Losing Salvation after getting saved?

[Butch5]

Do you realize how ironic that sounds Butch. ie. Do you consider that Augustine may have been correct ?

Hi Agua,

I don't think he was correct because I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests it. I've looked at how he understands Ephesians 1 and it's pretty much the same way that Reformed theology does. He also came out of Manecheanism and I think that may be the basis for his understanding. However, the earlier writer argued hard against that idea.

 

[chessman]

Hi Agua,

I don't think he was correct because I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests it. I've looked at how he understands Ephesians 1 and it's pretty much the same way that Reformed theology does. He also came out of Manecheanism and I think that may be the basis for his understanding. However, the earlier writer argued hard against that idea.

Butch, there are ECF's that believed in OSAS. Who told you there were none until the re-forming of the church?

Check their works out here, passage by passage:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/ephesians1.html


Eph. 1:1 - NIV, NAB - in Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V

on of His Spirit, tending towards perfection, and preparing us for incorruption, being little by little accustomed to receive and bear God; which also the apostle terms "an earnest," that is, a part of the honour which has been promised us by God, where he says in the Epistle to the Ephesians, "In which ye also, having heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, believing in which we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance."[47]

 

[Butch5]

Might I suggest you read all of that chapter in another translation or two of your choosing and get back to me on what Paul's subject is and thus his point in verse 12.

Even in the KJV, we can tell Paul's point is not really salvific within the context of the one sentence. What's up with "refuse the younger widows"? Refuse them of what? Their salvation or their church sponsored financial/physical support?

It would be a very odd flow of thought for Paul to suddenly stop talking about how to treat widows in the church (take in true widows, cast off false widows) to suddenly interject a teaching on how one becomes unsaved. Or more precisely on your view of the phrase, how young widows lose their salvation).

And he's not. He's talking about a widow's physical desires and telling the church to NOT take them under their financial care (cast the away). Brother, this has nothing to do with God un-saving people (or widows).

1 Timothy 5:5-6, 11-12 But the widow who is one truly, and is left alone, has put her hope in God and continues in her petitions and prayers night and day. But the one who lives for sensual pleasure is dead even though she lives.
...

But refuse younger widows, for whenever their physical desires lead them away from Christ, they want to marry, thus incurring condemnation because they have broken their former pledge. ​

Hi Chessman,

When Paul says refuse the younger widows, he is referring to the order of widows. There was in the church at this time an order of widows who severed in the church. It's my understanding that they took a vow to serve the Lord. Apparently these younger widows were breaking that vow by growing cold in their service of Christ. So, when Paul says they cast off their first faith, I believe he is referring to their vow to serve Christ. He says they grow cold towards Christ and cast off their first faith. and receive damnation. Who is condemning them? I don't think it's the church or he wouldn't have to tell Timothy about the condemnation. So what is the condemnation? Remember what Jesus,

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:18 NKJ)

Obviously this isn't talking about being in hell, but isn't that the destination of these people? But who is the one condemning?

Even more damaging is the fact that he says some have already turned aside after Satan. The passage can also be translated, some have turned back to Satan. The word translated "after" also means "back," I really don't see how anyone who has turn back to Satan can still be saved. I don't think Paul is saying that they were Satan worshipers, but, I do believe he is indicating that they have broken their vow are returned to a life that is not Christian. The Scriptures say that it is better not to vow that to vow and break it. How much more so with God?

 

[Butch5]

Butch, there are ECF's that believed in OSAS. Who told you there were none until the re-forming of the church?

Check their works out here, passage by passage:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/ephesians1.html


Eph. 1:1 - NIV, NAB - in Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V

on of His Spirit, tending towards perfection, and preparing us for incorruption, being little by little accustomed to receive and bear God; which also the apostle terms "an earnest," that is, a part of the honour which has been promised us by God, where he says in the Epistle to the Ephesians, "In which ye also, having heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, believing in which we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance."[47]

Hi Chessman,

I'm not aware of a single Anti-Nicene writer that believed OSAS. What you posted from Irenaeus doesn't show He believed OSAS. In order for anyone to prove OSAS, they must prove that man cannot change his mind once saved. That is the crux of the OSAS argument. What you've highlighted doesn't prove OSAS because it's referring to the believer. No one is suggesting that the believer will be lost, it's the one who turns from believing that will be lost..

Here is Irenaeus actually addressing this issue.

These men of old time, …. for whom the Son of God had not yet suffered, when they committed any sin and served fleshly lusts, were rendered objects of great disgrace. Accordingly, what will the men of the present day suffer, who have despised the Lord's coming, and have become the slaves of their own lusts? Truly, the death of the Lord brought healing and remission of sins to the former. However, Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin. For death will no more have dominion over Him …. We should not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of olden times. Rather, we should fear ourselves, least perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His kingdom. And for that reason, Paul said, “for if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also not spare you.” Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.499.

According to nature, then — that is, according to creation, so to speak — we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God. But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will. And those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil, because they do the works of the devil. And that such is the case He has declared in Isaiah: “I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rebelled against Me.” And again, where He says that these children are aliens: “Strange children have lied unto Me.” According to nature, then, they are [His] children, because they have been so created; but with regard to their works, they are not His children.

3. For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God, — those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

These passages are addressing the issue of those who do not continue in following Christ. There are no inferences in these passages.

 

[Butch5]

Good stuff.

The church needs to hear this.

Thanks Jethro!

 

[Butch5]

OSAS has helped the church believe that the faith that justifies all by itself doesn't have to result in faithful works. That somehow faith without works really does save, in complete contradiction to what James teaches.

That's a good point. The idea that one is saved upon belief does the same thing, it has one saved apart from works.

 

[chessman]

Hi Chessman,

I'm not aware of a single Anti-Nicene writer that believed OSAS. What you posted from Irenaeus doesn't show He believed OSAS. In order for anyone to prove OSAS, they must prove that man cannot change his mind once saved. That is the crux of the OSAS argument. What you've highlighted doesn't prove OSAS because it's referring to the believer. No one is suggesting that the believer will be lost, it's the one who turns from believing that will be lost..

Here is Irenaeus actually addressing this issue.

These men of old time, …. for whom the Son of God had not yet suffered, when they committed any sin and served fleshly lusts, were rendered objects of great disgrace. Accordingly, what will the men of the present day suffer, who have despised the Lord's coming, and have become the slaves of their own lusts? Truly, the death of the Lord brought healing and remission of sins to the former. However, Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin. For death will no more have dominion over Him …. We should not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of olden times. Rather, we should fear ourselves, least perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His kingdom. And for that reason, Paul said, “for if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also not spare you.” Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.499.

According to nature, then — that is, according to creation, so to speak — we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God. But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will. And those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil, because they do the works of the devil. And that such is the case He has declared in Isaiah: “I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rebelled against Me.” And again, where He says that these children are aliens: “Strange children have lied unto Me.” According to nature, then, they are [His] children, because they have been so created; but with regard to their works, they are not His children.

3. For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God, — those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

These passages are addressing the issue of those who do not continue in following Christ. There are no inferences in these passages.

Are you sure there's no inferences?
For example, your highlight of Ireaneus'
"if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His kingdom." Would have all of us doomed. Not to mention it doesn't recognize his full statement and point:
"Rather, we should fear ourselves, least perchance ..."

Which reflects my fundamental take concerning OSAS.

He was saying, don't be puffed up in thinking we post Easter Christians are better than the pre-Easter ones.

The crux of OSAS, to me is; Does the Bible reflect a God that leaves salvation to chance or not? I think not. I think it is a promise as my quotation reflected.

Your quotation starting at "3. ..." Is not Irenaeus but rather from a book pulished in 2007 speaking for him, no? That's a question.

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Chessman,

When Paul says refuse the younger widows, he is referring to the order of widows. There was in the church at this time an order of widows who severed in the church. It's my understanding that they took a vow to serve the Lord. Apparently these younger widows were breaking that vow by growing cold in their service of Christ. So, when Paul says they cast off their first faith, I believe he is referring to their vow to serve Christ. He says they grow cold towards Christ and cast off their first faith. and receive damnation. Who is condemning them? I don't think it's the church or he wouldn't have to tell Timothy about the condemnation. So what is the condemnation? Remember what Jesus,

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:18 NKJ)

Obviously this isn't talking about being in hell, but isn't that the destination of these people? But who is the one condemning?

Even more damaging is the fact that he says some have already turned aside after Satan. The passage can also be translated, some have turned back to Satan. The word translated "after" also means "back," I really don't see how anyone who has turn back to Satan can still be saved. I don't think Paul is saying that they were Satan worshipers, but, I do believe he is indicating that they have broken their vow are returned to a life that is not Christian. The Scriptures say that it is better not to vow that to vow and break it. How much more so with God?

I am not defending OSAS in what I am saying.......

When Paul says that there are young women who have turned aside to satan, I believe he is saying turned aside to the sin he mentioned in the previous v.13, gossiping and backbiting against the church.

In v.12, the church is the one passing judgment or condemnation on the young widow because she has remarried and broken her vow [first faith, first decision] to serve the church [the Body of Christ] in celibacy.
In v. 14 it is the adversary who speaks reproach.
Any adversary, satan, the world. They are the adversaries of the Body of Christ.

Paul is not only rebuking the young widow for breaking a vow but also the church for allowing the vow to be taken in the first place. They had lack of wisdom in this issue and it caused the problems in the first place. So they have condemned her for marrying and she is out there in the world gossiping about the people in the church. Why? Because the church has cast her out, she no longer has a rein on her. She being tossed to and fro, with no guidance.
If she is left in this position things will only get worse for her as Paul says he has already seen.
I can just see Paul, sending the elder women to the younger to restore them.
And what of the men they married, are they to be condemned too for marrying a widow under a vow? Paul never says she married someone outside of the church. If she did I think he would have mentioned that, too.
This whole teaching is to straighten out an issue that never should have occurred. Glorifying the name of Christ, peace, and restoration is always what Paul teaches.

Is gossiping an unforgivable sin? If not, she has not lost her salvation. Because if she has she can Never repent of that sin. David repented of adultery and per-meditated murder and he did not loose his salvation in the six or so months before he repented, if he had he never would have been able to repent. At some point he says, "please don't take the Holy Spirit from me", so we know he did have the Holy Spirit indwelling him. And he was living under the Old Covenant of the Law.

I never underestimate the mercy and grace of the Father and the power of His restoration.

 

[chessman]

I believe he is referring to their vow to serve Christ. He says they grow cold towards Christ and cast off their first faith. and receive damnation.

Which would be extra-Biblical and extremely out of context to everything else in the passage has to say about widows.

I believe he was speaking of "casting off" their first pledge (to be one husband women) and seeking other(s) 'husbands' (sugar daddy's would be the modern term) as the text shows and as the context of the passage shows, versus some special vow to serve Christ above and beyond the one we all take and uphold to imperfection.

1 Timothy 5:9-10 Let a widow be put on the list if she is not less than sixty years old, ...

What?, only 60 plus year olds could take this special "vow to serve Christ" pledge and thus be on the special list which condemns them if they fail in their special pledge?

Look, i'm as willing as they come to look at good Biblical arguments contrary to church held doctrines. But if I were you, I'd stop using 1 Tim 5 as a de-salvation proof text. It ain't there.

 

[Gregg]

That's a good point. The idea that one is saved upon belief does the same thing, it has one saved apart from works.

Yes, Scripture has believers saved apart from works.

Works are a result of faith, not a condition for faith which has led to salvation. Faith is given to men, then after being saved [upheld by Christ] and after the indwelling of His Spirit, they together cultivate works. Works are an indication that one is saved, but not a reason for which the Lord begins or sustains our eternal life.

Our eternal life is based solely upon the work of God in Jesus Christ, and now according to the power of His Holy Spirit. To assume that one can contribute to that work [either to begin, sustain, or finish it] is to say that, 'in part I am saving myself.'

 

[Butch5]

Are you sure there's no inferences?
For example, your highlight of Ireaneus'
"if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His kingdom." Would have all of us doomed. Not to mention it doesn't recognize his full statement and point:
"Rather, we should fear ourselves, least perchance ..."

Which reflects my fundamental take concerning OSAS.

He was saying, don't be puffed up in thinking we post Easter Christians are better than the pre-Easter ones.

The crux of OSAS, to me is; Does the Bible reflect a God that leaves salvation to chance or not? I think not. I think it is a promise as my quotation reflected.

Your quotation starting at "3. ..." Is not Irenaeus but rather from a book pulished in 2007 speaking for him, no? That's a question.

Hi Chessman,

Whether the passage would have us all doomed or not doesn't change what he said. We can't determine his meaning based on how we perceive salvation. The only argument I see that could be made against this statement would be to claim that Irenaeus wasn't a Christian because in the statement of possible exclusion from the kingdom he includes himself.

Both quotes are from Irenaeus, the second is from "Against Heresies" book 4 chapter 41.

I disagree that the crux of the argument is about God. I don't know anyone that argues against OSAS that questions God's part in salvation. If a believer decides that he know longer wants to follow Christ and turns back to the world it is a decision he has made. That decision in no way reflects on God's ability to save. That is why I said the crux of the issue is man's willingness to follow.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, Scripture has believers saved apart from works.

Works are a result of faith, not a condition for faith which has led to salvation. Faith is given to men, then after being saved [upheld by Christ] and after the indwelling of His Spirit, they together cultivate works. Works are an indication that one is saved, but not a reason for which the Lord begins or sustains our eternal life.

Our eternal life is based solely upon the work of God in Jesus Christ, and now according to the power of His Holy Spirit. To assume that one can contribute to that work [either to begin, sustain, or finish it] is to say that, 'in part I am saving myself.'

Actually Gregg, your statement runs contrary to the apostle James, who said faith without works is dead, and asked rhetorically can that faith save?

Also, to be obedient doesn't necessitate one saving themselves.

 

[jonahmano]

Yes, Scripture has believers saved apart from works.

Works are a result of faith, not a condition for faith which has led to salvation. Faith is given to men, then after being saved [upheld by Christ] and after the indwelling of His Spirit, they together cultivate works. Works are an indication that one is saved, but not a reason for which the Lord begins or sustains our eternal life.

Our eternal life is based solely upon the work of God in Jesus Christ, and now according to the power of His Holy Spirit. To assume that one can contribute to that work [either to begin, sustain, or finish it] is to say that, 'in part I am saving myself.'

So you mean that all that 'DO's and 'DON'T's instructed in all the epistles right from Romans to Jude and also the book of Revelation are just Lullabies?

 

[Butch5]

Which would be extra-Biblical and extremely out of context to everything else in the passage has to say about widows.

I believe he was speaking of "casting off" their first pledge (to be one husband women) and seeking other(s) 'husbands' (sugar daddy's would be the modern term) as the text shows and as the context of the passage shows, versus some special vow to serve Christ above and beyond the one we all take and uphold to imperfection.

1 Timothy 5:9-10 Let a widow be put on the list if she is not less than sixty years old, ...

What?, only 60 plus year olds could take this special "vow to serve Christ" pledge and thus be on the special list which condemns them if they fail in their special pledge?

Look, i'm as willing as they come to look at good Biblical arguments contrary to church held doctrines. But if I were you, I'd stop using 1 Tim 5 as a de-salvation proof text. It ain't there.

Chessman, Just because the order of widows is not spelled out in Scripture doesn't mean it's not Biblical. This is not something from the church years later, this is something that the apostles themselves addressed. In the church approved and overseen by the apostles there was an order of widows, that's as Christian as anything else in Scripture. Yes, the younger one's per Paul were prohibited apparently for the reason spelled out in 1 Tim. I disagree that the first faith was to be a one husband woman when it was completely legitimate for a widow to remarry. The older widows were able to remarry also yet Paul doesn't say they should be kept from the order. How would casting of one first faith (not being a one husband woman) have one growing cold towards Christ, receiving damnation, and following after Satan?

 

[chessman]

Both quotes are from Irenaeus, the second is from "Against Heresies" book 4 chapter 41.

I disagree that the crux of the argument is about God. I don't know anyone that argues against OSAS that questions God's part in salvation. If a believer decides that he know longer wants to follow Christ and turns back to the world it is a decision he has made. That decision in no way reflects on God's ability to save. That is why I said the crux of the issue is man's willingness to follow.

I was asking about the third quote you cited.

Actually, non-OSAS does reflect on God's ability to save. Specifically about His ability to know all things. To include those He calls His own in the present and in their futures.

What's your take; can man come to know God salvifically without God's help in the first place? Non-OSAS has God struggling to collect all His sheep and giving up on some.

 

[Butch5]

I am not defending OSAS in what I am saying.......

When Paul says that there are young women who have turned aside to satan, I believe he is saying turned aside to the sin he mentioned in the previous v.13, gossiping and backbiting against the church.

In v.12, the church is the one passing judgment or condemnation on the young widow because she has remarried and broken her vow [first faith, first decision] to serve the church [the Body of Christ] in celibacy.
In v. 14 it is the adversary who speaks reproach.
Any adversary, satan, the world. They are the adversaries of the Body of Christ.

Paul is not only rebuking the young widow for breaking a vow but also the church for allowing the vow to be taken in the first place. They had lack of wisdom in this issue and it caused the problems in the first place. So they have condemned her for marrying and she is out there in the world gossiping about the people in the church. Why? Because the church has cast her out, she no longer has a rein on her. She being tossed to and fro, with no guidance.
If she is left in this position things will only get worse for her as Paul says he has already seen.
I can just see Paul, sending the elder women to the younger to restore them.
And what of the men they married, are they to be condemned too for marrying a widow under a vow? Paul never says she married someone outside of the church. If she did I think he would have mentioned that, too.
This whole teaching is to straighten out an issue that never should have occurred. Glorifying the name of Christ, peace, and restoration is always what Paul teaches.

Is gossiping an unforgivable sin? If not, she has not lost her salvation. Because if she has she can Never repent of that sin. David repented of adultery and per-meditated murder and he did not loose his salvation in the six or so months before he repented, if he had he never would have been able to repent. At some point he says, "please don't take the Holy Spirit from me", so we know he did have the Holy Spirit indwelling him. And he was living under the Old Covenant of the Law.

I never underestimate the mercy and grace of the Father and the power of His restoration.

Hi Deb,

I agree with much of what you said, but, I believe your argument is based on a point in time salvation. I don't believe one is ultimately saved until the resurrection. You spoke of David, suppose he had never repented, do you still believe he would be saved? Look at Solomon, OSAS is in a tight spot here, in the Scriptures the last we hear of Solomon is that he was serving false gods and that his wives had turned his heart away from the Lord. OSAS is forced to say either Solomon was never "saved" or he stayed saved even though he allowed his heart to be turned away from God and to serve false gods. Either position puts OSAS in a very rough place. Most who hold OSAS would say such a person was never saved, yet I doubt they would claim that of Solomon. Therefore they are left to have a Christian saved who has turned from God and serving false Gods. As I said, most who hold OSAS today would reject such an one as Christian.

Regarding the widows Paul said that some had turn back to Satan, now that could mean they returned to their old lifestyle. But, even at that we are told that those who return to that life have not inheritance.

 

[chessman]

it was completely legitimate for a widow to remarry..

for the right reasons, sure. For the wrong reasons, not so much.

Paul doesn't say they should be kept from the order.

Hmm, married widows on the widows list????

I don't like illogical statements and am yet to find one in the Bible.

 

[Butch5]

I was asking about the third quote you cited.

Actually, non-OSAS does reflect on God's ability to save. Specifically about His ability to know all things. To include those He calls His own in the present and in their futures.

What's your take; can man come to know God salvifically without God's help in the first place? Non-OSAS has God struggling to collect all His sheep and giving up on some.

Hi Chessman,

No, I don't believe man come to God without help. However, I believe that all men are given that help. John said of Christ that He gives light to everyone coming into the world. From that I conclude that Christ gives some level of understanding to every person who is born.

I only cited two quotes, the second one was in two sections. This is all one quote,

According to nature, then — that is, according to creation, so to speak — we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God. But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will. And those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil, because they do the works of the devil. And that such is the case He has declared in Isaiah: “I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rebelled against Me.” And again, where He says that these children are aliens: “Strange children have lied unto Me.” According to nature, then, they are [His] children, because they have been so created; but with regard to their works, they are not His children.

3. For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God, — those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Concerning what you said about God knowing all things that goes into a whole new discussion. I'm not sure what "all things" are. Some people say "all things" includes every possible outcome of every possible decision one would make . I don't know id things that don't exist can be considered as things in "all things." But, if God does know the final outcome of our decision before it is made I don't see how that would have him struggling to collect His elect since He would know who they were.

 

[Butch5]

for the right reasons, sure. For the wrong reasons, not so much.



Hmm, married widows on the widows list????

I don't like illogical statements and am yet to find one in the Bible.

What I meant by the statement wasn't illogical. What I meant was that both groups were able to remarry legitimately, yet one group was rejected from the order of widows and the other wasn't. Obviously anyone who remarried couldn't be in the order, but of the two groups of widows that could legitimately remarry one was rejected and the other wasn't

 

[Gregg]

Actually Gregg, your statement runs contrary to the apostle James, who said faith without works is dead, and asked rhetorically can that faith save?

Also, to be obedient doesn't necessitate one saving themselves.

"My brothers, what is the gain if anyone says he has faith, but he does not have works? Is [that] faith able to save him?" (Jas 2:14).

"So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself" (Jas 2:17).

One makes James' statement to be contrary by misinterpreting it. Faith, having led to salvation, will be accompanied by works.

James is saying that faith [logical, natural, carnal, factual head knowledge only knowing about God] which continues not to produce works, is a faith that is 'dead being by itself' - that kind of faith was not born of God and did not result in salvation in the first place. That faith is alone, destitute, never having been accompanied by the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ and the sealing of the Holy Spirit.