An unanswered question: Differentiate b/w the never saved & the "fallen out of fellowship" w/Christ

11/5/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[ShadowAce]

I will concede that this letter was written to intelligent, educated Jews. The author is by no means accepted as being Paul, though it does have a lot of his style in it. Paul, however, was called to preach to Gentiles, not Jews.

Your point is a good one, and valid. I admit I do not have all the answers--I just read Scripture. I am still struggling with the *apparent* conflict between the Hebrews 6 passage and the Prodigal Son. DutchBoy's interpretation makes some sense, and I will study it some more.

[Salvation]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."

[bluecollarman]

Don’t worry, I am proof he is wrong. :)

[Scrambler Bob]

“Half the church says ..., and the other half says ....”

This is the problem.

At least one half is wrong, and I suspect that both halves are wrong.

The youth pastor needs to be considered by himself, in his own situation.

Anyone else in a situation, even if exactly like his, needs to be considered in their own situation.

As much as we would like general solutions, God is personal to each of us.

Do not let the Youth Pastor’s problem get in Your way as You seek God.

Then God will tell you the answer about the Youth Pastor, and you won’t have to rely on half the church (or the other half).

[Robert Burkholder]

to me “never saved” presupposes a person who has not heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ—the second part the “fallen away”/”Fallen out of fellowship” seems to suppose one who has heard the Gospel but for whatever reason has not continued in the faith.There is a parable about “seed” and where some falls,and the consequence of the ground upon which it has fallen.

[Dutchboy88]

I am aware that the general view nowadays is that the author is not Paul. I have read those arguments and reject them as weak and unfounded. There are compelling internal arguments which point directly to Paul. I won’t set those out, as that is not the issue here. But, suffice to say, from my perspective Paul is the writer (God is the author).

The real issue before us now is what is the writer getting at? And, the fact of the matter is that some of the texts in the Scripture (like the letter to the Hebrews) are not addressed to us Gentiles. Sometimes this is due to the passage of time. For example, when Jesus tells the Canaanite woman that He could not help her (a Gentile) because He sent, “...only to the lost sheep of Israel.” this fact should arrest our attention. When, pray tell, were we Gentiles included? Eph. 2 tells us that when the blood was shed, we were grafted in.

Thus, most of the Gospels text contain words of Jesus BEFORE his death, burial & resurrection and are about His description of the Mosaic Law requirements to the Jews. There was no trusting in His death before His death! There was only Law. Notice the so-called Golden Rule (Sermon on the Mount Matt. 7:12) actually tells the audience that Jesus is teaching the Law and the Prophets...not the Gospel of grace. The entire Sermon is about “If you want to be saved based upon your righteousness, this is what it looks like.”

However, the RCC has morphed the Gospels into “Christian Living” message, not what Jesus actually said. He said, “You are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Anyone want to try to meet this standard? The Gospel of grace announced after the death, burial, resurrection is that Jesus will do FOR you, what you cannot do for yourself. Paul’s letter to the Romans. And, Gentiles are now included (we violated the Law of our Consciences, not the Law of Moses). Notice the progression as the story unfolds.

So, the question about Hebrews is, “If this is in fact addressed to (now) believing Jews, how does a Gentile (who did not involve themselves with sacrifices) read this ‘over the shoulder’ of a Jew without skewing the words to immediately fit themselves?”

Good for you for at least considering this hermeneutical matter a bit further. There is an enormous amount of bad theology out there due to many folks reading the Scriptures “flat” or “encyclopedia like”. They do not allow the story to unfold as the years go by. The story is actually a consistent, non-conflicting message if allowed. Otherwise, it becomes this push-pull “religion” of “grace as long as you obey”, and “forgiveness as long as you forgive” (the so-called “Lord’s prayer”, incidentally). Is this all really the Gospel which lightens our load? Is this really “unmerited favor”? Or is it Catholic Religion?

[count-your-change]

I would offer that salvation is a constant process, “He that endures to the end....” etc.

The Israelites that came through the Red Sea were “saved” but many perished later, the disciples who fled Jerusalem were “saved” but could still fail.

[Gamecock]

***The Israelites that came through the Red Sea were “saved” but many perished later***

Actually, they all perished, even those who had faith in the promise (Jesus). Likewise we will all perish. What happens at that moment is the real question.

[Kevmo]

Parable of the Sower Matthew 13
The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the [j]word, immediately he [k]falls away. 2
***This person accepted the Word. He is saved even though he’s fallen away.

Romans 8:38
NOTHING can separate us from the love of God. Not even ourselves.

GOD guards our salvation (Rom. 8:16, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5).

1Cor5:5
5 It is widely reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and the kind of sexual immorality that is not even tolerated[a] among the Gentiles—a man is living with his father’s wife. .... 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus with my spirit and with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 turn that one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord.
***Even egregious sin does not preclude a man’s spirit from being saved in the Day of the Lord.

---

This stuff has been debated for centuries. Example:

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con062.asp

Thank you for writing and expressing your views. I’m glad that you take the time to ponder some of these matters. In most cases, your approach to the Scriptures is correct. If the most literal sense makes the best sense, then we should pursue it no farther. However, to be a careful thinker on issues such as these we must realize that some texts aren’t so clear cut.

One of the things that leads someone in the field of Biblical Hermeneutics (the study of accurate Scriptural interpretation) to look more deeply at a passage is when it seems to be giving a contradictory teaching on some particular of theology. Now I am far from an expert in Hermeneutics, but I do know that there are several passages in the New Testament that argue for the position of eternal security. I have listed some of them in my previous article entitled “Can You Lose Your Salvation?”

I don’t feel the writer was writing some sort of “Crypto-Greek” when he addressed the Hebrews concerning this issue. We must remember that this was first a letter to a particular people from a familiar teacher dealing with real difficulties with which that specific church or group of churches was struggling. Because of the personal nature of address, the modern reader, being a third party, cannot know all the details, inferences, or common knowledge and experiences shared by the writer and his intended audience. Also, there may have been some previous history of teaching between the two that we are unaware of. So the phrasing of Hebrews six may seem straightforward enough, but given its stance and some of the wording, many commentators feel it addresses issues that are slightly different than eternal security.

As to some of the other passages you cite, we can briefly examine them also. Gal. 5:1-5 is discussing believers who are trying to please God by adding the Law to their salvation. But we know that this approach is doomed to failure. In Paul’s mind there are two opposing categories of approaching God - Law being one and Grace the other (and the higher or better of the two). The key to these verses is found in Chapter four where Paul writes,

“Now I say, as long as a heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave, although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive adoption as sons.”

Paul demonstrates here that he is talking about the way we relate to God. He does not mean we will fall from salvation, but from a way of relating to God by grace (i.e. there’s nothing I can do to make up for my sins) to that of the Law or works (i.e. I must keep some rules in order to still be considered for heaven.) When he says that a believer has “fallen from grace” (vs 4), he is saying that the believer has fallen from the more perfect way of seeking God’s will in his life to the more base (and unreachable) way. It does not mean someone had salvation and now lost it. So this passage addresses the believers’ walk more than their eternal security.

Romans 11 speaks of Israel was a branch that was “cut-off” because of unbelief (vs. 20). Paul then admonishes the Gentiles to “stand by your faith.” Paul is speaking to the church at Rome who felt that Gentiles were somehow better than Jews because God had chosen them for salvation. This was a bigoted position, and Paul is trying to correct their error. He says that if the Gentiles as a whole were to become an unbelieving people, then God would just as readily cut them off from the promises of salvation. This position was to be understood as a cultural comparison, not on an individual basis (verse 13 says, “But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles.”) In fact, later in the chapter Paul argues for the security of the believer in God’s calling. “For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” (vs.29) In Galatians 3, Paul then states that neither Jews nor Greeks have any advantage once they are in Christ.

Next, we’ll look at Revelation 22:19, where we read, “And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” This statement was not addressed to Christians only, but to “everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book.” (vs. 18) This passage, therefore, doesn’t apply to Christians only.

There are those who would argue that God taking away someone’s part from the Tree of Life means that they had a claim to it previously and now lost it. This is not necessarily so, as God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) The tree of Life can be thought of as big enough to allow every human a part, but only those who are saved will have their part allotted to them. Also, to “take away” for the book would mean to ignore or dismiss the descriptions as being true. Skeptics would be found in this category. So we can safely dismiss this verse as not focusing on losing one’s salvation at all.

The passage you cite in Matthew, (”If you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.” Mt 6:15) as well as several others you mention (Rev. 3:5, 1 Cor 15:2, Col. 1:23, Heb. 3:5, etc) all make a statement such as “if you hold fast until the end.” These passages just beg the question, though. If you cannot lose your salvation, you will hold fast until the end. Holding fast, then, becomes an identifier or distinguishing trait of those that are truly saved. We have good reason to believe this interpretation in these verses because of 1 John 1:19. There the apostle writes, “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.”

In contrast, the passages in Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5 and Revelation 21 are distinguishing traits of those who are not saved. Theses lists aren’t even confined to those who claim to be Christians, but also include all pagans and idolaters. Galatians 5:21 is particularly clear in this when Paul writes “those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” To practice in this instance means a habitual, unrepentant lifestyle; not to fall into a specific sin, even several times. Again, we turn to the apostle John where 1 John 3:9-10 states, “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.”

The other Matthew passage, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mt 19:24) demonstrates that riches become a hindrance to seeking salvation at all, not losing salvation.

Revelation 2:5 speaks of Christ removing the lampstand from Ephesus. In order to be consistent with Matthew 5:15-16, we must understand the lampstand to be the witness of the Ephesian church, not their salvation. Indeed, the Ephesian church did not continue as a body, and its members were dispersed, although I don’t believe this means they were no longer Christians.

Lastly, Revelation 3:5 is an argument against fact. It says that if you are a Christian, you are guaranteed that your name will not be erased from the Book if Life. Every passage dealing with unbelievers states that their names were not found in the Book of Life. It does not say that their names are blotted out from the Book.

Now, to be fair, this verse is hotly debated by various scholars as to whether it implies that a name can be blotted out. This, however, is not necessarily an argument for losing salvation. Some commentators believe that the Book of Life may contain every name of every person who ever lived, using passages like 2 Peter 3:9 (”The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”) and John 3:16 as support (i.e. “for God so loved the world” ). Their reasoning is that the Book of Life shows how salvation is available to all, but those who do not choose to follow Christ are then blotted out.

Before we finish, I do want to issue a clarification and a word of caution. Because I believe that one cannot lose his salvation does not mean I think we should approach our Christian walk cavalierly. Jesus taught us in John 14: 15 “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Paul also illustrates this clearly in 1 Corinthians 3 as he talks of how our actions as Christians will be judged. He sums it up in verse 15, stating “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” Then, when we read his admonition to run with endurance and to finish well, we can better understand that he is encouraging us toward a strong Christian lifestyle because it is 1) pleasing to God; and 2) a more effective way to reach others for Christ. It is our “reasonable service.”(Rom. 12:1)

I hope that you will again look at these issues. I think that if you purchased a carpet with a lifetime warranty and it wore out in one year, you would rightly complain that the carpet company violated its word. You would say that the carpet is defective and it needs to be replaced with one that will never wear out. Our salvation has a promise of eternal life. I cannot reconcile the word eternal with the idea of being revoked at some future occurrence. I would be interested in arguments showing how everlasting life doesn’t last! Thank you again for taking the time for this discussion and I appreciate your comments.

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con062.asp#ixzz2jniiBLku

[redleghunter]

Once you;ve fallen out of fellowship, you are no longer saved--by definition. And according to Hebrews 6, you cannot come back.

If you are referring to "fallen out of fellowship" as apostasy then I would agree with your Hebrews 6 reference. It is not so much "cannot come back" but more they never come back. Hebrews is addressing yes a Hebrew audience. The theme throughout seems to be Jews who joined the Christian church then going back to their Jewish ritual Law.

I think falling out of fellowship is much different than what Hebrews 6 discusses. A brother can have an offense and we are told to confront to them, then bring in witnesses and if he still refuses to bring it to the assembly. And then if he refuses to repent he is accursed. The Hebrews 6 passage describes someone who departs the faith and then denies the Blood of Christ. I think that is a big difference.

[redleghunter]

I don’t believe Hebrews 6 is addressing a brother or sister who is dismissed from fellowship with a church because of their sin. Paul addresses this and more importantly Jesus does. The church is to rejoice when the offender repents and the church is commanded to restore the brother or sister. I don’t think at all Hebrews 6 is addressing fellowship at all. If so, only the “church lady” would show up for services:)

[smvoice]

Have either of you ever considered the idea that Hebrews through Revelation were written to future believers, i.e. those who are going through the tribulation and are enduring to the end to enter the kingdom Christ will establish upon His return? I'll give you just a few reasons I believe this is the case: These last 9 books of the NT look toward the "ages to come" and focus on the final stage of Israel's prophetic program. They offer edification and equipping to the these "last day" saints. Obviously they begin with the letter to the Hebrews. So the middle wall of partition that had been removed during the time of grace (Romans through Philemon) is back up, and Jews and Gentiles are separate again.

These 9 books were pre-authorized by Jesus Christ (John 14:25,26; John 16:12,13; Daniel 12:4). THe body of information He promised would come to equip them to handle the last days of Israel's judgment is found in these 9 books.

The focus in on the Ages to Come: (Heb. 2:3-5 James 5:7-11; 1 Peter 2:9; (Exodus 19:5,6; 2 Pet. 1:10; 2 Pet. 3:1-4; Jude 17-28, 24-25; and Rev. 1:1-3,9,10). The emphasis is on the FINAL FULFILLMENT OF ISRAEL'S EARTHLY PROGRAM.

The Middle Wall is back up: (Heb.1:1,2; Heb. 2:1-4; Heb.3:1-6; James 1:1; 1 Pet.1:1; 1 Pet. 2:9-13; 1 John.1:1-3, Rev. 2:2,9,etc. and Rev. 7:3-8).

If read in this light, you will see that Israel is in a parallel situation during the Tribulation that they were in in Acts.(Jer. 30:7, Dan. 9).

The Remnant is scattered (Acts 2:5, 39; Acts 8:1; James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1; 5:13; Rev. 2-3). The Nation is in an apostate, rebellious condition: (Acts 4:8-12, Mark 7; Matt. 23). THe spirit of Anti-Christ is operating to deceive Israel so they do not believe Jesus is the Christ: (1 John 2:18, 4:1-3; Dan. 11:31-36; Mark 13:22).

There is a need to explain the delay in fulfilling the prophetic program: (Acts 10:29; 15:9-14; 18:26-28; 2 Pet. 3:9,15; Isa. 42:14, Hosea 5:15; Luke 12:45).

They are facing the coming destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem: (Matt. 23:38; 24:1,2,15; Luke 21:20-24; John 4:19-24; Acts 6: 7,14; Matt. 24:15; Dan. 8:9-12). Israel's confederacy with the Gentiles: (Acts 4:27; Dan. 9:17, Isa. 8:12; Dan. 11:22,23).

[CodeToad]

I thought God said never judge your fellow man in this way. So, who are you to judge or even ask such a question? In other words, yes, this is “above your pay grade”, and, frankly, none of your business.

[redleghunter]

Now, whether God comes and gets you after death when you have chosen to set yourself apart is a mystery. Its a mystery that you test at your own peril.

Maybe not after death, but we have to give our Sovereign God "some room" here (due to our limitations) since He is God and is Sovereign. We have the prodigal son come back to a welcoming father. We also have a Good Shepherd who leaves the 99 to go after the 1.

We have seen personal testimony here at FR on the duplicate thread stating God's Grace for restoring them to fellowship with Him. I raise my hand in affirmation. Been there and never going back, I believe God has seen to that. We can speculate 'what if' all day what happened if an IED got me before God intervened and called me to repentance and back on the straight and narrow path. There is no what if, only in our minds. Fact is my Sovereign Savior did it and did it according to His Will. Six months after He did it, I realized why He did it when He did it. If that makes any sense I am willing to elaborate. But at no point did I doubt my salvation; at no point did I become one of Christ's enemies. I had my priorties all wrong and let worldly things compete for the full attention I should have given to the Master. So He took me to the wood shed, knocked sense in me, forced me to my knees to repent to get back in lock step with His Son. Living proof (as if anyone should need it) that His Grace is dynamic and not static. His Grace saves us in justification AND sanctification AND one day when we shed corruptable for incorruptable when we are glorified like His Son.

[redleghunter]

That was important commentary. Because Paul brings up this matter in Galatians as well. He saw the creeping in of “works of the Law” gang early on. I believe that is why he rebuked Peter as well.

[redleghunter]

Excellent.

[redleghunter]

Please add the purgatory part.

[smvoice]

Paul rebuked Peter because Peter was ministering under the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the circumcision, that he was given by Christ. Paul was ministering under the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of the uncircumcision, that he was given by the risen Christ. Which is what Acts is about. The transition from Law to Grace, from a kingdom of believers to a body of believers. As long as God was dealing with Israel as a nation, the gospel of the circumcision was to be preached. When they were blinded and set aside, the gospel of the uncircumcision took precedence. And still does. The dispensation of the grace of God began with the saving of Paul and extends to this day. And will until the time we are raptured.

Galatians, Chapter 2 tells the story of Paul relating his gospel of grace to Peter, James, and John, and those three realizing that another dispensation had begun (v. 9). They were the "time past" of Eph. 2:11,12. And Paul was the "But Now" of Eph. 2:13-22. Israel was being set aside by God, and He was sending salvation to the Gentiles, not BECAUSE of Israel's BELIEF, but DESPITE her REJECTION of Christ.

[Lee N. Field]

Have either of you ever considered the idea that Hebrews through Revelation were written to future believers,

Not for us?

Why I am not a dispensationalist...

[Lee N. Field]

And in the asking, I never received any scripture(s) that show the dividing line - the place that unequivocally shows the total difference - between the one who was never saved & the one who had merely "fallen out of fellowship w/Christ," but was nonetheless still saved.

I'm trying to figure out in what theological system this is even a problem.

One group is regenerate. One is not.

From signs visible to us, we may not be able to distinguish a reprobate going his rebellious merry way, from a regenerate person that God is allowing to go through a season of disobedience for his chastisement and ultimate good.

Scriptures: off the top of my head, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, the man carrying on with his father's wife. Also, see the tail end of James.