But “Perseverance”
creates a problem. It is a most embarrassing and unfortunate term. Persevering
is what the believer does—yet what humans do has already been ruled out as
having any bearing whatsoever on the outcome. Perhaps this is why modern
Calvinists have abandoned the term “perseverance” and adopted the term “eternal
security.” This seems to keep the outcome dependent totally on God.
The older term
Perseverance (the “Perseverance of the Saints”) is embarrassing for the further
reason that some don’t persevere in obedience. They do not always persevere in
holiness. They do not always persevere in faith.
What does the
Calvinist say about these undeniable failures? Different Calvinists have
different answers. A common answer is that failure to persevere is evidence of
a spurious conversion; in other words, this person was not really among the
elect, after all. God didn’t design that he or she be saved which is the same
as saying that God didn’t intend for them to persevere. The grace provided was
not sufficiently “irresistible” to assure perseverance.
But others—perhaps the
majority since Wesley’s day—rely on a peculiar doctrine of “imputed
righteousness.” This begins with the assumption that Christ represented the
elect by His righteous life as well as by His atoning death. Just as the merit of
His blood is put to the account of the elect so likewise is the merit of His
righteous life. This means that Christ’s righteousness is “imputed” to the
sinner, or ascribed to him or her as if the righteous life had been lived by
the sinner instead of Christ. The believer is credited with Christ’s righteousness.
Because he is created with Christ’s righteousness, this righteousness is what
the Father sees when He looks upon the believing and regenerate sinner.
The effect of this
doctrine is to relieve the believer of the necessity of being truly righteous
in his own character. He has officially “put on” the character of Christ, and
by this means he is always acceptable before God. As a consequence actual sin
in the believer’s life has no power to separate the soul from Go. Sin cannot
constitute a forfeiture of eternal life, fundamentally because sin cannot cancel
his status as one of the elect, and secondarily because the Father sees him as
righteous in Christ.
Of course, there is
tension here among the Calvinists. Many devout Calvinists are not willing to go
so far as to say that sinning on the part of a born again Christian makes no
difference, or that God is not displeased with it. The contradiction here
is glaring. For if God sees us covered with Christ’s righteousness our sins
should not disturb him; they are already covered by the blood. That was what
the shedding of the Son’s blood was for. And we are being told ad infinitum that
our sins are already forgiven “past, present, and future.” If they are
forgiven, then God doesn’t see them. Then what is the problem about
fellowship?
But because the moral
sense is offended by this picture. Calvinists straddle the fence and bite the bullet
of contradiction by saying that sin breaks fellowship with God, but does
not rupture the Father-child relationship. How sin which is not seen by God
because covered by Christ’s righteousness and because already forgiven (“past,
present and future”) can possibly break fellowship is not explained. Since it
can’t keep the believer out of heaven, why should it obstruct fellowship now?
Clearly this soteriological
scheme, by which grace gets around sin, is radically far-reaching. The whole
nature of salvation is reshaped. Sin is no longer damning. Salvation becomes an
escape from sin’s consequences without it being a deliverance from sin itself. (Richard
S. Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin: Its Relation to Right Thinking and
Right Living [rev ed.; Nicholasville, Ky.: Schmul Publishing Company,
2002], 18-19)
Further Reading
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology