Thoughts on Eternal Security (Specific verses included)

[SonofAletheia]

I'd like your thoughts on some verses here concerning "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved Always Saved". Obviously this question assumes a non-Calvinistic perspective on salvation (And to take a break from all these Jehovah's Witness's topics )

Romans 11:17-24, And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (NKJV)

It seems to me that these verses lay out salvation and how the "eternal security" plays out. Namely, salvation is conditional on your faith/belief. "Because of unbelief they were broken off" Because of their lack of belief, those who were once saved are no longer. And those who are saved are warned to "continue in His goodness" otherwise "you also will be cut off." Also, if we come back to God we can find salvation again "for God is able to graft them in again."

Colossians 1:21-23, And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Here it seems there is a clear pattern again. Those who were lost, "alienated and enemies", are now saved, "yet now He has reconciled", "holy and blameless", "above reproach in His sight." Only if we continue in the faith and are not moved away.
These verses really hit me hard and convinced me to abandon the "once saved, always saved" view.

Hebrews 3:1, 6, Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus... (6) but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

Here the author of Hebrews seems to be addressing the saved, "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling", and yet seems to view salvation as conditional, "if we hold fast...firm to the end."

Hebrews 3:12-14, Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end

Here, the author is still talking to believers, "brethren" and yet still offers numerous warnings about "unbelief" causing "departing from the living God." And that we will become "partakers of Christ if we hold..." Seems to be warning the saved about losing their salvation.

Hebrews 6:4-6, For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Now, for the sake of discussion I want to focus more on the issue at hand here, namely, eternal security. These verses tend to have a lot of meat in them. It seems, again, those who were saved can fall away.

2 Peter 2:20-21 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

After finding salvation, persons can lose their salvation. And it seems it's worse off for them afterwards

John 15:5-6 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

This verse could be talking more about faith+works but I don't think that's the whole picture. Those who do not abide in Christ and do not produce fruit are thrown in the fire and burned. Seems fairly severe and could be talking about losing one's salvation.

James 5:19-20 seems to also be talking about eternal security.

So, in short, it seems there is a pattern that is taught in the NT: The lost can become saved-the saved are warned about losing their salvation-the saved can lose their security/salvation.

[jlay]

What hermaneutic are you following here?

[Jac3510]

What hermaneutic are you following here?

This is a good question. I hope to see it answered.

I'd also encourage you to pick one verse out of the list to talk about. Which of those do you think makes the strongest case for NOSAS? I see you've offered a brief comment on each of the passages, which I very much appreciate--way too often I see people just list a ton of verses with no commentary at all. Would you be open to selecting one and offering more substantive comments to get the discussion going? That, plus an acknowledgment of your hermeneutical principles, would be very helpful, I think.

[SonofAletheia]

I'm not following any specific hermeneutical principles here (at least none I'm aware of). So I'm open to various views and/or different hermeneutics

Would you guys disagree with my interpretations and conclusions here?

[Gman]

I'm not following any specific hermeneutical principles here (at least none I'm aware of). So I'm open to various views and/or different hermeneutics

Would you guys disagree with my interpretations and conclusions here?

G-d is the ultimate judge of us and even cast out angels who opposed Him from heaven. I believe that G-d is just and does everything in His grasp to keep His children, however, if there is outward rebellion after many rebukes then He is just to oppose them like He did His angels.

[Jac3510]

I'm not following any specific hermeneutical principles here (at least none I'm aware of). So I'm open to various views and/or different hermeneutics

Would you guys disagree with my interpretations and conclusions here?

Well, you would do well to identify the principles you are following!

I disagree with each of your interpretations and conclusions, but as I said before, it isn't very productive to try to discuss all those verses at one time. I think you would do much better to pick a particular passage and ask people to discuss how that one does or doesn't teach that you can lose your salvation. This board is hardly monolithic. You'll get different views on it.

[SonofAletheia]

Sure, if you want to narrow it down we could focus on the Romans 11 passage or the Colossians 1 passage.

[ryanbouma]

I really appreciate you posting these versus. Interesting discussion.

I've never really been one to think OSAS. Because I can stop believing at any moment. If I chose to not put my faith in Christ, and put it in myself, or Stephen Hawking, or in a golden calf, then I am no longer saved. I suppose you could argue that I never had true faith before, but I'm not so sure. Sometimes I hope I die soon to avoid any chance of loosing my faith. I pray sometimes, "God, don't put me through trials as to risk disbelief". Of course this is a tricky thing, because the longer I live and the more trials I go through, the greater opportunity for reward in heaven. But the temptation is to just sneek through the gates.

Now if I (or any Christian) fall into disbelief and put their belief into a false god, but then later repent and believe in Christ again, then God can "graph that branch back into the tree".

[SonofAletheia]

I really appreciate you posting these versus. Interesting discussion.

I've never really been one to think OSAS. Because I can stop believing at any moment. If I chose to not put my faith in Christ, and put it in myself, or Stephen Hawking, or in a golden calf, then I am no longer saved. I suppose you could argue that I never had true faith before, but I'm not so sure. Sometimes I hope I die soon to avoid any chance of loosing my faith. I pray sometimes, "God, don't put me through trials as to risk disbelief". Of course this is a tricky thing, because the longer I live and the more trials I go through, the greater opportunity for reward in heaven. But the temptation is to just sneek through the gates.

Now if I (or any Christian) fall into disbelief and put their belief into a false god, but then later repent and believe in Christ again, then God can "graph that branch back into the tree".

I think the argument that the persons who turn away from Christ were never truly saved is not Biblical. Most, if not all, the passages I listed seem to clearly show that the persons who are warned are saved at the time or even prior to the warning.

And I can relate to you and your position on trials (and doubts for me) in regards to salvation. It's interesting to note that the Scripture doesn't seem to specify exactly what it would take to lose one's salvation (besides saying that you can). I think this would be a matter between the individual and God.

[Jac3510]

Sure, if you want to narrow it down we could focus on the Romans 11 passage or the Colossians 1 passage.

Obliged. So your words for those:

I'd like your thoughts on some verses here concerning "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved Always Saved". Obviously this question assumes a non-Calvinistic perspective on salvation (And to take a break from all these Jehovah's Witness's topics )

Romans 11:17-24, And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (NKJV)

It seems to me that these verses lay out salvation and how the "eternal security" plays out. Namely, salvation is conditional on your faith/belief. "Because of unbelief they were broken off" Because of their lack of belief, those who were once saved are no longer. And those who are saved are warned to "continue in His goodness" otherwise "you also will be cut off." Also, if we come back to God we can find salvation again "for God is able to graft them in again."

You seem to be making two assumptions that may or may not be true:

a. That to be a part of the tree means one is "saved";
b. That to be broken off from the tree meas that one is not "saved";

Now, the first assumption is probably only true in a causal sense, not in an identical one. I mean, it is probably best to understand Paul's logic as saying that one of the benefits of being a part of the three is that salvation is granted to you. But a benefit is not identical with a thing itself. I mean, Paul is not using the picture of being a part of the tree as a word picture of being saved. He is using it as a word picture of being a part of the holy community which formally began with Abraham. All those who are in that community are also saved. So strictly, the logic is as follows:

• 1. All those [in the category of those] who are members of the [the category of] Abrahamic community are also members of [the category of] the saved;
  2. John is a member of the Abrahamic community;
  3. Therefore, John s a member of the saved

That's just a categorical syllogism. The problem, of course, is that you cannot extrapolate from that, that if you are NOT a member of the community then you are not saved. That may be true, but you would have to strengthen (1) to say that all members of the Abrahamic community are ALL of those who are saved, that is, that the two groups are identical. But that's problematic, because, first, this passage doesn't say that (you would have to get that idea from somewhere else), and second, there are plenty of reasons to believe there are "saved" who are NOT members of the Abrahamic community.

The second assumption is, I think, just false.

The passage does not say that to be broke off is to lose salvation. There are certainly consequences for being broken off, but you are assuming (without any warrant I see) that one of those consequences is the loss of salvation. But that seems to be rooted in the assumption in an identification of the community with the notion of salvation, rather than seeing the latter as just a benefit of the former. There are all kinds of benefits to being a part of the Abrahamic community (Paul had just mentioned some them back in Rom 9). To be cut off from the community is to be cut off from those benefits.

Of course, it is up to the nature of each of those benefits to determine whether or not, now having been cut off, that they can still be enjoyed. So if God speaks to the holy community through prophets, if you are cut off, then you no longer receive messages from God. If God promises His community special rewards in heaven, then you will receive no such rewards if you have been cut off. If God promises the community particular revelatory moments, then once cut off, while you may no longer receive those revelatory moments, you still possess in your memory and being those moments you had experienced while in the community. And if God promises to give the community eternal life, then, though cut off, having once received eternal life, by nature, you still have that life.

In short, all this passages says is that the Israelites were the original members of the community and by and large made up that community (being descendents of Abraham), but that because of their disbelief, some of those Israelites have been broken off from that community and some members of the Gentiles (through the Church) have been grafted into that community. But the Gentiles need to be careful, because just like individual Israelites were broken off, so too can they if they do not stand in belief. All of that strongly implies that there are major benefits to being members of the community and that there are severe consequences for being broken off, but the passage nowhere says that one of the consequences for being broken off includes "the loss of salvation" and therefore eternal condemnation.

As an aside, I would also point out that my last parenthetical note clarifies a distinction between the Church and the holy community. The only way you can get an argument off the ground to argue for the loss of salvation is to equate the two, which Paul not only does not do, but which he explicitly rejects in this very unit (Rom 9-11).

As far as Col 1 goes . . .

Colossians 1:21-23, And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Here it seems there is a clear pattern again. Those who were lost, "alienated and enemies", are now saved, "yet now He has reconciled", "holy and blameless", "above reproach in His sight." Only if we continue in the faith and are not moved away.
These verses really hit me hard and convinced me to abandon the "once saved, always saved" view.

You seem to be assuming that "to [be] present[ed] holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight" refers to "being saved." I don't see why we should make that assumption at all. Why not just affirm what the text actually says? If we hold to the faith, then we will be presented holy, blameless, and above reproach. If we do not hold to the faith but fall away and/or buy into heresy (which Paul was dealing with in this book), then we will not be presented holy, blameless, and above reproach. But if we are not so presented, why should that mean that we also lose our salvation? There are many places where Paul makes it clear that different believers will get different rewards. That, after all, is what the Bema Seat is all about. Some will hear "Well done," and others will get in by the skin of their teeth (so to speak). Some will be highly praised, others not. All will be saved, but not all will be equally glorified.

Paul is telling the Colossians here that if they want to be highly praised--if they want to be presented holy, etc.--then they have to persevere in the faith they had first been taught, not the heresies they were dealing with then. So, again, we see here that you've just made an assumption that, frankly, I don't see warranted in the passage.

[jlay]

Jac,

My thoughts on Colossians 1:21-23. You would have a OSAS problem, for example, if verse 22 were absent.

"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled (edited out for emphasis) 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

This would make reconciliation the result of continuing, which is of course would be a works based salvation.

[RickD]

Jac, I think you need a little better argument to convince me. If not, I'm taking the first bus outta here, straight to the Lordship Salvation camp. I heard they have a pretty good summer program on theology.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

My thoughts on Colossians 1:21-23. You would have a OSAS problem, for example, if verse 22 were absent.

"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled (edited out for emphasis) 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

This would make reconciliation the result of continuing, which is of course would be a works based salvation.

Yup, exactly right. The argument against OSAS only works if you assume that the conditional aspect in v.23 applies the reconciliation, but it just plainly doesn't. Paul included v.22 for a reason. It takes a(n unwarranted) theological assumption to say that all believers are (or will be) blameless, etc.

I think it's best to just say exactly what the text says. If we continue in faith--that is, the faith that Paul taught--then we will be presented as blameless, etc. And if we don't, then, well, we won't. To jump to the assumption that we aren't therefore reconciled is quite a jump indeed!

Jac, I think you need a little better argument to convince me. If not, I'm taking the first bus outta here, straight to the Lordship Salvation camp. I heard they have a pretty good summer program on theology.

Hmm . . .

Well, jlay says so, so it MUST be right.

Better?

[SonofAletheia]

My reply is almost done. I apologize for taking so long. Been fairly busy

[Philip]

"in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:5-6)

Clearly, Paul is making this statement based upon both a long period of watching their "fruit" AND the promises of God.

IF, once truly saved, it is hard to see how the statement above could be true, or how Paul could be "confident" in his statement, if one could lose his salvation. Also, WHOSE work is it? WHO began it? WHO will complete it?

Ephesians 1:13-14: " In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

So, if our salvation, once attained, is "sealed" and "promised" by God (the "Guarantee"), then to lose it, would God not have to break His sealed word and promise to "complete" HIS promised salvation?

Anyway, Rich Deem covered this topic in detail in his posting: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/s ... iever.html