Question on Falling from Grace

[KimT]

I accepted Jesus in 1999. I was excited about it, read the Bible but didn't really have a solid foundation. I fell back into worldly ways. I still attended church, believed I was saved but led a sinful life. In December, I rededicated myself to Jesus and truly repented for my lack of spiritual growth, my transgressions, and I have changed a great deal. I now have Christian mentors from my church, read scripture each day, go to Bible studies, and it feels like my relationship with Jesus is real and personal. I journal and hear from God.

I'm doing a study of Hebrews and it scared me. It talks about falling away and not getting back.

Can someone explain this to me in very simple terms.

 

[Steeno7]

I accepted Jesus in 1999. I was excited about it, read the Bible but didn't really have a solid foundation. I fell back into worldly ways. I still attended church, believed I was saved but led a sinful life. In December, I rededicated myself to Jesus and truly repented for my lack of spiritual growth, my transgressions, and I have changed a great deal. I now have Christian mentors from my church, read scripture each day, go to Bible studies, and it feels like my relationship with Jesus is real and personal. I journal and hear from God.

I'm doing a study of Hebrews and it scared me. It talks about falling away and not getting back.

Can someone explain this to me in very simple terms.

Whoever it is speaking of, there can be no doubt that whoever they are, there is no hope for them.

The question is who are they?

 

[Dom Puccio]

I wouldn't spend so much time being concerned whether or not you can fall away from grace, but focus on being and doing the best you can with the grace that you have received.

 

[Eryk]

God won't turn away anyone who wants a relationship with Him. Peter denied that he knew Jesus and God took him back. This is hope for everyone who wants to come back. God loves you very much.

 

[Viren]

Rest in what Christ did and God's power not on your own. Fear of falling away does not lead to the life God want's for you. Take your mind off fear and instead put your attention on Christ.

 

[Dialogist]

I think you are referring to Hebrews 6:4-6

This is kind of a lengthly explanation from my particular faith (Orthodox Christianity), but it seems to directly address your question. I offer it here without comment in case it might be useful:

Question
Hebrews 6:4-6, warns against falling away from the faith and those who do, cannot not be brought back to repentance because they are “crucifying the Son of God all over again.” I must admit this passage has always concerned me, as there have been many short periods in my Christian walk that I have not always lived an exemplary life and have willfully sinned against God. I equate these times in my life as living in a “backsliden state” (a popular term in my Protestant circle). Hence, I figure that I have fallen away from the faith for a time. I must say that during these times I never denied the Lord and always had a yearning in my heart to return to the fold. The Protestant tradition that I come from teaches once saved always saved. This gave me some degree of comfort, for when I approached God for forgiveness I looked to such passages as 1 John 1: 9. I have spent many sleepless nights wondering about this forgiveness issue. I want to live a Christian life but it’s a tough road. Since I have been reading about Orthodoxy many of the core beliefs that I have held so dear for so many years are being challenged, however I am becoming more and more convinced that this is the Church that Christ founded. Having said all that, my questions are this: Is the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 referring to Christians who have backslided? And, can a “professing Protestant Christian” like myself who has gone through periods willful sinfulness and periods of worldliness still become an Orthodox Christian? I hope I haven’t “blown it.” I know these questions are probably pretty heavy for an email and you know absolutely nothing about me. However, if you could provide some guidance it would be appreciated

Answer
Thank you for your interesting enquiry.

Before getting into the passage from Hebrews, there are a few things that need to be stated. First, Orthodoxy, unlike some Protestant bodies, does not hold to the notion that we are “already saved.” For Orthodox Christians, salvation is a process, not a once-and-done event. It is because of the understanding of some Protestant bodies which hold that one is saved at a precise moment—when one makes a commitment to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or at some other moment in time—that much confusion arises. Orthodox Christianity understands that we are “being saved,” not “already saved.”

Salvation, for Orthodox Christians, is seen as deliverance from the curse of sin and death, which makes it possible for us to enter into union with God through Christ the Savior. Salvation includes a process of growth of the whole person whereby the sinner is transformed into the image and likeness of God. One is saved by faith through grace, although saving faith involves more than belief. Faith must be active and living, manifested by works of righteousness, whereby we cooperate with God to do His will. Hence, if one is “being saved,” one is on the way to one’s ultimate goal: eternal union with God and participation in the divine nature, as Saint Paul writes.

As a side note, the notion that one is already saved—and that one can know this absolutely and positively without taking into consideration where one’s life may lead one in the future—has always struck Orthodox Christianity as a bit odd. If one is already saved, then what need does one still have for a Savior? Is this not like saying that one who has been completely cured of cancer is still in need of chemo-therapy? Or is this not like saying that one who has been cured of cancer will never find the disease surfacing again, perhaps years hence? In the Gospels Christ says, “I come not to save the righteous, but the sinner,” and He goes on to make this very comparison with the individual who is physically ill as the one who needs a physician, rather than the one who is in perfect physical health. The essential question is, “If I have already been saved, then what more can the Savior do for me?” Another question that comes out of these considerations is, “If ‘once saved, always saved’ is the maxim, would this imply that if I go on to lead an extremely evil life it ultimately does not matter since I have already been saved?” When one acknowledges, as the Orthodox Faith teaches, that we are “being saved,” such considerations do not arise.

Now, let us turn to Hebrews 6:4-6. Of course, Saint Paul is writing to the Hebrews, and herein he refers to those who have apostasized—that is, to those who rejected Christ and His saving power after their Baptism. By virtue of the fact that you state that you have “never denied the Lord and always had a yearning in [your] heart to return to the fold,” you are not describing apostasy; rather, you are describing what can be variously termed “inactivity,” “lack of living your Faith,” etc., but what you describe as having experienced is not a total denial or rejection of Christ and/or His saving power. Hence, while non-Orthodox may term what you have experienced as “apostasy,” Orthodoxy would say that this is the situation in which you have placed yourself.

Concerning verse 4, we find reference to the Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism [“once enlightened”], Chrismation [“partakers of the Holy Spirit”], and the Eucharist [“tasted the heavenly gift”]. Verse 5 tells us that in adition to the grace, or presence of God, we receive through the Sacraments, belief and life experience are essential. “Tasted the good word of God” refers to the message of the Gospel and the true doctrine of God’s People, the Church. In verse 6 we find Saint Paul stating that those to whom he is writing—remember, they are Jews—who revert to Judaism [not uncommon in apostolic times] crucify Christ once again, becoming like those who, in crucifying Christ on the Cross denied His divinity and His saving power. Such baptized individuals put themselves in a position of needing to be baptized again, although this is not possible as “once enlightened” refers to the fact that Baptism is experienced once and only once. [This is reflected in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: “I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins.”

We might digress here for a moment to say that in the Orthodox understanding, Baptism is our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ; as Saint Paul writes, in Baptism we are buried with Him, we rise with Him, and we “put Him on,” clothing ourselves in His righteousness and glory. Baptism, which is commanded by Christ and essential for our salvation, is not an end in itself, nor is it the “goal” of Christian life; rather, just as one is physically born from his or her mother’s womb, so too one is “born again” of water and the Spirit in the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation. These sacraments mark the beginning of one’s spiritual life, one’s life as a Christian, just as physical birth marks the beginning of our physical life and growth and development. Of course, most Protestant bodies understand Baptism somewhat differently, as does Roman Catholicism.

To conclude, it is impossible to clearly understand the meaning of this passage from Hebrews apart from understanding the precise audience to which Saint Paul was directing his words: those Jews [but surely not all Jews] who had begun their spiritual journies through Baptism, yet who then rejected Christ and His power. If one has not done this—and this is not what you describe about your own situation—then these verses would not directly apply. Now, Orthodox Christianity does hold that, after one has been “born again” through Baptism, Christmation and the Eucharist, one can surely fall away or “miss the mark” of his or her calling to live as Christ lived. One can surely “de-activate,” so to speak, the grace imparted in these Sacraments; at the same time, God remains present in such persons, even if they do not recognize or acknowledge it. [It’s not as if God says, “Okay, that’s it!! You keep sinning, and you don’t seem to care about it, so I’m leaving and I’ll make sure I never return.”] God is everywhere, filling all things—including the lives of those who have failed to live in accordance with His precepts and even in those who are blatantly evil. As Christ Himself says, God allows the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the good and evil alike, and all are God’s children, His creation, worthy of being saved, even if they have yet to “work out [their] own salvation.”

In the Orthodox Church, we understand that regardless of how sinful we become, even after being born again through water and the Spirit, we always have the possibility to repent, to change our direction and our vision and our hearts. Those “who have eyes, but refuse to see” and those “who have ears, but refuse to listen,” we must remember, have not had their eyes plucked out or their ears cut off; they can indeed see and hear, yet they choose not to. They can, however, repent and open their eyes and their ears, should they choose to respond to God’s lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness. In the Gospel of the Prodigal Son, we see the extent of our heavenly Father’s forgiveness. The son “came to his senses” and returned to his father. His father accepted him back, no strings attached, rejoicing that his son, who had been lost and dead, was now found and was now alive. His father forgave him unconditionally, in response to his unconditional repentance. In the same way, in this parable Christ teaches us that God forgives us unconditionally, assuming that we too “come to [our] senses,” repent, return, ask humbly for forgiveness, and receive His forgiveness with the same humility with which we sought it. In the case of one who has apostasized, however, this is not possible. First of all, the apostate—the one who denies that Christ has any power in our lives or who denies His divinity or His love for His People—has yet to “come to his senses.” While God continues to reach out, the apostate not only refuses to reach out, but would agree that reaching out to a Christ Who is powerless or useless or even non-existent is nothing more than an exercise in futility. If one denies that Christ has any saving power whatsoever, one would not even entertain the thought of renewing his or her life in Christ. What good would it do? What affect would it have? If one is convinced that Christ is powerless, or worse, that He does not even exist, then one would surely not be inclined to reach out to Him.

Nevertheless, the Church, since ancient times, has acknowledged that those who have apostasized may indeed repent and be brought back into the Church after a period of repentance, as evidenced in several Canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, the Canons of the Council of Ancyra in 314 AD, and other early Christian writings. Returning to God’s forgiveness, Orthodox Christians believe that in our daily prayer we should continually ask God to forgive us and to have mercy on us, trusting that indeed “God does not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his sin and live,” as we read in Psalms. This, of course, presumes that the sinner still acknowledges that Christ indeed has saving power, that He indeed loves us, and that He indeed accepts those who, having come to their senses and having acknowledged that they have “missed the mark,” cry out in repentance. Orthodox Christians also believe that, in addition to asking God for forgiveness in our private prayers, we should confess our sins sacramentally, thereby being reunited to Christ and to the faith community which whom we have broken communion through sin. Since most Protestants reject the Sacrament of Confession, they provide no real options or opportunities for reconciliation after they have “backslided” or, as we would say, after they have cut themselves off from the common union which they had shared with Father, Son and Holy Spirit and with the People of God. While some Protestants would say that once a person is saved, he or she is always saved, and other Protestants would say that once a person is saved, he or she can lose his or her salvation, Orthodoxy, by virtue of its understanding of salvation as an ongoing process of spiritual growth, would say that one can indeed jeopardize one’s salvation, but that it is not realistic to say that one has “lost” something that one has yet to experience or possess in its fullness. We continually endure spiritual warfare, struggling against temptation and sin and evil and the delightful thought of doing our own will, even if it conflicts with the will of our Creator. That is why it is of great comfort to know that, if Our Lord commands us to “forgive seventy times seven,” it is only because He is willing to forgive us at least that many times, provided that we, like the prodigal son, come to our senses, return to our Father, ask Him to accept us back into loving communion with Him, and humbly open ourselves to begin our journey to the salvation which finds its fulfillment in His Kingdom once again. Hence, while we travel the “superhighway” of salvation, we indeed can encounter a multitude of roadblocks and detours. We surely can get lost, either by getting off a wrong exit or by thinking that we can find our way without a map or directions. But if we are to reach our destination—in this case, the Kingdom of God—we need to circumvent the roadblocks, endure the detrous, and ultimately ask directions, that we might get back on the right road or path. At the end of our earthly lives, as we complete our journey to salvation, we will indeed “rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is [our] reward in heaven.”

While I am not sure if this answers your specific questions, since as you yourself acknowledge this is difficult given the fact that I do not know you personally, I hope it at least provides a new way to look at the “same old things,” and perhaps even a new way to look at some things that may indeed seem new.

 

[Dom Puccio]

Rest in what Christ did and God's power not on your own. Fear of falling away does not lead to the life God want's for you. Take your mind off fear and instead put your attention on Christ.

As good as this is, people will still worry and be curious about this subject. We can't just encourage someone to "shrug off their worries and move on," people don't necessarily work like that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I accepted Jesus in 1999. I was excited about it, read the Bible but didn't really have a solid foundation. I fell back into worldly ways. I still attended church, believed I was saved but led a sinful life. In December, I rededicated myself to Jesus and truly repented for my lack of spiritual growth, my transgressions, and I have changed a great deal. I now have Christian mentors from my church, read scripture each day, go to Bible studies, and it feels like my relationship with Jesus is real and personal. I journal and hear from God.

I'm doing a study of Hebrews and it scared me. It talks about falling away and not getting back.

Can someone explain this to me in very simple terms.

I've read all the responses thus far (4). The phrase "fall away" refers not to falling away from salvation, but falling away from following the faith, just as you did. According to your testimony, you did "fall away" from the faith. But that in no way equals loss of salvation, although you're going to get (probably) a lot of responses of believers who do believe that's what falling away means.

The Bible teaches eternal security from several points:

#1 Jesus tells us in Rom 19:28,29 that we are securely held in His Father's hand, and no man (meaning no one, which would include yourself) can remove you from His Father's hand. That is eternal security.

#2 Paul defined both justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God BEFORE he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in Rom 11:29. That is eternal security.

#3 Paul wrote that there is nothing "present or in the future" (Rom 8:38,39) that can separate the believer from the love of Christ. Though the Arminian types who believe that salvation can be lost will claim that one will still be loved while spending eternity in hell for loss of salvation, that is preposterous. By mentioning the 'present and future' Paul is saying that there isn't anything in the present or future, including anything that you may do, will separate us from Christ's love. And it is again simply preposterous to claim that Christ will love some of God's children who end up in hell.

#4 The very meaning of "eternal life" is exactly that; eternal. Not temporary, not probational. Since the gift of eternal life is given WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, it cannot be lost, returned, revoked, forfeited, or any other "clever" word that may be created by those who think that salvation can be lost.

Remember, believers can become rebellious, calloused, or just careless. But they remain God's child, and they will always have eternal life.

Just as the relationship between human parent and child cannot be broken, the same is true spiritually. Neither you nor I can change our birth parents any more than either of us can change our spiritual parent. The One who gave us spiritual birth cannot be changed any more than the ones who gave us physical birth. That is permanent.

btw, the phrase under your name "saved by grace" is KEY. Because grace means that you did not earn salvation, nor did you deserve salvation, there is nothing you can do to un-earn salvation, or deserve to lose salvation!

 

[Steeno7]

I think you are referring to Hebrews 6:4-6

This is kind of a lengthly explanation from my particular faith (Orthodox Christianity), but it seems to directly address your question. I offer it here without comment in case it might be useful:

IOW, you confuse sanctification with salvation, which made that a long way to get nowhere.

 

[Dom Puccio]

IOW, you confuse sanctification with salvation, which made that a long way to get nowhere.

 

[Dialogist]

IOW, you confuse sanctification with salvation, which made that a long way to get nowhere.

Yes, that is a point of difference between Orthodox theology and Catholic/Protestant theology.

 

[Viren]

As good as this is, people will still worry and be curious about this subject. We can't just encourage someone to "shrug off their worries and move on," people don't necessarily work like that.

It's one of Jesus's commands not to worry. The answer really is spending time in Spirit, but that requires setting aside some time on a consistent basis.

 

[Jesus First]

#1 Jesus tells us in Rom 19:28,29 that we are securely held in His Father's hand, and no man (meaning no one, which would include yourself) can remove you from His Father's hand. That is eternal security.

#2 Paul defined both justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God BEFORE he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in Rom 11:29. That is eternal security.

#3 Paul wrote that there is nothing "present or in the future" (Rom 8:38,39) that can separate the believer from the love of Christ. Though the Arminian types who believe that salvation can be lost will claim that one will still be loved while spending eternity in hell for loss of salvation, that is preposterous. By mentioning the 'present and future' Paul is saying that there isn't anything in the present or future, including anything that you may do, will separate us from Christ's love. And it is again simply preposterous to claim that Christ will love some of God's children who end up in hell.

#4 The very meaning of "eternal life" is exactly that; eternal. Not temporary, not probational. Since the gift of eternal life is given WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, it cannot be lost, returned, revoked, forfeited, or any other "clever" word that may be created by those who think that salvation can be lost.

You wrote:

"#1 Jesus tells us in Rom 19:28,29 that we are securely held in His Father's hand, and no man (meaning no one, which would include yourself) can remove you from His Father's hand. That is eternal security" [end of your quote]

Response:

An important principle of interpretation is that verses only have meaning in context. That means it's wrong to hijack (I say this respectfully) a passage into a meaning clearly not intended by its author.

In Romans 8:28-29, Paul is NOT writing to inform the Roman believers that they can "wallow in the mire" of "the wages of sin" if they like (optionally) and be welcomed into Heaven by a Holy God.

The context is written to Roman believers who love God in the present. This is evident by 8:28: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).

This verse describes those in the faith right now —not those who left for galleries of sin. The word "love" is in the Greek present tense. Here it describes those who currently love Him. The verses that follow must be understood in context as well.

It continues: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (vs 29).

God is omnipotent. Nothing happened today that God did not know before the foundation of the world. He knows those who will persevere in the faith in advance. Foreknowledge precedes predestination.

The author of Hebrews encouraged believers to persevere in their faith to be saved. He wrote, "6 Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if [conditional] indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope." (Hebrews 3:6).

He went on to write: "12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God [a possibility; he wasn't joking]. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if [conditional] indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:12-14).

Consider Romans 8:31: "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for US, who can be against us?" (vs. 31). When Paul writes, "If God is for us" —he is writing to those in ongoing faith. In the next verse Paul uses the word "us". The context is about those in the faith in the present and not those who have placed their hand on the plow and then in the future looked back (Luke 9:62).

Consider verse 35: "Who shall separate us [who love God in the present is the context] from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?" (vs. 35).

You wrote:

"#2 Paul defined both justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God BEFORE he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in Rom 11:29. That is eternal security." [end of your quote].

Response:

The passage you mention "God's gifts are irrevocable" must be understood in context. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness he used passages out of context. God's Word only has meaning in context —outside of which it becomes a platter to serve uninspired theology. We want to know what the original author intended and how the original audience would have understood it.

In Romans 9-11, Paul writes primarily about the nation of Israel. Here is the passage:

"26 And in this way all Israel [notice the context] will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them [Israel] when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they [Israel] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable [context is about the Jews]. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they [Israel] too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they [Israel] also may now receive mercy." Romans 11:26-31

Secondly, because God is sovereign, He gets to define a gift as he wants. Our salvation as believers is counted as a gift. But is this gift a completed action? God's Word had the answers.

"21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe [present tense; ongoing belief]. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified [right now; those who believe; not those who left the faith!] by his grace as a gift [an ongoing gift!], through the redemption that is [right now] in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he MIGHT be just and the justifier of the one who has [right now] faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26

In Ephesians 2:8, our salvation ("saved") is in the Koine Greek perfect tense. That's why the words "have been" have been added by most translations (not in original) to help the reader understand that we were saved in the past and continue saved today ("have been") by an ongoing faith. This makes the gift ongoing. The Koine Greek perfect tense does not comment on the future.

You wrote:

#3 Paul wrote that there is nothing "present or in the future" (Rom 8:38,39) that can separate the believer from the love of Christ. Though the Arminian types who believe that salvation can be lost will claim that one will still be loved while spending eternity in hell for loss of salvation, that is preposterous. By mentioning the 'present and future' Paul is saying that there isn't anything in the present or future, including anything that you may do, will separate us from Christ's love. And it is again simply preposterous to claim that Christ will love some of God's children who end up in hell." [end of your quote]

Response:

We already covered Romans 8. Paul, contextually wrote to those who were in ongoing faith.

God loves everybody; even those in hell. This was demonstrated by sending His Son into the world: "and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised" 2 Corinthians 5:15 (see also 1 Peter 2:24).

You wrote,

"#4 The very meaning of "eternal life" is exactly that; eternal. Not temporary, not probational. Since the gift of eternal life is given WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, it cannot be lost, returned, revoked, forfeited, or any other "clever" word that may be created by those who think that salvation can be lost." [end of your quote]

Response:

For the meaning of "eternal life", please go to God's Word (I say this respectfully) and read passages grammatically, and contextually. For example, John 3:16 promises "whosoever believes" (present tense and ongoing belief in the Greek) "have" (in the present) "everlasting life". While one "believes" they "have" "eternal life".

Please think about this verse: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18

Using your logic, that if someone becomes a believer they are always a believer, then the unbeliever of the verse above never can be saved because their state is unchangeable.

Many are quick to emphasize the promise of "eternal life" in this verse (John 5:24). They may assert that "eternal life" cannot be lost because it lasts forever. While "eternal life" does last forever, it shouldn't be confused with possession of the state of "eternal life". An illustration may be helpful.

Suppose a man is gifted a $100 dollar bill; it's his and worth $100. If the bill is lost, he no longer has possession of it —the bill is still worth $100.00. It would be illogical to conclude he cannot lose it because the bill will always be worth $100.

In John 5:24, possession of eternal life is true ("has") while a person "hears" Christ's Word and "believes" in Him ("him who sent me"). To overlook these semantic qualifiers is to reject God's inspired Word. A correct interpretation of Scripture is necessary for a correct doctrinal understanding. The Bible should define one's theology —not one's theology, the Bible.

The Apostle John, with great precision, grammatically constructed the words of Jesus as stated in this verse. The two conditional participles used ("hears"; "believes"), best fall in the "customary (habitual or general) present" category according to the Book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (521-522; 1996). Wallace placed the participle "believes" of John 3:16 inside this category (522). This category is defined by Wallace as, "the customary present is used to signal either an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state" (page 521).

Please consider how Young's Literal Translation emphasizes the necessity to remain in ongoing belief:

"Verily, verily, I say to you—He who is hearing my word, and is believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during, and to judgment he doth not come, but hath passed out of the death to the life." John 5:24

In the book, Life in the Son, Shank wrote the following:

"Contrary to the assumption of many, John 5:24 does not present a privileged position, which, once attained, is forever irrevocable. Quite to the contrary, our Savior's Words depict a privileged position directly governed by the specific condition of habitually hearing and believing. Jesus declares that the happy circumstance of deliverance from present condemnation and of standing passed out of death into life is the privilege only of such as habitually hear His Word and believe the Father. It is only on the basis of a present hearing and believing that one shares the eternal life of God and enjoys deliverance from present condemnation and spiritual death." (Page 61).

A comparable passage to John 5:24 is probably John 10:27-29. This passage is used regularly to emphasize the doctrine known as ”eternal security". While it's true that this passage provides security, it's also conditional ("hear"; "follow") —not a completed action once attained:

"27 My sheep hear [present tense] my voice, and I know [present tense] them, and they follow [present tense] me. 28 I give them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] eternal life, and they [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] will never perish, and no one will snatch them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them [the group in verse 27 that is persevering in the present] out of the Father’s hand." John 10:27-29

You made several additional, non biblical arguments for your belief in eternal security. Please know that doctrine for the church should only come from the Bible using the grammatical and contextual method of interpretation.

We can allow our learned theology to define the Scripture, or, we can allow the Holy Spirit free reign in the area of Biblical interpretation over time as we read and study in neutral and allow the context and grammar to decide for us the truth. Most problem passages are problem theology. There are many job openings in the Berean department of interpretation.

In Christ!

 

[FreeGrace2]

You wrote:

"#1 Jesus tells us in Rom 19:28,29 that we are securely held in His Father's hand, and no man (meaning no one, which would include yourself) can remove you from His Father's hand. That is eternal security" [end of your quote]

Response:

An important principle of interpretation is that verses only have meaning in context. That means it's wrong to hijack (I say this respectfully) a passage into a meaning clearly not intended by its author.

Let me stop you here. I meant John 10:28,29, not the book of Romans. So your analysis is based on the wrong verses.

You wrote:

"#2 Paul defined both justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God BEFORE he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in Rom 11:29. That is eternal security." [end of your quote].

Response:

The passage you mention "God's gifts are irrevocable" must be understood in context.

I did. The preceding chapters of Romans forms the basis of context for 11:29. And Paul very clearly defined what he meant by God's gifts. In fact, only justification and eternal life are so defined. So we KNOW that 11:29 refers to justification and eternal life.

When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness he used passages out of context. God's Word only has meaning in context —outside of which it becomes a platter to serve uninspired theology. We want to know what the original author intended and how the original audience would have understood it.

Speaking of "context", how does the temptation of Jesus relate at all to God's gifts in Rom 11:29? They don't.

In Romans 9-11, Paul writes primarily about the nation of Israel. Here is the passage:

"26 And in this way all Israel [notice the context] will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them [Israel] when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they [Israel] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable [context is about the Jews]. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they [Israel] too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they [Israel] also may now receive mercy." Romans 11:26-31

So, where are these "gifts of God" mentioned within this specific context? There aren't any. So, in order to understand what Paul meant by "gifts of God", we have to look back to where he clearly defined what he meant by God's gifts. Again; justification and eternal life.

Secondly, because God is sovereign, He gets to define a gift as he wants.

I wholeheartedly agree!! The Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul in Rom 3:24, and 5:15,16,17 regarding the gift of justification, and Rom 6:23 regarding the gift of eternal life. Yes, God most certainly does get to define what He means by gift. And Eph 2:8 defines salvation as a gift.

Our salvation as believers is counted as a gift. But is this gift a completed action? God's Word had the answers.

Sure is. Jesus actually SAID SO in John 5:24 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life

Very clearly, the one who believes HAS eternal life. Present tense. Now.

"21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe [present tense; ongoing belief]. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified [right now; those who believe; not those who left the faith!] by his grace as a gift [an ongoing gift!], through the redemption that is [right now] in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he MIGHT be just and the justifier of the one who has [right now] faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26

Yep, says the same thing. We are justified by faith.

In Ephesians 2:8, our salvation ("saved") is in the Koine Greek perfect tense. That's why the words "have been" have been added by most translations (not in original) to help the reader understand that we were saved in the past and continue saved today ("have been") by an ongoing faith. This makes the gift ongoing. The Koine Greek perfect tense does not comment on the future.

Excuse me, but the perfect tense actually does mean present action with future results.

You wrote:

#3 Paul wrote that there is nothing "present or in the future" (Rom 8:38,39) that can separate the believer from the love of Christ. Though the Arminian types who believe that salvation can be lost will claim that one will still be loved while spending eternity in hell for loss of salvation, that is preposterous. By mentioning the 'present and future' Paul is saying that there isn't anything in the present or future, including anything that you may do, will separate us from Christ's love. And it is again simply preposterous to claim that Christ will love some of God's children who end up in hell." [end of your quote]

Response:

We already covered Romans 8. Paul, contextually wrote to those who were in ongoing faith.

This is irrelevant to what Paul wrote. He specifically noted that there is NOTHING in the present NOR the future that can separate us from the love of God.

You wrote,

"#4 The very meaning of "eternal life" is exactly that; eternal. Not temporary, not probational. Since the gift of eternal life is given WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, it cannot be lost, returned, revoked, forfeited, or any other "clever" word that may be created by those who think that salvation can be lost." [end of your quote]

Response:

For the meaning of "eternal life", please go to God's Word (I say this respectfully) and read passages grammatically, and contextually. For example, John 3:16 promises "whosoever believes" (present tense and ongoing belief in the Greek) "have" (in the present) "everlasting life". While one "believes" they "have" "eternal life".

Please think about this verse: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18

Using your logic, that if someone becomes a believer they are always a believer, then the unbeliever of the verse above never can be saved because their state is unchangeable.

This is a total misunderstanding of what I posted. A believer may cease to believe, as Jesus noted in Luke 8:13. However, the issue is that once there is faith, the person is saved, HAS eternal life, and WILL NOT come into condemnation.

Once faith, always saved is the principle of Scripture.

Many are quick to emphasize the promise of "eternal life" in this verse (John 5:24). They may assert that "eternal life" cannot be lost because it lasts forever. While "eternal life" does last forever, it shouldn't be confused with possession of the state of "eternal life". An illustration may be helpful.

Suppose a man is gifted a $100 dollar bill; it's his and worth $100. If the bill is lost, he no longer has possession of it —the bill is still worth $100.00. It would be illogical to conclude he cannot lose it because the bill will always be worth $100.

Here's the problem with this unhelpful example. There are no verses that teach or even suggest that the gift of eternal life can be lost. The statement is made often enough by confused believers, but that doesn't make it true.

Please provide just one verse that actually teaches that one can lose salvation or eternal life.

In John 5:24, possession of eternal life is true ("has") while a person "hears" Christ's Word and "believes" in Him ("him who sent me"). To overlook these semantic qualifiers is to reject God's inspired Word. A correct interpretation of Scripture is necessary for a correct doctrinal understanding. The Bible should define one's theology —not one's theology, the Bible.

I see no point here that refutes anything I've posted. In fact, thanks for affirming my point!

The Apostle John, with great precision, grammatically constructed the words of Jesus as stated in this verse. The two conditional participles used ("hears"; "believes"), best fall in the "customary (habitual or general) present" category according to the Book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (521-522; 1996). Wallace placed the participle "believes" of John 3:16 inside this category (522). This category is defined by Wallace as, "the customary present is used to signal either an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state" (page 521).

Please consider how Young's Literal Translation emphasizes the necessity to remain in ongoing belief:

"Verily, verily, I say to you—He who is hearing my word, and is believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during, and to judgment he doth not come, but hath passed out of the death to the life." John 5:24

Sure, there are verses that use the "present tense" of believe in relation to getting saved. However, there are also verses that use the aorist tense for believe, also in relation to getting saved. And the aorist does not even consider on going action. It's a point in time action.

Acts 16:31 - believe (aorist) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be (future to believing) saved.
Rom 10:10 also uses the aorist, along with other verses.

You made several additional, non biblical arguments for your belief in eternal security. Please know that doctrine for the church should only come from the Bible using the grammatical and contextual method of interpretation.

Well, gee, this is helpful. NOT! How about actually pointing out these so-called "additional non biblical arguments" and prove that they are.

Just throwing out opinion or comment doesn't add a thing to the discussion.

 

[Jesus First]

Hi FreeGrace2,

Thanks for your quick response. I'll try to get back with you within 48 hrs. Keep the faith in Jesus Christ!

 

[Jesus First]

Let me stop you here. I meant John 10:28,29, not the book of Romans. So your analysis is based on the wrong verses.


I did. The preceding chapters of Romans forms the basis of context for 11:29. And Paul very clearly defined what he meant by God's gifts. In fact, only justification and eternal life are so defined. So we KNOW that 11:29 refers to justification and eternal life.


Speaking of "context", how does the temptation of Jesus relate at all to God's gifts in Rom 11:29? They don't.


So, where are these "gifts of God" mentioned within this specific context? There aren't any. So, in order to understand what Paul meant by "gifts of God", we have to look back to where he clearly defined what he meant by God's gifts. Again; justification and eternal life.


I wholeheartedly agree!! The Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul in Rom 3:24, and 5:15,16,17 regarding the gift of justification, and Rom 6:23 regarding the gift of eternal life. Yes, God most certainly does get to define what He means by gift. And Eph 2:8 defines salvation as a gift.


Sure is. Jesus actually SAID SO in John 5:24 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life

Very clearly, the one who believes HAS eternal life. Present tense. Now.


Yep, says the same thing. We are justified by faith.


Excuse me, but the perfect tense actually does mean present action with future results.


This is irrelevant to what Paul wrote. He specifically noted that there is NOTHING in the present NOR the future that can separate us from the love of God.


This is a total misunderstanding of what I posted. A believer may cease to believe, as Jesus noted in Luke 8:13. However, the issue is that once there is faith, the person is saved, HAS eternal life, and WILL NOT come into condemnation.

Once faith, always saved is the principle of Scripture.


Here's the problem with this unhelpful example. There are no verses that teach or even suggest that the gift of eternal life can be lost. The statement is made often enough by confused believers, but that doesn't make it true.

Please provide just one verse that actually teaches that one can lose salvation or eternal life.


I see no point here that refutes anything I've posted. In fact, thanks for affirming my point!

The Apostle John, with great precision, grammatically constructed the words of Jesus as stated in this verse. The two conditional participles used ("hears"; "believes"), best fall in the "customary (habitual or general) present" category according to the Book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (521-522; 1996). Wallace placed the participle "believes" of John 3:16 inside this category (522). This category is defined by Wallace as, "the customary present is used to signal either an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state" (page 521).


Sure, there are verses that use the "present tense" of believe in relation to getting saved. However, there are also verses that use the aorist tense for believe, also in relation to getting saved. And the aorist does not even consider on going action. It's a point in time action.

Acts 16:31 - believe (aorist) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be (future to believing) saved.
Rom 10:10 also uses the aorist, along with other verses.


Well, gee, this is helpful. NOT! How about actually pointing out these so-called "additional non biblical arguments" and prove that they are.

Just throwing out opinion or comment doesn't add a thing to the discussion.

Hi FreeGrace2,

It appears that you hold to a theology called Free Grace Theology, correct? If true -sorry, this theological system is an outright perversion of the teachings of the Word of God. It teaches a one-time imitation belief where one acknowledges some facts only and they are forever saved and can live the wages of sin. True repentance of sin, discipleship and following Jesus by faith are optional. Their "easy believism" comes from disregarding rules of grammar and a contextual interpretation of Scripture.

Only a few disagreements will be addressed. You stated, "Excuse me, but the perfect tense actually does mean present action with future results." [end of your quote].

Response:

Can you provide a scholarly reference for your claim that the perfect tense means "present action with future results"? If this claim were true, it would apply to every perfect tense verse in the NT. One cannot arbitrarily apply a rule based on presuppositions. It's all or nothing.

There are rules of grammar that must be followed to arrive at a correct interpretation. Similarly, there are rules of driving —one stays to the right to prevent fatal accidents, etc.

In the book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace discredits your claim:

"Even more misleading is the notion, frequently found in commentaries, that the perfect tense denotes permanent or eternal results. Such a statement is akin to saying the aorist tense means “once-for-all.” Implications of this sort are to be drawn from considerations that are other than grammatical in nature. One must be careful not to read his or her theology into the syntax whenever it is convenient." (574)

I did find a book in my grammar collection that claims there are two future perfect tense verbs in the New Testament. But it did not agree with your "present action with future results". Here is the quote:

"(c) The Future Perfect (ὁ μέλλων συντελικός). There was never much need for this tense, perfect action in future time. It is rare in ancient Greek and in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). The only active forms in the N. T. are εἰδήσω (Heb. 8:11, LXX, possibly a mere future) and the periphrastic form ἔσομαι πεποιθώς (Heb. 2:13, LXX also). Both of these are intensive." (Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1915, 907).

You wrote:

"A believer may cease to believe, as Jesus noted in Luke 8:13. However, the issue is that once there is faith, the person is saved, HAS eternal life, and WILL NOT come into condemnation." [end of your quote].

Response:

You are correct that a "believer may cease to believe, as Jesus declares in Luke 8:13". Your claim for John 5:24 is true while one remains in belief. Again, the one who "hears" and "believes" "has eternal life".

If an employer offered life insurance while one remained with the company it would be illogical to conclude that the life insurance will always remain in effect even long after employment ends just because it's called "life insurance". In the same way, it's a violation of rules of grammar to strip away the conditional nature of eternal life found in John 5:24.

Because you asked for Biblical proof that salvation can be lost, please consider the parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:4-15); it has four soils. The first soil represents unbelievers: ("the devil comes ...so that they may not believe and be saved"; Luke 8:12). Please understand that "believe" = "saved" for this parable.

The second soil represents those who "believe for a while" ("But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away"; Luke 8:13). Calvinists (I respectfully disagree with them) may claim this plant never lived because it had no root. But this seed came to life ("believed for a while") and when the trials of life came ("time of testing") they "fall away". According to BDAG, the Greek definition of "fall away" here is to "go away, withdraw" [BDAG, page 158, 2001]. It's impossible to "go away, withdraw" unless one was there beforehand.

The third soil represents genuine believers (formerly) who spiritually die before their fruit matures ("as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature"; Luke 8:14). A seed has to germinate into a plant for it to produce fruit. This plant grew but died before the fruit could mature. Once again, a genuine plant died which illustrates spiritual death. When we "compare Scripture with Scripture" we find many other passages that substantiate this reality.

Another example is found in John 15:1-11. The branches "in Christ" that fail to produce fruit are pruned off eventually by the Gardner to be burnt in the fire.

You wrote:

Sure, there are verses that use the "present tense" of believe in relation to getting saved. However, there are also verses that use the aorist tense for believe, also in relation to getting saved. And the aorist does not even consider on going action. It's a point in time action. Acts 16:31 - believe (aorist) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be (future to believing) saved. Rom 10:10 also uses the aorist, along with other verses. [end of your quote].

Response:

You are correct that there are verses that use the aorist tense for “believe”; although they are in the minority. You concluded, "and the aorist does not even consider ongoing action. It's a point in time action"

Can you please reply with proof from a credible Greek grammar book? In the book, Basics of Biblical Greek, (Mounce 2009), it states:

"Schreiner writes, "The aorist tense has often been mishandled by both scholars and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently are said to denote once-for-all action when the text has no such intention . . . Having been warned of this error, we should not go to the other extreme and fail to see that in some contexts the aorist does denote once-for-all action, not merely because the verb is an aorist but because of the context." (203).

The aorist tense is the most abused Koine Greek verb tense. Because it's undefined outside of reality (before the context is considered), many misuse it to prop up their held theology. But once in a sentence, the context defines this tense. It can be a one-time action, or, an ongoing action —as defined by context. In the aorist tense the context presses all the action of the word (one-time, or, ongoing, etc.) into one frame.

You provided Romans 10:10 and Acts 16:31 as proof. The passage in Romans uses the Greek present tense for "believes" (you intended another passage?). For Acts 16:31 —because the context defines the aorist tense action, let's examine it. If the "believe" of Acts 16:31 is a one time, point action, as you contend, the jailer's actions must indicate this very thing. Before we consider the actions of the jailer, remember, we want to examine the context for clues to determine if the "believe" is a one-time belief or, an ongoing faith, etc. Here are the inspired actions of the jailer written that describe his "believe":

1) He took them (v. 33a)

2) He washed their wounds. (v. 33b).

3) He was baptized. (v. 33c).

4) Brought them into his house (v. 34a).

5) He set food before them (v. 34b).

6) He rejoiced (v. 34c)

7) He believed (v. 34d). The word "believed" here is in the perfect tense (participle), which clearly and undeniably means ongoing belief (from the past to the present) in the Greek.

8) The following day the jailer delivers a message to Paul and Silas (vs. 35-36).

A mountain of evidence discredits your claim that the aorist tense is a point action for Acts 16:31. The only group that I'm aware of who hold to this uncontextual and ungrammatical view are those who follow Free Grace Theology.

Your "a point in time" argument does not stand up to the light of scripture. Here are some aorist tenses for your consideration: "By faith Abraham obeyed [aorist tense, occurred over time] when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live [aorist tense, occurred over years] in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents [aorist tense, over years] with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise." Hebrews 11:8-9

Conclusion: your aorist "a point in time" assertion is not held by any credible NT Greek scholar and would make the Bible contradict itself. A grammar rule for aorist tense verbs must be applied equally across the board and not selectively used based on one's biases. Because there are Greek grammar rules the Bible is translated accurately into languages and there is meaning in the text! God chose to use written words to declare His direct revelation. We believe the Bible as written in context and grammatically, or we are deceived.


You wrote, "well, gee, this is helpful. NOT! How about actually pointing out these so-called "additional non biblical arguments" and prove that they are. Just throwing out opinion or comment doesn't add a thing to the discussion" [end of your quote].

Here are few of your none biblical proofs:

"Remember, believers can become rebellious, calloused, or just careless. But they remain God's child, and they will always have eternal life." [end of your quote].

Response:

Satan said in the garden "you will not die". The lie that a believer can abandon the Son to "gag in sin" their entire lives, never to return (unlike the prodigal son) and be in heaven is just that (a lie).

You wrote:

"Just as the relationship between human parent and child cannot be broken, the same is true spiritually. Neither you nor I can change our birth parents any more than either of us can change our spiritual parent" [end of your quote].

Response:

True church doctrine must come from the Word of God. Not from man-made arguments. I could make the argument that a child can die spiritually just as a physical child can die physically. But these arguments are nonsense. The "heart is desperately wicked". God gave us His Word to correct our often-wrong thinking. I'm not saying there isn't a place for illustrations. But unsupported columns should not support doctrines.


This response is written in the love of Jesus Christ. Keep your eyes focused on Jesus Christ and His Word. What a day that will be when we see Jesus!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hi FreeGrace2,

It appears that you hold to a theology called Free Grace Theology, correct? If true -sorry, this theological system is an outright perversion of the teachings of the Word of God.

You're free to hold any opinion desired. In fact, neither Arminianism nor Calvinism can prove their various claims. Such as:
loss of salvation from the Arminians
Christ died only for the elect from the Calvinists
Man has no free will from the Calvinists
God chooses who will believe from the Calvinists.

It teaches a one-time imitation belief where one acknowledges some facts only and they are forever saved and can live the wages of sin.

This is the real perversion. What a sick, twisted non-view of what is totally Biblical. I CHALLENGE you to find any free grace pastor or teacher who teaches "a one-time imitation belief" (whatever in the world that even means!), and that those who have believed "can live the wages of sin". This is beyond nonsense.

If no proof for this outlandish claim is given, there will be no point in further discussion.

True repentance of sin, discipleship and following Jesus by faith are optional.

I will clarify: there are grave consequences of those choices. Free grace theology teaches MORE on rewards and divine discipline than any other theological system. Some don't even teach any of this.

To say something is "optional" only means there are choices to be made. Just like in a human family. Children are told and expected to obey their parents. But do all of them do this? Of course not. God's Word lays out very clearly the consequences of disobedience.

It is totally disingenuous to paint free grace theology as teaching that there are no consequences of sin and rebellion. Or totally ignorant. Which category would be your position?

Their "easy believism" comes from disregarding rules of grammar and a contextual interpretation of Scripture.

How about some actual evidence/proof for this statement. One is saved WHEN one believes in Christ for eternal life.

Only a few disagreements will be addressed. You stated, "Excuse me, but the perfect tense actually does mean present action with future results." [end of your quote].

Response:

Can you provide a scholarly reference for your claim that the perfect tense means "present action with future results"? If this claim were true, it would apply to every perfect tense verse in the NT. One cannot arbitrarily apply a rule based on presuppositions. It's all or nothing.

Sure. "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics" by Dan Wallace. Page 572: Introduction: "As a general introduction, for the most part, the perfect and pluperfect tenses are identiccal in aspect though different in time. Thus botth speak of an event accomplished in the past (in the indicative mood, that is) with results existing afterwards - the perfect speaking of results existing in the pressent, the pluperfect speaking of results in the past."

On page 573: "As Moulton points out, the perfect tense is 'the most important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses.' "

P. 573: Definition: "The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e.; in relation to the speaker). Or as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for 'indicating not the pat action as such but the present state of affairs resulting from the past action.' "

In the book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace discredits your claim:

"Even more misleading is the notion, frequently found in commentaries, that the perfect tense denotes permanent or eternal results. Such a statement is akin to saying the aorist tense means “once-for-all.” Implications of this sort are to be drawn from considerations that are other than grammatical in nature. One must be careful not to read his or her theology into the syntax whenever it is convenient." (574)

OK, let's consider his claim. If an action from the past has existing results presently in relation to the speaker, the results are certainly future to the actual action. And your quote misses the suggestion from another scholar, Chamberlain, who does believe the perfect tense "describe an act that has abiding results".

I did find a book in my grammar collection that claims there are two future perfect tense verbs in the New Testament. But it did not agree with your "present action with future results".

My mistake. Past action with on-going results is a better statement.

"A believer may cease to believe, as Jesus noted in Luke 8:13. However, the issue is that once there is faith, the person is saved, HAS eternal life, and WILL NOT come into condemnation." [end of your quote].

Response:

You are correct that a "believer may cease to believe, as Jesus declares in Luke 8:13". Your claim for John 5:24 is true while one remains in belief. Again, the one who "hears" and "believes" "has eternal life".

There is no suggestion from John 5:24 that one must "continue to hear and believe" in order to continue to have erternal life. That is simply an assumption.

If an employer offered life insurance while one remained with the company it would be illogical to conclude that the life insurance will always remain in effect even long after employment ends just because it's called "life insurance". In the same way, it's a violation of rules of grammar to strip away the conditional nature of eternal life found in John 5:24.

Irrelevant example. Paul defined eternal life as a gift of God, and then wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable.

Because you asked for Biblical proof that salvation can be lost, please consider the parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:4-15); it has four soils. The first soil represents unbelievers: ("the devil comes ...so that they may not believe and be saved"; Luke 8:12). Please understand that "believe" = "saved" for this parable.

The second soil represents those who "believe for a while" ("But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away"; Luke 8:13). Calvinists (I respectfully disagree with them) may claim this plant never lived because it had no root. But this seed came to life ("believed for a while") and when the trials of life came ("time of testing") they "fall away". According to BDAG, the Greek definition of "fall away" here is to "go away, withdraw" [BDAG, page 158, 2001]. It's impossible to "go away, withdraw" unless one was there beforehand.

The third soil represents genuine believers (formerly) who spiritually die before their fruit matures ("as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature"; Luke 8:14). A seed has to germinate into a plant for it to produce fruit. This plant grew but died before the fruit could mature. Once again, a genuine plant died which illustrates spiritual death. When we "compare Scripture with Scripture" we find many other passages that substantiate this reality.

What is the point from this parable? Soil 1 represents an unbeliever, #2 represents a believer who ceases to believe because of life's hardships, etc, #3 represents a believer who becomes distracted by life's pleasures, etc, and #4 represents a believer who grows up spiritually and produces fruit. Believers 2 and 3 never produced fruit. The parable is about fruit production, not about proof of salvation.

You wrote:

Sure, there are verses that use the "present tense" of believe in relation to getting saved. However, there are also verses that use the aorist tense for believe, also in relation to getting saved. And the aorist does not even consider on going action. It's a point in time action. Acts 16:31 - believe (aorist) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be (future to believing) saved. Rom 10:10 also uses the aorist, along with other verses. [end of your quote].

Response:

You are correct that there are verses that use the aorist tense for “believe”; although they are in the minority. You concluded, "and the aorist does not even consider ongoing action. It's a point in time action"

Can you please reply with proof from a credible Greek grammar book? In the book, Basics of Biblical Greek, (Mounce 2009), it states:

"Schreiner writes, "The aorist tense has often been mishandled by both scholars and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently are said to denote once-for-all action when the text has no such intention . . . Having been warned of this error, we should not go to the other extreme and fail to see that in some contexts the aorist does denote once-for-all action, not merely because the verb is an aorist but because of the context." (203).

The aorist tense is the most abused Koine Greek verb tense. Because it's undefined outside of reality (before the context is considered), many misuse it to prop up their held theology. But once in a sentence, the context defines this tense. It can be a one-time action, or, an ongoing action —as defined by context. In the aorist tense the context presses all the action of the word (one-time, or, ongoing, etc.) into one frame.

Since you've quoted from Wallace, let's go there for the aorist tense:
"It may be helpful to thinkf of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the imperfect takes a motion picture, protraying the action as it unfolds." p.555

"Outside the indicative and partiiple, time is not a feature of the aorist." p.555

You provided Romans 10:10 and Acts 16:31 as proof. The passage in Romans uses the Greek present tense for "believes" (you intended another passage?).

It was v.9 that uses "believe" in the aorist tense: that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

For Acts 16:31 —because the context defines the aorist tense action, let's examine it. If the "believe" of Acts 16:31 is a one time, point action, as you contend, the jailer's actions must indicate this very thing. Before we consider the actions of the jailer, remember, we want to examine the context for clues to determine if the "believe" is a one-time belief or, an ongoing faith, etc. Here are the inspired actions of the jailer written that describe his "believe":

1) He took them (v. 33a)

2) He washed their wounds. (v. 33b).

3) He was baptized. (v. 33c).

4) Brought them into his house (v. 34a).

5) He set food before them (v. 34b).

6) He rejoiced (v. 34c)

7) He believed (v. 34d). The word "believed" here is in the perfect tense (participle), which clearly and undeniably means ongoing belief (from the past to the present) in the Greek.

8) The following day the jailer delivers a message to Paul and Silas (vs. 35-36).

A mountain of evidence discredits your claim that the aorist tense is a point action for Acts 16:31. The only group that I'm aware of who hold to this uncontextual and ungrammatical view are those who follow Free Grace Theology.

Your opinion is noted and rejected. Paul was clear about what he said. That the jailer continued to believe in the context of the text doesn't change the meaning of the aorist. One is saved WHEN one believes.

Your "a point in time" argument does not stand up to the light of scripture.

The point is that the aorist does not consider a time frame of action.

Here are some aorist tenses for your consideration: "By faith Abraham obeyed [aorist tense, occurred over time] when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live [aorist tense, occurred over years] in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents [aorist tense, over years] with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise." Hebrews 11:8-9

That he continued to believe is noted, but that doesn't change the aorist.

Conclusion: your aorist "a point in time" assertion is not held by any credible NT Greek scholar and would make the Bible contradict itself.

I have already given Wallace's definition of it, so your claim is without merit.

A grammar rule for aorist tense verbs must be applied equally across the board and not selectively used based on one's biases.

My basis is the definition of the tense.

[QUTOE]You wrote, "well, gee, this is helpful. NOT! How about actually pointing out these so-called "additional non biblical arguments" and prove that they are. Just throwing out opinion or comment doesn't add a thing to the discussion" [end of your quote].

Here are few of your none biblical proofs:

"Remember, believers can become rebellious, calloused, or just careless. But they remain God's child, and they will always have eternal life." [end of your quote].[/QUOTE]
How are these 'none biblical proofs'?

Response:

Satan said in the garden "you will not die". The lie that a believer can abandon the Son to "gag in sin" their entire lives, never to return (unlike the prodigal son) and be in heaven is just that (a lie).

What does this prove?

You wrote:

"Just as the relationship between human parent and child cannot be broken, the same is true spiritually. Neither you nor I can change our birth parents any more than either of us can change our spiritual parent" [end of your quote].

Response:

True church doctrine must come from the Word of God. Not from man-made arguments. I could make the argument that a child can die spiritually just as a physical child can die physically. But these arguments are nonsense. The "heart is desperately wicked". God gave us His Word to correct our often-wrong thinking. I'm not saying there isn't a place for illustrations. But unsupported columns should not support doctrines.

This proves nothing. It is the Word of God that uses parent-child words to indicate relationships that we can relate to. And just as the physical relationship between human parent and child cannot be changed, neither can the spiritual relationship between God and child. It is God who gives us spiritual birth. Your view basically denies what God's Word has established.

Question: where is King Saul today?

 

[Albion]

As good as this is, people will still worry and be curious about this subject. We can't just encourage someone to "shrug off their worries and move on," people don't necessarily work like that.

That's true. Still, we have a number of examples from Scripture about people who have fallen away and come back. Some of them have already been mentioned by other posters. I think of the story of the Prodigal Son which is almost exactly about this question.

 

[Dom Puccio]

That's true. Still, we have a number of examples from Scripture about people who have fallen away and come back. Some of them have already been mentioned by other posters. I think of the story of the Prodigal Son which is almost exactly about this question.

I've always thought of the Prodigal Son story as one that compares the audience to the older brother rather than the younger one.

 

[Dom Puccio]

That's true. Still, we have a number of examples from Scripture about people who have fallen away and come back. Some of them have already been mentioned by other posters. I think of the story of the Prodigal Son which is almost exactly about this question.

I've always thought of the Prodigal Son story as one that compares the audience to the older brother rather than the younger one.