David Pawson’s talk on the subject of Once Saved, Always Saved?:
The ‘Omega’ Version
This is the subtle understanding of OSAS, more sophisticated and much less permissive. Both sin and holiness in believers are taken more seriously.
There is an emphasis on the need for perseverance in the Christian life. Holiness is as necessary as forgiveness, sanctification as essential as justification. Believers must never become complacent or satisfied, but press on towards the prize of their high calling. It is as vital to finish the ‘race’ as to start it – hence my ‘Omega’ label for this viewpoint.
It is implicit in the teaching of many pastors, especially those who would describe themselves as ‘Reformed’ in doctrine. They urge their hearers on to maturity, with constant exhortations against standing still or, worse, slipping back.
The stress on perseverance distinguishes this from the simpler Alpha position. Indeed, some actually dislike the slogan ‘once saved, always saved’ because it does not include or even imply the need to press on afterwards. It is therefore shunned for inadequacy rather than inaccuracy.
It is not going too far to say that proponents of this view believe that only those who persevere will finally be saved – and that those who don’t persevere will be lost forever. So how can they be classed as OSAS? What they say about perseverance seems to be a direct contradiction of it! Actually, they manage to believe both and this is where the subtlety comes in. The tension is resolved in one of two different ways.
Some resolve it by defining the penalty of backsliding. They say that the most that can be lost is in the realm of reward or special blessing, either in this world or, more usually, the next. That is, there is a ‘bonus’ for perseverance which can be forfeited, though participation in heavenly glory is still assured.
Others resolve it by denying the possibility of backsliding, at least in a persistent form. This amounts to the belief that all those who are truly born again ‘must’ persevere – not meaning that they ought to, but that they inevitably will, that they cannot help but do so.
Nor does it stop there. This inevitable perseverance is not so much their action as a ‘gift’ from God which they cannot refuse. He ensures that they finish as he ensured that they began. This gift and belief in it are often referred to as ‘the perseverance of the saints’, which is something of a misnomer since it is a divine rather than a human action. Recently, it is being more accurately described as ‘the preservation of the saints’.
The logical deduction drawn from all this is that all those who in practice fail to persevere were never truly born again. They may have professed faith and even joined the Church on the strength of that, but they were only nominal ‘Christians’ and it is therefore not surprising that they did not persist in their pilgrimage.
- David Pawson, Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance (1996: Hodder & Stoughton), pp. 10-12
This week’s feedback raises the old accusation that Arminianism pictures God as “weak and helpless”, and having died in vain for those who ultimately perish:
Question: “The problem with Arminianism is that it paints Jesus as a weak and helpless Savior, trying and yet failing to save everyone. If Christ died for all, but all people aren’t saved, then at least some of Christ’s blood was wasted. If any of Christ’s blood was wasted, then He died in vain and is a failure as a Savior. The theology of Arminians make Christ less than God.”
Answer: This is by no means a new criticism. Personally, I’ve never found this claim to be particularly strong or convincing. When dealing with issues such as these, I’ve found it helpful to refer to what I see as God’s intentions in the atonement. These can be expressed in two inter-related questions:
1) Why did Christ shed His blood in the first place?
2) Who does God intend to save?
I believe a very simplified answer to the first question would be that Christ shed His blood as a means of providing the redemption of those whom God has intended to save. This then raises the second question, to which I would reply that even though He desires that all would come to faith and repentance, God has only ever intended to save those who believe (cf. 1 Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:22, 1 Tim. 4:10). Does Christ’s blood accomplish the salvation of those who believe? If so (and I believe that it does), then the blood is not wasted, insofar as it accomplishes exactly what it set out to achieve: the salvation of those who believe.
A look at three Old Testament foreshadows of Jesus Christ is helpful:
Just as the blood of the Passover Lamb was intended to be effectual only for those who applied it to their doorposts (Ex. 12), so the blood of Christ (our Passover Lamb, 1 Cor. 5:7) was intended to be effectual only for those who apply the blood.
Just as the serpent in the wilderness, lifted up, was only ever intended to be effectual for those who looked to it in faith (Num. 21), so Christ (our Serpent in the wilderness, Jn. 3:14), lifted up, was only ever intended to be effectual for those who look to Him in faith.
Just as the cities of refuge were intended to be effectual only for those entered, and stayed within, the boundaries (Num. 35), so Christ (our City to whom we have fled for refuge, Heb. 6:18) was only ever intended to be effectual for those who enter into union with, and remain in union with, Him.
Christ’s blood accomplishes exactly what God intended: it saves those who by faith and repentance believe the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 1:21).
Another point worth making is that it’s not as if part of Christ’s blood saves one person, and another part of the blood saves another person. Christ’s blood, in its entirety, saves every person who repents and believes the Gospel. The same blood that saved the Apostles is exactly the same blood that saves you and me. The same blood that saves one repentant sinner is exactly the same blood that is sufficient to save billions upon billions of repentant sinners, and then some more. This same blood is available to anybody who will turn to Christ. If anyone does not look in faith to Christ and in so doing be saved, it is that they have wasted the opportunity for salvation. It is not as if Christ’s blood was wasted, for if just one person was to be saved, the same amount of blood would have to have been shed as it would for the entire world to be saved.
The claims that Arminianism “paints Jesus as a weak and helpless Savior” and that Arminians “make Christ less than God” are unfounded, as they rest on the claim that “If Christ died for all, but all people aren’t saved, then at least some of Christ’s blood was wasted” which is shown to be an unconvincing accusation against Arminian theology.
One final point I’d like to make is that the claim that Christ’s blood is wasted if all are not saved can actually be applied (though just as unconvincingly) to the Calvinistic scheme. Most Calvinists that I’ve come into contact with will typically make reference to the ‘sufficiency/efficiency’ distinction, namely, the claim that Christ’s blood is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. So in your Calvinist scheme, the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, and yet it does not save all. This means that the original claim that Christ’s blood was wasted may just as easily be applied to your own Calvinistic worldview. Now, the way you Calvinists get around the apparent problem is, admittedly, quite easy and persuasive. That is, by showing that the intention of Christ’s death was to save only the elect (on the Calvinist view), the problem disappears (i.e., the blood accomplishes exactly what was intended). As the problem is so easily resolved, it would be silly for an Arminian to charge Calvinism with entailing the conclusion that some of Christ’s blood was wasted.
And the fact that the claim is so easily resolved is precisely the reason that I brought it up in the first place, as this is the same type of reasoning that we Arminians use to resolve the apparent problem. Just as a Calvinist appealing to the scope/intention of the atonement as he sees it resolves the problem for his worldview, so we Arminians appealing to the scope/intention of the atonement as we see it resolves the issue for our worldview.1 The fact that the same charge can be brought against Arminianism and Calvinism alike, and that it can be so easily resolved, is indicative of two things: 1) the charge that any of Christ’s blood was wasted is such a weak argument that it should not be used by either Calvinists or Arminians, and 2) Calvinists and Arminians alike should have no problems in principle with the other’s explanation, as both explanations (similar in principle, yet still different) are perfectly consistent with their respective worldviews.
1 From my perspective, Calvinists and Arminians alike limit the atonement in some way. In my personal experience, Calvinists have typically claimed that they limit the scope of the atonement, while we Arminians limit the power or efficacy of the atonement. Now, I don’t presume to speak for all Arminians, but I personally reject that distinction. My view is that Calvinists and Arminians both limit the scope of the atonement. The power of the atonement is a non-issue; the real issue is differing views on the scope of the atonement, Calvinism limiting the scope to only those whom God unconditionally elected before the foundation of the world, and the Arminian limiting the scope to those who believe.
One of Eddie Eddings’ many Calvinistic Cartoons. I enjoyed it:
The ‘Alpha’ View
This is the simple understanding of OSAS. Its proponents believe that, once faith in Christ has been exercised, a person is safe and secure for eternity, no matter what happens afterwards. To put it another way, one moment of faith in a whole lifetime is sufficient to secure a place in glory.
All one needs to do is start the Christian life. You are now ‘saved’. You have a guaranteed ticket to heaven. Everything is settled. To start is in a sense to finish. Only the first step is absolutely necessary. You only need to begin at the beginning. Hence the ‘Alpha’ label seems appropriate.
This is implicit in the preaching of many evangelists, who must be held responsible for conveying this notion, even if they do not realise it. Perhaps unconsciously, they present the gospel as an insurance policy for the next world, offering an escape from hell rather than a liberation from sin. This is done by focusing on death rather than life (‘If you die tonight, will you find yourself in heaven or hell?’) So often a guaranteed place in heaven is offered in response to a thirty second ‘sinner’s prayer’ repeated after the evangelist, often without mentioning deeds of repentance towards God or reception of the Holy Spirit, much less baptism in water – in marked contrast to apostolic evangelism in the New Testament (see my book The Normal Christian Birth for a more detailed examination of Christian initiation; Hodder & Stoughton, 1989).
Though it is rarely stated, the impression is left that, however life is later lived, the convert’s standing with God cannot be affected. In a word, admission to heaven requires forgiveness but not holiness. In theological terms, justification is essential, but sanctification is not.
Not surprisingly, this can and does lead to moral and spiritual complacency. At worst, it becomes possible to rejoice in salvation while living in known sin. This was the case on the Clapham train and at Spring Harvest (see the Prologue). Typical were the remarks of an American mother reported to me: ‘My daughter’s a prostitute and drug addict but praise the Lord, when she was seven she made her decision for the Lord and I look forward to seeing her in glory.’
Such is the ‘popular’ view of OSAS. It takes a very light view of both sin and holiness in the believer. Neither can seriously affect eternal destiny, one way or the other. The main thing is to get as many as possible ‘saved’, which means to get them started …
… It is tempting to call this an ‘escalator’ salvation. Having once got on, one can step up or down, but never get off again. Sooner or later, one is certain to arrive at the top.
- David Pawson, Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance (1996: Hodder & Stoughton), pp. 9-12
Here is Dr. Michael L. Brown’s debate with Pastor Bruce Bennett on the subject of Who Makes the Final Choice in Salvation – God or Man?
Here is Dr. Michael L. Brown’s debate with Dr. James White on the subject of Predestination, Election, and the Will of God: