It seems like the subject of eternal security has come up in a lot of my conversations recently. Most of the discussions have been completely un-related and among different friends. These conversations have spurred me to dig a little deeper into what I believe and why I believe it. (always a good thing right?)
I'm really hoping to get some good feedback on this stuff (whether in comments or in discussions), because I definitely don't think I've exhausted what the Bible has to say on this subject.
Let me start off by saying that I feel our statement of faith is rather vague on this subject. It makes it clear that our church doesn't believe in unconditional eternal security, but it also leaves a lot of interpretation up to the reader. This is how it reads:I believe the vagueness comes into play as different readers have very different definitions of the word "sin". If I'm a believer and I lie to my brother, is that a sin? Does it cause me to lose my salvation? I'm a believer and I commit adultury, is that an automatic loss of salvation? What if I'm a believer and I know to do good and doeth it not? What if I'm a believer, and in a fit of anger, after just watching my child die, (God forbid) look up and cry "I hate you God."? As different people read these examples, I'm fairly confident they'll have all kinds of different responses to each situation.
Some try and draw a line between "willful" sin, and "caught in the moment" sin. Some people try and re-label the "small" sins as "failures". Some people say "a sin is a sin is a sin".
Different people having different definitions for the word sin is very understandable. The KJV Bible translates several different Greek words into the word "sin". They each have very different meanings and were meant to be understood differently based on the specific context the author was addressing.
Since this is already getting a little long, in the next post I'll try and get into the different meanings of the word sin and see if that sheds some light on if or how we can lose our salvation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Maggs: Thanks for the tip. I'm pretty sure I have that booklet at home. I'll see if I can find it.
COMMENT - PART ONE :)
Luke, you always seem to plunge towards those controversial subjects :)
If I can share some thoughts.....
The subject of "Eternal Security" can become a very emotionally charged dialog, and unfortunately many times people from various perspective state their mantras, but often the central issues are not often discussed. And some of the stigmas associated with it make many people afraid to even discuss it.
I agree that the statement of faith is somewhat vague on the subject. One other problem, I believe is the select of the word "forfeit". First of all, I don't think the Bible (in all its numerous discussions of apostosy) ever uses terminology such as "forfeit". Can we forfeit something we have not earned (I can't think of any examples in everyday life where a forfeit of a gift occurs)? I think the statement of faith is very much influenced by Froehlich's view of classification of sins.
A few observations..
1. While the Bible does speak of salvation in some senses as a "possesion" (and I agree it is a "present possesion", which is good statement they used to avoid eternal unassurance), I think we have to be careful about turning salvation into a commodity. Salvation is moreso a standing than a possesion. If one can lose their salvation, it would be moreso a loss of status than a loss of an object.
2. The Bible unmistakedly contains a good mixture of passages that pertain to BOTH assurance and warnings. Any theological system that misses either of these is worth discarding (yes, non-Lordship salvation proponents, I mean you :>).
3. The debate seems to almost always centers around "Can a Christian lose his salvation in Christ?". I propose what I feel is a better question to consider: "Can Christ lose a Christian?"
4. You have your fingers on an important matter when you wonder out loud about which sins would qualify for "losing ones salvation".
5. A very critical question to consider that I believe is the crux in this matter is: Can "faith" that does not persevere be considered to have ever been true faith? (if we answer no, then we must wrestle with the idea of what qualifies as 'not persevering')
COMMENT - PART TWO :)
I think it all boils down to our view on atonement. And this ties it to what you brought up about sins. Froehlich (and our general heritage) had a view of sin that essentially left no other option than to reject "unconditional eternal security". Many people--including ACs--find Froehlich's view of sin and justification distasteful. In Froehlich's view, eternal security was a non-issue, because his view of sins took the absence of eternal security for granted. Now that many have moved away from Froehlich's view to a more consistent (and I believe more Biblical) view of justification, salvation, and sin, we must now wrestle with the issues: whether true believers can lose their salvation, whether there is a sin so great as to condemn one justified by the blood, and whether some people will have two separate payments for their sins (Christ's payment plus eternal payment in hell).
And, of course, this debate leads to discussion on predestination and the extent of the atonment :> All areas of theology are tied together, and we can't strictly isolate one from another.
My belief is that believers are given great precious promises of security (brief exerpts: he...will bring it to completion; sheep will never perish; i am persauded that he is able; born of incorruptible seed; those that thou gavest me I have kept and none of them is lost; who shall confirm you in the end; shall not come into condemnation; who shall separate us; reserved in heaven forever; no one shall pluck them out of my hands; etc.) and great warnings (brief exerpts: make your election/calling sure; making a shipwreck of faith; but not high minded but fear; take heed lest ye fall; he the endureth unto the end shall be saved; etc.). We need to take both the promises and the warnings literally. We need to be balanced, emphasizing both sides. But an extremely important point is: The Bible seems to always tie apostasy to identity, not merely to actions. Judas was classified as a devil. The problem wasn't just what he did, but more deeply troubling, who he was!!! A betrayer! A devil! A son of perdition! The other disciples sinned but where genuine, Judas had a different identity. And later on.. followers that didn't continue with their profession, were assumed to never been truly among the followers in spirit (see I John for a discussion of that). For, says the apostle, if they were of us, they surely would have continued with us (paraphrase).
Who overcomes? Whoever is born of God (see 1 John 5:4) IF I am born of God, I will overcome and endure unto the end. And my faith WILL produce works. I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. Saints persevere. If I don't persevere in the faith and I call myself a saint, I'm pretentious and have had false assurance. So perhaps rather than asking whether we are eternally secure, we should ask if we are truly in Christ, because only in Him is security. --No security-- outside of Christ is just as much of a given as --Security-- in Christ.
I do not offer any assurance to those who said a canned prayer and then do not show any fruit whatsoever. I offer no assurance to those who claim to be saved but show no allegience to Christ's Lordship in their lives. Assurance is only offered to those who persevere in the faith, and those who persevere in the faith are those who are born of God. And yes there can be a tension and struggle between knowing we are saved with surety and examining whether we be in the faith or not. And since we are human, we aren't always able to sort between the wheat and the tares.
P.S. The Winds of Doctrine article can be found online, try googling for it.
Mark: Wow, great comments. Thanks for taking the time.
You mentioned "apostacy" a number of times. And that is where I was going to take the next post with the different scriptural references to sin, and how different meanings are associated to the word sin.
I do want to bring up that a flip side of 1 John is Hebrews 6:4-6. Hebrews seems to be very adamant in describing those who were once saved and had experienced true conversion, and then saying if they fall away... What's your interpretation of that passage?
Wow - I don't even know where to begin.
I wish I had a better knowledge of Froehlich and his views. But seeing I have never even heard his name before now, I won't even try to comment on him, only learn.
Hebrews is a book close to my heart, as it speaks in the same ways that I think. If you look at it as a book written to the believers with a Hebrew heritage, you can glean more from it than with our perspective as Gentiles. In the Old Testament, people would sin, offer a sacrifice, sin again, and the cycle would continue all of their life. On the surface, the author is cautioning the people of not falling into this trap. He is urging them to make a lifestyle change, not to sin, ask for forgiveness, and sin again. This method unintentionally teaches people that it is okay to sin, as long as I ask for forgiveness. If you look at other parts of the chapter, the author is encouraging the people again to make following Christ a lifestyle, that they should have hope, good works, and minister to the saints. (Hebrews 6:9-11)
So I just want to encourage everyone as they approach this topic not to dwell on the negative, but to "show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end."
God Bless.
Brit,
I think what you have quoted ("show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end.") is the reason why the author of Hebrews gave the warning of 4-6. Thanks for quoting it!
Luke,
I don't really have time to get into Hebrews 6 in any far reaching amount of detail right now (as you know I can be very verbose). However, haven't I already shared my thoughts on that passage on your blog some time? Maybe half a year ago or so?
So instead of really giving an indepth exegesis of Hebrews 6, I'll just make a few points:
1. The author wraps up verses 4-6 and a few following verses with verse 9, which says (in the ESV) "Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation."
2. Due to #1, it can very easily be argued that even though those things seem to be applicable only to true believers ("...who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come.."),
The author words it in a way where it he is implying that having those things and then subsequently falling away is NOT something that "belongs to salvation" or "accompanies salvation". To state that he he is refering to a true believer in 4-6 would to some degree, it can be argued, make v9 incoherent.
3. It should be noted that nowhere in 4-6 does it explicitly say that they are saved or experienced conversion, and many in church history have put at least partially convincing arguments towards the idea that you can partake and taste of many good things of God's Spirit without finally being saved (ie. the benefits of being in close fellowship with Christians, hearing the word, the Holy Spirit working in terms of convictin--though not necessarily leading unto salvation). In fact none of the "typical" descriptions of the unsaved (by typical I mean typical throughout the New Testament) are utilized verbatim in Hebrews 6:4-6. It is never said that they are "in Christ", never said that they have faith, nothing is said about fruits in their lives, nothing is said of obedience, nothing is said of knowing God intimately, etc. Of course the things listed in verse 4 apply to true believers, but the question is, is there any sense in which they can apply to unbelievers who are among the believing community as well?
4. They way the author writes Hebrews 6:9, suggests that there was something about the Hebrews which led him to believe that this warning did not apply to them. The most coherent answer as to why he said that, in my opinion, is that he believed they were true believers. Hence, he would make a statement indicating that he believes they are exhibiting genuine salvation (things which accompany salvation), but yet express the posisbility (since he is not all-knowing) that it does really apply to them, the possibility that they are the ones who have "tasted" of spiritual things, but have never exhibited true saving faith.
5. I believe it is very coherent and in accord with the text to affirm that the author of Hebrews was warning them, so they would give the diligence that proves that they exhibit true persevering faith which is lacking from the scenario presented in Hebrews 6:4-6 .
These points may not be conclusive, and they are not necessarily justified thoroughly, but they give some insight into why it is not a given that the scenario presented in Hebrews 6:4-6 is describing someone who has true saving faith.
ooops..
"none of the "typical" descriptions of the unsaved "
should read "saved" :)
Britt: Thanks for your thoughts, and your encouragement. I hope everyone can bring their thoughts to the table here without ill will.
Mark: Yeah, I think you have shared your thoughts on Hebrews 6 before. That's my bad. A lot of what you said rang a bell. I do remember reading it before. I apologize for that. However, I appreciate you being willing to reiterate what you have.
Excellent topic Luke. I think that you pose a very good question. As a convert to the AC church I have wrestled with this question very much. I too agree that the Statement of Faith isn't worded very well. It doesn't make sense to me to talk about "eternal life" in terms of a "present possession." The reason is that the word "eternal" means that it transcends time. Therefore "eternal life" can't really be explained in terms of the "present." After much reading and study, I've basically become a five point Calvinist which as you can imagine makes some AC dogmas hard to swallow. I agree with Mark that Froehlic's views on justification and sin are inadequate. I also agree that the Bible has many passages of assurance as well as passages of warning. I like what Mark said about passages that speak of apostasy. Apostasy is related to identity. Judas didn't lose his salvation for betraying Christ, but rather his betrayal was the bona fide evidence that he was never saved in the first place. I think that it is important to make a very clear distinction. The idea of eternal security arose out of the late 19th century fundamentalist movement. This is what is sometimes called unconditional eternal security often held by those who adhere to "easy believism." This means that one can pray a formulaic prayer at a Billy Graham crusade and be eternally secure no matter what happens in the rest of your life. I believe that this contradicts the true teaching of the Bible. Against this is the classical reformed idea of "perseverance of the saints." This means that all who are truly saved persevere until the end. Many people outwardly associate with the church and end up leaving their profession of faith. This is evidence that their faith was never really genuine.
Luke you pointed out Hebrews 6: 4-6. This is a very relevant passage to the issue of security and perseverance. After carefully studying the passage I think that it is interesting the the author never says that these people are actually saved or justified. He identifies them as those who have "tasted" or have been "enlightened" or were made "partakers" of the Holy Ghost. These seem to indicate that their experience was external and not internal. He also says that it is impossible if they fall away to restore them again to repentance. This means that if they are losing their salvation, then it is impossible for them to regain it, and there are few that agree with that. Finally it is important to read the qualifier in verse 9: "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." The author is persuaded of things that accompany salvation for the the beloved because their faith is genuine faith. Let me know if you have any other questions about this passage. I know John Gill's commentary was helpful to me.
Finally, I think that 1 John 2: 19 is an important verse when considering this matter. It reads: "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." John is pretty clear here, those who go out from us were never really of us, for if they were of us, they would surely have continued with us. I think that this verse summarizes a proper Biblical perspective on the matter.
Post a Comment