Original source the Bible mentions the phrase ‘the book of life’ about fourteen times, and quite a few of those passages mention getting blotted out of the book of life. How does this NOT mean losing your salvation?” What would you say Pastor John?
When it comes to the doctrine of eternal security or perseverance of the saints, we need to speak with precision. And I think it is not quite precise to say, as Charles does, in quite a few of the Scriptures it mentions you can be blotted out of the book of life. I don’t think it ever says you can be blotted out, at least not in the sense that sometimes God does it. It says we will be blotted out if we fail to meet certain conditions. Now whether that ever happens or in God’s sovereignty can happen is another question. I don’t think so and let me try to show why.
The book of Revelation is the book that refers to this most often and it is the book that has the text that sounds most problematical, I think. Revelation 3:5 says, “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Now some say: Well, that is a foolproof text against the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or eternal security. They assume that when Revelation 3:5 says that God will not erase a person’s name from the book of life, it implies that he does erase some people from the book of life, and that these people would once be born again, justified, saved, and, nevertheless, in the end condemned, lost, and perish. In other words, they lose their salvation on that reading of the verse.
But is that a true assumption?
The promise: “I will not erase his name from the book of life” does not necessarily imply that some do have their names erased. It simply says, to the one who is in the book, and who conquers in faith: I will never wipe your name out. In other words, being erased is a fearful prospect, which I will not allow to happen to those who persevere. In fact, there are two other passages in Revelation that teach that to have your name in the book of life means that you will most definitely persevere and conquer and thus meet the condition not to be blotted out.
Revelation 13:8 says: “And all who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” Now that verse teaches that those whose names are written in the book of life definitely will not worship the beast. That is what it says. In other words, having your name in the book of life from the foundation of the world means God will keep you from folly. He will cause you to persevere in allegiance to God. Being in the book means you will not apostatize. You won’t forsake the faith.
Revelation 17:8 says: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.” Now that means having your name in the book of life means you will be kept from marveling at the beast. Those whose names are not written in the book will marvel at the beast, and those whose names are in the book will not marvel. It is infallible as far as the way this author is arguing. To have your name in the book means you won’t marvel, you won’t worship.
So the point is that having one’s name written in the book is effective. It keeps you from making shipwreck of your faith. John does not say: If you worship the beast, your name is erased. He says: If your name is in the book, you will not worship the beast. Now back to Revelation 3:5: “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life.”
Does that mean God erases some people?
No.
The conquering that keeps you from being erased is guaranteed by being in the book. That is the point of Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. Being in the book keeps you from doing what would get you erased from the book if you did it.
Let me say that again. Being in the book, having your name in the book, keeps you from doing — like worshiping the beast — keeps you from doing what would get you erased from the book if you did it. And that is not a contradiction any more than the way Paul is a contradiction when he says: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12–13).
It is not nonsense to state the condition: if you conquer, God will not erase your name, and then to state the assurance, if your name is in the book, you will conquer. That is not a contradiction. God’s written down ones really must conquer, really will conquer. They must and they will. One side highlights responsibility, you must. And one side highlights God’s sovereignty, you will.
So the message for us is this: Never, never, never be cavalier or trifling about your perseverance. God uses real warnings to keep us vigilant and to keep us persevering. We are safe. But we are not careless. That is the point. Press on to make salvation your own, as Paul says, because Christ has made you his own (Philippians 3:12).
Rev 3:5 promises eternal life to those who overcome/conquer – thus it is a conditional promise, not an unconditional one. Those who are able to overcome/conquer are believers who are led by the Spirit and follow the Spirit. Are all believers whose names are in the book of life, automatically conquerors? Notice that there is a comparison being made between those few in Sardis who were found to be worthy because they have not soiled their garments and they walk with the Lord in white (v.4). V.5 is an obvious reference to those described in v.4 as they are wearing white garments. Thus v.5 refers to those who have overcome not as a result of being in the book of life; rather this verse specifically states that they have overcome because they have not soiled their garments and are thus worthy to walk in white.
Verses 4 & 5 stand in contrast to verses 2 & 3 which describe those believers in Sardis who need to repent. They are found to be incomplete in deeds (v.2) and admonished to remember what they have received and heard, keep it and repent. Evidently, these believers are not the overcoming ones as they still need to repent of some things. Jesus is addressing believers here as they are being reminded to remember what they have “received” and “heard.” They are commanded to “keep it” and repent. One cannot keep what one does not already possess so it is clear that Jesus is addressing the saved, not the unsaved person. Being saved, their names are written in the book of life but unlike the other group they have not yet overcome. Since they have not overcome, they are not worthy so their names are in danger of being erased. That is why Jesus warns them to “wake up” (v.2) lest He come like a thief and find them not ready (v.3). If these believers were automatically assured of eternal life just because their names were written in the book of life, Jesus’ warning would be nonsensical.
Stuart, a key component to aid our understanding is that the Bible makes it clear that true believers WILL persevere in faith. Those who do not do so were never truly His. 1 John 2:19 makes this very clear. Inherent in the very DNA of the faith that saves is endurance and perseverance. The Scripture defines the overcomer this way: Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? – 1 John 5:5.
Yes John, on one hand you are correct in that the Bible does indeed refer to those who did not persevere and were never truly His to begin with. However, while “some” were never genuinely saved to begin with, it does not logically entail that “all” were never saved. That would be known as a fallacy of over-generalization as the part does not necessarily characterize the whole. For instance, the Bible also refers to those who apostatize from the faith. By its very definition apostasy refers to someone who possesses saving faith but later falls away or departs from it. Only believers can be said to depart from the faith as nonbelievers or even “pretenders” cannot depart from something that they were never a part of.
Also note that in the verse you cite – the Greek words nikon and pisteuon are present tense verbs so 1 Jn 5:5 should read: “Now who is the one overcoming the world, except the one believing that Jesus is the Son of God?” In other words, one must continue or go on overcoming and continue or go on believing. John’s employment of present tense verbs in this verse refers to a process; not an established fact or certainty of outcome. That is why Paul warns the brethren in Rome: “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom 8:13).
Stuart,
You write “the Bible also refers to those who apostatize from the faith. By its very definition apostasy refers to someone who possesses saving faith but later falls away or departs from it. Only believers can be said to depart from the faith as nonbelievers or even “pretenders” cannot depart from something that they were never a part of.” Actually, that is not true. Apostasy does not mean that someone was a true Christian and lost their faith – merely that the faith once professed is no longer being professed. A profession of faith does not mean the possession of true faith. 1 John 2:19 is extremely clear that one who is no longer with us (but once was a professor of faith) never was truly of us (was never a true believer).
John,
A mere profession of faith can amount to no faith at all as James wrote even the demons believe. However, apostasy can only apply to true believers. In order for your argument to hold water that would mean that every single individual without exception for the past 2000+ years who appeared to be a believer but later fell away was never a believer in the first place. I’m no statistician but the odds of that being the case must be staggering. That would also include pastors who led congregations for many years but later fell away for some reason = were never believers in the first place. Logically and practically speaking, that does not seem credible to me.
From a scriptural standpoint, I think Rom 8:13 argues against your position. This verse describes the potential death of born-again believers, referred to as the brethren in v. 12. If this death were not a real possibility, the warning would be nonsensical. We also know that this warning pertains to spiritual death – not physical death – because everyone dies physically irrespective of how we live our lives. Moreover, one must have spiritual life in order to be in danger of spiritual death. You cannot threaten a spiritually dead person with spiritual death. Such a person is already dead. Therefore, it must be concluded that these are regenerate brethren who are being warned of dying. Also note that this verse is conditional – not unconditional – as indicated by the word “if.” IF believers walk according to the flesh = they will die. IF believers walk according to the Spirit = they will live. Verse 13 cannot be said to apply to unbelievers because only believers have the choice (as indicated by the word “if”) whether to walk according to the Spirit or according to the flesh. Unregenerate persons have no such choice available to them a cs they can only walk according to the flesh. Thus, it stands to reason that Paul’s warning of spiritual death; i.e. eternal separation from God is directed to Christians who live in rebellion and knowingly engage in habitual sin. Such persons do not have assurance of eternal security.
Stuart, You write, “In order for your argument to hold water that would mean that every single individual without exception for the past 2000+ years who appeared to be a believer but later fell away was never a believer in the first place. I’m no statistician but the odds of that being the case must be staggering. That would also include pastors who led congregations for many years but later fell away for some reason = were never believers in the first place. Logically and practically speaking, that does not seem credible to me.” But isn’t this exactly what 1 John 2:19 states, and states clearly? John was writing about those who were in his apostolic ministry team and he is absolutely clear – THEY WERE NEVER OF US. If they were of us, they would have remained with us. But they went out to show they were never of us.
Hi John – I don’t know if you understand my reply as I actually agree with your interpretation of 1 Jn 2:19. I agree that this verse refers to those who were never of the faith to begin with; i.e. nonbelievers. However, this verse alone does not demonstrate that all of those who depart from the faith are unbelievers as you believe. Why is that? Because in order to form doctrine one must take into account all of the scriptures. If this verse and others like it in the Bible all stated that only unbelievers can fall away, then I would indeed agree with you. However, one must account and try to explain away those scriptures that directly contradict one’s position because we know that the scriptures do not contradict themselves. That is why I offered to you Rom 8:13 as this verse demonstrates that believers can fall away from the faith thorough the practice of sin in their lives and incur spiritual death. You would have to explain away this verse in order to hold to your position as Paul wrote his warning to the brethren, not unbelievers.
So yes, 1 Jn 2:19 references the unsaved but Rom 8:13 references the saved. The Bible addresses both groups – those who departed but were never saved to begin with but also those who were saved but are in danger of losing their salvation because they continue to live according to the flesh.
I hope that makes things clearer.
Stuart,
In my book “Twelve what abouts” I wrote, “Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. One amongst many sound principles of interpretation is that we should build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences. A necessary inference is something that is definitely taught by the text. The conclusion is unavoidable. It is necessary. A possible inference is something that could or might be true, but not something actually stated by the text. Some refer to this as the distinction between the implicit and the explicit. An implication may be drawn from the text of Scripture, but we then have to ask if the implicit interpretation is a NECESSARY ONE rather than a POSSIBLE one. We all have our theories, but a sound principle we should employ is to not believe or teach as doctrine something that is only a possible interpretation. We should build doctrine ONLY on necessary interpretation.”
The 1 John 2:19 verse teaches that those who leave the faith never were true believers. Not most of those – but all of those. That is a necessary interpretation of the text. The same principle can be drawn from Romans 8:30 (in the context of the very passage you cite) where it says “these whom He justified He glorified.” No one falls through the cracks in this golden chain of redemption (v. 29, 30). The ones who are justified will be glorified. Though glorification is a future event in time, the Apostle Paul is so sure that this will be the case for the justified that he writes of glorification in the past tense. Though still future, it is as good as done!
Regarding the Romans 8 verse you mention, I submit to you that the interpretation you give (that it teaches loss of salvation) is by NO MEANS necessary. The death spoken about there IN NO WAY HAS to be interpreted as the loss of salvation. There are many other possible interpretations. For example, NONE of the commentaries I have looked at interpret it that way. Now you might say that all these commentaries are wrong, but my point is that it is no way the case that the death spoken of there has to refer to what you say it does. I submit to you that you are building your doctrine/thinking on possible inferences rather than necessary ones.
John,
Thank you for your cordial reply. Commentaries can be helpful but like everything written by the hand of men, they are subject to error as we both know that man is a fallible being. The golden rule of hermeneutics is that when the plain sense of the scriptures make sense; seek no other sense unless other scriptures clearly indicate otherwise. As I wrote earlier, if death in v.13 refers to physical death then the passage would make no sense at all since everyone dies physically – irrespective of the sin in our lives. Moreover, only believers have the choice “if” they should choose to live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit. Unbelievers have no choice other then to live according to the flesh as it is impossible for them to put to death the deeds of the body since they have not been regenerated. Therefore I submit that spiritual death is the plain meaning of this verse. Moreover, if it can be demonstrated that Rom 8:30 does not mean what you think it means then spiritual death and loss of salvation would have to be the “necessary” interpretation of Rom 8:13.
Rom 8:30 is the golden chain of redemption if and only if it can be demonstrated that each of its links cannot be broken in this seemingly unbreakable chain of events. According to your belief, a believer cannot fall away because these links are unbreakable. However, if one link fails to hold true, then our future glorification is not “as good as done.” In v.30 Paul refers to those who are “called” (Grk.”kaleo”) as those who are predestined, justified and glorified. Paul also uses the same word in Gal 1:6 to refer to the believers in Galatia who were “called” but were deserting Christ. By Paul’s own account, these called ones were turning away to follow another gospel. Given Paul’s own testimony, I submit that being “called” of God is a link in the chain that does not necessarily translate into being glorified as a called one can still fall away or desert Christ as Paul depicted for us in Galatia. Thus I submit that my interpretation of Rom 8:13 has to be the necessary meaning of this verse.
Stuart,
I would have to say that I completely disagree. Your interpretation of the “death” in Romans 8 contradicts all Paul is seeking to communicate in the chapter, from the “no condemnation” of the first verse, to the “no separation” of the last one. Martyn Lloyd-Jones explains the no condemnation clause of verse 1:
“There are many who misunderstand this. They seem to think of the Christian as a man who, if he confesses his sin and asks for forgiveness, is forgiven. At that moment he is not under condemnation. But then if he should sin again he is back once more under condemnation. Then he repents and confesses his sin again, and asks for pardon, and he is cleansed once more. So to them the Christian is a man who is constantly passing from one state to the other; back and forth; condemned, not condemned. Now that, according to the Apostle, is a wholly mistaken notion, and a complete failure to understand the position. The Christian is a man who can never be condemned; he can never come into a state of condemnation again. ‘No condemnation!’ The Apostle is not talking about his experience, but about his position, his standing, his status; he is in a position in which, being justified, he can never again come under condemnation. That is the meaning of this word ‘no’. It means ‘Never’.”
In this passage as it continues, Paul writes of two forms of human existence, two categories, in one of which all men find a place. John Stott explains: “If we are in the flesh we set our mind on the things of the flesh, we walk according to the flesh, and so die. But if we are in the Spirit we set our mind on the things of the Spirit, we walk according to the Spirit, and so live. What we are governs how we think; how we think governs how we behave; and how we behave governs our relation to God — death or life”.
The purpose of these verses is not to say that believers are partly dominated by the flesh and partly by the Spirit. Rather, those who are “of the flesh” and “in the flesh” are UNBELIEVERS who will die while those who are “of the Spirit” and “in the Spirit” are believers who will live.
The links in the golden chain are forged by God and all the foreknown are predestined, called, justified and glorified. To suggest (as your view implies) that only some of the called are justified and glorified is a misreading of both the text and its context.
The calling of Romans 8 is a powerful one because all the called are justified. It is a call that theologians refer to as “the effectual call” – a call that always results in justification.
Your reference to the Galatian church also fails to take account of the fact that the called there (the Christians) does not necessarily refer to the Judaizers (who were attending the Christian assembly at the time).
What is serious about your position is that it makes Jesus a part Savior of man. He does a lot, even a whole lot, but by Himself, He cannot save a soul. Man’s actions are the key. Grace can do a lot, but not everything. Counter to Ephesians 2:8,9, works (the actions of man) play a significant and therefore the decisive role. Your position makes justification merely a state of probation.