| Publications | For More Information
|
Striving for the Prize of
Eternal Salvation:
A Review of Schreiner and Caneday’s The Race Set Before Us
Robert N. Wilkin
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
I.
Introduction
Thomas R. Schreiner teaches NT
Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
The co-author of this book is Ardel B. Caneday, professor of
Bible at
The subtitle gives more
specificity to the subject of the book: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance
& Assurance. The authors state their aim in this way, “Our objective is
to lay out the biblical evidence and offer an interpretation consistent with
that evidence that will help readers integrate it into a coherent and
consistent whole.”1 They feel the three main views of perseverance and
assurance today fail to do this. Thus their aim is to forge a new view of the
fifth point of Calvinism that might aid people of all traditions to better
understand and apply the Scriptures.
There are three emphases in
their book that separate it from existing views:
First, eternal salvation is
already-but-not-yet (see esp. Chapter 2). Schreiner and Caneday
suggest that there is a tension here which we must recognize and accept (p.
143). They feel that other views wrongly attempt to explain it away.
Second, the warnings in
Scripture are the means by which believers are moved to persevere and gain
final salvation (see esp. Chapter 4). They suggest that the other leading views
either “superimpose God’s warnings on the promises or the promises on the
warnings.”2 They advise that the “[warning] passages must be
granted their full force without qualifying them with God’s promises.”3
This means they don’t speak of losing eternal life or of proving one was never
saved in the first place. They feel there is a biblical tension here that God
does not intend for us to eliminate. The promises are one thing; the warnings
another.
Third, their view of assurance
is a modification of the position found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
On the one hand, they argue for
Though this sounds confusing,
this book is intriguing and will be fascinating to JOTGES readers.
II. A
Survey of Five Views on Perseverance and Assurance
The first chapter is entitled,
“What Is There to Win or Lose?” In it the authors survey four views before
laying out their view. Of the views, all but the loss-of-rewards view considers
the prize to be eternal salvation. In other words, the authors show that the
rewards view is the only one that maintains that we need not strive and work in
order to get into the kingdom!
Whereas many authors appear to
be a bit reluctant to come out and call eternal salvation a prize to be won by
endurance in obedience, Schreiner and Caneday do not
share this reservation. I found it refreshing to see someone clearly admit they
believe that eternal salvation is a prize won by ardent effort. While it
grieves me to see someone garble the gospel in that way, I am happy that they
at least do so openly.
Here are their titles and
brief descriptions of the four views other than their own:
Loss-of-salvation view. They say, “The racetrack represents salvation. Christians may abandon the race and lose salvation. The prize is eternal life.”6 This is Arminianism.
Loss-of-rewards view. “The racetrack represents salvation.7 Christians may abandon the race and lose rewards. The prize is not salvation but rewards.”8 This is the Free Grace position. The authors cite Grace Evangelical Society, Zane Hodges, The New Scofield Reference Bible, R. T. Kendall, Charles Stanley, Erwin Lutzer, Michael Eaton, John Hart, and me as advocating this position.9
Tests-of-genuineness view. The authors say that this is “one of the most common views in evangelicalism today.”10 “The racetrack represents salvation. To abandon the race proves one was never saved. Christians run with their back toward the goal11 to assess their progress on the track. The prize is salvation, eternal life. Warnings and admonitions call for retrospective and introspective self-examination to assess whether one is already saved.”12 This is the traditional Reformed view, also known as Lordship Salvation.
Hypothetical-loss-of-salvation view. The authors do
not devote much space to this view “because this interpretive viewpoint emerges
principally in discussions of warnings in Hebrews.”13 This view is a mix between views one and three. “The
racetrack represents salvation. One who is already saved cannot abandon the
race. The prize is salvation, eternal life. Warnings and admonitions only
caution what would happen if one could fail to endure to the end.”14
The authors call their view
“God’s means-of-salvation view.”15 They describe
their view in this manner:
God’s means-of-salvation view. The racetrack represents salvation. If one abandons the race one will not receive the prize. The prize is salvation, eternal life. Warnings and admonitions call for faith that endures to receive the prize.16
We will analyze this view
carefully. However, for now suffice it to say that it regards eternal salvation
as the prize that believers are striving to attain.
The means-of-salvation
position sounds like the Arminian view. After all, Arminians also see the
warnings as the means God uses to get people to the kingdom. However, since
they deny the possibility of loss of salvation, it is not exactly the same as
the loss-of-salvation view.
In other ways it is hard to
distinguish the means-of-salvation view from the Reformed position. The
tests-of-genuineness view also sees the warnings as the means God uses to get
people into the kingdom. However, since they say that those who fail to
persevere prove they were never saved, and the means-of-salvation position does
not, it is not precisely the same as the tests-of-genuineness view either.
In a sense, it appears to be a
sort of hybrid between the two. Since both those views see perseverance as a
condition of eternal salvation, this is not as surprising as it might seem.
There is much in common between Arminians and Calvinists—if by Calvinists we
mean those who accept the Reformed Lordship Salvation position.
Let us now consider the
various components of the authors’ view.
III.
Already-But-Not-Yet: A Linear View of Salvation?
The authors use the
eschatological expression “already-but-not-yet,” extensively in this book. This
is becoming increasingly common in soteriological discussions.
They never make it crystal
clear—to this reviewer—what it means for salvation to be already present, but
not yet realized.
I have taken several steps in
order to understand what the authors mean by already-but-not-yet salvation.
Both authors were given a prepublication copy of this review, and I have
received three detailed email responses from Tom Schreiner and about seven from
Ardel Caneday. In addition,
at Caneday’s suggestion, I have read Chapter 2 five
times in an effort to better grasp what they are saying about
already-but-not-yet salvation. I think I have it.
Already-but-not-yet salvation
is only understood if we avoid trying to resolve the tensions in their view.
The tensions must be maintained to keep the scriptural balance.
Salvation that can never be
lost is ours already; yet if we do not persevere, we will not be saved on the
last day. Keep the tension.
True believers can be assured
that they are eternally secure now. Real believers will heed the warnings,
persevere, and enter the kingdom. However, certainty that one is a true
believer is not possible prior to death. Since only true believers will enter
the kingdom, certainty of final salvation is not possible prior to death. Keep
the tension.
In their view one who fails to
work hard until the end of his life will fail to gain eternal salvation, or final
salvation, as they prefer to call it. While they believe in eternal
security, they also believe in a modified form of perseverance. All who are
truly saved persevere. Yet this is not quite automatic.
The means by which God causes
regenerate people to persevere is through the many warnings in Scripture. Fear
of eternal condemnation spurs believers to persevere. Thus believers must be
very diligent to make it into the kingdom. Yet the faith, works, desire, and
diligence are all gifts of God, hence they feel their view is not accurately
described as teaching works-salvation.
With that as an overview, let
us now examine precisely what the authors say on this key subject.
In Chapter 2 Schreiner and Caneday discuss in detail this already-but-not-yet tension
in soteriology. It is vital to realize that in their opinion, passages dealing
with already salvation are proportionally much less frequent than those
dealing with not-yet salvation:
Almost all Christians think of salvation exclusively in terms of the past. Believers often say, “I have been saved,” or ask someone else, “Have you been saved?” We will argue that most evangelical Christians do not use the word salvation as it is usually used in the Bible, where the term denotes our future salvation. Hence, the emphasis of the biblical text often gets lost when we speak about salvation.17
Why is this so important to
them? The reason is because for them salvation (swthria and swzw in Greek) almost always refers to eternal salvation
from hell. Thus if people who are already saved need to be saved in the future,
this means to them that one cannot relegate perseverance to the realm of
eternal rewards. Nor can one safely rest on his past salvation as though his
entrance to the kingdom will occur with or without diligent effort on his part.
Logically the authors seem to
believe that eternal salvation does not occur at a point in time. Rather, like
Luther, they seem to believe in a linear view of conversion. In this way a
person can be on the way to final salvation, fail to obtain it due to a failure
to persevere, yet not really lose eternal life.
I say that they seem to
believe this because Caneday has directly denied
this in emails to me. Indeed, he indicated he was not even familiar with a
linear concept of salvation.
Judge for yourself. The
following citations are instructive both for what they say and do not say. Note
how each remark is different from what the loss-of-salvation or
tests-of-genuineness views would say:
The Scriptures call on those who are wandering to repent and to turn again in order to be saved! Such an admonition does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that these people were not saved before! The admonition, however, is directed to where a person is now in his or her walk with the Lord.18
Note first of all the two uses
of exclamation marks. Clearly the authors are trying to call attention to
something unique about their view. Notice also that they say that this
wandering person who needs “to repent and turn again in order to be saved” may
already be a saved person. How can this be if the authors believe that eternal
salvation can’t be lost? The answer is that this is a biblical tension that
must not be swept under the rug. They do not speak of losing eternal salvation
or of failing to prove you had it in the first place.
Again, consider this quote:
The exhortation of Romans 8:13 [“For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”] is still needed for Christians. Paul warns us that if we succumb to the desires of the body we will die. In order to live, that is, to obtain eternal life, we must slay the deeds of the body by the power of the Spirit.19
Christians will die
spiritually if they “succumb to the desires of the body.” In order for
believers “to live, that is, to obtain eternal life” they “must slay the deeds
of the body by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Thus here, as in most places,
they are emphasizing the not-yet part of salvation. One cannot obtain eternal
life before he perseveres in a life characterized by slaying the deeds of the
body by the power of the Holy Spirit. Note well that they avoid speaking of
either loss of eternal life or proof one never had it in the first place. The
key is to keep the tension. As long as we keep our eyes on the prize of eternal
salvation and keep on persevering, we will obtain eternal life in the end.
Similarly, note these words:
Paul does not guarantee that believers will inherit the kingdom regardless of how they live. He warns that those who succumb to the flesh will not enter the kingdom.20
If we aren’t careful, we will
understand the authors to mean that kingdom entrance is not guaranteed for
believers. Yet they believe it is. What
they actually say here, if you read it with their idea of tension in mind, is
that entrance is not guaranteed to believers regardless of how they live.
In other words, true believers will take the warnings seriously. They will live
right and will enter the kingdom. They will not succumb to the flesh since they
know the consequences are deadly.
But what of those who do
succumb to the flesh? Keep the tension. They will not get into the
kingdom.
Righteous living is necessary to obtain entrance into the
Entrance to the kingdom is not
really certain until one perseveres in righteous living. Of course, this is
once again looking at the not-yet part of salvation. There is no mention of
proving one was never saved in the first place or of losing already salvation.
James also conceives of salvation as future. He exhorts his
readers to “humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you” (Jas
Saying that “the work of
salvation is not completed” fits perfectly within a linear view of conversion.
If one must give God’s Word free reign in one’s life in order to ultimately
experience eternal salvation, then clearly salvation is not yet an accomplished
fact. In light of quotes like these, it appears that for the authors the not-yet
is so prominent as to make the already practically meaningless.
The following quote shows how
they include election in their system:
Yet we must not nullify the biblical tension [between faith and works] and omit the need to do good works…We must run the marathon to the end to win the prize. We must gut it out and make it over the finish line. But those who make it over the finish line know that they have made it over the line because God has appointed them to run. He is the one who has given them the grace and energy and strength to run until the end, so he gets all the glory.23
This is fairly standard
Reformed articulation. This is about as close as they come to saying that those
who fail to persevere never were saved in the first place. Of course, the
authors do believe that the tests-of-genuineness approach is a valid way of
explaining those professing believers who fail to persevere and gain kingdom
entrance. For example, they write, “It is true that the Bible teaches that the
people who failed to persevere by remaining in the church proved by their
departure that they never were truly Christians.”24 What they object to is viewing the warning passages from that
grid.25 Warnings are given to true believers as the means by
which God moves them to persevere.
Those who persevere are elect.
Those who do not will not win the prize that is eternal life. Striving for
eternal salvation is the key to the Christian life.
From their perspective,
looking back at our former progress has little if any benefit in helping us to
strive for the prize. Our goal is ahead of us, not behind us. No matter how
well or poorly we have done in the past, we must do well in the future to make
it into the kingdom. Fear of missing eternal salvation is the means by which we
can gain it. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we keep our eyes on the
prize of final salvation.
Of course, as we shall discuss
in more detail shortly, in their view everything about our eternal salvation is
a gift of God. This includes intellectual assent, volitional commitment, an
ongoing desire to please God, the strength and motivation to put forth the
ardent effort, and the strength and desire to persevere in faith and good works.
All people should be urged to
come to Christ and to exert ardent effort to persevere and thereby gain the
prize of eternal salvation. Those who find themselves able to do so will get
into the kingdom. Those who do not will discover that they are among the
unfortunate ones for whom eternal salvation was never a possibility.
IV. Ardent
Effort Needed to Gain Final Salvation
Schreiner and Caneday are much more open than most Reformed theologians in
speaking of the need of effort and even “ardent effort” to gain eternal
salvation. While others may speak of effort needed, they are quick to give
disclaimers that our best efforts are flawed, that we may have times when we
are away from the Lord to some degree, and that the efforts are always because
of God.
These men give less
disclaimers. They feel that the striving is itself a means for us to gain final
salvation. Note these remarks:
We must run the race with dogged determination to obtain the prize of eternal life, and it takes remarkable discipline and training to make it to the end.26
[Commenting on Philippians 2:12-13] Note he does not say, “You are saved. Now work for your reward, which is in addition to salvation.” He summons the Philippians to bring to accomplishment their salvation! Effort, toil and energy are all communicated in this phrase [“work out your salvation”]. We are to use all the resources at our disposal in order to be saved on the last day. We must obey, pray, resist the flesh and yield to the Spirit to inherit salvation. No theology is acceptable that diminishes this call to work out our salvation.27
Since the writer [of Hebrews] portrays the Christian life as a race needing gutsy endurance and a training ground in which discipline is meted out, we are correct in saying that obtaining the eschatological prize takes ardent effort. There is no call to passivity here!28
Here we find once again the
authors’ biblical tension. It should be noted that at times they do give
disclaimers that our ardent effort and all associated with it (commitment,
obedience, faith, and works) are gifts of God. We now turn to a consideration
of those disclaimers.
V.
Works-Salvation Is Not an Issue
Schreiner and Caneday do not feel their system is one of works-salvation.
These men are Reformed theologians. If our efforts and works are all gifts of
God then there is no room for merit or boasting or works-salvation.
Here are two examples of this
type of disclaimer:
We must consciously and intentionally put these [sinful] desires to death in order to reach our eternal destiny. Such a teaching is not works-righteousness, for Paul informs us that conquering sin in this way is “by the Spirit.” We must summon our wills and make decisions to triumph over the flesh, yet ultimately the subjection of the flesh comes from the power of the Holy Spirit.29
Saying that we must run to the
end can scarcely be called works-righteousness, since such persevering faith is
ultimately the gift of God!30
Of course, if all this is a
gift of God, then why do we need to give “ardent effort”?31 If this view were correct, then full effort would automatically
bubble up from the elect whether they wanted it to or not.32 No matter how hard an elect person tried to suppress this desire,
he would be unable to do so. Just as saving faith is simply implanted in them,
so would all the things that are a part of it, including the ardent effort
needed to obey.
I would think the authors’
answer is that we need to remember the tension of already-but-not-yet. If we
delve into questions of how anyone might lack the desire or might need to will
up the effort, we are guilty of trying to answer questions the Bible does not
wish us to ask. We must keep the tension.
The authors have a second
defense to the charge that they are proclaiming justification by works. They
turn the charge back against the eternal rewards position. They write:
The first error [in interpreting “Whoever loses his life for My sake will find it”] is to think that Jesus speaks of merit…Unfortunately Hodges imputes the notion of merit or “earning power” to Jesus’ call to be a disciple, a call that includes conditions or demands.33
A footnote is given at this
point in which they criticize Zane Hodges and Grace Evangelical Society by
name:
Ironically, while Hodges and his associates with the Grace Evangelical Society argue that their view is the only one that avoids a system of works-righteousness, they introduce “merit theology” into the Christian life.34
They back up this charge of
“merit theology” by suggesting that the NT teaching on rewards as wages doesn’t
really mean something which is earned.
VI. Wages
Are Not Earned
I could find no discussion by
Schreiner and Caneday on the word for reward, misqos.35 It is the word used for pay in everyday Greek.
However, once they do refer to the related word, misqapodotes, used only in Heb 11:6 (“He is a rewarder”).
Here is what they say:
Though it is true that the word used in this verse literally means “one who pays wages” (misqapodotes), the author of Hebrews does not mean that we achieve the reward by meriting it.36
And why is that? They go on to
say that this is merely a figure of speech that is not intended to convey the idea
of paying wages:
While the employer pays wages out of indebtedness to the employee, God gives a reward to the believer purely out of grace, and the author of Hebrews certainly believes this (see, e.g., Heb 4:16; 12:15).37
One might wonder whether the
two verses they cite prove their point. Hebrews
The idea that rewards are
unmerited gifts of grace is seemingly contradicted by Rom 4:4-5 and the many
other uses of misqos and misqow in the NT. Schreiner and Caneday
do not discuss Rom 4:4-5 or other places in which these words occur.
Those words are used
consistently in the sense of merited wages in the entire NT. So clearly there
is merit, but not for justification.
Here are a few NT examples.
The first two are the verb.
“A landowner…went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard” (Matt 20:1). “No one hired us” (Matt 20:7).
“Call the laborers and give them their wages” (Matt
20:8). “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim
It is highly questionable, in
light of the evidence, to argue that misqos does not refer to wages.
Let’s consider the question of
desire since it is such an integral part of this system of thought.
VII. The
Place of God-Given Desire in Obedience
Schreiner and Caneday say that God gives the desire to obey Him. This is
part of saving faith. Thus this desire stays with the elect person from the
moment of his new birth until he dies. He cannot be without it, for God
guarantees it.
At least that is what they
suggest whenever they speak of desire—every time, that is, except for once.
They seem to contradict themselves when they ask about the believer who on a
given occasion does not have the desire to do right.
Say a believer has a desire to
do wrong? Is it acceptable to do the wrong because the desire is missing? Does
this mean I am not truly regenerate, for if I were, wouldn’t I have the desire?
Here is how the authors
respond. After saying, “We receive both the desire and the ability to keep his
commands,” they give this illustration:
One of us knows of a person who kept having sexual relations outside marriage; his excuse was, “God in his grace has not given me the desire to obey him. It would be legalistic of me to keep his commands without the desire.” This is a prime example of going beyond the biblical tension. We are called on to work, to obey and to exert our energy. The biblical writers inform us, however, that the work and desiring that we do on God’s behalf finally and ultimately come from him.38
They do not see the problem
their illustration raises. If desire is an infallible gift from God, then when
it is absent God does not expect one to obey. Indeed, how could a person obey
if God removed the desire and ability to obey? The authors indicated both
before and after this illustration that the ability and desire are given
together as a unit. Thus it would seem impossible for someone to lack the
desire and yet have the ability to obey.
Indeed, one wonders how any
believer could ever sin if saving faith includes both the desire and ability to
obey and saving faith never stops. Would not saving faith have to come and go
for believers to sin under this definition of saving faith?
The authors’ answer is
seemingly simple, yet quite confusing:
To believe is to engage in strict self-discipline, to compete in the good competition of faith, to run, to land blows on oneself, to look to the Son of God for life, to eat of his flesh and to drink of his blood, to hear and follow his voice. All these and more provide contour and texture to our understanding of what faith is. At once these metaphors call us to act in obedient faith to the heavenward call of God in Christ Jesus and provide a standard by which we may know that our faith is authentic, though not perfect.39
If faith by definition results
in perseverance, then anyone who does not persevere did not have authentic
faith in the first place. This is standard Reformed thought. However, the
statement, “to believe is to engage in strict self discipline,” is unusual by
Reformed standards.
The authors are convinced that
believers must try their hardest in order to persevere and gain final
salvation. Yet, if believers sometimes do not have the desire to do so, they
should strive wholeheartedly for the prize anyway because this is necessary for
them to make it into the kingdom. In other words, if the desire isn’t present,
do your best anyway.40
VIII.
Assurance Is and Is Not Certainty
In light of what’s been said
thus far, one might think that Schreiner and Caneday
teach that absolute certainty of one’s final salvation is not possible prior to
death. However, the truth is that they are sensitive to this issue and take a
moderating position.
There are some aspects of
their view of assurance with which JOTGES readers will strongly agree.
And there are others with which they will have strong disagreement.
Before we consider a series of
references on assurance from the authors, it is vital that we realize what they
are seeking assurance of. While in one sense the focus of assurance is entrance
into the
This is clear because when
they discuss the role of God’s promises in assurance, they start by saying:
The promises of God are of paramount importance because our confidence and certainty about our status before God in the future rests ultimately not on ourselves but on God himself. The fundamental reason we have confidence that we shall finish the marathon in which we run is not our strength, our godliness or our endurance. We are confident that we shall obtain our inheritance because God has promised that we shall do so.42
The authors believe that
perseverance in faith and good works is necessary to enter the kingdom.
Assurance “about our status before God in the future” is parallel to assurance
“that we shall finish the marathon.” So no one can be sure he will be saved on
the last day unless he is also sure he will persevere. How that is possible if
even the apostle Paul was not sure of his perseverance (1 Cor
The following is a survey of
their comments on assurance:
• Believers suffer from doubts, temptations, depression and uncertainty on occasion…Assurance is not a static entity, it can wax and wane for believers…Overall there is more certainty about our status with God as we run the race.43
• Those who claim assurance of faith but fail to produce good works contradict their profession by their lives. There is no warrant for thinking that they truly belong to the people of God.44
• There is no warrant for assurance if one is doing the works of the flesh and living contrary to the will of God.45
• Failure to manifest good works demonstrates that our faith is false and that we are not really believers.46
• All believers must preserve the tension between not relying on their good works as a basis for salvation and the necessity of good works to be saved on the final day. Similarly, the biblical tension regarding assurance must be preserved. Assurance is integral to saving faith, yet assurance is also strengthened and confirmed by walking in godliness. Whether such a tension is “inherently unstable” is debatable, for no logical contradiction is involved here. Human beings are prone to upset the balance and emphasize one side of the tension above the other, yet the gospel calls us to live in such a way that we preserve the tension between assurance being integral to faith and the need to confirm our assurance by keeping God’s commands.47
• Those who desire assurance but reject the means by which assurance is maintained call into question whether they really want assurance, since they have separated assurance from the means by which it is preserved. The Grace Evangelical Society fails to grasp the distinctions we are introducing, and hence they merge the view proposed by us and Berkouwer with the popular retrospective view and the introspective Puritan view.48
• Assurance is not an abstract entity
that is ours regardless of what we do. That would contradict a massive amount
of biblical teaching. No, our assurance in the faith is strengthened as we
continue to run the race, persevering until the end to receive the prize.49
Yet contrast those comments
with these fascinating comments about the dangers of reading the Puritans:
The Puritans were right in forging a connection between assurance and the fruit of the Spirit (more on this below). Yet if the fruit of the Spirit becomes the fulcrum by which we discern our relationship with God, an unhealthy and destructive introspection is almost sure to follow. Despite the many strengths of the Puritans, those who become immersed in reading them today need to be wary of becoming excessively introspective and self-focused. The reason for this is that the promises of God may no longer be the fulcrum for our assurance in faith. Biblical assurance rests fundamentally on God and his promises.50
This seems to contradict most
of what they have to say about assurance. The solution is to see this as a
disclaimer. While they repeatedly say that our works are essential to have
assurance, nonetheless they see a danger here. In their minds they feel that
the Puritans were too introspective and too concerned about whether or not they
would persevere. In addition, the Puritans ceased to see the promises of God as
the primary means of assurance.
Of course, despite their
statement here, one fails to see why any sensible person would not be highly
introspective and concerned under their system. And why would someone
under their system look to God’s promises as the primary basis of assurance,
when they repeatedly say our works are essential?
Their view of assurance can be
summarized as follows:
> Assurance
has three grounds.51
> The most
important ground of assurance is the promises.52
> Good
works are objective.53
> Good
works “strengthen and confirm” assurance.54
> Doubts
result even when things are going well.55
> We can’t
know the spiritual condition of living lapsed believers.56
> Believers
who have died in a lapsed condition do not get into the kingdom.57
IX. The
Rewards View Encourages Passivity and Laxity
Near the end of the book the
authors directly attack the rewards view. They begin:
To be faithful to Scripture we must preserve the biblical tension between our responsibility to exercise faith and run the race, and the truth that any faith and work we have is a gift of God. If we exclude our role as human beings [to continue to exercise faith and run the race], we encourage a passivity and a laxity that is contrary to the biblical calls to exertion and effort that we have been investigating.58
What view encourages a
passivity and a laxity? The authors now specify the rewards view as the
culprit! Commenting on Phil 2:12-13, they say:
Note that he does not say, “you are saved. Now work for your reward, which is in addition to salvation.” He summons the Philippians to bring to accomplishment their salvation. Effort, toil and energy are all communicated in this phrase. We are to use all the resources at our disposal in order to be saved on the last day. We must obey, pray, resist the flesh and yield to the Spirit to inherit salvation. No theology is acceptable that diminishes this call to work out our salvation.59
At this point the authors
criticize Zane Hodges for suggesting that this and other passages that call for
works must be rewards passages.60 There can be
no doubt that the theology that they find “unacceptable” is the rewards view.
This came as a bit of surprise
to me. They do not give such an appraisal of any of the other theological
positions. The loss-of-salvation and the tests-of-genuineness views are never
called “unacceptable,” nor are they singled out as promoting “a passivity and a
laxity.”
X. How Does
This Theology Impact Evangelism?
Since this book is addressing
a vital soteriological issue, it is valid to wonder about the evangelistic
implications of the view expressed. Unfortunately, the authors do not give much
insight here. I found no mention of evangelism anywhere in the book. Only in
one place, mentioned below, did the authors give much of an indication of how
they might evangelize:
In examining the book of Acts it is clear that conversion, repentance, faith and baptism are alternate and overlapping ways of describing coming to Christ for salvation (e.g., Acts 2:38, 41; 3:19, 26; 4:4; 5:14, 31; 8:12-13, 36-38; 9:18, 42; 10:43; 11:17-18, 21; 13:12, 39, 48; 14:1, 9, 15, 27; 15:7, 9, 11, 19; 16:31-34; 17:30, 34; 18:8, 27; 20:21; 24:24; 26:18, 20; 28:27). We do not need to detain ourselves long over these terms but will make a brief comment on conversion and repentance. Both of these words denote something humans do in response to hearing the gospel, namely, turn from sins and turn toward God. Both repentance and conversion depict the revolutionary alteration that has transpired in Christians.61
Several things are remarkable
about this statement. First, there are four “alternate and overlapping ways of
describing coming to Christ for salvation.” Does this mean, for example, that
baptism, one of the four items they mention by name, is a “way of describing
coming to Christ for salvation”? It would seem so.
Indeed, at another time the
authors indicate that regeneration occurs at the point of baptism:
Titus 3:5 describes the new birth of Christians in terms of “the washing of rebirth,” indicating that we should not divide baptism from regeneration. 62
At this point a footnote
appears which reads, “We believe this is an argument that points to believer’s
baptism.”63 I’ll say. Of course, is it really believer’s baptism
if regeneration precedes faith (as they argue) and if one must be baptized
before he can be reborn?
Since these men are both
Baptists who indicate they believe in “believer’s baptism,” maybe they mean
something else by their comments on Titus 3:5 and the above quote on the four
alternate ways of describing coming to Christ for salvation. However, that is
what their words seem to suggest. One would think how one comes to Christ
deserves much more explanation.
Second, they are not only
“alternate,” but also “overlapping ways of describing coming to Christ for
salvation.” Again, more explanation would be helpful. In what sense can four
things be alternate ways and also overlapping ways of describing coming to
Christ?
Third, if repentance and
conversion are “ways of describing coming to Christ for salvation,” then how
can they also “depict the revolutionary alteration that has transpired in
Christians”?
The authors do say that
regeneration precedes faith (“God’s regenerating work precedes faith, love and
a righteous life”).64 However, that still does not explain how there can be
any conditions to regeneration.
While the authors do not give
much detail here, they say enough to allow us to draw some conclusions
regarding how they would evangelize.
They would call people to come
to Christ. How they would do that is not clear.
Their evangelism would surely
include telling people the warnings of Scripture. They would warn the possible
new convert that only those who endure to the end will be saved. They would be
careful to tell them of the already-but-not-yet tension, for only by
persevering can anyone enter the
XI.
Conclusion
I really like two things about
this book. First, it makes it clear that the theological grid of the Free Grace
Movement is quite distinct. We alone see eternal rewards as the prize.
Arminians and many Calvinists see the prize as eternal salvation from hell.
Why would I like to be singled
out as holding a unique view of soteriology? The reason is that I want people
to understand what we are saying. This book represents our view fairly, with
the exception of the claim that our view promotes laxity and passivity. I
imagine not a few people who read this book will get and read copies of books
from our perspective. Some will likely be won over to our position through this
book.
Second, I love the subject of
this book. It talks about striving to win the prize. That is my aim in life, as
it was Paul’s (1 Cor
Finally, I appreciated the tone of this book. Schreiner and Caneday are not vitriolic. There is almost no bombast here.65 That is unfortunately not the case in some of the books promoting Lordship Salvation.
I recommend this book, especially for pastors, deacons, elders, Sunday school teachers, and anyone who teaches the Bible.
1 Thomas R.
Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday,
The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (
2 Ibid., 142.
3 Ibid., 143.
4 Ibid., 17.
5 Ibid. See also
Chapter 7.
6 Ibid., 23.
7 The reason they
call the racetrack salvation is probably because they see the end as
what they call final salvation. However, since in this view the end is not
final salvation, but the prize of eternal reward, they should have identified
the track differently. A better designation would be that the track represents the
Christian life, progressive sanctification, or discipleship.
8 The Race,
29.
9 Ibid., 24-29.
10 Ibid., 29. This
struck me as odd, since the first view is obviously that of most denominations
and churches, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestant
denominations. Yet concerning the first view the authors said, “Some insist
that these warnings and admonitions indicate that believers can and sometimes
do abandon their faith and consequently lose their salvation” (pp. 21-22).
11 This suggestion
is well meaning, but confusing. Obviously no one can run toward a finish line
by running away from it! The authors seem to mean that the runner runs toward
the prize while looking back all the time to see how well he has done so far in
the race. This is like the runner who looks back to check out his competitors.
However, in the graphic they give with this view, the runners are clearly
running away from the finish and toward the starting line!
12 The Race,
34.
13 Ibid., 36.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., 40. The
full title is “God’s means-of-salvation view of warnings and admonitions.” I
have abbreviated it since the authors themselves do so as well (see, for
example, p. 45).
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., 48,
italics theirs, underlining mine.
18 Ibid., 310,
italics added.
19 Ibid., 300.
20 Ibid., 294.
21 Ibid., 290.
22 Ibid., 52,
italics mine.
23 Ibid., 331.
24 Ibid., 152.
25 Ibid., 29-35.
26 Ibid., 314.
27 Ibid., 315.
28 Ibid., 313.
29 Ibid., 300-301.
30 Ibid., 314.
31 In response to
a prepublication copy of this review, the authors wrote here, “Do you think
‘gift’ and ‘effort’ are contradictory?” In a sense, no. One may need to strive
to enter by the narrow way (Luke
32 The authors
responded to the prepublication copy in this way: “Automatically bubble up? God
does not work his grace in us automatically.”
33 The Race,
155-56.
34 Ibid., 156, n.
18.
35 In addition to
carefully reading the entire book and looking for references to “wages,” I
consulted the subject index. Under “rewards, and wages,” the following pages
are cited: 20, 90-92, 104-105. They confirm my contention that they never deal
with misqos
and misqow.
Essentially they assume their conclusion without mentioning or discussing the
biblical evidence.
36 The Race,
90.
37 Ibid., 91.
38 Ibid., 316.
39 Ibid., 140-41.
40 The authors
feel that “This is a less than fair representation of our view.” Yet I fail to
see from the illustration given what is less than fair about my representation
of what they wrote.
41 Notice in the
quote immediately below (which ends with footnote #43) they equate “confidence
and certainty about our status before God in the future” with “confidence that
we shall finish the marathon in which we run.”
42 The Race,
277, italics mine.
43 Ibid., 276.
44 Ibid., 293.
45 Ibid., 296.
46 Ibid., 298.
47 Ibid., 299.
48 Ibid., 308-309.
49 Ibid., 311.
50 Ibid., 277.
51 Ibid., 276-77.
52 Ibid., 17.
53 Ibid., 303.
54 Ibid., 296. See
also pp. 199, 297, 300. Of course, the GES Affirmation of Belief says
that good works have a secondary, confirmatory value to our assurance. We might
hope that is what Schreiner and Caneday mean.
However, they make it crystal clear that good works do not merely confirm what
we already know to be true. They strengthen and confirm it. Certainty
cannot be strengthened. Thus they appear to mean something like this: the
more good works we see in our lives the greater likelihood there is that we
will persevere and enter the kingdom. Unfortunately, as they make clear, no
amount of works can give one certainty that he will persevere and enter the
kingdom.
55 Ibid., 297.
56 Ibid., 309.
57 Ibid. “We do not
believe it is our role to say one way or the other whether a lapsed brother or
sister is saved!” At this point a footnote appears which reads, “Charles C.
Ryrie falls into this trap. He agrees that believers are imperfect and then
extends the argument from there, asking ‘how much’ believers can sin and still
be saved. He implies that we can sin to a considerable extent and still belong
to the people of God…But the very attempt to provide assurance to those who are
straying is misguided, nor is it our role to pronounce definitively on those
who are straying.” On the next page (p. 310) they strongly imply that those who
fail to repent of their lapsed state will not enter the kingdom. “The
Scriptures call on those who are wandering to repent and to turn again in order
to be saved! Such an admonition does not necessarily lead to the conclusion
that these people were not saved before!” At the end of that paragraph they
conclude, “We do not know what their destiny is as lapsed ones, because we do
not know how they will respond to the admonition [to repent and turn again in
order to be saved].” The following remarks about assurance and lapsing are
quite powerful: “There is no warrant for assurance if sin is dominant in our
lives. We maintain our assurance by continuing to run in the race…Assurance is
not an abstract entity that is ours regardless of what we do” (p. 311).
58 Ibid., 314-15.
59 Ibid., 315.
60 Ibid., 314-15.
61 Ibid., 64-65.
62 Ibid., 76,
italics mine.
63 Ibid., n. 22.
64 Ibid., 60.
65 There are, however,
a few times when the authors’ irenic spirit seems to evaporate. For example,
note these inaccurate and offensive words concerning Hodges’s explanation of
the Rich Young Ruler passage, “It is telling that Zane Hodges does not direct
his readers to the fact that