[Note: I wrote the following article for an online theological journal that deals with the topic of eternal security. Since I have not heard anything in response I am posting the article here. Any typological or other errors are solely my own. Charlie.]
The Irrevocable Nature of Salvation as Manifestation
of God’s Attributes
by Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.
Outline:
I.
Introduction
II.
Epistemological and Apologetical Considerations in the Light of
Theology and Christian Philosophy
III.
Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Exegetical Considerations
IV.
Confessional Theology: A Brief
Survey of the Reformed Standards of Unity
V.
Conclusion
Introduction
The presuppositional position of this
paper is that Scripture is the Word of God and that Scripture is fully inspired
in every word (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; John 17:17). Moreover, the Holy Scriptures are infallible
and inerrant in all that is affirmed in the logical, systematic, and rational
revelation of God in the plenarily inspired writings. The doctrine of divine inspiration makes
possible the other doctrines which are exegetically drawn from Scripture via
the historical-grammatical method. The
Protestant Reformation, however, has upheld the doctrine that Scripture is
sufficient in and of itself in all matters of doctrine, faith and practice. Furthermore, Scripture is completely
perspicuous, and where there are difficult passages the more plain passages of
Scripture interpret those passages of Scripture which are harder to understand.
Although Scripture contains several genres
of literature, including wisdom literature, gospel, poetry, historical
narrative, epistolary and didactic materials, it is clear that revelation is
given in propositional truth statements which establish doctrinal beliefs (2
Timothy 2:15; 3:15-17; Titus 2:1). The
doctrine of sola Scriptura does not mean that the individual believer is
free to interpret the Bible in any way they see fit (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter
2:9; Revelation 5:10). Affirming that Scripture alone is the final
authority in all dogmatic doctrine, morality, and ethics implies the beginning
axiom that Scripture is the word of God.
From this axiom it is further presupposed that revelation is logical and
that all theological truths are logically deduced from the Holy Scriptures.[1] Although individual Christians have a right to
the principle of private interpretation, this does not mean that there are no
secondary sources of authority.
Scripture is the final authority and final arbiter in all doctrinal
matters for individuals, congregations, and denominations (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2
Peter 1:19-21). However, Scripture must
be interpreted in order to be meaningful; therefore, congregations and
denominations must have a secondary authority in the ecumenical creeds and Reformation
confessions as a doctrinal foundation for fellowship, communion and
authoritative teaching. These
confessions and creeds draw their most certain warrant from Scripture and
Scripture alone.[2]
In addressing the question of whether or
not eternal salvation is in its essence a manifestation of God’s essential
nature and attributes, one must consider the nature of knowledge itself. Implicit in such a question is the assumption
that an individual can know and be assured that they have acquired such
salvation (1 John 5:13). If the nature of
salvation is that such salvation is impossible to lose and that such salvation
is irrevocable, it follows that some basis for establishing the knowability and
the assurance of this doctrine on the part of the believer must be established
first. In short, truth is by its very
nature propositional and systematic in nature.
As the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark said, “Disjointed propositions can
hardly be called true; truth can only exist in systematic form.”[3] For the Calvinist the secondary authority of
the ecumenical creeds coupled together with the Reformed symbols or confessions
is a non-negotiable proposition.
Furthermore, given the nature of theology, philosophical and
epistemological considerations cannot be avoided. The relationship between Scripture,
confessional theology, and the assurance obtained by the believer is ultimately
founded upon the axiom that Scripture alone is the ultimate divine revelation
from God. Thus, believing and assenting
to the gospel propositions in the objective revelation of Holy Scripture is the
foundation for assurance of salvation and having a firm confidence in eternal
security. This security is founded on
the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works as that doctrine
is understood within the systematic teaching of Scripture and outlined in the
Reformed confessions. To confuse
justification with sanctification is therefore an egregious error which
undermines the assurance and security of the believer. To confuse justification with sanctification
is tantamount to saying that salvation is by faith plus good works and merits.
Additionally, the Protestant, Anglican,
Reformed and Evangelical commitments of this writer makes it obligatory that references
be made to the Anglican Formularies, the Westminster Standards,
and the Dutch Three Forms of Unity for a systematic understanding of this
particular doctrine of eternal security.[4] An inductive study of eternal salvation and
perseverance must fit with the teaching of Scripture as the systematic and
holistic source of propositional truth, although the doctrine of the final perseverance
of God’s elect has been understood traditionally within a magisterial and
reformational framework, particularly as it developed in England and in continental
Europe.
Epistemological and Apologetical Considerations in the
Light of Theology and Christian Philosophy
Confessional theology within Protestant and
Reformed Christianity has made a distinction between special revelation and
natural or general revelation (Romans 1:18-32; 2 Peter 1:19-21).[5] What this means for the classical Reformed and
Calvinist position is that special revelation is necessary for the believer to
have saving assent to the knowledge revealed in the propositional truth
statements of Holy Scripture. Natural
revelation or “natural light” is insufficient to produce saving faith,
according to the apostle Paul (Romans 1:18-32).
Only through faith in Jesus Christ and his gospel message is salvation
possible (John 14:6; Acts 4:10, 12; John 1:12-13; 3:16-18; 5:24-25). The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion,
the primary confessional statement of the Anglican Formularies, reiterates this
biblical teaching.[6] Thus, any idea
of universal salvation or second chances in the grave are ruled out in regards
to eternal salvation (Hebrews 9:27; Romans 9:11-18). The propositional statements made in
Scripture make it clear that faith comes from hearing the gospel message and
the Word of God (Romans 10:1-17). More
will be said about this approach below.
Moreover, all knowledge begins with axioms
which are in and of themselves presupposed and beyond the pale of empirical
sensations or empirical evidences.
Knowledge is a process of the intellect and therefore does not originate
from veridicalism or empiricism, though the latter two concepts are indeed
processed by the mind. Logical
positivism, for example, has long been exposed as self-refuting since it
contends that only what can be observed empirically can produce valid knowledge. This contention is itself not based on an
empirical observation but is instead a presupposed axiom:
Early critics of logical positivism said
that its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated consistently.
The verifiability criterion of meaning did not seem verifiable; but neither was
it simply a logical tautology, since it had implications for the practice of
science and the empirical truth of other statements. This presented severe
problems for the logical consistency of the theory.[7]
Ultimately then, the knowledge of God and
the assurance of salvation must have an epistemological basis which is
objective in nature. This objective
standard for knowledge must begin with special revelation in the inspired and
infallible Scriptures, which contain propositional truth statements that are
objectively revealed in written form.
Proponents of this univocal and objective revelation in Holy Scripture
include Gordon H. Clark, Carl F. H. Henry, and Robert L. Reymond. It is the contention of this paper that eternal
salvation as assurance of God’s irrevocable and irresistible call manifests
itself through the gift of faith in the elect and their perseverance in faith
to the end, although that perseverance is not necessarily consistent in
obedience, sanctification, or performance.[8] To contend that
good works are necessary for salvation is to compromise with the Roman Catholic
confusion of imputed justification with an infused sanctification or
righteousness. Justification is an
objective and finished work of God through the active and passive obedience of
Jesus Christ and is outside the believer, while sanctification is an infused
righteousness which is subjective and infused into the heart or mind of the
believer.
Moreover, to place knowledge solely in
subjective experience is to open the door to skepticism and irrationalism. The philosophy of Sorien Kierkegaard and
Immanuel Kant prepared the way for a so-called middle way between Enlightenment
scholasticism and the modernist and postmodernist view. According to Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and
others in the neo-orthodox camp, rationalism and scholasticism leads ultimately
to liberalism and skepticism.
Unfortunately, their mediation between rationalism and irrationalism is
itself based on an existentialist philosophy that leaves no objective
revelation possible. For the neo-orthodox
school of theology, revelation can only take place subjectively and
existentially, since for them God is totally transcendent and ineffable due to
His incomprehensibility. Although Barth
and Brunner were in disagreement over the issue of natural revelation, both men
rejected the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. For them Scripture could only be a framework
for revelation but could not be itself a revelation from God. Unfortunately, many scholars in the
Evangelical and Reformed tradition today have adopted a modified or mediating
position between the Old School Princeton theology and neo-orthodoxy. This modern tendency is best exemplified in
the theology of Cornelius Van Til and his followers.
According to the Van Tilian school,
Scripture cannot be the univocal revelation of God due to the Creature/creator
distinction. Instead, Scripture is an
analogy of God’s revelation but not direct revelation from God. Referring to the anthropomorphisms and
anthropopathisms in Scripture they reason that all Scripture is an analogy in
the same way that Scripture contains metaphors, similes, parables, and analogies in order to accommodate to the creature’s ability to
relate to God. For them the theology of
Thomas Aquinas and his theory of analogy is alleged to be a mediating position
between univocal revelation and the theory of revelation as equivocation
advocated by neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. R. Scott Clark, a proponent of Van Til’s
theology, contends:
Given the necessary chasm between God and
the creature, as taught by Calvin and defended so ably and so long by Cornelius
van Til, God must accommodate himself to his creatures. This accommodated
revelation of God’s mind and will is ectyptal theology (theologia ectypa). It
is based upon God’s self-understanding, but not identical with it. Ectypal
theology, as the adjective suggests, is a reflection of the archetypal
theology. It is true, but it is accommodated to the human creature.
It would appear that neither the
Hyper-Calvinists nor the Open-Theists have understood or accounted for this
distinction. All revelation is necessarily an accommodation. It is not as if,
sometimes we have direct, unmediated access to God and at other times we do
not.[9]
Unfortunately, the Van Tilian theory of
accommodation goes too far. Some have even called the Bible "inspired" myth. However, if all truth
is God’s truth, wherever man’s knowledge is an accurate understanding of God’s
revelation of that truth which coincides with God’s intended propositional
statements in Scripture, then the creature knows what God knows at that
particular point of convergence. Although
creatures certainly cannot know anything that God has not revealed in the
plenary inspiration of Scripture, they can know what God has univocally
revealed in the form of ectypal and accommodated revelation. Even in the arena of natural revelation humans
can have at least some knowledge of the universe if natural revelation is
interpreted primarily via the special revelation of Scripture.[10] However, the
problem is that the neo-Kuyperian, neo-Calvinist, and Van Tilian school of
thought has attempted to establish a mediating view between Evangelicalism and
neo-orthodoxy and to make that position a test of confessional
subscription. During the Clark/Van Til
controversy in 1944, Van Til and his followers attempted to prevent the
ordination of Gordon H. Clark based on their charges that he was a
fundamentalist and a rationalist. None
of the charges were upheld by the Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church, however.[11]
The point of this discussion thus far is
that the only basis for knowing and believing the doctrine of eternal
salvation, eternal security, or the final perseverance of the saints is the
axiom that Scripture is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Without this beginning point, reason and
experience leads ultimately to skepticism and irrationalism. If Scripture is not univocally the very words
of God on a creaturely level, then the individual Christian has no basis for
believing in eternal security or any other doctrine. Personal experience is not a dependable
source of truth since experience varies from one person to another and the
commensurate level of sanctification and obedience is likewise variable.[12]
Knowledge is necessary for both justifying
faith and for the process of sanctification, which is the imperfect result of
that biblically given knowledge (John 17:17; Romans 3:20-25; 2 Peter
3:18). Basically, since God knows all
truth, it logically follows that if humans know anything that is true then God
and the believer know particular propositions or truth claims which are common to
both, although it is most certainly true that God is the ultimate source of all
truth. Contrary to the opinion of Dr.
Michael Horton, this view does not reject the doctrine of God’s
incomprehensibility since believing that Scripture is univocally the inspired
Word of God is not an attempt to pry into God’s secret being:
Beneath
the tumultuous conflicts of liberals are the various currents and
countercurrents of modern epistemology.
In spite of their great differences over the form that revelation takes,
all of these models seem captive to a demand for revelational immediacy. R. S. Clark calls this the illegitimate
demand for religious certainty and the illegitimate demand for religious
experience.(48) We have
already recognized this tendency in the first model, with the explicit denial
of the doctrine of analogy in favor of univocity by conservative theologians
like Gordon Clark and Carl F. H. Henry. . . [13]
Moreover, Horton does not believe that the
propositional truth claims made in the Scriptures are true for both God and
man. Instead he believes that it is an
illegitimate quest for religious certainty to say that Scripture is revealed to
creatures univocally on their own level (Deuteronomy 29:29). Exactly how revelation in the written words
of Scripture is “prying into the secret being of God” is not made clear,
however.
In short, following Van Til’s theology, a
person who believes they are eternally secure might be wrong because Scripture
does not coincide at any single point between God’s knowledge and man’s
knowledge, even when that knowledge is revealed on the level of the
creature. This presents a problem for
the doctrine of eternal security unless there is an objective, propositional
standard beyond mere personal experience to substantiate the personal assent to
eternal security and the personal appropriation of eternal salvation. For the Evangelical and Reformed Christian
that substantiating basis is Holy Scripture and the doctrine of sola
Scriptura. The secondary authority
for personal belief and the corporate body of teaching must be a systematic
exposition of the Scriptures which is consistent with biblical theology. That systematic exposition or “confession of
faith” has authority within a congregation, denomination, or faith community so
that a determination can be made between heresy and doctrinal orthodoxy. Without such a basis to decide the parameters
of biblical orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and fellowship, the believer and the local
congregation is left in a quandary in regards to an objective standard for
doctrine. For Anglo-Reformed and
Presbyterian believers these sources of secondary authority are the Reformed
symbols and the ecumenical creeds.[14] Anglicans
generally follow the Anglican Formularies[15] while
Presbyterians follow either the Westminster Standards or the Dutch Three
Forms of Unity. For the Evangelical
believer a rational justification for the Christian worldview and the doctrine
of God’s eternal election and salvation of believers is rooted firmly in the
self-evident axiom that Scripture is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2
Peter 1:19-21). From this presupposition
all else is logically deduced.[16] In other words, if Scripture is merely
analogical and at no point does God’s knowledge and creaturely knowledge converge,
then the doctrine of eternal salvation as a manifestation of God’s irrevocable decree
to save his elect is in danger of being merely an ineffable, mystical and
existential encounter rather than an objective promise given to those who
intellectually assent to the propositions of the gospel as it is revealed in
Holy Scripture.
Sola Scriptura: Biblical and
Exegetical Considerations
As
has been stated above, the approach of this paper in regards to the nature of
eternal salvation is threefold: 1) The epistemological axiom that Scripture is
the Word of God. 2) The Scriptures alone are the final authority
and final arbiter of orthodox doctrine and orthodox practice. 3)
Scripture needs a normative and systematic exposition as a basis for dogmatic
doctrinal teaching, Christian fellowship, and congregational and denominational
affiliation. In light of that necessity,
a brief exposition of the biblical materials in regards to both eternal
salvation and the nature and attributes of God will be undertaken. Salvation primarily depends on who God is as
one God in three persons; an emphasis on eternal salvation is intimately
connected with God’s tri-personality and unity of essence as these doctrines
are logically deduced from Scripture (2 Corinthians 13:14). The final perseverance of the elect is
intimately and rationally connected with the tri-unity of God as Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. Moreover, eternal
redemption and the resulting doctrine of eternal security and the perseverance
of the saints must fit into the ordo salutis, or logical and temporal order
of salvation, and the covenantal teaching of Scripture as a complete system of
doctrine.
Especially in regards to Martin Luther,
the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the
church stands or falls.[17] For Luther,
however, the hinge upon which everything turns is the issue of the bondage of
the will.[18] Trusting in
one’s own ability to choose rightly by “free will” ultimately is not a dependable
assurance, according to Luther. In fact,
for the magisterial Reformers even conversion is not a “free will” choice,
since the soul of man is completely unable to turn to Christ apart from an
effectual call and regeneration preceding the choice to assent to the gospel
message. Furthermore, unless the
believer roots faith solidly in God’s Word and God’s promises, there can be no
assurance of salvation because the human will is hopelessly capricious, fickle,
and prone to waffle back and forth between faith and self-justification:
Why does the apostle add, and the Lord
Jesus Christ? Was it not enough to say from God our Father? A principle in the
Scriptures that we must note carefully is this: we must abstain from wrongly
seeking God’s majesty. “No one may see me and live,” says the Lord (Exodus
33:20). Those who trust in their own merits disregard this rule, and therefore
they remove the mediator Christ out of their sight and speak only of God; to
him alone they pray and do all that they do.
The monk thinks, “These works that I do
please God. God will regard these vows of mine and will save me because of
them.” The Muslim says, “If I keep the things that are commanded in the Koran,
God will accept me and give me everlasting life.” The Jew thinks, “If I keep
the things that the law commands, I shall find God merciful to me, and so I
shall be saved.” Similarly, some misguided people brag of the spirit of
revelation, or of visions and other such monstrous matters, dealing in wonders
above their reach. Such people have invented a new cross and new works and
dream that by doing them they please God. To be brief, whoever does not know
the truth of justification takes away Christ, the mercy-seat, and will have to
comprehend God in his majesty by the judgment of reason and pacify him with
their own works.
But true Christian religion does not
first present God in his majesty, as Moses and other teachers do. It commands
us not to search out the nature of God, but to know his will presented to us in
Christ, whom he wanted to take on flesh and be born and die for our sins; and
he wants this to be preached among all nations. “For since in the wisdom of God
the world in its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the
foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians
1:21). So when your conscience is in conflict, wrestling against the law, sin,
and death, in the presence of God, there is nothing more dangerous than to
wander amidst curious heavenly speculations, searching out God’s
incomprehensible power, wisdom, and majesty—how he created the world and how he
governs it. If this is how you try to comprehend God, attempting to pacify him
without Christ the mediator, making your works a means between him and
yourself, you will fall as Lucifer did and in horrible despair will lose God
and everything else. God is in his own nature immeasurable, incomprehensible,
and infinite, and so human nature finds him intolerable.
If you want safety, then, to flee from
perils of conscience and salvation, bridle your presumptuous spirit, and seek
God in the way that Paul teaches: “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling
block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1
Corinthians 1:23–24). So begin where Christ began—namely, in the womb of the
virgin, in the manger, at his mother’s breast. The reason he came down, was
born, lived among men and women, suffered, was crucified, and died was so that
he might present himself plainly to our eyes and fasten our spiritual sight
upon himself, so that he might keep us from climbing into heaven and from the
curious searching of the divine majesty.
Whenever you are dealing with the matter
of justification, therefore, and are wondering where and how to find God who
justifies and accepts sinners, remember that there is no other God besides this
man, Christ Jesus. Embrace him, and hang on to him with your whole heart,
setting aside all curious speculations about the divine majesty. Those vain
people who exclude the Mediator do not believe this. Christ himself says, “I am
the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me” (John 14:6).[19]
Calvin likewise saw that the doctrine of
justification by faith alone or sola fide is the hinge upon which the
Christian faith depends and this in turn affects the doctrine of eternal
security :
He thus holds, that none hope well in the
Lord save those who confidently glory in being the heirs of the heavenly kingdom.
No man, I say, is a believer but he who, trusting to the security of his
salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death, as we are taught by
the noble exclamation of Paul, “I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life,
nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate
us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rom. 8:38). In
like manner, the same Apostle does not consider that the eyes of our
understanding are enlightened unless we know what is the hope of the eternal
inheritance to which we are called (Eph. 1:18). Thus he uniformly intimates
throughout his writings, that the goodness of God is not properly comprehended
when security does not follow as its fruit.
17. But it will be said that this differs
widely from the experience of believers, who, in recognizing the grace of God
toward them, not only feel disquietude (this often happens), but sometimes
tremble, overcome with terror, so violent are the temptations which assail
their minds. This scarcely seems consistent with certainty of faith. It is
necessary to solve this difficulty, in order to maintain the doctrine above
laid down. When we say that faith must be certain and secure, we certainly
speak not of an assurance which is never affected by doubt, nor a security
which anxiety never assails; we rather maintain that believers have a perpetual
struggle with their own distrust, and are thus far from thinking that their
consciences possess a placid quiet, uninterrupted by perturbation. On the other
hand, whatever be the mode in which they are assailed, we deny that they fall
off and abandon that sure confidence which they have formed in the mercy of
God.[20]
Calvin,
like Luther, did not ultimately place the security of the believer in the realm
of a personal level of obedience or in the realm of feelings but in the realm
of faith. When doubts arise the believer
is to look to the cross and to God’s promises, not within the heart or mind (1
Corinthians 1:21; 2 Corinthians 1:20). What
is particularly interesting here is that rightly understood Martin Luther was
at least as strict as Calvin in regards to Luther’s view of absolute
predestination and God’s sovereignty. It
has been pointed out that in some ways Luther was more Calvinistic than Calvin.[21] In particular,
Luther did not reject reason or propositional truth in God’s revealed words in
Scripture. Rather, he rejected reason
apart from revelation. In the Bondage
of the Will Luther affirms God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation and even
affirms both election and reprobation of men and angels:
This,
therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know:
That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and
does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By
this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed
to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must
either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. . . .[22]
I shall here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared
if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider
that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the
truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God
fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor
hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place
but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;)
then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no
"Free-will"—in man,—in angel,—or in any creature![23]
For Luther salvation is certain because of
God’s immutable will to save those who believe.
There is no contingency with God since if God foreknows something it is most certain
to happen, as God is himself immutable in his own nature. If someone believes it is because God has effectually
called that person, and salvation is absolutely assured because nothing happens
by accident (John 6:44, 65; Hebrews 12:2).
If God has effectually called someone to faith, that is a manifestation
of God’s previous decree to unconditionally elect that person prior to the
foundation of the world. There is no
“free will” but only God’s irresistible grace and effectual call. Predestination is ultimately a comfort to
believers precisely because they know that the reason they believed in the
first place is that God decreed to elect and regenerate them from before the
foundation of the world (John 3:3-8; Romans 8:28-32; Ephesians 1:4, 11). Luther clearly does not reject logic or
reason in toto but only reason apart from God’s propositional truth statements
in Scripture. It is Scripture that
teaches predestination, election, and God’s immutable decrees to both election
and reprobation, and Luther does not deny either doctrine (Isaiah 14:24;
46:9-10; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28). Brian
Mattson quotes Luther:
"All things whatever
arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained
who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should
be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should
be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther[24]
Moreover, the ordo salutis begins
rightly with the doctrine of unconditional election (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans
9:11-13). Since God is immutable in His
nature, it logically follows that election is unconditional, irreversible and
irrevocable. Most notably, election does
not depend on foreseen works either good or bad but on God’s personal and free
decision. What is more, election is a
decree of God made prior to the birth of the elect individual and prior to
creation itself (Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:29).
Further, God is not capricious or arbitrary in his decrees since in his
omnipotence God is able to do anything that is not logically contradictory to
his nature as creator; God alone is free to do as he pleases (Psalm 115:3). Nothing God does is wrong or evil because he is
in his nature and essence the only absolutely perfect being in every attribute
comprehensible by the creature through the propositional revelation of the
Scriptures (Isaiah 52:7; Romans 3:4-8).
Further, the five points of Calvinism stand as a systematic unity in
regards to a biblical exposition of the doctrine of eternal salvation and God’s
immutable will as both tri-personal and unified as one divine being: Father,
Son and Holy Spirit (Deuteronomy 4:35;
6:4; Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; Luke 3:22; John 1:32).
The primary focus of any soteriology must
finally be God Himself as He is revealed in the verbal plenary inspiration of
Scripture. While modern Evangelicalism
rightly emphasizes a personal relationship with God as triune, this personal
relationship is not essentially existential, nor is it a mystical
encounter. Instead, the personal
relationship of the Christian with Jesus Christ is founded finally in belief or
faith and an intellectual knowledge of and a rational assent to the doctrines
of sovereign grace (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Jude 1:3). Additionally, faith is defined as believing
and assenting to the propositional truth claims about Jesus Christ, the moral
law, and the gospel. All five of the solas[25] of the Protestant Reformation play a key role in the
security of the believer, namely that salvation is completely a gift of
sovereign grace as that doctrine is revealed in Scripture (Titus 3:5-7). The doctrine of sola Scriptura then is
essential to the eternal security or the perseverance of the saints until the
end of their lives; it is only in Scripture that anyone can obtain this
knowledge and assent to the doctrinal propositions recorded therein (Luke 1:77;
11:52; Romans 10:2; 15:14; Acts 24:22; 1 Corinthians 1:5; 14:6; 15:34; 2
Corinthians 2:14; 4:6).
The biblical pericopes dealing with
eternal security are many. However, in
surveying these passages it should be noted that this paper presupposes the
Protestant emphasis on a distinction between justification by faith alone and
the doctrine of sanctification as both positional and progressive (Romans
4:1-8; Philippians 3:8-14).
Sanctification can never be the basis for the security or assurance of
the believer in any absolute sense due to the problem of God’s moral perfection
versus mankind’s absolute corruption and sinfulness (Isaiah 64:6; Romans
3:23). God does not grade on a curve but
expects sinless perfection from birth (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 5:17-20, 48;
Romans 6:23). Since this perfect
obedience required by God is impossible, due to the doctrine of total inability
or total depravity, the only possible way of salvation is by faith alone. Christ Jesus has fulfilled all the
requirements of God’s moral law by living a sinless life for His elect (2
Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22). In fact, the eternal salvation of the
believer is rooted and grounded in the substitutionary, particular atonement
and the active and passive obedience of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter
2:24). The systematic nature of
Christian doctrine makes isolating the eternal perseverance and salvation of
the elect impossible, especially since it must fit within a deductive body of
dogmatic teaching in Scripture. This
systematic theology is summarized in brief in the Reformation confessions of
the sixteenth century, although the confessions are only binding as they draw
their most certain warrant from Holy Scripture.[26]
Due to the limitations of this paper only
a few passages of Scripture will be examined.
However, the attributes of God will be briefly considered in the light
of eternal salvation and God’s eternal nature.
Scripture portrays God as a spiritual being who has no body parts or
passions. One of the primary texts for
this view is John 4:24:
"God
is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
(John 4:24 NKJV)
Whatever the divine image and likeness
might be in humankind, it cannot be a physical body since God Himself has no
corporeal existence in His eternal and divine being or essence. Not until the incarnation of Jesus Christ two
millennia ago did God the Son, the divine Logos, assume a human body and
nature. Additionally, the union of the
divine nature with the human nature does not compromise either of the two
natures since both are perfectly united in the hypostatic mediatorship of Christ, who
is both the second person of the triune God and fully human (2 Corinthians 13:14; Matthew 28:19). In him dwells all the divine nature in bodily
form (Colossians 1:19; 2:9; 2 Timothy 3:16).
Furthermore, Jesus has a genuine human mind and personality that is not replaced by the Logos. That would mean that in addition to having two wills, Christ has two genuine persons united in one mediator. In short, his human nature is not devoid of human personality or a truly human and reasonable soul.
However, this paper will focus on the doctrine of God’s immutability. The three major attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence will be considered only as they relate to the manifestation of God’s immutability in the doctrine of the irrevocability of saving faith—faith is impossible without God’s monergistic gift enabling faith in the first place (Ephesians 2:8-9).
However, this paper will focus on the doctrine of God’s immutability. The three major attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence will be considered only as they relate to the manifestation of God’s immutability in the doctrine of the irrevocability of saving faith—faith is impossible without God’s monergistic gift enabling faith in the first place (Ephesians 2:8-9).
The key verses dealing with God’s
immutability in His essence are expressed in Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17. The key word in the original Hebrew is שָׁנָה (šānâ):
2419 שָׁנָה (šānâ) I, change. . .
. The verb šānâ is sometimes used to
describe a change in character or way or life. Thus the immutability of God is
expressed in Mal 3:6 by the statement that God does not change, and his faithfulness
to his promise is shown in the statement that he will not alter that which he
has spoken (Ps 89:34 [H 35]).[27]
God as an eternal being could not possibly
keep his covenantal promises to the people of Israel as an elect nation if he
were subject to human capriciousness and change. Thus, a key element of the doctrine of God’s
immutability is that he, in spite of the anthropopathisms in other passages, is
not subject to fits of jealousy, capricious changes of mind, or other problems
associated with creaturely limitations and the sinfulness of fallen humankind
(Romans 5:12-21). The Septuagint
translation of Malachi 3:6 uses the word ἀλλοιόω
(alloioō) while the Greek New Testament uses the word παραλλαγή (parallagē) in James 1:17, where it is stated that
there is no “variation” with God.
However, the words seem to be used synonymously. Although the Septuagint is not an inspired
translation, it can be useful to compare with the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The theological point made in both Malachi
3:6 and James 1:17 is that God is consistent and never breaks covenant with His
elect people. His promises to Christian
believers are trustworthy because God as a perfect being is always faithful to
keep his covenant promises (Romans 9:4;
Romans 15:8; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 3:16; 2
Timothy 2:13). Even when the elect
people of Israel were unfaithful, God kept his covenant with Israel by
preserving a remnant of elect individuals (Zechariah 14:2; Romans 9:11-13, 27;
Romans 11:5).
Other key passages dealing with the
unchangeable nature of God in his essence and attributes, including his
existence as eternally self-existent in three persons, are throughout the
Scriptures. A few of these are Hebrews
13:8, a reference to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In particular, Psalm 102:26-27 reveals that
the Hebrews understood that their trust and faith in Yahweh was based
ultimately in his immutability:
They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will
all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will
be changed. 27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. (Psalm
102:26-27 NKJV)
Not only is God unchangeable, but he is
eternally self-existent. God has no
beginning or end in time and therefore he is transcendent above time, which only
begins at creation (Genesis 1-2). He is
called the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13). These theological affirmations of God’s
pre-eminence and immutability are key to understanding the irrevocability of
his unconditional election prior to the foundation of the world. If then, salvation is ultimately rooted in
God’s decree to unconditional election, it logically follows that the entire ordo
salutis is not based in free will, free choice, or even human
accountability. Rather, eternal security
is ultimately rooted in God’s sovereign grace, particular election, and
absolute predestination. Without this
emphasis on God’s absolute power to save and to grant his grace and mercy to those
who would have perished with the rest of the fallen mass of humankind there
would be no salvation at all. In fact,
if God gave his elect what they deserved they too would likewise perish with
the rest of humankind (Luke 13:1-5).
Salvation is eternal because God is eternally unchanging.
In short, unless God is without human
capriciousness and passions, without variableness and change, and without
temporal limitations, there can be no sustainable doctrine of eternal salvation
as an irrevocable manifestation of God’s essential nature as eternally
benevolent, particularly to his elect and his elect alone. Although it is true that God grants a general
providential care for all humankind (Matthew 5:45), it is simply untrue that
this implies either universal salvation or even a universal atonement (Matthew 1:21; John
1:12-13; 10:11, 15). The general call to saving
faith is a display of God’s general providence and benevolence to all who hear
the gospel (Matthew 22:1-13). Only the
elect, however, receive an effectual call (Matthew 22:14; John 6: 37-40, 44,
65). Furthermore, not everyone in the
world since creation has had the opportunity to hear the gospel message (Romans
10:7-17). In particular, Paul asks the
rhetorical question, “And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans
10:14). The expected response is that
they cannot hear without a preacher. It
logically follows that the apostle Paul is saying that those who have not heard
the gospel message remain in their sins and all are without excuse, including
both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 2:11-12; 3:9-20, 23). Those who attempt to come to God clothed in
their own righteousness or without a wedding garment will fall short and perish
(Matthew 5:17-20, 48; 22:11-13; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 10:3).
A further consideration in a thorough
examination of eternal salvation is that election and reprobation are necessary
contrasts made in the text of Scripture (Romans 9:11-22; 1 Peter 2:8; Acts
2:23, 4:27-28). Double predestination is
not a popular doctrine but it is biblical.
Sometimes this biblical view is disparaged by way of the term “equal
ultimacy,” meaning that God’s decrees are equal in both election and
reprobation.[28] Some Calvinist
scholars prefer to call reprobation “preterition” or a passing over of some
sinful individuals and leaving them subject to their own sinful nature but this
does not soften the doctrine of absolute predestination since, logically
speaking, if God absolutely determines to save the elect unconditionally, it
necessarily follows that reprobation is likewise God’s absolute decree to leave
the wicked in bondage to their own sinful nature and subject to the corruption
passed down from Adam (Romans 5:12-21).
The doctrine of election is particularly important for the doctrine of
eternal salvation, because inherent in the doctrine of salvation is the
implication that not everyone will be saved and that some individuals will be
lost. Furthermore, the Arminian and
Semi-pelagian position overlooks that salvation in the Old Testament is
particular and not general. Out of all
the nations on earth at that time only the nation of Israel was subject to
saving grace:
6 “For you are a holy people to the LORD
your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a
special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. 7 The LORD did
not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any
other people, for you were the least of all peoples; (Deuteronomy 7:6–7 NKJV)[29]
In other words, the contrast between
salvation and rebellion is an absolute distinction. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that not everyone
will be saved, but the Arminian view leaves salvation as simply a general call
with a common grace given to all. Such
grace guarantees nothing and leaves it theoretically possible that everyone in
the future could potentially reject Christ and be lost, ultimately leaving believers
in doubt as to whether or not they will actually persevere in faith to the end. The Calvinist view is that the number of the
elect and of the reprobate is a set number that can no more be changed than God
can be changed. Assurance of salvation
for the Calvinist is a guarantee, a done deal.
The basis for that assurance is God’s promises, sovereignty, and
absolute predestination. By implication
then, everything that has happened, including creation, happened because of
necessity, including the regeneration and faith of the believing elect. The great Puritan and Anglican minister,
Stephen Charnock, brings the doctrine of God’s immutability to greater clarity:
Unchangeableness doth necessarily pertain
to the nature of God. It is of the same
necessity with the rectitude of his nature; he can no more be changeable in his
essence than he can be unrighteous in his actions. God is a necessary Being; he is necessarily
what he is, and, therefore, is unchangeably what he is. Mutability belongs to contingency. If any perfection of his nature could be
separated from him, he would cease to be God.
What did not possess the whole nature of God, could not have the essence
of God; it is reciprocated with the nature of God. Whatsoever is immutable by nature is God;
whatsoever is God is immutable by nature.
Some creatures are immutable by his grace and power. God is holy, happy, wise, good, by his
essence; angels and men are made holy, wise, happy, strong, and good, by
qualities and graces. The holiness,
happiness, and wisdom of saints and angels, as they had a beginning, so they
are capable of increase and diminution, and of an end also; for their standing
is not from themselves, or from the nature of created strength, holiness, or
wisdom, which in themselves are apt to fail, and finally to decay; but from the
stability and confirmation they have by the gift and grace of God.[30]
God, being who he is, could do nothing
outside of his eternal nature and it was his nature to create the universe just
as it exists. Not one of those God has
determined to save will ever be rejected or lost, precisely because God is
eternally faithful to himself, to his promises, and to his elect (John 10:26-29;
18:9). Again, the contrast between those
who refuse to believe and those who do believe is not rooted in their own
ability but in their inability to come to Christ without grace (John 6:37-40,
44, 65). Eternal security is not rooted
in “free will” but in sovereign grace given to undeserving recipients. Without irresistible grace everyone would be
unable to come to Christ and be saved.
Thus, all would be lost and rightly so, since God’s justice demands
eternal separation from God (Psalm 58:3; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 142:3; Matthew
10:28; 25:41; Romans 3:23; 6:23; I John 1:8-9; Revelation 20:10). Since God owes every individual person
eternal judgment, the fact that he saves the elect is not unfair nor is it
unjust, but it is rather an act of pure pardon and pure mercy. That God damns the reprobate and saves his
elect is both just on the part of the reprobate’s damnation and merciful on the
part of the elect’s salvation (Romans 4:1-8; 5:1-11; 9:11-22).
The Old Testament makes this distinction
between reprobation and election even more perspicuous. Moreover, the pagan nations of the Ancient
Near East were not part of God’s covenant of grace with Abraham (Genesis 15, 17;
Deuteronomy 4:37). Thus, there is no
“free offer of the Gospel” in the Old Testament. Instead, salvation is only promised to
Abraham and his Hebrew descendants in regards to the contemporary period
particular to the patriarch, although it cannot be denied that the covenant of
grace predicts that through Abraham the gentiles too will have access to God
via grace and the coming Messiah. In
popular preaching it is often said that God has no grandchildren and that
salvation is not by pedigree (Exodus 20:5-6; John 1:13-14). This much is true in regards to individual election. God chooses whom He will choose (Romans
9:13-18), yet His promises are given through families and through His covenant
with Abraham (Genesis 17; Acts 2:38-39).
This covenant is not merely a legal contract nor is it exactly the same
as the suzerainty treaties of the Ancient Near East, although there are
similarities with those cultures. The
biblical theology of covenant is completely unique. The distinction here is that God is
omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. God’s
covenant is an eternal covenant because as a tri-personal God, he can swear by
no one greater than Himself (Hebrews 6:13-18).
He is a God who is not restricted to local geographical locations, nor
is he to be associated with graven images.
Moreover, idolatry is specifically forbidden in the Decalogue (Exodus
20:1-5). Because God is sovereign He
will not share his glory with any human being nor will He share His glory with
any created thing or any creature (Romans 1:22-23). To allow idolatry would contradict God’s essential
being; God is ontologically a being above which no other being can be conceived. He can be identified with no material object
because he is pure spirit (John 4:24). Eternal
salvation is therefore rooted in the absolute sovereignty of God precisely
because of God’s absolutely unique status as creator (Isaiah 45:7; 46:9).
Just as in the Old Testament salvation is
exclusive to the Hebrews through the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so
in the New Testament salvation is particularized through the Christian church and
through individual election (Acts 2:38-41, 47; 20:28; Romans 9:11-18; Galatians
6:16). The very idea that the Gospel
must be preached to the whole world implies that apart from faith in Jesus
Christ the whole world is lost (Mark 16:16-18; Matthew 28:18-20; John 3:16-21,
36; Acts 4:10-12). Thus, universal salvation of all
persons without exception is ruled out and those who have not heard the Gospel are
justly condemned, even though they are not afforded an opportunity to repent
and believe (John 14:6; Acts 16:6-7; Romans 1:18-32). There is no salvation apart from faith in
Jesus Christ (John 3:3-8, 16-20, 36; 14:6; Acts 4:10, 12). In other words, the speculative theories of
Donald Bloesch and other neo-orthodox “Evangelical” theologians in regards to a
second chance in hell or conditional universal salvation after this life is
refuted by Scripture. Nothing is to be
added to Scripture or subtracted from Scripture, and it would appear that
Bloesch has little to no biblical support for his speculations about a second
chance in hell (Deuteronomy 4:2; Joshua 1:7; Proverbs 30:6 ; 1 Corinthians 4:6;
Revelation 22:18-19). God would have
been completely just in damning the whole human race. It is his mercy and pardon alone that
determines salvation, not an obligation to save on his part:
And if by grace, then it is no longer of
works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no
longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. (Romans 11:6 NKJV)
For what if some did not believe? Will
their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not!
Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You
may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged." 5
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we
say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For
then how will God judge the world? (Romans 3:3-6 NKJV)
Unfortunately, Donald Bloesch follows the
theology of Karl Barth and his complete re-interpretation of Reformed
theology. Bloesch has no need for the
doctrine of eternal security since in his opinion the cross obliterates any
idea of an objective place of eternal torment and eternal punishment in the
final judgment and the afterlife:
From
my perspective hell as the outer darkness, eternal perdition, has been
destroyed by the cross and resurrection victory of Christ, since he died for
all and his gracious election goes out to all.
The possibility of ontological separation from God has been cancelled by
Jesus Christ through his universal atoning sacrifice. This kind of hell has been excluded from
God’s purposes. Yet an inner darkness
remains as a sign and shadow of what has been overcome. To the rejected it appears to include the
horror of eternal separation from God.
The truth of the matter is that the pain in hell is due to the presence
of God rather than his absence, to his unfathomable love rather than to any
abysmal hatred, what is worse, gross indifference.[31]
The doctrine of eternal security as an
irrevocable state of salvation and a manifestation of God’s mercy, grace, and
unconditional election is necessarily opposed to any idea of universal
atonement or universal salvation since its corollary is reprobation (Psalm
58:3; 1 Peter 2:8; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; John 6:70-71). If God owes salvation to everyone without
exception, no matter how evil or offensive they are in the degree of wickedness
and disobedience, then it follows that the doctrine of eternal security is
unnecessary because all will be saved even if they remain ignorant of the gospel. Socinianism is the logical implication of the
Arminian position.[32] Furthermore,
the idea of eternal security opposes the concept of losing salvation after it
has been given by God through the gift of faith. If universal salvation is true, then losing
what all without exception already possess, by way of God’s universal grace
apart from faith, is illogical and self-contradictory, rendering any counter to
the Arminian and Semi-pelagian view both superfluous and moot. Scripture, on the other hand, proposes that
God is not only essentially loving and benevolent in his being or nature, but
God is likewise the essence of justice, holiness, and goodness. A holy God and a good God would not be good
or just if he in any way were the author of evil or wickedness (Isaiah 5:20; 6:1-7;
Proverbs 17:15). Hence, the cross is an
absolute necessity for the salvation of God’s elect precisely because the cross
is a demonstration of God’s justice whereby he pours out his wrath against the
elect upon his only begotten Son (Isaiah 53:4-5; John 3:16-18; 2 Corinthians
5:21; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 2:16; 1 Peter 2:22). The reprobate, on the other hand, have no
vicar who bears the wrath of God in their place. Therefore, the reprobate must suffer God’s
wrath themselves (John 3:36; Revelation 14:10; 21:8). Reprobation, like election, is God’s
sovereign choice (Romans 9:13-22; 1 Peter 2:8)
Additionally, Bloesch overlooks the fact that Scripture
itself teaches both reprobation and the eternal torment of those who refuse to
admit that they cannot justify themselves before God because of the seriousness
of their own sins (Romans 1:18-32; 9:11-22; 10:1-4). Scripture upholds the doctrine of hell as an
objective place of eternal torment and punishment (Luke 12:5; 16:19-31). Particularly, hell is a demonstration of
God’s justice and even one sin is infinitely and eternally offensive to an
omnibenevolent and omni-holy God (Matthew 5: 48; 25:41; Romans 9:21-24;
Ephesians 2:1-8). Furthermore, Bloesch’s
contention that the atonement is universal in God’s decretive purposes and
efficacious application is not supported by Scripture.[33] On the
contrary, the atonement is applied particularly only to God’s sheep:
"I
am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 "As
the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the
sheep. (John 10:14-15 NKJV)
Several key passages in the New Testament
show the irrevocable nature of salvation of the believer as opposed to
unbelievers and those who commit outright and willful apostasy (Deuteronomy
13:13; Hebrews 3:12; 1 John 2:19). While
the only unforgivable sin in the Bible is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew
12:31; 1 John 5:16), this would apply to both those who refuse to accept Jesus
Christ and to those who ultimately reject the gospel after having come to faith
(Matthew 13:3-9; John 3:18-20, 36).
Those who reject Christ’s active obedience to God’s moral law and his
sacrificial death on the cross for all the sins of all the elect individuals
predetermined to salvation prior to the foundation of the world and prior to
their own natural birth cannot be saved nor do they have any security or
assurance of salvation (Romans 4:1-8; 10:1-4; 10:8-17).
From the Calvinist perspective, total
inability as a result of Adam’s rebellion against God renders men unable to
believe (Genesis 6:5; Romans 5:12-21).
It is God himself who curses men with total inability because of Adam's original sin. Therefore, it is God’s unconditional election before creation that is
the ultimate cause of salvation
(Ephesians 1:4-11). Regeneration
or the new birth does not occur after a person gives themselves faith. Faith is a result of regeneration, not the
cause of regeneration. Regeneration and
subsequent faith occur because of God’s decree to unconditional election. The new birth as an analogy of natural birth
means that believers do not give themselves the gift of faith; rather, God
regenerates the elect prior to giving them faith (John 3:3-8). Faith itself is literally the “work of God” and a gift of God
(John 6:29; Titus 3:5-7; Ephesians 2:8-9). Just as no one
draws breath prior to natural birth, the elect cannot believe unless and until they
are born from above by the Holy Spirit.
It is the Spirit who regenerates according to his sovereign will (John
3:3-8). The Spirit, like the wind, comes
and goes and bestows regeneration apart from human determination or observation
(John 1:18; 3:8). Furthermore, no one
can take away what God has bestowed unconditionally upon his elect (John 10:28-29;
Romans 8:28-37).
Confessional Theology:
A Brief Survey of the Reformed Standards of Unity
As seen from above, the doctrine of
salvation as a manifestation of God’s irrevocable and unconditional grace of
election is rooted in the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty and in the
doctrine of absolute predestination.
However, it remains to be seen how these doctrines are explicated in the
confessional theology of the Reformed formularies and symbols, particularly in
the Anglican formularies. In this
section an overview of the key concepts of the Reformed standards will be made
as they relate to the doctrine of salvation as a manifestation of God’s
essential nature and the necessity of God’s irrevocable election to
salvation. Perhaps the most pertinent
and well known statement in regards to this eternal salvation is Lord’s Day One
in the Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 1. What is thy only
comfort in life and death?
Answer: That I with body and
soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior
Jesus Christ; who, with His precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my
sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that
without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea,
that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by His Holy
Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes 1me sincerely willing and
ready, henceforth, to live unto Him.[34]
Basically, the doctrine of eternal
security and the perseverance of the saints permeates the Reformed confessional
statements and catechisms. Legitimately,
it might be said that this doctrine is the essence of what it means to be
Reformed. Unfortunately, however, many
modern Reformed churches have drifted toward legalism and moralism on the far
right and to mere moralism on the liberal and postmodernist left. If salvation is totally and absolutely
grounded in God’s sovereign grace then there is nothing that the elect believer
contributes to his or her own salvation, including believing the gospel or
progressing in sanctification (John 17:17; 2 Peter 3:18). A key indicator of the preaching of the true
gospel is the accusation of antinomianism, although that is far from the truth.
Again, it should be pointed out that the
doctrine of eternal salvation cannot be separated out from the overall
systematic teaching of Scripture. While
it is true that the big picture is important, the inductive details must fit
with a biblical theology. This is
precisely why Reformed theology has insisted not only on the primacy of
Scripture but also on a systematic exegesis and exposition of Scripture. The ordo salutis or order of salvation
and the confessional statements of the various national churches of the
Protestant Reformation era were meant to give a magisterial and secondary
authority to the churches. This view is
in opposition to the Radical Reformation and the Anabaptist emphasis on
subjective experience and the Anabaptist tendency to downplay the objective, propositional
truths revealed in Scripture.
Of primary importance to the security of
the believer within this Reformed system of theology is the law/gospel[35] distinction.
Often this doctrine of the Protestant Reformation is overlooked in
regards to the doctrine of eternal security.
However, Lutherans and Calvinists both agree that the law/gospel
distinction is an essential doctrine for saving faith. Since God is omni-holy and perfectly good of
his own essence and being, he cannot tolerate sin or wickedness in his
creatures. The law of God requires
absolutely perfect obedience and God will not and cannot loosen his demands for
holiness in his creatures. (Matthew
5:17-20, 48). Unless the believer is
justified by faith alone there is no hope for salvation at all, much less any
doctrine of perseverance or eternal security.
This is necessarily true because of the propositional statements in
Scripture that God requires sinless perfection (Matthew 5:17-20, 48; Romans
10:1-4). Again, God does not grade on a
curve; thus, every individual born subsequent to the rebellion of Adam falls
short of the mark of absolute obedience (Romans 3:10-23; 6:23; Psalm 130:3;
143:2). Because believers are justified
by faith alone apart from works, they can be assured that no matter how many
struggles or moral failures are encountered in the Christian life salvation
will not be taken away or revoked by God, nor can the believer fall out of
God’s hands (Jude 1:24-25).
Additionally, the law of God in Scripture
is of three major kinds: 1)
ceremonial/sacrificial law, 2) judicial/criminal law of the Old Testament
nation of Israel, and 3) the moral law.
The general consensus of Reformed theologians is that the atoning death
of Christ Jesus on the cross fulfilled the sacrificial law (Hebrews
9:12-14). The Thirty-nine Articles of
Religion, which is the Reformed confession of the English Reformation and a
basis for the Irish Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith,
states in Article VII[36] that the
judicial law of the nation of Israel passed away with the Assyrian captivity of
the northern kingdom in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian captivity of the southern
kingdom in 586 B.C. The moral law, on
the other hand, is forever binding upon all humankind.[37]
Understood within the traditional Reformed
framework, the moral law has three applications or uses. The first of these is the primary use, namely
the pedagogical use of the moral law.
The second use of the moral law is to keep peace in society via the
principle of general equity, whereby each nation uses the Decalogue as a model
for general agreement with the apodictic law.[38] The third use of the moral law is in regards
to the subjective and transformational process of growth in Christian maturity
and is generally referred to as sanctification.
Although the third use of the law is unrelated to justification, it is a
guide for the life of faith to which the Christian aspires to live out of
gratitude to God. However, as pointed
out earlier, the process of sanctification is not a matter of making the
believer worthy of salvation or of keeping the believer saved. Nor is sanctification a basis for God’s
judgment in the final day. If so, then
no one will be saved because the good works of sinful believers can never
withstand God’s judgment (Psalm 130:3; 143:2; Isaiah 64:6; 1 John 1:8-9).
Interestingly, the Morning Prayer service
in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer utilizes “sentences” or verses of
Scripture read at the beginning of the service.
These sentences of Scripture are meant to point out the pedagogical use
of the moral law as well as the obligation of the Christian believer to live by
faith (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). Living by faith refers to the assent to
justification by faith alone without forgetting that sanctification is an
imperfect result of “living faith.”[39] The genius of the
father of the English Reformation, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, was that he was
able to incorporate into the English liturgies the doctrine of justification by
faith alone and the law/gospel distinction.
The assurance of salvation, therefore, is rooted firmly in the doctrine
of justification by faith alone. Since
no one keeps the moral law of God perfectly, everyone is under God’s just
condemnation (Romans 3:23; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2). Everyone who is elect is born into sin and is
an object of God’s wrath until regeneration (Psalm 51:3-5; Psalm 58:3; John
3:36; Romans 5:7-10; Ephesians 2:3). The
major purpose of the moral law is to reveal sin in both the reprobate and the
elect (Romans 3:20; 7:7). This is
especially revealing in regards to Cranmer’s inclusion of the reading of the
Decalogue in every administration of the Lord’s Supper:
Minister.
GOD spake these words, and
said; I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt have none other gods but me.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the
earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy
God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto
the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto
thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not take the Name of
the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh
his Name in vain.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Remember that thou keep holy the
Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no
manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy
maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and
rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and
hallowed it.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Honour thy father and thy mother;
that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt do no murder.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not steal.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and
incline our hearts to keep this law.
Minister. Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant,
nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and write
all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.[40]
The contrast between the absolute
requirements of God’s moral law and the inability of the elect believer to keep
God’s moral law apart from his grace and mercy imparted to the believer is here
accentuated in bold. If believers are
unable to repent in and of themselves —even after conversion—then it is absolutely
necessary for petitions to God that he might grant believers the grace to obey
his commandments. Therefore, pride is
shut out and no one can boast that they have obeyed God of themselves apart
from a monergistic working of God’s grace in the heart (Ephesians 2:8-9;
Philippians 2:12-13). Therefore, despite
the contention of many neo-Calvinists that sanctification is synergistic in the libertarian free will sense,
Cranmer’s theology in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer would have it
otherwise. This is not to say that moral
agents are not accountable or responsible for their moral actions and thoughts. On the other hand, God alone deserves all the
glory for any obedience the elect may manifest.
Salvation is literally all of God, including the process of
sanctification. This necessarily follows
if there is no contingency with God.[41] Although God
does work through secondary causes and means, even these causes are ultimately
sovereignly predetermined by God himself.
The cross was no mere contingency in history but an absolute decree for
the redemption of God’s elect (Isaiah 14:24; 46:9-10; 53:1-11; Acts 2:23;
4:27-28; 11:18). God never fails to
bring about his decrees (Job 42:2; Psalm 115:3; 135:6; Daniel 4:35). In short, even the process of sanctification
is a monergistic work of God in the elect because it is God who grants the elect the ability to obey God's commands and cooperate with God's grace (Philippians 2:12-13).
For good reason the Prayer of Humble
Access, a part of the service for the Lord’s Supper in the 1662 BCP,
is read prior to the taking of the sacrament of holy communion. That prayer, an allusion to Luke 16:20-22 and
Titus 3:5-7, emphasizes that believers bring absolutely nothing that makes them
worthy to partake of the sacrament:
We do not presume to come to this thy
Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold
and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under
thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:
Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus
Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his
body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may
evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.[42]
Additionally, the Thirty-nine Articles
of Religion are the primary confessional statement for the Anglican
Reformed tradition and serve to interpret the 1662 Book of Common Prayer
rather than the other way around. The
late David Broughton Knox, of the Sydney Anglicans, pointed this out in his
brief exposition of the Articles of Religion:
The other formularies of the Church of
England, for example, the Book of Common Prayer, ought to be interpreted in the
light of the Articles and not the Articles in the light of the Prayer Book,
because this latter course would be reversing the purposes for which the
Articles were agreed upon. The Articles were designed to be the agreed upon
doctrinal basis within which the Prayer Book is to be used and interpreted.[43]
In other words, as a systematic exposition
of the Anglican reading of the Scriptures and the ecumenical creeds, the Thirty-nine
Articles of Religion stand as a composite whole.[44] It is within this context that the Anglican
understanding of eternal salvation finds its proper place. Eternal salvation is rooted in the
Augustinian and biblical theology of the English Reformation, which is mostly
Calvinist but also linked with a solid Lutheran understanding of law and
gospel. The doctrine of eternal security
cannot therefore be properly understood outside of the Calvinist and Lutheran
understanding of justification by faith alone and the law/gospel distinction,
nor can it be properly understood apart from the absolute sovereignty of God
and the absolute decrees of God.
Although living faith does include a change of heart and a duty to
follow God’s moral law out of gratitude, ultimately the doctrine of eternal
security and the perseverance of the saints depends on the law/gospel
distinction and God’s unchanging and eternal nature. This is so precisely because Christians are
prone to sin and to fall temporarily into grievous sins against God and neighbor
(Psalm 130:3; Job 9:2; Nahum 1:6; Malachi 3:2).
It is for this reason that a concise systematic exposition of the
Scriptures is necessary, especially in regards to the tension between
justification by faith alone and the resulting imperfect process of sanctification. The moral law can never justify anyone but
serves only to demolish any last vestiges of self-righteousness, including the
idea that believers by “free will” keeps themselves from falling (Romans 3:20;
7:7; Jude 1:24-25). Just as individual Christians
do not “cooperate” in regeneration so they do not “cooperate” in the process of
sanctification in any ultimate sense.
Salvation as a whole, including any progress in knowledge or obedience,
is all of God—even when the believer is faced with obligatory requirements of
the moral law. Furthermore, it should
not be forgotten that believers are no longer under the law (Galatians
3:23-25). Believers cannot justify themselves
under the covenant of works (Galatians 2:16; 3:11).
Ashley Null points out that even though
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer suffered setbacks in his opposition to the Catholic
leaning conservatives during the reign of Henry VIII, Cranmer persisted in
refuting those views because he clearly saw that salvation was literally apart
from good works:
Ever the scholar, however, Cranmer
responded to this defeat by continuing to gather evidence to discredit the
soteriology of the conservatives and to defend his own.7 Recording extracts
from the Bible and Augustine, Cranmer used his great notebooks to delineate in
more detail the arguments for solifidianism he had previously
outlined to Henry in his 'Annotations'. Firstly, works done before
justification had neither saving grace nor saving faith to make them pleasing
in God's eyes. Secondly, in justification God pardoned sin by imputing
Christ's alien righteousness to the ungodly, not by infusing in them an
inherent personal merit. Concomitant with this externally based justification
was an intrinsic renovation of the will and its affections by the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the Spirit's presence and the love he stirred in
the believer's heart did not constitute a personal righteousness meritorious de
condigno. When used in a broader
sense to refer to both pardon and renewal, justification could be said to make
the ungodly 'right-willed' but never inherently righteous. Lastly,
justification could never be contingent on either human preparation or personal
merit because salvation was ultimately by unconditional predestination of God's
elect.[45]
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion
fleshes out the soteriology of Cranmer’s English Reformation most clearly in
Articles 9-18.[46] Article 9
explicitly rejects Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism.[47] Given the
similarities between Semi-pelagianism and the later move by the Arminian
Remonstrants toward the Roman and Semi-pelagian view, it should be duly noted
that the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace in the 18th century is likewise
refuted by Articles 9 and 10.[48] Of particular interest to this paper, however,
is the emphasis on double predestination in Article 17:
Article XVII
Of Predestination and
Election
Predestination to life is the everlasting
purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He
hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and
damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them
by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore
they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to
God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the
calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they
be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk
religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to
everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of
Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and
unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working
of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying
the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to
high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm
their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it
doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal
persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes
the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the
devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most
unclean living no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's
promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in
our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared
unto us in the word of God.[49]
Although there is an emphasis on good
works here, that emphasis must be interpreted as a result of saving faith and not
the cause of it. Nor can good works be
the cause of perseverance (Philippians 2:12-13). Moreover, Cranmer’s theology of
sanctification specifically says that sanctification cannot withstand the
judgment of God:
Albeit that good works, which are the
fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and
endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and
acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively
faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree
discerned by the fruit.[50]
Here it can be seen plainly why
justification by faith alone is the foundation for the doctrine of eternal
security in the Anglican Reformed view.
Unconditional election and predestination as well as justification by
faith alone points straight to God’s unchanging nature and his eternal
self-existence or aseity as the basis for eternal salvation. God saves of necessity because of who he is
in his eternal nature and being. Salvation
is eternal and irrevocable precisely because God is without human passions or
body parts and because God is not capricious or swayed by emotions. He is eternally the same yesterday, today and
forever. He never breaks covenant nor
does he break his promise to save those who believe (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 2
Timothy 2:13). The elect can know they
are elect precisely because they have been given the gift of faith (John 3:3-8;
5:24-25; 1 Corinthians 12:7, 9; Ephesians 2:8-9). Just as a child knows that a good father will
never leave nor forsake them, the Christian knows that no matter how terrible their
sins may be God promises to forgive them and receive them back into the fold
(Luke 15:11-32).
Contrary to those who contend that
Calvinists cannot have assurance of their election, Cranmer’s doctrine of predestination
intimates that God’s unconditional election prior to the foundation of the
world is a source of great comfort to believers because God stirs within their
hearts and minds a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and grants them the grace
to believe:
As the godly consideration of
Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and
unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working
of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their
earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because
it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be
enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards
God: . . .[51]
Unfortunately, some of the more radical
Puritans went too far in the direction of self-examination to the point of
obsession. For the magisterial
Reformers, however, the sole basis for comfort was the knowledge that God
accepts his elect solely on the basis of faith apart from good works. Without faith it is impossible to please God
(Hebrews 11:6). Even though faith can be
temporarily be shaken; God will not leave his elect in that condition but will
provide a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Conclusion
From
this brief survey it can be clearly seen that the English Reformation followed
closely the same parameters as the Protestant Reformation on the European
continent, incorporating both Lutheran and Calvinist aspects of the law/gospel
distinction into its doctrinal formularies.
Both the propositional nature of God’s plenarily inspired revelation in
Holy Scripture and the confessional system of theology drawn from the
Scriptures sustain the elect believer in his or her understanding and knowledge
of God and his manifestation of justice and benevolence in the objective work
of the cross (John 3:16-18, 36; Romans 5:1-11).
Salvation for the Anglican Reformed believer is literally a sovereign
grace of God from beginning to end. Even
sanctification is not something merely cooperated with but is literally a grace
granted to the believer by God himself (Philippians 2:13). Therefore, sanctification can rightly be
called “monergistic” even though the believer does respond with actual choices. This is why Cranmer worded his collects in
the 1552 Book of Common Prayer the way he did:
The Fourth Sunday after the
Epiphany.
The Collect.
O GOD, who knowest us to be
set in the midst of so many and great dangers, that by reason of the frailty of
our nature we cannot always stand upright; Grant to us such strength and
protection, as may support us in all dangers, and carry us through all
temptations; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.[52]
Because salvation is rooted in God himself
as eternally and forever unchanging, the believer can trust that God will keep
his word, his promises and his covenant.
Ironically, even Cranmer’s prayer for sanctifying grace implies the
doctrine of eternal security and reflects Augustine's prayer, "Lord command what you will and grant what you command." God alone
can keep the capricious human will from falling (Jude 1:24-25). Viewed from the perspective of God’s eternal
decrees, Salvation is a done deal and salvation is guaranteed. Even regeneration and faith proceed directly
from God.
Further, the gospel message is essential
as an instrument whereby God effectually calls his elect out of darkness and
into his marvelous light (Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 2:9-10). Because believers are justified by faith
alone they know that God may discipline for a time, but he will never leave nor
forsake his elect (Hebrews 13:5). Grace
and the doctrine of eternal salvation is not a license to sin, although even a
brief perusal of the Old Testament account shows that the elect under the old
covenant sinned grievously many times over.
Samson and David are two examples of this, yet both are listed in the
faith hall of fame in Hebrews 11. Given
the frankness of the Scriptural record of the Old Testament saints, it is clear
that they too were justified by faith alone and that salvation for them was as
much a gift of God as it is today under the New Testament.[53] Sanctification
is a concern for the Christian believer but never as a matter of losing
salvation or keeping salvation.
Sanctification is a matter of responding to God’s infinite mercy and
grace with an attitude of gratitude and thankfulness (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1
Timothy 1:15). Ultimately, no sin can
separate the believer from God or his salvation (Exodus 13:14; Jeremiah 3:23; Romans
8:35-39).
Unfortunately, many contemporary
Evangelicals have been unwittingly convinced by Semi-pelagianian views that
lead to Rome. Many in the conservative
Reformed camps have been convinced of what can only be called semi-Arminian
views because of a downgrading of the doctrine of Scripture as the
propositional and univocal word of God. The
distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism is not merely an “apparent”
paradox. Instead, this distinction is a
genuine logical and rational contradiction.
The middle ground is therefore excluded, as the Canons of Dort, 1618-19,
so clearly show. The classical Reformed
view can with strong confidence affirm the doctrine of eternal salvation and
God’s promises without any reservations or qualifications whatsoever.
Moreover, the Reformed view is similar to
the doctrine of “once saved always saved,” although it is not exactly the same
doctrine held by the majority of Baptists.
Baptists tend to lean in an Arminian direction on four of the five
points of the Remonstrants and accept only the doctrine of perseverance, point
five of Calvinism. For the Anglican
Reformed and Presbyterians the doctrine of eternal salvation and eternal
security is rooted firmly in the systematic exposition of Scripture and in
their confessional statements, which are “proved by” the “most certain warrants
of Holy Scripture.”[54] These
confessional statements exemplify the five points of Calvinism and the
doctrines of sovereign grace. It is in
this context that the irrevocable nature of salvation manifests God’s eternal
immutability in his being and will, especially in regards to his decree to save
the elect and ensure that they endure to the end by faith.
[1] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1,
Section 6:
The
whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's
salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or
by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which
nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or
traditions of men.1 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward
illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding
of such things as are revealed in the word;2 and that there are some
circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church,
common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of
nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word,
which are always to be observed.3 1) 2
Tim. 3:15,16,17; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Thess. 2:2.
2) John 6:45; 1 Cor.
2:9,10,11,12. 3) 1 Cor. 11:13,14; 1 Cor. 14:26,40.
[2] The Anglican Formularies are the confessional position
taken by the English Reformers. The
Formularies are composed of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662
Book of Common Prayer, the Homilies, and the Ordinal. Articles 6-8, 17-18, 20-22, 25, 28, 37 deal
with the doctrine of sola Scriptura to one degree or another. Article
8 proposes that the creeds and confessions are based on the principle of sola
Scriptura. See: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html.
[3] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy: An Entertaining and Enlightening Survey of
the World's Great Thought, reprint
1980, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 443.
[4] These confessional documents are accessible online
at: 1)
1662 Boo k of
Common Prayer. 2) Westminster
Standards: a) Westminster
Confession of Faith. b) Larger
Catechism. C) Shorter Catechism. 3) Three Forms of Unity.
[5] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1: Of
the Holy Scripture: 1. Although the
light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are
they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is
necessary unto salvation: therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and
in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His
Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth,
and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the
corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit
the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most
necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being
now ceased.
[6] Article XVIII
Of obtaining eternal
salvation only by the name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say
that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that
he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature.
For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby
men must be saved. Accessed online
at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html#8.
[7] “Logical Positivism: Criticisms,” Wikipedia. Accessed online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Criticisms.
[8] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter
17, “Of the Peseverance of the Saints,” Section 3: Nevertheless, they may, through the
temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining
in them, and the neglect of the 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 be deprived of some measure of their graces
and comforts; have their hearts hardened,6 and their consciences wounded; hurt
and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.
[9] R. Scott Clark, “Foreward to, ‘The Free Offer of
the Gospel,’” by John Murray.
Accessed online at: http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/.
[10] This is not to affirm any exaltation of natural
revelation as equal to or superior to special revelation. The apostle Paul specifically denies that
natural revelation in creation is sufficient for saving faith. Furthermore, exalting natural revelation
above special revelation leads to skepticism since it leads to making Scripture
subservient to the philosophy of science, evolutionary theories, and the
gay/lesbian/transgender agenda.
[11] “The Answer:
To a Complaint Against Several Actions and Decisions of the Presbytery
of Philadelphia Taken in a Special Meeting Held on July 7, 1944.” Accessed online at: http://godshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-answer.pdf.
[12] How can the Pentecostal refute the experience of the
person who claims to be born homosexual or transgender when the only basis for
Pentecostal theology is an experiential reading of the Scriptures? For the same reason eternal security does not
depend on personal experience but on the propositional promises of God in the
revelation of Holy Scripture.
[13] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic
Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 126.
[14] Although Calvinistic Baptists or Particular Baptists
do have confessions of faith like the London Baptist Confession of Faith, most
Baptists denigrate the use of creeds and confessions in favor of their doctrine
of liberty of conscience. While it is
true that liberty of conscience is an element of the magisterial Reformation in
regards to the priesthood of believers, the doctrine of sola Scriptura
never intended the more Anabaptist emphasis on solipsism and personal authority
above Scripture. There is no private
interpretation of Scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21).
[15] The Anglican Formularies are the Thirty-nine
Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal. The order of that authority is descending and
the Thirty-nine Articles are primary, the 1662 BCP is secondary, and the
Ordinal is tertiary in authority. Of
course, the Thirty-nine Articles specifically state that the Scriptures are the
final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
[16] See Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1,
“Of the Scriptures,” Section 6.
It should be noted that sections 4-5 affirm that Scripture is
self-evidently revealed as God’s Word and needs no human experience to confirm
it or prove it as such.
[17] Justin Taylor, “Luther’s Saying: “Justification Is the
Article by Which the Church Stands and Falls,”:
“We don’t have record of Luther using the exact phrase, but very close: quia
isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia—‘Because if this
article [of justification] stands, the church stands; if this article
collapses, the church collapses.’” (WA 40/3.352.3). Accessed online at: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/31/luthers-saying/.
[18] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will. Accessed online at: http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html.
[19] Martin Luther, Galatians, Crossway Classic
Commentaries (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 34-35.
[20] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
(Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997), III:2:16-17.
[21] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic
Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 359. “. . . In his Bondage of the Will,
Luther speaks of God’s activity in hardening the hearts of sinners ‘in far
stronger terms than our divines’ (1:353.’”
Footnote 24. Horton is quoting
from Turretin here.
[22] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, “The
Sovereignty of God,” Section 9.
Accessed online at: http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html#sover.
[23] Luther, The Bondage of the Will, “Conclusion,”
Section 167. Accessed online at: http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html#conc
[24] See, Brian G. Mattson, “Double or Nothing: Martin Luther’s Doctrine of
Predestination.” Accessed online
at: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/700113/posts. It is my contention that modern Lutherans
have been influenced unduly by Phillip Melanchthon’s more Semi-pelagian
leanings and by a capitulation to logical inconsistencies in order to sustain
their departure from Luther’s more logically consistent system of theology as
it is exposited in his commentary on Romans and in his other works.
[25] The five solas or “onlies” of the Protestant
Reformation are: 1) sola Scriptura
or Scripture alone, 2) sola gratia or grace alone, 3) sola fide
or faith alone, 4) solus Christus or Christ alone, 5) soli Deo gloria
or all glory to God alone.
[26] I draw this inference from the same principle that is
applied to the ecumenical creeds in Article VIII of the Thirty-nine Articles
of Religion:
Article VIII
Of the Three Creeds
The three Creeds, Nicene
Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles'
Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by
most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
[27] Hermann J. Austel, "2419 שָׁנָה" In ,
in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, electronic ed., (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1999), 941.
[28] God is the ultimate cause of the Egyptians’ refusal to
obey God’s command to let His people go:
“Israel also came into Egypt, And Jacob dwelt in the land of Ham. 24 He
increased His people greatly, And made them stronger than their enemies. 25 He
turned their heart to hate His people, To deal craftily with His servants.”
(Psalm 105:23-25 NKJV).
[29] The New King James Version, Deuteronomy 7:6–7.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.
[30] Stephen Charnock, The Existence Attributes of God,
Reprint 1853, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books: 1996), 318-319.
[31] Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection,
Judgment, Glory, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 217.
[32] Most Arminians cannot reconcile their view with the
scriptural proposition that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ
(John 14:6; Acts 4:10, 12). They often
contend that those who have not heard the gospel may have a second chance in
hell or that they will be judged by the light they have (Luke 12:47-48). Even the evangelist Billy Graham was
persuaded to accept the “wideness in God’s mercy doctrine” espoused by Clark
Pinnock and popularized on The Hour of Power television program at the
Crystal Cathedral, where Robert Schuller’s reinterpretation of sin as a lost of self esteem was broadcast
weekly for decades. If rejecting
implicit faith is “fundamentalism,” then so be it. The doctrine of implicit faith or a wideness
in God’s mercy has more in common with Rome than with the Reformation. Article 18 of the Thirty-nine Articles of
Religion clearly rejects the Arminian view:
“Article XVIII
Of obtaining eternal
salvation only by the name of Christ
They also are to be had
accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect
which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that
law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the
name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.” Accessed online at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art2.html#18. See also:
http://www.ukapologetics.net/11/graham.htm.
[33] Bloesch, 217.
[34] Accessed online at:
http://www.christurc.org/heidelberg.html
[35] The law/gospel distinction refers the to the principle
that whatever God commands or requires of believers in Scripture is moral law
and whatever God promises to do apart from the obedience of believers or their
abilities is gospel (2 Corinthians 1:20; Galatians 3:1-26).
[36] Article VII
Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not
contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is
offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man,
being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the
old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from
God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor
the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any
commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from
the obedience of the commandments which are called moral. Accessed online at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html#8
[37] Article VII.
[38] The theology of theonomy attempts to conflate the
judicial laws of the Old Testament theocratic nation of Israel with the moral
law and make those laws binding on modern nations. Such a misapplication of the Reformed
confessions is disappointing and borders on confusing justification by faith
alone with the keeping of the moral law.
[39] Article XII.
[40] The 1662 Book of Common Prayer, “Holy Communion.” Accessed online at: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html.
[41] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3: Of
God's Eternal Decree:
“1. God, from all
eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God
the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is
the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
established.”
[42] 1662 BCP, accessed online at: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html.
[43] David Broughton Knox, Thirty-nine Articles: The Historic Basis of Anglican Faith,
Chapter Six, “The Purpose and Character of the Articles,” accessed
online at: http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/08/part-xi-thirty-nine-articles-historic.html.
[44] It should not be forgotten that the Forty-two Articles
were directly written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and the Thirty-nine Articles
of Religion were edited from the previous Forty-two Articles in 1571 by
Archbishop Matthew Parker. See Thirty-nine
Articles, Wikipedia. Accessed online
at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles.
[45] Ashley Null, Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of
Repentance Renewing the Power to Love, ebook, (Oxford : Oxford University
Press, 2006), 158-159.
[46] Articles 9-18.
Accessed online at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art2.html
[47] Article 9: “Article
IX
Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth
not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the
fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of
the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original
righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh
lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into
this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature
doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh,
called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some
sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject
to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe
and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath
itself the nature of sin.” Accessed
online at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art2.html#9.
[48] Thirty-nine Articles. Accessed online at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art2.html.
[49] Accessed online at:
http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art2.html#17.
[50] Thirty-nine Articles, Article XII. Accessed online at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art2.html#12.
[51] Article 17.
[52] 1662 BCP.
Accessed online at: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/xmas.html#Epiphany4.
[53] “The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for
both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by
Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man.
Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look
only for transitory promises. . .”
Article VII. Accessed online
at: http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html#7.
[54] Article VIII.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment