Skip to main content

Can we Lose our Salvation?

We are often told that salvation is past present and future. We have been saved (made righteous at the cross), we are being saved (our ongoing sanctification), we will be saved (to future glory). Likewise the kingdom of God is now and not yet. Now this is probably true across the whole of Scripture, but in any given book there tends to be an emphasis using one or the other for whatever idea you're looking at. Take salvation, for example. In the book of Hebrews salvation is a future event. The term is not used about our past or present state or life with God. Therefore to ask the question, 'Can we lose our salvation?' in the context of Hebrews 10:19-39 is to ask a poor question, as salvation is only future in Hebrews, therefore you can lose your salvation as you haven't had it yet! In Scripture as a whole, however, it seems the opposite is true. i.e. if you define salvation as the act of us being made righteous through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, then the answer is 'no'! It all depends on perspective. The perspective of the author of a given book of the Bible. Our perspective. God's perspective. Without talking about the point of view from which we are asking the question makes that question too vague, and therefore impossible to answer.

In other words, different biblical authors use the same words to mean different things in their books. That's because words don't have fixed meanings, rather authors use words to mean what they want them to mean (within a certain semantic range). The word 'salvation' is a rather broad, and fairly hard to define term. Do we mean salvation from our enemies (Psalms)? Salvation from sin and death? Salvation from the suffering we presently experience? What are we being saved from, and when?

Some theologians in the past were guilty of borrowing the meaning of a word from one book of the Bible and importing it into another. James Barr in his book The Semantics of Biblical Language called this illegitimate totality transfer. He said it would be crazy to think that Paul uses the term logos to mean the same as John. For Paul, logos simply means 'word'. For John, logos is a principle, a living being, the one who is the source of all life. John's use of logos is much richer and broader than Paul's (apologies to those who worship Paul as the best writer in the New Testament 😄).

So, we need to be careful how we frame our questions. Can we lose our salvation? Yes, if you haven't had it yet. Read Hebrews to find out why!

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asking the Right Questions in Bible Translation and Scripture Engagement Planning

If you want to get useful answers you have to ask the right questions. Do you agree? Yes, of course you do. In the Bible translation world we often ask a very narrow question when planning for the next stage of work: 'What would you like to see translated next?' Now, if you simply want to translate, and that's it, that question is fine, but what if you want to see some kind of result from your translation work? What if, for instance, you want to see transformation occur? Then a more powerful question to ask the community and positive stakeholders in the project would be: 'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?' These kingdom goals should meet felt needs of the community - they should solve problems that are apparent to most or all in the community. See below on how those can be met. If that's too abstract, then try, 'What kinds of things, in your extended family, do you tend to worry about?' This will help establish some felt needs, from which...
7 comments
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more