Conditional Eternal Security or Conditional Salvation Security

I thought that I would offer a word of encouragement to those that take the position that the Bible does teach that one must maintain, hold fast, etc. his faith in Christ to be saved and stay saved. I also believe this, but I did not always believe this way. I was brought up a Baptist and, as you might guess, was taught OSAS. I went to Christian schools from 1 – 9 grades, and, although these schools were not necessarily Baptist, they still taught, as far as I remember, OSAS as well. I accepted what the preacher and teachers told me about OSAS. This is what my immediate family believed as well.

Not too long ago, I began reading other viewpoints, namely that it was possible for a Christian to forfeit his salvation. Rather than being closed-minded about this, I read those viewpoints with the Scriptures used to back them up. I also read the supports used for OSAS. I decided that I would do my best to not let my reading of this be filtered through my preconceived viewpoint of OSAS and I would let the Bible speak for itself. What I found was that I thought there was more support for the belief that a believer could in fact fall from the faith and become lost again. The idea seemed to flow more plainly from the Scriptures than the belief of OSAS. Now my wife and I are convinced that the Bible does in fact teach that one must maintain his faith in Christ to stay saved. Do I believe one must live a life of perfection to stay saved? No, I do not believe that. Do I still have questions about this? Sure I do. Regardless of the questions I have, I am sure that one must maintain, hold fast, etc. his faith in Christ or else he will fall away (become lost). The Bible also seems to teach that obedience to Christ is also a factor in staying in Christ. Did not Christ say that those that love Him are those that obey His commandments? Is not being a Christian the same as being a follower of Christ? Would not following Christ mean that one must obey the commandments of Christ? Is it possible for a Christian to always follow Christ's commands perfectly? I do not think so. However, Christ knows everyone's heart; therefore he knows those that are striving and wanting to follow Him. I think that as long as we have faith in Christ and are stiving to walk in that faith, that Christ's blood will cover where we do fail Him.

As a side note, one thing I notice about some of the arguments used by those that believe in OSAS are sometimes along the lines of trying to compare a natural, physical situation with a spiritual one. For example, the argument that when we become a child a of God, just because we sin or stray does not mean that we will no longer be a child of God. After all, they say, if I stray or disobey my earthly father, am I not still his son? The problem with this is two-fold. First of all, this is trying to compare a earthly relationship with our spiritual relationship with God which does not necessarily have to be the same. Secondly, if this argument put forth were true, then we would all be in trouble. We are all children of the devil before we get saved, and, therefore, if it this argument put forth were true, then we could not become children of God.

Also, I see many statements made by those that believe in OSAS where they are just saying the doctrinal beliefs of OSAS without giving any verses to back them up. I used to do this as well when I believed in OSAS. By this I do not mean that no one that believes in OSAS ever gives any verses to try to support the doctrine of OSAS, for I have seen many give verses on this forum. It is just that I have also seen what I just cited as well.

Again, to those that are putting forth your arguments that the Bible does teach a conditional security, do not think that all your efforts are in vain. There are those that do change their minds about OSAS.

Here is a link to an article written by a pastor's wife. It tells of how this pastor went from believing in OSAS to believing in a conditional security and what he encountered at his church when he revealed his new beliefs:
http://www.behindthebadge.net/osas/osas59.html

 

dntccc,

Thank you for sharing with us—and welcome to the Baptist Board!

I pray that we will be a blessing to you and that you will continue to be a blessing to us.

CBTS

 

dntccc,

Welcome to the board.

I agree that many in baptists churches adhere without question to OSAS. Many will even go to the ridiculous extreme of Zane Hodges and those who say that a one time profession is salvific, even if no cange ever comes about, claiming that those will "lose rewards" but nonetheless be saved. I think it is important to point out that there is a difference in "OSAS" and the stance that God preserves His saints.

I do have several disagreements with you however.

The first regards your statement about providing "verses". The bible is a coherent narrative, not a series of one liners. None of the biblical authors ever specifically discuss losing salvation thus none of the "verses" can be said really to support or refute losing salvation. The way to examine a topic biblically is to read, not to look for one line proof texts.

I also disagree with this statement:

The why would the analogy of father/child be used? It is this exact type of language which DOES shed light on the nature of salvation. If that was not the intended meaning then why this particular analogy?

In my opinion this sort of observation is much more "proof" than one verse "prooftexts".

Now as I have said this is MY opinion. I do not presume to say that I am sure it is right. But I think I can say that I have examined it without bias.

 

Charles Meadows wrote,

I, course, disagree. People tend to see in analogies what they want to see. I look at passages in the Bible that explicitly teach that one can lose their salvation, and I support my claim that these passages do explicitly teach this on the basis of the fact that they have been so interpreted by the large majority of Christians throughout the history of the Church, and universally so for the first 1,500 years. How much more explicit than that can one get? But, of course, if one reads these passages with the presupposition that—unlike flesh and blood families, the family of God is not subject to rebellion and desertion, and no matter how fiercely and completely a son of God may sever himself from his spiritual Father—the son is still saved, these passages cease to be explicit. And, of course, if one reads these passages with the presupposition that—unlike flesh and blood families—true sons will never sever all ties with their spiritual Father, these passages cease to be explicit.

If we toss out the theological baggage, presuppositions and biases that cripple so very many exegetes, theologians and expositors of the Bible and ask ourselves what these passages do and do not actually say, based upon a thorough knowledge of the terms and phraseology used in the passages and the use of these same terms and phraseology in other early Christian writings, and study the impact that these passages had upon the readers for whom they were originally written, it becomes absolutely impossible to justify attaching to them new and novel interpretations that were entirely foreign to the Church for the first 1,500 years.

Theology is in a constant state of flux as the circumstances that cause these changes continue to occur. But the original intent of the words of the writers of the New Testament have not changed one little bit since the day they were first penned. It is the responsibility of the exegete and the theologian to discover that original intent and the responsibility of the pastor to expound upon it.

 

Agreed!

Again agreed!

But that does not that make those interpretations right - especially in light of your last statement above! Sola fide and sola scripture were not agreed upon by the large majority of Christians during the 1000 years leading up to the reformation.

As I said I will not defend the untenable Zane Hodges OSAS position.

But what is the nature of salvation? of justification? If one becomes a new creation how shall he become un-new? At what point does he become un-new? Can he once again become new? If he is born can he become unborn? These analogies (creation, birth, sonship) in my judgment are no accident. They are employed intentionally to show us the character of salvation and what it means.

 

Agreed!

Again agreed!

But that does not that make those interpretations right - especially in light of your last statement above! Sola fide and sola scripture were not agreed upon by the large majority of Christians during the 1000 years leading up to the reformation. </font>[/QUOTE]If you are trying to demonstrate that I am mentally retarded, you have certainly succeeded. I have NO idea what you are trying to say here.

There is a an indescribably vast difference between doctrinal disputes and solidified unanimity; and there is a an indescribably vast difference between formalizing a complex doctrine like the Trinity for which there are no clear-cut statements anywhere in the Bible and total agreement upon the fact that continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith in and obedience to Christ. Neither sola fida nor sola scriptura were agreed upon or even taught prior to the reformation because both of these two doctrines were introduced into the Church during the reformation and are doctrines of men rather than Biblical doctrines.

I am not sure if Zane Hodges is demon possessed, mentally ill, or both!

Salvation is deliverance from sin and its consequences. Justification is the impartation of the righteousness of God of into the life of the believer. New creatures don’t become un-new—they die—just like old creatures do. Can a man who has fallen from grace be restored? Most of the Bible would seem to me to say that he can. Hebrews 6:6 says that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” The Ante-Nicene Church Father were very much divided over this issue—some went so far as to argue that the Epistle to the Hebrews was in error on this point and argued that it should not be included in the New Testament Canon. I have my own opinion on this matter, and it isn’t worth much, so I will not post it here. But except for the subsequent restoration of one who had fallen from grace, these other issues were no-brainers until John Calvin slipped on a banana peel and fell on his head. (If anyone ever needed the services of a good neurosurgeon, it was John Calvin).

 

Craig,

You dismiss the reformation "doctrines of men" but then appeal to the unanimous approval (of MEN) to support your position.

You have appealed to the church fathers but then also admit that some of them (as we all know) did not support the inclusion of certain books in the canon, which by pretty well indicates that they were not right all the time!

I am not saying that one can not make a good case for conditional security - I believe one can do so. But I do not believe that this case is much supported by the arguments you have thus far put forth regarding Greek tenses and the prereformation church.

I think the answer is to be found in sound exegesis of the Bible, not in one-liners, but in the Bible's description of what it means to be "in Christ".

And Heb 6:4 and 10:26 DO make for some interesting discussion!

 

Charles,

Your words make "good sense" to me.
"Falling away" need not mean that
one loses his salvation. Because
it is not man's initiative to receive
it and cannot be man's option to undo it.

Mel

 

Craig and Charles,

You have both referenced Heb.6:4-6. I have made
two posts above regarding its meaning.

My third reference urges that this text be
taken as a supposition contrary to fact so as
to reinforce the doctrine of eternal security!

It is just as impossible to lose one's salvation
as it is impossible for Christ to die AGAIN so that
another "kind" of repentance might be provided
that depends on man for preservation instead of the Holy Spirit.
Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

The why would the analogy of father/child be used? It is this exact type of language which DOES shed light on the nature of salvation. If that was not the intended meaning then why this particular analogy?

In my opinion this sort of observation is much more "proof" than one verse "prooftexts".

Now as I have said this is MY opinion. I do not presume to say that I am sure it is right. But I think I can say that I have examined it without bias. </font>[/QUOTE]I have not just picked out one or two verses; in fact I have listed several. I see people that believe in OSAS give verses all the time to try to support their opinion. I agree that one must look at the Bible as a whole and not just look at certain verses. I also think that when one does this, it can be concluded that we do have a conditional security where we must not fall away, and we must remain in Christ.

I noticed that in an earlier post you said this:
"I will assert again that we best examine "eternal security" by looking at the way salvation is described. Jn 5:24, Jn 10:29, 1 Jn 3:14, Rom 6:11 are examples of verses which paint salvation as a one-time permanent change."

Then you said, "The way to examine a topic biblically is to read, not to look for one line proof texts."

I am assuming you did not literally mean "one verse" by "one line proof texts" since neither of us gave just one verse.
You gave the verses you did and said that they are examples that salvation is a one-time permanent change. I do not see how this is any different than where I gave the verses I did as examples that one can fall away and become lost again.

I do not think there is anything wrong with thinking that one should be able to back-up his belief with the Bible. I have seen where a person will give verses to show that one can fall away, and then the person is told by a proponent of OSAS that he should not proof-text. However, when I read arguments for OSAS or any other doctrinal belief for that matter, I usually see verses given to try to support those beliefs. If someone tried to make an argument for any type of doctrinal belief but did not give any Scriptural support, then how could that belief be judged to be right or wrong? God's Word gives the standard by which any belief should be judged.

As for trying to use a earthly father/son relationship to try to compare a Christian's relationship with his Heavenly Father, you did not address the second thing I said about this - "if this argument put forth were true, then we would all be in trouble. We are all children of the devil before we get saved, and, therefore, if this argument put forth were true, then we could not become children of God."

Also, in another post you said, "No one ever asked John or Paul or even Jesus if one could lose his status. The question was never asked and as such was never answered." I will have to accept what you say about the question of becoming lost again never being asked in the Bible. From what I know, I also cannot think of where this happened. However, does a question have to be asked by someone in the Bible for certain truths to be taught? I do not recall anyone ever asking God or Jesus about what is believed about God being a trinity. We know this because of what the Bible teaches. The Bible does in fact teach things whether or not a specific question was asked. Again, I have given several verses where, I believe, the possibility of a believer falling away, apostatizing, making shipwreck his faith, etc. is being addressed. Did anyone in the Bible ever ask questions such as the following: is it ever ok to murder? is it ever ok to lie? Were all of Jesus' teachings always because someone asked a question about it first?

I am not sure of the difference to which you are referring between OSAS and God preserving His saints. If by this you mean that when one gets saved that God will ensure that the person will stay saved (preserve the person), then I really do not see difference. In either case, it is still being taught that when one gets saved, it is impossible for the person to become lost again is it not? If this is not what you mean by God preserving His saints, then please explain what you mean. Are you arguing for the belief of predestination? By this I mean the belief that God has predestined only certain people to be saved.

 

There is more than a little bit of difference between dismissing the doctrines of a small handful of men barely awakening from the dark ages and dismissing the unanimous writing of the Church fathers whom it pleased God to use to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity and to establish the Canon of the New Testament! Had Calvin and his cronies had the opportunity to first have a cup of strong coffee and make use of the resources available to scholars today for the study of the New Testament and the language and culture in which it was written, we would not be having this discussion, and the whole Church would know that I am right and that you are abysmally wrong.

From my point of view, they, as individuals, were wrong very much of the time. There are very few things taught so clearly and explicitly in the Holy Scriptures that these men were of one mind on the issue. But on the issue that continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith in Christ and obedience to Him they were of one mind.

The truth of the doctrine of conditional security is not dependent upon my feeble attempts to defend it.

The answer is to be had in a good understanding of the New Testament.

They are more than that. They are warnings to Christians of the danger inherent in apostasy from the Christian faith, the ultimate danger being that of eternal separation from God in the eternal fires of hell.

 

Heb. 6:4. For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5. and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6. and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
7. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8. but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
9. But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. (NASB, 1995)

Up until the 16th century this passage was universally interpreted as teaching that a Christian could lose his salvation, and the large majority of Bible scholars today still hold to that position. Indeed, this passage of Scripture gives us the most detailed description of what it means to be saved that we find anywhere in the Bible.

The phrase in verse 4, “those who have once been enlightened,” is a reference to water baptism. Indeed, Justin Martyr (died in 165 A.D.) wrote that the term “enlightenment” was used as a synonym for water baptism of converts to Christianity and he uses the term “the enlightened one” for a person who has been baptized. And the ancient Peshita Syriac translation of the Greek New Testament renders the phrase in verse 4, “who have gone down into baptism.”

The phrase in verse 4, “have tasted of the heavenly gift,” was variously interpreted during the first 1500 years, but it was ALWAYS interpreted as describing a born-again Christian. Some, for example, saw it to be a reference to the Eucharist; others saw it to be a reference to the teaching of Christ in John 6:31-58. Still others saw it to be a reference to the forgiveness of sins; others saw it to be a reference to the blessings conferred upon the Christian believer.

The phrase in verse 4, “and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,” is an obvious reference to receiving the Holy Spirit, something that, in the New Testament, happens EXCLUSIVELY to those who have been saved.

The phrase in verse 5, “and have tasted the good word of God,” is a clear reference to the Christian’s experience of hearing the word of God preached and taught and the consequential experience of it in his life as a believer.

The phrase in verse 5, “and the powers of the age to come,” is a reference to the miracles that were performed by the Apostles and other Christians as a foreshadowing of the kingdom to come, and to the other blessings that Christians experience now in part but shall experience in their fullness in the future kingdom.

The phrase in verse 6, “and then have fallen away,” can be properly interpreted only to be speaking of falling from grace and the Christian faith, something that can NOT happen until AFTER a person is saved.

The phrases in verse 6, “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame,” tell us of the absolutely horrendous consequence of a Christian falling from grace, making the death of Christ on the cross for his sins to be of no effect. This passage expressly speaks of a person who has heard the Gospel, believed it, was saved and baptized, repented of his sins, and enjoyed the blessing of being a born-again Christian—but who subsequently chose to reject Christ and return to his sins. And the fate of such a person could not possibly be any worse—it is “impossible to renew them again to repentance.” Most obviously it is not impossible to renew an unsaved person to repentance if they have repented but not been born again and then fall back into sin. But the born-again Christian who, of his own free will, chooses to reject the Christ who redeemed him, this man or woman is beyond redemption and damned to the fires of hell for eternity.

Because of the extremely severity of the word “impossible” in this verse, many early Christians rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews as not being a part of the New Testament Canon, but its place in the New Testament Canon is now solid and its warning is stern. Christians who fight tooth and nail to detract from the warning of this passage shall have the blood upon their hands of those who lose their salvation because they were told the warning did not apply to them and they got careless as a result.

 

Craig,

Craig you make some strange and presumptious statements! I am sure you are a learned fellow. And I dare say that if you told us your name I might well recognize it! But is this the kind of statement you would make at an SBL meeting?

This reminds me of something a manic schizophrenic patient once said to me!

Your arguements from Heb 6 are good, and perhaps I'll have time to respond later tonight! But your posts still sound a bit like "if you knew as much as I do then you'd see..."

 

Craig you make some strange and presumptious statements! I am sure you are a learned fellow. And I dare say that if you told us your name I might well recognize it! But is this the kind of statement you would make at an SBL meeting? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I flunked out of the second grade and the only place where you have probably seen my name is in some tabloid trash.

This reminds me of something a manic schizophrenic patient once said to me!

Your arguements from Heb 6 are good, and perhaps I'll have time to respond later tonight! But your posts still sound a bit like "if you knew as much as I do then you'd see..." </font>[/QUOTE]Isn’t that what you would expect from a grammar school drop-out who thinks he knows all! By the way, you misspelled the word “arguments.”

Martha Craig Andersen (CBTS)

 

I think I do pretty well for a 2 finger typist!

 

I think I do pretty well for a 2 finger typist! </font>[/QUOTE]I edited my last post three seconds before you posted this.

CBTS

 

Dr. Meadows,

Didn’t I meet you at the SLB conference in Perth last July? (I was the heavy-set woman that bumped into you and made you spill your drink.)

CBTS

 

CBTS,

No I have never been to Perth! I read a lot of SBL stuff but have sadly never been to a meeting. Hpefully when my kids are no longer toddlers that will change.

I have had no formal training in theology I might add. But I am an avid reader with a lot of books. My wife supports this hobby because, unlike golf, it keeps me at home!

 

Craigbythesea,

Once again, I see Heb.6:4-6 reinforcing the truth
that no true believer can be lost.

The writer is assuming the contrary to fact supposition that a person might be lost in order to demonstrate that only the repentance induced by God's initiative embraces the certanty of eternal security.

Should Christ suffer death AGAIN, it would not produce a "new" kind of repentance that would provide the salvation which the Holy Spirit guarantees. Hebrews affirms the salvation
provided by God is the only possible way of
experiencing the assurance of eternal salvation.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

Heb 6:4 IS a tough one. I have explored a number of different meanings, including the fact that this could have been a rhetorical threat of sorts.

I still favor the interpretation that he is speaking of those who were full members of the church but who were never truly saved. I think this makes sense it light of verse 7.