Product Description

In this book, four writers explain and defend their approaches to perseverance in salvation from the vantage point of Classical Calvinism, Moderate Calvinism, Reformed Arminianism, and Wesleyan-Arminianism, and each writer responds to the other views.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #132580 in Books
• Published on: 2002-05-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 304 pages

From the Back Cover
Does the Bible support the concept of "once saved, always saved," or can a person lose his or her salvation? How do the Scriptures portray the complex interplay between grace and free will? These and related questions are explored from different angles in this thought-provoking Counterpoints volume.

The contributors each state their case for one of four prominent views on eternal security: classical Calvinist, moderate Calvinist, reformed Armenian, and Wesleyan Armenian. In keeping with the forum approach of the Counterpoints series, each view is first presented by its proponent, then critiqued and defended. This fair and respectful approach allows you to weigh for yourself the strengths and weaknesses of the different doctrinal stances. By furnishing you with scholarly and thoughtful perspectives on the topic of eternal security, this book helps you sift through opposing views to arrive at your own informed conclusions.

About the Author
Michael S. Horton (Ph.D., Coventry University) is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California.;Steve Harper (Ph.D., Duke University) s vice president and dean at Asbury Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, where he also serves as professor of spiritual formation and Wesley studies. He and his wife live in Orlando, Florida.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
A CLASSICAL CALVINIST VIEW Michael S. Horton "This grace [God] placed ‘in Christ in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things.’ And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh that we do not depart." As part of his Predestination of the Saints, Augustine patiently explained and passionately defended the radical graciousness of God in Christ. The recipients of this epistle were two leading monks who had expressed acute anxiety over the debates on these questions in their monasteries. Some feared that the good news was just too good to be true; others were convinced that Scripture itself cautioned against confidence in an already certain and secure salvation. The topic before us has its origins not in Calvin or in the Synod of Dort, nor indeed even in Augustine. It is a perennial question for anyone who wrestles with the Word of God, seeking a unified biblical teaching on the most practical and self-involving question of all: What is the basis for hoping in God’s promised salvation? In the brief compass of this chapter, we will argue that covenant theology explains the full range of the biblical witness more consistently than either the Arminian or eternal security positions have done. Many of us who have been reared in evangelical circles know a lot of people who designate themselves Calvinists simply because they believe in eternal security, even if they do not accept total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, and irresistible grace. For instance, Norman Geisler identifies himself as a "Moderate Calvinist," while his stated positions, most recently in Chosen But Free, largely represent classic Arminianism: "God’s grace works synergistically on free will.... Put in other terms, God’s justifying grace works cooperatively, not operatively." Elsewhere he writes, "Indeed, God would save all men if He could.... God will achieve the greatest number in heaven that He possibly can. . . . Each creature is free to accept or reject the grace of God in salvation. Of course, God determinately knew from all eternity who would and who would not believe." Those who actually embrace the so-called five points of Calvinism, however, Geisler repeatedly labels "extreme Calvinists." While this approach may be rhetorically effective, it represents a considerable misunderstanding of the historical positions. Those who embrace eternal security are not for that reason Calvinists—even Moderate Calvinists. In fact, eternal security itself is not a Calvinistic doctrine but, at least in the expressions with which I am familiar, rests on Arminian presuppositions concerning grace and free will. If this is the case (as I hope will become more apparent as we progress), then our editor has wisely distinguished the Reformed position on this subject from both Arminian and eternal security perspectives. What, then, is a Calvinistic or Reformed account of the believer’s perseverance? We will first examine the passages proponents of the eternal security position use, followed by analysis of those texts Arminians adduce; then we will conclude with the covenantal approach. THE "ETERNAL SECURITY" PASSAGES Lewis Sperry Chafer introduces his defense of eternal security by referring to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the former rep-resenting (according to Chafer) the eternal security position. One might assume, therefore, that Chafer identifies himself with Calvinism. But just pages later, in the discussion of election, he writes, "God chose the plan as a whole, not piecemeal. He knew in advance, before the choice of a plan, who in this plan would be saved and who would not be saved. By faith we must assume that God chose the best possible plan." He expressly adds that "election may be seen to proceed from [the] omniscience of God." How then does Chafer understand the security of the believer? While referring its solidity to the Father’s work, the Son’s work, and the Spirit’s work, he does not refer to election in the first case or to effectual grace in the third. Instead, a some-what mechanical view of salvation emerges, in which Chafer argues that once a person is regenerated (which is the result of human decision), the process cannot be reversed. On one hand, Chafer insists that such security rests on the fact that salvation is God’s work from beginning to end. Yet on the other hand, he argues that it rests on the fact that God foreknows human response and responds to human decision by granting new life. Thus, the more consistent Arminian, it seems to me, is perfectly justified in asking how the new birth is irreversible if it rests at least in part on the human will. If we placed ourselves in God’s hands, surely we can place ourselves outside of them. Nevertheless, Chafer appeals to many solid proof texts for the security of salvation. John’s Gospel is replete with such firm and famous promises: Believers are given "eternal life" (John 3:16). "I tell you the truth," Jesus says, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (5:24). "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. . . . And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" (6:37–39). Merely to read Romans 8:29–39 is apparently to lay the whole debate to rest: Sight of the unbroken chain of salvation leads the apostle himself to doxological heights. That God is able to keep believers is defended from John 10:29; Romans 4:21; 8:31, 38–39; 14:4; Ephesians 1:19– 21; 3:20; Philippians 3:21; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 7:25; Jude 24.

Customer Reviews

One of the best books on the issue of Eternal Security
The four views books compile arguments from different authors representing different theological viewpoints on a selected topic. From the title of the book anyone can probably guess that this particular book deals with the controversial and heavily debated issue of Eternal Security.

The first author, Michael Horton, represents the traditional Calvinist view; In other words he defends the traditional five points of TULIP associated with Calvinistic theology. The TULIP acronym stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limted Atonement, Irresistable grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. For the purposes of this book, Horton attempts to concentrate on the last point, but his arguments often require digressions and tangents that deal with the other four points. I believe that Horton's arguments are strong, but there are several areas where his defense is lacking. First, Horton strongly advocates a system of covental theology, and then uses this system to explain problem passages such Hebrews 6: 4-6. Although his system has it's merits, it also has it's weaknesses. Arguing that the members of the church being discussed in Hebrews were only sacramental participants can be a hard sell since he is arguing from such a defined sacramental system that exists today, and then superimposing that system on the earliest church. Second, Horton doesn't do enough to support the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. He needed to illustrate that a believer's security does not rest on one instance of faith, but on a lifetime of continually growing in knowledge and coming to Christ. Overall, Horton's section was strong, but could have been better.

Second, Norman Geisler presents his system of Moderate Calvinism, or as some people have dubbed it, his Calminian theology. Geisler's arguments are very weak and his proofing is strained and repetitive. Geisler resorts to rapid fire proof-texting and attempts to deal with every verse that strengthens his position, and then discredit every verse that harms his position. The lack of any serious exegesis or sound Biblical reasoning make Geisler's arguments less valid. Furthermore, Geisler begins his section by claiming that he is a bonified 4-point Calvinist, saying he only eschews limited atonement. The problem with Geisler's claim is that he redefines all of the old terms from the TULIP acronym to meet his standards. Instead of having depravity be internally corruptive, it is only externally corruptive. Geisler doesn't even clarify what he means by this change and doesn't use scripture to bolster his claim. Salvation is still Unconditional from the standpoint of the giver, but conditional from the standpoint of the receiver because the receiver has to accept the offer of salvation. These alterations to traditional terminology in Reformed theology are unwarranted and practically untenable since Geisler doesn't support his claims. Finally, Geisler believes that the believer can rest assured that once he is saved, he will always be saved. Geisler argues that it takes only one instance of belief to receive eternal life, and once you receive the gift of eternal life it is yours forever. This argument has serious flaws though; Geisler completely ignores scriptures that speak of salvation in both present and future tenses, while also ignoring the fact that our salvation is predicated on our continually coming to Christ. A perfect example of this is found in John 3:16. In the original Greek the verb believe is rendered as a present participle which is best translated as believing; Therefore, it isn't whoever believed in the past that has eternal life, but those BELIEVING that have eternal life. More could be said on this issue, but needless to say Geisler's section was throughly uncovincing.

Third, Stephen Ashby delievers his defense of Reformed Arminianism. Ashby begins by differentiating his school of thought with that of the Weslyan tradition, which is the tradition followed by most Arminians today. Ashby is a follower of the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his body of followers known as the Remonstrants. Ashby also begins by discussing what tenets are shared by both Reformed Arminians and Reformed Calvinists. Both strongly believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity and that man cannot do anything to merit salvation or the grace of God. The difference arises in their beliefs on the grace of God. Whereas Calvinists believe that God's grace is irresistable and is only offered to the elect, Reformed Arminians believe that God's grace is prevenient and offered to every man and woman. Ashby uses scripture passages such as John 1:14 and 12:32 to support his assertion. Furthermore, Asbhy argues that election is not based on any intra-Trinitarian decree, but on the foreknowledge of God. God knows who in advance will respond to His gospel and then elects them based on that foreknowledge. Finally, Ashby strongly advocates the position that it is possible to apostatize from the faith and that once that decision has been reached it is irreversible. This is what distinguishes Reformed Arminians from Weslyan Arminians, who believe that a person can apostasize and return to the faith repeatedly. Ashby argues from the oft-quoted passage in Hebrews 6 and strongly supports the view that the individuals who have turned their backs on the faith have sealed their doom once and for all. Thus, Ashby's system does allow for some semblance of security because the believer will know he or she is saved as long as they haven't conciously and willfully renounced the faith. Ashby's position was strong and tenable, but still plagued by a few inconsistencies.

Finally, J. Stephen Harper argues for the traditional Wesleyan Arminian position. I believe that Harper's section was the second weakest section behind Geisler's disastrous section on Moderate Calvinism. Harper constantly resorts to the writings of John Wesley and not so much to scripture to support his views. Using Wesley to support your claims isn't a bad idea, but I think the combination of Wesley plus Scripture would have been more effective. Anyways, Harper argues that Wesley's movement sprung from the need for Reform in the Reformed churches of his day. Wesley saw the corruption and lack of practical rightouesness in so many men of God that he felt reform was necessary. Harper uses many sermons delievered by Wesley to support his ideas, and ties those in with reflections from John Wesley himself. He argues that Wesley strongly believed that a person can sin seriously or on several occasions and in doing so separate himself from the grace of God. Harper uses Wesley's sermon, A Call to Backsliders, to bolster this claim. In this sermon, Wesley used the biblical example of David to argue that salvation could be lost. Wesley argued that David committed adultery and murder, thus sinning so seriously that he cut himself off from the grace of God and lost his salvation. Nevertheless, David could still renew his relationship with God through contrite repentance and reestablishing a right heart before God. Although Harper argues passionately for the possibility of losing salvation, he doesn't do nearly enough to deal with the passages of scripture that do serious damage to his theological beliefs. Although interesting and informational, Harper's section doesn't do nearly enough to satisfy the reader that his position is both scripturally plausible and correct.

A Good Introduction although the last essay is a bit weak
This book follows the usual practice in the "Counterpoints" series of having a different author present his view on the topic and then have it critiqued by the others.

Michael Horton presents the view that Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints are one and the same doctrines. To him, it is both certain that a true believer cannot lose his salvation and that a true believer will certainly perseve in faith and good works to the end. Accordingly, Horton obviously disagrees with the view that it is possible for someone who was once a true believer to lose his salvation. Horton is equally clear to distance himself from the Antinomian views of people like Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, Charles Ryrie and Norman Geisler by stating that many of those who defend "eternal security" do not take the calls to perseverance seriously, and water down passages that speak of damnation to make them read as if they only speak of loss of reward (e.g. Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-29,36; Mt. 24:13). Horton argues that salvation does not merely result in the believer being saved from hell, but also results in the believer's life being transformed so that those who abandon the faith prove that they never truly believed in the first place. While Horton deserves praise in recognising that there are a number of passages which appear at first glance to teach that a true believer can lose his salvation, and in recognising that the defender of perseverance of the saints needs to take those passages seriously, he is too quick to suggest that Perseverance of the Saints can only be defended through a belief in Covenant Theology and the other four points of Calvinism. In doing so, he does a disservice to his defence of Perseverance of the Saints as he identifies it too closely with full-blown Calvinism while passing over the fact that conservative Dispensationalists like Ironside and MacArthur could reject Calvinism (in Ironside's case) or Coveanant Theology (in MacArthur's case) and still hold to Perseverance of the Saints. For example, Horton too easily assumes that if grace is resistible at the point of salvation, that the new birth must be reversible after salvation. After all, it seems logically possible to argue as follows: (1) man's will is free to resist and reject the saving grace of God, (2) Although man's will cannot come to God on its own, God's enabling grace can work on the will to the point where the will is able to receive God's saving grace, and (3) once this saving grace is accepted, God transforms the will to make it unable to subsequently reject salvation. Horton may want to attempt to argue against that position on the basis of his understanding of God's Sovereignty and more specific passages of Scripture, but it is difficult to see how he could think the above position is not logically consistent. If the above view is an error, it is not an error that is logically related to the Perseverance of the Saints question. Simply put, while someone who believes in Irresistible Grace will necessarily believe in Perseverance of the Saints, one who rejects Irresistible Grace will not necessarily reject Perseverance of the Saints.

Norman Geisler's article is disappointing. He persists in using the deceptively inaccurate label of "Moderate Calvinism" when describing his own views even though he is really either a 1-point Calvinist (as Ashby argues) or a 0-point Calvinist (as Horton demonstrates). And, while he deserves credit in attempting to distance himself from the nonsensical views of Charles Stanley and Zane Hodges, he ends up following the liberal Antinomian strand in Dispensational thought that relegates warning passages like Mt. 24:23; Jn. 15:4,6; Col. 1:23; 1 Tim. 5:15; 2 Tim 2:12; Heb 6:4-8; Heb 10:26-29; and Rev 3:15-16 to warnings of the possible loss of rewards. Simply put, that type of analysis leaves the reader with the feeling that Geisler is robbing the passages of any sensible meaning. And while someone more sympathetic to Geisler's position may think he defends it well, one would hope everyone would agree that he should drop the deceptive "moderate Calvinist" label.

Stephen Ashby's article rivals that of Horton's as an able defence of his position. In Ashby's view, a true believer can lose his salvation, but only through "a decisive act of apostasy", and if this happens he cannot be saved again. Ashby candidly concedes that the Calvinist position is "logically tight" and thereby concedes that if the first four points are correct, Perseverance of the Saints must be true as well. Ashby rejects all Calvinist points other than Total Depravity, however, and naturally interprets the "warning passages" as referring to salvation (contrary to Geisler's position) and being directed at true believers (contrary to Horton's position). Although Ashby rightly criticizes Geisler's deceptive use of "moderate Calvinism", and generally accurately represents Arminius' views on depravity, election, grace, justification and the will, he fails to mention that Arminius himself "sat on the fence" on the perseverance of the saints issue. Perhaps as a result of this, Ashby repeats Horton's error of thinking that if the will has some role to play in salvation, then one must conclude that the "falling away" position is correct.

Steven Harper is the last author and he unfortunately presents the weakest contribution to the volume. Although the level of civility in the discussion would have undoubtedly been reduced with Dan Corner contributing this chapter, one is left wishing that a stronger representative could have been found for the view that a true believer can lose his salvation either through abandoning the faith or through sinful acts, and that a true believer can also be saved and lost repeatedly. Far too much time is spent on the historical views of John Wesley and far too little time on Scripture, with the result that the reader is left wanting something more.

All in all, though, the book is well worth purchasing as an introduction to the various views on Eternal Security.

Needs More Exegesis But Fun Reading Anyway
The topic of eternal security generates quite a bit of emotions from believers. Most fall into the Calvinistic camp of eternal security for all the wrong reasons such as sinful living, laziness, and out right disbelief. Many Arminians equally fall into their position by wrong motives such as legalism or dogmatism. However, the topic of eternal security always generates a tough debate.

This book expresses that argument. The book is best described as one long argument without any clear conclusions. Exegesis of the texts are ignored and instead the book is full of proof-texting (especially by Norman Geisler). I thought that Michael Horton and Stephen Ashby did the best jobs of presenting their views. I was highly impressed with the "Reformed Arminian" view of Ashby. His arguments are worth getting this book.

Overall, while I did not feel that the writers dealt enough with Scripture, the book is fun reading. You will enjoy the debate albeit it does little for the debate itself.