Posts Tagged Free will vs no free will
Differences of opinion within Christianity have for many years been of great interest to me. For me, the interest has rarely been concerning the variances themselves, but how the variances are dealt with.
There are within Christianity what some might call ‘salvation issues’ and others which might not be ‘salvation issues’.
The doctrine of ‘once saved always saved’ is what I would claim is not a ‘salvation issue’. But it is a doctrine of much contention.
People who believe ‘once saved always saved’ have their reasons and Scriptural basis for their beliefs. People who don’t believe ‘once saved always saved’ have their reasons and Scriptural basis for not believing it.
Some people get so irate over the doctrine that they make a heretic or an unbeliever out of anyone who does not believe it. Some think ‘once saved always saved’ is the pure Gospel in a nutshell and anyone who does not believe it is guilty of not believing Scripture and believing a doctrine of works. While those who do not believe it often treat the doctrine with contempt and argue it a licence to sin. Others, like myself who claim to have a somewhat none bias view do not overlook the Scriptures that can affirm the doctrine while at the same time do not ignore the implications behind the warnings given in Scripture to ‘abide’.
In reality the Scriptures work both ways concerning the Scriptural aspect of the doctrine. Some texts affirm ‘once saved always saved’ while others appear speak as though a believer can fall away and become an ‘apostate’.
In a historical reformation context, the two contrasting views are known as ‘Calvinism’ and ‘Arminianism’. Both views have their majority origins in 16th century Geneva in a somewhat bitter debate that arose between Jacob Arminius and Theodore Beza. Today both views are still believed, however, the views have altered somewhat since the days of Arminius and Beza.
In the 16th century their was only one main view of doctrine known today as ‘once saved always saved’ while today, it seems there are multiple views of teaching. Both views were responses to the extreme dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome taught a very uncertain view of salvation which held people captive to the authority and sacramental works of that Religion.
Today however, things have changed. The doctrine of ‘once saved always saved’ is not centralised around refuting Rome, but Arminianism. The doctrine of ‘once saved always saved’ has took on a new commercial and popular form.
Thus, before a person can affirm ‘once saved always saved’ that person must first clarify which version of ‘once saved always saved’ is being talking about.
Lets look at the Scriptures.
Here is a list of some Scriptures used to affirm the doctrine:
John 3: 15-16, John 5: 24, John 10: 28-29, Romans 8: 38-39, Ephesians 1: 13-14, Ephesians 4: 30, 1 Peter 1: 5, Hebrews 10: 14, Jude 24.
Here is a list of some Scriptures used to refute the doctrine:
Matthew 10: 22, 32, Matthew 7: 19, Luke 12: 41-46, John 15: 2, Romans 11: 18-22, Galatians 5: 1-5, 1 Corinthians 9: 27, 1 Corinthians 15: 1-2, Colossians 1: 21-23, 2 Timothy 4: 10, 2 Peter 2: 19-22, Hebrews 6: 4-6, Revelation 2: 8-10, Revelation 3: 1-6, Revelation 21: 6-8, Revelation 22: 19
A problem I find is that both parties appear to overlook the contrasting texts or reinterpret them according to their persuasion. ‘Calvinistic’ thinkers commonly claim that those who have fallen away were never truly saved in the first place. While some ‘Arminian’ thinkers hold on so tightly to their salvation that they appear unsure if they will get to heaven even though they abide.
But where are the proofs?
The Scriptures speak clearly on the matter if we let them speak. They affirm that a believer will abide if he looks to Christ, in other words a believer must abide in order to abide.
The Scriptures affirm that God will keep our salvation and that it is the duty of every believer to keep the faith. In other words, if a believer does not abide, how can he continue to have faith? A person cannot have faith and trust in Jesus if he has ceased to believe He was the Christ.
The problem is that many preachers would simply attempt to persuade their congregations that those who walk away from the faith were never really saved in the first place? I beg to differ them and claim that such a view is inconsistent with all Scripture. I would further claim that such a view was not taught by the majority Ante-Nicene-fathers. For example, Ante-Nicene-Father Irenaeus once wrote;
“We should fear ourselves, least perchance after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His Kingdom. And for that reason, Paul said, ‘For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also not spare you” (Romans 11:21). (Against Heresies 4.27.2]
“Those who do not obey Him, but being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” (Against Heresies 4.41.3)
This same position was also affirmed by Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and also in the Reformation in the Augsburg Confession, Article XII: “Of Repentance”. (feel free to contact me if you desire all the quotes)
The fact remains that the popular wishy washy view of ‘once saved always saved’ as taught in many modern churches, is certainly not the Calvinistic understanding of ‘once saved always saved’ and certainly not the eternal security affirmed in Scripture.
But the major error that I find within the teachings of a majority of proponents of ‘osas’ is that they continue to affirm the doctrine of ‘free will’. But how can this be? How can a person have a salvation that cannot possibly be taken away, while at the same time have ‘free will’? Surely, if a person has ‘free will’ and is saved and always will be saved he or she cannot have the ‘free will’ they claim to have. Because if a person has ‘free will’ he or she must have the freedom to choose whatever they choose and thus, they must have the freedom to choose to abide in Christ or walk away from the faith. If a person has ‘free will’ that person must logically have the freedom to choose either way.
This is why I think the Calvinistic position of ‘once saved always saved’ is far more consistent than the popular wishy washy view taught within many denominations. Yet even in Calvinism, no true Calvinist can logically know for certain whether or not he or she is part of ‘once saved always saved’ because they cannot truly know if they are one of the elect, because the evidence of perseverance has not yet fully come to pass until the day of death.
It seems to me that both sides are playing a game of dodgeball.