As was pointed out in the comment section of the first post in this series, other theological issues affect our views of the possibility of believers falling from grace. As we start into that territory, I need to offer one more word of caution.
Whenever we draw limits around God, we’re wrong. Yes, it’s true that God can’t do things that go against his nature: he can’t lie, he can’t die, etc. But anytime that we claim to have perfectly defined God, we’re sure to be wrong in some way. The finite can’t explain the infinite.
God can’t…
God has to…
God will always…
We have to be careful with such statements. God will be God (as I discussed in the post “My God Can Beat Up Your God“).
“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)
Let’s keep that in mind as we move forward.
By the name of my blog, you can see I was disturbed by your first sentence. Falling from grace? How can a person do such a thing?
How do we limit God? In my walk thru this life I don’t ask God for anything. Crazy that it sounds, he owes me nothing, because he has given me everything thru grace and the finished work of the cross. In my opinion, knowing and understanding grace is all the blessing I need. I thank God everyday the free will he has given me and the freedom to live my life immersed in his presence thru grace, unmerited favor.
I’m sorry that it was disturbing to you. In my search for a way to describe the subject we’re talking about, I opted for the phrase Paul used in his letter to the Galatians. “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Now your gettin’ up in r’s kitchen :-).
Though no person to my knowledge has ever claimed to have God all figured out, it sure came across that way when hearing a lot of sermons growing up. We knew who was saved, who wasn’t…and the precise reasons for such knowledge to the point that an imaginary box was created that God surely had bound himself too (despite plenty of scripture in which God showed that he was not bound to the box the Jews had come to believe he was limited too). Of course, I know our fellowship was not the only group guilty of this…I think it was more a product of modernism/enlightment thought but that is for another discussion.
Grace and peace,
Rex
I think we should clarify what “fallen from grace” means; particularly as its defined in context. Galatians 5:4 reads, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Paul is not talking about losing salvation here. He isn’t talking about being saved then unsaved. He is drawing conflicting pictures between grace (via Christ) and works of the law (via law-keeping) in regards to justification. One “falls from grace” when they claim belief yet pursue or teach justification by works of the law. I think where we get caught is that we may think that just because somebody says they are a Christian that they are one. Then if they deny Jesus at some later point we think “oh, they lost salvation.” That is being presumptuous twice over.
Here is the key: where does our confidence rest? Do we rest upon that “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ?” and that “there is therefore now no condemnation” or do we trouble ourselves with the anxieties of what we “do” and if what we don’t “do” at the risk of “losing” Christ?
To say the latter, in my view, is to say that Christ isn’t enough. There must be something you need to add to Jesus in order to finally be justified in the end. But contrary to this is that, “if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Rom 11:6). In other words the saving grace of God through Jesus is not conditional (“free grace”).
“For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation [that would include “YOU” -ed Jr], will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39).
Lastly1: Can someone point out to me the qualification to the following statement that must be present in order to believe one can lose salvation? “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:30).
Lastly2: Phil 1:6, “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” Is “will” suppose to read “might, depending on what you do”?
JR,
I want to discuss this later, but since you keep repeating the phrase, I feel the need to address it. Recognizing the possibility of man rejecting what God offers does NOT say that Jesus’ sacrifice is insufficient. Unless you’re a universalist, you see some limitations to Jesus’ atonement and recognize that some will choose to accept that atonement and others will not. Since God wills that all men be saved and Christ’s blood is more than sufficient, you must accept universalism… or admit that it’s not as simple as you’re trying to make it sound.
As to what you see as “the key,” well, again, you’re trying to put everyone who disagrees with you into one bag. There are some people who worry about “accidentally” losing their salvation. Many who believe that it is possible to “make a shipwreck” of one’s faith don’t see it that way.
It’s helpful to read Paul without inserting qualifying statements that potentially change his meaning. I believe those are the “colored glasses” someone referred to before.
Now, will you find it helpful if I begin to string together proof texts to counter yours… is that how you see this discussion progressing? You can name a bunch of verses, I can name a bunch of verses, we each try and explain away the other’s verses while supporting our own… and we achieve what?
I will try and explore verses that support different views, but I do not believe there is a verse that trumps another. “You have this one, but I have this one that is stronger.”
Now about Galatians 5, there is a power in stating as fact what is merely one’s opinion. It can be an effective debating tool. However, since the whole Galatian letter is about Paul fearing that his work among the Galatians was in vain, you’re going to have to do more than merely assert that he isn’t discussing salvation. Context says otherwise.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Hebrews 3.14 reads:
“For we have become partners of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence to the end” (NRSV).
“We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold firmly to the end our original conviction” (TNIV).
I was just reading through Hebews today not for the purpose of any sermon, exegesis, or some ministry task but just to be in the word when this verse stuck out at me. I have no doubt that apart from its context, some would take the conditional nature to place the burden of salvation upon humanity. This, of course, would be incongruent with both the theology of the NT and the exegetical context of Hebrews. Nevertheless, there is a condition placed upon the readers whom the writer of Hebrews regards as “Christians”, So it seems at least, given the conditional nature of this verse, that it is possible for Christians to abandon their confessional committment to Christ and if and when they do that they cease to “share in” and be “partners of” Christ.
So who is right? Paul (Romans)? Or the writer of Hebrews? Or even John (Revelation)?
I am raising this question because I think it would be easy to pit the Pauline letters against the rest of the NT and come aways with a NT witness that has sort of a multiple personality disorder to which some liberal scholars and theologians already concede but somethine to which all of us would be very hesitant to concede. Perhaps there is at least a theological paradox that exists between Paul and the rest of the NT but nevertheless, I want to still strive for a congruent witness that runs throughout the entire NT without allowing either the Pauline voice or the rest of the NT voices to trump the other and so I find myself presently with this view:
We are saved by grace through faith which is our willingness to trust in the promises of God and obey his will for our lives. Nothing we have ever or will ever do will earn or merit God the Father’s grace upon our lives expressed though the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and second-coming of his Son Jesus Christ and the giving of his Holy Spirit as a promise of that Eternal life which I posses now in part but will experience in fullness when Christ returns in glory (cf. Rom 1-8). As a recipient of that Grace, God calls me to live as a disciple of his Son Jesus. As mightily as I try, I still fail to live up to this standard. However, the blood of Christ continues to cleanse me of my failures (sin) assuring me of my inheritance in Christ when he returns (cf. Eph1-2). This assurance is not determined by how well I live but it can be forfeited if I should give up my confession of faith (cf. Heb 3) or knowlingly and rebelliously turn my back on my confession and return to willful deeds of this world/fless (cf. Rev 22).
I stand to be corrected but I have done my best to articulate rather simplisticlly and briefly a view that tries to reconcile an apparent paradox in scripture (though I am certain the paradox did not exist to the apostolic and post-apostolic early church) while refraining from viewing my salvation as something I have earned or merited in any way, shape, or form.
So, to Jr., I do hear the verses you are citing from Romans, etc… and I do wrestle with them but they neither trump nor submitt to the rest of the NT. Perhaps there is a paradox, although I think that is more of our own making than actuality. To those who believe that our final judgment is up to whether we do enough good or not…they need to hear what Paul has to say. In turn, to those who think they can never forfeit their salvation…they need to hear what writers like the Hebrews writer and what the Apostle John in Revelation are saying.
I still could be wrong but presently, I can’t see another possibility that takes the entire NT witness into consideration.
Grace and peace,
Rex
BTW…sorry for the inconsisenties between the use of the singular and plural persons.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Great discussion! Rex and Tim, I will have to agree with you. Let us remember to let the scripture dissect us once in a while and stop dissecting it day in and day out. Good discussion though!
Rex: The verse you quoted, Hebrews 3:14, (along with 1 Cor 15:1-2, Col 1:21-23, Mark 13:13) is a perfect example of perseverance of the saints. It is a phrase saying, basically, “if you hold firm to the end, you are proving to now be partakers in Christ.” To the negative it says, “if you don’t hold firm to the end, you are proving that you are not now a partaker in Christ.” That is exactly what I believe. And what we know is that those who are truly in Christ will, without a shadow of a doubt, hold firm to the end; for this is the promise of the Spirit and, thankfully, it is Christ who keeps us (see Eph 1:13-14, Rom 8:28-32, John 10:26-30, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 Peter 5:8-10, Jude 24-25, 1 Thess 5:23-24, 1 Cor 1:8-9, Phil 1:6, 2:12-13). Oh how this is precious!
I also want to affirm two things with you:
1) Obedience of faith is necessary (and linked to the above)
2) All NT (and OT!) must be read together; absolutely. If we don’t get it, it’s not God’s fault. Scripture is not contradictory. Therefore I do not believe Paul/Jesus/James/Peter/John/Moses etc. are contradictory. I definitely believe in the whole counsel of God.
And let me also say; I do believe God is glorified when He is the topic of discussion among His people. Iron sharpening iron. Knowing why we believe what we believe. These are all good things.
Tim: As to the Galatians 5 text, it is about how one is justified before God but, as I said (and where I think we disagree), it is not about losing salvation. What Paul says immediately prior to this is that if you value works of the law as your justification than “Christ will be of no advantage to you” (v.2). He is making a point to the congregation against the teaching of those who have come in claiming they must be circumcised to be justified; and Paul is making the point that if you rely on circumcision to be justified than there is no need of Christ (grace) because you are then relying on works (of the law). He is not saying “if you get circumcised you will lose your salvation” and that is not, in my opinion, what “falling from grace” means in this text.
Grace to you –
The problem is, Jr, that goes against the “plain meaning” of the text. Admittedly that is necessary sometimes, but it needs strong justification.
Paul is writing to the Galatians. He addresses them in second person throughout the book. He also refers to outsiders who want to force the Galatians to be circumcised; this is done in the third person.
Let’s look at the text:
How can we justify a switch in meaning from “you” in verse 4 to the “you” in verse 7 and 8? The “you” who can fall away from grace in verse 4 is called by God and was running a good race. I’ll admit to not being the most knowledgeable about the Greek language, so maybe you can point out something I’m not seeing. I can only depend on translations; the 10 or so translations that I have available to me don’t admit the interpretation you propose. Am I missing some nuance in the Greek? Or are there people called by God, “running a good race,” that aren’t among the predestined?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Jr.,
I disagree of course :-).
The passages I mentioned (and I will also add Hebrews 6) state a possible condition that leaves open the possibility that some could and might “fall away” (loose their salvation) and not because they were never really believers/Christians/born-again disciples/etc…for the writer of Hebrews is talking about people who have already come to faith (Heb 6.4-5). And I have a hard time believing that the writer of Hebrews, inspired by God, would describe someone as already a Christian even though mysteriously and secretly they were really not which now has become aparent by their falling away.
To accept your conclusion just seems like it requires too much theological gymnastics (which is one of my problems with certain aspects of systematic theology). But that is alright. I believe we can disagree on this issue and still both be brothers in Christ longing for that which we hope for when Christ returns.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex: I find it interesting that you abandoned the 3:14 text by a simple “I disagree” without any solid exegesis of context; particularly because it relates directly to the chapter 6 text. A true believer is one who holds his/her “original confidence firm to the end.” Then we have chapter 6 where I just ask that you not only keep reading the chapter but also understand the context and argument.
Namely: v.9: “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.”
In other words, everything he just talked about, including “falling away” and bearing thorns, does not belong to salvation. That’s the point. “in your case brothers we are sure of better things.” One can do all of those things externally such as partake in all the experiences of a believer, and have zero internal change/not be a true believer. And even if the person he is talking about is a Christian he plays it out to its absurd conclusion that repentance again would be like “crucifying once again the Son of God”. The Hebrews message is that He died once and His work was complete.
This is what is most astonishing to me here: In context the warning in Hebrews was against going back to the Temple sacrifices (thus making Christ pointless); and here I am in a blog conversation hearing that a believer must maintain his own justification or else they will “fall away”; which is exactly what the author of Hebrews was writing against in Hebrews 6. Unreal.
I get it. You must keep yourself. Self-justification in all its man-centered glory. And you wonder why those we minister to are worried they will slip and lose their salvation? Perhaps it is because we teach them its up to them to keep it. There is NO assurance in the flesh.
Tim: You wrote, “Unless you’re a Universalist, you see some limitations to Jesus’ atonement and recognize that some will choose to accept that atonement and others will not.”
1) I’m not a Universalist
2) Man’s “choice” is limited by his able capacity to choose (flesh vs. spirit).
3) Christ did not die for every single person on earth who has or who ever will live. Though His blood is absolutely sufficient to cover all men (which is why we preach it as a free offer to all men), it was never intended to cover all men (we do not know but God has chosen). The atonement was intended to cover His Bride, His Chosen People, the Elect. Christ was 100% successful at Calvary. He purchased His Bride perfectly; not just an opportunity.
4) I believe Christ actually saved a people at Calvary and disagree that He left salvation up to spiritual dead-men.
5) If everyone’s sins were atoned for that what is the point of being born-again? Or will forgiven people go to hell?
Space is insufficient here to explain this view completely but I do want to address one passage of Scripture: Romans 8:28-39. Since I want to get beyond the excuse that I’m “proof-texting” I’ll do a little exegesis.
When you read v.31-39 you will see the pronoun “us” eight (8) times. Who are the “us” in v.31-39? v.30 answers that question; “those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
If the “us” in v.31-39 is all humanity (which you propose) then those who believe Christ died for all men are going to be forced into a position of absolute Universalism. You will not be able to affirm the existence of those who are saved and those who will be lost. Here is why:
Who is the “us” in v.33a? “who will bring a charge against God’s elect.” So the “us” is God’s elect. v.33b then reads, “God is the one who justifies.” Justifies who? God justifies the elect (v.33a). Who is it that’s justified? v.30 those who are “predestined, called, justified, glorified.”
Continuing: “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God who…” Who also does what? “…is interceding for us.” So then the work of atonement AND intercession are both the singular work of the High Priest. Those for whom Christ dies He also intercedes for.
And so I ask all of you who are just absolutely committed to this idea that Jesus’ death must be for every single individual; does that then mean that Jesus stands before the throne of the Father interceding on the behalf of every individual who will be in hell for eternity? And if that is the case does that mean that His intercession is fruitless? That can’t be the case since Hebrews 7 says that it’s His intercession that makes Him able to save the uttermost.
So then is there a disagreement in the Godhead; where the Son wants to save someone and the Father does not? Certainly not.
So this is a singular work of God. It is a perfect work of God. He intercedes for us. It’s the same “us” all the way through; this is God’s elect. “Who will then separate us from the love of Christ?” If you’re going to make this “us” someone other than the elect of God, then you have the specter of God loving the non-elect throughout eternity savingly. He wants to save them, but He is going to be eternally frustrated. The eternally frustrated God; the eternally unhappy God. Is that truly what we see being presented in the Scriptures? I don’t believe that it is.
Jr,
Thanks for your answer. I’m hoping that you won’t again accuse anyone of questioning the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, for even you place limitations on it. That’s the point I was trying to make.
Thanks for trying to force me into universalism, but that only comes if we propose that every man that God wants to be saved will be saved. God’s salvation has appeared to ALL men.
The image of man resisting God’s salvation and God feeling frustrated by that is VERY biblical: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37) God loved Israel, but was rejected by her time and again.
God is not man. That’s a big part of the problem I see here. When we try to paint God in man’s terms, we’re forced to do whatever gymnastics are necessary to make God be the way we think he should be, rather than letting him be “I am who I am.”
“This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19)
When God stands and says, “Choose,” it’s not a game. Man has a choice to make. God has commanded that ALL MEN repent; those that choose to do so will receive his blessing. Why would the apostles have implored people to be saved if their salvation were already decided? The weight of the testimony of the Bible is against such.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: Christ’s sacrifice is fully sufficient. It saved 100% of those it was meant to save.
And I see you didn’t address anything in the above exegesis with Romans 8:28-39.
And do you assume that Paul knew who the elect were? You’re assuming we have the knowledge and hidden will of God at our disposal. Of course Paul didn’t know who the elect were; that’s why He preached and that’s why we preach. We don’t save anyone; God does. He has ordained that preaching be a means to His ordained ends of gathering His sheep; and if we have an ounce of love in our hearts we want to see all men saved… so we preach the Gospel.
Jr,
I suppose restating your opinion is supposed to be a way of refuting an argument. Jesus died for all men. God wishes that all men would be saved, yet knows that not all men will accept salvation. Man has a choice… there, since you chose (or were predestined) to not address the points I made, I’ll just restate them as well.
I thought I’d give you a chance to comment on what I wrote about Galatians. But hey, if you want to talk Romans 8, let’s talk Romans 8.
As in Romans 11, Paul talks about God “foreknowing” a group of people. This is on a group level, not an individual level. Not every Jew formed part of the elect, but as a people, they were the chosen people.
God set things up beforehand that a group of people would respond with faith and be justified, being made to be like Christ. Paul, as he does in his letters, addresses his readers as part of that group (as he does when he warns them about believing in vain, not reaching the goal, falling away from grace, etc.). He is addressing the church, so it’s natural for him to speak to them as forming part of that group.
All men are invited to form part of this group, for God’s desire is that all men should be saved and Jesus gave himself for all men: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.” (1Timothy 2:3-6)
Not all who are called will accept the call, but the call goes out to all men.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Jr.,
Who has exegeted what? There is not one comment on this thread that could be considered exegesis…at least not a thorough exegesis. Yet there is credible exegesis out there one every verse mentioned thus far that affirms and supports each theological position, so I doubt you, myself, or anyone else is going to break new ground. We all must read scripture and interpret it. I can be wrong but I happen to find the exgetical and theological arguments for the conclusive thrust of Calvinism to be incoherent with the totality and progressive trajectory of the scriptural narrative (from Genesis to Revelation).
ANd a statement like “Christ’s sacrifice is fully sufficient. It saved 100% of those it was meant to save.” is prime example of what I am speaking of. It is incoherent with God who reveals himself in his covenant with Abraham as an impartial Redeemer interested in reconciling all the nations and peoples to himself. Is the God of the OT different from the God of the NT? Or did God just decide to change is redemptive plan for the cosmos and only include some…the ‘limited elect’? This is why I disagree with the Calvinistic teaching. Further, I find that much of its exegesis of the Pauline corpus of scriptures does so through an unintentional divorce of Paul from the OT/Jewish thought that shaped his thinking.
I know, I know…I have been reading N.T. Wright :-). Yes but not just N.T. Wright. Sanders too. Plus I had a teacher named Dr. Richard Oster for a class called NT Theology in which I wrote a paper that dealt with justification in the book of Romans. I came to the conclusion that prior to that, my understanding of justification, redemption, etc… (which was shaped by Romans) was based on reading Romans apart from its OT/Jewish background. I am far from being an expert on anything, much less OT/Jewish thought but the more I learn the more I realize how much Romans has been read through Agustinian lenses rather than OT lenses.
I hope this explains a bit further why I disagree with you. I wanted you to know that since I highly doubt we are going to change each others minds and debates, in my experience, just seem to harden each side deeper into defending the already held convictions rather than continuing to read and learn with an open mind.
So grace and peace to you, I hope and pray for God’s blessing upon you as you serve his cause.
K. Rex Butts
Rex: You are implying that I am removing Paul from his OT context because of the position of justification/salvation that I take. However, I am pretty convinced in regards to the writings of Jacob Jervell, and what Luke was doing in Luke-Acts in regards to the focus of bringing Israel back together (Jews/Samaritans) to unite the believers in Jesus before any mission to the Gentiles could go all out; and that those who did not believe were “outsiders”; etc. (and everything else that entails) and I have heard you mention his writings somewhere on some other blog as well.
With that, I just want to know that just because I believe what I believe with the topics we’ve addressed on this blog does not mean I’m divorcing Paul from his context. While I believe Wright and Sanders are incorrect in a number of ways (misunderstanding what the reformers were fighting against; confusing what the law should have been vs. how the law was actually practiced in 1st century Judaism; leading to lumping all Judaism in the same cloth and shaping Paul’s Judaic audience with it) it doesn’t mean that I divorce Paul from the context. I can keep him married to it, disagree with Wright etc., and still come away with the same conclusions I do on these points.
Grace to you. The harvest is plentiful and the workers are few… peace.
And Tim: As you do, I have a life. And when I enter this blog for discussion I am the slim minority; with every other person saying about 5 different things, referencing a dozen different scriptures, and I took the time I had to do what I could. What I have found is that the majority of those who agree with me within the churches of Christ have stopped trying to engage in this way; for the reason I just stated. I did what I could with the time that I could. It’s been good.
By the way, how many reformed blogs have you engaged or keep up with? I sincerely hope our fellowship is getting out of its box of just talking to each other.
peace.
Jr, I was noting that before moving on to Romans 8, it would have been helpful to continue discussing Galatians 5.
I belong to a Mac Ministry list. I have been in minority discussions numerous times (we get off the computer topic at times), so I do know how overwhelming it can be.
Just address this one question from Galatians 5: How can we justify a switch in meaning from “you” in verse 4 to the “you” in verse 7 and 8?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I find it strange how we can look at the bible as a book written to present day Christians. A book of Jewish history. A book written in the form of 66
books of which 64 were written by Jews. More specifically how in the world can the book of Hebrews, written by a Hebrew for the Hebrews scattered, written specifically for the purpose of relaying information about living in a day when the law no longer applied to their lives. Tell me how this book would affect my life 2000 years later. A reader in the year 2010. My impression, that it is someone else’s mail. Since I am not a Jew, this letter is of no importance to me. Any comments?
Heavenbound,
Your attitude is in sharp contrast to that of Jesus, Paul and other early Christians. Look at how they regarded the Old Testament. They seemed to find some relevance for them.
We are not Jews, but we have been grafted into their line, becoming heirs of the promises made to Abraham. The great mystery of God was about bringing together Jews and Gentiles into one body.
If you’ll read carefully, you’ll see that large sections of the New Testament, though written by Jews, were addressed to non-Jews. Remember that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.
I believe in the living and active Word of God. I believe the things that Paul told Timothy about the Old Testament are true for us about the whole Bible: these inspired Scriptures can make you wise unto salvation.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I have a question that I can’t get an answer to, hopefully someone can help. In the old testament Israel was a Theocracy until Saul became king. With the 10 commandments in place, Why was it acceptable in the eyes of God to allow the kings of Israel to have multiple wives, and concubines. Saul, David, Solomon, and kings listed in the books of Kings also had numerous women at their disposal. Not to mention the slaves that the kings had as well. Any explanation or thoughtful insight?