The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

Slav · 22-08-2011 09:05PM

santing wrote: »

So we if we want to know what was taught in the early centuries, we first turn to the Scriptures, and then to the writings of the ECF to see how they interpreted the Scriptures. We do not take the culmination of centuries of additions and other errors we have today and then see what the ECF have to say about that. For instance if we take the word "hope" in todays RC meaning it is something that is uncertain. Check the meaning of the word "hope" in the Bible and then you see it means something that is certain, but still in the future. Now if I read the word "hope" in the works of ECF I presume they still had the Biblical meaning rather than the corrupted meaning of today.

Well, this is exactly what I was hoping you would expand on. For example, A is a distinct feature of OSAS, this is what Saint X had to say, this is why he should be interpreted the way that suggests A rather then the incompatible with OSAS notion of B.

Does this really mean if you eat your lunch for the rest of your life, you may get an ice-cream before you die? Because that is the interpretation you give to "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (Joh 6:54 ESV)" Now if you have children, you know that the ice-cream is due immediately after the lunch!

Did you actually read my post?

One more time:

1) "if you eat your lunch you have less chances of getting gastritis" - habitual action, i.e. if you have a habit of eating your proper lunch regularly then your chances of getting gastritis are lower compared to your chances of getting it if you regularity miss it or have a snack of crisps and a coke instead.

2) "if you eat your lunch you can have this ice cream" - momentary, once-off action. As soon as you finish this particular meal this particular portion of ice cream is yours.

In both cases it's impossible to figure out the type of action (momentary or habitual) just from the tense of the verb: it can be either of them. The only way to say which is it is to look at the context. We know that irregular and unhealthy eating is one of the factors that can cause gastritis so we can conclude that present indefinite eat in 1) denotes habitual action. Similarly, our common sense tells us that 2) is something that an adult can say to a child to make her finish her meal and therefore we know that the same present indefinite eat in 2) denotes momentary action. In both cases we figure it out from the context of each phrase individually; the reasoning for choosing a particular type of action in each phrase doesn't apply to the other phrase. The fact that unhealthy eating can cause gastritis does not imply that a child will have an ice cream after every lunch or she'll only have it once but as granny after her very last lunch when she probably would not want it anyway. Similarly, the fact that a child got her ice cream after she finished her fish, broccoli and carrots does not imply that one healthy meal will save us from gastritis.

So getting back to the Gospel of John I can't see how John 4 can help us here unless we assume that the water in John 4 is the same thing as the blood in John 6 (something I don't agree with btw). Otherwise John 4 is irrelevant.

santing · 22-08-2011 10:17PM

Slav wrote: »

Well, this is exactly what I was hoping you would expand on. For example, A is a distinct feature of OSAS, this is what Saint X had to say, this is why he should be interpreted the way that suggests A rather then the incompatible with OSAS notion of B.

???

Slav wrote: »

Did you actually read my post?

One more time:

1) "if you eat your lunch you have less chances of getting gastritis" - habitual action, i.e. if you have a habit of eating your proper lunch regularly then your chances of getting gastritis are lower compared to your chances of getting it if you regularity miss it or have a snack of crisps and a coke instead.

I would say - same as next example. The chance of getting gastritis is a reward reaped each time, not at the end of a long spell. "the eating of lunch reduces the risk gastritis" every time. So it is with the verse quoted. However, since the reward is everlasting, getting the reward once is enough ... but you are better off if you get the reward every day. But once is enough. Anyway, we may try to use Biblical examples to explain Greek grammar as it was used in the time of the Bible.

Slav wrote: »

In both cases it's impossible to figure out the type of action (momentary or habitual) just from the tense of the verb: it can be either of them.

Yes, but the habitual is not continuous. It is quite distinct. You are trying to bend the meaning of the tense to suit your theology... The tense is even more important as it is used in contrast to the continuous tense. "The only way to say which is it is to look at the context," and then we note that the continuous tense has already been used, so a shift of tense must actually be important and illustrate what the primary meaning of that tense is. ONCE is Enough.

Slav wrote: »

So getting back to the Gospel of John I can't see how John 4 can help us here unless we assume that the water in John 4 is the same thing as the blood in John 6 (something I don't agree with btw). Otherwise John 4 is irrelevant.

John 4 is not the same - its John 4!
However, it is the same, it is about a gift of God (6:32) that satisfies forever, yes gives eternal life, if you partake of it once.

Slav · 23-08-2011 07:10PM

santing wrote: »

I would say - same as next example. The chance of getting gastritis is a reward reaped each time, not at the end of a long spell. "the eating of lunch reduces the risk gastritis" every time. So it is with the verse quoted. However, since the reward is everlasting, getting the reward once is enough ... but you are better off if you get the reward every day. But once is enough. Anyway, we may try to use Biblical examples to explain Greek grammar as it was used in the time of the Bible.

Wrong. The first example illustrates the action of the verb "eat" which is habitual in the context of the phrase. What you are doing here is trying to attach momentary action to a different verb - "have"; no matter how successful you are in doing so and speculating on "everlasting" gastritis rewards or reducing the risk "every time" it's still completely irrelevant.

If that example was not clear enough for you here is another one. Two almost identical phrases, the only difference is one noun which makes the context:

1) If you vaccinate against flu you'll probably never catch the disease,

and

2) If you vaccinate against pox you'll probably never catch the disease.

In 1) "vaccinate" denotes habitual action because the flu vaccine won't last for the whole of your life and won't save you from all flu viruses; you need to vaccinate annually or at least regularly. In 2) "vaccinate" is momentary because once vaccinated against smallpox you are protected for the whole of your life.

Yes, but the habitual is not continuous. It is quite distinct.

Continuous action: in our example that would be "when you eat your lunch your stomach produces a lot of gastric acid", i.e. it would not produce that much of it before or after your lunch but while you are at work (continue eating) your digestive system is stimulated and release of the acid increases. To emphasise the continuity of the action we can use a continuous tense in English; in Greek if the author of John 6:53 wanted eating and drinking to be continuous he would rather use subjunctive present instead of subjunctive aorist. It would mean that while you are eating and drinking you have life (but not necessarily before and after) and would rather be translated into English as "you are eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood". I don't think it was the author's intention at all. Continuous action is indeed not the same as habitual action (though strictly speaking one does not exclude the other) but I don't see why did you bring it up here at all.

You are trying to bend the meaning of the tense to suit your theology...

I don't have any theology. It was you who claimed that John 6:53-54 suggests OSAS as it does not allow any other reading. I was not trying to prove you wrong or to push an alternative interpretation; I was only interested in your reasoning behind that claim. Now I have a suspicion that you are trying to derive it purely from the grammatical form of the verbs eat and drink in John 6:53. I hope I'm wrong in my assumption as that would mean that it's actually you who's bending the meaning of the tense (i.e making it denote the categories it never does) to suit your theology.

santing · 27-08-2011 09:56PM

Thanks Slav,

I realize my Greek gets rusty ... You are right, the grammar of this verse doesn't necessitate "once." I still believe the verse is meant to underline the "once" though, similar to the verse from John 4.

Thinkingaboutit · 30-08-2011 04:53PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

See above, although others have surely pointed this out.

J C · 04-09-2011 09:03AM

Came across this recently ... answers the question posed by this thread comprehensively:-

wrote:

Once Saved, Always Saved – The Biblical Evidence
The Bible teaches “once saved, always saved” -- that we can be saved once and for all only through a repentant, saving faith in Jesus Christ. Once a person has accepted Christ as Savior, they may wonder if it is possible to lose that salvation. What if they commit a sin? What if they commit a lot of sins? What if they do something very, very wrong? Is it possible to be saved, and then lose that salvation? Fortunately, the answer is a resounding “no.” Once a person has accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, he/she is forever saved. This fact is referred to as the doctrine of “eternal security,” often summarized as “once saved, always saved.”

There are several reasons why a person can be confident in their “eternal security.” First and foremost is the evidence of Scripture. John 3:15-18 says about Christ: “The Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.”

The salvation in Christ is not temporary, it is eternal.

In John 10:28-30, Jesus says: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." The forgiveness of God through Christ is sufficient to cover all of our sins -- past, present, and future. There is nothing a person can do that God cannot forgive. This doctrine is supported by Romans 8:38-39, Ephesians 4:30, and Jude 24, among others.

Once Saved, Always Saved – The Logical Evidence
As with many other scriptural doctrines, the idea of “once saved, always saved” is also supported logically. Eternal security is consistent with everything else the Bible teaches about mankind, and God. Examining the doctrine in relation to the rest of Scripture demonstrates that it is consistent with all other biblically sound teachings. The idea of losing our salvation is not only unscriptural, but it creates monumental problems with other doctrines, including salvation by faith, the sin nature of man, and the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice.

The Bible teaches that man is inherently sinful -- that a sinful nature is a part of all of us (Romans 3:10). This means that even after being saved, every single believer is going to sin from time to time. Thinking that we can live a perfect, sinless life after our salvation is not only unscriptural, but arrogant (James 2:10). If we are not eternally secure, this sinning will cause us to lose our salvation, but how much sin is too much? There is no scriptural “yardstick” given to tell us how many or what kind of sins are enough to void our salvation. Without eternal security, the Bible would describe a situation where Christianity is a perpetual game of Russian Roulette; a life in which condemnation and salvation alternate every time we sin and confess, and we never know if we’re saved or not.

Scriptural passages (Ephesians 2:8-9, Isaiah 64:6) indicate that our attempts at good deeds will never earn us a place in heaven. We cannot make up for our past, present, or future sins by doing good works. A saved believer will, as a natural product of their faith, shun sin and practice good works (James 2:18). If “once saved, always saved” is not true, then by necessity we are saved both by our faith and our works. If we can do sinful things, or not do good things (James 4:17) and lose our security, then our good deeds are a part of our salvation. This concept is contradictory to Scripture. It also creates an unlivable scenario where we have to try to do enough good to outweigh our sinful natures. The doctrine of “eternal security” goes hand in hand with the doctrine of “saved by faith alone.” To deny eternal security is to endorse a “faith plus works” salvation system.

Jesus Christ made some powerful statements about morality during His earthly ministry. In those three short years, He talked the talk and walked the walk of the toughest moral and ethical system in human history. Most religions focus on the external actions, but Christ took the concept of sin and holiness to a much deeper level. For example, most religions are satisfied to condemn the physical act of adultery, but Christ said “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Christ set the bar for holiness at a level all Christians are called to aspire to, but none can ever fully live up to, because of our sin nature. Just as the law of Moses was meant, in part, to demonstrate to Israel how impossible it was for mortal man to obtain the moral perfection of God, the standards of Christ also remind us of how shallow our best efforts at goodness really are. Thankfully, God has always provided a way for us to be forgiven for our shortcomings. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross served the same purpose for all mankind that the sacrificial lambs did for specific families before His ministry. Christ was a sinless, blameless substitute for our sins. The Bible clearly tells us what Christ’s moral expectations are for us. If we lost our salvation every time we fell short of those ideals, then none of us would be saved for more than a few minutes at a time. If that were true, what purpose was there in His death?

Also, according to the Bible, if we could lose our salvation, then it would be lost forever, because Christ only died once. Hebrews 6:4-6 is an often misunderstood passage, which strongly supports the doctrine of eternal security in two ways: it implies that Christ’s sacrifice must be sufficient for all sins, and states that if it were possible for a person to lose their salvation, it would be forever lost. According to this passage, if a person could do something that cost them their salvation (which they cannot), then it would be “impossible” for them to be re-redeemed.

Once Saved, Always Saved – The New Creation
Critics of the “once saved, always saved” doctrine claim that it gives Christians a license to sin. They presume that those who believe in eternal security intend to accept salvation, and then continue to willingly sin. This is inaccurate, because anyone who has been truly saved is a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17), has the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:8), and now wants to live for Christ. Someone who continues to willingly and blatantly live in sin has not truly accepted Christ (1 John 2:19; 1 John 3:6; James 1:26). While this false belief may be held by some, it is not a part of the teachings of any true Christian church (Romans 3:8).

A person who willingly, humbly, repents of sin and turns towards the cross, trusting Christ as their Savior, will be saved (Acts 16:31; John 6:37; John 14:6). That salvation is once and for all, eternal, and secure. Those who truly trust in Christ are saved once, and saved always.

... and speaking from personal experience and study, I can vouch that every word in the above quote is valid.

The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

Comments