Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. -Hebrews 10:22-23

Let's take a look at some of the different views on the possibility of losing salvation. Before looking at each view it helpful to note how we answer the following two questions:

1) How is Salvation "gained"? By works, by faith, or by decree?
2) How is Salvation "kept"?, By works, by faith, or by decree?

I'm going to propose 5 common views, that come about through the way we answer these two questions.

It is a popular teaching today that once someone becomes a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ, he or she will never cease to be God’s child regardless of behavior and continuance in saving faith.

In order to express this teaching, it is reasoned from human experience to that which is spiritual and a strong distinction is made between “fellowship” and “relationship”. It is said that a believer can harm and even sever one’s fellowship with God while somehow maintaining a saving relationship. The only way to express this concept is through human analogy.

Neil T. Anderson gives us the basis of this argumentation in Stomping Out the Darkness, co-authored by Dave Park. Under the heading: There’s A Difference Between Relationship and Fellowship, Anderson writes…

Dennis M. Rokser is the pastor of Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota, and has authored a publication entitled: “Seven Reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart.” Here is a link to his article, and I will provide a response:

http://duluthbible.org/widgets/download.aspx?file=%2ffiles%2fResources%2fPublications%2fBooklet_PDF_Files%2fSeven_Reason_3rdEdition.pdf

Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God 'raised up' for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God’s power. God bears with great patience these 'objects of wrath,' in order to glorify himself before the 'objects of his mercy,' that is, the elect (see Augustine, “To Prosper and Hilary” 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).

I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul’s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul’s argument.

Please click on the attachment to view Robert Hamilton, "The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep".

For the rest of the series, see 5/6/2008-5/9/288, 5/12/2008-5/16/2008, 6/16/2008

Is Restoration Really Impossible?

After studying the warning passages in Hebrews the question naturally arises: can an apostate ever be restored again to salvation? Is the repudiation of saving faith irrevocable and the condition of the apostate permanent?

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

Probably the favorite Calvinist proof text for their doctrine of irresistible regeneration is John 3:3, 6. Here Jesus directly addresses the doctrine of the new birth. Calvinists and most Biblical theologians correlate the new birth with regeneration. Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can “see” or “enter” the Kingdom of God unless they are first “born again”. Calvinists see in Jesus words the teaching that regeneration precedes faith. They point to two aspects of what Christ said to Nicodemus which they believe demonstrate that Jesus was teaching that the new birth precedes faith.

Which comes first, faith or regeneration? That is indeed the question. I cannot think of a more important theological issue with respect to the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is the defining feature concerning the question of whether or not God’s saving grace is irresistible. Calvinist James White would seem to agree,

“The question is: Does [God raise sinners to life] because men fulfill certain conditions, or does He do so freely, at His own time, and in the lives of those He chooses to bring into relationship with Himself through Jesus Christ? The question is normally framed in the context of the relationship of faith and regeneration. Do we believe to become born again [regeneration], or must we first be born again before we can exercise true, saving faith?” [Debating Calvinism, pg 198]

Some Calvinists have argued that the frequent references to the wandering Israelites in the desert suggest that the writer of Hebrews is not addressing apostasy from true faith. It is assumed that the wandering generation who failed to enter the Promised Land never had a saving faith relationship with the Lord. Since the writer of Hebrews uses the wandering generation as an example or object lesson for the situation being addressed among his readers, it is argued that this indicates that he does not consider those he warns of apostasy to be truly regenerated believers. In other words, if we have good reason to doubt that the wilderness generation of Israelites who failed to enter the Promised Land was saved, then we have reason to doubt that those the writer of Hebrews warns, while holding up those Israelites as an example, were really saved either. I believe this approach fails for the following reasons:

Whose Hearts Were in Danger of Being Hardened?

I. Grace Is Essential Because Sinners Are In A "Dead" State Of Mind. (2:1-3)

The Greek text of Ephesians 2:1 begins with, Kai hymas ontas nekros, literally, "and you were dead." The New King James Version renders the first verse as, "And you He made alive (hath He quickened- KJV), who were dead . . ."

The phrase "He made alive" is in italics, informing us that the translators inserted it for clarity. H. A. Ironside stated, "You will notice that the words, 'hath He quickened,' are in italics [in your bible]. That means that there is nothing in the original to answer to them, and yet we actually seem to need them to fully bring out the thought of the Greek . . ." If someone is "dead," how then shall he "live"? The thought that "He made [us] alive" is found in verse five of chapter two. It was inserted here because the concept of being "dead" rendered it necessary.

In his book How to Be Born Again, Billy Graham states, "Jesus said that God can change men and women from the inside out. It was a challenge -a command. He didn't say, 'It would be nice if you were born again,' or, 'If it looks good to you you might be born again.' Jesus said, 'You must be born again' (John 3.7)."

The most controversial aspect of the teaching that Regeneration precedes Faith in Christ (that one must first be born again in order to exercise faith in Christ) actually comes from Jesus' own statement to Nicodemus that a person must be born again in order to "see" and "enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus did not say that a person must first be born again in order to have faith in Him, but in order to "see" and "enter the kingdom of heaven."

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

Depravity; Faith; Grace; Prevenient Grace; Regeneration

Picirilli, Robert. "Salvation by Faith, Applied"

Picirilli, Robert. "Salvation by Faith, Applied"

James Arminius underwent a barrage of accusations during his public ministry by strict Calvinists who were not adverse to taking their doctrines farther than even Calvin himself. Article XXV against Arminius charged him as teaching:

"The whole of that which we appear before God justifies us: But we appear before God, not only by Faith, but also by Works: THEREFORE we are justified before God, not only by Faith, but likewise by Works." What follows is his reply.

Arminius' accusers charged him of believing and teaching:

FAITH is not the pure gift of God, but depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will; that, if a man will, he may believe or not believe. To which he responded:

"I NEVER said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying on God's grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and confused.

"I simply affirm that this enunciation is false, 'Faith is not the pure gift of God;' that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigour of the words, 'Faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will;' and that this is also false when thus enunciated, 'If a man will, he can believe or not believe.'