Is Once Save Always Saved Biblical?

This article is a response to the video blog Allen Parr did on the same question. That video can be found here:

Before I address some of the points made in this video I would like to lay some groundwork. First lets cover some terminology. The OSAS (once saved always saved) view is formally or theologically known as the doctrine of Eternal Security and falls under the doctrinal discipline or category of Soteriology. It is very much rooted in some Reformed Systematic Theology, particularly Calvinism’s views on predestination and its, TULIP, core principles. Many good Christians have quite different views on Eternal Security and while it shouldn’t be a dividing point it often does cause robust disagreement and at times division and can affect how one views the Christian faith and life circumstances. So, while it is not something that should divide the church it is not an unimportant doctrine.

An example of how one’s view of Eternal Security affects their perspective is that of the individuals such as well known Christian Leaders and many of us may have had close friends in the church who seemed to be such strong Christian’s but have now walked away from the faith and may even identify as Atheists. Those professing OSAS, Eternal Security, point to verses like 1 Jn 2:19 about those that went out from us but were really never a part of us. They are seen as never having been regenerated or filled with the Holy Spirit. However there will be this nagging feeling, “wow, they sure seemed like they were filled with the Holy Spirit and regenerate…” Where as those that believe you can loose your salvation have little issue with this. This highlights a potential negative impact of the OSAS view of salvation in that those professing Eternal Security may wonder if the person next to them is really saved resulting in a more judgmental posture. Another potential negative impact is that of “License”, believing that since I’m predestined and cannot loose my salvation, I can do whatever I want. The potential negative impact of believing you can loose your salvation is never being able to have an assurance of salvation. Many may wonder regularly “I’ve messed up quite a bit recently; am I still saved?” This should make us aware of just how important this topic is but also how complex it can be.

Personally, my views on the topic have developed over time through prayer and reading God’s word. I haven’t really joined into the debate except for the occasional time with fellow Christians when someone broaches the topic. I don’t necessarily want to be a source of division in the church so I always try to tread carefully around hot button topics. But it may be time to throw my hat into the ring. Let me present some of the realizations which I have come to over the years that have helped me to develop my understanding.

• While not necessarily a more recent realization but one which I’ve more recently formalized or got a better handle on is the truth that the world around us is not just the physical but also there are other realms which the scriptures address. The book The Unseen Realm by Dr Heiser is of immense help in realizing that there is a spiritual supernatural realm which we cannot see, and it is just as real as the one we can see. The term elohim is not just used of God with the capital “E” but also other beings when made manifest in the physical world. When the witch of Endor called up Samuel he was described as an elohim. The word describes those from the realm we do not see. In prophecy this becomes important because what is being described may or may not be literal and just because something isn’t literal does not mean it is any less real.
• Secondly the realization that the third realm of God the Father, I call the unbound realm, is outside of time. Scripture says that God declares the end from the beginning. It says that He has set the boundaries of our habitation so that we might seek Him. It may be helpful to visualize God as the director who has the storyboard and knows how it’s to play out. He is aware of every frame before it is even recorded in time or in the camera. But further I realized God goes even beyond this and He knows all the possible ways it could play out and the ways He could set the scene to ensure it plays out one way or the other. This results in two realizations:
  • One is that when God speaks in scripture, He may be speaking in terms of something as if it is already a reality but for us living life as it happens it is still up in the air, so to speak, for us. We can see this in 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9:10-13 (Jacob and Esau loved and hated before born).
  • Secondly, God as a director outside of time is also not unaware of the flow of time because He has stepped into time; like how Mel Brooks often stepped into his own movies or Stan Lee’s cameos God steps into time as Jesus Christ or in the Old Testament as the Angel of the Lord. Therefore, how God speaks in scripture may or may not necessarily be in sequential order. Particularly in Prophecy this can cause confusion when “recapitulation” may be used. One suggested instance is the seals and trumpets in Revelations which both seem to end in the second coming of Christ which has caused much debate about whether it is a recapitulation or a third coming of Christ.

It is the reality of the Unseen Realm and the Unbound Realm which may be able to help unravel some confusion. When you read scripture two diametrically opposed views seem to be true. Scripture seems to both present the supreme will and providence of God while also acknowledging the free will and culpability of man. To explain and defend their doctrinal views Clavin and Arminius had to spend some time explaining away the passages where free will and choices were made or where God’s will and predestination are put forth, respectively. This tells me that neither view has the complete picture since scripture comes from God and therefore should be united and not have to be explained as to how it doesn’t mean this or that. I’ll save the free will and predestination reconciliation for another time as that could be a whole book and focus on Eternal Security here.

Our salvation was not earned by moral perfection and therefore cannot be lost by moral imperfection.

Dr Michael Heiser

In the presentation of Eternal Security it is usually assumed that the opposite position is that someone can lose their salvation due to X amount or kind of failures. While there are some doctrines and traditions that may teach this such as the doctrines of Mortal Sins most protestants do not take this point of view. Presenting the arguments in this way is a Strawman because Protestants that believe something different than Eternal security do not believe in a works-based salvation either and would whole heartly agree with Dr Heiser’s statement. For such Protestants the opposite point of view is not that someone loses their salvation but that they give up their salvation. From this point of view the question is; “Will God drag someone kicking and screaming into heaven who accepted Jesus but now no longer wants anything to do with God?”

A Response to and from Scripture

Both John 5:24 and 3:16 talk about eternal life as the result of salvation. It doesn’t necessarily follow that it is eternal salvation or permanent salvation. In fact it defines eternal life in Jn 17:3 as knowing God and therefore it is a relationship that starts at the point of conversion.

In the doctrine of the Preservation of the saints several verses are highlighted. For example John 10:28 states that “no one can snatch them from my hand”. The logic that everyone is included in “no one” can snatch is nonsequitur. For example an Embassy is considered a sanctuary outside normal jurisdictions therefore saying that no one can snatch you out of an Embassy we wouldn’t necessarily include those in the Embassy as being included in the “no one” especially since snatch out infers an outside force or actor not an internal one. Certainly, someone could leave the Embassy of their own accord.

The most difficult passage for Eternal Security is Hebrews 10:26-31 which states that to continue willfully sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth (Salvation through Christ) their no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. The indefinite article a means that it includes any sacrifice even what Christ did on the cross. So is it works based then? By no means. Salvation is not a get out of jail (hell) free card but the start of a relationship with God the Father under the Lordship of Christ. It is about a relationship but if you want to make grace an excuse to do whatever you want then you are heading into troubled waters.

Regarding Election, Predestination, Preservation and Perseverance to understand the you have to realize that God the Father is outside of time and therefore knows what will happen but beyond that what could happen and therefore scripture says He establishes boundaries that will result in achieving His ends which are the primary causes but even Calvin recognized us as being secondary causes functioning within the bounds of those primary causes. Could it be an assumption then that statements about a person’s eternal destiny are God declaring the end from the beginning and therefore address one’s final state not necessarily how one got there. Does this nullify God’s choice in the matter; no because He declares the end from the beginning and therefore knows those that will remain in the faith and those that won’t so He will not loose those He intended to retain, those that continue in the relationship graciously made available to them when they repented and believed in Christ. We actually see this in John 17:12 where Jesus said he didn’t lose anyone except the one who was going to be lost, Judas.

Here is another presentation with this alternative view of salvation which is closest to what I personally believe.

The Law is Part of the Gospel

Over the past year Andy Stanley has made headlines calling for the church to “unhitch itself from the Old Testament” and now more recently stating that the ten commandments do not apply to Christians (Commandments Don’t Apply).  Many of us scratch our heads wondering how he has come to these conclusions.  Apparently much of this comes from an interpretation of Act 15 in which the early church leaders met to discuss circumcision and dietary commands and there application to gentiles.  Emergent authors have also pointed to this passage.  In his book Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell references Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 in which Jesus talks about the authority to loose and bind granted to the apostles and further he references this passage, Acts 15, as being an example of church leadership in community exorcising their authority to loose and bind.

Not Come to Destroy the Law

“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. – Jesus, Matthew 5:17-18

So what is going on here?  If Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 said that he didn’t come to do away with the law are the apostles then in Acts 15 doing away with laws?  Also in Matthew 19: 8-9 Jesus states that the permission for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 was actually a concession or an exception but was not God’s original intention.  Is Jesus doing away with the law after He said that he did not come to destroy the law?  When Jesus talked about loosing and binding was He stating that we could do away with some requirements of the law as long as we all agree on it?

I’m going to suggest something here which is very dangerous and so it will come with many warnings and qualifications.   The law of God or the commands in the bible are first comprised of or proceed from God’s immutable created and intended purposes and principles.  These set boundaries as to what is right and what is wrong, what is permissible and what is not permissible, what is required and what is not required and stand until heaven and earth pass away.  Now here comes the dangerous part; secondly the law defines penalties and protocols the objectives of which are to be more specific consequences, requirements and restrictions to align us with God’s purposes and principles or to meet the needs of a particular time and set of circumstances.  These may be some-what mutable.  For example we don’t stone unruly children,  fornicators or homosexuals, because the penalties for the children of Israel were stiffer since the promised messiah was to come from them.   The exception allowing for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 was identified by Jesus as a concession to our hard hearts and therefore was a protocol probably to avoid other more destructive sins such as domestic abuse but the optimal response is to remain married.  A contemporary example of loosing and binding may be seen in the roaring 20s with all its decadence many churches forbid drinking and dancing and over time though not specifically prohibited in scripture this started to hold the weight of orthodoxy.  At the time it was likely a reasonable response to the social problems and a good use of a binding protocol but over time became legalistic and over-bearing like the dietary laws addressed in Acts 15.

The danger here is the question; how do we tell what is a mutable protocol and what is a immutable principle?  Therein lies the rub, which is highly susceptible to abuse, misuse and destructive ideas and responses.  Some of us are getting excited… wow I always wanted to try this out and now I can because if I want to do it and I don’t really see how it hurts anyone else then it must be a protocol which we can set aside.  I would suggest that it is probably better to err on the side of caution especially since a wrong judgement could impact ours or someone else’s eternity.  Where the bible itself has specifically identified something as a protocol such as dietary requirements, circumcision, head coverings, and penalties that we recognize those as such but its better to stick with tradition and consider it a principle than to wrongly identify a command as a protocol which may be loosened resulting in negative consequences that could even impact someone’s eternity.  If Jesus did not come to the destroy the law then it behooves us even more so to do like wise.

The Law is More Necessary Now then Ever

But we need to do more than just refrain from damaging the law.  Paul made it clear in Romans that the law is necessary and even a part of the gospel.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” – Romans 7:7

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;  – Romans 3:19

We see in the passages Romans 7:7 and 3:19 that the law is part of the gospel and actually probably the first part, for there is no good news without the bad news of our sin…  We must inform the world that sin exists and that God exists and therefore we all have a responsibility to our creator. This must of course be done in a compassionate way.  Many quote Matthew 7:1 “judge not” and say that the compassionate thing to do is to not talk about sin or point out sin, but this ignores the rest of the passage which calls us to address our own sin and point out sin and help others overcome sin.  Some also assert that Jesus only pointed out the pharisees sin and therefore its only relevant to those that are religious or Christians.  This however ignores all the prophets and judges some of which were sent to confront foreign rulers and Jonah who was sent to confront Nineveh.  In Luke chapter 3 we see John the Baptist calling out from the hills and water ways for people to repent

He then said to the crowds who came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? …  – Luke 3:7

This group referenced in Luke 3:7 included Jews and Pharisees but it also included gentiles and tax collectors and soldiers.  John even rebuked the King, Herod, for adultery; having taken his brothers wife and for other sins and he was put in prison by Herod.  After which scripture says Jesus went on to continue John’s ministry; in other words calling people to repent and pointing out sin of not just the “religious” but everyone.  He even sent his disciples out to towns to call people to repent.

Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we do?”
He told them, “Don’t collect any more than what you have been authorized.”
Some soldiers also questioned him: “What should we do?”
He said to them, “Don’t take money from anyone by force or false accusation; be satisfied with your wages.” – Luke 3: 12-14

But Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him about Herodias, his brother’s wife, and about all the evil things Herod had done, added this to everything else — he locked John up in prison. – Luke 3:19-20

In the past you could assume that people believed in sin but now we just have natural feelings which are “dancing to our DNA” and environment as Dawkins puts it… So now we tell people you need to be saved and Jesus can save you to which they respond what do I need to be saved from… Therefore making the world aware of God’s law is probably more important today then it ever was in the past.