By the way, Brooklynne is protesting this post because she feels strongly that salvation is once and for good, and she says I never believe anything in black and white.

I agree with Brooklynne ... salvation is once and for good. Which is funny, b/c its a position that I have come to recently in my walk of faith. I'll not go deep into theology (mostly b/c I would get lost myself, and probably lose everyone else in the process), but here's the reasoning I have accepted:

Paul - especially in Galatians 3, but elsewhere too - goes to great pains to emphasize faith. (James gives a nice illustration of genuine faith ... and I believe speaks of present [not future] salvation in calling faith without action "dead"). I love vs. 2: "I would like to learn just one thing. Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" Some might argue "believers' baptism" and 2nd reception of the spirit, but I believe that receipt of the Spirit comes at point of original belief (ie, faith) in Christ as savior. This is supported in vs. 3: "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"

So- 2 things. First, just as faith is the way for eternal salvation, faith is the way to grow as a believer (that was the "goal" of the Galatians-- they wanted to be more righteous, to be "better christians", and as such returned to a system of laws akin to those of OT jews). Second- as a counterpoint (which is probably the weaker logical method of proof... but we'll see what others say!) -just as you did no work to receive the Spirit at point of belief, there is no work that can undo that "supernatural transaction". Vs. 15 speaks to this: "Brothers ... just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case" [meaning the 'supernatural transaction' of receiving the spirit when you believe].

Romans 6 highlights the chief "trouble" of forever salvation, namely, that the believer can go and do whatever he pleases. "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any loger?" That is for the believer who might be tempted to continue in sin. They are reminded that, at the core of who they really are, is someone who now no longer desires to sin. (Even though the 'war' continues in the flesh. That's no longer the identity).

The final point I'll make is this: "salvation belongs to our God." He implemented the idea of 'supernatural transaction', and only He can judge the hearts of men. So for us to attempt to discern the spiritual standing of one who seemingly has "fallen away", or "lost the faith", etc., is crazy! Paul tells us that we each have a war ongoing inside ourselves. Perhaps those "fallen away" have had a series of stinging defeats? We never know whether they will - as we might put it - "return to the faith". (God might prefer "shift the tide of the war"; James might say "start showing good works again".) I guess my final point can be summed in this: I believe its possible for someone whose eternal status is "saved" to live a horrible life, rarely demonstrating fruit. Again, only God knows the hearts of men.

(My apologies for this long reply! Feel free to rebut / respond with comments and counterpoints ... again this is still a formative theological stance for me!)

I think you're right about many things in your post. I think that downplaying man's responsibility to persevere/persist actively (by God's grace, in his power) can give the person who doesn't really know God a sense of security that shouldn't be there. On the other hand, I agree that God's grace is incorrectly minimized when our salvation depends on our actions. We talked about this last night in one of the groups we go to. One guy said that we naturally look to dichotmize ideas where we really need to embrace them both despite the cognitive dissonance (read: despite the fact that it's confusing to our small minds - like the doctrine of the Trinity). Anyway, nice post.
On a theological note, Brooklynne is always right.

Mile's discussed the determining factor on this issue in my own mind: the gestalt of the entire Bible--> We can never escape God and His grace.

Interesting sidenote: it seems as Christians grow older and wiser, they always seem to gravitate toward Calvinism. Just my personal observation, but I feel it's relevant and worthy of mention.

Brad and others, I really appreciated your posts. I appreciate your sharing what you understand, and what you're learning in discussion with others.

I will say up front that I don't claim to know the answer to this question. Like many theological questions, it's a frustrating one to me. I think, for now, I have to leave understanding this type of thing up to people who have more energy and intelligence than I. (Not that I don't think theology is important, I just have seen in myself that I get beaten down trying to figure out the decisions of God. This type of exercise doesn't make me yearn to praise Him; it makes me try to reduce God, caricature God, or pigeon-hole God. I am learning that my personality draws closer to God with learning to sit in the tension and trying to learn to trust and worship... For Burly and his friends: I'm embracing the cognitive dissonance of God's decisions... I have read Job MANY times...) Referring to Zach's post, I'm getting pretty old, but I'm realizing more and more that I'm not all that wise. (What should that do regarding my standing with Calvin?) I've decided that for me, I need to chill out on the energy that I previously spent trying to decide who is in and who is out. I am just trying to love people well and participate however I can in "thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven." I'm certain that I don't deserve heaven, and God knows what he's doing, so I'm just trying to be faithful and attentive to His lead, and let Him take care of determining people's eternity. I could be wrong, but I think I understand that he wants me to love people, to lay down my life for people, regardless of their ultimate destiny, so my limited intellect will just try to follow His guidance on how to love them and let Him figure it out.

Couple comments:

1.) I lean toward Calvin.
2.) I don't think as people get older they necessarily gravitate toward Calvin.
3.) Calvin doesn't have anything to do with deciding who's in or out.
4.) I'm opinionated.

Just some clarification for my last post--
About all of the references to TRYING to follow, to be faithful and attentive, to love, etc.:
I don't understand this to be work to deserve anything, or worth anything in my own strength. I work because God works in me; the work and the will to do it are God's.

Calvin and I don't exactly see eye to eye on much of anything... this may be one of the only things that I will sadly aknowledge that we are in agreement.

Brooklynne,

Do you not agree with Calvin, or people who read Calvin. There's often a HUGE difference.

I think I don't agree with the people who read Calvin if they were the one's who invented his five pillars of Calvinism.

Jesus (my husband) and I have discussed this on more than one occasion and so can appreciate the discussion between Miles and Brooklynne.

I do believe that once you are saved, then you are saved forever. No one can snatch us, nor could we ourselves jump, out of God's hand. To say there is something I could do to negate the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in me, puts me (I feel) in a much more powerful position than I really have.

That said, I do always conflicted when I hear of a brother who was once "on fire" but has now turned his back on Christ/Christianity. Is it that he never really was saved? Or is that what Paul talks about in Corinthians when he talks about our building materials being tested by fire? That the person himself will be saved but by the skin of his teeth?

There is a good reason that God is Heaven and I am on earth.

Time to weigh in - I would base my opinion that we cannot lose our salvation on Ephesians 1:13-14, which says, "13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory."

That sealing by the Spirit is what guarantees our inheritance. Not our understanding of it or living out of it. When you believe, you are sealed.

As for Calvin, I agree with Burly's assessment that I mostly disagree with the MEGACALVINISTS, but I also disagree with Calvin on predestination. I would say that I am reformed, though. I do not find myself gravitating towards Calvin (I am, however, not old - I am almost 31)

Miles, Miles, long time man. This is Newports friend Jeremy, the one that moved to Nicaragua. Remember the 'big barn 5 pound burrito' what a joke that was.

Now to more important matters.

I believe we can't lose our salvation and I dont think there is much doubt about it. I also think that it IS important that we understand this concept as it deals with our concept, as a whole, of God. I don't want to get preachy or say everyone else is wrong, but here is a quick apology for my position.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-Romans 8:31-39

The simple fact is that salvation is not of ourselves, but of God and that nothing can separate us from him. Period. Paul couldn’t have stated it any clearer (one of my favorite characteristics of Paul).

As to the John 10 passage, you stated:

“His sheep certainly cannot be snatched from his hand, but does that necessarily mean that our position as His sheep is eternally binding? Can we choose not to be his sheep by not believing or not following his voice? It seems unclear to me whether the object of Christ's grasp is a certain group of sheep who chose to be His once, or a group of sheep who continually choose to be His.”

Great questions, let me try and help out. As its been pointed out in a previous comment we are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph 1). How can we take that away? Eph. 2:8-9 tells us that our faith is a gift from God, once again something not of ourselves. Who are we to choose? As to the question as to who is in his hand, I’d quickly suggest Dan 4 (the end part), Eph.1:4-6, John 1:12-13, and all of Romans 9. I could go down the predestination path for a long time, but this isn’t the place for it.

The question naturally arises “what about those who were ‘on fire’ and are now worse off than ever?” 1 John 2:18-19

“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

We can fool everyone pretty easily, Jesus doesn’t call us sheep for no reason. If we leave we were never a part of it.

I could, and want to, go on, but I won’t unless asked to do so. Once again I don’t want to seem like a bully on your blog, especially with my first comment! It’s just something I’m very passionate about. This truth, which I once stood against vehemently (out of arrogance and lack of biblical knowledge), has given me a greater respect as to who God is and what he does in our lives.

On a side note:

Brooklynne- What don’t you see eye to eye on with Calvin? I myself am a Calvinist and I often run into people who are starkly opposed to Calvin, without really knowing why. I myself used to be one, till I sat down to try and figure out why. I’m not trying to say you are one of these people, but in your second comment you said you were against people who read Calvin if they were the ones who invented the 5 pillars. Calvin himself wrote them, but only in response to Arminius’s 5 points. They represent a very small part of Calvin’s theology. Are you against something in the 5 pillars? If so I’d love to know what they are, not to rail on you about my ideas, but to try and help shed some light.

I’m totally against hyper-Calvinists too by the way for everyone reading this. I’d encourage anyone interested in the difference between reformed Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism to look it up in Wikipedia, it will give you a good start. Please e-mail me if you’d like to talk about it, or anyone else for that matter.

Great to read your guys blog. I’ll be checking back often.

Here's another post from a "long-time, no-see." I've enjoyed reading this blog- it's great to see what's going on in your life, Miles. Brooklyne- I don't know if you remember me, but I went camping once with Miles, Burly, and you in NC.

Jeremy- great perspective, and as a fellow Calvinist, I agree. Except that Calvin didn't write the 5 points- the five point arose from the Synod of Dordt, responding to the Dutch Remonstrants (who viewed themselves as followers of Arminius).

Here's where it gets really confusing- Arminius was a student of Theodore Beza, Calvin's appointed heir. Arminius rejected Beza's double predestination (God elects the eternally blessed AND reprobate) and used a philosophy from called "middle knowledge" (which is popular amongst many Catholic theologians, Molinism and whatnot) to argue his position, which he felt was closer to Calvin. I don't think Arminius was closer to Calvin, but it's interesting to think that Arminius, despite what we tend to think today, viewed himself as upholding the legacy of Calvin. It's also interesting to think that Arminius doesn't deny predestination- he believed that God predestines, but based on foreknowledge of individuals' actions, as opposed to Beza and Calvin who believe in election based purely on God's will, though humans are still fully responsible.

That said, Arminius' students/heirs, the Dutch Remonstrants, per their name, did take big issue with Calvin themselves, which gave rise to the Synod of Dordt and the 5 points. Jeremy is right- they are good summaries of Calvin's Institutes and other writings, but no where exhaust his thought.

My read of Calvin and his Institutes is this- God is 100% sovereign, over both the elect and reprobate, AND we are 100% responsible. It's a mystery, but choosing between one side (erring on "hyper-Calvinism") or on the other (erring on forms of Arminiamism, Pelagianism, etc.) doesn't cohere with the biblical data, or life in general. Or, at least they don't for me. The more I study, the more I'm growing comfortable with the concept of mystery in theology.

Brooklyne- you are right to not like many people who are Calvinists. We have often been very guilty of arrogance and argumentative attitudes, as though we have it "figured out" somehow. I've been as guilty as anyone regarding this egregious sin, and have apologized many times for it. The older I get, the more I realize that my best argument for Calvinism, or (more important) my faith in Christ, should be humility- unfortunately I fail at this everyday.

Sam,

Great follow up comment. I've gotta say 'Doh' to your correction. As you can see it was pretty late when I posted and I misinformed, thanks for the correction. You also added great points about Arminius, in many ways a follower of Calvin's theology.

The mystery of double predestination is a hard one for any of us to accept, but I believe it gets a whole lot easier when we understand that according to Rom. 3 there are none who do good and none who seek God. This being true (if its not we are, as Paul says, of all men most pitiable, the bible being false) if God even saves ONE he shows amazing grace...pretty awesome.

You make a great point as well as to why it's easy to dislike many calvinists. The simple fact is although God predestines all according to his good pleasure (Eph. 1:5), we don't know where anyone is predestined to go. Our job remains the same, to preach the word! What an awesome responsibility and privilege it is for us.