By Lewis Sperry Chafer
Introduction
This aspect of Soteriology, commonly styled by earlier theologians the perseverance of the saints, contends that no individual once the recipient of the saving grace of God will ever fall totally and finally from that estate, but that he shall be “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (1 Pet 1:5). The doctrine of security is one of the five points of the Calvinistic system, but it is more distinguished by the fact that it is set forth in the New Testament in the most absolute terms and is there seen to be an indivisible feature of that which God undertakes when a soul is saved. This major doctrine is well stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which declares: “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (17.1).
That the Scripture on this theme requires careful exposition to the end that it may not even seem to contradict itself is readily conceded, and this feature of this truth will not be overlooked. In such a consideration, a “verily, verily” should not be countermanded by an “if.” The words of certainty must stand as they appear on the Sacred Page.
The Calvinistic system, which is here both held and defended as being more nearly Pauline than any other, is built upon a recognition of four basic truths, each of which should be comprehended in its basic character. These truths are: (1) Depravity, by which term is meant that there is nothing in fallen man that could commend him to God. He is an object of divine grace. (2) Efficacious grace, by which term is meant that fallen man, in being saved, is wrought upon wholly by God—even the faith which he exercises in his salvation is a “gift of God” (Eph 2:8). (3) Sovereign and eternal election, by which term is meant that those who are saved by efficacious grace from the estate of depravity have been chosen of God for that blessedness from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4; Rom 8:30). (4) Eternal security, by which term it is meant that those chosen of God and saved by grace are, of necessity, preserved unto the realization of the design of God. Since sovereign election purposes this and sovereign grace accomplishes it, the Scriptures could not—being infinitely true—do other than to declare the Christian’s security without reservation or complication. This the Scriptures assuredly declare.
Rationalism in its varied forms and Arminianism in particular challenge these sovereign verities. To the Arminian the limiting effect of depravity is annulled to a large degree by the supposed bestowment upon all men of a so-called “common grace” which provides ability on the sinner’s part to turn to Christ. According to this belief, men are saved by divine grace into a momentary right relation with God from which they can fall. The continuation in that right relation with God—regardless of the fact that it is the realization of the divine purpose—is made by the Arminian to depend on human merit and conduct. Similarly, sovereign election is to the Arminian no more than divine foreknowledge by which God is able to make choice of those who will act righteously in respect to His offers of grace—a foreseeing and consequent recognition of human merit, which recognition contradicts the doctrine of sovereign grace (Rom 11:6).
Of all New Testament doctrines two—sovereign election and sovereign grace—are most closely related to the doctrine of eternal security. This is obvious. Personal election, which is that form of it that is alone involved, is distinctly unto eternal realities which, of necessity, can be realized only by the safekeeping to final fruition of all who are included in election. Similarly, it is to be seen that the ground upon which sovereign grace advances provides a holy God with the requisite freedom, not merely to save those who are unworthy, but to preserve them after they are saved—even when, as all are, they are unworthy. It is in this larger field of operation for the grace of God, when not comprehended, that Arminian notions of insecurity arise.
Therefore, if God in sovereign election has determined in eternal past ages that some shall be “before him” in glory (Eph 1:4) and these are predestined to that glory (Rom 8:30), and if God in sovereign grace has removed every barrier to that purpose which sin and the human will impose, security is assured and to deny it is to contend that either sovereign election or sovereign grace (or both together) is impotent. By such a line of indisputable reasoning, it is concluded that the doctrine of security is an indispensable feature of Pauline and Calvinistic theology.
On the vital importance of this aspect of truth in its relation to a right understanding of Biblical doctrine, Principal Cunningham in his Historical Theology (3rd ed., II, 493) writes: “If it be true that God has, from eternity, absolutely and unconditionally chosen some men, certain persons, to eternal life, these men assuredly will all infallibly be saved. If it be also true that He has arranged that no man shall be saved, unless upon earth he be brought into a state of grace, unless he repent and believe, and persevere in faith and holiness, He will assuredly give to all whom He has chosen to life faith and holiness, and will infallibly secure that they shall persevere therein unto the end. And as it is further taught by Calvinists, that God produces in some men faith and conversion in the execution of His decree of election, just because He has decreed to save these men,—and does so for the purpose of saving them,—the whole of what they teach under the head of perseverance is thus effectually provided for, and thoroughly established,—faith and regeneration being never produced in any except those whose ultimate salvation has been secured, and whose perseverance, therefore, in faith and holiness must be certain anid infallible.
All this is too plain to require any illustration; and Calvinists must of course, in consistency, take the responsibility of maintaining the certain perseverance of all believers or saints,—of all in whom faith and holiness have been once produced.”
To this may be added the testimony of Dr. Ralph Wardlaw, who writes: “Respecting this doctrine we may observe in general, that it follows as a necessary sequence from the doctrine of personal election which we have just been endeavoring to illustrate in its scriptural meaning, and to establish on the basis of scriptural authority. Election is election to salvation; not to privilege merely, or the enjoyment of the means of salvation, but, through these means, to salvation itself. If this be the Bible doctrine, then it follows inevitably, that all who are elected to salvation shall obtain salvation. To hold the former, and question the latter, would be self-contradictory. Perseverance is a consequence of election, and involved in it. There can properly be no personal election to salvation without it. The one doctrine is necessary to the integrity of the other. Instead of being distinct doctrines, they are integrant parts of the same doctrine. To suppose any who are of the elect to fail of final salvation, is to render election altogether nugatory. The arguments, therefore, on these two of the five points are clearly reciprocal; that is, every proof of election is a proof of perseverance, and every proof of perseverance is a proof of election” (System of Theology, II, 550).
While Christians and their creeds are divided into the two groups—Calvinists with their certainty of security and Arminians with their doubts and imaginary dangers—it will be found that belief or disbelief in security is personal and individual, depending on the degree of understanding of the Word of God and conformity to that Word which the individual possesses. Many members in Calvinistic churches are, for want of training in doctrine, unable to rise above the rationalism of the Arminian view, while a few who are enrolled in Arminian memberships have discovered the gracious reality of eternal security. The significant fact will speak for itself, that great multitudes upon right instruction turn from Arminianism to Calvinism, while, on the other hand, none have been known to turn from an instructed intelligent Calvinism to Arminianism.
At least three exceptional beliefs which are outside the range of either Calvinism or Arminianism should be noted: (1) Augustine held that some might be saved who were not of the elect and that these might fall away. His view never gained a worthy following. Of this Augustinian view Principal Cunningham has written: “Augustine seems to have thought that men who were true believers, and who were regenerated, so as to have been really brought under the influence of divine truth and religious principle, might fall away and finally perish; but then he did not think that those persons who might, or did, thus fall away and perish belonged to the number of those who had been predestinated, or elected, to life. He held that all those who were elected to life must, and did, persevere, and thus attain to salvation. It was of course abundantly evident, that if God chose some men, absolutely and unconditionally, to eternal life,—and this Augustine firmly believed,—these persons must, and would, certainly be saved. Whether persons might believe and be regenerated who had not been predestinated to life, and who, in consequence, might fall away, and thereby fail to attain salvation, is a distinct question; and on this question Augustine’s views seem to have been obscured and perverted by the notions that then generally prevailed about the objects and effects of outward ordinances, and especially by something like the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which has been, perhaps, as powerful and extensive a cause of deadly error as any doctrine that Satan ever invented. Augustine’s error, then, lay in supposing that men might believe and be regenerated who had not been elected to life, and might consequently fail of ultimate salvation; but he never did, and never could, embrace any notion so irrational and inconsequential, as that God could have absolutely chosen some even to life, and then permitted them to fall away and to perish; and the negation of this notion, which Augustine never held, constitutes the sum and substance of what Calvinists have taught upon the subject of perseverance” (Op. cit., p. 490).
(2) Arminius, whatever his followers have embraced of part-truth or error, did not himself renounce the belief in security. To quote Principal Cunningham again: “Arminius never wholly renounced the doctrine of the certain perseverance of all believers, even after he had abandoned all the other principles of Calvinism, but spoke of this as a point on which he had not fully made up his mind, and which, he thought, required further investigation,—thus virtually bearing testimony to the difficulty of disposing of the scriptural evidence on which the doctrine rests. His immediate followers, likewise, professed for a time some hesitation upon this point; but their contemporary opponents do not seem to have given them much credit for sincerity in the doubts which they professed to entertain regarding it, because, while they did not for a time directly and explicitly support a negative conclusion, the whole current of their statements and arguments seemed plainly enough to indicate that they had already renounced the generally received doctrine of the Reformed churches upon this subject. They very soon, even before the Synod of Dort, openly renounced the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, along with the other doctrines of Calvinism; and I am not aware that any instance has since occurred, in which any Calvinist has hesitated to maintain this doctrine, or any Arminian has hesitated to deny it” (Ibid., pp. 490-91).
(3) Certain Lutherans have contended that one once saved might fall away, but that such a one would, with absolute certainty, be restored and saved in the end. This conception, too, has secured no following.
It hardly seems necessary to point out that this discussion concerns those only who are saved in the New Testament meaning of that word. Obviously, there are those who are mere professors who possess every outward appearance—baptism, church affiliation, sympathy, and service—who are lacking features that really identify a saved person. It is assured that mere professors “go out” eventually from the company of the believers. The Apostle John states respecting mere professors that “they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:19). In the words “They went out from us,” there is a superficial relationship acknowledged. Similarly, in the words “They were not of us,” another relationship is recognized. The former could mean no more than a profession, while the latter implies the existence of the eternal bonds which those who went out did not share. God does not fail to discern the true classification of men. It is written of Him: “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim 2:19). None could go out from the company of believers who had not first been with them and those thus with them, of whom it could be said that they were not of them, could be with them only in the sense that they were mere professors (cf. Matt 13:3–7).
The keeping power of God is vouchsafed only to those who are saved. When Arminians assert that supposed Christions have ceased to function, as such, it is well to recall the sifting process which is described by the words, “They went out from us…that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
In concluding this word of introduction, it may serve a worthy purpose to point out (1) that the truth of eternal security is inherent in the nature of salvation itself. This fact, it is anticipated, will be made clear in the discussion which follows, as it has been made clear from the analysis of divine grace which has gone before. If salvation is no more than a detached coin which one holds in the hand and is secure only by virtue of a feeble grasp, it might easily, nay, almost certainly, be lost. On the other hand, if salvation is the creation of a new being composed of unchangeable and imperishable elements, and in every aspect of it is made to depend on the perfect and immutable merit of the Son of God, there can be no failure. Indeed there can be, and too often is, personal sin on the part of the one who is saved; but, as has been seen, that is accounted for to the infinite satisfaction of God’s holiness upon another and all-sufficient basis. (2) Actually, there are no proper grounds for drawing a distinction between salvation and safekeeping, though for practical purposes such a distinction may be set up. The conclusion of the preceding discussion on that which God undertakes when He saves a soul, demonstrates the truthfulness of the assertion that God is not offering a salvation to men which is not eternal in its very nature; and in spite of all human experience, which is too often cited as a determining factor, it is true that no soul once saved has ever been, or ever will be, lost again. Doubts about the security of those who are saved may be traced almost universally to a failure to comprehend the reality of that which God accomplishes in sovereign grace.
These declarations, confessedly dogmatic, will be defended in the following pages. This thesis will follow a twofold analysis in the next two sections, namely, (1) the Arminian view and (2) the Calvinistic view.
The Arminian View of Security
Though but little reference has been made in this work to one of them, three systems of theology have flourished which offer their varying contentions in the field of Soteriology. These systems are Socinianism, Arminianism, and Calvinism. Socinianism and Calvinism are as far removed the one from the other as midnight and noontime. Socinianism in its day denied almost every feature of Christian doctrine, while Calvinism adheres rigidly to the revelation God has given. It is Calvinism which seeks to honor God—Father, Son, and Spirit—by its views respecting depravity, human guilt, and human helplessness, and these in the light of divine sovereignty, divine supremacy, and the sufficiency of divine grace. On the other hand, Arminianism sustains an intermediate ground between the rationalism of Socinianism and the determined Biblical character of Calvinism. A certain group of Arminians have leaned toward Socinianism and were these advocates consistent they, like the Socinians, would deny the work of Christ and much of the work of the Holy Spirit. The more conservative Arminians—such as Arminius himself—though inconsistent with themselves and steeped in Socinian rationalism in their approach to every soteriological truth, do evince a degree of amenability to the Word of God and the doctrines which that Word exhibits.
There are truths, such as the lost estate of man through sin and the need of salvation, that are common to Arminians and Calvinists alike. On the ground of these common beliefs a degree of united effort in evangelism has been possible between the representatives of these two systems. The real controversy between the two, however, has not been abandoned, nor could it be. It will be found that in the case of each major theme related to Soteriology the Arminian position is weak and inaccurate and to that extent misleading. The instructed preacher anid teacher will contend for the precise meaning of the Scriptures. What may be passed over in the interests of harmony in united Christian service cannot as easily be passed over when a worthy declaration of truth is called for. Along with this, it should be pointed out—and history will verify the assertion—that sustained, extended, unprejudiced stuldy of the Sacred Text must and, therefore, does lead to the Calvinistic position. It is conceivable hypothetically that both Arminianism and Calvinism are wrong, but it is wholly impossible for both to be right. The Bible offers no contradictions. If one system is right, the other is wrong. There is no compromise possible. Through extended study uncounted multitudes have turned from Arminianism to Calvinism; but history offers few, if any, examples of an opposite movement.
It will be remembered that, after all, the appellations Arminianism and Calvinism are no more than convenient names for general systems and that in each of these systems there is represented a wide latitude of variation in the doctrine being held. As already indicated, Arminius himself did not hold the extreme views which some of his followers have advanced, yet they retain the Arminian name. In like manner, the very fact that there are at least two schools of Calvinists precludes the possibility of Calvin being the promoter of every form of doctrine which appears under his name. Under other disciplines the student would do well to read attentively the extended history covering the development of each of these systems.
In respect to the truth of eternal security, it will be noted, as of other major doctrines, that it is impossible to be in agreement with all sincere men. In the light of the disagreement which obtains, the student can do no more than to be amenable to the Word of God. The two claims—that the Christian is secure and that he is insecure—present a complete contradiction and no middle ground or compromise could possibly be found.
While the doctrine of security may not represent the most important difference which exists between these two theological systems, neither the claim respecting security nor the claim respecting insecurity can be maintained apart from the effort to harmonize each with the whole body of soteriological truth. Bitterness between the advocates of these divergent systems could hardly be avoided when there is no way of reconciliation between them; and this controversy is greatly stimulated by the immeasurable importance of the question. The issue that is paramount is whether the saving work of Christ on the cross includes the safekeeping of the one who trusts Him, or not. This is the central and precise issue in the controversy. Either Christ did enough by His death concerning the believer’s sin that it can be said that “there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (though it is not said that there is no chastisement), or He did not. Again, either Christ did enough by His death and resurrection in fulfilling the sweet savor type, that it can be said that the believer possesses eternal life and the perfect standing of the Son of God, being in Him, or He did not. If there is no sufficient ground for the removal of condemnation and no sufficient ground for the impartation of eternal life and the imputing of Christ’s merit, then the most vital teachings of the New Testament are rendered void. It is these compelling features of truth which are conspicuous by their absence from Arminian writings. Arminian theologians are a product of the limited teachings which are presented in their schools from generation to generation, and therefore the deeper realities are not known by them. To know these realities is to embrace them, for they constitute the warp and woof of the Pauline gospel.
The Arminian view may be divided for convenience into three general features: (1) the Arminian view of major soteriological doctrines, (2) the Arminian emphasis upon human experience and reason, and (3) the Arminian appeal to the Scriptures.
I. The Arminian View of Major Soteriological Doctrines
The field is properly restricted in this discussion to problems of soteriological doctrine. The consideration of the Arminian view of the value of Christ’s death is not entered upon here and this is due to the fact that it has had an extended treatment in an earlier portion of this work. The doctrines to be noted are: (a) the Arminian view of original sin, (b) the Arminian view of universal and efficacious calling, (c) the Arminian view of divine decrees, (d) the Arminian view of the fall, (e) the Arminian view of omniscience, (f) the Arminian view of divine sovereignty, and (g) the Arminian view of sovereign grace.
1. The Arminian View of Original Sin. It is exceedingly difficult for a system of doctrine, which builds so much on the freedom of the human will and contends that all men are by virtue of a common grace enabled to act without natural or supernatural restraint in the matter of their own salvation, to defend unconditionally the doctrine of total depravity. It is observable that Arminianism has put but little emphasis upon the teaching respecting that inability which is the nature and essence of original sin. The Arminian notion of depravity, whatever it is supposed to be in its original form, is largely overcome, it is contended, by a fancied common grace. However, in the working of this scheme, one of the Arminian inconsistencies—a withdrawing with one hand what is bestowed with the other—is displayed. It is rather too much to suppose that a common grace—itself without Biblical justification—is a complete corrective of total depravity; and it will not be without explanation, in part at least, if, starting with such a premise as their idea of common grace provides, the Arminians drift into equally unscriptural notions respecting sanctification and sinless perfection. Naturally, the will of man, which is supposed to be emancipated by common grace, may, as effectually, defeat the realization of that which is best. It is certain, when given, an unrestrained freedom of volition, that volition will not always turn in the right direction or toward God. It may as readily turn from God, and that, it is contended, even after years of life and experience in a regenerate state. Over against this fallacious rationalism—this unsupported theory and feeble deification of man—the Scriptures assert, and in accordance therewith the Calvinists teach, that man is totally depraved, that God must and does move in behalf of fallen man for his salvation—even engendering saving faith—and that salvation, being distinctly a work of God, is, like all His works, incapable of failure. It is thus demonstrated that the erroneous exaltation of the human ability in the beginning becomes man’s effectual undoing in the end. Over against this, the man who is totally incompetent, falling into the hands of God, who acts in sovereign grace, is saved and safe forever. For such an achievement the glory is not to be shared by fallen man but is altogether due God alone.
2. The Arminian View of Universal and Efficacious Calling. Without reference to a limited or an unlimited redemption—which theme some theologians are determined to bring into the discussion of an efficacious call and which it is believed has but a remote relation to the subject in hand—the real question is whether, as the Arminian contends, the divine influence upon men whereby they are enabled to receive the gospel and to be saved is that common grace which the Arminian claims is bestowed upon all men, or whether that divine enablement, as the Calvinist declares, is a specific, personal call of the individual by which the Holy Spirit moves that one to understand anid intelligently to accept the saving grace of God as it is in Christ Jesus. If the contention of the Arminian be true—that God gives no more enablement to one than to another—the fact that, when the gospel is preached alike to each, one is saved and another is not, becomes a matter of the human will which, it is claimed, either accepts or rejects the gracious invitation. Such an arrangement might seem plausible were it not for that array of Scripture, already considered in another connection, which declares that man has no power to move himself toward God. The New Testament not only lends no support to the Arminian notion of common grace, but definitely teaches that men are helpless in their fallen estate (cf. Rom 3:11; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:3–4; Eph 2:8–9). On the other hand, the Calvinist contends that, when God by His Spirit inclines one to receive Christ, that one, in so doing, acts only in the consciousness of his own choice. It is obvious that to present a convincing argument to a person which leads that person to make a decision, does not partake of the nature of a coercion of the will. In such a case, every function of the will is preserved and, in relation to the gospel, it remains true that “whoever will may come”; yet back of this truth is the deeper revelation that no fallen man wills to accept Christ until enlightened by the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11). Principal Cunningham writes on this general problem as follows: “It is important to fix in our minds a clear conception of the alternatives in the explanation of this matter, according as the Calvinistic or the Arminian doctrine upon the subject is adopted. The thing to be accounted for is,—the positive production of faith and regeneration in some men; while others continue, under the same outward call and privileges, in their natural state of impenitence and unbelief. Now this is just virtually the question, Who maketh those who have passed from death to life, and are now advancing towards heaven, to differ from those who are still walking in the broad way? Is it God? or is it themselves? The Calvinists hold that it is God who makes this difference; the Arminians—however they may try to conceal this, by general statements about the grace of God and the assistance of the Spirit—virtually and practically ascribe the difference to believers themselves. God has given sufficient grace—everything necessary for effecting the result—to others as well as to them. There is no difference in the call addressed to them, or in the grace vouchsafed to them. This is equal and alike. There is a difference in the result; and from the sufficiency and consequent substantial equality of the universal grace vouchsafed, this difference in the result must necessarily be ascribed, as to its real adequate cause, to something in themselves,—not to God’s grace, not to what He graciously bestowed upon them, but to what they themselves were able to do, and have done, in improving aright what God communicated to them. If sufficient grace is communicated to all who are outwardly called, then no more than what is sufficient is communicated to those who actually repent and believe; for, to assert this, is virtually to deny or retract the position, that what was communicated to those who continue impenitent and unbelieving, was sufficient or adequate, and thus to contradict their fundamental doctrine upon this whole subject. And when the true state of the question, and the real alternatives involved, are thus brought out, there is no difficulty in seeing and proving that the Arminian doctrine is inconsistent with the plain teaching of Scripture,—as to the great principles which regulate or determine men’s spiritual character and eternal destiny,—the true source and origin of all that is spiritually good in them,—the real nature of faith and regeneration, as implying changes which men are utterly unable to produce, or even to co-operate, in the first instance, in, originating; and as being not only the work of God in men,—the gift of God to men,—but also, and more particularly, as being in every instance the result of a special operation of the Holy Ghost,—an operation represented as altogether peculiar and distinguishing,—bestowed upon some and not upon others, according to the counsel of God’s own will, and certainly or infallibly effecting, wherever it is bestowed, all those things that accompany salvation” (Historical Theology, 3rd ed., II, 404–5).
Again it will be seen that the Arminian exaltation of the human will in the matter of personal salvation encourages those same Arminians to contend, as they do, that the same free will by which the individual accepts Christ is itself able to depart from God after he is saved. To such rationalistic conclusions, the Word of God, which asserts the inability of man to turn to God, lends no support. It is rather revealed that, after one is saved, “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13); nor does this continuous inclination by the Spirit of the Christian’s volition partake in any respect of a coercion of the human will.
3. The Arminian View of Divine Decrees. Under this aspect of the general theme, this solemn truth respecting God is approached again. None but the most careless will fail to recognize that the subject of divine decrees, with its corresponding doctrines of predestination, election, and reprobation, involves the contemplation of the most fathomless, inaccessible, and mysterious themes to which the human mind may be addressed. To comprehend this vast subject would be equivalent to comprehending the mind of God. That difficulties arise in the mind of man when reflecting on so great a subject is to be expected, since it could not be otherwise. Similarly, it is generally conceded that this topic in all its bearings—philosophical, theological, and practical—has been more considered than any other; yet the mysteries involved must remain inscrutable until the greater light of another world breaks upon the human mind.
In its simple form, the question now in view may be stated thus: Did God have a plan in eternity which He is executing in time? The two extreme positions—Socinianism and Calvinism—may well be compared at this point. The former held that all future events which depend upon secondary causes, such as the human will, are by necessity unknowable even to God, while the Calvinists maintain that God has not only ordained whatsoever cometh to pass, but is executing the same through His providence. Midway between these so divergent conceptions is the position of the Arminians—a position in which conflicting ideas appear. Arminians have not been willing to deny the foreknowledge of God in agreement with the Socinians; nor have they been willing to accept that estimation of God which accords to Him the unconditional authority to act, power to achieve, and purpose to govern, in all that cometh to pass. Therefore, the doctrines of divine decrees, of predestination, of sovereign election, and of retribution are by the Arminians either directly denied or explained away by recourse to reason. At times the plain assertions of the Sacred Text have been distorted in this effort. They claim that God had no other decree respecting the salvation of men than that He would save those who believe, and condemn and reprobate those who do not believe. Beyond this, man is responsible apart from any divine relationship. Having sent His Son into the world to remove the insuperable obstacle of sin and having removed man’s inability by a bestowal upon him of a supposed common grace, man is left to make his own choice, though, of course, the gospel must be preached unto him. According to this plan, God determines nothing, bestows nothing apart from the removal of inability, and secures nothing. Certain individuals are chosen of God only in the sense that He foresaw their faith and good works—which faith and good works arise in themselves and are not divinely wrought. In the end, according to this system, man is his own savior. A salvation which originates in such uncertainties, builds upon mere foreknowledge of human merit, and exalts the human will to the place of sovereignty, cannot make place for the doctrine of security, since eternal security of those who are saved depends on the sovereign undertakings of God.
4. The Arminian View of the Fall. A return to a full discussion of the fall of man, already pursued at length, is uncalled for here. What has been written before must serve as a background for this brief reference to a theme so extended and mysterious.
Far more than is sometimes realized, the doctrine of the fall of man is closely related to the whole Biblical scheme of predestination. Apart from the fall with its complete ruin of the race, there could be no sufficient basis for the doctrine of sovereign grace with its utter disregard for human merit, nor for a defense against the notion that sovereign election represents a respect of personal qualities in man on the part of God. Arminians of the older school have not denied the fall of man, or the extent of that fall. They suppose, however, no matter how complete the fall, that it is overcome by the bestowal of common grace. From the moment that grace is bestowed, the case of a man is different. Ability on man’s part to act for or against the will of God becomes the cornerstone of the Arminian structure of Soteriology. The supposed ability to reject God not only conditions and makes contingent the salvation of men to the extent that God may assume no more than to foreknow what man will do, but that supposed ability survives after regeneration and renders it possible for the redeemed to degenerate back to their original lost estate. Calvinists maintain that men are wholly unable to deliver themselves or to take one step in the direction of their own salvation, that men have no claim upon God for salvation because of merit, and that the salvation of men is a divine undertaking built upon a righteous ground which not only provides a holy God with freedom to save meritless men, but provides as well the same righteous freedom on God’s part by which He can keep them saved forever.
When this divinely wrought arrangement for the salvation of men through grace is abandoned and a merit system for man is substituted, as the Arminians choose to do, they find themselves beset with fears, backslidings, and failures which have no recognition in the New Testament. A grave question arises under the Arminian system, namely, whether men who have been impressed with the notion that they are to a large degree their own saviors and keepers, will ever find the rest and peace which is the portion of those who have ceased from their own works and are wholly cast upon God.
5. The Arminian View of Omniscience. No slight difficulty for the Arminian system arises from the obvious fact that God could foreknow nothing as certain in the future unless He had Himself made it certain by foreordination. Neither could foreknowledge function apart from foreordination, nor foreordination apart from foreknowledge. Merely to foreknow what will be determined by secondary causes, leaves the entire program of events adrift without chart or compass. According to His Word, God assuredly foreknows, foreordains, and executes. Every prediction of the Bible incorporates these elements, and nowhere more conclusively than in the events connected with the death of Christ. God foreknew that His Son would die upon a cross, but He did more about it than merely to foreknow. Peter declares that Christ as the Lamb was “foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet 1:20); and so great an event could not be left to the uncertainties of human wills. “Wicked hands” crucified the Son of God, but this was according to the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). The salvation of each individual who believes on Christ is no more an accident of human determination than is the death of Christ. The Arminian idea of election to eternal glory on the part of some, is that it includes those who believe on Christ, persevere, and die in the faith, whereas the Scriptures teach that certain men believe, persevere, and die in the faith because of the fact that they are elect and destined to eternal glory. When man is given the responsibility of working out his own eternal destiny, as Arminianism expects him to do, it will be remembered that all this could be done as effectively whether God foreknew it or not. Security, according to the Arminian conception of it, is that which God foreknew men would do in their own behalf and, since the human element bulks largely in it, the actual arrival of a soul in heaven’s glory is more or less accidental—certainly not predetermined and executed by God.
6. The Arminian View of Divine Sovereignty. It is conceded by all who are of a pious mind that God is the Supreme Ruler of the universe and that He exercises His authority and power to that end. That He is putting into effect precisely what He had before designed, would not create prejudice as a proposition by itself, were it not for the fact that such an admission leads on logically to the Calvinistic position respecting the predestination, justification, and glorification of all whom He has chosen for eternal salvation. Calvinists contend that God acts in perfect reason, but upon a level much higher than may be comprehended by the human understanding; and therefore they do not assume to assign a reason for all of God’s ways in the universe and with men. Arminians, however, seek to assign a reason for God’s dealings with men and do, by so much, deny His sovereignty. It is a worthy attitude to believe that God rules over all things, executing precisely His own will and purpose, and that in doing this He acts always within the limitations which His adorable attributes impose. It follows, also, that, because of His omnipotence, God could have prevented any and every form of evil, and that, as evil is present, it is serving a purpose which is worthy of God and which will, in the end, be recognized as worthy by all intelligences. Arminians tend to discredit the sovereignty of God by assuming that events are not necessarily to be considered as having a place or part in the divine will. This has led to much discussion regarding the divine volition. Arminians are wont to distinguish an antecedent will from a consequent will in God. The former moves Him to save all men, while the latter is conditioned by the conduct of men. The antecedent will is not a sovereign will; it, too, is restricted by human action. Such a conception is far removed from the Calvinistic teaching concerning the efficacious will of God—that which not only elects to save some, but actually does save them and preserve them, having anticipated all things requisite to that end and having provided those requisite things. As before stated, the two impediments or barriers which stood in the way were sin and the freedom of the human will. In the sacrificial death of His Son, God dealt finally with the obstacle which sin engenders. By moving the hearts of men to desire His saving grace (which acts have no semblance to coercion), He removes the obstruction which the free will of man might impose. The two systems—Arminianism and Calvinism—are each consistent at this point within themselves. The Arminian contends that man is supreme and that God is compelled to adjust Himself to that scheme of things. The Calvinist contends that God is supreme and that man is called upon to be conformed to that revelation. The Arminian is deprived of the exalted blessing which is the portion of those who believe the sublime facts of predestination, election, and the sovereignty of God, because he hesitates to embrace them in their full-orbed reality. Having incorporated into his scheme the finite human element, all certainty about the future is for the Arminian overclouded with doubts. Having made the purpose of God contingent, the execution of that purpose must be contingent. By so much the glorious, divine arrangement by which the ungodly may go to heaven, is replaced by the mere moral program in which only good people may have a hope.
7. The Arminian View of Sovereign Grace. As certainly as there are two widely separated and divergent forms of religion in the world—in the one, God saves man and in the other, man saves himself—so definitely Calvinism and Arminianism are withdrawn the one from the other. All the forms of religion that men cherish are, with one exception, in the class which is identified by the obligation resting upon man to save himself; and in this group, because of its insistence that the element of human merit must be recognized, the Arminian system is classed. Standing alone and isolated by its commitment to the doctrine of pure uncompromising grace, the true Christian faith, as set forth by the great Apostle and later defended by Calvin and by uncounted theologians before and since his day, is a system of Soteriology characterized by its fundamental feature that God, unaided and to His own unshared and unchangeable glory, originates, executes, and consummates the salvation of man. The sole requirement on the human side is that man receive what God has to give. This he does, he is told, by believing upon Christ as his Savior. Arminianism distorts this sublime, divine undertaking by the intrusion of human features at every step of the way. It can rise no higher in the interpretation of the Word of God respecting sovereign election, than to claim that it consists in the action of divine foreknowledge by which God foresees the men of faith, holiness, and constancy. This interpretation not only reverses the order of truth—the Scriptures declare that men are elected unto holiness and not on acccunt of holiness—but intrudes at the very beginning of the divine program in salvation the grace-destroying element of human merit. In the matter of the one condition of believing on Christ for salvation, the Arminians have constantly added various requirements to the one which is divinely appointed, and all of these infringe upon this one essential of pure grace by adding to it the element of human works. Similarly, in the sphere of the believer’s safekeeping, which is declared to be altogether a work of God, Arminianism makes security to be contingent upon human conduct. Arminians seem strangely blinded in the matter of comprehending the divine plan by which, apart from all features of human merit, sinners are elected in past ages without respect to future worthiness, saved at the present time on the sole condition of faith in Christ, and kept to the eternal ages to come through the power of God on a basis which sustains no relation to human conduct. In reality, to assert so much is to declare that Arminians are blind to the true gospel of divine grace which is the central truth of Christianity—that is, if the Pauline revelation is to be considered at all. Over against this and in conformity to the New Testament, Calvinists assert that election is on a basis of grace which foresees no human merit in those chosen, that present salvation is by faith or belief alone, and that those saved are kept wholly by divine grace without reference to human worthiness.
It would seem wholly unnecessary to remind the student again that there is an important body of truth which conditions the believer’s daily life after he is saved, anid that his life is motivated, not by a requirement that works of merit must be added to the perfect divine undertaking and achievement in saving grace, but is motivated by the most reasonable obligation to “walk worthy of the vocation [calling] wherewith he is called” (Eph 4:1). Behaving well as a son is far removed in principle from the idea of behaving well to become a son. It is the blight of Arminian soteriology that it seems incapable of recognizing this distinction, and therefore does not allow a place for the action of pure grace in the realization of the sovereign purpose of God through a perfect salvation and an eternal safekeeping apart from any and every form of human merit or cooperation.
Though much must be made of this theme in other connections, a word is in order at this point respecting the meaning of the term sovereign grace—a term employed by Calvinists with genuine satisfaction, but both rejected and avoided by Arminians. Sovereign grace originates and is at once a complete reality in the mind of God when He, before the foundation of the world, elects a company who are by His limitless power to be presented in glory conformed to the image of His Son. By so much they are to be to all intelligences the means by which He will manifest the exceeding riches of His grace (Eph 2:7). This manifestation will correspond to His infinity and will satisfy Him perfectly as the final, all-comprehensive measurement of His attribute of grace. Two obstacles, allowed by Him to exist, must be overcome—sin and the will of man. That His grace may be manifest and its demonstration enhanced, He undertakes by Himself—for no other could share in its achievement—to overcome the obstacle of sin. That this obstacle is overcome is declared in many texts of the Scriptures. Two may be quoted here: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:19). There remains, therefore, but the obstacle of the human will. Having designed that man as creature shall be possessed of an independent will, no step can be taken in the accomplishment of His sovereign purpose which will even tend to coerce the human volition. He does awaken the mind of man to spiritual sanity and bring before him the desirability of salvation through Christ. If, by His power, God creates new visions of the reality of sin and of the blessedness of Christ as Savior and under this enlightenment men choose to be saved, their wills are not coerced nor are they deprived of the action of any part of their own beings. It is the unreasoned objection of Arminians that the human will is annulled by sovereign election. On this important point Principal Cunningham writes: “The Arminians usually object to these views about the certain efficacy or insuperability of the grace of God in conversion, that they are inconsistent with the nature of the human will, and with the qualities that attach to it. They usually represent our doctrine as implying that men are forced to believe and to turn to God against their will, or whether they will or not. This is a misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such opinion and it cannot be shown that their doctrine requires them to hold it. Indeed, the full statement of their doctrine upon the subject excludes or contradicts it.
Our Confession of Faith, after giving an account of effectual calling, which plainly implies that the grace of God in conversion is an exercise of omnipotence, and cannot be successfully resisted, adds, ‘Yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.’ That special operation of the Spirit, which cannot be overcome or frustrated, is just the renovation of the will itself, by which a power of willing what is spiritually good—a power which it has not of itself in its natural condition, and which it could not receive from any source but a divine and almighty agency—is communicated to it. In the exercise of this new power, men are able to co-operate with the Spirit of God, guiding and directing them and they do this, and do it, not by constraint, but willingly,—being led, under the influence of the news concerning Christ, and the way of salvation which He has opened up to and impressed upon them, and the motives which these views suggest, to embrace Christ, and to choose that better part which shall never be taken away from them. In the commencement of the process, they are not actors at all; they are wholly passive,—the subjects of a divine operation. And from the time when they begin to act in the matter, or really to do anything, they act freely and voluntarily, guided by rational motives, derived from the truths which their eyes have been opened to see, and which, humanly speaking, might have sooner led them to turn to God, had not the moral impotency of their wills to anything spiritually good prevented this result. There is certainly nothing in all this to warrant the representation, that, upon Calvinistic principles, men are forced to repent and believe against their wills, or whether they will or not” (Ibid., pp. 413-14).
After all, though the human will is preserved in its normal freedom throughout the process by which men are brought into eternal glory, the all-important factor in the undertaking is the will of God. The Arminian contention that the will of the creature may defeat the will of the Creator is both dishonoring to God and a deification of man. It is nearly puerile to assert that He who creates all angels, all material things, all human beings by the word of His command, He who preserves all things and by whom they hold together, He who can promise to Abraham that through him all nations shall be blessed, and to David that a kingdom will be his portion forever, He who has made innumerable predictions concerning His purpose in future times which necessitate the immediate direction of the lives of countless beings—that He cannot guide the destiny of one soul in the way of His choosing.
No Arminian has questioned that God desires to keep those whom He has saved through Christ; their sphere of doubt is simply that God cannot do what He desires, even though He has removed every obstacle that could hinder Him.
It is thus demonstrated that the Arminian view of seven major soteriological doctrines tends to dishonor God, to pervert and distort the doctrine of divine grace, and that it displays unbelief toward the revelation God has given.
II. The Arminian Emphasis upon Human Experience and Reason
Though Scripture is cited by Arminians to defend their contention that the Christian is not secure—and these Scriptures are yet to be considered—their appeal is usually more to experience and reason than to the testimony of the Bible. When turning thus to experience, it is often recounted that some individual has first been a Christian and then, later, became unsaved; but in every such instance two unsupportable assumptions appear. It could not be demonstrated finally that the person named was saved in the first place, nor could it be established that he was unsaved in the second place. If Demas be cited because he forsook the Apostle Paul (2 Tim 4:10), it will be remembered that that is far removed from the idea that God forsook Demas. Similarly, if it be observed that Judas—one of the twelve—went to his own place, it is also as clearly stated by Christ that he was “the son of perdition” (John 17:12) with no implication that he was ever saved. On the question which Judas engenders, Dr. Wardlaw remarks: “(1). There is no evidence of anything like true grace in Judas, but evidence to the contrary (John vi.64). The only thing that can be advanced against this is the passage in which he seems to be spoken of as one of those given unto Christ (John xvii.12). This leads me to observe—(2). That in the context of these words, Jesus says things regarding ‘those given to Him,’ which could not possibly be true of Judas (John xvii.2, 6, 9, 11, 12). Surely, if Judas had been ‘kept’ as the rest were, he could not have been the ‘son of perdition.’ It follows that he was not among the ‘given’ and the ‘kept.’ (3). In this passage, it is true, the phrase is used which usually denotes exception:—’None of them is lost, but,’ etc. (εἰ μή) It may be remarked, however, that there are instances in which εἰ μή is used, not exceptively, but adversatively, in the same sense as ἀλλά (Gal i.7 ; Rev ix.4; xxi.27). This explanation may be confirmed by the consideration that to interpret otherwise is to make the Saviour contradict Himself (John vi.39). If Judas was of those given to Him and perished, what Jesus says would not be true. (4). It is true that Judas is spoken of as chosen (John vi.70, 71). It is obvious, however, that this choice relates exclusively to office. The very terms of the verses quoted may suffice to show this. As to the reason for which Jesus did choose such a character to be one of the Twelve, that is a totally distinct question, having nothing to do with our present inquiry. We have further proof that the choice was not personal but official (John xiii.10, 11, 16). From these verses it appears that Judas was not one of His chosen; and had not, like them, the cleansing of His Spirit. When we distinguish between the two meanings of ‘chosen,’ all is plain. (5). On the principle so repeatedly adverted to, of persons being spoken of according to profession, appearance, and association, Judas appeared amongst the Twelve as one of them; and might be included under the same general designations with them, though not spiritually, or in strict propriety of speech, belonging to those given Him of the Father (John xv.2; Mat. xv.13 )” (System of Theology, II, 570).
At this point the extended New Testament doctrine relative to the fact of the Christian’s sin and the divine provision for that sin through the death of Christ and on the condition that the sin is confessed, is logically introduced—a doctrine greatly neglected and by none more than the Arminian theologian. Recognition of the sublime truth that, by His bearing all sin on the cross, Christ has secured a propitious attitude on the part of God the Father toward “our sins” (the sins of the Christian) and toward “the sins of the whole world” (the sins of the unsaved), is lacking in the Arminian way of thinking. This lack is seen in the almost universal reply which is made to the question of what power or agency might serve to render a true child of God unregenerate again. The answer is that it is sin that unsaves the Christian—not little sins such as all Christians commit, else none could hold out an hour, but great and terrible sins—yet, if this were true, then there are sins which the Christian may commit which Christ did not bear on the cross, and these still have condemning power over the believer who has been sheltered under the provisions of the cross. As for this the Scriptures declare: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18); “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (5:24 ); “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1, R.V.); “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom 8:34); “For if we judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor 11:31–32). These are positive, unconditional covenants giving the assurance that the believer will never be condemned. It is certain from the last of these passages that the Christian who sins will be chastened, and, indeed, God is a faithful disciplinarian and His child in His household will not escape correction if he sins; but chastisement and condemnation are wholly unrelated. So, also, the corresponding contrast is again in evidence at this point. Union, which depends altogether on the merit which is secured by being in Christ, is far removed in its essential character from communion, which depends on the believer observing to do all the will of God. Union with Christ, being based on the unchanging merit of Christ—He is the same yesterday, today, and forever—must and does continue forever, and all problems respecting the believer’s daily life are, of necessity, dealt with upon a wholly different ground. To base the Christian’s continuance in the saved state upon his daily life is to demand of him that which no Christian ever experienced in this world—sinless perfection. Holding over Christians the requirement of sinlessness as the only hope of security—as Arminians do—is to call forth that peculiar form of carelessness or discouragement which is the reaction of every serious person when confronted with an impossibility. All of this becomes another approach to the same misunderstanding that is the curse of that form of rationalism which cannot comprehend the gospel of divine grace. Such a rationalism plans it so that good people may be saved, be kept saved because of their personal qualities, and be received into heaven on their merit. The gospel of divine grace plans it so that bad people—which wording describes every person on earth—may be saved, be kept saved as they were saved through the saving work and merit of Christ, and be received into heaven, not as specimens of human perfection, but as objects of infinite grace. Arminianism, with its emphasis upon human experience, human merit, and human reason, apparently has little or no comprehension of the revelation that salvation is by grace alone, through faith.
Few Arminians have been consistent in the matter of the effect of sin on the child of God. They seem not to know of a vast body of Scriptures which disclose the entire truth of sin and its cure as related to the believer, but, if logical, must require as many regenerations as there are separate sins.
Arminians are not consistent at this point; being confronted by the obvious, indisputable fact that Christians do remain saved who are confessedly imperfect, they advance the notion, before cited, that it is only extreme forms of wickedness that are able to unsave the believer. God declares of Himself that He cannot with allowance look on sin and in His own holiness there is not so much as a shadow of turning, and to infer that He is not disturbed by lesser sins is not only contrary to truth but a flagrant insult to Him. Calvinism, because it follows the truth contained in the divine revelation, imposes no such outrage upon divine holiness, but rather follows the divine arrangement by which all sin, both before and after conversion, is righteously dealt with, but to the glory of God and the eternal salvation of the believer. After all, in view of the demands of divine holiness, there are but two alternatives, namely, either to stand in the perfection of Christ or to be sinless in one’s self. The latter is impossible and could exist, if it existed at all, wholly apart from the saving intervention of the Son of God; the former is possible to all and is offered to all on the sole ground of faith in the Savior that God has provided. Salvation through Christ is the essence of Christianity, while salvation through personal worthiness is no better than any pagan philosophy; and it is of this notion, so foreign to the New Testament revelation, that Arminianism partakes.
Another experimental consideration of the Arminian is the claim that if, as the Calvinist teaches and as is certainly set forth in the New Testament, the believer will not be lost because of sin, the effect of that doctrine is to license the saved one to sin, thus tending to antinomianism. In other words, God has no other motive to hold before the believer that will insure a faithful manner of life, than the one impossible proposition that he will be lost unless he is faithful. As one man declared, “If I believed that I am safe as a Christian, I would at once engage in the fullest possible enjoyment of sin.” This sentiment will be recognized as the mind of an unregenerated person. The saved person’s answer to the question, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” is “God forbid.” That is, though the mind of the flesh is present in the Christian and he does have that tendency to evil, he also has the mind of the Spirit and that voice is never wholly silent. Security does not mean, as the Arminian supposes, that God merely keeps unholy people saved regardless of what they do. He has made immeasurable divine provisions respecting the daily life of the believer, namely, the Word of God which may be hid in the heart that one thus fortified may not sin against God, the presence of the victorious Spirit as a delivering power in every believer’s life, and the incomparable sustaining power of the unceasing prayer of Christ for those who are saved. If one who professed to be saved, later departed from the way of truth and evinced no desire for a holy life, he would give no assurance that he had ever been saved and would, by so much, be an exception and not an exhibition of that which is true of a Christian. No system of theology may boast that its scheme of doctrine guarantees that those who are saved will never sin. It would be difficult to prove, though constantly asserted by Arminians, that those, like the Puritans, who believe they are secure in Christ, were and are greater sinners than Arminian adherents who make no such claim. It may be repeated that the greatest incentive in any person’s life is that which rightfully impels a true believer and which no Arminian has given a worthy trial in his own life, namely, to honor God in his life because he believes he is saved and safe in the redeeming grace of God, rather than to attempt to honor God because by so much he hopes to be saved and safe. Doing right never saved a sinner nor did it ever preserve a saint; but it is true that being divinely saved and preserved is the most imperative obligation to do right.
In conclusion, it may be restated that, as for human experience which the Arminian believes is at times a proof that one once saved can be lost again, it cannot be proved that such a case ever existed. On the contrary, revelation so defines the saving and keeping power of God that it can be said with all assurance, that not one of those who have been truly regenerated has ever been lost nor could such a one be lost. As for human reason, which the Arminian employs agaist the doctrine of security, it need only be pointed out that no human reason is able to trace the divine undertaking which provides both salvation and safekeeping on the ground of the sacrifice and imputed merit of the Son of God, and with no other requirement resting on the sinner than that he believes on Christ as his Savior. What God accomplishes is according to reason, but it is that higher reason which characterizes every divine undertaking.
Dallas, Texas
No comments:
Post a Comment