An Anti-Antinomian Quintilemma Against the Doctrine of Eternal Security

A neuralgic point of contention between various traditions of Christianity is whether a Christian can lose his salvation. Among Protestants, Calvinists are especially associated with the doctrine of eternal security (alternatively, perseverance of the saints), which holds that no true Christian can lose his salvation, and this is because God will always preserve every Christian in a state of grace and continually and unconditionally forgive their sins. As the Westminster Confession states:

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only (Westminster Confession III.VI).

God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance (ibid., XI.V).

They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves (ibid., XVII.I-III).

By contrast, the Catholic Church teaches that a true Christian can lose his salvation, and he does so by committing a mortal sin. As the Council of Trent decreed against the errors of the various "Reformers":

If anyone shall say, that the grace of justification only befalleth those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon XVII). 

If anyone shall say, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, throughout his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds respecting the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema (ibid., Canon XXIII). 

If anyone shall say, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or, which is still more intolerable, mortally, and therefore deserves eternal punishments; and that it is only for this cause he is not damned, because God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema (ibid., Canon XXV). 

If anyone shall say, that there is no deadly sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save only by that of infidelity; let him be anathema (ibid., Canon XXVII).

The Catholic doctrine of mortal sin holds that there are sins that are so grave that they can cause the forfeiture of the state of grace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the doctrine of mortal sin as follows:

To choose deliberately—that is, both knowing it and willing it—something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death (CCC 1874).

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it (CCC 1855).

Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us—that is, charity—necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation (CCC 1856).

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent" (CCC 1857).

Sacred Scripture very clearly teaches that there are sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8). If these sins, therefore, are committed with full advertence of the will by a formerly justified Christian and are not forgiven, then said Christian will have forfeited his salvation. Hence, it would seem that the doctrine of eternal security is plainly false. The way in which Calvinists and the Reformed tradition more broadly resolve this problem is by positing that either God forgives all the sins of a justified person past, present, and future at the moment of justification or that God continuously and unconditionally forgives sins as they are committed by a justified person, with the justified person's past sins having been forgiven at the moment of justification. Thus, there are indeed these various sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God if they are not forgiven. But for a Christian who has truly repented and has been justified by God, any of these sins that he committed in the past are forgiven and any that he may commit in the future are unconditionally forgiven either at the moment of justification or as soon as they are committed. Hence, these sins cannot in practice cause a Christian to forfeit his justification and salvation. If, however, someone commits these grave sins and is impenitent with respect to them, this would show that such a person was never truly justified by God in the first place. John Calvin explains this idea in his commentary on the sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God in Galatians 5:19-21:

Paul does not threaten that all who have sinned, but that all who remain impenitent, shall be excluded from the kingdom of God. The saints themselves often fall into grievous sins, but they return to the path of righteousness, "that which they do they allow not," (Romans 7:15), and therefore they are not included in this catalogue. All threatenings of the judgments of God call us to repentance. They are accompanied by a promise that those who repent will obtain forgiveness; but if we continue obstinate, they remain as a testimony from heaven against us (Commentary on Galatians).

So, the doctrine of eternal security remains secure even in light of the teaching of Sacred Scripture with respect to these grave sins.

In response, there are multiple problems with this line of argumentation: (1) Scripture nowhere teaches that God forgives sins continuously without the condition of continuous repentance, and neither does it teach that God forgives future sins that have not yet been committed. Moreover, Scripture actually teaches the contrary; (2) This Calvinist understanding, on analysis, commits the Calvinist into accepting at least one of the following: (i) Antinomianism; (ii) No true Christian (i.e., no person in the state of justification) has ever committed the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8; (iii) Antinomianism minus apostacy; (iv) Sacred Scripture contains numerous completely pointless warnings. None of these options, as we will see, is acceptable or compatible with the teaching of Scripture.

Let us begin with (1). First, we will consider the idea that in justifying someone, God forgives all of that person's sins past, present, and future. There is no indication in Scripture that future sins that (by definition) have never been committed are forgiven. Moreover, it seems eminently plausible that future sins cannot be forgiven precisely because they have never been committed and therefore do not exist and have not existed. One could reply to this by suggesting that past sins cannot be forgiven for a similar reason: they do not exist either. So, if future sins cannot be forgiven because they do not exist, then past sins cannot be forgiven for the same reason. But the crucial error in this reasoning is that although it is true that past sins do not exist anymore, the guilt produced by them does still exist. And sin is the cause of guilt. Without there having been sin, there could be no guilt. Thus, regarding future sins, because they have never existed, they never could have caused guilt. Thus, guilt cannot be had in virtue of future sins. But without guilt there is nothing to forgive because forgiveness of sins consists in the remission of guilt. Therefore, past sins can be forgiven because they have caused guilt, while future sins cannot be forgiven because they have not caused guilt. Thus, there is no parallel between past sins and future sins as regards their forgivability. The rejoinder thus fails. Furthermore, Scripture tells us that God will be merciful and forgive our sins—provided that we seek His forgiveness and confess our sins:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-9).

And the basis of our forgiveness, John goes on to explain, is Christ’s atoning sacrifice:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

Furthermore, Jesus teaches us a prayer to pray (the Lord’s Prayer, i.e., the Our Father) in which we ask God to forgive us just as we forgive others:

“This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from the evil one.

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins (Matthew 6:9-14).

Now, we are called to pray daily. In fact, we are called to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). And Jesus teaches us to pray the Lord’s Prayer when we pray. Part of the Lord’s Prayer is asking God to forgive our sins. If our future sins have already been forgiven, then this part of the Lord’s Prayer is essentially pointless because it is pointless to pray for the forgiveness of sins that have already been forgiven. But Jesus would not tell us to pray a prayer with an element of pointlessness in it. So, the Lord’s Prayer must not have a pointless element in it. Thus, asking God for forgiveness as a part of regular prayer is not pointless. Therefore, our future sins must not have already been forgiven. Moreover, Jesus makes quite a statement in verses 14-15. If we forgive other people when they sin against us, then God will forgive our sins; but if we do not forgive others, then neither will God forgive us. This teaching is also made and expanded upon in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35). And this teaching clearly implies that our future sins are not already forgiven because we cannot have already forgiven all the sins (including future ones) of those who offend us, since we do not even know of all the sins people may commit against us in the future. Hence, future sins are not already forgiven.

Another response is to construct an argument from the falsity of antinomianism to the falsity of the thesis that our future sins have already been forgiven as follows:

1. Antinomianism is false.
2. If our future sins have already been forgiven, then no sin that we could commit in the future could condemn us before God.
3. If no sin that we could commit in the future could condemn us before God, then if we have been initially justified, then we cannot be condemned before God no matter what we do.
4. If it is the case that if we have been initially justified, then we cannot be condemned before God no matter what we do, then antinomianism is true (by definition).
5. Therefore, it is false that our future sins have already been forgiven.

Antinomianism (literally, "against the law") is the view that that our moral conduct is completely irrelevant to our salvation in such a way that there is nothing a person who was once justified could do even in principle that would cause him to lose his salvation. Consequently, a person who was once justified could become an atheist and a serial killer and never repent and would still be guaranteed to go to Heaven (cf. The Case for Catholicism, pg. 240). Historically, this view is associated with certain radical Protestants in the sixteenth century such as the Anabaptists. There are some contemporary American Evangelicals who hold to this view as well. Most Protestants, however, reject antinomianism, and this includes Calvinists. Calvin himself had some rather scathing remarks about the antinomianism of the Anabaptists in his day (cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion III, 3, 14). It is critical to emphasize the (at least alleged) very important difference between antinomianism and the doctrine of eternal security as it is understood by Christians in the Reformed tradition. In contrast to antinomianism, the Calvinist understanding of eternal security is that while there are things that a Christian could in principle do to forfeit his salvation (most especially by committing apostacy and renouncing the Christian faith altogether), if he is truly a regenerated Christian, he will not actually do such things. If he were to do them, this would simply show that he was never truly justified to begin with. We will return to this idea shortly. I take the thesis of antinomianism to be manifestly absurd and utterly in contradiction to Scripture (cf. Matthew 19:16-19, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 18:18-20, John 14:15, 15:10, Romans 2:6-8, 2:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 7:19, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Galatians 5:7, 5:19-21, 6:7-9, Revelation 14:12, 21:7-8). Thus, antinomianism is false. But, if our future sins have already been forgiven, then antinomianism is true. It thus follows that our future sins have not already been forgiven.

Similar reasoning applies to the thesis that our sins are not forgiven all at once but rather continually and unconditionally as we commit them. As aforementioned, St. John gives a condition for God forgiving our sins—confessing them to Him (1 John 1:9). Additionally, the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant flies in the face of this thesis:

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (Matthew 18:21-35).

The message is clear. The master had mercy on his servant who owed him a debt and pardoned him. The servant then was unmerciful to a fellow servant who owed a debt to him. The master found out about this, and he revoked his pardon. Jesus concludes by saying that this is how God will treat us if we are similarly unmerciful to our brothers and sisters. So, although we may have received pardon from God, if we are not forgiving of others, then God will revoke His pardon. The thesis that our sins are forgiven unconditionally as soon as we commit them, therefore, is at odds with the clear teaching of Scripture and is thus false.

A further refutation is that this thesis collapses into antinomianism just like the "forgiven all at once" view did. Thus, we can construct the following argument:

1. Antinomianism is false.
2. If our sins are forgiven unconditionally as soon as we commit them, then there are no sins we could commit that could condemn us before God.
3. If there are no sins that we could commit that could condemn us before God, then if we have been initially justified, then we cannot be condemned before God no matter what we do.
4. If it is the case that if we have been initially justified, then we cannot be condemned before God no matter what we do, then antinomianism is true (by definition).
5. Therefore, it is false that our sins are forgiven unconditionally as soon as we commit them.

Let us move on to (2), beginning with (i) Antinomianism. The above arguments, if successful, show that the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security, insofar as it is committed to all of our sins subsequent to justification being forgiven unconditionally, implies antinomianism. Calvinists reject antinomianism. Hence, they must find a way to reject antinomianism while simultaneously maintaining eternal security. What I want to attempt to do is to show that all of the available options that a Calvinist might take ultimately fail and lead to the conclusion that the doctrine of eternal security is false. In order to avoid this conclusion, Calvinists could insist that if a person were to engage in the sins that Scripture says exclude from the Kingdom of God, this would indicate that he was never truly justified to begin with. A Christian, like a tree, is judged according to his fruits (cf. Matthew 7:15-20). If a supposed Christian bears bad fruits (such as the sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God), then these fruits would indicate that such a person is not a true Christian and has therefore not been truly justified.  Such a person may believe that he is justified, but in reality, he is merely deceiving himself. As the Westminster Confession states:

[H]ypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God and estate of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish (Westminster Confession, XVIII.I).

It's not that by committing these sins, a Christian loses his justification; rather, it's that by committing these sins, a "Christian" shows that he has not been justified and so is not a true Christian to begin with. In this way, the Calvinist avoids the doctrine of mortal sin and maintains the doctrine of eternal security.

This response, however, commits the Calvinist to (ii) No true Christian (i.e., no person in the state of justification) has ever committed the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. But this seems manifestly false. Surely there have been true Christians who have been justified and who have committed some of these sins. I highly doubt that a Calvinist would deny this fact. Indeed, Calvin himself insists on this fact (cf. Commentary on Galatians, Gal. 5:19-21). But if a Calvinist accepts that some true Christians have committed these sins, then (ii) as a response to (i) fails.

From here, a Calvinist might try arguing that, since justification (so say Calvinists) is by faith alone, the only thing that could in principle cause the loss of justification is the sin of apostacy, i.e., a complete renouncement of the Faith. So, a Calvinist might reject antinomianism by insisting that apostacy could in principle cause the loss of justification, while affirming eternal security by insisting that no true Christian will ever commit apostacy and that the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8 committed by a justified Christian are unconditionally forgiven as soon as they are committed. This allows the Calvinist to hold that some true Christians have committed the sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God, while maintaining eternal security and avoiding antinomianism. Furthermore, it is much more plausible to hold that no true Christian will renounce the Faith entirely than it is to hold that no true Christian will commit any of the other sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God. Indeed, the Calvinist might say, the idea that no true Christian will leave the Faith altogether seems to be taught in 1 John 2:19.

This response, however, commits the Calvinist to (iii) Antinomianism minus apostacy. For excluding the sin of apostacy, a justified Christian could commit any of the other sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God (e.g., murder), never repent of them, and still be guaranteed to go to Heaven. And this seems very implausible. A Calvinist might try to bite the bullet at this point and simply affirm this consequence. St. Paul seems to teach, a Calvinist might say in defense, that the sins he lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 condemn unbelievers but not believers. The sins enumerated exclude those who have not been justified from the Kingdom of God, but they do not exclude those who have been justified from the Kingdom of God. After all, after saying that these sins exclude from the Kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul then consoles his audience by saying, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11). But as Trent Horn points out, 

Paul's reminder that the Corinthian Christians once engaged in gravely sinful behavior does not nullify his warning that they not return to that behavior. Imagine the director of a rehabilitation clinic telling his patients, "No addict will ever be healthy, and such were some of you. But you were treated, you were healed according to this clinic's mission." Just as they could return to their formerly destructive ways of life, so can Christians who reject the grace God gives them (The Case for Catholicism, pg. 249).

This point is reinforced in the similar passage of Galatians:

Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21).

Paul is explicitly addressing Christians (who have been justified) and is warning them—apparently for at least the second time—that those who commit these sins will forfeit their salvation. This warning applies to justified Christians. Hence, by committing these sins, a justified person would forfeit his justification and without repentance would consequently not inherit the Kingdom of God. But this conclusion falsifies the doctrine of eternal security and establishes the doctrine of mortal sin. Thus, the move from (ii) to (iii) so as to avoid (i) and maintain eternal security fails. At this point, a Calvinist might respond by saying that Paul is speaking purely hypothetically and is not intending to teach against the doctrine of eternal security. The hypothetical he presents couldn't actually happen to a true Christian.

But if it is impossible for true Christians to forfeit their inheritance in the Kingdom of God as the Calvinist is here insisting, then this commits the Calvinist to (iv) Sacred Scripture contains numerous completely pointless warnings. The idea that Scripture, the written and inspired word of God, contains anything that is pointless is, it seems to me, unconscionable. Furthermore, Paul's warnings would only serve to sow confusion among his audience and cause them to have undue apprehension about their salvation. Thus, it is highly implausible that these warnings are pointless. But if these warnings are not pointless, then true Christians can forfeit their justification. Hence, the doctrine of eternal security is false. To avoid this conclusion, the Calvinist would at this point have to revert back to either (ii) or (iii) so as to avoid (i) while maintaining eternal security. But we've already seen that neither (ii) nor (iii) are tenable positions with respect to the objective of avoiding (i) while maintaining eternal security. Hence, in trying to revert to the previous options, the Calvinist would just be looping through the previous options all over again before arriving once more at (iv). The only way to break out of the loop is to accept antinomianism or reject the doctrine of eternal security. Therefore, the Calvinist must either accept antinomianism or reject the doctrine of eternal security. Insofar as antinomianism is completely unacceptable, therefore, the only acceptable option is for Calvinists to reject the doctrine of eternal security. So, we may conclude that the doctrine of eternal security is false.

We can summarize this overall argument in the form of a quintilemma:

1. Either (i) Antinomianism, (ii) No true Christian (i.e., no person in the state of justification) has ever committed the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8, (iii) Antinomianism minus apostacy, (iv) Sacred Scripture contains numerous completely pointless warnings, or the doctrine of eternal security is false.
2. (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) are false.
3. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security is false.

The following diagram (a nondeterministic finite state machine, for any computer scientists who might be reading this) represents the various moves that the Calvinist can make with respect to rejecting antinomianism and simultaneously trying to accept eternal security. "F" stands for False and means that the Calvinist is rejecting the current position and is consequently moving to another as an alternative. "T" stands for True and means that the Calvinist is accepting the current position and is consequently moving to another position not as an alternative but rather either as something that is entailed by accepting the current one or something that is compatible with the current one. Ultimately, as the above argumentation has shown, the Calvinist must end at the falsity of eternal security. Hence, this is the lone accept state in the diagram.

(Click for larger image)

In future posts, I will consider some possible objections to this overall argument as well as the various alleged prooftexts from Sacred Scripture for the doctrine of eternal security.