I also think that that little catch phrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading because again, it suggests that the persevering is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. Now, I believe, of course, that saints do persevere in faith and that those who have been effectually called by God and have been reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit endure to the end, so that they do persevere. But they persevere not simply because they are so diligent in their making use of the mercies of God. But the only reason we can give why any of us continues on in the faith even till the last day is not because we have persevered so much as that is because we have been preserved. And so I prefer the term the preservation–the preservation–of the saints, because this process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God. (R.C. Sproul, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK-QdF64yng)

I understand the “P” in the TULIP to say that the God who saves a man keeps that man to the end. Thus, Sproul and many others have suggested that the “P” would better represent Calvinist theology if it stood for “preservation” instead of “perseverance.” Indeed, the Bible emphasizes not the perseverance of the saints but God’s preservation of the saints.

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timothy 2:12)

I have attempted to engage honestly with Calvinism, avoiding caricatures while expressing my objections based on Scripture. My main objection has been to the Calvinist tendency to blur or erase the paradox, the mysterious interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility and free will. This tendency shows up in various ways in the first 4 points of Calvinism. But in the doctrine of perseverance, I see a different problem related to what R.C. Sproul acknowledges above. If Sproul admits the problem, I am not alone in my concern. But Sproul and other Calvinists haven’t done themselves any favors.

The word “perseverance” is terribly misleading. Nor do these quotes help things. Consider what a variety of famous (or infamous) Calvinists have said.

Conclude we, then, that holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity — as part of the end itself. (A. W. Pink “On Sanctification” https://gracegems.org/Pink/sanctification.htm)

Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort.  (Charles Hodge comments on I Corinthians 10:12 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hdg/1-corinthians-10.html)

Endurance in faith is a condition in salvation (R. C. Sproul “Grace Unkown” – this article deals extensively with Sproul’s book: https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/grace-unknown-the-heart-of-reformed-theology/)

Not surprisingly, many object to these kinds of statements. In my research, I encountered more than a few pastors who see this doctrine as a different form of “works” salvation.

Arminianism teaches that salvation can be lost if you lose your faith.  In such a case, your salvation is never fully secure, and it is dependent upon your faithfulness.  On the other hand, Calvinism teaches that if your faith fails to endure to the end of your life, then it simply proves you were never truly saved because you didn’t possess “genuine” faith.  In either case, whether you lost your salvation or proved that you were never really saved to begin with, your salvation ultimately depends upon your faithfulness and endurance, instead of God’s persevering faithfulness to you. (http://www.gracebiblestudies.org/Resources/Web/www.duluthbible.org/g_f_j/Must_Faith_Endure1.htm)

The article cited above includes many similar statements from Calvinists and Arminians, set side-by-side, to demonstrate that “there is virtually no difference between the two theologies regarding the necessity for perseverance in order to ultimately attain salvation.” Many share this impression.

I don’t think this fairly represents Calvinism. Taken in isolation, the Pink and Hodge quotes above surely say something unscriptural. Taken in context, these still aren’t good statements and shouldn’t be included in anyone’s doctrine of eternal security.

I won’t try to explain why some Calvinists (some would say “many” Calvinists) make such extreme statements. I don’t understand it, and it is repugnant to Biblical Christianity. I understand why many object to this doctrine.

But we should look closer at the quotes from Pink and Hodge (unfortunately, I don’t own a copy of Sproul’s Grace Unknown) before we render a verdict.

Pink quotes the Puritan William Marshall from his book The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.

God saves us from our sinful impurity here, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:29; Titus 3:5), as well as from Hell hereafter. Christ was called Jesus, that is, a Savior: because He saves His people from their sins (Matt 1:21). Therefore, deliverance from our sins is part of our ‘salvation,’ which is begun in this life by justification and sanctification, and perfected by glorification in the life to come. Can we rationally doubt whether it be any proper pert (sic)of our salvation by Christ to be quickened, so as to be enabled to live to God, when we were by nature dead in trespasses and sins, and to have the image of God in holiness and righteousness restored to us, which we lost by the fall; and to be freed from a vile dishonorable slavery to Satan and our own lusts, and made the servants of God; and to be honored so highly as to walk by the Spirit, and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit? And what is all this but holiness in heart and life?

Conclude we, then, that holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity — as part of the end itself. Though we are not saved by good works as Procuring causes, yet we are saved to good works, as fruits and effects of saving grace, ‘which God has prepared that we should walk in them’ (Ephesians 2:10). It is, indeed, one part of our salvation to be delivered from the bondage of the covenant of works; but the end of this is, not that we may have liberty to sin (which is the worst of slavery) but that we may fulfill the royal law of liberty, and that ‘we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter’ (Galatians 5:13; Romans 7:6). Yes, holiness in this life is such a part of our ‘salvation’ that it is a necessary means to make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in heavenly light and glory: for without holiness we can never see God (Hebrews 12:14), and are as unfit for His glorious presence as swine for the presence-chamber of an earthly king.

The last thing to be noted in this direction is that holiness of heart and life is to be sought for earnestly by faith as a very necessary part of our ‘salvation.’ Great multitudes of ignorant people that live under the Gospel, harden their hearts in sin and ruin their souls forever, by trusting on Christ for such an imaginary ‘salvation’ as consists not at all in holiness, but only in forgiveness of sin and deliverance from everlasting torments. They would be free from the Punishments due to sin, but they love their lusts so well that they hate holiness and desire not to be saved from the service of sin. The way to oppose this pernicious delusion is not to deny, as some do, that trusting on Christ for salvation is a saving act of faith, but rather to show that none do or can trust on Christ for true ‘salvation’ except they trust on Him for holiness, neither do they heartily desire true salvation, if they do not desire to be made holy and righteous in their hearts and lives. If ever God and Christ gave you ‘salvation’, holiness will be one part of it; if Christ wash you not from the filth of your sins, you have no part with Him (John 13:8).

Commenting on this lengthy quote, Pink adds this:

Make no mistake upon this point, dear reader, we beg you: if your heart is yet unsanctified, you are still unsaved; and if you pant not after personal holiness, then you are without any real desire for God’s salvation.

The Salvation which Christ purchased for His people includes both justification and sanctification. The Lord Jesus saves not only from the guilt and penalty of sin, but from the power and pollution of it. Where there is a genuine longing to be freed from the love of sin, there is a true desire for His salvation; but where there is no practical deliverance from the service of sin, then we are strangers to His saving grace.

Throughout this small booklet, Pink stresses that both imputed and imparted righteousness are God’s work, not man’s. The quote in question (bold in the passage above) is immediately followed by this: “Though we are not saved by good works as Procuring causes, yet we are saved to good works, as fruits and effects of saving grace.” William Marshall reminds us that “holiness in this life is such a part of our ‘salvation’ that it is a necessary means to make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in heavenly light and glory: for without holiness we can never see God (Hebrews 12:14), and are as unfit for His glorious presence as swine for the presence-chamber of an earthly king.” I think this accurately reflects the warning of Hebrews 12:14-17.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Clearly, Pink means to refute the advocates of “free grace,” the grandparents of the modern-day easy-believism movement, which insists that you can live like the devil and still go to heaven. That teaching grossly misrepresents Scripture and is nearly identical to antinomianism.

Yet, I can see how Bible-believing Christians would be horrified by Pink’s raw statement. It illustrates the way, in our zeal for the truth, overstatement becomes the enemy of the truth.

Now for Hodge’s commentary on I Corinthians 10:12:

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.

This indicates the design of the apostle in referring to the events above indicated in the history of the Israelites. There is perpetual danger of falling. No degree of progress we may have already made, no amount of privileges which we may have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. Let him that thinketh he standeth, that is, let him who thinks himself secure. This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on different grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged body (the church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own strength. None are so liable to fall as they who, thinking themselves strong, heedlessly run into temptation. This probably is the kind of false security against which the apostle warns the Corinthians, as he exhorts them immediately after to avoid temptation.

Hodge means to warn against carnal security, which is good and necessary. But the raw quote is terrible in any context. Hodge speaks as if holiness depends on the believer’s performance.

Taken in context, I see what Hodge means, but I am critical of his expression. Yes, we easily rest for security in that which provides no security at all. Hodge is right – neither our membership in the church nor our “profession” of faith guarantees that we will not be lost in the last day. Jesus is the only Savior.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

It is folly to rest in “privileged status,” as if numbering yourself with the church or considering yourself to be “born again” gives any security. Our security is in Christ alone. Salvation rests not in profession or performance but in Christ’s propitiation.

Hodge’s comments in the next verse (I Corinthians 10:13) clear up the confusion caused by his explanation of verse 12.

But God is faithful. He has promised to preserve his people, and therefore his fidelity is concerned in not allowing them to be unduly tempted. Here, as in 1 Corinthians 1:9, and every where else in Scripture, the security of believers is referred neither to the strength of the principle of grace infused into them by regeneration, nor to their own firmness, but to the fidelity of God. He has promised that those given to the Son as his inheritance, should never perish. They are kept, therefore, by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, 1 Peter 1:4. This promise of security, however, is a promise of security from sin, and therefore those who fall into willful and habitual sin are not the subjects of the promise. Should they fall, it is after a severe struggle, and they are soon renewed again unto repentance. The absolute security of believers, and the necessity of constant watchfulness, are perfectly consistent. Those whom God has promised to save, he has promised to render watchful. Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, i.e. able to bear. This is the proof of his fidelity. But will with the temptation make a way of escape. This means either, that when the temptation comes, God will make a way of escape; or, that when God brings the temptation he will also bring the way of escape.

What Hodge says here accurately reflects Calvinist teachings about temptation, sin, the final falling, and security. I do not believe that Calvinism teaches works salvation. I do not think Calvinism teaches that our security depends on us. You can easily verify what I am saying with a little effort. I’ll offer a few quotes that reinforce this.

We have no perseverance in ourselves unless God daily, nay, momentarily, strengthens us and follows us up with His favour. (John Calvin comments on Ezekiel 15)

He vouchsafes to the elect alone, the living root of faith, that they may perservere even to the end (Calvin, Institutes 3:2:11)

Our perseverance is not founded on our own power or industry but on Christ (Calvin, Comments on Romans 5:2)

Perseverance of the saints rests on the promises of God to preserve the saints. (Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, p. 199)

The reason true Christians do not fall from grace is that God graciously keeps them from falling. Perseverance is what we do. Preservation is what God does. We persevere because God preserves. (Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 174-5)

The Internet is full of similar Calvinist teaching, so I won’t belabor the point. This is what Calvinism teaches. But unfortunately, non-Calvinists typically believe that “Perseverance” means we must keep our salvation. I have heard many non-Calvinist believers quote Paul’s rebuke of the Galatians in response to the “P” in the TULIP.

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)

There can be no doubt that Calvinists themselves have contributed to this perception. We could point to many statements that echo the words of Pink and Hodge and Sproul (from Grace Unknown). Taken in isolation, Calvinists seem to lend credence to the idea that the doctrine of perseverance makes salvation a product of works, not grace. Those who reject Calvinism are responsible for accurately representing the theological positions of their doctrinal opponents. But in many cases, perception is reality. I hope my Calvinist friends will consider this well.

The Bible teaches us to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10) to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). We mustn’t bask in carnal security. “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Corinthians 13:5). The first evidence against our profession would be an unchanged life, a life lived in willful, habitual sin. Where a person has experienced the new birth, there will be both a confident resting in Christ and a passionate desire for Christ. Where either of these are missing, the believer has grounds for concern. We must not allow presumption to keep us from Biblical self-examination when our flesh overtakes us.

The answer to open, willful, unrepentant sin is not to “shape up” but to appeal to the Lord Jesus Christ, to turn back to Him for deliverance. He is the only Savior. Our hope of eternal life rests entirely on Him. He keeps His own, and part of that keeping – the central part, in fact – is His work to purge away our sins.

It is our Christian duty to war against the flesh. In this arena, the soldier earns his stripes. But he must not rely on himself, either his discipline, will, or power to resist his own baser nature.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:22)

I agree with R.C. Sproul: “Perseverance is what we do. Preservation is what God does. We persevere because God preserves.”