Friday Files: Davis - The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine

John Davis’ article "The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine" outlines the thought around perseverance and assurance through certain key theologians and churches through the history of the Christianity.
Davis starts with Augustine who held that not everyone who is regenerated and justified receives the gift of final perseverance and a person cannot know if they will preserver until the end. Aquinas held a similar view to Augustine. Luther held a similar view as well, but he added that while a person cannot know if they will preserver until the end, they may know that the are currently saved.

Calvin’s view was quite different than Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. The elect alone are regenerated and justified and they will preserver until the end. Not only can a person know they are currently saved, but they can also know they will preserver until the end. Further, perseverance is not only grounded in God’s eternal election, but also the nature of regeneration. The Roman Catholic church taught that true believers can fall away and a person cannot know if they will persevere until the end.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England taught the elect will preserver, but they were somewhat ambiguous on whether a person can know that they are elect. The Lambeth articles however, taught that all true believers will preserver and people can know that they will preserver until the end.

Arminius held election is conditional rather than unconditional and questioned if true believers fall away or not, but did not take a firm stance on the issue. This indecision was reflected in the five points of the remonstrants as well. In response, the cannons of Dort said that all true believers will preserver and people can know that they will preserver until the end. The Westminster assembly followed Dort in this.

John Wesley followed Arminius in holding election is conditional rather than unconditional, but added that that true believers can and do fall away.

The New Hampshire Baptist Convention held that all true believers will preserver until the end, but FreeWill Baptist held that true believers can fall away. The 1925 Statement of Baptist Faith and Message says all true believers will not fall away.

Dispensationalists Chafer and Scofield taught that some warning passages, such as Mathew 24:13 and Hebrews 6:4-6 pertained to the old covenant, not the new covenant. G. C. Berkouwer wrote the most comprehensive monograph in recent years from a Calvinistic perspective, while Shank, Marshall and Moody wrote works from the perspective that salvation can be lost.

Comments

John I. said…
"preserver"?, perhaps you meant "persevere.
February 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more