It’s amazing to me how we can interpret a passage to mean almost the exact opposite of its intended meaning simply because the intended meaning seems to conflict with our theology. A great example of this is Paul’s teaching in Romans 8:35-39:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (ESV)
I have heard Arminian preachers respond to this text by saying, “But notice Paul never said we cannot separate ourselves from the love of God!” True, but Paul didn’t mention Panda bears either. Could they separate us from the love of God? Paul is clearly trying to emphasize that absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God by listing a host of different possibilities. Because the natural tendency of human beings is to believe their salvation depends on their moral performance, Christians are naturally most fearful that we will separate ourselves from God. We are not worried that an angel or nakedness will separate us from God’s love. What comfort would it be, then, for Paul to affirm that all sorts of lesser things cannot separate us from God, but still hold out the possibility that we could separate ourselves from God? His point is clearly that nothing can separate us from God’s love, including ourselves. This is made clear by the larger context:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul assures the believers that from God’s perspective, their future glorification is already secure. Why? Because they have been called and predestined by God. They can be assured of their future salvation. Why? Because God is for us. Because if God would sacrifice His Son for us, He will do anything for us. No one can condemn us because God has justified us. It’s His court, and He considers us righteous. We can be assured of our salvation because Jesus is alive and interceding for us right now. That’s why nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. And when Paul says nothing, He means nothing – not all things except ourselves. We cannot separate ourselves from the love of God because God loves us no matter how we perform. He is responsible for securing our salvation.
So how does an Arminian explain this passage? That’s beyond the scope of this post (and beyond me), but even if an Arminian doesn’t know how to fit Romans 8:35-39 within his Arminian theology, it’s better to just say so and let the anomaly remain than to flatly contradict the point that Paul is trying to make here. Hermeneutical integrity is more important than constructing a consistent systematic theology. We can’t let our theological tails wag the hermeneutical dog.
If any Arminians out there want to explain their perspective on this passage, I would welcome that.
Thinking to Believe 
June 10, 2022 at 3:32 pm
“nor anything else in all creation”: we are things in creation therefore by simple reason, neither we, nor Pandas, can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
LikeLike
June 10, 2022 at 7:58 pm
Heb 10: 26 For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy “on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know the one who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But recall those earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to insults and afflictions and sometimes becoming partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion for those who were in prison, and you cheerfully accepted the plundering of your possessions, knowing that you yourselves possessed something better and more lasting. 35 Do not, therefore, abandon that boldness of yours; it brings a great reward. 36 For you need endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what was promised. 37 For yet
“in a very little while,
the one who is coming will come and will not delay,
38 but my righteous one will live by faith.
My soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back.”
39 But we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost but among those who have faith and so preserve our souls.
Unrepentant sin and falling away from the faith can separate us from God. He may still love us but we can become eternally lost.
LikeLike
June 11, 2022 at 10:08 am
Jason writes:
This strikes me as a rather odd request, which is why I think that it’s a hybrid of sincerity and clickbait. Since you were either raised in or spent a substantial part of your life in Oneness Pentecostalism (OP), I would think that the answer is obvious. You either know the answer and are lampooning it unjustifiably, or you had some lousy teachers in your OP days and really don’t know the obvious answer.
The simple and direct reply has nothing to do with missing nouns like pandas and everything to do with what the Bible teaches about conditional salvation. The reason “Arminian” preachers exclude humans is due to the plain and unmistakable New Testament passages which teach that true believers can indeed lose their salvation. The following passages are by no means exhaustive; they are provided to illustrate the point:
Jas 5:19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,
Jas 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
Heb 6:5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
Heb 6:6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Rev 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. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Quite clearly, a believer can walk away from God and be lost. Now, my reproducing these verses is not to invite a debate on the matter (at least at this point), because that’s been debated extensively on your boards (and rather recently). I am simply illustrating why we cannot interpret biblical passages in a vacuum. If the Bible elsewhere carves out an exception to a list, then a consistent hermeneutic will incorporate the exception.
Now, the once-saved-always-saved (OSAS) proponent, which is what you now appear to be, will have to engage in the exact kind of pretzel twisting with these passages that you ascribe to Arminians. Why is it appropriate for the OSAS believer to “wag the hermeneutical dog” with their “theological tail” when it comes to passages that plainly teach the conditional salvation of believers? The answer is of course rests in the necessity of harmonization regardless one’s theological template. Every “ism” has to confront passages which appear misaligned with what one considers the overall message of Scripture.
For example:
Joh 8:17 In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true.
Joh 8:18 I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”
Oneness believers are confronted with what appears to be the “plain” teaching that the distinction between the Father and Son is a personal one; thus, there must be two persons in the Godhead. And trinitarians are confronted with what appears to be the “plain” teaching that the union between the Father and Son is analogous to a union of human persons (which is clear ditheism). Both groups are then obligated to harmonize that passage with what the Scriptures teach elsewhere about monotheism and Christ’s divinity. The “plainness” of a verse does not authorize us to ignore every other verse which adds perspective or qualification thereto. If we cannot see that, then what are we to do with…
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Jason, in accordance with this verse, I’m asking you to give me all of your money, and I want to borrow all of your vehicles. Since you know my email address, please let me know where I may pick them up. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 14, 2022 at 8:54 am
TR, the problem is many people that profess to be Christians dont understand the gospel message —- it’s very simple ………
did Jesus die to save you OR did Jesus die so you could save yourself ? then you just have to take the marriage analogy of salvation ………. if you say YES to Jesus and Jesus says YES to you that=OS. since God will not abandon or leave His own that=AS. the poor lost reprobates then try and argue but if you sin you break the covenant —- but since Jesus knew youd sin and what sins youd commit when He said YES ……….. He doesnt “divorce” you. if you never say YES to Jesus OR Jesus never says YES to you you arent OS and therefore never AS.
lol ……….. silly rccult members have the Holy Spirit jumping in/out of a person as he/she is saved/sinned over and over until they die either with or without being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. when the bible is clear — the Holy Spirit never leaves a New Covenant indwelt member ………. the member just doesnt get the blessing of the Holy Spirit when they arent living in God’s will.
LikeLike
June 15, 2022 at 1:10 pm
Scalia,
You presume too much. I am not a Calvinist, and this had everything to do with sincerity and nothing to do with clickbait. Attempting to divine people’s motives is always dangerous territory.
I consider the Calvinism vs. Arminianism (and now…vs. Molinism) debate to be the most difficult theological debate to sort out. I gave it some attention in my younger years, but not enough to come to a firm resolution. I often joke that I am a Calminian, but I have always leaned heavily toward the Arminian side of the debate. Despite my leanings, I recognize that there are many passages which seem to contradict the Arminian view. Some of them have good Arminian explanations, and some of them do not (the same could be said of the other side). So when I asked Arminians to offer their best explanation of this verse, it was sincere. Personally, I do not have a good explanation for this passage (and I’m not claiming to have spent countless hours looking for one either because, as I noted, this is not an issue for which I have spent enough time studying). In the past I have tried to explain it by saying Paul only said we can’t be separated from God’s love – not from God’s salvation. After all, God loves even the damned. However, given the overall context, I don’t think that option is available to us. Paul clearly speaks to the assurance of their salvation when He says God has glorified those whom He foreknew, and that no one can bring a charge against us because God has justified us. So Paul has salvation in view here when He speaks about the love of God.
I agree with you that interpretation must ultimately be done on a canonical level, but interpretation must begin with the immediate context. Biblical theology precedes systematic theology. Just because one might think that the canonical context leads to an Arminian systematic theology, that does not give one the right to interpret a passage in a way that clearly violates the meaning of that passage. One would be better to admit that they don’t know how to fit the passage into their Arminian theology than to shoehorn the passage so it fits in one’s theological glass slipper (and the same applies to Calvinists, as you noted). Systematic theology is not always neat and tidy. There will always be verses that appear to be an outlier to one’s theology – those difficult-to-explain and seemingly-impossible-to-explain verses. In my experience, most theologians are not willing to admit their ignorance. They think they have to offer an explanation, even if that explanation is weak or garbage. I think its fine to offer possible explanations that may be weak, but at least admit that you recognize they are weak and may not be right.
That’s not to say I think it’s impossible to fit this passage into an Arminian theology. I just haven’t come across that interpretation yet, which is why I invited others to weigh in. I just don’t buy the approach that violates the meaning of a passage simply because we know other passages seem to teach something contrary. Harmonization is necessary, but sometimes harmonization is not always possible. We shouldn’t interpret a passage in a way that is inconsistent with the immediate context simply because of our knowledge of the broader canonical context. We should rather respond by saying “I think the overall Biblical teaching on X is Y, and yet this passage seems to teach Z. I don’t know currently how to reconcile this passage with Y, but I still think Y is true and I’m content to let this passage be an outlier for the time being.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 15, 2022 at 1:15 pm
Paul, not all Arminians think that salvation is easily lost. But I don’t want to divert this conversation into an Arminian vs. Calvinism debate. The point of this post was to show an example of how we can let our systematic theology cause us to hermeneutically butcher a Biblical passage, and warn against it. And, since I brought the passage up, I was interested to see how the Arminian followers of this blog interpret it (for my own benefit).
LikeLike
June 15, 2022 at 4:01 pm
Jason, you write:
Then I stand by my initial comment that your request strikes me as rather odd, given your background. Since the Bible clearly teaches other than what you say this verse “plainly” says, then there has to be an exception (more on this later).
Moreover, I did not say that you are a Calvinist. Reading an accusation into what a person did not say is always dangerous territory. Baptists ardently affirm OSAS, and most of them are definitely not Calvinists.
Since we agree that interpretive difficulties must be resolved on a canonical level, then you have your answer. We take a text literally unless there is sufficient contextual data to adopt a symbolic or metaphoric approach. And if an approach yields a result discordant with the clear teaching of the entire canon, then the text in question must be construed in favor of the canon. Examples of this nature abound in the Bible. To cite one of the most commonly used:
Psalm 91
4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Nothing in the immediate context obligates a symbolic interpretation. One may say that the text is in a psalm which is poetic, and poetry is often symbolic. But we know that there are many, many things in the Psalms which are not symbolic, so on what basis do we decide that God isn’t a bird? Either God is some kind of material being who has feathers or the text is a symbolic affirmation of God’s protection and providence. The proof for the latter is in the clear declarations of God’s essence elsewhere in the Bible and the philosophical implications of those declarations.
So, you have every right to dismiss a text’s literal application when you have sufficient proof otherwise. Thus, if there are passages, and multiple ones at that, which clearly show that believers can be lost, then it is perfectly legitimate to point out that the text does not say that we are incapable of abandoning our walk with God. No believer can blame anybody or anything other than himself for being lost. From Adam’s blaming of Eve and his implication that God was at fault for giving her to him, to the present, people habitually blame circumstances or others for the misery in their lives. What Paul is saying is that God has given us every opportunity to be saved which no principality or power can take from us. Those of us who are not OSAS take great comfort from that passage. And we don’t have to convince ourselves that we’re unconditionally secure to do so either.
Most certainly, any questioned text must be construed in a manner consistent with the broader context. We are not authorized to either ignore the text or allege that it doesn’t mean what it clearly says. As in the “feathers” example above, there is a way to construe the text so that it means exactly what it says if we understand the passage symbolically. With the topical text, noting that nothing outside our personal devotion can separate us from the love of God does no violence whatsoever to what it is actually saying.
There are biblical passages that I’ve not found a satisfying answer for, but the one you cite isn’t one of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 16, 2022 at 2:27 pm
TR, letting “our systematic theology” get in the way is cause for concern. and since we appear to agree on the interpretation of this passage i’ll leave it to others that disagree with you to respond.
i’ll just add one of the major things i learned during my brief studies of Judaism …… often before you can zero into the meaning of a bible passage you have to have the big picture correct so you can avoid the Law of Contradictions. this seems like the same thing as letting your “systematic theology” getting in the way but it’s not as many bible passages/stories are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus’ own words prove this and He doesnt always explain these riddles/parables.
LikeLike
June 17, 2022 at 12:38 pm
So I’ve mostly been a lurker here for years, but this post and the comments that followed got me thinking on this over the last few day
I think its hermeneutically inappropriate to take this passage and to build some sort of doctrine out of what was left unsaid. That seems to be a common practice among preachers with many texts for various reasons. However, I think you can avoid wagging the hermeneutical dog here without getting into Arminian/Calvinism issues.
I think the overall context here is very important. The overall context is external and outside pressure on the believer . The context assumes commitment from the believer. While the Arminian would claim ” Paul never said we cannot separate ourselves from the love of God” and that would be true, I dont think its hermeneutically appropriate simply because I don’t think it has anything to do with Paul’s point. Calvinism, Arminian, OSAS , Can Lose Your Salvation At The Drop of Hatism, Saved One Second Lost the Other Many Times a Dayism, In Church For A Few Years And Now a Crime Syndicate Boss But Still Savedism…. None of that was Paul’s point. Paul’s point was that external pressure and situations cannot separate the believer from God’s love.
I think Paul’s point is completely neutral to the Calvinist/Arminian debate. I dont think it has anything to say on that point. He is not addressing whether a Christian can lose their salvation whatsoever. And I believe thats probably the only way one will be able to reconcile the rest of the Scripture that seem to clearly indicate believers can be lost. If we accept that Romans 8 is teaching believers cannot lose their salvation, then as Scalia pointed out, we end up wagging that hermeneutical dog out of pure necessity in regards to the many scriptures that teach that a believer can lose salvation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2022 at 1:48 pm
Jason, I agree with your dissertation on this passage although I can’t articulate my thoughts like you and Scalia. I’m not going to quote a bunch of scriptures since you know them as well as I do.
We cannot have a “big picture” understanding of the gospel unless we know the answer to the question “can a believer can lose their salvation”. This is not a side issue, this is a major doctrinal point that is foundational to the whole message. If we get this wrong, we are not even in the same ball park and surely we won’t find ourselves even in the same church.
Once we can answer that question, then the questionable or difficult passages can be interpreted in light of the big picture context. I know that might come across as fitting the scriptures into one’s own interpretation but that’s not what I’m trying to say. What I’m saying is that we need to know the basic truth about salvation before we can understand those difficult scriptures. Clearly we know all the passages don’t fit, therefore we must come to the correct understanding first. So how do we that ?
Please consider the following food for thought …
1) When a person is born again the Spirit of God resides in that person and the scriptures clearly teach that we are given a new heart. We need to believe that salvation is more than forgiveness, God changes our desires at the core of our being. In a sense, God has it rigged. As Paul said, how we can continue in that which we are dead to (paraphrase). Christ’s death forgives our sins, His resurrection gives us new life. We often forget the second part and Pastors are scared that Christians think they got a get out of Hell free card which is why most if not all Sunday morning messages eventually distill down to “stop sinning” (at least that was my experience for several years). The question is, what do Christians want ? Answer: A born again believer doesn’t really want sin. You don’t need to keep telling a Christian not to sin over and over again ….
2) Saved people can sin (duh). Christians that repeatedly sin live a miserable existence. A true Christian cannot find fulfillment in sin. A true Christian will struggle with sin until the day they die, this is actually a mark of a true believer. The struggle proves are genuineness as believers. Even James says that we stumble in many ways. This is just reality and we have to accept that we can and do sin. That’s not to say we just give up, but that is to say we fight the good fight of faith. Who wants to be miserable anyway ?
3) If there is anything we can “do” to lose our salvation then it follows that we must be “doing” to “earn” our salvation as well. This is inescapable logic, which means that if we hold to the notion that a true believer can lose their salvation then we have a works based salvation denying the finished work of Christ.
Speaking of logic, I think logic is the key to knowing the big picture answer to the big picture question of whether a Christian can lose their salvation.
If you take the scriptures as a whole, there are too many passages that clearly show that our salvation is eternally secure versus those passages that seem to say otherwise. Therefore we need to exercise some logic and common sense and hold to the majority of scriptures as painting the “big picture” for us. To hold to the notion that a believer can lose their salvation will force us to deny the obvious interpretation of too many passages like the one in this post about the love of God.
There is great peace in knowing you are eternally secure in Jesus. I don’t know how we can live a life in tension and have the peace of God at the same time. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Being eternally secure is the most beautiful doctrine and make me want to love God more. There is no fear in perfect love (1 John 4:18).
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Naz
LikeLike
June 20, 2022 at 5:04 pm
@Josh
I am sorry that you are mostly lurking. You are a good writer! I hope that will you post more often.
I concur with your basic premise that Paul is simply stating that no external force can destroy our relationship with God. Indeed, as a new convert, I never read those verses and thought, “Wow! I guess we’re unconditionally saved after all!” Rather, I read that passage like I read Luke 10:19…
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
It is only when people try to read into the topical passage what it doesn’t say that we point out that the text says nothing about our personal commitment because, as you observe, that is presupposed.
Anyway, good points. Keep commenting!
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 19, 2022 at 11:13 pm
Josh,
Thanks for chiming in after lurking for years. I think your point that Paul is only talking about external pressures is a good one, and a good approach to an Arminian interpretation. I’m not entirely sold on it, however, since, in context, Paul was talking about the security of our salvation. He speaks of God’s activity in us. God foreknows us. He predestines us. The believer is already as good as glorified from God’s perspective. Why? Because God is for us. Because God has done everything for us, including giving us His Son. Jesus is currently interceding for us. In other words, God has taken care of our salvation. We have nothing to fear. While Paul goes on to talk about external pressures, his point seems to be that none of those external pressures can undo what God has done for us. They can’t separate us from God’s love because God is responsible for our salvation, and He will not fail us. There just doesn’t seem to be much place in Paul’s mind for the idea that we can be separated from God by our own failure.
Of course, that’s not to say it’s not true that one can lose their salvation. Just a few chapters later Paul seems to make that clear (Rom 11). It just isn’t the point Paul is making in Romans 8. Perhaps one might explain Romans 8 (and Romans 9) as an overemphasis. Many preachers get in trouble for this. They preach grace strongly and people accuse them of not caring about holiness. They preach holiness strongly and people accuse them of denying grace. Neither is true. We just emphasize some points so strongly at times that it can appear like we are denying some other truth, when in reality, we are just focusing on one aspect of the truth at a given time.
LikeLike
July 19, 2022 at 11:13 pm
Naz,
Yes, there are some passages that seem to teach that salvation, once achieved, cannot be lost. However, there are many more passages which seem to teach the opposite. That’s why this issue is such a difficult one, hermeneutically. One group takes the “secure salvation” passages and treats them as the gold standard, while another group takes the “insecure salvation” passages and treats them as the gold standard. Neither is able to explain the other set of passages that well. So who gets to say which ones are the clear passages that the other set of passages need to be interpreted in light of? Maybe at some later stage in my life I’ll figure it all out. For now, I am an Arminian with Calvinistic sympathies.
LikeLike
August 4, 2022 at 7:56 am
Jason, I appreciate your honesty and I know we can go back and forth forever on this topic.
Aside from all the “isms”, and I know they are used to describe a doctrinal position”, I would encourage you to listen to your heart. I know that’s a dirty word in some circles but as I understand it God has given you and I a new heart when we were saved. I think we need to trust our new heart. While some might say that this is an “itchy ears” argument, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I believe when you hear the truth and something is revealed to you, your spirit will agree with it in a God conscious way. This has happened to me and I am totally at peace with where I stand on this issue now.
We cannot live our lives with relying solely on cold doctrine but in spirit and in truth. No offence to this wonderful blog that you have, but I think sometimes apologetics can be too cerebral and we can miss the forest because of the trees.
God Bless you.
Naz
LikeLike