Maybe the road and two ditches is an overused metaphor. I would contend it’s a helpful visual. When you take a road somewhere, you don’t want to drive into a ditch. Let’s say the road is a narrow one with a ditch on either side.
Just today, I dropped my wife at an airport and it was a heavy snow with slick conditions. I noticed on the way to the airport, long backups going the other way. Probably for that reason, my GPS sent me a totally different route. It’s not always good. There’s a reason maybe in the Winter why no traffic on the back roads, and that reason came true. I was alone on remote country roads, including hilly ones. I drove very, very slowly so I wouldn’t find myself in a ditch in the middle of nowhere. When I arrived back into town, I breathed a sigh of relief.
The Road of Salvation and Its Ditches
The road of salvation is narrow. Let’s again say that it is narrow with ditches on either side. This is the situation I think you should imagine on this. One ditch on one side takes a steep decline and then off a cliff to destruction. Quite a ditch. The ditch on the other side of the road is less dangerous, but still very harmful. It is more shallow, but it will tear up your vehicle and maybe worse.
Now you get the picture. The ditch on the side of the narrow doctrine of salvation, which turns into a deadly destructive cliff, is the teaching of conditional security. In other words, someone once justified could still lose his salvation. A believer doesn’t have eternal security. Historically one could call this ditch, Arminianism. One description of this is the following: A person believes in Jesus Christ, but because of persistent, unrepentant sin, he loses the salvation he once had.
Alright, what about the other ditch, the probably less destructive one, but off narrow road of the true doctrine of salvation? In the other ditch is predetermination. It is the other side of the road, because losing salvation and predetermination are in diametrical opposition to the other. They aren’t the same ditch, but they are both in separate ditches. Both are bad.
The Ditch of Losing Salvation
I hear theologians, preachers, and other professing Christians very often criticizing the other ditch. Those who believe you can lose your salvation will say to predetermination that too many verses in the Bible treat salvation security as conditional. Those who believe in predetermination will say to losing salvation that predetermination is the only way for salvation to be by grace and not by works, the only salvation someone can’t lose. The narrow road of the doctrine of salvation is neither losing you salvation nor predetermining your salvation. Those are both wrong detours.
If someone can lose his salvation, then who is doing the saving? If Jesus is doing the saving, He can and will keep saving. Someone could only lose his salvation, if he himself is doing the saving. Since he himself can’t save himself, this is a path to eternal destruction.
The Ditch of Predetermination
On the other hand, if someone believes in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, that does not imply predetermination of salvation. “Foreknowledge” means “to know ahead of time.” God knows whom He will save. He does not predetermine whom He will save. God does predetermine, but not whom He will save and whom He will not. As predetermination relates to salvation, God predetermines that those He saves will conform to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29-30).
I have seen a doctrine of losing one’s salvation send someone toward predetermination. Also, I have seen a doctrine of predetermination send someone toward losing salvation. God operates before time concerning someone’s salvation, but that operation of God is foreknowledge. He knows and elects based upon that knowledge, which is why scripture says that God elects according to His foreknowledge. God does not elect according to predestination or predetermination.
Ditches Not In the Bible
Neither the idea, concept, or teaching that you can lose your salvation or that God predetermined you saved or lost are in the Bible. You will not find one verse or even phrase that teaches either. Someone may say, prove that. The only way to prove it is not to fined one verse or even phrase in the Bible that teaches either of those.
Surely people see something in the Bible that they think sends them into these ditches. They do. I can go to passages where they think they see what they see. Even though losing salvation is not scriptural and far more dangerous than predetermination, there are many more possible proof texts for losing salvation than predetermination. I don’t have one iota, one speck of belief in losing salvation, but I can more easily see how people get that from the Bible.
The scriptural view of salvation, that doctrinal narrow road between the ditches, depends on the whole Bible, every individual verse and all of them. It compares scripture with scripture. Whatever the Bible teaches will not contradict any other part. It will also fit with meaning of words based on how they’re used. Both losing salvation and predetermination do not follow that understanding of the scriptural view of salvation.
Conditional Sentences and Small Sample Sizes
The main category of verses in the Bible that could sound like they teach you can lose your salvation are the conditional sentences. These are very often the if-then sentences. One part of the sentence might start with “if ye” in the King James Version. “If ye” occurs 162 times in the King James Version. One can easily twist these sentences into losing salvation. I picked this one at random (John 15:10):
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.
Here’s another one, random too (Mark 11:25):
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
The first one sounds like that someone could lose the love of God if he doesn’t keep the Lord’s commandments. The second seems like someone won’t receive forgiveness if he still has ought against someone. There are many of these kinds of sentences in the Bible, especially the New Testament. God does all the saving and He keeps whom He saves, so we can’t lose salvation. Many verses teach that. Those fit with these conditional sentences. They don’t contradict them.
Predetermination or predestination is a very small sample size, unlike the conditional sentences. The key with those few verses is seeing what exactly God predetermines. Nowhere says He predetermines individual salvation. Many, many passages then read like God doesn’t predetermine. They contradict predetermination. This does not affect salvation by grace through faith. Grace through faith does not require predetermination.
“God knows whom He will save. He does not predetermine whom He will save. God does predetermine, but not whom He will save and whom He will not. ”
Sounds like double talk. How does God know whom he will save, but did not predetermine it?
I hope you are implying the following…
God knows whom He will save at the time that man or woman “believes the gospel of the grace of God”. The Spirit of God can work “sometime” beforehand to draw them unto himself. What is predetermined is that God will only save men who call upon the name of the Lord through repentance and putting their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to save. Apart from that, “all men can come to the knowledge of the truth”, for God did not determine beforehand (before the foundation of the world) who will be saved.
Tom
Tom,
I appreciate your agreeing where you can agree. That does not go without notice, but I don’t want to start the open theism debate again.
“If someone can lose his salvation, then who is doing the saving? If Jesus is doing the saving, He can and will keep saving. Someone could only lose his salvation, if he himself is doing the saving. Since he himself can’t save himself, this is a path to eternal destruction.”
What you wrote is not the first time I have come across it being conveyed in that manner. It is what the bible affirms without question and the doctrine of eternal security.
Tom
“I don’t have one iota, one speck of belief in losing salvation, but I can more easily see how people get that from the Bible.”
That is so true. I can teach that all day long if I pick and chose my verses carefully and have not read my bible from cover to cover to get the complete narrative of God.
This is why we have a “pastor/teacher code of conduct” that goes along with our statement of faith that anyone who teaches or preaches in our congregation must have read his bible at least 7 times (the number of completeness). We also encourage each brother and sister, young and old in Christ to read the bible a minimum of one time a year, but we tell them it is not difficult if you set your heart towards God to easily do it twice a year. There are at least 5 who are under the age of 16 who have read their bibles through at least 5 times already! i know of men and woman who have been saved for over 30 years and have never read through their bible one time!!
Their is no greater shame toward the Lord than that.
If you have read your bible, from cover to cover at least that amount, as well as being discipled and taught, you will not fall into these ditches unless you follow “cunningly devised fables”.
Tom
I listened to a message this week by someone who defended eternal security, but he said that though the reformation age Saint s believed in the principle they expressed it as perseverance. I would say that’s in light of the “Arminian” verses you mentioned. Do you have a problem with the word perseverance if defined in light of God working it out in those who believe?
Hi Bro Thompson,
I have no problem with perseverance as language in light of how the Bible talks about the issue. I would probably prefer, preservation of the saints, putting the emphasis on God, but “work out your salvation” is in the Bible and the result of God working in what we can and will then work out.
I used to be just like you. I put faith in Christ when I was in a Baptist church that teach OSAS, and for a while I defended this. But, after reading the Bible more and more, and seeing the whole counsel of God, interacting much with the subject matter, reading from many sides, I’ve realized that the Word of God does teach Conditional Security.
I know this is a long and winding subject, and a comment section of a blog most likely will not do justice to the proper depth needed, but somehow I’m just moved to respond to this post that somehow popped into my radar.
First, the way you defined Conditional Security, “A person believes in Jesus Christ, but because of persistent, unrepentant sin, he loses the salvation he once had,” I would also reject this as unbiblical. Since a person does not gain salvation by conquering sin, he cannot repudiate salvation by specific acts of sin. More on this later.
Second, the use of the term “lose your salvation,” can lead to the wrong impression, as if we can somehow lose it by mistake, unwittingly, through some careless mistake. Better is the term: reject salvation.
Can someone reject salvation that is meant for him? The Calvinist will say no, because the elect will accept (predetermined), and for the non-elect there is no salvation meant for him. What will you say? Perhaps you will say something like: A person can reject salvation meant for him before he accepted it, but he can no longer reject it after he accepted it. I find that the Bible teach you can reject salvation that God has provided for you this side of glory.
Another way of putting it:
Do you believe that Salvation is conditional? Consistent Calvinists will say that salvation is unconditional (after all Election is unconditional to them).
What will you say? I know that you believe salvation is conditional. Perusing your blog a little bit, you wrote a series about the need for faith and repentance for salvation. Perhaps you will say something like: It’s conditional in the beginning, but then became unconditional afterwards. Your position demands something like this. But what inconsistency.
I find in the Bible that salvation is conditional. What is the condition? In short: faith in Christ (faith will encompass repentance).
Therefore, the biblical position is: God gives absolute assurance of salvation to believers. Keyword: To Believers. The conditional part: If you become an unbeliever, then you have no claim to this salvation, and God has no assurance for you. The condition for salvation (and security) is faith in Christ. This is consistently taught in Scripture from the beginning to the end. The condition for salvation (and security) is not works, is not staying holy, or not sinning, or any other thing, but faith in Jesus Christ.
Now, having been in OSAS circles a long time, I know what the response will be.
First, some OSAS people do teach that once someone made a profession of faith, then no matter if he becomes an atheist or a muslim, he’s still saved because of that once upon a time profession. This version is OSAS is very weak, and very heretical.
But, your position is probably the second one, and you will say: Once a person has faith in Jesus Christ, he cannot ever repudiate it. And this is the crux of the matter. The Bible never said that once a person believed in Christ, he cannot relinquish/reject his belief. Not one verse teach this. This is assumed.
On the contrary, many verses confirms that turning back from faith is a real possibility.
The whole book of Hebrews is pointless if relinquishing faith is not a possibility.
Paul said: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:1-2).
Fact 1: These Corinthians have received the Gospel, and they stand in it.
Fact 2: These Corinthians are saved.
Fact 3: Their salvation is conditional – if they keep in memory what Paul preached (the Gospel), that is if they hold fast (the Greek for keep in memory is often translated “hold”) to the truth (of the Gospel) that Paul taught.
Fact 4: If the condition is not met (they do not hold in faith to the Gospel truth), i.e., they relinquish their faith, then their former faith would be in vain (you believed in vain).
So we see here a clear case of Paul specifically talking to believers, whom he proclaimed as saved person, having received the Gospel, and laying out to them a scenario in which their belief would be in vain – that scenario is if they do not hold (keep in memory) the (Gospel) truth (about faith in Jesus) that Paul preached to them.
Many other arguments can be advanced, each as strong as this one. But this suffices for now.
I’m headed to church, but I will answer this comment. I don’t want to get into a prolonged debate on this, but I did an entire debate for a week of three hour nights on the subject of eternal security. One whole year I read the Bible and looked and underlined verses that pertained to the subject. I’ve written a chapter of a book on the subject. It’s something I know very well. The Bible would contradict itself without the doctrine of eternal security, and it doesn’t contradict itself. Also those conditional sentences don’t mean how “conditional security” people take them. One more thing, you do misrepresent me in your comment, and I’ll try to clear that up too.
Let me answer this comment at least now, Passerby. It’d be nice if you could just give your name. I like that here. Our names are in here, so we have to stand in public with everything we say before the whole world.
First, OSAS as normally taught, I don’t believe. Most often I’ve noticed with those mainly touting OSAS, they give security to someone not truly converted, very often eliminating repentance and Lordship from the entrance requirements.
Second, I characterized a person that conditional security people would say could lose their salvation as persistent, unrepentant sin, not specific acts of sin or a careless mistake. Please.
Third, I never ever describe salvation as “accepting salvation,” and that’s not how the Bible describes it. Someone accepts it and then later rejects it. Accepting it is not the terms of salvation. It is a free gift, but the free gift is not received by just accepting the gift.
Fourth, faith is conditional, but once God saved a person, He keeps Him. A good characterization of this is what Jesus says in John 4:13-14 to the woman at the well:
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
In v. 13, the word “drinketh” is present tense, continuous action. She can continue drinking and drinking the physical water and she will thirst again. In contrast (“But”), whosoever “drinketh” in v. 14 is aorist tense, drinks just one time of the water Jesus gives shall never thirst. “shall never thirst” is the strongest negative in the Greek language. It’s an impossibility that the person drinks the water that Jesus gives just at one moment, at one tine, that he will ever thirst again. Once someone has the everlasting life that Jesus gives, he will never thirst again. That is eternal security. You are saying, yes, it is possible that person will thirst again despite what Jesus said. You deny what Jesus promised here in the strongest possible terms.
Saving faith is a condition for justification. Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Being justified” is aorist, a point in time someone is justified, and what? He has peace with God, which is present tense, continuous action. This describes salvation. Someone believes in Jesus Christ and is justified at a point in time, and then ongoing, never ending peace comes with God. His justification is permanent. This is the description all over of salvation and the only description of it.
For instance, Jesus says in John 5:24 that a person who believes on him that sent me shall not come into condemnation, but “is passed from death unto life.” “Is passed” is perfect tense, once someone believes in Jesus Christ, he goes to the life side never to return to the death side. The perfect tense says he passes from death to life at one point in time, but the results of that are ongoing. I could keep going like this for hours.
Fifth, one of your problems, passerby, is that you have an unscriptural view of saving faith. You bring up the idea of a person believing, who then later rejects. Saving faith is not a work. Philippians 1:29 says, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” It is given to believe on Christ. Faith is a gift. It is not some human ability. God gives it. Saving faith too is of the grace of God.
Sixth, not one place does scripture teach that someone with saving faith, once believing in or receiving Christ, can eject from that. 1 John 2:19 and 3:6 say:
2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Look at those two verses. The first one, if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. They went out to manifest they were not all of us. They were never saved in the first place. Someone who ejects, repudiates, etc. was never saved in the first place.
The second one, the one who sinneth (that is, present tense, sins continuously or as a lifestyle or habit of sin) hath neither seen him or known him. That person again was never saved in the first place.
Seventh, you quote 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, a conditional sentence. I referenced those examples in this post, and, yes, that’s what you use for your example.
There are four class conditions of conditional sentences in the Greek language. This is a first class condition, which is a condition of reality. Paul isn’t writing and saying that they could lose their salvation if they do not keep in memory what he preached unto them. This is the Greek word ei with the indicative, so it is a condition of reality. It’s like saying, “since ye keep in memory what I preached unto you.” Paul is assuming this condition — that’s the first class condition. They will in fact keep this in memory. In the phrase in v. 1, “wherein ye stand,” it’s perfect tense, so again, they began standing at one point in time and that stand is ongoing. He’s saying the opposite to what you are saying that he’s saying.
Eighth, not anything of what you wrote suffices. You are reading into the text something that is not there.
Passerby Theologian, greetings, your comment spurred these thoughts within me:
Paul is not omniscient. God is. However, the Spirit writes authentically from Paul’s perspective in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. Paul assumes the Corinthians are saved, he talks to them as if they’re saved, but his warnings are to the effect that they might not be saved. For he cannot know they are saved, just as we cannot know anyone is saved, save for our own selves. Like Paul, we can judge someone’s lifestyle from Scripture and make a reasonable estimation, but, like Paul, we can be wrong in our estimation (Acts 15:36-40 and 2 Tim. 4:11).
As Brother Brandenburg points out, if they depart and are not restored, they were not saved originally. A saved man can and does fall, the difference between him and a lost man is, the saved man keeps getting back up and continues, he repents to God of his sins and walks in the light, his fellowship with God is restored by walking in the light, and his fellowship with the brethren (a Church) is restored by walking in the light, for he has that well spring of living water in his heart – the grace of God (1 John 1:5-9). Contrast with Judas Iscariot, who fell and was not restored, he was never converted, despite his external appearances to the other Disciples for only a time, even with obedience and power! (Mark 3:16-19 and Mark 6:7-13).
God’s grace causes the continuation because of the new heart and the new Spirit within him, given to him by God:
“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” (Ez. 36:26-27)
Note, it is God causing the new life (obedience to the Bible) within a truly converted person. In other words, “Christ liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20; John 14:23).
Scripture teaches that a man is only made a son of God, by the will of God, when he believes from the heart that Jesus Christ rose from the dead (Rom. 10:9; John 1:11-13). “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness…” (Rom. 10:10). True belief, the belief that justifies, is not just mental assent only (James 2:19), but belief from the heart. To believe Christ rose from the dead implies you’re agreeing with why He was crucified (for your sins – repentance) and why He had to die (a substitute for your death), and that He achieved victory over your sins and your death in His resurrection. The new life that follows spiritual rebirth, is caused, and sustained by God. You are saved and justified by grace through faith, therefore, if you are justified by faith, you ‘shall’ live by that same faith, “for the just shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38.) For a true Christian, there is no difference between the faith that saves you and the faith you’re living by, for you are the workmanship of Christ ordained to walk in His good works (Eph. 2:8-10).
Hello Benjamin,
I actually agree with most things you wrote, because they do not conflict at all with a Conditional Security view. The key is to realize that free will still exists after salvation, and humans still makes decisions after being saved. Many decisions we make are not according to God’s will. There is no Irresistible Grace after salvation (neither before salvation).
Also, another key is to realize that the life we have, we have in Christ. And what is the key to being in Christ? Faith in Christ (Phil. 3:9). If we have faith, then we are in Christ, if we don’t then we are not in Christ. Christ describe people who do not abide in Him. They are cast forth, withered, and burned. Not abiding means someone already in Christ.
I agree that Paul does not know people hearts. But when he gives those warnings, he gives them to people he assume to be saved. That means those warnings are to be heeded by the saved. Only the saved can “continue,” and can “hold fast,” or can “abide.”
You can see my fuller explanation on my other threads. Thanks.
Sao Thee,
We’re not saying similar things. The difference is causal. Scripture teaches God causes both the changes in a believer and the continuation of the changes. “Christians” that fall away were never saved. Their confessions were false (Matt. 13:3-23).
God’s grace is sufficient for all sinners with their corrupt minds to repent and believe the Gospel. Grace, faith, repentance, and belief are all described as gifts in Scripture. People can receive these gifts or they can reject them. If you receive them, the deal is done, you’re sealed permanently with eternal life. Once received, there is no condition to continue “eternal life.” If there were, it would not be eternal life, but “conditional life.” God did not call it conditional life, He called it ETERNAL LIFE. Hallelujah!
You’re not holding the eternal life. God is holding the eternal life (John 6:37,39; 10:28,29; 1 Pet. 1:2-5,23).
Reading your testimony of salvation from elsewhere in this thread, I had another thought. Scripture does not say you’re saved by personally asking Jesus to save you. Scripture teaches you’re saved when you believe from the heart the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead (Rom. 10:9). It is believing the Gospel of Christ from your heart that makes you permanently righteous (Rom. 1:16, 10:10,11). When you truly believe from the heart you receive the Lord Jesus Christ, and He gives you power to become a son of God (John 1:12). This is the second spiritual birth (John 3:1-8). It does not come by the will of the flesh, or the will of man, it only comes by the will of God (John 1:13).
If you do not have eternal life, God never gave it to you. Eternal life only comes by God’s will, and it stays only by God’s will. This is why I take issue with how you frame your salvation, by asking Jesus to save you, you’re coming to Him on your terms. You need to first be broken by His crucifixion, see yourself in His death, and believe He rose from the dead in victory over your sins. In other words, submit to God on His terms.
Benjamin,
Your bias against my position seems to make you nitpick my testimony. From a short paragraph, you seem to ascertain my whole Soteriology.
Asking Jesus to save you is “coming to Him on your own terms”? That’s news to me. The drowning man calling out to the Saviour to save him is coming to Him in your own terms? What nonsense and absurdity!
Notice that I did not even say “ask Jesus into my heart.” I said I asked the Lord so save me. I called upon Him, depending upon the verse “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
I petitioned Him, as the publican did: “God, be merciful to me a sinner.”
You said: “Once received, there is no condition to continue eternal life.”
Oh yes there is a condition. It’s to keep believing. And it’s everywhere in Scripture, you are just pre-conditioned to ignore them all. Jesus has eternal life. And eternal life stays eternal life, even if not one person on Earth ever got saved. Whether you have eternal life or not depends whether you are in Christ or not.
Here is just a sampling of the conditionals:
“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:5-6).
“to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister” (Col. 1:22-23)
“See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:” (Heb. 12:25).
“If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:” (2 Tim. 2:12).
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” (Gal. 5:2).
There are many, many more. But it’s not a question of quantity anymore. It’s a question of whether one is willing to see these for what they are.
Hello Passerby Theologian!
You can see Bro Brandenburg’s debate, and my debate, over eternal security here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo8hPX0f2leaVxbxqdjVhmXqpdaveZ-ul
“whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30)
I realize there is a lot to this debate and there are some difficult passages, but this is as clear as it gets. The same people who are justifed are also glorified. This leaves absolutely no room for someone being truly justified, but then ultimately not making it to eternal glory (being unjustified).
That’s good.
Hi Mat,
The problem with this argument is that it proves too much.
“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30)
By the same logic then, all that are called will be justified, which is just not true. Unless you start espousing Calvinism, which sees in the “calling” here Irresistible Grace (their effective call, contra general call), then obviously not all called will be justified.
“For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mat. 22:14).
Romans 8:29-30 talks about the path of someone ultimately saved. It does not preclude that there might be some who are called, but did not respond and not therefore not justified. And it does not prelude someone justified (by faith), and then by rejecting faith afterwards, falls from grace (Gal. 5:4).
Passerby Theologian,
“called” is not used in the same sense in Matt 22:14 and in Rom 8. All believers, and only believers, are “the called,” in the sense that “choose for receipt of a special benefit or experience, call” (BDAG). In Matt 22:14 the word means “summon.” So Rom 8:28-39 does NOT prove too much when it says all who are justified are glorified. Instead, you make the very simple mistake of assuming that a very common verb must mean exactly the same thing in every use, and then use this mistake to attempt to ignore a perfectly plain statement that all who are justified are glorified.
Hello KJB,
I know that words have a range of meaning. Being fluent in at least three languages, you kind of have to know that.
The verb kaleo in Greek, maps quite well with the verb “call” in English. Their range is quite similar. The burden of proof is on you actually, to prove that the usage in Romans 8 is different from elsewhere, such as in Matt. 22:14. BDAG entry alone is not enough proof. BDAG has its theological bias. For instance, for the term “Israel” in Gal. 6:16, BDAG gives this definition: “3. Christians as entitled to the term Israel.” Now, that’s an interpretive and theological definition, which dispensationalists such as myself, and perhaps you, will not agree with.
Now, I will give my reason, why I do not agree with the BDAG definition for kaleo in Romans 8, where call is defined as “choose.” Because it’s theologically redundant. The choosing/electing is already mentioned in predestination. Predestinating/fore-ordaining (pro-orizo) already contains a “choosing” concept, so it does not make sense to repeat that.
This reminds me that Calvinists like to understand the “foreknow” at the head of the series as “love or set before hand,” but that also runs into the redundant argument, as it replicates the fore-ordination.
Romans 8:29-30 gives this chain: foreknown, foreordained, called, justified, glorified.
So this describe the ideal chain of event. But the Bible never says that this is the only chain of event possible.
God, being omniscient, knows who will be ultimately saved. He foreknows His own salvation plan, and He foreknows all human decisions. So, He foreknows who will believe in Christ and will continue to believe in Christ until the end. God then predestinate these foreknown persons to the blessing of salvation, called them with the Gospel [they believe], justified them, [they continue to believe] and then glorified them.
Another chain of events that surely exists, but not mentioned:
God, being omniscient, knows who will never believe in Jesus. He would still call them with the Gospel or at least general revelation. They reject truth, they are hardened, they perish.
You might say that’s speculative, but it’s logical. What I am pointing out is merely that the whole event starts with God foreknowing. Surely God foreknows everything. He foreknows those ultimately saved (believing in Jesus until the end). He foreknows those never believing in Jesus. And He foreknows those who believe for a time and then stop believing. You would agree that such persons do exist, and God foreknows them also.
But Romans 8:29-30 is only presenting the first chain (the ideal/blessed chain), not mentioning other chains of events. That’s my point. Thanks.
Hello Kent,
I appreciate you engaging and replying, I really do. I know it takes a chunk of time.
My name is 绍提, pretty hard to put into English, but probably something like Sao Thee (let’s not get into the tones). That’s why I just use a quirky nickname in many cases.
First, I apologize if you think I misrepresent you, that is not my intention. Of course I cannot know all the nuances of your position based on my limited and recent interaction with you. Some arguments I raise based on the general OSAS sentiments and arguments. Oh and looking over your website a bit, I believe you are doing the Lord’s work, and I would agree with you on so many issues.
My goal is not to change your position outright. I know that it took me a lot of time, a lot of thinking over the verses on both side, meditating, prayer, to come to my position. It’s just that as I read your post, you are attacking a position of conditional security that is not the most robust theologically. That’s why I was moved to just present a stronger, and I believe more biblical view, of conditional security, one that consistently says: faith is the condition of salvation. So, it’s not persistent sin or persistently not sinning, or lack of testimony, or whatever else — although, persistent sin can be an indicator for lack of faith (I think you would agree with this). It’s saving faith in Jesus Christ that is the condition of salvation. This much we agree. Where we disagree, is in whether some one who put trust in Jesus can move away from that belief. The multitude of Bible warning for BELIEVERS to not move away from faith, to not deny Jesus, to not depart from the living God, etc. etc., compels me to understand that this is a real possibility.
Saving faith is not a work, this I agree. But it is a human responsibility. Humans believe, it’s our choice, not something that God predetermined for some people and not for others. To believe is a human response/decision, but not a type of work. When you say that faith is a gift, that is true in the sense that God enables someone to believe, draws someone to believe. But the way you are saying it, strays too close to Calvinism. It’s as if you are arguing (not trying to misrepresent you here, but this is what I get): faith is God’s gift, and therefore not up to us whether to have faith or not, and therefore a believer cannot decide to then not believe, because it’s really not in our hands. In contrary, to believe, to have saving faith, is always a human responsibility, one that is enabled by God, but a human responsibility nonetheless.
One area where I am constantly exasperated, is the tendency by OSAS holders to label anyone who holds to Conditional Security, as teaching salvation by works. For sure, some do that (those who teach that the condition for salvation is not persistently sinning, or not falling into major sins, for example). But to paint all who teach conditional security as teaching work salvation, is akin to painting all KJV defenders as believing in English inspiration. When the condition for security is saving faith, then this is not teaching work salvation, anymore than teaching faith as the initial requirement for salvation is teaching work salvation. Yes, you must continue to believe in Jesus for you to have salvation. Should you no longer believe in Jesus, then you are not saved. The simplicity is astounding at times. It makes sense of all the verses, not some of the verses. We are saved by faith, we are kept through faith (1 Pet. 1:5).
Jesus said that the person who comes to Him, shall never thirst. Do I deny Jesus, when I hold that should one depart from Jesus (John 15:6; Heb. 3:12, etc.), he will thirst? No, I affirm Jesus, that without Him one is lost, and with Him one is saved. The life that we have, the living water, is not ours in an absolute sense, but in a dependent sense. We have eternal life because we are in Christ. Should we be out of Christ, we don’t have it. The question of whether someone who once came to Jesus can then depart from him, is not at all addressed in John 4. That topic is addressed in many other verses that specifically warns us of departing from Him. And why don’t we take the words of Jesus Himself as rule: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). Only those within can be commanded to abide. Those outside (not truly saved) should be commanded to enter. There is no case to be made that because John 4:14 uses the Aorist for “drink,” then that means there is no possibility of departing from Jesus, in contradistinction to the Lord’s own multiple statements elsewhere. You are reading too much into the grammar of an illustration (drinking is an illustration). This is also a curious argument, for are we arguing now that salvation is not an ongoing experience, or that faith is not an ongoing thing? Curious indeed. There is a reason that the KJV still translates the Aorist as an English present tense: drinketh.
There can be an overstatement about Greek grammars, and various tenses and features can be asked to carry more weight than they can bear. The Greek Perfect tense indicates that something completed in the past that has a result still existing at present. The Greek perfect tense does NOT at all speak as to whether that completed action in the past can be reversed or not. That’s putting too much weight on the tense. If I were to say in Greek: I have moved (Greek Perfect Tense) from the US to Taiwan, that merely says that I completed a move in the past, with existing result (I am in Taiwan). It makes no commentary whatsoever about the possibility of reversing the move in the future. There are many examples in the Bible. One should suffice: “And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented” (Mat. 8:6). The word “lieth” is in the Perfect Tense, but absolutely does not mean that the servant lying down sick is an irreversible situation. In fact, the whole point of the miracle is that his situation was reversed.
Now, more Greek grammars, about first class conditional statements, such as in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. Yes, it’s a first class conditional. But no, first class conditional should not be translated “since” or automatically considered “reality.” Wallace warned against this in his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: “First is the error of saying too much about its meaning. The first class condition is popularly taken to mean the condition of reality or the condition of truth. Many have heard this from the pulpit: In the Greek this condition means since. This is saying too much about the first class condition” (Wallace, p. 690).
The first class conditional is used when the speaker assume something to be true, for the sake of the argument. Whether it’s really true or not should be determined separately, but for the sake of the argument, I’m assuming it’s true. Here is an instance of first class conditional (also in Wallace’ book) in the very same chapter of 1 Corinthians: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen” (1 Cor. 15:13). Surely no theologian will argue that this is reality, or translate it “since there is no resurrection….” Greek has other words for “since.”
Therefore, the verse stands: “By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.” Assuming that you hold to the truth of the Gospel preached unto you, then you are saved. But we don’t really need to dive into the Greek to know that this assumption is not necessarily true, as evident from Paul’s next phrase: UNLESS ye have believed in vain. What does the “unless” indicate? That the conditional set forth (ye keep in memory) is not true. I want to ask OSAS holders: in what circumstance, applicable to the Corinthians here, would it be true that someone has believed in vain?
Here is another first class conditional: “if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Tim. 2:11). Should this be counted as reality? Should we translate it “Since we deny him…?” Of course not. This is something assumed true for the sake of argument. Definitely a possibility, but not necessarily a reality. It’s a warning, and a warning to believers, not to unbelievers.
Besides, third class conditionals abound in the Bible. Third class conditionals do not assume anything, and present the condition as very possible. Here is a sampling of third class conditionals relevant:
“Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Heb. 10:38) It is possible for someone to “draw back” or withdraw from faith.
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). It is possible for someone to not abide in Christ.
“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6). It is possible for someone to not hold fast the confidence (of faith) to the end.
“For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Heb. 3:14). It is possible for someone to not hold unto the end.
How about all the commands to hold fast, keep the faith?
“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;” (Heb. 10:23)
“Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.” (1 Tim. 6:12)
If OSAS is true, and that all believers will absolutely hold fast to their faith, then this is the only command in the Bible that cannot be failed by believers. Non-believers would not be told to “hold fast” anyway, they should be told to repent and believe.
But apparently Paul knew nothing of OSAS, as he direly warns the Galatians in danger of substituting faith in Christ to faith in circumcision: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), these people whom he described as: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).
How does the Bible portray salvation? The Bible portrays many aspects of salvation. Salvation is PAST and achieved, in that we are justified. Salvation is PRESENT and ongoing, in that we are being sanctified. Salvation is FUTURE or not yet, in that we will be glorified. We should not flatten all these aspects just into the past.
“For we are saved by hope [in hope], but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?” (Rom. 8:24).
The Word of God advises us: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:10-11). If you do these things – again a conditional.
I realized I have not responded to 1 John 2:19, but I’ve written a lot – many more can be said. God willing I’ll do that after some break (maybe a day or two). Also, I have not had time to respond to other comments directed to me. May the Lord lead us to His truth.
Sao Thee, Thanks for explaining why you were anonymous. I get it. I thought just maybe you had done something on conditional security and didn’t want to expose it like that, but I get why you didn’t use your name. Hard to pronounce, etc. Years ago, I read a book called, Conditional Security, that was about 600 or more pages. I bought it and have it somewhere. I pointed out that I think the OSAS usually represents something other than what I believe. Also, that you had misrepresented what I actually wrote. If this is an argument with each other’s positions, we should represent that. I understand arguing with what someone else believes though. Yes, some people have not believed that there is a saving faith and a non-saving faith presented in scripture, and many, many that say they have faith, do not have saving faith. Scripture presents saving faith, which is a gift (I gave you a verse for that shows this and some other places indicate that), as something that someone cannot lose. That person will keep believing, because his faith is of God. Faith is a gift does not mean Calvinism. I don’t believe in irresistible grace, etc. I’ve always believed that I am more a Calvinist than an Arminian, because I believe in eternal security, but I don’t believe in predetermination.
Maybe you feel exasperated about being charged with believing in salvation by works, but what you and I are saying is different. Like I wrote, I believe losing salvation is a cliff toward destruction. Paul in Galatians especially treated adding works to grace as not being saved. God keeps keeping the person with saving faith, so that this person keeps believing — that’s how you know he is saved, he perseveres. This is not his losing it, because it isn’t him doing the keeping. It is God.
You had a long paragraph on John 4:13-14, but you ultimately didn’t answer what it says. You just denied what it said. That’s a problem. I believe you know this to be true. It just doesn’t fit with your conditional security. You rested in the end on the “drinketh” translation for the aorist tense by the KJV translators. You didn’t say anything about the plain contrast Jesus uses between the aorist and the present with the physical water and the spiritual water that He gives that will give everlasting life with no possibility, the strongest negative, of losing that. Those two verses still stand on this doctrine.
Okay, so your answer to use of the perfect tense verbs sounds as if they are meaningless. That is convenient for your doctrine, except not true. The results are ongoing to the present. From the perspective of a reader, that means that he won’t lose it. Everyone reads in the present. The perfect tense is used in 1 John 5 for “born of God.” Why? Because someone born of God cannot become unborn. Once born, He will always be born.
Your exception example in Matthew 8:6 is not a parallel. Here is a man that was thrown (ballo) into his palsy and stayed there, grievously tormented (present tense). It expresses an irreversible condition. Is it not an irreversible condition? Yes. You say, “No, because Jesus can change that condition.” True, but from the perspective of the reader, it is irreversible. Salvation, once received, is not reversible. That’s what the perfect tense communicates to the reader. You say, “Yes, if he wants to walk away.” Then it is his doing the keeping, not God.”
Okay, the usage of the first class condition. You seem to want to make it mean nothing like the perfect tense. With “since,” I was merely using that as a way to explain it, which is why I used the word “like.” There is something different happening between the various classes of conditions. Language does mean something. I’ve read and taught Wallace’s Grammar, so I know what he says. I also read several times, A. T. Robertson advanced grammar. I’m sure it is a pet peeve of Wallace, because it simplifies this concept, but I believe Wallace understates it. “Since” is a simplification, which is why preachers will use it for an audience to understand.
One of the reasons Wallace warns against the understanding of “since,” is just the example you use in 1 Cor 15:13 (which there are more than one examples of this), and that is the meaning of reality. In the 15:13 example, it isn’t real, that’s true, but for the sake of the statement, it is treated as though it is real. If there really were no resurrection, then the following is the result. He is not saying, If there was a possibility that there was no resurrection, then we would be miserable. That would be saying something Paul is not saying. The goal is to get what he is saying, and I’m saying you are not getting what these verses are saying through the perfect tense and then the conditional sentences.
When you look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 (see I’m assuming reality in that statement, but it is the condition), you see that he uses “believed” in the aorist tense. Paul purposefully (obviously) uses the aorist to talk about a belief that is short term, not continuing or perfect, which explains a non saving faith, a vain belief. I would point to you the usage of pisteuo throughout scripture, including by Jesus in the gospels. He will use the aorist to describe a non-enduring faith.
In 2 Timothy 2:12 (it’s actually 2:12, not 2:11), it is true that if someone denies Him, He will deny that person. That is a person never saved in the first place. A good explanation of this is that scripture indicates both an entrance requirement and a definite outcome (many examples of this). How does someone know he has saving faith, because saving faith will not deny Him (as a lifestyle, in a continuous sense).
In Hebrews 10:38, you’ve got a different kind of example. The author of Hebrews says the just shall live by faith. Someone justified will live by faith. That’s a guarantee. “But” (strong adversative) a man who draws back is not a just man. Just men will not draw back by definition.
Your third class condition in Hebrews 3:6 is not the condition of someone that is Christ’s house. It’s not saying that it is possible that once someone who is Christ’s house can be ejected from that position. That isn’t said in the verse. It is saying that someone who does not hold fast to the end is not one of those who are Christ’s house. How does someone know that he is saved or not? It’s because He continues. The condition of possibility in Hebrews 3:6 reverts to the truth that people in the audience possibly do not have saving faith. They should not allow a profession to lure them into a false sense of security.
I would explain your other examples in fitting or harmonizing with the rest of scripture as what God is doing, we should cooperate with. The indicative (reality) necessitate the imperatives (Paul commands only brethren to present their bodies a living sacrifice, unbelievers cannot). Why should God command anything for us to do if we’re already going to do it? We have a responsibility to work out what He works in (Philip 2:11-12). That is not saving ourselves. There is no true salvation that we could lose, but that is not a pass to live according to the flesh. This makes perfect sense to me as the grace that saves. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s not throwing down the salvation card. That’s not how scripture describes our assurance of salvation.
I’m still concerned for you Sao Thee. If you believe you can lose it, then who is doing the saving? How hard do you have to try to keep yourself in His hand? Does no man plucking us out of his hand mean “except for you” (John 10:27-29)? That’s not security at all. When Paul explained security, he said nothing can separate us from the love of God. You’re saying, Oh yes, we can separate ourselves from the love of God if we want to, because we have a power over God.
Dear Passerby,
The reason the aorist is translated as “believeth” in John 4 is because it is an aorist SUBJUNCTIVE. Time is not part of the idea of tense outside of the indicative. The snapshot nature of the aorist remains in the subjunctive. Those who drink, one time, are certain to never, ever thirst, unlike with physical water, where one must keep drinking. So you get nowhere at all by pointing out that there is a present tense, not past tense, translation.
Thanks.
Good point, Thomas.
Sao Thee,
Can you just give us a clear testimony of how you were converted to Jesus Christ?
Thanks.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Although this request probably comes from a suspicion from OSAS holders about the salvation of anybody who does not hold to OSAS, I’m still happy to give my testimony whenever asked.
I grew up with Christian parents, went to Sunday School, church etc. I knew facts about the Bible and Christianity, but I was lost.
I went to a Baptist church when I was a teenager because my parents moved. I was convicted of the need to put trust in Jesus personally, instead of relying on just being a “Christian” since birth. Intellectually, I had known about what Jesus did on the cross, His resurrection, His payment for sin, etc. But I had never cried out personally for Him to save me. I remember wrestling with this issue for a few months. A part of me told me I was fine, I’ve been a Christian since birth, even winning Sunday School events, and if I suddenly “got saved” now, people would look at me weird, because everybody thought I was saved. But the conviction grew that all those are not enough, and I need to personally ask Jesus to save me from my sins. I finally did that on a midweek prayer meeting, and I was born again that night. I’ve been on an incredible journey with my Saviour ever since, knowing Him deeper and deeper, and relishing His Word and doing what I can to serve Him.
Sao Thee,
Do you “know that you have eternal life”? (I John 5:13) I ask because if you know that you presently have something that is eternal, isn’t it, well, eternal? How could you possibly lose it if you know it and it is eternal?
Mat,
This is a very common question, and I am glad to answer it. Praise the Lord, I do know that I have eternal life. And as the verse you quoted explain, I know this because I believe (Present Tense, right now) the Son of God.
Now, 1 John 5:11-12 teach this important concept: “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
The eternal life that we have, we have it not in an absolute and independent manner, but in a dependent manner. We have life “in His Son” that is “in Jesus.” If we are in Jesus, then we have eternal life. If we are not in Jesus, then we don’t have eternal life. So, if someone put faith in Jesus, he has life, he is like a branch while Jesus is the vine. If later he repudiate that faith, he does not abide in Christ, he does not have life. He withers and will be burned. (John 15:1-6).
Eternal life is eternal life, whether we have it or not. The question is not whether the life is eternal, but the question is whether we have it or not. If someone gives us an eternal pearl, for illustration, then that pearl is eternal. Should we throw away that pearl, it’s still an eternal pearl, just that we no longer possess it.
Hope that help. Thanks.
Hello Kent,
Thanks again for the reply, but I am disappointed by the same misunderstanding that I got almost everytime I discuss this with OSAS holders. (You accept the acronym OSAS right?)
“If you believe you can lose it, then who is doing the saving?” Jesus Christ does the saving. No Christian believes that we are own saviour. You are just attacking a strawman. What biblical Christians believe is that God does not force us to be saved. We can reject God’s salvation, even after we initially believe. God is immutable, man is mutable. God is sovereign, and in His sovereignty God created a world in which He gave humans free will, to obey Him or reject Him. God is Saviour, but human responsibility is clear from passages such as: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Act 2:40). Save yourselves, Peter? Don’t you know that it is God that saves, and not yourselves? Of course Peter believed that God saves, but he stressed that man must receive that salvation, and in a sense whether to be saved or not is your choice.
You say you’re not a Calvinist, and yes, you are not. Not a full blown one at least. You don’t believe in Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, or Irresistible Grace – but let’s wait on that last one. The logic that you used in defending OSAS is very similar to Calvinist logic. In fact Calvinist is more consistent in applying it to the whole of salvation, while OSAS people only apply it to a part of salvation.
Let’s start with faith being a gift. Yes, there are verses about that, and I said I agree, in the sense that I have given, that does not contradict faith being a human responsibility. In a nut shell, faith is gift that can be rejected. A gift is not a gift if it cannot be rejected. Grace is not grace if forced.
Calvinism teach that faith is a gift in such a way, so only those elected can believe, and will without fail believe. The non-elect cannot believe. But they apply that from beginning to the end.
You, on the other hand, (I hope) teach that for a person to be saved, he has to come to Jesus in faith and repentance, which is a human responsibility, which mean that someone can choose to do it, and can also choose not to do it. At this stage, apparently faith is gift which can be rejected.
However, once someone believed, concerning continuing in faith in salvation, you then say that faith is a gift that cannot be rejected. In summary, you are also teaching Irresistible Grace, the only difference is that Calvinism applies it from the beginning to the end, while you apply it after the initial moment of belief.
But the problem with the notion of faith as a gift in an irresistible fashion is manifold. Chief of which is: why then does not God give this irresistible gift to every one, since He desires all to be saved? Or if God can irresistably keep you in faith, why not irresistably give you faith from the beginning? Calvinism is more consistent, although consistently wrong.
And if God irresistably keep someone in faith, there would be no need to command it. You mentioned God commanding believers to present their bodies as living sacrifices. Yes, exactly, and the point is that Christians can fail that command. Some Christians do not present their bodies as sacrifice to God. That’s why it’s commanded. Something that will happen without fail, does not need to be commanded.
If God irresistably keep someone in faith, Paul’s statement that “I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:8) is toothless and a foregone conclusion that needs no saying. What, Paul, YOU kept the faith? Don’t you know who is doing the keeping? Or when Jude says: “Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 1:21). Apparently Paul, Jude, and all biblical writers, teach that God saves, God keeps, but in such a way as demanding human submission to His Lordship in the form of faith towards Him. Which submission in faith is NOT “irresistably given” to humans, and can be failed. And that is not work-salvation, as you well know.
But if faith is a gift in a resistible fashion, then all the Bible makes sense. If someone perish, it is not because God withheld some gift from him, but because he rejected God’s gift. “Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God” (Heb. 12:15). If someone does not continue in the faith that would have saved him, that’s not because God fails, but he rejected God’s gift. There is absolutely no contradiction with the concept of being able to reject God’s gift, and faith being God’s gift.
Your words:
“How does someone know he has saving faith, because saving faith will not deny Him (as a lifestyle, in a continuous sense).”
“How does someone know that he is saved or not? It’s because He continues.”
“Just men will not draw back by definition.”
So, in your attempt to cover all your bases with a No True Scotsman type of argument, you have taken away the very assurance that you seek with OSAS.
According to you, the way a person is sure that he has saving faith is at the end of his life, when he has stayed faithful to the end. Because that is YOUR definition of saving faith, and your method of knowing whether someone has saving faith or not. One cannot be sure right now that one is saved. For surely, so many people have deluded themselves, thinking they are saved, thinking they believe, temporarily showing all the signs of salvation, who ultimately moved away from the faith, and according to your explanation, they never had it. So, how does one absolutely know that he is not deluding himself right now? One cannot. One can only know one is saved if he continues to the end. And there is even a sort of “it’s our of our hands” element to your position, because it’s really up to God, whether He keeps you or not. One can only know one is saved at the very end.
Double down or pedal back?
The two types of OSAS:
OSAS 1 – you believe one time, and then even if you repudiate faith, become an atheist, buddhist, whatever, you are still saved. Strong “assurance” but grossly unbiblical and dangerous. Having a strong assurance does not avail, if your assurance is not from God.
OSAS 2 – your position. A saved person cannot repudiate faith. If he repudiate faith, by definition he’s never been saved, even if he and everybody else thought he was saved. If consistent: “Assurance” only at the end of life. Less dangerous, but still unbiblical.
Rather than that, it’s much better to be biblical: A person is saved if he repent and believe in Jesus Christ (in who His Person is, and in what His saving work is, John 20:31; Romans 10:9-10). How does he know he is saved right now? 1 John 5:13 gives the answer: “These things have I written unto you that believe (Present Tense) on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” We can know that we are saved, if we right now believe in Him. That is saving faith. We can know we have saving faith now. I am saved, because right now I am believing in Jesus (Present Tense), not because I once believed in Him. That’s assurance. What about security? God promises absolute security for believers, with no one plucking us out, no one separating us from Christ. Key word: For believers. He warns: you must continue to believe. That is the second half of 1 John 5:13 [which the Critical Text deletes, btw, the devil wants to deemphasize importance of continuing faith]. John wrote so that Christians can know they are saved (by having current faith, not waiting to the end), and so that they may continue to believe. Continuing to believe is just as paramount as initial belief. And it’s not something God will force on anyone through irresistible grace dressed up as an irresistible gift. Yes, faith is a gift, but a gift that requires human responsibility/reponse, a rejectable gift.
So one can have true faith for some time, and then apostasize, that is reject that true faith. The word apostasy basically means to move away from. Strange how OSAS says that people who “move away from” was never there in the first place. But the epistles were written to believers, to people pronounced to be saved. Paul, Peter, all the writers, assumed that their readers are saved persons, because of their testimony. They are not saying: I think some of you are not saved right now, because some of you might not continue. They are confident: you have believed the Gospel, you are saved (1 Cor. 15:1-2). You have started in the Spirit (Gal. 3:3), you are ALL children of God (Gal. 3:26), but there is a danger of being cut off from Christ, and falling from grace (Gal. 5:4). Notice the ALL children of God. Paul is not saying you are a mixed multitude as so often assumed by OSAS holders. You are ALL children of God. Ah, but how can children once born be unborn? Where have I heard that? Probably from every discussion with OSAS holders. No, children cannot be unborn, but they can die. So, yes, there is a grave warning here, and it’s biblical. “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26-27). Notice the “we” in this passage, how the writer (Paul) puts himself within the warning: that sinning wilfully (in the context of Hebrews as a whole and chapter 10 also, this refers to the sin of apostasy, rejecting Jesus after having received Him), then there is only judgment ahead.
But no, you insist that people fallen from grace has never been on the side of grace. That people who made shipwreck of faith, has never had any ship of faith, much less sailed with it. That people who failed to abide in Christ, and is cast forth and withered and burned, has actually never been in Christ. That if a person’s name is blotted from the book of life, that merely means the name was never there. That if any man draws back, it proves he never had any real thing to draw back from. That people who escaped the pollutions of the world, but then got entangled therein again, never really escaped in the first place. But really, you said yourself: language does mean something.
Talking of Jews and Gentiles, Paul had this to say: “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off” (Rom. 11:20-22). Gentiles were originally not in the Abrahamic covenant that leads to salvation. But we have been graffed in, BY FAITH. But look at the warning: IF thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Should we insist that those cut off were never graffed in, contrary to Scripture. Or should we say that this is a warning that could never happen, contrary to Scripture?
I’ve been on this journey before. I tried to defend OSAS. For every “hard” passage, I contort my understanding to make it fit. No, that can’t be what it means, because OSAS is true, right? The whole Bible teaches that. But passages just keep piling up. Just like the evolutionist who will explain away each creationist proof and argument by saying: you make an interesting case here, but we know from the whole of science, that that’s just not true. It can’t be true. It’s only after I realize that I am carrying an assumption in looking at those passages, instead of letting the whole of God’s Word to shape my assumptions, that I break free.
Now, let’s get back to Greek. First about the Perfect Tense. I am not saying the Perfect has no meaning. I explicitly explained the meaning. The Perfect describes an action completed in the past, that is still relevant today. That is its meaning. It says nothing about the future in connection to that action. Are you seriously suggesting that the Perfect tense describe an irreversible state? The idea is so patently false, you did not get that from any serious book.
Mat. 8:6 is an example, which you missed completely in brushing aside. First, you make the mistake of saying “from the perspective of the reader, it is irreversible.” Writers choose their tenses, not readers. Hermeneutics is about asking what the writer meant. We have to see from the perspective of the writer. Matthew obviously knew that the condition is reversible. It is reversed in the very passage. Secondly, I don’t even know why a reader would think it’s irreversible. The tense itself does not have that force, only that the palsy has kept the man on the bed up until now. What will happen in the future hangs in the balance, that’s the whole story and climax.
And Mat. 8:6 is not some unique occurrence, it was just one of the first passages I found on a cursory search. Spending a further 10-15 minutes of searching, I found these other examples:
Mat. 9:22 – the lady was made whole (Perfect), saying nothing about whether or not she will ever be sick again.
Mat. 12:47 – The family of Jesus stand (Perfect) outside the place, with no guarantee that they will continue standing outside irreversibly. We can safely assume they went inside or went away after some time.
Mat. 20:6 – The workers have stood (Perfect) idle all day, but the text says that they then went to work, therefore ending their idle standing.
Mar. 11:2 – A colt has never been sat on (Perfect), but this condition did not last, as Jesus sat on it not long after.
I’m sure there are plenty more if I continue searching. But by this point, if you still say that the Greek Perfect tense describe an irreversible state, then that’s just abusing Greek for theological points.
What about the Aorist? The Aorist is a tense that describe a past action (if in the Indicative), viewed and presented as one complete action from the outside, instead of as an ongoing process from the inside (contra Present or Imperfect Tense). But remember this is only how the action is presented, and no commentary on how long the action actually took place. The Aorist is the tense to make a snapshot. Let me just quote Wallace:
“It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying the action as it unfolds. The following analogy might help.
Suppose I were to take a snapshot of a student studying for a mid-term exam in intermediate Greek. Below the picture I put the caption, “Horatio Glutchstomach studied for the mid-term.” From the snapshot and the caption all that one would be able to state positively is that Horatio Glutchstomach studied for the mid-term. Now in the picture you notice that Horatio has his Greek text opened before him. From this, you cannot say, “Because the picture is a snapshot rather than a movie, I know that Horatio Glutchstomach only had his Greek text opened for a split-second”! This might be true, but the snapshot does not tell you this. All you really know is that the student had his Greek text open. An event happened. From the picture you cannot tell for how long he had his text open. You cannot tell whether he studied for four hours straight (durative), or for eight hours, taking a ten minute break every 20 minutes (iterative). You cannot tell whether he studied successfully so as to pass the test, or whether he studied unsuccessfully. The snapshot does not tell you any of this. The snapshot by itself cannot tell if the action was momentary, “once-for-all”, repeated, at regularly recurring intervals, or over a long period of time. It is obvious from this crude illustration that it would be silly to say that since I took a snapshot of Horatio studying, rather than a movie, he must have studied only for a very short time!” (Wallace, p. 555).
This should explain succinctly, why your Aorist argument from John 4:14 is not at all sufficient. That’s because the Aorist does not necessitate that the action is only one time, or only of limited duration. The one who “drinketh” (Aorist) the living water will never thirst. The Aorist gives a snapshot that this person drank from the living water. We cannot conclude that he does not do so habitually, or only did it once. The KJV translators used the Present because they understood this principle, and saw the paralel to the previous verse (Not merely because of the subjunctive, as the subjuntive loses the time element of the Aorist, but keeps the aspect). Even less can we say that there is no way to reject this living water after first receiving it. Over against this idea is the Lord’s direct statement, which you ignored because that’s convenient to your position: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (Joh 15:6).
The Aorist can describe a faith than would later stop (non-enduring), but the Aorist can also describe a faith that endured, just presented as a snapshot. We cannot tell just by the use of the Aorist. There are many examples of the Aorist describing true saving faith.
Back to 1 Corinthians 15 and first conditionals. It’s no use to read Wallace and Robertson but then to plow ahead with the mistake warned against. First conditionals should not be translated “since,” and it is not “like since,” and it is not a statement of reality. There is a reason it’s called a conditional. Greek has words for since, which the writers were not afraid of using. There is a reason Bible translations the world over uses conditional words. Let’s assume that the KJV translators know what they are doing. Yes, it’s a first conditional, so Paul assume they will keep in memory, but as a conditional-assumption, meaning that the facts could turn out to be contrary (see for instance 1 Cor 15:13). And what will happen if the assumption is wrong: the next clause – unless you have believed in vain. This next clause if proof that Paul did not rule out the possibility that his first-class conditional assumption could be not factual.
When you said: “Paul purposefully (obviously) uses the aorist to talk about a belief that is short term, not continuing or perfect, which explains a non saving faith, a vain belief,” you agree with me in principle. The vain belief, which is presented as a distinct possibility in Paul’s sentence, happens if they did not continue to believe. Their previous belief would be in vain.
To recap: The Corinthians are saved but they are facing a challenge – the false doctrine of no resurrection (context of chapter 15). Paul was worried that this heresy would lead the Corinthians to deny the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore he reminds them: you have received the Gospel which Paul preached, which included the resurrection. You are saved because you have received the Gospel. But only if you keep in memory (hold fast) this truth. If you do not hold fast to this Gospel, your earlier belief would have been in vain. Paul is saying to them: I know you already believed the Gospel, so do not be deceived by this new heresy of no resurrection, else your earlier belief would be in vain. Notice that Paul did not have to wait until they prove their continuance in the faith to pronounce them saved. He knew they have true saving faith, because he preached to them the saving Gospel and they believed. But they must continue. Whether they continue or not is their responsibility. The key point is that true saving faith can be relinquished, therefore the tone in chapter 15 urging them not to depart from the Gospel as preached to them.
Let’s just make an illustrative example. What does this mean:
You have received tickets for the ball game, you are assured of entering the stadium, if you keep hold of the tickets and not throw it away, unless you have received the tickets in vain.
I believe the English is plain enough, not to say anything about the Chinese version. I don’t mind going to the Greek for more light, but the translators did a good job already.
Now to the Hebrew passages. This can get very long, but I’ll try to make it short. Since you have OSAS as a basic assumption, you therefore approach every verse in a specific way. You wrote: “How does someone know that he is saved or not? It’s because He continues. The condition of possibility in Hebrews 3:6 reverts to the truth that people in the audience possibly do not have saving faith.” A) I already pointed out the problem with your position, with regard to not knowing you are saved until the end of your life. B) Such approach contradicts the context, both of Hebrews as a whole and each individual passages within.
Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, who already believed Christ. Their problem is not that they are a mixed multitude, their problem is that they are immature, babes in Christ (Heb. 5:11-14). No where in Hebrews do we read that the writer thinks he is writing to unsaved people. He assumes that they are saved. He said as much. He never expressed any notion: “I think some of you were never saved in the first place.” No, he wanted them to continue, he “desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end” (Heb. 6:11). Notice EVERY ONE OF YOU. He is assuming them all to be believers, not a mixed multitude. They ALL already have hope. They just need to see it out to the end. The danger they face is “departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12) through unbelief. How one can depart from God if one has never been on the side of God? Language has meaning.
Let’s look at individual passages:
Hebrews 3:12-14
1. We are made (Perfect tense) partakers of Christ, something that happened in the past with relevancy until now. This is a statement by the writer. And he includes himself in it, notice the WE.
2. Conditional: If we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end. You would say that if one does not hold to the end, then he never had it. The Bible says differently, it is because he departed from the living God, not because he was never on the side of God. Also the WE (2:3; 3:6 also use “we” in warning passage). The writer is saying that the conditional applies to himself also. So, is the writer lumping himself as one of those possibly unsaved because he never had it from the beginning? Actually, that would be consistent with your position that one cannot know for sure until one continues to the end. If you want to own that the writer of Hebrews (which I take to be Paul), is saying that he may be among those unsaved, and that he would only know if he continues until the end, then I applaud you for consistency, but I deplore such a position.
Much better is this biblical understanding: The writer is sure of his own salvation, because he is presently believing. He is also (as much as humanly possible, and in this instance aided by inspiration by Holy Spirit) sure of the salvation of his audience, because he knows them as believers in Jesus Christ. But, having no OSAS assumption, the writer warns them (and includes himself in the process), that should any believer depart from the living God, neglect so great a salvation, does not hold “faith” stedfast unto the end, then they will not be saved. Because salvation is tied to faith in God, and repudiating faith, you reject salvation.
Hebrews 6:4-8.
This passage talks about one who “fall away” (parapipto). The description of verses 4-5 points to someone saved, despite protestation of OSAS holders. But language has meaning, and how can one “fall away” from something one was never on? The clincher is in verse six, where for such a person it is no longer possible “to renew them AGAIN unto repentance.” The word “again” is very important, and underlines the fact that he has once repented. But the apostasy is final, he cannot be renewed AGAIN unto repentance.
Seeing this is very long already, I will not go deep into the Hebrews 10 passage (one of the most severe warning passage), except to point out again that the writer puts himself among those where this is a possibility: “For if WE sin wilfully after that WE have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26-27). The sin, in the context of Hebrews, is not murder, adultery, fornication, or any such, but it is apostasy, the willful rejection of faith towards God after having believed.
Hebrews 12:22-24 surely speaks of saved persons, even having themselves written in heaven. But then, the continuation: “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:” (Heb. 12:25). It’s settled, the writer of Hebrews knew nothing of Unconditional Security. It is possible to turn away from God, even after coming to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant.
Some will say, but what about 1 John 2:29? “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Doesn’t this verse teach that a true believer can never apostasize? In short no.
1) I do believe that there are many so-called “Christians” who has never been saved. The majority of Christiandom is unsaved.
2) Is 1 John 2:29 talking about every person who ditch Christianity? Not really. The context tells us that John was talking about antichrists (which in overall context of 1 John are the gnostics), so this is not a blanket statement about all unsaved persons or all apparent apostasy. What this passage is saying is that the antichrists (gnostics) will claim to be Christians, but are not true Christians. More than that, they will claim to be apostles or carrying apostolic authority, but since they do not abide by the teaching of the real Apostles (us), they are not really representatives of the Apostles of Christ, and never have been. To extend this simple meaning to cover all cases of apostasy and deny the possibility of repudiating faith, would be to ignore many passages.
3) The immediate context is against the OSAS understanding. “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father” (1 John 2:24). Notice that this is a third class conditional, presented as something that could happen or not. The Christian readers of John already have the truth, and the unction of Holy One, but that truth must abide in them. Notice the term abide. If the truth does abide within the readers (a possibility), then they will continue; which means that if the truth does not abide (another possibility) within them, then they will not continue. But not continuing is different from never having it in the first place.
Having said all that, I want to end on God’s promises. I read the Bible and see God’s injunction to continue in faith and God’s warning for those who do not continue. I take those seriously as relevant to all believers. However, I do not live in fear because of God’s promises. He promised that nothing can pluck me out of the hand of the Father, and nothing can separate me from the love of Christ. Those precious promises comfort me and is my fortress. But they do not make me say that believers cannot stop believing. Instead, I say with the writer of Hebrews: “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)” (Heb. 10:23).
May the Lord lead us to His truth.
Sao
One, I can’t accept OSAS defined however someone wants to define it, and very often it is not defined like scripture reveals the doctrine of eternal security. Most of the time, I would say. This is why I use and yet don’t embrace OSAS language sometimes. Both of those can happen.
Two, you are saying that to stay saved someone must do something. That is adding works to grace like Paul taught against in Galatians 5:1-4. No man (including you) plucks you out of his hand. This short term faith is not a saving faith. The New Testament characterizes saving faith as continuous or perfect, reaching the desired end. Someone who does not continue was never saved (so not kept) in the first place.
Three, where faith is a gift becomes applicable to the doctrine of salvation, it is the faith God gives, saving faith, which perseveres or abides. You can’t and won’t lose it. That’s how you know that you have it. People walking away never had it in the first place, so they did not believe in the first place. The idea of losing it – no. That’s where you know you are working for it, because you could walk away from it any time.
At the same time, you do hang on. You choose to keep believing. You cooperate with what God is doing. God tells you to do that. You can and you will, because it is saving faith.
Four, irresistible grace would require predetermination, which I wrote against in this piece. Grace that saves is grace that keeps. It isn’t irresistible, but once received, it keeps, because that’s biblical salvation. If not, then it is in fact works and not grace, what I call backloading works.
Calvinists categorize grace as irresistible as an entrance requirement. Grace keeping you. That is not the doctrine of irresistible grace. I’ve never heard anyone express that ever.
Five, the command to continue does not mean that you cannot continue. This is related to the indicatives and the imperatives. God commands you to cooperate with what He does. Paul kept the faith, but that was by the grace of God. When Paul said, thanks be to God who delivers him from the body of death at the end of Romans 7, he means that God preserves him, not himself. God commands what He enables, the imperative follows the indicative. That applies to 2 Tim 4:8 and Jude 1:21. In Hebrews 12:15, a person can’t and won’t continue diligently, won’t pursue peace and holiness, because he fails of the grace of God. He never received the grace that saved. The book of Hebrews is full of this, those who merely taste of the good word and of the heavenly gift. It is something short of saving faith and true salvation, something superficial, emotional, or intellectual.
Someone is secure with saving faith. God’s grace keeps saving Him. A person saved and secure will not experience assurance of salvation when he is not obedient. If he wants to experience that assurance, he must obey those commands. The person who will not obey them fails at the grace of God and shows he never had salvation in the first place.
Six, someone can and will have assurance. God gives it. How does he give it? 1 John tells us that. 1 John 5:13, These things have I written that you might know. A person living in sin will not have assurance of salvation. Characteristically he will have assurance, because he will live a characteristically obedient life. This is a lifestyle of righteousness that John talks about in 1 John 3:6-9. On the other hand, the person who does not live that way, he has never seen or known God. He never had a relationship with God.
Your teaching on 1 John 5:13 is false. He wrote to those who believe on the name of the Son of God. Only they can know that they have eternal life. He wrote them so that they would know and how do they know, because of a lifestyle of righteousness, a habit of keeping His commandments. They see the light of God, the love of God, and the life of God in their lives. This will show up characteristically, as a lifestyle, in the life of the one born of God.
Seven, you have assurance through your whole life because you live out that saving faith. You can and will obey those commands, because He saved you. That’s how the grace of God will manifest itself.
Eight, someone truly saved cannot apostatize. Apostatize is turning from, but as scripture describes it, it is someone with a less than saving faith. Both 1 John and James talk about this. It is a demon or a dead faith (James 2) that does not produce righteous living.
The examples you gave are varied and would take some time to dig into them. In Galatians, these are those who never trusted in Christ as seen in their adding works to grace, what Paul talks about in Galatians 5. Those saved by the grace of God stand fast in the grace, so they don’t add works to grace, like you are doing. Those adding even one work to grace nullify it and Christ becomes of no effect unto them.
Galatians really in part hits what you are doing in adding works to grace by backloading works. To you, sure, you have to believe in Jesus, but also to do these other things.
You are all children of God by faith in Jesus Christ, not some other way, not by faith plus works. You become a son by faith and until then, you are a slave, like those Galatians who followed the ways of the Judaizers who mixed faith and works like you do.
In Hebrews, the author includes himself as a Jew. Hebrews is written to Jews and the author throughout the book includes himself, much like Peter does on the Day of Pentecost. It doesn’t mean that everyone is a fellow child of God. Again, in Hebrews, some of the Jews have not gone on to perfection. They were still trusting in their dead works as a basis of salvation. They were not receiving the new covenant. This is not better portrayed than in Hebrews 6:9, when the author switches audiences by saying, beloved, we are persuaded of better things for you. Missing the audience of Hebrews will result in getting the wrong interpretation, like yourself.
The message of Romans 11 there in 20-22, apostates will be cut off. God would not spare the natural branches, Israel, because of unbelief, he is not going to spare the unnatural ones. Those who believe will continue in his goodness. Grace is not a get out of jail free card. It teaches us to deny ungodliness. If you have the saving grace of God, you will continue.
Nine, there is no way that what you believe fits with salvation by grace through faith alone. You add works to grace and you are fallen from grace. There are so many verses that say that someone once justified can’t lose it, including the one in John 4:13-14, which you didn’t answer, and many others, John 10:27-29, etc.
Ten, the perfect tense does not mean, “still relevant today.” It is completed action with ongoing or abiding results. The perfect often says something about the future. Ongoing results are ongoing. There are many different usages of the perfect, many determined by the context. It doesn’t always communicate irreversibility, but it does communicate that. John 17:22, “And the glory which thou gavest (perfect tense) me I have given (perfect tense) them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” Is this irreversible? You would say, No. But that is what it communicates.
When someone reads the perfect tense in application of salvation, what does that mean from his perspective? What does the perfect tense mean to me in application? Sure, the perfect is understood from the perspective of the author, the action completed from the author’s perspective, but the results from that point of time are ongoing. How does that apply, that is, in perspective of the reader? It certainly doesn’t mean for instance that when a person believes in Jesus Christ and is passed from death unto life, the results of that ended with John’s writing of it in the first century. Because they continued to exist from the moment of John’s justification up until the time of his writing, the reader should also believe that the results continue too. He who believes in Jesus Christ is passed from death unto life. That means, you the reader, who believe in Jesus Christ, completed action with ongoing results. That is why the perfect is used, but you really try to make it mean nothing – that’s obvious. From the reader’s perspective the results are ongoing to this present day even as he reads that verse. Let’s explore the usages to which you point and why in these instances the author used the perfect.
Matthew 9:22 says that the lady continued to be whole. She was really healed. That she could get sick again as a refutation of the perfection of her healing does not work against the perfect tense here.
In Matthew 12:47 is another usage of the perfect, easy to see by the context. They stood and continued to stand without, even as his genuine mother and his brethren were those who did the will of the Father.
Matthew 20:6, they stood and then continued to stand all the day. Those who stand and continued to stand were idle.
Mark 11:2, His sitting on it doesn’t eliminate that fact that he rode a colt that had never been sat upon. It continues to be a colt that had never been sat on.
If someone is abusing the Greek, it’s your cherry picking examples to fit your theology of losing salvation. There is a reason why the present and perfect of pisteuo is used to describe saving faith in contrast to the aorist showing one that was not continous or ongoing, not saving. The point of using the perfect tense in the salvation contexts is to give the reader the meaning of ongoing results, not ones that he could still lose.
I’m not going to go into your twisting to make John 4:13-14 mean something other than what it says. It is so patently obvious the contrast Jesus makes in those two verses, you have to strain to absurdity to make it mean something different.
Eleven, the purpose of using the particle “ei” with the indicative mood is to assume the condition to be true for the sake of argument, presenting it as a reality or fact within the context of the sentence. This is why the indicative.
Twelve, I’m not agreeing with you in principle, as you say, because I’m saying that saving faith will always continue. You’re saying it may not.
I’m fine with your writing 8 single space pages in one comment. You are serious about this. However, I don’t want to keep discussing this at this level. I don’t have the time to do it and I’m definitely fine with the audience judging this, who reads it. For that reason, this will end this discussion and I’m not going to publish any more comments from you in answer to me on this, because I’m not going to answer them for the reasons I just gave you.
Kent has charged me with a heavy crime indeed, that of teaching work salvation. If this charge is true, I am anathema and accursed. Such charge I do not take lightly. I always ask God, is it true Lord? It always drives me to check Scripture again and again. My loyalty is to the truth.
So, I believe at least I should have the right of general reply. I’ll keep this short.
Is there something you have to do to be saved? Yes. You have to believe Jesus.
“Sirs, what must I DO to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:30-31).
To believe in Jesus is something we must do to be saved, yet it is not a work.
Is there something you have to do to continue in salvation? Yes.
“And you . . . hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death . . . If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard” (Col. 1:21-23).
To continue to believe in Jesus is something we must do to not fall from grace, and it is not a work.
If faith is not a work before salvation, then faith is not a work after salvation.
If grace is not irresistible before salvation, then faith should not be irresistible after salvation.
The charge that “having to continue to believe” is work-salvation is pure human philosophy.
That is my defense.
Sao,
I’m less concerned about offending you personally as I am for your eternal soul. I believe what I’m saying and have for almost fifty years. I don’t believe the conditional sentence you quoted in Colossians 1:21-23 is saying what you say it is saying. Jesus offers entrance requirements and then expected outcomes. The way of assurance is looking for those outcomes. We are not saved by additional requirements to faith. This contradicts Galatians 5:1-4, where even one work added nullifies grace, Christ becomes of on effect and profits you nothing. No, you must cease from your own labor (Heb 3) to enter into the rest.
Scripture teaches that we are justified by faith alone, but it does not teach that we are sanctified by faith alone. Sanctification requires works. At the same time, sanctification is guaranteed for a believer, which is why the conditional sentences are crucial. They reveal a new nature that someone receives by faith, a freedom from sin, which Jesus talks about in John 8:32-36.
You and I are saying something different and it is salvific. You are violating the doctrine of salvation along the lines of the Galatian Judaizers who add works to grace. This is not my taking a shot at you, trying to offend you personally. You are saying that you are not adding works to grace like the Galatians Judaizers would have likely argued the same. This was a deep concern for Paul because it was enough to result in not being saved.
This is it on our discussion on this. I like the discussion. I just believe we’ve got to limit it because of time.
Kent,
If you offend me with the truth, I will thank you indeed.
However, What is Truth? That is the name of your blog.
Truth is not in human traditions, but in the Word of God.
You say that I add work to salvation, in the manner of Galatians 5. You know that this is using Galatians out of context, against context, even.
In Galatians, the Judaizers want to add circumcision as a requirement for salvation. That is indeed adding work to faith.
I add nothing to faith. The Epistle to the Galatians even support me. Believers in Galatia already have faith. They have started in the Spirit, they are proclaimed children of God. Yet they are in danger of falling out of grace, in danger of being cut off from Christ. Why? Because they are in danger of repudiating faith in Christ alone, in favor of faith in Christ plus circumcision. See, they can leave their original faith, being proclaimed children of God as they were.
I am not “adding additional requirements to faith.” I am saying faith is the requirement. Enduring faith. Continuing faith. You actually agree. It’s just that in your position after the first moment of (true) belief, continuing and enduring in faith is inevitable, automatic, no longer our decision, a foregone conclusion. I see the biblical data strongly indicates otherwise. I believe you are biblically trained enough to one day see this.
May the Lord lead us to truth.
Sao Thee,
I did not claim you said, “ask Jesus into my heart.” However, I would argue against that language, too. I claimed that you must, “believe from the heart that Jesus rose from the dead,” and that merely “asking Jesus to save you” will not produce saving faith. “Asking Jesus into your heart,” or “asking Jesus to save you,” by themselves, both are not, “believe from the heart that Christ rose from the dead.” The former is dependent on you asking, the latter is God granting a saving belief entirely by Him. Only asking Jesus to save you without addressing the intent of the heart makes salvation dependent on your ask alone. Salvation only comes by the will of the Lord (John 1:13), Who sees and judges the hearts of men (Pro. 21:2). This is a key difference. Readers here can judge for themselves.
You seem to put a lot of emphasis on Romans 1:13. Romans 1:13 is not abstracted from Romans 10:9-11. Those who are calling upon the Lord to be saved do so because they have believed from the heart that Christ rose from the dead.
Conditional language in Scripture concerning eternal life is speaking to the permanent and sustaining change brought by the new birth, and distinguishing between people who have true or false confessions. They are self-evaluation guides, the path believers walk as part of their sanctification. God is causing and sustaining the changes. God holds the eternal life, not us. That was my above argument but you did not reply to it. Therefore, this argument is sustained: “According to Scripture, God causes and sustains the change found in a believer, and is the sole “holder” of the believer’s eternal life.”
I think we have made our points and are at an impasse. This will be my last comment in this thread.
Romans 10:13* not 1:13 – my apologies.
Sao, could you please let me know if you believe Christ’s prayer for all those who ever come to saving faith (John 17:8) is answered:
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Is it certain that every single believer will be with Christ in His heavenly glory, or does Christ’s High Priestly intercession fail?
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Is it certain that every believer will be sanctified–not sinless, but sanctified, different–or does Christ’s prayer for them fail?
If Christ’s prayer is a failure, was He praying out of the will of God, and so was He sinning? if His prayer was answered, are all believers certain to be with Him forever, and certain to be different on earth now?
Thanks.
Hi KJB,
To answer your question, yes I do believe that every single BELIEVER will be with Christ in His heavenly glory. That’s my point. All the promises of God, including the high-priest prayer of Jesus in John 17, are for believers. Believers have eternal life. Believers will be with Christ in glory.
Unbelievers will not be in glory, will not with Christ, will not inherit any of the promises. This much we agree.
What we may not agree on is whether a believer can become an unbeliever.
I do not see John 17 as addressing this issue. In John 17, Christ was praying for His then disciples (believers), and also for future disciples (believers), that they will be sanctified, that they will be glorified. In other words, John 17 teaches us about the ministry and care of Christ for believers, which is a great blessing. If someone were once believing, and then repudiated faith in Christ, and becomes an unbeliever, then this prayer no longer applies to him.
Now, you may say: but that’s impossible. Once a believer, always a believer. But no Bible verse specifically says that a believer cannot repudiate faith. And many Bible verses warns against this very possibility, and also give examples of people who made shipwreck of faith.
If we want to know what the Bible says about apostasy, then we should look at the verses about apostasy. Were the warnings addressed to saved people? If exegetically the passage is talking to saved people, then apostasy is possible for believers.
A good example (out of many) is John 15:1-6. Jesus is the true vine (v. 1). The disciples of Jesus are branches in the vine (in Jesus, v. 2). Then Jesus spoke about His disciples: “Ye are clean through the word which I have spoke unto you” (v. 3). Then there is a command to disciple, that is believers who are in Christ: “abide in me” (v. 4), and an explanation and warning “without me you can do nothing” (v. 5). Then a clear warning: “if a man abide not in me, he is …. cast.. into the fire, and … burned.” (v. 6). See the conditional in v. 7: “If ye abide in me…” So, the conditionals in this passage (without getting into the Greek third conditional, etc) mean that it’s possible for a disciple of Jesus, who is in Him as the true vine, to then not abide in Him.
Exegetically, I do not believe we can escape such a conclusion, without forcing a “systematic theology” that we already have before hand upon it (eisegesis). It then becomes a question, should I let this passage (which is not isolated, but just one among many many others), shape my systematic theology, or should I let my systematic theology force this passage to say what it doesn’t.
There are verses that OSAS holders use. I know these, I have used them myself when I was OSAS. There are also verses that go against OSAS. Long time ago, when I was struggling with this doctrine, I prayed for wisdom for God to lead me to truth. I asked myself honestly, how does one position answer the opposing position’s verses. That is: which position can better answer (without doing injustice to the passages) the verses that the other side is using, and can incorporate all verses into their model. Sometimes that’s difficult because of the circles we run in, and personal ramifications.
May the Lord lead us to His truth.
Dear Sao,
So for person X, who (in your Arminian view) is a believer at one point, does Christ pray John 17 for him, and then when the person stops being a believer, does Christ stop praying John 17 for that person? Does Christ’s prayer that this person be sanctified (17:17) and that this person will be with Him forever in heaven (17:24) fail, so that Christ says, “Oh, wait, never mind?”
Sorry, you are misinterpreting John 15. Contextually, the branch that does not abide is Judas, who never was a believer. Please read:
https://faithsaves.net/abide/
Thanks.
Dear KJB,
The prayer of John 17 was historical. It happened about 2000 years ago. So there is no such thing as praying and then stopping prayer. Jesus already prayed. Therefore, the whole framing of your question is already from a wrong angle.
Did Jesus mention any specific names (person X) in John 17? No.
Jesus prayed that the Father will sanctify and glorify a BELIEVER, which request the Father will no doubt perform.
So will person X be sanctified and glorified? Jesus did not name any specific persons, but He made it clear that BELIEVERS will be sanctified and glorified. If one is a believer, then he can say, yes this applies to me. If one is not a believer (and that includes those who once believe but then no longer believes), then this does not apply to him. There is a gap between the foreknowledge of God and what we can know in time.
Another way to look at this is to see what God says about election. The elect will go to heaven. God knows who the elect are, since election is according to the foreknowledge of God (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2). But do we know who the elect are? Not absolutely, rather only imperfectly and tentatively. We can say that the elect are those who believe in Jesus Christ to the end. If you are a believer today, then it seems like you are part of the elect. But to make that sure, you have to continue in faith. That is the point of this passage:
“For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to MAKE YOUR CALLING AND ELECTION SURE: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:8-11)
Or, as another illustration, consider this promise from Jesus Christ: “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mat. 19:27-28). Jesus promised the twelve that they would sit on twelve thrones. At the time of speaking, Judas was part of the twelve. So Judas heard this promise. Judas could legitimately think: this promise is for me, I will sit upon a throne. But Judas betrayed Jesus, and of course will not sit upon any throne.
Did Jesus break His promise to the twelve that included Judas at the time of the promise?
Of course not. Or did Jesus promised to Judas and then stopped promising and said “never mind”? Again, that’s the wrong framing of the issue. The promise was made to the twelve with the stipulation that they were “ye which followed me.” When Judas stopped following Jesus, the promise did not apply anymore to him, Jesus did not break His promise.
Oh, and I am not addressing or arguing whether Judas was a true believer from the start or was never a true believer. My position does not depend on whether Judas was ever a believer or not. My point is that Judas was part of the twelve that received the promise of thrones, but that promise was to the twelve as FOLLOWERS of Christ, which will be forfeit if they are no longer followers. The parallel is that Jesus promised eternal life to BELIEVERS in Him, which one can legitimately think of as applying to oneself if one is a believer, but which will be forfeit (without God breaking any promise, for He is always faithful) if one repudiate faith and is no longer a believer.
I find your treatment of John 15 to be contrary to literal sense, and an example of coming at a passage with a preconceived position, and doing all you can to maintain that position. Your survey of the instances of the verb meno is nice, but doesn’t help your case at all.
The meaning of the word is clear, and the translation “abide” is accurate. Quite simply, the command “to abide” in a house can only apply those in a house. Else, the command would be to “enter” the house.
“To abide” in Christ can only apply to those already in Christ.
Someone who does not “abide” in Christ, also refers to those already in Christ and then does not continue there, else all language breaks down.
You say there are branches in Christ (who will be cut off) who have not been regenerated – never numbered among God’s elect. I agree with you that they are not God’s elect, since election is according to foreknowledge, and God knows who will enter heaven. But to say that someone can be in Christ without faith and regeneration is contrary to all Scripture. There is no instance in the Bible where “en Christo” is used of unbelievers or unsaved persons. En Christo is a soteriological term, different from being in Israel or in the church, which is ecclesiological. “And be found in him [Christ], not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the FAITH of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:” (Phil. 3:9).
You invent this concept: “the branch without genuine connection to the Lord.” But this is just your theology inventing something foreign to the context. Do not think of modern day plastic branches, in that agricultural day, the branches of a tree or vine most definitely have connection to the vine. The whole point was that if they do not abide, then they lose that connection, not that they never had it.
A relevant passage that uses the same “branch” illustration is Romans 11. “Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off” (Rom. 11:19-22). People who are graffed in to the salvation promised to Jews, and “standest by faith” are told to not take it for granted, but that they have to continue in God’s goodness, “otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
The length people have to go to, to deny clear words, whether in John 15 or Romans 11, just to defend an Unconditional Security view!
You say my position is Arminian. I have not read much of Arminius. What little I read about his teaching, I concur more with him than with Calvin. But I disagree with Arminius in many areas (ecclesiology, eschatology, etc) since he is a Dutch reformed churchman. Instead of the banner of Arminianism, I say that my position is the Anabaptist position. The anabaptists, our spiritual forefathers, generally hold to a conditional security view. It is only later after the influence of Calvinism do Baptists turn Calvinistic. Many Baptists today have shifted away from Calvinism, but retain the OSAS aspect, unlike the anabaptists.
May the Lord lead us to truth.
Dear Sao,
Thanks for commenting on many other passages. In John 17, please note:
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Is Christ praying for every person who receives His word in faith? Is that a point action (it is aorist here)?
a.) Yes
b.) No
Does Christ’s High Priestly ministry function for those who believe but (in your system of belief) later fall away? Does Christ pray the following for an (alleged) temporary true believer?
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
1.) Yes
2.) No
The only thing that seemed somewhat relevant was your claim that Christ promised Judas that he would sit on a throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Of course, nothing in the passage says that He said that to Judas. Christ knew Judas was a devil from the beginning, not someone who was following Him.
Thanks.
Dear KJB,
The John 15 passage is relevant to the topic, and also a context to understand this issue in chapter 17.
Actually, I have given the answers to your questions, but I’ll do it again for clarity.
1. John 17:8 “they have received” is an Aorist Indicative, referring to His then disciples having received (in the past) His words. In this verse, the Lord was not even specifically talking about future disciples, but His then current disciples. The same with John 17:17. It was only in verse 20 that the Lord mentioned future disciples. But even if you want to apply verse 8 and 17 to future disciples, then see the next point.
2. John 17:20-24. The Lord prays for people who will in the future believe in Him. But notice that no specific names were given, just the category “those who will believe in Me.” If someone believes the Lord Jesus, then he can legitimately say that this applies to him. But if someone repudiate faith, then he can no longer consider this prayer to be for him. What about from the Lord’s perspective? Well, the Lord has omniscience, we do not, and we are not to pry into His omniscience more than He has revealed.
This is similar to the promise to Judas. “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Notice that no names were given. So Judas was not named specifically, that’s my point. But this promise is to a group, “ye which have followed me,” and since the promise is to sit upon twelve thrones, more specifically to the twelve apostles who have followed Jesus. Judas was part of the twelve, and consistently referred to as “one of the twelve” (Mat. 26:14, 47; Mar. 14:10, 43; Luk. 22:3, 47; Joh. 6:17). So the promise could have been realized by Judas, had he not betrayed the Lord. Judas could legitimately think this promise was for him. Of course the Lord was omniscient, but He did not give any false promise.
Another relevant example is king Saul. In omniscience God knew that Saul was not the ultimate king of Israel, but God did not give any false promise to Saul, nor set him up to fail. When God through Samuel said to Saul: “Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever” (1 Ki. 13:13), it was a genuine possibility. Saul was made king, anointed by God, given the Holy Spirit, but he failed God’s requirement, and therefore forfeited what God would have done for him. We cannot say that he was never a true king.
In this same vein is this verse: “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” (Heb. 4:1). Notice that the promise is already given to “us.” But let there be a healthy fear of coming short of that promise. “For we which have believed do enter into rest…” (4:3). God’s rest is for believers, therefore do not repudiate faith. “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Heb. 4:11). Notice the “us” again, the writer including himself.
May the Lord lead us to truth.
Dear Sao,
Thanks for clarifying. So for a man named Fred, who believes in Christ like John 17:8 says, Christ can pray this for him:
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
but Christ’s prayer is a failure, is rejected by the Father, for Fred, if he fails to do enough works or stops believing, will not be with Christ forever.
Christ can also pray this for Fred:
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
However, Fred can fail to be sanctified, but can do enough evil works to lose salvation or can stop believing, despite Christ’s prayer that he will be sanctified.
This is supposedly because of a promise in a different gospel that Christ made to those who follow Him sitting upon thrones. Even though Judas never truly followed Christ but was a devil from the beginning, because of this other passage Christ’s prayer here can be an abject failure for millions of people for whom it is offered. Furthermore, even though 1 Samuel, in context, has huge warning signs about Saul from the very beginning, somehow God choosing Saul to be king (a judgment on Israel for wanting a king) proves that the Son of God’s High Priestly intercession is a failure.
Christ spoke His prayer in John 17 in order that allo those for whom He prayed “might have my joy fulfilled in themselves” (17:13). It is a tremendous joy to everyone on earth who has come to saving faith to know that his perseverance and his eternal security are guaranteed by the Son of God’s faithfulness as High Priest and the Father’s certain answer to that prayer.
On your view, this prayer is not a source of amazing joy. It is a source of horror–the Son of God can pray that I will be with Him forever in heaven, but the Father will reject His Son’s prayer. Everything depends not on Christ, but on me–will I do enough good works, or will I be strong enough to keep believing? Maybe Christ can help me a bit, but in the end it really is on me, not on Him. For anyone who understands the power of sin, the world, and the devil, that is horrifying–John 17 is now no joy at all.
Finally, your comment that no specific names are mentioned in John 17 is ridiculous as an answer. Christ clarifies exactly whom He is praying for in John 17:8. If He had to mention every single name of every person who would ever believe in Him, then He would still be in Gethsemane right now mentioning names. And even if He had mentioned names–as He does in Luke 22:32 for Peter, who was CERTAIN to turn back based on Christ’s intercession–you could still say, “maybe that is a different Tom, maybe a different Jane, maybe a different Bill.” Someone can always find some unreasonable reason to get out of what Christ actually prayed in John 17. Maybe Christ needed to not just mention names, but Social Security Numbers for each person. Then maybe we could believe what He said in John 17, but since there are no SSNs listed, His prayer is rejected by the Father.
Do you see, Sao, that this is a very dangerous position for you to take?
Sao, I would respectfully and strongly urge you to reconsider your view that Christ’s prayer to the Father in John 17 is rejected, and instead believe in eternal security.
I am probably done commenting here. Thank you.
Sorry, one more thing–John 17:20 does not say that only the rest of John 17 is for all believers, while the first part is only for the eleven apostles. John 17:20 shows that the prayer is NOT only for the eleven. The entire prayer is for everyone who ever receives Christ’s word with saving faith as a point action, 17:8.
Thanks again.