Part X: A Constructive Word. What Would Remain If the Foundation Changed

From Sovereign Grace and the Scope of Election: A Comparative Examination of Attainment Theology and Grace Theology, with Particular Attention to the Question of Whether God's Elect Are Found Among All Nations and Religions

A document of this length in refutation owes its subject something better than a demolition notice at the end. So let the final word shift from criticism to construction, and let it be said carefully and without triumphalism.

It should be acknowledged plainly that movements of the attainment type often possess real strengths that many easier-going churches lack: a strong commitment to holiness, seriousness about prayer, daily Scripture reading, sacrificial living, financial integrity that shames the prosperity movements, a global vision, disciplined congregational life, deep community, reverence for the Bible, and simplicity in worship. Nothing in this study disputes those qualities, and nothing in sovereign grace theology is hostile to a single one of them. Discipline, devotion, and holy living are not the property of conditional soteriology; they are the natural fruit of grace rightly understood.

Imagine, then, the same church life with a different gospel underneath it. Instead of "you remain saved if you overcome," teach "because Christ has overcome, therefore pursue holiness." Instead of "the ministry mediates God's purposes," teach "the ministry feeds Christ's sheep." Instead of "Zion is attained," teach "every elect child already possesses the same inheritance in Christ." Instead of "fear losing salvation," teach "serve from gratitude, because salvation cannot be lost." Instead of "we are God's exclusive people," teach "God has His people everywhere." Not one of those substitutions asks anyone to pray less, fast less, give less, or live less carefully. Every one of them changes only the motive, from fear and attainment to grace and gratitude, and motives are precisely what the New Testament cares most about (1 Corinthians 13:1-3; 1 John 4:18-19).

There is precedent for exactly this kind of change. The Reformers did not reject everything in the church they inherited; they retained much of its order, learning, and pastoral structure while rejecting what they were convinced was a distorted doctrine of salvation. Similarly, one could argue that if the doctrines of sovereign grace were substituted for conditional salvation, while the commitment to holiness, prayer, disciplined fellowship, and sacrificial service were preserved, many of a movement's practical strengths would remain intact while the theological tensions identified in this study would be substantially reduced. Whether such a synthesis is viable in any particular case is a judgment the reader must make; the claim here is only that nothing in the strengths requires the errors, and nothing in the correction threatens the strengths.

So the closing question of this study is not whether Christians should pursue holiness. Every faithful Christian tradition calls believers to holiness. The question is whether holiness is the fruit of eternal salvation or one of its conditions. Sovereign grace theology does not call the disciplined believer to pray less, preach less, sacrifice less, or pursue holiness less. It calls him to ground all of those things in the finished work of Christ rather than in the uncertainty of human attainment. If that foundation were embraced, much that is admirable in such a movement's discipline and devotion could remain, while the believer's assurance would rest where Scripture places it: in the sovereign grace of God alone.