HOME PAGE

What Is Preservation?

The following is an essay based on a response to a question by my nephew Paul, a fledgling minister. He asked me if I believe in the doctrine of 'once saved always saved', and what would be the rational for my answer.

Dear Paul:

Your letter came as a pleasant surprise. Pleasant for various reasons. Not only are we interested in your progress and activities, but it is a pleasure for me to deal with theological subjects.

I'll now attempt to answer in part your theological question. The difficulty with addressing questions to theology-buffs is the danger of over-kill. I shall try to restrain myself from giving you more than you asked for, but that effort will probably be unsuccessful. This is due not only to my temperament, but also to the nature of the subject. It is my tendency to over-teach. Please forgive this on the grounds that it is the least of my sins.

Before I can answer your question on the specific texts, it will be essential to define some terms and establish some parameters. The doctrine you described as "once saved always saved" is more precisely termed Eternal Security. The opposing view is known as Arminianism. Neither of these terms is adequate for various reasons. For one, Arminianism really refers to an entire system of theology of which the loss of salvation is only one aspect. Eternal Security was a term used a lot by the reformers, but they did not mean it in the sense in which baptists use it today. If you don't mind, I shall sometimes refer to the Eternal Security view as the "baptist" view.

These two views are hotly disputed, as you know. What most do not realize, however, is that these two are not the only options. In fact, there is a third view, called The Doctrine of the Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints. This "third" view is the one that I hold, and is the one the reformers held, as well as reformed churches today such as Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, etc.

It is perhaps incorrect to call this a "third" view, because in fact, the other two views are historical perversions of this one, and developed out of it.

Now to define some terms:

Eternal Security: The doctrine that a born-again christian cannot, under any conditions, lose his salvation. Once he has made the free-will choice to be born-again, God deposits the gift of eternal life in him and will not remove it under any conditions, regardless of conduct or apostasy from the faith. Backslidden christians will go to heaven.

Arminianism: The doctrine that a born-again christian may, through reversion to a life of sin and/or apostatizing from the faith, lose his salvation and be eternally lost.

Preservation and Perseverance: The doctrine that God has an elect and justified people, chosen from before the foundation of the world, whom He preserves from ultimately and finally falling into the conditions that would jeopardize their eternal salvation. Though Preservation is a gift of the grace of God, He uses practical, concrete means to ensure it. The primary means He uses is the believers' own efforts at perseverance, which God stimulates through exhortations, warnings, chastisements, the Word, fellowship, and others. I shall sometimes refer to this as the Reformed view.

Note that Preservation and Perseverance agrees with both of the other views in some respects, but disagrees in others. {1} It agrees with the Baptist view in that born-again believers do not lose their salvation. It states that conditions do exist by which that could happen. A life of sin and/or apostasy are fully legitimate conditions by which a believer can indeed lose his salvation, and must beware that he does not. But it affirms that God preserves His people from fulfilling that condition. {2}

It also disagrees with the Baptist view as to what is the basis of the believer's hope. The Baptist view bases it on the believer's choice to be born-again, and God then gives him eternal life. Preservation and Perseverance bases it on the elective decree of God and on Justification. (Justification means that God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to a believer, and thus refuses to accept accusations against him from anyone. ){3} The Reformed view feels that the Baptist view places its hope on the will and activity of man, rather than on God.

In fact, this latter criticism can be leveled against the Arminian view also. Thus, the Reformed view affirms that, paradoxically, both the other views commit the same basic error, but from different directions.

Preservation and Perseverance agrees with the Arminian view that conditions do indeed exist by which a christian can lose his salvation, and that the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the believers to persevere via the means that God has provided. It disagrees with the Arminians in their assumption that this proves that such a thing as loss of salvation has actually happened to any believer. The Reformed view states that this is a logic error. Just because a thing is hypothetically possible does not prove that it has ever happened or ever will happen. A fundamental principle of logic is that hypotheses are not facts. Preservation and Perseverance also disagrees with Arminianism because it leads to a false gospel, i.e., a doctrine that salvation ultimately depends, in part, on good works. Any such gospel is apostasy. {4}

It's easy to see why the Arminian accusation that security of salvation provides a license to sin, falls heavier on the Baptist view than the Reformed. After all, the former deny that sin and apostasy represent any real danger.

It's also easy to see why, if Preservation and Perseverance is correct, that warnings to believers about the consequences of apostasy and sin exist in the same Bible with promises of eternal security. God is not kidding when He gives such warnings. There is no need to explain them away. The dangers are real. But neither is He fudging on His covenant promises of preservation. {5} Doesn't the Bible teach that God is Sovereign, and that man is also responsible for his actions? The reformers felt so, and did not feel uncomfortable with either line of verses.

If that's so, then we may ask if the verses you listed are really "hard to understand". {6}

Remember, I said before that I needed to establish some parameters along with definitions. We've had some definitions, but now we need a parameter.

You already know that the Bible does not say literally, "Christians can/cannot lose their salvation". The resolution has to do therefore with conclusions drawn from the available evidence. Is it legitimate to say "the Bible says such and such", based on a conclusion not directly stated in scripture?

Yes. Otherwise, we would have to abandon the doctrines of the Trinity, most of evidence for the deity of Christ, whatever view of end-time prophecy we hold, and a lot of other things. Views not directly stated can be valid doctrine, assuming of course, that they incorporate all of the available evidence. {7}

The question then, is, Of the three options, which best incorporates the sum of the Biblical evidence on this subject?

Now for some specific text analysis, as requested.

I Pet. 2:20-22

Part of the answer has to do with what I said above. These verses may be taken as an exhortation to avoid apostatizing and the consequences thereof. They do not prove that such has actually happened to anyone. This answer assumes that the verses refer to born-again christians.

However, I have a problem with the above answer. The problem is grammatical. Note the pronouns "they" & "them". We know from grammar that a pronoun replaces a previously stated noun. If we carefully trace these pronouns back to their origin, we land on verse 1:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."

Observe that he is referring to false prophets who have infiltrated themselves into the church, professing to be believers, but in actual fact are reprobates in disguise.

But what about "escaping the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ"? No problem. Monks have done that for centuries without being saved. The knowledge of Christ plus a strong will and hard work has produced external righteousness in many who are now in hell.

Heb. 10:26-31

1. Hebrews occupies a special place. To comment on these verses, and those in Ch.6, we have to look at the purpose of the book as a whole.

The writer was dealing with a special first-century problem among converts from judaism. Some had one foot in the synagogue and the other in the church. They wanted judaism and christianity too.

They came to church only occasionally.{8} It was really hard to tell if they were saved or not. The whole intent of the writer is to warn that they couldn't walk that kind of fence. Unless they left the foundation principles of judaism, and committed themselves fully to Christ, there was no salvation for them. They can't be saved by a mixture of law and grace, because such a mixture is a contradiction in terms. The above text addresses the danger of these people without the writer passing judgment on whether they are saved or not.

2. If this text means that genuine believers lose their salvation, then we have a problem with v.26. The text proves more than the Arminian intends, because assuming he is talking to born-again people, then we must conclude that if a christian sins after he is saved, then he can never be forgiven! This makes backslidding the unforgiveable sin, without scriptural warrant. But no Arminian believes this. Thus, he can't use this text to prove his view.

The author is making a point in the most forceful way he knows how. He shows that just as a jew in the Old Testament was lost without mercy if he rejected the Law of Moses, so under the New, if he rejected Christ, he could expect no more mercy than under the Law.

How does one "trample" the Son of God underfoot and insult the Spirit of Grace? These half baked jews were doing this by returning to the synagogue, and the Law. This insulted Grace and counted as "common" the blood of Christ by implying that the Cross was not enough for their salvation.

The text is not intended to deal with the issue of backslidden christians, but rather with Jews who professed to be believers but would not abandon dependence on judaism.

Heb. 6:4-6

1. The passage must be taken in the context of the chapter as a whole. Note that it can, and must, be divided into two distinct sections, separated by V.9:

But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.

The people from V. 9 to the end of the chapter have the following characteristics: They are beloved of God (a term never used except in reference to God's people); they are saved; they minister to the saints, work for God and show love; they have a sure and steadfast hope, and are partakers of the immutable covenant of Grace.
It is evident that the people in the last part of the chapter are not the same as those in the first part. In the last part, he is obviously talking about the saved. It follows therefore, that the people in the first part are NOT saved.

The Arminian assumes that V.1-8 refers to genuine christians. This cannot be the case since genuine christians are the topic in V.9-20. I believe that the "elementary principles of Christ" do not refer to doctrines distinctive to Christianity for the following reasons:

A) All these doctrines are also jewish, taught clearly in the O.T. The elementary principles refer therefore to these basic teachings of judaism which jews knew already. The problem with some jewish converts to christianity was that they did not want to leave these principles to go on into a full commitment to Christ, and thus be saved. Going on into "perfection" (maturity) would mean entering into the things in 6:9-20. These jews had been "enlightened" (but not converted), had "tasted" (but not swallowed), had been "partakers" of the Holy Spirit, (but not regenerate).{9}

B) Context. See 5:12-14. Notice in 5:12, the phrase "first principles of the oracles of God". This seems to refer to the basic points of the priesthood, the subject of the chapter, which these jews should have understood. This seems to confirm that the "first principles" of 6:1 do not refer to distinctively christian teachings.

In seems peculiar to me that Armininians refer to Hebrews for support, when this book is in fact written to demonstrate the certainty and efficacity of Christ's High Priestly ministry for all those effectually called. Heb. 9:14-15. Hebrews was written to give security to the sincere, while at the same time terrifying phony professors. It appears a case of not seeing the forest because of the trees.

That's enough for now. I relished the opportunity to indulge in some theology, and hope it hasn't bored you.

Love,

Roger

FOOTNOTES********************************

{1} This is one of the reasons why Reformed theologians tend to view both Arminian and Baptist theology in general as shallow-minded and simplistic; failing to view the totality of Scripture as a whole, not incorporating Biblical teaching as a unified system. That attitude lacks humility, but I think there is truth in it.

{2} Note Jer. 34:40 as an example of how God uses fear as a means of preservation. 'And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

{3} See Romans Ch. 4 on the idea of imputation. Also, see Rom.8:33 on the idea that God accepts no accusations against His elect and justified people. Note also in 8:30 how many of those justified, get glorified.

{4} Arminians always emphatically deny that they believe in a faith + works salvation, but none have shown convincing reasons why not.

{5} Permit me to suggest that you take a complete concordance, and look up the word Preserve and its derivatives (preservation, preserving, preserveth, etc.)

{6} Don't worry, I'll get to them in detail in a minute.

{7} In theology, we call this process "Inferential Theology". (An inference is an unavoidable conclusion based on evidence. The difficulty with Inferential Theology is that frequently people draw conclusions from verses by reading into it assumptions that cannot be logically deduced them. A case in point is the Arminian assumption that a command to do a thing proves the ability to do it; or, an exhortation to not fall away proves that some have fallen away.)

{8} Thus the exhortation to not neglect the assembling of ourselves together.

{9} The notion that it is impossible to experience anything of the Holy Spirit without being regenerate is refuted by Mt.7:21-23.

Many who enjoyed this work also liked our book, Unlocking Grace.

End of Document