Perseverance of the Saints v Eternal Security

[Squire Robertsson]

What Tom just wrote.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

That is why I use the term "Preservation of the Saints." It is not our perseverance that gives us assurance, but God's preserving us by His matchless Grace.

Would you agree or disagree with the following (?): "We do not attain to the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus automatically. Perseverance means the engagement of our persons in the most intense and concentrated devotion to those means which God has ordained for the achievement of his saving purpose."

 

[JamesL]

We are justified "apart from" works, not "with works inevitable"

The OP presents two views which are the same in substance. And it's false, no matter which camp expresses it. Many who embrace the doctrine but reject the remaining 4 points of Calvinism will argue that there's a distinction, though.

 

[Yeshua1]

Let's get down to brass tacks. "Eternal security" is simply a Free Grace relabeling of "Perseverance of the Saints," or as the Primitive Baptists would prefer, "Preservation of the Saints."

On one hand "eternal security" is something of a remedy against some excesses of Calvinism, which looked to external signs to verify whether one is truly regenerated. On the other hand, it too often puts the focus on an individual's subjective "belief," i.e., I walked the aisle, I believed. No matter what I do afterward, I am assured of salvation. That is a bastardization of the doctrine of perseverance or preservation, an invitation to antinomianism.

Since I'm not a Calvinist — but an Augustinian or even a Thomist — I believe that perseverance is totally an act of grace on God's part, but not something that I can take for granted just because I believe I'm included in the elect.

Think that they are flip sides of the same coin though, as a baptist I would the scriptures as teaching that it is the will of God that once saved I was placed by Him into the Kingdom of Jesus, into the Body of Christ sealed by the Holy Spirit and eternally secured, as Jesus atoned for all my sins, and is my High Priest, and sealed by the Spirit. as a calvinist, would see this as being worked out in my life in the sense that in the end, will show to be faithful and true to the Lord jesus due to Him already having saved me, interceding for me, sealed by Spirit, so living overall in a genuine saved fashioned just reflects the work already done and is doing in and through me. those 2 positions to me compliment each other, s one emphasis is on the inward work of god, and other external working it out in my life!

 

[TCassidy]

Would you agree or disagree with the following (?)

No. John Murray is confused. Which is evident from even the most casual reading of Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

The problem with his view of "Lordship Salvation" is that, when taken to its ultimate conclusion, he arrives at a form of Arminianism.

We are preserved unto the day of redemption by the Power of God, not by "the engagement of our persons."

We are saved now (positionally). We can know we are saved now. Not by the degree of "the engagement of our persons" but by the fact that we believe "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

The motive behind our service to God ("the engagement of our persons") is not to ensure our ultimate salvation, or even our assurance of salvation, but out of a love of God placed in our new heart of faith by the matchless Grace of Almighty God.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. John Murray is confused. Which is evident from even the most casual reading of Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

The problem with his view of "Lordship Salvation" is that, when taken to its ultimate conclusion, he arrives at a form of Arminianism.

We are preserved unto the day of redemption by the Power of God, not by "the engagement of our persons."

We are saved now (positionally). We can know we are saved now. Not by the degree of "the engagement of our persons" but by the fact that we believe "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

The motive behind our service to God ("the engagement of our persons") is not to ensure our ultimate salvation, or even our assurance of salvation, but out of a love of God placed in our new heart of faith by the matchless Grace of Almighty God.

For it is God himself , who is at work in you, and he will complete that which he has started against that Day!

 

[Van]

I have read many times that there is a difference between the "P" of the TULIP, and "OSAS." The OP posts again make this claim.
However, I do not see any difference. Once a person is transferred into Christ and is born anew and then sealed with the Holy Spirit forever, they will persevere and never lose their salvation. Both sides say this.

Will they also persevere in their outward appearance of engagement in the ministry of Christ? Not sure what the "P" folks would say, but the OSAS folks say the convicting of our indwelt Holy Spirit protects our inner faith but outwardly we can become stagnant or engage in unproductive ministry (building with straw). OTOH, if a person turns away from Christ and says he/she no longer believes in Christ, then according to OSAS, they were never saved, because God protects our faith.

 

[Mr. Davis]

OTOH, if a person turns away from Christ and says he/she no longer believes in Christ, then according to OSAS, they were never saved, because God protects our faith.

According to Calvinism, God saves from eternity past and no response by man is necessary. If one of the elect gets confused and says that they no longer believe, they are still saved. God seals from eternity past.

However, there are professing 'believers' who speak with their mouths all the right things, but were never born again.

TULIP's (P) and eternal security and osas all agree and say the same thing. TULIP's (P) is the Preservation of the Saints. They are preserved from eternity past.

 

[Van]

Thanks Mr. Davis. So if your understanding is correct, those born anew do not have their faith protected and may disavow Christ yet still be actually saved. Not what I believe scripture teaches.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

According to Calvinism, God saves from eternity past and no response by man is necessary. If one of the elect gets confused and says that they no longer believe, they are still saved. God seals from eternity past.

You're joking, right?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Would you agree or disagree with the following (?): "We do not attain to the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus automatically. Perseverance means the engagement of our persons in the most intense and concentrated devotion to those means which God has ordained for the achievement of his saving purpose."

I agree with it. 'We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God' (Acts 14:22). God's elect will be saved, but they will not be saved without persevering through the aforementioned tribulations.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

...Ken, and to any moderators or administration officials that are monitoring this thread, it really needs to be moved to the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate thread.

I see you were successful at getting this moved to the "Calvinism & Arminianism Debate" forum. I find this strange, since there is nothing about the topic that offers any debate with Arminians. Oh well...

 

[Ken Hamrick]

No. John Murray is confused. Which is evident from even the most casual reading of Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

The problem with his view of "Lordship Salvation" is that, when taken to its ultimate conclusion, he arrives at a form of Arminianism.

We are preserved unto the day of redemption by the Power of God, not by "the engagement of our persons."

We are saved now (positionally). We can know we are saved now. Not by the degree of "the engagement of our persons" but by the fact that we believe "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

The motive behind our service to God ("the engagement of our persons") is not to ensure our ultimate salvation, or even our assurance of salvation, but out of a love of God placed in our new heart of faith by the matchless Grace of Almighty God.

John Murray is definitely confused about the truth, but he is not confused about Calvinist doctrine. It is the Calvinist doctrine of POS that is confused, and Murray explicates that doctrine very well, as he does with all things Calvinist. So your agreement with me on his error is, in my view, an acknowledgement that there is a more accurate doctrine, held by many Baptists, which is eternal security.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

I have read many times that there is a difference between the "P" of the TULIP, and "OSAS." The OP posts again make this claim.
However, I do not see any difference. Once a person is transferred into Christ and is born anew and then sealed with the Holy Spirit forever, they will persevere and never lose their salvation. Both sides say this.

Will they also persevere in their outward appearance of engagement in the ministry of Christ? Not sure what the "P" folks would say, but the OSAS folks say the convicting of our indwelt Holy Spirit protects our inner faith but outwardly we can become stagnant or engage in unproductive ministry (building with straw). OTOH, if a person turns away from Christ and says he/she no longer believes in Christ, then according to OSAS, they were never saved, because God protects our faith.

It is not enough to say that you do not see any difference. The question in this discussion is, what will you do with the differences presented in the opening posts? Do you acknowledges that they are differences (in which case you now see a difference), or do you deny that they are in fact differences (or perhaps, significant differences)?

 

[Ken Hamrick]

According to Calvinism, God saves from eternity past and no response by man is necessary. If one of the elect gets confused and says that they no longer believe, they are still saved. God seals from eternity past.

However, there are professing 'believers' who speak with their mouths all the right things, but were never born again.

TULIP's (P) and eternal security and osas all agree and say the same thing. TULIP's (P) is the Preservation of the Saints. They are preserved from eternity past.

Calvinism does not claim that no response is necessary. The response is inevitable, but still necessary. And if any of the elect, in the Calvinist system, says that they no longer believe, then they have shown themselves to not be elect and they have not persevered.

POS and Eternal Security do not say the same thing, and that was established in the opening posts. Did you read them? Those who hold to Eternal Security see our salvation as fully and completely accomplished when we come to a genuine, repentant faith and are reborn into Christ; while those who hold to Perseverance of the Saints seem to see perseverance (by the grace and power of God) as necessary to the accomplishment of our final salvation. In other words, they see a temporal contingency of apostasy to be avoided or overcome by persevering (by the grace and power of God). Baptists who hold to Eternal Security do not see any temporal contingency of apostasy to be overcome by persevering. And that difference is so fundamental as to make POS and Eternal Security two different doctrines.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

I agree with it. 'We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God' (Acts 14:22). God's elect will be saved, but they will not be saved without persevering through the aforementioned tribulations.

Considering the differences I explained in the opening posts, would you agree that many Baptists who think they hold to POS would fundamentally disagree with it if they understood it?

 

[Ken Hamrick]

No one yet has substantively engaged the opening posts.

Well, yes, we have. You have posited that "eternal security" is in fact something different than "perseverance." They really aren't, except in ways you don't agree with.

Look at the quotes of Murray in opening posts and you will see a substantive engagement of the issue. Read my critique of Murray and you will find a substantive engagement of Murray's view. Then look at the replies from you and the others up to the point where you claim, "Well, yes we have," and all you find is assertions and conclusions. It's easy to state an assertion or disagree with my conclusion. But my conclusion did not stand on hot air alone. I also presented a detailed argument establishing the basis for that conclusion. Any disagreement with that conclusion that does not also present, at least to some reasonable degree, a substantive engagement of the points which I argued is a conclusion based on hot air alone. Such is not a substantive engagement.

You say that I'm wrong in positing that Eternal Security is different from Perseverance. But I did not merely make the claim. I established the differences. So then, either refute the points that I have made or concede by default in the eyes of any reasonable readers. (I'm not concerned with unreasonable readers).

I'm not a "cage Calvinist." I have no brief for them, but I also have no brief for those who continually want to fudge the theological differences among honest Christians who have different views of redemption. They are overwhelmingly in the middle.

I have no idea what you mean or to whom you're referring.

[...]You view rationalism as the enemy. Well, that's just the way with Baptists. Like it or not, the Baptist tradition is one of rationalism. We're not Anabaptists; we're not pietists. Rationalism, in my mind, is a good thing. Otherwise we would accept all kinds of mush that passes for theology.

Did you post in the wrong thread? I do not see rationalism but excessive rationalism as an enemy. (If I was unclear about that, I apologize). And I do not find most Baptists to be excessively rationalistic. On the contrary, I have found most Baptists to be Centrists, "compatibilists" and Antinomists. Nevertheless, I will admit my own penchant for excessive rationalism, as it is an area of personal growth for me that is ongoing. While in general, I'm becoming less and less interested in rationally arguing with Calvinists and Arminians (my participation is only a fraction of what it was ten years ago), I am drawn into it occasionally, in an effort to engage the excessive rationalists on their own ground, and possibly shed some light.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Let's get down to brass tacks. "Eternal security" is simply a Free Grace relabeling of "Perseverance of the Saints," or as the Primitive Baptists would prefer, "Preservation of the Saints."

No, the two are fundamentally different. In fact, Perseverance has more in common with the Arminian doctrine of Losable Salvation than it does with Eternal Security. Both Perseverance and Losable Salvation agree on the temporal contingency of apostasy to be avoided. The only difference is that in POS, one loses salvation retroactively, showing by their failure to persevere that they were not elect. Eternal Security sees salvation as irrevocably accomplished and finished at the point of genuine faith.

On one hand "eternal security" is something of a remedy against some excesses of Calvinism, which looked to external signs to verify whether one is truly regenerated. On the other hand, it too often puts the focus on an individual's subjective "belief," i.e., I walked the aisle, I believed. No matter what I do afterward, I am assured of salvation. That is a bastardization of the doctrine of perseverance or preservation, an invitation to antinomianism.

Since I'm not a Calvinist — but an Augustinian or even a Thomist — I believe that perseverance is totally an act of grace on God's part, but not something that I can take for granted just because I believe I'm included in the elect.

Eternal Security is not taking for granted one's salvation or antinomianism. Eternal Security, as taught in most Baptist churches, does not say, "No matter what I do afterward, I am assured of salvation;" but rather, it says, "Transformational fruit will accompany genuine salvation, and the more that I fall into grievous sin, the less likely that the faith by which I came to Christ was a genuine faith." In other words, if in the end, I do not make it to heaven, it will not be because God threw me out His kingdom and revoked His salvation, but it will only be because I was never really saved in the first place. Such a doctrine provides no license for presumptuous sin or antinomianism.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

I do not believe they are the same thing.....we have seen people here on baptistboard claim eternal security, while denying perseverance of the saints.
The quotes of John Murray were on topic.


Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
1._____ Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
( John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6 )
2._____ This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
( Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40 )

3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )

Finally, some substance. Thank you!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Considering the differences I explained in the opening posts, would you agree that many Baptists who think they hold to POS would fundamentally disagree with it if they understood it?

I don't think so. Having re-read your O.Ps, I'm inclined to think that you are over-stating the differences somewhat. I had intended to quote from the Baptist 1689 Confession but it seems that Iconoclast has beaten me to it.

Matthew 24:13 states, 'But he who endures to the end shall be saved.' That text must be harmonized with others that state, for instance, 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.....' (Romans 8:1), but of course the Majority Text continues, '.......who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.' The harmonization of these texts must mean that God will preserve His elect by giving them grace to persevere through tribulation. The Lord Jesus told His apostles, "These things I have spoken to you that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world' (John 16:33).

Those who have read John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress will recall that Pilgrim had to pass through the wicket gate to start his pilgrimage. The gate stands for faith and repentance. All those who passed through the gate and entered upon the road, eventually reached the Celestial City, even though they had to pass through the valley of the Shadow of Death and other obstacles. But as he walked, Pilgrim saw two men, Formalist and Hypocrisy come tumbling over the wall rather than passing through the gate. These men appeared to be on the road just the same as Pilgrim, but they never surmounted the Hill of Difficulty and therefore never arrived at the Celestial City.

My great fear is that teaching Eternal Security or OSAS, leads people to think that because they have gone forward to the front at a meeting and prayed a prayer or signed a card, they are saved forever no matter how they live.

There has been a great scandal in the Church in Britain concerning a well-known Pastor and Conference speaker. I heard him speak once and it never occurred to me that he was anything but a fine, upstanding Christian and an excellent preacher. However, it appears that earlier this year he was confronted by his wife concerning multiple infidelities with women in his congregation and took his own life to avoid the consequences of his actions. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, especially verse 12, seems appropriate.