The opponents of the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (also known as eternal security) bring forward many of their favorite passages that they believe prove that one can lose his/her salvation. In this article, I will be responding to an online article on Perseverance by Jimmy Akin, a Roman Catholic apologist, found here: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/loss.htm
I encourage anyone reading this to bring up Akin’s article and read this article and his article side by side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians
1:3-12
Reply:
Neither of these verses state
that one can be predestined to grace without being predestined to glory. It is a logical fallacy to say that just because you
found a phrase, “predestined to grace”, in one place and found another phrase, “predestined to glory”, in another place that they
have to be two different things. Mr. Akin never establishes that the two have to be different, and in fact, without the medieval
distinction that Mr. Akin uses, one would assume that they are the same thing.
Matthew 22:14
Reply:
Mr. Akin believes that this verse proves his distinction of being predestined to grace (“called”) and being predestined to glory (“chosen”). However, trying to make ‘called’ to mean those that were justified is an assumption that has no basis in the text. What makes
more sense and fits the passage exactly is the Calvinist distinction between the ‘gospel’ calling (“called”) and the ‘effectual’ calling
(“chosen”). The ‘gospel’ call is the proclamation of the gospel to all men just like the slaves going out into the land inviting
everyone (v.3, 9), and the ‘effectual’ call is when God regenerates those whom He has elected from eternity past.
Church History
Argument
Reply:
First of all, as Alister
McGrath notes, the doctrine of justification was not something that the early church was concerned with:
“For the first three
hundred and fifty years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined. There had
never been a serious controversy over the matter, such as those which had so stimulated the development of Christology over the period.”
–Alister
Thus, the doctrine of justification within the early church was based on speculation and philosophy:
“Indeed,
by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than
biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms
of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil.”
–Alister
I reject
the beliefs of the church fathers on this subject because they are based upon speculation and not an exposition of the Scriptures.
Second, Mr. Akin’s view of predestination cannot be found in the first four centuries of church history before Augustine:
“Vincent
of Lerins appears to have formulated his canon within the specific context of his refutation of Augustine’s predestinarianism. The nature of truly catholic doctrine is that it is quod ubique, quod semper, quo ab omnibus creditum est. As Augustine’s doctrine
of predestination failed to conform to this triple test of ecumenicity, antiquity and consent, it cannot be regarded as catholic.”
–Alister
Though that may not be as large a period of time as John Calvin, but nevertheless, it
was still considered a theological novelty, and four-hundred years is still a long time for a doctrine not to appear. The reason
why Augustine rejected the opinion of his predecessors is because Scripture demanded it:
“This Mediator, having spoken what He
judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be
ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.” (emphasis mine)
-Augustine, City of
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-17.htm#P1779_1021077
Lastly, Akin has the same problem with many of the dogmas that his church holds to such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate
Conception of Mary, the Primacy of the Papacy, the Infallibility of the Pope, Indulgences, modern ecumenism with Jews and Muslims,
and many others. The very reason that Cardinal Newman created the ‘Development of Doctrine’ theory was to explain why all of
these peculiar dogmas of the Roman Church do not appear until the Middle Ages. If the standard for the determination for apostolicity
of a doctrine is the unanimous beliefs of the church fathers, then there is certainly no doctrine, Protestant or Roman Catholic, which
could ever be said to be apostolic.
Angels, Adam and Eve, and Infants
Reply:
This is the fallacy of equivocation. There is a big difference between beings who start existence in God’s grace (i.e. they
aren’t the slaves of sin) and whose continuance in that state is totally dependent upon their performance and obedience to the law
(Genesis
Angels, Adam,
and Eve: Started in God’s grace, continuance in covenant is dependant on their performance (Genesis
Christians: Started as slaves to sin (John 8:34), continuance in covenant is dependant
on the performance of Christ and the will of God (John 6:38-40, 1 John 5:18), forgiveness of all sin because of the obedience of another
(Acts 20:28, Romans 5:19), the everlasting presence of an advocate in heaven to make intercession for their sins (1 John 1:9, 2:1,
Hebrews 7:25), and will never come into judgment (John 3:18, 5:24).
Secondly, what does he mean by ‘state of grace’? Does he mean the right standing before God (i.e. not under His wrath, etc.)? Again, there is a difference between those who start in that state and continue in it by their obedience and those who are continually
forgiven their transgressions. Angels and first men: obedience. Christians: forgiveness.
2 Corinthians
11:2-3
Reply:
This is completely eisegetical. The verse never says that they will fall away from grace or justification. They may sin like Eve, but they will not lose their
salvation. In Matthew 24:24, Jesus states that even the elect can be misled by false teachers.
Infant Election
Reply:
First, I am not one of those Calvinists. Second, no Calvinist believes that the elect are born justified (and Akin should know
better than to use a straw-man like this). In defense of those who do believe in infant election, the elect infants would only
be regenerated and justified if God, in His foreknowledge, knew they were going to die.
Matthew 6:12-15
Reply:
This is not prescriptive but descriptive. It is not saying that to forgive others will result in the expiation of your own sins. Rather, it is describing those that are continuously forgiven (see Westminster Confession chapter 11 part 5). Those who forgive
are shown to be true believers. In
Matthew 18:21-35
Reply:
Is Akin seriously suggesting that we will lose our salvation every time we get angry at our neighbor? There are many cases in
the Old Testament where men have had temporary repentance toward God, but they never truly repented or were ever justified (King Ahab,
King Manasseh, the Assyrians, etc.). They later turned around and began practicing their sins again. Thus, the man in
this parable was given temporary reprieve (which is still of great value). The man’s repentance was done out of self-preservation,
like Ahab, not out of sorrow.
Or, there
is a more likely option. This is a rabbinic parable, and thus, it must be interpreted in light of its own literary genre. To quote Alfred Edersheim:
“In studying this Parable, we must once more remind ourselves of the general canon of the need of
distinguishing between what is essential in a Parable, as directly bearing on its lessons, and what is merely introduced for the sake
of the Parable itself, to give point to its main teaching. In the present instance, no sober interpreter would regard of the essence
of the Parable the King's command to sell into slavery the first debtor, together with his wife and children. It is simply a historical
trait, introducing what is analogous circumstances might happen in real life, in order to point the lesson, that a man's strict desert
before God is utter hopeless, and eternal ruin and loss. Similarly, when the promise of the debtor is thus introduced: 'Have patience
with me, and I will pay thee all,' it can only be to complete in a natural manner the first part of the Parabolic history and to prepare
for the second, in which forbearance is asked by a fellow-servant for the small debt which he owes. Lastly, in the same manner, the
recall of the King's original forgiveness of the great debtor can only be intended to bring out the utter incompatibility of such
harshness towards a brother on the part of one who has been consciously forgiven by God his great debt.”
–Alfred Edersheim, The Life
and Times of Jesus the Messiah, (http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book419.htm)
Thus, the fact the king forgave the man his debts
is an ‘accident’ of the parable; that is, it was “introduced for the sake of the Parable itself”. Lastly, I’d hope that Akin
would not suggest that a man’s family can be damned because of the sins of the man. Thus, it is clear that this must be taken
as an ‘accident’ of the parable and not directly analogous to soteriology.
Luke 8:13
Reply:
Again, this is eisegesis. He assumes that these people were truly justified and not just outward Christians. Later on,
in his reply to James White, he will use this very response to one of White’s verses. It’s a bit hypocritical.
Luke
12:42-46
Reply:
Again, he assumes that these
people were truly justified and not just outward believers only. Jesus was sent to
Luke 15:11-32
Reply:
He again
assumes that the son is analogous to a true believer and not one who is an outward believer. Clearly, the son being a son before
he left is an accident of the parable. In v.31, the father says, “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is
yours.” If we follow the parallel that Akin has created, we might come to the conclusion that the son never lost his salvation
but was chastised by God to bring about repentance. Also, the older brother is supposed to represent the Pharisees. If
we follow Akin’s analogy, we would come to the conclusion that these were also sons of God. However, we know that the Pharisees
were the son’s of Hell (Matthew
John 6:66-71
Reply:
That is true, but it does not prove that one can be chosen to be justified and then not be chosen to persevere to the end. All
this proves is that God can chose to use men for his purposes without choosing to predestine them to glorification. Pharaoh
is a perfect example (Romans
John 15:1-10
Reply:
Again, he assumes that the branches that were thrown away were truly justified and not outward believers only. Second, the symbol
of the vine is frequently used to symbolize
John 17:12
Reply:
As with John 6:66-71, he assumes that Judas had true faith and was justified. Jesus chose him for one purpose, to betray him
so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled. It never says that Jesus chose him to be justified or that he intended to have him
persevere unto the end. From what the Gospel of John says about Judas, it is likely that he was never a believer (John 12:4-6).
Romans
8:13
Reply:
This isn’t even talking about
apostasy or warning his fellow Christians about immoral living. Rather, he is contrasting them to what they formerly were (1-3). In verses 4 and 9, he says that his audience is not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Second, assuming Akin is right (i.e. that
Paul is warning them not to live in the flesh), Paul was talking to the visible church at
Next, Akin’s words are contradicted by verse 1! There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus because true Christians do
not live according to the flesh. Thus, verse 13 is obviously descriptive of what Christians are not, and therefore, it is contrasting
Christians with the rest of the world. “You” is a hypothetical which is impossible for true Christians (verse 15).
Romans 11:20-33
Reply:
Paul is talking about the covenant with Abraham’s descendants, not individual Jews (Romans 11:1). Thus, the tree represents
God’s covenant in general regarding Jews and Gentiles, not necessarily the salvation of individuals.
Romans 14:15-23
Reply:
This is talking about judging another person’s habits and accusing them of sin which causes them to stumble (i.e. sin). This
is not even talking about heinous sins as Mr. Akin would have us believe. “condemned” in v.23: guilty of sin for defying his
conscience, not exactly something that would qualify as a mortal sin.
A Defense of the
Perseverance of the
Saints
(Part 1)