once saved always saved? hmmm....?
I dunno. the more i read scripture the more i think maybe not. there are so many people who get "saved" and then turn away. I know many of you say that they probibly weren't really saved, but if being saved means believing in John 3:16, then I have known a lot of people who have believed that, then eventually fallen away from it. What about the parable of the seeds? The seed can be planted, then die from the wrong conditions. What are your thoughts?
posted by operamom at 2:43 PM
23 Comments:
well, let's start with the parable of the seeds. the seed is planted, then dies from the wrong conditions. someone hears the word of God, accepts it for a while, then rejects it later because of the wrong conditions. but, if you talked to that person right away, when they first accepted it, you might consider them to be "saved." they might talk the good talk, but later in life, reject the gospel. I wouldn't call that once saved always saved.
let's look also at Matthew 24:45-50
who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in this household to give them their food at the proper time? it will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'my master is staying away a long time," and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
does this not imply that the man was once a servant of God, but chose to go in an evil direction? Jesus sure doesn't talk about him going to heaven despite this.
snoopy--it's fine to disagree on this one. this is just something that i was raised with, and now i am beginning to disagree. I just don't think there is enough evidence in the bible to support this. if anyone wants to swing me the other way, feel free however.
Wow, this is a huge question. I grew up believing once saved always saved as well. And there have been lengthy periods in my life when I have questioned it. I usually resolve the issue by reminding myself that the only person's salvation I can be sure of is my own, really. When I start questioning that of others is when I get off. Usually it's the person who is not walking in what God has for them, who is walking in disobedience. And, I just can't judge that. There's no way. No way whatsoever. It'll drive you mad. And it will steal your joy.
But I'd like to look at these passages with you. About the parable of the sower, Matt. 13:
When Jesus explains the parable, he says, "20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word (previously defined as "the message of the kingdom") and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes (the wrong conditions, i.e. scorching sun) because of the word, he quickly falls away.
I see how one might interpret "fall away" as lose their salvation, but I'm not convinced we can make that conclusion. The King James version translates the phrase "by and by he is offended," meaning in the Greek: entrapped, tripped up (stumble), enticed. So it seems that he could "fall away" from belief, or maybe "fall away" from obedience, be enticed to sin, or to fail to stand strong amidst that persecution, quick to give in.
I think it could be saying, he is easily enticed and misled by Satan because he has no root. He is foolish. He is weak minded. Perhaps for the time being. But not necessarily, that he lost salvation.
So, I can't believe it, but I broke out Strong's Concordance for this. I don't have a seminary degree, so Cach, feel free to correct me here. I may be in over my head.
Thanks, Snoopy. I was mainly referring to the translation of the Greek word there. I don't necessarily feel un-confident, more like, cautious.
I've been involved in Bible studies in which we used Strong's Concordance to try to get a clearer understanding of Scripture, and what happened instead was silliness, really. People thinking all of the sudden they knew how to translate and interpret Greek and Hebrew, when they had no clue, because they were never taught. And the result was a completely wrong interpretation of Scripture altogether. It was a bit scary actually.
I really wouldn't say that I am as equipped to discern Scripture as a minister. I lack ALOT of training. Although the Holy Spirit surely guides us all as we read and question. But I very much appreciate your encouragement. Thank you.
i agree fancy, that we can't judge other people's salvation. Right-e-o dahling. however, I just really think that this is a false teaching. sorry snoops. not meaning to offend anyone. or at the very least that this teaching is miss-leading. (spell? you know what I mean) i think that in talks that snoopy and i have had, it goes back to interpretation. correct me if i am wrong snoopy, but you have said that if someone was "truly saved," then they won't fall away. I whole heartedly agree. however, the bible, in the parable of the seeds, and the other parable in matthew 24 that i quoted, seem to elude to people that do indeed fall away. I think that at the very least, the savior is warning us. don't be sleeping when the master is away. yet, we good baptists, say, Once saved always saved, and that just leads people to cruise along, not heeding the warnings of Christ, because, oh--once saved always saved--so i'm cool.
now, this is touchy, because we don't want to get into salvation through works. that's not right either. But, do we go on sinning in our merry little worlds, and abuse grace, because, once saved, always saved? it goes back to that fine line between grace and works again. help me out, paul talks about this somewhere. romans?
I would just like a few scripture references to convince me of "once saved always saved." this concept should atleast be explained better.
I sound bitter, but i am just really curious.
i am also not advocating the ol' go down every sunday and get saved method, just to be sure either. I just wonder if we don't swing the other way a little.
however, i guess if we are going to swing one way, then the grace way is the best way to swing.
I've given this topic a lot of thoughts over the years, and I've come to the conclusion that "once saved, always saved" takes away a person's freedom of choice, which is an integral part of God's relationship with man (Remember the Tree of Good and Evil.) However I think a person would have to work really hard to fall from grace-basically willfully turn completely from God and denounce their former beliefs. I've come to this conclusion by taking the entire Bible in overall context and examining God's character and activity toward the Children of Israel.
snoopy, your post did remind me of the prodigal son. that is probibly a more "popular parable," but also a very good example of how we are towards God and how God is towards us. It is interesting, because lately, I have been talking myself back into "once saved always saved." the more I think about how "scummy" we all really are, no offense to anyone, the more I realize that once saved always saved has given me a security blanket of grace. if i pull that blanket out, then i will immediately start trying to "earn" my salvation. with my security blanket of grace, then I begin to do things for God out of Love, which should be my motivation.
Campfire--you touched on something really important. you do have to take the bible as a whole and not just pull certain verses out of context. God's overall relationship to us is grace and love, and heck, even if we denouce our beliefs, according to the bible, we can still come back.
I hope I'm not too late to chime in with a few thoughts here.
This is a subject that is quite the favorite among people who love to "argue doctrine", because it's sort of a flash-point issue between different approaches to scripture and salvation.
I know that none of you are wanting to argue just for doctrinal sake -- like me, you all ponder these things because we do wonder about them honestly, and wonder how they affect us.
I've seen people start hearing all this talk, who get really scared because they think "I have times when I doubt. I have times when I sin, even knowing fully well it's wrong, but I do it anyway. I even curse God sometimes. Sometimes I just don't feel like I like His way of doing things. Does that mean I'm not saved?"
Ultimately, I agree with what Fancy said. The only salvation that each one of us personally can be sure of is our own, because that's between us and God. God looks on the heart, man looks on the outward appearance.
I've heard so many testimonies of people who spent years in the church, listening to the messages and saying all the right things, believed by everyone else to be "one of us", only to find out that they admit later, for one reason or another that they never really believed.
And Jesus tells us that those who truly believe and those who don't will be side by side, and look the same to everyone on the outside, but when God judges, He will surprise many when He tells them that they never really believed at all (e.g. the sheep and the goats).
I think part of the problem is the use of the word "saved". Saved from what? Saved to what? Saved now, or saved from hell later on?
Ultimately, we would all agree that in the end, those who live with the Lord forever because of the Blood of Jesus were saved, and those who spend an eternity separated from God in hell were not saved. And only God knows who makes which list, because He is the Judge that decides who is who.
Some things to think about:
-God is on our side in this according to scripture. He desires that all men would be saved (2 Peter 3:9). We know that not all men will accept Him and be saved, but He desires that they would.
-Since God lives outside time and space, and knows all things, wouldn't it make sense that if someone accepted Him as Lord, but were going to then do bad things that would cause himself to lose salvation, that God would simply strike that person dead, since that way, the person would not depart from the saved state that God desires, but would remain saved?
That last statement should also make you wonder -- if someone is "saved", but five years later has a change of heart and openly curses God and renounces salvation, so that this person is sent to hell for eternity, then how were they ever "saved" at all? Since being "saved" means they made it to eternity with the Lord, but that person didn't, and God knows all men's hearts, then was that five-year span of "being saved" really salvation at all? Or something else? (And if so, what was that five years of "being saved"?)
So, what I'm getting at is that we use that word "saved" in a strange way today. We are led to envision it as a temporary state of being, that maybe we can move in and out of it based on --whatever, I guess -- our belief system, whether we are doctrinally deceived, whether or not we are openly living in sin, and whatever else we think can "endanger our salvation".
Hebrews 6 is a scripture that is often used to argue that salvation can be "lost". But I'd recommend that if you are going to read that, you'd also read the first five chapters of Hebrews carefully, and notice that the same words and phrases are used in a different sense than they are "understood" to be used in Hebrews 6.
If my understanding of Hebrews 6 is correct, it actually means just the opposite of how people misunderstand it. Jesus would have to be crucified over and over again, if we could be "saved" and then "unsaved" and then "saved" and then "unsaved", etc, that Jesus would have to die for us again each time, but that He actually died once for all.
I also think salvation is a state of relationship, not a state of "standing", meaning we become a new creature, a child of God created by Him as a new kind of creation, and that new creature is in relationship with Him, as a child. Every time a child displeases his parent, he doesn't cease to be a child, he still maintains the same relationship, there's just a conflict that needs to be resolved.
Sorry, I'll stop now. There have been many, many books written on this, and obviously I could write my own. :-)
It might shock you to hear that I've tried to keep these comments very brief, but honestly I have tried (I failed, but I tried). I know many of the scriptures that people use for both sides of this argument, and it's best to read those in full context to really understand them better.
Once Saved always Saved is a doctrine that came out of Calvinism. It seems that there are three ways to look at the idea of being saved:
1. The Universalist. The universalist believes that EVERYONE is saved no matter what. Christ died for your sins once and for all as it says in Col. no matter what you say about it or who you believe in. Its done. (I came very near to this at one point. It made much more sense to me then Calvinism considering that God is Love and that the scripture says that He died so that all may believe)
2. Calvinist. The Calvinist believes that God created some for heaven and some for hell. They use the words of Paul when he speaks of "Vessels of Mercy and Wrath" to substantiate this position. It gives a yen and yang to the idea of universalism. All of us here who have believed in Chirst have been predestined for that and are going even if we renounce Him tommorrow and die. However those who he ordained for hell, well, tough luck.
3. The way that the Church has believed right up to Calvin for about 1500 years (and is starting to beleive again.) God gives us the choice. And we can make that choice whenever we wish. If I decide to denounce Christ tommorrow, I can. However Falling from this Grace is harder than we would think.
The first two ways, God picks who goes to heaven and Hell and sends them there by creating them.
The third way, We choose Him or Hell. And God wishes that ALL would come to him, not some. Now does that mean that he doesn't know who will, No. And this is where it is a mystery. Somehow He knows and yet he lets us choose. It is for certain one of our faiths greatest mysteries.
One thing to remember if you fall into categorie 3. If you are worrying about not being "saved" then you are probably okay and you should move on in freedom and aware of His grace and that you are free. It is those who denounce Him and have lost their conscience and can no longer hear the voice of the Holy Spirit that should be worried.
I would say that I fall into category 3. However I do believe that if someone has truly believed in the Savior and the Holy Spirit has made His home in them then turning away from that grace is rare. This is why the backslidden Christian is a truly miserable creature. It is when the backslidden Christian denouces God to releive him or herself of this conscience that they are in danger. But even then, it is NEVER for us to judge. It is only our job to Love, pray and tell.
The rest is God's territory.
i am going to take a crack at C. hammer's response before i read seth's.
you seem to have thought this through, more than I have, and for that i am thankful since I need some help on this one. you are so right about the term, "saved." if you walk up to a catholic on the street and ask them if they are saved, they might look at you like you are crazy, yet actually be on the road to salvation.
i don't mean to imply that i sit around and wonder about other people's salvations, although, maybe i do. i will have to think that one. fancy is right, and it is between the person and God.
fancy also made an interesting point earlier about "falling away," meaning not to loose salvation, but to "back-slide, (a term I haven't used since discipleship training.) I never thought of it that way before.
it's also true that God is on our side, and that God is outside time and space, yet that does seem to lead to my mind to calvanism. does God already know what is going to happen? after the parable of the seeds, Jesus goes on to say that He speaks in parables so that,
they may be ever seeing but never percieving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.
this completely perplexes me as well. wouldn't God want all of us to be forgiven?
whoa sethie. good lesson. I definitely fall into catagory 3, although sometimes I must confess, I tend to lean towards calvanism. anyone who has prayed relentlessly for someone else to seemingly no avail might lean towards calvanism for some peace of mind--but I for one hope for category 3, because calvanism sounds pretty depressing. i can't see God created anyone for Hell. doesn't seem to nice.
sorry about the grammer. where's the danged edit for comments on this thing? computer dumbo needs to know.
OpMom, here's the verses you were just wondering about. (This just helps me.)
13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
The "them" in this passage is referring to Jews such as the Pharisees that harden their hearts toward Jesus. They listen with unbelieving hearts. (You see in Ch. 12 of Matthew that how the Pharisees refuse Jesus and are calloused to his teaching.)
Jesus says in v. 15 that if these people would understand with their hearts and TURN, then he would heal them. Those that refuse to repent and believe will not understand the message of the kingdom. But those that DO will gain even more understanding than they had to begin with, and thus understand the parables.
There's my two cents on that one.
I might have left out some small sects like those who believe that you must father abraham 3x a day and handle at least 2 snakes but I think these are pretty much the big three. what are the other categories were you thinking snoop? seriously interested.
(btw I didn't mention Arminiansm because it is pretty close to the 3rd way of thinking with one minor alteration.)
There are those that have a totally works based religion but they are not Christian. Islam. for one.
The unitarian universalist is not a orthodox Christian religion. They do not embrace the concept that Jesus as Savior AND God. If you don't believe these two things then you ain't Christian. Period. They are somewhere along the line with J's Witness which are basically fall under the line of a 2-5th century heresy called Arianism.
So they may call themselves "Christian" all they want but they miss that crucial Jesus as God thing. I can call myself an African American all day but I am missing a crucial ingredient.
"Some believe that all (and I mean all) people are going to heaven. Axe murderers and rapists too."
This is the Classic Universalist. The Christian Universalist does believe in all being saved, even the axe murderer.
Purgatory is a belief where the BELIEVER is purged of any unconfessed sin before entering into heaven. It is primarily a Catholic belief and Catholics believe that it is by Grace that you are saved. We just grew up thinking that they didn't. They believe that it is by grace that you have been saved through Faith, not by works, but they also take James just as seriously as Paul when he says "faith without works is dead" so they believe that If there are no good works then your faith is dead. If your faith is dead then so is vine you are hanging off.
It is interesting that Martin Luther wanted James thrown out of the Canon.
Anyway my Catholic friends have explained it this way:
It would be like saying "I believe that I need to work out and get fit" and turn around, turn the tv on and grab the tater chips. Did you really believe that? If you did then that belief is now drowning in Pringles and Pepsi and is dead.
But you can ask any REAL Catholic and they will tell you that it takes more than being a good boy or girl to get to heaven.
okay, now I practically want to be catholic, because your last paragraph, seth wo, explained exactly where i am headed with this. I get tired of hearing people say, and i include myself in this scenerio, that they are christian then turn around and lead a life of debauchery. i don't want to preach works here, we are all saved by grace, let me say that again, we are all saved by GRACE, so as not to be misunderstood. however, there should be some "ye shall know them by their fruits," goin' on.
fancy--i guess i interpreted that earlier verse wrong. the way you put it makes more since.
snoopy--i think you should blog on calvanism and what lead you there. we would all be interested to know. maybe you could sway me.
somebody tell me where the edit button is before i make any more of a fool of myself.
Read Acts 4:32-5:11.
First off, it's one of those passages I just wish wasn't in the Bible.
Second, I think it says, (if nothing else), that our actions do matter.
Third, for those with Calvinist leanings, (not picking on you Snoop), try to resist the urge to interject election into a passage that mentions nothing about it. Those two were unquestionably believers and members of the Church.
And finally... once saved always saved?
Woah, that passage has always freaked me out.
So, Cach, are saying that God striking these two dead means they lost their salvation?
Couldn't they be dead, but still be saved? Eternal life still secure?
OpMom, I feel like there are a million passages in the gospels that I don't get. Most of them are said by Jesus. This one I think I had studied before. But others just drive me nuts. I'm glad I could help a little with this one.
Well that's just the thing, isn't it? Their salvation isn't even discussed! They are members of the community, they act in violation, and they die. Salvation doesn't even come up. Perhaps this is because, as I believe, we are not saved for heaven, we are saved from now on and should act like it. That does not mean once and always, it means that we are saved in the now every moment. I actually do believe we can move from saved to unsaved. I may go into it more later, but I'm very tird right now. Sorry.
cach. I also believe that we can move from the saved to the unsaved. sorry everyone. once saved always saved just does not seem biblical to me.
it's like any other relationship. if i stop speaking to someone and curse their name, do everything they hate, ect. then are they going to acknowledge me? i know that God is different from us, but it seems that Jesus warns against this kind of behavior, and clearly says not to do it. several times. the prodigal son seems to be an exception, but hey, he came home didn't he?
fancy--sometimes the words of the savior cause me the most confusion. i total relate now. it is like lately, i have actually been taking His words apart in a very real way. before, i just sort of...i don't know, didn't register a lot somehow.
Post a Comment
<< Home