Reformed theologians, developing the tradition of Augustine, have always asserted that the work of perseverance is a divine work. There are of course many, many texts in scripture that urge believers to vigilance and perseverance to the end, to remain in Christ, to continue in faith and so on. There are texts that certainly speak as if one could deny the faith: 1 Cor 10:12, 2 Peter 2:1 and so on. Most theological traditions have taught therefore that it is possible to lose grace once one has received it. The question is, however, whether God could allow a grace he begins to be ruined by the power of sin. Even Augustine divided into two the kinds of grace a believer receives, asserting that only the second, superadded grace produced perseverance.
The Reformed have explained by contrast that perseverance is a work of God through believers. In regeneration and faith he gives a grace that is unbreakable and inadmissible. The admonitions and warnings of scripture are ‘the way in which God himself confirms his promise and gift through believers’ (Bavinck). Apostates in scripture (1 Tim 4:1, Heb 6:4-8, 2 Pet 2:18-22) must, according to Bavinck, be either examples of incomplete apostasy (later restored?) or evidence of false conversion in the first place. Although I think his exegesis at these points is stretched beyond credulity, the theological point is a good one: God cannot/does not break his own covenant. Even Paul mourning over Israel does not conclude the God is faithless, even when Israel is. Rightly construed, the doctrine is of great assurance and comfort to Christian believers – God who begins a good work in us will bring it to completion (Phil 1:6). The Christian life is not fragile, even though it is tested.
The Reformed doctrine should not however be the cause of undue speculation as to one's inward state, nor should it give rise to passivity. The warnings to endure and to resist should be heeded as serious, live warnings. Hebrews seems able to blend at the one time both admonishment and comfort – which makes sense if perseverance, like the Christian life itself, is a divine work in and through human agents. It is the inward search for a certainty of one's own heart that makes the doctrine disturbing just when it is claimed it should be most comforting. Actually, the comfort lies in the character of God revealed in Christ: that even human weakness is not an obstacle to his purposes. But human fickleness is not thereby excused.
Perhaps the doctrine is better labelled 'the perseverance of the saint'. There was one who perservered, and so we can hold out confident hope of our own perseverance. Christ was tempted in every way as we are but did not sin.
8 comments:
How very Barthian of you Michael.
I've always wanted to ask Barth in what way the election of Christ as the "truly elect man" helps me understand my own election or not. Perhaps I can ask you instead, how does the Christ as the truly persevering one help me to approach my own perseverance?
Is Christ simply our exemplar in this? Since he persevered it encourages us, who are human, weak and tempted like he was, to persevere also? Or shall we say, with Barth, that Christ is at once both the persevering man and the God who began the good work? If so, how do I know that he began this work in me? Am i not then back to the original question, stuck with the exegesis of the reformers (stretched beyond credulity as it may be)?
Nathan: "If so, how do I know that he began this work in me?"
I take the point to be that this is not the best question to be asking.
I take it that God's revealed will is that whoever believes upon the Son has life. God reveals that he secretly operates in us, by his Holy Spirit, to effectually call us and make us to persevere. I dunno how or when he secretly operates - I just get on with responding to what he has revealed, and calling others to do so.
I don't think questions like "how can we know he works in me" are necessarily illegitimate or sinful or anything. But I don't think they're helpful, because they tend to lead to a subjective introspection that leads, depending on your constitution, to either pride or despair. I prefer to focus on God's revealed will, which means focusing on Christ's objective, external work for us on the cross, and merrily entrusting ourselves to him.
Nathan - I have no idea whether this is Barthian or not. And so what if it is! He might just be right. And Bruce is right: I think the question isthe wrong one to ask. Fix your eyes, says Hebrews 12:2, on JESUS: he is the ground of our assurance and the source of our perseverance.
Kamal - I don't disagree in principle with the way you have cast it. The old 'God of two wills' thing gets trotted out by some Reformed dogmaticians regularly to explain the lacunae in the usual fascinations with election, the extent of the atonement and so on. If there hadn't been skewiff statements about these things in the first place, you wouldn't have to come up with the revealed/secret explanation, right?
Michael,
I didn't mean to come across as critical and I apologise. I wasn't trying to use the term "Barthian" pejoratively. To be honest it doesn't even cross my mind that it should be understood that way.
You were critiquing the reformed exegetical tradition in your post (eg. Bavink), I was just trying to point out that--it seemed to me--even by taking the Barthian line which tries to sidestep the issue, we actually end up back with the same exegesis of those passages.
We would all agree that Jesus as exemplar of perseverance is fine, but theologically insufficient. So at some point I have to ask about my own perseverance (or at least how it relates to Jesus') and when I do that, if it is based on God's secret will, I am asking about something I can not know. I am back stuck again at the problem Kamal is talking about. I think the further comments here have largely solved the problem (though not in a way that any of the orthodox reformed theologians would have liked from my readings of them) by insisting that assurance should be based on faith, not on God's secret counsel.
Well, my apologies for sounding defensive. A certain Qld theological college principal loves to put it about that we are a Barthian college, so I am a little sensitive to the perjorative force of the label!!
;-)
Michael. As always, terrifically helpful post. Thanks.
Michael, I can't help but feel that Bruce's question is a good one. How does your last paragraph work? Can you spell out the connection a bit more?
Post a Comment