Falling Away III
So far I am really happy with The Race Set Before Us and want dive into some of the philosophies the authors (Schreiner & Caneday) outline as popular interpretations of “falling away” in chapter one.
Each of the following interpretations is a response to the tension between promises and warnings (or admonitions). For example, Romans 8:1 says, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” But Romans 11:22 says, “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” How do these work together?
The loss-of-salvation view. This view imports the warning into the promise. Romans 8:1 is true insofar as one is “in” Christ. But it is not true for “those who fell.” Warning passages (1) interpret the promise passages, (2) are addressed to genuine believers (those “in” Christ), and (3) warn believers that they will perish if they forsake the promise. Authentic believers who have experienced an inaugurated salvation (”already”) are threatened with the loss of a final salvation conceived in future terms (”not yet”) if they apostatize. Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshal are defenders of this view.
The loss-of-rewards view. This view agrees with the loss-of-salvation view in that the warnings are addressed to genuine believers that they will experience a loss but they disagree over what is lost. Since our salvation comes through faith alone (sola fide) in Christ it cannot be lost otherwise works in some way merit salvation. This leads to an aberrant works-righteousness that erodes our assurance of salvation, so the warnings and the promises are kept separate. The promise of salvation stands even if one altogether leaves the faith, and the warnings to such a person only caution a “loss of eternal rewards.” Therefore, salvation (”no condemnation”) is an “already” event and reward (or loss of reward–being “cut off”) is “not yet.” Zane Hodges, R.T. Kendall, and Charles Stanley hold to this view.
The test-of-genuineness view. This view has been popularized as “Lordship salvation” and differs from the previous two views in that the warning passages are not addressed to genuine believers, but to those who profess Christ yet prove to be false in their confession. Thus, a “disingenuous” believer never possessed salvation in the first place. Like the loss-of-rewards view, the test-of-genuineness view conceives salvation as an “already” event that has obtained for the “true believer.” A “true believer” cannot lose his or her salvation, because a “true believer” perseveres. Perseverance and good works are the result of genuine faith in Christ. This view does the opposite of the loss-of-salvation view and interprets the warning passages through the lens of the promise passages. Those who are truly “in” Christ could never be “cut off” because they are those that “continue in [God’s] kindness.” Those who “fall away” never were really believers to begin with. Therefore, the the warnings of being “cut off” function as tests to discern an “already” reality. Thus one looks backwards to assess progress made. John MacArthur has popularized this view.
The hypothetical-loss-of-salvation view. This view is not as well known as the others, because it mostly deals with passages in Hebrews. It attempts to avoid the problems intrinsic to the others views by denying (1) that true believes could fall away by their works (loss-of-salvation view), (2) that a Christian could possibly be an apostate (loss-of-rewards view), and (3) that the warning passages are intended to address those who have never believed (test-of-genuineness view). The warnings in Hebrews are intended to correct “wrong ideas” about salvation, that if a Christian ever could fall away he or she could not come back again. Therefore any believer who fails to persevere in faithfulness to the gospel (this is impossible) will not be saved.
It is easy to see how confusing each of these views is considering how well-intended they are. I have heard all but one (the loss-of-salvation view) taught at my church and have heard all of them espoused by believers I deeply respect. I haven’t made it all the way through chapter one, but I am excited to see how the author’s veiw trancends these others.
Have you taken one of the views above? Are the above characterizations helpful?
March 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I would have to say that I am most resonate with the first model. Salvation is something we have the assured hope of, but the promice we have has yet to be fufilled. With the “down payment” of the Spirit in our lives we run hard in this grace set before us.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I was going to post a long-winded reply, but decided to provide a different take on my Blog, thus sparing all of you.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
These are really interesting. The test-of-genuineness view doesn’t sit well with me. If I’m interpreting it correctly, then it doesn’t leave any room for struggles and doubts. Like, if you’re struggling and not moving forward at any point, then you’re not a “true believer”. Maybe I’m wrong.
I personally like the loss-of-rewards view. Not because it gives people an excuse to get away with stuff, but it leaves room for those of us who question, doubt, and if necessary, step away for a while. But, they all, except the test-of-genuineness one, seem to make sense.
Does the author explain which one is right? Is there any way to know which is the correct view without waiting until one dies to find out?
March 30th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I haven’t got far enough to know what the authors’ position is, but I know they don’t hold to any of the 4 I listed. I wonder though how they can trancend them…
March 30th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
I have a problem with the idea of “losing” one’s faith. I think you have faith and is strengthens or atrophies depending upon your “works.” I don’t think you can lose it. The idea of being able to lose your faith cheapens the idea of faith (and perhaps I’m misunderstanding how the word lose is being used—or the whole arguement for that matter). I do think you can reject your faith which is far different from what I understand losing faith to be. The best example I could think of, and I’m by no means a philosopher, is this:
It takes a certain amount of faith that a chair is going to support your weight the first time you sit in it. After you sit and it supports you you have faith that it will support you whenever you sit again. Thus you have faith in chairs. Now, no matter how hard you try you cannot lose this faith, even if you don’t sit in a chair again for the rest of your life that faith will remain. You can, however reject that faith. This is different than the idea of losing faith because it’s an aggressive act of the will against all you know and have experienced.
Or, maybe I’m just retarded.
March 31st, 2006 at 10:04 am
That’s a good analogy, I’ve never thought about it that way before.
I heard Tim Keller once say, “If you truly didn’t do anything to merit salvation, you can’t do anything to lose it.” That isn’t to say that a murderer who says he’s a Christian is actually a Christian. It means that if salvation is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit which regenerates your heart and makes you a new creation and you didn’t do anything to deserve this, you can’t do anything to lose it. You can’t uncreate yourself.
April 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
#1-I think I am going to have to pick that book up. The organization of all those views is extremely helpful. I’ll have to recommend it to a friend of mine whom I have been talking with lately about Hebrews 6. (Her pastor gave sermon on it, and said that passage is saying we, as Christians, can forfeit maturing in Christ. He says we dont neccessarily loose our salvation, but we never enter into God’s rest while here on earth. We remain as ‘baby’ Christians, and never grow in our faith.) Anyways, I think that book would be a great aid.
#2-For a long time, thanks to a little baptist, Armenist church upbringing, I think I lived under the loss-of-rewards view for long time. My walk could be characterized by seasons of vacilation between feeling guilty (or ‘convicted’) and feeling assurance that I was ‘doing’ what I was ’suppose’ to do. (I guess that is why reformed theology made so much more sense to me when I was exposed to it later on, and had no problem accepting Calvin’s 5 points.)
#3-I think for me now when I am in those dark, valley moments I entertain the test-of-geniuneness view. I struggle with understading my responsibilty, and the Holy Spirit’s responsiblity when it comes to my relationship with the Lord growing. (The Word says we can grieve the Holy Spirit right?) I do, however, very much agree with that Tim Keller quote above.
#4-I would venture to guess that the author brings up the role of the Holy Spirit to transcend all those views, maybe? And you really can’t divorce justification from sanctification right? I look at those views and just think that its more than just salvation, and obtaining eternal security. The process of sanctification is beautiful as we are conformed to the image of Christ more and more. That process is what teach us to trust the Lord, build our faith, and know Him better…which is really what its all about right?
(Sorry this was long, and for spelling errors I might have missed. I hope it was coherent. LoL.)
May 4th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Hi,
I would like to invite you over to our site for a discussion on eternal security. Thank you for having this discussion here - it has been profitable to read some of your responses.
For the glory of God!
Josh Buice
Practical Theology Discussions
http://www.joshbuice.blogspot.com
September 10th, 2007 at 8:49 am
[…] as well as a fourth that is idiosyncratic to certain thinkers in the scholarly world (see here for more my initial interaction with this book). The first of which they repudiate is the simple “loss of salv […]
December 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
This is such an interesting thoughtful post. Do you have anymore like this?