|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
God's mercy went before us when we were his enemies;
therefore he cannot choose to but embrace us when we become his friends.
It is utterly impossible that God
should deny his love to a soul wholly devoted to him,
and which desires nothing so much as to serve and please him.
He cannot disdain his own image;
nor the heart in which he is engraven.
Love is all the tribute which we can pay him,
And it is the sacrifice which he will not despise.
Henry Scougal (1650‑1678)
It is probably safe to say that there have been more throughout the history of the church who have rejected any doctrine of the certainty of salvation than have accepted it. Tridentine Catholicism rejected both the idea of the certainty of faith and the certainty of salvation. No one can have assurance of their salvation nor is their any certainty that if one is saved he will remain saved. With some modifications Karl Rahner, a contemporary Roman Catholic theologian, holds to the same position. [i]
Among the Reformers Luther held that a believer could experience assurance of salvation but not be certain as to security. Faith is certain but salvation is not. "Luther's position was that our eternal security was with Christ in heaven." He held "that the Christian could fall from grace into condemnation, and that this was a distinct possibility throughout life." [ii]
Calvin, on the other hand, held to both assurance and security. "For Calvin the truly elect have been given the certain knowledge that they are not only saved by grace but will be kept by grace. This is not to deny that through stubbornness and presumption they may fall time and again, but they will never fall out of the sphere of grace." [iii]
In contrast to the Reformers who saw certainty arising out of Jesus Christ, the object of faith, and the scripture promises, the Pietists based assurance on religious experience.
Wesley held that the Christian may have assurance of present salvation but not of final salvation.
Because of his existential bent Kierkegaard denied any rational certainty to faith but did affirm a subjective certainty which may exist as a paradox to rational faith.
Bloesch himself advocates a position which may best be described as existential assurance and conditional security. Regarding assurance, he appeals to Hebrews 11:1 as the basis for his view. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." From this he deduces that "faith is an assurance that concerns not only present salvation but final salvation, since the latter is the object of our hope." [iv] So far so good, but he then goes on to say, "It is also a conviction that refers to a reality that transcends the senses of man and is, therefore, inaccessible to empirical verification. It is not a rational but an existential certainty." [v] This, however, is only partially true.
While it is true that many of the realities of faith are inaccessible to empirical verification in terms of tangible or repeatable scientific experimentation it is not true that they are therefore non‑ rational. The consistent testimony of the scriptures is that genuine faith is based upon reliable data arising either from historical facts or divine revelation. The believer's assurance of salvation is no different.
His approach to eternal security is likewise equivocating. He declares of himself, "On the question of eternal security I am closer to Luther's than Calvin's position. Christ is our eternal security, and we therefore have eternal security so long as we have faith in Christ." [vi] Security, then, is conditioned upon the continuance of faith. "No worldly or spiritual force can pluck us out of the hand of Christ (John 10:28, 29), though we must allow for the impossible possibility that Christ himself may let us go if we go back upon our promise to serve Christ till the end (cf. Heb. 10:26‑29., Rev. 3:11)." [vii] To support this view he appeals to Hebrews 10:26‑29, Revelation 3:11 and 1 Peter 1:4‑5.
These passages need to be examined separately. Hebrews 10:26‑29 is not a statement to the effect that salvation once possessed may be lost if faith fails. It is rather teaching that salvation may never be gained if one rejects the only saving object of faith, Jesus Christ the Son of God. Revelation 3:11 does not even have salvation in view. The warning there has to do with loss of reward (crown) rather than loss of salvation. This is a very real danger for the believer (1 Cor. 3:12‑15; 2 John 8).
His treatment of 1 Peter 1:4‑5 is also unacceptable. To understand the passage it is necessary to trace Peter's statement from the beginning (v. 3). He says that God has caused us to be born again unto two things: a living hope guaranteed by the fact of Christ's resurrection from the dead and an incorruptible undefiled and unfading inheritance guaranteed by its being kept in heaven beyond the ravages and changes of time. There are no conditions attached either to the new birth or the hope and inheritance they bring. Peter then declares that the inheritance is kept for you who are in turn being continually guarded. This guarding is qualified by three prepositional phrases which verify the certainty of God's work. It is by the power of God that we are guarded, not by the power of faith.
Omnipotence is our guard. It is through faith that the guarding by God's power is realized. At this point Bloesch appeals to the Living Bible translation, "because you are trusting him," as support for his view. Unfortunately, this is a poor translation for the construction is dia with the genitive which means “through," not dia with the accusative which means "because of." It is not because of faith that we are guarded, as though faith were meritorious, but through faith. The construction here is identical to that in Ephesians 2:8 where it is declared that salvation (the whole saving work of God from start to finish) is by grace through faith which, in turn is declared to be "not of yourselves" but "the gift of God." It is an error to view faith there in Ephesians or here in Peter as a work of merit. It is instead a work of God whereby God's gifts are appropriated. That which is a gift at one point does not become a work at another.
The idea that a believer can stop believing at some point is just as ludicrous as the idea that he could start believing on his own in the first place. The third prepositional phrase is unto salvation. The end in view, because of God's powerful guarding, is our salvation which even now is ready for its eschatological unveiling. This, like the hope and the inheritance is unconditional.
A brief response to his suggestion that while no other alien force may take us from his hand he himself may let us go if we default on our promise is also needed. In the first place, our relationship to Christ is not predicated upon our promise to him but his to us. This very passage states it eloquently: "I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish" (John 10:28).
Secondly, the grammar of the passage militates against such an idea. The promise is positive, "I give to them eternal life," and negative, "they shall never perish." The latter statement is "very strong ... covering all exigencies without exception." [viii] It is comprised of the Greek emphatic negative (ou me) which means "not at all" and the phrase eis ton aiona which means "for ever." Thus he says that they will never ever perish. As he continues to build his case Jesus states not only that no one can snatch us from his hand but that no one (oudeis, no person) can snatch us from the Father's hand. Thus, Bloesch's argument, that no alien force could force Christ's hand but that he could let us go, is answered by the way Christ makes his statement. Should it be that Christ would let us go no one, including Christ, can take us from the Father's hand; should the Father desire to let us go (ouch tis) not any person, including the Father, can snatch us from Christ's hand.
Bloesch's ambivalence on this issue is further demonstrated by the following statement: The "once saved, always saved" syndrome of latter-day Calvinism cannot be maintained in the light of the scriptural warnings against presumption in faith (1 Cor. 10:12; Heb. 10:35). At the same time there is an element of truth in this notion, namely, that we can and must hope with exceeding joy that we will be kept by grace, since God does not deceive (cf. Rom. 5:2; 15:13). He remains true to his promise that whoever calls upon the name of Christ will be saved (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). [ix]
His concern over a cavalier attitude toward salvation is well taken and the New Testament warnings against presumptuous faith are to be taken seriously. No one should handle sacred things with profane hands. This does not, however, change the fact that once one is in the faith God will keep him there. Bloesch's position of "in but not for sure" is hopelessly contradictory and confusing. Either one or the other is true but not both.
I. Introduction
Is salvation eternal in quantity as well as quality or not? To answer this question it is necessary to distinguish between the doctrines of security, perseverance, and assurance.
A. Definitions
1. Eternal Security
Eternal security is that work of God whereby he keeps the believer from a total and final turning away and continues the work of divine grace begun in regeneration unto its completion in glory.
2. Perseverance
Perseverance is that response of continuance in the way of faith and holiness on the part of the believer which is consistent with and demonstrative of that eternal salvation that is his in Christ.
3. Assurance
Assurance is that confidence wrought in the believer's heart by the witness of the Holy Spirit through the scriptures that the finished work of Christ is savingly his now and forever.
B. The Bases for These Doctrines
1. Security
Security is based upon the immutable character of God and the infallible declarations of the Word of God.
2. Perseverance
Perseverance is based upon the motivation to holiness provided by the knowledge and possession of the salvation that is ours in Christ (Heb. 12:3‑17). As Christians respond to the evidences of new life within and the growing knowledge thereof they will conduct themselves accordingly.
3. Assurance
Assurance is based upon the witness of the Spirit through Christian experience growing out of God's declarations about his Son (Rom. 8:16; 1 John 5:9‑12).
C. A Summation
Perseverance and assurance are the human responses to the divine work of keeping us. They are experiential while security is non-experiential. The way we feel (assurance) and the way we respond (perseverance) are to be distinguished from God's declared eternal purpose (security).
|
Security |
The Fact of God’s Faithfulness |
|
Perseverance |
Our Response to the Fact |
|
Assurance |
Our Realization of the Fact |
Thus, the question of the believer's security is not a separate doctrine from salvation. It is, rather, an inherent part of it. The two cannot be separated.
II. The Biblical Doctrine
A. The Affirmation of Security
This issue hinges on one's concept of God (how great is he?) and of salvation (does man cooperate with God in salvation?). If the responsibility to initiate the process is mine (auto soterism) or, if I share in it with God (synergism), then the continuation will be at best uncertain and insecure. If GOD is the unchallenged sovereign of salvation then security is certain.
It does not rest on experience but upon the fact that God has done something that will not and cannot be changed (Rom. 11:29, cf. James 1:17, Mal. 3:6). The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable; there is no variation with God; and, he does not change nor do his works on our behalf.
The reasons why the believer is secure are as follows:
1. Reasons related to God the Father
a) The sovereign purpose of God
What is God's purpose in saving a person?
1) To bring him to glory (Heb. 2:9‑10)
Among the many sub-purposes which make up the purpose of God, namely the accomplishment of his glory, is that of bringing many sons and daughters to glory.
2) To conform him to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:28‑30).
Note well "whom he predestined ... he also called ... justified ... glorified." He ends with the same number with which he began.
In Romans 8:28‑30 there is consistently one subject—God; one object the called according to his purpose (also note the interrelation of hous, whom, in verses 29 and 30 with toutous kai, these also, in verse 30; it is the same group from beginning to end); one kind of action —aoristic, that is, every action is viewed as an accomplished fact; and one direction—from eternity ("he foreknew ... he foreordained") to eternity ("he glorified"). Also, this direction spans time ("he called ... he justified").
b) The infinite power of God
What can "unsave" a Christian? The Arminian says—sin. But 1 John 2:2 states that God is propitiated (satisfied) regarding our sin. Because of Christ's finished work God's power is freed to keep us justly despite the fact that we sin. His ability to keep is noted in 2 Timothy 1:12; 1 Peter 1:5; Jude 24.
c) The infinite love of God
If he loved us enough to save us while lost in sin will he not love us enough to keep us as saints, that is as members of his own family? Romans 5:8‑10; 8:32, 38‑39 clearly establish this fact. Using the phrase "much more" (Rom. 5:9‑10) Paul compares the love which acted to save us while we were yet sinners, that is before we were in his family, with the love he extends to us now that we have been reconciled.
The same principle is set forth, but in reverse order, in Romans 8:32. There he argues a fortiori. If he has done the greater thing, "He did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," surely he will do the lesser thing, "how will he not also with him freely give us all things?"
In Romans 8:38‑39 he declares that nothing in particular or in general can separate us from God's love in Christ. See also the statement in John 13:1 that "he loved them to the end." The phrase eis telos is probably best understood as meaning "utterly" or "to the utmost." Morris writes that the phrase "is ambiguous, meaning both 'to the end' and 'to the utmost.'
It is likely that we have here a typical Johannine double meaning, with both meanings intended. But the aorist, egapesen, is more consistent with love shown as a single act than with the continuance of love (imperfect)." [x]
With the combination of infinite love, infinite power and infinite purpose the believer's security is guaranteed. Surely what the Father purposes, is able to do and desires to do will be done.
2. Reasons related to God the Son
a) His promise (John 10:27‑29)
1) "They shall never perish."
As noted above, this is a very strong statement. The very character, veracity, of Jesus Christ is at stake here.
2) No one can snatch believers from Jesus' or the Father's hand
The way the statement is made no loopholes are left. No one, including ourselves, can break this net of safety.
b) His prayer (John 17:6, 9‑12, 24)
1) "Keep them in Thy name" (17:11).
The keeping is in his name (the sum of his character) not our merit.
2) "I desire that they ... be with me where I am" in glory (17:24)
God always hears his Son's prayers (John 11:42) so we can count on this prayer being answered.
c) His work (Rom. 8:34)
The question raised is, "who is the one who condemns?" Both question and answers in context make it clear that if someone is to be condemned it must be Christ for it is on him, not man, that salvation rests in the first place. Anything that affects the believer affects him because we are united to him. Since this is true, any blame for the defection from the faith, the loss of eternal life by any child of God, would rest in Christ Jesus.
1) Christ died
To deny the keeping power of Christ is to deny the efficacy of his death. The answer to the sin question, for believer and unbeliever, lies in the death of Christ (see 1 John 2:2; 1 John 1:7, 9; 1 Pet. 1:18‑19). Jesus Christ the righteous, himself, is the satisfaction for our sin. Thus, as we walk in the light his death cleanses us from all sin. When we fail to walk in the light and sin, as we confess our sins he forgives and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.
2) Christ is risen
The Christian's new life is based on his resurrection life. If he can lose his resurrection life then the Christian can, too. If we can lose our resurrection life than so can he (Eph. 1:18‑20; 2:4‑6).
3) Christ is our advocate
His present work at the Father's right hand is what might be called a curative ministry (1 John 2:1‑2). It is specifically designed to deal with sin in the believer's life and assures us of continued acceptance in Jesus Christ the righteous.
4) Christ is our intercessor
His present work at God's right hand also involves a preventative ministry (Heb. 7:25). His ongoing life assures ongoing intercession which assures ongoing salvation. Examples of this ministry in our Lord's earthly life are found in John 17:9, 15, 20; Luke 22:31‑34.
3. Reasons related to God the Holy Spirit
a) He regenerates us (John 3:3‑7, cf. 1:13).
There is an impartation of divine life through the new birth. Divine life by its very nature cannot be interrupted or cut off. If it could the life of God himself would be interrupted for that is the life we possess. As Loraine Boettner states:
The nature of the change which occurs in regeneration is a sufficient guarantee that the life imparted shall be permanent. Regeneration is a radical and supernatural change in the inner nature, through which the soul is made spiritually alive, and the new life which is implanted is immortal. And since it is a change in the inner nature, it is in a sphere in which man does not have control. No creature is at liberty to change the fundamental principles of its nature, for that is the prerogative of God as creator. [xi]
b) He baptizes (i.e., identifies) us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) and into Christ (Rom. 6:3‑5; Gal. 3:27)
Our position in Christ and in his body the church, assures our safety. Being baptized into Christ/his body is two ways to state the same truth. Union with one equals union with the other. Security comes from our position in union with him.
c) He permanently indwells us (John 14:16‑17, cf. Rom. 8:9)
His presence in us assures our safety.
d) He seals us unto the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30)
Not only does he do this work of preservation but he places himself as the seal, with which none dare to tamper (Eph. 1:13‑14). The significance of the sin of grieving the Spirit (Eph. 4:30) relates to the fact that he has so sealed us for the day of redemption.
4. Reasons related to the plan of salvation
The one and only way of salvation is by grace through faith. Security is a vital, inseparable part of salvation. If anything is added to grace it is no longer grace for you cannot add to the finished work of Christ (Acts. 4:12; Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8‑9; Tit. 3:5).
B. The Exhortation to Perseverance
The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is a basic tenet of Reformed theology. This term has traditionally been used to refer to the theological concept discussed above under the caption "the affirmation of security."
Berkhof, writing from a strongly Reformed viewpoint, states that "perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion." He also says that it is "… not man but God who perseveres" and "it is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end." [xii]
In this treatise, however, the term is being used in another sense. As indicated by the definition given earlier in this chapter, it is believed that perseverance is a term which describes the human response and responsibility vis-à-vis the divine work. In this way those passages which appear to place the believer's continuation in the faith on his shoulders are best explained. With every trust there is a corresponding accountability.
The sacred trust of new life in Christ, for which God has given himself as pledge for its continuance, likewise calls for a corresponding accountability. This takes the form of faithful, holy living. Perseverance, as so construed, is not the way that security is gained but the way it is demonstrated. Each of the following passages emphasize two things—the believer's responsibility to remain steadfast in godliness and that the faith one professes is proven to be genuine by such steadfastness (see 1 Cor. 15:2; Col. 1:21‑23; Heb. 3:6, 14; 2 Pet. 1:10).
The writer to the Hebrew Christians is appealing to this doctrine when he writes:
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while, “He who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved (Heb. 10:35-39).
He associates perseverance in doing God’s will with our future experience of the fulfillment of his promises to us. This perseverance is not salvific but rather is evidence of the presence of the faith that saves and sanctifies (”live by faith”). Thus, God graciously promises reward to his children for their good works as his seal of approval upon their perseverance.
Unfortunately, not all theologians view this doctrine in the same way. In the history of Protestant Christian doctrine there has been ongoing disagreement about the meaning and significance of “perseverance of the saints”. One school of thought, usually associated with (although not limited to) Arminian theology, has held that once a person is saved they may subsequently fall from grace. By this they mean that such a person is no longer saved and is either eternally lost or must be saved over again.
Another school of thought (addressed in the following material) objects to the doctrine, as they perceive it to be taught by Reformed theologians, on entirely different grounds. This view holds that people are initially saved by grace and that they are kept saved by grace. They would insist that the idea of a saint persevering in the faith is tantamount to works-salvation. They furthermore believe that this latter is the teaching of all who hold to the doctrine of perseverance, even when clarifications to the contrary are offered. Those who hold this view are sometimes called “grace” theologians with the implication that any who disagree with their view do not understand the doctrine of grace.
There is yet a third view on this subject (likewise addressed in the following discussion) which is set forth by Reformed theologians. This view teaches that those who are genuinely born again will persevere to the end, sometimes adding that if one does not persevere they will not be finally saved. This view is sometimes referred to as the “lordship salvation” view.
Sadly, there have been accusations of biblical ignorance and theological naiveté regarding the doctrine of grace both from the “grace” theologians and the “lordship salvation” theologians. This has not served the purpose of understanding and led, in some cases, to further alienation among brothers. Both schools of thought appeal to the scriptures for support, utilizing the same historical-grammatical system of hermeneutics. The differences, thus, often may be traced to the presuppositions with which each school comes to the various texts. No one, no mater how much they attempt to be objective and without bias, is exempt from this fact.
In 1988 John MacArthur published The Gospel according to Jesus which became the most recent occasion for polarization on this issue. MacArthur’s argument seems to be that if there is little or no evidence of Christ’s lordship in one’s life one can have no assurance of salvation and is in all likelihood not saved at all. The book was intended to be a re-statement of the classical Reformed position by an extensive appeal to Jesus’ teachings, as well as a refutation of what he felt were the errors of such writers as Zane Hodges (Dead Faith: What is it; Grace in Eclipse; The Gospel Under Siege). His book was subsequently challenged by Hodges (Absolutely free) and Charles Ryrie (So Great Salvation). The most recent and extensive attempt to challenge the “lordship salvation” view was by Joseph Dillow in 1992 in The Reign of the Servant Kings.
It is customary and expected that in a theological debate each party looks for and attacks the perceived weaknesses of their opponent. In the interest of clarity and in the search for truth this needs to be done. This is a useful exercise if both parties are willing to agree to follow the truth wherever it takes them and to correct their views accordingly as the debate unfolds. The outcome of such interaction should not be to “win” but to come nearer to understanding biblical revelation.
In order for this magnanimous approach to be experienced and this outcome to be realized certain understandings must be reached at the outset of the dialogue.
i. Both parties must acknowledge that they come to the discussion with a personal history that shapes their current views.
ii. Both parties must acknowledge that they come with certain presuppositions about such things as the meaning of grace, the nature of good works, the interpretation of certain passages of scripture.
iii. Both parties must acknowledge that they have attributed to the other certain presuppositions about the above listed items.
iv. Both parties must acknowledge that they have given an interpretation of the written works of the other school of thought which may or may not be that intended by the author(s).
v. Both parties must acknowledge that their assessment of the other view is based upon the statements of some, perhaps many, but not all of those in the camp with which they are disagreeing.
While it may seem that each of these five cautions are self-evident and would consequently lead to more measured statements by both the “grace” and the “lordship” schools of thought, it frequently seems that the advocates of these views may be faulted for failure to observe one of more of these cautions. Examples of failure to keep in mind the fifth caution may illustrate this point.
Sometimes, in the heat of defending a position, overstatements are made which eventually become incorporated into what is considered the common wisdom about the view. For example, some, in their zeal to defend that salvation is “not of works” have so minimized the place of good works in Christian experience that the impression is left that works-less Christianity is biblical Christianity. When it is acknowledged that there is some place for works in the Christian scheme of things it seems to be done grudgingly and seems to die the death of a thousand qualifications.
This approach to things is sometimes accompanied by rather novel interpretations of James 2:14-26 designed to avoid the rather straightforward teaching of the passage that “faith without works is dead.”
When those who hold the “lordship” position come upon such views they 1) understandably react negatively and 2) unfortunately tend to label all who disagree with their overall view as holding such interpretations. The fact is that there are those who do not embrace the traditional Reformed position on Lordship Salvation, who carefully guard the view that salvation is all of grace and “not of works,” and who believe that the genuinely saved will give some evidence of their spiritual life through good works as they are progressively sanctified by the Spirit of God.
Another example, on the other side of the question, will likewise illustrate the point being made. Some, in their desire to set forth the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, as they perceive it to be in scripture, are so insistent upon the necessity of evidence of genuine faith they seem to teach that if one does not persevere in the faith to the end they will lose the salvation they had once received. Good works thus seem to be a necessity to final salvation.
This makes justification contingent upon sanctification and disallows the possibility of assurance. While diligently insisting that they believe that salvation is all of grace and “not of works,” they are hard-pressed to answer the question as to how many good works performed over what period of time are sufficient to guarantee final salvation.
When those who hold the “grace” position come upon this kind of statement they, too, 1) understandably react negatively sensing a new form of the Galatian error, and 2) unfortunately tend to label all who hold to the doctrine of perseverance as advocates of the same questionable interpretations. Again, the fact is, there are those who do not embrace the above stated “grace” view of perseverance, who carefully guard the view that salvation is all of grace and “not of works” from start to finish, and who hold that those who are genuinely saved will persevere to the end rather than believing that those who persevere will be saved.
Some, including this writer, have proposed that it is more accurate to speak of the perseverance of the Savior than of the perseverance of the saints. [xiii] This is another way of saying that our eternal destiny is secured by the faithfulness of the Son of God in keeping his own. This is a precious truth, worthy of our affirmation. It does not, however, exhaust the fullness of this doctrine. While the Savior will persevere in keeping all those given him by the Father, it is also our responsibility to persevere. The Scriptures do not give the believer the license to disobey although sometimes we do disobey in our willfulness. We are called to holiness according to the standard set by God himself.
In seeking for theological ground upon which to stand in this matter it does not seem wise to allow either of these more polarized positions to govern our thinking. There is a position which seems to provide a better relationship between grace and perseverance, and which avoids the pitfalls of the polar positions discussed above.
Could it not be that salvation is all of grace and “not of works” from start to finish, and that those who are thus graciously saved will persevere in good works to the end? Perseverance, so construed, is not the way eternal safety is gained but the way if is demonstrated. Each of the following passages emphasize two things—the believer’s responsibility to remain steadfast in godliness and that the faith one professes is proven to be genuine by such steadfastness (see 1 Cor. 15:2; Col. 1:21-23; Heb. 3:6, 14; 2 Pet. 1:10). Both sides of this truth, the negative and the positive, are set forth in 1 John 2:19.
Following his definition of perseverance (which is similar to Berkhof’s referenced above) Thiessen comments, “This does not mean that everyone who professes to be saved is eternally saved. Nor even does it mean that everyone who manifests certain gifts in Christian service is necessarily eternally saved.” [xiv] Support for this can be seen in such passages as 1 John 2:19; John 2:23-25; 6:60-66; Matt. 7:21-23. Thiessen continues, speaking of believers, by saying, “This is not equivalent to saying that they shall never backslide, never fall into sin, and never fail to show forth the praises of him who called them out of darkness into his marvelous light. It merely means that they will never totally fall away from the state of grace into which they have been brought, nor fail to return from their backsliding in the end.” [xv] Paul’s affirmation is “… that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).
Unmistakably, Paul declared under the Spirit’s guidance and the Reformers re-affirmed that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, to the glory of God alone (Eph. 2:8-9). He also said that good works are the God-designed and intended outcome of the believer’s daily life (Eph. 2:11). In Ephesians 1:4 the Apostle declares that the aim of our election is holiness. This takes us beyond regeneration and justification to sanctification.
John Calvin, commenting on this passage says, “If the end of election is holiness of life, it ought to arouse and stimulate us strenuously to aspire to it, instead of serving as a pretext for sloth. How wide the difference between the two things, between ceasing from well-being because election is sufficient for salvation, and its being the very end of election, that we should devote ourselves to the study of good works.” [xvi]
The alternate line of reasoning (offered above) to the extreme Reformed “lordship” position and the extreme “grace” position is an attempt to state a balanced biblical view while avoiding the reactionary views sometimes presented by the opponents in this debate. It teaches that the believer’s security is based upon the immutable character of God and the infallible declarations of the Word of God. Perseverance, on the other hand, is based upon the motivation to holiness provided by the knowledge and possession of the salvation that is ours in Christ (Heb. 12:3-17). As Christians respond to the evidences of new life within and the growing knowledge thereof they will conduct themselves accordingly.
In his book Joseph Dillow affirms belief “that those who are truly born again can never lose their salvation.” [xvii] At the same time he rejects the doctrine of perseverance, associating it with a flawed view of sanctification. To Dillow sanctification almost boils down to a doctrine of Christian rewards for faithful service. He develops an elaborate doctrine of rewards in order to defend his views about perseverance and good works. In the preface to the book he telegraphs where he is going as he differentiates two views of merit which he says “the believer can obtain by good works.” [xviii] “It is either construed as a strict legal relation in which the believer by his works places God in his debt or as a general term for the notion that God rewards us according to our works but not because of them.” [xix] He holds to the latter view.
Dillow’s case is based upon a number of assumptions, some of which are: