XLIX THE PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS - MORE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
Further
objections answered.
A
A
fourth objection to the doctrine of perseverance is, that if by the perseverance
of the saints it means that the saints live lives of habitual obedience to God,
then facts are against it. To this
objection I reply: that by the perseverance of the saints, I mean that after
being born again, holiness is the rule of their lives, and sin is only the
exception. But many say that the
facts contradict this.
1 They
use the case of king Saul as an example to support their objection.
a
To
this let me say that it is not clear that Saul was ever a truly regenerated
man. He appears, concerning his
appointment to the throne of Israel, to have been the subject of Divine
illuminations, which greatly changed his views and his behavior. It is almost as if he had another heart
simply because he prophesied.
However, nowhere in the Bible does it even suggest that Saul became a
truly regenerated man, a truly praying child of God. We often see similar changes in people,
even changes they appear to be brought about by the illuminations of the Holy
Spirit, while, at the same time, we have no real reason to believe that the
subjects themselves were truly regenerated.
From Saul’s history,
after he experienced the change, we cannot find any behavior in the Bible that
looks like true piety. Therefore,
we cannot properly use his situation as an objection to the doctrine of
perseverance for the simple reason that the evidence that he ever was a saint is
missing. His prophesying, as is
apparent from the context of scriptures, was merely speaking fervently on
religious subjects. He was
momentarily enlightened enough to become considerably excited about religion,
even to the point of mingling with the school of the prophets, and taking an
interest in their exercises. But
this is similar to what we often witness, when the goal and indeed, when all the
circumstances show that true regeneration has not taken place. Who has not seen men possessing, for the
time being, what appears to be another, but not a holy, heart?
b
Some
say, that David did not persevere in obedience, in the sense that obedience was
his rule, and sin only the exception.
To this I reply:
1)
There
is no doubt about the final salvation of David.
2)
That
David did not persevere, in the sense just mentioned, lacks proof. His psalms, together with his life
history, shows that he was a highly spiritual man. David was important as a type of Christ,
and, for a man in his circumstances, he was a remarkable saint. Yes, David practiced polygamy. Yes, David did many things that for us,
under the light of the gospel, would be sin. But remember, that David lived under a
dispensation of comparative obscurity, and therefore many things which
would now be unlawful and sinful, were not sinful for him. We cannot reasonably call into question
the fact hat David, with comparatively few exceptions, lived up to the light he
received from God. The Bible says
that David was a man after God’s own heart. I know the Bible says this about David
as a king, but I also know that, as king the Bible could not say this about him,
unless he had feared and served the Lord, and generally lived up to the light
that surrounded him.
3)
Some
people also say that Solomon, king of Israel, did not
persevere.
c
Concerning
Solomon, I would say that there was a time in his life when he seriously
backslid, and it appears that he tolerated idolatry. People conclude that Solomon finally
apostatized because of the fact that Israel practiced idolatry after he
supposedly repented; and until the end of his life, Solomon allowed the people
to offer sacrifices, and to burn incense in the high places, and therefore his
repentance was not genuine.
1)
To
this I reply, that the same was true also during the reign of several of the
pious kings who succeeded him, and this can be accounted for by the fact that
neither Solomon nor his successors had, for a considerable time, enough
political power or influence to totally abolish idolatry. The religious views and worship of the
people were greatly divided. The
priests and devotees of the groves and high places were many, and many of the
high and more influential classes never abandoned their idols. It was a very difficult matter to
effectively stop idolatry, and perhaps it was impossible in Solomon’s day, and
for a long time afterwards.
Solomon’s idolatrous wives and concubines had no doubt exerted a lot of
influence in making idolatry popular with the people, and it was not until
several generations had passed away that the pious kings seem to have had
sufficient political power to banish idolatry from the nation. One cannot conclude that Solomon finally
apostatized simply from the fact that Israel continued to practice idolatry long
after his death. There is no reason
to believe that he continued to practice it himself.
2)
But,
from the writings of Solomon, we may gather enough evidence that he generally
did not live a wicked life, although he did commit many serious sins. It appears that Solomon wrote his book
of Ecclesiastes after God reclaimed him from backsliding, as appears from the
fact that the book contains many statements of his views and experiences while
wandering from God. It appears to
me, that there is no other way to explain the book of Ecclesiastes. In wandering from God, as is common, he
fell into great doubts and embarrassments concerning the works and ways of
God. He became skeptical, and in
Ecclesiastes, he states the skeptical views that he had entertained. But the book, as a whole, contains
conclusive evidence of piety at the time it was written. I don’t think any one of you will call
this into question.
3)
Some
say that observation conflicts with the doctrine of perseverance. As far as human observation goes, I
admit that it is true that many people seem to be born again, run well for a
while, but afterwards fall, and apparently live and die in sin. But, please remember that observation
couldn’t be conclusive on this subject because we cannot know with any certainty
that any of these people were really converted to God. Hence, the objection can’t be
conclusive. If we knew that these
people were truly born again, and that afterwards they fell away and lived in
sin, and died in a state of sin, it would follow that the doctrine, at least in
the form in which I have stated it, cannot be true. But, we cannot prove this by
observation. If the Bible clearly
teaches perseverance the way I have stated it, it must follow that observation
cannot disprove it, because it is not a question that lies within the realm of
observation, in such a sense that simple observation could provide enough solid
evidence to shake the sure testimony of the Bible.
2 But,
they also make an appeal to our conscience to overthrow the doctrine of
perseverance. Some say, that true
saints, at least in some situations, know that they have lived a great part of
their lives in sin, and they especially lived most of their days in sin before
regeneration.
We can answer
this objection the same way we can answer the previous objection. It is true that the saints may know that
they are born again; and it is also true that many may believe they are saved
when they are actually deceived. A
man may know that he is awake, but from this we cannot conclude that someone can
think that he is awake while he is asleep.
But, since we know the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of the saints’
perseverance in the sense in which I have defined it, we must examine the
objection based on experience and grant that these experiences do not contradict
the testimony of God. The objection
of course cannot be conclusive because you can never rule out the possibility of
error or doubt. The Bible defines
all the essential attributes of Christian character. Now, if when we examine these
attributes, we can prove that perseverance is one of them in the sense that I
have shared with you today, it is absurd to array against the doctrine the
awareness of not persevering. To do
that you would have to assume that we, and not the Bible, can decide who is a
Christian, and what are the essential attributes of Christian character.
3 But
others object to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, saying that
several passages of scripture clearly teach that some real saints have fallen
away and are lost. I will therefore
now proceed to examine those passages that they use to disprove the doctrine of
perseverance. The first one we will
look at is: “Moreover,
brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the
cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink. For they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well
pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, to
the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters, as were
some of them. As it is written,
‘the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’ Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as
some of them did, and in one day twenty‑three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them
also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor murmur, as some of them also
murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as
examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages
have come. Therefore let him who
thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”
(1 Cor. 10:1‑12)
4 Some
say that this passage introduces the history of the Israelites as a warning to
real Christians. As a result, the
apostle Paul must have assumed that those Israelites who fell were real saints,
or there would have been no relevance or force in his allusion. To this I reply, that the relevance and
force of the allusion appears to me to have been as follows: The Israelites
composed the visible church of God.
At the time mentioned, they all professed religion. All possessed great light and privileges
compared with the rest of the world; they therefore felt confident of their
acceptance with God, and of their consequent safety and salvation. But with many of them God was not well
pleased. Some of them turned out to
be idolaters and God destroyed them.
Now, the apostle says, let this be a warning to you. Just like them, you are also professors
of religion. You are all members of
the visible church of God to which God has made his promises. You have great light and privileges when
compared with the world at large.
You may think that you are safe and sure of your final salvation. But remember, that the history of the
ancient church is written for your benefit; and the destruction of those just
mentioned, is recorded for you as a warning. Don’t be proud, but fear. Do not be presumptuous just because
you are members in good standing in the visible church and possess lots of light
and privileges. Remember, that many
before you, who were like you in these respects, have lost their souls:
“Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall”. (1 Cor. 10:12)
5 If
the apostle Paul wanted to convey the impression that those were real saints who
fell in the wilderness, and that real saints do fall away and are lost, he would
no doubt have said, let him who stands, instead of saying let him who
thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall. The word “thinks” that Paul uses here is
correctly translated in this passage.
Paul’s meaning appears to have been this: because others, who were, from
their circumstances and fancied characters, very confident that they were safe,
had been finally cast off and lost; therefore, take heed for yourselves, lest,
because you are in a similar situation, you also deceive yourselves; and
although you think that you stand, you will fall and perish.
6 But
some may argue that the apostle is saying those who had eaten of the spiritual
meat and drank of the rock Christ fell, and therefore, they must have been real
saints. To this I reply, that the
apostle uses universal language and says that all the Israelites did these
things; but who will soberly argue that Paul really meant that all the
Israelites who passed through the sea and wandered through the desert for forty
years were true saints? From what
he says, we cannot conclude that all of them were truly regenerated saints. Yes, they were all baptized unto
Moses. But all that means is that
they were all introduced into the covenant of which Moses was the mediator. They all ate of the same spiritual
bread, that is, the manna that the Lord fed them. They all drank of the spiritual rock;
that is, of the water that gushed from the rock when Moses smote it with his
rod. Now, that rock was a type of
Christ, and so was the manna.
Now, does the apostle mean to say, that all the
Israelites understood the spiritual meaning of these waters, and this manna, and
that all the Israelites were all truly spiritual or regenerate people? I don’t think so. It appears to me, that all Paul wanted
to say was that the church of the Jews at the time only partook of the grace of
Christ when they received this baptism, when they received this bread and water
which represented Christ, and when they enjoyed great light and a lot of
miraculous instruction, but in spite of all that, God was upset with many of
them. The fact that God baptized
them in their passage through the Red Sea did not imply that they all understood
and consented to it at the time.
Nor does the statement that they ate the spiritual food, and drank from
the spiritual rock, imply anything more than that they enjoyed these great and
high privileges, and counted themselves as very secure because of them. It is certainly stretching the intention
of this passage to make Paul state that all the Israelites who passed through
the sea were real saints. Indeed,
it is doubtful whether he intended to affirm the real piety of any of them. It was not important for Paul’s purpose
to do so.
B
In
examining the Scriptures that these objectors use to prove that some real saints
have fallen from grace and been lost, I am only concerned about showing that
these scriptures do not lead to this conclusion, when you honestly examine these
passages. Now, I admit, that, if
the doctrine of perseverance was not found to be clearly taught in the Bible,
you could construct some of these passages I am questioning to lead you to the
conclusion that some, perhaps many, real saints have been lost.
But, since, from all
our studies, we see that perseverance is plainly and unequivocally taught in the
Bible, then all we need to show when we examine these passages and interpret
these passages honestly and fairly, is that they do not really and unequivocally
teach that some true saints have been lost. Showing this will sufficiently vindicate
the scriptures against any idea that they contradict themselves, by both
affirming and denying the same doctrine.
Please remember that I am not trying to show that we cannot interpret
these passages in such a way that it makes them contradict the doctrine of
perseverance. But what I am showing
here is that they do not necessarily, by interpreting these passages fairly,
contradict the doctrine of perseverance.
What I intend to show is that these passages do not force us to admit
that the Bible either contradicts itself, or that we must go back and
re-interpret the passages that seem teach the doctrine of perseverance.
C
With
these remarks let us examine our next passage:
1 “Then
the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the
unjust under punishment for the Day of Judgment, and especially those who walk
according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self‑willed; they
are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in
power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the
Lord. But these, like natural brute
beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not
understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will
receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to
carouse in the daytime. They are
spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with
you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, beguiling
unstable souls. They have a heart
trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. They have forsaken the right way and
gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of
unrighteousness; but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking
with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds
carried by a tempest, to whom the gloom of darkness is reserved forever. For when they speak great swelling words
of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through
licentiousness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in
error. While they promise them
liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is
overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the
pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse
for them than the beginning. For it
would have been better for them not to know the way of righteousness, than
having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to
the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed,
to her wallowing in the mire.’” (2
Peter 2:9‑22)
2 Please
notice, Peter calls the people he is talking about “wells without water: clouds
that are carried with a tempest,” that is, without rain. His whole description of them shows that
he is speaking about false professing Christians or hypocrites. But, how can you conclude that they are
fallen saints simply because Peter says things like they have “forsaken the
right way, and are gone astray after the error of Balaam”? These statements do not necessarily mean
that they were, in their hearts, ever in the right way. All these statements say is that they
had forsaken the right way.
However, as far as their outward life was concerned, they appeared to
have been walking in the right way, or they would not have been allowed to
become members in the church.
3 But,
you may point out that Peter said the following about these false professing
Christians, “they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through licentiousness,
the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error”. But this does not force us to conclude
that they had a complete change of heart from those that lived in error, but
merely that they had for the time being outwardly abandoned their idolatrous
practices and companions, and had made a profession of faith, and put on the
form of Christianity.
4 But
you may point out that Peter also said, “For if, after they have escaped the
pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse
for them than the beginning. For it
would have been better for them not to know the way of righteousness, than
having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to
the true proverb: ‘a dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed,
to her wallowing in the mire.” (2
Peter 2:20‑22) Neither does this
force us to conclude that they had, in their heart, escaped from the pollution
that is in the world, but merely that they had outwardly reformed. In fact, what Peter says in the last
verse seems to favor this construction.
Verse 22: “But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A
dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in
the mire”. In other words, the dog
returns to his vomit because he remains a dog and is not changed; and the washed
sow returns to wallowing in the mud because she is still a sow, and just because
someone washed its skin, that doesn’t mean that the sow has changed its
nature. Therefore, the apostle is
saying, that by returning to their former ways, the people in question show that
they never experienced any radical change of heart; but instead, they are like a
washed sow. They are still sinners,
who have only outwardly cleansed their exteriors, while within they are the same
as ever in their heart. This
appears to me to be all that we can fairly conclude from this passage.
D
I
will now attend to the following passage in first Timothy: “having faith and a
good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have
suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to
Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim. 1:19-20) Here the apostle was writing to Timothy
as an eminent religious teacher and was charging him to encourage others not to
stray from the truth and get into doctrinal disputes. Hymenaeus and Alexander, as we may
conclude from this, and which we can learn from examining other passages, were
religious teachers who had cast off or perverted the true faith or doctrine of
the gospel, and thus made shipwreck of the gospel. They had put away faith and a good
conscience, and by so doing had made shipwreck of the true gospel. This passage does not teach that these
men were ever true Christians, nor does it necessarily imply that any of those
who had gone with them had ever been true saints. The expression, “some having rejected”,
does not necessarily mean that they once had true faith and a good
conscience. This phrase only means
that what they taught was inconsistent with faith and a good conscience. This passage could mean that they had
rejected or refused both faith and a good conscience. Or, this passage could mean that they
practiced and taught things that are inconsistent with either true faith, or
with the true gospel, or with a good conscience, and had therefore run upon a
rock, and wrecked their souls, and the souls of those who followed them. However, this proves nothing concerning
whether or not they were ever true saints.
The
apostle was using common everyday language, and he represented things as they
appeared to the casual observer.
Thus, we would speak about false converts. It certainly does not appear to me that
this passage would warrant the conclusion that some real saints had been lost
unless we forced such an interpretation.
And, once we consider other passages we are even less authorized to
interpret this passage in such a way that either we contradict other scriptures,
or we change the meaning of other passage to support the teachings of those who
deny the doctrine of perseverance.
If the Bible does not really teach the doctrine of perseverance, we
certainly should not believe it; but if it is, we must not casually reject
it. We need to weigh each passage
honestly and sincerely, and we need to understand, if we can, just what is the
mind of God that He reveals in those passages.
E
Many
people rely on the situation of Judas as an example of a follower of Christ who
fell away from God, which eventually lead to his betraying Christ and
suicide. Many believe that Judas
the one that the Psalms mentions as the familiar friend of Christ in whom He
trusted. “Even my own familiar
friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against
me.” (Psalms 41:9)
1 There
is no reason to believe that Psalms 41 primarily refers to either Christ or
Judas. Christ quotes the 9th verse
not because it refers to Himself or of Judas, but because His situation was
similar to the situation of the Psalmist.
In the passage where Christ quotes these words, he directly rejects the
idea of Judas being one of his true disciples. He says, “I do not speak concerning all
of you. I know whom I have chosen;
but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted
up his heel against Me.’” (John 13:18)
2 Here
Christ clearly teaches that the one He applied these words to was not chosen in
the sense of being chosen to salvation, or in the sense of his being a true
saint. He says: “‘but there are
some of you who do not believe. For
Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would
betray Him. And He said, ‘Therefore
I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him
by My Father.’” “Jesus answered
them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?’ He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of
Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.” (John 6:64-65, 70-71)
3 Jesus
had chosen twelve to follow Him as pupils or disciples; but he had known from
the beginning that one of them would be a wicked man. In John 17, Jesus prayed: “While I was
with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and
none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be
fulfilled.” (John 17:12)
4 In
this passage, most people interpret Christ as saying to his Father that He had
lost none that the Father had given Him except the son of perdition, that is
Judas. However, this is not the
meaning of the passage in Christ’s prayer.
Here Christ is saying that of those that the Father had given Him, He had
lost none; but the son of perdition was lost that the scripture might be
fulfilled. We find the same form of
expression used in: “And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the
prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian”. (Luke 4:27) Here ‘ei me’ is used in the original as
meaning ‘not’ ‘except’, ‘but’. It
is used as an adversative conjunction: ‘but Naaman was not an Israelite, but a
heathen’. Christ here used the same
form of expression in John 17:12.
In this passage in Luke, Christ intended that the prophet was not sent to
any Israelite, but to a heathen.
This same form is also used, “how he entered the house of God and ate the
showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him,
but only for the priests?”
(Matt. 12:4)
5 Here
the same form of expression in the original is used, as we find in John
17:12. The plain meaning of this
form in Matt. 12:4 is ‘but’, ‘not’, ‘except’. It was not lawful for David, or for his
companions to eat the showbread, but it was lawful for the priests to do
so. So also, “But concerning the
Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no
such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered
to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 21:25) Here the same form is used, and the
plain meaning of these passages is the same as the meaning in the passage in
Christ’s prayer. Likewise, “But
there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination
or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of
Life.” (Rev. 21:27)
6 Here
again the same form of expression, and the Bible uses the same word in the
original in the same way. Nothing
shall enter into the city that defiles, neither shall anyone who causes an
abomination or who lies, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of
life shall enter in. So there is no
doubt that Christ intended to say in His prayer to His Father: “While I was with
them in the world I kept them in Your name: those that You gave Me I have kept
and not one of them is lost, that is, I have lost none of those whom You have
given Me; but the son of perdition is lost according to the scriptures.”
7 But
it seems to me, that the context shows clearly what our Savior meant by this
expression. He says, “And now I am
no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your own name
those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them in the world, I
kept them in Your name: those that You gave Me I have kept, and none of them is
lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John
17:11, 12). In other words: “keep
them in Your own name and lose none of them, for while I was with them I kept
them in Your name, and lost none of them; but the son of perdition is lost. I have manifested Your name to the men
whom You have given Me out of the world.
They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things
which You have given Me are from You.
For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have
received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have
believed that You sent Me. I pray
for them. I do not pray for the
world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are
Mine, and I am glorified in them.
Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come
to You. Holy Father, keep through
Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I
kept them in Your name. Those whom
You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition,
that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”
(John 17:6‑12)
8 Here
Our Lord clearly reveals that all whom the Father had given to Him had known and
kept the word of God. They believed
and they persevered, and Christ was glorified in them. Since He had kept them in His Father’s
name, and had lost none of them, He proceeds to pray, that now the Father will
keep them in His own name. Let any
one seriously meditate on this passage from verses 6 to 12, and he will see, I
trust, that this is the true view of the subject. At any rate, we cannot use this passage
of scripture as a proof text to establish the fact that anyone has fallen from
grace; for the plain reason that, they could just as easily quote this passage
to support the same doctrine that they use to disprove.
9 Again: “Then Peter came to Him and said,
‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you,
up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like
a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. And when he had begun to settle
accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But as he was not able to pay, his
master commanded that he be sold, with his wife, children, and all that he had,
and that payment be made. The
servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me,
and I will pay you all.’ Then the
master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him
the debt. But that servant went out
and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii’s; and he
laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you
owe!’ So his fellow servant fell
down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay
you all.’ And he would not, but
went and threw him into prison until he should pay the debt. So, when his fellow servants saw what
had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that
had been done. Then his master,
after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you
begged me. Should you not also have
had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ And his master was angry, and delivered
him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. So My heavenly Father also will do to
you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his
trespasses.’” (Matt.
18:21‑35)
10
Many
people use this passage to prove that some fall from grace, especially the 32nd
to the 34th verses. But in its
context, it is clear that what the Lord meant was to set in a strong light the
need for a forgiving spirit, and that a forgiving spirit is a condition of
salvation. It is a parable designed
to illustrate this truth, but it does not claim that any truly pardoned soul was
ever lost; nor does it even imply this.
It does imply that a pardoned soul would be lost if he apostatizes; but
it does not imply that such a soul ever did apostatize.
F
The
next text is simple: “having condemnation because they have cast off their first
faith”. (1 Tim. 5:12) Let us first read this passage in
context:
“Do
not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless
she has been the wife of one man, well reported for good works, bringing up
children, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet, relieving the afflicted,
diligently following every good work.
But refuse the younger widows; for when they begin to grow wanton against
Christ, they desire to marry, having condemnation because they have cast off
their first faith. And besides they
learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but
they also become gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not” (1
Tim. 5:9‑13)
1 The
word condemnation or judgment may mean that there was a tendency among the
younger widows to become lazy and selfish and fall into condemnation, and for a
time at least to disgrace their profession by casting off their first
faith. However, this passage could
also mean that their laziness and selfishness revealed that they were among
those who renounced their profession of the true faith, which they professed at
first. They were young widows,
uneducated as heathen women were and are, and it should not be surprising that
many of these widows, in order to take advantage of the unselfish care and help
of the believers, would make a false profession of faith, and afterwards cast
off their profession of faith because they could no longer hide the fact that
they were spoiled and undisciplined.
Therefore, they disgraced their profession of faith. The apostle Paul warns Timothy against
receiving young widows too hastily, or against having a hasty confidence in the
reality of their piety.
2 Some
people have said that from Christ’s letters to the churches in Asia, recorded in
Revelation, we learn that, at least, some of those churches were in a state
of apostasy from God. They say
that, from the fact that the judgments of God annihilated those churches, there
is reason to believe that their falling away from God was complete and final,
and their destruction certain. To
this I reply, that Christ originally addressed those letters to churches as
churches, just as the prophets spoke of the Jewish church as a church. The things, which the prophets declare
of the Jewish church, they declared to the Jewish church as a body of professing
saints, some generations of whom had more, and some less, real piety. The prophets would rebuke one generation
for their backsliding and apostasy, without meaning that the particular
individuals they addressed were ever true saints, but meaning only that the body
as a whole was in a degenerate and apostate state, compared with what the body
had been in earlier times. In the
same way, Christ writes to the churches of Asia, and reproves them for their
backslidden and apostate condition.
He boldly states things like, they had fallen, and they had left their
first love. From these phrases, we
should not conclude that Christ meant to say this of those who had been truly
converted as individuals, but merely that those churches as bodies had fallen,
and now contained many members who were not converted.
3 The
churches in Asia, when first formed by the apostles and the first ministers,
were full of faith, zeal, and love.
But things changed. Many of
the members changed, and perhaps those members who had originally formed the
churches had died or moved before Christ dictated these letters to John. In any case, there were great changes in
the membership of those churches.
Since these churches were addressed as bodies, we cannot conclude from
what Christ said, that the people Christ addressed were those who had fallen
from a state of high spirituality into backsliding or apostasy, but what He said
was true only of the then present membership when compared with the former
membership and state of those churches. We cannot use these letters to disprove
the doctrine of perseverance; for the most, that we can conclude from these
passages is that, those churches as bodies were, at the time, in a state of
decline.
4 The
passages we have just examined are, as far as I know, the main passages that
people rely on to disprove the doctrine of perseverance. I have carefully read, several times
over, the views of Mr. Fletcher, in his Scripture Scales, and the passages he
quotes to disprove the doctrine of perseverance. He primarily relies on those passages
that imply the possibility and danger of falling, rather than on any passages
that teach that any have fallen or will utterly fall. I am not aware that any respectable
writer has considered any other passages than those I have examined, as clearly
teaching or implying the fact of the fall and ruin of real saints.
G
Remarks
1 If
the doctrine of perseverance is not true, I cannot see on what ground we can
maintain, or even confidently hope, that many of our pious friends, who have
died, have really gone to heaven.
Suppose they remain faithful until the last day of their life. If we cannot believe that the
faithfulness of God prevailed to keep them right up to their last conflict, what
reason do we have to believe that they did not fall into sin on their last day
and lose their salvation? If the
sovereign grace of God does not protect them against the wiles and malice of
Satan when they are the feeblest, and their bodies of clay are almost totally
destroyed, what would become of them?
I must confess that, if I did not expect the covenanted mercy and
faithfulness of God to prevail and to perpetuate my soul under such
circumstances, I could hardly expect that anyone would be saved. Now, I could still have a lot of
confidence that Christians will stand fast while their health is strong, even if
the doctrine of perseverance wasn’t true.
However, I could still expect that Satan could overcome them in the end,
when they passed through their last great struggle. Who could then trust in the strength of
his own purposes?
2 But
I could no more hope that I, or anyone else, could persevere in holiness even
with our best efforts for one day or one hour if we were not kept by the power
of God through faith, than I could hope to fly to heaven. As I have said before, there is no hope
that any one of us could persevere, except as far as free grace anticipates and
secures the cooperation of our free will.
God must effectively and constantly call our soul, or it will not even
follow Christ for one hour. I say
again, that by an effective calling, I do not mean an irresistible calling. I do not mean a calling that is so
strong that we cannot resist it; but what I mean by an effective calling, is a
calling that we don’t resist, a calling that secures the voluntary obedience of
our soul. This is my only hope
concerning myself, or anybody else.
God granted this grace to me in the covenant of grace, or as a reward of
Christ’s obedience unto death. God
pledges this grace to secure the salvation of those whom the Father has, from
eternity past, given to the Son.
God gives the Holy Spirit to us to secure our salvation, and I do not
expect that any one else will ever be saved. However, every one of these will surely
be saved. There can be no hope for
anyone else. Others are able to
repent, but they will refuse to repent.
God could save others, if they would simply believe and comply with the
conditions of salvation, but they will not.
We saw, that no one
comes to Christ, except those who are drawn by the Father, and the Father draws
to Christ only those whom He has given to Christ, and also, it is the Father’s
plan that of those whom He has given to Christ, He will lose none, but He will
raise them up on the last day. This
is the only hope that any will be saved.
Destroy this foundation, and what shall the righteous do? Erase from the Bible the doctrine of
God’s covenanted faithfulness to Christ, the truth that the Father has
given to Him a certain number whose salvation He foresees that He could and
would secure, and I lose hope of my own salvation and the salvation of everybody
else. Where is there any other
ground of hope? I do not know
where.