Continue in the Faith
Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.
Continue in the FaithFollow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother recently commented on an earlier post regarding this very passage, and I thought it would be wise to look into it. It is one of the passages that made me consider conditional security many many years ago.
Let’s remember that the conditional clause could be translated as If, as is the case we are faithless, he remains faithful
This portion of the passage, for both the OSAS follower and those of the other persuasion, may be used to justify thier position in the following way
An OSAS follower might argue…
If you are truly saved years back, but have slipped on slid away somewhat, God remains faithful. He cannot deny Himself and will keep the promise of takiing you home based on your initial faith.
Those other believers might argue…
This phrase is a description of the faithfulness of the Master to His own nature. If the servant abandons the Master, the Master will not change His nature to allow a denier to be in fellowship with Him.
No matter the perspective you take in looking at this final clause, it is comforting to know that He remains faithful, or true to His own nature.
Our faithlessness cannot affect His faithfulness. He is God and we are not. He is true to His own nature in the present, has been true to His own nature prior to creation, and will continue to be true to His own nature after the consummation of all things.
He is faithful.
How ’bout us?
Let us be faithful to the Only One who deserves our trust.
Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother recently commented on an earlier post regarding this very passage, and I thought it would be wise to look into it. It is one of the passages that made me consider conditional security many many years ago.
Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.
A brother recently commented on an earlier post regarding this very passage, and I thought it would be wise to look into it. It is one of the passages that made me consider conditional security many many years ago.
Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

A brother recently commented on an earlier post regarding this very passage, and I thought it would be wise to look into it. It is one of the passages that made me consider conditional security many many years ago.
Romans 6:3-5
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
2 Timothy 2:11 seems straightforward, but as I dwell on this phrase, I’m reminded that I have considered our death in the Messiah to be an academic truth. Something that I “believe” but not understand how to practice in my daily life. I have not considered it to be a truth that is “practical”.
I am not so sure about this way of thinking!
Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

It’s been a while since I have blogged on the topic of “Conditional Security”. Probably too long.
I admit, I struggle with the topic, and yearn for the days when I was convinced of the “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS) belief.
But I have considered what “those other believers” teach (as if there is such a group as “those other believers”!), and have found their argument to have some strength.
How do you handle other opinions and teachings within the church? Are they a threat? Do you automatically consider the source heretical?
Generally, when a believer teaches something your denomination avoids or condemns, do you assume your group is right, or do you test the teaching by studying the Word? Simply refusing it since you may not have been taught it seems shortsighted, and kinda arrogant.
I fell into that religious swamp for far too many years, and I thank God that He gave me the willingness to consider opposing teachings. I was in a religious ghetto, an echo chamber that was creating a spirit of deadness in me.
Don’t live in da ghetto brudder!
Consider some opposing view that good Christian men and women believe. Be challenged by it and do not avoid it. Search the Scripture to see if it be so.
Okay, enough of my rant. Back to conditional security.
This particular set of verses may seem to argue against conditional security, and if that be, that be good. We all need to be corrected by the Word, to be humble enough to admit that our knowledge base is tiny, somewhat full of hot air, and shot through with bias’s and wrong motivations.
If the Bible teaches something that we are to rely on, it needs to be clearly taught and without contradictions. The rest is potential fodder for destructive argument and distractive red herrings. But I digress (again).
Let’s consider the passage.
Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

Exodus 23:20-22
20 “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him22 “But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.
As I was reading Exodus this morning I came across the verse above and it stopped me in my reading for a couple of reasons. God will be an enemy?
Many times I have heard or thought to myself of how the Lord is on the side of a certain people group. Take for instance in the Old Testament. It was commonly thought (correctly at times) that the people of Israel had God on their side. I suppose that is how it appears, (I hope I am not splitting hairs here) but it seems that is not exactly what is going on here.
The initial condition that has to be met is that the people “obey his voice”, “indeed obey his voice” and “do all that I speak”.
THEN
Then God will be an enemy to thine enemies, an adversary to thine adversaries. Note that obedience to the voice of the Lord brings the people into the will and desire of the LORD Himself. The “enemy” here does not gain an adversary in God if the people obey Him. God’s enemy does not change unless of course they change into His friends. (The enemy of God is such, not because of God’s desire, but the enemies desire – God wants no enemies) The people simply join God in having the same enemy. Is our motivation in obeying God simply to earn a big brother to beat up an enemy who may have hurt our feelings or made us cry?
What is tarnation is going on with verse 21? “he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him” I don’t know about you but whenever I hear “my name is in him” I automatically think of a theophany. Also the fact that the one referred to is “an angel”, I want to think it is a preincarnate appearance of the Lord Himself, especially when the angel’s prerogative to forgive sins comes up. Usually the Old Testament mentions “the Angel of the Lord” as what is commonly accepted as a theophany – I don’t know. If it is the Lord Himself or a representative (angel), the message is the same.
I fear that sometimes modern nations fall into a wrong-headed thinking. They give lip service to God and call on Him to fight for their nation. This gives me pause. Why would God do this when His Nation (the body of Christ), is a holy nation of saints that is pulled from each nation on earth.
I suppose judgement must fall on nations who do evil, (and maybe that is the idea of verse 21?), but to think that God is pleased when innocents die in war, or enlisted men are killed simply due to an imaginary line in the sand, this is beyond my understanding. I admit my past desire to see justice after 9/11, but looking back on those days, I feel my concept of God’s will for this planet was incorrect.
If someone can explain verse 21 to me, I sho nuff would appreciate it. How could it be said that he (God or God’s messenger) would not pardon their transgressions, when many times the Old Testament clearly states that the Lord Himself is plenteous in mercy
Psalm 86:5
For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving,
abounding in steadfast love to all who call upon you.
Ps 86:15
But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.
Psalm 103:8
The LORD is merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
Like I said, this is difficult for me to understand.
But that is ok – as a matter of fact, that is great! If I understood everything, if the mystery completely evaporated, how poor we would be as Christians?
So, if I may be so bold to exhort you, revel in the mysteries, do not be satisfied with some pablum that another man spoon feeds you. Ask the Word questions, converse with the Living One and struggle with the text.
So what is the conclusion?
He is the LORD!
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.
Years ago, when I was merely beginning to consider verses that may hint at the possibility of a chance that conditional security could have a tiny opportunity of gaining credibility in my understanding, this particular verse may have been the culprit that started my “descent into heresy”.
The circumstances, combined with my studying this verse in Colossians, seemed to be completely unrelated. It came about because I was meeting with a bunch of word of faith “believers”. I had been visiting with them, trying to understand their thinking, (instead of just taking someones word on their thinking.)
Anyhow, they were looking at the temptation of the Lord, and specifically the “if” statements the devil was throwing out at Him. I can’t recall the specific clause they landed on, but their conclusion followed the Arian heresy*. Two minutes after I asked some pertinent questions, and understood their settled stand on this matter, I spoke of my conviction, thanked them for their hospitality and quietly excused myself from thier home.
But the talk haunted me and set me on a bit of a study on the word “IF”. (Carl – you need to git a life!)
Anyway, I found a table (see end of post) that seemed helpful in explaining the different conditions in the Greek manuscripts that the English word “IF” was trying to communicate to us.
Colossians 1:23 uses the first class condition. But I am getting way ahead of myself.
Lets consider the passage first.
Colossians 1:21-23
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Boy, that would be devastating for the conditional position.
But wait! Lets try that same translation for other instances where the first class conditional “IF” is used in the New Testament.
How bout this one.
Matthew 5:29
Since your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell
This verse actually instructs believers to pluck their eye out, since their eye offends them!
OK – Lets try this verse
Ephesians 4:21
assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus,
Ephesians 4:21 seems to allow using “assuming” instead of “if”, but this seeming exception should not make the rule. Paul may be questioning these believers if they really heard “Him” to make a point.
OK Carl, how can you say it is the exception to the rule. Check out these verses to consider if translating this word as “since” makes sense.
Matthew 12:27
Since I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
Matthew 17:4
And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. Since you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
Luke 11:18
SINCE Satan is also divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?
Luke 22:42
Father, SINCE you are willing, remove this cup from me . . .
John 10:37
SINCE I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me . . .
Acts 25:11
Now SINCE I am wrong and have committed a deed worthy of death, I am not refusing to die . . .
Romans 4:2
For SINCE Abraham was justified by works, he has a basis for boasting . . .
Romans 4:14
For SINCE those who follow the law are heirs, faith is canceled out and the promise is voided
1 Corinthians 7:9
But SINCE they are not exercising self-control, they should get married.
1 Corinthians 8:13
SINCE food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat . . .
1 Corinthians 9:17
For SINCE I do this willingly, I have a reward; but since I do it unwillingly, I have been entrusted with a stewardship
1 Corinthians 11:6
For SINCE a woman will not veil herself, she should cut off her hair . . .
1 Corinthians 15:13
Now SINCE there is no resurrection from the dead, neither has Christ been raised
1 Corinthians 15:19
SINCE in this life we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most miserable
1 Corinthians 15:32
SINCE the dead are not raised, “let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.”
Galations 2:21
For SINCE justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Galations 3:18
For SINCE the inheritance is from the law, it is no longer from the promise.
Galations 5:11
Now brothers, SINCE I am still preaching circumcision, why am still being persecuted?
Hebrews 9:13
For SINCE the blood of goats and bulls . . . sanctifies those who have been defiled
Hebrews 12:8
SINCE you are without the discipline which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not sons
James 2:11
Now SINCE you do not commit adultery, but SINCE you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
OK – I think I made my point. A simple reading of the passage communicates the conditionality intended by the author. So it seems Paul is informing the Colossians of their conditional status before their Master.
As an aside, a few months after my study on this passage was complete, I was attending a newly formed Bible study and coincidentally looking at the first chapter of Colossians. The spirit of the meeting was very cordial and I sensed an openness to ask questions. Since I had just learned of this passage, I thought I would bring it up.
NO DISCUSSION ALLOWED.
The leader actually stood up from his chair, and approached me in front of the rest of the group. “The preacher said those verses should be read differently.” Therefore that was all the discussion that was needed. I am sure he was seeking to maintain the purity of the faith, protect the weak, or enforce his leadership, but that night sticks with me.
A couple of practical applications come to my mind from this experience
If I feel threatened by a believer’s differing views, ask yourself…
Are you depending/trusting in a man’s interpretation of a verse, passage or theology? Professional Christians may have oodles of learning, but NOTHING replaces self study and prayer in seeking to understand the Word.
Have I “finished” searching out the Scriptures? They – the Scriptures – tend to speak of Him, and with that hope, the Word is worthy of trying to understand.
Do I discuss opposing views with respect and an honest effort to understand the position? The Word of Faith folks, in my opinion, were wringing the Scriptures of truth, but any mockery, dismissal, anger or intimidation would accomplish absolutely nothing positive. Trust me – I have personal experience of this!
Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com
Let me supply a listing of conditional security passages I am attempting to study as I blog. Note that this post is simply a list of Bible passages teaching of the conditional security of the believer (I think).
When I first considered all the potential verses (potential, since I haven’t come to any settled conclusions on many of them!), I was a bit dumbfounded. I thought a couple passages in Hebrews would be the extent of my study.

Of course, as you review and consider some of these passages, you may want to add, or question one of the passages. Let me know via the contact form at the bottom.
Now, without further ado, I present to you a working list of New Testament conditional security passages. As I study each passage I will link the post to the verse references below.
Hopefully I can keep it updated!
Topical
Old Testament
Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Luke
Gospel of John
Acts of the Apostles
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galations
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

SECURITY: the quality or state of being secure: freedom from danger, fear or anxiety
I have been a believer for over 35 years, having been saved at the ripe ol’ age of 21. One of the first teachings I received was the eternal security, “once saved always saved” (OSAS) doctrine. This doctrine teaches that once a person has placed faith in Christ (asked Jesus into his/her heart?), that person is eternally and irrevocably destined to heaven. It was, in my thinking, a contract I signed with God, a business transaction. Please understand, I am in no way reducing the covenantal promise He has provided to all who will trust in Him, but I suppose I question the duration of trust required.
Although I was never explicitly taught that sin could not break the contract I “signed” with God through faith, there was no fear to indulge in some peripheral sin. I was secure – I was going to be just fine! For close to 25 years I belonged to an eternal security denomination. I would only read eternal security books, eternal security pamphlets, and listen to teachers who taught eternal security. Every few sermons seemed to emphasize the eternal security of the believer, sometimes even using certain Scriptures to support the teaching. I vowed to never entertain that heresy of the “dark side”.
I just couldn’t risk the conflict in my mind.
I thought the OSAS logic was air tight. Certain Scriptures seemed to only teach the eternal security position. I would simply avoid the odd “bothersome” passages, (which began to pile up after a while), or find some way to explain the passage away.
It was a very comfortable place to be.
Then the church I was (heavily) involved in found sin in us and told us to leave. We were shocked and disoriented.
Just a few days previously, I had lost my job. We were living in a small Texas town with no possibility for work.
The security we found in our local church and our cushy job fell down around us.
I eventually found a position approx. 3 hours away. During my 3 hour commutes Monday morning and Friday afternoon, I began to listen to a Bible teacher who held different views than I. Initially I was drawn to this teacher’s eschatology, since my faith in dispensational teachings was slipping. He is a methodical and thorough Bible teacher who is not afraid to consider alternate viable interpretations of the Scriptural text.
I found him to be very challenging. Only one weakness – he had a “dark” side – he didn’t teach OSAS!
As I listened to his teaching on Israel, the church and the end times, I would occasionally catch a reference to his “dark” side teaching and at first easily rebuffed his argument in my mind. That is until the passages became too numerous. It seemed that all I was doing was excusing, avoiding or rearranging Bible passages.
I started to study the passages and other authors from the dark side, until I found a book by Robert Shank, called “Life in the Son”. If you desire to continue in the OSAS camp, do not read this book. The exposition of numerous passages became too much for me.
So far, I think true security is found in a consistent, direct relationship with the Savior. A desire to please Him and to do as He directs.
Although I have learned much since I began to consider conditional security, two thoughts come to mind.
No matter which camp you may fall into, we need to be motivated to please Him in all our ways.
As I publish on this blog, I will occasionally write on this topic, based on a Bible passage or topic. I look forward to all comments and remarks.
I hope you will join me in “Considering the Bible”
2 Timothy 2:19
But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you know someone this blog may bless (or challenge), send them a link, so they may join us in our discussion
Come join us at Considering the Bible