Can a Believer Ever Fall from the (Salvific) Love of God?

In a recent article, we again witness Michael’s Flournoy’s descent into spiritual madness and blasphemy:

I want you to know that nothing can separate you from the love of God, not even your own sins.  As a new believer, I sometimes questioned my salvation after sinning.  I would think: well salvation is supposed to produce good fruit and yet here I am sinning again, I guess I’m not a real believer after all.  If these thoughts enter your mind, show them the door.  The God who died for us isn’t about to let us go that easily.  We can pull a Jonah and flee from God, but he will leave the 99 to find His wayward sheep.  In other words, you can run but you can’t hide.

Sin has no more power over you because are no longer under the law, but grace (Romans 6:14).  And Jesus’ grace is more than enough to guarantee our safe arrival into the Kingdom of Heaven.  I want you to know that God loves you.  He is always with you, even in the darkest valleys of life, and He will wipe away your every tear when you enter His holy presence. It will be worth it all someday. (source)

It is, of course, a blasphemous lie that no matter the sin, even heinous ones, (1) we will always be eternally secure and (2) not even we can cut ourselves off from the love of God.

On #1, one has already addressed all the common texts for and against such a blasphemy that is common in many Protestant theologies, including:

James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology (King David, one of the two examples of justification used by Paul in Romans 4, alone refutes Flournoy's nonsense)

Hebrews 6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?

 Does John 10:28-29 teach Eternal Security [cf. Does John 6:39 teach Eternal Security?])

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 vs. Eternal Security

On #2, such is based on a misreading of Rom 8:33-39:

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. (NIV)

What is often overlooked by many Protestants, and obviously Flournoy is not immune to this common eisegesis, is that Paul is only arguing that nothing external to us can force us out of the salvific relationship we have with God; notice that he does not teach that the individual cannot choose to take himself out of the salvation plan of God nor does he list heinous sins (e.g., adultery; murder) from the list in Rom 8:33-39—the reason is simple: in his letters he clearly teaches that such sins will sever a believer from salvation (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5). Even Paul himself believed that he could fall in 1 Cor 9:27:

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV)

The term translated as “disqualified” is αδοκιμος and means “reprobate.” As one Lutheran scholar wrote about this term and the context it is used in:

This term implies that a test is made, and that whatever stands the test is accepted as δόκιμος, whatever fails to stand the test is rejected as ἀδόκιμος and is thrown out, cast away. The two adjectives and the cognate verb and the noun are frequently used with reference to ancient coins which were always weighed and otherwise carefully tested; the genuine and the full-weight coins were accepted as “proven,” the others were rejected as “disproven.” C.-K. 357.

What a calamity when a professing Christian finds himself “rejected” in the end! How much worse when one of the Lord’s own heralds has this experience! Paul regards his work and even the way in which he does his work with extreme seriousness. The fact that he is an apostle is not yet proof to him that he will be saved. He knows the test that he must face. He applies that test to himself in this chapter and so attains both the subjective and the objective certainty that he will indeed not be a castaway. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Minneapolis:: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963], 388)

Another relevant text from Paul himself is Gal 5:4. In his translation of Gal 5:4, Craig Keener rendered the verse thusly:

You who seek to be righted by the law have been cut off from Christ; you’ve fallen away from God’s abundant generosity.

Some have tried to downplay this text by arguing that Paul is addressing unregenerate people in the Galatian congregation, not truly justified believers, so it is not a valid proof-text to use against various formulations of eternal security, such as the Perseverance of the Saints (the “P” of Calvinism’s TULIP). Notwithstanding, as Keener notes, Paul is actually teaching true believers can lose their salvation:

Cut off (καταργεω, katargeō) is the language of annulling something (as in 3:17) or rendering it ineffective (as in 5:11). It follows naturally from the idea of Christ no longer being of benefit to them (5:2) . . . it would seem special pleading to take Paul’s warnings of apostasy as something less than a real possibility. Paul elsewhere warns gentile believers that if they fall from faith, they too will be cut off as were Jewish people who failed to believe (Rom. 11:22; c. 8:13). Paul disciplines himself in order to avoid being disqualified (αδοκιμος, adokimos, 1 Cor. 9:27), going on to warn the Corinthians that despite their spiritual resources, they could be struck down as were many Israelites in the wilderness (10:1-11); they must stand and avoid falling (10:12). They must examine themselves to make sure that they remain in the faith and are not disqualified (αδοκιμος, 2 Cor. 13:5-6). Had persecution moved the Thessalonians to abandon faith in Christ, Paul’s labor among them would have been in vain (1 Thess. 3:5). Colossian believers would be presented blameless before God, provided they continued in the faith (Col. 1:23). Paul’s concern was their ultimate salvation; he does not address the question of some individuals falling away, yet later returning, since the conditions that facilitated their falling to begin with usually precluded their interest in returning. Gentile sources do reveal that many who had become Christians reconverted back to paganism afterward.

Already in Scripture, if the righteous turn to the way of sin, their righteousness will be forgotten (Ezek. 18:24, 27; 33:12-13, 18), but if the wicked turn to righteousness, they will live (33:14-16, 19). Jewish people lamented apostasy (1 Macc. 1:41-51), with some Jewish sects believing that even members of other Jewish sects had abandoned righteousness (e.g., 1QpHab 8.9). Some expected apostasy as one of the tragic signs of the end time (e.g., 1 En. 9:17; T. Iss. 6:1; T. Naph. 4:1; 3 En. 48A:5-6; m. Soṭah 9:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; cf. 4 Ezra 5:1-2; 14:16-18) as under previous persecutions. Early Judaism divided regarding whether apostates would be forgiven if they repented. Paul probably also envisioned the prophesied end-time apostasy (Mark 13:12-13; Matt. 24:12) as already occurring in his day (cf. 2 Thess. 2:3). Subsequent centuries of Christian thought also required perseverance in the faith.

Corinthians’ sexual sin contradicted Christian faith (1 Cor. 6:9-20), but Galatians were in danger of abandoning faith in Christ no less by adding to (and thus subtracting from) the faith. Like baptism, circumcision functioned as a demarcation, a rite of passage into a given community (in this case, of ethnicity; in the case of Christian baptism, of faith). By going under the law as if their baptism was inadequate, they would essentially deny the efficacy of their baptism. Paul certainly did not teach the popular doctrine today of “once saved, always saved”; a convert does not regularly move in and out of the saved community, but a convert who deconverts is again a nonbeliever. (Craig S. Kenner, Galatians: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019], 453, 454-56)

Commenting on this text, Don Garlington, a New Testament scholar and leading advocate for the New Perspective on Paul, wrote the following which supports this thesis that this passage refutes eternal security:

Paul is worried not about circumcision as an isolated act or as a thing in itself, but rather what it will lead to: the endeavor to be justified “in the law.” The most emphatic element of the verse is placed forward into the clause: “You have been severed from Christ” (NASB). The verb translated “severed” (katargeō) frequently means to make ineffective or nullify (BDAG, 525). In the present case, it signifies the dissolution of a relationship, namely the Galatians’ former (covenant) relationship to Christ. But commentators point out that the verb can mean “cut off.” If this usage was in Paul’s mind at all, then there would be a deliberate play on circumcision: those who “cut” the flesh are “cut off” from Christ. A formal commitment to the Torah through circumcision is equivalent to ending the relationship with the Christ of Paul’s gospel . . . If those who want to be justified in the law have severed their relationship with Christ, they have, but the nature of the case, “fallen away from grace.” The verb “fall away” (ekpiptō) is used of a withering flower falling from its stem to the ground (Jas 1:11; 1 Pet 1:24) or of a ship failing to hold its course (Acts 27:26, 29). “God’s grace in Christ . . . is like the stem which supports the flower and through which the life-sustaining sustenance flows. Or like the channel which leads to safety between the rocks of disaster, a course from which they were in danger of being driven, by dangerous currents and cross winds” (Dunn, Galatians, 268-69). (Don Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 299-300)

Obviously the apostle Paul did not share Flournoy's (heretical) understanding of the security of the believer.

By having rejected “Mormonism” and embracing a flavour of Protestantism, Flournoy has placed himself in the unenviable position of having embraced an anti-biblical theology, one that falls under the anathema of Gal 1;6-9. He is to be truly pitied and prayed for before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).

For previous posts responding to Flournoy's antics, see:

Responses to Michael Flournoy

Baptism and those who will Inherit the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms in LDS Theology

Addressing whether those who will inherit the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms require water baptism (whether in this life or via proxy), Owen K. Peterson, challenging the popular (but seemingly, errant) view of many, argues “yes”:

The current orthodox view among the brethren and other gospel writers is that baptism is for entrance into the celestial kingdom only . . . D& 88:21-24 is frequently cited [to support this view]. The “law of Christ” is generally understood to be equivalent to the “doctrine of Christ” or the “new and everlasting gospel,” therefore this passage appears to exclude the lesser kingdoms from being subject to the gospel. And yet it is clear from verse 99 that those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom “receive the gospel” so that they may “be judged according to men in the flesh” . . . Clearly there is a difference between the “law of the celestial kingdom” and the laws of the lesser kingdoms (D&C 88:22-24). It appears that in this case, the reference to the “law of Christ” in verse 21 is synonymous with the “law of the celestial kingdom” referred to in verse 22. To be sanctified through the law of the celestial kingdom requires more than baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Such sanctification also includes the fullness of the Priesthood which involves the higher ordinances of the temple in order to enter into the presence of the Father. From this we can conclude that entrance into the lesser kingdoms requires the gospel ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, whereas entrance into the celestial kingdom requires the higher ordinances of the temple in addition to the basic ordinances of the gospel . . . George Q. Cannon said: “The time will come when those who do not at first accept the gospel even in the spirit world will, through the experience which they will have to suffer, be willing to bow the knee to King Emmanuel and acknowledge him to be the Lord, to the glory of God, the Father, and every ordinance performed for them will stand in its place and effect its object at some period or another” (CR, April 1918).

Charles W. Penrose said: “The gospel is to be preached to every responsible and accountable creature. They who do not hear it while in the body will hear it in the spirit world, and even those who through folly and darkness received it not will, after having been beaten with “many stripes” and having paid the “uttermost farthing” of the debt thus incurred, have mercy extended to them when justice has been satisfied, and at length through the ministrations of the holy priesthood of God of the race of Adam will come forth from the grave; and finally ‘every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ to the glory of God the Father’” (Rays of Living Light from the Doctrines of Christ, 169-70, emphasis added) . . . Brigham Young declared the saints to go and perform the ordinances of the house of God for those who have passed their probation without the Gospel, and for all who will receive any kind of salvation; bring them up to inherit the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 407, emphasis added). He also said, “I will now tell you something that that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; . . . It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be through the redemption.” (Journal of Discourses 7:289, emphasis added)

B.H. Roberts wrote: “The work done by Elijah was to open the door of salvation for the dead. From that event comes the knowledge of the principles by which the saving power of the Gospel may be applied to men who have die without receiving its benefits in this life . . .[F]rom this mission of Elijah’s there comes the power to apply the principles and ordinances of salvation to all the children of men (save the sons of perdition; and these, thank God are but few) in all ages of the word, and whether living or dead! (HC, 7 volumes., introduction and notes, 2:, p. xxix-xxxi). (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 140, 141, 142)

Owen K. Peterson on "After All We Can Do"

The expression “after all we can do” is often misunderstood to mean that the grace by which we are saved kicks in only after we “have expanded our own best efforts” to save ourselves (see Grace, LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697). However, the Bible Dictionary also states, “It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means . . . Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings . . . This principle is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the vine and the branches” (see John 15:1-11). What this parable teaches is that “the divine means of help or strength” or “the enabling power” of grace is required in order for us to do all we can do, or, says the Savior, “without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5), 2 Nephi 25:23 is really saying it is by Grace that we are saved above and beyond all we can do, for without his grace we can do nothing to save ourselves. (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 162 n. 9)

Another non-LDS Apologist on the Importance of the Illumination of the Holy Spirit

By no means do I wish to disparage the work of the Holy Spirit in giving Christians discernment. Certainly all Christians must depend on the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds that they may clearly see the difference between good and evil, truth and error. And many Christians who are ill-equipped to study doctrine in depth are remarkably discerning. (Robert M. Bowman, Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992], 19)

Jonathan Burke (Christadelphian) addresses the "Epicurean Paradox"

Responding to the “Epicurean Paradox,” Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke wrote:

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

This premise fails because it assumes only one sense of God being ‘not able’ to prevent evil; that He lacks the power to do so. It therefore draws the invalid conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent if He has the will to prevent evil but is unable to do so.

However, it is possible to assert God has both the will and the power to prevent evil, but is ‘not able’ to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with insufficient power. Two ways of asserting this are the free will defense (addressing human evil), and the cost of creation dense (addressing the evil of natural disasters).

The free will defense states that God, in order to provide humans with the free will necessary for His purpose, must necessarily permit them to commit acts of evil. God is therefore ‘not able’ to prevent some forms of evil, not because He lacks omnipotence but because He is restrained by His own purpose for creating humans . . .The cost of creation defense states that the physical laws which will occasionally result in natural disasters, are the very same physical laws required to create and sustain the kind of life God needs for His purpose.

Removal of these physical laws would prevent the evil of natural disasters, but would also prevent God creating and sustaining the kind of life God requires for His purpose. Consequently, God is ‘not able’ to prevent such evil . . . 

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

This premise fails because it assumes only one sense of God being ‘not willing’ to prevent evil; that He lacks empathy with His creation. It therefore draws the invalid conclusion that God is malevolent if He has the ability to prevent evil and yet fails to do so because He is in some sense ‘not willing’.

However, it is possible to assert God is ‘not willing’ to prevent certain forms of evil for reasons which have nothing to do with malevolence. On the contrary, it is possible to assert that one reason why God is ‘not willing’ to prevent certain forms of evil, it is His benevolence; He understands that those forms of evil result in positive outcomes which ultimately provide greater benefit than the evil which is endured. This is an argument found in the Bible itself. The writer of Hebrews draws an analogy between the suffering we experience, and the discipline received by children from their parents.

Hebrews 12:7 Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what sons is there that a father does not discipline?

The analogy is highly appropriate, since parents are both willing that their children’s suffering be minimized, and able to reduce certain forms of suffering (by withholding disciple), yet they choose not to, for the reason that the suffering has positive outcomes for the child’s character and behavior. Yet no one would accuse parents being malevolent for applying such disciple.

Hebrews 12:9 Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life? 10 or they disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness. 11 Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit o peace and righteousness for those trained by it.

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil?

Since the major premises of the paradox have been addressed with the free will defense and the cost of creation defense, the answer to the question has already been supplied. The Epicurean Paradox is therefore an ineffectual argument against either the existence of God or the characteristics of the God of the Bible. (Jonathan Burke, Living on the Edge: Challenges to Faith [Reference Work Series vol. 1; Lulu Book, 2013], 371-73)

D. Chares Pyle on Women Being Depicted as Men (and vice versa) in Ancient Egyptian Iconography

Commenting on the Book of Abraham, D. Charles Pyle wrote the following which has implications for figures 2 and 4 of facsimile 3, wherein Joseph Smith identified female figures as being male (see this discussion from Jeff Lindsay on this, too):

many things have been claimed as demonstrative of the thought that the Book of Abraham was fabricated and an incorrect translation. One such claim that was made was that Egyptians did not worship other gods and goddesses of other peoples drawn like Egyptian ones, and that other nations did not worship their own national gods and goddesses depicted in Egyptian forms. Contrary to all the scholars, we now know that the Book of Abraham was right all along. The goddess of the city of Byblos was known as “Hathor of the West” by various of the people, and she was depicted in such a way that Egyptians saw her as Hathor. This occurred beginning prior to the time of Abraham, in the region near which Abraham lived. This same practice continued among even the Egyptians after the time of Abraham. We know this from an inscription from the time of Ramses II. Here is that inscription, which is located at the Brooklyn Museum:

What is depicted in the middle of the inscription fragment is the Canaanite goddess, ‘Anat. She is depicted as Osiris but is clearly named in the middle inscription as “‘Anat, Lady (of) heaven (and) of Ramesessu Meri-Amun.”

So, the Book of Abraham was right all along, as noted above. Ancient Egyptians, and other ancient nations under Egypt’s sphere of influence, indeed did dress non-Egyptian gods and goddesses just like Egyptian ones. As time has gone on, more and more evidences like the above have come forth in support of the claims of the Book of Abraham. But those scholars who limit themselves to certain kinds of evidences, and who ignore evidence such as the above, whether for bias or for other more or less worthy reasons, will come up with what Latter-day Saints inevitably will see as limited opinions regarding the alleged translation errors and/or fabrication of the Book of Abraham. (D. Charles Pyle, How do Mormons explain the Book of Abraham when many scholars view it as a completely fabricated, incorrect translation by Joseph Smith?)

The Two Resurrections in Jehovah's Witness Soteriology and Eschatology

Commenting on the belief in Jehovah’s Witness soteriology and eschatology (e.g., “first resurrection” being only for the “faithful class” [the 144,000 anointed ones] to the exclusion of the “great crowd,” as well as their belief that those who are “invincibly ignorant” [to borrow a Catholic term] during mortality can be saved [and even then, they would be destroyed by subsequent disobedience [!]), Jehovah’s Witness Cary Valentine wrote:

Jehovah’s Witnesses view the “first resurrection,” as mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6, to be the raising of those chosen to serve as king and priests with Christ during the Millennium. Witnesses identify the number of this group, as mentioned in Revelation 14:1-4, literally to be 144,000. These individuals give up the natural hope of living forever on earth, though they originated as flesh-and-blood entities. Their ascension is thought to be immediate, meaning that at the time of death those chosen to be part of the first resurrection is thought to be immediate, meaning that at the time of death those chosen to be part of the first resurrection are instantaneously caught away to join the Lord within the spirit realm “in the blink of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52 NWT).

Jehovah’s Witnesses also identify a second or earthly resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous individuals who have the potential to gain everlasting life on earth. Those deemed “righteous” but not appointed to serve with Christ in heaven (as part of the 144,000 or “anointed class”) made use of the opportunity given them here on earth to learning of Jehovah God’s plan and provision of the ransom sacrifice. These individuals repented, aligned their lives with God’s principles, and served as Witnesses to those who had not yet heard the message of salvation God gifted to imperfect humans.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that for some of those deemed unrighteous—but still resurrected in this second resurrection—there will be a resurrection of judgment. These individuals will still have an opportunity to gain eternal salvation during the Millennium. They will live as resurrected beings during the Millennium and, at its end, be judged by Christ and his 144,000 associates as either worthy of everlasting life or worthy of destruction. These are individuals who were in some way unable during mortality to learn of the life-saving provisions Jehovah had provided—either because they were not exposed to it during mortal life, or because they were otherwise unable to comprehend the message. Just as Adam was a perfect man choosing willingly to sin against Jehovah’s law (while in Eden), so too will resurrected humans have a chance to make the choice to either serve God willingly or reject him and his plan. If they then follow Jehovah God at the end of Millennium, they will be restored to perfection (“A Grand Millennium Approaching,” The Watchtower, 1 June 1990, 5-7).

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that, at the end of Christ’s Millennium, Satan will be released from his abyss to mislead and test human’s resurrected to an earthly destiny. This will provide them with a choice to sere Jehovah God for the final time. Since humans will then be restored to a state of perfection, they will have the same simple choice Adam and Eve did at the time of creation—to serve God or to not. This Final Judgement involves those who reject Jehovah God and Christ’s Jesus ransom sacrifice and who will die a second time, never to be resurrected again. Indeed, they will cease to exist for eternity. At that time, the physical consequences of Adam’s rebellion will no longer weigh humans down with the wages of sin, so the choice made to serve God or not is, as it was for Adam, one that is just, fair, and made of free will. (Cary E. Valentine, “The Condition of the Dead in Jehovah’s Witness Soteriology” in Alonzo L. Gaskill and Robert L. Millet, eds. Life Beyond the Grave: Christian Interfaith Perspectives [Salt Lake City/Provo: Deseret Book/BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019], 137-51, here, pp. 145-46)