Perseverance of the Saints

[Frontline]

I have heard it said that the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is “A Protestant heresy” - and that this doctrine has no support in Scripture whatsoever. I have also heard it said that since this doctrine was “invented” by John Calvin, it therefore must be disregarded as a “Reformation blunder,” and an “embarrassment to sound scholarship.”

I for one, believe that all of these are fallacious claims, and would like to begin a discussion about this doctrine with our Catholic friends here at CAF. I would like to examine some of the biblical support for the doctrine, and in turn, examine some of the Catholic Answers to some very important passages of Scripture.

My intention here is to simply lay down some Reformed theological propositions to be considered by all who will read the thread - and also to engage respectfully with many (not all, for I am only one man) of the counter-propositions that are set forth by Catholics concerning the security of the believer.

Reminder: Let us proceed with love and respect for one another.

“Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Colossians 4:6).

 

[Frontline]

Hello everyone, God bless you all!

I thought that it might be nice to start off a bit different this time. Instead of me beginning with a list of Scripture references in support of this doctrine - and then moving on to the various objections to it; I thought it might be nice (and courteous) to take a servey of all major objections to the doctrine first. This way, I won’t make everyone read multiple pages before they are able to leave a comment. I figure since everyone is already familiar with this doctrine - it will be easy to begin by addressing, oh let’s say, the top two or three main biblical reasons why so many reject it.

In order for that to take place, then, allow me to give a simple definition, and then we can go from there.

Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God’s hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. The Bible makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God’s preserving care. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life. Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the “last day.” Therefore the Reformed faith stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ’s promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all of his elect.

Please consider this breif description, and bring your gracious contributions to the Frontline! May God bless this discussion with abounding spiritual fruit for His glory alone - Amen.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I have heard it said that the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is “A Protestant heresy” - and that this doctrine has no support in Scripture whatsoever. I have also heard it said that since this doctrine was “invented” by John Calvin, it therefore must be disregarded as a “Reformation blunder,” and an “embarrassment to sound scholarship.”

I for one, believe that all of these are fallacious claims, and would like to begin a discussion about this doctrine with our Catholic friends here at CAF. I would like to examine some of the biblical support for the doctrine, and in turn, examine some of the Catholic Answers to some very important passages of Scripture.

My intention here is to simply lay down some Reformed theological propositions to be considered by all who will read the thread - and also to engage respectfully with many (not all, for I am only one man) of the counter-propositions that are set forth by Catholics concerning the security of the believer.

Reminder: Let us proceed with love and respect for one another.

“Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Colossians 4:6).

Great topic.

I think it is quite easy to disprove this doctrine with scripture.

I’ll provide some crystal clear scripture which I believe makes the case that we can lose salvation if WE don’t endure:

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Who is made free from evil by knowing Jesus? The unsaved? I don’t think so.

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father.”

**
Who must endure, God, or us?**

Hebrews 10:29 “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit?”

**Who has been sanctified? **

 

[MarcoPolo]

Apologist Jimmy Akin, once a Protestant himself, expounded on where Catholics agree and disagree with this idea. LINK HERE.

 

[Della]

There’s also a big difference between having a moral assurance of salvation, and presumption of salvation. What is wrong is the presumption, not the trust in God. Yes?

 

[cfrancis]

Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God’s hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. The Bible makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God’s preserving care. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life. Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the “last day.” Therefore the Reformed faith stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ’s promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all of his elect.

For Me, the highlighted portion above is key. Of course Christ, being God, being perfect, isn’t going to lose any of His sheep.
What is said in saying this, however, is that His sheep can lose Him.
I would say, along with the verses provided by Chesterton, we can look at the parable of the Prodigal Son as evidence.
That, and Paul’s words.

 

[Frontline]

Great topic. I think it is quite easy to disprove this doctrine with scripture.

Very well. I am happy to consider your propositions.

I’ll provide some crystal clear scripture which I believe makes the case that we can lose salvation if WE don’t endure:

Before you proceed, please understand that I believe that we must endure until the end. All believers must persevere unto the end. I do not deny this. I affirm this. The Reformed faith has always affirmed this truth. What we also affirm is that those who are truly born again will certainly persevere unto the end.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

I agree with the plain reading of this passage. If a believer turns away from Christ and the gospel, and returns again to evil things, then it would have been better for that person to never have been born. If a believer rejects Christ and the gospel - he will lose his salvation. This is absolutely true. This passage however, does not demonstrate that true believers actually have, or actually do ever turn away from Christ and reject the gospel to a loss of their salvation. Therefore this passage remains a true and yet hypothetical affirmation. To read anymore into the text is to violate the integrity of Scripture. We must affirm what is there, and be cautious in affirming what is not there - especially when what we want to be there goes against the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father.”

**
Who must endure, God, or us?**

Believers must endure unto the end. Amen. Again I can affirm all that is in these passages. The Reformed faith agrees that he who endures unto the end shall be saved. We also understand however, that only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end; and all who are truly born again, shall indeed endure unto the end. These passages, then, offer little to the question as to whether one who is truly born again ever has, or ever will abandon the truth of the gospel, to a loss of their salvation.

Hebrews 10:29 “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit?”

**Who has been sanctified? **

I believe that in this passage - Christ is the one who has been sanctified. The King James Version reads, “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

It appears to me that the direct antecedent to the term “he” is clearly “the Son of God.” This is not a violation of sound theology, as Jesus himself affirmed his own sanctification in his high-priestly prayer in John 17. He plainly said, “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Very well. I am happy to consider your propositions.

Before you proceed, please understand that I believe that we must endure until the end. All believers must persevere unto the end. I do not deny this. I affirm this. The Reformed faith has always affirmed this truth. What we also affirm is that those who are truly born again will certainly persevere unto the end.

I agree with the plain reading of this passage. If a believer turns away from Christ and the gospel, and returns again to evil things, then it would have been better for that person to never have been born. If a believer rejects Christ and the gospel - he will lose his salvation. This is absolutely true. This passage however, does not demonstrate that true believers actually have, or actually do ever turn away from Christ and reject the gospel to a loss of their salvation. Therefore this passage remains a true and yet hypothetical affirmation. To read anymore into the text is to violate the integrity of Scripture. We must affirm what is there, and be cautious in affirming what is not there - especially when what we want to be there goes against the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Believers must endure unto the end. Amen. Again I can affirm all that is in these passages. The Reformed faith agrees that he who endures unto the end shall be saved. We also understand however, that only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end; and all who are truly born again, shall indeed endure unto the end. These passages, then, offer little to the question as to whether one who is truly born again ever has, or ever will abandon the truth of the gospel, to a loss of their salvation.

I believe that in this passage - Christ is the one who has been sanctified. The King James Version reads, "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

It appears to me that the direct antecedent to the term “he” is clearly “the Son of God.” This is not a violation of sound theology, as Jesus himself affirmed his own sanctification in his high-priestly prayer in John 17. He plainly said, “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19).

In essence, it appears that you believe that it doesn’t matter what the bible says, you can fit it into your dogma.

I find your arguments unconvincing.

 

[Frontline]

For Me, the highlighted portion above is key. Of course Christ, being God, being perfect, isn’t going to lose any of His sheep.What is said in saying this, however, is that His sheep can lose Him.

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

I would say, along with the verses provided by Chesterton, we can look at the parable of the Prodigal Son as evidence. That, and Paul’s words.

The Prodigal Son returned.

He did not fully and finally fall away.

I believe in the perseverance of the Saints, and according to the parable, the prodigal made it back to the Father.

This fact, if anything, damages your case against the doctrine.

 

[Frontline]

In essence, it appears that you believe that it doesn’t matter what the bible says, you can fit it into your dogma. I find your arguments unconvincing.

I think that this is an unfair assessment of my hermeneutic.

But, if that is how you feel, then either you are unwilling to probe the issue and hear me out further, or you do not truly have a grasp of what it is that we actually believe. According to my experience, this is generally the case. Many anti-Protestants have never taken the time to do any first-hand research of Reformed Theology, which (no offense to you) is why I am often conftonted with Catholic straw-men made to look and sound like Protestant doctrine. This is mainly why I thought that I should first examine some of the most popular objections against the doctrine; this way I could lay many of these straw men to rest early on in the discussion.

Please though - be patient with me, and stay in the discussion. I want you to at least be challenged to consider our position - even if you end up not agreeing. I am appreciative of your contributions, and I look forward to hearing more of your concerns - but please, all I ask is that you do not judge me too soon. That would not be very gracious, nor wise, for “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it out, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I think that this is an unfair assessment of my hermeneutic.

But, if that is how you feel, then either you are unwilling to probe the issue and hear me out further, or you do not truly have a grasp of what it is that we actually believe. According to my experience, this is generally the case. Many anti-Protestants have never taken the time to do any first-hand research on Reformed Theology, which (no offense to you) is why I am often conftonted with Catholic straw-men made to look and sound like Protestant doctrine. This is mainly why I thought that I should first examine some of the most popular objections against the doctrine; this way I could lay many of these straw men to rest early on in the discussion.

Please though - be patient with me, and stay in the discussion. I want you to at least be challenged to consider our position - even if you end up not agreeing. I am appreciative of your contributions, and I look forward to hearing more of your concerns - but please, all I ask is that you do not judge me too soon. That would not be very gracious, nor wise, for “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it out, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13).

OK

I’ll ask you some questions about your responses.

Why would Peter warn us against turning away after being made free from sin IF there was no possibility of that happening?

Why would Jesus tell us that we must endure if we had no choice but to endure?

Your reading of Hebrews doesn’t make sense in the King James either. I see it as a huge stretch that is attempting to reconcile an unbiblical dogma with scripture.

Clearly, Jesus wasn’t sanctifed by his crucifixion. He didn’t need sanctification.

 

[Frontline]

OK I’ll ask you some questions about your responses.

Very well.

I will do my best to explain our position in an understandable way.

Why would Peter warn us against turning away after being made free from sin IF there was no possibility of that happening?Why would Jesus tell us that we must endure if we had no choice but to endure?

Though God has particular ends in mind that He intends to accomplish, He nevertheless has chosen to use certain means, to the accomplishment of those ends; many of which are very natural, others are supernatural.

One of the natural means God employs to keep His children from turning away, are the many serious warnings that we find in the Scriptures, all of which are truthful warnings that the true believer does well to take heed unto.

Just like if I was walking near a cliff with my son and my son’s friend - I would give them both the same serious warnings about drifting too close to the edge. The natural effects of that warning will be different in each case. My son’s friend does not know me well, and may not take heed to my words - due to a certain amount of unbelief. But I know that my son will always heed my counsel, and will respond wisely to my warnings. This warning is a natural means to keep my son from impending danger.

My warning him, however, is not the only means I might employ to ensure my son’s safety. He may not always be aware of the fact, but I, *as a faithful father *(one who knows how easily my child is given to temptation) have purposed in my heart to take every measure necessary to protect the life of my son. I may not have to employ these additional means at all times, but because of my great and compelling love toward my son, I will ultimately see to it that I use them when they are needed.

As my son matures, and gets to know me in a more deep and intimate way - he will come to a more comforting assurance of my faithfulness - and he will be able to rest in the fact that when I am around - he is safe and secure.

Your reading of Hebrews doesn’t make sense in the King James either. I see it as a huge stretch that is attempting to reconcile an unbiblical dogma with scripture. Clearly, Jesus wasn’t sanctifed by his crucifixion. He didn’t need sanctification.

What is your definition of sanctification.

The Reformed faith sees the term used in at least 3 ways.

1. Positional (perfect)
2. Personal
3. Progressive

A simple definition is to be *“set apart for God’s use.” *

Another simple definition is to be “made holy by God’s use.”

Jesus certainly was sanctified in this way, as he tells us so in John 17:9 - *“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth” * If this statement is not in reference to his death, then what does it mean?

The Bible speaks about Jesus - though he was perfect - as being “made perfect through sufferings” (Hebrews 2:10; cff. Heb. 5:9; 7:28) If this is not an aspect of sanctification - then I don’t know what is?

 

[cfrancis]

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

The Prodigal Son returned.

He did not fully and finally fall away.

I believe in the perseverance of the Saints, and according to the parable, the prodigal made it back to the Father.

This fact, if anything, damages your case against the doctrine.

Here is the difference, which I think is lost in Reformed Theology: Christ does not drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven.
Had the Prodigal Son not returned, the father would still be looking for him, but did not actually go out and get him.
So, when one of Christ’s sheep does lose Him, Christ is there, hand outstretched, but will not force anyone to return.

I agree with the plain reading of this passage. If a believer turns away from Christ and the gospel, and returns again to evil things, then it would have been better for that person to never have been born. If a believer rejects Christ and the gospel - he will lose his salvation. This is absolutely true. This passage however, does not demonstrate that true believers actually have, or actually do ever turn away from Christ and reject the gospel to a loss of their salvation. Therefore this passage remains a true and yet hypothetical affirmation. To read anymore into the text is to violate the integrity of Scripture. We must affirm what is there, and be cautious in affirming what is not there - especially when what we want to be there goes against the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Believers must endure unto the end. Amen. Again I can affirm all that is in these passages. The Reformed faith agrees that he who endures unto the end shall be saved. We also understand however, that only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end; and all who are truly born again, shall indeed endure unto the end. These passages, then, offer little to the question as to whether one who is truly born again ever has, or ever will abandon the truth of the gospel, to a loss of their salvation.

Your words do more to support the Catholic perspective.
According to your words, the only way one can know if he is a true believer is to persevere to the end; that is, only when he has crossed the “finish line” does the believer know he was a true believer.

However, the issue at hand isn’t the finish line, but that which lies between now and the finish line.
Are you saved right now?

 

[emarc]

quote=Frontline;4648977]

*Believers must endure unto the end. Amen. Again I can affirm all that is in these passages. The Reformed faith agrees that he who endures unto the end shall be saved. We also understand however, that only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end; and all who are truly born again, shall indeed endure unto the end. These passages, then, offer little to the question as to whether one who is truly born again ever has, or ever will abandon the truth of the gospel, to a loss of their salvation.

i** take issue on your phrase “only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end…”, who decides who joins God in his Kingdom but only him. do you say w/ certitude you’re “truly born again?” how does one becomes “truly born again?” judas iscariot was a friend of Jesus, heard his teachings many times, saw his miracles, yet Jesus said, “…woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had not been born.” wow! what could be worse than that? now, even Paul was so humbled not to have that certitude of being “truly born again.”**
God bless.*

 

[Chancellare]

One of the natural means God employs to keep His children from turning away, are the many serious warnings that we find in the Scriptures, all of which are truthful warnings that the true believer does well to take heed unto.

Just like if I was walking near a cliff with my son and my son’s friend - I would give them both the same serious warnings about drifting too close to the edge. The natural effects of that warning will be different in each case. My son’s friend does not know me well, and may not take heed to my words - due to a certain amount of unbelief. But I know that my son will always heed my counsel, and will respond wisely to my warnings. This warning is a natural means to keep my son from impending danger.

This analogy is debunked by the very example of the Israelites. Christ condemned the hard-headed Jews (the sons Israel) for disbelief while rewarded the Gentiles (son’s friend) who took heed of Chirst’s words.

Moral of the story:

1. It only needs 1 exeption to the contrary to debunk a general assertion.
2. The Jews demonstrated that the son will not always heed his father’s counsel and has shown that the son do respond stupidly to his warnings. Even Christ complained that the Jews habitually do this accross historical lines in the way they treated past Prophets. He even had a parable for this (the vineyard).
3. The Jews did not benefit from the warning which purportedly was a natural means to keep the son from impending danger.
4. It was the Gentiles who heeded Christ’s warnings.

Your exegesis goes against your doctrine.

 

[Frontline]

Here is the difference, which I think is lost in Reformed Theology: Christ does not drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven.

This is a gross misrepresentation of Reformed Theology – again, only betraying the fact that you have done no first hand research. We do not believe that God forces anybody to come to Christ or to heaven against their wills.

According to your words, the only way one can know if he is a true believer is to persevere to the end; that is, only when he has crossed the “finish line” does the believer know he was a true believer.

This is not what we believe. You are misapplying my words. You may not know if I am saved until you see me in glory – but the true believer knows that he is God’s child.

Are you saved right now?

Why yes I am!

And I praise the Lord!

I take issue on your phrase “only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end…”, who decides who joins God in his Kingdom but only him. do you say w/ certitude you’re “truly born again?”

Why yes I do!

Praise the Lord again!

how does one becomes “truly born again?”

I am afraid that the new birth – or regeneration is not the topic of this thread.

judas iscariot was a friend of Jesus, heard his teachings many times, saw his miracles, yet Jesus said, “…woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had not been born.” wow! what could be worse than that? now, even Paul was so humbled not to have that certitude of being “truly born again.”

Judas was never truly saved – and Paul did not doubt that he was saved. To claim that Paul the apostle never knew with certainty that his salvation was secure is to read way too much into Scripture – and ignore what Scripture plainly states.

This analogy is debunked by the very example of the Israelites. Christ condemned the hard-headed Jews (the sons Israel) for disbelief while rewarded the Gentiles (son’s friend) who took heed of Christ’s words.

The apostle Paul made it very clear that not all of the children of Israel were truly the children of God when he said, “Not all of Israel is truly Israel.” (Romans 9:6) And again – if being an Israelite after the flesh makes you a born again child of God, then Jesus was blaspheming God’s children in John chapter 8, verses 33-45. (Read it)!

If you would understand that being a child of God is not according to the flesh, then you would realize that the Children of Israel was a mixed group of believers and non-believers – wheat and tares, sheep and goats. So when we learn that certain Israelites perished in the wilderness because of their “unbelief” – then how can we still assign them the title of “true children of God” – they are obviously not.

 

[cfrancis]

Why yes I am!

And I praise the Lord!

Based on your own words, you can’t know until you actually cross the finish line.

Judas was never truly saved

Talk about reading way too much into SCripture…

 

[Frontline]

Based on your own words, you can’t know until you actually cross the finish line.

Based on my own words? How so?

Talk about reading way too much into SCripture…

Prove that Judas was truly saved.

 

[cfrancis]

Based on my own words? How so?

I agree with the plain reading of this passage. If a believer turns away from Christ and the gospel, and returns again to evil things, then it would have been better for that person to never have been born. If a believer rejects Christ and the gospel - he will lose his salvation.

Believers must endure unto the end. Amen. Again I can affirm all that is in these passages. The Reformed faith agrees that he who endures unto the end shall be saved. We also understand however, that only those who have been truly born again will endure unto the end; and all who are truly born again, shall indeed endure unto the end.

According to your standard, the only way for one to tell if he is a true believer is to persevere to the end.

Prove that Judas was truly saved.

Not my task, as you are the one who asserted, without evidence, that Judas was not truly saved. It is your responsibility to support your assertion. So, please prove Judas was not saved at some point.

 

[Frontline]

According to your standard, the only way for one to tell if he is a true believer is to persevere to the end.

I am sorry, but that is not the meaning of my affirmations.

I affirm that true believers will endure unto the end.

I do not affirm, however, that the believer is unable to know for sure if he is a true believer until he endures unto the end - that was no where near what I said.

Did you not read my response to these questions:

**Originally Posted by cfrancis **
Are you saved right now?

Why yes I am!

And I praise the Lord!

**Originally Posted by emarc **
… do you say w/ certitude you’re “truly born again?”

Why yes I do!

Praise the Lord again!

So now that this is cleared up - shall we continue with our discussion? Do you have anymore assertions to make? I would be happy to dismantle them all now, if you don’t mind

Not my task, as you are the one who asserted, without evidence, that Judas was not truly saved. It is your responsibility to support your assertion. So, please prove Judas was not saved at some point.

The way that I prove my assertion that Judas was not truly saved, is by reminding you that he betrayed the Lord, hung himself, and went to hell. The apostle John teaches us plainly that true believers stay within the covenant community, but that false believers sooner or later depart, and thereby manifest that they were never saved to begin with. *“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” *(1 John 2:19)