Meat Once saved always saved?

[Pacman]

So over on this thread I made a statement about the false doctrine of "once saved always saved" I was asked to discuss it elsewhere so here it goes.

Bro "once saved always saved" is as big a lie as monogamy only...

Let Jesus the Savior restate that correctly for you; "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." Please brother, don't refer to my Savior as a liar!

If you want to claim that it's up for debate, that's fine, but to equate it as a lie, is a bit over the top. There are many who hold to that doctrine who have just as many verses to back up their claim. But, this thread is heated enough. Continue that thought in another post.

I used to believe this false doctrine as well. Let me explain why I no longer believe it.

Most as @frederick did will point to:

John 10:25-30
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. [26] But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. [27] My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; [28] and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. [29] My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. [30] I and the Father are one."

The claim is usually that this passage means a person cannot loose their salvation. Trouble is that's not at all what it says and that would put Yeshua at odds with the balance of scripture. No one is able to snach them out of Yeshua's hand or the fathers hand. So no outside influence can force someone to loose their salvation. It says nothing about the individual person walking away. It also says nothing about the father cutting a person off because of their rebellion. So no @frederick I did not call Yeshua my Messiah and master a liar, and I resent the accusation. We simply have a different understanding of what he is saying in this passage.

Romans 11:17-24
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, [18] do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. [19] You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." [20] Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; [21] for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [22] Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. [23] And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. [24] For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

[frederick]

So no @frederick I did not call Yeshua my Messiah and master a liar, and I resent the accusation.

Let's look at what He said. "My sheep" are those who are His; they belong to Him. That means ownership; His sheep are His by right of purchase. His sheep listen to Him, hearing His voice so that they follow Him. Those are the sheep He gives life to which is eternal and as possessors of His life, He says (note please His words) καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται (They shall never perish). The use of the double negative makes this statement emphatic. If it is His sheep, it follows Him and He guarantees the life He has given to His sheep. If it ever perishes, it was never one He owned because He Himself is the guarantor. To suggest He could fail to accomplish what He has personally guaranteed to do for His own sheep is.... not a good idea.

 

[steve]

When I was a young Baptist boy and didn’t know anything about theology, my father and I had that discussion about no one removing you from the Father’s hand. What popped out of my mouth was: “But it doesn’t say that you cannot choose to leave His hand.”
That was the end of any deep discourse.

If it ever perishes, it was never one He owned because He Himself is the guarantor

This thinking comes from legalistically mis-applying verses or phrases. It can be very destructive to a person’s faith in that they intrinsically know their own failures and come to believe that they were never saved, comparing themselves to others who “obviously were never saved “. How many souls have been destroyed this way?
Here is a more accurate view of Yeshua’s heart:
Luke 13:6-9 (KJV) 6 He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]: 9 And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down.

A fig tree that doesn’t produce fruit is no different than an unprofitable servant. They both belong to the Master, but belonging doesn’t give them value. They are both temporarily, provisionally saved, but that doesn’t guarantee that they won’t end up on the burn pile. Remember the tares growing with the wheat.

 

[frederick]

Because you and I have a different starting point and we go a different direction, we'll never end up with the same understanding. If you want to dispute Jesus' power to ensure none of His sheep will ever perish, that's your choice. But He is the Savior and He gives the guarantee so why doubt Him? If you believe you or anyone else can defeat your savior then perhaps you are greater than your savior. Best you re-read John 10 and see who is greater than all. Shalom

 

[Keith Martin]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, because I'm of the belief that all will end up being saved (and have no need to convince anyone else of that, so I'm unlikely to argue about it), but this does occur to me: linguistically, the phrase "no one" is nearly identical to "not one." Keeping that in mind, one moves then to contemplate who it is among human beings that would qualify as being one of the "ones" who will not be snatched out of His hand. What is common to assume is that, when one (no pun intended) is contemplating whomever it may potentially be who would attempt to snatch something out of Christ Jesus's hand, one only need consider everyone but the person attempting to be snatched. However . . . the passage did not technically say that "no one besides the person potentially being snatched can be snatched from His hand," so technically we can not properly assume that a person could even snatch hirself out of Christ's hand. I know this is a bit overwrought of an analysis, but given the power of Christ, isn't it also at least somewhat arrogant to assume that one could escape His grip? Even in the case of assuming that "no one" doesn't mean the person in question, isn't it reasonable to assume that the power of the assertion that nothing could cause Christ to allow a believer to be taken away from Him indicative of the extent to which He intends to keep each believer under His wing? Lastly, what would His or His Father's purpose possibly be to allow us the freedom to snatch ourselves away from Him if He's not going to let anyone else snatch us away?

 

[FollowingHim]

I don't think there's as much disagreement here as it appears on the surface.

Each of us can no doubt think of people who once followed Christ (or at least appeared to, from our outside view), and now very clearly don't follow Him any more. Although @Keith Martin (who has a universalist view) may have a different perspective, I would think that @Pacman, @frederick and @steve would all agree that this person is not presently in the Kingdom of God.

The difference is solely in how we explain what went on behind the scenes leading to this point, from God's perspective.

@Pacman and @steve would say that person was once in the Kingdom, and then left the Kingdom.

@frederick would say they never were in the Kingdom, they just appeared to be. God, knowing they would not stay there, never let them in to begin with.

I say: What difference does it make? Either way, this person is not in the Kingdom.

Either way, if a person appears to follow God, but later falls away, they are not saved. Regardless of whether God let them in then booted them out, or never let them in knowing they'd fall away later, the end result is the same.

The practical lesson is if you start following God, but later fall away, you're not in the Kingdom. You need to actually persevere in faith and die as a follower of Christ in order to be saved. Don't fall away.

I don't think we need to fully understand how God sees this situation. I do not know whether He let them in then booted them out, or whether He never let them in. But I know the practical implication for our personal lives, and for evangelism of others. And that's all that really matters.

 

[steve]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, because I'm of the belief that all will end up being saved (and have no need to convince anyone else of that, so I'm unlikely to argue about it), but this does occur to me: linguistically, the phrase "no one" is nearly identical to "not one." Keeping that in mind, one moves then to contemplate who it is among human beings that would qualify as being one of the "ones" who will not be snatched out of His hand. What is common to assume is that, when one (no pun intended) is contemplating whomever it may potentially be who would attempt to snatch something out of Christ Jesus's hand, one only need consider everyone but the person attempting to be snatched. However . . . the passage did not technically say that "no one besides the person potentially being snatched can be snatched from His hand," so technically we can not properly assume that a person could even snatch hirself out of Christ's hand. I know this is a bit overwrought of an analysis, but given the power of Christ, isn't it also at least somewhat arrogant to assume that one could escape His grip? Even in the case of assuming that "no one" doesn't mean the person in question, isn't it reasonable to assume that the power of the assertion that nothing could cause Christ to allow a believer to be taken away from Him indicative of the extent to which He intends to keep each believer under His wing? Lastly, what would His or His Father's purpose possibly be to allow us the freedom to snatch ourselves away from Him if He's not going to let anyone else snatch us away?

Keith, I love you and consider you a brilliant man, but that was the strangest attempt at logic that I have seen in a month of Sundays

 

[FollowingHim]

Samuel, I love you and consider you a brilliant man, but that was the strangest attempt at logic that I have seen in a month of Sundays

Are you saying that my post was strange logic, or Keith's post that you quoted?

 

[steve]

I say: What difference does it make? Either way, this person is not in the Kingdom.

It matters to any that the enemy could discourage with false concepts.

 

[steve]

Are you saying that my post was strange logic, or Keith's post that you quoted?

Oh wow, I evidently hadn’t gotten my eyes sufficiently open to discern the writer before pulling the lanyard on that broadside.

I love each of you and consider you both brilliant, just in different ways.

 

[FollowingHim]

It matters to any that the enemy could discourage with false concepts.

I think people could be discouraged either way.
They could be discouraged by the possibility that although they believe they are saved now, God could one day in the future reject them.
They could be discouraged by the possibility that although the believe they are saved now, they could be wrong and God may have already rejected them.

Or they could just not think that deeply into it and just follow God, avoiding both ways of being discouraged!

 

[steve]

Luke 17:2 (KJV)
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

James 3:1 (KJV) My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

In this case master means teacher, we will be judged for what we teach and receive condemnation for the damage that our teaching caused.

 

[MeganC]

The bottom line for me on this issue is am I ready to meet God and to be judged?

My usual answer is no, but I'm trying.

 

[FollowingHim]

In this case master means teacher, we will be judged for what we teach and receive condemnation for the damage that our teaching caused.

I agree. My point is that I fail to see how one of these perspectives is more damaging than the other. Rather, both can be argued for as sound truth on the basis of different scriptures. This is simply a theological disagreement over the technicalities over how something works. The end result is identical whichever perspective is taken, so I fail to see how either perspective is damaging. Either could be presented in such a way that was designed to discourage people - but no serious teacher of the Gospel would deliberately present their perspective in that way.

 

[FollowingHim]

@steve, do you have a specific instance of somebody being turned away from the Gospel by this teaching, that is on your mind as you discuss this matter? It feels like there's something like that on your mind behind your posts, but I could be wrong.

 

[frederick]

This is simply a theological disagreement over the technicalities over how something works.

It goes a little deeper than just being a technicality. Jesus the Savior says His sheep will never perish and He says that in an emphatic way; καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται.

In his first epistle, Peter writes to those whe are chosen or elect, who are kept or guarded by the power of God (1 Peter 1:2, 5). Suggesting that a sinner whom God has chosen and given resurrection life to, and who God says He is guarding, could defeat God's power is more than a technicality. Will the Savior and Judge finally condemn the one He has guaranteed and guarded by His mighty power? One view has a high regard for the veracity of God's claims about Himself and His ability while the other does not.

To bring this into a polygyny perspective; the monogamy-only view claims Adam and Eve in the Garden is God's creation ideal and it is a sin to have any more than one wife. But this denigrates the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ because He wasn't a nudist, horticulturist, vegetarian who was married to every woman that existed. Such an argument by the monogamists calls into question the sinless perfection of Jesus Christ.

It is essential we ensure any beliefs we have and promote do not call into question or denigrate in any way the Name of God. Pointing those who say polygyny is a sin to the Scriptures that present God as a polyginist makes them stop and think. God is always to be exalted in His perfect holiness. Shalom

 

[steve]

@steve, do you have a specific instance of somebody being turned away from the Gospel by this teaching, that is on your mind as you discuss this matter? It feels like there's something like that on your mind behind your posts, but I could be wrong.

Just what I have felt in my own soul.
If a close friend who had roughly the same salvation experience that I had and grew up under the same teaching that I did could become an enemy of the faith, and is judged by interpretation of select Scripture as never having been saved, by what right can I claim to be saved? Rejecting the premise that he was never saved, but that he failed to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, puts the focus where it needs to be and brings everything back into balance.

Ultimately, seeing someone else’s failures through the lens of “they obviously were never saved” puts us in the position of using certain verses to judge and condemn them.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Just what I have felt in my own soul.
If a close friend who had roughly the same salvation experience that I had and grew up under the same teaching that I did could become an enemy of the faith, and is judged by interpretation of select Scripture as never having been saved, by what right can I claim to be saved? Rejecting the premise that he was never saved, but that he failed to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, puts the focus where it needs to be and brings everything back into balance.

Ultimately, seeing someone else’s failures through the lens of “they obviously were never saved” puts us in the position of using certain verses to judge and condemn them.

Only God knows the true contrition and repentance of the heart when a sinner comes to faith in Him, but what is imperative, is that we understand that our works of righteousness have no effect whatsoever, on the grace of God. I see people trying to argue that no one else can snatch us out of the Father's hand, and then try to claim that we ourselves can leave the Father's hand on our own accord, but what they really mean, and this is precisely what @Pacman was trying to argue. is that you do so, by not obeying Torah. Then he tries to claim that there is a difference between what he is propounding, and works based salvation. If we could sin away our salvation, every one of us would have done so by now. I have heard of ministers who go around proclaiming that they have not sinned in 10 or 20 years, and I am reminded of several passages, including Paul's dilemma in Roms 7:21-25, where he finishes up by proclaiming

"What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?"

and he responds to that with,

"Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

 

[Keith Martin]

Keith, I love you and consider you a brilliant man, but that was the strangest attempt at logic that I have seen in a month of Sundays

First off, @FollowingHim, given that, after his edits, @steve's post above reads as being a response to my post, I think it best if you remove your post that indicates that a mistake has been made, because that mistake has been corrected.

Secondly, @steve, the simplified version of my logic is just this:

• Assumed: Christ's power is greater than that of any human's, and
• Assumed: any someone is part of the greater set of all someones, and conversely, the set 'no one' excludes all someones; therefore,
• If A: no one can snatch one away from Christ's Hand, and
• If B: the person attempting to be snatched away is a someone, then
• C: one cannot snatch oneself away from Christ's Hand.

Additionally, strange does not equate with invalid; at best 'strange' is a derogatory attempt at a graceful ad hominem attack. Instead, please articulate the actual holes in my logic.

The question this logic poses is: if no one can overpower Christ's grip on us, then how can anyone become exempt from the power of that grip to be able to be let go by Christ?

 

[Keith Martin]

Also, I consider the dualism of the provided choice to be false: it's not just a matter of (a) one has either escaped Christ's grip, or (b) one never was in Christ's hand. Another avenue (and perhaps one of many) is that the person truly was saved and the only illusion was having separated hirself from Christ. I offer myself as an example of that camp. I was a devout believer up until late teens and then rejected the Resurrection, spending the subsequent 25 years certain it and JudeoChristianity were all just a bunch of hooey. Eventually, I once again sought out God and Christ. What my mother asserted all along (I thought she was looney) and what I see a great amount of evidence for is that I never left Christ's hand; I just thought I had. All along, He and His Father protected me (perhaps most especially during the circumstances that initially led me to turn my back on Them). I was like the prodigal son who never stopped being considered a loved one.