No tags yet.
Conditional Security
In the previous post we saw the case for unconditional security. In this blog post I want to lay out the case for conditional security and then offer my assessment of that case.
21 Once you were alienated and hostile in your minds expressed in your evil actions. 22 But now he has reconciled you by his physical body through his death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before him— 23 if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a servant of it.
Colossians 1:21-23
6 So then, just as you have received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 being rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, and overflowing with gratitude.8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ.
Colossians 2:6-8
For this reason, we must pay attention all the more to what we have heard, so that we will not drift away. 2 For if the message spoken through angels was legally binding and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment,3 how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?
Hebrews 2:1-3a
12 Watch out, brothers and sisters, so that there won’t be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage each other daily, while it is still called today, so that none of you is hardened by sin’s deception. 14 For we have become participants in Christ if we hold firmly until the end the reality that we had at the start.
Hebrews 3:12-14
4 For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, who shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who tasted God’s good word and the powers of the coming age, 6 and who have fallen away. This is because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding him up to contempt.
Hebrews 6:4-6
26 For if we deliberately go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who disregarded the law of Moses died without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, who has regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know the one who has said,
Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay,
and again,
The Lord will judge his people.
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 10:26-31
25 See to it that you do not reject the one who speaks. For if they did not escape when they rejected him who warned them on earth, even less will we if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven.
Hebrews 12:25
For freedom, Christ set us free. Stand firm then and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Take note! I, Paul, am telling you that if you get yourselves circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to do the entire law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:1-4
7 Don’t be deceived: God is not mocked. For whatever a person sows he will also reap, 8 because the one who sows to his flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit. 9 Let us not get tired of doing good, for we will reap at the proper time if we don’t give up.
Galatians 6:7-9
22 Therefore, consider God’s kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you—if you remain in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
Romans 11:22
27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:27
20 For if, having escaped the world’s impurity through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in these things and defeated, the last state is worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy command delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb: A dog returns to its own vomit, and, “a washed sow returns to wallowing in the mud.”
2 Peter 2:20-22
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own stable position.
2 Peter 3:17
5 “In the same way, the one who conquers will be dressed in white clothes, and I will never erase his name from the book of life but will acknowledge his name before my Father and before his angels.
Revelation 3:5
10 For Demas deserted me, since he loved the present age, and he went to Thessalonica. Crescens went to Galatia and Titus to Dalmatia.
2 Timothy 4:10
19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 1:19-20
Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,
1 Timothy 4:1
13 And the seed on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy. Having no root, these believe for a while and fall away in a time of testing.
Luke 8:13
This is by no means an exhaustive list for the conditional security view either, but I think it is a good representative sampling. Space is limited, but I have compiled a point-counterpoint commentary on these verses elsewhere and would be happy to share that via email upon request. Following the same format that I chose above, I will briefly summarize the major points from this list of verses, give examples of how they are often interpreted on the unconditional security view, and then give my own assessment of what they do and do not show.
Hopefully, you can feel the tension now that exists on the topic of eternal security. As I said before, each side has a bag full of texts they go to. A straightforward reading of these verses certainly gives the impression that a true believer can forfeit his or her salvation. If you noticed, there are really two types of texts cited by the advocate of CS- 1) warnings of the possibility of falling away, and 2) instances of apparent apostates. The warning passages are mostly comprised of conditional statements about persevering- “if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith” (Col 1:21-23), “if we don’t give up” (Gal 6:7-9), “if…they are again entangled” (2 Pet 2:20-21). Paul uses an olive tree as an illustration of God’s elect church, and makes it clear that the Jews have been broken off because of their unbelief. He then warns the Gentile Christians in Rome that if they do not continue in the faith, they too will be broken off (Rom 11:20-22).
True believers were warned not to be “taken captive” (Col 2:6-8), or be “led away… and fall from your own stable position” (2 Pet 3:17). Believers were told to examine themselves so that they do not develop “an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God” (Heb 3:12). They were warned not to become slaves to the law or else they will fall from grace (Gal 5:1-4). Paul says it is impossible to “renew to repentance” those who have “been enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” and “shared in the Holy Spirit” (Heb 6:4-6). Such a person “tramples on the Son of God” and there remains no sacrifice for him (Heb 10:26-31). It seems that even Paul thought he could be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27; the same word for reprobate) if he did not remain faithful.
Lastly, there are a small set of verses that seem to indicate people who have actually fallen away and people who will fall away. Demas, Hymenaeus, and Alexander are offered as examples of those in the past who made “shipwreck” of their faith (1 Tim 1:19-20; 2 Tim 4:10). It is also said by the Holy Spirit that people “will depart from the faith” in later times (1 Tim 4:1). Such people will presumably have their name erased from the book of life (Rev 3:5). If it is not possible to have your name erased, why would the text even mention it? If it is not possible for true believers to apostatize, then why the need for all these conditional statements and warnings? Why the mention of apparent apostates in the past and in the future? Surely, the conditions and warnings imply the potential to not continue in the faith and suffer the consequences. And surely the mention of apostates in the past and future show that it is possible, right?
Supporters of unconditional security typically respond to these texts in two ways- 1) the people being spoken to are not true Christians but nominal Christians only, and 2) the warnings are about the loss of rewards, not the loss of salvation. We will see that in some cases, these responses are plausible, but in others, they too seem to be an interpretation forced onto the text, rather than derived from it.
To see how this plays out, let’s first look at what I consider the “equivocal” texts. I introduced this term earlier with respect to the unconditional security passages, but now I want to focus on those cited in favor of conditional security. Let’s look first at Luke 8:13. Many people see this verse mention those who “believe” and then “fall away” and conclude that a true believer can forfeit their faith and deny Christ. While that interpretation is possible, I do not see why it is necessary. The verse also adds that these individuals ‘have no root.’ That phrase could very well indicate that they were not true believers, they were not in a saving relationship with Christ. They merely believed the truths about Christ, but they had not submitted themselves to Christ. This distinction between mental assent (a.k.a. nominal Christianity) and true saving faith is seen elsewhere in scripture. Demons show mental assent, believing the truths regarding God, but they do not submit themselves to him (James 2:19). Luke himself calls people “believers” (Acts 15:5), whom Paul calls “false brothers” (Gal 2:4). So, this passage could go either way, though in my opinion is more likely speaking of merely nominal Christians.
The next set of equivocal texts are the apparent apostate passages both in the past and in the future. Let’s look first at Demas. He certainly deserted Paul to avoid persecution, but the text does not indicate if he left the faith entirely. Rather, several commentators from both perspectives on eternal security believe that Demas returned to Thessalonica because there was still an established church in which he could serve, but persecutions had significantly diminished there. So, 2 Tim 4:10 does not show a clear-cut case of apostasy. It can go either way.
How about Hymenaeus and Alexander who were said to have shipwrecked their faith? Though a commentator like Andreas Köstenberger sees these men as nominal Christians from the start, I remain convinced that they did possess true saving faith which they then ‘shipwrecked.’ Paul however anticipates that turning them over to Satan, removing them from the protection of the church, will teach them not to deny the truth and therefore return to their true faith (1 Tim 1:20). Was Paul wrong about this hope? We are not told. All we know is that Hymenaeus was still preaching a heresy about the resurrection (2 Tim 2:17-18) near the death of Paul around A.D. 64. Since we do not know what ultimately resulted from Paul’s turning them over to Satan, this text is not sufficient to show that apostasy did in fact happen. We must admit our ignorance due to the limited data we have in this case. For all we know, it may well have been like the situation with Peter, who denied Christ three times, but was ultimately restored. The same of course could be true of Alexander as well. So, this text could go either way.
A third equivocal text I will mention is 1 Timothy 4:1. Does the plain meaning of this verse require us to say that a group of true believers will fall away in the future? Though that interpretation is possible, it is not the only consistent interpretation. It could be nominal Christians (a.k.a. false believers) who turn away from the truth altogether. They would go from a state of mentally assenting to the truths of the gospel, to believing that it is not true at all. They would go from affirming that there is one true God, that Christ is his Son, that Christ died for our sins and rose physically from the dead, to denying the truth of all those claims. This, like Luke 8:13 could be describing people who “have no root” and fall away. So, this text though at first blush poses a strong challenge, is in fact equivocal. I contend that there is not a single unequivocal example of a true born-again Christian falling away and not persevering in the entire New Testament. The data simply is not sufficient to show that. The cases of apparent apostasy in the past or future could be just that…only apparent, not actual. It could be the case that there were true believers who fell away for a time but were ultimately brought back (James 5:20).
So, what we are left with then is a large number of warning passages. It is these passages that I see as extremely strong and persuasive evidence that a true believer can fall away. These texts make it absolutely clear that it is possible for a true believer to forfeit their faith and deny Christ. How do supporters of unconditional security respond to these numerous passages? It is at this point that I feel their interpretations are forced and artificial. They would say that these warnings were either written to nominal Christians, or were warnings about losing rewards, not salvation. Take Hebrews 6:4-6 as a sample case. Sadly, many who endorse unconditional security try to argue that the descriptions given are true of nominal Christians. So, they would say that a person can be spiritually “enlightened,” taste the “heavenly gift,” “share in the Holy Spirit,” and still not be a true born-again Christian. If that is true, then who can possibly know that they are a true Christian? But my objection to this “nominal Christian” interpretation is deeper than that. If these people were only nominal Christians, then that would mean they have never truly repented, but verse 4 says it is impossible for them to be “renewed to repentance.” That implies that they have in fact repented previously, and this would be the second time. So, I do not see the “nominal Christian interpretation working here.”
Some argue instead that Hebrews 6:4-6 is talking about the loss of rewards in heaven, instead of salvation. The difficulty I have is that if that is the interpretation we should adopt for this admonition, then we need to be consistent and adopt it for the other admonitions in Hebrews as well. This would be more parsimonious and less ad hoc. But when we apply this “loss of rewards” interpretation to the other admonitions, it fails. Take Hebrews 10:26-31 for example. There, it says that for the person who tramples on the Son of God, profanes the blood of the covenant, and insults the Spirit of grace, there remains no more sacrifice for their sins, only judgment and consuming fire. And verse 39 adds that their souls will be destroyed. If no more sacrifice remains for your sins then you are no longer saved, and the consequences in this text go far beyond losing your reward, but rather your very soul. So, I am not persuaded by the ‘losing your reward’ interpretation either.
Well then, I hope you feel the extreme tension here. We have two streams of texts that seem contradictory. One set appears to say you cannot be lost, and the other says you can. So what are we to do? Well, as you have probably noticed, both sides (conditional and unconditional security) actually use the same tactic to solve this problem. They reinterpret the other side’s texts in light of their own. So, for the advocate of conditional security, he or she reinterprets the promise passages in light of the warning passages, and for the advocate of unconditional security he or she reinterprets the warnings in light of the promise passages. As I have argued though, I think that at times, the interpretations become artificially forced on both sides, reversing the plain meaning in some cases. Rather than be left in this kind of stale mate with ad hoc interpretations, isn’t there some other option that would make sense of both streams of texts? Yes! Molinism. “But how?” you ask. Keep reading.