Eternal Security??
Hey folks. Over the years I have had numerous conversations and debates over this subject. I have sat on both sides of the fence and now I’m opening up the dialogue here again. My blog is no longer a place with one (IHOP) opinion submitted, so the subject should beg some good conversation. For those not in the know let me make it simple.
Can you lose your salvation once you gain it? Is it possible to fall away from the faith? Is it possible to “back slide” and not go to heaven once you have received Christ? Is there eternal security?
The resurrection of Christ was great and powerful. In it do we have hope to live forever. As Christ was raised so also will we be raised one day and dwell with Christ eternally. Yet Hebrews 12 says that we can “fall from grace”, Jesus says in the last days the love of most will grow cold and many will fall away. Yet the word clearly states the sustaining grace of Christ, the blood, is sufficient to sustain us until the day of Christ’s return to the Earth.
So what is it? What do you think? Give me your argument for or against. I honestly am staying neutral as I only want to understand the heart of God, and know the word in a better more excellent way.
Zack,
So glad you brought up this subject. When I was a teenager I accepted Christ as my Savior- kind of. My family was divided between the eternal security camp and the fall from gracers, which constantly left me wondering if I was indeed saved, or in the case of the fall from gracers, if I should even
bother with Christianity at all. They made it sound pretty chancy.
I began to wrestle with this mightily, without telling anyone, because I thought I was the only one who ever had doubts. I would often hear something that went like this, ” If you’re not a good person after you are saved you still will burn in hell” Needless to say, as an imperfect teenager, I grew weary under the weight of trying to be perfect, so I finally gave up on even trying, and became very depressed about my future.
I stopped going to church, or having anything to do with Christians I knew. I turned a deaf ear to my mother’s and father’s counsel, and lived like there was no tomorrow, because I wasn’t sure as a Christian that there was. By the way, in the last months of her life while she was still lucid, my Christian mother was terribly anxious about whether she would go to heaven, because she too had been convinced that she had fallen too short in her performance as a Christian in her later years.
So this where I want to go with this: We are accepted for salvation at the moment we accept that Christ died on the cross for us, a sinner. That’s to save our person. His imputed righteousness saves us. However, we retain the ability to keep sinning because we still retain our earthly natures. Paul, the Apostle, spoke of his own ongoing inner battle between the two at length.
After the initial acceptance of Christ, there is an ongoing process of repentance, sanctification and transformation, that God wishes to do in our lives in order to complete His work in us to conform us to the image of Christ. That doesn’t mean if we fail in some part of this process we are automatically condemned to hell.
The fall from grace verse has erroneously been applied by many theologians to mean we lose our salvation, if we sin. We were imputed the righteousness of Christ on the cross. When we accepted Him as Savior we were sealed with the Holy Spirit, and hidden in Christ. That seal cannot be broken.
Many will walk away from the faith as I did temporarily, some even permanently, because they have not been counseled fully on what the atonement and propitiation really means. Some will superficially profess Christ because of family or church pressure to conform. I believe that was initially the case with me. Thankfully, the grace of God gave me another chance to understand the real gift of the cross, because I finally realized being a Christian was not all about me.
Some will accept Christ out of a smaltzy, over sentimentalized version of God’s love that is pasteurized to the point that it resembles a giddy high school movie. When life’s reality hits they will think they’ve been had. Others will be scared into the kingdom, but when they lose their fear, they too will walk away. Those who believe they can prosper and grow rich by being part of the prosperity crowd will join Christianity out of greed.
Are these people really saved? It would appear not. They believe in things- eternal life, material blessings and the like- but not in the actual person of Jesus Christ. We are all sinners saved by grace, not by ulterior motives which fool everyone but God, who knows our hearts.
The point is then if we genuinely accept Christ, then He says, ” I will never leave you or forsake you.”
If we are going to preach eternal life made possible because of Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection, and then make its continuance conditional strictly upon our behavior, then we should not be preaching the gospel at all, in my opinion, because we don’t have a good understanding of it ourselves. In preaching a conditional salvation, we would be creating an He loves me, He loves me not, kind of Russian roulette in people’s minds when it comes to Christ. Who in their right mind would want to trust in a part-time, maybe, maybe not kind of Savior who just might make good on His promises if we are all possibly very, very good?
YO Z,
I have an argument but i will post it later. Just wanted to tell you that I finally posted the yardworkmemorialday video on my blog. Z and J represent!
I can’t say that I know that I know, but this is what I think.
Nothing can seperate me from the love of Christ, but I can.
As long as I continue to receive Christ as my saviour, my salvation is sure.
Salvation is by faith and has nothing to do with works, but if I come to a point of not having faith in Jesus, not believing in Jesus, not receiving Jesus as my savior, my eternal security could be lost.
Receiving Christ is not once and for all, but a continual process, and if I endure (keep believing) until the end, I will be saved – for sure.
Here’s a question/thought to add to the discussion that might help bring some light. In some of the camps that believe once saved always saved, they would argue that if you fall away from the Lord completely (eternally condemned to hell), you were never truly born again? It seems to me that in Johns theology, he would think it was impossible for someone to be born again and fall away. Here’s why i say that. It’s an isolated portion of scripture (especially note verse 9-10):
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1Jo 3:3
And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
1Jo 3:4
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
1Jo 3:5
And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.
1Jo 3:6
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
1Jo 3:7
Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
1Jo 3:8
He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jo 3:9
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
1Jo 3:10
In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
It’s clear John understands even believers and children of God sin, because in 1John 8-9 he expresses we all have sin on some level, but there is forgiveness if we confess our sins.
So my question/thought is, is it a matter of actually being saved and then falling away, or is it a matter of having a true born again conversion experience or not. I really don’t have an answer, but it seems that John would argue that if you truly have the spirit of God in you, your faith will be perfected by Him who is faithful (with your co-operation of course) ????
Just as its safer to believe in a post-trib rapture, its safer to believe that it can worse for us if, after knowing Jesus and the way of righteousness, we turn away.
Just to clarify on my last comment, the main thrust of the comment was verse 9
“Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God”
I’m likening sin to falling away, because it’s clear in the context of 1 John that he’s talking about sin as a turning to wickedness.
Yes, one can start following Christ and veer off that path. It’s a difficult path, few (comparatively) go the distance. God will force no one to spend eternity with him against their will. If people accept Christ in their life, start walking with him, then decidedly choose to reject him and take a different path they are free to do so. The forecast for the latter days is that many who are presently standing with Christ, under the intensity and confusion of those days, will step away from him – “many will fall away.” One cannot get doctrines like eternal security from the gospels or Hebrews. That doctrine emerges in Paul. But we need to listen closely to what Paul is saying because he’s not saying something different than Jesus. Paul put forth an eternal security for those who remain in Christ. Those who remain in Christ are eternally secure in Him. Our security is to remain in him.
I have always liked to see and understand the nature of God through all of His ways in both the Old and New testaments. He is forever the same, yesterday, today and forever; His word is immutable and His will insurmountable. He purposly discloses His character though what He has done in the past with His people. It has been left for us to take the journey of discovery and learning who He is though relationship and study of His word.
The age old struggle to define the principals of interpretation, and what thing has acendancy over the next in dealing with the sacred text has left many people daunted. I take a very simple approach in my hermanutic. (I understand that the following statement is over simplified, but for sake of space, and the fact that i am only leading into the subject, I say it this way) First rule is Context, context, context. What does the passage mean according to the surrounding scriptures, the chapter, the book and the rest of the Word. I try and look for the plain meaning of the text, and use the scripture as my guide to interpreting scripture. It’s the only sure source to finding meaning as you lean into the Holy Spirit for illumination to know understanding of God’s heart on any given subject.
I try and see patterns established throughout the Word that give indication as to Who God is and what He does, this gives me a reference to difine His character. He wants us to know Him, and to search Him out, So He is knowable, approachable. It’s like the idea of blood redemption, and the fact that it has always been faith in Chirst that has saved all men in both old and new rtestaments. Abraham believed God and it was accoued to Him as righrteousness. Adam and eve believed God thta He would redeem makind through the Seed of the woman, and take back the kingdom form the grip of the evil one. When striped of everything, Job had this one confession; Job 19:25-27
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. KJV
He believed in the testimony of His fathers, and the promise of God that was handed down from generation to generation about the comming messiah. We look to that same reality, but from a different perspective as ones who have known the first advent of Christ, adn await His soon coming return. But still, the faith in the promised sealed in blood remains the same. Just as Adam and Eve had when the Lord slayed the animal (probably a lamb) and made them a proper covering, and told them what He would do through the ages. We see this even in the perfect conssumation when the sceen is revealed in heaven and One is found worhty to open the seals of the book. It was this Lamb that was slain, this One in the garden, this One before the foundation of the world Who agreed to die. This One, Jesus the Author and Now finisher of the redemption in blood.
I am taking my time to establish something here; the consistant character of God. It’s not hard to find and establish divine patterns of how He is and what He expects. Old and New testament alike, common threads run through the entierty of the Bible. Even though He changes the mode of our approach to Him throughout history, it does not violate, or change the consistancy of His character.
God is a person with a personality. He has thoughts, feelings and emotions. He has made Himself vulnerable to us to be wounded. When we sin, it hurts Him because He is infinitely a God of relationship. He loves us deeply and passionately. (Intresting thought just came to me. Why is it that Calvinist are big on judgment and the wrath of God, yet reserved when it comes to the idea that He just might judge His own people etrnally who turn their back on Him?)
Anyone who loves, also hurts when love is violated in a relationship. Love of a nessesity makes you vulnerable for others to hurt you. In salvation, we are called with an invitation to love God, and to learn to do it with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength. (I think I am hitting the crux of something here that you have been debating about concerning love. Because this is the point where people of the Calvinist doctrine often balk, to think that God is ravished over us, and vulnerable. An egotistical God concerned mostly for His glory is indifferent concerning the matters of emotional response of anothers devotion and love, just as long as they confess Him, and believe, He is satisfied. But a passionate God of ravished love will divorce His unfaithful spouse, because He is hurt by indifference and apathy. Just a thought, this needs more development.)
It’s like my pastor pointed out last week, that God’s heart still burns from Cain leaving His presence after his sin. The Bible record he went out from the presence of God to dwell in Nod. We know God still thinks about Cain’s choice because of Jude’s mention of him some four thousand years later. Relationship is central to God’s heart, and anything that breaks it He hates. that’s why a God of love will also judge unrighteousness, because it brings harm to people and breaks fellowship between them. It is consistant for love to punish, because evil unchecked is a greivious cancer that kills everything in it’s path. Love must act or it WOULD NOT BE LOVE. It would not preserve and defend, if it brought no retribution to those that offend.
But also on a personal level, there is a point when this God of love will deal with unfaithful children in progressive degrees to cause them to return to Him. (see Deut. chps. 28-30) He is longsuffering and loves mercy. He is kind and compassionate to our failings and our weaknessess, but stubborn rebellion, adn an unyeilding heart He will not forever tollerate with one who claims His name. Our own relationships teach us this. we are made in the image of God, and in His likeness. Does not indignation raise up in us when we are taken advantage of, when we are decieved by insensarity?
God is no different, (though far more wise and patient) Jer 3:6-10
The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. KJV
For the individule, He says it this way in Old testament language;
Ezek 18:21-29
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say,’The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
NKJV
Some of the New Testament language sounds like this;
Col 1:21-23
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23 **If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,** which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
KJV
This clearly speaks of a salvation experience of regeneration, but also issues warning to continue in the faith and not being moved away from the hope of the gospel, lest you be found with blame. Without Holiness, no man shall see the Lord.
And this verse that, even after all these years I don’t know if I really understand that well, but it seems clear enough on this point;
Heb 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
KJV
Pretty hard to fall away from something that your not a part of.
there are more that I could sight, but I’m tierd and it’s late. So finally, This is a parable I find really hard to see in any kind of a etrenal security frame work at all.
Luke 12:42-48
And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
KJV
Clearly this is talking about two classes of believer. Ones in the Lord’s house, and not someone who has not rally had salvation. they were all servants in thier lord’s house, all given assignments to do. And how they responded to their responsibility determined the lord’s treatment of them.
Being cut in sunder adn having your portion put with the unbelievers is pretty clear language to me of someone having really known the Lord, yet becoming distracted and unfaithful in his relationship with the Lord and being thrown into hell because of it. It even talks of the severity of the torment that they will receive based upon the indiviule circumstances. Sounds like thier will be a court session to decide this stuff to me, and believers of all kinds are going to be shocked at who this Jesus really is.
@ Jerry
“Nothing can seperate me from the love of Christ, but I can.”
Surely YOU are something! If you can separate yourself from the love of Christ, then it cannot be true that NOTHING can separate you from the love of Christ.
Proponents of Perseverance (“Eternal Security” and “Once Saved Always Saved” are poor terms not often used by those who actually hold to Perseverance – they convey the erroneous notion that a believer may or can continue to sin like the world after they are saved) often will say, “If I can separate myself from Christ, I will.” I think this is right – if my salvation (justification, sanctification and glorification) is in any way dependent on me, I will forfeit it.
@ Sean
“Just as its safer to believe in a post-trib rapture, its safer to believe that it can worse for us if, after knowing Jesus and the way of righteousness, we turn away.”
I understand what you are trying to say, but surely we should strive for a right understanding of God’s Word, trusting that it will be of benefit to us. I don’t think it wise or prudent to settle difficult doctrinal issues by throwing up our hands and deciding in favor of that which appears to our finite, sinful, minds to be most practical or safe.
I could (and will, if pressed) throw a bunch of pro-Perseverance verses at this discussion, and then someone else could throw a bunch anti-Perseverance verses. If you (Zack) haven’t checked it out, Sam Storms has an excellent section on this issue at this site:
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/studies/eternal-security/
He says what I would want to say with much more clarity and precision than I could.
God Bless
I’d have to say that, yes, you can lose your salvation. In fact, we know it’s going to happen in the end times. Jesus said that, “The love of many will grow cold” in the context of believers doing terrible things. The great apostasy is proof that people can lose their salvation, because the fact that their love grows cold means that they had love in the first place. That they were saved in the first place. The great apostasy won’t just have the “real” Christians staying, and the “fake” Christians leaving; it will have all of those that don’t abide in Jesus’ love falling away.
@ Haybark
“Because this is the point where people of the Calvinist doctrine often balk, to think that God is ravished over us, and vulnerable. An egotistical God concerned mostly for His glory is indifferent concerning the matters of emotional response of anothers devotion and love, just as long as they confess Him, and believe, He is satisfied. But a passionate God of ravished love will divorce His unfaithful spouse, because He is hurt by indifference and apathy.”
If you want to have this debate, then we both need to dispense with caricature and deal with the actual issues at hand. Many men, past and present, far godlier than you or I, far more captivated by God’s passionate love for His people, have held the Reformed view of Perseverance.
Yes, God is an egoist, and rightly so. Do you, Haybark, believe God is not concerned with the glory (fame) of His name? Do you really want me to take up Zack’s blog-space with the reams of scripture citing God’s zeal for His glory? And can you refer me to ONE respected Reformed teacher/minister who believes God is “indifferent concerning the matters of emotional response of anothers [sic] devotion and love, just as long as they confess Him, and believe, He is satisfied”? God’s glory is magnified IN His devoted love to His people. To argue against IHOP’s Bridal Paradigm is not to argue against God’s possession of emotions or His sincere desire to relate to His people. As Zack cited in reference to the BP, countless Reformed folk accept a general allegorical reading of the Song of Songs, and none deny that the Church is the Bride of Christ, the Bridegroom, and that He loves Her dearly.
But here’s the rub: “…passionate God of ravished love will divorce His unfaithful spouse…” Really? I’m pretty sure Zack would assent to my zealous disagreement here. Haybark, despite your aspiration “to see and understand the nature of God through all of His ways in both the Old and New testaments”, you’ve completely missed the point. Despite Israel’s “indifference and apathy” (and rebellion, and Baal-worship, etc.), GOD NEVER DIVORCES HER! I’m sure there will be some kind of clarification forthcoming, but my jaw is still lying on the floor. “A passionate God of ravished love will divorce His unfaithful spouse”?!?! With all due respect, Haybark, you don’t get it! WE ARE ALL UNFAITHFUL SPOUSES! The whole point of the OT is to demonstrate (1) man’s inability to merit God’s grace or faithfulness and (2) demonstrate His glory in lovingly choosing (i.e. ELECTING) a people for Himself despite their unworthiness. (Those who stumble on the NT doctrine of individual election need to ponder the election of Israel: Did not God choose Israel and not Egypt or Babylon? Why? Why did God reveal Himself to Abraham and not others? Scripture nowhere hints that God shopped for the right man before He finally stumbled upon one righteous and faithful enough to merit His favor. God elected Abraham, and hence the people of Israel, not based on anything other than His sovereign will.)
I feel I need to restate for emphasis: THE MAIN THEME OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS YAHWEH’S UNDYING LOVE FOR ISRAEL DESPITE HER REPEATED PHILANDERING AND FAILURES. GOD NEVER HAS NOR EVER WILL DIVORCE HIS PEOPLE.
“…God’s heart still burns from Cain leaving His presence after his sin. …We know God still thinks about Cain’s choice because of Jude’s mention of him some four thousand years later.”
Sigh… While I don’t have any problem accepting that God was grieved by Cain’s sin (sin grieves God), the idea that Jude’s mention of Cain in verse 11 was somehow intended to portray God as a scorned lover is just plain silly. This is not to say God does not today remember Cain (God does not forget) and feel emotional pain, but the eisegesis of your pastor here, inserting this into the text, is pretty awful. Jude is admonishing his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”, and warns against false teachers who have “walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain”. This text has nothing to do with God’s 4,000 year love-grudge against Cain.
Regarding the Ezekiel text you quoted at length, I’m not sure where you were going with it. Haybark, have you turned from all your sins? Have you kept all the Lord’s statutes? Have you always done what is lawful and right? I pray your answers are “No” to all of these. If this is the case, then you will surely die. UNLESS… someone were to give “you a new heart, and a new spirit… [and] remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” That’s Ezekiel, too (Chapter 36). This explicitly foretells the new birth Christ purchases for His people at the cross. Do you know what this “new heart” and “new spirit” purchased for you will accomplish, Haybark? It will “cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” All that stuff you and I can’t do apart from this new birth.
“Clearly this is talking about two classes of believer.”
Yes. There have always been pretenders and the true elect within God’s visible people. Do you believe that all Israelites were protected under the Old Covenant? Were those Israelites who oppressed the poor and sacrificed their children to Molech true Israel (i.e. saved – under God’s covenant)?
I John 2:19-20 – They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.
Who has “been anointed by the Holy One” (i.e. saved)? Not those who went out, but those who remained. Yet, before they left, it was not “plain that they all [those who left] [were] not of us”. This speaks very clearly of the two kinds of people in the Church – wheat and tares.
God Bless
Jim B,
Seeing that you have a better understanding of TULIP than I do, I want to pose a few questions that might help me in future discussions with TULIPites so that I don’t get accused of strawmanning:
1. Would you categorize initial repentance prior to conversion as a “work”?
2. Is cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification necessary for future glorification? Would you categorize this as a “work”?
3. Do you believe that the Old Testament covenants that are made to the nation of Israel to be conditional covenants?
4. Is the New Testament covenant conditional in any way?
5. Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.
(2 Timothy 1:13-14)
What happens to believers that don’t “hold fast”?
6. Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
(Revelation 14:12)
Is *keeping* [active voice] the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus necessary for salvation? What happens to those who are not found faithful?
Blessings.
Well this has developed nicely.
I have to say that i haven;t yet read through everything just yet, particularly Jim and Haybark’s comments. But i will chime in on this point:
i agree with Jim that God never divorced israel, BUT He did threaten to divorce them (Jer. 3) but never turned from His steadfastness. Hosea 11 He also says He could… But He is holy and not like Man. Thus maybe Haybark was confused.
Romans 9 also is actually about this. Paul is addressing Israel to tell them that God was not a liar and His promises are still steadfast.
“But it is not as though the Word of God has failed”
I will comment more once I read more but will summarize with this:
Eternal security should be stated as “The perseverance of the Saints” not once saved always saved. I like that terminology better for the reasons Jim pointed out.
Those who say you can lose your salvation have mostly stated eschatological reasons as to why.
Those who say the saints persevere have stated that Salvation is a completed work.
My question, as I’m still kinda in the middle is what about glorification? If salvation isn’t totally completed until Christ returns and we are glorified, then is it a totally completed work?
Obviously this subject has been debated for centuries which is why I’m hesitant to pick a side just yet.
JimB I would also be interested in hearing your answers to Ortho’s questions above.
for now folks: Phil 2:12
Just to tack on one more:
7. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8)
Is the passage above talking about those that are in the faith? If not, how can one that was never part of the faith fall away from the faith?
Matthew Henry
III. He shows that this spiritual growth is the surest way to prevent that dreadful sin of apostasy from the faith. And here,
1. He shows how far persons may go in religion, and, after all, fall away, and perish for ever, v. 4, 5. (1.) They may be enlightened. Some of the ancients understand this of their being baptized; but it is rather to be understood of notional knowledge and common illumination, of which persons may have a great deal, and yet come short of heaven. Balaam was the man whose eyes were opened (Num. 24:3), and yet with his eyes opened he went down to utter darkness. (2.) They may taste of the heavenly gift, feel something of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit in his operations upon their souls, causing them to taste something of religion, and yet be like persons in the market, who taste of what they will not come up to the price of, and so but take a taste, and leave it. Persons may taste religion, and seem to like it, if they could have it upon easier terms than denying themselves, and taking up their cross, and following Christ. (3.) They may be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, that is, of his extraordinary and miraculous gifts; they may have cast out devils in the name of Christ, and done many other mighty works. Such gifts in the apostolic age were sometimes bestowed upon those who had no true saving grace. (4.) They may taste of the good word of God; they may have some relish of gospel doctrines, may hear the word with pleasure, may remember much of it, and talk well of it, and yet never be cast into the form and mould of it, nor have it dwelling richly in them. (5.) They may have tasted of the powers of the world to come; they may have been under strong impressions concerning heaven, and dread of going to hell. These lengths hypocrites may go, and, after all, turn apostates. Now hence observe, [1.] These great things are spoken here of those who may fall away; yet it is not here said of them that they were truly converted, or that they were justified; there is more in true saving grace than in all that is here said of apostates. [2.] This therefore is no proof of the final apostasy of true saints. These indeed may fall frequently and foully, but yet they will not totally nor finally from God; the purpose and the power of God, the purchase and the prayer of Christ, the promise of the gospel, the everlasting covenant that God has made with them, ordered in all things and sure, the indwelling of the Spirit, and the immortal seed of the word, these are their security. But the tree that has not these roots will not stand.
2. The apostle describes the dreadful case of such as fall away after having gone so far in the profession of the religion. (1.) The greatness of the sin of apostasy. It is crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to open shame. They declare that they approve of what the Jews did in crucifying Christ, and that they would be glad to do the same thing again if it were in their power. They pour the greatest contempt upon the Son of God, and therefore upon God himself, who expects all should reverence his Son, and honour him as they honour the Father. They do what in them lies to represent Christ and Christianity as a shameful thing, and would have him to be a public shame and reproach. This is the nature of apostasy. (2.) The great misery of apostates. [1.] It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. It is extremely hazardous. Very few instances can be given of those who have gone so far and fallen away, and yet ever have been brought to true repentance, such a repentance as is indeed a renovation of the soul. Some have thought this is the sin against the Holy Ghost, but without ground. The sin here mentioned is plainly apostasy both from the truth and the ways of Christ. God can renew them to repentance, but he seldom does it; and with men themselves it is impossible. [2.] Their misery is exemplified by a proper similitude, taken from the ground that after much cultivation brings forth nothing but briers and thorns; and therefore is nigh unto cursing, and its end is to be burned, v. 8. To give this the greater force here is observed the difference that there is between the good ground and the bad, that these contraries, being set one over against the other, illustrate each other. First Here is a description of the good ground: It drinketh in the rain that cometh often upon it. Believers do not only taste of the word of God, but they drink it in; and this good ground bringeth forth fruit answerable to the cost laid out, for the honour of Christ and the comfort of his faithful ministers, who are, under Christ, dressers of the ground. And this fruit-field or garden receives the blessing. God declares fruitful Christians blessed, and all wise and good men account them blessed: they are blessed with increase of grace, and with further establishment and glory at last. Secondly, Here is the different case of the bad ground: It bears briers and thorns; it is not only barren of good fruit, but fruitful in that which is bad, briers and thorns, fruitful in sin and wickedness, which are troublesome and hurtful to all about them, and will be most so to sinners themselves at last; and then such ground is rejected. God will concern himself no more about such wicked apostates; he will let them alone, and cast them out of his care; he will command the clouds that they rain no more upon them. Divine influences shall be restrained; and that is not all, but such ground is nigh unto cursing; so far is it from receiving the blessing, that a dreadful curse hangs over it, though as yet, through the patience of God, the curse is not fully executed. Lastly, Its end is to be burned. Apostasy will be punished with everlasting burnings, the fire that shall never be quenched. This is the sad end to which apostasy leads, and therefore Christians should go on and grow in grace, lest, if they do not go forward, they should go backward, till they bring matters to this woeful extremity of sin and misery.
Tim H.
In regards to the Hewbrews 6 passage Matthew Henry said, “These great things are spoken here of those who may fall away; yet it is not here said of them that they were truly converted, or that they were justified; there is more in true saving grace than in all that is here said of apostates.”
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become **PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT**, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them **AGAIN** to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8, emphasis mine)
In my opinion, being a partaker of the Holy Spirit means that you are a believer. Unbelievers cannot partake of the Holy Spirit. Also, verse 6 seems to imply that they have repented unto conversion at one point. What does Henry have to say?
On the 1st John 3 verses, I benefited a lot from this John Piper sermon entitled “No One Born of God Makes a Practice of Sinning”, it is available to read, or to listen to for free @
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/2665_No_One_Born_of_God_Makes_a_Practice_of_Sinning/
I fall on the side where a saved man is a new creation in Christ, and anyone who has been made new cannot be made old again, rather, if one thought they were made new, but continue as their old selves, they probably weren’t made new.
And I know, this is a huge topic. John 6 comforts me about it.
In the sermon, Piper preaches specifically on the first 10 verses of John 3.
in Christ,
Devin
Tim H.,
Also, in verse 4 the term “partaker” (μέτοχος metochos) in the book of Hebrews is always used in association to believers. (See Hebrews 3:1; 3:14; 6:4; 12:8)
I was previously in the ‘once saved always saved’ camp. Matthew 25 was the turning point for me though. The parables of the the five virgins waiting for his coming and the servant who knew his master both seem would both indicate a relationship prior to being shut out of the wedding and cast into outer darkness, respectively.
Obviously I don’t have a deep theological background for my opinion. I just haven’t been able to explain that chapter in a way that supports OSAS. I would tend toward the idea that the grace of God can sustain us until the day of Jesus’ return but only if we continually choose to partake of it.
from JimB’s post:
“Just as its safer to believe in a post-trib rapture, its safer to believe that it can worse for us if, after knowing Jesus and the way of righteousness, we turn away.”
I understand what you are trying to say, but surely we should strive for a right understanding of God’s Word, trusting that it will be of benefit to us. I don’t think it wise or prudent to settle difficult doctrinal issues by throwing up our hands and deciding in favor of that which appears to our finite, sinful, minds to be most practical or safe.
______________________
Jerry, I think I was being a bit too cryptic in the brevity of my post about the “safer” position. I’m sure you do understand the meaning of my words, but perhaps not my perspective. I’m somewhat older than you
a ton older actually. I remember debating eternal security when I was about 16 or 17 years old, and that’s about 35 years ago.
So when you say “I don’t think it wise or prudent to settle difficult doctrinal issues by throwing up our hands”, you’ve touched on my real point: we’ll never settle the doctrinal dispute! Oh, it’s settled in the minds of most believers, just not with the same conclusion.
So while I deeply appreciate the vigor of youth in arguing this point, I’m not up to it! But I thought it was worth noting that while some people will never change their minds from a theological standpoint, most people could readily understand the danger of teaching eternal security. The wrong understanding of ES is related to “cheap grace” and unintentionally lead to compromise.
So while I welcome everyone who has the gusto to argue this subject, I thought it was useful, in light of the fact that this argument is ages-old, to point out that a godly fear of falling away is better is a better source of eternal security than the alternative believe.
Sorry for the typos above. I really should not post at then end of an 18 hour day.
Would it be safe to say that since there are pre-tribers and post-tribers, eternal security or lose your salvation believers that this really would be something that would be based on your foundational theological belief? Like let’s say Calvin or Arminian or whatever?
I would agree with Scott, this is a never ending discussion and neither camp will come to a conclusion but we will all probably agree to disagree.
As for myself, I just know that I need to be obedient and Love the Lord and daily take up my cross and when I sin, repent, and I know that Jesus is the son of the Living God, He is the Messiah and I expect to be with him in eternity.
Blessings
I do have one question: For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,…
The word “those”.. Who are those? Are they people who have accepted Christ and then fall away or are they those who have tasted the things that the Lord has done but rejected those things? Are they current believers that fall away or are they those who saw Jesus, like the Pharisees and Saducees that rejected Him as the Messiah? Who are those who have once been enlightened? Again, those who saw Jesus and rejected him or believers who fall away?
@ Jim,
Yeah, I agree that God is zealous for the glory of His name, absolutely. And I don’t know if the opening quote in your post of what I wrote was very thought out on my part. Thanks for more clarity on your position. But here is my point and argument on the glory of God that I have been trying to make in the other posts on our blog; God’s glory is not the source of His love. As if His love is a revelation of His glory, the word never startes that God is glory. But it does state the reverse, GOD IS LOVE: essentially, the very essence of His being is love. So that His glory is the natural out flow, and the revelation of who He is as love.
Love is self sacrificing, ego is self centered. Love demonstrated Himself self in Jesus’s death, burial and ressurection. He is zealous for His glory so that their can be no abiguity of what love truly is, and who he is as opposed to any imposter. It’s more a love thing with God to save those who have fallen that to protect something of His fame. He is God, what He does and who He is will endure. Sure, for His own sake, and not for Israel He saved them, but the Word never says that God is glory, but it does clearly say: God is love.
The clarification of the Israel reference. I should have developed this point more thoughly. I didn’t mean the permanent casting away of Isreal as a nation. My point being that He did indeed put away the northern kingdom and give them a cirtificate of divorce. Then about 140 years later Judah was carried away.
The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Jer 3:6-10
What I am sayig is that He did cause her to be sold to the Ayssrians, adn in 722 they came and invaded the northern Kingdom and destroyed it, carrying away a remnant. If this is not what the passage meant, please, Zack, Jim; help me to understand what the prophet was speaking about. As Roman’s 9-11 outlines, this was a reality again and in 70AD she was again scattered to the four winds of the earth until the fullness of the gentiles come in, and then shall all Isreal be saved. But it won’t come outside thier CHOSING Jesus. They will look upon Him whom they have pierced and mourn. Until that time, the wrath of God still to this day remains upon them, as the headlines in the news bears witness to. God, in this sense, has divorced them until they come to Him in repentance.
My point is consistant wtih the Ezekiel passage that I listed above, (Ezek 18:21-29). The spirit of the pasage isn’t a leagal code so much as it is a principal of repentance and apostasy. When wicked people repent they are saved. When the righteous turn away from doing righteousness they are damned adn their righteousness is remembered no more. As Zack alluded to in his Phil. Passage, this salvation experience is not finalized until the very end. It remains to be worked out in our lives and we remain to be proven. Thier is a balance in all of it.
Finally, the Luke pasage. Again it says;
And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. Luke 12:42-48
Be honest with the language of the text Jim, the explination that you gave is inconsistant with the clear meaning of what is stated. He says, Who is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will make ruler over his household… His example is a steward that has a lord. Jesus cannot be Lord to any unregenrate person, they are not a part of His kigdom but of the kingdom of darkness.
He carries on the analogy saying, blessed is THAT servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Then He qualifies the statement by saying, BUT IF THAT servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
**Note that this is the same servant He was talking about in V.43 who would be blessed for faithfulness.** .
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Now He contrast that THIS SAME SERVANT who would have been blessed, that was a servant IN HIS HOUSE, could now be condemned. This is a very conditional statement, based upon the servants response to the Lord’s charge of the servant.
You can be neither a servant of the Lord, nor a steward of the gifts and callings of God with out a true savation experience. This was what I was asserting about the consistancy of God’s character that is demonstrated in both Old and New Testaments. This is very consistant with the Ezekiel passage and with what the Lord did with Israel in her unfaithfulness.
Jim B,
you said: “I understand what you are trying to say, but surely we should strive for a right understanding of God’s Word, trusting that it will be of benefit to us. I don’t think it wise or prudent to settle difficult doctrinal issues by throwing up our hands and deciding in favor of that which appears to our finite, sinful, minds to be most practical or safe.”
I totally agree with that. The logic in those kinds of arguments doesn’t hold alot of water. For example, if that logic is applied to other theological difficulties like baptism than it’s much safer to jump in the camp of infant baptism + baptism at the age of accountability + baptism at conversion.
@ Zack -
“i agree with Jim that God never divorced israel, BUT He did threaten to divorce them (Jer. 3) but never turned from His steadfastness.”
Oh, good. So God won’t actually divorce His people, but He will hold the threat over them like an abusive husband? I know this is not what you intend to say, Zack, and I do appreciate your conceding that God never divorced His people, but I think we are again missing the larger point. What is the point of the Jeremiah text here? God uses the language of marriage/divorce/whoring/etc. to illustrate Israel’s disobedience and His steadfast love despite it. If you read to the end of the chapter (Jer. 3) and throughout all the OT prophets, God continues to draw His people back to Himself despite their incessant whorings. Ultimately, this cycle of rebellion will only end when their hearts of stone are replaced with hearts of flesh (i.e. the new birth purchased by Christ at the Cross).
@ Scott –
First you say, “…we’ll never settle the doctrinal dispute!” Then, “…most people could readily understand the danger of teaching eternal security. The wrong understanding of ES is related to “cheap grace” and unintentionally lead to compromise.” And, “…a godly fear of falling away is better is a better source of eternal security than the alternative believe.”
Make up your mind – if you want to engage in the conversation, engage. Don’t tell us we can’t resolve the issue and then continue to resolve the issue for us with unreasoned arguments that your position “is a better source of eternal security”, while mine is a “danger”.
I couldn’t disagree more with your assertion that we cannot settle this dispute. Because of the overwhelming predominance of Arminian thought in the modern American Church, most American believers (myself included, until relatively recently) have a very poor understanding of Reformed soteriology (e.g. “Once Saved, Always Saved” – no Reformed folk use that kind of language). Once rightly understood, many (though certainly not all) will see its merit. All I strive for here is clarity; I cannot force anyone to see the light, I can only attempt to move aside obstructions.
@ Haybark –
I’m chomping at the bit to address this issue of God’s love and glory, but I really want to devote a post to the topic on my blog. I’m going to try to stick to Eternal Security/Soteriology on this thread.
@ Ortho(doxy?) –
All good questions. I will try to get at some of them later.
@ All –
God Bless
Looking forward to that post Jim.
I love this debate. It will truly never end. I don’t think He’ll even tell us when we get to heaven. I think instead what He’ll do is put Piper and Boyd in a room together and let all of us 21st centuryers listen to them battle it out into eternity.
@ Ortho –
Firstly… Like Zack, I have not acquired any official theological training. Also, I have only been slowly converted myself to the Reformed position within the last five years. I say this to warn against taking my arguments/positions as perfectly formulated and error-free. This is why I refer to men like John Piper and Sam Storms – they do a much better job of fleshing these things out coherently and persuasively. (I would again urge those interested in a better understanding of Reformed soteriology to check out Storms’ website. I specifically recommend him, because (1) he’s awesome and (2) he’s not anti-IHOP like me (he used to teach at Metro Christian with Mike Bickle)).
1. Would you categorize initial repentance prior to conversion as a “work”?
When the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner, He removes his heart of stone, giving him a heart of flesh; He gives the sinner eyes to see the infinite worth and glory of Christ, causing him to be irresistibly drawn to the Godhead. Once this happens, faith and repentance spring forth. (I don’t mean to put these things in a strict chronological order – these all basically happen in the same event, though rebirth does precede faith and repentance.)
So, if I understand what you’re driving at with this question, then no, I don’t believe repentance is a “work” that merits God’s favor (i.e. salvation). To put it in your terms, repentance is a “work”, but it does not occur “prior to conversion”. Repentance necessarily and naturally springs from conversion (i.e. regeneration/new birth). But it is crucial to understand that the Reformed view does see repentance and faith as essential. It simply views them as necessarily accompanying, and flowing out of, true faith.
2. Is cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification necessary for future glorification? Would you categorize this as a “work”?
Yes, but… The Reformed view holds that Christ purchased all things for the redeemed. This includes justification, sanctification and glorification. It is important to note that Perseverance is not automatic; it is not something robotic that happens to us or is forced upon us. God gives us a new heart at regeneration that changes our wills, giving us a desire for righteousness and the things of God. Additionally, a Reformed hermeneutic accepts all the warnings of Scripture as the God-ordained means of achieving for us that which has been completed in Christ.
Must a believer “cooperate” with the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification? Yes, and all true believers will. All true believers will yield fruit (“a tree is known by its fruit”).
3. Do you believe that the Old Testament covenants that are made to the nation of Israel to be conditional covenants?
Honestly, I haven’t spent enough time studying and thinking about covenant theology. My dispassionate position right now is that all the covenants are conditional. I hesitate a bit at that, because some people seem to view conditional covenants as necessarily implying the ability to live up to these covenants. (E.g. “God wouldn’t tell us to “be perfect” unless we were truly able to do so.”) And on the flip-side of that coin, I am attracted to the notion of an unconditional covenant, because it seems to imply the surety of that covenant’s fulfillment. However, many (if not all) of the OT covenants seem to be, at least in part, conditional. John Piper again comes to my rescue on this point:
“There is a good deal of confusion over this matter of whether the Abrahamic covenant is conditional or not. But the confusion is not necessary and arises from a false assumption, namely, that if a covenant is conditional it cannot be certain of fulfillment. Or to put it another way, if a person must meet certain conditions in order to benefit from God’s promises, then the fulfillment of those promises cannot be irrevocable and sure. But that is not true. It is a false assumption based squarely on the conviction that man is autonomous and self-determining. But if, as Ezekiel 36:27 says, God puts his Spirit in man and causes him to walk in his statutes (and thus fulfill the conditions of the covenant), then a promise can be both conditional and certain of fulfillment. If God commits himself to work so that Abraham fulfills the conditions of the covenant promises, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the promises are sure, steadfast, irrevocable, and conditional.”
- John Piper, http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/95_The_Covenants/316_The_Covenant_of_Abraham/
4. Is the New Testament covenant conditional in any way?
See above. I don’t think the question is one of conditionality. I think our concern is with who fulfills the covenant and how. Yes, there are conditions in the New Covenant on both ends: God’s and man’s. But grace is displayed in God’s fulfilling both ends – the God-Man Christ fulfills the law we never could (man’s end), and God the Father bestows the covenant blessings on all who are hidden in the Son (God’s end). It’s all God.
This is not to say we play no part, but that we play no decisive, glory-getting, part. God’s elect must (and will) actually bear fruit and give witness to the new birth purchased by Christ at the Cross.
…
This is getting pretty long. I’ll try to tackle the other questions later.
God Bless
@ Devin- thanks, I will listen to this for sure.
@ anyone- This is a fun topic to delve into. A lot of people seem to be using the verse in Hebrews as a foundational verse for believers falling away. I think it’s important to have an understanding of what being a “partaker of the holy spirit means.” I don’t know. I do know in the old testament and new alike, there were people who prophesied, did miracles signs and wonders, but were never actually walking with the Lord.
@ Tim H- I think you raise some good questions about this portion of scripture
Thank you Sean… I would be interested in some input by anybody. The reason I ask these questions is that if I am reading my Bible right, Jesus came to the Jew first. So everything that was done was for the Jew, but they (meaning the religious leaders) rejected Jesus. So when the writer of Hebrews was speaking in this text/context was he speaking of things that he saw and heard while with Jesus and so he was talking about the Jews that rejected Christ as Messiah? If that is the case then can it really be used sa a verse about falling away and Eternal Security?
Thanks for the helpful contribution to the conversation, Char (or is it Jesse?)…
(Sorry, but this kind of garbage drives me crazy.)
Char/Jesse – People still debate the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Should we throw our arms up on that too?
I, for one, respect Zack’s desire to dig deep into this issue and hear different perspectives. Some of us call that maturity.
Tim H.
After during some research on the subject, I will attempt to answer your questions.
(1) Paul the apostle was the writer of Hebrews most theologians believe. However since the epistle carried no author’s name, others believe it was Luke, or possibly Barnabas .Most agree, however. that authorship did not come from the original twelve disciples who were with Jesus.
(2) Your second question:
“Who are those who have once been enlightened? Again, those who saw Jesus and rejected him or believers who fall away?”
Again there is disagreement among theologians on what the term “once been enlightened” means. According to the Reformation Study Bible notes on that verse, one school of thought is that it referred to those who had received the gospel message and publically confessed by baptism, because “enlightenment” was the term used for both conversion and baptism in early Christian writings.
As far as using the the verses in Hebrews 6:4-12 as proof text that we can lose our salvation there is much disagreement here too.
Again, I quote from the Reformation Study Bible notes on that passage:
“This sober warning has been variously interpreted. Some understand the author to refer to genuine Christians who lose their salvation, but such a reading conflicts with passages that teach that those those whom God has truly saved will persevere in faith to the end.( John 10:28, 29, Romans 8-28-30)”
“Others interpret the warning as an argument directed against a Judazing heretical sect, followers of a heresy serious enough that embracing it would lead to the loss of all hope of salvation.”
“Another interpretation holds that the author is describing the apostates of vv 4-8 in terms of their progession and the blessings they appeared to share with genuine believers up to the moment of their apostaty. Although jesus saves completely (7:25) and has made perfect forever(10:13) those who hear His wordwith faith, the author exhorts the readers to prove the faith they profess by their perseverance. Without faith, proximity to God in the fellowship of His covenant is no blessing; rather it subjects apostates to more severe judgement.”
I have to say that I have been wondering at the Hebrews verse for years. I really don’t think I have a great grasp on it, but the best understanding that I have is this; the writer was talking about turning to a mixed gosple of law. there has been a debate of the authorship of the book, wether or not it was Paul. If it wasn’t (i don’t know, or hold any opinion) it was someone very familure with Paul’s ministry and teaching.
Margret, you stole my thunder. great response. I havn’t anything really to add now that i saw she added this.
Hey Zack where didya Go? were thirty five, now six comments deep and hardly a peep. What are your thoughts so far??
Jim B.
Thanks for your well thought out responses. It is much appreciated. I’m still going to wait for you to respond to the latter questions before I formulate my responses because I want to keep this loaded topic as systematic as possible. And just a heads up, I might throw in a couple questions I have about the 5 Solas. (Saved by grace alone. Through faith alone. We know this from the Scriptures alone. Glory to God alone) Well… maybe not the last one. That one sounds pretty sturdy. =)
Blessings to you all and the youth of your livestock.
Just want to add that I have been reading and re-reading that verse and I have to say that it seems to keep going back even further in the letter for me. Context. There is a topic that is flowing in this letter and I keep running into the word “therefore” which keeps pointing back to the previous chapter and then anothere therefore and another chapter previous.
When I formulate what I keep thinking the Holy Spirit is direvcting me in I’ll comment on it farther.
Good night all
Blessings
@ Ortho -
Believers will hold fast. And one of the chief means God employs to persevere (hold fast) His saints is scriptural warnings and admonitions. The Holy Spirit-indwelt believer will be stirred by these admonitions and propelled to increased obedience and faithfulness.
I think the above answer applies here as well.
Consider the last two verses you quoted: It describes two types of land – one that bears useful herbs and one that bears thorns and briers. Yet, both drink in the rain – the heavenly gift, Holy Spirit and powers of the age to come. I think the point is that there are those in the Church who experience all the blessings of Church life, yet bear no fruit, because they are not truly saved.
And then consider the very next verse, Hebrews 6:9 –
Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.
Why does the author “feel sure of better things”? Because, these better things “belong to salvation”, and the author believes his readers are saved.
(Most of my argument comes from John Piper’s sermon on these exact texts:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ScriptureIndex/26/971_When_Is_Saving_Repentance_Impossible/)
God Bless
@ Jim B. It’s Char, but I’m sure you guessed that. My comment was light hearted and in good fun, the internet isn’t very conducive to such things and for that I apologize.
I very much work this particular issue out, I just don’t do it here. I chose to work it out amongst trusted friends who I know wont dominate conversation, will take my comments seriously and truly help me work out what I believe. Because I am at a more formative stage in this game this wouldn’t be very helpful.
Sorry haybark I have to play catch up on what is being discussed.
I’m studying that hebrews verse today.
if anything I don’t expect resolution, but good information from both sides so as to go deeper in all this.
@Jim i never said God would hold a threat over them like an abusive husband, I think thats being pretty assuming into what I said.
God offering Israel a certificate of divorce has been discussed by many theologians (reformed and others) and is clearly in scripture enough I don’t need to defend it. Study it out on your own. God offers them the “certificate” BECAUSE of her “harlotry” because Israel whores her self out. God in his love offers her divorce papers because of her unfaithfulness. God however never divorces her but instead disciplines her, so she’ll come back to him. “I will make her like a wilderness and make her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.” Hosea 2
@ everyone
Here is deal with this subject. Theories are great, but they have to play out in ever day life. I work in full time ministry, with both kids on the streets, and saved young people coming here from other churches.
I have seen young people fully enlightened with Christ. Confessing Him to everyone, reading the Word everyday, being steadfast in spiritual disciplines, and seeing the fruit of the spirit a.k.a. righteousness in their lives. I have seen them that way then have something happen in their lives, turn and curse God, and now are involved with satanic cults elsewhere not wanting anything to do with Christ.
I realize the answer will be, “well I guess they weren’t really saved.” But I knew them well, they were indeed saved. Which is why this debate boggles me.
The scriptural evidence above even speaks to an action. Jim’s quote of 2 Tim starts with the verb “Hold Fast”. Jude 24 says “He is Able” not will for sure. Yet I Cor. 1 Says “he WILL sustain you till then end guiltless”. But Jesus tells us to Abide in the vine, to keep His commands. Jesus Says narrow is the road.
My thesis is this. I don’t think an answer can be fully come to… on purpose. I think we are to always Fear God and keep His commandments. (Eccl 12) Because we love Him. Jesus says if you love me you will KEEP my commandments. Paul tells us to work out our salvation with Fear and Trembling. Trembling means to actually tremble over it. It’s not a light command. Paul Also tells us to Fear God and honor the King.
I think we rest in the grace of Christ knowing it sustains us. And Fear God when we fall into various sins. I mean remember Ananias and Sahpira… That was after the new covenant.
some of my thoughts… I plan on reading everything and putting together a post soon
.::zack
P.S. Jim go easy on Char, remember people can be light in the midst of all this. My blog is just a place to discuss issues, I have freinds and family that come through here too. Just to chat… So lighten up.
blessings all
Char,
What a gracious reply. I for one would like very much to know here you are right now on this, because none of us here can say we know it all, because we are all in some formative stage in our walk with Christ. Thanks for your honesty about it. I think that’s as good an example as any comment made here so far, at least in my humble opinion.
God bless.
After studying Hebrews my understanding is that those who fall away aren’t true believers, but only appeared to be. One reason I am persuaded that the true believer can’t fall away is the parable of the soils, which teaches that there are those who at the beginning look very much like believers but haven’t really been regenerated. Like the seed sown in rocky places who at first receives the word with joy, but when trouble comes, falls away. The supporting Scriptures I use are Phil. 1:6; Lk. 14:28-32; Rom. 8:38-39; (29-30 says that the very people who are known, foreordained, called and justified are also glorified so it just gets better and better); 1 Pet.1:4,5; Jude 24,25; 2 Tim. 1:12; Eph. 4:30; 1 Jn 2:19; Mt. 24:34; Jn 6:40, 10:27, 28. I think it would be useful to read and analyze those Scriptures to see how they clarify your question as to whether we can lose our salvation if we have received the seal of the Holy Spirit confirming we have been born again. As one writer puts it, “Tasting the powers of the coming age proves nothing other than the fact that one has come under the blessing of the gospel! Jesus said, “Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.”
I have some notes and the writers who did an analysis of this book state, “The letter was apparently written primarilty to Hebrew Christains. These converts were in constant danger of relapsing into Judaism, or at least of attaching too much importance to ceremonial observances. The chief doctrinal purposes of the writer was to show the transcendent glory of the Christian age as compared to that of the Old Testament.
While keeping this statement in mind and reading all of Hebrews as a true letter (no verse numbers) was very interesting to say. Some things that jumped out at me was the constant use as the letter was written of the word “Therefore” which I was taught if you want to know more about the “therefore” look at what was previously written (context that it is coming from) and also Heb 3:12 and Heb 4:1 both talk about falling away. (ESV)
So if we keep in mind the synopsis of the book and read the letter as a whole by the time we get to Heb 6:4-8 and put that in context to the letter (whole letter) it begins to make more sense and a better interpretation of it’s use.
Note: I went to http://www.blueletterbible.com and copied and pasted the whole book of Hebrews to a word document and then deleted all of the verse and chapter numbers. I then went through it and re-aligned the sentences in an attemp to make it what I thought might be the closest of how the letter may have been written. Try it. It’s awesome to read it and frankly it will give you a much better flow and better ability to interpret the verses that have been pulled out to support the ability of “falling away” and I think you will find that the themem of falling away is mentioned in Chapter 3 and 4.
I guess I do not agree with the interpretation of Heb 6:4-8 as proof text that a Christian who is truely regenerated by the Holy Spirit can Fall away.
“I guess I do not agree with the interpretation of Heb 6:4-8 as proof text that a Christian who is truely regenerated by the Holy Spirit can Fall away.”
Neither do I, Tim, because even the regenerate still commit sin, (which includes all true believers), but they don’t fall away from their faith in Christ in the process. We are still justified by faith, even when we don’t always get things right. On this note, I think the chapters of Romans 5,6,7 and 8 are an excellent accompanying study to the book of Hebrews regarding sin and persevering in the Spirit.
On the subject of “falling away” the truly regenerate at some point, precisely because they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit rather than just merely superficially accepting only the blessings of God, eventually have their consciences pricked by Him until they do recognize, confess and turn from their sins. This is part of the ongoing sanctification process, that after our original conversion, if it is in fact genuine, we become actively committed to trying to lead a life which is more pleasing to God, rather than choosing to continue in or to excuse away our sins. Because we don’t always get it exactly right, which no ever does consistently, doesn’t mean we lose the salvation which Christ obtained for us.
Obviously, if our continued assurance of salvation was based upon how well we always pleased God in our own right, there would have been no need for Jesus to have died on the cross in the first place. In Hebrews 12:2 we are told it is Jesus who is both the founder and the perfecter of our faith. He promised never to leave us or forsake us in Hebrews 13:5. How do proponets of falling away from grace explain away those scriptures?
Or Phillipians 1:6, where Paul states that “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
So, if we think staying in God’s grace is more dependent upon our own strengths, rather than His power being made perfect in our weaknesses, our human inability to love perfectly at all times will indeed cause us to fail to stay strong in the faith, or even turn away from it entirely.
@ Char –
I maintain that your comment was unhelpful and wrongheaded, but I will concede and confess that I was already in a sour mood when I initially read it, and did not think out my comment in response as I typically do. If my tone offended, I offer my sincerest apologies.
However, I am very wary of a strong undercurrent of anti-intellectualism and mental sloth that infects much of the American church (particularly evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal streams). I reject the notion jokingly hinted at by you and echoed by Zack that we cannot discern truth in this area (or that the truth is a paradox, or contradiction). God is not the author of confusion. If one set of scriptures appears to contradict another set, the problem is not with Scripture, but with us.
I think these kinds of comments, intentionally or not, encourage sloth in those too lazy to invest serious thought and study on these matters. “Love the Lord your God with all your… mind.”
@ Zack -
“I realize the answer will be, “well I guess they weren’t really saved.” But I knew them well, they were indeed saved.”
What determines our reality: our imperfect, sin-tainted, perceptions, or God’s Word? If you’re going to base this belief on Scripture, fine, but you can’t reject a doctrine simply because it doesn’t seem to match up with your experiences.
How did you KNOW? How could you possibly KNOW? Scripture speaks unambiguously to this exact situation (I’ve quoted this once before, and Tim referenced it, but apparently it hasn’t sunk in):
1 John 2:9 – They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
John certainly thought “they” were believers (“of us”) until they “went out”. The Beloved Disciple did not possess this ability to see into souls. John BELIEVED “they” were saved, until “they” left. John did not KNOW, so how can we?
We cannot KNOW if our brothers and sisters are truly saved. We simply accept that they are until they prove otherwise.
…
Zack, I think some of your hesitancy to embrace Perseverance springs from a right impulse to take Scripture’s warnings and admonitions seriously. I have likely done a disservice in not explaining carefully and clearly that a responsible Reformed view also takes these warnings and admonitions seriously. When you say, “Look, Jesus tells us we must keep His commandments, and love one another, etc,” I should agree more forcefully. The Reformed view simply interprets these passages in a manner that does justice to the stack of Perseverance texts by saying, “Yes, you MUST do A, B, C, etc. to be saved, AND Christ WILL empower the true believer to do so.”
I still feel like I’m not communicating this clearly. I hope that makes sense.
God Bless
Jim, I have an honest question. How do WE know if we are true believers or not if it seems so ambiguous? I mean, I can remember times in my walk that were less than pristine, more like stumbling adn falling. For periods of time had run from teh Lord and went back to my sin.
I know you can say, well your back and serving, but how do I KNOW that I won’t end up running again? I don’t mean to try and interpret scripture from experinece. but here we are speaking about people who seemed to be sincere, and what if they were indeed sincere in thier seeking and they go away back to thier old life. Do we just chalk them off as “not true believers?”
What’s your grid for this? These are still people, adn if we have all this question of performance to prove the sincerity of thier walk, where does it leave them>
“…but how do I KNOW that I won’t end up running again?”
“…if we have all this question of performance to prove the sincerity of thier walk, where does it leave them”
Good questions. You have one of two options: (1) Trust in your own ability to perform or (2) trust in Christ and all He has purchased for His people. Trust He is faithful to complete that which He began in you. Look away from yourself and look to Him.
And read 1 John. It was written “THAT YOU MAY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE” (5:13). The book is full of signs that indicate new birth. If you see these things manifesting in your life, even if imperfectly, be encouraged and praise God! If you don’t, throw yourself on the mercy of Almighty God and ask Him to do a work in you. He is able.
God Bless
Jim, both you and mbaker use this as an argument of how the believer will endure:
(Jim’s quote) Believers will hold fast. And one of the chief means God employs to persevere (hold fast) His saints is scriptural warnings and admonitions. The Holy Spirit-indwelt believer will be stirred by these admonitions and propelled to increased obedience and faithfulness.
(mbaker’s quote) On the subject of “falling away” the truly regenerate at some point, precisely because they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit rather than just merely superficially accepting only the blessings of God, eventually have their consciences pricked by Him until they do recognize, confess and turn from their sins.
This is a point that I have to disagree on. Percisly for the reason that is given in Hebrews 3, we can harden our hearts to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and and for that reason lose our place in Chirst.
Heb 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
KJV
Do we agree that this is talking about someone who is saved, based upon v.1?
Heb 3:7-15
Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
KJV
Am I not understanding this right to say that it seems to be a condtional statement? “We are made partakers of Christ- IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast until the end.”
The warning following is not to hardenour hearts to the promtings and the convitions of teh Holy Spirit that you spoke about. It would seem possible to harden yourself to the point of disqulification.
Haybark,
Give this a read. It is thought provoking
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue49.htm
Haybark
Read this also
http://www.gracethrufaith.com/selah/eternal-security/youll-be-safe-here-a-commentary-on-hebrews-6
Matthew Henry:
Verses 1-8 Every part of the truth and will of God should be set before all who profess the gospel, and be urged on their hearts and consciences. We should not be always speaking about outward things; these have their places and use, but often take up too much attention and time, which might be better employed. The humbled sinner who pleads guilty, and cries for mercy, can have no ground from this passage to be discouraged, whatever his conscience may accuse him of. Nor does it prove that any one who is made a new creature in Christ, ever becomes a final apostate from him. The apostle is not speaking of the falling away of mere professors, never convinced or influenced by the gospel. Such have nothing to fall away from, but an empty name, or hypocritical profession. Neither is he speaking of partial declinings or backslidings. Nor are such sins meant, as Christians fall into through the strength of temptations, or the power of some worldly or fleshly lust. But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it. If those who through mistaken views of this passage, as well as of their own case, fear that there is no mercy for them, would attend to the account given of the nature of this sin, that it is a total and a willing renouncing of Christ, and his cause, and joining with his enemies, it would relieve them from wrong fears. We should ourselves beware, and caution others, of every approach near to a gulf so awful as apostacy; yet in doing this we should keep close to the word of God, and be careful not to wound and terrify the weak, or discourage the fallen and penitent. Believers not only taste of the word of God, but they drink it in. And this fruitful field or garden receives the blessing. But the merely nominal Christian, continuing unfruitful under the means of grace, or producing nothing but deceit and selfishness, was near the awful state above described; and everlasting misery was the end reserved for him. Let us watch with humble caution and prayer as to ourselves.
Barnes Notes;
With this one I’ll give equal time to the opposite view
Hebrews 6:4
For it is impossible – It is needless to say that the passage here Hebrews 6:4-6, has given occasion to much controversy, and that the opinions of commentators and of the Christian world are yet greatly divided in regard to its meaning. On the one hand, it is held that the passage is not intended to describe those who are true Christians, but only those who have been awakened and enlightened, and who then fall back; and on the other it is maintained that it refers to those who are true Christians, and who then apostatize. The contending parties have been Calvinists and Arminians; each party, in general, interpreting it according to the views which are held on the question about falling from grace. I shall endeavor, as well as I may be able, to state the true meaning of the passage by an examination of the words and phrases in detail, observing here, in general, that it seems to me that it refers to true Christians; that the object is to keep them from apostasy, and that it teaches that if they should apostatize, it would be impossible to renew them again or to save them. That it refers to true Christians will be apparent from these considerations.
(1) Such is the sense which would strike the great mass of readers. Unless there were some theory to defend, the great body of readers of the New Testament would consider the expression used here as describing true Christians.
(2) The connection demands such an interpretation. The apostle was addressing Christians. He was endeavoring to keep them from apostasy. The object was not to keep those who were awakened and enlightened from apostasy, but it was to preserve those who were already in the Church of Christ, from going back to perdition. The kind of exhortation appropriate to those who were awakened and convicted, but who were not truly converted, would be “to become converted;” not to warn them of the danger of “falling away.” Besides, the apostle would not have said of such persons that they could not be converted and saved. But of sincere Christians it might be said with the utmost propriety, that they could not be renewed again and be saved if they should fall away – because they rejected the only plan of salvation after they had tried it, and renounced the only scheme of redemption after they had tasted its benefits. If that plan could not save them, what could? If they neglected that, by what other means could they be brought to God?
(3) This interpretation accords, as I suppose, with the exact meaning of the phrases which the apostle uses. An examination of those phrases will show that he refers to those who are sincere believers. The phrase “it is impossible” obviously and properly denotes absolute impossibility. It has been contended, by Storr and others, that it denotes only great difficulty. But the meaning which would at first strike all readers would be that “the thing could not be done;” that it was not merely very difficult, but absolutely impracticable. The word – ̓́ adunaton – occurs only in the New Testament in the following places, in all which it denotes that the thing could not be done; Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27, “With men this is impossible;” that is, men could not save one who was rich, implying that the thing was wholly beyond human power. Luke 18:27, “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God” – referring to the same case; Acts 14:8, “A man of Lystra, impotent in his feet;” that is, who was wholly “unable” to walk; Romans 8:3, “For what the law could not do;” what was absolutely “impossible” for the Law to accomplish; that is, to save people; Hebrews 6:18, “In which it was impossible for God to lie;” Hebrews 10:4, “It is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin;” and Hebrews 11:6, “Without faith it is impossible to please God;” in all of these instances denoting absolute impossibility.
These passages show that it is not merely a great difficulty to which the apostle refers, but that he meant to say that the thing was wholly impracticable; that it could not be done. And if this be the meaning, then it proves that if those referred to should fall away, they could never be renewed. Their case was hopeless, and they must perish: that is, if a true Christian should apostatize, or fall from grace, “he never could be renewed again,” and could not be saved. Paul did not teach that he might fall away and be renewed again as often as he pleased. He had other views of the grace of God than this; and he meant to teach, that if a man should once cast off true religion, his case was hopeless, and he must perish; and by this solemn consideration – the only one that would be effectual in such a case – he meant to guard them against the danger of apostasy.
For those who were once enlightened – The phrase “to be enlightened” is one that is often used in the Scriptures, and may be applied either to one whose understanding has been enlightened to discern his duty, though he is not converted (compare the note on John 1:9); or more commonly to one who is truly converted; see the note on Ephesians 1:18. It does not of necessity refer to true Christians, though it cannot be denied that it more obviously suggests the idea that the heart is truly changed, and that it is more commonly used in that sense; compare Psalms 19:8. Light, in the Scriptures, is the emblem of knowledge, holiness, and happiness, and there is no impropriety here in understanding it in accordance with the more decisive phrases which follow, as referring to true Christians.
And have tasted – To “taste” of a thing means, according to the usage in the Scriptures, to “experience,” or to “understand” it. The expression is derived from the fact that the “taste” is one of the means by which we ascertain the nature or quality of an object; compare Matthew 16:28; John 8:51; Hebrews 2:9. The proper idea here is, that they had “experienced” the heavenly gift, or had learned its nature.
The heavenly gift – The gift from heaven, or which pertains to heaven; compare the note on John 4:10. The expression properly means some favor or gift which has descended from heaven, and may refer to any of the benefits which God has conferred on man in the work of redemption. It might include the plan of salvation; the forgiveness of sins; the enlightening, renewing, and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, or any one of the graces which that Spirit imparts. The use of the article, however – “the heavenly gift,” limits it to something special, as being conferred directly from heaven, and the connection would seem to demand that we understand it of some “special” favor which could be conferred only on the children of God. It is an expression which “may” be applied to sincere Christians; it is at least doubtful whether it can with propriety be applied to any other.
And were made partakers of the Holy Ghost – Partakers of the influences of the Holy Spirit – for it is only in this sense that we can partake of the Holy Spirit. We “partake” of food when we share it with others; we “partake” of pleasure when we enjoy it with others; we “partake” of spoils in war when they are divided between us and others. So we partake of the influences of the Holy Spirit when we share these influences conferred on his people. This is not language which can properly be applied to anyone but a true Christian; and though it is true that an unpardoned sinner may be enlightened and awakened by the Holy Spirit, yet the language used here is not such as would be likely to be employed to describe his state. It is too clearly expressive of those influences which renew and sanctify the soul. It is as elevated language as can be used to describe the joy of the Christian, and is undoubtedly used in that sense here. If it is not, it would be difficult to find any language which would properly express the condition of a renewed heart. Grotius, Bloomfield, and some others, understood this of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. But this is not necessary, and does not accord well with the general description here, which evidently pertains to the mass of those whom the apostle addressed.
Jim B.
Thanks for responding so quickly. As I stupidly locked myself out of my car and apartment yesterday (oh how I dislike this fallen nature), I might need a night or so to respond. But I really appreciate you taking time dialogue with a bunch of us on a huge topic like this. Not having home court advantage can get pretty rough but you seem to be holding up really well.
Blessings.
Haybark,
In one respect I think you answered your own question. You said at one point you were less than pristine and ran away from God back into sin. Yet, here you are back in His good graces.
Why do think that could be that you didn’t fall from grace and lose your salvation while that was occurring? Do you really think Jesus shed his blood for your sin and then reneged on it?
I guess this is what I don’t see about the fall from grace, conditional type of salvation. How do we know when we’ve sinned enough to do that when scripture clearly says the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
@ Tim H
I read the first article and it was really good in it’s interpretation of the Hebrew 6 text. It was critical, logical and true to the plain meaning of the scripture along with it’s comparing it to other scriptre to confirm. I was really encouraged by it and thought hat he had found a key to marrying together the two camps. But alas, he went into the same old rhetoric in his concluding thoughts.
This by-in-large is the problem I have with most of the argument that I have ever seen on this issue. (And trtuly, I want to see how these two prevailing thoughts balance out in the divine tention that often occompanies these type of things. becaause there is something that has yet to be revealed to our understanding to bring balance to this age old argument.) This is the problem I have, They deny the plain meaning of the text to satuisfy a doctrinal presuposition.
In other words, they lean more to a bias than waht the scripture is clearly saying, I cannot and will not accept that kind of scholarship. Give me someone who will either admit he dosen’t have the full picture yet, or is willing to concede when his doctrine fails at the plain meaning of scripture, and I’ll honor him much more than this kind of answer:
Resolving the Problems
Therefore, the problem remains of reconciling the warning against apostasy with the promises of perseverance. I see three possibilities: 1) That the promises of perseverance are not really what they appear and many true Christians will lose their faith and their salvation. 2) That apostates are people who were never truly regenerate but had participated in the experiences and privileges of the redeemed community. 3) That the warnings against apostasy are effective: they accomplish their purpose and the truly regenerate always heed the warnings and do not apostatize.
Position One: True Christians Do Apostatize
The first of these possibilities is the least attractive. Though the language in Hebrew 6:4-8 is very vivid and concrete, especially in the NASB translation, it is not clear that the author had in mind any of his readers. The author of Hebrews repeatedly gave stern warnings coupled with assurance that his readers had not already fallen. For example, after the extended warning of falling into unbelief and failing to enter God’s rest in chapters 3 & 4, the author concludes: “Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:11). The warning was to motivate, not condemn. Likewise our warning passage in Hebrews 6 is followed by this assessment of the readers’ own condition: “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way” (Hebrews 6:9). The warning in Hebrews 10:26f is just as severe but is followed by these comforting words: “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:39). “We” here is the Christian community, the author included. It is clear that the writer of Hebrews did believe in persevering faith. He evidently believed the Holy Spirit’s warnings would be effectual. (From; Can True Christians Commit Apostasy? by Bob DeWaay)
Anyone reading, go and read the excellent job this guy does on his critical breakdown of this passge exegetically. It’s excellent and very true to the text. How he comes to this conclusion after understanding the meaning of the scripture so accurately can only be explained by the fact he is interpreting though a preconcieved doctrinal position and not plain meaning of the Word. I cannot respect this, and no one should really. Love truth at all cost to yourself personally. We must be of this sort.
Mbaker,
Looking back over the years, I plainly see that the grace of God had not totally left my life, even in my rebellion. This is what intrigues me about this whole discussion, because I KNOW BEYOND A DOUBT that there is some connction between these two schools of thought. there is some balance that has yet to be given to us, but I believe will be, and it has likely been staring us in the face the whole time.
As I had just wrote Tim H, It’s hard for me to deny the plain meaning of the text for some other understanding unless I can be shown compelling textual evidence to cause me to understand it differently. I have yet to find that.
I agree that there are scriptures that tell your side as well, but we cannot go to one side and exclude the other if it is clearly evident in teh scriptures. I am fried out at the moment and my baby in my arms is trying to help me type. So I will pick it back up tomorrow.
Blessings to all!
@ Haybark –
“…they lean more to a bias than waht the scripture is clearly saying, I cannot and will not accept that kind of scholarship.”
“Give me someone who will either admit he dosen’t have the full picture yet, or is willing to concede when his doctrine fails at the plain meaning of scripture, and I’ll honor him much more…”
“I cannot respect this, and no one should really. Love truth at all cost…”
I would be careful how you speak of “they” here. It is a bit presumptive and arrogant to imply that men far godlier and wiser than you or I are “biased”, and then refuse to “respect” or “honor” them. Do you really want to pretend that you approach the Scripture with no preconceptions? Do you really believe that you love truth and “they” don’t?
I understand you believe certain scriptures speak “clearly” on this matter in your favor, and I accept that. I am trying to persuade you otherwise, but I don’t doubt that you sincerely believe these things. Please afford this same charity to “they” who believe Scripture speaks clearly in another direction. For, to be frank, “they” have demonstrated a superior general grasp of Scripture than you have here demonstrated. (It is you who has yet to retract this statement: “But a passionate God of ravished love will divorce His unfaithful spouse, because He is hurt by indifference and apathy.”)
…
“Therefore, the problem remains of reconciling the warning against apostasy with the promises of perseverance. I see three possibilities: 1) That the promises of perseverance are not really what they appear and many true Christians will lose their faith and their salvation. 2) That apostates are people who were never truly regenerate but had participated in the experiences and privileges of the redeemed community. 3) That the warnings against apostasy are effective: they accomplish their purpose and the truly regenerate always heed the warnings and do not apostatize.”
The latter half of your last comment is a bit hard to follow. You say a lot of things I would whole-heartedly agree with, but I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. (E.g. You refer to Bob DeWaay (a Reformed gent) and his “excellent job” on our Hebrews text, and then seem to accuse him of “interpreting though a preconcieved doctrinal position and not plain meaning of the Word”, and then state you “cannot respect this”.)
If the quoted paragraph above is sincerely stated, you have given the Reformed position in points 2 and 3. And you then state that point 1 is “least attractive”. It is beyond unattractive – it’s blasphemous. God always keeps His promises. (E.g. He never divorces His people – God is a covenant keeper.)
…
It is interesting, and a bit frustrating, that this thread has been primarily devoted to a defense of the Reformed position. I don’t mind defending it, but at what point is someone going to defend the opposing position?
For example: Haybark, I (and others) have offered extensive explanations and defenses of the Hebrews 6 text from a Reformed position, and your only rebuttal has been, “Well, that’s clearly not the plain meaning of the text.” And we should accept that, because you say so? Offer some kind of exegetical counter-argument! Tell me why, from the text, the Reformed position is “clearly” wrong. Explain to me why/how Hebrews 6: 7-9 doesn’t clarify the verses immediately preceding them. Tell me what it means for “land” to “drink rain” and “bear thorns and thistles”. Tell me what the author means by “things that belong to salvation”.
As of yet, no one has posited any kind of substantial argument for a non-Reformed reading of this text or any other. The arguments on the other side of this debate boil down to this: (1) I don’t think that’s the plain meaning of the text; (2) That just doesn’t seem right (e.g. “I know people who have apostatized that I KNOW were true believers.”).
As Zack would say: Let’s see a little more Adrian Peterson and a little less Darren Sharper!
God Bless
Jim,
What i meant, more specifically, is their mode of interpretation and not the men so much. The following a quote from Bob Dewaay, and not me. I was citing the article that Tim H had directed me to: (this is the link he provided
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue49.htm )
The Previous State of Apostates
A series of four participles describes the previous condition of the ones who after apostatizing cannot be renewed to repentance: “enlightened, tasted, made partakers,” and “tasted.” The recipients of this epistle would have considered those in this category to have experienced salvation, and themselves to be in this category. The four participles speak of personal experience of the light of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. William Lane comments, “The recital of what occurred with the reception of the gospel does not describe a succession of salvific events, but the one event of salvation that is viewed from different aspects and manifestations.”1
Some have suggested that those described by these participles were not truly regenerate because the term “tasted” is used twice. They suppose that to “taste” means something less than a true experience of salvation. For example, Arthur Pink strongly emphasizes the difference between tasting and eating, and concludes that those who had only “tasted” were as yet unconverted.2 The problem with this conclusion is that it fails to take into account the Hebraic usage of this term as shown elsewhere in Hebrews. For example, Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus came to “taste death.” Clearly this means to “experience death.” Other examples of this usage are: 1Peter 2:3; John 8:52; and Psalm 34:8.
Some have assumed that “Enlightened” refers to “baptism.” It more likely refers to the light of Christ that drove out the darkness at their reception of the gospel.3 William Lane comments, “What is signified is not simply instruction for salvation but the renewal of the mind and of life.”4 Tasting the heavenly gift, as we have seen, means that they experienced it. The “gift from heaven”5 is redemption in Christ, through the gospel. Being “made partakers of the Holy Spirit” involves sharing with the redeemed community the indwelling Holy Spirit.6 Albert Barnes comments, “This is not language which can properly be applied to any one but a true Christian; and though it is true that an unpardoned sinner may be enlightened and awakened by the Holy Spirit, yet the language here used is not such as would be likely to be employed to describe his state.”7 The last of the four participles denotes the experience of the Messianic age. The powers of the “age to come” are already present in the redeemed community who look forward to the final eschatological fulfillment.8
It is clear that the author of Hebrews intended his readers understand these terms as describing their experience of the gospel. The warning comes in the context of the author’s concern about their complacency and unwillingness to learn (5:11-6:3). A failure to press on in one’s Christian life is seen as a temptation to go back. Also, warning about falling away would make little sense if addressed to those who actually had nothing but an empty profession to begin with. It would make more sense to urge such people to be converted.
Fallen Away
The sorrowful and tragic act of apostasy (verse 6) is expressed by just one word in the Greek, parapesontas (“fall away”). To “fall away” seems dramatically incongruous in the context of the blessed privileges described in verses 4 & 5. Everything about the gracious work of God through the gospel leads one to expect an outcome of salvation. That redeemed people fall away is not God’s purpose in regenerating people. This makes the warning shocking and is part of the reason for the controversy that has attended this passage.
Nothing in the grammar lessens the impact. Lane comments, “The aorist tense indicates a decisive moment of commitment to apostasy. In the LXX, the term parapiptein has reference to the expression of a total attitude reflecting deliberate and calculated renunciation of God (Ezek. 20:27; 22:4).”9 He rightly points out that this is the equivalent of the idea of Hebrews 3:12 where the term apostenai is used in the phrase “falling away from the living God.” Therefore Hebrews 6:6 is clearly a warning against apostasy. Lenski aptly describes it: “There is no need to say more, this one word tells the whole story. It is tragic to the highest degree.”10
The impact of the warning is heightened by the horrific consequences. Apostates are beyond hope, it is “impossible to renew them again to repentance” (Hebrews 6:6). The reason for this impossibility is the shame and reproach they have brought to Christ: they “crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” The reference is to the mockery to which Jesus was subject at His trial and crucifixion. The passage uses two present participles (literally translated “crucifying again” and “exposing to public humiliation”11) to describe the state of apostates and why it is impossible for them to be renewed. Apostates are disillusioned followers. These make the best propaganda artists against a movement. Apostates bring continued shame and reproach to the Lord and thus dishonor Him in the most wicked manner. For this reason, some have concluded that this sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and is unforgivable as Jesus taught in the gospels (see Matthew 12:31). For example, John Calvin wrote: For he falls away who forsakes the word of God, who extinguishes its light, who deprives himself of the taste of the heavens or gift, who relinquishes the participation of the Spirit. Now this is wholly to renounce God. We now see whom he excluded from the hope of pardon, even the apostates who alienated themselves from the Gospel of Christ, which they had previously embraced, and from the grace of God; and this happens to no one but to him who sins against the Holy Spirit.12
Lenski concurs: “The word blasphemy is not used here as it is in the passages in the Gospels that speak about the sin against the Holy Ghost; but “exposing to public ignominy” is a full equivalent.”13 Likewise, Simon Kistemaker writes, “Deliberately sinning against God in full awareness and knowledge of God’s divine revelation constitutes sin against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). This sin God does not forgive.”14
Further support for the identification of apostasy as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can be found in the parallel warning in Hebrews 10:26-29. There willful sinners are warned of receiving a more severe punishment than those who thus sinned under Moses because they have “insulted the Spirit of grace” (verse 29). The book of Hebrews is filled with quotations and allusions to the Old Testament. Therefore, the warning against apostasy may have roots in Numbers 15:22-31. Here there is a distinction between the one who “unwittingly” sins and the one who sins “defiantly.” The first is offered atonement upon making the appropriate sacrifices, the later is cut off. The terminology is very similar to the teaching in Hebrews: “But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him” (Numbers 15:30,31). Defiance is blasphemy and it shall not be forgiven.
We need to understand that this is not about backsliding. If it were, many, if not most of the readers of Hebrews, would lose hope. What is being described is a willful renunciation of the faith, not a Christian having through weakness, carelessness, or temporary indifference fallen into serious sin. Even Peter who denied His Lord three times was forgiven and renewed to fellowship. Barnes comments on the meaning of “fallen away” which he considers the equivalent of “apostatize from,” “[It] implies an entire renunciation of Christianity, or a going back to a state of Judaism, heathenism, or sin.”15 Calvin offers this explanation: “But the Apostle speaks not here of theft, or perjury, or murder, or drunkenness, or adultery; but he refers to a total defection or falling away from the Gospel, when a sinner offends not God in some one thing, but entirely renounces his grace.”16
-Bob Dewaay
“Therefore, the problem remains of reconciling the warning against apostasy with the promises of perseverance. I see three possibilities: 1) That the promises of perseverance are not really what they appear and many true Christians will lose their faith and their salvation. 2) That apostates are people who were never truly regenerate but had participated in the experiences and privileges of the redeemed community. 3) That the warnings against apostasy are effective: they accomplish their purpose and the truly regenerate always heed the warnings and do not apostatize.” (Bob Dewaay)
I will concur with 90% of his critical analysis of the Hebrew 6 passage, this is excellent scholarship. But how is it when he gets to the end of the articl to his conclusions, that he rejects the possiblity of apostacy other than that he has something else guiding his decision than the plain interpretation of the text he so well wrote about??
@ Zack Thanks buddy.
@ MBaker, you’re so sweet, thank you so much.
@ Jim B. Thank you for your apology, I receive it without reservation. I think it interesting that just because I left a light-hearted comment you think me to be lazy and anti-intellectual. I love it that you have found your life’s calling in debating theology, that is so wonderful, (truly, I’m not being sarcastic). But just because someone doesn’t delve into this debate on a blog doesn’t mean that they are anti-intellectual or theologically lazy. There are many many people who aren’t here right now debating this but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t working it out elsewhere. I am. I just chose to do it somewhere where I can hear peoples tone of voice, ask questions that are immediately answered and with people that I know.
Also I don’t think that my comment put anyone off course. None of those who were debating in the previous comments were seemingly inhibited but if any lurkers were thrown I do in fact apologize because this is important.
I could not agree more that people need to know theology and need to wrestle with things that don’t seem to make sense biblically and that the problem is indeed with the 8 pounds between our ears and not with the inspired word of God, but I don’t think it is a problem that solely belongs to charismatics, evangelicals or pentecostals, I think it’s a problem that reaches much further than that.
I can not wait to see what comes out of your wrestlings, you are truly a man consumed and that is just so wonderful.
The other thing I would say is this is Zack’s blog, it isn’t just meant solely for this, it is also a place where his family a thousand miles away stays connected to him and therefore he can ask you to lighten up. Imagine if I were his mom, Zack’s huge, I’d be nervous. Bless you Jim, I pray blessings and God’s absolute best for you and your family.
@ Haybark –
First, it might be easier to follow the conversation if we just post links and not paste entire articles. (Most of the commentaries pasted at length are mostly available online and can be linked as well.) I read the linked article, and then realized you pasted it. Just a thought.
Second, DeWaay rightly rejects the “possibility of apostasy” (I assume you mean the possibility of true believers to apostatize – DeWaay believes apostasy happens; he simply doesn’t believe it happens to true believers – the invisible Church), because God is not a promise-breaker or the author of confusion.
God must be one of the two (promise-breaker or confuser), or both, if God’s elect can fall away. I and others have spent a great deal of time and energy explaining this section of Scripture and others from a Reformed view. Why don’t you explain to us how God can promise Perseverance, and yet allow the elect to fall away?
More offense, please.
God Bless
Gentlemen,
If the contributers to the NIV Bible that I have are correct in their analysis of this book as I stated before;
The letter was apparently written primarily to Hebrew Christains. These converts were in constant danger of relapsing into Judaism, or at least of attaching too much importance to ceremonial observances. The chief doctrinal purposes of the writer was to show the transcendent glory of the Christian age as compared to that of the Old Testament.
Then we need to look at this book in terms of who the writer is writing to and take this section of scripture that we are continuing to debate about and put it in that context. As I have read Hebrews (AGAIN) I have come to this conclusion.
Hebrews Chapter 1 tells us that Christ is much more superior to Angels. Now why would the writer need to bring this up. Is it perhaps because these Hebrew Christians were getting into some doctrine about angels? Not sure or maybe he was just setting up for them the doctrine and theology of who Christ is namely the Messiah.
In Chapter 2 the writer gives the Hebrew Christians a warning; Hbr 2:1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. Now why the need for this warning? Were the Hebrew Christians beginning to follow some false teacher and/or “falling” into some error in their doctrine? What they have heard about and must continue in is Hbr 2:3b This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. Hbr 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
It then seems to me that in the following chapters of Hebrews the writer is establishing some things about Christ and Christainity so that the Hebrew Christians don’t “fall” into relapsing into Judaism, or at least of attaching too much importance to ceremonial observances. Such as chapter three; Jesus is greater than Moses, Chapter 4 a sabbath rest for the people of God, Chapter 5 Jesus the great High Priest and then we come to the end of chapter 5 and into chapter 6 and then we have a warning against falling away. But what are we falling away from. I think that this chapter is referencing back to Chapter 2 Hbr 2:1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. (drift/fall) from what they have been taught and not return back to those things of Judaism and all of the legalistic things they were possibly getting trapped into from the past.
Hbr 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, Hbr 6:5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, Hbr 6:6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[fn2]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
These Hebrew Christians who were in constant danger of relapsing into Judaism, or at least of attaching too much importance to ceremonial observances “have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted in the goodness of the word of God,” who seemed to have need again to be given the “milk” the foundations of their belief, when the writer wanted to be able to speak to them of the deeper things (Maturity)of God and not “going back to repentence from acts that lead to death, and to faith in God”.
I believe the Holy Spirit is warning us to be careful about what we think we should or should not be doing ceremonially in our Christian faith. Not to get into the legalistic things of the O.T. (sound familiar with some of the things we do as a church today?) and to be carefull because in doing so we “fall away” from the freedom we have in Christ and what Christs sacrifice on the cross is all about. We in essence make a mockery out of the cross when we “fall” into the old ways. It will be harder and apparently impossible for us because to our loss they (we) are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
From there on in the book I believe the writer is getting into the deeper things, more mature things of God and we get a better explanation of who Jesus is.
I am going to close my portion in this thread.
Tim- This is a good analysis, in my opinion, of the context of the Hebrew passage. But there remains an meaning of terminology: Does falling away mean what the plain meaning of the scripture says it is? Or, is the reformed veiw more accurate? That it only could be to the insincere, or that the warning is the fix in it’s self, that it is a therotical possiblity, and not actual? I have to go with the plain voice of scripture.
Jim- it’s been a good debate, but you have not really addressed my offense in the earlier posts where I stated my scriptual basis for my argument. You have made a few comments that I answered and clarified. But you have yet to come back with your answer for the particulars of my arguments from a scriptually critical analysis of my proof texts.
This has been good for me, and the Dewaay article actually gave me some clarity on some areas of the Hebrew 6 passage that I have struggled with for yeears. I don’t mean to leave you hanging, but this tread is HUGE, and I have hijacked Zacks blog long enough. Thanks Zack for letting me have the freedom to share my veiws on your blog.
Blessing to all!
John
@ Char –
I carefully worded my apology/explanation so as to not call YOU lazy and anti-intellectual, but to explain that I was reacting against your comment from a wariness of these things generally. I certainly believe neither you nor Zack would intentionally want to foster these kinds of ideas.
Zack has my email address and (I think) telephone number. If he believes I’ve crossed any lines, he knows how to contact me and knows I’m open to that kind of correction.
And I’m not afraid of Zack – he may be big, but I’ve got mad ninja skills.
God Bless
Since the Bible clearly states that unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Sprit, would someone in the fall from grace camp please respond as to how we could lose our salvation short of doing that?
From my very good friend with a Doctorate in Greek as he has responded to my question regarding Hbr 6…
You are entirely right about the concept of falling way. The preacher in Hebrews has substantiated that Jesus Christ is the final prophet, the final focus of God for salvation. He is better than the angels, Moses, the priesthood, the sacrificial system, etc. and further shows he is the fulfillment of all Judaism’s hope and expectancy. The preacher is exhorting the Jewish Christians not to abandon Christ(-ianity) and fall back on their Judaism. That is the essence of the apostasy to which you are referring. Their Judaism is no longer safe and secure as it once was. The Jewish Christian being addressed by the preacher believed the revelation of the Almighty God to Abraham and Moses. They were sold on the truth of all that God had done before. But now as they were experiencing persecution for the name of Christ, they were having second thoughts and were “falling back (away)” into their Judaism because they knew and believed the reality of God. Therefore the preacher says that it is impossible to renew them to repentance and that there remains no other sacrifice by which they could be saved. The old system, the Judaic system could not save them.
My estimation once again is that the interpretation of this verse that we have been discussing is not speaking to us as Christian about “loosing ones salvation”. In context to what the preacher wrote from what I mentioned before, to take it out of the context of the WHOLE letter is not proper use of that verse.
Haybark,
If you are still reading, I want to wish you well on your search for truth in this matter. I pray that God lead you to the answers you seek. Sometimes it takes time for us to find the answers we need. I know it did with me.
I shall pray that God lead to you His truth.
God bless, and enjoy that little one while you can. They grow up and are gone way too fast.
God bless.
Jim B,
1. Would you categorize initial repentance prior to conversion as a “work”?
^“When the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner, He removes his heart of stone, giving him a heart of flesh; He gives the sinner eyes to see the infinite worth and glory of Christ, causing him to be irresistibly drawn to the Godhead. Once this happens, faith and repentance spring forth. (I don’t mean to put these things in a strict chronological order – these all basically happen in the same event, though rebirth does precede faith and repentance.)
So, if I understand what you’re driving at with this question, then no, I don’t believe repentance is a “work” that merits God’s favor (i.e. salvation). To put it in your terms, repentance is a “work”, but it does not occur “prior to conversion”. Repentance necessarily and naturally springs from conversion (i.e. regeneration/new birth). But it is crucial to understand that the Reformed view does see repentance and faith as essential. It simply views them as necessarily accompanying, and flowing out of, true faith.”
–So in light of “Irresistible Grace” initial repentance is an involuntary act that God sovereignly does through a genuine believer where a believer can no longer have any control over his/her eternal end? If this is what you’re getting at then I disagree. I believe that repentance is a choice (that could be forfeited) given by God to ALL of the unredeemed before they are converted/forgiven.
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 2:38)
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
(Acts 3:19)
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
(Acts 17:30)
Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.
(Acts 8:22)
2. Is cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification necessary for future glorification? Would you categorize this as a “work”?
^“Yes, but… The Reformed view holds that Christ purchased all things for the redeemed. This includes justification, sanctification and glorification. It is important to note that Perseverance is not automatic; it is not something robotic that happens to us or is forced upon us. God gives us a new heart at regeneration that changes our wills, giving us a desire for righteousness and the things of God. Additionally, a Reformed hermeneutic accepts all the warnings of Scripture as the God-ordained means of achieving for us that which has been completed in Christ.
Must a believer “cooperate” with the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification? Yes, and all true believers will. All true believers will yield fruit (“a tree is known by its fruit”).”
-This is why I have a hard time buying into TULIP. In this system, logically, there cannot be such a thing as a backslidden believer because a person is not a true believer if he does not fully cooperate with the Holy Spirit. And your argument is a little inconsistent IMO because it looks to me like Perseverance is indeed imposed upon believers (God changes our wills so that we cannot choose wickedness if we are true believers)
3. Do you believe that the Old Testament covenants that are made to the nation of Israel to be conditional covenants?
^“Honestly, I haven’t spent enough time studying and thinking about covenant theology. My dispassionate position right now is that all the covenants are conditional. I hesitate a bit at that, because some people seem to view conditional covenants as necessarily implying the ability to live up to these covenants. (E.g. “God wouldn’t tell us to “be perfect” unless we were truly able to do so.”) And on the flip-side of that coin, I am attracted to the notion of an unconditional covenant, because it seems to imply the surety of that covenant’s fulfillment. However, many (if not all) of the OT covenants seem to be, at least in part, conditional. John Piper again comes to my rescue on this point:
“There is a good deal of confusion over this matter of whether the Abrahamic covenant is conditional or not. But the confusion is not necessary and arises from a false assumption, namely, that if a covenant is conditional it cannot be certain of fulfillment. Or to put it another way, if a person must meet certain conditions in order to benefit from God’s promises, then the fulfillment of those promises cannot be irrevocable and sure. But that is not true. It is a false assumption based squarely on the conviction that man is autonomous and self-determining. But if, as Ezekiel 36:27 says, God puts his Spirit in man and causes him to walk in his statutes (and thus fulfill the conditions of the covenant), then a promise can be both conditional and certain of fulfillment. If God commits himself to work so that Abraham fulfills the conditions of the covenant promises, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the promises are sure, steadfast, irrevocable, and conditional.”
-The reason why I posed this question was to test how TULIP would logically play out. If Israel is unconditionally elected (as many scriptures seem to support) then they should logically be succumbing to the irresistible grace of God (which scripture does not support).
You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
(Romans 11:19-23)
According to my theology concerning Israel, they fell away from the faith and were cut off because they did not live up to the covenant.
4. Is the New Testament covenant conditional in any way?
^“See above. I don’t think the question is one of conditionality. I think our concern is with who fulfills the covenant and how. Yes, there are conditions in the New Covenant on both ends: God’s and man’s. But grace is displayed in God’s fulfilling both ends – the God-Man Christ fulfills the law we never could (man’s end), and God the Father bestows the covenant blessings on all who are hidden in the Son (God’s end). It’s all God.
This is not to say we play no part, but that we play no decisive, glory-getting, part. God’s elect must (and will) actually bear fruit and give witness to the new birth purchased by Christ at the Cross.”
-What part do we play? What happens if I decide not to play that part for a week or 2? Or can I not make that choice?
[I’m going to skip 5 and 6 because they’re redundant.]
7. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8)
Is the passage above talking about those that are in the faith? If not, how can one that was never part of the faith fall away from the faith?
^“Consider the last two verses you quoted: It describes two types of land – one that bears useful herbs and one that bears thorns and briers. Yet, both drink in the rain – the heavenly gift, Holy Spirit and powers of the age to come. I think the point is that there are those in the Church who experience all the blessings of Church life, yet bear no fruit, because they are not truly saved.
And then consider the very next verse, Hebrews 6:9 –
Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.
Why does the author “feel sure of better things”? Because, these better things “belong to salvation”, and the author believes his readers are saved.”
-Since there is a swirl already going on among other commenters in regards to this controversial passage I’ll post something later for you guys to consider.
Jim, I’m getting somewhat of a clearer picture of where you’re coming from and I thank you for time and effort. Honestly, I find you to be a really resourceful and insightful guy that always points back to Jesus and God’s glory. That is something I hope to rub off on me. I have high hopes that this issue can be resolved by the time this post hits 1000 comments. =) Let’s keep at it.
Blessings.
@ Ortho –
“So in light of “Irresistible Grace” initial repentance is an involuntary act…”
No. Man has “free will” to the extent he is free to act according to his nature and desires. I.e. Man always does precisely what he wants to. (This is a sobering thought when contemplating one’s own sin. My sin is not a result of demon oppression or some other outside force – it is an expression of my heart’s desires.) Without a heart transplant (stone-flesh), man is a slave to sin. He does not seek righteousness or God. He seeks only self. (Romans 1-3) Unregenerate mans sins, because it is his nature to sin. He sins, because he wants to sin.
The new birth doesn’t force righteousness and God-seeking on sinners; it changes the heart and the will. The Holy Spirit makes us a “new creation in Christ”. The truly regenerate seeks God and righteousness, because he now has a renewed will and heart – he now WANTS to do things he never wanted to do before.
Ortho, if you’re sincerely interested in understanding this idea, the very best book on this topic is Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”. Luther considered this his most important work, and this debate on “free will” to be at the heart of the Reformation. Luther makes the case I am trying to make above very persuasively and entertainingly (the man had quite the wit).
There are on-line copies available (http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html), but I personally can’t read a book on-line. Here is a relatively inexpensive paperback edition with an outstanding preface by J.I. Packer:
http://www.amazon.com/Bondage-Will-Martin-Luther/dp/0800753429/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1206816980&sr=11-1
I have no problem with the “repent” verses you cited. The call to repentance is an essential element of the Gospel proclamation. It is by the preaching of the Gospel that Christ draws men to Himself. It is through the minister’s call to repent and believe that the Holy Spirit quickens some to respond in true faith and repentance. I think this is why many (if not most) of the preachers and teachers today who emphasize Christ and His Gospel in preaching (over and against self-help, charismatic renewal, politics, etc.) are Reformed. Reformed preachers tend to take very seriously the privilege to proclaim Christ’s Gospel, precisely because they recognize it as the God-ordained means of salvation.
“This is why I have a hard time buying into TULIP. In this system, logically, there cannot be such a thing as a backslidden believer because a person is not a true believer if he does not fully cooperate with the Holy Spirit.”
I guess we have to define “backslidden believer”. King David was certainly one of God’s elect. Yet, David was a murderous adulterer. Can true believers struggle with sin and doubt? Of course; the whole idea of Perseverance is that the believer PERSEVERES. Every true believer will confront various and diverse trials and tribulations. Many of these will be wrestlings with personal sin. The question a professing Christian must ask himself is, “Am I struggling? Am I wrestling and warring with my sin?”
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who warned against judging another believer, because we don’t know what kind of “raw material” God is working with. We may look at Believer Bob and think, “Hmph! How could a true Christian behave like that!” But, who knows what kind of monster Believer Bob would be without the restraining, sanctifying, grace of regeneration. We all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
I think the idea behind a backSLIDDEN believer is that he slides, but does not completely fall away.
“God changes our wills so that we cannot choose wickedness if we are true believers”
Not exactly. God changes our will so that we can, for the first time, seek God and righteousness. He does not, at Justification, remove our sin natures. We all do the things we don’t want to do, and don’t do the things we want to. This is the Christian life. But, the fact that we now WANT to seek God and His kingdom is a miracle, and should serve as an assuring encouragement to the wrestling Christian.
“If Israel is unconditionally elected (as many scriptures seem to support) then they should logically be succumbing to the irresistible grace of God (which scripture does not support).”
I’m not sure I follow. Why should Israel succumb to Irresistible Grace? I think we have to be careful with TULIP. The Five Points of Calvinism were an affirmation of five biblical truths the Remonstrants (followers of Jacobus Arminius) denied. I think you’re connecting the “U” and the “I” here inappropriately. Under the Old Covenant, there was no corporate Irresistible Grace for Israel. (There was, I think, Irresistible Grace for God’s individual elect, or invisible people – e.g. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, etc.) God had not yet given His people new hearts. This is what the New Covenant is all about.
I know many Reformed thinkers have held some of the OT Covenants to be unconditional (e.g. the Abrahamic Covenant). I think all agree, however, that the Mosaic Covenant was conditional.
“According to my theology concerning Israel, they fell away from the faith and were cut off because they did not live up to the covenant.”
Hmm… Perhaps I don’t fully understand you here either. I don’t believe Israel is “cut off”. In v.17 Paul says SOME of the branches are broken off. I think Romans 11 is pretty clear that we (if you, like I, am a Gentile) are grafted onto the tree – Israel. The Church doesn’t supplant Israel, but is an expansion of God’s kingdom, and fulfills all sorts of OT promises that God would bless the whole earth through Abraham. In a sense, we are Israel.
Additionally, Paul says Israel has been partially hardened until the fullness of Gentiles comes in. Contrary to what many Dispensationalists say, Calvinists (including John Calvin) believe there is a future for ethnic Israel, and believe there will be a great ingathering of Jews into the Church near the End. God intends to make ethnic Israel jealous of “this people with no nation”, and will satisfy this jealousy at the End by removing this hardening and drawing them (irresistibly
) to Him.
“What part do we play? What happens if I decide not to play that part for a week or 2? Or can I not make that choice?”
God has ordained to accomplish His purposes largely through His people. (Please don’t confuse this with the charismatic heresy which states God MUST accomplish His purposes through people, because God gave authority to Adam, and Adam gave authority to Satan, etc.) That God enfolds His people into the glorious working of His plans and purposes for the universe is an amazing grace and blessing.
No one decides not to play their part. All play their parts, even the unregenerate. Pharaoh and Judas, in their God-hating rebellion, played their parts. They were not compelled to do so, but acted according to their sinful natures. And yet, God channels even sin to accomplish His purposes.
God Bless
Perseverance of the Saints—All those who are truly redeemed will be kept by God’s power to the end of their Christian lives and only those who persevere to the end have been truly redeemed. Romans 8.29-30, and especially John 10.27-29 where the ου μή construction which John uses in v. 28 connotes double negative reinforcement of the impossibility of falling away—literally ‘they shall not never perish’). Double negatives in Greek are not bad style like they are in English. The emphatic quality that John injects in 10.28 points to a prior preservation preceding the perseverance of the saints. In light of the strength of Jesus words (and Paul’s in Rom.
in John it is necessary that Heb. 6.4-8 is a ‘hypothetical warning passage’ to those who have believed. It is simply not a stretch to see that the author of Hebrews is writing to the redeemed church with a healthy dose of hyperbole in order to highlight the fate of the apostate.
That smiley face should have been a parenthese. Hmm, weird typo.
I’ll put my chime in: apostasy (as in the Great Apostasy) means that you were ‘once’ a Christian – but have fallen away and now are no longer a Christian. I assume this will be equivalent to blasphemy against the Spirit and probably associated with taking the Mark of the Beast.
That means that someone, who was once a x-ian, can fall away and end up in hell.
So, be eternally secure. Don’t do that.
Kyle,
Haven’t heard from you in awhile. No. Apostasy means that a person ‘once’ thought they were a Christian, now they don’t, but in reality never really were one to begin with. The greater weight of scripture supports the preservation of the saints. I’m not a synergist. I believe in the Reformed doctrines of grace. And from my own past I am convinced that God does in no way remove the light of his countenance from His covenant children. Despite the lack of assurance which gripped me for years I have no doubt that it was God who brought me through many seasons of providence into a place of active perseverance.
@ Natrimony
“Apostasy means that a person ‘once’ thought they were a Christian, now they don’t, but in reality never really were one to begin with.”
interesting… don’t really se that in the greek though.
ἀποστασία: apostasia: Apostasy which means: Defection or to fall away from.
Defection means: desertion from allegiance.
2 Thess. 2:3 and Acts 21:21 are the two places this term is used in the Bible.
I Tim. 4:1-3; 2Peter 3:17; Heb 3:12; 2Peter 2:20-22; are places that hint to it as well. There are others like Hebrews 12 where it says “lest you fall from grace”
If it is not possible to have any penalty with in our salvation then why do we need to “run the race with endurance and consider Christ in our fight against sin.” Why do we need to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Why do we need to be worried about false prophets pulling us away from the faith?
If it is so secure then why do all those warnings exist?
JimB is right I’m slow to be a believer in perseverance, because of the wieghty warning in scripture to “be steadfast”, “don’t lose heart”, “run with endurance”, “be careful least you be lead astray by false doctrine”. If your salvation is secure then where does the fear of the Lord come in? Why so much emphasis on being steadfast and not being swayed by anti-christs coming to deceive those in the faith, and pull them out of the faith?
2 questions more for you:
1. What do you define salvation as?
2. What is your interpretation of Matthew 24:9-12; I Tim 4:1-3;
It seems to me for people to fall away, or more specifically for love to grow cold. It seems to me for love to grow cold it would have had to have been there in the first place. Not what they thought they loved then realized they really didn’t.
For love to grow cold one has to actually love.
Can I add this thought… again, since the letter of Hebrews as Tim H has stated, was written to Hebrew Christian and the sense of the letter is that they were POSSIBLY returning to Judiasm, where they renouncing Jesus or still believing in Jesus as Messiah but returning to their previous religious acts?
Or was returning to Judiasm also renouncing their faith in Jesus?
If a Christain “falls away” short of renouncing their Christainity have they lost their salvation? Or has sin taken root and they just are not being obedient to the Lord?
ἀποστασία: apostasia: Apostasy which means: Defection or to fall away from.
If defection is the definition of apostasy, and a person totally defects or renounces their belief in Christ, meaning that they would have to say in their heart and mind that Jesus is not the Son of God, I suppose I would have to come to a place in my belief that they have lost their salvation.
Here’s an added thought, did Judas loose His salvation after turning Christ in to be arrested? I have an answer for this but I want someone else to give input on this question.
@ Zack -
“JimB is right I’m slow to be a believer in perseverance, because of the wieghty warning in scripture to “be steadfast”, “don’t lose heart”…”
What, exactly, keeps you from fully embracing the Perseverance texts, and – as I clumsily attempted to argue for earlier – embracing the warning texts as a God-ordained means of said Perseverance? This is one of the scriptural difficulties that lead me to a Reformed perspective. There have been a lot of “Yeah, well what about…?” challenges directed at the Reformed view concerning the warning texts (which is fine), but no real attempt to make sense of the Perseverance texts from the other side. It seems to me the Reformed view does the best job of reconciling the two.
We need to be careful about speaking of eternal security as if there were some easy way to determine who is who (e.g. an “ES” birthmark on the left buttock). I have no disagreement with you that these warnings are given sincerely and are sincerely expected to be heeded. I guess I just don’t understand why a warning must necessarily imply the ability for the truly elect to unelect themselves.
“For love to grow cold one has to actually love.”
I think you have a little more textual work to do to establish that “love of many” must mean a regenerate love. I could throw Matthew 7:21-23 right back at you: Most of us assume those who say “Lord, lord”, prophesy, cast out demons and do mighty works in Christ’s name are truly saved. These are not backsliders or apostates. Yet, Christ will tell them, “I never knew you…” Certainly these “thought they loved then realized they really didn’t.”
God Bless
zack,
‘JimB is right I’m slow to be a believer in perseverance,’
I don’t think your problem is with perseverance. The preservation which precludes the perseverance in the Reformed view of sanctification seems to be your hang up. But, I don’t want to erect a straw-man too quickly here-
I never referred to the Greek in my definition of apostasy, although it certainly includes the plain sense of that meaning. Yes the apostate have fallen away from the visible church. They have forsaken the thought that they were ever Christians. Their seeming allegiance to the outward evidence of faith–the church–has been deserted. However, their self-deception is doubly damning in that they were not numbered among the elect to begin with. Wrangling over the greek defintion of apostasy will not cut it in this case I’m afraid. The greater weight of biblical emphasis is clearly placed upon the preservation of the saints. As I’ve stated early the ‘ou me’ construction in John is simply unavoidable for the Arminian position.
You’ve asked several questions. Maybe in the future you could hold to 2 or 3 per reply. At any rate…
The fear of the Lord is better understood by the believer as a deep reverence for God seen within the context of Fatherhood (Rom. 8.15). Nonetheless, there is certainly an appropriate fear of a Father who wields the rod of discipline in love. This is what D.A. Carson would refer to as God’s ‘expectation driven love’ for his children (Heb.12.5).
False prophets and anti-christ warnings are prevalent because they should and do initiate honest examination. How many ‘maybe believers’ or ‘baby believers’ have been driven to examine their faith in light of said verses and press into the surety of their election?
I take a Reformed view of soteriology. The ordo salutis is nine-fold. A worthwhile, and brief description may be found here:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Ordo-Salutis/
1 Tim. 1.4 does not comment upon eternal security. Human departure from the faith does not effect God’s faithfulness. These ones should be rescued ‘with fear, pulling them out of the fire’ as Jude also says.
Matt. 24.12-13 doesn’t equate ‘growing cold’ with not being saved. Cold things can be reheated. A chilled love will affect communion with God but it does not affect union with God. Those who ‘endure to the end will be saved’. This is simply a statement of fact. The passage does not say that the endurance of the believer is what causes final salvation. We must not confuse ability with activity in regard to our salvific role.
Wow,
I can’t believe I got the last word on this.
Well I liked what you said… I don’t fully agree but instead I’ve gone to study this more.
You bring up an interesting point concerning the ordo salutis. I understand the many different places different theologians place things.
I think part of my understanding of this subject will be more clear once I land on where things in the order of salvation take place. So I’m currently taking the next couple of months searching the new testament to come to a pseudo conclusion.
Though we don’t agree on much, I have been truly sharpened by most who comment here, including yourself. In fact ironically most of the people who comment on my blog lately are people who pretty much disagree with me. Which I think is great. It helps me develop things.
bless you
If anyone’s interested, James White and Steve Gregg are in the midst of a 5-part debate on this issue (well, Calvinism/Arminianism in general). You can feed into White’s podcast free here:
http://www.aomin.org/articles/webcast.html
They’ve only done the first two, and I’ve only listened to the first. Of course, I’m a James White guy, but this other chap seems like a bright enough fellow.
God Bless
Your belief of Eternal Security is questionable to me. How do you understand Galatians 5:19-21?