I grew up in a denomination that teaches that Christians can lose our salvation. I was a licensed minister in that denomination, too… so the idea that we can lose our salvation is something I’ve known about since I was 8 years old, and have studied at some length. I’ve spent a fair amount of time thinking through the different arguments, especially as I’m now part of a congregation that – generally speaking – believes that we can’t.
This isn’t something we can settle. There are fairly clear verses that suggest that we can’t lose our salvation, and there are a bunch of verses that seem to say otherwise. Theologians have argued about this issue for centuries, and I doubt we’ll discover a clear answer today. However: that doesn’t mean that all opinions about salvation are equally valid! We should look to the Scriptures for answers, be honest about what the Bible says, and be content with the information we have available.
We should not pretend to know more than has been revealed. We should not go beyond what Scripture tells us. Yes, we can speculate. No, we should not draw final conclusions without sufficient evidence.
Also: our human traditions about such disagreements are meaningless unless they match what God has already said.
Seems pretty clear, right?
For me, the issue is pretty straight-forward. Eternal life is, according to the New Testament, the PRESENT POSSESSION of every believer. One example is John 10:27-28: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.” This isn’t a promise of a future eternal life that comes only after we die, but a clear declaration of the present condition of those who listen to, and follow, Jesus. We see the same thing in John 5:21 and 24:
“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.”
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”
We learn in 1 John 5:12 that this life can be had now:
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
There are other passages that state that the believer already has eternal life. Our eternal life begins, near as I can personally figure it, when we’re born again. When the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, He transforms us into new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17), and that’s when we have eternal life.
Not so fast…
BUT… that isn’t the whole story. Jesus said that whoever perseveres TO THE END will be saved. 2 Peter 2 seems to be talking about people who were actually saved, who then were not. Here are verses 21-22:
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
Sounds like they were actually saved, right?
I have two responses to the debate. One is a story, the other is a philosophical argument.
1: A old man is dying. As a young man, he professed faith and lived as a believer. He then walked away from God, lived a life of depravity and self, and finds himself at a crossroads at the end of his life. He calls two ministers to come and talk: a Calvinist and an Arminian (these are just stereotypes for the sake of the story). He asks both what he should do. The Calvinist said that he was never actually saved, and that he needed to be reconciled to God. The Arminian said that although he had been saved, he backslided… and that he needed to be reconciled to God.
In this story, the question of whether his salvation was genuine, and what he should do today, is answered in the same way: be reconciled to God. Neither would tell the man to rest on his earlier profession of faith, and neither would neglect his obvious need for redemption. This story has been a useful guide for me, as a teacher, when discussing the question with other believers. No responsible person would tell someone to not worry about their relationship with God because of an earlier profession of faith… and so the question seems entirely academic, rather than practical.
2: Here’s how I teach the Scriptures on this subject.
2a: The New Testament really IS clear that we who follow Jesus ALREADY HAVE eternal life, and there are plenty of passages that speak to the need to remain in, persevere in, stand in our salvation. As a result, I believe that when we’re saved, we’re actually saved. Being born again today is not a placeholder for a future eternal life, but the beginning of our present eternal life.
2b: However: from a philosophical perspective, I don’t believe that being saved takes away our free will. I believe that we could walk away from God if we choose to. I do not believe that being saved is a one-way street, where we lose the ability to turn our backs on God and are, essentially, trapped in a right relationship with Him. I believe we CAN lose our salvation, but that it would be very rare if it happens. There are some Scriptures (like Hebrews 6:6) that are admittedly very difficult, but throw into question the idea that HAVING eternal life means always KEEPING eternal life.
Here’s a good question… one that started me thinking that my childhood view might not be all that I thought it was:
How many sins does it take before the Holy Spirit leaves a believer?
We have no answer. It’s certainly not ONE, as some suggest. Were that the case, we would see a New Testament full of appeals to be saved AGAIN, rather than to confess, repent, and trust. Nobody in the Bible is saved twice. It’s questionable whether anyone was saved once and then became lost again. We don’t know whether there’s a point at which the Holy Spirit would leave and cause someone to become an ‘old creature.’ It doesn’t seem like that would happen, but I logically believe it might.
I’m sorry to say that there’s no single answer. I’m okay with that, but it sure would be nice to know, wouldn’t it?
Join me on Substack... I have a free Newsletter for you!
“For me, the issue is pretty straight-forward.” Apparently not for you. You’re so contradictory on this subject it’s laughable. “We don’t know whether there’s a point at which the Holy Spirit would leave and cause someone to become an ‘old creature.’ It doesn’t seem like that would happen, but I logically believe it might” You say this is a philosophical perspective. Philosophical perspectives should never be used. Only Scripture should be used. Your philosophical perspective is flawed, to say the least. Leave philosophy out of it. It’s obvious you have not studied religion at great length. Before running a Christian website, perhaps you should actually get a degree(you said you studied religion but did not say you actually got a degree). You also write “We should not go beyond what Scripture tells us.” Ok, yet you say what you “believe” four
times. So what you believe is above Scripture? You’re not following your own rules. The 2 Peter and Hebrews that you quoted are easily understood by anyone with a modicum of proper knowledge of the Bible, which you clearly don’t have. John MacArthur does not believe you can lose your salvation. I think you would agree he has more Biblical knowledge than you do. I have more Biblical knowledge than you do. You’re a minister?! That’s scary, especially when you write stuff like this-“Yes, you can ask me a question. I promise to read it, and even to try to answer it. Cash payoffs just might move your question to the top of the list.” Even if this is a joke, it’s not funny and it’s immature, to say the least. “I’m sorry to say that there’s no single answer. I’m okay with that, but it sure would be nice to know, wouldn’t it?” Actually, there is an answer but you took a shortcut and decided to not get a proper education. A lot of “ministers” today have little to no formal education. You’re proof of that. You post lists of false teachers yet you are teaching false doctrine. Please put your name on the false teacher list. Thanks!
Sara:
I appreciate you writing to me. Of course, I feel free to push back a little on what you’ve written. I hope you don’t mind.
“Philosophical perspectives should never be used.”
That is a philosophical perspective. You seem to think that they’re bad, but Scripture is filled with philosophical perspectives.
It’s obvious you have not studied religion at great length.
I’m sorry to be such a disappointment to you.
you should actually get a degree
Do you really believe that only those with advanced degrees from accredited institutions have valid insights into Scripture? I’m fascinated by this… tell me about your theology degree.
You also write “We should not go beyond what Scripture tells us.” Ok, yet you say what you “believe” four times.
I don’t believe you’re really as dense as this makes you appear, Sara. Saying that I believe something is a world away from presenting it as truth. Saying that I believe something, and that it’s only my opinion, is how you distinguish personal opinions from God’s revealed truth. We see this exact process in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul wrote I say this (I, not the Lord). When I start presenting my opinions as truth, please feel free to jump all over it.
The 2 Peter and Hebrews that you quoted are easily understood by anyone with a modicum of proper knowledge of the Bible, which you clearly don’t have.
Your kindness is only exceeded by your generosity. Perhaps you’re unaware that many scholars consider Hebrews 6 one of the most difficult passages in the Bible, if not the most difficult. You mention John MacArthur, as if that settles the matter. MacArthur calls this a “problem passage.” He explains that some of the concepts in Hebrews are difficult to understand. That doesn’t mean he has no opinion… he obviously does. I respect him greatly, and generally agree with him on this… but not entirely. Tell me, Sara: do you agree with everything John MacArthur says? Is the fact that he’s probably forgotten more about the Bible than you or I have learned evidence that he’s always right? And let’s not pretend that I’ve said that anyone can lose their salvation. I simply acknowledged that I have a question about it, and presented that question as my own. You seem to think that your position is right, and that makes sense… but it’s not the majority view. Most Christians throughout history have not believed that salvation is permanent. They were either right or wrong… but this fact should be enough to cause anyone concerned about the subject to consider whether their arguments most closely match Scripture, or whether they should be amended. That you’re so adamant about your view suggests that you may be unaware of the facts. We should be convinced, but not convinced in ignorance. We should only be strident in our beliefs when we’re sure we’ve examined all of the facts.
I have more Biblical knowledge than you do.
Who am I to argue? You might. You’re obviously more humble, too. Tell me more about how awesome you are! I wonder whether you’d be willing to say these things to someone, face to face. If you lived near me, I’d welcome you to sit and chat about these things in person. Then we’d both find out. I wish you well, Sara.
Tony, there is so much here and it’s like trying to figure out how to eat the elephant. So one bite at a time it is.
I’ll ask a couple of things first:
How do you define philosophy? I think we need an operational definition. In your reply to the very unkind, lacking of the fruit of the Spirit response from the last person, you say the Bible is filled with philosophical perspectives.
In your answer to this question, you give a dying man scenario and both ministers give the same direction, from different frameworks. The question might be academic in such a hypothetical scenario. But what about someone we are sharing the gospel with, or the new believer?
What’s the answer then, when death is not impending and soon to be? Or at least we don’t think it is. Such people will and do think about things like this very question. I’ve seen it and answered it many times. It can be a major struggle and impede the person moving onto other areas of growth.
Why should a person get saved just to take a chance that they could walk away later, AND according to some of those passages you mentioned, cannot be brought back to repentance? Wow! I would think many people would want to wait until the near end of their life, like that dying man, so they couldn’t walk away and never come back.
I know, then what about the idea that we have no clue when we’re going to die? If we wait and die suddenly, then what? We’re lost. But if we have faith early and then walk away later we’re in the same boat. Where’s the “sweet spot” to become saved? So they don’t have to worry about messing everything up later like they have done their entire lives. That is a very real worry that many face in such academic considerations.
I will be fair and put my view out there. I don’t struggle with this issue when I share the gospel or teach people. There is no guesswork because God didn’t want there to be guesswork. He wanted it to be clear. We’re the ones that inject debate when there should be assurance.
When we come to saving faith in Christ we are no longer slaves to a sin nature. The sin nature that drove us to rebel and reject God. The Holy Spirit comes to us, in-dwells us, changes us. We become slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:8). Our nature, our view is changed. It’s not the taking away of free will, however we’re defining that according to Scripture. We still have this free will. We still make choices, but because of our new perspective, our new nature, our new heart, being a new creation, a new creature as you point out, we are not going to choose to walk away.
I’ll leave it there. Thank you for putting yourself out there and giving people the chance to really think through these issues. Paul was learned, Peter doesn’t seem to have been such, and both served the Lord sufficiently. God bless you in your ministry for Him and to us.
Frank:
My apologies! I meant to respond before the holidays, but ran out of time. We were in Denver with family. I hope you’ve had a great few weeks!
>> How do you define philosophy? … you say the Bible is filled with philosophical perspectives.
Philosophy means ‘the love of wisdom.’ As we see in the ‘wisdom literature,’ we are guided by consistent principles. These principles are overarching ideas that mesh together perfectly. The instructions flow from the principle. When we understand the principles that God has explained in Scripture, the instructions make perfect sense. Rather than seeing God’s commands as a list of rules, we see them as the details in a larger framework. As a simple example, God is love. The overarching principle is that we’re supposed to emulate God’s character in our relationships with each other. The details – the specific commands – flow out of that framework: we are to love God, to love our neighbor, and to love even our enemies, just as God does. That’s the kind of thing I mean when I talk about ‘philosophical perspectives.’ We can take the principles not just as checklists, but as truths that can be applied generally as well.
>> Why should a person get saved just to take a chance that they could walk away later, AND according to some of those passages you mentioned, cannot be brought back to repentance? Wow! I would think many people would want to wait until the near end of their life, like that dying man, so they couldn’t walk away and never come back.
I would suggest that there’s more to salvation than making it safely to Heaven. That’s very important, of course… but the benefits of being saved apply today, even if Heaven didn’t exist. Every person who has been born again is a new creation, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, freed from the slavery of sin, and is being transformed to be more like Jesus. We have been invited into God’s Kingdom, and adopted into God’s family. That’s not a promise for the distant future, but a present reality.
As we discussed over eggs and sausages, eternal life is the present possession of every believer. While that’s clear from the Greek, there are also passages that seem to warn us about walking away, and we need to address them. The entire book of Hebrews seems to have been written to a primarily Jewish audience who, due to persecution, were tempted to abandon their faith in Jesus and return to Judaism. The warnings in the text – not just 6:6, but throughout – suggest that those believers were in real spiritual danger. The author parallels their temptation with that of the disobedience in the desert, where God did not allow some to enter into His rest. While there are benefits today from being saved, we must address the passages that seem to suggest that those who do not persist in faith may, somehow, be lost in the end. The entire book is a coherent thought, but it may help to specifically consider the warnings in 2:1-4, the passage surrounding 3:14, 5:11 through 6:12, 10:19-39, and 12:14 and following. The idea that one can turn their back on God isn’t new or novel. It’s the majority position throughout the history of the church, and it’s based in a number of passages. I hold to my position loosely, as I could be wrong… but no discussion of salvation would be complete without consideration of the passages that (at least) seem to suggest that those who come to faith might leave it.
>> When we come to saving faith in Christ… Our nature, our view is changed. It’s not the taking away of free will… We still make choices, but because of our new perspective, our new nature, our new heart, being a new creation, a new creature as you point out, we are not going to choose to walk away.
I hope you’re right. I can’t believe that with certainty, and I certainly can’t teach it AS certainty… because I don’t find it in the text. While we have assurance that nobody can take our salvation from us, and we have assurance that God will not forsake us, I’ve not seen any passage to indicate that we’re safe from ourselves. Instead, I do see a number of warnings about persevering to the end, about not forsaking Christ, and so on. Again: my interpretation of these passages may not be accurate… but those passages do need to be considered thoughtfully. How would you read these verses?
>> Thank you for putting yourself out there and giving people the chance to really think through these issues. Paul was learned, Peter doesn’t seem to have been such, and both served the Lord sufficiently. God bless you in your ministry for Him and to us.
Many thanks, my friend. I really, really enjoyed getting to know you for a little while, and hope we can get together in the very near future!
Tony,
Thanks for the reply, and I hope you and your family had a wonderful holiday.
I like to start these discussions by defining terms so we are talking about the same things. Otherwise we end up arguing past each other without realizing it.
When I hear “philosophy” used in this context, I don’t see it as a positive category biblically. Scripture consistently contrasts human wisdom with God’s wisdom, and warns against grounding truth in the traditions or reasoning of men rather than in Christ (Colossians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 1:19–25). The Bible records human wisdom, including faulty reasoning, but it does not present it as something to be blended with or elevated alongside divine revelation.
On salvation, I agree that eternal life is a present possession of believers, that the new birth is real, and that the warning passages must be taken seriously. Where I differ is not over whether the issue is difficult, but over what should be taught in light of that difficulty. At several points you say we cannot settle this question, yet you still conclude that it is philosophically possible for a believer to lose salvation, even though Scripture never explains how, when, or by what mechanism that would occur. That moves beyond humility into speculation and creates tension with passages that speak very clearly about salvation as decisive, sealed, and completed by God (John 6:37–39; John 10:27–29; Romans 8:1, 30; Ephesians 1:13–14).
I don’t think this is merely an academic issue. Teaching that a believer might lose salvation, while also saying we do not know how or if it actually happens, creates uncertainty that the New Testament repeatedly seems intent on relieving. The warnings call believers to persevere, but the ground of that perseverance is consistently God’s preserving work, not our ability to avoid an undefined point of failure.
I also think the appeal to free will is doing more work here than the text itself. Scripture does not present salvation as trapping someone against their will, but it does present regeneration, sealing, and justification as acts God completes and sustains. When an interpretation of difficult passages weakens clear promises, it seems wiser to reconsider the interpretation rather than hold those promises loosely.
I am genuinely thankful for this conversation. It has forced me to slow down and work carefully through the text, not as inherited theology, but as conviction grounded in Scripture. I also really enjoyed our conversation over breakfast and value the fellowship we share. Iron truly does sharpen iron, and I look forward to continuing these discussions.
My friend Frank:
Man… I thought I’d replied to this already. My bad.
When I was in college, I studied Broadcasting, Religion, and Philosophy. I understand the reticence for some to think of philosophy as a positive category. As the old saying goes, a little philosophy is bad, but a lot of philosophy is better. The practice of philosophy is, more or less, the practice of challenging our own assumptions. The first step is skepticism about our own beliefs. That leads a lot of newbie philosophy students to doubt everything and, sometimes, to leave behind most of what they’ve come to believe. However: skepticism isn’t bad. The second step is finding answers for those questions. Scripture calls us to test all things, after all. That’s a two-part process: questions first, answers after. Some people ask the questions and stop, which is why philosophy gets a bad rap. The Bible doesn’t take a dim view of philosophy… it takes a dim view of philosophy that comes from a strictly human source. In Proverbs, wisdom is personified. We’re told to seek wisdom. In fact, Proverbs 1:1-2 says The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: For learning wisdom and discipline… As you probably know, “philosophy” simply means “the love of wisdom.” The Bible contrasts God’s wisdom (sophia) with man’s wisdom (sophia). In Acts 7, Stephen pointed out that Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. This was a positive thing, not a negative one. Colossians 2:8 shows the difference:
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.
We can become captive to human philosophy and empty deceit, or we can be captive to Christ. God’s system and the world’s system are often at odds in Scripture, and we should pay close attention to that… but philosophy itself isn’t bad. It’s the love of wisdom… and we should get our wisdom from God.
As for eternal life, you ask: what should we teach? In my opinion, we should simply teach Scripture as we understand it. There’s some level of tension in Scripture about multiple things, not just salvation. There’s a whole lot of “already” and “not yet” stuff in there, as I’m sure you’re aware. I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. They’re all in there, and we shouldn’t tailor our teaching to avoid potential problems… we should teach what God has said. If (I say if) the New Testament warns that one CAN walk away from God after being saved, doesn’t it seem wise to tell those who are counting the cost of following Jesus to understand that it’s not a one-and-done kind of thing? It seems unwise to do otherwise.
I don’t think we should teach every dispute as if they carry equal weight. They don’t. When it comes to salvation, and how we’re saved, and what that means, it seems best to teach the whole counsel of God. If we can never walk away from God, that’s an important thing to teach. If we might be able to walk away from God, that’s an important thing to teach. The fact that someone might draw an unwise conclusion based on what God has said in His word should not persuade us to only share part of the story.
In my opinion, a LOT of people extrapolate what the Bible actually says and pretend that it says something that’s not in there. We are reassured, over and over, that God will not forsake us. We are reassured, over and over, that nobody can pluck us from God’s hand. I see absolutely no assurance in Scripture that a believer could never, or would never, turn away from God and suffer the consequences. I do see certain passages that appear to show that this is a real concern, including the entire book of Hebrews. The extent to which one can be saved AND disobedient is not covered in Scripture. I believe that IF one can walk away, that it’s a rare and difficult thing. There are too many passages suggesting that our faithfulness will determine our eternal destiny to ignore the possibility. Hebrews draws a parallel between the disobedient in the wilderness and turning back from Jesus to Judaism, and describes the same consequence: never entering God’s rest.
>> I am genuinely thankful for this conversation. It has forced me to slow down and work carefully through the text, not as inherited theology, but as conviction grounded in Scripture. I also really enjoyed our conversation over breakfast and value the fellowship we share. Iron truly does sharpen iron, and I look forward to continuing these discussions.
Awesome! We need to get together some more… I’ve really enjoyed getting to know you, and would love to chat some more. By the way: a guy in my Life Group talked glowingly about your church this week, as his daughter has been attending… she’s on the fringe, and she loves what she’s seeing there. =)