Perseverance of the Saints

| | Comments (8)

Jollyblogger has at long last finished his series on the five points of Calvinism with point five: Perseverance of the Saints. He explains that it has two components:

1. Someone who is genuinely saved cannot lose that salvation.
2. Only those who persevere in faith until the end will be saved.

Some Arminians deny the first point because they think the second requires denying it. The result is legalism. Some dispensationalists, such as Zane Hodges (and to a lesser degree Charles Ryrie) deny the second because they believe the first requires doing so. The result is antinomianism. Both deny plain statements in the Bible, which Jollyblogger lists. I've argued for exactly the same thing here.

Update: He's now got a post up linking to all the entries in the series.


Does Hodge deny it as a reality or in the same way that Jollyblogger pointed out that he can't say who is in heaven and who isn't?

Hodges* grrr.

Jollyblogger says he can't evaluate who has truly persevered in faith and who hasn't. He doesn't in any way deny that you have to persevere in faith to have been saved all along.

Hodges says it truly doesn't matter if you persevere in faith (despite James 2, I Thess 3:5, I Cor 9:23-27, Col 1:22-23, Phil 2:16, II Peter 1:10-11, I John 2:19, II John 9, Heb 3:14; Heb 6, Heb 10, Rev 2-3, etc.), and if you profess Christ once as a teenager and spend the rest of your life, to your dying day, spreading the word of the evils of Christianity, that one profession of faith is enough to save you as long as you had a genuine intellectual assent, the very thing James says is not enough.

I gotta read this stuff from Hodges. It's kinda hard to make that sort of claim when you have John 8 staring you in the face. I mean, in one sense, I know that a person who genuinely believes can know that they are saved and will perservere...but that sort of one profession sort of thing is wacky.

must research. thanks.

Hodges makes all sorts of other indefensible claims. He takes one of the more extreme versions of dispensationalism, and I can't say I find much respectability in the KJV-only stuff that he's most famous for. He does happen to be better than most of the people that hold such a view, mainly because he's virtually the only academic who bothers to try to defend it, but I still think it's an indefensible view.

I have problem with KJV-only especially when we all know it's NASB or nothing.

just kidding. :)

One thing about KJV-onlyism that bothers me (one of many). Fair enough if you accept that the KJV is the one true word of God that he has preserved, but how on earth are you to read the word of God if you don't understand english?

That's why many of them add "in English". The more reasonable ones like Hodges insist that it's the manuscript traditions the KJV was based on (rather than the older traditions) that are inspired, which of course ignores that those traditions aren't themselves monolithic, never mind all the other historical evidence to favor the older manuscripts.

We've done this to death in earlier posts, though, so I don't really want to rehash all that at this point.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04