Salt Can’t Lose Its Flavor and Talents Can’t Be Buried? An Argument Against “Once Saved, Always Saved”

As Global Methodist clergy in Southern Baptist country, one of the doctrines that I get questioned about most is “once saved, always saved” (OSAS). Technically, OSAS is another way of referring to the “P” of Five-Point Calvinism, which stands for “Perseverance of the Saints.”

Now, at this point, some of you may be thinking “But I’m not a Five-Point Calvinist! I just believe in once saved, always saved!” Sorry to disappoint, but you are a Five-Point Calvinist if you hold to once saved, always saved, thanks to the law of non-contradiction.

The doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints asserts that those who are truly saved cannot lose their salvation because it is wholly dependent on God’s sovereign will rather than human effort.

So, the theological and biblical argument against OSAS is not just against OSAS, but with the entire TULIP of Five-Point Calvinism.

Before jumping right into Five-Point Calvinism (which will set up for the Remonstrants), however, I wish to make just a few big-picture remarks on why I reject OSAS along with Five-Point Calvinism.

It’s Just Not Biblical

The first and most important basis for my rejection of Five Point Calvinism is that it is just not biblical. The scriptural support for this claim is detailed out below, so go there now if you want to jump right to it. My biggest bone to pick is with Limited Atonement. I’m totally fine with Total Depravity (as Arminians are; no we’re not Pelagians). Again, more below.

Salvation Is a Love Relationship

Second, yes, at the heart of the conversion experience (i.e., becoming a Christian) is atonement. Ultimately, to be “saved” is to be reconciled to God. We rebelled against him, and he makes a way for us to be reconciled to him even though we rejected him. The fact that reconciliation is at the heart of the conversion experience means that free agency (what some would refer to as “free will,” but I prefer “free agency”) must be an essential part of the conversation equation.

There is no such thing as forced reconciliation. True reconciliation can only happen if both parties are willing to be reconciled.

This notion is precisely why the Bible uses the metaphor of marriage to describe what salvation is; it is two parties willingly joining to one another to become one.

Another way of putting it is that salvation is a love relationship restored. Yes, a part of salvation is a status change from guilty to innocent (justification), but that’s the entryway into being a Christian. Salvation is a journey, not just a moment. It’s not just “faith” as a mental ascent to truth (for even the demons believe), it’s trust in the Lord. Trust inherently requires freedom of agency. If we eliminate freedom of agency, then salvation cannot be a love relationship and it certainly can be on the basis of faith.

Of course, the alleged dilemma of thinking of salvation this way (preserving the freedom of agency) is that if it’s the choice of the individual that saves them, then our salvation depends on us, and not strictly on God and his grace (something know as Pelagianism). This is a false dilemma.

As Arminians have always held to be true, the very ability to accept the gift of faith is enabled by God’s grace. Total depravity (i.e., the inability to even accept the good gift of salvation due to our inward bent (i.e., sinful nature)) is overcome enough for the individual to chose the gift of saving faith on the basis of God’s grace, not on human effort. In this sense, human agency is only possible by God’s grace and therefore the entire enterprise of salvation is still utterly dependent on God.

I can choose God’s gift of salvation because he has enabled me to do so. He hasn’t forced me to do so, but has enabled me to do so.

One more comment before jumping into Five-Point Calvinism and the Remonstrants: salvation is a love relationship precisely because God is three Persons. God doesn’t have relationships, he Is Relationship. Personal relationship is what is at the very center of God’s being, and, as divine-image bearers, this is also true of humans. In order for persons to be mutually indwelling (I am in Christ and Christ is in me), then human free agency must remain preserved (strictly by the grace of God).

In sum, to remove human free agency from the equation of salvation, is, in my strong opinion, diametrically opposed to the very nature of salvation and the Triune God himself. Reconciliation requires two willing parties. Period.

Okay, now with this big-picture remarks in place, let’s move on to Five-Point Calvinism.

Five-Point Calvinism 

The five points of Calvinism were articulated in response to the theological positions put forward by the Remonstrants (followers of Jacob Arminius) and were formally codified at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). The Canons of Dort summarize these five points and provide a detailed theological basis for them. These points collectively emphasize the sovereignty of God in the process of salvation, human inability to achieve salvation apart from divine intervention, and the assurance of salvation for those who are truly elect.

• Total Depravity. This doctrine asserts that as a result of the fall, every part of human nature is corrupted by sin. This does not mean that people are as bad as they could be, but rather that sin affects all aspects of a person’s being (mind, will, emotions, etc.). Consequently, individuals are unable to come to God and choose salvation on their own because their will is bound by sin.
• Unconditional Election. According to this principle, God’s election of certain individuals for salvation is not based on any foreseen merit, effort, or action on their part. Instead, it is solely based on His will and purpose. God’s choice is not conditioned upon any human action or decision.
• Limited Atonement. This point teaches that Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross was intended to save the elect only. Although Christ’s death is sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world, it was God’s intention to effectively secure salvation for those He has chosen. Thus, the atonement is limited in its intended scope but not in its power or value.
• Irresistible Grace. Irresistible grace means that when God extends His grace to the elect, it will inevitably result in their salvation. The Holy Spirit effectively draws the chosen individuals to Christ, overcoming their resistance to the gospel. This grace is not coercive, but it is so powerful that it brings about the intended response of faith and repentance.
• Perseverance of the Saints (OSAS). This doctrine holds that those whom God has elected and regenerated will persevere in faith until the end. They are eternally secure and cannot lose their salvation. True believers may fall into sin, but they will ultimately return to God and be preserved by His grace.

John Wesley’s Objections to Five-Point Calvinism

John Wesley, who was an Arminian, has one of the strongest statements onas to why he rejected Five-Point Calvinism the basis of Scripture. The quote is long, but I’m including the entire quote here because it’s important for this discussion:

“Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us, that no virgin’s lamp can go out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be cut off from unfruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name blotted out of God’s book! They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor; nobody can ever ‘receive the grace of God in vain’; ‘bury his talents’; ‘neglect such great salvation’; trifle away ‘a day of grace’; ‘look back’ after putting his hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can ‘grieve the Spirit’ till He is ‘quenched,’ and strives no more, nor ‘deny the Lord that bought them’; nor ‘bring upon themselves swift destruction.’ Nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. They use reams of paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever ‘cast forth,’ he was never in, and ‘if one ever withered,’ he was never green. John 15:1-6; and that ‘if any man draws back,’ it proves that he never had anything to draw back from. Heb. 10:38,39; that if one ever ‘falls away into spiritual darkness,’ he was never enlightened. Heb 6:4-6; that if you ‘again get entangled in the pollutions of the world,’ it shows that you never escaped. 2 Pet 2:20; that if you ‘put salvation away’ you never had it to put away, and if you make shipwreck of faith, there was no ship of faith there!! In short they say: If you get it, you can’t lose it; and if you lose it you never had it. May God save us from accepting a doctrine, that must be defended by such fallacious reasoning!’”

Biblical Support for Arminian Theology

Not only do I believe (with Wesley) that TULIP is not supported in scripture, I believe that it’s ANTI-scriptural. With the exception of Total Depravity, I fully reject the doctrines of Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace, and believe—once again—that it’s contra what God reveals in the Scriptures.

Let’s take a look at these verses:

• 1 Timothy 2:3–4 — “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” This verse highlights God’s desire for all people to be saved, suggesting that salvation is available to everyone, not just a preselected few.
• 2 Peter 3:9 — “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Peter emphasizes God’s patience and desire for everyone to repent, indicating that individuals have the choice to turn to God.
• Ezekiel 18:23 — “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” God expresses no pleasure in the death of the wicked, showing His preference for their repentance and life, which suggests an opportunity for change and choice.
• 1 John 2:2 — “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse indicates that Christ’s sacrifice was for the sins of the entire world, not just a select group, implying a universal potential for salvation.
• Matthew 23:37 — “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” Jesus expresses a desire to protect and gather the people of Jerusalem, but their unwillingness highlights the role of human response and choice.
• Revelation 3:20 — “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” The imagery of Jesus knocking on a door and waiting to be let in symbolizes the invitation to a relationship that requires a personal response.
• Romans 10:13 — “For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” The promise of salvation to “everyone who calls” on God’s name suggests that salvation is available to all who choose to seek it.
• John 3:16 — “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Jesus plainly says here that “whoever” believes in him will be saved. He does say that one can only be saved if they are the elect.
• Revelation 3:5 — “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” “Botting out” someone’s name from the Lamb’s book of life means it was once in there (i.e., they were “saved”), and now they aren’t.
  
  

Especially strong is Hebrew 6:4–6, which needs no comment.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Limited atonement is just not scriptural. to try to reconcile Five-Point Calvinism to these plain verses of scripture, one has to do some pretty sophisticated hermeneutic acrobatics.

Theology Starting with Jesus (not Adam) 

Calvinist soteriology (theology of salvation) expressed in TULIP begins with the fallen-ness of Adam (total depravity) and builds from there. However, Jesus is the preeminent form of divine revelation (the perfect image of God (Heb. 1)). Because Jesus is the “exact imprint” of God, Wesleyans (and Arminias) prefers making Jesus the starting point of soteriology.

All theology should begin with Jesus, as he is the preeminent form of divine revelation (so much more to say about this, but there’s not room here).

The Five Points of the Remonstrance

I, of course, am not the only objector to Five-Point Calvinism. The first to object to this way of thinking about salvation were the Remontrants. The Remonstrance of 1610 is a theological document drafted by the followers of Jacob Arminius, who sought to outline their opposition to certain aspects of Calvinist doctrine, particularly predestination.

• Conditional Election. God elects individuals to salvation based on foreseen faith or unbelief. This opposes the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, where God’s choice is not based on any foreseen merit or action.
• Unlimited Atonement. Christ’s atoning sacrifice was made for all people, but only those who believe in Him will be saved. This contrasts with the Calvinist view of limited atonement, which holds that Christ died only for the elect.
• Prevenient Grace. God’s grace is necessary for anyone to come to faith, but this grace can be resisted. This opposes the Calvinist belief in irresistible grace, where those elected by God cannot resist His call to salvation.
• Resistible Grace. God’s grace enables humans to respond to His offer of salvation, but it is not coercive, and individuals can choose to reject it.
• Possibility of Falling from Grace. Believers can fall from grace and lose their salvation if they turn away from God. This is contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which holds that those truly elected by God will persevere in faith and cannot lose their salvation.
• Holy Love. Holy Love is central to Wesley’s theology. John Wesley understood salvation first and foremost as a love relationship over and above a change in status (guilty to innocent). For love to be love, free agency must remain intact. Before God was a Sovereign, he was a Father.

Final Word: Non-Essentials vs. Essentials

This issue is not one that Christians should divide over. Christians should only break fellowship over the essentials of the faith, which are enshrined in the Nicene Creed (sigh, yes, I know, not all agree on what are the essentials and what are not the essentials).

Suggested Reading

• Roger Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006
• Roger Olson. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. 
• Don Thorsen. Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief into Practice. Nashville: Abingdon, 2013.
• John Baillie, John T. McNeill, and Henry P. Van Dusen. Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
• Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell. Why I’m Not a Calvinist. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004.
• Allan Coppedge. John Wesley in Theological Debate. Wilmore, KY: Wesley Heritage Press, 1987.