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
Acts 10: Reformed Theology and the Problem With Cornelius
I was asked recently what I thought the primary key to discernment is. I answered this way: one of the major keys is daily Bible reading. If nothing else, read through the Scriptures and get a general idea of what is going on.
When you do that, you discover that things you hear from the pulpit may need a little bit more consideration and thinking.
We know the Reformed drill. Man is totally depraved. He can’t do anything to merit salvation. You’re either chosen, or not chosen. We can’t do anything to please God—all of our works are as filthy rags before God, and so forth.
So, as you are taking my advice, drinking some morning coffee and reading through Acts 10, you’re stopped dead in your tracks and immediately realize why Luther hated reason so much.
We read the following there:
1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”
Um, is it just me, or does this kinda throw a monkey wrench in the whole, “all of our works are filthy rags before God” routine? Now, heretics like Paul David Tripp would quickly step forward and say, “That text needs to be seen in its gospel context.” Oooookay. So, somehow, in the “gospel context,” “memorial” really means, “filthy rags.” Right.
Furthering the complexity leading to a need for more consideration is the question of whether or not Cornelius was officially saved when the angel made this statement.
Watch out for neatly arranged theological systems. Especially Reformed ones.
And read your Bible daily.
paul
Election Verses Foreknowledge Isn’t Even the Point; the Gospel is the Point
I am amazed at how God’s people have been distracted throughout the years over the election/foreknowledge debate. Wow, what a boondoggle for people of Reformed theology who don’t want folks looking too closely at what Calvin, Luther, and Augustine really believed. And if Calvin is Luther/Augustine light, there is even a bigger problem.
Yes, the Calvin Institutes are 1000 pages of mind-numbing theology, but if you know how to look, you can find the crux of the issues before Calvin lulls you into a hypnotic state with his linguistic drones. I was poking around in the Institutes in an effort to discover what Calvin believed about the final judgment of mankind, and in the process, discovered Calvin’s blatant false gospel on pages 508 and 509. Like his New Calvinist children, he believes that sanctification maintains justification, or stated another way, sanctification is justification in action. This makes sanctification very, very, very, tricky business—don’t try it at home without Plato’s Philosopher Kings or John Piper.
Fact is, people who believe that God elected some before creation and passed over others are not heretics. You may not like their view of God, but they are not heretics. Fact is, people who believe that God elected based on what He foreknew people would do, are not heretics either. But folks who believe that we must maintain Christ’s representation for an ongoing justification by believing a certain way in sanctification are heretics. Maintaining justification by doing something, doing nothing, thinking a certain way, or anything else boils down to our participation in justification. If sanctification and justification are fused together —this is unavoidable. It’s a false gospel. Plainly, Calvin states on the aforementioned pages of the Institutes that justification is “perpetual”:
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 (2Cor 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, i.e., ablution, satisfaction expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, “but by grace are ye saved,” “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8,9).
A: “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 (2Cor 5:18,19).”
The message of “free reconciliation” is “perpetual” “in the church,” ie, sanctification by faith alone- which has never been orthodox. Justification by faith alone has always been orthodox, but not the former. Moreover, 2Cor. 5:18,19[20] is clearly speaking of a ministry of reconciliation that we proclaim to the world as ambassadors, and is not a message to be continually propagated “in the church.”
B: “Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described.”
Yes, because to claim any good works is to do so in the context of justification. If “free reconciliation” is “perpetual,” then our efforts would be works salvation. But, by the same token, it is impossible to avoid that reality if the two are joined—regardless of any special formula that the Reformers supposedly came up with. No wonder the Institutes are 1000 pages; it goes back to the primary point of my first book: it’s a formula that attempts to instruct one on putting a round peg in a square hole. Secondly, the idea that the saints have NO righteousness is a denial of the new birth as actual new creature-hood, as opposed to being merely translated into a different realm.
C: “Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual -efficacy in his death, i.e., ablution, satisfaction expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered.”
Here, Calvin states that the “perfect obedience” of Christ is continually applied to our lives to cover for our inability to possess any righteousness. This is the continual imputation of Christ’s active obedience to KEEP us saved (“Mediator to reconcile”). This is heresy. In essence, we must continually practice a justification by faith alone in sanctification. We participate in maintaining justification by faith alone apart from works because justification is progressive. This is plainly a false gospel.
D: “In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, ‘but by grace are ye saved,’ ‘not of works, lest any man should boast’ (Eph 2:8,9).”
Calvin is clearly making sanctification part of the justification/salvation process. He makes no distinction between God’s graces in sanctification and justification. The grace of God based on the works of Christ to declare us righteous is not a finished work, though Christ Himself said it was.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
9 comments