I've known quite a number of people in my life who I've embraced as Christians, but now they walk a far distance from the Christan faith. What do we make of those people? Some of them were quite zealous. They were witnessing, reading the Bible, actively involved in a Christan worldview. Some could even pray fancy heartfelt prayers at a prayer meeting. They could tell profound conversion stories.
Are they non-believers, and always were? Even now, I don't know if they're in a deep period of rebellion against the faith, or are simply examples of seeds that fell on rocky soil.
As a member of The United Reformed Churches of North America, I'm at least part of a body that has a set of guidelines set up to deal with such people who "fall away."
Ecclesiastical Discipline
Article 51
Since Christian discipline is spiritual in nature and exempts no one from trial or punishment by the civil authorities, so also besides civil punishment there is need of ecclesiastical censure, that God may be glorified, that the sinner may be reconciled with God, the church and his neighbor, and that offense may be removed from the church of Christ.
Article 52
In case anyone errs in doctrine or offends in conduct, as long as the sin is of a private character and does not give public offense, the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18 shall be followed.
Article 53
Secret sins from which the sinner repents after being admonished by one person in private or in the presence of two or three witnesses, shall not be made known to the Consistory.
Article 54
If anyone has been admonished in love by two or three persons concerning a secret sin and does not repent, or if he has committed a public sin, the matter shall be brought to the Consistory.
Article 55
Anyone whose sin is properly made known to the Consistory, and who then obstinately rejects the Scriptural admonitions of the Consistory, shall be suspended from all privileges of church membership, including the use of the sacraments. After such suspension and subsequent admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication, the impenitence of the sinner shall be publicly made known to the congregation, the offense explained, together with the care bestowed upon him and repeated admonitions, so that the congregation may speak to him and pray for him. This shall be done in three steps. In the first, the name of the sinner need not be mentioned, that he be somewhat spared. In the second, the Consistory shall seek the advice of classis before proceeding, whereupon his name shall be mentioned. In the third, the congregation shall be informed that, unless he repents, he will be excluded from the fellowship of the church, so that his excommunication, if he remains impenitent, may take place with the full knowledge of the church. The interval between the steps shall be left to the discretion of the Consistory.
Article 56
If these steps of discipline, having been carried out in a loving manner, do not bring about repentance, but rather harden the sinner in his ways, the Consistory shall proceed to the extreme remedy, namely, excommunication, in agreement with the Word of God and with the use of the appropriate liturgical form.
Article 57
The restoration of a sinner whose sins are public, or have become public because the admonition of the church was despised, shall take place upon sufficient evidence of repentance, in such manner as the Consistory shall deem conducive to the edification of the church. Whether in particular cases this should take place in public shall, when there is a difference of opinion about it within the Consistory, be decided with the advice of two neighboring churches of the classis.
Article 58
Whenever anyone who has been excommunicated desires to become reconciled to the church by way of penitence, it shall be announced to the congregation in order that, insofar as no one can allege anything against him to the contrary, he may, with profession of his repentance, be publicly reinstated with the use of the appropriate liturgical form.
Article 59
Mature members by baptism who are delinquent in doctrine or life shall be admonished and, if they persist, shall be excluded from the church of Christ. The advice of classis must be sought before proceeding to such exclusion.
Article 60
Members by baptism who have been excluded from the church and who later repent of their sin shall be received again into the church only upon public profession of faith.
The URC church order at least sets up a helpful structure to restore those who go through a period of rebellion. Church discipline, while some question the notion or think the word is prone to trouble, is actually... a helpful practice. Church discipline is far more than giving people a hard time, it's a way for a church to be responsible for those God has entrusted to them.
Thanks for this. I think all of us, at one time or another, have pondered and struggled with this question. I know an individual (or rather, used to know) whose case really messes with my theology...but as with many people, his is not a case of cut-and-dried, overt sin which, when he was active in a church, would have subjected him to discipline.
ReplyDeleteIn my early 20's, I went to a small country in Eastern Europe on a missions trip and ended up staying for a few years (working in a non-religious career). While there, I became close friends with a native of that country, a recent (but zealous) convert who we'll call "Bobby". He had come to faith in Christ perhaps a year before we met, and was on fire for the Lord. He listened to sermons of godly men constantly, interpreted for missions teams, and never missed a service or prayer meeting. He LOVED God, and wanted to serve him - his dream was to attend Moody Bible Institute and pastor a church.
A couple of years later, he had grown increasingly cynical by observing some of the missions teams' arrogant behavior in his country, and noted examples of hypocrisy (real or imagined) at every turn. For some reason I was never clear on, he had become estranged from his sister (a casual friend of mine) and refused to forgive her. I couldn't understand such anger, nor his growing rebellious attitude. It wasn't so much the outward behavior (moderate drinking, smoking, motorcycle - none of these things were sins, but they were recent additions to his repetoire) as his gradually changing attitude.
Finally, he cut me off (ostensibly because I was a friend of his "enemy") and I never saw him again. This was 17 years ago. Recently, his mom friended me on Facebook and I saw his wall - he is no longer a Christian, by any stretch of the imagination. He even admits to fearing death, although he is a bit of a nihilist...and this from a guy who, at one time, could deliver a testimony and explanation of the Gospel that would make you weep. I remember well his baptism.
I see from a great distance who he is now, and...it just makes me scratch my head. Eternal security? In 1992, if anyone's eternity was secure, I would have thought it was Bobby's. Very odd.
Thanks for your story Marie.
ReplyDeleteWe all have such stories. Someone I knew quite well as a Christian back in the late 80's is now some sort of Buddhist. It breaks my heart. Once again, though, I don't know the state of this person's soul. It certainly seems like the Christianity she had back in the late 80's was not a true faith. But, I simply don't know.
For me, this is why the church order I posted is so crucial. The church takes responsibility for such situations. It ostensively points out the person is not living according to the faith, and needs to repent.
I don't see the logical consistency in espousing such Church discipline because it goes directly against the Reformed understanding of Regeneration and True Faith. The "true Christian" has his heart transformed, and good works are the fruit (and also proof) of this. Thus, he cannot technically get to a point "rebellion" (requiring "church discipline").
ReplyDeleteTo say he can would thus undermine the doctrine of "Assurance" (since he and others must now question whether he was originally saved) as well as undermine the idea good works are *guaranteed* to flow as fruit and proof of true faith.
Actually, Nick, that's not quite true....justification (and future glorification) are both monergistic; whilst progressive sanctification is synergistic. We have to actively cooperate with the Holy Spirit in "working out" our own salvation - ie, chooosing to obey God day by day.
ReplyDeleteWhen a blood-bought child of God stumbles in the sanctification process, it is entirely appropriate to use the Matt. 18 process to bring him (or her) back to a right relationship with God and the Body. (I've found that in biblical counseling, too, that many people confuse sanctification and justification).
(James, I hope you don't mind my responding to that.)
Hi Marie,
ReplyDeleteThe issue of Monergism/Synergism doesn't really affect my argument.
The issue is whether the individual was ever saved in the first place, especially in light of the 'conflicting reports' the individual can present by turning to sin.
The question is basically this: what signs do you look for that a person is saved or non-saved?
In answering that question, you'll see precisely where I'm coming from. (This also touches upon how Protestants interpret James 2:14-26)
James (Or anyone else, for that matter),
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is possible for a person to have true faith, in the biblical sense, and then reject that faith fully and finally only to end up going into perdition? Why or why not?
Nick, you know that there is a distinction between Reformed and Lutheran doctrine. Lutherans say that God offers everyone his grace and it is we who don't want him, trust him, believe him, and reject his grace. At some point it can happen that we have rejected him so long that he removes his gracious hand and our hards can be hardened. Living in the fear and love of God is a daily challenge. Faith can be lost though it was once received.
ReplyDeleteWhen Marie mentioned the perceived arrogance, I was thinking about some of the Lutheran ministers whom I have known. Many of them go to confession and absolution regularly to another brother and when we have confession and absolution in the service, they may kneel in the front for some time before they absolve the congregation. This is such a nice gesture of humility. I am so glad when they do it. Chief of sinners we are all each.
Regarding the question Nick raises, I give the answer I gave in an earlier thread (late last month, if memory serves). The question itself is a sign of the problem.
ReplyDelete"what signs do you look for that a person is saved or non-saved?"
There is not necessarily an outward sign of justification. There is nothing that follows on the outside that would not have happened without justification, but which happens always with justification. That question is asked by those who have already gone wrong in the first place; either by assuming that unjustified people cannot do virtuous things (pace Romans 1-2), or by assuming that the justified cannot do bad things (pace Romans 7-8).
We live by faith, not by sight. Forgetting this is going generally to be the mother of all heresy, all the time, every time. If we start looking for signs of justification, is it still by faith that we are justified? No.
One can be evil in the eyes of God, and upright in ours. One can be justified and still be, in our eyes, evil. (This is just descriptive, not normative.) God judges the heart (faith), men judge outwardly (works) even on themselves.
By insisting on living upright everywhere, the New Testament did not suggest (any more than the Old Testament) that believers would necessarily live differently. It was merely, like the Old Testament, pointing out what living upright means, and that it is required of us. This does not affect whether or not we attain to it, or how. (The Levites sacrificed repeatedly, because people sinned repeatedly, and the blood of animals cannot take away sin. We have one Sacrifice only because we still sin just as repeatedly, but we have the Blood of Christ, which works "once and for all," according to the Hebrew. Chapter 9.)
"This also touches upon how Protestants interpret James 2:14-26"
Your problem there, Nick, and the problem of the Protestants for whom James 2 is a stumbling block, is to think that when an injunction to live upright occurs in the Bible, it invalidates the truth that nobody actually lives upright by works, or that it invalidates the truth that to live by faith is to live upright.
Good thing James tells you that whoever stumbles in the smallest matter of the Law is guilty of breaking all of the Law. This should make it clearer that, where it matters, nobody other than Jesus ever lives upright ever at all. This breaking of all the Law happens, to both Protestant and Catholic, all the time, every time. So when Protestants say that good works will come as proof of being justified, what are they talking about? That at some point the justified do not break any of the Law (which is to break all the Law)? We are beggars all. That is true. The point of all the Law remaining all the time (and therefore the subsisting of the Law's condemnation of everyone every time for breaking all of it) is so that it is by faith you are saved, not by works, and that not of youselves, but of God, so that none may boast.
Because the Law remains forever, Grace also, through Faith in Christ, remains relevant forever. Amen, amen, amen.
As The 27th Comrade's Revolutionary Translation puts Romans 3:31:
So now, am I saying that by having this faith we make the Law impertinent? Au contraire, I am saying that it is by having this faith that we keep the Law!
27th Comrade,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be talking around the issue rather than addressing it (esp James 2:14-26, which you didn't directly address). My comments were based on Reformed Documents and informed Reformed individuals. Thus, for me to be asking the 'wrong question' doesn't make sense to me.
My point is simply this: any attempt to lay down a hard and fast rule for knowing one is a 'true believer' ultimately becomes a purely subjective assessment and thus cannot yield "Assurance" at all.
For example, I grant that the Believer can still sin, but how much sin and/or lack of good works is to be 'tolerated' before an accurate judgement can be made? This is especially significant for those who were once passionate about their Calvinists faith but later on in life they converted to Catholicism or became atheist. Is that to be seen as a 'temporary' lapse or a clear sign "they were never saved in the first place" (as Reformed folks are very often quick to charge)?
You said:
"If we start looking for signs of justification, is it still by faith that we are justified? No."
This is somewhat poorly worded (since "looking for signs" itself doesn't cause the justification), but the point is understood. The *catch* here is that there is no way to verify your faith is 'true' other than by works (which is where the subjective element comes in). To disagree with that would cause you to espouse antinomianism (since one doesn't have to look for good works and can still have true faith).
Here I have to bring up James 2:14-26 again because if you are going to interpret "justified by works" in a non-soteric "vindicative" manner, then this is a chief proof text for the Reformed belief true faith will surely manifest itself by good works - which I charge spirals into subjectivism in regards to when, how many, and how often do good works have to be done to "vindicate" the person's 'true faith'.
Hello, Nick;
ReplyDelete"You seem to be talking around the issue rather than addressing it (esp James 2:14-26, which you didn't directly address)."
You seem to be missing the point. I addressed all of James 2, not just a part. Don't you see the comment?
"Thus, for me to be asking the 'wrong question' doesn't make sense to me."
You are asking the wrong question, because it is foolhardy to look for signs that something is true, when we should believe by faith that this something is true. This occurs in your New Testament, but it is instructive to find out where exactly, and in response to what attitude: "Stop doubting and believe."
"My point is simply this: any attempt to lay down a hard and fast rule for knowing one is a 'true believer' ultimately becomes a purely subjective assessment and thus cannot yield "Assurance" at all."
Wait, are you saying that subjective assurance cannot furnish truth?
Why do you think that subjective truths do not give assurance? Are you mistaking the Pisteos Christou for Baconian science? Either you are some kind of logical positivist who thinks faith must be subjected to Aristotelian reason, or you are a Roman Catholic (or some other kind of modern variant on Aristotelian-style cerebral paganism).
"how much sin and/or lack of good works is to be 'tolerated' before an accurate judgement can be made?"
Not even one sin can be tolerated. You break one law ("Do not lie"), and you might as well have been a theophobic atheist.
But regarding an accurate judgement, we can only judge what someone confesses. How they act may break the Law, but based on that we cannot make statements about justification.
Part of the problem with Roman Catholicism (mainly, but also most other Christian denominations) is that it judges men's justification, which is by faith, by basing on what they do, while also suffering, but not acknowledging, that men's judgement is limited to the outside (and is accurate and beneficial there, judging works), but can therefore not match God's judgement (on which hinges justification). This also explains why it dwells on the bad sins of abortion and homosexuality and so on, while ignoring lying and soft porn and wrath, which cannot be established easily as having been done, but which are just as bad as the mass-murder that is abortion. Liars and wrathful people are not judged by the churches (they inhabit them), and yet they are just as bad as those incessantly judged by the same churches.
And if it were up to me to excommunicate people, based on the fact that they have works that are sinful, there would be nobody in the church; not even myself. Jesus would sit there alone, all the time, with the echoes of the bats and mice, wondering if His memo about Grace was ever circulated.
"The *catch* here is that there is no way to verify your faith is 'true' other than by works ..."
ReplyDeleteNo. I verify it by the act of being confident before God, knowing that, though I should be struck dead otherwise, I will not be, because Jesus was. Hebrews 4. At any rate, that is the first unavoidable work resulting from faith: believing.
"To disagree with that would cause you to espouse antinomianism (since one doesn't have to look for good works and can still have true faith)."
I do not espouse antinomianism. If the Law ceased, Grace would have to cease, too. But the Law will subsist forever. So will Grace. Amen, amen, amen.
"Here I have to bring up James 2:14-26 again because if you are going to interpret "justified by works" in a non-soteric "vindicative" manner ..."
Abraham was declared righteous many chapters before he took Isaac to the mountain. The point being that justification is there when works are not. Abraham could have died before having done this work, and he would still be justified. As Paul says at the end of Romans 8, "Who can declare guilty those God has justified? It is, after all, God Himself who justified them!"
Later on, Abraham complied with God on the sacrifice of Isaac, which is righteous and in sync with what his faith spoke of him. He did not have to do it, in order to be declared righteous: he had already been declared righteous a whole generation prior. But what he did, when he did it, regarding Isaac, was just in sync with his faith expressed earlier. So, Abraham was justified before he did works, but not before he had faith. And this is my point: by faith we are justified, whether or not we do. If we do, at whatever time, and it is in sync with our faith in God, well, what else could it be, other than works due to our faith? If we do not do works, well, as it is written, "Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness." But I have always preferred John 3:16-18; that's just a preference.
Hello, Nick;
ReplyDeleteThis comment was posted before; but because it had an external link, it was deemed spam. I have removed the link and re-posted it, hoping that James Swan does not get irritated with me for the double-post.
"You seem to be talking around the issue rather than addressing it (esp James 2:14-26, which you didn't directly address)."
You seem to be missing the point. I addressed all of James 2, not just a part. Don't you see the comment?
"Thus, for me to be asking the 'wrong question' doesn't make sense to me."
You are asking the wrong question, because it is foolhardy to look for signs that something is true, when we should believe by faith that this something is true. Do you know what Jesus told Thomas, who wanted to see and touch before he would believe?
"My point is simply this: any attempt to lay down a hard and fast rule for knowing one is a 'true believer' ultimately becomes a purely subjective assessment and thus cannot yield "Assurance" at all."
Wait, are you saying that subjective assurance cannot furnish truth?
Why do you think that subjective truths do not give assurance? Are you mistaking the Pisteos Christou for Baconian science? Either you are some kind of logical positivist who thinks faith must be subjected to Aristotelian reason, or you are a Roman Catholic (or some other kind of modern variant on Aristotelian-style cerebral paganism).
"how much sin and/or lack of good works is to be 'tolerated' before an accurate judgement can be made?"
Not even one sin can be tolerated. You break one law ("Do not lie"), and you might as well have been a theophobic atheist.
But regarding an accurate judgement, we can only judge what someone confesses. How they act may break the Law, but based on that we cannot make statements about justification.
Part of the problem with Roman Catholicism (mainly, but also most other Christian denominations) is that it judges men's justification, which is by faith, by basing on what they do, while also suffering, but not acknowledging, that men's judgement is limited to the outside (and is accurate and beneficial there, judging works), but can therefore not match God's judgement (on which hinges justification). This also explains why it dwells on the bad sins of abortion and homosexuality and so on, while ignoring lying and soft porn and wrath, which cannot be established easily as having been done, but which are just as bad as the mass-murder that is abortion. Liars and wrathful people are not judged by the churches (they inhabit them), and yet they are just as bad as those incessantly judged by the same churches.
The underlying question here is: "Is Reformed doctrine wrong when it talks about the 'perseverance of the saints'?"
ReplyDeleteThe examples provided here, would lead one to say "Yes, it is wrong." (Not to mention scripture.) "We all know such stories..." Was their faith not faith then? It might have been faith. It looked like faith. It sounded like faith...
Was there something wrong with their doctrine when they believed? I am guessing "Yes" and that that was a factor.
"Having a great testimony" and such is not what faith is. Throwing yourself on the mercy of God can happen in spectacular ways or in imperceptible ways. The only thing that matters is that the content of the faith is that Jesus died also for me, which we know from scripture, but Reformed doctrine makes you doubt by restricting the atonement. Roman Catholics also make you doubt what you are supposed to believe but making grace something uncertain, something you have to achieve by doing what's in you (though this is also from God; which makes the whole thing a speaking from both sides of the mouth). (Is God doing it all, or not?)
Thus we are expecting people to have "faith" when we do not allow them to "believe" that God's mercy and forgiveness is daily for such as themselves.
Out of all the doctrines in the acronymn TULIP, the "P" is the one I've always pondered....
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think about Judas and what he was like and what he did and what happened to him.
This is such a sad, heartbreaking thing to behold.
Sometimes the prodigal turns out to be a Judas and never returns home to the Father.
I'm curious to hear real-life stories from parents who prayed diligently for prodigal children and the children never came running back, and ended up dying a tragic death.
27th Comrade,
ReplyDeleteSome of what you say seems more agreeable to my position, but it does not appear to be Reformed. For example, I see a clear de-emphasis on the notion 'true faith' will inevitably produce good works. On the flip side, the Westminster Confession says "Good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith." This is what I've been saying, good works are the only way of verifying true faith.
As for James 2:21,24, I have not seen you address the verse directly. What does it mean when James says Abraham was "justified by works"? In short: what does the term "justified" mean in James 2:21? What does 2:18 mean when James says "if a man has faith but not works"? All you spoke about was how Abe was justified in Gen 15:6, which is not disputed.
This brings to mind two other popular Reformed texts on this subject: Galatians 5:6 and 1 John 2:19 (the latter being the cardinal proof text for "he must have never been saved in the first place").
The rest of the disciples, too, the eleven and the others. Since we are in Easter, we are familiar with all these guys (the women did maybe a little better).
ReplyDeleteWhat did Jesus say to the ones on the road to Emmaus? They were so dejected and he chastises them for their lack of faith.
Thomas wants to stick his finger in the side. Pff. Why was he still in Jerusalem.
And what about our faith. It blushes to look at itself, like humility. I believe Lord, help my unbelief. Lord have mercy is our refrain.
Hello, Nick;
ReplyDeleteYou say: "Some of what you say seems more agreeable to my position, but it does not appear to be Reformed."
It may be related to the fact that I am not a Protestant. (Neither Reformed, nor Anglican, nor Lutheran, nor any of those.) I am just one who believes in Jesus Christ, and who also believes that due to believing in Jesus Christ, I am justified before God.
I do not know whether or not I said something more agreeable to your position; I know, though, that since you are a Roman Catholic, ultimately I am going to disagree with you, because me, pace your position, I know whom I've believed, and I'm persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that Day.
"What does it mean when James says Abraham was "justified by works"? In short: what does the term "justified" mean in James 2:21?"
"Justified" there means "shown to be acting in sync with his faith." It just was not necessary for Abraham to be "shown to be acting in sync with his faith" before he could be declared righteous, as is shown by the fact that, he was declared righteous before he was "shown to be acting in sync with his faith."
"All you spoke about was how Abe was justified in Gen 15:6, which is not disputed."
It is disputed by Exsurge Domine, among other things.
"This brings to mind two other popular Reformed texts on this subject: Galatians 5:6 and 1 John 2:19 (the latter being the cardinal proof text for "he must have never been saved in the first place")."
Regarding the Galatians one, it is not novel or unique, since the most-common sentence affirming justification by faith, which is also the most-translated sentence, has the same motif: faith, love. For God so loved the World that He gave His Only-Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
Regarding the Johannine one, I do not know who (plural) he was talking about. I cannot use that in any situation I know of; nobody I know of has gone out from amongst "us" and become an antichrist, whatever this latter term means.
Ahh I see now.
ReplyDeleteNick,
Well if you are an RC and you believe that justification = faith + works then it will really be a problem for you because exactly as you inquired, what are those "works" that confirm you are justified.
James 2 does not give a formula but simply asserts what Abraham and Rahab did etc.
This model of judging if someone is a Christian by works is not the only model around. James 2 is not the only data about faith and Christian action there is Romans 7 too. It is not the works per se but the source of such a work, for that work is still tainted by sin. However anything that is not of faith is sin says St. Paul.
If good works are the only ones for verifying faith well hey, I saw a Muslim doing kind things to people around here, does it mean he is a Christian without knowing he is?
This is why stressing James 2 without the other parts of Scripture will lead to anonymous Christianity, a blunder.
As the Comrade alluded to, our judgments are faulty. So even St Paul does not judge himself.
1 John 1:8.
The issue in James 2 is that there are those boasting of their belief but their work do not comply with that belief. Boasting is the opposite of a repentant heart. The point of James 2 IMHO is to convict those people who are boasting that they might repent.
Faith and mortal sin (sin that destroy faith) cannot co-exists together, I say this as a Lutheran which I do not expect agreement but just as support or an argument I am making.
Someone who has been justified by faith alone is not an anti-nomian nor a legalist.
But rhetorically, to know if you are a Christian, have you been baptized? and what is it that you believe, teach and confess? Mk 16:16.
LPC
It occurs to me that no Reformed individuals have come out to defend the "perseverance of the saints".
ReplyDeleteAre we anywhere near agreeing that this doctrine should go, in the name of truth and ecumenism?--??? --Since, this teaching is particular to the Reformed doctrine and seemingly not defended with any kind of vigor?
Let's trade it: the RC will give up: Where shall we start? Exactly where we were here. The Roman Catholics will, in turn, confess that their salvation is from A to Z from God alone.
And where none of that makes sense systematically, we will go with Luther and say: in the light of glory it will all make sense! Right now, we just know that in Christ the kingdom has come and we are all invited into it by faith. Thanks be to God.
Hi Brigitte,
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly. Sadly, I've experienced this too often at the blog, where (for whatever reason), the Reformed folks often just disappear in times like these.
I really wish James Swan would focus more on the apologetics end than the merely 'presenting historical facts' end. The whole point of apologetics is to provide a reasonable answer, especially to objections, not just recount historical details.
Well, yea, Nick, and what about the Roman Catholics? They go into this long, round about stuff that convinces no one but sounds like maybe it is something, if one tries hard enough.
ReplyDeleteTell me, Nick, that Christ saved you without any merit or worthiness in you, or any saint,... None whatsoever, nothing, zilch, zero. Period. (AND be happy for that. Really, really, really happy :))
http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=Perseverance+of+the+Saints&B1.x=0&B1.y=0
ReplyDeleteI searched and found 46 articles/Links at Monergism.com on the Perseverance of the Saints and the argumentation for it.
I don't have time to go into in the comboxes right now, but it has been defended for centuries.
Matthew 7:23 - " I never knew you" is another one along with I John 2:19 that demonstrates the truth of the doctrine.
If a person falls away and says, "I don't believe in Christ anymore" it means they never really did, no matter how sincere we or they think they were before.
I really wish James Swan would focus more on the apologetics end than the merely 'presenting historical facts' end.
ReplyDeleteNext week I'll have some time to interact with some of your comments in this thread.
Since, this teaching is particular to the Reformed doctrine and seemingly not defended with any kind of vigor?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is particular to the Reformed. I've attended Baptist and Independent churches and I'm pretty sure all believed in the PoS. I know I did.
The question is basically this: what signs do you look for that a person is saved or non-saved?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am coming in late but wanted to answer this. I can't speak for the Reformed as I am immature in Reformed theology and very rusty in general, but the signs that I look for are content of faith and works with a bigger emphasis on the former.
But judging someone else's faith and having assurance yourself is a bit different. I get the feeling you are more interested in the assurance part but I'm not sure.
And I agree with Ken, if someone completely abandons their faith then I would assume they were never saved in the first place.
Ken, thanks for response, I have not read a lot of the things you have, certainly zero Calvin, nor been at these discussion places. I am asking quite pointedly but also quite naively.
ReplyDeleteThe passage provide does not seem to me a very didactic one. It is a parable and its point is another. --Do you not look to your works, and mostly importantly not those you have dreamed up yourself. Hence, bottomline, salvation is a gift from God. Same point as the Bondage of the will. (Yea!) Those who don't accept this, indeed Christ warns us, he will not know us then because we do not know him now as the giver of all good gifts and mercy.
Those who imagined they have done their part for God, are not trusting him and not letting him be their good and gracious God, which is the worst of all anyone can do. What you look for for help is your God. So are we looking to God or to something else?
Carrie, the point that faith is "content" and "works" is just not the so. The devils can have content and works. But they do not love God as the one who gives to them. They want to be God themselves. Faith is: When Christ says: "For God so loved the world that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life"--he really means it and wants you to have it. It is yours, undeservedly because our blindness and sin is overpowering, but his redemption is more. And it is for you. What he want us to do most is to trust him when he says this. He is no liar. He is no fake. He does not want to take anything from you. He only wants to give. He is good. He is everything. He is not pressuring you into anything, nor exacting anything you do not wish to give. He is the Lord of your life, which is he is your treasure and you are his.
This can be lost, when we trust in other gods, when we stop believing that God is good. In fact, it is easily done. We are not tempted to do anything more than by this particular temptation. It is the mother-of-all-temptations. And it is possible to fall, and actually quite easily. This is why we are to repent daily and attend the supper, etc.
Ok, that's enough. :) I am trying to write coherently, but I should be in bed and tomorrow I'm travelling without internet.
Carrie, the point that faith is "content" and "works" is just not the so.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say faith is content and works, I said I would look at the content of someone's faith (what they believe, what their trust is in) and their works (evidence of the Holy Spirit) to try and judge whether a person is saved.
I wasn't talking about what faith IS, I was trying to directly answer Nick's question that I highlighted above my response (in italics).
Matthew 7:15-23 is not a parable, and is a didactic (teaching portion); then it is followed by a parable about obedience.
ReplyDeleteA Tree and Its Fruit
15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20"So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
[I think of the many word of faith movement/prosperity/health and wealth greedy TV preachers every time I read this verse. See my article on the hermeneutics of heretics, posted on Friday, May 20]
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
Then, Jesus tells them a parable as an illustration of what obedience is like. Obedience comes from real conversion, from the tree that has life in it and gives off good fruit.
If one is converted first, has real faith, then the words are the result of true faith, they will be stable and have a foundation.
Brigitte,
ReplyDeleteLet me also encourage you to read some of the articles on the perseverance of the saints at www.monergism.com
There is much there.
Both articles and sermons.
Another thing is John 15:1-8, and understanding the larger context of John chapters 13-17 about Judas.
In John 13:10-11 Jesus says "you are all clean, but not all of you"
this he spoke of Judas, who was going to betray Him.
Then in John 15, Judas is gone, and Jesus says, "you are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you"
So, verses 2 and 6 are warnings about people who can be like Judas, (in Me, meaning "hanging out around me and the other believers, for example, in church and meetings, and appearing to be a branch with trees and saying words, etc. but who are not really converted on the inside, not really born again, not really "His Sheep". their nature has not been changed.
I think this is very helpful.
John 15:2, 6 - Those that don't keep abiding in Christ are cut off and thrown away as a branch and burned in hell and prove that they were never truly saved, born again, converted in the first place.
Thanks Ken; just quickly; the passages you cited do teach but they are not a teaching about the perseverance of the saints. In fact, it seems to me that the perseverance of the saints is brought to those passages.
ReplyDeleteAll things to do with plants and roots, and trees, branches and pruning say two things: 1. only in Christ and faith in him is anything actually "good". 2. You must remain in him. Watch out or you, too, could be cut off. Paul says as much.
Romans 8:28-34
ReplyDeleteJohn 10:27-30
Philippians 1:6
I John 5:13
are just a few passages that teach the perseverance of the saints.
In the Romans 8 passage, it says that those who are called are justified, and those who are justified are glorified. There we see that God's power takes them all the way from internal conversion (effectual calling) to justifying faith through the sanctification process to glorification in heaven.
I John 3:1-3
In the John 10:27-30 passage, Jesus repeats several times, "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand".
Even after the warning passage in Hebrews 6:4-6, in Hebrews 6:7-9 points to the evidence of fruit and so proving to be a true believer, "the things that accompany salvation"; and "I am convinced of better things concerning you"; "though we are speaking this way".
In every church and audience, there are people in the crowd that think that they are saved, by their baptism, or walking the aisle, or saying a prayer, but there must be evidence of true justifying faith, as James 2 says.
Anyway, there is much more also in Scripture and those articles would help. It is a big subject.
Ken, you say: "If a person falls away and says, "I don't believe in Christ anymore" it means they never really did, no matter how sincere we or they think they were before."
ReplyDeleteWhy isn’t it, instead, that once someone at some point believed in Jesus, he can never really not believe in Jesus (later on). Such that, even if he says “I don’t believe in Christ anymore,” he is only deluded or being inconsistent with himself.
This has the same effect as the Preservation of the Saints thing among the Calvinists, while also being in sync with history. After all, if anybody were to be on the receiving side of the polémique at the start of Galatians 3, he would qualify for your “says ‘I don’t believe in Christ anymore’ … no matter how sincere … they were before.”
But Paul wrote to them to tell them that this unfaith they were having was not in sync with what they should be doing, as believers; for he called them brothers, since they once were believers.
I find, unfortunately, that the Calvinist position on this tends to be the more-negative one, which is funny, considering that such an interpretation of the Preservation of the Saints actually demeans that self-same “preservation” principle, while also de-meaning the salvific power of faith, such that it is no longer actually true that “we are justified by faith,” but rather something like “we are justified by faith, at the point when we die …” which can correctly be seen to have interesting similarities with the Roman Catholicism against which you rage.
I think it is an error to think that Jesus means the works of the justified in question, when He says “… I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’” It not only makes nonsense of the justified-by-faith-not-by-works, but it assumes wrongly that in this case Jesus was judging those who, d’après John 3 have already passed from death to life. He was referring to “false prophets”, not weak believers! And so Bar Kochba was known by his terrible fruits, say, as is the Papacy. In fact, Jesus was talking to believers here, saying at the start “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” In fact, the NIV recognises that as an entirely separate—even independent—comma of Matthew 7.
ReplyDeleteNext, it is important to note that this section falls in the Matthew 5-7 triple, the Sermon on the Mount, which I read as the Jesus equivalent of Romans 1-3: basically, it says “Here is the Law, guys, if that is how you want to be justified,” before the move to the Grace-heavy stuff is made. Matthew 8 starts with an undeserving person getting a miracle. Then a Gentile, who “hath not the Law” comes next, and Jesus praises his faith. It is Matthew 8 that the miracles start coming out of every verse (seriously, verse 16 doesn’t bother with the details, for example). Where were the miracles all the time before? They could not be accessed when the people were under the Law. When Grace starts, the miracles start.
So, I do not see the know-them-by-their-fruits stuff in Matthew 7 to be injunctions to those under Grace, but rather to those who are under the Law.
So, I think that Ken’s use of it in this Preservation of the Saints debate is a bit off. I am convinced of that.
Brigitte,
ReplyDeleteDo you think there are baptized Lutherans in Hell?
Truth Unites,
ReplyDeleteI won't answer for Brigitte but I for one as a Lutheran do believe there are baptized Lutherans in hell.
Those who have abandoned what was given to them, that in Baptism they were united to Christ received the remission of sin, yes, they will be in hell because they abandoned the gift. They rejected their union with Christ and so yes, they will not be in heaven per God's Word.
Similar to the circumcised Israelites - they were circumcised but some failed to enter the promised Land save Joshua and Calev.
27th Comrade,
rather something like “we are justified by faith, at the point when we die …” which can correctly be seen to have interesting similarities with the Roman Catholicism against which you rage.
I am sympathetic to your comment above. There are subtle similarities of paradigm that some folk may not be aware of.
IMHO, 1 John is only one of the data regarding presumed Christians who left. There are hypocrites in church, those who claim to believe but they really do not, instead they are hanging on to their works. However there is also the teaching of Jesus on the Sower and the Field. There Jesus mentioned a person believing for a while and then lost.
If one denies the impossibility of a believer falling away, then it is a tyrant of a doctrine because you will never be sure if you really are a believer. The issue is not doubting if you will persevere, the issue comes before that is more terrible. The issue is whether or not you are a believer in the first place. To me that is rather awful and hard position to be in.
Now I know I will attract the heat of Calvinist Christians here, but respectfully ask to please think about it for a moment.
LPC
"I won't answer for Brigitte but I for one as a Lutheran do believe there are baptized Lutherans in hell."
ReplyDeleteThanks LPC for your reply.
It's just that I've encountered some Lutherans who are just so enamored with baptism, or their own baptism, as if their baptism guarantees their salvation.
Like LCMS or ELCA Lutherans who are actively gay.
“If one denies the impossibility of a believer falling away, then it is a tyrant of a doctrine because you will never be sure if you really are a believer. The issue is not doubting if you will persevere, the issue comes before that is more terrible. The issue is whether or not you are a believer in the first place. To me that is rather awful and hard position to be in.”
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, though, if one is going to have both the Perseverance of the Saints and Justification by Faith, then one may have a problem if one, like the Calvinists, would not like to make faith a work.
In the Calvinist model, if someone does not persevere in the faith, and yet faith is due entirely to God, then, in such a case, God has failed.
If we were to have a Perseverance of the Saints and also have monergism, we would not have any falling away.
But the Calvinists say “never was a believer anyway,” in a fashion not too different from how the neo-Darwinian evolution theorists wave away data that challenges them with “that was never a complete picture anyway” (see Darwin’s reaction to the missing links, for example).
Excellent explanations LP and 27th. Thanks. I won't recapitulate then, but endorse them.
ReplyDeleteThe Calvinist must see this conundrum right at the heart of what "faith" is. Faith is a living, breathing thing. It waxes and wanes. It bears us up. We struggle with it every day.
On our end, it is a creation of God which needs nourishing, like a baby he has given us to take care of. We can't create a new human being and we can't make it grow, but we can do everything for it, that we should.
Read your Bible, go to church, remember what he told you in baptism, remember him and receive him and his strength in the supper, confess your sins, start over every day, walk humbly with him and your neighbor, receive gifts from him and your fellow Christian, do your work in God's name... Pray to him to strengthen your faith... This dependence is what faith is. It looks to God. Without our need, we would be looking at ourselves not him. This will be over when we see face to face.
I do not need to list the things I can do or omit to do, to help ensure that my faith flounders. As I said, it is the easiest thing to do. It is the wide road with many on it.
On God's end, however, :), :), :), it is a completely different story. With him there is no such variance, unfaithfulness, no waxing, no waning, no wandering off onto another road, no forgetfulness, no lack of zeal. As Ken has provided us with some beautiful passages, especially Romans 8, HE IS FOR US. (Amen.) This is the content of our faith.
It may not always look to us like that is how it is. We are buffeted on all sides and suffer most horrible set-backs. We get disillusioned with ourselves, our own strength of faith, our church, our prayers; let us not get started, the things that faith overcomes are endless, so help us God.
But in all this the anchor holds. God will be true to his word. He is our dear Father in heaven.
We can be prodigals, or we can be older brothers who think God is unfair. Both sons are wrong and unfaithful. The father is good. The father is right. The father longs to hold you in his arms. Let him love you.
This is obeying the first commandment, which matters the most and from which all else flows.
If one denies the impossibility of a believer falling away, then it is a tyrant of a doctrine because you will never be sure if you really are a believer. The issue is not doubting if you will persevere, the issue comes before that is more terrible. The issue is whether or not you are a believer in the first place. To me that is rather awful and hard position to be in.
ReplyDeleteI know you know, of course, that we don't decide the truth of a doctrine by how easy it is swallow.
That said, I disagree that this doctrine is an awful position to be in. Knowing that I can't be snatched from Jesus' hand is very comforting. I suppose I could worry I'm not a true believer in the first place but if I was on your side of thought I would be just as worried I might fall away at a time of weakness.
In the end it always comes back to faith. My faith is no weaker or lazier b/c I believe I cannot fall away.
I know you know, of course, that we don't decide the truth of a doctrine by how easy it is swallow.
ReplyDeleteBut the truth is convincing and the truth sets free. There is one thing to say that something is beyond our comprehension because we are fallible and limited human beings and another to say that something must be believed though it is "hard to swallow."
I suppose I could worry I'm not a true believer in the first place but if I was on your side of thought I would be just as worried I might fall away at a time of weakness.
There is a difference between doubting if you are saved in the first place (doubting God) vs. doubting the strength of my faith (doubting myself.) Think it through. There is an essential difference. My even minimal faith and miserable life lets me hope in God who is faithful and forgives sinners.