means.
I am glad that you are helping clear up some of those “questions and challenges,” and I found your “three options” strategy helpful. In none of your three examples do I find the “arguments” in “Option 1” compelling enough that I would have difficulty moving right to also ruling out “Option 2” (“he meant something different”) and then to accepting “Option 3” (“the text means what it says”).
There is a section in R.C. Sproul’s book addressing this passage from Hebrews; his thoughts align perfectly with this post. After discussing some possible interpretations of those particular Bible verses, he writes, “The issue here must be settled by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, not by setting one portion of Scripture against another. If the rest of Scripture is clear regarding perseverance (and I believe it is), then we must interpret what is ambiguous here by what is unambiguous elsewhere. The implicit must always be interpreted by the explicit, the unclear by the clear. The author of Hebrews nowhere states that a true believer does in fact do what he is warning believers not to do.” [What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics, p. 215, emphasis added]
Just so you know, Lorna, I don't consider mentions of other people's writings as my endorsement. I've deleted a very few comments that quoted blasphemous sources, but citing your sources to explain yourself isn't generally a problem.
Thanks for clarifying your practice, which seems more than reasonable. (I hope I never utilize blasphemous sources, much less promote them to others!)
Post a Comment