Reflecting the thinking of many, a fellow pastor once told me, "I don't
believe in predestination, but I believe in eternal security."
While personally disagreeing with various viewpoints of the five-point
school, we should at least acknowledge their consistency here, e.g.,
since one's salvation derives from unconditional election and
irresistible grace, one can of himself neither choose nor reject divine
grace.
In the case of today's predominant "modified Calvinism," one is placed
in the rather awkward position of exercising free will in choosing to
accept Christ (such being the typical appeal extended to the unsaved),
only to experience a denial of free will from that point on should he
ever choose to renounce his decision.
This certainly fails of accord to the author of the Hebrews Epistle
concerning those "who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit." Argument
that the attendant warnings regarding "falling away" did not apply to
the epistle's recipients, given the fact that they had never really
been saved, raises considerable question as to not only the intent of
the Epistle, but regarding those having who, in having been elightened,
had experienced the heavenly gift and become "partakers of the Holy
Spirit," yet apart from the reality of salvation. Furthermore, why warn
sinners in such threatening terms concerning falling away from their
unsaved state?
Should those to whom such warnings are issued have fallen short of true
salvation, the author's contrast of "the former days" in which their
lives had been characterized by obvious genuiness of faith and
experience (the author here taking pains to acknowledge such, Heb.
10:32-38), one is again confronted by the essential meaninglessness of
the preceding warnings of verses 26-31. Indeed, to have implied the
validity of their faith and relationship with Christ when, in
actuality, they had never really been saved would leave the Epistle's
author (Paul, Barnabas, Clement or whomever) guilty of dishonesty and
deception at best, and heresy at worst.
At this juncture, the "security" explanation becomes strained, to say
the least.
Burl Ratzsch
http://burlratzsch.blogspot.com/
.
|
