Well, we've made it to the end. We're at the "P" of TULIP. "P," of course, is for Perseverance of the Saints. Now, when I was younger, I believed myself to be a "Calvinist" because I believed in "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), and those misguided Arminians thought you could lose your salvation. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I was a one-point Calvinist, rejecting those first 4. But, of course, God had the last laugh. I ended up embracing the TULI (or so) and rejecting the OSAS. So ... what does that "P" signify?
We've seen, from Scripture, that Man is a sinner and, therefore, sins. It's in his nature. That nature touches every part, making him dead in sin, hostile to God, and God's enemy. The only hope, then, is God's work. He has chosen some to save, not on their own merit, but for His purposes. He has provided the solution to their sin in the Atonement, which Christ completed perfectly for the ones God has chosen. And, leaving nothing to chance, the Spirit applies grace to the chosen without requiring their permission. He regenerates, provides repentance (2 Cor 7:9; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Rom 12:3; Php 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3). Now, this "dead in sin," "hostile to God" sinner has a changed heart and comes, in faith and repentance, to receive that Atonement. And ... then what?
If you read the Scriptures you will find that believers can lose their salvation and cannot lose their salvation. That is, you'll find verses to support both perspectives. Interestingly, all of the "lose your salvation" passages (e.g., Heb 6:4-6; Matt 7:21-23; Ezek 18:24-26; 2 Tim 2:11-12; Rev 3:5; etc.) are from Man's perspective, and all of the "can't lose your salvation" passages are from God's perspective. So, which is it? First, consider. The term often used for "salvation" is "eternal life." Now, if "eternal life" can stop ... it's not eternal, is it? John wrote, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). That's "has" -- present tense. Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation" ("See? You can lose it.") for "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Our work versus God's work. Jesus said, "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 10:29). "Oh," some say, "but I can." Alright, so you're "no one"? Jude wrote that God is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Paul wrote something very similar. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). I can only conclude, then, that God is the means by which everyone who comes to Christ will be saved, and that without fail.
I said at the outset that I rejected OSAS. I believe that's an error. It suggests it's possible to become saved and never change. It's not. John wrote, "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). A believer can sin, but he can't make a practice of it "because he is born of God." John also wrote of those who "went out from us." Of them he says, "they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). I cannot make a coherent argument that God is willing and able to save to the end all who believe ... and can't. So I'm going with God on this one. That's why I prefer to call this last point "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." I'm offering one last Scripture for you to consider: Romans 8:31-39. You're likely familiar with the text. Note, however, the sentence right there in the middle. "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33). There it is, the connection between "Unconditional Election" and "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." But read the whole thing. It's much larger than this connection, and it is certainly no less than this connection. We trust in God ... for life, for salvation, for being kept, for everything. That's a certainty.
________
One last thought. The ideas that comprise TULIP that I've just laid out this past week are not "essentials." At least, I won't divide from fellow believers who don't agree. But I want you to see that I haven't offered you philosophical speculations or some "tradition." I've offered Scripture. You're certainly free to understand these Scriptures in a different way, but you should be able to admit that, even if you don't agree, these doctrines come from Scripture. At least we should be able to agree on that. If you disagree with the interpretation I offer, please be careful to align Scripture rather than refute it.
6 comments:
I understand the biblical position about our ability to "lose" our salvation in the same light as when James tells us our works justify our salvation. We need to be diligent to be sure we are saved, because we can easily believe ourselves to be saved, but not be. I think that is the most dangerous position to be in. An atheist has a better chance of being saved than someone that thinks they already are. But those that seem to lose their salvation only prove they never had it. Just like those that never change their lives (works) prove they were never saved. We can only have confidence in eternal life if we aren't the ones to maintain it. For me, I prefer the P to mean "Preservation of God for the saints." But the perseverance of God for the saints works too.
Stan, I have appreciated the opportunity you provided to us this past week to look at these doctrines individually, as they flow together to create a cohesive set of biblical truths. I know you have written on all of these points many times (and I went back and read/re-read quite a bit of them over the past few weeks). I was glad to see you use labels this time around that are more accurate than TULIP (as we discussed on 10/17/24).
By the way, in the book of his I’ve been quoting all week, Sproul offers not one but two sets of labels in place of TULIP. Then I read online that, in his book, Chosen By God, “R.C. Sproul begins with TULIP and ends up with RUDEP.” I found another Reformed Theology acrostic called ROSES and yet another called (in jest) WUPSI. So, including your phrases, that makes seven separate sets of labels for these doctrines of grace! (I found a few derogatory ones, as well.) That’s real Wordplay, eh?!
Today’s point of doctrine (which Sproul labels as “God’s Preservation of the Saints”) touches on the highly contested topics of “eternal security” and “assurance of salvation”--ones that warrant still more separate posts to cover in-depth (I read/re-read many of those, as well). I believe that Scripture clearly teaches that the granting of eternal life to believers cannot and will not be revoked; true believers--i.e. those “elected by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and called by the Spirit”--will hold that status forever. Since the granting of eternal life is God’s doing, revoking it would also need to be God’s doing (actually, His undoing), but Scripture is clear that Christ will lose none of His sheep. Therefore, I fully support the notion of “once [truly] saved, always [truly] saved.”
As I have always understood it, once a person has been regenerated, given a heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone, become a new creature in Christ, and passed from death to life, that new status and nature cannot revert to one’s previous condition; therefore, since the Holy Spirit does not leave a child of God but indwells him/her forever, one cannot lose salvation. Believers may fall away for a time but will return if they are indeed in Christ. (Related to this, I caution myself not to be too quick to pronounce that others who have seemingly fallen away are “not truly among us”--at least until all is said and done; many of us have fallen away, for a time, only to return to walking with the Lord. Perhaps the road to heaven is covered by “two steps forward, one step back”?)
I didn’t see you go into this point today, but I am confident you would interpret the “working out your salvation” reference you mentioned as producing fruit, growing in Christlikeness, forsaking sin, and the general “putting off the flesh” to “walk in the newness of life.” That of course, is the evidence of true saving faith.
I'm perfectly happy to point out the "they went out from us because they were not of us" principle. I'm not perfectly happy about pointing at individuals and say, "Like that." Abraham is listed in Hebrews as a "man of faith." I look at his history and it was a "wavering" faith -- his relationship with Hagar, his lying twice about his wife being his sister because he was afraid -- but Scripture says he was a man of faith. So I understand that people "waver," that they can appear to fall away and then return. (Which is why almost no one who sees Heb 6:4-6 as proof that you can lose your salvation takes it seriously ("it is impossible to renew them again").) Unless they're dead and gone, I assume God is able to save whom He wills to save when He wills to save them. After all, He pulled me back after I walked away at one point.
“After all, He pulled me back after I walked away at one point.”
As He did for me, as well--twice! Praise God, “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.” (Ps. 103:8)
A book I've been reading called Humble Calvinism has also changed a lot of the terms. But the most interesting thing I've found in the book is the constant admonishing to remember that all 5 points cannot lead us to pride in our theology. There are those in the Reformed house that would want to separate due to the differences, but we must remember that the 5 points don't make us superior in any way.
Post a Comment