What do Calvinists mean by perseverance of the saints?

[Edward65]

Recently someone asked about whether Luther agreed with Calvinism and I replied saying Luther was the equivalent of a 4-point Calvinist (4-point because he believed in unlimited not limited atonement.) However I now think that saying he was a 4-pointer was incorrect, because I only just realised that what I thought Calvinists meant by perseverance I don't think they do just mean.

I understood Calvinists to mean by perseverance not that a Christian could never fall from the faith temporarily but that if he was a member of the elect he could never finally be lost. However I don't think Calvinists do just mean that now. Do Calvinists also mean a member of the elect can never even temporarily fall from grace and need reinstating? If so Luther was the equivalent of a 3-point Calvinist and so am I - the reason being because both Peter and David are examples of saints who temporarily fell from grace over denial of Christ and committing adultery and who needed reinstating.

 

[Skala]

Recently someone asked about whether Luther agreed with Calvinism and I replied saying Luther was the equivalent of a 4-point Calvinist (4-point because he believed in unlimited not limited atonement.) However I now think that saying he was a 4-pointer was incorrect, because I only just realised that what I thought Calvinists meant by perseverance I don't think they do just mean.

I understood Calvinists to mean by perseverance not that a Christian could never fall from the faith temporarily but that if he was a member of the elect he could never finally be lost. However I don't think Calvinists do just mean that now. Do Calvinists also mean a member of the elect can never even temporarily fall from grace and need reinstating? If so Luther was the equivalent of a 3-point Calvinist and so am I - the reason being because both Peter and David are examples of saints who temporarily fell from grace over denial of Christ and committing adultery and who needed reinstating.

What do you mean by "fall from grace"? Do you mean lose salvation? Lose your justification? If so, where do you find that in the stories of Peter or David?

 

[Edward65]

What do you mean by "fall from grace"? Do you mean lose salvation? Lose your justification? If so, where do you find that in the stories of Peter or David?

I mean that they were in an unsaved condition which would have resulted in their damnation if they had died then before returning to the faith through repentance. Of course since they were members of the elect they were predestined to repent and be reinstated. But it's not possible to be engaged in wilful sin and denial of Christ and still have the Holy Spirit and be in a saved condition.

 

[hedrick]

This isn't just a Calvinist question. It's at least in part a Protestant question. Protestants don't normally believe that we lose and regain the Holy Spirit as we sin. We believe that justification is a stable status that is based upon Christ's death for us, not our spiritual condition. That's what the distinction is between justification and sanctification. Many Protestants believe it is possible to lose salvation, but that's more like apostasy: a definitive loss of faith. Protestants do not in general believe that we lose and regain justification as a result of sin. That requires classifying sins into mortal and venal, which is something that Protestants reject. Calvinists don't believe that even that kind of falling away is possible.

So it depends upon what you mean by "fall from faith temporarily." Calvinists acknowledge that we can have episodes of doubt, that we can sin and repent. Of course our relationship with God is affected by all of that. But the underlying question is what justification is based on. I believe the Calvinist position is that it's based entirely upon Christ, and not upon anything in us.

 

[Skala]

I believe the Calvinist position is that it's not based entirely upon Christ, and not upon anything in us.

Typo?

 

[Radagast]

What do Calvinists mean by perseverance of the saints?

The classical formulation would be the Canons of Dordt, which states that the elect can fall into grave sins, which "very highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes lose the sense of God's favor, for a time, until on their returning into the right way of serious repentance, the light of God's fatherly countenance again shines upon them."

Yet "in these falls [God] preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing, or being totally lost; and again, by his Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance."

Calvinism rejects the idea that "the true believers and regenerate not only can fall from justifying faith and likewise from grace and salvation wholly and to the end, but indeed often do fall from this and are lost forever."

I understood Calvinists to mean by perseverance not that a Christian could never fall from the faith temporarily but that if he was a member of the elect he could never finally be lost.

That is correct -- that's what the Canons of Dordt say.

 

[Edward65]

This isn't just a Calvinist question. It's at least in part a Protestant question. Protestants don't normally believe that we lose and regain the Holy Spirit as we sin. We believe that justification is a stable status that is based upon Christ's death for us, not our spiritual condition. That's what the distinction is between justification and sanctification. Many Protestants believe it is possible to lose salvation, but that's more like apostasy: a definitive loss of faith. Protestants do not in general believe that we lose and regain justification as a result of sin. That requires classifying sins into mortal and venal, which is something that Protestants reject. Calvinists don't believe that even that kind of falling away is possible.

So it depends upon what you mean by "fall from faith temporarily." Calvinists acknowledge that we can have episodes of doubt, that we can sin and repent. Of course our relationship with God is affected by all of that. But the underlying question is what justification is based on. I believe the Calvinist position is that it's not based entirely upon Christ, and not upon anything in us.

I need to look into this more because your statement that Protestants don’t in general believe that a temporary suspension of relationship with God can occur is something I wasn’t aware of. I’m surprized that they don’t understand that wilful sin which is sin done deliberately and premeditatedly (unless they don’t acknowledge the possibility of this occurring in true Christians) is totally incompatible with being in a state of grace.

Christians of course sin from weakness and ask God’s forgiveness for such, as in the Lord’s Prayer, but the minute a Christian indulges in deliberate wilful unrepentant sinning he falls from grace and is no longer in a saving relationship with God. It’s possible for any believer to fall from grace if God allows it, as happened to David, and I don’t understand how anyone could make a valid argument to say he (David) remained in a state of grace when he committed adultery and procured the murder of someone.

 

[hedrick]

I need to look into this more because your statement that Protestants don’t in general believe that a temporary suspension of relationship with God can occur is something I wasn’t aware of. I’m surprized that they don’t understand that wilful sin which is sin done deliberately and premeditatedly (unless they don’t acknowledge the possibility of this occurring in true Christians) is totally incompatible with being in a state of grace.

Remember that "grace" means different things in Catholic and Protestant theology. For Catholic theology grace is sort of like a fluid. It can be dispensed by the Church, be present in Christians, but leave them when they sin. For Protestant theology (and largely, Scripture), grace is an attribute of God, his determination to save us despite our unworthiness.

Thus the whole concept “state of grace” doesn’t exist in Protestant theology. Yes, sin makes a difference. It obscures our contact with God. It like a child who is disobedient. It changes things. The parents may turn to discipline, and at times present an angry face to the child. But it doesn’t break the underlying fact that the child is still their child, and they love him. Indeed it is when we sin that we most need God’s grace. The basic fact that we’re God’s children is based on his grace, which is something about him, not something in us.

Often you can find equivalents of Protestant concepts in Catholic theology and visa versa, even if terminology and detailed explanations are different. But I don't think there's any Protestant equivalent of "state of grace," because core Protestant theology would directly contradict its existence.

To my knowledge, this analysis is a general Protestant one, and is not specific to Calvinists. Where Protestants differ is over the question of whether becoming God’s children is a unilateral decision of God, or whether we are somehow involved as well, and whether it’s possible for us to fall away. But falling away is a major change, which would normally be permanent. It normally wouldn’t be due to a single sin. To my knowledge, all Protestants reject most of what you have posted, because your analysis rejects the core Protestant concepts of grace and justification.

 

[hedrick]

Typo?

Yes. I'll fix it.

 

[Edward65]

Remember that "grace" means different things in Catholic and Protestant theology. For Catholic theology grace is sort of like a fluid. It can be dispensed by the Church, be present in Christians, but leave them when they sin. For Protestant theology (and largely, Scripture), grace is an attribute of God, his determination to save us despite our unworthiness.

Thus the whole concept “state of grace” doesn’t exist in Protestant theology. Yes, sin makes a difference. It obscures our contact with God. It like a child who is disobedient. It changes things. The parents may turn to discipline, and at times present an angry face to the child. But it doesn’t break the underlying fact that the child is still their child, and they love him. Indeed it is when we sin that we most need God’s grace. The basic fact that we’re God’s children is based on his grace, which is something about him, not something in us.

Often you can find equivalents of Protestant concepts in Catholic theology and visa versa, even if terminology and detailed explanations are different. But I don't think there's any Protestant equivalent of "state of grace," because core Protestant theology would directly contradict its existence.

To my knowledge, this analysis is a general Protestant one, and is not specific to Calvinists. Where Protestants differ is over the question of whether becoming God’s children is a unilateral decision of God, or whether we are somehow involved as well, and whether it’s possible for us to fall away. But falling away is a major change, which would normally be permanent. It normally wouldn’t be due to a single sin. To my knowledge, all Protestants reject most of what you have posted, because your analysis rejects the core Protestant concepts of grace and justification.

I was using the term “state of grace” to mean one’s relationship with God not in the Catholic sense of infused grace but in the Protestant sense of grace being the favour of God whereby we are justified through faith alone and righteousness is thereby imputed to us, and my point is that when a Christian falls into intentional unrepentant sin as happened when David fell into adultery and murder, then faith and therefore justification departs, because it’s not possible that faith in Christ can continue in an individual who decides to deliberately sin. Forgiveness is only available to a person when he lives his life in repentance and where he resists sinful impulses. If he gives into them and lets sin have free reign then he no longer has the Holy Spirit and is therefore in an unsaved state and would be damned if he were to die before being reinstated through repentance. Luther also is in agreement with this. For instance he said the following in the Smalcald Articles:

"It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

I need to inform myself about what non-Lutheran Protestants in general believe on this because if they maintain that premeditated sin doesn’t sever one’s relationship with God such that a person would be damned if he persisted in this, they are seriously in error.

 

[hedrick]

Of course Protestantism is a large field. But I was taking Wesley as typical of today’s non-Calvinists. In his work on Perseverence, http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/John-Wesley-Perseverance.pdf, he maintains that it is possible to “make shipwreck of the faith.” But he considers this to be, as I said in the previous posting, a definitive rejection of the faith. He quotes 1 Tim 1:18, and concludes

“(1.) These men (such as Hymeneus and Alexander) had once the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; which they once had, or they could not have “put it away.”
“(2.) They “made shipwreck” of the faith, which necessarily implies the total and final loss of it. For a vessel once wrecked can never be recovered. It is totally and finally lost.”

I’m not going to assert that it’s absolutely impossible for such people to come back to faith, but Arminians commonly quote passages such as Heb 6:6, which doesn’t leave much hope. This is not the kind of sin into which David fell, from which he repented.

So I’m trying to make a distinction between a follower of Christ who sins, even seriously and someone who abandons the faith entirely. I believe justification continues despite sin, even serious sin. That’s the whole point of Luther’s concept of justification, and its distinction from the Catholic definition. People don’t fall into and out of justification as they sin and repent. Now continuing, unrepentant sin may very well be part of the process of making shipwreck of the faith, if you believe this is possible. (Calvinists don’t, of course.)But the classification of sins into venal and mortal, with mortal sins being so serious that they break justification, is quite contrary to common Protestant teaching.

I looked up the quotation from The Smalcald Articles. It’s there.The context is certain people who said that sin didn’t matter. I would agree that sin matters, and that it changes how God works with us. However if the statement there implies that David lost justification (something it doesn’t actually say), it would not seem to be consistent with Luther’s basic concept of justification. David certainly sinned very seriously. He was called to account, and repented. I don’t believe he stopped being justified during that period, nor that God, including the Holy Spirit, abandoned him. However the way in which God interacted with him certainly changed. Perhaps that’s what the statement means. But God stuck with him, and brought him to repentance through the actions of the prophet. As far as I know, this analysis is not peculiar to Calvinism.

While you may not intend your use of “state of grace” to indicate something infused, the way you speak of it only make sense with infused grace.

For some quotations from Luther, see http://wittenbergtrail.org/forum/topics/what-is-mortal-sin?commentId=1453099:Comment:355931. My understanding of that is that he is not saying that certain sins are by nature mortal while others are not, but rather is making a distinction between a Christian, who is a servant of Christ even though he may sin seriously, and someone who is a servant of the flesh, who has made shipwreck of the faith (or wasn't one of the faithful in the first place). I would consider David to be an example of the first, and in fact an illustrative example of just how far sin can go in someone who is justified.

 

[Edward65]

Of course Protestantism is a large field. But I was taking Wesley as typical of today’s non-Calvinists. In his work on Perseverence, http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/John-Wesley-Perseverance.pdf, he maintains that it is possible to “make shipwreck of the faith.” But he considers this to be, as I said in the previous posting, a definitive rejection of the faith. He quotes 1 Tim 1:18, and concludes

“(1.) These men (such as Hymeneus and Alexander) had once the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; which they once had, or they could not have “put it away.”
“(2.) They “made shipwreck” of the faith, which necessarily implies the total and final loss of it. For a vessel once wrecked can never be recovered. It is totally and finally lost.”

I’m not going to assert that it’s absolutely impossible for such people to come back to faith, but Arminians commonly quote passages such as Heb 6:6, which doesn’t leave much hope. This is not the kind of sin into which David fell, from which he repented.

So I’m trying to make a distinction between a follower of Christ who sins, even seriously and someone who abandons the faith entirely. I believe justification continues despite sin, even serious sin. That’s the whole point of Luther’s concept of justification, and its distinction from the Catholic definition. People don’t fall into and out of justification as they sin and repent. Now continuing, unrepentant sin may very well be part of the process of making shipwreck of the faith, if you believe this is possible. (Calvinists don’t, of course.)But the classification of sins into venal and mortal, with mortal sins being so serious that they break justification, is quite contrary to common Protestant teaching.

I looked up the quotation from The Smalcald Articles. It’s there.The context is certain people who said that sin didn’t matter. I would agree that sin matters, and that it changes how God works with us. However if the statement there implies that David lost justification (something it doesn’t actually say), it would not seem to be consistent with Luther’s basic concept of justification. David certainly sinned very seriously. He was called to account, and repented. I don’t believe he stopped being justified during that period, nor that God, including the Holy Spirit, abandoned him. However the way in which God interacted with him certainly changed. Perhaps that’s what the statement means. But God stuck with him, and brought him to repentance through the actions of the prophet. As far as I know, this analysis is not peculiar to Calvinism.

While you may not intend your use of “state of grace” to indicate something infused, the way you speak of it only make sense with infused grace.

For some quotations from Luther, see What is "Mortal" Sin? - The Wittenberg Trail. My understanding of that is that he is not saying that certain sins are by nature mortal while others are not, but rather is making a distinction between a Christian, who is a servant of Christ even though he may sin seriously, and someone who is a servant of the flesh, who has made shipwreck of the faith (or wasn't one of the faithful in the first place). I would consider David to be an example of the first, and in fact an illustrative example of just how far sin can go in someone who is justified.

You say my use of the term "state of grace" only makes sense with reference to infused grace but I don’t agree. I was brought up a Catholic but I don’t see why the term can’t be used in an evangelical sense as well. (In fact I’ve just seen it so used in an article by a Lutheran). Paul says to the Galatians that “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”. (Galatians 5:4, ESV) so if a person has fallen away from grace he’s no longer in a state of grace (and is therefore no longer justified).

You say that Luther’s doctrine of justification means that people don’t fall in and out of justification and that even serious sin doesn’t cause any loss of justification, but that wasn’t Luther’s position. I’m not suggesting that Luther thought that a Christian seesawed between being justified and not being, but he certainly held that deliberate sinful behaviour that wasn’t repented of caused a loss of justification. I quoted Luther in my last post to this effect. Also The Augsburg Confession which was of course approved by Luther says the following:

“Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance…… They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost …. (Article XII: Of Repentance).

Luther rejected the classification of sins into mortal and venial according to the fact, but he affirmed the distinction according to the person, in that what would be damnable and mortal in an unbeliever was forgiven and venial in the believer. But he also held that if a Christian didn’t mortify the flesh he lost the Holy Spirit and consequently his justification until he returned through repentance. Commenting on Galatians 5:24 from that link you gave me, he said:

“Also, in the end of this chapter he says, 'They crucify the flesh, with its affections and lusts,' therefore these sins do not hurt them, nor condemn them. But if they obey the flesh, and become its servant, then do they lose faith and the Holy Ghost, and if they do not abhor their sin and return unto Christ, they die in their sin. Wherefore we speak not of them who dream that they have faith, and yet continue in their sins. These have their judgement already, 'if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.'”

With regards to Hebrews ("For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." - Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV) one of the reasons I think why Luther in his translation of the New Testament relegated this book to a lesser status at the end of his New Testament translation was because it denied that a Christian could be reinstated through repentance into the grace in which he once stood, and I also hold that what Hebrews says on this is incorrect and that the book wasn’t written by an Apostle.

 

[hedrick]

I found the following treatment in the WELS web site: QA at the foot of the cross-Mortal versus venial sins | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

As far as I can tell, this is basically the Catholic treatment, except that you don't think one can specify beforehand which sins are venal and mortal. My sense is that in practice, Catholics agree that which sins are really mortal depends upon the person's knowledge and intent. So as far as I can tell, the schemes are essentially the same. Both see justification as being based on our current actions and spiritual state.

In your initial posting you spoke of a state of grace as being impossible for someone who is in willful, unrepentant sin. This implies that grace is something about us, that it can't coexist with mortal sin. Despite the fact that you don't use the term "infused," that's what it is. This is not grace that is entirely outside us, imputed to us even as sinners. That is, this is the Catholic position. Now that's not necessarily terrible. It's just that I always thought of Lutherans as Protestant on justification, since Luther famously saw that as the key issue between him and the Catholic Church. I see that there are differences in formulation and terminology, but nothing to justify a Reformation.

 

[Edward65]

I found the following treatment in the WELS web site: QA at the foot of the cross-Mortal versus venial sins | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

As far as I can tell, this is basically the Catholic treatment, except that you don't think one can specify beforehand which sins are venal and mortal. My sense is that in practice, Catholics agree that which sins are really mortal depends upon the person's knowledge and intent. So as far as I can tell, the schemes are essentially the same. Both see justification as being based on our current actions and spiritual state.

In your initial posting you spoke of a state of grace as being impossible for someone who is in willful, unrepentant sin. This implies that grace is something about us, that it can't coexist with mortal sin. Despite the fact that you don't use the term "infused," that's what it is. This is not grace that is entirely outside us, imputed to us even as sinners. That is, this is the Catholic position. Now that's not necessarily terrible. It's just that I always thought of Lutherans as Protestant on justification, since Luther famously saw that as the key issue between him and the Catholic Church. I see that there are differences in formulation and terminology, but nothing to justify a Reformation.

Unless one lives in a state of repentance even seemingly trivial sins lead to damnation simply because being in a state of unrepentance can’t co-exist with having faith. Faith in Christ involves acknowledging one is a sinner who needs to be saved from the consequences of sin, so if a person intentionally commits sin in the knowledge that it is sinful, with no intention of repenting but rather to savour and derive enjoyment from his sin, then that means he no longer has true faith because true faith will always lead to him resisting sinful impulses and not giving into them. So sins in themselves aren’t mortal or venial. Rather it’s the faith or lack of it which determines whether sin causes damnation or not.

 

[hedrick]

Unless one lives in a state of repentance even seemingly trivial sins lead to damnation simply because being in a state of unrepentance can’t co-exist with having faith. Faith in Christ involves acknowledging one is a sinner who needs to be saved from the consequences of sin, so if a person intentionally commits sin in the knowledge that it is sinful, with no intention of repenting but rather to savour and derive enjoyment from his sin, then that means he no longer has true faith because true faith will always lead to him resisting sinful impulses and not giving into them. So sins in themselves aren’t mortal or venial. Rather it’s the faith or lack of it which determines whether sin causes damnation or not.

OK. Now we're starting to get things closer to what I expected. I agree that faith includes repentance. However I would argue that "a state of repentance" is a general acknowledgement that we are sinners and need God's help. It is not a guarantee that every sin is confessed. As you know, that kind of demand is what got Luther in trouble in the first place, before he saw the light. The problem is that by definition sinners have blind spots, things that we don't or can't acknowledge as sins, even if it's obvious to others that we should.

But I'm still bothered by the apparent widespread Lutheran concept that we fall into and out of justification, and in specific the use of David as an example. The usual Protestant concept is that justification is something God does, not something we do. Now I understand that Lutherans don't quite hold to monergism, and so some response from us is involved. But still, David would seem to be the classic example of someone who is regenerated stumbling and then God helping him to get back up. Obviously we can't see into God's mind, but I would think it highly likely that God continued to consider him one of God's people, and that's why God brought him to repentance. Unless we're going to move to a Catholic concept of justification, it seems to me that this means he continued to be justified.

The idea that sin is mortal or not depending upon faith seems right on. But I think there's a danger of turning faith into something legalistic, so that we're in danger of moving back and forth between justified and not on a regular basis, depending upon transitory feelings and actions.

 

[Edward65]

OK. Now we're starting to get things closer to what I expected. I agree that faith includes repentance. However I would argue that "a state of repentance" is a general acknowledgement that we are sinners and need God's help. It is not a guarantee that every sin is confessed. As you know, that kind of demand is what got Luther in trouble in the first place, before he saw the light. The problem is that by definition sinners have blind spots, things that we don't or can't acknowledge as sins, even if it's obvious to others that we should.

But I'm still bothered by the apparent widespread Lutheran concept that we fall into and out of justification, and in specific the use of David as an example. The usual Protestant concept is that justification is something God does, not something we do. Now I understand that Lutherans don't quite hold to monergism, and so some response from us is involved. But still, David would seem to be the classic example of someone who is regenerated stumbling and then God helping him to get back up. Obviously we can't see into God's mind, but I would think it highly likely that God continued to consider him one of God's people, and that's why God brought him to repentance. Unless we're going to move to a Catholic concept of justification, it seems to me that this means he continued to be justified.

The idea that sin is mortal or not depending upon faith seems right on. But I think there's a danger of turning faith into something legalistic, so that we're in danger of moving back and forth between justified and not on a regular basis, depending upon transitory feelings and actions.

Yes I agree. It's not possible to enumerate all one's sins because we just don't see them all so it's a case of living in a state of repentance which asks God for forgiveness for all of our sins including those hidden from us.

With reference to the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance or once saved always saved teaching I don't accept that the Scriptures teach that Christians can never fall into a state of not being justified through losing their faith, and I hold along with Luther that David for instance lost his justification because he fell from having faith into a faithless condition which would have resulted in his damnation had he continued like this without returning to repentance. However I also believe that David was one of the elect and that ultimately it was impossible that he could lose his salvation as God had predestined him to repent and be saved as Scripture relates.

You say “Now I understand that Lutherans don't quite hold to monergism, and so some response from us is involved.” however I need to explain that what I hold and what Lutherans who adhere to the teaching of predestination in the Formula of Concord hold are different. The latter because they reject predestination to hell and only believe in predestination to heaven, although they will argue that they believe in divine monergism, in reality have compromised this and as you say they don’t quite hold this (their stance is illogical and nonsensical). However I hold to the original position of Lutheranism held by Luther as set out in his book The Bondage of The Will (i.e. absolute predestination to heaven and hell) and therefore I completely hold to divine monergism.

There’s no need to regard David to have still been in a state of justification when he was leading a sinful life in order to secure his status as one of God’s elect, because God’s predestination ensures that any relapses from the faith which cause lose of justification are repented of so that the person dies in a state of grace. But that isn’t the case with everyone as we see in the case with Saul. He was a regenerated believer who had the Holy Spirit but as he wasn’t one of the elect his fall from faith was permanent because God hadn’t predestined that he would repent. What God has predestined to happen we have no knowledge of so we can't order our lives according to it. However we know if we become lazy and inattentive to God's Word it's a short step to becoming cold in our faith and falling from it without even realising it.

On the subject of election, I previously thought that only the elect were drawn to Christ and given faith to become believers, but since God also regenerates those who are subsequently lost like Saul it follows that it’s not just the elect who are drawn by the Father to Christ, and that people can genuinely believe for a while before falling out of justification through losing their faith. The parable of the sower also teaches that people can believe for a while before falling away permanently.

 

[Edward65]

The classical formulation would be the Canons of Dordt, which states that the elect can fall into grave sins, which "very highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes lose the sense of God's favor, for a time, until on their returning into the right way of serious repentance, the light of God's fatherly countenance again shines upon them."

Yet "in these falls [God] preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing, or being totally lost; and again, by his Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance."

Calvinism rejects the idea that "the true believers and regenerate not only can fall from justifying faith and likewise from grace and salvation wholly and to the end, but indeed often do fall from this and are lost forever."

That is correct -- that's what the Canons of Dordt say.

The synod of Dordt wasn’t correct in stating that a person still retains his salvation and justifying faith when he falls into grave sins if by grave sins is meant for instance the adultery and murder that David fell into. To suggest that people still retain justification if they fall into a lifestyle of sin is unscriptural. If a person falls from the faith into a worldly lifestyle of sinful behaviour then he is severed completely from salvation and doesn’t retain any seed of regeneration. Only those who live as Christians and who endeavour to remain faithful to Christ and who resist sin have true faith and are therefore justified. If a person falls from the faith then he becomes an unbeliever and should he die in this state he will be damned.

A member of the elect can never finally be lost but this doesn’t stop him if God allows it from falling temporarily from the faith and becoming in reality an unbeliever even though he may still think of himself as a believer. Also since Saul had been a true believer who fell and didn’t return and Christ says in the parable of the sower that some believe for a time before falling permanently away (Luke 8:13) it is untrue to state as Calvinism does that people can’t lose their salvation. The argument that those who fall away from the faith were never truly regenerated in the first place has no Scriptural support and is false. Since Christ says some believe for a while before falling away permanently that settles the issue. Christ didn’t say they were false believers who weren’t truly regenerated. And also Saul had the Holy Spirit so he was definitely a regenerate believer before falling permanently away. (1 Sam 16:14)

The Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is false. The elect can never finally lose their salvation but it doesn’t stop them temporarily falling away from justification if God allows it, and nor are all those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit members of the elect. It’s possible to be a true believer who has been regenerated and yet he isn’t a member of the elect, and therefore he isn’t finally saved, and Saul was an example of that.

 

[TheSeabass]

Recently someone asked about whether Luther agreed with Calvinism and I replied saying Luther was the equivalent of a 4-point Calvinist (4-point because he believed in unlimited not limited atonement.) However I now think that saying he was a 4-pointer was incorrect, because I only just realised that what I thought Calvinists meant by perseverance I don't think they do just mean.

I understood Calvinists to mean by perseverance not that a Christian could never fall from the faith temporarily but that if he was a member of the elect he could never finally be lost. However I don't think Calvinists do just mean that now. Do Calvinists also mean a member of the elect can never even temporarily fall from grace and need reinstating? If so Luther was the equivalent of a 3-point Calvinist and so am I - the reason being because both Peter and David are examples of saints who temporarily fell from grace over denial of Christ and committing adultery and who needed reinstating.

1 John 1:7 "But if we walk (present tense) in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth (present tense) us from all sin."

For the Christian, if he conditionally continues to walk in the light, then Christ's blood continues to cleanse away all sins. So even though the Christian does sin on occasions, yet as long as he continues to walk in the light (includes repenting of sins) then Christ's blood continues to cleanse away ALL sins and the Christian will not fall.

In the case of David and Peter, I see that neither quit their obedient walk with God for both obediently repented of their sins. Yet had they remained impenitent they would have fallen from salvation just as the Christian, if he remains impenitent of his sins, will fall from grace. Abraham was not perfectly sinless yet he maintained an obedient, "walking" faith (Romans 4:12) whereby his sins were forgiven and he did not fall from salvation for those sins. But for those that remain impenitent, they will be lost (Romans 2:4-5)

No verse shows that God has an obligation on Himself to cause the Christian to repent in order for that Christian to "persevere".