An acquaintance told me the other day that her child was planning to leave a Christian College for another Christian College because of the overbearing nature of the chapel services. She explained that in the denomination with which this college is associated, "they don't believe in 'once saved - always saved'. To this lack of belief in eternal security in part, she attributed what unfortunately sounded like a daily bludgeoning of the students from the pulpit to confess sin and get their spiritual lives straight.
Having spent some time in "holiness movement" circles, I can certainly sympathize. Revivalism, left in the hands of men to create the revival by tactics of mass persuasion, can be a destructive thing. Presumably, by going to a different institution where Christians are "eternally secure", this abuse might be avoided.
I find that the average lay person is often drawn to a Calvinist viewpoint because of the belief in eternal security, the belief that a Christian, once saved from the consequences of sin, can never again be lost. I, if truth be told, have always believed in a slightly limited form of eternal security, but for very un-Calvinistic reasons. In fact, as a young layman, had no notion that eternal security was in any way related to Calvinism.
We have many passages in scripture that console the believer with promises of security. Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" comes immediately to mind. Or John 10:28 "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."
I did wrestle early on with contrary passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (I intend to discuss Hebrews 6 in a later post).
But I came to a fairly secure place. The Protestant term often quoted by (Calvinist) Francis Schaeffer, the "finished work of Christ", assured me that Christ's death as a spotless lamb for the sins of the world was totally sufficient for every sin of the entire human race. Passages like Hebrews 6 or Jesus' warning to not "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" did not apply to ordinary sins, even serious ones, but only to a willful repudiation of the faith - deliberate apostasy. In other words, anyone who wants to be saved, who pleads for mercy, will be totally saved because Christ's sacrifice was of infinite value. One can never lose salvation, as if it could be casually misplaced or stolen. One can howerver, willfully repudiate it, which is far different.
But my introduction to the full depths of Calvinism gave me a far different perspective, oddly, one which made me feel less secure in the long run. In Calvinism, eternal security falls under the heading of "perseverance of the saints" which runs parallel to "irresistible grace". It means that we are "secure" because we did not choose to be saved in the first place. God has chosen us, we did not choose him. Biblical references notwithstanding, that is a whole different emphasis than saying we are "secure" because of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ.
While Calvinists would not want things characterized this way, and would place strong emphasis on the cross, it flows logically that since God's decree preceeded everything, eternal security is based in the unshakeable will of God to decree some to be saved. Christ's death is, as a result, minimized as the decree becomes the "first cause" of salvation and the guarantee of eternal security. It remains as well, the basis of certain and eternal damnation for everyone else.
Once again, the issue that turned me against such a view was God's character. From the perspective of the elect, God's decree to save is irrevocable. From the perspective of the non-elect, God's decree to withhold grace is equally irrevocable. If God's character is as a result either unjust, or so far beyond comprehension that his justice seems like the worst of injustices, how secure can I really be? What kind of God is He? How can I even know if I am truly elect?
I prefer to think that God so loved the world that whoever believes in him will never perish. I think it more Biblical and more defensible that we are secure, for as long as we wish to be, based on Christ's infinite love and priceless sacrifice, not on the basis of God's incomprehensible decree.
No comments:
Post a Comment