|
Difference between Anabaptists and Evangelicals Mysteries of the Kingdom of God Newsletters Sermons by Eli Hofer The Writings of Ulrich Stadler |
Unconditional Eternal Security & Its Related Errors As Christians, part of our calling is to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. But there's a wrong way, and a right way, to do this. The right way is to contend for the faith in a non-contentious way. Though I may fail, my purpose is to do it that way on this occasion. Everyone craves security. God made us that way. There are many reflections of this fact in life today. Think of all the attention that is given to national security, financial security, old age security. Generally, however, spiritual security gets a back seat. But in religious circles, this also is recognized. Although that is good, something is happening in today's religious world that is not good. People who claim to speak for God are offering to professed Christians an unconditional eternal security. Hopefully by the time I get through, you will understand why we view this as a dangerous teaching. My sermon title is rather long: "Unconditional Eternal Security AND its Related Errors." I've chosen to word it that way because it is hard to isolate this teaching from the package to which it belongs. From here I'm moving to a premise that is widely acceptable. I'm stating it this way: The security of a man's soul for time and eternity depends on whether or not he is in good standing with the Lord. I think this would be acceptable to people on both sides of the issue. Whether a man's theology leans toward Armenianism or whether it leans toward Calvinism -- I think he would view that as an acceptable statement. The security of a man's soul for time and eternity depends on whether or not he is in good standing with God. There would be, however, a difference of opinion as to what is required of US in order to remain in good standing with God. Next I'm going to pose this question: Can I KNOW how I stand with God? If I'm in good standing with God, can I know it? If I'm safe and secure in Christ, can I know it? In relation to this, there are two extremes. At the one extreme are those who contend that, here and now, one cannot know with certainty his actual standing with God. There are, I believe, some good-living Christians in this category. For one reason or another, they are not real sure of their acceptance with God. Consequently, they lack assurance of salvation. At the other extreme, are those who are living in almost the same identical way as the unconverted, but because of a one-time decision for Christ, somewhere in their past, they claim to be a child of God with NO POSSIBILITY of ever being lost. As I see it, those are the two extremes. Opposite extremes. Neither one is Biblical, but in my opinion, the second is the more dangerous because it breeds spiritual carelessness. It appears to me as though the first group is overlooking 1 John 5:13. That verse reads as follows: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life." This entire epistle was written for the express purpose that persons who are saved might have a proper sense of security. We have a built-in need for knowing that God accepts us and, praise His name, He meets that need when we meet His condition. The second group I've described appears to be overlooking something, too. They're overlooking passages like this one: Matthew 7:21-22, "Not everyone that sayeth unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name have done many wonderful works?'" On this basis, we must conclude that many are entertaining a false sense of security. The unconditional eternal security teaching does that. It promotes a false sense of security. People are made to feel as though they are in good standing with God when, according to the Bible, they are not in good standing with the Lord. Why do some people have this false sense of security? The reasons are numerous. Jesus related to a people who felt secure because of who they were. Jews were the people of God. Really, any member of a highly privileged group is inclined to feel secure on that basis, and Mennonites are no exception to that rule. A sacramental-type religion can do the same thing. Such persons reason this way, "I'm doing all that God requires. I'm taking communion every Sunday, surely I'm in right standing with God." Some people claim to have had their old nature eradicated by a second work of Grace. Along with that would naturally go a feeling of security. I'm not attempting to be exhaustive. As I already indicated there are numerous factors that may contribute to a false sense of security. There is, however, one that I am now going to enlarge upon because, in my opinion, it is perhaps the major source for this kind of deception: namely Calvinism. This system of theology gets its name from the man responsible for its formulation: John Calvin. Calvin was a contemporary of the early Anabaptists. He became influential as a Protestant reformer while living in the city of Geneva, Switzerland. Around the year 1536, Calvin put his theological views into writing in what has become known as "The Institutes of Christian Religion", and those volumes are still being published. It is now recognized that some of what we would call "Calvin's erroneous beliefs" were actually borrowed from Augustine, an influential fourth-century Bishop who helped to pave the way for Catholicism. Many European people, during the Reformation period and following, preferred Calvinism over Catholicism, and so Calvinism spread from Geneva to France, from France to Holland, from Holland to England. There, in England, the Calvinists became known as Puritans. In Scotland, they became known as Presbyterians. In America today, the Presbyterians and the "Reformed" churches would be strongholds of Calvinism. But it's by no means limited to these groups. Many Baptists and so-called Fundamentalists are strongly Calvinistic. In the field of theology, the contrast to Calvinism is Armenianism, and this gets its name from Jacobus Armenius, a Netherlands theologian who disassociated himself from Calvin and became quite influential in opposing those elements of Calvinistic teaching that he viewed as being erroneous. Generally, people who are non-Calvinistic have the Armenian label pinned upon them, and we are no exception to that rule. However, on the question of the believer's security, it was not Jacobus Armenius' influence, but independent Bible study that led our Anabaptist forefathers to adopt the stance they have adopted. In order for this message to be true to its title, I will need to devote a part of it to a description of the Calvinistic package. For some of you this might be a review of what you already know; perhaps you know it better than I do, I beg your forbearance if that should be the case. Before I get started, I want to also make this acknowledgement: It has been demonstrated repeatedly that one can become a devout Christian in a Calvinistic setting. But, in my opinion, a non-Calvinistic setting is a lot more conducive to holy living. The reasons for this opinion will soon become obvious. Historically, Calvinism has consisted of five points. One means of remembering these five points is to visualize them as forming an acrostic based on the name of a very common flower, namely the TULIP. Each letter of the word TULIP begins the spelling of one of these five points: The T stands for: Total depravity. The U stands for: Unconditional election. The L stands for: Limited atonement. The I, for: Irresistible grace. And the P, for: Perseverance of the saints. Now, this last point, "perseverance of the saints", is simply another label for eternal security of the unconditional type. Generally speaking, there has been a de-emphasizing of the first four points of Calvinism. They don't have the popular appeal that point number five has. But, because the five points are so inter-related, points one through four continue to serve as the foundation for point number five. They are like the unseen part of an iceberg. I warn you, the Calvinistic theologians are not at all apologetic. They represent themselves as the very standard of orthodox Christianity. It can be very, very persuasive. If you would go to the widely circulated Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, a volume to which many writers have contributed, and read there the article on "The Doctrine of Election", you'd quickly come upon typical Calvinistic teaching. The writer of that article puts it this way: "A man is not elected because he is going to believe, he believes because he is elected." That article makes the divine act of election an arbitrary, non-conditional act. It repudiates our claim that election is based on God's foreknowledge of an individual's favorable response to the divine call. In that article, favorable responses on the human level are not represented as a condition for election, but as an inevitable consequence of God's election. And this is the heart of Calvinism. God supposedly chose, arbitrarily, out of the mass of humanity, certain ones whom He determined to save, irrespective of ANYTHING that He foresaw in them. Others he excluded. Christ supposedly died for ONLY this number: those whom God arbitrarily, unconditionally chose to be saved. Consequently, a non-elect person will inevitably be lost, even though he dies while he is still an infant. The elect person, like everyone else, is supposedly so totally depraved, that he would be incapable of responding to God's call, so God comes to this non-responding person, and with irresistible grace, saves him. Being one of the elect, this person will inevitably make it through to heaven regardless of how he lives. A Calvinist once told a non-Calvinist, "Your God is a peanut. When my God sets out to save a man, He SAVES him." They glory in that view of God. Their view of God's operating supposedly magnifies the power of God's sovereign grace. But for other people, their view of God's way of operating creates a lot of problems. Having looked at the heart of Calvinism, we are ready now for some of the other features of Calvinism. Upon receiving eternal life, you supposedly become eternally secure because that life is eternal--eternal in duration--and they say it cannot be lost. They claim that we dare not view believing and repenting as conditions for salvation, because that makes those acts - believing and repenting - meritorious, and puts salvation on a works basis. They will try to make you believe that there could be no sense of security for believers if losing out, becoming eternally lost, was a possibility. According to their doctrine, no matter how much he may sin, the elect person will never fall into disfavor with God. Why not? Because the Calvinist looks at it this way: God won't ever punish me for he has already punished my substitute. Supposedly, God doesn't notice the sins of the elect Christian because he is said to be covered over with the robe of Christ's righteousness. Along with that, they generally teach that, in addition to your past sins, God has already pre-forgiven all your future sins. They claim that a lot of those people, whom we would view as having backslidden, never really were Christians in the first place. Although that may, in some cases be true, they push that point REAL hard because backsliding doesn't very well mesh with their "once saved, always saved" philosophy. Reluctantly, some will admit that a one-time Christian may backslide, and even die in that condition. However, they commonly claim that such persons--although they may lose much--can never lose their salvation, they can never lose their good standing with God. Supposedly, they still enter heaven as a saint. Yes, there are variations in beliefs among the Calvinists. Some hold to only point number five, and they try to disassociate that from the former four points. There is also among them those who teach that, in some cases, a backslider may become so wicked, so much a liability to God, that God may actually shorten his life and take him to heaven prematurely. If God would indeed operate that way, then it could truly be said, "The more you sin, the quicker you get to heaven." That was a hurried review of the teachings and claims of those who insist that one's title to heaven cannot be lost. But how does all this square with the Bible? Well, you can make it square if you are selective, as they are, in their choice of passages. But when you take an all-inclusive approach to the Bible, you discover some passages with which it does NOT harmonize. There are passages that THROB with warning, such as 1 Corinthians 10:12, "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed, lest he fall." Promoters of this doctrine either overlook such passages, or they water down their meaning. Let's bring into focus again their "unconditional election" concept, and their "limited atonement" concept. And let's put alongside those concepts a passage like Mark 16: 15-16 "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned". If Christ died only for a select number, why then preach the gospel to every creature? The truth of the matter is, Christ died for ALL. Those exact words "for all" occur twice in 2 Corinthians 5: 14-15 "He died for all." Now, a second question: If God's election to salvation was made irrespective of any foreseen human fact, why does this passage represent believing as the condition for being saved? Why? Because, contrary to their claim, salvation is conditional. People don't get saved until they respond favorably to God's call. But, in Calvinistic thinking, man is so depraved, so spiritually dead, that he can't even respond. Consequently, in their theology, regeneration comes before believing and repenting. Before he can even respond, God supposedly must move in and regenerate this sinner so he can respond. The non-Calvinist views that as a false concept. It robs man of his freedom of choice. It has God doing FOR man that which man, himself, MUST do with God's assisting grace. Repeatedly, the Calvinist will say that, "our salvation doesn't depend on what we do, but on what Christ has done for us". We can accept that, insofar as it relates to the provision for salvation, but that statement ignores the fact that in appropriating the provided salvation, man must have a very active part. On the day of Pentecost, those who were pricked by Peter's sermon came with their question, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Was that treated as a wrong question? Did Peter tell them, "don't worry, just relax. In God's own time and way he'll do it all. Really, there's nothing for you to do." NO! Peter said no such thing. That was not a wrong question. Peter did give them something to do, "Repent and be baptized." The Bible repeatedly has God calling upon sinners to act, "Look unto me"; "Seek ye the Lord"; "Save yourselves"; "Return unto the Lord". In every instance, an act of the will is needed to trigger the response that God will then enable the person to make. God waits upon that act of the will. Contrary to the Calvinist, we do not view believing and repenting as an attempt to earn salvation. A thing can be necessary without being meritorious. The mere act of reaching out for a gift does not make one worthy of that gift, but you will never get the gift if you do not reach out for it when it's offered. Contrary to Calvinistic teaching, we believe that no sinner is saved until he really wants to be. God's saving grace is offered to all, but it is forced upon no one. Those who stoned Stephen were allowed the liberty to resist the Spirit of God. They were doing precisely that. And with few exceptions, they probably continued to do that—they probably died that way-resisting the Holy Spirit. So, the concept of irresistible grace is likewise a false doctrine. Now, possibly I've devoted too much time to the getting saved process. This subject, the believer's security, is related more directly to the matter of staying saved. For the Calvinist, staying saved is inevitable. We disagree, and on Biblical grounds. In Ezekiel 18, God through his prophet speaks directly to this point. Ezekiel 18:24, "But when the righteous turneth away from His righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die." Although this is found in the Old Testament, it appears to be God's uniform way of operating because we have virtually the same thing in the New Testament in Romans 8:13 and it's addressed to Christians! "If ye [you, who are already Christians] live after the flesh, ye shall die." And that surely has in view a spiritual dying. Whether or not you live after the flesh, you die physically, so it can't mean that. It must be talking about a loss of spiritual life. I'm turning now to that familiar parable at the end of Matthew 18. Here is this king who began to take account of his servants. After discovering that one owed him a large sum of money, and after that servant begged for mercy, the king graciously forgave that enormous debt. However, that servant then went forth, and treated a fellow servant in a very unmerciful way. What happened? Verse 32. Matthew 18:32, "Then his Lord, after he had called him, said unto him 'Oh, thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?’ And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him." Now, underscore these words, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." The pardon that had been granted was revoked. Clearly, that pardon was revoked. Turn with me now to Colossians chapter 1. Colossians 1, let's begin in verse 21, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel." Notice that word "if". "If ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away". It plainly shows that true security is conditional in character. There are many "ifs" scattered throughout the New Testament. 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." The condition we meet to become saved must be maintained in order to remain saved. Most Bible readers are familiar with the "vine and branch" passage, John 15. A very significant truth emerges from that passage, namely this: The new life that is received in regeneration is not an independent life. It is a life that Christ shares with us as we abide in Him. Let's listen to John 15:6, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them in to the fire, and they are burned." I don't think it would be like Jesus to warn of a danger that is nonexistent. It wouldn't be like Christ to do that, would it? When one is baptized as a Christian, he enters into a covenant relationship with God. Solemn promises are made. Now visualize for a moment a person who no longer honors the terms of that covenant. On what ground can he still claim the security of that covenant? In the New Testament, true security is always associated with present tense, up to date, Christian experience. In that much-used passage, John 10, this dimension gets overlooked very often. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me" and as they thus believe and follow, they are wonderfully secure. But, ask any shepherd and I think he will tell you that now and then a sheep gets lost because he doesn't do this. It's the sheep nature to wander away. For our Calvinistic friends, this insistence on security being conditional creates a problem. They are taught that if there is any possibility of losing out and being eternally lost, then all ground for assurance is swept away. Let's take a moment to examine that logic. Consider, for example, these parallels. It would be possible for me to commit suicide. It's being done every day. The break-up of our marriage likewise is a possibility. It's happening every day. But, I'm not disturbed in the least by either of those possibilities. In the same way, although our security in Christ is conditional, we can still enjoy a wonderful Christian experience. But what about their slogans? They sound so convincing, "once a sheep, always a sheep; once a son, always a son; once you're born, you can't be unborn". Again, I would urge you to closely examine that logic. If their logic is correct, then we should be able to add, "once a child of the devil, always a child of the devil." Wouldn't that be only consistent? If that were true, then you might as well close the churches and call home the missionaries. In the second place, their logic breaks down, too, because there does not exist an exact parallel between the natural realm and the spiritual realm. We do not choose our physical father, but as we arrive at the age of accountability and beyond, we do choose our spiritual Father. Furthermore, one's physical birth occurs without his choice being involved. Is it that way with a spiritual birth? No. Our will is very much involved in our second birth. Again, in physical birth, one receives a life independent of his parents. Your parents die, you live on-because you have a life independent of their life. But, the new life that is received in regeneration is different. Apart from Christ, we can't maintain that life. So, let's not be intimidated by the logic of their arguments. Let's stand firm on the Word of God. As I see it, Calvinistic teaching is dangerous because it fosters a too-permissive attitude towards sin. Actually, their teaching removes the most urgent reason for practicing Christian carefulness. Now, there are those who try to convince their audience that Calvinism and Armenianism represent nothing more than polarities of truth. And that, however opposite they may seem to be, both positions lie within the circle of truth, and that either one can be substantiated as well as the other. Well, I don't deny that there are polarities of truth, but I also know that when you move too far to the right or to the left, you get outside the circle of truth. Although I regret having to do it, I don't apologize for insinuating that the builders and maintainers of Calvinism have gone too far. They've gone outside the circle. Down in Egypt, on the first Passover night, that Israelite behind his blood-sprinkled door was secure. But it was a conditional security offered to him on the condition that--in obedience to God--he stays behind that blood-spattered door. I'm thankful that that kind of conditional security is still available. Merle Ruth Return to the home page... This page was added on 11/25/2006 |