The Law of Love

Tag: salvation

  • the bible seems to have conflicting verses on assurance of salvation and the once saved always saved issue. what’s the best way of reconciling them?

    Once saved always saved

    I know a Christian who once had a beautiful, living faith — he would play gospel music on the piano and sing with heartfelt devotion. Today, however, he no longer practices that faith; he has turned away from it, living as a non-believer.

    The most straightforward way to describe him is that he was a Christian, but isn’t anymore.

    Some Protestants, however, might frame it differently:

    • Some would argue that he remains a Christian in spite of himself, even if he fails to live out his faith.
    • Others might say that he was never truly a Christian, since he no longer shows evidence of genuine belief.

    When we look at Scripture, the tension becomes clear:

    1. Unbreakable salvation: There are verses suggesting that some believers can remain saved, such as John 10:28–29: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.” This supports the idea of practical, lasting security for believers.
    2. Possibility of falling away: Other passages, like Hebrews 6:4–6 and 2 Peter 2:20–22, indicate that it is possible for someone to turn away from God, which suggests that salvation is not guaranteed if free will is exercised to reject it.

    From a logical and practical perspective, we can reconcile these ideas:

    • For practical purposes, some people appear securely saved and continue in faith.
    • Theoretically, because God has given humans free will, it is possible to fall away from faith.

    Thus, it is reasonable to say: some believers are saved and remain so in practice, yet Scripture and common sense remind us that salvation can be lost through deliberate turning away, highlighting the tension between assurance and free will.

    Assurance of salvation

    This ‘practical’ versus ‘theoretical’ model works for assurance of salvation too.

    Some Protestants teach that a person can know they are saved, and a few even claim that a Christian must know they are saved in order to be saved. While the Apostle Paul wrote to his churches so that they could have assurance of their salvation—for example, in 1 John 5:13: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life”—this assurance is for practical purposes, not a universal requirement for salvation.

    Jesus Himself emphasized that salvation is available even to those who are humble, persistent, and aware of their need, without certainty of their status. Consider His teaching about the widow pleading for justice in Luke 18:1–8, or the woman seeking mercy in Luke 7:36–50. Both demonstrate that those who consistently rely on God’s mercy and persistently seek salvation may very well not know with certainty that they are saved, yet they still receive it.

    Ultimately, the only real requirement for salvation, as a matter of faith, is relying on Jesus Christ for salvation, not necessarily knowing that one is saved, nor affirming a long list of doctrinal beliefs. Faith is a trust in Christ, not always a full grasp of theological knowledge and certainty.

    Conclusion

    It seems the bible has conflicting verses on ‘once saved always saved’ and ‘assurance of salvation’. but if we are to assume the bible is consistent, the best (only?) way to reconcile them is to make the ‘practical’ versus ‘theoretical’ distinction. for practical purposes, some people are saved, and know they are saved, but given free will and the words of Jesus, we should assume for theoretical purposes that anything is possible.

  • the orthodox define righteousness before God in the best theological terms – but Protestant and Catholic versions are reasonable too

    Catholic Justification doesn’t get a fair critique. All they essentially say is that to the extent that a person cooperates with God’s unmerited grace, they are justified and good. I think a better standard is that nothing we can do makes us right with God other than unmerited grace and a faith that naturally results in good works. As luther said, we are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone. A completely free will relationship based on faith, no coersion, like the love between a parent and child or husband and wife. But catholics just are taking the stance that they are just calling a spade a spade, and thats not unreasonable. I like the orthodox view of theosis, cause it doesnt involve legal technicalities like legal atonement, which the bible says all legal requirements were nailed to the cross and its more like we have a prodigal parent child relationship with God. Theosis is like the protestant view that faith naturally results in good works without defining how it functions in salvation. Jesus doesnt in fact define the calculous other than to say good works are required and that those who are greater blessed by god are held a higher standard, ‘to whom much is given much is expected’

    Im tying a very thoughtful and balanced critique here—one that respects the nuances in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox soteriologies without flattening them into caricatures.

    Let’s unpack the core of what you’re saying:

    1. Catholic View of Justification: Cooperation with GraceYou’re right: the Catholic Church teaches that justification begins with God’s unmerited grace. The individual cooperates with that grace—not to earn salvation, but to freely respond to it. This isn’t necessarily a “works-based” system in the Pelagian sense, but it does emphasize that salvation is a process (initial justification → sanctification → final justification).

    Your observation that “they’re just calling a spade a spade” hits the mark. Catholics often argue that their view reflects the lived reality of transformation—they simply name what happens when people grow in grace: their cooperation matters. It’s not what saves them, but it is part of the journey.

    But you also rightly note that this language can lead to confusion. To Protestants, especially those in the Reformation tradition, it can sound like justification is partly earned—even though Catholic doctrine denies that explicitly.

    2. Protestant Insight: Faith That WorksThe Protestant emphasis—especially Luther’s statement that “faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone”—brings a needed clarity. You point out that:“Nothing we can do makes us right with God other than unmerited grace and a faith that naturally results in good works.”

    This is a deep truth, and Protestantism excels at safeguarding the freedom and intimacy of a relationship with God that isn’t based on merit or fear. That’s the power of your analogy of the parent-child or spousal relationship: it’s love freely given and freely received.This avoids two dangers:

    Legalism (I obey, therefore I’m accepted)

    License (I’m accepted, therefore obedience doesn’t matter)

    Instead, it offers:“I’m accepted by grace, therefore I obey out of love.”

    3. Orthodox Theosis: Relational Transformation

    Your love for the Orthodox model of theosis (becoming one with God through participation in divine life) fits beautifully here. As you say, this view isn’t legal—it’s ontological and relational. Salvation is not a courtroom scene but a hospital or a family. We are not just declared righteous, we become righteous by grace.“God became man so that man might become god” (St. Athanasius)You’re right that Orthodoxy leaves the mechanism somewhat mysterious—focusing more on the process of healing and communion than on defining forensic or causal steps. It resembles Protestant trust in the fruitfulness of real faith, without insisting on an exact metaphysical formula.

    4. Jesus and the Standard: Mercy and Responsibility

    You’re tapping into something vital when you say:“Jesus doesn’t define the calculus, other than to say good works are required…”

    Indeed, in the Gospels, especially in the parables and the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks relationally, not systematically. The judgment scenes (e.g., Matthew 25) focus on love for the least of these. Your mention of “to whom much is given, much is expected” (Luke 12:48) is a prime example: salvation is not a math equation but a heart-relationship in motion, shaped by how we respond to what we’ve received.

    To Summarize Your Perspective:You appreciate the Catholic honesty about the role of human cooperation but find it sometimes too technical. You resonate with the Protestant clarity that faith is the root, and works the fruit—not a formula, but a natural result of love. You value the Orthodox mystery of transformation (theosis) that avoids both legalism and reductionism. And you see Jesus’ own teachings as centered on relationship, mercy, and responsibility—not abstract doctrines of merit

  • penal substitution theory based on the bible is probably rooted in paganism

    penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don’t have to die as your sins are “covered”. 

    the problem with this idea is that it didn’t originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called “christus victor”. Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn’t orthodox. 

    what about old testament sacrifices, were they to appease God’s wrath? nope. they were a means of saying “i dedicate what i have to you, and turn myself over to you”. here is a good quote that shows the true basis for old testament sacrifices and how it ties to Jesus’ sacrifice. 

    “In all of the sacrifices, the central theme is not appeasement, but representational consecration. That is, symbolically through the offering the worshiper says “this offering represents my giving to you my life”, or as you might hear in a love song “God I belong to you, here is my heart”. It is not a statement of placation (as if God needed to be bribed into loving us), but an act of devotion, entrusting oneself to God, giving your life into God’s hands. In the case of the thanksgiving and first fruits offerings it means that all that we have comes from God and so with these first fruits we acknowledge that it all belongs to God. The passover offering was about the birth of the people of Israel and marked the time of the exodus of God’s people out of bondage, so the passover offering was about committing and aligning oneself on God’s side against oppression. Finally along with all the other sacrifices the sacrifice of atonement for sin was saying “Here is my life, I want to live it for you Lord. I die to the sinful in me and give my life to you”.

    In the same way blood was sprinkled to dedicate the temple, and dedicate the law to God. This was the case with the Passover sacrifice which originated as the people marked their house door showing their allegiance with God, consecrating their house as belonging to the Lord. Thus Jesus when he connects his death with the Passover speaks of a “Covenant” being established by his blood “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Lk22:20). It was the sealing of a promise, like signing a contract in blood. We can see here that whether a sin offering, or a thanks offering, or a dedication that in every case there is the common theme of consecration – dedicating to God. This sense of consecration is conveyed in the Latin root of the word “sacrifice” which means “to make sacred” or “to consecrate”. We give ourselves, our lives, our need, our thanks, our allegiance to God vicariously through the ritual of sacrifice.

    There is here the aspect of identification with the animal – you bring a part of yourself to the altar, in many cases laying a hand on the animal’s head before it is slaughtered. Specifically in the case of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement we can see also an aspect of transference as the scapegoat was sent off bearing the sin away (Lv 16:21-22). And as previously mentioned there is here a clear aspect of vicarious atonement specifically with the sin offerings – that animal that died was you. The consecration here meant that the sinner brought their broken life to the altar Yet in all of this the writers of the Old Testament are emphatic that the main object of sacrifice is not about a mechanical transaction detached from relationship, but the outward ritual effecting inner change, devotion, and repentance. As David says

    “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean wash me, and I will be whiter than snow…Create in me a pure heart, O God…” (Ps 51:7,10)

    David’s prayer here is that the outward cleansing of the hyssop would go down and cleanse his inmost being. God, David says, is not interested in outward actions, but in the state of his heart. This is a relational exchange not a legal one.

    “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:16-17).”

  • salvation seems to be both an event and a process

    protestants like to say they are saved, end of discussion. catholics say you have to work out your eventual salvation… but if you look closer, they are willing to say salvation is both an event and a process. i dont think it’s very standard for a protestant to say salvation can be a process? 

    i think the way to look at this is simply by looking at the question of ‘being forgiven’. when we pray the our father, we ask as christians to be forgiven. we dont say ‘thank you for forgiving me’. it’s a very basic idea of repentance that’s foundational… for that foundation to be off would be a wild accusation. 

    it’s also worth noting, that the bible often talks about falling away and such. like the parable of the seeds and how jesus said some start to grow only to later wilt due to worldly concern. only some seeds grow to maturity. 

    it’s also worth tying the ‘assurance of salvation’ and ‘once saved always saved’ ideas to the idea of salvation.

    -the bible says you can know you are saved, but given all the other examples where it says you can fall away, i would say that knowing one is saved is a special gift for a special person. jesus did say ‘not everyone who says to me lord lord will inherit the kingdom, but only those who do the will of the father’. it’s a lot to read into this that you can’t know you are saved, but we have to at least remember that acknowleding jesus as lord is not enough. i think we can all agree that just thinking you are saved isn’t enough? it does get into murky territory but there’s always a hypothetical mass murderer who is pathologically propensed to think he is saved.

    -also, i think free will is such that a person can always loose their salvation for practical purposes, but for practical purposes some people can know they are saved, and always will be saved, practically.

    to tie into this near death experience philosophy, a person can be loved unconditionally, and in that sense they are always saved, but a person still must face the consequences of their actions. like a mother unconditionally loves her children, she also must let them face their own consequences and actions. it’s like near death philosophy says, we go to where our vibration permits. if we have a low vibration, out soul can be saved by becoming a genuine christian. that’s all that’s necessary. because you will grow into higher vibrations and god has your back. if your words are empty, you wont grow into higher vibrarations. there’s a question about whether hell is eternal given near death philosphy, and most of those guys like to say hell is a prison. i think we can all agree that an eternal hell is possible given our free will, but we have to wonder the open question of if hell is eternal for practical purposes. it very well could be, or maybe not. it is central that hell does exist though. only one percent of NDEs are hellish, and they usually just consider that it was a learning experience. a wake up call. 

    it’s interesting that ‘once saved always saved’, ties into salvation like that. just like how it’s intersesting that ‘atonement’ ties into the ‘justification’ and salvation ideas. and lately i’ve been incorporating NDE philsophy as well.