I hope you read part 1 last week, where I began an
argument against the Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) theology. We continue on
with that. I hope you see the importance of this: It’s really often a matter of
heaven or hell for a person’s ultimate destiny. We begin with my third argument
of how Scripture sees problems with OSAS, namely:
PUT VERSES IN CONTEXT BEFORE YOU GET DECEIVED INTO A WRONG THEOLOGY
BASED ON A SINGLE VERSE—OR “CHERRY PICKING” VERSES, KEEPING THOSE YOU LIKE AND
IGNORING CONTRARY VERSES
Hebrews 13:5: Let your conduct be without covetousness; be
content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never
leave you nor forsake you.”
You can see why OSAS adherents love this verse. This verse is actually a
quote from Deuteronomy 31:6 (part of Moses’ final words to the children of
Israel):
….do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the LORD your God… will not
leave you nor forsake you.
But then for context you need to peek 10 verses ahead. In Deut
31:16-17a, in God's final words to Moses, from the same speech, no less,
God is warning him of Israel’s apostasy (abandoning the faith). It’s a hard
word for Moses, and with much warning for us:
And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers;
and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners
of the land…. and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made
with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I
will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be
devoured.
Read that again: God forsook them! Because they forsook Him. Evidently the
word "never" (Hebrews 13:5) doesn't have the unconditional meaning we
think it has. (It has more of a "til' the unforeseen future"
meaning). In that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy, he is agreeing with
the idea that God will never forsake you—unless you forsake Him first. Now you
can try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of these words by citing your
belief is “dispensationalism:” “Well, He was a vindictive God of Law in the Old
Testament; but thank God for His dispensation of grace now.” But I argue back
that God is not a God of change. As James 1:17 says,
Every good gift and every perfect gift …comes down from the Father…
with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
We do not have two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament is part of
Scripture, and all Scripture is profitable for reproof, for correction in
righteousness (II Tim 3:16). We can learn a lot about Him in the Old
Testament—and won’t have to unlearn them when we study the New! The point is
this: The God who forsook His people in those days because they forsook Him,
will do the same again now. The truth has to include this: He will never leave
you nor forsake you—IF you abide in Him. God help us to do so—but we have free
will, and can forsake Him.
Now another thing you might cite about God never leaving us is to use, as
our model, “the great promises to Israel,” whereby God will do miraculous
things for Israel in the End times, and those people will be redeemed, so God
“never forsook them”—so evidently you think God didn’t mean what he said in
Deuteronomy 31:16 or II Chronicles 15. But the national promise to Israel is
different than the promise to individuals. In the End times, perhaps many Jews
will see Jesus as God, accept Him and are redeemed. But in Exodus those OTHER
Jews who rejected the spies’ good report rejected God’s promise, and died
unbelieving in the desert. The point is, God didn’t change; different Jewish
responses did.
Further in the Word along this line is II Chronicles 15:2:
Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded… and said to
him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you
are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him,
He will forsake you.
Seems clear, does it not?
Speaking of taking words out of context, yet another abused Scripture is
Hebrews 10:12,14:
But this Man (Jesus), after He had offered one sacrifice
for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,… 14 For by one offering He
has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Despite the words “He has perfected forever” sounding like assurance for the
believer, "being sanctified" is not always in the passive sense,
thinking that God sanctifies me with no effort on my part. Fact is, you must
desire to be sanctified. If you have no such desire, you are not saved. Just one example—proof that our behavior is
involved: I Thessalonians 4:3:
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should
abstain from sexual immorality;
Colossians 2:13: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having
forgiven you all trespasses
OSAS adherents cite this verse that God makes us alive and forgives us of
all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. It's wonderfully true that
upon the point of salvation, God makes us alive, and gives us the Holy
Spirit. But don't forget context: In the Sower in Matthew 13, some seed came
alive, but under shallow soil. It later died. Suggesting that
salvation may, under pressure, die. So it would not be permanent. Another point
is about forgiveness of sin: does the verse specifically guarantee us forgiveness
for all future trespasses? Paul is, after all, focusing about a past
event (“has made alive”), at initial salvation. It could be, that he meant all
trespasses to that point were forgiven.
Because if we later go apostate, and deny Christ, does simply believing
this verse says what we hope it says protect us? No; you have to confess and
repent, and rejoin with Christ before you can be forgiven. Some people don’t do
that, as we have seen, and end up losing
their salvation. For additional light, take a look at II Pet 1:9:
But if anyone does not have them (speaking of fruits),
he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from
his past sins
I think if Peter knew that he could include future sins in this statement,
he would’ve mentioned them—but he doesn’t. Another enlightening verse is I John
1:9:
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
John is writing this to people who are believers already, so why do we need
to keep on confessing our sins to obtain forgiveness—if we’re already
guaranteed forgiveness from future sins?
It would be safe to conclude, in context with other Scriptures, that John
evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to
continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. Introspecting on today's
sins at the end of each day in prayer, and telling the Lord that we will do
better, would be a good part of abiding in Christ. It is an important
part of Communion, right? (PS: God is not so strict that He would not
forgive if we haven’t confessed because we honestly forgot some). So I
conclude the “all trespasses” in Col 2:13 is more likely referring to all
trespasses up to the point of initial salvation—which was, after all, the time
period of Paul’s subject matter. Future sins are not covered by the “get out of
jail free card.”
I Pet. 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who… has begotten us again…, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and
undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you
OSAS adherents love our inheritance, as a child of the King, that will never
fade away. But this great passage of Scripture doesn’t say that we cannot annul
the inheritance by disbelief or unrepentant gross sin. Consider what Jesus said
in Matthew 10:33:
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father
in heaven.
Definitely wrapped up in the word “disown” is losing one’s inheritance. So
it is possible.
While I’m on this subject, I need to bring up another verse that’s
misinterpreted by OSAS folks. It’s II Timothy 2:13:
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.
This is quoted often by OSAS teachers; their interpretation of God being
“faithful” here is that “He will accept our faithlessness and save us
anyway—that’s what “He cannot deny Himself” also means.” Well, dream on, un-Scripturally. Their
problem in making this assumption is not taking context into account. Take a
look at the previous verse, II Timothy 2:12:
If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
Whoa, considering that "denying Him" would be
"faithless," 2:12 says the result of our faithlessness is that He
will deny us. And we would clearly lose the inheritance. Taking the two verses
together, this means the opposite of what OSASers think 2:13 says. So, to
resolve the apparent contradiction, let’s do what you seldom see teachers
do—reconcile 2:12b and 2:13. First, you have to see how awful a sin being
“faithless” is; it is on purpose connected to 2:12’s denying Christ—and
has such a punishment of hell, if unrepentant.. God many times calls
faithlessness spiritual adultery. The Jews strayed into idol-worship, took
their love away from God, and were called adulterers. Now before you say, “we
don’t do idols in modern society,” you need to expand the meaning of “idol.” It’s
anything that we think about as #1 in practical importance to us, instead of
God. Say, we spend all that time at work and not think about bringing God into
that experience; then spend a lot of time with food: cooking, and eating without
seriously giving thanks; then socializing with friends without raising His name
(or thinking about how to do so); or raising our kids without teaching them
constantly about God—then I conclude that work, eating, friends, and kids all
become idols because God is not #1, or even considered, in any of them. We’ve
simply substituted modern idols for the ancient wood and stone. God should be a
part of our life, like breathing—and it’s still "faithless" to only
worship Him on Sundays, then leaving Him out for the rest of the week. We’re
just as guilty of substituting God out of our life as the Jews did. Where’s the
insistence that we should “abide in Christ” in modern society? Have we watered
down the meaning of “abiding?”
The second thing you do to reconcile these two verses in II Timothy is: What
does God mean when it says He “cannot deny Himself?” We assume that if God is “faithful,” it is
always positive for us. Not so. Check out Deuteronomy 7:9,10:
Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God
who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him
and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face,
to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him
to his face.
God's curse on His enemies is included, is it not, in His being faithful--to
Himself. To His integrity. He is faithful in fulfilling ALL promises He
makes. So, that means He is faithful by carrying out His promised curses
on the unsaved, as well as loving the saved. If that’s hard to accept, it’s
probably because we haven’t thought much about hell. Think for a moment on how
bad that is--and God created it. We’re talking about fiery torment,
continual pain, continual thirst, no contact with others (read Luke 16:19ff on
these). And forever and ever…for eternity. Why not just for 50 years, or 100
years? Why not probation? Why not a second chance, or purgatory? Answer: God
HATES sin (and certain sinners, Psalm 5:5 and Proverbs 6:16, 19) more than we
can imagine—and ultimately His wrath will be faithful to His promise and
carried out on the unrepentant sinner. Look at the evidence of His anger in the
Deuteronomy verse above: God will repay him “to his face.” Now that’s a God
with a grudge. A whole new meaning on II Timothy 2:13, is it not? If we are
faithless to God, He will be faithful to carry out His promise--i.e., the curse
of our sin remains on us. The opposite of what OSASers think.
II Timothy 1:12: … Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I
have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted
to him for that day.
OSAS adherents claim that Jesus will do the work in guarding our salvation,
so we are safe. But then why does Paul urge Timothy, two verses later, “Guard
the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy
Spirit who lives in us.” Guarding it is also our job. Our
behavior is involved. Another verse on this is Hebrews 10:23:
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He
who promised is faithful.
Doesn’t that suggest that our righteous behavior ("holding fast,"
“without wavering,”) is what’s needed to bring us to heaven? I think so. A job
for us to do. That’s what the verse says.
Matthew 7:21-23: Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall
enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And
then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who
practice lawlessness!’
The OSAS adherent is trying to make the verses prove that you can't be saved
and then unsaved. So the OSASer says, about Matthew 7:23 above, “This is
the way it is with all unbelievers; Jesus never knew them; it wasn’t
that He knew them, then didn’t know them.”
My response is, first of all, yes, look at the virgins in Matthew 25:11.
Jesus seemingly has the bridegroom telling the virgins, "I do not know
you.” But since all ten virgins were invited and well-known,
the bridegroom must have known them. So what does he really mean by the
statement "I do not know you?" The phrase is an idiom—a phrase
that is peculiar to a culture. When Jesus says "I never knew you," He
is saying, "your thoughts and actions became too much like the world; you
are so far removed from me, it's like I never knew you." The emphasis on
oil and preparedness could mean that those that were unprepared had no Holy
Spirit, a symbol of which is oil. See I Samuel 16:13. He has changed His
opinion on their invite, because they lost the Holy Spirit. The Spirit left
them when their choices were of the world. Thus, these verses are saying, our
thoughts and actions need to be in His Spirit, so He will claim us in that day
of judgement. Thus, they do not back the OSAS claim of how it's impossible to
lose salvation.
In further proof, study Luke 15:11ff, the prodigal son: He was a son of his
loving father, right? (Symbols of the saved person and God). Then he
became prodigal, walked away, and didn’t "abide with" his father any
more. Then he sees the light, returns to his father, confesses his sin, and
returns to the family and in his good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look
at verse 24 of the prodigal story, the words of the happy father:
for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is
found.’
So think…he was his son before, then he was dead (that’s the word Scripture
uses), then he was alive again. That means, he was home at first, then became
lost, then came back. Seems pretty clear here, to make the parable relevant to
us, as all parables tend to do—he lost his salvation, then regained it.
A note: What additional valuable things do we learn in this prodigal
parable, by the way? (1) We assume the father protected the son while he was
under his care (as illustrated in John 10:28), but the son had the free will to
depart of his own volition. (2) The father’s great love for his son (enough to
forgive him freely after his wild life, when he repented) did not prevent the
son from walking away, and becoming lost. Note also that the father did not
chase after the son. What Jesus is clearly saying is, God the Father
allows free will on this, even to the point of loss of life.
NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE
Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security
No comments:
Post a Comment