Is OSAS doctrine equivalent to Calvin’s teaching on the perseverance of the saints?

OSAS stands for the view that if someone is Once Saved, that someone is Always Saved. It might be thought that the wording of countless passages in the Bible preclude OSAS, but that has not deterred people from holding to OSAS.

Did Calvin hold to OSAS? Of course not. Here is a link with abundant references that prove he did not. I wish people would read Calvin rather than put words into his mouth.

For similar thoughts on the same subject, check out this post by Ben Witherington.

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

John, I don't know if it is me you have in mind as claiming that Calvin held to OSAS. Quite frankly, I don't know and don't care - although I am surprised to see that this guy is quoting only from Calvin's commentaries and not from his work of systematic theology, the Institutes.

More to the point is whether the Bible confirms my position. And it does confirm my position, which is not in fact simple OSAS at all. I believe that those who deliberately turn away from the Christian faith lose their salvation, also that those whose initial confession of faith is merely with their mouth without a real acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life are not saved. I do not believe that believers who simply disobey God's commandments while continuing to trust in Christ for salvation will not be saved; rather, these are the people who are called "least in the kingdom of heaven" (implying that they are in it) (Matthew 5:19) and will be saved "as one escaping through the flames" (1 Corinthians 3:15).

[JohnFH]

The way you were arguing on the other thread, Peter, led me to think that you held to OSAS. It sounds like you still suspect Calvin of so believing. As far as I know, and yes, I have read the Institutes, that is a misreading of Calvin.

It is sounder and more realistic to acknowledge, as I now see you do, that someone can "deliberately turn away" from the faith they once held dear, and thereby lose their salvation. For both Jews and Christians, the term apostate is applied to someone who, though once a believer, willfully chooses a life in flagrant violation of one or more of the major commandments. For example, a committed believer who becomes a hit man in an organized crime organization, or an idolater, or a sorcerer, is termed an apostate, and thereby forfeits his or her salvation.

So yes, it's possible to lose one's salvation if one chooses to flaunt a mitzvah of sufficient gravity with sufficient tenacity.

It is also true that those who struggle with sin and observe mitzvot very imperfectly, but cleave to the covenant with a sincere heart, do not fall into the apostate category.

Once again, we are back to where we started: the claim that observance of mitzvot, or violation of them, is irrelevant to salvation, must be carefully qualified.

It seems to me that you concur, but if I'm mistaken, let me know.

[Andrew Compton]

Just a quick clarification (on a Historical-Theological note), Calvin's institutes aren't technically a systematic theology, they don't touch on all the loci of the standard ST model . . . but that's beside the point (i.e., me being cranky!).

If by "lose one's salvation", one means apostatize from membership in the *visible* church, than Calvin would agree. This is due to the two-fold way of relating to the covenant of grace understood by Reformed theology. One can relate internally and salvifically (union with Christ, justification, etc.) or they can relate externally (baptized, but like Ishmael, not participating in the substance of the covenant). Calvin and the Reformed tradition understand that apostasy happens to those in the latter group. However since salvation is often conflated with justification, it doesn't seem to be a good descriptive move to say that Calvin taught one can lose their *salvation*.

Anyway, I'm not really weighing in on the exegetical argument here (even though I fall strongly within the Reformed confessional camp on this), I just wanted to clarify *how* Calvin understands covenant membership . . . this helps to understand to what he refers when he speaks of apostasy.

By the way, this post reminds me of the so-called "Lordship" controversy that went on in dispensational-evangelical circles a few years ago. A thoughtful critique of both sides of the debate comes from within the Reformed camp, edited by Michael S. Horton, entitled "Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation" (Baker, 1992). Thought I'd throw the title out for everyone's perusal.

Thanks for the post, John.

[Peter Kirk]

No, John, we do not quite agree. On my understanding, someone who "becomes a hit man in an organized crime organization" while remaining a committed believer does not lose their salvation, any more than the murderer King David did. Of course they are displeasing God and need to repent. But it is a different matter if someone deliberately turns away from their faith, and this might include someone who accepted a different religion, whether idolatrous or not. To such people God says in effect, if you don't want me to save you, I won't.

I note that an apostate is defined not as one who "willfully chooses a life in flagrant violation of one or more of the major commandments", but, here, as "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause." Don't you see the difference between breaking the rules and resigning from the club? The divine chair of this "club" does not expel members for breaking the rules (indeed it is one of the rules that there are no such expulsions), but he does accept resignations.

[JohnFH]

Peter, the kind of distinction you are making has no basis in scripture. Apparently you need to make it in order to keep your system afloat, but such was not the case for the authors of scripture, and later, within both Judaism and Christianity; in antiquity, so far as I know, no one subscribed to your system.

Traditional religions are known for their in/out lists, in particular, for lists like the one found in Revelation 21:8.

Rather than going to the dictionary to define a word like apostate, it's more helpful to take a closer look at scripture and tradition. I realize you distrust the latter, which is the root of many of your problems. Why you would think the dictionary provides more guidance on the meaning of the term apostate than the practice of church and synagogue is beyond me.

The list in Rev 21:8 includes "murderers." You would be wrong to suggest that Moses and David are covered by this term - and you don't. That would be a wooden, a-contextual construal of the language (by a-contextual, I include ignorance of how such lists were understood and put into practice in antique religions).

You would also be wrong to suggest that a professional hit-man is NOT covered by the term - and that seems to be what you are doing. That's exactly the kind of person a list like this targets. It has nothing to do with resigning from a club. When the Catholic Church recently and publicly excommunicated members of the Mafia in Sicily, it was precisely because the Mafia members were "breaking the rules," not because they had handed in their resignation. You are making a distinction where there is none.

Why is it that you do not care what someone like Calvin or Wesley thought on these issues (I mention them because you are a fellow evangelical)? Why is it that you ignore the witness of the church through the ages? You seem to be operating under the assumption that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church, that it is shrouded in darkness, and you, with Bible and dictionary in hand, are going to set things right.

I realize I may be caricaturing your position. Furthermore, you do better than most with nothing more than a Bible and dictionary in hand. But there are reasons why almost everyone who does theology works out of a particular tradition (Rambam, Thomas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley), and/or seeks to describe some overarching harmony between the traditions. Very good reasons, which you seem to be oblivious to.

[JohnFH]

Andrew,

thanks for your comments and clarifications. I am not happy with redefinitions of the term salvation such that members of the covenantal community do not partake of its benefits (and therefore cannot lose them) unless they also belong to that class of people referred to as "all who are written in the book," to use the language that shows up in Daniel 12:1. There is a sense in which everyone, through membership in the covenantal community, is saved. There is another sense in which, by the same token, no one is. It's important to use the language of salvation in both senses. If we don't, then we return to scripture and start distorting its language to fit our revised use of it.

Many passages in scripture, not to mention life as we experience it, become incomprehensible when the scope of the term "salvation" is limited to its purely eschatological sense.

However, even if one limits the sense of the term "salvation" to its eschatological sense, the system devised by second and third generation Calvinists quickly runs amok. This seems to be the case: if someone denies the possibility that a name in that "book" can be "blotted out," they set themselves against the clear teaching of scripture.

Does that mean that someone's tidy little system might need to be revised? Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time.

[James Pate]

I glanced at those Calvin quotes, and I'm slightly confused. He seemed to say that a real believer can apostasize. But that's not how I've always understood the P of TULIP. I always thought P meant that a true believer will persevere, and one reason you know that a true believer is a true believer is that he or she does persevere. But maybe Calvin felt that those warning passages were God's means of making sure the believer persevered.

[Peter Kirk]

John, you are right that I don't have a high opinion of tradition. But you are wrong that I am operating outside any tradition. My position is a clearly held one in some strands of modern Protestantism, and is more or less Conditional Preservation of the Saints as described by Wikipedia. It has clear roots in Luther's insistence on salvation by grace alone, and in the OSAS position you mock but which is at least a long tradition. It also seems to have been the position of many Arminians including Wesley - although I am perhaps closer to the "classic Arminian" than the "Wesleyan Arminian" version as described by Wikipedia. Note the final sentence of the Wikipedia article: "In the Arminian system, belief is the condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God, and unbelief – not a lack of good works – is the condition for exit" - although I would replace "unbelief" by "renunciation of belief" in this, it takes more than an attack of doubt to lead to loss of salvation.

As for the word "apostate", I maintain that it always has been used for people who explicitly renounce their faith. It is not used of those who simply fall into sin while not denying their faith. People in the latter category may be excommunicated, because visible churches do NOT work like the kingdom of God "club" in my previous example, but that is the church rejecting them rather than vice versa. Apostates may also be formally excommunicated, but that is usually an irrelevance because they have already abandoned the communion. I would be interested in any citation you can give me of the word "apostate" being used of anyone who continues to adhere to orthodox religion and acknowledge the religious authorities, whatever their evil deeds might be.

[JohnFH]

James,

historians often point out that second and third generation Calvinists systematized Calvin's thought in ways that on occasion betray Calvin's own nuances. This would appear to be a parade example.

[JohnFH]

Well, Peter, I'm very glad to see you situating yourself somewhere within a particular tradition, though I don't happen to agree with the choice you have made. Still, I appreciate your willingness to judge any tradition by its faithfulness to scripture. Potentially, that will you protect from error within that tradition (and every tradition, if not outright error, contains blind-spots and unhealthy obsessions).

Now it turns out I didn't misread you when I connected your position to OSAS. Thanks for the clarification.

You continue to impose an idiosyncratic definition on the word 'apostate.' The Mafia members I referred to, which the Church excommunicated because it judged them to be apostate - apostate not just as a matter of private opinion but in function of the power of the keys (on earth . . . in heaven), wanted to continue to remain members in good standing within the Church, with rights, for example, to a Christian burial. They had not renounced their faith.

Rather, they broke its rules, which is the same thing as renunciation given the gravity of the transgression.

You continue to try to make a distinction where none can be made.

Finally, on sensitive issues like this one, it's fine to start with a Wikipedia article, but then you must move on to primary sources, and if possible cite them.

If you are currently enamored with a straight-up Lutheran position (nota bene: per what I've said about Calvin, Luther on his part, and to his credit, was not a consistent Lutheran), then I urge you to read Wesley's pamphlet I link to in the preceding post.

I continue to be blindsided, Peter, by your apparent search for some kind of system in which you can fit all of scripture. This is unusual in someone who loves scripture as much as you do.

[Peter Kirk]

John, I am not trying to search for a system. I am trying to protect a central doctrine of the Christian faith in the same way as Paul did in Galatians, from those like you who are distorting it.

That central doctrine is that salvation is entirely by grace and not dependent on human works. That much is usually agreed by Calvinists as well as Lutherans. But you, although you claim to be a Calvinist, have abandoned the Calvinist position by teaching that people can lose their salvation by sinning. Of course I also differ from the Calvinist position, but I don't claim to be a Calvinist.

You keep trying to insist that your position is traditional orthodoxy, but the facts of formal theological statements (if not of popular piety which has always tended to Pelagianism) are against you.

[JohnFH]

Peter,

If you go over to Ben Witherington's blog, you will notice that in a comment he also states that a believer renounces his faith by choosing willful sin of sufficient gravity.

I know which doctrine you are trying to protect. It's one I treasure. But the method you choose, that of riding roughshod over scripture that doesn't fit into your too one-sided formulation of that doctrine, is not one I approve of.

As far as I can see, it's not just scripture you bend to fit within the confines of your logic; you do
the same with Luther and Calvin. Neither the Bible nor Luther nor Calvin are as consistent as you want them to be. Their take on things fits the complexity of life as we experience it better than your less elastic approach. For obvious reasons, the elasticity of Luther and Calvin's theology is more evident in their exegesis than in their systematic theology. In exegesis, they have to bend their formulations to the text - if only they did that all the time! I'm a scripture scholar, so you will have to excuse me if I poke fun at the Procrustean beds of the systematicians.

Peter, I wish to thank you for defending your position with poise and verve. It's always a pleasure to debate with you.

[Peter Kirk]

John, it is indeed a pleasure to debate with you. I certainly want to avoid Procrustean beds, not least because I would probably get my feet chopped off. But I think our respective positions are now clear and so we can move on from this particular debate.