What is salvation?

[Kersh]

The Bible talks about salvation, justification, adoption, heirship, redemption, sanctification, glorification, among other terms.

What is the relationship between these concepts? Are they different ways of describing the same thing? Is salvation a general term that is summed up by two or more of the other terms?

I ask these questions because I feel like so much of the discussion of soteriology is about OSAS or eternal security vs. conditional security. But, I wonder if these terms have any meaning if we don't first identify what it means to be "saved". For example, it seems that the adoption, heirship, and redemption are all treated as part and parcel of justification. And, some would say that these are all aspects of salvation. But, what if a person who has been justified never becomes sanctified? Or is the fact that that person never becomes sanctified proof that he or she never was justified? Or are justification and sanctification two sides of the same coin? I guess I wonder if the whole debate about eternal security really comes down to how well established our understanding of all of these topics is.

 

[bling]

The Bible talks about salvation, justification, adoption, heirship, redemption, sanctification, glorification, among other terms.

What is the relationship between these concepts? Are they different ways of describing the same thing? Is salvation a general term that is summed up by two or more of the other terms?

I ask these questions because I feel like so much of the discussion of soteriology is about OSAS or eternal security vs. conditional security. But, I wonder if these terms have any meaning if we don't first identify what it means to be "saved". For example, it seems that the adoption, heirship, and redemption are all treated as part and parcel of justification. And, some would say that these are all aspects of salvation. But, what if a person who has been justified never becomes sanctified? Or is the fact that that person never becomes sanctified proof that he or she never was justified? Or are justification and sanctification two sides of the same coin? I guess I wonder if the whole debate about eternal security really comes down to how well established our understanding of all of these topics is.

I think you ask a good question, but these words can have different meanings depending on the context:

Salvation: In the Old Testament when the Jews talked about “salvation” it often referred to the salvation of the nation of Israel from its surrounding enemies, and not the salvation of the individual.

Salvation in the New Testament seems to have to do with the redemption of the individual; this means the child of God within every nonbeliever has been set free to go to the father. It has to do with the ransom being paid and the payment being accepted by the kidnapper. This also brings into question “forgiveness” of sins and when that takes place and if you are forgive of your sins you are redeemed and saved?


Redemption: The kidnapped child experienced redemption when released from the kidnapper and that seems to be what we should experience. To be “redeemed” you have to start out being held, so the question is: who or what is holding the nonbeliever in a state of nonbelief keeping the child within from going to the father (we must first go to God as child)? Some say: “Satan is the kidnapper” but God does not owe satan anything and can just as easily take His children back without paying anything, so it would be wrong for God to pay satan. Others say: God is holding us back from Himself, but that makes no sense. Other blame intangibles like sin and death, but it is man’s fear of death and man sinning, so who keeps the nonbeliever from becoming a believer?


Heirship: The Hebrew writer uses this concept describing us as having a birthright. Heb. 12: 16 See to it that no one commits sexual sins. See to it that no one is godless like Esau. He sold the rights to what he would receive as the oldest son. He sold them for a single meal.

A birthright that comes with our “born again status” to eternal life in heaven with God; which cannot be stolen, lost and will not be taken back by God, but you can give it up.

Titus 3: 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.


Adoption: Christians by their own choice accept adoption into God’s family, but it would appear from going back to Adam & Eve that we can start out as God’s children and choose to become part of satan’s family, so this “adoption” seems to be by our own choosing.


Sanctification: The becoming like Christ and in those areas you have become like Christ you are sanctified.


Justification: Gal. 3: 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

The idea seems to be that of being “justified” before God, and by “faith” it seems to happen, so what am I trusting in to stand before God unshaken?

The prodigal son on returning to the father could not stand “justified”, before his father, but he was in his father’s eyes justified to be there and was justified to be at the banquet. The prodigal’s son older brother did not see the justification for him to be at the banquet, but the father set the requirement, which was just (be there to accept the invitation).


Glorification: We are not “glorious”, but we can share in God’s Glory by just being present when He is being glorified. In this way we are also glorified, but all the glory belongs to God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The Bible talks about salvation, justification, adoption, heirship, redemption, sanctification, glorification, among other terms.
What is the relationship between these concepts? Are they different ways of describing the same thing? Is salvation a general term that is summed up by two or more of the other terms?

They are different aspects of the entire God initiated process. That process being what we term generally as the "salvation" process.

God will see that the entire process ends in the condition for which He has laid hold of the elect - namely glorification - most would say.

We can rest assured about that.

Thus rendering the entire OSAS "debate" null and void. The question posed in that debate has been answered very clearly.

"being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1:6

IMO - to debate the issue from a none OSAS position is to show oneself ignorant of the grace of God having to do with who's glory is at stake in salvation.

I ask these questions because I feel like so much of the discussion of soteriology is about OSAS or eternal security vs. conditional security.

You are right.

I'm tempted to say that the reason for that is a mystery since that question has been addressed very directly by God as He does in the passage cited.

I actually don't see it as a mystery however. The reason for the ongoing debate is a basic rejection of the basic purpose as well as the actual mechanics of salvation in general by many.

But, I wonder if these terms have any meaning if we don't first identify what it means to be "saved".

Exactly right.

..... some would say that these are all aspects of salvation.

But, what if a person who has been justified never becomes sanctified?

We have the promise of God that that could never happen.

Or is the fact that that person never becomes sanctified proof that he or she never was justified?

Could be. Time will tell in every particular case.

Or are justification and sanctification two sides of the same coin?

If you mean that they are synonyms - the answer is no.

If you mean by that that the "coin" is "salvation" - you the answer is yes.

I guess I wonder if the whole debate about eternal security really comes down to how well established our understanding of all of these topics is.

I agree totally that that is the case.

IMO - the OSAS people understand the systematic theology topics involved better than the opponents of OSAS.

 

[EmSw]

They are different aspects of the entire God initiated process. That process being what we term generally as the "salvation" process.

God will see that the entire process ends in the condition for which He has laid hold of the elect - namely glorification - most would say.

Yes, salvation is a life-long process for believers. However, you can't pick and choose which aspects you desire. You must include them all...namely -

John 5
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Luke 10
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

These words are as plain as the nose on one's face. However, some will not believe these words of Jesus, because it upsets their theology. I often wonder how a 'believer' can just skip over these words of life, and not blink an eye. But, this does show each person has free-will to believe however they wish.

IMO - the OSAS people understand the systematic theology topics involved better than the opponents of OSAS.

The non-OSAS people don't need systematic theology to understand and believe the words of Jesus. Systematic theology has positioned the OSAS to either not believe the words of life of Jesus, or just ignore them.

There are no hurdles to jump, no special revelation needed, or no doctorate in theology needed to understand these words of life from the Savior Himself. What's sad is that some will go on with their beliefs and not even give the words of Jesus the light of day.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I guess I wonder if the whole debate about eternal security really comes down to how well established our understanding of all of these topics is.

Who shall save me from this wretched life of sin and death , from this pernicious desperately wicked and evil generation ?!
Thanks be to the Master Savior Messiah King Yeshua ! He shall !

Thankfully, and contrary to much of mankind and contrary to much religion,
"understanding of all of these topics"
is not required at all !

 

[Kersh]

Who shall save me from this wretched life of sin and death , from this pernicious desperately wicked and evil generation ?!
Thanks be to the Master Savior Messiah King Yeshua ! He shall !

Thankfully, and contrary to much of mankind and contrary to much religion,
"understanding of all of these topics"
is not required at all !

Understanding them may not be required for salvation. But, it is required for having a compentent understanding of what salvation is. I suppose it's like physics; even if I don't understand it, I am still subject to it.

 

[Marvin Knox]

All believers in the eternal security of true believers agree that salvation is a life long process.

All believe that it is the Lord who is at work in us to do His good pleasure.

The good pleasure of the Lord is that He lose none that the Father has given to Him.

We believe exactly what He says. Namely that He will see us through to the end.

He is not only the author of our faith. He is the finisher of our faih as well.

For about the thousanth time - I tell those who would list scriptures having to do with works - that every believer in eternal security agrees with those passages. There is no conflict at all between passages which teach eternal security and those that teach good works.

We simply empathize quite rightly that those good works are the works of the Lord through us and that He will not fail in securing success in the end.

He is, after all, the one who prepared those good works beforehand that we should walk in them.

Since the Lord talked about eternal security as well as good works, it is necessary to believe both.

Those who teach against eternal security are, by definition, choosing only one side of the paradoxical equation presented by the Lord.

If you do not approach scripture in a systematic way - you will end up in one doctrinal ditch or the other since the Lord teaches with paradoxes all through the scriptures.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since the Lord talked about eternal security as well as good works, it is necessary to believe both.

Those who teach against eternal security are, by definition, choosing only one side of the paradoxical equation presented by the Lord.

Ditto !
(Likewise; if you didn't see where someone falls from grace, where their name is erased, and so on, does that mean you are willfully sinning by rejecting some of Scripture, to get the school of thought of OSAS to 'work', which it still doesn't, btw)

 

[Greg J.]

All believers in the eternal security of true believers agree that salvation is a life long process.

All believe that it is the Lord who is at work in us to do His good pleasure.
...

Every person is unique. None of us understand the same thing the same way. If we want people to care about what we say, we need to have the love of Christ in us and at work—we are called into relationships and revealing Christ through our lives. Regarding your "all Christians" statements, what then is sanctification and continuing to seek God for? No human understands the exact spiritual condition of anyone, including themselves. If a person believes he or she is saved, that's just a bottom layer of understanding, and not even necessary for salvation. Your ability to help people to Christ or help people in Christ isn't as good as it could be, because of how you view people and are so unforgiving and black & white in how you express your understanding (something I have been guilty of before ).

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23, 1984 NIV)

... What is the relationship between these concepts? Are they different ways of describing the same thing? Is salvation a general term that is summed up by two or more of the other terms?

Kersh, are you satisfied with what people have written? If you remain unsatisfied or still a bit empty about something on this topic, can you post what it is you are still trying to grasp?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Every person is unique. None of us understand the same thing the same way.

Marvin Knox said earlier: ↑
"All believers in the eternal security of true believers agree that salvation is a life long process.
All believe that it is the Lord who is at work in us to do His good pleasure."

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:18

"it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:13

The scriptures are pretty straight forward on these two concepts. There's only one way to take those two scriptures.

I specified "all believers in eternal security" believed those two things. But perhaps I should have specified as well that every person who "believes the scriptures" believes those two things - (whether they teach eternal security or not).

Regarding your "all Christians" statements, what then is sanctification and continuing to seek God for?

To participate in the accomplishment of His good pleasure in us.

Salvation in it's totality is a mutual endeavor between the believer and His Lord.

I'm not sure the direction you were going with that question.

No human understands the exact spiritual condition of anyone, including themselves. If a person believes he or she is saved, that's just a bottom layer of understanding, and not even necessary for salvation.

That is true.

I don't see your point.

Your ability to help people to Christ or help people in Christ isn't as good as it could be, because of how you view people and are so unforgiving and black & white in how you express your understanding (something I have been guilty of before ).

Is this a general statement about Christians or was it being directed toward me in particular?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Ditto !
(Likewise; if you didn't see where someone falls from grace, where their name is erased, and so on,

In Revelation 3:5-6 Christ promises every true Christian that He "will not erase his name from the book of life, but will confess his name before the Father and before His angels. "

Incredibly", although the text says just the opposite, some people assume that this verse teaches that a Christian’s name can be erased from the book of life.

Does that mean that they are willfully sinning by twisting some of the Scripture to get the school of anti-OSAS to "work"?

The scripture referencing "falling from grace" does not teach loss of salvation. Rather it differentiates between those who preach the true gospel of grace as opposed to those who preach another gospel (which is, of course, really no gospel at all).

Those who teach eternal security rightly believe both sides of the paradox.

Those who teach against it do not. They choose the side which they prefer.

Interesting - those who teach "license to sin" also choose the side which they prefer. (I haven't really met any of those people by the way.) Hence my previous statements to the effect that most OSAS people also accept the scriptures which teach about the various losses that can occur from willful disobedience.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Interesting - those who teach "license to sin" also choose the side which they prefer. (I haven't really met any of those people by the way.)

Home bound ?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Home bound ?

What does that mean?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What does that mean?

home bound = bed ridden or otherwise confined home for some reason,
..................... not getting out much if at all.

 

[Marvin Knox]

home bound = bed ridden or otherwise confined home for some reason, ..................... not getting out much if at all.

OK - I get it.

Interesting - those who teach "license to sin" also choose the side which they prefer. (I haven't really met any of those people by the way.)

An "antinomian" would be a person who believes that it is not necessary to keep the law - since we are under grace.

If we are talking about the written Jewish law - I would be of that persuasion myself.

But if we are talking about the moral law and or conscience - I know of no one who thinks that way - nor have I ever heard of a particular person who subscribes to that notion.

Granted that I need to get out more. But, even so, I know of no one of the eternal security persuasion who thinks that way.

Can you provide us with an example where an advocate for eternal security indicated that that security gives people a license to sin?

Any example that you could provide would do - whether it is a quote from someone here in the forum or an internet quote to that effect that you could provide - or whatever.

Please enlighten us.

Thanks.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Can you provide us with an example where an advocate for eternal security indicated that that security gives people a license to sin?

Since I don't keep a list, nor check it twice, i had to go searching -
it took a few minutes (less than 3) to find this example (perhaps it is sufficient ? ) >>
(btw, I quoted without editing> the capital letters are in the original site)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/license_to_sin.htm
"No Christian has a license to sin in the Lord's eyes concerning practical righteousness as His children; but we DO HAVE A LICENSE TO SIN when it comes to salvation, because we are saved by the imputed righteousness of God, and it has absolutely nothing to do with how we live."

 

[EmSw]

Granted that I need to get out more. But, even so, I know of no one of the eternal security persuasion who thinks that way.

Can you provide us with an example where an advocate for eternal security indicated that that security gives people a license to sin?

Any example that you could provide would do - whether it is a quote from someone here in the forum or an internet quote to that effect that you could provide - or whatever.

Please enlighten us.

Thanks.

Let's say a genuine born again believer lies every day. Is he eternally secure?

For instance, this genuine born again believer does not keep His commandments. John calls him a liar and the truth is not in him. Is his salvation secure in his lying? Or, can he keep lying and still be secure?

 

[EmSw]

Since I don't keep a list, nor check it twice, i had to go searching -
it took a few minutes (less than 3) to find this example (perhaps it is sufficient ? ) >>
(btw, I quoted without editing> the capital letters are in the original site)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/license_to_sin.htm
"No Christian has a license to sin in the Lord's eyes concerning practical righteousness as His children; but we DO HAVE A LICENSE TO SIN when it comes to salvation, because we are saved by the imputed righteousness of God, and it has absolutely nothing to do with how we live."

We have a OSAS person on this forum who would agree with that quote.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We have a OSAS person on this forum who would agree with that quote.

Not a surprise .
Like I said, I don't keep a list... but it has been readily apparent and well known, repeatedly spoken or posted or reported , for decades or longer, very often.(like "common knowledge" and normally expected)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Let's say a genuine born again believer lies every day. Is he eternally secure?

Come on now..... do you think a disciple of Jesus could walk every day with Jesus, as His close disciple, with other disciples, and get away with telling lies every day ?