Chosen by God from the Beginning

“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:13, 14).

This passage of Scripture is very difficult for non-Calvinists to consider since it appears to support the doctrine of unconditional election. It seems to plainly say that from the beginning of creation, God chose who would be saved in Thessalonica. And if He chose which individuals in that city would be saved then it would follow that everyone who will ever be saved has already been determined.

Commenting on this verse, John MacArthur taught, “And it says in verse 13, ‘Brethren, beloved by the Lord,’ because God has chosen you. We want to thank Him for loving you, and we want to thank Him for choosing you from the beginning for salvation. God chose you from the beginning, that means eternity past” http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/53-12
From the beginning, according to him, means from eternity past.

But are we necessarily confined to accepting this as the unquestionable intended meaning of the verse? I don’t believe so. I think there is another valid option that should be considered. Let’s start by examining the word “beginning.” It is translated from the Greek word transliterated as “archē” and appears 58 times in 56 verses of the New Testament. In many of these instances it does in fact refer to the beginning of the world or the creation but not in every case. One place it is used for an event other than the creation is when Jesus turned the water into wine, “This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee” (John 2:11). Here it is simply used to denote the first time or the start of a series of miracles to come.

Now let’s turn our attention for a moment to the early evangelistic efforts of the apostle Paul during his second missionary journey. We are told that the Holy Spirit had specifically forbidden him to preach the gospel in two places: “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them” (Acts 16:6, 7). Instead, God sent him in a different direction, “And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.’ Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them” (Acts 16:9, 10).

So now, how does this relate to God’s choice from the beginning? Well, consider something Paul said to the church at Philippi: “Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent [aid] once and again for my necessities” (Phil. 4:15, 16). Here he uses the same Greek word “archē” for the beginning of his evangelistic endeavors in Macedonia of which Philippi and Thessalonica were the first two cities where he preached. Could it be that when he said “God from the beginning chose you for salvation” that he was referring to the Macedonian call? That God chose Thessalonica to receive the saving gospel message over Asia and Bithynia?

Notice something else Paul had said to this church, “Knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake” (1 Thess. 1:4, 5). In both this passage and in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14, the Holy Spirit and the gospel are mentioned in conjunction with election. The Macedonian call was in fact a choice the Holy Spirit made for Paul to preach the gospel in this area rather than in others. So, I think we should give fair consideration to this view because it seems to harmonize nicely with the overall understanding of Paul’s missionary work recorded in the book of Acts.


Calvinists need some proof

Calvinists need to prove two propositions about the election statements made to the Thessalonians: that the choice was made in eternity past and that it was a choice of which individuals would be saved. Since the contexts do not indicate either, it seems Calvinists can only assume. Now they will probably appeal to Ephesians 1:4 “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” as evidence of what the “beginning” really is but this is problematic. Though it does convey the timing to be from before the creation of the world yet Paul seems to speak of a different kind of election here.

Notice that verses 3-12 of Ephesians chapter 1 are in the first person plural “our,” “us,” and “we,” while verse 13 switches to second person plural “you.” It is more likely that Paul was speaking about God’s election of the Jews which he was a part of. They were the ones “who first trusted in Christ” (v. 12) before the Gentiles. This thought then flows into the context that follows (especially 2:11-3:9), “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (3:6). This mystery was hidden “from the beginning of the ages” (3:9). Therefore, from before the creation of the world, God chose a people who would be “holy and without blame before Him in love” (1:4), and these people would also include all nations. But this inclusion was not a change of plans because it had been purposed from the very beginning.


Conclusion

The problem with the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election is that it is based on two assumptions about the meaning of Biblical election; that it is unconditional and that it is individual. Plus, it also assumes that the various passages referring to election are in fact talking about the same kind of election. Personally, I would be fearful of building my soteriological convictions on assumptions.

I think I have presented another plausible explanation for the election of the Thessalonians—that the Holy Spirit chose them to hear the gospel message of salvation prior to others. This was not necessarily a choice made in eternity past nor was it a choice of which individuals at Thessalonica would be saved. Their election of God “in the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:5), and “through sanctification by the Spirit” (2 Thess. 2:13), could have simply been the choice of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 16:6-10) for Macedonia to hear the gospel message rather than Asia and Bithynia.

John MacArhtur Nullifying the Word of God

In his introduction to a series on the book of Hebrews found at http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1600 John MacArthur claims this epistle was written to more than one type of people. He says: “Now here is the very critical basis for understanding the book, and this is where people get all messed up, especially interpreting Hebrews Chapter 6. We must understand that there were three basic types of people in view throughout this Epistle. Three basic types of people. If you do not understand these three basic types of people then it becomes very confusing.”

Just who are these three basic types of people the book of Hebrews was written to according to MacArthur? They are the believing Hebrew Christians and two types of unbelievers: the Hebrew non-Christian intellectually convinced and the intellectually unconvinced. In other words, he is basically saying it was written both to believers and unbelievers.

Now what would lead him to consider this book was written not just to believers but to unbelievers also? It seems a bit fishy to me that two of the strongest warning passages against apostasy in all of Scripture (6:4-6; 10:26-27) are found in this book and both of them, according to MacArthur, were not written to believers but to unbelievers or the Hebrew non-Christian intellectually convinced, as he calls them. Actually, there is a very purposeful reason for him to come up with this interpretation. It keeps the system of Calvinism intact. Because, according to this theology, no true believer could ever forfeit their salvation and be lost forever. If that could happen then the whole system of Calvinism crumbles. Therefore, there are really only two ways a Calvinist can interpret these warning passages and maintain their system; either they are hypothetical and could never truly happen or they were written to unbelievers. MacArthur, it appears, opted for the latter.

This is actually a very dangerous proposition to teach. These warning passages serve to keep believers continuing in the faith and not falling away by genuinely warning them of what could happen. But when Calvinists like MacArthur undermine the authority of these Scriptures they are setting up true believers to possibly fall away. I am terrified to think that there may be some believers who actually have left the faith because MacArthur nullified the word of God (see Matt. 15:6) by making the warnings of no effect. The internationally reaching platform he has to teach from influences untold multitudes.

The apostle Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus: “Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God” (Acts 20:26-27). I am fearful for MacArthur’s sake that he may not be innocent of the blood of some men.

Pure in Heart

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20

This is quite a startling statement from our Lord Jesus Christ that can be discouraging if we don’t understand what He really meant. Some have taught that Christ was talking about the righteousness of God which is imputed to us by faith rather than practical righteous living. Because, as they suppose, the Pharisees and teachers of the law were already living up to such a high standard of righteousness so it is ridiculous to even consider we could do better. Therefore Christ had to have been speaking of imputed righteousness. But I have to respectfully disagree with this simply because Christ’s entire sermon that follows this statement is all about practical righteous living. What would be the point of the whole sermon anyway? Also, the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew records the “Woes” Christ pronounced upon the hypocritical Pharisees and teachers of the law, revealing that their standard of righteousness was actually quite low; only outward and paraded to get the praise of men.


Blessed are the pure in heart

Throughout the fifth chapter of Matthew, Christ began each new topic with, “You have heard that it was said…” or “It has been said…” (vs. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). He seemed to have been quoting what the Pharisees and teachers of the law had been telling the people. But He always followed it with, “But I tell you…” The one passage from the sermon I want to focus on is this:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Matthew 5:27-30

The Pharisees and teachers of the law had evidently been telling the people that it was only the act of adultery that was sin. But Christ made it clear that lust in the heart is sin even if no action ever follows. A person is just as guilty of adultery when lusting in their heart as if they had committed the very act. This is what Christ apparently meant by demanding that our righteousness exceed theirs. We are not only to refrain from sinful actions but also that our hearts are to be pure and free from lust. Pureness of heart is the standard of righteousness Christ expects from us, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (v. 8).

Now when Christ spoke of gouging out the eye and cutting off the hand, this needs to be understood as an extreme example He used to expose the erroneous doctrine of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Because, if it is the members of our body that cause us to sin as they taught, then why not solve that problem by cutting those members off and throwing them away? We certainly wouldn’t want any member of our body to be the cause of us being cast into hell. Therefore He was clearly not instructing anyone to actually do this. He was simply using this example to show how ridiculous their reasoning was and to reiterate the truth that the root cause of sin is in the heart.

The tenth commandment had clearly expressed the sinfulness of coveting or lusting in our hearts after anything that is not ours: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17). And this is the commandment that Paul, the former Pharisee, said caused him to die spiritually:

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’ But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from the law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. Romans 7:7-9

Jesus also told us, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matt. 15:19). Paul said, “To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted” (Titus 1:15).

I’m convinced the reason so many men, even Christian men, are addicted to pornography is because they are continually lusting in their hearts. The fact is, even if enough will power is mustered to stop watching that filth the guilt of sin is still there by continuing to harbor lust inside. It is certainly a positive to stop looking at it yet the real problem has not been solved. Now having an accountability partner for routine check-ups can help overcome the action but what is really needed is pure hearts. A pure heart is free from sin and therefore will not commit the act. If we are conscious of our ultimate accountability to God and that He knows every thought and intent of our hearts then we will purify ourselves in His sight. Plus, if we have understood correctly what Christ meant by the statement: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” then we know we will not be going to heaven if our hearts have been impure.

Now I already see red flags going up objecting that this sounds like legalism. But, actually, it was the Pharisees who were legalistic with their outward behavior and lack of inward purity. Pureness of heart is not legalism. Outward hypocrisy is.


How do we do it?

So how do we go about purifying our hearts? The first step is repentance. James said, “Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom” (Jam. 4:8, 9). Genuine heart-felt sorrow before God in prayer over the sinfulness of our hearts is how the cleansing process begins. After that, we have to keep every thought in check and not even start to dwell in our hearts on anything unholy. And the strength to do this comes from yielding to the Holy Spirit living inside. Paul taught, “So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (Gal. 5:16). We won’t be gratifying our flesh if we are living by the Spirit.

Christ does not command us to do anything beyond our ability and then hold us responsible for not doing it. We can’t use the excuse that we are just unable to keep our hearts pure. Besides, though there are many who are lusting in their hearts, there are also others who are not. The fact that some really are keeping their hearts pure leaves the rest of us without excuse. We can do it too.

Some Insights into the Biblical Doctrine of Election

Understanding the Biblical meaning of election as it was intended is not easy. Of course Calvinists provide us with a convenient answer which fits very nicely into their system of soteriology. They say it means that God unconditionally chose certain individuals to be saved while leaving the rest to perish. Although it could mean this, it doesn’t necessarily have to mean this. There are other valid possibilities. One big problem with the Calvinists’ view is that nothing in the contexts that speak about election indicates that it is unconditional or individual. Election may very well be conditional and corporate.

At this point in my Christian walk, I don’t know what the Biblical meaning of election really is. As a non-Calvinist I am tempted to adopt a view that purposely counters that of an unconditional and individual election but I feel that this would only be serving my own interests. I think it is safer and honest to readily admit that I just don’t know.

What I hope to accomplish in this brief writing is to present some other valid options for the meaning of election rather than simply accepting the Calvinistic view. We don’t have to be confined to just that. We can let Scripture speak for itself and interpret itself. What follows are a few insights about election and hopefully these will encourage us to pursue a deeper understanding of the word.


Did God elect Jacob but not Esau?

The passage of Romans 9:10-13 is quite difficult to understand. Many Calvinists use it as proof of the unconditional election of individuals because it appears God chose Jacob to be saved before he was born but didn’t choose Esau. But there are some problems with this interpretation.

First, there is nothing in the text to indicate that individual salvation is even being spoken of. It is difficult to claim that the salvation of either child is the subject. Second, if Paul really was talking about God electing Jacob unto salvation from his mother’s womb then doesn’t this contradict the Calvinists’ teaching that unconditional election was decreed before the foundation of the world? Thirdly, the passage seems to favor the interpretation that these two children were simply object lessons. It was stated to their mother Rebekah: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated” (Gen. 25:23). The two boys did in fact become the forefathers of two nations; Israel and Edom. Therefore, when Paul said “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” (v. 11) was he talking about the election of an individual or the election of a nation? It seems more likely he was talking about God choosing Israel to be His people, not choosing Jacob to be saved.

But what about the troubling statement: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (v. 13)? Could this mean that God already purposed to love Jacob but hate Esau even before they were born? Again, if the two boys were intended to represent the two nations they fathered then it seems God is really speaking of His love for the nation of Israel and hatred for Edom. But assuming for a moment that God really was speaking of the two individuals in this way, we should recognize that Paul was quoting from the prophet Malachi who lived about 1500 years after Jacob and Esau. This statement of love for one and hatred for the other was not made while they were still in the womb but long after they had already lived and passed on. Therefore, it wouldn’t seem to be a predetermined love and hatred but rather a result of how the two had lived.


Chosen before the creation of the world

Ephesians 1:4 “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world” is a staple in the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional individual election. But one fact we need to recognize is that Paul used the first person plural pronouns “we” and “us” from verse three all the way through verse twelve in the first chapter. His subject has been himself and the group he belongs to up until the point he switches the subject to these Gentile Christians in verse thirteen.

It appears Paul was speaking about the Jews through the first half of the chapter but then directs his attention to the Gentiles he was writing to after that. The immediate context seems to bear this out when he says that they (the Jews) were “the first to hope in Christ” (v. 12), “And you [Gentiles] also were included in Christ” (v. 13). Of course we know that the gospel was taken to the Jews first. Furthermore, this understanding would fit the broader context from chapter 2:11 through 3:9. Paul revealed the mystery that had been kept hidden for ages that the Gentiles would be citizens with Israel.

What is significant about this? Well, it would seem to favor the interpretation that the election spoken of in verse 1:4 is that of the nation of Israel; the corporate election of the Jews, not the unconditional election of certain individuals to salvation. Now it could also be (and I’m quite uncertain about this) that this group of Jews Paul includes himself were an elect subset of the broader nation of Israel as a whole. Though the nation of Israel was God’s chosen people, every generation apparently had only a remnant of believing Jews who may have been considered the true elect.

In Romans 11:1 Paul used himself as an example to defend the charge that God had rejected His people. He simply pointed out the fact that he also was a Jew yet had not been rejected. He went on to say, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (v. 5), and Paul was a part of that remnant. He then elaborated on this grace: “And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (v. 6). He could mean that the remnant chosen by grace depend entirely on God’s grace rather than keeping the works of the law. So the nation of Israel as a whole did not obtain righteousness because they sought it by works. “What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened” (v. 7). The elect here—the remnant of Jews saved by grace through faith—obtained righteousness while the nation as a whole was hardened. This could very well be the group Paul was including himself in when he wrote Ephesians 1:3-12; the elect remnant by grace.

“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people” (Col. 3:11-12). In this passage Paul indicates to the Gentiles at Colossae that they are also among God’s elect. Regardless of nationality, ethnic origin, state of the flesh, or position in society, all who are in Christ are God’s chosen people. This, of course, we might assume are the elect by grace.

This also seems to agree with what Peter said about election. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2). These elect people apparently were Gentiles because of what he said to them in the next chapter: “Once you were not a people, but now you are the People of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (2:10).

My Quest for Assurance

The first thirteen years of my walk with Christ was in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. Of course since I was taught from their pulpits, I came to hold a view of salvation that is closest to that of Arminian. I believed that my salvation could be lost but I really didn’t know how, I just believed that it could. At first I feared I lost it every time I sinned and so thought I had to get saved all over every time I repented. But after awhile I learned that this was not a Biblical understanding of the new birth and therefore was an unwarranted fear. Yet I still believed it was somehow possible to lose my salvation.

Eventually I was introduced to the teaching of John Macarthur who, over time, persuaded me through various Bible passages to embrace the doctrines of Calvinism. It seemed to be an adventure to finally learn what the Scriptures “really taught” about salvation. Of course I came to accept the eternal security of the believer because it is a necessary part of the system. The reasoning is that if God unconditionally chose who would be saved then there is no possibility of them not being saved. All of the elect, based on the assumption that unconditional election is true, have to come to Christ at some point and never could fall away from Him at any point after that. I came to believe I had salvation “in the bag” so to speak.

Over the next few years I became a full five-point Calvinist—owning the doctrine of limited atonement—not because I became convinced of it from Scripture but because of its logical necessity within the system of Calvinism. I learned that I would not be consistent in rejecting this one point while accepting the rest. Therefore I began trying to prove to myself that the Bible really teaches this doctrine. I tried and tried to harmonize it with Scripture but the more I studied the more I became frustrated and confused. It was as though I had hit a brick wall and could not go any further with Calvinism. In my mind, if limited atonement was not true (and the plain reading of Scripture bears this out) then something was very wrong with the whole system because the system logically demands that it is.

I came to a place of despair and loss of assurance over my salvation. The stark reality was that I had no way of knowing if I truly was one of the elect. And if I really wasn’t then I never could get saved; this was a most horrible prospect to consider. I found the only assurance Calvinism offered was that perseverance to the end would prove if I was elect. But I quickly realized this meant that I could not know right now if I was—I had to reach the end. Plus, I might someday fall away proving I really wasn’t elect even if I thought all along I was.

So then I stepped back and began contemplating the debate between Calvinists and Arminians which has raged for centuries. I knew that much greater minds than mine couldn’t come to agreement, therefore I concluded I never could find assurance because I never will know which side is right. But this, I came to discover, wasn’t necessarily a correct assumption. Just because there has been disagreement between the two doesn’t mean there are no clear answers in Scripture.


Reevaluating Calvinism

There were some teachings of Calvinism that I never did whole-heartedly accept because Scripture just didn’t seem to bear them out for me. One was limited atonement which I already touched on. Another was the teaching that faith is a gift from God rather than a persuasion in the heart of the hearer. I just couldn’t be convinced that the gift in Ephesians 2:8-9 is faith. Especially since, “So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), is in the context of the gospel message being preached, not that of a divine gift being deposited. But, consistency in the Calvinistic system demands that faith be a gift and that regeneration precedes it. There really is no way around this. So I realized that if the doctrine of limited atonement and the Calvinistic ordo salutis (the order of salvation) had proved untenable to me, then all of Calvinism was fair game.

Next I began focusing on the doctrine of unconditional election. I truly believed Ephesians 1:4 meant that before the creation of the world, God determined which individuals He would save while leaving the rest to perish. But after giving it some careful thought I had to admit although this could be what the verse means it doesn’t necessarily have to mean this. In fact, I took notice that nothing in the context warrants Paul is even talking about individuals or an unconditional election. Quite simply, this is what Calvinists have told us it means. Again, I acknowledge that it may very well mean this but at least I was no longer locked in with no other options. Then many other passages that seem to teach unconditional election came under my suspicion which I also found to be open for discussion.


Evaluating Arminianism

At this point I decided to investigate the Arminian side because I never had learned what they really believe. Through prayerful study of their teaching I noticed much more agreement with Scripture and overall logical consistency within their theological system than I had seen with Calvinism. In fact, it wasn’t until I started studying Arminianism that I became aware of the bulk of logical inconsistencies and unavoidable flawed conclusions that Calvinism creates.

Calvinism seems to have some very strong proof texts for unconditional election which, I believe, form the basis of the five-point system. But I found that the further one delves into the whole the more desperate the attempts become at finding Scriptural support and the need to develop novel explanations for the inconsistencies that arise. It is as though the arguments they have to make create even more problems than they solve.

Now I’m sure Arminianism is not perfect either and I still do not consider myself an Arminian. I just want to know the truth from God’s word and order my life according to it regardless of what any theological system demands. But I recognize that systems are helpful because they harmonize Scripture and make sense of it. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith; it should make sense to us. We can’t always use Deuteronomy 29:29 as an escape hatch because some issues about salvation seem unclear. Therefore, any system found to have serious inconsistencies, propositions that disagree with the plain reading of Scripture, and logic that leads to flawed conclusions should be questioned. And, yes, I believe Calvinism fits this description.


Assurance Acquired

My quest for assurance actually came to fruition once I learned the Scriptural truth about apostasy. This might sound odd at first because we think that apostasy, if truly a Biblical doctrine, should strike fear in our hearts, not give us assurance. But I have come to learn that submitting to the truth always brings joy to my heart. The more I can learn and live by the truth the more I am on God’s side.

Remember I said that early in my Christian walk I believed I could lose my salvation but I just didn’t know how it could happen? Well, now I believe Scripture has answered that question for me and knowing how it could happen assures me that it can’t happen involuntarily. It is a willful sin (Heb. 10:26). Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that a true believer can “lose” their salvation. Scripture teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith, not by our own works. And it also teaches that we must continue in the faith (Rom. 11:20-22; 1 Cor. 15:1-2; Col. 1:21-23; Heb. 3:12-14). Our own works do not save us nor do they keep us saved. We must persevere in faith. “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’” (Rom. 1:16). “From faith to faith” speaks of living by and continuing in the faith. But the possibility of drawing back from the faith always remains, “Now the just shall live by faith; But if [anyone] draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him” (Heb. 10:38). This is the Biblical doctrine of apostasy.

Scripture is replete with genuine, not hypothetical, warnings about the possibility of committing apostasy (Deut. 29:18-20; 1 Chron. 28:9; Matt. 24:9-13; Mark 4:14-20; John 15:1-7; Rom. 11:17-22; Gal. 5:2-4; 2 Thes. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 1:19-20, 4:1; 2 Tim. 2:12-13, 2:16-18; Heb. 3:12-14, 6:4-8, 10:23-31, 12:15-17; 2 Pet. 2:18-20). I had to finally be honest with these passages that they do in fact teach that a true believer can forfeit their salvation. And once that is done the person can never be brought to repentance again (Heb. 6:4-6). There is no possibility they can ever come back to Christ.

Now I found this doctrine to be so assuring for several reasons. Mainly because it proved to me once and for all that, although election is taught in Scripture, it can’t be the kind of unconditional election Calvinists teach. Therefore I don’t have to worry anymore that I may not be one of the elect. This means I don’t have to wait until I reach the end of my perseverance to find assurance. I can have it right now. Also, I have no doubts that Christ died for me and paid the penalty for my sins because this He did for everyone. Therefore, as long as I’m continuing in the faith then I not only know I really am saved but that I also am secure—nothing can separate me from the love of God (Rom. 8:35-39), nor can anyone snatch me from His hand (John 10:29). And though the Scriptural warnings about apostasy are very real, they are directed toward those in danger of committing it, not those who are continuing in the faith. And this doesn’t just happen overnight. It comes from a hardening of the heart through sin (Heb. 3:12-15), and heeding heretical teaching (2 Tim. 2:18). This in turn motivates me to live a holy life and be careful about what I am exposed to.

I have come to learn that salvation is simply conditioned on our faith. And faith itself is not a meritorious work (Rom. 3:27-28, 4:1-3), nor is it a gift (Eph. 2:8-9), as Calvinists need it to be to comply with their system. “Works” are meritorious works! This shouldn’t be that difficult for us.

So now I have assurance. The writer of Hebrews seemed to use his warning about the possibility of apostasy (Heb. 6:4-8) as a springboard to give his readers assurance: “And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11). Full assurance of hope until the end is indeed what I have.