Security of the Believer

A lot of people think that once you have made a profession of faith, that you can never fall from grace. Still others seem to think that the 'old man' waits around every corner. Let's spend a little time examining these two philosophies.

One passage that is commonly referred to in support of the idea that God will never allow one to fall from grace is Romans 8:35-39. This is an impressive list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God: tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, nor any other creature... Let's contrast this list, though, with a statement that God made in Isaiah 59:2: "...your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you..." The difference is that in Romans Paul lists things that could happen to us, while in Isaiah, it talks about things that we have done. Now, I realize that some would say that the bigger difference is that we are under a new covenant, God doesn't deal with us the way He dealt with Israel in Isaiah's time. That's true, but it's also true that God doesn't change.

Let's consider some other scriptures: Paul said, in Hebrews Chapter 6, that if one falls away, there is no way to renew them again unto repentance. Now, some have said that the word 'if' there denotes a hypothetical situation; it could never really happen. Seems like Paul spent an awful lot of time preaching about something that could never really happen, if that's the case. Wouldn't he have been more concerned about teaching us what we need to know? In Romans 3:3, Paul asks the question, "...what if some did not believe?" Does the word 'if' denote a hypothetical situation there, too; is it impossible for some people to not believe the gospel message? In Romans 4:24, Paul uses that word again, saying "...if we believe on him..." so, apparently we can't believe, either. In Hebrews 10:26, Paul uses that word again, but this time in very much the same meaning as in Hebrews 6. Was this a waste of ink?

Apostle Peter tells us in 2 Peter 2 that it is better to have never known 'the way of righteousness' than to know it and then turn from it. That would be pretty meaningless if one couldn't fall from grace, wouldn't it? He is clearly referring to the parable that Jesus taught in Luke chapter 11. So, did Peter misunderstand Jesus? I don't think so. Let's look at what else Jesus had to say:

In Luke 8, in explanation of the parable of the sower, Jesus compares different types of people to different types of ground, and he says the the rock represents people that, in time of temptation, fall away. In Matthew 24:13, and Mark 13:13, Jesus said that one must endure to the end to be saved. That doesn't sound like something someone would say if they believed it was impossible to fall away. In Matthew 25, Jesus taught a parable about ten women that had kept themselves pure, and yet, when the bridegroom came, five of them needed oil, because their lamps had gone out. It doesn't say that their lamps were never lit, it says that their lamps had gone out. If He wasn't talking about falling from grace, then what do you suppose that was about? I know already that there will be some people that read this and say, but those were just parables, it's not like those things actually happened. Keep in mind that Jesus told those stories to help us to understand how God's judgment works. He got to choose the details in order to make His point. Don't sell parables short.