Does the Bible Teach ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’?

The Christian Diarist ^ | September 9, 2012 | JP

[boatbums]

The writer was saying that it's impossible for a true believer to go back (repent) to Judaism which is what those people were tempted to do in the face of christian persecution. The book was written to Jewish believers (thus the title of "Hebrews"). It's all about the futility of the old Jewish practices.

I agree with you. I was just reading last night this section on Hebrews by James White:

The Epistle to the Hebrews is an apologetic argumentation for the supremacy of the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. It is addressed to Hebrew believers gathered in the context of the Church. Since it is addressed to the gathered church, it contains both promises and warnings, for those who stand before God’s people must announce both, as we have not been given the ability to see into the hearts of men so as to be able to identify true saving faith. The promises will ring true in the hearts where they are joined with the divine work of the Spirit in saving faith: the warnings are used by God both in the exhortation of the saved as well as the judgment of the hypocritical. The central thesis of the argument is easily discerned: since Christ is the fulfillment of the promises of God in the Old Testament, there is nothing to “go back to.” Those who were being pressured by family and culture to return to the temple or the synagogue are warned, through numerous forms of argumentation, that there is no “going back.” Everything in the “old way” is shown to have been done away with, fulfilled, in Christ. There are no more priests, no more sacrifices, no means of purification outside of the finished, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. http://vintage.aomin.org/Hebrews10.html

[OrangeHoof]

Without reading the other comments, let me say that only Christ knows the heart of every believer. If one truly accepts the salvation of Christ, the Holy Spirit comes into them and He “seals” us in Christ. And God is faithful even when we are not.

Because of our sin nature, we all continue to fall short of the glory of God in this world and still in constant need of Christ’s forgiveness because of our selfishness, callousness toward others and other more outward sins.

Not all who profess Christ as their Savior are truly saved but Christ knows His own and knows whose names are written in the Book of Life. We don’t know the saved from the unsaved, except by observing their fruit and, even in this, we may be misled.

So, yes, I believe in “once saved, always saved” for it is the grace of Christ that saves us and it is a grace that we can never repay.

Most true believers (I can’t say with certainty all) encounter discipline and hardship which is the process of refinement that the Spirit uses to make us more Christ-like. For me, personally, it was losing my job three times in the past two years that brought me to my knees and closer to God than I’ve been in years. The Shepherd allowed me to stray but He also knew there would be a time He would bring me back to His flock no matter how stubbornly I resisted. That is part of His grace for he foreknew me before I was saved and knew what sort of life I would lead as a Christian (sometimes well, sometimes not well).

If you believe that the Christian must do something to keep their salvation then, in my mind, you deny grace and make salvation a religion of works, not faith. This is the trap that too many religions (even some Christian denominations) fall into - that to be saved one must do good works to stay in God’s grace.

There is ONE way the believer can break the seal and lose their salvation and that is to grieve the Holy Spirit. I don’t know precisely what that is - renouncing one’s faith, committing suicide or some other major departure that cannot be forgiven. But otherwise, the Christian can feel secure in his salvation even as they continue their struggle with learning to walk a life free from sin. After all, we are like children in Christ, still focused on our worldly environment and the needs of the flesh until we grow and abide in the Spirit and learn how to bear fruit for Him.

[boatbums]

Hebrews 9:27 says:

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

No early Christians would have accepted reincarnation knowing what the Bible says about this as well as how we are made righteous through faith in Christ and we are justified and sanctified by HIS perfect sacrifice. There would be no point in having to endure multiple lifetimes to achieve what Scripture says is given to us as a gift by God's grace.

[MalPearce]

“Christ founded 1 form of Christianity and it did just fine for over 1,600 years....”

Well... He founded a verbal tradition for Christianity with very simple rules to follow, and an air of austerity around it, instructed His disciples not to seek payment for their works, warned us to beware false prophets and told existing scholars at the time that they were being a bit too anal-retentive with the Working On The Sabbath and Stoning The Adulterers stuff. Which was then disseminated to 11 apostles who all went in different directions and resulted in different early interpretations of the Christian faith.

“The false doctrine” is a bit of a thorny issue because we can’t define the extent to which any doctrine is “false”. You can go back to the Councils of Nicea and call those some of the biggest edits of the New Testament in the entire history of the Christian faith. This was done for the right reasons - to consolidate the Paulian interpretation and assist in the spread of Christendom without it fracturing, but does that mean it takes precedence over actual accounts of the life of the Messiah that were inconvenient from an ecumenical point of view?

Jesus NEVER contradicted himself. The disciples contradicted each other all the time, and they argued. There’s a simple explanation for that. They were human. He was divine. They weren’t perfect. Simon Peter waved a sword about, and Jesus told him to put it away. Instead of the Church ensuring no schisms by meddling with the Bible, it only ensured there’d be schisms. Human fallibility’s a bitch.

But maybe that’s a good thing. We need to get away from the idea that anyone BUT Jesus was infallible, which means getting rid of all the preconceptions that the Nicene Creed deliberately set out to create.

There’s probably not even one >200 year old Christian sect full of pomp and judgement, that’s been filling its pockets and creating heirarchies of Man and perpetrating political and ideological witchhunts, which hasn’t strayed from Jesus’ teachings quite a bit.

So IMO, everything in the New Testament that we already know was politically motivated should be relegated to apocrypha. While all accounts of Jesus or lives of the apostles should be regarded with equal weight, with those in the apocrypha brought into the New Testament, even if the Church thinks those accounts undermine their own teachings.

[boatbums]

I agree with this post: namely that John 3:16 does not resolve the question of OSAS at all, and that it cannot be cited as a prooftext for it.

So, Jesus saying that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life" can NOT be cited as a prooftext for OSAS "at all"? The Greek as well as the Latin sure sound like it to me. Here it is in those languages as well as the translations of various versions:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_3:16

In Latin, the last part of the verse is: non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam. Sure looks to me like it is saying "not perish but have eternal life". The verb "have" in Greek is ἔχω (echō) and it means:

1) to have, i.e. to hold

a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as

2) to have i.e. own, possess

a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.

b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship

3) to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition

4) to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to

a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing

In fact, if you look at all the other verses in the New Testament that utilize this same Greek verb, it NEVER gives the impression that it is a "maybe" thing. In truth, this verse has been called the "Gospel in a nutshell." It is also thought to be one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. The link is http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2192&t=KJV

But Jesus did not simply say this and move onto something else, he amplified his point:

John 3:15-21
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

[boatbums]

AMEN!

[OrangeHoof]

I’m surprised we been this far through this thread without the most relevant scripture to “once saved, always saved”:

Ephesians 1:13-14

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession - to the praise of His glory (NIV).

The Greek use of the word “seal” is the same one used to seal a letter - done in those days with wax imprinted by a signet ring when not yet hardened. The seal of a king could only be legally broken by two people - the sender or the recipient. Once broken, it could not be re-sealed.

Our seal, the Scripture says, is the Holy Spirit - not something that has the power to be broken by our own sins, nor by God who desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Rashputin]

"And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved."
Matthew 10,22

"But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved."
Matthew 24,13

"No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish."
Luke 13,3

"But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway."
1 Corinthians 9,27

I guess all the above are just examples of Scripture where the author is blowing smoke, huh? Actually, they're examples of Scripture those who interpret Scripture to suit their own personal preconceptions like to pretend say something other than what they very clearly do say.

It's a shame, but those who use the doctrine of OSAS to rationalize their refusal to pick up their cross and follow Christ need to get used to the idea of Christ telling them, "I never knew you".

[Oberon]

I think we cannot give God a headfake and hope we get it right. We must know Him.

Amen.

So know Him, and the problem goes away.

[wideawake]

That was a long post, bb, but I think everyone was already aware of what "have" and "perish" mean. This is not a discussion of semantics or morphology, but of syntax.

This verse contains a dependent clause of purpose - you cannot argue that it is an independent indicative construction.

It was written the way it was written for a reason.

[sirchtruth]

I agree with this post: namely that John 3:16 does not resolve the question of OSAS at all, and that it cannot be cited as a prooftext for it.

However, in the totality of scripture it definitely solidifies OSAS.

Let's think about something here and the nature of God throughout the whole bible. When God promised Abraham the land of Israel did he place a condition on it? Did Abraham have to keep in God's good graces? NO, and certainly did not! Why, because it was an impossible for one, and two an unconditional promise from God is ONLY a promise God himself could fulfill.

Salvation is no different. There is sin you and I commit daily we have no idea we are committing. If you fail to ask forgiveness for those sins, too bad you lose salvation!?

This is why God's plan is so perfect because HE secures and bridges the gap between the separation of us to him with his Son. Once you accept God's Son as Lord, he accepts you with NO CONDITIONS attached so you do not have to WORK to be perfect for salvation in his eyes because JESUS is perfect and already paid the wage of DEATH for all sin in the world, past, present and future! That's who God looks at when he see the "new" creature.

Will there be consequences for individual sin, I believe yes, there will be, but those consequences will not be a loss of salvation. If salvation could be lost it would be a terribly convoluted plan and not perfect, thus not at all making sense from the nature of our most "perfect" God. God says, "No one will snatch you out of my hand, and no one will snatch out of my father's hand!" That's pretty clear to me! Once God has you, you are his, meaning never to be separated.

You get one choice with no condition attached, because YOU will never be "HOLY" or sin free enough to be with God and not separated from him. This why we look to Jesus for salvation and not the Father. What's so interesting about this is you are no longer a SLAVE to sin, but in a sense you are a slave to LIFE which is defined by Jesus as Himself!

Furthermore, the very nature of "EVERLASTING" life means if you could lose "EVERLASTING" life then it was never "EVERLASTING" in the first place, which is confusing, and deceptive at the very least, and this is NOT the nature of the God of the OT or NT.

Rashputin, I purposely use the word "perfect" instead of "holy" here for an example because that's what "Holy" means in a sense. It is akin to "May," equaling Shall, Won't, Should Not. All these are derivatives of why scripture is translated in so many version differently, and they are NOT wrong, although I suspect there are incorrect translations.

The fact "NEVER" is used after May in ALL versions codifies different usage. Wideawake is correct, the usage of "MAY" back then probably meant something a little different than what it means today.

Never forget this: WORDS MEAN THINGS.

[chesley]

No Christians would accept reincarnation. It is mutually exclusive from what Christ and the apostles taught.

[sirchtruth]

This verse contains a dependent clause of purpose - you cannot argue that it is an independent indicative construction.

I really appreciate your knowledge of language and usage, it serves a great purpose here.

However, I wish I was on the same level knowledge wise so I could understand your post.

[sirchtruth]

I apologize for the lack of editing and proofreading skill on my last post. Something I need to diligently improve for future posts!

[wideawake]

Again, to clarify: the actual text does not use the word "may" or "shall" - Greek is different from English in many ways and this dispute centers on a very key difference: Greek does not use auxiliary verbs ("have", "is", "may", "will") to modify predicates.

Exh is the third person singular aorist subjunctive form of the verb "to have" - the subjunctive does not carry the weight of the indicative.

Now, I like your idea of looking at the Bible as a totality. But I cannot accept the facile equivalence between the promise to Abraham (a specific covenant agreed to with a specific individual) and the reality of salvation in Christ.

If we look at the Bible in its total context, we have to conclude that the promises to Abraham were a covenant obligation and that the grace of salvation in Christ is a free gift.

If we are to talk about God's will we have to ask: does He will sin or does He not?

If He does not, we see that sin - something contrary to His will - persists despite His will.

John 3:16 tells us that God's reason for sending His Son was love of the world, and that the purpose He willed in doing so was that those who believed in Him would have eternal life. This is, as the text's structure clearly demonstrates (it is a purpose clause, not a contractual guarantee), an expression of what God intended and is not a ironclad guarantee of fulfillment.

If it were, this sentence would not have been written the way it was.

[chesley]

Or whatever? So you, as a Christian, don't believe you have a soul? Well, you're a careful reader. I have no idea what those religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, that do believe in reincarnation call what I would call a soul

Then what exactly is left of you when you die? And if you DO have a soul - or whatever - once you die, isn't it as good as dead? So how can you meet Jesus, or God, or go to heaven, if you don't exist after death? Of course we have a soul. It survives death. But it doesn't reincarnate. The hope of the Christian is in the resurrection.

Oh, you DO have a soul? Then if you meet God, what do you do - shake hands? Is God the infinite all? Would you rather stay separate from God, or dissolve into Him? Dissolving is death. I would rather retain my own personality, and as a Christian I do. But I have a new body on a new earth. Where I will live in fellowship with God.

Would you rather see everything with the eyes of God, hear everything with the ears of God, touch everything with the touch of God, and love everything with the love of God, experiencing God in every conscious and even unconscious moment, forever? See, here's the thing. As I understand, admittedly very little about it, you no longer have a separate consciousness. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Or do you imagine heaven is some kind of ultimate Bahamas resort, perched on top of clouds, and God is the general manager? New heaven, new earth.

And in the end, what does it matter to me what you believe? Probably no more than it matters to me what you believe.

;After all, you're a Christian, right? So you're eather Catholic or Protestant, and that means, just like wideawake and Future Snake Eater, half the Christian world believes you are so incredibly, seriously wrong in what you believe about Jesus Christ, that you are going to hell for it. I won't even debate this incredibly ignorant statement.

What amazes me about Christians, though, is that virtually all of them believe they are not responsible for their own beliefs - that their church denomination is! They will actually accuse each other of the "blasphemy" of "personal opinion," never acknowledging that their choise of church IS their personal opinion! It's even happened on this very thread! It happens all the time! But these are the people who want to discuss Christian morality, and opine about people's souls being worthy or heaven or hell! No one's sould is worthy of heaven, all are worthy of hell. some people take advantage of God's redemption, though and other's don't.

Okay, then let me tell you what the ENTIRETY of my Christian faith consists of - ALL of it. It's the New Testament of the New Testament - not by my interpretation, but the exact claims of a guy named Jesus: It's this: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13:34-35 Great, but you are not a Christian. And if that's heresy, then so be it.

[wideawake]

However, I wish I was on the same level knowledge wise so I could understand your post.

An independent statement stands on its own:

"Grandma made lunch." This is clearly an independent statement.

"Grandma made lunch so that Jimmy would have something to eat." In this sentence, "so that Jimmy would have something to eat" is not an independent sentence of itself but it depends on the first part "Grandma made lunch" in order to make sense.

Therefore we can call "so that Jimmy would have something to eat" a dependent clause.

Moreover we can call it a dependent clause of purpose, because it explains the purpose of the action described in the independent statement "Grandma made lunch".

The verb "made" is indicative - it describes something that, as far as the text is concerned, has already actually happened. The verbal phrase "would have" is not indicative, it does not describe something that the text considers to have definitively (or indicatively) occurred.

It simply describes the circumstances in which "Grandma made lunch" makes sense. The text does not tell us whether Jimmy ever got around to eating the lunch Grandma made for him in this sentence. The sentence is certainly not saying: "Jimmy ate the lunch Grandma made for him." And we cannot take "Grandma made lunch so that Jimmy would have something to eat" as the equivalent of "Jimmy ate the sandwich Grandma made."

[MHGinTN]

When asked by the rules makers of His day, what did Jesus tell them was ‘the work’ that God requires for salvation? ... And if you know the answer to that one, upon Whom is the guarantee based, Who is the author and finisher of that salvation?

[MHGinTN]

Selah

[sirchtruth]

FREE WILL is all that needs to be understood here. God's will is for man to have free will to chose, however man's will is to sin. John 3:16 indicates God SENT his Son to save the world. To give man a redeemer for the wage of sin. That's God's promise akin to the absoluteness of the promise he gave Abraham. Although, I do see and agree with the point you're making.

I have to work, but would love to discuss this further. Thanks for the engagement.