Calvinism’s Repenting Your Way Into Heaven and the Folly of the Election/Freewill Debate
My Grandmother was of a vein of Freewill Baptists that believed in Jesus plus perpetual salvific repentance for salvation. They based this on 1John 1:9; “If” you are faithful in confessing known sin, you are forgiven and washed from unknown sin as well. According to this brand of gospel, when one believes on Christ, all their past sins are forgiven, but ongoing sin must be confessed to maintain salvation. Basically, it’s Jesus plus praying your way into heaven. Fortunately, I believe my Grandmother eventually rejected that approach to salvation.
Works salvation can be very subtle. It is anything that requires something of us in sanctification to maintain justification. That’s key: the crux of the issue is the fusion of justification and sanctification. When the two are fused, even doing nothing in sanctification to maintain our justification is works salvation because we are doing something in sanctification for justification even if doing something is doing nothing. Unless the two are completely separate, justification depends on something we do or don’t do in sanctification. Hence, even doing nothing is a work. It’s abstaining from works to maintain our salvation.
That’s what makes this Freewill Baptist doctrine a false gospel—something is required by us in sanctification to maintain justification because the two are still connected. Now, Freewill Baptist, as the very name implies, are Arminians, not Calvinistic. They differ on election, but not salvation. And trust me, the salvation gig is what matters, not the election gig.
I can now hear the cat cries from Calvinists because they are being compared to Freewill Baptists. But they are no different in regard to the gospel because the relationship of sanctification to justification is what matters and NOT election. Nobody is going to hell for their views on election/freewill, but taking part in the maintaining of God’s call is a different matter altogether. And Calvinists believe nothing different on that wise than the Freewill Baptists.
The Freewill Baptist, the aforementioned strain, believes that the same repentance that saved you also sanctifies you all the way to heaven. It’s a perpetual salvific repentance. It’s a perpetual “washing.” Thing is, Christ made it clear that this washing only takes place one time (John ch. 13). Calvinists believe that the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you; e.g., “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” But specifically, they also believe that daily forgiveness must be sought in order to maintain our salvation. Here is what Calvin wrote:
Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles).
And….
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death (CI 3.14.11).
In regard to the gospel, there is no difference between Freewill Baptists and Calvinists, and that’s why the freewill/election debate makes no difference as well.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Truly well said.
LikeLike
Paul,
I have great respect for your intelligence, but in this issue your logic is flawed. What you are trying to suggest is a metaphysical and physical impossibility. You are suggesting that election has everything to do with man, yet has really nothing to do with man. Again, you must concede that your argument rests solely upon the idea that you accept contradiction (what some call “paradox”) to define your theology in this matter.
You are right in your assessment that all of life is DOING something, for even merely being is doing. There is, in reality, no such thing as NOT doing; for that is merely an abstract way to qualify the doing, the abstract opposite of a particular action. Since that is the case, everything having to do with man must involve man’s doing. That is, man, IF it is truly HIS life, MUST logically be complicit in anything involving him. Even “election”. For it is, again, impossible that God can do anything involving man that operates utterly outside of man’s doing/moving/being/existing, which is precisely what your definition of election (or your framing of the election/free will debate) attempts to do. That constitutes a total contradiction in terms; a mutually exclusive idea that makes, again, man moot (which is ALWAYS what the doctrine of election does, I might add, because “election” always seems to get divorced from man, the OBJECT of the election. Which makes little sense).
Even in the most oppressive dictatorships the subjects to the leader/leaders must be complicit in their will. They can resist, or comply. There are consequences, truly, but nothing ultimately happens outside of man’s free choice in any matter, even if the choice is life or death. Therefore, even in his “election” man must agree freely to the relationship, and this freedom can by no means and at no time become moot. Man must freely engage his relationship with God, of his own will and choice, forever. This is the faith that saves. This is the faith that says that man is actually involved in a relationship with his God, and is not at any time compelled against his will, which is man’s VERY ESSENCE. If the end of man is not his free ability to always been himself, then he cannot possibly exist. To say that God compels man outside of man means that God, in fact, usurps man’s very existence, possesses him, and becomes him, in order to save him. This of course, as I have often said, a metaphysical impossibility. This puts man outside himself, and this is what reformed theology also does.
Unfortunately, and no offense, but your view of election is much closer to that of the Calvinists that you seem to think. The root of the argument is free will/election and how we reconcile them. If you get that wrong, then, as I said before, it ultimately boils down to whose irrational theology is more…er, rational. If at any point we cede man’s will to God, then man ceases to be relevant. And thus, man ceases to exist.
And it isn’t a matter of who is going to hell for their theology, necessarily. If you decide what you believe based on “will I go to hell for thinking this”, then I would argue that EVERY belief should be thoroughly analyzed, the logical consistency found, and ideas based on rational conclusions. Otherwise, you really cannot be sure what is truly “disputable” or not. We cannot take “won’t go to hell for this” at face value.
LikeLike
Argo,
As I have said, this issue is low on the list for me. My focus is on the fact that Calvin’s gospel is a works salvation. However, in the future, I do intend to look at it deeper by virtue of where the doctrine came from. In my study of covenants, I did come across something interesting that I am not prepared to present at this time. But I will give you a clue: If God hates somebody, is there a reason behind it, or is it random?
LikeLike
This is definitely something I knew all along but could not verbalize as succinctly. Thank you again.
LikeLike
Well…randomness is the twin brother of irrelevancy, so…I would say reason. All of how God relates to man must conform to the reality of mans’s context. Thus, God’s hate must be a product of man’s conscious acts. In other words, unless God’s hate is a reaction to a conscious act, God is merely hating His own work. And since this amounts to hating Himself…random hate quickly becomes impossible. Interested to see where you are going with this. 🙂
Re: low on your priorities list. Noted and understood. 🙂
LikeLike
Paul I was talking about your post in my last comment; it look like I was replying to Argo.
I knew for a long time that this was my position on salvation, but the pervasive views were either you were an Arminianist or Calvinist. I was stuck in the middle with no place to “hang my hat” and there was no one out there who cleared this up. I see where many denominations have so subtly placed “works salvation” doctrine within our understanding of sanctification and this has been going on since the church started. I think a lot of the time I was just too intimidated to actually voice “NO, this is not what I believe” but you give that up for the sake of those who claim higher knowledge. I am going to continue to believe that free will and election have a place within Gods plan, just because I know that God Himself is Omnipotent and Omniscient. In this being so, He would have foreknowledge of those who seek and choose Him. I guess I look at election differently from Calvinists in that election is as a “whole” not in particular individuals. When one becomes a Christian he/she is then a part of the elect (the whole) which was set up at the beginning of time, just as Israel was elected as a whole nation. Individuals then have free will to choose as separate from the whole, but will be a part of the whole (the elected), in which, God has foreknowledge of who will choose freely. I do not know if that made sense?
LikeLike
T4H,
It makes sense. My present paradox position is based on the best information I have at this time. However, I know this guy who is writing a book on election and has sent me some manuscripts. Some interesting arguments from a metaphysical perspective.
LikeLike
Paul,
I want to clarify something. I’m not saying that justification is based on law…that is, I agree you cannot “sin your way” out of your salvation. But though it isn’t a function of law, it is a function of will.
LikeLike
Good stuff, Paul, and it causes good thinking and makes me stretch! As a 15-yr-old in an Arminian church, I figured it out, and never went back once I left home. Considering my age, I really had some insight. Hm-m-m-m, maybe the HS was directing my thinking? Fast forward…..my hubby’s brother is in a Freewill Baptist Church. During a New Year’s service within the last few years, he had to sign a pledge form that promised he would keep himself saved during the coming year. I’m not kidding. I don’t know if this is typical, but that’s how they did it in Indiana.
LikeLike