Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Are you judging ALL believers in the OSAS as heretical? That judgment call is well above your paygrade! Now OSAS only becomes heresy when you attach a "license to sin/license for immorality" to it just like NOSAS only becomes heresy when you attach "salvation by works/works righteousness" to it. Now in regard to OSAS, I actually prefer the terms "preservation of the saints" (Psalm 37:28) or "eternal security of the believer" (Ephesians 1:13-14) over the term OSAS because of all the negative connotations that typically get attached to it (like a license to sin/license for immorality etc..) by those who strongly oppose it. Especially works-salvationists.
It's not eisegesis. Again, and whom He justified, these (not some or most, but these, all of them) He also glorified. (Romans 8:30) *Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event to stress its certainty. You have made it crystal clear to me for quite some time now that you are the one who is deceived and I could care less about your opinions on my logic.
Nice tune and poetic lyrics with a good message.
I especially liked the lines with rarely used verbs:
confiscate the wrath we bore,
abrogate the curse earth wore.
As good a song as any getting radio or worship service play that I have heard lately.
Consider the school principal saying: "There is now no lunch-time detention for those in school not wearing school uniforms but wearing a senior student ID tag."
Would you argue that because “in school” is positional, therefore this means that there is now no lunchtime detention for anyone on school grounds, regardeless of their behaviour?
Would you argue that this sentence implies that everyone “in school” is automatically exempt from any lunchtime detentions by virtue of their being “in school”?
You said: Paul is not saying: If you walk well enough, the Spirit will dwell in you. He is saying: Because the Spirit dwells in you, you belong to the Spirit‑realm. This is identity logic, not performance logic.
This is a straw man argument. @studier did not claim that God will cause the Holy Spirit to be dwelling in you, if you first walk well enough.
I believe @studier believes that, if you are walking in accordance with God’s New Covenant principles, it is because you have the Holy Spirit in you and you are availing yourself of His power instead of your flesh’s power.
Why did you change from the present simple to the past simple in you redition of Rom. 8:30?
Rom 8:28
And we know that all things are working (present continuous) together for good to them loving (present participle) God, to them who are (present tense) called (adjective) according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29
because whom he foreknows, he also predestines to be conformed (adjective) to the image of his Son, for Him to be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30
Moreover, whom he predestines (to be conformed to Christ), them he also calls: and whom he calls, them he also justifies: and whom he justifies, them he also glorifies.
These boldened verbs are in the aorist form, presenting us with a momentary snapshot of actions at some point in time. It does not specify where in time that snapshot was taken, whether the past and/or the present and/or the future, or whether the actions are momentary, repetitious or continuous.
When does/did/will God foreknow us? When we come into being? Or maybe when He first decides to create Adam and anticipates the long line of descendants populating the earth through Adam.
When does/did/will God first begin to predestine us to be conformed to Christ? When we first come into being? Or maybe when He first decides on His plan to create a family for Himself modeled on the Son.
When does/did/will God first begin to call us? When we begin to be able to hear His Spirit summon us to faith through our conscience? Or maybe when He first published His call to all mankind through the prophets.
When does/did/will God first begin to justify us? When we put our trust in God or Christ? Or maybe when we first trust God? Or maybe when He accepts Christ’s life, suffering and death as sufficient to deal with our sins. Or maybe when He first decides to send Jesus to death on a cross.
When does/did/will God first first begin to glorify us (declare us reputable)? When we first begin to appreciate Jesus as the glory of God? (We are already being changed from glory to glory as we behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.) Or maybe when He decided it was worth going suffering the cross in order to win the affections of mankind, whether they appreciate the sacrifice or not. That puts value on us (glorifies us), both eventual believers and eventual faithless, from before creation.
What is Paul’s point in presenting this list of God’s actions?
Paul has just encouraged those who who love God (v. 28) that God is working all things for their good. Even the evil that God is not doing that comes our way, God is able to find ways to harness even those calamities to work for our good.
Paul then gives assurance (v. 29) that this rings true for those who love God, because even though God knows us thoroughly beforehand, warts and all, before we turn to Him and start loving Him, knowing all that before-hand, He still desires to take us, if we would turn to Him, and to work with us to transform us into the character of Christ. We know this because we have experienced this.
That those who are loving God are foreknown by Him before their conversion, and are predestined to Christlikeness does not logically limit “those whom God foreknows and predestines” to only those who are loving God. Even those who are not loving God are also foreknown by Him and predestined by Him to be like Christ despite how bad they are. Even those who reject God's underserved plan for them.
Paul then goes on to say (v. 30) that those whom God predestines to be conformed to the image of Jesus, which I say are not necessarily limited to those who eventually love God, v. 29, he provides the full range of transformation for them, from His call to His justification to glory (His maturing them into Christlikeness).
This list is designed to be an encouragement to all those who have not yet trusted Christ and not yet started loving Him, that everything required for their transformation has already been provided for them too, whether they accept it or not. What is needed for their justification and glorification is being offered to them in Christ. Jesus has already called, justified and glorified every human being through Jesus Christ and the gospel. All that is required is for a person to receive what Christ is holding for them to receive by faith.
Verse 30
Called (εκαλεσεν)--Justified (εδικαιωσεν)
--Glorified (εδοξασεν). All first aorist active indicatives of common verbs (καλεω, δικαιοω, δοξαζω). But the glorification is stated as already consummated (constative aorists, all of them), though still in the future in the fullest sense. "The step implied in εδοξασεν is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels" (Sanday and Headlam).
Romans 8 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Romans 8, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament is a rich resource for understanding Scripture, delving into original language and cultural nuances.
How have you determined that these are not gnomic aorists? I gave some alternative possible temporal locations for when each of these aorist assertions could be true. Why could the aorist verbs not be expressing general facts applying to all in those events?Verse 30
Called (εκαλεσεν)
--Justified (εδικαιωσεν)
--Glorified (εδοξασεν). All first aorist active indicatives of common verbs (καλεω, δικαιοω, δοξαζω). But the glorification is stated as already consummated (constative aorists, all of them), though still in the future in the fullest sense. "The step implied in εδοξασεν is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels" (Sanday and Headlam).
Romans 8 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Romans 8, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament is a rich resource for understanding Scripture, delving into original language and cultural nuances.www.studylight.org
“In Romans 8, Paul uses the aorist to present the future glorification of believers as a settled part of their history. It’s as if he asks, ‘What can we say with certainty about every person who will one day be glorified?’ His answer is: everyone who will be glorified will also have been justified, and everyone who will have been justified will also have been called, and so on down the chain.”
Romans 8 verse 29-30; Ephesians 1 verse 5 ~ Those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.
2Co 3:18
But we all, with face having been unveiled (ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ , perfect passive participle) reflecting (ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ, present middle participle) the glory of the Lord, are being changed (μεταμορφούμεθα, present passive indicative) into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Paul says that when we see who Jesus is we start to be glorified. This is a general truth, and could be legitimately expressed in Rom. 8:30 by a gnomic aorist, “whom He justifies He glorifies.” But in the Old Testament, people who loved God could be justified by their faith too (e.g Abraham), and they would also be changed in character and gain in reputation (be glorified) because of their relationship with God.
Thank you for your thoughts. I think I see the distinction you’re drawing, but I’m not sure it fits the flow of Paul’s argument in Romans 8. Paul is not making a general or proverbial statement about how believers grow in character over time. A gnomic aorist would express a timeless truth, but the verbs in Romans 8:29–30 form a specific, sequential chain—foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified—that describes God’s completed saving work from His perspective.
Because of that sequence, “glorified” in this passage can’t refer to the kind of moral transformation or increased honor that Abraham experienced in this life. Paul is pointing to the final, eschatological glorification of believers—their full conformity to Christ in resurrection glory. He speaks of it in the aorist because its future fulfillment is so certain that he can treat it as already accomplished.
So while it’s true that Old Testament believers were justified by faith and experienced growth and honor, that’s a different category from the glorification Paul is describing here. Romans 8 is not about reputation or moral improvement but about the completed, irreversible destiny God has secured for His people.
Ephesians 1:13 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." This verse clearly states that you don't lose your salvation and that it is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. God Bless!
Romans 8 verse 29-30; Ephesians 1 verse 5 ~ Those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.
Yes, those God foreknew would choose to cooperate with His will for everyone to accept Jesus as Messiah He also preplanned that they would become completely loving like Christ.
The question should be stated in terms of intentionally repudiating saving faith instead of accidentally losing it.
Scriptures that teach the possibility of apostasy include the following:
Matt. 10:22, “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
Rom. 11:22, “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.”
1Cor. 15:2, “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”
Gal. 5:4, “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Col. 1:22-23, “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”
2Thes. 1:4-5, “Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.”
2Tim. 2:12, “If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;”
Heb. 3:6&14, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast… We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.”
Heb. 6:4-6, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.” This passage indicates that apostasy may be viewed as total depravity or blasphemy against the HS (MT 12:31).
Heb. 10:26-36, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God… So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.”
Jam. 1:12, “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.”
2Pet. 1:10-11, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
2Pet. 2:20, “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.”
1John 2:24-25, “See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.”
Jude 21, “Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.”
Rev. 2:10, “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.”
Straw man argument. It's not about works-phobic. It's about putting works in their proper place. Subsequent to regeneration and salvation. (Ephesians 2:5-10) Believing God 'results' in obeying God. Believing results in obedience appropriate to the belief, but the multiple acts of obedience (good works) are not inherent in the belief. All genuine believers are fruitful, but not all are equally fruitful. You make the same critical error that Roman Catholics make by conflating believing and 'OBEDIENCE' that "follows" believing unto salvation 'WORKS' (Romans 4:5-6) which culminates in salvation by faith AND WORKS. Prior to my conversion several years ago while still attending the Roman Catholic church, I made that same critical error. After reading your post it's like Déjà vu all over again.
In order to understand what the authors of scripture were saying we must understood their words according to their grammatical-lexical and historic context. We must avoid importing their words into our vernacular before we understand their original use. This is a generally accepted principle of hermeneutics but, sometimes, our experience interferes with our understanding of the text.
I have seen this sometimes when it comes to how people interpret the metaphor of the SEAL. In English vernacular, the verb form of "SEAL" CAN mean establishing a bond that unites two objects together so that they are difficult or, in some instances, even impossible for them to be separated.
In the Biblical culture the word SEAL referred to a particular thing. Making a seal involved applying a blob of wax or clay (often to a scroll) and then stamping the soft material with the insignia of someone in authority. Once the wax dried it became brittle and could not be opened again without breaking the entire seal. This served to ensure the authenticity of the scroll. Anyone who presented to the Magistrate a scroll with a broken seal would certainly be rejected. In such a case, the promises contained on the document would be declared null and void and the person bearing the document would probably be punished for not honoring the word of the potentate.
The word SEAL, as it was understood by the ancient readers never conveyed the idea of something unbreakable. Though the bearer of the document could never have EARNED what was being offered to him. He did have to be faithful and hold the scroll with respect. As the Apostle Paul said: 12Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 13VFor it is God who works in you [the Holy Spirit] to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.…(Philippians 2:12-13)
Why do some draw dividing lines between ancient Scripture and modern understanding?
It seems that there are several reasons; those lines can both protect distinctives and create barriers that make harmonizing faith with contemporary life harder.
Lines of divide spotlight historical distance. They fixate on the idea that scripture was written in different languages, cultures, and social contexts, with some emphasizing that gap to avoid anachronism. They fell that they are doing the duty of doctrinal protection. Even communities draw boundaries to preserve core teachings against perceived dilution or novelty. Others feel that separating the original contexts and intent from later interpretations will avoid misreading texts. Even some cultic, religious groups use boundary markers to maintain identity and moral norms distinct from prevailing culture. Historically, it was about authority and power where leaders insisted on strict boundaries to control interpretation and social practice.
How those divisions undermine harmonizing Scripture with modern life?
They freezes interpretation, treating texts as applicable only in their ancient context discourages responsible theological development and pastoral application for new issues (technology, bioethics, pluralism).
They encourage one of the extremes of purely allegorical or purely literal or rigid literal exceptions, even in places where the literal simply doesn't work. Some reactions become either strict literalism (ignoring context) or an opposite relativism that sidelines Scripture’s moral guidance as merely historical. Both obstruct nuanced application.
Divisions reduce relevance. When believers present Scripture as irreconcilable with modern concerns, it alienates people who need moral and spiritual guidance for contemporary challenges.
Fragmentation of community is another result. Sharp divides produce competing subgroups with each claiming fidelity, undermining unified witness and cooperative engagement with society.
Paralysis in practice is a common malady. Leaders and laypeople avoid making decisions on complex modern issues for fear of breaking a perceived boundary, leaving communities unprepared to deal head-on with moral departures in modern culture.
Such division weakens credibility of the scriptures. Insistence on arbitrary separations (e.g., dismissing moral teachings while selectively keeping others) appears inconsistent and can erode moral authority and continuity. It rests upon the idea that there ARE new things under the sun today compared to ancient times.
What's the alternative?
Read ancient texts both historically and existentially. Grasp original meaning (historical-critical) and seek principles that translate into present-day contexts.
Use principled hermeneutics. Prioritize genre, authorial intent, core theological themes (love, justice, mercy), and moral trajectory over isolated proof-texting.
Maintain humility and accountability. Allow ongoing conversation.
Balance continuity and development. Affirm enduring truths while honestly engaging new ethical and cultural complexities.
Bottom line: Rigid dividing lines can protect identity but often block faithful, honest translation of Scripture into lived, contemporary practice; a better path is disciplined interpretation that honors original context while responsibly applying core principles today.
MM
It seems that there are several reasons; those lines can both protect distinctives and create barriers that make harmonizing faith with contemporary life harder.
Lines of divide spotlight historical distance. They fixate on the idea that scripture was written in different languages, cultures, and social contexts, with some emphasizing that gap to avoid anachronism. They fell that they are doing the duty of doctrinal protection. Even communities draw boundaries to preserve core teachings against perceived dilution or novelty. Others feel that separating the original contexts and intent from later interpretations will avoid misreading texts. Even some cultic, religious groups use boundary markers to maintain identity and moral norms distinct from prevailing culture. Historically, it was about authority and power where leaders insisted on strict boundaries to control interpretation and social practice.
How those divisions undermine harmonizing Scripture with modern life?
They freezes interpretation, treating texts as applicable only in their ancient context discourages responsible theological development and pastoral application for new issues (technology, bioethics, pluralism).
They encourage one of the extremes of purely allegorical or purely literal or rigid literal exceptions, even in places where the literal simply doesn't work. Some reactions become either strict literalism (ignoring context) or an opposite relativism that sidelines Scripture’s moral guidance as merely historical. Both obstruct nuanced application.
Divisions reduce relevance. When believers present Scripture as irreconcilable with modern concerns, it alienates people who need moral and spiritual guidance for contemporary challenges.
Fragmentation of community is another result. Sharp divides produce competing subgroups with each claiming fidelity, undermining unified witness and cooperative engagement with society.
Paralysis in practice is a common malady. Leaders and laypeople avoid making decisions on complex modern issues for fear of breaking a perceived boundary, leaving communities unprepared to deal head-on with moral departures in modern culture.
Such division weakens credibility of the scriptures. Insistence on arbitrary separations (e.g., dismissing moral teachings while selectively keeping others) appears inconsistent and can erode moral authority and continuity. It rests upon the idea that there ARE new things under the sun today compared to ancient times.
What's the alternative?
Read ancient texts both historically and existentially. Grasp original meaning (historical-critical) and seek principles that translate into present-day contexts.
Use principled hermeneutics. Prioritize genre, authorial intent, core theological themes (love, justice, mercy), and moral trajectory over isolated proof-texting.
Maintain humility and accountability. Allow ongoing conversation.
Balance continuity and development. Affirm enduring truths while honestly engaging new ethical and cultural complexities.
Bottom line: Rigid dividing lines can protect identity but often block faithful, honest translation of Scripture into lived, contemporary practice; a better path is disciplined interpretation that honors original context while responsibly applying core principles today.
MM
I don’t disagree that these form a specific sequential chain, but I would disagree that this chain must be describing only "God’s completed saving work from His perspective.” As a timeless presentation, it would have fractal applications - applicable over any period of time, short or long.
I think Paul is trying to encourage his audience to trust God to continue to work with them in the present and the future until the consummation of the process, with the same grace as He has shown toward us all in the past. Before we were saved He foreknew us as sinners, He predestinated us for Christlikeness; He was calling us to fellowship with Him and was justifying us by overlooking our sins and reaching out to us regardless of our sins; He was not treat us a worthless, but was glorying us, attributing value to us, so much so that one of the Godhead became like us and continued to offer us friendship even while we were slaying Him for offering it to us.
If this is God’s attitude to sinners, how much more will he be willing to do to complete the process of growing us fully into the image of Himself., from glory to glory until the resurrection and beyond, by applying the same sequence to us over and over again?
Whom He foreknows he predestinates, and whom He predestines He calls, and whom He calls He justifies, and whom He justifies He glorifies.
I do not think Paul has only in mind a series of benchmarks that end with our final glorification. The passage to me has a much broader, ongoing and comprehensive scope and intention than this moment of change happens, then that moment of change, then the next moment of change… until some final moment of change.