Question: Hello there! Before I ask my question, I wanted to first state that I have read your work on Perseverance of the Saints/Eternal Security and have enjoyed it while also learning a lot. I would like your opinion on James 5:19-20. How would you explain to those who argue that “save his soul from death” refers only to physical death and not eternal damnation?
I have pointed out to people before that this interpretation cannot simply be referencing physical death because we all experience physical death, and it is inevitable; you can’t save someone from that. Using that logic would imply that anyone who leaves the faith will die physically. However, we all die physically regardless of our faith. Some might argue that those who leave the faith and stray into sin die early deaths or die as soon as they apostatize, but in reality, there are millions of people who leave the faith and do not experience early deaths, even though it’s possible. Wouldn’t we notice all of these people dropping dead if that interpretation is correct?
Furthermore, the passage states that if a brother strays from the faith and you bring them back, you will save their soul from physical death. To suggest that it refers to physical death seems to render James’ exhortation useless if one will still be saved anyway, even if they leave the faith and stray into sin. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Also, what are your thoughts on proponents of Eternal Security who argue that “soul” means physical life and not the actual soul? This interpretation of “soul” meaning physical life has been used by Free Gracers or OSAS proponents in reference to Hebrews 10:39.Thank you, and I’m looking forward to your response. Have a great day!
Answer: I think your answer is fine. It is basically how I would answer it as well. It is really a weak argument and it is clear from experience that apostates do not just suddenly die when they fall away. As far as “soul” just meaning physical death in 10:39, that is just plain goofy. Your point about James illustrates this and many other passages could be referenced as well. But most importantly, contextually, it just doesn’t work since verses 26-29 (which 10:39 is just a further elaboration on) make it plain that this judgment involves a punishment “more severe” than death (29) which is described as involving the “raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (27).
Heb 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
Heb 10:27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified
Follow-up question: Hello…I have two more questions for you if you don’t mind :
In regards to Romans 11:16-22 I have heard proponents of Free Grace Theology and some Calvinists say that the Olive Tree metaphor utilized by Paul in verses 16-23 have nothing to do with salvation but with blessings.
How would you explain contextually to someone that salvation is being spoken of here? I am a little confused on how to respond or rather on how to articulate my answer.
Here is the quotation from a prominent Free Grace proponents website on Romans 11 :
“The olive tree does not represent the place of salvation. It represents the place of blessing…
In his commentary on Romans, Zane Hodges says concerning Rom 11:20, “Very simply put, should the Gentile world cease to be a responsive instrument for the gospel, God could return His focus to Israel. This would mean the cessation of the present period of Gentile privilege and a return to the original privilege of Israel as the chief vehicle for the divine message” (p. 336).
They also said that individuals aren’t being spoken of but only nations but I know that’s false from the context and I saw your article on it. They come into pretty much every warning passage with the presupposition that someone can’t lose their salvation instead of proving it from the text but my main question here is how can I demonstrate that salvation is the context of Romans 11:16-22 specifically the Olive Tree (cutting/grafting).
Lastly, in regards to Galatians 6:7-9 I ran into the same problem because some Calvinists have told me that “eternal life” spoken of in verse 8 is not salvation but instead it is speaking of an “abundance of life” or a better quality life but not actually eternal life as in salvation. I don’t see much in that response because it makes no sense but I’d like to hear your response. How would you respond to such a claim?
Answer: You write:
“How would you explain contextually to someone that salvation is being spoken of here?”
Because the entire section (chapters 9-11) is about the identity of God’s convent people and that entails salvation in the new covenant since one can only enter the new covenant through faith in Christ. You can’t have Christ and not be saved. That’s why Paul continually mentions salvation in these chapters (9:1-3, 22, 33; 10:1, 8-13; 11:11-15, 19-24, 26, 30-32). So contextually the idea that salvation is involved in the Olive Tree metaphor is really rather obvious. The Olive Tree represents the people of God and, again, in the new covenant, only those who believe on Christ are God’s people. Believing in Christ and being joined to His people obviously entails salvation. How could it not?
So as you have wisely noticed, such attempts to avoid the obvious implications of such passages are driven entirely by a prior commitment to ES, not contextual considerations.
“Lastly, in regards to Galatians 6:7-9 I ran into the same problem because some Calvinists have told me that “eternal life” spoken of in verse 8 is not salvation but instead it is speaking of an “abundance of life” or a better quality life but not actually eternal life as in salvation.”
Well then John 3:16 doesn’t actually mean eternal life either since it uses the exact same Greek words. It is a ridiculous argument and such arguments highlight just how weak and Biblically untenable the free grace position is. Go to Bible hub and put both passages in on separate tabs. Then choose “interlinear” and look at the Greek words in both John 3:16 (or any number of such passages) and Galatians 6:8. The same. No contextual factors would suddenly make Gal. 6:8 mean something different. It is desperation, nothing more.
[Link to original post and comments on Ben Henshaw’s website]
