Eternal Security And The Bondservant

[Mcgyver]

The Hebraic view of the doulos stemmed from a completely different paradigm. Where as the Greek view was from a paradigm in which personal freedom dictated personal worth, to the Hebrew personal worth was found in his relationship with God.

The Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary, (Delta-Epsilon 1132-2175 extract) has this comment on the use of doulos in the LXX: “The idea of slavery in Israel was far removed from the Greek notion. First, people could become slaves as a result of choice. Second, in contrast to the Hellenistic idea, slaves served only for 6 years (Ex. 21:2), and the Old Testament also provided for the protection of slaves from mistreatment (Ex. 21:14, 26-27). Third, a religious relationship was regularly conveyed by servanthood. David referred to himself as God’s slave (1 Sam. 23:10-11 [LXX 1 Kings 23:10-11]; Psalm 89:50 [88:50]), but he also considered himself Saul’s servant (1 Sam. 19:4 [LXX 1 Kings 19:4]) and Jonathan’s servant (1 Sam. 20:7-8 [LXX 1 Kings 20:7-8]). Here one can observe the sharp contrast with the Hellenistic mind-set which would have despised such a relationship.

God referred to David as His slave (2 Sam. 3:18 [LXX 2 Kings 13:8]; Psa. 89:3, 20 [LXX 88:3, 20]) who would effect His salvation. God’s people are His chosen servants (Psalms 105:6 [LXX 104:6];134:1 [133:1]; Isaiah 49:3; cf. 2 Kings 10:21-23 [LXX 4 Kings 10:21, 23]), especially the prophets (2 Kings 17:23 [LXX 4 Kings 17:23]; Amos 3:7; Zechariah 1:6). The slave of God, therefore, carries out the will and purpose of God. The slave also depends upon his Lord to provide protection and sustenance. One can see the appropriateness of such a metaphor as a description of God’s people. The Psalmist considered himself the slave of God who had been free by God (Psalm 116:16 [LXX 115:16]; cf. Psalms 34:22 [LXX 33:22]; 102:28 [101:28]; 144:10 [143:10]; Isaiah 48:20). Service to God is not, however, expressed in single acts; rather, the servant continually does the bidding of his Lord.

Rengstorf gives 4 points concerning the use of Doulos in the LXX:

1. From the connection with `evedh it may be seen that in the LXX and Greek Judaism generally the word is used for a slave and his status and situation. It is used quite definitely and emphatically in this way, as shown by its specific use in cases where serving as a slave is not felt to be normal.

2. Since the word group is used to denote a relation of dependence or service which may be forced, or sometimes voluntary, but which is always felt to be restrictive, it is the usual linguistic form for the relation of the subject to the king in the despotic monarchies of the ancient Orient.

3. This ceremonial usage of the group is of epoch-making importance because it provides the assumptions on which the words can be adopted into the language of worship. The climax of the historical development is reached when the group comes to describe the relationship of dependence and service in which man stands to God. This also brings us to the point where the Jewish and oriental usage enters into the sharpest possible antithesis to that of the Greek and Hellenistic world.

4. The attitude of divine service expressed in the term is shared by the Jewish world with other Semitic peoples and tribes and also with the Egyptians. In every case the conception of God bears the stamp of unconditional majesty and absolute superiority to man. (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament volume 2, pages 266-269).

So then, the use of doulos (and words in this group) is expanded in the LXX ,where it is used to include the relationship of God and man as well as the relationship between the subject and his king.

Doulos is also used of men who served God such as David and Moses.

He who called himself a doulos acknowledges that another has power over him, and although the concept of the doulos still retained the element of unconditional subjection to another, it lost its negative character. Therefore, it was no longer a derogatory term as in classical Greek, but now became a title of honor in the LXX.

So then doulos is a term of derision to the Greek, and a badge of honor to the Jewish follower of Christ.

More to follow after my fingers uncramp...

[Mcgyver]

Finally to tie all this together we come to Antioch.

There were in antiquity 5 cities called Antioch, but only two are of biblical importance: Antioch Syria and Antioch Pisidia. Followers of Jesus were first called "Christians" in Antioch Syria.

Though Antioch Syria was neither a Roman Colony nor a Free city (such as Antioch Pisidia), history records that it was both the seat of the Roman governor in charge of the entire province (even Pontius Pilate was subordinate to the governor of Syria), and a city of great splendor. It has been referred to in Roman writings as the "queen of the East," the third city, after Rome and Alexandria, of the Roman world.

Seleucus Nicator had settled numbers of Jews in Antioch, and by the time of Paul there was a large and flourishing Jewish population, which of course made the city ripe for the preaching of Jesus as Messiah. Apart from the Jewish populace; Syrians, Greeks, and Romans constituted the main portion of the population. The culture of Antioch was most definitely Greco-Roman in nature...boasting of Roman temples and Roman baths, as well as the "suburb" of Daphne which was sacred to Apollo and Artemis.

Now for the word "Christian".

As has been mentioned, the Latin suffix "ian" can have several meanings. It can mean "an adherent of/to" (a follower of), it can denote "belonging to" as in the case of a city or class, or it can mean "belong to" in respect to a person...and in fact can carry in the latter case the synonymous meaning of "a slave of/ a slave in the house of".

IF we accept the widely held scholarly view that "Christian" was an epithet, a term of derision...then obviously the use and context will dictate the meaning.

"Ian" used as "a follower of" or "an adherent to" would not have been pejorative...Political allies of Augustus Caesar were referred to as "Augustiani" (final "i" denoting plural) as an example.

"Ian" used as "belonging to" in the sense of a city (for example) would not be pejorative. Citizens of Antioch were referred to as Antiochiani, of Pompeii as "Pompeiani" and so forth.

"Ian" used to denote a member of a class would not be pejorative (Equestrian, Patrician, Plebeian, etc.).

However, if "ian" is applied with the widely accepted and understood (at the time) synonymous meaning of "slave of" when used in reference to an individual, then to call one a "Christian"...a doulos of Christ...a slave to the anointed one...would have been the greatest epithet, the greatest term of derision that the Hellenistic mind could offer...but one which did not have the desired impact...because of the different paradigm concerning the doulos that existed between the Hellenistic and Hebraic (I probably should use the word Semitic) cultures and mindset.

Considering the persecutions that would (shortly) arise, considering the suspicion with which Christians were viewed, considering the hatred that was directed toward Christians (one of the earliest accusations against us is that we were cannibals because of the "body and blood" of the Lord)....considering the pervasiveness of Greek culture, philosophy and thought throughout the world...and considering that the followers of Christ indisputably referred to themselves as douloi...

It makes perfect sense, and I believe that there is sound evidence based on the culture to indicate that "Christian" carried with it the synonymous meaning of a "slave of Christ"; and thus was an epithet as used by the heathen, and a "badge of honor" as applied to those who belong to Him.

***Whew*** I rest my case (maybe)

[Guest shiloh357]

However, if "ian" is applied with the widely accepted and understood (at the time) synonymous meaning of "slave of" when used in reference to an individual, then to call one a "Christian"...a doulos of Christ...a slave to the anointed one...would have been the greatest epithet, the greatest term of derision that the Hellenistic mind could offer...but one which did not have the desired impact...because of the different paradigm concerning the doulos that existed between the Hellenistic and Hebraic (I probably should use the word Semitic) cultures and mindset.

Considering the persecutions that would (shortly) arise, considering the suspicion with which Christians were viewed, considering the hatred that was directed toward Christians (one of the earliest accusations against us is that we were cannibals because of the "body and blood" of the Lord)....considering the pervasiveness of Greek culture, philosophy and thought throughout the world...and considering that the followers of Christ indisputably referred to themselves as douloi...

It makes perfect sense, and I believe that there is sound evidence based on the culture to indicate that "Christian" carried with it the synonymous meaning of a "slave of Christ"; and thus was an epithet as used by the heathen, and a "badge of honor" as applied to those who belong to Him.

***Whew*** I rest my case (maybe)

You are making an awfully big leap and for all the work you have done, you haven't really demonstrated that "Christian" meant "slave of Christ." That is a meaning that you are trying to impose on the text. Even if the early Chrsitians referred to themselves as "douloi," (which is something we don't really know. All we know is that Paul and maybe some other writers of the NT called themselves that) that falls far short of your claim that "Christian" meant "slave of Christ." You are really reaching and stretching to make that assertion. So far, there is nothing in Scripture or anywhere else that supports such an assertion.

The term Christianous could have been derisive without necessarily carrying the connotation of "slave."

First of all, in every piece of Greek literature that I have seen...whether Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, Philo, Josephus, et.al.; in every and all cases the word "doulos" means "slave". It is never used interchangeably with "servant", the literal rendering is "slave"...whether in classical or koine Greek.

Uh, I just did search in the NT and doulos is used interchangably with the word servant. There is no meaningful difference. There may have been a practical distinction between slaves in terms of the kind of work they did, but that distinction is in function not in form. The servant in the house had to render absolute obedience to the master just like the guy who worked in the fields. Zodiaties says this about "dloulos"

"A slave, servant, spoken of involuntary service, e.g., a slave as opposed to a free man (eleútheros [G1658]; 1Co_7:21; Gal_3:28; Col_3:11; Rev_6:15). Also generally a servant (Mat_13:27-28; Joh_4:51; Act_2:18; Eph_6:5; 1Ti_6:1; Sept.: Lev_25:44; Jos_9:23; Jdg_6:27). In Php_2:7, having taken "the form of a servant," means appearing in a humble and despised condition."

Respectfully, It seems you want your premise to be true so badly, that you are willing to reach as far as you can to make it so. Being a bondservant has nothing to do with eternal security. You have presented a good study on the concept of "servant" in the Bible, but you have not, up to this point made any kind of material conection between the concept of a bondservant, the meaning of "Christian" and the doctrine of eternal security. The link you are striving for simply isn't there.

[Mcgyver]

You are making an awfully big leap and for all the work you have done, you haven't really demonstrated that "Christian" meant "slave of Christ." That is a meaning that you are trying to impose on the text. Even if the early Chrsitians referred to themselves as "douloi," (which is something we don't really know. All we know is that Paul and maybe some other writers of the NT called themselves that) that falls far short of your claim that "Christian" meant "slave of Christ." You are really reaching and stretching to make that assertion. So far, there is nothing in Scripture or anywhere else that supports such an assertion.

The term Christianous could have been derisive without necessarily carrying the connotation of "slave."

Brother...if I am ever caught with a smoking gun I want you on the jury...because I'd never be convicted. (Just kidding to lighten things up)

Christianos without the connotation of one "belonging to Christ" after the manner of a slave would really have no meaning to the Hellenistic speaker, if he meant such is a derisive manner. The Hellenistic world had no messianic expectation, no idea of who or what the "anointed one" was...this would be roughly equivalent to someone calling you and me "followers of green" (what does that mean anyway???).

However, if the Hellenistic world starts to equate "Christ" with the last name of Jesus...and do we not even today refer to our Lord as "Jesus Christ" (and not Jesus the Christ)...then ian takes on a different connotation.

Are we really going to have to establish that the early followers of Jesus referred to Him as "the master"? Are we really going to have to establish that the early followers of Jesus referred to Him as "Lord"? Even before they were called Christians they were know as followers of "the way"...The way of whom do you suppose?

These expressed relationships that are the very concept of the doulos...one bound to his master or his lord.

So it is not a stretch at all, nor is it reading anything into any text to suppose that these early followers of the master would because of their association with Him, their rejection of the things and pleasures of this world, the very fact they were so different in the way they acted; come to be known as "slaves of" or "slaves in the house of" Christ. The fact that Christians were so hated lends societal credence to such assertion.

Rather what I see, is that if one approaches this with the Hellenistic mindset (wherein doulos carries a severe negative connotation), then one must reject the very idea based not on any evidence from antiquity, but simple bias.

Uh, I just did search in the NT and doulos is used interchangably with the word servant. There is no meaningful difference. There may have been a practical distinction between slaves in terms of the kind of work they did, but that distinction is in function not in form. The servant in the house had to render absolute obedience to the master just like the guy who worked in the fields. Zodiaties says this about "dloulos"

"A slave, servant, spoken of involuntary service, e.g., a slave as opposed to a free man (eleútheros [G1658]; 1Co_7:21; Gal_3:28; Col_3:11; Rev_6:15). Also generally a servant (Mat_13:27-28; Joh_4:51; Act_2:18; Eph_6:5; 1Ti_6:1; Sept.: Lev_25:44; Jos_9:23; Jdg_6:27). In Php_2:7, having taken "the form of a servant," means appearing in a humble and despised condition."

Once again, despite the variations in the translation of doulos into our modern languages, there is absolutely no linguistic basis for translating the word as anything other than "slave". Whether the translators were trying to convey a theological point of some sort, or whether there was a certain cultural sensitivity involved; of all the Greek words for "servant", doulos is not one of them. There is not a single extant extra biblical Greek text to my knowledge wherein doulos is anything other than a slave.

Even within our modern English bibles there appears to be a certain capriciousness in the way the term is rendered. For example (Romans 1:1):

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God (NKJV)

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (KJV)

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, (NASB)

From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for God’s good news. (CEB) HCSB similar.

Bondservant, servant, slave...which is it? What is the correct translation? Which word most closely conveys what Paul had in mind?

It's funny that we don't have a problem with the following verse (Romans 6:16):

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

or that we were bought by the precious blood of Christ...that we are a purchased possession...

But yet when it comes to "slave" there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction and an immediate rejection at all levels of the concept.

I can only surmise that this stems from not the Semitic view (wherein one's worth was found in one's relationship with God), but rather from the Hellenistic view (wherein one's worth is found in one's personal freedom). The idea of being a slave to God for some reason is abhorrent to us.

Respectfully, It seems you want your premise to be true so badly, that you are willing to reach as far as you can to make it so. Being a bondservant has nothing to do with eternal security. You have presented a good study on the concept of "servant" in the Bible, but you have not, up to this point made any kind of material conection between the concept of a bondservant, the meaning of "Christian" and the doctrine of eternal security. The link you are striving for simply isn't there.

Well, I have never used the illustration of the Bondservant in a redemptive sense...the only point that I have made in using the concept is to show that there is in fact a "point in time" wherein the decision once made is irrevocable. That one, having made the decision to "throw in his lot" with his master, was then kept for life by his master. Even you made the following point:

I didn’t say that the concept of bondservant is never applicable in a theological sense. I said that you are trying to force “A” theological concept on to it that is foreign to what it means and how it is used. My point is that you are trying to make a a redemptive concept and it isn’t.

The link become obvious if viewed not in a redemptive sense, but rather in the sense that we, having "thrown in our lot" with the master...having responded to the gospel...we are now kept safe and secure by God for all eternity, and that the decision is irrevocable.

This is also why the concept of the doulos is IMO so important...for the hallmark of the doulos...the thing that sets him apart from all other servants in Greek thought...is that the very will of the doulos is both in subjection to; and overshadowed by the will of his master.

Do we not ask/declare: "Thy will be done"?

[Guest shiloh357]

Christianos without the connotation of one "belonging to Christ" after the manner of a slave would really have no meaning to the Hellenistic speaker, if he meant such is a derisive manner. The Hellenistic world had no messianic expectation, no idea of who or what the "anointed one" was...this would be roughly equivalent to someone calling you and me "followers of green" (what does that mean anyway???).

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about what people thought and I am not convinced that you are qualified to make such assumptions. Simply looking at the cold text, one might not see how such a term could be derisive, but you don’t seem to be taking into account how the first Jewish believers messianic expectations were viewed by either the Romans or the Hellenists. The way a phrase is used is far and away more important than what it means. The term “followers of Christ” could be very derisive depending on how outsiders looked at Christ. Jesus was actually very famous and people came a long way to see Him during His earthly ministry. His fame would have gone beyond the borders of Israel, most likely.

If the people who might accuse us as “followers of green” look at the green movement as a bunch of naïve, foolish quacks, then such an appellation would have a definite derisive tone. You need to look at more than just what words mean. You MUST take into account how they are used as well as the immediate cultural context of those words. That is far more important than lexical definitions.

Once again, despite the variations in the translation of doulos into our modern languages, there is absolutely no linguistic basis for translating the word as anything other than "slave". Whether the translators were trying to convey a theological point of some sort, or whether there was a certain cultural sensitivity involved; of all the Greek words for "servant", doulos is not one of them. There is not a single extant extra biblical Greek text wherein doulos is anything other than a slave.

Even within our modern English bibles there appears to be a certain capriciousness in the way the term is rendered. For example (Romans 1:1):

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God (NKJV)

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (KJV)

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, (NASB)

From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for God’s good news. (CEB) HCSB similar.

Bondservant, servant, slave...which is it? What is the correct translation? Which word most closely conveys what Paul had in mind?

It's funny that we don't have a problem with the following verse (Romans 6:16):

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

or that we were bought by the precious blood of Christ...that we are a purchased possession...

But yet when it comes to "slave" there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction and an immediate rejection at all levels of the concept.

I can only surmise that this stems from not the Semitic view (wherein one's worth was found in one's relationship with God), but rather from the Hellenistic view (wherein one's worth is found in one's personal freedom). The idea of being a slave to God for some reason is abhorrent to us.

You are trying to have a debate with me over an argument that I have not raised in that I am not saying anything about the concept of a slave being abhorrent to me. You are simply wasting a lot of bandwidth trying to prove that the concepts of servant and slave are completely different when they are not.

I think out modern vernacular puts a difference between them. “Slave” seems to drum up pictures of people doing back breaking work in the fields, whereas “servant” conjures up images of someone who works in the house and waits on the master’s table. In truth, both are essentially slaves. Its like those who try to parse over how the Bible handles the differences between the heart and the mind or spirit and soul. They are terms that are so closely related that they used almost interchangably, especially in the Old Testament.

The point and the reason why I am in this thread is to point out that “Bondservant/slave” has nothing to do with the docrtine of eternal security and that you are simply mistaken in trying to apply to that doctrine. You are trying force a connection that doesn’t exist. Being a bondservant refers to the voluntary service I render to the master I love. It is reflects the transformation of the heart of one who was at enmity with God. I am enternally secure, not because I am a bondservant, but because God is faithful to His promises. Being a bondservant/slave is the fruit of salvation.

Receiving Jesus and “throwing your lot” in with Him as you refer to it, is not conceptually the same as considering one’s self as a slave of Jesus. That is not to say that such a concept is abhorrent to me. I think it reflects a certain level of spiritual maturity in Paul to refer to himself that way. It is how he viewed his ministry and calling in his later years, such as when he called himself a “bondservant” of Jesus in Romans 1.

Are we really going to have to establish that the early followers of Jesus referred to Him as "the master"? Are we really going to have to establish that the early followers of Jesus referred to Him as "Lord"? Even before they were called Christians they were know as followers of "the way"...The way of whom do you suppose?

Ah, you are misepresenting what I said. I never said they didn’t call Jesus master or Lord. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that we don’t know if the general populace of early Chrsitians referred to themselves as Douoloi of Jesus. Seems to me, that if it were a common way to view themselves, they would have adopted that appelation early on.

Furthermore, we don’t see the early Christians calling themselves “Christians” in Scripture or elsewhere either. They were called by that title by other writers and people on the outside. That the earliest Christians didn’t take the term for themselves seems to indicate that it was not meant to be either a compliment or simply a generic, innocuous title.

[Mcgyver]

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about what people thought and I am not convinced that you are qualified to make such assumptions. Simply looking at the cold text, one might not see how such a term could be derisive, but you don’t seem to be taking into account how the first Jewish believers messianic expectations were viewed by either the Romans or the Hellenists. The way a phrase is used is far and away more important than what it means. The term “followers of Christ” could be very derisive depending on how outsiders looked at Christ. Jesus was actually very famous and people came a long way to see Him during His earthly ministry. His fame would have gone beyond the borders of Israel, most likely.

If the people who might accuse us as “followers of green” look at the green movement as a bunch of naïve, foolish quacks, then such an appellation would have a definite derisive tone. You need to look at more than just what words mean. You MUST take into account how they are used as well as the immediate cultural context of those words. That is far more important than lexical definitions.

Well, we are obviously to the point of spinning our wheels...and that's fine. However I would point out that after attempting to establish cultural context within the limitations of a message board, that taking into account the cultural context pertaining to the way that the words are used is something that I have indeed done....and have in fact gone beyond the simple definitions found in a lexicon.

However, with respect...you have yet to give any counter argument or reason for said counter argument as to the meaning of Christian from a 1st century standpoint.

You are trying to have a debate with me over an argument that I have not raised in that I am not saying anything about the concept of a slave being abhorrent to me. You are simply wasting a lot of bandwidth trying to prove that the concepts of servant and slave are completely different when they are not.

But there's the point...they are in fact different in Greek thought. The only time we see the line "blurred" is in the LXX with the resulting paradigm shift explained earlier. However, it must be pointed out that the LXX pertained to the Hellenistic Jew, the rest of the Roman world was still steeped in Greek philosophy and Greek understanding.

I think out modern vernacular puts a difference between them. “Slave” seems to drum up pictures of people doing back breaking work in the fields, whereas “servant” conjures up images of someone who works in the house and waits on the master’s table. In truth, both are essentially slaves. Its like those who try to parse over how the Bible handles the differences between the heart and the mind or spirit and soul. They are terms that are so closely related that they used almost interchangably, especially in the Old Testament.

Agreed...and as was pointed out they are used interchangeably in the OT...however outside the OT, in the 1st century world, a slave was not in fact of the same societal view as a servant.

The point and the reason why I am in this thread is to point out that “Bondservant/slave” has nothing to do with the docrtine of eternal security and that you are simply mistaken in trying to apply to that doctrine. You are trying force a connection that doesn’t exist. Being a bondservant refers to the voluntary service I render to the master I love. It is reflects the transformation of the heart of one who was at enmity with God. I am enternally secure, not because I am a bondservant, but because God is faithful to His promises. Being a bondservant/slave is the fruit of salvation.

Receiving Jesus and “throwing your lot” in with Him as you refer to it, is not conceptually the same as considering one’s self as a slave of Jesus. That is not to say that such a concept is abhorrent to me. I think it reflects a certain level of spiritual maturity in Paul to refer to himself that way. It is how he viewed his ministry and calling in his later years, such as when he called himself a “bondservant” of Jesus in Romans 1.

OK, I see your point.

Ah, you are misepresenting what I said. I never said they didn’t call Jesus master or Lord. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that we don’t know if the general populace of early Chrsitians referred to themselves as Douoloi of Jesus. Seems to me, that if it were a common way to view themselves, they would have adopted that appelation early on.

Not trying to put words in your mouth...simply rhetorical questions.

Furthermore, we don’t see the early Christians calling themselves “Christians” in Scripture or elsewhere either. They were called by that title by other writers and people on the outside. That the earliest Christians didn’t take the term for themselves seems to indicate that it was not meant to be either a compliment or simply a generic, innocuous title.

1 Peter 4:16: Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

What is your opinion of the above scripture?

More specifically, where would the shame be in suffering as a Christian? What do you think is inferred here (if anything)?

[Massorite]

This all reads very Nice and Good. But it is not according to what my bible says. Book of Daniel

Dan 12:1 "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Now we all know that when Jesus comes back to claim His bride, we who are alive will be changed and those who have died will be raised from the grave to meet Jesus in the air and only those who have died in Christ will be raised from the grave. However this verse clearly tells us that some of those whom Jesus will raise from the grave will not be bound for "Everlasting Life" but will instead be bound for "Shame and Everlasting Contempt". So without an opinion and based solely on the Word of God, there is no such a thing as Eternal Salvation or Once Saved Always Saved or whatever we wish to call it. Which means that according to these two verses we can make choices that will cause us to loose our salvation and spend eternity in a state of Shame and Everlasting Contempt . I am always amazed at the length folks will go to justify a false doctrinal belief in an effort to scratch those itching ears. You should remember that God condemns false doctrinal teaching that teaches the opposite of what His word teaches us.

[Mcgyver]

This all reads very Nice and Good. But it is not according to what my bible says. Book of Daniel

Dan 12:1 "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Now we all know that when Jesus comes back to claim His bride, we who are alive will be changed and those who have died will be raised from the grave to meet Jesus in the air and only those who have died in Christ will be raised from the grave. However this verse clearly tells us that some of those whom Jesus will raise from the grave will not be bound for "Everlasting Life" but will instead be bound for "Shame and Everlasting Contempt". So without an opinion and based solely on the Word of God, there is no such a thing as Eternal Salvation or Once Saved Always Saved or whatever we wish to call it. Which means that according to these two verses we can make choices that will cause us to loose our salvation and spend eternity in a state of Shame and Everlasting Contempt . I am always amazed at the length folks will go to justify a false doctrinal belief in an effort to scratch those itching ears. You should remember that God condemns false doctrinal teaching that teaches the opposite of what His word teaches us.

Ok, how about this:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”

John 10:27-30

[Don19]

Amen! Excellent thread.

Once you are born again, that's it. "You" are over and done with. Your old man is crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6). You are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3). It is no longer "you" who lives, but Christ in you (Gal 2:20). You are His property, His very Body and His very Temple (1 Cor 6:15-20).

All these verses, and others, are expounding upon this exact reality: that salvation happens at a moment in time when one believes and is "sealed" with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13) and becomes a new creature (2 Cor 5:17). It is absolutely irreversible and irrevocable, just like the slave who chose to be his master's "for ever" slave in Exodus 21:2-6.

And it's why "slave" would have been a much better translation of all the instances of "doulos" in the New Testament. Indeed, that meaning is unambiguous in the Greek. A "servant" can walk away from his master, but a slave cannot. In order to understand salvation in Christ, we must understand that we are His slaves, who cannot walk away from Him at will. He would hold onto us even against our will, if it were possible (but He also gives us a new heart).

[Alive]

Amen brother---it is interesting and I think relevant to invoke 'slave' as a tool to show our 'eternal' relationship with Christ, but there are greater reasons given to us, to make sure this point.

As you say---the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension and how our Lord Himself pointed to that 'event' to come, which would 'seal' us as His own.

Praise the Lord! When the Father placed each of us 'in Christ' and included us in those events. There are verses in scripture that folks can wrangle over, but the inclusion 'In Christ' is such plain language as to shine a light that can't be resisted.