Arminian v Calvinist part 2

by Matthew

Okay, so that was something of a caricature of a debate between and Arminian and a Calvinist. But often debates on the soteriology do form along those lines. Both sides quote verses as if the other side is going to say:

Oh wow, man. I never read that verse before. I guess you guys who believe in perseverance/ possibility of loss of salvation must be right.

Even where more sophisticated exegesis is presented, the results of such debate is predictable. The Calvinist produces all the verses that demonstrate the eteranal security of the believer, while the Arminian produces all the verses that imply loss of salvation.

Both sides have a problem. The Arminian has to deal with a lot of passages that strongly affirm the eteranal security of the believer. If she wants to stand in the Reformation tradition, she also has to reconcile her rejection of eternal security with the doctrine of justification.

The Calvinist may have strong support for eternal security. Hwoever, she has to deal with a mass of warnings about judgment. She has to convince her opponent that these warnings are directed at false professors and not true believers. Even if she succeeds in this she risks the danger of removing the assurance that one is a true believer.

The Calvinist has a further problem in that the weight of history rejects her position.

The early church fathers rejected perseverance. Augustine, the most popular of them amongst Calvinists believed in a sort of perseverance, but he held that true born-again Christians could still be lost (if they were not among the elect). The Roman Catholic church has always rejected perseverance, as has the Eastern Orthodox church. The Anabaptist tradition for the most part rejects it. The Arminians, the Wesleyans and most Pentecostals reject it. All of the pseudo-Christian cults that claim to follow the Bible reject it.

Now it may be that the mass of these people may have been unregenerate. No doubt the majority of them were. However, with the exception of the cultists, they were able to pick up their Bibles and see in them the doctrine of the Trinity. If the Bible so clearly teaches eternal security, why have so many missed it, while still holding to much that is true? Why is it only Reformed, Baptists and some Anglicans (occupying only a fraction of church history) have held to eternal security and perserverance?

For those of us who hold to Free Grace/ Overcomer teaching, this is not so much of a problem. The Bible contains many warnings to regenerate persons. Not warnings of eternal punishment, but warnings of judgment, chastening, premature death, loss of rewards, loss of kingdom inheritance and perhaps exclusion from the millennium (more debateable than the others). It is easy for the careless exegete or the false teacher to twist those warnings into warnings of everlasting punishment.

The goal of consistent Free Grace theology is too synthesize the precious truth of eternal security with the stark reality of judgment upon believers who do not yield their lives in submission and faithful discipleship to Christ.

A Confusing "Good News"

Has anyone ever seen this:
Two Ways to Live
????

It is an online evangelistic presentation. I was reading through it on Tuesday and I found myself nodding in agreement with much of it. Page five had this:

What’s more, when we are pardoned through Jesus’ death, we can be quite sure that when Jesus does return to judge, we will be acceptable to him. The risen Jesus will give us eternal life, not because we have earned it, but because he has died in our place.

I wondered if whoever put this together really meant to say "the Risen Jesus will give us eternal life." Do they think it is all future... or do they understand that at the time of the the new birth we actually begin eternal life? I was giving the benefit of the doubt and hoping that they viewed it the same way as I. Then I clicked onto page 6.

Box 6

What is this?

God's New Way:
1. Submit to Jesus as our ruler and
2. Rely on Jesus' death and ressurection

RESULT:
1. Forgiven by God
2. Given eternal life

Have I "submitted" to Jesus as my ruler? Wow - when I consider that as a condition for receiving eternal life, I find it very confusing and unbiblical. First of all, it is not a clearly defined thing. Now, we can argue about the content of saving faith all we want, but at the end of the day, all of we FGers would agree that it is faith - belief - trust - in Christ alone that saves. But... what part of faith does "submit" play? That to me is an action - a willingness to take action at the very least. So this is saying that unless I "submit"... I cannot receive this gift? I was thinking that if I were unsaved I would be very confused as to what has to happen for me to be alright with God. As a Christian of 21 years I also know the impracticality of this - I have not fully submitted to Christ - who has? I am trying to, but I have not arrived. So, according to this presentation, I cannot be sure to have the result promised - eternal life.

I saw that there was more to the presentation, so I continued, hoping that it would become clearer to the reader. It ended with 3 STEPS:

1. Talk to God

2. Submit to Jesus
You’ll need to get rid of old rebellious habits (like greed, anger, selfishness, and so on) and start some new ones that please God (like generosity, kindness, love and patience). This second step will go on for the rest of your life...

3. Keep trusting
The third thing you have to do is also ongoing.

So there you "have" it? (Or not.) These things spoken of are great instruction for a Christian, but it is never clear when one becomes a Christian through this presentation. There is a kind of "sinner's prayer" on step 1 under the 3 STEPS, but no clear indication that one can know one is right with God upon placing faith in Christ. There is no indication in this presentation when a person actually is saved. Is it after one has completed all three steps? From the verbiage, I would say that it clearly implies that one cannot know he is OK with the Lord until he has finished that which he must do which is ONGOING and FOR THE REST OF [HIS] LIFE...