I just read a comment from my favorite young Calvinist Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on the Parchment & Pen blog. He said: “I was a Pentecostal and almost had a nervous breakdown because I believed you could lose your salvation.” Now I believe that we can forfeit our salvation (I loathe the term ‘lose’ like it was a set of keys to be misplaced, but I digress…) but the truth is that it’s not something I worry about. In the 7 years I’ve been saved I’ve never worried about not being (or ending up) saved.
I think the reason that some people do worry about such things is because of a unbalanced view of sin and repentance where the idea is that salvation is ‘lost’ every time we sin. People who view things like that generally believe that we have to get saved all over again after we repent. I’ve actually seen this quite a bit among new believers. When my pastor would make altar calls the same few people would come up week after week to be ‘born again’ because they had sinned during the week. My pastor had to explain to them that all they had to do was repent and ask God for forgiveness, they hadn’t ‘lost’ it.
I tend to view forfeiting your salvation as apostasy, i.e., the willful rejection of Christ through continued unrepentant sin. When one ceases to feel convicted for their sin and no longer seeks forgiveness from God then they’ve forfeited it. But there’s always been so much in the NT that gave me confidence, e.g., talk of a God who’s able to keep us from falling (Jude 24); a God who provides a way of escape when temptation arises (1Cor. 10:13); a savior who won’t deny us as long as we don’t deny him (Mat. 10:33 cf. 2Tim. 2:12); etc. There’s just so much there to alleviate any fear. I don’t know if that’s how others see it (well, except for the people I know in ‘real life’ who I know think like this), but that’s how I see it.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
I, too, once believed that one could “lose” his/her salvation. I understood it differently than Adu-Boahen–I believed you could “give it away” (looking back on how I “understood” it makes me cringe). I must say that I was a young and ignorant believer and have since embraced the doctrine of eternal security. I have also dealt with the ever-present fear of those who believe that sins past and present can somehow nullify God’s gracious gift of salvation. I have been discussing this doctrine with a member of my church for some time now. Given her Church of God upbringing and ministry in that denomination for probably 50+ years, it’s been a struggle for her to embrace the idea that God would secure his children’s salvation for all eternity.
B*H, do you assume God has granted salvation in order for one to forfeit it? Seems that’s your position. Just curious.
Jason G
What is the sole choice of God can never be revoked by human action.
Is there not the slight heresy of presumption involved in knowing you are saved.
i think we’re supposed to be pretty sure of our salvation… i dont know that I hold to it in a calvinist sort of way, but i think there is something to it… that said I think there are definitely those who really really turn away… although I think they would argue apostasy is different
what do you do with working out faith with fear and trembling if you’re positive of it? Philippians 2:12
its a big decision… making sure of it is probably important. anyhoo… interesting thought.
Don’t you ever worry you might be wrong? I do. About all sorts of things.
Jason: I’d prefer the language of ‘give away’ to ‘lose’ but I usually talk about forfeiture or apostasy. To say that God “grants salvation in order for one to forfeit it” seems a strange turn of phrase. I wouldn’t say it like that, but yes, I believe without doubt that we can forfeit our salvation through continued willful unrepentant sin. BTW, my name is Nick, not B”H. B”H is just a way of saying “Bless God.”
Jeremiah: If I was a monergist I’d agree with you, but since I’m not, I don’t.
Andrew: I’ve not heard of presumption being a heresy. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with knowing you’re saved. Paul speaks of salvation as past, present, and future.
Roger: Yeah, I agree. That’s pretty much the point of my post. Even though I believe it’s possible to become apostate it’s not something I worry about. I think the misconception is that we have no assurance unless we believe in ‘eternal security’ (a misnomer if ever there was one).
Steph: Being wrong here would actually work to my advantage since it would mean that there was no chance of becoming apostate. But I worry about being wrong about other stuff.
Calling, Repentance and Rescue: After we have been called (elected) we have God’s word that every time we repent…He will rescue us. This is assurance…not that we will never stray…
He is always singing songs of deliverance over us…even when we rarely lift our eyes above ground level. And with His song on every wind we hear Him whispering…”Here this now…I will always come for you!” For indeed we are the Prince’s Bride…And His love is true!
I have to say it was rather scary being featured on here…again. You gotta quit picking on me dude (I’m just messing with ya bro). As ever, I guess a little explanantion is in order.
Well my parents never explained it (and to the present day, still haven’t) the way you do. To them, holiness was 24/7 and all-inclusive – what you watch, what you listen to, who you listen to, what you read, how close you are to the opposite sex. If anything, I thought the Christian life was a “honey-do” list by God and as long as I did them, I was set. Problem was, I wasn’t doing them.
I was saved at the age of 14, but I knew the “standard of holiness” loooong before that. Knowing what I had been told was God’s commands and being faced by the fact I was doing anything but the long list of don’ts I was handed.
If anything, it weighed heavy on my conscience after a while. I’d keep going up for the altar call, would cry myself to sleep at night since I wasn’t making the cut, killed all sorts of benign friendships all because I thought they wouldn’t making the way of holiness a possibility and it got to a point where I was emotionally and mentally drowning in the consciousness that I wasn’t cutting it, even though I was trying hard.
Encountering the idea of the believers’ perseverance and preservation in Calvinistic terms was a culture shock – it wasn’t ME trying to be holy on my own terms, it was God, working in me to will and to do His good pleasure. I didn’t need to try harder each time – I needed to look to the Author and finisher of my faith.
Today I’m a lot happier (I often joke that you can’t take the Pentecostal out of Douglas – since I still shout amen and occasionally dance around to hymns sung in the ol’ fashioned way – it’s scary to watch but oh well LOL), a lot less worried abut my salvation and a lot more focused on pleasing God one day at a time.
I appreciate that I probably grew up in a more extreme side of things, and definitely wouldn’t ascribe that to Pentecostalism or Wesleyan-Arminianism as a whole. I do apologise if it came across that way, since I was trying to get Kara to understand that it is not just Calvinistic theology which can be used as a weapon to someone else’s detriment.
In Christ,
Doug
Nancy:
Amen!
Douglas: No need to apologize! I was just using your statement as a springboard to talk about something I’ve though about posting for a while (i.e., that non-Calvinists also have assurance of their salvation).
I have a lot of experience with the kind of teaching you describe. In the church I got saved in there were old time holiness Pentecostals who believed that a woman wearing the color red was a sin (and if she wore red pants then she was doubly destined for hell)! Imagine all the other things they thought went against holiness. Luckily my pastor, while believing in holiness, never delved into legalism (although he has what I’d consider a few legalistic personal convictions).
In any event, I’m glad that you’re happier where you’re at and that you’re not in danger of a nervous breakdown! BTW, we should all pray for that Kara lady. I fear that she sits under unbalanced teaching.
Dear brothers/sisters,
I think that all these matters of confrontation between (protestant-rooted)christian confessions come from the fact that the protestant theology didnt reach an answer yet to the question: What exactly is “Church”?
ppanos: I’m not sure that that question hasn’t been answered, but even if it hasn’t I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant to differing interpretations of what Scripture says concerning salvation. Maybe you can explain what you mean.
I mean that questions like “Will mz salvation be lost” or “Will I be saved in this or that denomination” comes from the un-answered question which I mentioned. That was just it.
Thanks for your understanding, Bro. Nick. Kara is inconsistent to me – she is a playwright and from what I’ve gathered from following her comments down at Parchment and Pen, an educated person, yet she doesn’t seem to think that diligence translates into the study of the Word. Definitely a lady to keep in my prayers.
Nick,
Thanks for the clarification. Though I disagree with your position, I appreciate that it enjoys a measure of defensibility from the Scriptures. I have friends whose view of apostasy is barely defensible, at least according to the Bible.
Jason
I used to think that Arminianism was nothing more than weak-minded Christians who had compromised the truths of Scripture to submit to the ways of the world…seriously…I know…
In seminary I actually had to read Wesley and Arminus and my eyes were opened. Sure, being a Reformed Baptist, I disagreed with some large arguments that he made, but I also realized that he knew God, loved Jesus and really knew Scripture…much better than I did as a seminarian.
What I learned from reading these two non-Reformed authors was that we have more in common than not, and what I thought about their position before wasn’t about their position at all…it was just about a caricature that I had created in my mind.
I’m still Calvinistic (with some hesitations), but have a great and deep respect for Arminians and Open Theists who live in the Spirit, love God and Christ, and know Scripture.
ppanos: I’m still not quite sure I understand. Could you give me an example of a church that has answered that question and how it makes the question of salvation more clear? Thanks.
Douglas: Yeah, I’m not sure what’s going on with that one. She seems unnecessarily argumentative. I suspect there’s something else at work.
Jason: Like I said above, I know plenty of people who think you need to get ‘born again’ again after every time you sin. I see no defense for something like that. What view of apostasy have you seen that you find indefensible? I’m curious to see if I’ve come across it.
Ranger: Ad fontes! It’s always great when we can go to the sources and see how well they’ve been represented, isn’t it? I know that Spurgeon had the deepest respect and admiration for Wesley even though he disagreed with his soteriology. I think the problem is that most casual readers never get past the rhetoric from both camps. All they see is Arminians charging Calvinist’s with being fatalists, and Calvinists charging Arminians with a man-centered theology. If they went to the sources they’d see what you saw, that there’s more in common than not.
Hey Nick!
I believe in forfeit also, especially given Galatians 5 and Hebrews, but I don’t believe this is in relation to sin as in walking on egg shells. I do believe; however, that one can relinquish or set aside and I would describe that as apostasy. As an ex-Calvinist (quite recently admitting it 8) ) I would have a category coming from 1 John 2 about “they were not of us” however, I believe they were of us and decided that the cost was too high, again that has nothing to do with sin, as a total blasphemy of the work of God.
I also believe that God will keep those who desire Him, in His bossom!
Lionel: I think that we have similar thoughts on the subject. The fact is that we all fall some time or another into sin (although I believe it’s theoretically possible not to) and God has made provision for us to be forgiven. It’s when we no longer seek forgiveness because we no longer feel conviction that we’ve forfeited our salvation.
“I’m still Calvinistic (with some hesitations), but have a great and deep respect for Arminians and Open Theists who live in the Spirit, love God and Christ, and know Scripture.”
I think when we take the time to listen past the rhetoric (denominationally perfered words) we all end up at the same place as Ranger…The same thing has happened to all of us who are “in Christ”. We just don’t all use the same words to describe it…Learning to listen past the rhetoric…IT’S A GOOD THING!
Nick,
Oddly enough, the view you mentioned in your reply is what I had in mind. A friend of genuinely believed that if he were to die in his sleep and had left one sin unconfessed, he would be condemned. I suppose that particular view is the extreme and not truly representative of proponents of your position.
Jason
“It’s when we no longer seek forgiveness because we no longer feel conviction that we’ve forfeited our salvation.”
I’m not sure about this. There are people in Scripture who were not continually repenting, yet they eventually found their way to God. David eventually repented, but that was after becoming so hardened that he sent Uriah out to die. The prodigal son didn’t repent until he finally returned to his father, yet I don’t think he totally closed off the possibility for salvation before that happened. I’m not necessarily endorsing “Once Saved, Always Saved.” I’m just saying that people can be in situations in which they’re spiritually sick–they don’t repent or feel conviction. But that doesn’t have to mean they blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the Book of Hebrews sense, since they can come back to God at some point. Ancient Israel is another case in point.
Jason: I know (too) many people who hold such an extreme view.
James: I’m not saying that there’s no hope for the backslider (thank God there is because at one point I was one!) although I would say there’s no hope for the apostate. David and the prodigal both repented and sought forgiveness though. Had they remained in their sin without these actions then they would have died lost. I think that the prodigal’s father’s pronouncement that his son was ‘dead’ and ‘lost’ while in his sin makes this point pretty clearly. It wasn’t until he repented and sought his father’s forgiveness that he had ‘returned to life’ (NLT) and was ‘found.’ And if N. T. Wright is correct and the parable of the prodigal son has reference to Israel then it applies there too. :-)
I see what you’re saying, Nick. But, in the view that you presented, could a person be saved more than once? Could one exit the family of God, then re-enter it?
James: Sure, I think so. I’d say that’s a good description of the backslider who repents. They left the family and then re-entered it. The backslider who doesn’t repent (i.e., the apostate) just left.
Eh?! But if when you sin you stopped being saved then you would be wrong wouldn’t you? How do you know you were truly saved forever in the first place? And what do you feel about other people who call themselves Christians but don’t believe the same things as you eg the trinity, bodily resurrection etc? While they also think they are saved, do you think they are? I’m not criticising, I’m just interested (and of course confused ;-)
Steph: I think you might be misunderstanding me. My position is that a Christian can become apostate, i.e., forfeit their salvation through continual unrepentant sin (not just a one time slip up that they feel guilty about and repent of). If I’m wrong about that and a Christian cannot forfeit their salvation (through unrepentant sin or anything else) then there’s nothing for me to worry about. I’m safe. Being wrong actually works in my favor in this case.
Concerning how one knows they’re ‘saved forever’ I’ll borrow a line that I’ve heard Ben Witherington use, “we’ll be eternally secure when we’re secure in eternity.” I can know I’m saved (right now) through my belief in God, the Gospel, and my confession of Christ as Lord. The ‘forever’ part of it is something that I can’t guarantee aside from persevering in the faith.
And I think that Christians who deny the Trinity or the bodily resurrection are Christian in name only. So no, I don’t think that they’re saved. Hope that clears things up. :-)
I think my suggestion was that a christian might become an apostate by sinning just once – not just continual unrepentent sin. Consider that eating shellfish might be a sin. Not that I believe any of it but just that if it was true, you would be wrong and it wouldn’t work in your favour.
As for Christians who don’t interpret the trinity in the same way as you or interpret the body of the resurrected Jesus in the same way as you and you say are consequently not saved, that just makes me sad. I don’t see how God could punish them for not understanding details which are not as black and white as they could be.
Steph: I see what you’re saying. In that case, if one sin were to equate to a forfeiture of salvation, then we’d all be in a lot of trouble!
There’s a difference between understanding details and affirming/denying certain things. No one can claim to understand all of the details of the Trinity, but many can claim to affirm it. When you have groups like Oneness Pentecostals, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons who all willingly, knowingly, and blatantly deny the doctrine then that’s something different. I do tend to think that the bodily resurrection is one of the more black and white issues in the Bible.
Not that I agree, but you know it’s possible to argue that the resurrection was a spiritual body with the biblical texts. And the trinity isn’t exactly biblical and there are plenty of ‘Christians’ who don’t accept later extrapolations of such a doctrine…
I think I really want you all to agree to differ and agree that each other might be right even though you can’t see it another way. And then you would all live happily ever after and make God happy. I don’t think even if I believed in God, that I could be Christian because there are so many variables and I would never really be sure I had chosen the right conclusion.
Steph…we are promised in the Word of God, that someday we will all see “eye to eye”…Right now we see through a glass darkly…everything isn’t quite 100% clear, but there are certain points even now that the Body of Christ centers around…These are the shall we say “12 must haves”…as spelled out in the Apostles’ Creed.
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Nick,
I would disagree with your “backslider” term but I think I see where you are going. There is a difference between being “overtaken” in sin and denying the Gospel by “sinning”. I don’t think it is our job to decide who is who. Our job is to restore the fallen sinner if they would repent or two, we are to break fellowship with the willful sinner in hopes that he would repent and be restored. If he decides to continue to enjoy such sin, it seems that such a person is an apostate but it isn’t our job to judge who is apostate or not, God is the only one who owns the keys to eternity, we only have the keys to the kingdom.
Much of apostasy in scripture, escpecially Hebrews, seems to be a matter of faith, not sin, though we have one of the most debated sections in Hebrews 6, but in its context that doesn’t seem to be moral but a denial of the truth of Jesus Christ and a turning back to the Old Covenant for sufficiency and hope with the motive to “protect their necks”.
Anyway I have been trying to reconcile Election with my new found position of forfeiting (though my forfiet would be more in reference to faith not lifestyle) so I will let you know what I come up with.
Lionel: Faith (or lack thereof) is evidenced by one’s actions. What good does it do to say ‘I believe in Christ,’ while living in adultery? I’d argue that a life marked by continual unrepentant sin is a life void of faith. To quote a phrase out of context: “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
8) @ Nick!
Nick:
I think I would disagree and say a life marked by continual unrepentant sin is a life void of the power of the Spirit and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with belief or trust in God (beyond maybe the initial faith that caused us to receive the Spirit). It seems possible to be a Christian yet not walk in the Spirit and live fleshly for periods of time. Now if you do that the whole time you are a Christian then I would probably guess you never had the Spirit. It does seem possible that you can be living in sin yet still be a Christian, but how long is another question. After a certain amount of time I think you can tell that you have walked away from your salvation or you were never really saved in the first place.
Bryan L
The Apostle’s Creed isn’t biblical.
or Apostles’
Bryan: James says that even the demons ‘believe’ so I’ll grant that a life marked by sin doesn’t void ‘belief,’ but it absolutely voids faithfulness. If you mean “Christian” in name only then I could agree, but somehow I doubt that’s what you mean. It just seems to me from reading Romans 8 (really 6-8) that the idea of a believer living in sin and remaining saved would be a foreign idea to Paul. Being in Christ frees us from the power of sin and death (8:2); God declared an end to sin’s control over us (8:4, NLT); the carnal mind is hostile to God and can never please him (8:7-8); living according to the flesh brings death (8:13); etc. I think if one always lived like this then it would be an indication of a false conversion, but if one goes into a state like this after having walked according to the Spirit and bearing genuine fruit then I’d say that such a person has forfeited their salvation. If a person becomes so hardened in this state that they never repent and seek forgiveness then we’d call them an apostate. That’s how I see it at least.
Didn’t we have a conversation along these lines a while back in some emails? I’ll have to look and see if I still have them in my saved folder.
Steph: I guess it depends on how you’re defining “biblical.” If you mean “in the Bible” then no, the Apostles’ Creed is clearly not biblical. If you mean “in accord with what’s in the Bible” then yeah, it’s biblical in so far as its propositions represent truths found in the Bible.
The apostles’ creed is an interpretation.
Nick:
“I think if one always lived like this then it would be an indication of a false conversion, but if one goes into a state like this after having walked according to the Spirit and bearing genuine fruit then I’d say that such a person has forfeited their salvation.”
If one always lived that way then I would agree with you. However if someone goes into a state like that after their conversion then the question is how long ’til they lose their salvation? Are we talking about the rest of their life? A week? A day? A month? A few years?
And if they can forfeit their salvation for a week (or day, month, year, whatever), and then get it back after repenting then this just perpetuates the idea of constantly losing and gaining your salvation, doesn’t it?
Also I would question what your idea of living in sin is since I think this may be where we have a real disagreement. I think I see it as a life characterized more by sin than by holiness (the sin outweighs the holiness), whereas you see it as someone who continues to practice even just one sin over an extended period of time.
We did have a conversation along these lines some time back.
Bryan L
Steph: I agree; and a biblical one at that. ;-)
Bryan: It’s not the idea of forfeiting and regaining salvation that bothers me; it’s the extreme that the second you’ve committed a sin you’ve lost it that I find unbalanced. Concerning the “how long” question, I’d say however long it takes for them to stop living for God, to stop caring about their sin and seeking God’s forgiveness. I’m not sure that we can put any time limit on it.
I don’t disagree with your definition of “living in sin” but I wonder how we’d measure that. What’s the scale on which we weigh sin vs. holiness? What’s the difference between one continual unrepentant sin and one hundred? Adultery is only one sin. I don’t imagine that you think a man can live in adultery and remained saved (do you?).
Nick:
The idea of forfeiting and regaining salvation over and over is what disturbs me. I would sooner become a Calvinist than believe that. I also don’t care for the extreme that once you’ve committed a sin you’ve lost your salvation.
“I’d say however long it takes for them to stop living for God, to stop caring about their sin and seeking God’s forgiveness. I’m not sure that we can put any time limit on it.”
That could happen over and over in just one day. But yes if someone’s whole life has become characterized by this behavior for an extended period of time then I think we can say that they have forfeited their salvation. However people usually don’t get to that point over night. They still hold onto their beliefs and morality for a while even after falling into certain “big” sins. There seems to be a period of limbo when people start falling into sin where they have their feet in two worlds and aren’t all the way living in sin but aren’t all the way living for God. I would say that at that point they haven’t forfeited their salvation but they are getting close to the point where they do. They’re at a cross roads.
“What’s the scale on which we weigh sin vs. holiness? What’s the difference between one continual unrepentant sin and one hundred? Adultery is only one sin. I don’t imagine that you think a man can live in adultery and remained saved (do you?).”
That’s the question with anything we try to draw distinctions on that isn’t already there by nature (such as the definition of rich. If we came up with a dollar amount that made you rich would we say a dollar under it is not rich).
I wouldn’t say that anyone living in adultery definitely is or isn’t saved. Every situation is different. Would remarrying after getting divorced constitute living in adultery? Would a woman finding love in the arms of another man outside of her abusive marriage disqualify her from salvation? What about someone forced into marriage who didn’t want to be married to someone in the first place. If they find love with someone else are they forfeiting their salvation? How long do you have to commit adultery before you are living in adultery? Besides, the reality is sex, love and passion make people do crazy things that they might not do in their right minds (especially depending on their context). It can make people temporarily insane. Maybe God has mercy on those who give in in those moments of insanity.
I know you are probably disagreeing with all that I’ve written but I just don’t see losing salvation as a really black and white issue. I think that is why God doesn’t leave it to us to judge who is in and who is out.
Bryan L
Bryan: I don’t think it works out in practice like that, but theoretically I see it as possible. And I’d be a Calvinist if I thought they made the best sense of what the Bible says. ;-)
I’ll take this opportunity to bow out from the discussion because I don’t want to get sidetracked on adultery. Until the next one…
Nick – as Kelly’s little book shows, there are lots of creeds and the earliest creed was not the Apostles’ creed. And they are all interpretations. And they are not the same. The virgin birth is extremely debatable and I’m not sure how the holy catholic Church and the communion of saints is “biblical”
Steph: Oh, I agree. There’s a bunch of little creedal statements in the Bible which came before the Apostles’ Creed. And the virginal conception may be debatable from a historical perspective, but not from a canonical one.
I think it’s debatable that literal virgin is what the biblical text means in the original language. And there’s till the little issue of the holy catholic Church and the communion of saints.
I just find it depressing that Christians exclude each other from being proper Christians because of different interpretations.
Steph: If we were talking about Isaiah 7:14 then I’d agree, but not in the NT. I understand that parthenos can refer to one who isn’t a virgin (e.g., Gen. 34:3, LXX) but I think contextually in both Matthew and (especially) Luke’s infancy narratives it’s fairly clear that Mary was a virgin.
I’m not clear on what the objections are to the catholic Church and communion of the saints. You know that catholic just meant universal and didn’t carry the modern connotation of Roman Catholic and Jesus and Paul both envisioned a single Church/body of Christ. Was there something else about the phrases that you had in mind?
Steph…this reminds me of a story when I was about 10…We said the Apostles’ Creed every Sunday in church…I said to my mother…but, but Mom…we don’t believe #9. She said yes you do just say it! I moved my mouth, but I wouldn’t say it until someone explained it to me…*: )
I believe that was the same year I watched The Bells of St. Mary’s on TV…went into my mom and told her I was going to be a nun when I grew up…Without even looking up she said,”No you’re not…” I answered uh hu…She answered…”I gaurntee you’re not!”
It’s not clear at all and the communion of saints etc is a bit of a stretch. I accept your interpretation entirely but I also think God would accept that of others.
Nobody ever told me what I believed or what I should believe Nancy.
I was ten…things changed a bit later.*; )
Fair enough. Until the next time : )
Bryan L
not even when I was very young – and by the time I was 10 I was pretty much aware of what I didn’t believe.
Ahhh, but it set me on the eternal path of the “whiny why”…*; )
and it allowed me to take the path of the ‘happy agnostic’… :-)