Is Justification Permanent? Part Two

I here begin my response to the objection about the permanence of justification:

First of all, I think you left out some of the best and the most relevant verses for the point you were trying to make. My favorite summary verse is "But the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13). In the same book, we also read at the end of the sermon on the mount that Christ will say to many, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23). And Paul warns both the church at Corinth and the churches in Galatia that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21).

Now, I definitely believe all that. And I agree with all the verses you quoted (although I may raise some objections to some of what you inferred from them, but we'll get to that later). The question then comes down to this: is it possible for me to believe that "the one who endures to the end will be saved" and to simultaneously believe that justification is permanent? It appears that you would expect me to only believe one or the other, but not both. I hope to show that believing both is not only possible but also biblical.

In order to show that it is possible to believe that, I would like to bring forth a bit of church history as a witness... the point at which the doctrine of justification was debated most thoroughly was the time of the Reformation. The late medieval church, in an attempt to build a
great new church in Rome, used the practice of selling indulgences to earn money for this new building. A young German monk objected to this practice, as it undermined the gospel and was contrary to the doctrine of justification. This German Reformer, Martin Luther, called the doctrine of justification the doctrine on which the church stands or falls.

The various Reformed confessions of the 1500's and 1600's shed some light on where the various parties stood on this particular issue. The Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530) doesn't explicitly address the permanence of justification (although other writings of Martin Luther imply it). The Belgic Confession (Reformed, 1561) affirms the permanence of justification. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1563) imply the permanence of justification. And the Roman Catholic Church, in its response to the reformers (Council of Trent, 1564) explicitly denies the permanence of justification. And a century later, due to the
refusal of the Church of England to reform thoroughly, three more denominations formed (once the religious laws were relaxed enough in England to allow the existence of more than one denomination in one country). These three use virtually identical language in their confessions - the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian, 1646), the Savoy Declaration (Congregationalist, 1658), and the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) - and all three explicitly affirm the permanence of justification. So as a whole, the Protestants were mostly in agreement on this question (although one could raise honest objections about the Lutherans and the Anglicans), in opposition to the Roman Catholics. In fact, no major Protestant denomination denied the permanence of justification until the Methodists left the Church of England in the late 1700's (and even then, there is no uniform Methodist confession of faith - the Welsh Methodists, for example, affirmed the permanence of justification while the English Methodists denied it).

So does all of that history in any way prove that justification is permanent? No, of course not, but it confirms that many throughout history (namely, the majority of the Protestants in the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's) have believed both that justification is permanent and that good works are required of believers (as all six of those Protestant confessions affirm, as well as the Council of Trent).

The problem, though, is that in the last 100 years or so, a new doctrine has arisen in the United States that has never been accepted by any denomination historically. This corrupt and false doctrine treats justification by faith alone as nothing more than fire insurance. It affirms the permanence of justification but denies that good works are required of believers. For example, the Free Grace Seminary in Georgia says that "a Christian, having believed in Christ as Savior at one moment in time, God forever keeps secure." Another webpage out there, while on the one hand affirming much that is true about the permanence of salvation, goes on to make the outlandish claim that someone who formerly believed in Christ but no longer believes is still saved.

So rightfully speaking, there are three different views being advanced out there. The first one, the one historically held by Roman Catholics and certain recent Protestants, believes that "the
one who endures to the end will be saved" and therefore denies that justification is permanent. The second one, the historic Protestant doctrine, believes that "the one who endures to the end will be saved" and also believes that justification is permanent. The third one, the wacked-out dispensational doctrine, believes that justification is permanent so it denies the necessity of enduring to the end to be saved.

As a side note, the KJV has "he who perseveres to the end will be saved" at Matthew 24:13, so the historic Protestant doctrine is commonly known as "the perseverance of the saints." And by the way, I also recognize that you were essentially arguing against the third view, which I most certainly do not hold, but you were pretty much arguing for the first view, which I also do not hold, so I'll continue to defend the second view even if it's not what you expected to read in my response.