The Holy Spirit is the one who keeps the believer, ever uniting him or her to their Savior. And once united to Christ, there is nothing that can snatch them away. Of course, the Holy Spirit uses means to draw us into deeper communion with Jesus Christ, what are called the Means of Grace – Gospel preaching, the sacraments, prayer, Christian fellowship, etc. The continual intercession of Christ, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, also brings preserving grace, as we have a true and faithful high priest who ever lives and intercedes on our behalf.

I hope that you’ve read the previous four articles on the doctrines of grace: depravity, election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. This 5th installment may not make much sense to you if you haven’t. The reason for this is because this final doctrinal summation of Reformed thought is the crown jewel that sits atop the other four. If you are familiar with Reformed doctrine at all, you will understand that the truths discussed are not independent of one another but in fact build upon one another. For example, one cannot understand unconditional election without first understanding the totally depraved state in which unsaved humanity resides. The final piece, and I dare say the pinnacle and climax of Reformed thought, sits atop the house that the other four have built. What then is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and why is it important for us to understand?
Simply stated, the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints (“Perseverance” for short) teaches that all those whom God has justified will persevere until they reach heaven, that is, they will inevitably make it to heaven. Over-simply stated, it’s “once saved, always saved.”[i] There are some important elements to this doctrine that we need to discuss, however.
Firstly, to whom does this truth apply? As the name of the doctrine would suggest, it applies to saints. But who are saints? Saints are all of God’s elect, those to whom He has shown the light of His saving grace by effectually calling them unto faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, justifying by His free grace through the forgiveness of their sins, uniting them to Christ by faith, reconciling them to Himself, and adopting them as sons and daughters. Saints are those who have repented of their sins and placed their faith and hope in the person and work of Jesus Christ. If this is you, then this doctrine of Perseverance applies to you.
But who is responsible for our perseverance? One may think that persevering unto the end is dependent on the saint. After all, it’s called perseverance, right? It’s the individual who is responsible for persevering in other aspects, so it should be no different in this doctrine, right? In one sense, yes, Scripture commands us to live a life of repentance and faith, working out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). Yet in reality, Scripture is clear that the ability for our faith to endure unto the end comes not from ourselves but from God Himself. Paul immediately says in Phil. 2:13, “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Even here Paul claims that it is God’s work that brings the culmination of our Salvation.
Read More
Related Posts:

With the Scriptures agreed upon as the basis for determining Christian faith and practice, and the Westminster Standards as the summary of doctrine, one would expect agreement that homosexual behavior of any kind violates God’s revealed will. But, not all agree. Recently, a set of teachings has come into the church, mostly by way of seminars and social networking. This teaching holds that strong homosexual desire is not sin, and that in fact, God created certain men (or women) this way. Only their outward physical act is sin.

In Reformed theology, unity of the church must be based on doctrinal agreement.  It is a
characteristic that distinguishes it from other branches of Christ’s church.
In the PCA, main doctrines of God’s Word are worked out in “statements and/or propositions of doctrine” contained in the Westminster Standards (BCO 21-4).
While the Scottish divines allowed “scruples” (minor differences) with those Standards, major differences were not allowed, not only because they undermined unity in the church, but also undermined confessed biblical truth.
The Standards provide something of a contract for fellowship and communion within a denomination; the basis for accountability in it, both members and clergy.
Pragmatism, often the way of the world, is not an enduring basis for unity.  Christ alone, as He is revealed in Scripture, is the basis of unity, and that forever (Heb.13:8).
Large majorities voted for Overtures 23 and 37 (71%, 66% respectively) at last year’s General Assembly. Although voting was on track for a majority of Presbyteries to approve both overtures, the total would not reach the ⅔ standard required. So they failed.
Given that the Book of Church Order (BCO) is part of the constitution of the denomination, along with the Westminster Standards, one would expect a high bar to change it; there needs to be both a high level of clarity and agreement to change.
Currently, in the PCA, constitutional matters often get interpreted by a Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), which General Assembly has delegated some of its responsibility to.
But is this really about changing the constitution of the PCA?
Were the Amendments sufficiently clear in purpose?
Answering these two questions explains why the Overtures failed and suggests the way forward.
With the Scriptures agreed upon as the basis for determining Christian faith and practice, and the Westminster Standards as the summary of doctrine, one would expect agreement that homosexual behavior of any kind violates God’s revealed will.
But, not all agree. Recently, a set of teachings has come into the church, mostly by way of seminars and social networking.
This teaching holds that strong homosexual desire is not sin, and that in fact, God created certain men (or women) this way. Only their outward physical act is sin.
It concludes that the church must focus on identifying these people, and “love” them by giving special consideration to the apparently impossible situation God has put them in.
It betrays the obvious that without agreement on the biblical teaching on sexual morality, creation and natural revelation, there can be no basis for unity.
The Overtures, in their final form, were not sufficiently clear.
Four (4) Overtures were proposed to the General Assembly which were revised and collapsed into what eventually became the two (2) Overtures, 23 and 37. Related Overtures were directed toward the SJC.
It is particularly curious what happened to Overture 37. What had been an attempt at doctrinal precision became a laundry list of all sorts of things…. ” the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns….  sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement.”
Was anyone asserting that, e.g., financial mismanagement was at issue presently in the church? What exactly is “mismanagement”? Is it being promoted (by seminars and social networking) as a normal identity of believers; “Refinance” seminars perhaps?
This was confusing to some who would otherwise vote for the Overture.
Doesn’t the BCO already disqualify for church office a man who exhibits a life pattern of sexual immorality- whether by thought, word or deed?
Doesn’t this same principle apply to church members, as well as officers?
Or was there intention to create a two-tiered moral standard for church officers vis-à-vis church members in this area of sin?
Fair questions. They caused some to vote against one or both of these Overtures.
If we agree on the basic moral standards involved, there is a way forward. If not, there really is not one that can last.
Here are the immediate steps forward:

Theological precision that reflects homosexual sin of any kind is contrary to God’s revealed will, is harmful to people and brings on the terrible consequences of sin.
The SJC, in order to maintain credibility as a neutral, constitutional arbiter for the spiritual court, the General Assembly, needs to change to a delegated assembly, reflecting both the ruling and teaching elders of the denomination. No more factionalized appointments.
Instead of the three extra hours now added for debate and discussion of the defeated Overtures at the 49th General Assembly, add three hours of prayer, fasting and repentance over factionalism, indifference to truth, lack of love for fellow ministers and most of all lack of regard for Christ, the bridegroom of His church.

I am reminded of our LORD’s promise to the church of Pergamum, a church that was succumbing to worldliness in similar ways:
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it (Revelation 2:17).
With Christ, there is always a way back.
Scott Truax is a member of Ambassador Presbyterian Church (ARP) in Apex, N.C.

Am I critiquing simply to destroy someone else, or am I critiquing to build someone else up? This matters significantly. It doesn’t take a genius to see flaws. But it does take someone with character, hope, and love to critique in a way that actually makes things better.

Is it to tear down something bad?
Is it to poke holes in something weak?
Is it to add value to something that needs work?
Is it to correct something that has gone wrong?
Is it to finally put someone in their place?
Is it to show people how smart I am?
Is it to keep an appearance of truly “seeing” things as they are?
Is it to avoid the responsibility of offering a better solution?
Is it to confirm my cynicism?
Is it to make a case for something better?
Is it to show a better way that the world can be?
Is it to help someone else see the truth?
Is it to expose the shallowness of something in order to show the fullness of something else?
Is it to break free from harmful views and practices?
How you answer this question determines a lot. It may be any one of these at any given time. Our motivations behind our critiques are rarely as transparent to us as we would like them to be.
Read More
Related Posts: