Is Eternal Security Conditional or Unconditional?

COMMENTS

38 Comments

1. The Janitor May 7, 2013

   The article is poorly reasoned. For now I’ll just comment on a few remarks of yours:

   You say, “Calvinism teaches that total depravity removes our ability to freely will any good thing.”

   As a sweeping statement of what “Calvinism” teaches, this is false. For instance: Louis Berkhof says, “In a certain sense man has not, and in another sense he has, lost his liberty. There is a certain liberty that is the inalienable possession of a free agent, namely, the liberty to choose as he pleases, in full accord with the prevailing dispositions and tendencies of his soul. Man did not lose any of the constitutional faculties necessary to constitute him a responsible moral agent. He still has reason, conscience, and the freedom of choice. He has ability to acquire knowledge, and to feel and recognize moral distinctions and obligations; and his affections, tendencies, and actions are spontaneous, so that he chooses and refuses as he sees fit. Moreover, he has the ability to appreciate and do many things that are good and amiable, benevolent and just, in the relations he sustains to his fellow-beings. But man did lose his material freedom, that is, the rational power to determine his course in the direction of the highest good, in harmony with the original moral constitution of his nature. Man has by nature an irresistible bias for evil. He is not able to apprehend and love spiritual excellence, to seek and do spiritual things, the things of God that pertain to salvation” (Systematic Theology, p. 248)

   You say: “This theological system inherited this concept regarding the will from Augustine and Luther.”

   This can give the impression that Calvinists just have the beliefs about free will that they do because Calvin and Augustine said so. Of course, Calvin provided Scriptural support for his beliefs and so do Calvinists today. If you ask a Calvinist why he holds to his particular view of free will he is very unlikely to quote Calvin. Instead, he’ll give a theological explanation grounded in certain Scripture. You may disagree with that, but it’s not inherited from Calvin or Augustine–as though they just that Calvin or Augustine said so-and-so.

   Reply
   • David Kowalski May 7, 2013

     [In response to The Janitor’s first comment] I’m not surprised you think my reasoning is poor. Both sides in a disagreement believe the other’s reasoning is weak — otherwise there would be no differing views! I completely agree with your comments on Calvinism’s view of free will, and I acknowledged this as I discussed Millard Erickson’s treatment of the point. Calvinists believe in free will, just not libertine, free will that can be freely exercised. In indicating the historical influence of Augustine on the Augistinian monk Luther and the influence of Luther on Calvin, I was merely stating historical fact and meant none on the implications you charge me with. Every theological system that holds a high view of Scripture believes their particular views are the ones that best explain Scripture. Arminians follow a tradition largely handed down by Arminius and Wesley, but they think their view is the one that best expresses Scripture. The same could be said for Molinists. None of the impressions you say I give are things I meant and I frankly do not see them in the text of the article.

     Reply
2. The Janitor May 7, 2013

   You say: “The conclusion of this is that if one in good standing rebels, stubbornly persisting in a disobedient lifestyle, they are no longer part of the faith and no longer Christians.”

   And this is what it always comes down to. Those who believe in conditional security must at some point fall back on a faith + works soteriology.

   You say: “Good works never earned these rebels salvation in the first place but any “so-called” brother that leaves the evidence of salvation behind leaves the salvation it evidences. This is the objective test of a real believer — he or she is not a rebel against God.”

   And since the conditional security Christian won’t say that faith is itself a gift and work of God, faith really means “faithfulness” (i.e., non-rebellion).

   You say non-rebellion is the test of real faith. So faith becomes inseparably joined to good works. And either you have faith + works salvation or else you simply make faith mean “faithfulness” and end up with works, period.

   Faith is never sufficient to save us. We need good works to “stay” (be) saved in the end.

   The only way this system of theology can keep one from falling into despair is by making the goal post fuzzy. When has one failed to do enough good works that they have lost their salvation? We don’t know. But we are assured that it’s “much more than occasional falling” it’s “stubborn, hardened, rebellion against God.” And then the conditional security believer consoles themselves with thoughts of “Surely I’m not *that* bad.”

   Really? So say you’ve been a Christian for 30 years. Of those 30 years, how many of them have been spent in a continual state of failure to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind don’t count as stubborn, hardened rebellion? I’m guessing the majority of those years if not all of them. That looks like the product of a stubborn, hardened, rebellious heart to me.

   This is where the conditional security believer throws up other safety nets like sins of ignorance or “willing” sins and then assures themselves they haven’t don’t that. As Owen perceptively remarks, “it is all one upon the matter whether this be done by the choice of the will or by inadvertency, for that inadvertency itself is in a manner chosen. When we are inadvertent and negligent, where we are bound to watchfulness and carefulness, that inadvertency doth not take off from the voluntariness of what we do thereupon; for although men do not choose and resolve to be negligent and inadvertent, yet if they choose the things that will make them so, they choose inadvertency itself as a thing may be chosen in its cause. And let not men think that the evil of their hearts is in any measure extenuated because they seem, for the most part, to be surprised into that consent which they seem to give unto it; for it is negligence of their duty in watching over their hearts that betrays them into that surprisal.”

   Reply
   • David Kowalski May 7, 2013

     [In response to The Janitor’s second comment] Those who believe in conditional security do not believe in a faith plus works soteriology. We are saved by faith alone, but as most Calvinists themselves acknowledge, the faith that saves is not alone. I cannot answer for absolutely all Arminians (especially since I am not one), but you are most mistaken if you think that I (or most Arminians, for that matter) believe that saving faith is not specially gifted. See my article where I strenuously argue for that very point (https://apologeticsindex.org/2939-the-certainty-of-faith). I do not believe that faith means faithfulness, but I do think it receives real salvation just as Calvinists do. The Calvinist teaching on the perseverance of the saints maintains that real salvation is by faith alone but is evidenced by works. I agree.

     Faith alone is sufficient to save us. It is passive and monergistic. It is just the bucket. Still, if one departs from the faith they forfeit the grace that only faith receives.

     You bring up the straw man of despair. I have known many people who believe in conditional security and in my 37 years as a Christian, I have never met even one who lived in despair or worried about whether they would “lose” the free gift of salvation. No one lives in a state of sinless perfection, as I said in the article. There are, however, differences in degrees of sin — see my article at https://apologeticsindex.org/3037-is-all-sin-the-same-to-god. There are also differences in frequency of sin. Again, this is consistent with the Calvinist handling of the issue through the teaching of the perseverance of the saints. They say that anyone who persists in prolonged and hardened rebellion against God is not a believer and will not receive salvation in the end. Neither those who teach conditional security nor those who teach unconditional security believe the “goal posts” are fuzzy to God! For anyone to suggest such a thing is to insult Him.

     I certainly do not throw up any kind of distinction between willing and inadvertent sins. Though such a distinction is made in the Mosaic Law for those who may unintentionally violate one of its regulations, the New Testament seems to treat all sin as willful. We do not accidentally sin apart from the Mosaic system. So what you posit in your last paragraph has no part in my belief system or that of any other believer in conditional security that I have known or read. This is another straw man argument that has nothing to do with my article.

     I believe in salvation by faith alone, but like most Christians, I believe salvation is evidenced by belief and repentance. Those who do not evidence belief or repentance are not of the faith. To suggest otherwise is a step down a slippery slope to universalism and this is why Calvinists, Arminians, and Molinists choose not to take that step.

     God bless you, my brother.

     Reply
3. David Kowalski May 7, 2013

   I must note that comments are most welcome and I enjoy hearing them from opposing views when they are politely worded. Still, I do not see the comments section as a forum for debate beyond a couple of posts per individual. Those who wish to express their views more fully can always write articles of their own. This is not a reference to any perceived hostility but simply to propriety.

   Reply
4. Jonathan May 28, 2013

   Hi, David.

   Your initial section on Free Will needs to be expanded to better refute the Reformed perspective on eternal security. There are two Reformed perspectives on the human will that need to be taken into account. 1) The first is that the Bible places all human decisions in the context of God’s sovereignty. 2) The second is that the Bible teaches the human will proceeds from a depraved nature.

   You loosely address the first point by identifying a tension between sovereignty and responsibility. While you’re right to point out the tension of these ideas, acknowledging it doesn’t refute that the Bible explicitly teaches both ideas are true.

   You also don’t address the second point at all. You lay heavy emphasis on man being made in God’s image. Yet do not then clarify the distinction between God’s original design for mankind and the Bible’s teaching on the corruption wrought by sin.

   The Reformed perspective on the will isn’t that humans don’t make choices. Or that rationality doesn’t drive human choice. But that the range of choice is limited by one’s nature – that nature either being depraved or altered by the indwelling Spirit of God. Apart from an indwelling of the Spirit and a fundamental change in nature, humans will continue to voluntarily rebel against God’s authority. Hence their will is not “free” because of sin’s prevailing influence.

   The root cause of the disagreement between the Reformed and Arminian perspectives is the doctrine of sin. The Reformed perspective follows the Bible’s teaching on sin to its logical conclusion. The Arminian approaches the text with an assumption of human autonomy and attempts to carve room for it in the Bible’s teaching. And, by starting with a non-Biblical premise, the Arminian argument predictably reaches a non-Biblical conclusion in which the effects of justification must be sustained by human effort.

   If you want to assert the accuracy of the Arminian perspective on the human will, you need to do so by elaborating more on this core distinction rather than refuting a weak caricature of Reformed thought.

   Reply
   • David Kowalski May 29, 2013

     Jonathan:

     Let me begin my response to your comment by clarifying that I am neither Arminian nor Reformed but a Molinist (a point you seemed to have missed) — a position I think enables me to believe all of what the Bible says regarding free will and election without having to weakly explain away one side or try to harmonize both at the expense of logic. Thus, I cannot answer for all of your disagreements with Arminianism. I share some of those differences and do not wish to assert the accuracy of the Arminian perspective since I am not Arminian. I highly respect my Arminian and my Reformed brothers and sisters, and consider any differences I have with them to be non-essential.

     When one is limited to the confines of an article, it is difficult to fully address all of the issues involved. Though I spoke of the issue of free will as foundational, I covered the topic only briefly, trusting that the other five topics would sufficiently reinforce what I said on free will. I appreciate your reference to sovereignty and responsibility as a tension and I admire the efforts by some theologians in the Reformed camp to harmonize these concepts in their own way. Still, I find those efforts problematic, as they inevitably refer to the tension as a paradox or antimony (I consider Packer’s efforts to distinguish between paradox and antimony to be a good try but still artificial).

     The theologians of tension say we may consider something illogical though it be logical to God. There are difficulties in this view, however. Though no one would deny that God is beyond our comprehension, it is problematic to imagine a different kind of logic in God — one, for example, in which 2+2 does not equal 4. Logic has traditionally been seen as a reflection of the orderly mind of God, and I agree with this tradition that I believe is compromised in the theology of tension. Arminianism, I believe, compromises the biblical teaching on God’s sovereignty. Biblical sovereignty is more than mere prescience. Molinism, however, is able to fully reconcile the two (I have some references to Molinism in the article to enable further research).

     If you will reread the section on free will in the article, you will see that I did address the specifics you seem to think I overlooked. I just stated them in a way that did not sound flattering to Reformed theology. I have read more Reformed theologians on the free will issue than I have Arminian or Molinist theologians. I believe I do understand their view but I do not put the same hermeneutically and logically weak, semantic spin on it that they do — thus inviting the accusation of “caricature” — a defense made popular in the theological world by Barth when substantively and insightfully critiqued by Van Til on issues other than the ones in view in these comments (an overly simplistic defense that nevertheless satisfies Barthians). Calvinists simply do end up in a kind of paradox when they assert that man has free will that he cannot use in a libertine (free) way.

     I did address the effects of the fall on the image of God in man but I also addressed the fact that a remnant survives and that this remnant includes free will that can be freely used. This, I think, is shown conclusively in Scripture.

     The article was a synergy of six points which I summarized as follows:

     1) God created mankind with free will and in spite of the corruption of mankind in the fall, this ability to choose freely remains.
     2) This free will is exercised in the faith choice that passively receives grace. If one changes their faith choice they no longer receive grace.
     3) The faith involves justification and sanctification. Faith is evidenced by a godly lifestyle and is inseparable from it as a result of the life changing work that faith receives. Those who rebel against God in a hardened and persistent manner depart from the faith and are no longer Christians.
     4) The promises God makes concerning the believer are an assurance that He will not change His saving choice but not a declaration that He will make our faith choice for us in perpetuity.
     5) None of the descriptions of believers or their life in Christ speaks of unconditional security.
     6) God says that Christians can fall away and He repeatedly warns us not to do so.

     Your response to the entire synergy is to limit yourself to the first point, falsely accusing me of Arminianism, asserting that I did not address issues which I did, and accusing me of caricature for not putting the Calvinist, semantic spin on their view for them. You have nothing to say about the other five points. It seems to me that your comment was written with another author’s work in mind because you do not interact with the substance of mine other than to weakly and inaccurately cry “caricature” on one, isolated, point. Perhaps you only skimmed the article. I would encourage your reading it more carefully.

     In fairness to Arminians, I would say you grossly misrepresent their view. Arminians do not believe that salvation is either earned or maintained by works but by faith alone. They do, however, like most Calvinists, believe that though we are saved by faith alone the faith that saves is not alone. From my perspective as a Molinist, I would say that the true Arminian teaching on the need for persevering is only technically different from the Calvinist teaching on the perseverance of the saints, as both views maintain salvation by faith alone that perseveres to the end. Both views put perseverance to the end as a condition of the truly saved. To charge Arminians with the straw man of works theology is a common but shameless, false accusation (as is the frequent, Arminian accusation that Calvinists believe one can live as they please).

     Though, as I said in the article, from a Molinist perspective one could treat Arminian and Calvinist views on conditionality to be be just two sides to one coin, I believe the New Testament authors expressed themselves in terms that are blatantly and consistently conditional for popular consumption. Thus, I believe that the biblical way to speak to the issue is to call our security conditional, though I think you are not so far off from that view than you might suppose if you hold to the traditional, Calvinist teaching of the perseverance of the saints. People who expressed faith and acted Christian are said by Calvinists to have been deceiving themselves if they subsequently deny the faith or fall into hardened and prolonged rebellion. No Calvinist can be absolutely certain they are not deceiving themselves until they have persevered to the end and thus they have no greater assurance than those who teach security as conditional. One might say Arminians and Molinists teach simple conditionalality while Calvinists are only technically conditional, but Calvinists are just as conditional in their own way with respect to security since they assert the professing person has no absolute assurance until the end.

     Reply
5. Lori June 7, 2013

   Thank you for your article. I have been a believer for 37 years and have not delved into the competing views of Calvinists vs.Arminians. I have generally believed in “eternal security” according to how I understood John 10:27-29. I have wondered occasionally about the meaning of some of the scriptures you referenced, but have to admit that you have dissected them quite well for me. I particularly like your analogy of faith as a bucket to receive grace and follow the logic of the possibility that it can be moved by one’s free will. I appreciate the comments made by others and by your courteous replies. I’m thankful to be in a family of believers that sharpen one another’s iron so effectively!

   Reply
6. Piotr Lewandowski June 29, 2013

   re; eternal security: When Jesus said “It is finished (Tetelestai)”…Tetelestai comes from the verb teleo, which means “to bring to an end, to complete, to accomplish.” It is a crucial word because it signifies the the successful end to a particular course of action. But there is more here than the verb itself. Tetelestai is in the perfect tense in Greek. That is significant because the perfect tense adds the idea that “This has happened and it is still in effect today”. Another words, we can not loose our salvation.

   Reply
7. Piotr Lewandowski June 29, 2013

   P.S. or another words: once you are born again, you stay born again.

   Reply
   • David Kowalski June 29, 2013

     I agree that we cannot “lose” our salvation because the issue is most certainly settled on God’s side. Still, there is a condition to salvation — faith — and it is possible to depart or fall away from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). Saving faith is a gift but all gifts are expressed through human choice. Even regarding the gift of prophecy, Paul taught that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophet (1 Corinthians 14:32 NASB). God gives grace but it is only received by those of faith (otherwise we resort to universalism). Those who refuse faith never receive grace. Those who depart from the faith forfeit the grace than only faith receives. This is why we are so clearly and repeatedly warned about departing from the faith. I addressed this point repeatedly from various angles and I believe the Bible speaks with utmost clarity to this point. I will quote here just one pertinent piece from the article:

     “They [those who teach unconditional security] will, for example, assert that our being born again is an unconditional assurance of our security because one cannot be “unborn,” Perhaps they have never heard of “death.”Such people will also say that our having eternal life means it is unconditionally guaranteed to never end. 1 John 5:11-12 tells us, however, that this eternal life is in God’s son:

     “And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”

     Only He possesses this life in Himself. We merely share in this life as we continue to abide in Him (Jn 15:5-6). James 5:19-20 warns believers of the possibility of spiritual death:

     “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

     James is clearly saying that departure from the truth of the Gospel will lead to the death of one’s soul. Thus, continued, spiritual life is dependent on continued choice in faith. In a similar way, God placed no limit on the life He had given Adam but warned His man that this life was conditional (Genesis 2:17). The life God gives is eternal in nature. Those who depart from that life revert to spiritual death. Those who fall away from the faith commit spiritual suicide.”

     I speak to this point in various other ways and would only suggest here that you reread the article because it answers your point in many places. Yes, the river of grace has been flowing since the cross and it will never stop, but we must keep our passive bucket of faith in place to continue to receive. I do not believe Scripture teaches that this grace is still received if one departs from the faith (which the Bible says is possible). Just as faith is a condition of receiving, continued faith is the means by which we continue to receive (1 Peter 1:5). God’s salvation is fully and finally established for those of the faith. Nothing need be added from His side. Still, people must receive this by faith and continue in the faith to receive in perpetuity. Those who move the bucket no longer receive. They forfeit the grace which is perpetually offered when they depart from the faith and they forfeit the life is that is only found in Christ when they depart from Him. Forfeiture of life results in spiritual death.

     Again, I address this much more thoroughly in the article. I would commend you to a more careful reading of it.

     Reply
     • Piotr Lewandowski June 29, 2013

       ” They forfeit the grace which is perpetually offered when they depart from the faith and they forfeit the life is that is only found in Christ when they depart from Him. Forfeiture of life results in spiritual death.” No argument from me there. The “falling away” is clearly addressed in Scripture. This is where sanctification comes in: a lifelong process to become Christlike (although never becoming like Him, of course). We must be vigilant. 1 Peter 5:8 (ESV): ” Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Thank you for re; more careful remark. Blessings.

       Reply
       • David Kowalski June 29, 2013

         It is crucial to distinguish between justification (which is monergistic and relates to what we believe and trust in for salvation) and sanctification (which is synergistic and relates to the expression or out-working of the salvation our trusting receives). While is important to separate them in concept this way, they are inseparable in experience. James and 1 John in particular make it clear that the unsanctified person fails to show evidence of a justified status. Most Calvinists agree with this. Their contention is that is impossible to depart from the faith (something I believe I have disproved in the article). Thus, they will simply say that the one who falls into an unsanctified lifestyle was never truly saved and thus was deceiving himself. Within that system, however, there is no way to tell who is deceiving themselves until they have persevered to the end. Thus, the very best a Calvinist can say is, “I fully believe I am saved, though I could be deceiving myself.” They never express it that way but that is what it amounts to.
       • Piotr Lewandowski June 30, 2013

         “Their contention is that is impossible to depart from the faith (something I believe I have disproved in the article).” And this is why I am not a Calvinist. P.S. kudos to you for a great column and I am looking forward to your e-mails/columns. Blessings
8. Ethan Grunderon August 15, 2013

   David,

   You say, “Hebrews 6:4-6 is probably the most debated passage when discussing the believer’s security.” Yet you do not mention the two main sides of the debate. For me, the translation of verse 6 with or without an “If” is irrelevant. In fact, that “if” rabbit hole is used mostly to hide the real objection to your interpretation.

   The simplest way to make my point here is to paraphrase the verse. The verses are actually making a claim AGAINST conditional salvation!

   The author is saying that Christians cannot fall away because if they COULD, there would be no possible way for them to be redeemed because Jesus died once and cannot be made to pay again!

   Lets look at the verses.
   Hbr 6:4 – For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
   Hbr 6:5- And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
   Hbr 6:6 – If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

   Now watch this… Follow the train of thought…
   Hbr 6:6 – If they shall fall away…..
   (If WHO shall fall away?)
   Hbr 6:4 – …those who…were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,…
   (Christians)
   Hbr 6:4 – [it is] impossible…
   (What is impossible?)
   Hbr 6:6 – to renew them…

   The author of Hebrews is saying that there could be no possible re-instatement for a Christan if He were able to lose his salvation. He then goes on to put nails in the coffin of conditional salvation.

   Hbr 6:9 – But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you,…
   (Better things than what?)
   Hbr 6:9 – AND things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
   (“we are persuaded better things… …that accompany salvation”
   Again, better than what?)
   Hbr 6:10 – For God [is] not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,…
   Hbr 6:11 – …every one of you do shew the same diligence…
   (the “SAME DILIGENCE” as God showed in verse 10)
   Hbr 6:11 – …to the FULL ASSURANCE of hope unto the end:
   Hbr 6:13 – For… …God… because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
   Hbr 6:16- …men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation [is] to them an end of all strife.
   Hbr 6:17 – Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the IMMUTABILITY of his counsel, CONFIRMED [it] by an oath:
   (God wanted to show to His heirs the “unchangability” of his salvation, confirmed it by swearing on Himself cause He could swear by no greater.)
   Hbr 6:18 – That by two immutable things,… …we might have a STRONG CONSOLATION, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the HOPE set before us:
   (We who have become saved might have STRONG CONSOLATION that we can never again be lost.)

   Hbr 6:19 – Which [hope] we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast,…
   (What is this hope? This anchor, sure and steadfast.)
   Hbr 6:20 – Whither the forerunner is for us entered, [even] JESUS, made an high priest FOR EVER….

   here are the prominent words and phrases used in this passage talking about the possibility of losing ones salvation,

   IMMUTABILITY
   FULL ASSURANCE hope unto the end
   sure and steadfast
   DILIGENCE
   as an ANCHOR of the soul
   CONFIRMED [it] by an OATH
   STRONG CONSOLATION
   better things… …that accompany salvation
   FOR EVER

   Is this the language of conditional? or Sure and steadfast?

   So I ask you David. If a Christian, according to your interpretation, did lose his salvation, could he ever come back to God or is He lost forever?

   Ethan

   Reply
   • David Kowalski August 19, 2013

     Ethan:

     Your comments call for several clarifications. First, those who believe in conditional security fully believe that God will keep all of His promises related to keeping us and finishing what He began. There are two parties in this relationship, however, and God’s promises on the divine side do not negate the need for fidelity on the human side. God will never forsake us but the Bible clearly says it is possible for us to forsake Him. You wish to bypass the “if” clause that so many Calvinist make much over so I will quote from the article as it is stated after that point:

     “In the book of Hebrews, the writer is speaking at length of a danger which faces believers:
     For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard lest we drift away from it (2:1)… how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? (2:3)…but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end (3:6)….Take care brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart in falling away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end (3:12-14)….Therefore let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to come short of it (4:1)….Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience (4:11).

     Repeatedly the author makes clear he is warning believers about the danger of falling away, and he exhorts these believers to hold fast to their faith firm until the end.
     Having identified the context of the passage, let us examine its contents. First, there is a description of certain people. They have been “enlightened” (the writer uses this same word to describe Christians in Heb 10:32), they have “tasted of the heavenly gift” and been made “partakers of the Holy Spirit” (believers are called “partakers” in Heb 3:14). They have also “tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (the writer of Hebrews uses this word, “tasted” to describe Christ’ full experience of death in Heb 2:9). Since the writer speaks of the impossibility of renewing these people again to repentance, it is clear they had at one time repented.
     The writer then says these people, who are obviously Christians, have fallen. He goes on to say that he is persuaded of better things for “you” in 6:9, but he does not express the same confidence in the “them” whose apostasy he has just described. Both the context and the contents show that this passage clearly describes saved individuals who have fallen from grace. This is further reinforced by the warning delivered in Hebrews 10:26-30:

     For if we go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as unclean the covenant by which he was sanctified and has insulted the Spirit of Grace? For we know Him who said ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’

     There are many more warning passages addressed to believers such as the one we have examined in Hebrews 6:4-6 (other passages that could be used include Lk 14:34; John 15:1-6; Eph 5:5-6; 1 Co 9:27, 10:12;1 Tim 4:1; Heb 2:1-2, 3:12, 10:26-27; Jas 5:19-20; 2 Pe 1:10, 2:20-22, 3:17). Careless dismissal of them cannot be justified. Hebrews 6:1-4 is one of many clear passages directed to genuine Christians, warning them of the danger of falling away.”
     

     From the above, I think it is indisputable that the author of Hebrews is saying that Christians can fall away and he is warning them against this.

     The point you raise about apostasy displays a Calvinist misunderstanding of the conditional view. The writer speaks thus in 6:6:

     “and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame”

     Some points to reiterate first:

     One can not fall away from somewhere they have never been.

     One cannot be “renewed again” to something they never had.

     The one who cannot be renewed is said to be someone who has deliberately and openly put Christ to shame. This cannot speak of private sin but can only speak of a public act of renouncing Christ. One does not apostatize by stumbling, but by a public act of renouncing Christ. The bible says such people cannot be restored/renewed. If they cannot be restored, what is it they cannot be restored to? Only those who have had something and forfeited it can even possibly speak of restoration so the passage clearly says that a believer can depart from the faith and forfeit grace.

     You add words to the Scripture when you misquote its intent as follows: “The author of Hebrews is saying that there could be no possible re-instatement for a Christan if He were able to lose his salvation.” “Could be” and “if he were able to are” are not anywhere in the text but believers in unconditional security brazenly add them in an effort to change the meaning of the text. I would suggest we stick to what Scripture actually says rather than to what one wants it to say in order to fit their theology. We should get our theology from the text rather than rewrite the text to harmonize with our theological system.

     You then follow with the writer of Hebrews expression of confidence regarding the people he writes to. He expresses a confidence for them that he does not for those he clearly described as fallen away in earlier verses. For the Hebrew Christians there is a reiteration of something found throughout Scripture. God will never go back on His faithfulness. Still, in 10:26-30, the writer reminds the Hebrew believers of the point he has so emphatically and repeatedly driven home through the entire epistle — that they must not fall away:

     “For if we go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as unclean the covenant by which he was sanctified and has insulted the Spirit of Grace? For we know Him who said ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.”

     Thank God that He will never change His mind or go back on His promise! Still, we cannot ignore the clear teaching that we can fall away from the faith that receives grace, and we should not dismiss His very strong warnings not to do so!

     The kind of apostasy that precludes renewal is not a private sin but a public renunciation of Christ. I would not recommend that anyone publicly renounce Christ.

     Hebrews 6 very clearly teaches conditional security and one must turn it on its head to misunderstand it.

     Reply
     • Piotr Lewandowski August 20, 2013

       Here is another way to look at this: Matthew 7:22-23 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.” “I never knew you” also means “they never knew Him”

       Reply
       • David Kowalski August 20, 2013

         I am a bit confused by your comment. You say “here is another way to look at this: Matthew 7:22-23…” I used dozens of passages of Scripture, but not that particular one because it does not relate to the issues covered in the article.
9. tess July 10, 2015

   Thank you for this article. I have been a Christian for 35 years and have beeni involved in different theologies, one being Calvinism.It was only until I decided to let go of doctrines while reading the Bible, that I came up with the same conclusions you did, Mr Kowalski.
   God warns us to purify ourselves, walk by the spirit, be obedient, and so on. Why so many calls to human effort if human effort has already been determined by Him?

   When I read my bible and pray everyday, the Holy Spirit constantly speaks to me urging me to walk in righteousness. He will speak to me BEFORE I say or do something that opposes God.

   When I am less diligent in my prayers and filling up on the word, I find temptations creeping in easily. Only in my own testimony have I learned what it means to “abide in Christ”.
   I have learned that in his justification of me, God has given me the power to become His child.
   The Cross has made my salvation possible through the remission of sins, and my salvation is guaranteed by being conformed to the image of His Son through the charis.

   Reply
   • David Kowalski July 11, 2015

     Thanks, Tess. I’m glad you found the article profitable. To be completely fair to our Calvinist brethren, I would only add here something of which I am sure you are aware. Calvinists do not altogether reject the idea of human effort. Some of the authors I quote favorably in my article against quietism (passivity) are Calvinists (see https://apologeticsindex.org/2985-quietism). Most Calvinists acknowledge that exhortations to obedience in the saved are addressed to believers and require a response from them (even if that response is dependent upon God for enablement).

     Where the distinction comes between five point Calvinism and other schools of thought is the Calvinists’ insistence that absolutely nothing in them — including no choice of theirs — was involved in their receiving salvation. They see salvation as something imposed irresistibly upon an individual, and they think that once God has made that choice for them, they can co nothing to depart from that forced faith (but see such verses as 1 Timothy 4:1). One question I believe a five point Calvinist cannot answer in a way that is consistent with their theological system is why the NT contains exhortations not just for the saved to obey but also for the unsaved to believe (see, for example, Acts 16:31). If there is no willful choice on the part of those who receive salvation, why are exhortations addressed to them as though there were something in them that needed to respond? I do believe saving faith is supernaturally gifted (https://apologeticsindex.org/2939-the-certainty-of-faith) but I see that supernatural gifting as similar to the prophetic gift given to OT prophets who could either choose to express the imparted gift or not. In salvation we are not reduced to automatons, and after salvation we are told we must continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23, for example) — a continuing that passages such as Colossians 1:22 say our salvation is contingent upon. Since passages such as Colossians 1:22-23 are addressed to those already saved, they do not speak to whether or not one’s initial profession of faith was genuine, but to whether or not one continues in that genuine profession of faith — the faith that receives salvation.

     Reply
10. Micah Thomas September 25, 2015

    I want thank you for dealing with all these comments in depth, that’s very considerate of you and I commend you for that. I want to thank you for something greater that I got from this post specifically, even though it is a couple years old.
    I was a Calvinist for a while, I loved the doctrines of grace and loved to talk about it. But I was somehow persuaded to give up Calvinism by Jerry Walls. It surprised me how I sort of ran from Calvinism, instantly wanting to disprove it, a desire to find a doctrine that upheld man’s free will and made him truly responsible. So I started in on Arminian doctrine, wanting to find proof for that. However, that doctrine, as well as the Baptist tradition that I was raised in, just too weak of an explanation of divine sovereignty and election.
    Then I read this article, trying to comprehend conditional security, and you mention “Molinism”. After seeing that the doctrine didn’t cause any heresy in this post, I decided to check into this “ism” that I wasn’t familiar with. What I found amazed me. A third option. A more perfect doctrine than Calvinism and Arminianism. I love it! What a balance! I just wanted to thank you for revealing Molinism to me, I think it must have been a conspiracy for me to have never heard about this doctrine of middle knowledge. Thank you for showing me a more perfect doctrine.

    Reply
    • David Kowalski September 25, 2015

      Thanks for your kind comments. If you have not yet read it, Kenneth Keathley’s book on Molinism, Salvation and Sovereignty, has been getting a good deal of favorable attention and I think you would find it profitable — http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Sovereignty-A-Molinist-Approach/dp/0805431985.

      Reply
11. Will Goodall February 12, 2016

    Excellent article David carefully and honestly reasoned, not least to deal with a fundamental issue which is that Calvinism is a theological construct that has to be ‘taught’. It is not readily or easily derived from the plain meaning or common word usage of scripture but requires a fairly sophisticated intermediary didact to make its case.
    Thank you for taking the time to bring much needed light to this subject.

    Reply
    • David Kowalski February 12, 2016

      Thanks, Will. In fairness to our Calvinist brothers, I would not say that the sophistication of a theological system, by itself, makes a teaching wrong, though it certainly can make the system more difficult for the average person to test. Theological systems form something of an intellectual web that must be carefully unravelled for the teaching to be examined. This difficulty can cause people to embrace a system as a result of factors that are more sociological than theological. Once such a system has been embraced and publically advocated, all future study (even very extensive study) is usually biased and colored. As a rule, people study to defend the system with which they have identified rather than study with a heart and mind open to whatever God says to us through His Word. Personally, I have found that Calvinism does not form an airtight, unassailable system. At points, it is forced to contradict Scripture, or, at least, explain it away in extremely creative and fanciful ways (such as with Hebrews 6). It is also internally inconsistent at other points, and some Calvinists seek to reconcile their teaching with contrary, biblical teaching by referring to “paradox” or “antimony” — something I find too problematic (see https://apologeticsindex.org/3135-the-perplexing-paradox-problem). I still respect and love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, even if I cannot reach the same conclusions they do when I study the Bible for myself. Kenneth Keathley has written a book about Molinism that is becoming something of the standard work on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Sovereignty-A-Molinist-Approach/dp/0805431985) and while I do not agree with Keathley on all specifics, I find that Molinism, as a system, embraces more of what Scripture affirms than does the Calvinist system, and it does it in an internally consistent manner without having to explain away the plain meaning of Bible texts (as Calvinism does).

      Reply
12. Paul Loskutoff March 5, 2018

    David, is the ABILITY to REMAIN saved by faith a free will choice, or a gift from God?

    Reply
    • David Kowalski March 5, 2018

      Paul:

      There are some logical fallacies embedded in your question and I will try to sort these out. First, to force a choice between faith as a gift and faith as a choice is a false dichotomy — much like asking if the OT prophets prophesied by a gift or by choice. Both gift and choice were involved (see my article for a fuller explanation — https://apologeticsindex.org/2939-the-certainty-of-faith). Secondly, you seem to imply that faith itself provides the ability to remain saved. As I say in the article above, faith has no power in itself. It is merely the bucket that passively receives God’s grace. Man has no ABILITY in himself to receive salvation or remain saved. God is the One who saves us and who keeps us. Still, saving/keeping grace is received by faith (thus, those who are not of the faith do not receive salvation) and His keeping power is maintained through faith (thus, those who choose to depart from the faith no longer receive GOD’S saving/keeping grace). I hope this answer helps.

      Reply
13. Michelle September 17, 2018

    Hi David – I found this article while trying to study this topic, as I have personally experienced many friends who were devout Christians (even in leadership and staff positions at evangelical churches) move into what I would consider the “falling away” category over the past few years. I’m not talking about “sinning” either. I’m referring to a hardened, denying Jesus, don’t believe in Scripture, moving onto other faiths kind of falling away. This was the first piece I came across that seemed to support concepts I was formulating based on the study I’ve been able to do. If am wondering, if I agreed with your conclusion/findings at the end of the article, what “term” would I use to describe that so I have a reference for other study to look into for further consideration? I am new to this, and primarily a stay at home mom right now so beginners terms are helpful for me! Thank you!

    Reply
    • David Kowalski September 18, 2018

      Thanks for your comment, Michelle. I think the best term to describe what we believe is conditional, eternal security — as opposed to those who believe in unconditional, eternal security that cannot be forfeited. I choose the word “forfeited” carefully because I prefer not to use the phrase “losing one’s salvation” since such a phrase seems to imply that this is a light and easy matter than can almost occur accidentally. “Forfeited” conveys the willful and extreme condition involved in what the Bible itself calls “falling away” from the faith. Some people would say that you and I are not “Reformed” — though I think it is overreaching to say that only Calvinists have a right to consider themselves part of the stream of teaching that originated in the Reformation. I am part of the Reformation tradition even if I differ with some of the others in that stream. I am a disciple of Jesus, not of Calvin. Calvin said many good things but he was still a fallible man and I reserve the right to think for myself when evaluating his teachings.

      Reply
14. Larry November 5, 2018

    Huge subject about Salvation that is in Jesus Christ and for centuries it has divided the body of Christ the church and before the world of unbelievers! How can this help the Kingdom of God when believers argue over the Gospel?

    May I suggest a discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit needs to be added to God’s discussion of Eternal Life that is provided through Jesus Christ so the world can see that Faith in Jesus Christ is dependant of God in us.

    Bothers and sisters our role is to preach the Gospel by us walking in the Holy Spirit so we can know him and the truth and Love will be seen in our words to each other, then the works that God has prepared for us will be seen.

    3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
    1 Cor 12:3 (KJV)

    No one without the Holy Spirit can say Jesus is their Lord so begin with that truth and all truth will be taught by the Holy Spirit for that is why he is sent. Thinking for our selves (“our wills)” is how man got into “death” in the first place, surely the Holy Spirit can lead us together into why he is sent and is needed for eternal life to be our reality over doctrines of men that divides us!

    In the Love of God that is in Jesus Christ, may we be one as he is One with the Father. Amen.

    Reply
    • David Kowalski November 5, 2018

      Larry,

      Thanks for taking the time to read this article and reply to it. I wholeheartedly agree with your desire to maintain unity and love in the body of Christ. Not all disagreement is synonymous with division, however, provided the difference of opinion is over a non-essential topic such as the one discussed in the above article. Evangelical believers maintain that we can have unity in the faith in spite of non-essential differences. Real Christian love is so powerful that it is able to look past different opinions on non-essentials. What credit is it to you if you only love those who agree with you?

      Division only comes to the Church when believers argue or needlessly belittle (or exclude) each other. I also believe that it is ironically divisive to imply that it is sinful for Christians to elaborate their soteriological understanding as I do in the above article.

      You rightly assert that Christians should teach the Holy Spirit’s role in imparting saving faith to the heart but this is something all orthodox believers already do — as I do in the above article, even referencing this article on the subject that I wrote — https://apologeticsindex.org/2939-the-certainty-of-faith.

      Reply
15. David January 30, 2020

    Excellent article…and thank you. I am not a theologian, but I am a miracle-a born again, sacrifice accepting believer. I cannot accept the contrary to scripture Calvinist doctrine, but have never considered myself strictly Arminian either. I had never heard of Molinism, but will be researching that. I appreciate your take. I find the Word inerrant, infallible, and in no wise contradictory. None of that would ever lead me to embrace damnable fallacies such as: unconditional eternal security, cessationism, or replacement theology. Thank God that He is unchanging, faithful, and trustworthy. It seems to me that all of the “doctrines” I listed and many other false ones have their origin in Eden. “Yea hath God said” still echoes in every one of these false teachings-adding just enough truth to the error to entice another soul to an eternity in hell. Keep up the good work. I thank God for you.

    Reply
    • David Kowalski January 30, 2020

      David: First, I want to clarify for others that I did not write this comment (my name is David also)! Secondly, I want to thank you for your sentiments. On this topic, emotions often run quite high in those who have contrary views — I believe more so than with any other doctrinal difference between orthodox Evangelicals. Outside of this comments thread, I have had some rather nasty things said about me for writing this article (and emotions seem to have run high in some of the comments here). Thus, it is refreshing to receive such an encouraging response as yours.

      I believe that in this article I provided a link to William Lane Craig’s articles on Molinism (which many people find difficult to understand and which some people misrepresent), though several books are available on the topic now. Kenneth Keathley’s book has made a big splash, though his views are on the moderately Calvinist side of Molinism (Molinism is a rather big tent). I would describe myself as an Arminian-leaning Molinist. I do not embrace unconditional security, cessationism, or replacement theology. I believe those are serious errors that warrant correction. Personally, however, I would not label those positions as damnable even though I know that some people so label the view I expressed in the above article. Thanks again for taking the time to express your kind thoughts here.

      Reply
16. Dave Homiak February 9, 2020

    David, thanks for your article, for which I’d like to make a few comments. First, unlike Calvinism and Arminianism, Molinism does not have an embedded soteriology; it deals with the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Thus, it is possible to be a Molinist as well as a Calvinist, Arminian, or Traditionalist/Provisionalist, despite some comments above seeming to confuse it as a third soteriological system. Second, you have not fully disproven unconditional eternal security in your article, because you have only presented the verses and interpretations of the conditionalist, without responding to the verses and interpretations used by unconditionalists, such as in free grace theology. It would improve your case to do so in another article, exploring, for example, the temporal judgments and loss of rewards as the result of falling away, rather than forfeiting eternal life with Christ.

    Reply
17. David Kowalski February 9, 2020

    Dave: I believe Molinism has strong implications for one’s soteriology and enables one to be not fully Calvinist nor fully Arminian — something I address in this short article. I acknowledge in the comments above that Molinism is a big tent with both Calvinist-leaning and Arminian-leaning Molinists. I identify as an Arminian-leaning Molinist but believe my Molinist views have sufficiently strong implications for my soteriology that I cannot be branded a full-fledged Arminian. This implication for soteriology is something I have read in others’ writings. Most especially I have read Calvinists who believe that Molinists are not fully monergistic (I have even heard Molinism branded as soteriological heresy by Calvinists) though Arminians seem more amicable toward Molinist thinking even if they do not embrace it. I address “free grace” theology at great length in this article. Some of the particulars you raise are covered in the article and its comments section, and the article has links to many related articles I have written. Between those articles and this one (and their comments sections), I believe I have fully responded to the verses and interpretations used by unconditionalists, verses and interpretations I find less than compelling given the immediate contexts of the verses and the larger context of all Scripture that I believe thoroughly refute the view. As to your comments, I believe temporal judgments for some do not preclude eternal judgments for others. 1 Corinthians 3:10-16 does not relate to sanctification but to service. A saved person who has born no fruit in service will be saved though they will be deficient in rewards. This is what the passage teaches when one examines it in context.

    Reply
    • Dave Homiak February 18, 2020

      I read your article on free grace theology, but much of it had to do with refuting an antinomian view apparently held by certain grace theologies, but not all, e.g., https://faithalone.org/magazine/y1997/97D2.html, in which Bob Wilkin states:
      “If I must do good works to be saved, then I am not saved simply by believing that Jesus is the Guarantor of eternal life to all who believe in Him for it (John 6:47; 11:25-27; 1 Tim 1:16). Then justification really isn’t by faith alone. Justification is then by faith plus works. While it is clear in Scripture that God has exhorted all believers to holiness so that we might glorify Him (e.g., Ephesians 4-6), there is no guarantee that all believers will succeed. Consider, for example, 1 Cor 9:24-27, where the apostle Paul says that even he isn’t sure he will persevere. While failure is sad, it is not proof that one is unsaved.”
      This is far from being against the law, as Wilkin elaborates. Part 2 of this comment follows…

      Reply
    • Dave Homiak February 18, 2020

      I find that eternal security is based on God’s promises and faithfulness when we believe by faith in Him (cf. Hosea, John 6:38-40, John 20:31), not on justification plus our human performance during sanctification. Obedience is absolutely required for sanctification, and Hebrews 12:4-12 tells how God disciplines every believer as a good father would chasten his own child. Your article does not address eternal security issues such as adoption as God’s children when we believe, being made joint-heirs with Christ, the golden chain (all in Romans 8), or the sealing of the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing our future inheritance in Eph. 1:13-14 & 4:30, which occurs when we believe. I agree that I Cor. 3:10-16 is referring to works being tested at the Bema for rewards, so it doesn’t apply here. Thanks for listening.

      Reply
18. David Kowalski February 18, 2020

    Dave: (Concerning your first part of the comment just above) I have approved this comment even though comments are closed on that article and this comment thread is not the appropriate place to discuss another article. I would agree that those who espouse the “free grace” message are not so monolithic that I could write an article in which everything I said applied to every person in that movement. The same could be said for such theological camps as the Word-Faith Movement. Though some of the content in the article to which I linked does not apply to everyone in the “free grace” movement, everyone in the movement is addressed in some way within the article.

    It is a gross misrepresentation to say that everyone who does not embrace the aberrant teachings of this movement believes one must do good works to be saved. As all orthodox theologians have maintained, we are saved by faith alone but the faith that saves is not alone. Real faith receives real salvation that really changes us. Justification precedes sanctification in logical order but it receives sanctification in a dynamic experience. Thus, the Bible states that those who provide no evidence of this life-changing salvation are not of the true faith that saves. I encourage you to reread the scripture passages quoted in the article on grace and this article also (they are in blue). There are a very large number of them but I will quote just a few here:

    “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:14-18)

    “For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” (Ephesians 5:5)

    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11)

    “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Corinthians 5:11)

    “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.” (Hebrews 6:1-4)

    “or if we go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as unclean the covenant by which he was sanctified and has insulted the Spirit of Grace? For we know Him who said ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.'” (Hebrews 10:26-30)

    “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1)

    “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:3-6)

    “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'” (Matthew 7:16-23)

    I could quote many more passages but would again encourage you to reread the ones found in this article and the one on the “grace movement.”

    There are other passages that comfort us with God’s promises to never change His disposition to those of the faith but they are entirely consistent with those passages that teach the need for evidential fidelity on the human side — a fidelity that shows we are genuinely of the faith.

    Orthodox Christians do not believe in salvation by works as the unorthodox often claim. We simply believe what the Bible says about faith receiving a dynamic work that results in sanctification. Sanctification does not cause justification but is, in effect, caused by it. Those who claim that those who live in a state of rebellion against God in their lifestyles or beliefs are actually part of His kingdom (in which he rules) are greatly misled and mistaken. Again, we are saved by faith alone but the faith that saves is not alone. On this point, Calvinists and Arminians agree even if they explain its application in differing ways.

    Reply
19. David Kowalski February 18, 2020

    Dave: (Concerning the second part of the comment above) Your last comment reflects a phenomenon I have observed several times from those who respond to this article. They seem not to have read it carefully and thoroughly but have only read parts of it or skimmed it superficially. You will find, if you read the article slowly and carefully, that I do, indeed, thoroughly address your concerns as expressed in this last comment. I do not believe that salvation is based on justification plus “performance.” I believe real justification leads to sanctification because faith receives not only forgiveness of sins but a life-changing work of salvation that makes us new people. This is what the Bible repeatedly teaches. If you have not received this wonderful, life-changing, saving work of Christ I would encourage you to receive it through biblical faith — it is a free gift. I did this over 40 years ago and have never been the same person since then.

    As a rule, I do not approve more than three comments by one person in one thread since this thread is a place for questions and comments rather than protracted debate or alternative articles. If one wishes to express their opinions at greater length there are many ways and places that are appropriate for them to do so.

    Reply