Thoughts On Eternal Security
Image
From Faith Pulpit, Spring 2016. Used by permission.
It has been twenty-four years since the topic of eternal security was last addressed in the Faith Pulpit. In the February 1992 issue Dr. Myron Houghton presented the four major views on security and then explained how Romans 8:28–30 supports eternal security. In this issue Dr. Alan Cole, professor of Bible and theology at Faith Baptist Bible College, extends the discussion by presenting additional evidence to support the view that genuine believers cannot lose their salvation.
I appreciate the article Dr. Myron Houghton wrote in 1992 about eternal security, and I completely agree with his position. The article provides valuable help to Christians regarding this important issue. Since Dr. Houghton’s article examined Romans 8:28–30, I want to explore several other passages that support eternal security.
Psalm 51:12
The context of this psalm is David’s repentance for his sin with Bathsheba. He was guilty of a number of sins, including murder and adultery. He confessed in verses 1–4 that he was a sinner. He used several designations for sin such as “transgressions” (v. 1), “iniquity” and “sin” (v. 2), and “evil” (v. 4). In verse 5 David stated that he was a sinner even before birth. In verses 7–12 he requested to be “purged” (v. 7) and to have his sins “blotted out” (v. 9). In verse 12 he asked God to reinstate the joy of salvation that once was his.
It is noteworthy that David requested to have his joy returned but not his salvation. As terrible as David’s sins were—and they were terrible—he did not request to be “resaved.” In verse 11 David requested that he not lose the special anointing of the Holy Spirit that was given to a king or leader of the theocratic kingdom. This ministry of the Holy Spirit does not refer to salvation but to an empowerment that enables the leader to guide and direct the kingdom of Israel. When David was anointed to be king, the “Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16:13). David had witnessed Saul lose this anointing (1 Sam. 16:14), and David was afraid of the same thing happening to him. In Psalm 51:12 David pleaded with God that he have his joy restored. He was not asking to be saved once again.
John 6:39, 40
In John 6:39 Christ stated, “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Jesus here affirmed that He will not lose those who have been given to Him by the Father. In other words, He will not lose to condemnation, or hell, those who have received Him as their Savior. If individuals have been given to Christ through salvation, then they will be resurrected. Just as their resurrection is secure, so also is their salvation.
John 10:28, 29
In John 10:28 Jesus declared, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” The expression “never perish” is a strong term. The word “never” is a double negative in Greek (ou ma), showing the strongest denial. This expression then denies the possibility of an individual ever losing his or her salvation. Christ also illustrated the security of the believer by stating that “neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” The believer is kept safe in the hand of the Almighty Savior.
In verse 29 Christ further emphasized this point by stating that the believer is in the hand of God the Father Who “is greater than all.” There is no one strong enough to steal a believer from the Father. At different times I have heard the argument that although one cannot snatch another from God’s hand, we can snatch ourselves from God’s hand. The double negative, however, contradicts such a possibility. Furthermore, Christ denies that anyone, including us, can be snatched from God’s hand. A finite person cannot overpower the infinite God. Genuine believers are safe in the hands of God the Father and God the Son.
Romans 8:35–39
In Romans 8:35 the Apostle Paul asked the following question: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” For the Christian to be separated from the love of Christ would mean that the genuine believer had lost his or her salvation. In the rest of verse 35 Paul listed several misfortunes that might indicate one has lost his salvation. In verse 37 Paul denied that these events can cause one to be separated from the love of Christ. In verses 38 and 39 Paul further denied possibilities that might cause one to think that he or she is outside the love of Christ. Paul strongly contested that one cannot be separated from the love of Christ. In other words, one cannot lose his or her salvation.
Philippians 1:6
Paul expressed in Philippians 1:6 a strong indication of a believer’s security. “Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” Christ will continue the work of sanctification which He has begun in Christians at the point of salvation until the Day of Christ, which is the rapture. For this work of sanctification to continue, Christ must keep the believer saved. If a person is genuinely saved (initial sanctification—“begun a good work in you”), he will remain saved throughout his life until he reaches final sanctification at the rapture (“will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ”).
1 Peter 1:5
Peter declared in this verse that we are “kept by the power of God.” The point is not that a believer must keep himself or herself saved. The point is that it is God who keeps the individual saved. One must ask if God has enough power to do this work. The obvious answer is “yes.” He is all powerful. For a person to be able to lose his or her salvation is to affirm that finite sin can overcome an infinite God. This kind of affirmation is incorrect.
These additional references help support the position that a genuine believer cannot lose his or her salvation. Once an individual truly trusts Christ, he or she is secure in Christ. There is not a sin that can “unjustify” one who has been justified. A person cannot be plucked from God’s hand or Christ’s hand, and a person cannot be separated from the love of Christ.
Conflicting Situations
When I have discussed this issue with my students, I have been asked about situations in which people claim to be saved but their actions deny what they claim to be true. How do we understand cases like these?
First, we must remember that we cannot see into a person’s heart. Only God knows for sure the spiritual condition of the individual.
Second, we should remember that this type of individual is in one of two conditions. He or she is either lost and facing God’s eternal condemnation (John 3:18), or the individual is living a fleshly lifestyle and is facing God’s discipline (Heb. 12:7–11). Neither of these situations is a place where a Spirit-filled Christian should want to be.
Third, we should treat the individuals where they are at the moment. If a person is acting as if he or she is unsaved, then that is how we should regard them. In dealing with the Pharisees, John the Baptist called on them to “bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8). Two verses later he warned them that “every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt. 3:10). Further, Christ stated that we can discern false prophets by their work (Matt. 7:15–19). “Therefore by their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:20).
Fourth, we should remember that not everyone who claims to be saved is actually saved. Christ warned that there are individuals who will claim to be saved, but in reality they are not (Matt. 7:21–23). In the judgment of the sheep and goats, Christ made a similar statement (Matt. 25:31–46).
These reminders are not cited in order to set ourselves up as judges of another person’s salvation. We should make comments such as these to another individual only after much prayer and with love, grace, and tact. For genuine believers, passages such as the ones discussed here provide great comfort in the confidence that they have eternal security.
Alan Cole Bio
Alan Cole is the chair of the Bible and Theology Division of Faith Baptist Bible College in Ankeny, Iowa. Dr. Cole has degrees from Bob Jones University, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Prior to joining the Faith faculty in 1999, Dr. Cole taught at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College. Alan and his wife Nancy (a Faith alum) have two sons and are active members of Community Baptist Church in Ankeny.
Of course, if salvation is monergistic, eternal security necessary follows.
Eternal security is not dependent on Monergism, but on what saith the scripture.
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13)
“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30)
Yes, it’s dependent on what the Scriptures say…. all of what they say (what follows is still not even close to all though!)
1 Pe 1:5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Jn 10:29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
Ro 8:29–34 NKJV 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Php 1:6 NKJV 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;
But people mean different things by “monergism.” What do you mean by it?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If indeed monergism comes from scripture—I’ve linked the definition and it’s strongly linked to the Calvinistic doctrine of perserverance of the saints—then dmyers and others are more or less saying the same thing. Note that the converse is synergism, the collaboration of the Spirit with the person in salvation—which would be pretty much the Catholic doctrine.
Which would be why many on the “Reformed” side of the equation would suggest that a rejection of perserverance of the saints/eternal security does come close to works salvation/righteousness. No?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
From what I’ve read monergism is normally associated with Calvinism while synergism with Arminianism. Not all Christians fall into one of these catagories. Many believe salvation is a work of God, but man must make the choice to believe. Once a person believes they are sealed with the Holy Spirit. I would say preservation of the saints would be a more accurate term.
“Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called” (Jude 1)
TULIP not TULIE
The true Christian perseveres
The Christian perseveres because they are preserved in Christ.
OK, first of all, points well taken that some define monergism/eternal security/perserverance of the saints/synergism differently. That noted, it strikes me here is eternal security is indeed something of a Baptist distinctive, no? And Faith does indeed have chapel time pretty much daily, right?
So in that light, it’s quite striking that there was a 24 year interval between teaching on eternal security, especially given that they’ve got a fresh group of students each year for whom that is indeed an important consideration. Would love to hear from Faith students/constituents about this—am I missing something? I’m certain it’s taught elsewhere, but it’s a striking omission if it’s not taught from the pulpit periodically.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Craig]It would be better for all involved if everyone would stop looking at what ideas are associated with, and instead focus on whether they are true. [quote] Many believe salvation is a work of God, but man must make the choice to believe.This is actually what “calvinists” believe. Nobody teaches that the believer does not make a choice to believe. In fact, Reformed soteriology is often criticized for its teaching that sinners must actually *repent* in order to be saved.From what I’ve read monergism is normally associated with Calvinism while synergism with Arminianism.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Craig wrote:
From what I’ve read monergism is normally associated with Calvinism while synergism with Arminianism.
It would be better for all involved if everyone would stop looking at what ideas are associated with, and instead focus on whether they are true.Quote:
Many believe salvation is a work of God, but man must make the choice to believe.
This is actually what “calvinists” believe. Nobody teaches that the believer does not make a choice to believe. In fact, Reformed soteriology is often criticized for its teaching that sinners must actually *repent* in order to be saved.
Sounds good to me. Maybe you’re different, but I’ve encountered people who taught that God does it all and man has no choice. The real point is one does not have to be a Calvinist to believe in eternal security. The moment a person is saved they are baptized into the body of Christ and indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The believer doesn’t do anything to persevere, because he is preserved in Christ.
By “monergism,” I meant what I understand to be the standard Reformed/Calvinist understanding of the mechanics of salvation — there is no particle of us that will or is able to choose God, therefore God must elect for anyone to be saved, His election is not based on any merit in the elect, He regenerates (enabling a response from one who would not otherwise want or be able to respond), and that regeneration always effects a response of faith. My use of the word monergistic was simply shorthand for the longer description AND for all the scriptural support for it (i.e., I don’t put my faith in the terms or in the system that uses the terms — I put my faith in the scriptures that, I believe, teach what the system attempts to explain using the terms).
Having journeyed from full-fledged Arminianism (Church of the Nazarene) to Baptist (IFB and SBC) to Reformed (PCA and URC), I would absolutely agree that the belief that you can lose your salvation is tantamount to works righteousness. I would also say that the non-Calvinist Baptists necessarily teach a less obvious form of works righteousness in insisting that a person must exercise his/her free will to put faith in Christ and to be saved. I understand that many do not see that a non-monergistic view of salvation necessarily credits them with something that is distinguishable from people who don’t get saved, but not seeing it doesn’t make it go away. As my Bible professor for Romans at BJU asked, “Isn’t the exercise of faith, or the choice to put faith in Christ, a work?”
Hope this helps.
[dmyers]By “monergism,” I meant what I understand to be the standard Reformed/Calvinist understanding of the mechanics of salvation — there is no particle of us that will or is able to choose God, therefore God must elect for anyone to be saved, His election is not based on any merit in the elect, He regenerates (enabling a response from one who would not otherwise want or be able to respond), and that regeneration always effects a response of faith. My use of the word monergistic was simply shorthand for the longer description AND for all the scriptural support for it (i.e., I don’t put my faith in the terms or in the system that uses the terms — I put my faith in the scriptures that, I believe, teach what the system attempts to explain using the terms).
Having journeyed from full-fledged Arminianism (Church of the Nazarene) to Baptist (IFB and SBC) to Reformed (PCA and URC), I would absolutely agree that the belief that you can lose your salvation is tantamount to works righteousness. I would also say that the non-Calvinist Baptists necessarily teach a less obvious form of works righteousness in insisting that a person must exercise his/her free will to put faith in Christ and to be saved. I understand that many do not see that a non-monergistic view of salvation necessarily credits them with something that is distinguishable from people who don’t get saved, but not seeing it doesn’t make it go away. As my Bible professor for Romans at BJU asked, “Isn’t the exercise of faith, or the choice to put faith in Christ, a work?”
Hope this helps.
What verse did your Bible professor present to prove that the exercise of faith, or the choice to put faith in Christ, is a work?
According to Ephesians 1:13 you trust Christ after you hear the word of truth. After you believe you are sealed with the holy Spirit of promise.
[dmyers]As my Bible professor for Romans at BJU asked, “Isn’t the exercise of faith, or the choice to put faith in Christ, a work?”
Hope this helps.
no. Romans 4.5
glad the Bible is true. Faith is not a work
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I was just thinking of Romans 4:5 and was debating on whether to post it, when I read Don Johnson’s post. Amen, brother.
[Craig]…
Sounds good to me. Maybe you’re different, but I’ve encountered people who taught that God does it all and man has no choice. The real point is one does not have to be a Calvinist to believe in eternal security. The moment a person is saved they are baptized into the body of Christ and indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The believer doesn’t do anything to persevere, because he is preserved in Christ.
Having the opportunity to minister with/beside a number of young Calvinists over many years now, I would have to say that a likely majority, or at the very least a very significant minority, take the position that salvation (and all its synonyms/descriptors) is a passive experience to those who are saved. Like a leaf in a stream, so to speak.
Lee
Don and Mark: I understand how a surface reading of Romans 4:5 (“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”), in isolation, would seem to be a rebuttal to my point. But that is begging the question (I think this is the proper use of the phrase, Aaron!): where does the ability/decision to believe (in Him) come from? where does the ability/decision to exercise that faith come from? In both the Nazarene and (non-Calvinist) Baptist circles, the standard response is that it must come from the individual, because if it comes from God that makes the individual passive or violates the individual’s free will. Alternatively, there is an acknowledgment that the faith itself also comes from God, but there is still a role for the individual to decide or to act on the gift of faith from God — which others decline to exercise even though the gift of faith is available to them too. Sooner or later, it still comes back to the belief that to some extent, great or small, the individual plays a role in the decision to believe/exercise faith. The problem is that that decision distinguishes him/her from those who refuse/fail to make the same (right) decision. Nazarenes and Baptist are loathe to label that difference — they generally won’t agree that it reflects a difference in intelligence (obviously there are believers of all intelligence levels); they will strenuously avoid identifying the difference as spiritual sensitivity or better character, morals, etc., because they see the “works” problem looming if they explain it that way. Generally, their ultimate response is something along the lines of “I just believed and that other person didn’t, but I’m not better than them.” To me, it’s plain that if one person believes and another does not, and if God is not solely responsible for the difference, then the difference has to be attributable to something meritorious in the believer — call it a disposition, “just a decision,” or whatever. Monergism/Calvinism (based on scripture) solves (or moots) that problem. Any other approach doesn’t.
Calvinists frequently use the argument that people who think they believed in Jesus think they are better than others. Well if you are inclined to argue that way, HOW MUCH MORE ARROGANCE would you feel if you think God loved you, but not the other guy? God PICKED ME. Wow, talk about potential for arrogance.
Did that prove anything? No.
I’ll stick with a clear reading of Scripture, which never says faith is a work.
How do I know? What about 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. When Paul talks about people’s works being burned, even if they are all burned up, they are still saved! Faith is not a work.
Matthew 3:2 John said “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Matthew 4:17 Jesus said “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
I don’t see Jesus saying “wait to be regenerated, then you can repent and believe…”
You said “faith = works” (citing an inspired BJU prof, how much higher authority can there be?)
I respond with a verse that clearly says “faith does not equal works”
you respond by sidestepping the passage with the tired old argument that faith is not faith, it’s that special zap you get from God, so that he will save you by his own faith instead of your own, because the other way around would be, you know, works…
I could respond back with Rm 4.5 again and ask you to do a grammatical analysis, identifying subjects and objects, but no doubt you would cite some higher authority and deny the plain word of God yet again.
so I’ll just get off the merry go round and leave you to go on your merry way. Just one last thought, however. It is way too easy to dismiss the scriptures by calling it’s plain meaning “superficial”
[dmyers]Don and Mark: I understand how a surface reading of Romans 4:5 (“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”), in isolation, would seem to be a rebuttal to my point. But that is begging the question (I think this is the proper use of the phrase, Aaron!): where does the ability/decision to believe (in Him) come from? where does the ability/decision to exercise that faith come from? In both the Nazarene and (non-Calvinist) Baptist circles, the standard response is that it must come from the individual, because if it comes from God that makes the individual passive or violates the individual’s free will. Alternatively, there is an acknowledgment that the faith itself also comes from God, but there is still a role for the individual to decide or to act on the gift of faith from God — which others decline to exercise even though the gift of faith is available to them too. Sooner or later, it still comes back to the belief that to some extent, great or small, the individual plays a role in the decision to believe/exercise faith. The problem is that that decision distinguishes him/her from those who refuse/fail to make the same (right) decision. Nazarenes and Baptist are loathe to label that difference — they generally won’t agree that it reflects a difference in intelligence (obviously there are believers of all intelligence levels); they will strenuously avoid identifying the difference as spiritual sensitivity or better character, morals, etc., because they see the “works” problem looming if they explain it that way. Generally, their ultimate response is something along the lines of “I just believed and that other person didn’t, but I’m not better than them.” To me, it’s plain that if one person believes and another does not, and if God is not solely responsible for the difference, then the difference has to be attributable to something meritorious in the believer — call it a disposition, “just a decision,” or whatever. Monergism/Calvinism (based on scripture) solves (or moots) that problem. Any other approach doesn’t.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
“But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.” (John 10:20)
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]“But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.” (John 10:20)
Greg, is that verse saying “you cannot believe” or “you are not believing”?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I’m not sure I understand your point. If one does not believe “because he is not one of Christ’s sheep,” then both “do not” and “cannot” are true.
G. N. Barkman
ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε· οὐ γάρ ἐστε ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν, καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν
- “You are not believing” is in the present tense and the active voice. This means the recepients are doing the action of the verb, and they’re doing it in a continuous manner. Their unbelief is a present, ongoing state of affairs that they’re doing
- The conjunction γάρ is causal (“because”), and it explains the reason for this unbelief. Every major translation understands the conjunction to be causal (e.g. KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NET, etc.)
Therefore, the reason why they do not believe in Jesus is because they are not of His sheep. In a word, unconditional, single election to salvation is the only way a person will believe in Jesus and His Gospel.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Election is not the same thing as regeneration preceding salvation, or faith being a work.
Also, just because an conjunction is grammatically causal does not mean it is the ULTIMATE cause in a theological sense that you intend it to be.
Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). The sheep referenced in John 10 are the Jews who have believed on Jesus.
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)
The other sheep could be Gentiles, but most likely are Jews who were not residing in Israel at that time. Gentiles were referred to as dogs in the Gospels (Matthew 15:26).
“Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” (John 10:25-26)
The Jews who did not believe on Jesus are not of His sheep. They must believe to become His sheep.
“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” (John 10:37-38)
Note Jesus is extending an invitation to the Jews who are not His sheep to believe.
Wow. What a convoluted way to take a clear statement by Christ, and turn it on its head.
“You do not believe because you are not of my sheep” cannot mean, “You are not of my sheep because you do not believe.” These are complete opposites. Jesus does not say that you believe to become one of His sheep. He says that you do not believe because you are not one of His sheep. If you believe, it is because you are one of His sheep. If you do not believe, it is because you are not one of His sheep.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Wow. What a convoluted way to take a clear statement by Christ, and turn it on its head.
“You do not believe because you are not of my sheep” cannot mean, “You are not of my sheep because you do not believe.” These are complete opposites. Jesus does not say that you believe to become one of His sheep. He says that you do not believe because you are not one of His sheep. If you believe, it is because you are one of His sheep. If you do not believe, it is because you are not one of His sheep.
/quote]
Then why does He extend an invitation in verses 37 and 38?
The Scripture teaches that Christ’s lost sheep are brought to faith by the preaching of the gospel, which is applied by the Holy Spirit.
There is no contradiction here. The Bible has many invitations to believe the word of God. Those who are Christ’s sheep believe, but they have to have a message proclaimed to have something to believe. This is how God has chosen to identify and draw His sheep unto Himself.
The fact that there is an invitation in verse 38 does not cancel the clear meaning of verse 26 that the reason people do not believe is because they are not of His sheep.
G. N. Barkman
You wrote:
Also, just because an conjunction is grammatically causal does not mean it is the ULTIMATE cause in a theological sense that you intend it to be.
You’re quite right. In order to prove unconditional, single election to salvation, I’d have to a whole lot more work than briefly examine one sentence! This is the difference between cookbook proof-texting and biblical theology.
But, I will say that the single verse of Jn 10:26 does teach that the reason why a person does not believe is because they do not belong to Christ. The greater significance this statement has in a comprehensive soteriology is another story!
You are also right to point out that the discussion on whether regeneration precedes faith is entirely different from a discussion about election to salvation.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[G. N. Barkman]The Scripture teaches that Christ’s lost sheep are brought to faith by the preaching of the gospel, which is applied by the Holy Spirit.
There is no contradiction here. The Bible has many invitations to believe the word of God. Those who are Christ’s sheep believe, but they have to have a message proclaimed to have something to believe. This is how God has chosen to identify and draw His sheep unto Himself.
The fact that there is an invitation in verse 38 does not cancel the clear meaning of verse 26 that the reason people do not believe is because they are not of His sheep.
The passage is dealing with God’s dealing with His chosen nation Israel. The church is not in view here. The flock are those Jews whom the Father gave to the Son; those that believed. God desired for all to come to Him.
They resisted the Father
“ I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick” (Isaiah 65:2-3)
They resisted the Son
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23: 37)
They resisted the Holy Spirit
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts 7:51)
[Craig]Aaron Blumer wrote:
Craig wrote:
From what I’ve read monergism is normally associated with Calvinism while synergism with Arminianism.
It would be better for all involved if everyone would stop looking at what ideas are associated with, and instead focus on whether they are true.
Quote:
Many believe salvation is a work of God, but man must make the choice to believe.
This is actually what “calvinists” believe. Nobody teaches that the believer does not make a choice to believe. In fact, Reformed soteriology is often criticized for its teaching that sinners must actually *repent* in order to be saved.
Sounds good to me. Maybe you’re different, but I’ve encountered people who taught that God does it all and man has no choice. The real point is one does not have to be a Calvinist to believe in eternal security. The moment a person is saved they are baptized into the body of Christ and indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The believer doesn’t do anything to persevere, because he is preserved in Christ.
I think this is more often a matter of misunderstanding than anything else, and it happens on both ends. On the receiving end, prejudgments about ‘calvinism’ tend to distort what the alleged calvinists are asserting. On the other end, the person who is trying to communicate a comprehensive, self-consistent soteriology that answers well to everything revealed can often fall into overstatement or other forms of unhelpfully worded expressions.
But in all the many, many debates/quarrels about ‘calvinism’ I’ve seen & heard over the years, more than 90% of it has been various participants not understanding one another and getting tangled in meta-debate (debate about the debate rather than about the questions). Another big chunk—overlapping—has consisted of folks who do not really know their own position.
But I have never met even a “hyper” Calvinist who maintains that the believer does not choose. Rather, the classic view, and every variant I’ve ever seen (however poorly stated) tries to explain that all beings make choices within the limits of their nature (even God cannot choose to sin), and it is the unregenerate person’s nature to reject God. When God graciously frees someone from that, which of necessity includes seeing clearly his condition and God’s gracious escape, he chooses differently. His nature has been altered in some respect. That choice is, in most versions of calvinism, inevitable—so it is termed “irresistable.” But there is no version of calvinism I’ve seen that actually says the sinner does not choose. It pretty consistently denies that the sinner “freely” chooses, because this position understands that beings do not really choose “freely”… ever.
The central problem, as I believe dmyers noted earlier, comes down to what distinguishes the sinner who believes from the sinner who does not.
There are ultimately only two possibilities (and even these dissolve into one if you keep thinking them through): either something within the sinner prompts him to make a better choice than the one who rejects the gospel, or something from God prompts him to make a better choice. The NT is pretty clear on what we should view as the better answer in those two options. Classical Arminianism tries to have it a bit too much both ways… but even that older, purer Arminianism has God being the decisive factor, at least it talks that way some of the time. I’m not sure classical Arminianism actually coheres (it seems to break up in self contradiction eventually).
Anyway, if it comes down to either something in the sinner that is better vs. something God sovereignly does, I’m certainly not going to say that better sinners get saved and worse ones don’t!
Some try to introduce a third possibility: it’s random or just happens without any sort of cause. I don’t really have an effective answer for these folks. It’s obvious to me that the universe does not work this way and I don’t know to prove a concept that is that fundamental to a world that makes anything like sense.
Yet others try to introduce another pseudo option: that the causal factor between those who believe and those who don’t is just mysterious and unknowable. But this is not an answer at all. It’s embracing a non-answer. … which is OK,really, but those who take this non-view should not cast stones at those who want to pull all that is revealed together and accept where it points—however disturbing that answer may be at times.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Does a person believe because they have been regenerated or are they regenerated because they believed?
Let Scripture answer the question. “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
(I Corinthians 2:14) Can a natural man believe?
G. N. Barkman
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Corinthians 2:12)
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21)
Romans 4
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yes, God ordains the means as well as the ends.
JSB
Can a natural man believe? (I Corinthians 2:12)
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Can a natural man be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit? John 16:8 says the Holy spirit would come to convict the world of sin, and the explanation of conviction of sin given in verse 9 is in regards to those that don’t believe. That would be the natural man, right?Can a natural man believe? (I Corinthians 2:12)
1 a natural man who believes
2 a regenerate man who does not believe
This makes any proposed *sequence* of events in regeneration & faith meaningless.
“Conviction” is a bit tricky because of some language issues. Conviction can describe what the Spirit does but also how a person responds.
But again, there is no such thing as a convicted (convinced) man who does not believe.
Think of it as transportation. If I convey you to the store, you are an “away from store” person until I finish conveying. So a natural man is an unbelieving man until the Spirit finishes convicting him.
At that pt, as Jesus put it, he has passed from death to life.
But convicted can have another sense: condemned. This requires no response & and does not have to end in faith… in fact usually doesn’t!
Which sense of “convicts” is meant in the passage?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]I like words that have more than one sense of meaning. They make me really think. If “convict” meant “condemn” in this passage, than wouldn’t the verse be saying that the Holy Spirit would come to condemn the world of sin and condemn it of righteousness and condemn it of judgment? “Condemn” would work with sin, but I don’t see it having that same meaning with righteousness and judgment. I’m also not sure it means completely “convinced” either. Isn’t Agrippa in Acts 26:28 an illustration of someone who was convicted but not completely convinced?In Scripture a couple of things that never exist are…
1 a natural man who believes
2 a regenerate man who does not believeThis makes any proposed *sequence* of events in regeneration & faith meaningless.
“Conviction” is a bit tricky because of some language issues. Conviction can describe what the Spirit does but also how a person responds.
But again, there is no such thing as a convicted (convinced) man who does not believe.
Think of it as transportation. If I convey you to the store, you are an “away from store” person until I finish conveying. So a natural man is an unbelieving man until the Spirit finishes convicting him.
At that pt, as Jesus put it, he has passed from death to life.
But convicted can have another sense: condemned. This requires no response & and does not have to end in faith… in fact usually doesn’t!
Which sense of “convicts” is meant in the passage?
[Aaron Blumer]…
But again, there is no such thing as a convicted (convinced) man who does not believe.
…
How would the rich man of Mark 10:17-22 fit your paradigm? Certainly if conviction is discerned by the evidence he was clearly under the conviction of the truth of Christ’s words yet still did not believe.
Lee
To Kevin & Lee…
“Conviction” is a word we use in a variety of ways in Christian tradition. But it isn’t used in such a wide variety in Scripture.
A very popular sense is something like “pressure toward repentance” or maybe “discomfort with sinful condition.” Using that definition, sure, you can have all sorts of degrees of conviction short of actual faith.
Kevin, I’m inclined to agree that the “conviction” in John 16 is not “condemn” for the reasons you alluded to. It seems to require the word to change meanings once or twice in the space of a single sentence.
Going back to the question of “Can a natural man believe?” The argument that he can believe because the Spirit ‘convicts’ natural men doesn’t work if ‘convict’ means pressure toward repentance/discomfort with sinful condition. Because this is not synonymous with ability (I would say ability=willingness here) to believe.
The question is actually pretty hard to answer—for me at least. Since I don’t think there is any passage of time between regeneration and faith (or faith and regeneration), it’s logically difficult to say whether belief happens when the sinner is still natural… But it seems problematic to say that at the moment of belief he is both natural and regenerate! So maybe my long-preferred posture of simultaneity of regeneration and faith is untenable after all.
But I’m going to chew on it for a while before I yield that point. :-)
Lee, it’s not obvious to me that the guy in Mark 10 is “under conviction” (a phrase we have completely invented, by the way—though I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad one. It’s just not a term used in Scripture.) He has some interest in Jesus, but what is really motivating that? And when Jesus tells him to sell all, He is putting His finger on the man’s idolatry. Does he go away sorrowing because he is “under conviction” or because he has discovered he can’t have his cake and eat it too, so to speak?
But I do accept that the conscience God has given to both the believing and the unbelieving can certainly make someone very uncomfortable with where they stand with God in some sense—and certainly in reference to specific offenses. And it seems fair to say as well—based on experience not Scripture—that many who come to faith experience a prolonged period of Spirit working on them, giving them a divine discontent, etc., before they arrive at belief. (Edit: No, there is at least one biblical example, possibly: Saul finding it hard to “kick against the goads”)
But is this what convict means in John 16? There is nothing there to suggest this is a prolonged experience. It could refer to an instantaneous act, and “the world” as the general arena where He does this work (rather than every individual in it.)
But back to the more foundational question… Does the phenomenon of people experiencing unease, sorrow, guilt, etc. before believing prove anything at all about what finally determines who believes and who does not? Those who emphasize sovereignty in conversion have long accepted that God draws those whom He has chosen, and this drawing can—for reasons known only to God, really—be quite gradual. But up to the point of belief, the sinner is dead in trespasses and sins and alienated from God, darkened in heart and mind and not willing to believe. There can be no transcending our nature by our own power, so at some point God must change the nature of the sinner.
So I find myself reluctantly moving toward a stronger inclination to say that regeneration must precede faith. I’ve long thought that the distinction many make between “logically preceding” and chronologically preceding kind of silly… but I understand the desire to avoid elapsed time between regeneration and faith, yet have the better “making sense” factor of saying regen. comes first.
I’m meandering all over so… I’ll try to wrap up w/one more tangent. I’ve been dismissive of the attitude that says “well, the decisive factor between those who believe the gospel and those who don’t is just a mystery.” I still see this as a non-answer, but I want to qualify it a bit: I accept that there are mysteries. No, I’m glad there are mysteries! But I believe we have to take what’s revealed as far as we possibly can before we throw our hands up and say “this is just beyond understanding.”
But the simultaneous non-simultaneity of faith and regeneration… I may have to hold to the mystery card on that one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]…
Lee, it’s not obvious to me that the guy in Mark 10 is “under conviction” (a phrase we have completely invented, by the way—though I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad one. It’s just not a term used in Scripture.) He has some interest in Jesus, but what is really motivating that? And when Jesus tells him to sell all, He is putting His finger on the man’s idolatry. Does he go away sorrowing because he is “under conviction” or because he has discovered he can’t have his cake and eat it too, so to speak?
But I do accept that the conscience God has given to both the believing and the unbelieving can certainly make someone very uncomfortable with where they stand with God in some sense—and certainly in reference to specific offenses. And it seems fair to say as well—based on experience not Scripture—that many who come to faith experience a prolonged period of Spirit working on them, giving them a divine discontent, etc., before they arrive at belief. (Edit: No, there is at least one biblical example, possibly: Saul finding it hard to “kick against the goads”)
But is this what convict means in John 16? There is nothing there to suggest this is a prolonged experience. It could refer to an instantaneous act, and “the world” as the general arena where He does this work (rather than every individual in it.)…
Conviction, like the term Trinity, is a coined term. Like Trinity it was coined to describe the collective information about a subject. The Holy Spirit work of reproving/convincing men of sin, righteousness, and judgment and then, coincidentally, revealing Jesus Christ as the answer for the sin, righteousness, and judgment issue is, in a very general sense, what conviction entails. I think most in the evangelical world have no issue with that understanding.
The responses of the rich man of Mark 10, Nicodemas of John 3, the Samaritan woman of John 4, Saul/Paul of Acts 9, Felix of Acts 24, Festus and Agrippa of Acts 26, or any number of unnamed others throughout the Gospels or the Book of Acts provide us with observational evidences of what conviction “looks like”. And while all their experiences and responses were not identical, that these came to a convincing reality of their need (“sin…righteousness…judgment”) and the truth that that need could only be met in Jesus Christ the Savior is undeniable.
Yet their responses were as varied as the general assessment Luke gave of reactions to Paul’s preaching in Acts 17—“…some mocked [believed not…{Acts 28}]..others said, We will hear thee again of this matter [i.e., tarried] ..Howbeit certain men…believed.” And these basic responses can be observed under similar evidences of conviction: “some believed”—the Samaritan woman; some “believed not”—rich man, Felix, etc.; some tarried—Nicodemas, Saul/Paul (Acts 22:16).
Except to make it fit some paradigm I cannot see why we can’t determine that the rich man, Felix, etc., were evidently under the same type of conviction as was Nicodemas, the Samaritan woman, or the Apostle Paul, to name a few.
Lee
[Aaron Blumer]In Scripture a couple of things that never exist are…
1 a natural man who believes
2 a regenerate man who does not believeThis makes any proposed *sequence* of events in regeneration & faith meaningless.
“Conviction” is a bit tricky because of some language issues. Conviction can describe what the Spirit does but also how a person responds.
But again, there is no such thing as a convicted (convinced) man who does not believe.
Think of it as transportation. If I convey you to the store, you are an “away from store” person until I finish conveying. So a natural man is an unbelieving man until the Spirit finishes convicting him.
At that pt, as Jesus put it, he has passed from death to life.
But convicted can have another sense: condemned. This requires no response & and does not have to end in faith… in fact usually doesn’t!
Which sense of “convicts” is meant in the passage?
Every saved person was a lost person who believed.
[Aaron Blumer]To Kevin & Lee…
So I find myself reluctantly moving toward a stronger inclination to say that regeneration must precede faith. I’ve long thought that the distinction many make between “logically preceding” and chronologically preceding kind of silly… but I understand the desire to avoid elapsed time between regeneration and faith, yet have the better “making sense” factor of saying regen. comes first.
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:2)
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:14)
We received the Spirit through faith.
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13)
You hear the word of truth (the gospel) … you trust … after you believed you were sealed with the Spirit.
Meaning what?
G. N. Barkman
Every saved person was a lost person who after hearing the word of truth trusted and after having believed was sealed with the Holy Spirit.
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)
[Aaron Blumer]In Scripture a couple of things that never exist are…
1 a natural man who believes
2 a regenerate man who does not believe
Disagree on point 1; agree on point 2.
“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said
unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is
he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast
both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I
believe. And he worshipped him.” (John 9:35-38)
This man believed and he was a natural man. He was not regenerate “for the
Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified”
(John 7:39).
For that matter while Abraham was justified he was not regenerate. How could
he be since the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet
glorified (John 7:39)?
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness. (Romans 4:3)
What about exercising faith? None of the following were regenerate yet Jesus
commends their faith.
But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of
good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole
from that hour. (Matthew 9:22)
Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
(Matthew 9:29)
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it
unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very
hour. (Matthew 15:28)
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy
sins be forgiven thee. (Mark 2:5)
Discussion