This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:18-20).If you've ever been in a discussion regarding the possibility of a Christian losing their salvation (or some variation thereof), this passage has likely come up. This, we are told, is a clear example of two believers who lost their salvation. (Or who surrendered their salvation.) Clear enough. Now what? I would ask that you take a moment to walk through this with me because I'm not so sure it's as clear as some would like it to be.
What do we know? We know that two guys, Hymenaeus and Alexander, did something that "made shipwreck of their faith". Most people leap immediately to "lost their salvation", but I'd hold off on that. What do we know? Okay, so we know they "made shipwreck of their faith". We know that they did it by rejecting one or both of these concepts: 1) hold the faith, and 2) hold a good conscience. And we know Paul's remedy: "I have handed [them] over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." That's what we know. The rest requires evaluation. Did these two guys lose their salvation? I'd ask you to avoid jumping to that conclusion before we look it over.
There are other things that will play into this discussion, other things we know from Scripture. One thing we ought to consider is the phrase, "handed over to Satan". The concept occurs in another place in Paul's writings. In his first epistle to the Corinthians there was a case of serious, unrepented sexual immorality. On this Paul instructs, "When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:4-5). The purpose of this drastic concept, then, was not death and damnation, but "that his spirit may be saved" -- salvation. We have the same process here in 1 Timothy. These two men were being handed over to Satan, not so they would be damned, but so that they would learn.
The other passage that comes to bear here is found in Hebrews 6. Almost all proponents of the concept that salvation can be lost or surrendered will look to this passage as proof. Oddly, almost all proponents of this concept ignore what this passage says.
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (Heb 6:4-6).Given that we are talking about a true believer here, the passage explains what happens when this true believer becomes apostate ("fallen away"). While they like to point to this as proof that a true believer can be apostate, they deny the ramification: "It is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance." There are those who argue "Once saved, always saved." This passage argues "Once lost, always lost."
So, back to Hymenaeus and Alexander. We know that they made shipwreck of their faith. If that means that they lost their salvation, then Paul was acting foolishly on at least two counts. First, if they lost their salvation, they already belonged to Satan. If they already belonged to Satan, by what authority and for what purpose would Paul want to give them to ... the one who already had them? That makes no sense. The other problem is why? What would giving them to the one who already owned them accomplish? They were permanently damned (Heb 6). There was no hope. Teaching them not to blaspheme was fine, I guess, but it served no ultimate purpose since they had no hope. They were the walking damned. Punishing damned people by turning them over to the one who is already their master just doesn't seem reasonable.
Is it possible, then, that this passage does not reference lost salvation? It is possible, I think, to understand "made shipwreck of their faith" to mean something other than "lost salvation". It could mean that they had run aground in terms of their faith. Like Abraham of old who had God's promise to make a nation out of him and then lied (multiple times) about his wife for fear that he would be killed, these two may have lost sight of their faith ("made shipwreck of their faith") and needed correction, not damnation. This is a coherent understanding of the phrase, and given the problems with 1) handing over to Satan and 2) the permanence of lost salvation, I think it is the most coherent understanding of the phrase.
19 comments:
"It is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance." There are those who argue "Once saved, always saved." This passage argues "Once lost, always lost."
Wouldn't it be a fairer summation of this passage to say that it suggests that those who have once been saved, once they've turned from the faith, to be "re-saved"?
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened... and have shared in the Holy Spirit... [ie, those who HAVE BEEN saved]
...and THEN have fallen away... [ie, have fallen away from salvation, who have become lost]
to restore them again to repentance [ie, to be "saved a second time...," to be restored in their relationship with God.]
That seems to me to be fairly clearly what it is saying. Not "once lost, always lost," but once saved, and then lost, always lost.
This seems to me to be another place where Paul uses hyperbole, as I think is sometimes the case. With God, all things are possible, we are told in the Bible. I think what Paul is suggesting here is the more practical and self-evident reality that those who are saved, part of the church, part of the Body of Christ, who then turn away from God, these people tend to stay gone for good. They have hardened their hearts in regards to God and the church.
Another reason why I think taking the bible overly literally can be deceptive. There are times when hyperbole is used (we all agree on this point) and we ought to always remind ourselves of that before asserting authoritatively that "THIS passage is NOT one of the places where hyperbole is used!"
Says who? How do we know that Jesus saying "It is better to rip your eye out" is hyperbole but Paul is speaking literally here (ie, literally, those who have been saved and left that salvation are lost for good)? We have to sort that out ourselves using our own flawed human (yet God-given) reasoning.
Seems to me.
Dan Trabue: "Wouldn't it be a fairer summation of this passage to say that it suggests that those who have once been saved, once they've turned from the faith, to be 're-saved'?"
I'm sorry, Dan. I was trying to be an interesting writer. Playing off of "once saved, always saved", I went to "once lost, always lost". It rolls much more easily off the tongue than "when you start out you're lost, but you can be saved; but at some time you might lose your salvation, at which time you can't get salvation back." See? Doesn't read nearly as well. Since the topic is not "Are you lost?" but "Can you lose your salvation?", I thought, just maybe, people would understand that "once lost, always lost" referenced salvation, not the individual. My mistake.
The funnier thing to me, however, is that you agree that the "fair summation" of the passage says you can't get your salvation back if you lose it and then you go on to explain that it's not what it is intended to mean. How do we know what is and isn't hyperbole? No, I suppose you're right. We can't. If I were to argue that Jesus isn't the only way, that there is salvation in others, that death is not the wages of sin, and that all this falderal about being good is unimportant, based on hyperbole, you'd have no grounds to disagree, right? I mean, my opinion is just as good as yours, right? Seriously, Dan, sometimes you crack me up.
What? I thought I was speaking politely on the topic at hand, adding something worthwhile, and you think, what, I'm a silly goose for asking these questions?
I'm asking a serious exegetical question: How does one know which passages are hyperbole and which ones are parable and which ones are to be taken fairly literally? Is that not a legitimate question worth dealing with?
Tell me, if all of this is so obvious: What is your consistent criteria for judging if passage A is hyperbole, passage B is parable and passage C is literally and factually true? Do you have such a criteria?
Are these not legitimate questions?
I get cracked up, too, sometimes...
I didn't say you were a silly goose. I didn't say you were silly. I said you agreed with what the passage said ... and then argued against it. That's funny.
So, here's the idea. The passage warns "It is impossible ... to restore such a one to repentance." You say, "Hyperbole." So ... it doesn't mean what it says; I'm taking it too literally. When someone employs hyperbole, they are trying to make a point. So when the author said, "It is impossible" what they meant was ...? "Oh, no, it's not actually impossible. Not to worry. Everything will be alright. I know I said that they crucify the Son of God again and hold Him in contempt, but I didn't really mean it that way. It's just ... I don't know ... really a bad idea. It is a recoverable thing, but it's not as bad as I made it out to be." So if the point was not "it is impossible", I don't get the point.
That is how I determine hyperbole. Actually, I ask, "Does it make sense at face value?" If it does, I leave it alone. And ... it does ... so I leave it alone.
That is how I determine hyperbole. Actually, I ask, "Does it make sense at face value?" If it does, I leave it alone. And ... it does ... so I leave it alone.
Aha! Me, too! That is, I - like you - use my reason to determine if something makes sense at face value. This to me clearly does not make sense and so I don't leave it alone.
We are not robots. God does not force God's Self upon anyone. God wishes for us all to be saved, but we can choose to not accept that gift, to reject it once we have accepted it. To turn to God or to turn away.
It's the way that God made us. So, Paul is emphasizing that we CAN lose our salvation if we reject the grace given to us. And once we do, then it is unlikely (nearly impossible? Like it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter heaven?) that we'll turn back.
But clearly, it must be hyperbole, since God is a God of second chances.
So, we disagree on the conclusion, but we share the same process. We have to look at a passage and determine if it makes sense.
Dan Trabue: "God is a God of second chances."
You are quite fond of pointing out "The Bible doesn't say that anywhere" when it's something you disagree with, so why is it now that you choose to make a claim not found in the Bible on which to reinterpret the plain meaning of the text? More to the point, if the author of Hebrews meant "It's really difficult but not impossible", how does "It is impossible" make his point more clearly?
You are quite fond of pointing out "The Bible doesn't say that anywhere" when it's something you disagree with, so why is it now that you choose to make a claim not found in the Bible on which to reinterpret the plain meaning of the text?
Do you think I'm mistaken in thinking God is a God of second chances? Or perhaps you don't know what I mean by the term? To clarify, I mean that God does not condemn us merely because we make mistakes. We are always welcome to return home, just as the prodigal son was welcomed home. Second chances.
You think that idea is not found in the Bible? Did God cast Peter aside after Peter DENIED JESUS three times?? No. Peter had many chances. How about David - "a man after God's own heart" - Did God condemn David forever when he committed adultery and murder?
You tell me: Do you think God is not a God who is willing to forgive wrongs, to give us all the chance to follow after him?
And perhaps you could clarify for me your position: Do you think that when Paul said that some who have faith may fall away from that faith - do you think that doesn't mean what it literally says? That people CAN'T lose (or reject) their salvation?
Dan Trabue: "Do you think I'm mistaken in thinking God is a God of second chances?"
No, I think you're mistaken in the suggestion that God always gives more chances, that there is no limit to His grace, that it is by definition impossible to say that it is impossible to restore them to repentance.
I think you're mistaken in the suggestion that God always gives more chances, that there is no limit to His grace...
Since I did not say that God always gives more chances then perhaps we're not in disagreement, since I don't believe it. Obviously, as I have stated somewhere, at some point, time runs out.
I don't know that I'd say there is no limit to God's grace. God's grace is boundless, but not forced. The limitations of God's grace are the limitations WE would impose upon it, if we choose to reject it.
...that it is by definition impossible to say that it is impossible to restore them to repentance.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The passage says it is impossible for those who have lost their faith (which I accept as a reality, do you?) to be restored (which I think is hyperbole - that is, it's hyperbole and beyond knowing to say that God can't restore those who have fallen away from their faith).
In summation, then:
1. When Paul talks about those who have fallen away, I accept that as a biblical and logical reality: We CAN lose our faith, reject God's grace. It can happen, I think the passage is literally correct that far. Do you?
2. Then, when he says, "it's impossible for them to be restored..." I think THAT part if hyperbole. What do you think that part is?
Dan Trabue: "at some point, time runs out."
Just not in this life, right? I mean, do you believe that "it's impossible for them to be restored" is hyperbole, or do you believe it is genuine?
Dan Trabue: "What do you think that part is?"
Well, you know silly me. I think the whole thing is genuine. I think that the author of Hebrews is talking about the effects of rejecting the faith and that a person who does so is beyond hope. I think the whole thing means what it says. I don't see hyperbole in there at all, and I don't see anything in the text that would suggest it is. That's me. "Too literal." Not reading in my preferences. Since I can't find anything in the language that suggests hyperbole and I don't find anything in Scripture that would say, "This can't be"
Help me out here, Stan: Do you believe people can fall away from their faith, lose their faith, reject their faith, or otherwise lose their salvation, as is suggested here?
I believe that people can fall away from their faith as is suggested in Heb. 6. I also believe that it doesn't happen.
I think of it this way:
- Human Perspective: "I need to persevere to remain saved. If I fall away, I'm lost."
- God's Perspective: "I will keep those who are Mine from falling."
I believe that the warnings are effective, that God demands that we persevere, and that God insures that we do.
Dan T, you laud Man's reason, yet when Stan shows you the logical path he took, you ignore his logic and insert your reasoning. This is why we need a basis for truth outside ourselves, since my reason can lead me one way, and your reason lead you in the opposite direction, Truth is Truth, no matter what our reason tells us. As you so constantly point out, our minds are flawed, but you assume that because we are flawed, Scripture must be flawed as well, since it was written by men, despite what God says about keeping His Word.
(Did it say renew them again unto salvation? no.) Let me give it a go on what was meant in that ole scary verse.
Two friends were told by God that everything in the 7 eleven store is free because he paid for it. The two friends go into the store and just get two sodas, freely. On the way out one friend thinks to himself this is not right I should have to pay for this free soda, while the other friend goes outside resting on Gods promise of the free soda. The other friend pulls out his money, works, and wants to pay for his soda, he is not resting on the promises of God. Does he negate what God has said? Does he now live by his works of righteousness? Is he tossing the standard of repentance out the window with his wanting to pay for the free gift? Will he know"if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive our sins."
Think this through asking God for wisdom and this verse will no longer be scary but a loving reminder of the grace you posses through Jesus Christ.
Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Soul (or may I call you "ship"?) (humor ... just humor),
No, it doesn't say "renew them again unto salvation. It says "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." It goes on to say of them "whose end is to be burned."
If, on the other hand, it was merely a forgetful moment (like the guy with the soda) and they can recover just fine with no serious ill effects ... then what is the warning about?
Hello Stan,
By the way its shipwrecksoul :), on the key words you pointed out "whose end is to be burned." Lets remember all earthly works will be burned up but they themselves will be saved. Because Jesus cannot disown himself. We have to focus on the whole counsel of God. So what you and I do in the Spirit lasts. What we do carnally does not. Let me say this as well.
Can an individual wind up in hell after being born again by the power of God? Man says yes because in mans ignorant wisdom negates what Gods power has wonderfully done, man stoops in his intellectual exercise in his own unfaithfulness and tries to rationalize it into some kind of theology 101!
Jesus said
"When he the comforter has come he will guide you in all truth...."
and
If man is unfaithful Jesus will remain faithful for he cannot disown himself....
The only way any that any blood bought born again believer can lose their salvation is that right now one must go to the heavens and destroy all the streets of gold. Then after that bad that individual must destroy all the angels at Holy Gods command. Then after that feat the last thing the individual must do is take on Holy God himself. This is impossible so any individual who called out to Jesus for salvation by repentance cannot and will not lose their salvation it would be a paradox in the face of God's holy word and the payment of mans sin by the blood of his dear son Jesus Christ!
Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
shipwrecksoul: "The only way any that any blood bought born again believer can lose their salvation is ..."
I understand that you're quite certain that someone who has been born again cannot loser his or her salvation. I got that. I'm not even arguing against you. I asked before and I ask again, given that it is absolutely, positively, in every possible way impossible for anyone to lose their salvation ... what is the warning about? What are all those warnings about? If it is absolutely, positively impossible, what is the point of all the warnings about losing salvation?
Hello Stan,
Hey I saw your cool snapshot of when you were a kid, at least I think it is. And as you were a kid do you remember Mr. Stan Senior, your dad, when he warned you when you were lets say 11, through discretion and discernment, not to do something you were about to do and you did it anyway and you got spanked, remember? And remember when you were lets say 19 and you heard your fathers words out of discretion and discernment on how you should present yourself in front of others and lets say you did not do totally right and you had to face the consequences in which your father found out and he said, those are the consequences my son but you know I still love you. And lets suppose little stan who's now a man commits a crime goes to jail and has to face the judge because of his consequences. And off to the side is your old man sitting listening to the judge in the hearing, lets suppose ok. Let me ask you a question. Are you still your fathers son. Notice we are speaking on earthly terms let alone spiritual terms. Theses words in the least mirror Gods love through Christ when we have been born again. Jesus came down and took the punishment that was suppose to be on us. Imagine God the Son doing this, this is Gods wisdom and plan of salvation for us because only a righteous person was able to do this and Jesus is that person being righteous. This is God supplying our need for us because he is just and good. He knows we are sinners in need of a savior. When we become heirs its after a fact of when someone dies, it cannot be taken back. Jesus died and now I cry to my father in the name of Jesus. My father loves me and so he discipline me or I am not legitimate. This is why the warnings at different levels in scripture for the saved and the lost. This belongs to God who is holy and totally just in his ways for us. I hope I was concise in answering your question Stan.
Ps: The end of your question on losing salvation warnings. It is the Lords plea to us to turn from self, so we don't miss the mark, towards him and be saved. Our nature of self as our Old man the devil wants not the things of God. Before conversion one needs regeneration through the Spirit. Not out of our voice for destruction, but out of the Lords waning as "I am the way the truth and the life."
Please take the time and visit my sermon page. check it out on that self part, OK?
http://www.sermonforyou.blogspot.com/
God bless you, and me :), in his will for us Stan.
Post a Comment