Losing Our Salvation

I wrapped up another set of membership classes yesterday and it looks like PazNaz will have another great set of new members.  If there is one question that I am asked consistently by not only folks exploring membership but from people unfamiliar with PazNaz, it is, "Do Nazarenes believe that people can lose their salvation?"  Usually the question is asked because someone outside the Wesleyan tradition has told them that Nazarenes like other Wesleyan-Arminian traditions have historically rejected the doctrine known as eternal security or perseverance of the saints.

Although I understand why people ask it, I really don't like the question.  I usually make a joke and say, "Well, it's not like we believe that you can just misplace it or leave it somewhere and forget where you put it..."  But beyond the joking, I think the need to ask the question (on both sides) is shaped by at least two mistakes that Western Christianity tends to make regarding Christian faith.  They are two mistakes I think we need to get over. 

The first mistake is that we have tended to equate the idea of salvation with going to heaven.  So that when the question of eternal security is asked, what is really being asked is, "Do I still get to go to heaven if I sin after I've been saved?" This isn't an unimportant question, but I don't think it is a question that the biblical writers take very seriously.  For the writers of scripture eternal life is sort of the fringe benefit for those who have joined God's kingdom and are experiencing God's life today.  Or to say it another way, the biblical writers rarely think of salvation as being saved from hell after death, rather they understand salvation as being redeemed from a false and destructive way of living today.  This way of redeemed living so powerful in destroying the ways of destruction today that it includes the destruction of the enemy of death giving to us the assurance of eternal life.

None of us knows who will be given the gift of eternal life and who will not (nor even what eternal life fully looks like).  What Christ desires for us is that we live in such a way today that we live have the confidence and assurance of eternal life tomorrow.  So does the person who continues in a life devoted to and captured by sin after they have invited Jesus to be their Lord and Savior get to go to heaven?  I honestly have no idea.  But for Wesleyan Christians (like Nazarenes) our response would be, "Why would you want to live that way when you have to opportunity to live the abundant life of God's kingdom today while having the assurance of God's gift of eternal life in the tomorrow?"

The second mistake that Western Christians tend to make that then leads to the eternal security question is that we tend to make Christian faith a legal transaction and not a relationship of covenant.  The "once saved" question is judicial in its focus.  Another way to ask the question would be, "Once God has declared us not-guilty because of the sacrificial death of Jesus, will he ever really declare us guilty again?"  Western Christians have tended to think of salvation as a pronouncement made about us in a heavenly courtroom by God the righteous judge.  Certainly if that is the case then once we are declared innocent it seems strange for our Father and judge to keep going back and forth in his verdict.

The scripture, however, tends to think of the Christian walk in relational or covenant terms rather than in legal ones.  We are the bride of Christ, the body of Christ, God's adopted children, etc.  Those are all relational categories.  So maybe a better question would be, "Once we have married or covenanted our lives to God, can we ever leave that relationship?"  For me the answer would unfortunately be "yes."  Like a marriage it is not as though our everyday failings eliminate us from that covenant relationship, but it is possible for us to willfully leave that commitment.  I believe the affirmations of eternal security in the scripture that folk rightly site are assurances that God will always keep his part of this marriage covenant.  His faithfulness is not in question, it is our faithfulness that is at issue.  (Maybe we should think of our courtroom metaphors as judgments made in family court).

I find the parable of the Prodigal Son instructive at this point.  Like the wayward son, it is possible for us to shake our fist at the Father, escape with our inheritance, and head back to the "big city" of sin and destruction.  The Father who invited us to enter into this relationship with him freely gives us the permission to freely leave home.  The good news of the parable is obviously that the Father lovingly and graciously awaits our return home.

I know the next question will be, "But if the prodigal had died in the big city before going back home, did he get to go to heaven?"  To which I would respond that thankfully the scripture doesn't deal with that question.  Those judgments belong only to God (and a gracious God at that).  But isn't the point of the scripture an encouragement for people to live at home with the Father experiencing the life of salvation (life at home) in their today so that they can have the assurance of continued life with the Father in their tomorrow?

I think Wesleyans and non-Wesleyans are closer than we think on this question.  The scripture never questions the faithfulness of God.  God does not move, the question he keeps asking us is, "Adam (humankind), where are you?"

Comments

[Laura Rector]

A few Jabez folks and I were talking about this over lunch this week. It also kinda fits in with the correction to body-soul understandings that was taught in their Sunday School class... (meaning it gets to the concreteness that our spirituality isn't on a different plane from our physical being and the way we live our life in this world).

Back in the fall, Jeff Vidt gave me a book to read on Nazarene theology's history and I came to the same conclusion--that Calvinists have misunderstood Arminianism and made the stereotype of the perseverance issue that Armininians are works-based. "You must do this, this, and this or you won't be saved." Calvinists make Arminians sound like they believe God will change his mind about loving you. When I read Jeff's book, I was corrected and realized that God doesn't change--it's people who change in the Armininian understanding. That was a nice correction after being educated by mostly 5-point Calvinists, which I'm not.

I'm not sure about the Western legal system influencing my own questions directly so much. I think a lot of us have been presented the gospel as a relationship as well although we've also been taught the legal term "justification," but maybe that's just my Baptist roots or I see things through my INFP eyes that look for connections and relationships between people and so see God that way.

I do wonder still about the confidence issue... I think for a lot of Calvinistic Christians that's important because of the relationship. We have confidence in God because He is who He says He is, just as Armininians do--and if He says He's our Savior, then He really saves us, because he's going to love us in such a way that he won't let us be snatched from his hands, and people shouldn't worry (usually those worried aren't the ones who should be worried anyway).

I guess for me its inconceivable that once we fall in love with God that we could ever fall out. True, he's not coercive, but on the other hand, he's God--he's not like a human partner who stops wooing us or doing the things that made us fall in love with Him in the first place.... and well, people who are concerned about their relationship w/ God, may not have a great understanding that He won't just leave them, but they do seem to be working on that relationship and concerned about their sin. I'd never hesitate to give them assurance that if they turn to him, he'll forgive them (1 Jn 1:9). On the other hand, in the OT we see the Israelites fall away and fall away, and although God continually woos them and attempts to bring them back, sometimes in extreme ways as He did through Ezekiel, we do know that not all repented. It's a lot to think about. Open rebellion does exist even if it's hard to imagine, but maybe not from those asking questions like this. Would you agree?

It really doesn't matter to me so much whether Nazarenes love God and pursue holiness as Wesleyans or as Calvinists in the sense that the question changes how I do ministry or my love for God. It's not my hill to die on. I do wonder though if it's a Nazarene hill to die on--with missions agencies, ordination boards, Nazarene schools, etc? If it's THEIR hill, even though it's not yours personally, then it causes problems for a ministry student if she leans more towards perseverance. Does that make sense? So, I'm wondering, how does the rest of the denomination feel, not just you personally?

I like your post and your personal thoughts and you present in a way that doesn't make me hesitate so much, but your just one Nazarene pastor? What's the of the importance of the issue within the rest of the denomination's agencies?

[Laura Rector]

PS Do you think perseverance should be understood individualisticly or corporately or a combination of both?

[Laura Rector]

Sorry--it's late--that should say "individually" above.

[Laura Rector]

Sorry to bombard your wall tonight, Scott. My mind is like that when it starts to chew on something... I was reading 1 John after finishing your blog and I see a lot to support the things you're writing about concrete actions in this life and living out our salvation, as well as eschatological hope. It was nice to read it with your thoughts in mind, and it highlighted some of the Scriptures for me. Thanks!

[Jeff Vidt]

Geez, Laura...Give the man a break! :)

[Scott]

Laura,

Thanks for the great comments. I do think that perseverance may be a hill that some Nazarene-Wesleyan-Arminian-Holiness folk would want to die on (or perhaps more accurately slay others upon). But the same would probably go the other way also. I'm sure that there are a lot of Reformed-Calvinist folk who would make the P in the TULIP a dividing line with others. Right or wrong, I'm just not one of those folk. I tend to think we are closer in praxis to one another than we realize, even if we are somewhat separate in theory.

I do agree that it is sometimes hard to conceive that someone who has truly experienced God's love would walk away, and yet that raises the question when someone walks away, "did they ever REALLY experience God's love." I don't think we want to go too far down that kind of road either.

Blessings.

[Laura Rector]

Hmmm... I went to a 5-point Calvinist school for my M.Div. You're right. They're mostly worse about the subject and it is a hill to die on--In some circles, you're not saved if you're not Calvinist.... Upon asking one of my friends to describe his girlfriend, the first thing he said was, "She's a Calvinist and I like that." ("Well, then what is she like? What does she want to do?" we asked. Next answer: "I don't know. Hopefully, follow me around.") One of my professors there said he was only about a 4.5 point Calvinist and the entire classroom went silent, b/c most of the students couldn't believe that he was allowed to teach there. I didn't really have a great time at that school or want to ever be called a Calvinist because of stuff like that. Anyway, thanks, Scott!! Sorry I write too much on your comments... I tend to forget myself at moments when I get caught up with an idea.