In my experience, few doctrines are more prone to rapid and uncritical Scripture proof-texting than “eternal security”: the idea that anyone who is saved can never lose his salvation. What if, to take a different approach, a disciple of the apostles could be consulted to help resolve this modern dispute? This article will attempt to do this by examining an ancient document known as the Didache. (A similar approach of Clement of Rome’s contribution to this dispute is here.)
Before we begin, it must be recognized that there are a variety of opinions among eternal security advocates. If the Didache is to provide evidence against all variations of eternal security, it must teach not only that saving faith, but also salvation itself can be rejected.
Concerning its dating, the Didache is the earliest surviving Church manual, nearly unanimously placed between A.D. 50 and 140. (See Jonathan Draper’s “Didache” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, published by T&T Clark.) Various factors support an early date: the Didache assumes the presence of itinerant apostles (11.3-6) and an imminent Second Coming (16:1-8) and follows the advice of the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15 (6:3). Patristic scholar Clayton Jefford, after considering its literary style, deems it “every bit as old as the traditions with which the apostle Paul worked.” In fact, “they precede the work of Paul in their origin” (20). Historical theologian Thomas O’Loughlin concurs that the Didache certainly dates to the first century, possibly pre-70, with its core material originating in the latter.
Now let us examine the contents.
The beginning of chapter 16 reads,
Watch over your life: let your lamps be not quenched and your loins be not ungirded, but be ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But be frequently gathered together seeking the things which are profitable for your souls, for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time; for in the last days the false prophets and the corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall change to hate. . . . But they who endure in their faith shall be saved.
Clearly, the author assumes that his audience has faith: “the whole time of your faith.” Likewise, the faith of which he speaks is salvific—indeed, 16.5 explicitly says as much. Additionally, endurance in faith corresponds to being “perfect” (16.2), which is a reference to the virtue of love (1.2; 10.5), which is put into particular commandments in “the Way of Life” (1-4). Therefore, the author is encouraging his audience to continue in the love that is essential to be united to the “life” given in Christ (9.3). Nothing in the Didache would suggest the author is concerned about physical life.
Likewise, 16.1 states that the audience ought to keep their lamps burning until the day of the Lord. This exhortation takes a negative form (“let your lamps be not quenched”), which assumes that his audience is doing the things needed to be found faithful at the Lord’s return.
Chapter 16 seems to assume that such a virtue is not necessarily permanent. The author writes that his audience, who have lived by faith, face the possibility of making it profitless: “the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time.” Apparently, the author believed that a life of saving faith could be abandoned. Likewise, if faith is a condition for salvation, making it profitless is a clear affirmation that salvation is no longer attainable. If one act of faith was sufficient for salvation, abandoning it would not make it profitless.
Notice that the difference between those who endure unto salvation and those who do not is not qualitative (as if the saved had “real” faith, whereas the lost had “false” faith). Rather, those who are saved endure in faith, whereas the lost fail to endure in the same faith. It would seem impossible to render “faith” in chapter 16 as “false” or “deficient faith” without leading to the conclusion that salvation can be achieved by persevering in false faith.
Could this warning be an impossible hypothetical? This would be textbook eisegesis, not drawn from the text, but imposed upon it by theological presuppositions. There is also positive evidence to reject it. The Didache shows little interest in theology, not to mention speculative theology, being almost exclusively practical and ethical, as expected of a church manual.
The rest of chapter 16, regarding the End Times, also refutes this hypothesis: “the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall change to hate” (16.3). “Sheep,” the traditional metaphor for God’s children, is parallelled with “love.” This indicates, as prominent Didache scholar Aaron Milavec recognizes, and as stated above, “what is meant is not an abstract quality but the particular love of God and neighbor (1.2) that characterizes ‘the saints’ (4.2) of the community” (642).
Kurt Neiderwimmer, in his influential commentary, concurs with Milavec: “The love that has been at work in the communities is suddenly transformed into hatred,” and “former believers will become enemies” (217). Apparently, the Didache not only assumed the abandonment of faith and salvation to be possible, but expected it. Like Jesus in Matthew 24 and Luke 12 (passages that show many similarities with the Didache), the Didache speaks of the End Times and the eternal punishment of those unprepared (Matt. 24:51, Luke 12:46).
In conclusion, the author of the Didache exhorts his audience to persevere in the faith and love that appropriate eternal life. Seemingly, the possibility of appropriating, then rejecting faith is quite real. Reformed theologian T.F. Torrance reluctantly concludes that for the Didache, salvation must “be striven for” and “is still an uncertain quantity, a matter of future reward dependent on present behavior” (39, 41). Therefore, already within the Apostolic Age, we find a Church manual, a “parenesis” (an exhortation in a shared way of life), not only teaching that salvation can be lost, but assuming this to be an apostolic doctrine.