Apostasy
and Anxiety
The Problem of Eternal Security
James Patrick Holding
Can salvation be lost?
Several readers have written in asking me to look into this important topic,
one which sets many a set of teeth on edge and turns kindly theologians into
smoldering volcanoes. My own interest in the matter can be traced to
confrontations on this page with persons here remaining unnamed who have at
some past point professed Christ, but have now, so it seems, trampled the
pearls of salvation underfoot. Most of you, however, are probably more
concerned about matters of assurance, and the idea that something that one has done, some sin perhaps, contributes to the loss of
salvation. This is of course a question incapable of proof in the scientific
sense, so we will ask the question from the point of view: What does Scripture
say on the matter?
I have delineated two
separate questions above in terms of whether salvation can be lost, and the
latter can be answered first and quite simply: NO. While there is a clear
teaching regarding a lack of rewards for the Christian who sins (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11-15), it is also quite clear that there is no sin
that can erase salvation, with one possible exception, that of disbelief, which
we shall deal with in a moment. But in terms of other behavior leading to loss
of salvation, there is no such possibility: If the blood of Christ is in
infinite payment, what sin has it not covered, other than the sin of disbelief
in the efficacy of that blood?
Which leads to the second
option: Can apostasy -- and by this I mean, a clear,
heartfelt repudiation of belief -- cause not loss of salvation, but more
appropriately, can it cause salvation to be irretrievably thrown away?
Here I do not think the answer is as clear. My study indicates that the
possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out, although I know of few who might
have qualified. I have also found that this is a subject where even the most
careful and dedicated writers have fudged the Scriptural data to avoid adverse
conclusions (As we shall see, causing two major evangelical names to offer
wildly different interpretations of key passages!) and where the sin of
apostasy and disbelief (which I reckon elsewhere to be the true meaning of the
"unpardonable sin" of blaspheming the Holy Spirit) is dismissed as a
case of people who never believed in Christ in the first place merely showing
their true colors at last. (This sort of person is clearly described in 1 John
2:18-21, which does not address any possible issue of one who did truly
believe, but apostasized.) Can I dispute this
conclusion? It isn't possible, since we have no measuring device for the heart, and no "Holy Spirit Detector" to wave over
supposed converts. Maybe even if such a reading of Scripture is possible, there
has never been a true "de-conversion" and all who profess to have
once followed the faith are either lying or never really knew themselves. That
is just another thing that will have to be sorted out as we approach the
fullness of the Kingdom of God, and for this reason, I will not offer
speculation as to who (past or present) might have been an apostate of this
sort (Judas Iscariot is a common suggestion, as are Alexander and Hymenaeus -- and there is not enough data on any of these
to make a determination). In the meantime, for the majority of you who are
mostly concerned with the former aspect of the issue, I advise you not to worry
about your eternal security...but you may wish to think about how you'll look
back on your life.
(An interesting argument by
An observation on the two
issues, loss of salvation by sin and by apostasy: In some cases I have found that
a writer has argued effectively against the first issue, making it quite clear
(using the same argument I have, in a nutshell) that salvation cannot be lost
by behavior, but has then somehow assumed that their proof also applies to the
second issue, apostasy. It does not, of course, but nevertheless some parties
confuse the two, probably unintentionally. Charles Stanley, for example, offers
this excellent insight [Stan.ESC, 4; see also Kend.OSAS, 19]: "If I must do or not do something to
keep from losing my salvation, salvation would be by faith and works."
(Emphasis in original.) True enough,
and a perfect rebuttal to the idea that salvation can be lost. But does this
prove that apostasy cannot lead to the throwing away of salvation?
Absolutely not, though
|
Making the Case From the
Book: Scriptural Cites at Issue
We shall
endeavor to make our presentation through a systematic presentation of
Scriptural cites used on both sides of the debate. There is, however, an entire
class of Scriptural cites that are used to argue for eternal security that may
be dealt with in one blow: These are cites that describe salvation as
"eternal". The argument goes that if salvation is described as
eternal, then there is no way it can be lost; or, as Demarest puts it, "A
new life that could be forfeited or terminated would not be eternal." [Dema.CS, 444-5]
The problem
with this sort of citation -- and it is used even by exegetes whose work I
respect highly -- is that they are in no way addressing the issue of apostasy.
In many cases we will see that qualifiers are added saying that "those who
believe" are in view; what of those who no longer believe, then? (See more
below.) In other places it is simply not credible to argue that apostasy is in
view, for it is simply assumed that it must be in view: Are we to expect
divergences from the main points of the passages in order to clarify possible
exceptions? (In a high-context document like the NT, we definitely should not;
such exceptions would be assumed to be known, if they exist.) Such passages
must be read in light of others that we will argue may (or may not) specify
apostasy as equating with the throwing away of salvation; but it seems too
often that exegetes favoring unconditional security are trying to interpret the
latter in view of the former -- in other words, interpreting the more specific
in view of the much less specific, when they should be doing the opposite! We
shall collect all such cites under our first heading below rather than deal
with them separately, although certain special comments may be reserved for
each.
The following
verses are regularly used as a basis for eternal security, but do not, as I
have noted above, specifically have apostates in view -- and therefore I must
view their use as fallacious. If these verses are silent about the issue of
apostasy, then they should be interpreted in view of the verses that are not --
and those we shall deal with further on.
Matt. 18:12-14 What do you think? If a man owns a hundred
sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the
hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell
you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine
that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing
that any of these little ones should be lost.
This passage is
argued by some to demonstrate recovery of the "lost sheep" --
allegedly apostates. But the sheep here are clearly identified with the
"little children" of Matt. 18. These are not apostates, and these
verses should not be used as an analogy, even if the general principle being
suggested does turn out to be correct. (Furthermore, note that the search
parameter is conditional: "IF" the lost sheep would be found. Does
this not allow that some may try to hide from God, and that He will not force
them out of hiding?)
John 5:24 -- I tell you the truth,
whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will
not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
This verse is
said to indicate that "Eternal life is a present possession; there is no
reverting to one's pre-regenerate condition..." [Dema.CS,
445] The latter phrase is said to indicate a sort of permanence indicating the
one has burned one's bridges behind them.
This is strong
assurance for the believing Christian, but I am not so sure that it is so for
apostates. Once again, the same "condition" of belief is set. What of
those who no longer believe? (Again, see more below.) They are not in view
here, and it should not be assumed that they are (or even that they are not).
Moreover, even if bridges are burned, isn't there something left that the
bridge once crossed -- usually, a fatal drop?!? We see what can happen when we
try to end up pressing an analogy or an allegory too far: It might prove more
than we would like!
John
6:39-40 -- And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none
of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's
will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
The same may be
said of this passage, although here is where the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate comes to the fore. The former would
interpret this verse to say that those that have been given to Christ by the
Father include all who have ever believed, and thus can never be lost; the Arminian views this (as I do) as a case of having in view
all of those who finally believe, so that those who turn apostate are
not "lost" for the ultimate upshot is that they were known to be of
the group that would drop out anyway (cf. also Eph. 1:3-5). While this will not
help is here in determining how this verse should be applied, it does give a
perfect demonstration of how one's view on this matter determines their view on
eternal security.
John 10:28 -- I give them eternal
life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
This is a
favorite security verse, along with several others that refer to being
"kept" or "preserved". But I ask this question: We cannot
be plucked out, and no enemy can keep us from salvation; but can we jump out of
Christ's hand of our own choice? This leads to the issue of whether God will
honor our free will in this matter as it is supposed He does in other avenues.
Demarest argues that the Holy Spirit [Dema.CS, 448]
"works in a multitude of ways to keep true believers in the path of faith,
godliness, and security", as indeed do all three members of the Godhead.
This may be granted, but if in spite of this a believer decides of their own
free will to apostatize, what then? One would suspect that God would honor
their free will decision, since to do otherwise would suggest a compromise in
God's character and nature -- and as we show here, if this is understood
in light of client-patron language, God would indeed honor such a decision.
On this
argument, a concerned letter-writer made this point:
The concept that eternal security violates free will is erroneous.
Free will isn't about choosing the consequences of our actions. If eternal
salvation is a consequence of trusting in Christ, why would we have to be able
to eliminate that consequence in order to have free will? Even those who deny
eternal security acknowledge that those who get to Heaven will forever remain
with the Lord thereafter. Does that mean that free will is being violated? No,
it doesn't.
I would not
necessarily count myself in that batch who agree on
the part about "once we get to heaven"; but I do consider it unlikely
that anyone in a glorified body would consider rebellion -- it is even less
likely than that someone would do it now. The combination of the indwelling
Spirit AND our experience in our life on earth suggests to me a "one-two
punch" that would mean we would never choose rebellion again.
Some will
respond to the argument above about John by saying that the "no one"
includes the saved person himself, who therefore cannot jump out of God's hand.
But this fails to allow for the distinction between "plucking" (The
word here is harpazo; it carries the
connotation of force) and jumping out and/or demanding to be dropped. No one
can pluck themselves out of anything any more than one can actually lift
one's self up by the boots!
Verses of
similar nature include Rom. 8:35ff; 1 John 5:18; 1 Peter 1:4-5; Jude 1 and 24.
None of these have apostasy in mind, but do express God's power over His
creation.
John 11:25-6 -- Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the
life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives
and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
This verse is
cited as an "unconditional promise" [Dema.CS,
445] -- but I see what may be a condition sticking out like a sore thumb:
"he that believes". This smashes any idea that a believing Christian
can lose their salvation by sinning, but actually offers indirect support for
the idea that an apostate -- as we are concerned, one who did believe at one
time, but no longer does -- can throw away their salvation. (Note that I am not
here arguing, as some have, that the present tense of "believes"
proves absolutely that a believer can throw away salvation; it is merely that
this and other similar verses in4 no way exclude such a thing.)
John 17:20-21 -- "My prayer is
not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their
message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in
you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
The argument
from this passage argues -- in a way that seems irresistible -- that Christ
always prays for that which is in the will of the Father, and so this prayer,
that none will be lost, is in the will of the Father, and so none will be lost!
(A counter points out that divisions in the church [both in the first century
and today] indicate that Christ's prayer was not "answered" in the
sense of being completely fulfilled, but whether this is meant to apply to everything,
rather than just basic points of faith, is doubtful; otherwise we would be
automatons!)
Commentators
often speak at this point of the possibility of discarding salvation
"thwarting" the will of God, making God a loser or putting Him out of
the drivers' seat, etc. -- but they are looking at this outside of the
client-patron background in which the free rejection of a patron's offer
brought shame only on the client, not on the patron. No one would ever have
spoken of a patron as a loser or as being "thwarted" because a client
refused his grace. The patron was honored regardless of reactions, merely
because he had extended his grace.
A concerned
writer gave me this note:
You didn't address what I consider to be some of the most
conclusive passages in favor of eternal security. For example, we read in
Romans that believers have peace in the PRESENT (Romans 5:1) and assurance of
avoiding wrath in the FUTURE (Romans 5:9) because of a justification through
faith that occurred in the PAST. The question of whether salvation can be lost
through loss of faith is just another way of asking, "Can a person be
saved today because of a PAST faith?" And the answer is "yes",
as we see in Romans 5. If we have peace in the present (Romans 5:1) and
assurance of the future (Romans 5:9) because of a past justification, how can
that be anything other than eternal security? You may object that Paul only
said these things because he knew that these specific people still had faith.
But why does Paul say that they have peace in the present because of having
been justified through faith in the PAST? And why is he sure of their FUTURE?
The context of these chapters in Romans is how all people are saved, all of
Abraham's children (Romans 4:16), so I don't think that Paul is addressing
exceptions to a rule here, but rather the rule itself.
Truthfully I do
not see any relevance here for these verses. Because we are chronological
creatures, any saving event must necessarily occur in the past, and all acts of
faith must eventually become past (though by definition -- see link above --
faith is not just a "past act" at all, but a continuing one), then
there is really no other way to express what Paul is expressing, and the
argument above effectively hems in any possible way for Paul to allow for the
possibility of apostasy. And here also there applies a general rule of not
diverging from the main point to delineate exceptions, a matter I will look a
shortly.
I have chosen
this verse as an example of several (including Gal. 4:4-5, Eph. 1:3-5) that
speak of "adoption" into the family of God, and argue from thence
that one cannot be "unadopted" -- so that
there can be no loss of salvation under any circumstances. As
To lose one's salvation, one would have to be unadopted!
Within that system there must also be provision for readoption.
The very idea sounds ludicrous.
It is hard to
see the logic of Stanley's argument that "there must also be provision for
readoption", or his caricature of the position,
that "Whatever it is that sends a person to hell can be done and undone
repeatedly" -- why is this so?
In fairness to
Related to this
area,
- One could not trust a God who would "unadopt" you. This gains a point against loss
of salvation, but does not address throwing it away -- a case in
which you are, so to speak, suing for your independence and implementing
the "unadoption" procedure!
- In introducing the concept of adoption, if
salvation can be thrown away,
- Finally,
Rom. 8:30 -- And those he predestined, he also called; those he
called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
My letter
writer also pointed to this verse, and here I refer to my item on unconditional election --
the meaning of "predestination" would not exclude the possibility of
apostasy.
Ankerberg and Weldon [Ank.HQ] cite this as
one of several verses that "emphasize the keeping power of God". But
-- and this is rather surprising, coming from Ankerberg
-- this verse has nothing to do with salvation; it deals with moral behavior,
as the context indicates. I must therefore conclude that applying this verse to
the topic of eternal security is fallacious.
2 Cor.
1:21-2
(also Eph. 1:13-14, 4:30) -- Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm
in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit
in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
These verses
are exemplary of those that speak of believers being "sealed", and
which are said to argue for eternal security, for as
Eph. 2:6-9 -- And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he
might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to
us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and
this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one
can boast.
This passage is
used in two ways.
First, verses
6-7 are used to argue that if throwing away of salvation by apostasy is
possible, then one could be said to be able to
"thwart the purposes of God." But once again it is assumed that Paul
should have made a diversion for an unusual case, and in a client-patron
context, no one would speak of a patron being "thwarted" by the
refusal of a client.
Second, that
grace is described as a "gift" is taken to indicate eternal security,
for as
Phil. 1:6 -- ...being confident of this, that he who began a good
work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
Demarest [Dema.CS, 447; see also Kend.OSAS,
115-6] notes that the verb used here, epiteleo,
"connotes the idea of bringing to the intended goal." How, Demarest
asks, could this be said if apostasy could cause forfeit of salvation?
The problem
here is that Demarest commits the common exegetical fallacy of universalizing a
particular to the whole of the church. Paul here is addressing the Philippians
only. The "you" in verse 6 is the same "you" that Paul
thanks God for upon remembrance (v. 3), prays for (v. 4), thinks of (v. 7),
etc...obviously not the church throughout history in
mind here! There is a common and unfortunate tendency to commit this kind of
error in certain circles arguing for eternal security, and it is easy to spot,
though hard to swallow. Unless Paul thought or knew that there were apostates
in the Philippian church -- and from the letter, it
seems likely that there were not -- then this verse cannot be used to argue for
eternal security.
Other cites
used in this fashion are Luke 22:32 (said to Peter only!), 2 Tim. 4:18 (which
only has to do with Paul); 1 Cor. 1:8 (which only
applies to the Corinthians, and has the same problem as Phil. 1:6 above); 2 Cor. 1:21 (ditto), Rom. 15:5 (to the Romans alone) and Col.
3:4 (only to the Colossians and churches to whom their "circular"
letter was delivered).
At this point,
I will add an update from a kindly reader who wrote to me in this regard:
You dismissed passages like 1 Corinthians 1:8 on the basis that
Paul is referring to specific, historical individuals, not necessarily all
Christians. But think of how often the Bible uses terms like "we",
"our", "you", etc. I agree that we need to take context
into account, since some passages may have only a specific application rather
than a general application, but I don't think all of the passages you mentioned
can be dismissed in that way. In 1 Corinthians 1, for example, Paul is
addressing specific, historical people, BUT he apparently goes on in verse 9 to
explain WHY he said what he said in verse 8. Why did Paul know that Christ
would confirm these people to the end? Because of a
revelation that these specific people would avoid apostasy? No, but
because of the faithfulness of God (verse 9). 1 Corinthians 1:8 doesn't seem to
be a passage that only applies to some individual Corinthians. It seems to be a
passage that can be applied to all Christians. Paul is assuring these believers
of a secure future from a faithful God, which can only be eternal security.
If passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 1:6, etc. are
only promises made to specific, historical individuals, not to Christians in
general, isn't it strange that such promises appear throughout Paul's letters?
If Paul was sure that so many Christians would go to Heaven, perhaps he wasn't
just referring to some individual exceptions? Perhaps Paul's assurance was
derived from a RULE of eternal security rather than from a revelation of some
exceptions to a different rule?
Beyond the
point of how often the Bible uses collective nouns -- a point which is, I fear,
too general to mean anything in this context -- I still cannot see that verse 9
here excludes and chance of the convert becoming unfaithful. This
does not require a special revelation of future faithfulness on Paul's part; it
is enough that he has no reason, in a high-context setting, to divert from the
main point and delineate possible failure in the future. We make many
statements that, if we wish to be precise, ought to have innumerable
qualifiers; but it is never normal to actually talk that way. If I say "It
is going to rain" I never add "unless a sudden wind blows those
clouds away" or "unless gravity reverses itself". I grant that
Paul is offering an assurance here -- quite necessary in the context of a
badly-behaving Corinthian church, and this argues well against loss of
salvation. But it remains a silence on the matter of apostasy.
A
differentiation must be made, too, in understanding HOW to apply promises made
to individuals in an appropriate way. And again, since apostates are not in
view, we cannot broadly apply a principle and assume a rule of eternal security
unless it appears in the text.
Heb. 7:25 -- Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to
God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Demarest [Dema.CS, 447] indicates that the Greek here, eis to panteles,
"may imply" that Jesus has "completely" and "for all
time" given salvation. As he does not say what else might be
implied, it is rather difficult to evaluate his argument! But note that
whatever the meaning is, it refers to those who "come unto God by
Him" -- and in the context of Hebrews 7, this refers to those who come for
repentance of sins. Apostates are again not in view.
|
Run Aways: Apostates Here?
We will now
examine verses which may (or may not) support the case for
"throwing away" of salvation by apostasy. My conclusion thus far is
that there is indeed an open possibility to interpret some verses in favor of
the possibility of "throwing away" salvation.
- Matt. 10:32-33 (See also below, 2 Tim.
2:12-13.) -- "Whoever acknowledges me before men,
I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever
disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
This saying of Jesus seems to be a major cause for concern. What
is involved in this denial, and does it mean that in denying Christ one can
throw away the
Allowing for possible rabbinic hyperbole, and also noting that
Peter's denial apparently didn't cost him a place in the Kingdom (the parallel
is not exact, but Peter's denial did involve association with Christ), it seems
that whatever "denying" is done must be a true repudiation. This may
or may not cover any who recant their testimony under torture -- the early
church did have a certain discussion over this which is worth noting. But there
is also no way around the clear teaching that denial of Christ -- and since
this is the midst of a dialogue addressed to Jesus' disciples, we can't say
that these are unbelievers or those "never saved" (Can someone who
never believes endure to the end and be saved?) -- has a serious consequence:
Christ will deny knowledge of you before the Father. And this is hard to read
any other way than saying, "No salvation!"
I have sought other interpretations for this verse, but strangely
enough have found that most eternal security advocates pointedly avoid it!
It is not even listed in their Scripture indexes, and the commentaries I have
consulted thus far avoid it. The only exception is Kendall [Kend.OSAS,
201], who interprets verse 22 as indicating "a miraculous deliverance
after a most severe kind of persecution" -- which doesn't grok well with the warning that death is one of the
expected results of speaking for Christ [v. 21] and the advice to flee if
possible [v. 23]!
- John 15:1-2 -- "I am the true vine,
and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears
no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it
will be even more fruitful.
This difficult verse plays another role in the debate over
lordship salvation; our purpose here is to ask whether it has any application
to apostasy. Demarest interprets those mentioned here as "unregenerate
professors" or "professed believers whom Christ rejects because their
relation to him was not genuine."
I think that Demarest is on the wrong track, but even so, we must
ask first what it means to be "taken away". Does this mean that a believers who bears no fruit will have their life taken
from them -- as perhaps happened with Ananias and Sapphira? Or can it be related to apostasy? The word is the
same used for an anchor being lifted, and so leaves the matter open.
- Gal. 5:4 -- You who are trying to be
justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away
from grace.
I will say from the outset that this is one verse that should not
be used against eternal security. Plenty of explanations can be offered, but I
offer simply this: Bear in mind the polemical tone of this, Paul's
"defense letter" of his gospel. Note that in verse 1 he tells the
Galatians to "stand fast" in what they have......This is not a threat
of damnation due to portended apostasy, but an affirmation of the uselessness
of returning to the law for salvation and how it stands directly in opposition
to the "law" of grace.
- 2 Tim. 2:12-13 -- if we endure, we will also
reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are
faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
The key part of this passage, which has the model of an early
hymn, is the third and especially the fourth phrase. Does this indicate
apostasy, and is it thus saying that unlike humans, who can deny Christ, Christ
will remain "faithful" to his own identity? Or does it mean, as
Demarest suggests, that "...God will remain faithful to his people and
bring them to final salvation" -- thereby, as Stanley supposes,
"alluding to the union each believer shares in the body of Christ" [Stan.ESC, 94] and indicating that "Christ will not
deny an unbelieving Christian his or her salvation because to do so would be to
deny Himself"?
At first glance this passage seems to clearly indicate that denial
of Christ, and loss of faith in him, is what is in view, but not all agree. A
major reason cited by Stein [Stei.DPNT, 276-7] for
taking the latter view, that this is a promise of God's faithfulness, is that
elsewhere in Pauline literature, places where it is said that "God is
faithful" (i.e., 1 Cor. 1:9) are positive promises.
This much is true, but there are a couple of counter-thoughts. First of all, the
Pastorals are more likely attributable to Luke, so that the constraints of Pauline usage can not be held as
strictly. Second, it is not God who is said to be faithful here, but Christ.
Third, and related to the first, the word "faithful" in the Pastorals
carries a particular meaning, that of "true and correct" (as in
"Faithful is the saying..."), and while of course it cannot be
conclusively asserted that the meaning in our passage is the same, if it is,
then the first interpretation would appear to be more suitable. And finally,
the fact that this is a clear parallel to Matt. 10:33 above, which seems to be
very hard to escape in terms of its implications so far!
- Heb. 6:4-6 -- It is impossible for those
who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who
have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word
of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought
back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of
God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
This is the one you've probably been waiting for. No sense in
waiting around ---how is this reference dealt with?
- Fudge #1 - "These aren't
Christians." This tack is tried by MacArthur, who
insists of the terms used in this chapter, "None of the normal (New
Testament) terminology for salvation is used. Thus he says that those
"enlightened" are those who have "intellectual perception
of spiritual, biblical truth." They are "enlightened but not
saved." (As a side note, there has been the idea, derived from the
Church Fathers, that "enlightenment" here
refers to baptism, but there is no evidence for this
interpretation prior to the 2nd century, and it does not fit the context
of other uses of the word. - Lane.H18, 141.) The description of these who
have "tasted" is said to indicate similar sampling: They have
only tasted, not "feasted upon"...they have "sampled...not
accepted or lived, only examined."[Maca.Heb,
142-3] In so doing MacArthur compares these
non-believers to Herod listening to John the Baptist.
The problem with this explanation is that the terms used do indeed
refer to those who are saved. Believers are described as
"enlightened" or having been given light in Heb. 10:32, 2 Cor. 4:6 and Eph. 1:18; as having "tasted" in 1
Pet. 2:3 (And Christ is described as having "tasted" death in Heb.
2:9! -- did he just "sample" it? MacArthur
fudges here by explaining that Christ first "tasted" death, then
"went on to drink it all," but there is absolutely no indication of
such a fine distinction in the text); and as being "partakers" in
Heb. 3:1 (of the "heavenly calling)", 3:14 (of "Christ" --
this sits hard against MacArthur's argument that the
Bible "never speaks of Christians being associated with the Holy Spirit
[but rather] speaks of it being within them"[!]) and 12:8 (of God's
chastisement). To say that these are not true believers referred to is very
much against the evidence, and as much as I respect MacArthur,
I fear he has simply tried to draw artificial distinctions where none exist.
(In support of his explanation, MacArthur
notes that "word" in v. 5 is rhema,
"which emphasizes the part rather than the whole" -- this, versus a
use of logos, which would supposedly indicate a full Christian
experience. But Hurtado [Hurt.H68] offers the
counters that: 1) rhema and logos can
be used interchangeably to describe the "gospel" or "Word of
God"; 2) rhema is mostly used in relation
to a specific command or promise -- here, referring to, among other things,
"exhortation and training in Christian living, doctrinal instruction and
promises to the faithful." I might add here that MacArthur's
counter-consensus position puts him in the odd position of describing
"renewing again unto repentance" as having a meaning related to
"excitement about the gospel" when it was first heard so that they
were moved "even to repentance"! I think MacArthur
is simply too readily reading certain psychological states into the text. There
is no indication that anyone described was merely "excited".)
- Fudge #2 - "It is
hypothetical." Some suggest that these verses are merely a warning made to
ensure a secure walk by the believer [Dema.CS,
460], but what good is a warning if it does not represent a real
possibility? Is God in the habit of making empty promises or threats? (A
second "out" used long ago stresses the "if" found in
v. 6 -- but this "if" is not in the original Greek text.
Furthermore, the aorist participle indicates that the persons in question
have already fallen away - Kend.OSAS,
176-7)
However, though there are fudges on this verse, there is also a
quite valid exegetical option as well:
- Non-Fudge: "It's
'repentance', not 'salvation." This line of argument hinges on a very
important term. Verse 6 says that these people cannot be renewed to repentance,
not salvation; so, the argument goes, they do not lose their
salvation, but they do lose any ability to repent. This refers only to a
loss of fellowship with God, and these folks will eventually get to
Heaven, though it might be an unpleasant surprise! [Stan.ESC,
166; Maca.Heb, 142; Kend.OSAS,
177]
This explanation makes a convincing case, but there may be a
different way of looking at the second part of verse 6, and the parallel in
verse 8. Stanley [ibid., 168; also Maca.Heb, 148ff]
interprets verse 6 as meaning that all who revert to Judaism (or otherwise
apostatize - the word behind "fall away" is used in the LXX in
regards to rebellion from divine truth) join in the same crowd that called for
Jesus' execution, and thus, in essence, put Christ to death again by publicly
denying him. It sounds sensible, but there is a possibility to be considered:
In NT preaching repentance is often the very first instruction to become
a believer in Jesus Christ. Jesus' mission statement was a demand for
repentance. (Mark 1:15). When the crowd at Pentecost asked what they should do,
Peter's first instruction was to repent (Acts 2:28). Repentance is an integral
and foremost aspect of the salvation process and experience, although it may be
argued that it is more of a necessary aspect of preparation for faith rather
than some sort of set-in-stone prerequisite, as faith in Christ would be. (That
has to do with the "lordship salvation" controversy, a pot I'll
decline to stir for now.) If that is so, then this passage in Hebrews may
be saying, rather, "It is impossible to start over again." And in
that case, the point is that once you have thrown away the Son of God's offer,
there will not be a second crucifixion for you to have a second opportunity for
salvation. Christ will not suffer the public disgrace of Crucifixion for you
again! (Keep in mind the association of refusal of a gift with shame that we
noted above!)
But this, likewise, is not a set in stone option. Hurtado [Hurt.H68] is right to say that there is nothing
here that demands an indication of salvation being in view; but then
again, there is nothing that does not demand it. Nor does the passage
following about the different crops settle the issue. These verses establish
that believers are in mind (for only believers could rightly be said to drink
in the rain, bring forth herbs, and be blessed by God). Note that no difference
in "rate of absorption" of the rain is made between one and the other
-- both drank in the rain equally! But the latter brought out thorns and briers
(note that this offers no parallel to Mark 4:7, for while in the parable of the
sower, there is the idea that the thorns were already
there at the time of the sowing, thus fitting in with the already existent
"cares of the world" they represent), here it is the ground
(believer) itself that produces the thorns (See also John 15:2, 6) and
was therefore "rejected", is about to be cursed, and will end up
being burned! Now some may say that this "burning" is the same as
Paul writes of in 1 Cor. 3 [Kend.OSAS,
178, 228], but note that this says that their end, that of the ground,
is burning -- the people Paul refer to get burned when their
"foundation" (not them, actually!) is burned, but that is not their end!
Admittedly, Hurtado argues that in an
agrarian culture "burning the ground" was synonymous with simply
burning what grew on it, and this would fit better with 1 Cor.
3:15. But if that is so, is there any way to describe the actual burning of the
ground itself? Nor can I agree with Hurtado that this
would necessarily imply a theology of salvation by works: The thorns and
thistles would only be indicated as the visible, tangible result of the
apostasy. Thus far the passage seems to me to remain equivocal on the issue of
throwing away salvation.
I conclude that this passage, often cited as the strongest proof
of throwing away of salvation, does not clearly support that view; and yet it
also does not clearly refute it. Either way, it does not deserve the high place
in the Arminian arsenal that it has.
- Heb. 10:22-31 -- let us draw near to God with
a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to
cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure
water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who
promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on
toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are
in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more
as you see the Day approaching. If we deliberately keep on sinning after
we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is
left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that
will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two
or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to
be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as
an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has
insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine
to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his
people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God.
I have chosen to feature an extensive part of this chapter in
Hebrews out of exegetical necessity. Some things that are
important to note:
- In verse 23 we find something
that sounds a great deal like 2 Tim. 2:12-13 above -- perhaps an
interesting proof text for anyone who thinks (as I do) that Luke had some
part in the composition of Hebrews. Moreover, the structure of the
passage may suggest that one reason not to waver is because of
Christ's unwavering faithfulness -- which would mitigate
against reading the 2 Tim. passage differently.
- What is the "sin" in
verse 26? Certainly not all sin, but the sin referred to in
context: Wavering in faith. It seems to me that this,
and the warning in v. 29, offer a very serious warning against
apostasy.
- The word here for
"knowledge" (v. 26) is epignosis
-- meaning "full knowledge, understanding, and discernment." [Maca.Heb, 272] MacArthur
interprets this as people who know the gospel well and may even make a
profession of faith, but are never actually true believers. But in
harboring this interpretation, he must engage a bit of circular reasoning
regarding verse 29. MacArthur asserts that the
"he" who is sanctified "refers to Christ"! He says
further, "It could not refer to the apostate who is regarding the
blood as unclean, because he is hardly sanctified."
Of course this merely assumes what isn't proven, that an apostate
is not someone who was once sanctified. Furthermore, the only
"he" referred to in this verse otherwise is the apostate: "he
will deserve..."
- Finally,
|
Packing
the Deck: Some Relevant Non-Scriptural Arguments
Finally, let's
look at a few extra-scriptural arguments that have been used for eternal
security generally, courtesy of
- "If Christ came to seek and to save which
was lost, and yet we can somehow become unsaved -- and therefore undo what
Christ came to do -- would it not be wise for God to take us on to heaven
the moment we are saved in order to insure we make it? Isn't it
unnecessarily risky to force us to stay here?"
I find this argument (And a parallel one, suggesting eliminating
missions to children so that they don't lose salvation in their rebellious
years!), with all due respect to
- "The authors of the New Testament left us
with detailed explanations of how one becomes a child of God; if that
process could be reversed, doesn't it make sense that at least one of them
would have gone into detail explaining that as well?"
This is like looking at a route laid out on a map showing you how
to get from home to the store and asking why there are no directions for the
route back home! In the case of apostasy, it is simply common sense that the
"process" would simply be a matter of renouncing what one earlier
affirmed.
- Hodges [Hodg.AF, 57],
in addition to using some of the Scripture cites we have noted, mirrors
some of the arguments we have considered by saying that it is
"ridiculous" to suppose that one could "give"
salvation back: No more so, he says, could we "give (our) physical
birth back to (our) earthly parents." Hodges' analogy is far too
strained to be maintained. Although the same terms may be used
("birth"/"born") two processes of entirely different
nature are in view, and "birth" is more than simply a physical
process. |
Conclusion
Demarest [Dema.CS, 515n] cites Guthrie
as saying, "It is difficult to see how a true disciple, who has been
possessed by the Spirit, could reach a state of mind to declare that Spirit to
be evil, thus reflecting a hardened state." Guthrie may have found it hard
to believe, and so may Demarest, but someone's personal ability to believe
something does not determine the issue. I do agree that it is difficult
to understand why anyone would trade their salvation for a mess of pottage.
However, I am unable to conclusively rule out that Scripture indicates that
possibility. Not that I would worry about most people who have written to me in
the first place! As is often said of the "unforgivable sin", if you
are worried about doing it, you ain't done it, and
chances are you never will! And whether you can throw away your salvation via
apostasy or not, it will certainly be an unhappy course to turn traitor upon
the Christ who died for you. Just take a look at the works of some we've
confronted here who have done that very thing!
|
Sources
- Ank.HQ - Ankerberg, John and John Weldon.
"The Hypothetical Question: Can a 'Real' Christian Lose His or Her
Salvation by Renouncing or Rejecting the Faith?" Found at:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/anker1.html
- Dema.CS - Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation. Crossway,
1997.
- Hodg.AF - Hodges, Zane. Absolutely Free! Zondervan:
Academie, 1989.
-
Hurt.H68 - Hurtado, Art. "Are the
Persons Described in Hebrews 6:4-6 Christians?" Found at:
http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/heb2.html
- Kend.OSAS - Kendall, R. T. Once Saved, Always Saved.
-
Lane.H18 - Lane, William. Hebrews 1-8.
- Maca.Heb - MacArthur, John. Hebrews.
- Stan.ESC - Stanley, Charles. Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?
- Stei.PT - Stein, Robert. Difficult Passages in the New Testament.
Baker: 1990.
- With.PQ - Witherington, Ben. The Paul Quest.
IVP, 1998.