Thursday, February 6,
2014
On Tuesday we shared how Russell put himself
in a theological blender, chopping up various doctrinal stances (or rather
being chopped-up by various ways of thinking about God).
Yesterday we looked at baptism, and some of
the many similarities there are between what Methodists think, and what my
former home, the Baptists think.
In a group of Methodist pastor-friends I met
with this week, I was asked why I switched from being Baptist. Before I could answer a young colleague
blurted out: because he got saved! I responded, ET tu, meddling preacher?
Today let’s look at one of the other most
commonly discussed issues which divide the body of Christ – eternal security of
the believer (often referred to, I believe incorrectly, as “once saved, always
saved”). Can a “believer” truly lose
his/her salvation? This is certainly one
that comes up every time Baptist and Methodist beliefs are compared.
United Methodist theology follows John
Wesley’s doctrinal interpretation which is based upon Jacob Arminius’ teaching
that salvation can be “sinned-away”. In
the 17th century, Arminius’ growing influence was the main reason
the Synod of Dort was called. That
meeting reaffirmed John Calvin’s teachings and declared Arminius a heretic.[1] (He was already dead so they couldn’t burn
him at the stake or something worse.)
John Calvin’s teaching (generally accepted by
Baptists, Presbyterians and others to varying degrees) is that genuine saints
will persevere (be eternally secure to the end).
Generally either Calvinism or Arminian
teaching is held today by most of Christendom.
But they are both widely modified and watered-down. For instance, Calvin’s once saved/always saved generally degenerates to an insurance
policy against punishment for sin.
As long as you can point to a time when you said some prayer of
contrition and repentance, you’re good; from then on – no harm, no foul – you
can live the way you want to, and you will still go to heaven.
In Arminian (Wesleyan) circles, the modified
understanding of salvation’s requirement of growing in the faith towards
perfection has people so buried under a pile of good works that they’re keeping
themselves saved instead of trusting in Christ.
So…which is it, Calvin or Arminias?
Remember, I’ve been on both sides of this
argument. I’ve found we have very
little, very little, very little….and very very little to
argue about.
The key word in the phrase
“eternal security of the believer” is “believer”. All of Scripture pointing to God’s grace, faith
and salvation affirm that it is those who believe (i.e., those who trust-in,
rely-on, cling-to) Christ, who are eternally-secure.
For those who fail to trust, or cease trusting:
With my Methodist family we call it
“sinning-away the grace”.
In my Baptist
family we simply judged the backslider (a more Methodist term by the way) as
one whose profession of faith was insincere, because a “genuine believer” would
never turn his back on God.
In either instance – belief, faith, trust in
God was trashed, and the unbeliever walked away from God.
Today…for you:
Paul has some really good advice for the Christian
concerned about this issue:
Test yourselves to make sure you are
solid in the faith. Don’t drift along
taking everything for granted. Give
yourselves regular checkups. You need
firsthand evidence, not mere hearsay that Jesus Christ is in you. Test it out. If you fail the test, do something about it. 2 Corinthians
13:5 (TMSG)
I believe Paul’s suggested “test” should include how we treat those who
hold a different doctrine. This will be
the main topic tomorrow as we finish up this series – what should be our
stand/position when we encounter doctrine that is genuinely different.
For now…there’s a one word answer for what
to do when you fail the test – repent!
No comments:
Post a Comment