I’m not quite ready to pick up my Man-Centered Christianity series yet. But the latest post on the sinner’s prayer, has been well received.
Since posting on the problematic use of the sinner’s prayer as well as the non-Biblical phrase “Ask Jesus into your heart”, I ran across three other posts on the issue that are worth the read. I thougt I’d share them here while our thoughts are on this important issue.
The InternetMonk (Michael Spencer) also discusses what’s wrong with “Christ Knocking at the Door of Your Heart“. He helpfully explains how this idea came about and the negative ramifications of such an emphasis. This is really a post worth reading, even if we might disagree with the IMonk on some issues (such as Calvinism).
The IMonk actually links to one of my reforming fundamentalist friends, Brian McCrorie. Brian has an excellent post delving into this problem further, especially showing how it hampers child evangelism.
These are all worth reading. I hope to have the next installment of the series done tomorrow or Friday, so bear with me!
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God….Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:16-18, 36)
Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me (John 14:1)
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (John 14:11)
While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. (John 12:36a)
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (John 20:27)
Why must we believe?
We are to believe in Jesus, because only he can rescue us. Only he can save us from the danger of perishing under God’s wrath forever in Hell. Let me quote Piper’s illustration here.
Jesus is the only one who can save us from this danger….It is as though a fireman finds you almost unconscious in a burning building that is about to collapse, throws his insulated tarp over you, picks you up, and says, “Hold still as I carry you. Don’t move. Don’t try to help me. I will get you out. You must let me do it. Trust me.”
Just like the fireman, Jesus has done everything to save us. He does not demand “heroic acts of penance but [rather] that we trust him.” Jesus has purchased us through his Cross-work on our behalf. And on that basis He calls us to believe in Him.
What is it to believe?
There are three indispensable elements to belief. Saving faith includes all three points.
We must believe that the facts about Jesus and the Gospel are true. (Jn. 20:27)
We must trust Jesus as a “living person for who he really is”. We need to believe “in him”. (Jn. 14:1)
We must be satisfied with All God is for us in Jesus. (Jn. 6:35)
The “1-2-3 repeat after me” approach to evangelism hones in on the first aspect of belief. They try to get people to pray a quick prayer upon assenting to a short Gospel fact list. But saving faith is much more than that.
We must trust Jesus as our Lord and Savior. But not merely our Lord and Savior, but as our Supreme Treasure. Piper loses people at this point, but regardless God’s Word clearly teaches that saving faith is the kind of faith that savors Jesus and enjoys Him. Let me showcase the Scriptural proof that Piper offers here.
“Jesus offers himself to us not merely as a rescuer to be trusted but as living water to be drunk….” And as a Shepherd (Matt. 26:31), Bridegroom (Matt. 9:15), Treasure (Matt. 13:44), King (John 18:36), and more.
John 6:35 shows the relationship between belief and drinking or coming to Jesus: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst“. To believe is to drink deeply from the “wells of salvation” (Is. 12:3).
So Piper rightly argues that believing that water gives life doesn’t cut it. You must drink the water. “Jesus gives life by being trusted. Trusting Jesus as water, therefore, means drinking the water.” It means “receiving” Jesus and all the “life-giving grace of God that comes to us in him”.
You don’t have to receive a fireman, just his aid. Jesus is not like that:
[The fireman] doesn’t ask you to believe in him for all that he is, or to receive him, or to savor his life. But Jesus does. He is so much more than a rescuer. Therefore, believing in him is more than trusting in his rescue skills.
In thinking through these thoughts, I couldn’t help but wondering how much I really am presently savoring Christ. I mean, most of my readers, like myself, have already believed. But are we truly continuing to believe? Is Jesus giving us true life? Are we entranced with the glory of Jesus as so much MORE than merely our Delivering Fireman? Are we daily growing in our love for and appreciation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Is He truly our Supreme Treasure?
We’ll consider more along this line of thinking in the next post on Demand #5, Love.
I have started blogging through Jesus’ Demands as discussed in John Piper’s latest book What Jesus Demands from the World. On now to demands #2 & 3.
Demand #2 — Repent
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 4:17)
I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:32)
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel. (Mark 1:15)
Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3, 5)
Jesus called everyone to repent—it was his first public demand. Piper pointed out that “repentance is an internal change of mind and heart rather than mere sorrow for sin or mere improvement of behavior.” He points to the two halves of the Greek word for repentance (metanoeo) for support. Meta signifies change and noeo is the word for the mind (and “its thoughts and perceptions and dispositions and purposes”). Luke 3:8 is very instructive as to the nature of repentance as it calls us to “bear fruits in keeping with repentance”. Thus, repentance is a change of mind and heart that happens inside of us and inevitably leads to new behavior.
Jesus demands we experience this inward change of heart. He calls sinners to repent. Sin, Piper argues, is “an assault on God.” And thus we must turn away from this attitude of enmity with God and submit to His will. Piper sums up the ideas inherent in repentance with the following sentence.
Repenting means experiencing a change of mind so that we can see God as true and beautiful and worthy of all our praise and all our obedience.
And repentance is universally needed. It is not just the bad people who stand in need of repentance but we all do. And if we don’t repent, Jesus says we will “all likewise perish”! This is serious. But this command to repent is not separated from God’s gracious offer of forgiveness. We are to “repent and believe in the gospel”. And this command is to go to every tribe, tongue, and nation (Luke 24:46-47).
Repentance has recently been redefined by “Free Grace” advocates and others who oppose a so-called “Lordship Salvation”. I won’t get into that here, but will point you to this post for a series of articles which explain and defend the correct definition of repentance well.
But before moving on, I think it is appropriate to ponder the full weight of this command. We are called to experience an inward change of heart which results in our relinquishing sin and relishing in Jesus. Are you, am I currently savoring the Savior? Repentance is an initial requirement for salvation. But it is more than that. It bears lasting fruit and so our continual response to the sin we so often fall back to, should be one of repentance. And just as God must grant repentance to those enslaved by sin (2 Tim. 2:24-26), so God must help us to experience a genuine sorrow over and internal change in reference to our sin. May he truly give us repentance and enable us to live lives that are pleasing to Him.
Demand #3 — Come unto Me
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Matt. 11:28)
Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.” (John 7:37)
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger. ” (John 6:35)
You refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:40)
Repentance seems so negative. And it is true Jesus calls us to leave self-glorifying sin. But Christ dose not call us to a “monastic” life of continual bitterness of spirit. He does not call us to a life of hopeless attempts to please a stern and unbending Lord. No, he came to give us joy.
…when God gives the radical change of new birth and repentance, Jesus himself becomes our supreme treasure. “His yoke is easy, and his burden is light.” Therefore, his demand that we come to him is not burdensome. It means coming to the one who has become everything to us. [I changed the formatting somewhat here.]
Jesus offers us “rest”, “water”, and “bread”. This is relief, quenched thirst, and spiritual nourishment. There is a sense that coming to Jesus is not easy. It is a “burden”. But the difficulty lies in this fallen world and not in Jesus. He even promises to help bear that burden.
Jesus desires, yea demands us to come. But so many don’t. Why is this? In Matt. 23:37 Jesus weeps because those in Jerusalem “would not” come to him. And in Jn. 5:40 Jesus points out that many “refuse to come”. People “refuse to come” because they do not want to come. Some would call this a “choice of free will” but Piper stresses that “Jesus would probably say it is the choice of a will enslaved to sin” (see John 8:34). Since we are all enslaved to sin, how can any come? Piper answers,
…God, in his great mercy, overcomes our resistance and draws us: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). “No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65). God grants the gift of new birth and repentance, which opens the eyes of the spiritually blind to the truth and beauty of Jesus. When this happens, all suicidal objections fall. We are finally free. And finally free from slavery, we come.
A few thoughts concerning this demand now come to mind. First, we should “never cease to praise and thank [God] for his sovereign grace” which draws us to Jesus. I know many who read this blog are yet to be convinced of Calvinism. I hope, however, that in reading this post you see that the Calvinist position on this point is cause for greater praise and wonder at the glory that God would choose us. It is not about being better than others, and it is not about belittling the need for evangelism. God regenerates us through the preached Gospel message, and Calvinists affirm that everyone who believes will truly be saved. But step back and see the wonder of God’s grace. After all, you could have been born as a Hindu in India, with little chance to be saved, or a Mayan Indian before Christ with almost no chance to be saved. Praise God for his undeserved goodness in drawing you to Himself.
Second, let us meditate on how good Jesus is. What a wonder that when he calls us to come, it is not like a frustrated Father calling us to face judgment, but rather that of a tender One who loves us and wants to meet our deepest needs! Jesus calls us to come and drink, eat, and find glorious rest and joy, even, in Him. And not for a little while but more and more for ever and ever! Praise Jesus for such wonderful news. Let us come, let us pray that God gives us more grace to come in an ever more true way. Let us pursue Jesus as our Supreme Treasure.
I recently came across two posts which led me to spend some time considering the legacy of Charles Finney.
First, I read this post by Ryan Debarr: “Depravity and the Altar Call, part one“. Ryan focuses on the altar call (or the invitation) in respect to Christians, not its evangelistic use. I agree with him that the altar call’s emphasis on making decisions may very well harm true Christian growth. Ryan says, “Rarely does a person give up a sin with a one-time act of the will….We should be more honest with people. It is usually not so easy as a mouthing a few words one time.”
Then I came across a post by Captain Headknowledge(aka John Chitty) on Charles Finney. He was celebrating Finney’s 214th birthday! Well, if you read his post, you may not think he is actually “celebrating” the occasion at all.
Now it goes without saying that Finney is lauded in many circles, especially among fundamentalists. He was required reading at my alma mater. While IFBx fundamentalists warn against reading the likes of MacArthur or Piper, they encourage the reading of Finney. Yet Finney is a heretic!
Yes, I said it, a heretic. If you have any doubt read this article by Phil Johnson which documents his heresy in detail. He denied original sin, substitutionary atonement (penal satisfaction), and even justification by faith alone. For proof on the last point I submit the following quote from his own Systematic Theology.
By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended:
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his “first work,” must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . .
Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God….[1]
Yet it is not Finney’s theology for which we most remember him today. Indeed most evangelicals have forgotten that he was a heretic. His theology may have influenced some liberals, but it is his methodology which has come to influence almost every sector of evangelicalism today.
Finney was known for his “new methods”. He measured the value of methods based on how well they produced results. Thus, pragmatism was the hallmark of his ministry. Some of the methods that he either originated or popularized include “a more dramatic form of preaching”, “public prayer used as a tool for applying pressure to sinners”, protracted evangelistic meetings[2], and the “use of the ‘prayer of faith’and the ‘anxious bench'”[3]. The invitation system as we know it today (also known as the altar call) was popularized by finney in the 1830s. According to Albert Dod a professor at Princeton who was a contemporary critic of Finney, “one will search in vain for a single example of this practice [i.e. the invitation system] before the 1820’s”[4].
This leads us back to thinking about the altar call. Finney had theological reasons for utilizing the altar call. He believed that salvation was dependent on sinners using their will to reform/repent and believe. The methods he used had to be effective in breaking the stubborn will of sinners.[5] So Finney used the altar call to put pressure on people to believe on the spot. And the tactic worked. It produced results. Yetthe results Finney produced (by some accounts as many as 500,000 converts) are contested. Even Finney’s own contemporary supporters recorded that the vast majority of the converts had not remained true to the Christian faith years later.[6]
Today, the altar call continues to be used prominently. And it continues to present inherent problems. I came across another blog post by Tim Irvin from a blog named “If Error is Harmless…Then Truth is Useless” (HT: Thirsty Theologian) which highlights how exactly the altar call can be harmful. Let me provide an excerpt from a quote Timgives by Jim Ehrhard which gets to the crux of the issue.
Here we have one of the greatest dangers of the invitation system. Even those employing it go to great pains to make clear that “going down the aisle” does not save anyone….Billy Graham, for example, says:
“There’s nothing about the mechanics of coming forward that saves anybody’s soul. Coming forward is an open acknowledgment and a testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ. But this inward experience with Christ, this encounter, is the most important thing.”
But examination of the invitation used by Graham shows just how confusing the system is. Keep in mind that Graham has already noted that the coming forward is a “testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ.” When is the person converted? Why are they coming?
“I’m going to ask you to come forward. Up there – down there – I want you to come. You come right now – quickly. If you are here with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him….”
At the “altar,” the confusion continues as he addresses those who have come: “You have come tonight to Jesus Christ, you have come to receive Him into your heart….” Which is it? Have they already come to Jesus, or are they coming now to receive Him? Graham continues: “He receives you; He died for you; He says, ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ You accept that. The past is forgiven, God forgets…. He cannot even see your sins.”…Then he leads them to repeat a prayer known as “the sinner’s prayer.” The question again is obvious: have they been forgiven, or will they be when they pray the prayer?
To make matters worse, many often add so many things to the invitation that one cannot be certain what he is being asked to do. This was especially true in the invitations of Billy Sunday who often exhorted people to “Come on down and take my hand against booze, for Jesus Christ, for your flag.”[7]
From the above quote you can see that the danger of the altar call is its propensity to confuse the responders. Putting people on the spot might very well result in half-converts, or more precisely, converts that aren’t. In Finney’s case the vast majority wilted as the years passed, and I think it is safe to say that such is the case today. Of the numbers that have responded in Graham crusades or in the evangelistic meetings and general preaching of fundamentalists, how many have truly remained? Could the use of the altar call have been a factor in at least some of these cases? I think so. Perhaps even the ritual of the sinner’s prayer (many times it has devolved into a ritual) is to blame. See my post exploring that question here.
In many respects evangelicals and fundamentalists in particular, have become hand-cuffed to this methodology. Can you imagine how else an evangelist could close an evangelistic appeal to Christ? What can one do other than lead people in a prayer or ask them to come forward? Before 1820 no one ever had utilized either of those methods in preaching the gospel. Paul certainly didn’t. Even Charles Spurgeon did not employ this method. He did have an inquiry room, where awakened sinners could go for personal counseling. Yet even he was wary on depending on that scheme too much. He said: “Sometimes shut up that enquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used in permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services…. If you should ever see that a notion is fashioning itself that there is something to be got in the private room which is not to be had at once in the assembly, or that God is more at that penitent form than elsewhere, aim a blow at that notion at once.”[8]
In closing, I would like to briefly offer Asahel Nettleton as an alternative. He was the last in a long line of well known Calvinist evangelists, and was a contemporary of Finney’s. Ministering in a much smaller geographical region, with fewer people than the large population centers Finney preached in, Asahel still saw thousands of converts. His numbers do not match Finney’s in sheer magnitude, but they tower above Finney’s in another respect. Nettleton’s converts almost never apostasized. He had 95% or better “perseverance rates”.[9] And you know what? He did not use the altar call. I wonder if this is a lesson for us?
———————————————————————–
Footnotes & Resources for Further Research
[1] Charles Finney, Systematic Theology(Minneapolis: Bethany), 372-73; quoted from “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How Charles Finney’s Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement” by Phillip R. Johnson, an online article accessible here.
[2] Rick Nelson, “How Does Doctrine Affect Evangelism? The Divergent Paths of Asahel Nettleton and Charles Finney” Founder’s JournalSummer 1998 Issue 33–available online here; quote is from paragraph just before the “Applications for Contemporary Evangelism” section (HT: Captain Headknowledge).
[3] Tom Browning, “Charles G. Finney: The Architect of Modern Evangelism”, available online here or in a blog post here.
[4] Albert Dod (in his review of Finney’s Lectures on Revival), quoted by Massimo Lorenzini, “The Modern Invitation System Examined”, available online here; quote taken from this blog post by Tim Irvin.
[5] Rick Nelson, Ibid.
[6] Rick Nelson, Ibid, see text where footnotes 19-22 appear.
[7] Jim Ehrhard, “The Dangers of the Invitation System”, available online here; quote taken from this blog post by Tim Irvin.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rick Nelson, Ibid, see text where footnote 31 appears. Also, Massimo Lorenzini, ibid (see above #4 for bibliographic info).
Background picture for “The Altar Call” above was borrowed from here; and the Finney picture above was adapted from Phil Johnson’s article listed above.
NOTE: For an updated copy of this post, see the “Mining the Archives” post here.
Today’s popular evangelical maxim “once saved, always saved” while based in the Biblical truth of justification by faith alone has morphed into a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for far too many. The church’s duty to make disciples of all nations has been downgraded to an optional extra. The gospel call to repent and believe has become a plea for sinners to assent to the facts of the gospel, pray a prayer, and join the cool Christian club called churchianity. Gone are the stern warnings to “watch and pray” and “endure to the end”. Gone are the bold exhortations to “make your calling and election sure” and “be diligent to be found in [Christ] without spot or blemish”. In their place are the warm assurances “since you confessed you are saved” and “since eternal life is a free gift, God cannot take it back”, and the friendly reminders “everybody makes mistakes” and “don’t sweat: remember, we’re under grace!” The old doctrine that saints must diligently make a personal effort to persevere in faith has been overshadowed by the new doctrine that saints can live just like anyone else in the world and as long as they once assented to gospel truths they are most certainly bound for heaven.
I wish I was merely exaggerating the situation. But when a nationally well known evangelical leader like Charles Stanley seriously believes and teaches that people who actually stop believing in Christ and walk out on God are still eternally secure, I can hardly be accused of overstating my case. In the article linked to above he claims, “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.” He goes on to only deal with Eph. 2:4-9 and 1 Cor. 1:21, while adding in a good portion of reasoning and illustrations. In his book Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? he makes the startling claim that salvation can be compared to receiving a tattoo. Even if moments later, you regret receiving the tattoo, it cannot change the fact that you have it! (pg. 80)
The Grace Evangelical Society exists to perpetuate such ideas. In other specters of evangelicalism, easy believism is represented by a 1-2-3-repeat-after-me approach to evangelism. A very large segment of independent fundamental Baptists (represented by literally thousands of churches and tens [if not hundreds] of thousands of members) emphasizes this approach to such excess that staggeringly huge numbers of salvations and baptisms are reported each year–which if really true, would make the Great Awakening look like a picnic. People are converted in five minutes or less–even through a rolled-down window during the duration of a stop light! One church has boasted of a milliion souls saved in the past 25 years, and yet less than 500 attend on any given Sunday.
Today no view seems criticized as much as Lordship Salvation or the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. These views are very similar, if not synonomous and both share a strong critique. Charges of “works-salvation” or “perfectionism” are thrown mercilessly at these misunderstood views.
So how did we come to such a time and situation as this? It seems that in a mix of zeal and evangelistic fervor, popular Christianity began to move away from its confessional roots in the late 1800s. American individualism probably worsened the situation, as Sola Scriptura became the license for anyone and everyone to disregard centuries of theological formulations and church teaching and come up with a myriad of homespun theories. The lasting impact of Charles G. Finney, who rejected substitutionary atonement among other orthodox doctrines, also contributed to what became popular American revivalism. Today, people have hardly heard of many of the great Reformation confessions like the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort, and yet they are quick to find a proof text for a host of contradictory Biblical teachings.
Yet a misunderstanding of perseverance is not limited to Arminians and non-Calvinists today, either. Doug Wilson says it well in a recent post on Heb. 3:7-19:
Apostasy is a real sin, committed by real people. This is something that Arminians get, and that most Calvinists do not get. None of the elect can every [sic] be taken out of God’s electing and sovereign decree. This is something that Calvinists get, and that Arminians do not get. Arminians can read Romans 8 through 11 and not see the absolute sovereignty of God, which is something that never ceases to astonish me. But lest we Calvinists get on a high horse, Arminians can read though Hebrews and can see real apostasy there. There are few things more exegetically embarrassing than to hear a Calvinist talk about how the warnings are hypothetical, like “keep off the grass” signs in the middle of the Sahara. There are many things that can be said to this, but the most compelling of them is that the warnings invariably deny that they are anything like hypothetical….The sin warned against here is that of evil unbelief, pure and simple. Not only is it unbelief, it is unbelief resulting in apostasy — departure from the living God, falling away from the living God. The sin is spoken of in the sternest possible way — rebellion, hardened hearts, evil heart of unbelief, and a departure from God…..This book [Hebrews] is about the sin of apostasy. Can a Christian fall away? Yes. Can someone who is truly regenerate, elect of God, an eternal Christian, fall away? No, clearly not.
A few years ago I spoke to a high school student body on how to fight lust. One of my points was called, “Ponder the eternal danger of lust.” I quoted the words of Jesus–that it’s better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with two–and said to the students that their eternal destiny was at stake in what they did with their eyes and with the thoughts of their imagination….After my message…one of the students…asked, “Are you saying then that a person can lose his salvation?”…This is exactly the same response I got a few years ago when I confronted a man about the adultery he was living in….I pled with him to return to his wife. Then I said, “You know, Jesus says that if you don’t fight this sin with the kind of seriousness that is willing to gouge out your own eye, you will go to hell”….As a professing Christian he looked at me in utter disbelief, as though he had never heard anything like this in his life, and said, “You mean you think a person can lose his salvation?”…So I have learned again and again from firsthand experience that there are many professing Christians who have a view of salvation that disconnects it from real life, and that nullifies the threats of the Bible, and puts the sinning person who claims to be a Christian beyond the reach of biblical warnings. I believe this view of the Christian life is comforting thousands who are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13)….The main concern of this book is to show that the battle against sin is a battle against unbelief. Or: the fight for purity is a fight for faith in future grace. The great error that I am trying to explode is the error that says, “Faith in God is one thing and the fight for holiness is another thing….The battle for obedience is optional because only faith is necessary for final salvation.” (pg. 330-331 and 333)
Belief in perseverance does not negate the great truth that faith alone justifies and secures our eternal salvation. Rather it affirms with Martin Luther, “We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” Our works prove the sincerity of our faith, and are in this sense necessary. This is why so many passages teach that God will actually judge all mankind by their works. Without exception, Rom. 2:6-11 states: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immorality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” The reason this does not teach works salvation is that when we come to God in faith (as a result of his work of regeneration in our hearts–John 1:13 and 1 Jn. 5:1, and his gifts of faith–Acts 3:16, 15:9, 18:27, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, Eph. 1:19-20, 2 Pet. 1:1 and repentance–Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25) he begins a good work in us (Phil. 1:6) and will be the One to complete it. He will produce good works in us as a testimony of the genuineness of our faith–Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13, 1 Cor. 15:10, 1 Thess. 5:23-24, Jude 24, Tit. 2:14.
In other words, true regeneration produces true fruit. This is Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 7:18-19 “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” In the parable of the sower, the only soil which produced fruit was the good soil. Even thought the rocky soil produced plants which looked healthier than the fruitful plants, they bore no fruit and withered away. Jesus said this represents those “who receive [the word] with joy…but…have no root: they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.” The clear teaching of the parable is that transient faith does not save. Only the faith that bears fruit saves.
In understanding perseverance, it is important to recognize the difference between justification and glorification. Justification is the legal pronouncement of “not guilty” which happens immediately upon our faith and is based on Christ’s substitutionary atonement. This pronouncement is a voice from heaven, so to speak, concerning our hearts. The testimony from earth (our lifestyle) does not unfalteringly reflect this. Sanctification is a slow and gradual process of the out-working of our faith and the living out of our justification. Glorification is the point when we are gloriously tranformed into Christ’s image immediately after our death. At this point salvation is final. Up until then, since we cannot enter heaven’s throneroom and hear the irreversible verdict of “not guilty” applied to us, we must trust in sanctification to prove the genuineness of our faith. The term “salvation” is most often used in Scripture to refer to our glorification and only sparingly used to refer to justification. So when we see the English words “whoever believes will be saved” it usually is teaching that whoever believes will one day ultimately be saved/glorified. The Greek tense used for “believe” most often (99% or more of the time) in such statements is the present tense which directly conveys a continual action. Literally, it is often stated, “the believing one will be saved”. If we walk away from faith and cease believing we prove to not be a “believing one”.
Perseverance is required of believers. It is our duty. But the flip side of this is the teaching that God will preserve His elect (John 10:26-30, 1 Pet. 1:5, etc.). So all of the elect–all the truly regenerate among professing believers–will persevere and it will be by God’s grace. Most reading this post already understand that God will preserve the elect, so I will not labor to prove that assertion. But what follows will conclude this post by providing a defense of my assertion that the Bible requires us (professing believers) to persevere.
The Bible speaks of our need to “examine” ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5) and to diligently “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). We cannot assume that since we believed in the past or made some profession of faith, we are absolutely and inviolably secure eternally. We must make room for the Scriptural potential that our faith could be insincere or not genuine. Luke 8:13 again, speaks of those who “believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away”. Even Paul leaves it open that he might even still yet become a “castaway” (same Greek word for apostate) in 1 Cor. 9:27.
Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily exhort one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following verses: Col. 1:23–“if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast,…”; 1 Cor. 15:2–“by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–“and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–“we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–“if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–“the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–“if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–“if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–“in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–“holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–“faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”
Scripture never gives us assurance of salvation based on our profession of faith (in a past time and place), rather it declares the objective reality of Christ’s work and the subjective reality of the Spirit’s work in our lives as the grounds for assurance. (And the stress in 1 John is on our subjective experience of characteristic obedience.) 1 John 2:3 states ” And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:19 also gives us the key to understanding this truth. It helps us to interpret what happened when we see someone who seemed to have genuine faith fall away. It declares, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they weent out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” In other words, we should not conclude like some Arminians that all professing believers who fall away have in fact lost their salvation. Rather we should conclude that they were only professing but not possessing faith. Paul teaches this same truth when he declares belief could be in vain (1 Cor. 15:2) or could be only temporary (see 1 Thess. 3:5). Jesus also clearly taught both the reality of professors being proven to not possess faith in the scary passage of Matt. 7:21-23, and the need to persevere in Luke 21:34-36 among other places.
To sum up the teaching of perseverance, let us quote 2 passages. 2 Thess. 2:13b “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Heb. 6:12b “be…imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Both of these passages teach that ultimate, final salvation (inheriting the promises) come to those who both believe and persevere (are sanctified/have patience).
But should this teaching result in our condemning large segments of evangelicalism and condemning many we know? Are we to judge them as not being true possessors since we may doubt their perseverance? No! Emphatically, no! Remember, justification is a heavenly sentence. We do not know, here on earth, what that sentence is. We can judge based on their fruits, but we also must be aware of the motes and beams in our own eyes. We should judge ourselves first and others much later. We can have confidence and hope in our sovereign God that there are evidences of grace in all who profess salvation. But then again, we know Biblically that this is most likely not the case. So rather than condemn one another, we should seek to edify one another and encourage them to press on, and to continue in belief (Heb. 3:2-14 and Gal. 6:1-9).
Before I close, we must revisit that popular maxim, “once saved, always saved.” If “saved” is viewed as glorification, I do not disagree at all with that statement. Nor would I if “saved” is viewed as justification. But once again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of justification is in your works (James 2). So even with the truth of once justified, always justified in view, we must never assume we have been justified if we have no good works to point to as Spirit-wrought proof.
In conclusion, brothers and sisters, I say with the apostle John “Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.” (2 John 1:8) And remember that although Jude warns us to “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (v. 21) he also assures us “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy…” (v. 24). So do not lose heart. Trust in God’s great promises, and fight the good fight of faith. Above all, do not presume that you have arrived and are outside the bounds of Scripture’s warnings. Rather, “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” (2 Pet. 1:10)
For a more succinct treatment of this topic, I refer you to an earlier post where I reproduce an outline by my brother Dave on Heb. 3:2-14. Also, for a Biblical look at how important mutual edification of believers is, see my post on 1 Thessalonians. And for more resources concerning this topic, check out some articles and sermons by John Piper listed here on the issue of future grace, or just read his book referenced above. [The last link above was added 2/13/06.]
For further thoughts on this topic check out a more recent post here.
I recently came across two posts which led me to spend some time considering the legacy of Charles Finney.
Yet it is not Finney’s theology for which we most remember him today. Indeed most evangelicals have forgotten that he was a heretic. His theology may have influenced some liberals, but it is his methodology which has come to influence almost every sector of evangelicalism today.
NOTE: For an updated copy of this post, see the “Mining the Archives” post 