Once Saved Always Saved: Biblical?

According to EDD, if God in his causal will saves someone, it would be impossible for them to ever be unsaved. If someone God causally determines to be saved is ever lost, his will is no longer causal, but permissive, and this would be another unacceptable thorn in the side of the determinist. If someone falls away, we are told, they were never true believers in the first place. We can refer to the perseverance of the saints by the abbreviation POTS. This is similar to OSAS—once saved always saved. I treat them as though they are the same thing. How one arrives at either one may differ, but the end result is the same, and involves the same implications.

There is a broad spectrum of positions on this point. But for the deterministic Calvinist, some form of POTS/OSAS is not optional, but mandatory. 

The central problem with the deterministic version of the perseverance of the saints is that it destroys libertarian freedom. This is perfectly understandable. If divine determinism is true, then the perseverance of the saints is true by default. But if divine determinism is true, man has no libertarian free will anyway. However, it is still true that it's impossible for a true believer to abandon faith in Christ and become an unbeliever in determinism. But the only way to prevent a believer from abandoning the faith is to take away their libertarian freedom. If they have that, they are free to de-convert. So if we can establish that believers have libertarian freedom, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is severely weakened. 

I would formulate the argument like this:

1. If the perseverance of the saints doctrine is true, believers have no libertarian freedom.

2. Believers have libertarian freedom.

3. Therefore the perseverance of the saints doctrine is false.

Elsewhere I argue that believers have libertarian freedom. If the argument I present is sound, the perseverance of the saints doctrine is untenable.

I examined 2 Peter 3 earlier in this volume. Not only does that chapter remove all doubt that God's patience makes provision for "all to come to repentance," it also gives us valuable insight into the matter of the perseverance of the saints. Verse 17 in that chapter reads:

Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.

Under Calvinism's deterministic framework, people are causally determined to be saved and lost. It follows that they are causally determined to stay saved, and thus will automatically persevere in the Faith. In other words, human beings are nothing more than robots who are programmed either to permanently believe or to remain in unbelief. As I stated before, you don't warn robots, you program them. But verse 17 above articulates a solemn warning: be on your guard. It also makes it obvious that it's possible for believers to be carried away by error, and to fall from their secure standing. How can that be if it is absolutely guaranteed that the elect will persevere to the end? The only way the perseverance of the saints could be true is if those who get carried away and fall from their secure standing were never actually believers to begin with. But James White and other Calvinists demand that 2 Peter 3 is written exclusively to those who are saved. If so, the text is unambiguous: those who are truly saved are able to be carried away by error and fall from their secure standing. What is the "secure standing" they could fall from? If this does not refer to their salvation, what does it refer to? So unless the Calvinist can make the case that the secure standing refers to something other than salvation, the perseverance of the saints doctrine is in deep trouble.

Another alleged basis for establishing the perseverance doctrine is John 10:28, which reads,

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Doesn't this seal the deal for the perseverance of the saints? Not quite. Jesus said they shall never perish. Is this an absolute reality with no conditions? Does he ever add conditions when he speaks on that subject? I will deal with this question momentarily. For now, Jesus told us unequivocally that no one will snatch believers out of his hand. But that doesn't mean they can't jump out of it on their own. To do so is not a matter of snatching, but of leaving. The Calvinist may object by repeating what I alluded to above: if they fall away, they were never true believers in the first place. But if we ask how they know this, their answer is, "because of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints." In other words, they are arguing in a circle. You can't introduce an ad hoc explanation that has no evidence for it to support a claim that depends on the ad hoc explanation to be true. This is known as the ad hoc fallacy. In this case it goes like this:

Calvinist: True believers will persevere until the end.

Non-Calvinist: But some believers don't persevere until the end.

Calvinist: That's because they weren't true believers.

Non-Calvinist: How do you know they weren't true believers?

Calvinist: Because true believers will persevere until the end.

The Calvinist's argument is internally consistent, but is still hanging in the air without anything to support it. It can't support itself—not without begging the question. The only way to escape the charge of question-begging is to establish POTS/OSAS directly from scripture. The above passages I examined do not establish it. But are there others that do? It would be worth taking the time to examine some of the most common ones that may support the doctrine.

1 Corinthians 9:24-27

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

The phrase "so run that you may obtain it" doesn't guarantee that every believer will do so. And why would Paul be concerned that he "should be disqualified?" If all the saints, including Paul, automatically persevere to the end, it would be impossible for him to be disqualified.

Ephesians 1:13-14

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

This may appear to teach the POTS doctrine but for one problem: this text informs us that God is always faithful, and will guarantee his promises. It doesn't say we can't bail on him. Suppose someone gets married, and the groom vows to the bride that he will always be faithful and that as far he is concerned, she will be his bride as long as that faithfulness lasts, and it will last until his death. The vow seals the deal for the bride. Does the faithfulness of the groom guarantee the bride will never leave him? Hardly. This passage may teach the perseverance of God, but it doesn't teach the perseverance of believers.

Philippians 1:6

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

This is another guarantee of God's faithfulness, but not of man's. Nowhere in this verse does it say the believer can't or won't fall away by their own choice. If they do fall away, the work God began will be abandoned. We have to remain in him for him to bring his work to completion. If we don't, it won't be his fault, and it won't mean God was unfaithful. It's vital we remember that the author of Philippians is also the author of Galatians and Colossians. In both of those letters, Paul again touches on the work of God in their lives, and tells them we will be presented holy and blameless, and that we will reap eternal life if we do not give up. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, cannot contradict himself between Philippians on the one hand, and Galatians/Colossians on the other. We will examine the latter passages momentarily.

John 5:24

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

We can be certain that everything Jesus says here is true, and that he will give eternal life to whoever hears his word and believes. But what is absent from this verse is the idea that it's impossible for believers to choose to pass from life back into death again on their own. The only way to derive that idea from this verse is to assume it ahead of time based on an antecedent extra-biblical ideology. Moreover, Christ says in this verse that whoever hears his word and believes him who sent him has eternal life. In other words, he has eternal life now. But does this mean the one who believes is guaranteed to have it a year from now? Eternal life is a quality of life that has the potential to last forever as long as one possesses it. But there is nothing about the nature of eternal life that certifies that the one who has it can't abandon it, and therefore make the potential endless duration of it fail to come to fruition.

Suppose I buy a new car. And in a foolish momentary lapse of judgment, I decide to buy the extended warranty. Now suppose this warranty has no expiration date. It remains in effect as long as I own the car. It is the manufacturer who guarantees the reliability of the warranty. But what if I sell the car? I no longer own the car, and therefore the unending nature of the warranty no longer applies to me. Does that mean the warranty had an expiration date after all? No, it doesn't. Nor does it mean the manufacturer reneged on the perpetuity of the warranty. The believer in Christ is given life that has no expiration date as long as the believer "owns" that life and doesn't "sell it off" so to speak. The life an apostate believer had would have lasted forever had he not forfeited it by walking away from the deal.

2 John 1:9

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

It is wonderful to know that whoever abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son. But that doesn't mean someone can't stop abiding in the teaching.

2 Peter 1:10

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

So if we practice the qualities mentioned we will never fall. But what if we choose not to practice them? This verse seems to be telling us that if we don't, we could fall. Otherwise, there would be no reason to say anything about falling. The claim that if we aren't diligent that means we were never believers in the first place fails. If that was the case, how could we "fall?" To fall from something implies that we were standing on it in the first place. You can't fall from where you never were to begin with.

Perhaps the most common verse in the Bible Calvinists use to "prove" that those who leave the faith were never true believers in the first place is 1 John 2:19, which discusses antichrists who were in the world:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

The problem with the use of this verse as a prooftext for POTS/OSAS is a single subtle word that is conspicuously absent from the text: ever. Consider the following pairs of statements:

1. They did not really belong to us.

2. They did not ever really belong to us.

1. None of them belonged to us.

2. None of them ever belonged to us.

This verse is definitely saying the antichrists did not belong to us at the time they left. But it doesn't say they never belonged to us. It says none of them belonged to us when they "went out from us." It does not say none of them ever belonged to us at all. The Calvinists are seeing words on the page that aren't there. 

But suppose we give them the benefit of the doubt. Suppose the antichrists were never true believers from the beginning. But that does not mean anyone in the whole world who ever falls away from the faith were never "of us" in the first place. This is just one example of unbelievers leaving the flock. The Bible never says all the examples of this in history must be identical to this one. This verse doesn't either. If we are not careful, it is quite possible to approach texts like this with an unfortunate lack of analytical thinking.

There are other verses we sometimes hear in support of POTS/OSAS. But what they all have in common is the faithfulness of God. We all agree that God is faithful. But that God will always be faithful to man does not guarantee man will always be faithful to God.

There is a strong contingent of biblical texts indicating the opposite of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Remember that in Calvinism, the POTS/OSAS doctrine is based on divine determinism. It is not based on God's faithfulness, but on his causality. To contradict POTS/OSAS is not to deny God's reliability, but his divine sovereignty artificially cast in the mold of causal robotic determinism.

Matthew 24:12-13

And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Doesn't this imply that one might not endure to the end and not be saved? There is a big difference between saying "all believers will endure to the end" and "the one who endures to the end will be saved." This is the equivalent of the following: if one endures to the end, they will be saved. So it is an implied conditional even though the word if isn't explicit in the text. If all believers are unconditionally and automatically going to persevere, the last sentence in the above text is not worth the papyrus it's written on. It is clear that the love of many will grow cold. The implication is that the love of those who endure to the end will not grow cold and they will be saved. 

It is important that we recognize what the Greek word for love in the above passages is: agape. This is the word for the highest and best form of love there is. It comes to us directly from the nature of God himself as the essence of love. Jesus is telling us without any ambiguity that human beings can possess this kind of love when he says "the love [agape] of many [possessive] will grow cold." When the Calvinists tell us those who are not ultimately saved were not really true believers in the first place, they must be able to successfully address the fact that those Jesus was referring to possessed agape love. It's hard to see how someone who is not a true believer could have such divine love in their hearts. Those who are not authentic believers and never have been are ungodly, unregenerated, and depraved. How could such a person have God's pure and life-changing love in their hearts? 

One potential problem here is that if human beings have this divine love in their hearts, how could it possibly grow cold? Isn't divine love perfect and infallible? But this problem represents a failure to account for the fact that though human beings may possess God's perfect love, that doesn't mean they will always express that perfect love. If you place a perfect tool in the hands of an imperfect craftsman, what the craftsman does with such a tool will not necessarily reflect the perfection of the tool. There is a profound difference between having perfect love and being perfectly loving. It is therefore no surprise that Jesus can tell us that God's perfect love can grow cold in the hearts of imperfect human beings, even if they've been justified and regenerated. They still have sin in their hearts, and that sin can pollute and corrode the use of God's gifts, no matter how perfect those gifts are in themselves.

Suppose we were able to buy a perfect rifle that we know will never misfire. We could also say that the scope mounted on the rifle is perfectly accurate. It is impossible for the scope to cause the shooter to miss. But do these things guarantee that whoever shoots the rifle will never miss the target? A perfect rifle in the hands of an imperfect or unskilled marksman does not guarantee shooting precision. The marksman must develop and cultivate the skill of accurate shooting. The same is true of God's love. God's love is perfect and will never misfire, so to speak. But we must learn to express and practice that love more effectively over time. That's a large part of what discipleship means. It's also a large part of sanctification. Discipleship and sanctification could fail due to a believer allowing the perfect love in their hearts to grow cold. If there's any doubt as to whether this can happen, we need go no further than the words of Christ himself in Matthew 24: the love (agape) of many will grow cold. God's love is perfect. He has placed that perfect love in our hearts. But if we neglect or abandon that perfect love, it will grow cold in our hearts, and therefore we can lose the benefits it gives us if we do not endure to the end.

Matthew 24:12-13 records the very words of Jesus. Recall that he said in John 10:28 that "they shall not perish." I posed the question then as to whether that statement was an absolute reality with no conditions. In the verses above he tells us those who endure to the end will be saved (i.e. will not perish). We therefore have our answer to the previous question. When Jesus tells us in John 10:28 that his sheep "shall not perish," we must add to that his condition in Matthew 24 that they must endure to the end for this to be true. Therefore John 10:28 is not saying his sheep will be unconditionally saved. They must endure to the end as opposed to their love growing cold and therefore not enduring to the end so as to be saved. If this was not true, Jesus contradicted himself, which is obviously impossible. The way we should understand John 10:28, then, is as a reference to Christ's own faithfulness, not that of his sheep. His next statement that no third party can snatch them from his hand confirms it. So we know without any doubt that it's possible for one of his sheep to let their love grow cold and fail to endure to the end, which contradicts the deterministic POTS/OSAS doctrine we are examining.

Another consideration we must address concerns 1 Corinthians 13:8 which informs us that love "never fails." Should we conclude from this that God's agape love in our hearts will always endure and therefore we are guaranteed by this that we will never abandon our salvation? Such a conclusion would be misguided. The Greek word translated "fails" in this verse means "to fall." The context of the passage indicates that love does not suffer the fate of knowledge, prophecy, and tongues, all of which become obsolete. Where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be silenced; where there is (human) knowledge, it will be rendered inoperative—presumably transcended by perfect divine knowledge. But love is not like that. It will never pass away, or be abolished or transcended. That love never fails means it will never become obsolete as a universal principle, unlike knowledge, prophecy, and tongues. It does not mean love will never fail to accomplish its objectives in every conceivable circumstance. So the fact that love never fails does not address the issue of whether a true believer can abandon the faith and as a result lose their salvation.

Colossians 1:21-23

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

We will be presented blameless and above reproach "if indeed [we] continue in the faith," "not shifting from the hope of the gospel." If POTS/OSAS was true, no one could possibly not continue in the faith, which means it's absurd to say we'll be presented if indeed [we] continue in the faith. We would be presented either way if POTS/OSAS is true. And no one would ever shift from the hope of the gospel either. The phrase concerning not shifting is also connected to the above conditional: if indeed you continue… So we could put it this way: if you do not shift from the hope of the gospel, you will be presented holy, blameless, and above reproach before God. If it was impossible not to shift from one's hope, there would be no reason to say any of this, and it would in fact be misleading. Notice also that the language about continuing in the faith as a conditional echoes the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 that he who endures (continues) to the end will be saved. POTS/OSAS is defeated again, but we're not finished.

Galatians 6:9

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

If POTS/OSAS is true, it would be impossible for anyone to give up, rendering the above text absurd. The conditional (if) would never occur. In other words, it's incoherent to tell someone something will happen "if [they] don't give up" when it's impossible for them to give up and hence it's impossible that it won't happen. We should be aware that the context of verse 9 is established by the verse that immediately precedes it. Verse 8 refers to reaping eternal life from the Spirit: "Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." The clear implication is that if we do not give up, we will reap eternal life as opposed to destruction.

Acts 14:21-22

When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Why would believers who cannot possibly lose their faith have to be motivated to continue in it? To encourage someone to do what they will be guaranteed to do regardless of what happens is petty lunacy. They have to do it. There's no way they won't if POTS/OSAS is true.

1 Timothy 4:1-2

Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the doctrines of demons.

Now it is not just Paul who says that some "will abandon the faith," it is the Spirit of God himself who is plainly saying it. The Calvinist will tell us that those who abandon the faith were never true believers in the first place. But does this verse say that? Since it doesn't, there must be some other basis on which to establish it. Further, it's hard to see how it would be possible to abandon what one has never truly embraced.

Hebrews 3:12

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

The author of Hebrews tells the brethren—a common and unmistakable reference to believers—to take heed lest any of you—meaning any of the aforementioned believers—could have an evil heart of unbelief and depart from the living God. How can a believer have an evil heart of unbelief? There are only two  possibilities: either God caused a believer to develop a heart of unbelief, or the believer decides to disbelieve out of their own evil heart. Since those whom the author is addressing are all believers, it must be possible for a believer to eventually form a heart of unbelief himself and depart from the living God. If the perseverance of the saints is true, it would be impossible for God to cause a believer to depart from him, since that would contradict the very principle of perseverance. Therefore the author of Hebrews unequivocally states that it's possible for a true believer to forge his own heart of unbelief and depart from the living God on his own. There is no third option. To presuppose that whoever departs was never a true believer in the first place is clearly unreasonable. Why?  Because it's impossible to depart from what you were never united with in the first place. The Greek word translated depart means to draw away from, to abandon, to leave, or let go of. The translation depart is more than appropriate in this case. You cannot leave or abandon what you never initially embraced. An airplane cannot depart Chicago if it was never in Chicago. You cannot leave a job you never had. You cannot let go of something you are not holding on to. This is a clear and unambiguous reference to true believers becoming unbelievers and thereby forfeiting their salvation. 

If verse 12 above is not enough to convince the reader that the author is warning true believers to make sure they don't abandon the Faith, verse 1 makes this even stronger:

Therefore, holy brethren, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest.

Perhaps the most important question we should ask in reference to this verse is is it ever proper to refer to unbelievers as "holy brethren" and those "who share in the heavenly calling?" Even more to the point, would John Calvin or his disciples ever entertain even the slightest possibility that unbelievers should be called "holy brethren?" The non-elect cannot be holy in any sense of the word and by any stretch of the imagination. How about people who "share in the heavenly calling?" EDD-Calvinists would insist that only the elect receive a heavenly calling. Non-believers decidedly have no such thing, or the entire Calvinist framework falls apart. That non-believers who are doomed from the womb could have a heavenly calling is unthinkable under Calvinist ideology. They are passed over, and receive no calling from on high. Do unbelievers "acknowledge" Jesus as their "apostle and high priest?" It shouldn't even be necessary to ask the question. The group of people who are initially addressed in verse 1 is exactly the same group of people who are being spoken to in verse 12. They are true believers.

So we would agree with the Calvinist that the non-elect (people who are not true believers) cannot be called holy, cannot share in the heavenly calling, and do not acknowledge Jesus as our apostle and high priest. The elephant in the room is that scripture addresses members of the elect—true believers—when the author of Hebrews tells us in terms that are not in dispute that those true believers can lose their salvation by choosing to develop a heart of unbelief and turn away from the living God. It is logically absurd to warn someone of something that cannot possibly happen.

The author of Hebrews uses the example of the generation the Holy Spirit was angry with because their hearts had gone astray in the wilderness and "had not known [his] ways" (verse 10). Does this mean the warning only applies to people who had not known God's ways—as in, never knew his ways? The ones whose hearts had gone astray may not have been true believers according to this example in the text. But they had "gone astray," which implies they may have been true believers at one time. But in this case, whether they were true believers who went astray and had become unbelievers, or were never believers from the beginning, is irrelevant. What matters is that both categories of people end up in the same place by their own choice. And the writer of Hebrews has grave concerns that this could happen to the true believers he or she is undeniably addressing, because they could easily be "hardened by sin's deceitfulness" (verse 13). True believers are not immune from such deceit. To drive the point home with even more force, they are told "we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." It should be abundantly obvious that the writer of Hebrews is giving the reader the same indication that we will be saved if and only if we do not give up as we are told in so many other verses throughout scripture—of which I provide multiple examples. Once again, the text of scripture flatly contradicts the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. True believers can and do fail to persevere, and can and do lose their salvation.

2 Peter 2:21

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

Who is "them" in this passage? It is those who "have known the way of righteousness." Does the context tell us these are not authentic believers? First, it tells us they are false teachers, and from verse one, Peter describes their corruption. It would be easy to assume these are not really true believers. But there is a catch. Verse 20 reads,

If indeed they have escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, only to be entangled and overcome by it again, their final condition is worse than it was at first.

What are we to make of this? Peter seems to be saying some of them could have been believers before being entangled in corruption. They might have "escaped the corruption of the world" through what? Through the "knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This could refer to the mere awareness of the knowledge of the Lord rather than true belief (faith). But mere awareness of the message of the Lord cannot help someone escape the corruption of the world. Only becoming a true believer can do that. It's hard to conceive of a Calvinist who would deny this, and affirm that someone can by the mere mental awareness of the gospel message escape the corruption of the world and know the way of righteousness without genuine faith in Christ. Peter says they became "entangled" in the corruption of the world and "overcome by it again." Again? This implies they had truly escaped it at one point. This is more evidence that at least some of the false teachers were true believers at one time. If that's the case, there is no question that real believers can become entangled in and overcome by the corruption of the world, and thereby transition back to a state of unbelief.

Ultimately, we should focus on what it means to be a true believer, and therefore whether people who fall away were true believers to begin with. That is the crux of the issue. The question becomes is the definition of a true believer in the text of scripture obscure, mysterious, complicated, or controversial? I would argue that it is none of those things. It couldn't be more simple or obvious: a true believer is one who has placed his or her faith in Christ. That's all there is to it. Faith in Christ is not only a necessary condition for justification and therefore salvation, it is the sufficient condition. If this was not true, one of the core principles of the reformation—one of the incontrovertible five solas—faith alone, is invalid. John 6:40 again:

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Jesus himself is the one speaking in the above text. He speaks on this topic earlier in John 5, verse 24:

Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life.

These verses, among others, are where the definition of a true believer comes from. If we believe in him, we will not come under judgment, we shall have eternal life, and we have crossed over from death to life, period. If that does not describe a true believer, then the concept has been hopelessly lost. And who are all the passages we examined above addressing where they warn us not to depart from the living God, and that we should take care that we endure to the end and don't give up? It is those who have faith in Christ. Jesus didn't say, "everyone who believes in him and has a solid love relationship with God shall have eternal life." He didn't say, "everyone who believes in him and adds to that belief the following works of righteousness shall have eternal life." The Bible doesn't go to any lengths whatsoever to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression that faith plus nothing justifies us in the court of God. 

Either we embrace the principle of justification by faith alone or we don't. If we don't, we have abandoned reformation theology in one of it's most essential components, and therefore we have no business calling ourselves reformation theologians. All of the above texts we have examined refer to believers, and how critical it is that they do not give up in the faith. It is absurd for us to split the fine hairs of what it means to be a true believer just to rescue a man-made doctrinal technicality. I don't have to remind the reader how numerous the passages of scripture that tell us we are justified by mere faith are. If we are not justified by faith plus nothing, the Bible would be replete with clarifications and qualifications on the matter. But they don't exist. How utterly irresponsible and deceptive would the Word of God have to be to omit such a monumental requirement for salvation? If it is not faith plus nothing, the scriptures would have told us what the plus is. This would be true whether that plus is love, or baptism, or any other addition to faith that we might claim in the name of a theological distinctive not everyone agrees on.

The principle I have argued for stands: true believers can abandon and thereby lose their salvation if they give up and allow the agape love in their hearts to grow cold. If that principle is true and valid, the perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved) is faulty. So is the claim that those who abandon the faith were never true believers to being with.

If we have established that we can walk away from the Faith and thus forfeit our salvation, what does that do to our assurance of salvation? Does it burn up our confidence that we are saved? This is the conclusion some determinists have drawn from any dismissal of the necessity of the perseverance of the saints. This can be a difficult issue to grapple with, especially for those who have gained the confidence that determinism is false and that we truly have libertarian freedom. 

Before we proceed with our treatment of this issue, we should remind ourselves that having libertarian freedom does not mean man is autonomous. Being autonomous means 1. we do not answer to any higher authority than ourselves, and 2. we are free from the consequences of our actions. This is another way of saying we are a law unto ourselves, which is the core definition of autonomy. Libertarian freedom is about being free to think independently of determining antecedent conditions and to choose one thought, idea, or course of action over another. But it does not necessarily imply we are able to carry out whatever our chosen course of action may be. In our libertarian freedom, we may decide we want to breathe under water, but that doesn't mean we can. We should also remind ourselves that I have shown on biblical grounds that human beings have this libertarian freedom both pre- and post-conversion. So we can pursue the concept of assurance on the basis of libertarian freedom knowing that such assurance is not derived from our own frail human faculties and abilities. We have libertarian free will, but this does not mean we are omnipotent. Those two concepts must always be kept in tension (though they are not contradictory) and carefully balanced:

• Human beings have libertarian freedom.

• Human beings are not autonomous or omnipotent.

As we have seen, our salvation is clearly secure on the basis of God's faithfulness and omnipotence. No third party can snatch us out of his hand, as Christ so strongly indicates. But we have also seen that we can choose to exit the relationship that may have been established with God. As Christ also indicated, the agape love of many will grow cold (Matthew 24:12). How do we reconcile these apparently conflicting ideas?

The best way to understand it is to weigh both of those ideas equally, and to realize that though they seem to be in conflict, they in fact are not. Our assurance of salvation can be expressed like this:

God's faithfulness guarantees my salvation as long as I don't abandon the relationship.

To give this more clarity, there are two possible ways to express the concept of assurance of salvation:

1. All believers will necessarily endure to the end and be saved.

2. All believers may endure to the end and be saved, since if they do not endure to the end, it won't be God's doing.

The second definition of assurance of salvation is the only feasible one. Why? Because as we have seen, the Bible clearly indicates that the love of many will grow cold (as opposed to may grow cold) and that we will be saved provided we do not give up. Therefore not all believers will necessarily endure to the end and be saved. But this does not torch our assurance of salvation as long as we define it properly. This is, in fact, an enduring assurance of salvation, and we can be confident that it will always be true. The most important idea to grasp here is this: libertarian freedom is the only framework in which assurance of salvation is possible.

To establish this vital principle on a secure foundation, we must examine how assurance of salvation would be possible under the opposing framework of divine determinism. The P in TULIP, as we know, stands for the Perseverance of the Saints. As we have seen, all of the so-called doctrines of grace (the five points) are derived from theistic determinism. That is, if determinism is true, all five points must necessarily be true. In the case of the perseverance of the saints, divine determinism, as the cause of conversion, also guarantees the believer will never become an unbeliever. Why? Because God has causally determined the believer both to put their faith in Christ and to keep it there until the end of their earthly life. On the surface, this clearly seems to close the deal. But this is true only if we look at it from a distance—too far away to be able to see the termites eating it away.

We must remind ourselves of another inescapable implication of determinism we have learned in the course of our examination: under determinism, man cannot have anything we can properly call knowledge. If we cannot know anything on the basis that all our thoughts, beliefs, and judgments are determined by an untrustworthy antecedent necessity, it follows that we have no way of knowing whether we have assurance of salvation or not. Assurance requires knowledge—you have to know something to be assured of something. If we have no knowledge, we have no assurance. Therefore under exhaustive divine determinism, assurance of salvation is impossible. We could formulate the argument like this:

1. If exhaustive divine determinism is true, all human knowledge is impossible.

2. Since assurance requires knowledge, if all human knowledge is impossible, all assurance is impossible.

3. If all assurance is impossible, assurance of salvation is impossible.

4. Therefore, if exhaustive divine determinism is true, assurance of salvation is impossible.

It is ironic that the disciples of EDD-Calvinism, which is predicated on divine determinism, tell us that unless we accept that framework, we cannot possibly have assurance of our salvation. The claim implies that a rejection of Calvinism's deterministic ideology means our salvation depends on us rather than on God. If it is dependent on us, no assurance can be possible because human beings are fallible and therefore we cannot count on such fallibility to form the basis of something like assurance (of anything). If we expose this covert fallacy, we can immediately see what a blazing absurdity it is. The possibility that we can jump ship has no bearing on how sound and seaworthy the ship is. 

Since determinism and libertarian freedom are mutually exclusive and logically exhaustive categories, we can formulate the following syllogism:

1. If determinism is true, libertarianism is false.

2. If libertarianism is true, determinism is false.

3. Therefore, either determinism is true or libertarianism is true.

4. Determinism is self-defeating.

5. All self-defeating propositions are automatically false.

6. Therefore determinism is false.

7. Therefore libertarianism is true (and automatically not self-defeating). 

8. The Bible tells us we can be assured of our salvation if we do not give up.

9. Therefore assurance of salvation is possible.

10. If determinism is true, assurance of salvation is impossible.

11. Assurance of salvation is possible (#9).

12. Therefore determinism is false.

13. Determinism and libertarianism cannot both be true and cannot both be false.

14. If determinism is false, libertarianism is true.

15. Determinism is false (#6, #12).

16. Therefore libertarianism is true and by necessity the only condition in which assurance of salvation is possible.

Notice that the truth of libertarianism does not guarantee that assurance of salvation is possible. But the Bible does. So since libertarianism is true, and the Bible tells us assurance of salvation is possible as long as we don't give up, our conclusion is necessarily true. Again that conclusion is:

Libertarian freedom is the only framework in which assurance of salvation is possible.

So which side of the determinism/libertarianism fence has the sufficient reasons they need to tell the other side they have no assurance of salvation? It is the libertarians who are correct in pointing out that their deterministic debating opponents cannot have assurance of salvation. 

But what of the objection that if believers can abandon their faith, their salvation depends on them rather than on God? Since we have seen that assurance of salvation is impossible under EDD, and is only possible if non-determinism is true, the above objection is irrelevant. If the possibility that believers can abandon their faith necessarily implies that our salvation is dependent on us, then it follows that our salvation is dependent on us. If one wishes to object to the conclusion that our salvation is dependent on ourselves, that does not defeat non-determinism. It defeats the proposition that the possibility that believers can abandon their faith implies that our salvation depends on us. Since the scriptures affirm that it's possible for believers to abandon their faith, the proposition that this implies that our salvation depends on us is necessarily false, since it would imply a false consequent. No antecedent that is true can imply a consequent that is false, which is the fundamental principle behind the modus tollens conditional syllogism. Both determinists and non-determinists agree that our salvation does not depend on us. If that's true, we should examine the following argument:

1. If believers can abandon their faith, their salvation depends on us and not on God. 

2. Our salvation does not depend on us, but on God.

3. Therefore believers cannot abandon their faith.

If premise 1 is true, the conclusion (3) is necessarily true. But scripture affirms that the conclusion (3) is false. Since premise 2 is true, premise 1 is necessarily false. In other words, that we can abandon our faith does not mean our salvation depends on us.

It's easy to confuse two meanings of the phrase "our salvation depends on us." It can mean: 1. we are the source of the provision for our salvation, or 2. the provision of our salvation came from God, but the retention of our salvation depends on us. So the wisest thing to do is formulate a more precise proposition to avoid ambiguity: God is the provider and guarantor of our salvation, but we have the responsibility to remain faithful to him until the end. So the provision for our salvation is the finished work of Christ. It is finished in the sense that no additional provision is necessary. But the term finished should not be applied to our disposition as it relates to our individual retention of salvation. We can walk away, and that doesn't negate God's faithfulness. If we are faithless, he remains faithful (2 Timothy 2:13).

A possible objection to whether the retention of our salvation depends on us is based on Jude 1:24, which reads,

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—

Since this text informs us that God is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us before his glorious presence without fault, we might be tempted to reject the proposition that the retention of our salvation depends on us, and affirm that it depends on God. But this is another fallacy. Suppose I have fallen over the side of a cliff, and at the last second, I grabbed a root sticking out of the side of it. A physicist could measure the integrity of the root and conclude that it is able to bear my weight without breaking. So the root is able to keep me from plummeting to my death. But does that mean I can't let go of the root myself and therefore fall to my doom? It obviously does not. Perhaps I'm not convinced that I will be killed if I let go and allow myself to fall. In the same way, that God is able to keep me from stumbling does not guarantee that he will prevent me from letting go of his influence and therefore cause myself to stumble. 

The above passage in Jude is another in a long series of assurances that God will not fail or abandon us. As I have repeatedly observed, this never means we can't abandon him. 1 Corinthians 10:13 is another in that series, indicating that God is able to provide a way of escape from falling, though we still must take the way of escape he provides using our own libertarian freedom. 

One could object to this analogy on the basis that the root is impersonal and does not care about the one hanging on to it. But this objection fails. Just like the root won't force the one hanging on it to maintain his grip, God will not force us to remain in him. How do we know this? Because the scriptures have told us over and over that: 

• we will be saved if we do not give up

• some believers can and do depart from the living God

• the love of many will grow cold 

In each of these cases and others, God does not intervene and force people to remain in him. We cannot dismiss the plain language of scripture merely to satisfy the demands of an ideology that is incompatible with it. 

Against the thesis that the EDD-Calvinists cannot have assurance of salvation, one could launch another familiar objection: "But I'm one of the elect, because I am a believer. Since I'm one of the elect, I have assurance of salvation since God will determine that I will never fall away." What's wrong with this objection? That the Calvinist is a believer and therefore one of the elect could be just one more false belief God has determined him to believe through divine antecedent necessity. Not only does the EDD-Calvinist have no assurance of salvation, he has no assurance that he is even a believer to begin with. Remember that if determinism is true, God is a deity of deception since he causes believers to hold false beliefs. If a deity of deception is the Calvinist's source of his assurance of salvation, that assurance could be a deception, and therefore it is no assurance at all. The syllogism:

1. If EDD-Calvinism is true, God is a deity of deception.

2. If God is a deity of deception, his necessary determination of one's assurance of salvation is untrustworthy.

3. If God's necessary determination of one's assurance of salvation is untrustworthy, no one can have assurance of salvation.

4. Therefore if EDD-Calvinism is true, no one can have assurance of salvation.

Another thorny problem for assurance of salvation in Calvinism is the concept of evanescent grace. Consider Calvin's remarks on the subject:

Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption ... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith ... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent ... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent. 

Pay close attention to what Calvin is saying. The reprobate are "sometimes affected" (by God) in a way that they are "similar to the elect" "in their own judgment," to the point they think there is "no difference between them." In other words, God—whose will we remember is the singular cause of all man's thoughts, beliefs, and judgments—causes the reprobate to think they are believers. God "instills into their minds such a sense of goodness" that they "believe God to be propitious to them," and "accept the gift of reconciliation." Calvin denies that they actually are partakers of the faith and regeneration of God's children. But he explicitly states that God in his divine causality merely toys with them—making them believe they are his. We must take great care to make sure we grasp this concept of evanescent grace. It means every Calvinist has no idea whether he is a true believer and one of the elect or not—God could only be making him think he is. There isn't a single Calvinist who ever lived or will live that could possibly be an exception to this basic fact. He could fall away tomorrow, or a year from now, or ten years from now, according to God's caprice. It may turn out God was only deceiving him into thinking he is one of the chosen. Does this deception come anywhere close to any kind of assurance of salvation?

Calvin supplements this jaw-dropping concept with: 

Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness. 

Translation: God makes people think they are his, and then drops them like a brick and says, "just kidding—you were never my child—I just made you think you were. Sucker. You thought you were blind before, that was nothing compared to what I'm going to do to you now." Supposedly this is the God of love, justice, and mercy talking. If the reader thinks I am painting an inaccurate caricature of Calvin's god here, reread what Calvin has to say on this topic. He is telling us God actually infallibly deceives some people into thinking they are authentic believers for a period of time, after which he heartlessly throws them under the soteriological bus.  

To be fair to Calvin's teaching here, we must not neglect his phrase "on account of their ungratefulness." Calvin appears to be telling us that God is not the one to blame for his abandonment of those false believers. It's their own fault, because they were ungrateful. But what do you notice about this notion? If God determines all things about humanity, he determines their ungratefulness as well. This is still 100% God's doing, and 0% man's fault. If determinism is false, we could place this phenomenon in the category of man abandoning God out of his own libertarian free will. But if determinism is false, evanescent grace falls apart. It cannot survive outside the deterministic environment providing for its life support. If determinism is false, all human beings who are deceived have done it to themselves. But this is not an option for Calvin, and therefore for him to insert the phrase "on account of their ungratefulness" is pure sophistry.

Enter former Calvinist Tyler Vela. He has apparently abandoned the Christian faith altogether. Tyler was one of the leading popularizers of Calvinistic determinism on social media. He affirmed the infamous five points of Calvinism, which automatically means he affirmed the perseverance of the saints. Therefore, not only was he convinced he was one of the elect, but that he had absolute assurance of salvation, and that he would persevere to the end. Yet he has rejected Christianity lock, stock, and barrel, and therefore he did not persevere to the end as his Calvinistic theology demanded. If Vela is living proof that the perseverance of the saints is false (unless he returns to his former faith) what assurance does anyone else have? If Tyler is a glaring example of the fallacy of the perseverance of the saints, and the perseverance of the saints is the basis for assurance of salvation in EDD-Calvinism, the whole deterministic perseverance-assurance framework has completely collapsed. 

The only way to rescue that framework is to insist that Vela was never a true believer in the first place, and that God had convinced him by divine decree of the lie that he was. In other words, God was deceiving him the whole time. Evanescent grace is the only remedy for this catastrophe. That would mean for years Tyler—and of course all his colleagues—were under the deception that he was a true believer. It would also mean all the evidence that he was a true believer was invalid. It didn't really show that he was a believer since the conclusion was false. If the reader finds this hard to believe, I concur. 

This raises a rather disturbing question: how many other members of the Body of Christ are fake disciples who are being deceived by God into thinking they are true believers? They could be walking among us this very moment. They could be our colleagues, family members, and fellow pew-parking hymn-singers. They could be among our pastors, worship leaders, and Sunday school teachers. They could be seminary professors and high-profile scholars. Literally anyone we share the Christian Faith with could be a phony partaker of divine grace that God has under his deceptive spell. My question would be: do the Calvinists really believe there are numberless fake believers among us that have been duped by the Almighty himself into thinking they really are disciples of Christ and among God's holy redeemed people? Of course, the question is academic: if Calvinism is true, the Calvinists are being determined to believe in these divinely deceived fake believers by divine antecedent necessity.

Do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am not denying the potential existence of people who think they are saved but in reality are not. The difference is that in the real world, the counterfeit believer has deceived himself. This is not the case in Calvin's confused ideology. For him, there is no such thing as self-deception. The only deceiver in the formula is "God."

EDD makes God a deceiver. Evanescent grace makes him a deceiver on steroids. EDD gives Calvin a black eye. Evanescent grace gives him two. But Calvin's experience leaves him with no alternative: he has to propose the concept of evanescent grace in order to explain why some people he thought were true believers could fall away from the Faith. Since under Calvin's determinism people only do what God has decreed, it must have been God's doing, and he must have deceived them. But it should be obvious to the reader that Calvin is the one who was deceived. Exhaustive divine determinism does that—every time, and in every facet of theology. This is yet another example of its intellectually corrosive nature. It will twist and mutilate the mind to the point where any remaining crumbs of residual rationality will be swept away.

The assurance of salvation is a significantly large issue in Calvinism. Those who subscribe to it are absolutely convinced that no other theological system provides any sense of assurance. But the truth is, it is tragically absent from Calvin's theology and elusive to that of his faithful disciples. It is, however, abundant and thriving in the biblical framework of human libertarian freedom.