Randall Gleason and The Moderate Reformed View, Part I: The Redeemed Status of the Exodus Generation

“Because of their typological relationship to the Exodus generation, I consider those warned in Hebrews to be genuine believers in danger of forfeiting covenant blessings and of undergoing the PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE of God while escaping final judgment. The basis for this understanding is that despite their unbelief and rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea, the Exodus generation was a redeemed people.
The evidence for this begins with Moses and Aaron’s first report that the Lord would deliver them. Upon hearing Aaron’s report confirmed by miraculous signs, ‘THE PEOPLE BELIEVED’ and ‘bowed low and worshiped’ (Exod. 4:30-31 NASB). The significance of this initial act of faith by the people should not be overlooked for several reasons.
First, the Hiphil form of ‘amen’ (vay-ya-amen), translated ‘believed,’ became a technical term to express genuine faith in the Old Testament” (Randall Gleason, “A Moderate Reformed View,” from “Four Views On The Warning Passages In Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, pages 344-345).

The above statement made by Randall Gleason shows that Gleason believes that the discipline the Hebrews would face by the Lord would be physical. Although I don’t agree, I respect his position.

But what interests me most about Gleason’s position is not his stance on the discipline, but instead, his argument that the Exodus generation was saved. His first reason is because of the word “amen,” which is translated meaning “to believe.” Let’s look at Exodus 4:30-31:

“And Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses. Then he did the signs in the sight of the people.
So the people BELIEVED; and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel and that He had looked on their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped” (New King James Version).

I’ll get into the significance of the word “believed” as we progress through Gleason’s statement.

“Second, the six occurrences of ‘believe’ (amen) in Exodus 4 MARK THE PEOPLE’S FAITH AS A CENTRAL THEME OF THE CHAPTER.
Third, the genuineness of the people’s faith is evidenced not only by their immediate worship (4:31; 12:27), but also by their obedience. In response to the specific commands regarding the preparation of the Passover sacrifice, the author emphatically declares twice that all the sons of Israel ‘did just as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron’ (Exod. 12:28, 50)” (345).

Notice that the Israelites “worshipped” and “obeyed.” These are the signs of those who really believe. Therefore, the faith of the Israelites was, initially, a genuine faith. Their actions follow faith which is genuine. There is no way we can rule out the genuineness of their faith and say that they “never believed.”

Let’s read Gleason’s next reason:

“Fourth, in response to their fear of attack by the Egyptians, the Lord promised them ‘salvation’ (Exod. 14:13). Here ‘y(e)shuat’ is used only for the second time in the Old Testament to promise their deliverance. Following their rescue, the author declares that the Lord indeed ‘saved’ (vayyosha) Israel that day’ (Exod. 14:30)” (345).

The use of the word “salvation” in the Hebrew text alerts us that the Israelites were “saved.” They were truly God’s people—and God demonstrated that to them through the Red Sea event, when He drowned the Egyptians before their eyes while allowing them to cross on dry land.

“Fifth, in response to their deliverance, the text again declares, ‘They believed (va-ya-aminu) in the Lord and in His servant Moses’ (Exod. 14:30-31 NASB). Here the Hiphil form of ‘amen’, with the preposition ‘in’…denotes THEIR ENTRANCE INTO A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST IN YAHWEH as it did in Genesis 15:6, ‘[Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness’ (NASB)” (346).

To believe in the Lord means to come to a saving faith. If the word “believed” in Genesis 15:6 is the same word used here in Exodus 14, then the Israelites came to a genuine, saving faith in the Lord. There is a footnote at the bottom of page regarding the word of “amen” along with the preposition “in”: “Other examples…with the preposition (‘believed in’) used to express genuine faith in God include 2 Chronicles 20:20; Jonah 3:5” (346).

“Sixth, the Song of Moses that immediately follows the account of the Red Sea crossing offers an important interpretation of the event and confirms the faith response of the people. The song describes the event as their ‘salvation’ (Exod. 15:2) by which they were ‘redeemed’ (v.13) and ‘purchased’ (v.16)” (346).

Let’s look at Exodus 15:

“You in Your mercy have led forth the people WHOM YOU HAVE REDEEMED; You have guided them in Your strength to Your holy habitation. The people will hear and be afraid; sorrow will take hold of the inhabitants of Philistia. Then the chiefs of Edom will be dismayed; the mighty men of Moab. Trembling will take hold of them; All the inhabitants of Canaan will melt away. Fear and dread will fall on them; By the greatness of Your arm they will be as still as a stone, till Your people pass over, O LORD, Till the people pass over WHOM YOU HAVE PURCHASED. You will bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which You have made for Your own dwelling, the sanctuary, O LORD, which Your hands have established” (Exod. 15:13-17, NKJV).

We see that Moses records the people as being “redeemed” (v.13) and “purchased” (v.16). This language points to more than just the physical deliverance itself. After all, how did the Lord “redeem” Israel? And how did He “purchase” them?

He “purchased” Israel by the blood of the Lamb on the doorposts. The apostle Paul makes this connection in 1 Corinthians 5:

“Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, WAS SACRIFICED FOR US” (1 Corinthians 5:7, NKJV).

As Paul shows us, Christ is the “Passover lamb” given for us. Let’s examine what the Lord told the Israelites to do on the night that the death angel visited:

“Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, ‘Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb. And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you” (Exod. 12:21-23, NKJV).

The Israelites were to take a lamb, slaughter it, mix the hyssop with the blood of the lamb and place it on the lintel (beam) and the two doorposts. The death angel would see the blood and “PASS OVER” the group. This is why the celebration became known as “Passover.”

So this is how the Israelites were redeemed and purchased—their salvation from death was not just physical, it was also SPIRITUAL!

To sum up this post, I’ll leave you with words from Randall Gleason himself:

“Later in Hebrews 11 the author confirms the redeemed status of the Exodus generation. With the events of Exodus 14:30-31 clearly in mind, he commends them for their exemplary faith, declaring ‘By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land’ (v. 29 NASB). Hence, like Noah, Abraham, and Moses, the author includes the Exodus generation among those who had ‘gained approval through their faith’ (v. 39 NASB)” (346).

What this shows us is that, when the Lord redeemed Israel and brought her out of Egypt, she was a “saved” people, both physically and spiritually. However, something went wrong out in the wilderness. What was it? Well…that’s a question I won’t entertain until next time…

Hebrews 10:19-25 And The Provision For Perseverance

I’m back tonight to deal with the second Hebrew text that we didn’t deal with last night: Hebrews 10:19-25.

We saw in Hebrews 4 that their knowledge of Christ as High Priest over the house of God was to drive them to draw near to Him, come to Him with their weaknesses and struggles—all because He was tempted IN ALL POINTS, IN EVERY WAY, but didn’t sin!!
Now, on to Hebrews 10:19-25—

19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:19-25, New King James Version)

In verses 1-18, the writer of Hebrews discusses the insufficiency, or lack of efficacy, of the temple sacrifices made by the priests every year. In verses 16 and 17, the writer quotes from Jeremiah 31:33-34 regarding the New Covenant:

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them. Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more” (Hebrews 10:16-17, New King James Version).

Because the Hebrews congregation (and modern-day believers) are recipients of the New Covenant, verses 19-25 applies not only to the Hebrews—but also ourselves. Because Christ’s blood has paid our sin-debt, and Christ is also High Priest, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith…let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for HE WHO PROMISED IS FAITHFUL” (Hebrews 10:22-23, NKJV).

We are to hold onto our confession because Christ is faithful. His faithfulness WARRANTS our faithfulness!!!

But notice that in verses 24 and 25, the writer tells the Hebrews (and us today) how to hold on to our confession: by loving and doing good to one another (v. 24), as well as assembling together and exhorting one another (v.25).

Our assurance of Christ’s power over our lives, plus His faithfulness to us, should motivate us to continue to endure the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1), looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. The Lord’s faithfulness is not there as a cushion that prevents me from feeling the weight of my sin; no—the Lord’s faithfulness is the standard by which I will be condemned if I fail to persevere to the end.

To conclude, I will leave you with words from the great preacher Alexander Maclaren, in his “Expositions of Holy Scripture: Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews”:

“…what attitude in us corresponds to the faithfulness of God? I need only quote one of the expressions in the Epistle to the Hebrews to give the answer, ‘Hold fast the profession of your faith without wavering, for He is faithful that promised.’ OUR FAITH CORRESPONDS WITH AND IS THE ANSWER TO GOD’S FAITHFULNESS. As with two instruments tuned to the same pitch, when a note is struck on the one, the chords of the other vibrate it back again, so God’s faithfulness should awake the music of answering faith in our responsive and vibrating hearts. If He is worth trusting, let us trust Him” (Alexander Maclaren; “Life In The Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance” by Robert Shank. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1961, page 111).

The "WILLS" of God?

“Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, IMPLIES that THERE ARE AT LEAST ‘TWO WILLS’ IN GOD, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of SOVEREIGN will and MORAL will, EFFICIENT will and PERMISSIVE will, SECRET will and REVEALED will, will of DECREE and will of COMMAND, DECRETIVE will and PRECEPTIVE will, voluntas signi (will of SIGN) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of GOOD PLEASURE)” (John Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God?” in “Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace” by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, page 109).

I just started reading articles from the work “Still Sovereign” a few days ago. When I stumbled onto the above quote, there was a phrase that stood out to me: “secret will and revealed will.” The last time I read those words was when I traveled to the library one day and decided to pick up Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology.” Grudem goes into great discussion on God’s hidden and revealed wills. And this is one of the passages Grudem quotes in his “Systematic Theology” as a proof text for his belief:

“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, ‘I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have HIDDEN these things from the wise and prudent and REVEALED them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight” (Luke 10:21, New King James Version, bold print mine).

In the above text, however, we are not dealing with Grudem, but John Piper. However, the point to be made is that Piper, like Grudem, argues that God has “two wills.”
Piper uses examples in his article, one of which involves Pharaoh’s refusal to let the Israelites go:

“Another evidence to demonstrate God’s willing a state of affairs in one sense that he disapproves in another sense is the testimony of Scripture that God wills to harden some men’s hearts so that they become obstinate in sinful behavior that God disapproves. The most well known example is the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. In Exodus 8:1 the Lord says to Moses, ‘Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Let my people go, that they may serve me.’”” In other words God’s command, that is, his will, is that Pharaoh let the Israelites go. Nevertheless from the start he also willed that Pharaoh not let the Israelites go. In Exodus 4:21 God says to Moses, ‘When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all these wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in your hand; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.’ At one point Pharaoh himself acknowledges that his unwillingness to let the people go is sin: ‘Now therefore forgive, I pray, my sin’ (Exod. 10:17). Thus what we see is that God commands that Pharaoh do a thing that God himself wills not to allow. The good thing that God commands he prevents. And the thing he brings about involves sin” (Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God?” from “Still Sovereign,” pages 113-114).

To be brief, Piper says that, since God wants Pharaoh to let the people go, this is His will; but He also hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that he won’t let the Israelites go (and this is another will). Therefore, God has two wills—and both are a contradiction of each other. God wills one thing while, at the same time, willing against his initial will. The last statement I wrote doesn’t make any sense (but it is the Calvinist mindset).

So now, theology has gotten to such a point that man now thinks of God as “fighting against Himself.” God wills one thing, and then fights against His primary will (thus having two wills).

My response to the issue with Pharaoh is this: God willed for His people to be freed from the hands of Pharaoh. Pharaoh refused to let God’s people go. As a result, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart CONSISTENT WITH PHARAOH’S DECISION! Now, since Pharaoh refuses to listen, God gives Pharaoh over to his choice and allows him to continue hardening his heart against God’s command. Pharaoh didn’t wanna listen, so he got his choice. As the great Clive Staples Lewis (C.S.) once said, “There are those who will say to God, ‘Thy will be done’; and there are those to whom God will say, ‘Thine will be done’”.

But this doesn’t mean that God has two wills. God wills for His people to be freed, and that doesn’t change. But God willing Pharaoh not to let them go is God being consistent with His nature—and God is not one to override the choices of His creatures. Because Pharaoh refuses to let them go, God allows Pharaoh to persist in his hard-heartedness. Part of God’s will involves allowing the choices of man to stand.

Notice, though, what I said: God hardening Pharaoh’s heart was PART of God’s will, not A NEW WILL altogether!! Why? because the will of man is also included in God’s will—for God allows man to “will” and make his own decisions. Therefore, by God willing man to be a free moral agent, He willed THE WILL OF MAN as well—whether man would choose good or evil would be man’s responsibility!!! By willing the right of man to will his own decisions, God is in no way, shape, or form responsible for man’s evil actions. And the responsibility for man’s sin is in no way to be placed upon the Lord Almighty. God remains guilt-free with just one will instead of two!!

Secondly, there is another major reason why Piper’s “Two-Will” Theory is incorrect: Scripture contradicts Piper’s claim. Piper claims (as do most Calvinists) that God has two wills; but Scripture only tells us of “ONE” will. Let’s examine a few verses of Scripture that show a singular will:

(1) Mark 3:35—“For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” (New King James Version unless otherwise stated)

(2) Luke 7:30-- But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

(3) Acts 13:36-- “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;

(4) Romans 1:10-- making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you.

(5) Romans 8:27-- Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

(6) Romans 12:2-- And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

(7) Romans 15:32-- that I may come to you with joy by the will of God, and may be refreshed together with you.

(8) 1 Corinthians 1:1-- Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

(9) 2 Corinthians 1:1-- Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:

(10) 2 Corinthians 8:5-- And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God.

(11) Ephesians 1:1-- Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:

(12) Ephesians 6:6-- not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

(13) Colossians 1:1-- Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

(14) Colossians 4:12-- Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ, greets you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.

(15) 1 Thessalonians 4:3-- For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

I’ve provided FIFTEEN references regarding the “will of God.” There are at least eight other references in Scripture. For those who care to investigate this matter further, go to www.biblegateway.com and type in “will of God” in the keyword search.
When I went to the site referenced above and typed in “willS of God” in the keyword search, the site responded with the words, “no results found.” That should tell us something: if the translations can find no plural wills of God in the canon of Scripture, then this should tell us that God only has ONE will.

What is a “more excellent way” to tackle God’s will in Scripture? It is best to say that while God has ONE will, that will has many ASPECTS to it. Grudem writes the following regarding salvation:

“I realize that salvation has a PAST, a PRESENT, and a FUTURE ASPECT IN NEW TESTAMENT THOUGHT: we have been saved (at the time of conversion), we are being saved (sanctification continues as a process throughout our earthly lives, as does God’s protection), and we will be saved (we will in the future experience death, bodily resurrection, final rewards, and eternal life with God)” (Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints,” from “Still Sovereign,” page 136).

So when we read of “we have been saved” and then we read of “we will be saved,” the Scriptures are not contradictory: they are not telling us that there are two salvations. Instead, the Scriptures are showing us two aspects of salvation—a present aspect and a future aspect. In the same manner, when Scripture talks about (as does the Luke 10:21 reference) that the Lord has hidden certain things from one group and revealed it to another, this does not mean that God has “two wills”—rather, we are seeing God’s will (in the singular) at play: God chooses to reveal certain things to certain people. This serves in the singular will of God.

While God does not possess “two wills,” there are two wills mentioned in Scripture: the will of God (that has already been cited with Scripture above) and…surprise! The “will of man”:

(1) John 1:13-- who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

(2) 2 Peter 1:21-- for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

There is no other “will” mentioned in Scripture besides the will of God and the will of man. And man, made in the image and likeness of God, possesses a will just as His Creator does.

If Piper is gonna invent a “two-wills” theory for God in Scripture, he’s gotta go to Scripture itself and find these two wills he believes exist. I’ve shown above that God only has ONE will, and man has ONE will. These two wills are the only ones mentioned in Scripture. So when we speak of “sovereign will and moral will” (Piper, 109), we will no longer characterize these as two separate wills; instead, we will say, “sovereign and moral components” or “sovereign and moral aspects.” God will also have “efficient and permissive aspects,” “secret and revealed aspects,” “decree and command aspects,” as well as “decretive and preceptive aspects.” In regards to sin, the Lord has one will, but that one will contains both “efficient and permissive” aspects. While there are not two wills in God, there is ONE will of God and ONE will of man. And maybe the “will of man” is what Piper’s “Two-wills-of-God” theology is trying to deliberately avoid…

"Calvin's View of Reprobation, and His Erroneous Fundamental Assumption"

The following is an essay by Robert Shank on Calvin’s “Institutes.” For those who desire to see the original article, it is under “Appendix D” in Robert Shank’s work on perseverance, called “Life In The Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance.” (Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1989, pages 345-357). The article is titled "Calvin's View of Reprobation, and His Erroneous Fundamental Assumption." Read the article below:

Calvin considered reprobation a positive decree. “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (3:21:5). “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless but at the same time, incomprehensible, judgment” (3:21:7). “Now if, in excuse of themselves and the ungodly, either the Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or Epicureans (for it with these four sects we have to discuss this matter), should object the necessity by which they are constrained, in consequences of the divine predestination, they do nothing that is relevant to the cause” (3:23:8). In the same paragraph, however, he writes, “Moreover, though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves.”

Thus, according to Calvin, by eternal decree before creation, God ‘determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man.” Some He “preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation,” without regard to anything in man, either of the elect or of the reprobate—“they do nothing that is relevant to the cause.” And yet, somehow, “the cause and matter of [the perdition of the reprobation] is in themselves.”

It cannot be questioned that men, as guilty sinners, are deserving of perdition. But according to Calvin’s view of reprobation, the guilt of the reprobate is a consequence rather than a cause. For if by eternal decree God unconditionally “preordained” specific men to eternal damnation without respect to anything in them, but simply because “it was his pleasure to doom them to destruction,” it cannot be true that “the cause and matter” of their perdition is to be found within the reprobate themselves, as Calvin asserts, because God’s decree was antecedent to any act of man. According to Calvin’s definition of election and reprobation, the guilt of the reprobate is, itself, the direct consequence of God’s positive decree of reprobation. God created the reprobate for no other purpose than guilt and everlasting damnation, and the real “cause and matter” of their perdition is to be found in God’s decree, rather than “in themselves,” as Calvin asserts.
Calvin becomes involved in the same sort of contradiction in his consideration of the fall of angels. He writes: “Paul gives the name of ‘elect’ to the angels who maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God” (3:23:4). Obviously, this makes the revolt of the angels the direct consequence of an act of God. According to Calvin, the whole company of angels were going along in a business-as-usual sort of way when—bang! God suddenly sprang the trap under some of them by withdrawing His sustaining grace and “abandoning” them to perdition. This was simply “owing to the good pleasure of God,” and “no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.”

But elsewhere in his Institutes, Calvin declares that “…at their first creation they were the angels of God, but by revolting they both ruined themselves and became the instruments of perdition to others…Everything damnable in [Lucifer] he brought upon himself by his revolt and fall. Of this Scripture reminds us, lest, by believing that he was so created at first, we should ascribe to God what is most foreign to his nature. For this reason Christ declares (John viii.44) that Satan, when he lies, ‘speaketh of his own,’ and states the reason, ‘because he abode not in the truth.’ By saying that he abode not in the truth, he certainly intimates that he once was in the truth, and by calling him the father of lies, he puts it out of his power to charge God with the depravity of which he was himself the cause” (1:14:16).
Thus, on one page, there is “no other cause” for the fall of angels except “the good pleasure of God” in suddenly withdrawing His sustaining grace from some and “abandoning” them to perdition, while continuing to secure the “steadfastness” of others who “maintained their integrity.” On other page, however, there is no other cause than that which we may find in the angels themselves, who, without provocation or necessity or excuse, wickedly revolted against God and His divine will.

It is difficult to read at length from Calvin without concluding that he was a master at eating his cake and having it too. The left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away. Calvin’s difficulty stemmed from the fact that he labored under an erroneous fundamental assumption. His cardinal error was his failure to acknowledge that the will of God has more than a single aspect, which led to his consequent denial that God desires to have all men to be saved. It is apparent from his writings that Calvin reasoned thus: If God truly wished all men to be saved, then all men would be saved. But most men are not saved. Therefore, we must conclude that God does not wish all men to be saved. Calvin’s logic is unassailable; but it is based on the erroneous assumption that the will of God has but a single aspect.
Calvin deplored the fact that his opponents “…recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills?” (3:23:8). Certainly anything within His permission is within God’s will. But this does not establish the fact that His will has but a single aspect. All that occurs in the universe is within the permissive will of God. Neither men nor angels nor devils can go beyond the limits of God’s permissive will. But it is by no means true that all that occurs is in accord with the perfect will of God.

One may argue that, since the world is filled with greed, lust, violence, debauchery, hatred, and impenitence, God evidently wishes it to be so and is well pleased. But the Scriptures declare otherwise. Although God allows these things to exist in the world, He has revealed His displeasure and wrath with respect to all such things and has commanded all men to repent. Thus it is evident that there are two aspects of the will of God with respect to sin: His permissive will allows it; but His perfect will forbids it and will bring all sin into judgment.
There are two aspects of the will of God for men with respect to salvation. Numerous Scriptures reveal God’s perfect will to “have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4); but the fact that not all men are saved reflects God’s permissive will. If a man is saved, it is in accordance with God’s perfect will that all men should be saved; if a man is lost, it is in accordance with God’s permissive will that men, being free moral agents rather than mere puppets, may refuse to obey Him. The latitude between God’s perfect will and His permissive will is the area within which men function with freedom as responsible moral intelligences, accountable before God in solemn judgment. God is at work in humanity “bringing many sons unto glory” (Heb. 2:10) through the redemptive process rooted in His grace and wrought in Christ. But as moral intelligences created in His image, men must of their own free will concur in God’s redemptive process if they are to share His everlasting glory as His sons. The fact that men are responsible, as free moral agents, is a corollary of the fact that the will of God has two aspects, rather than one.

The fact that the will of God has two aspects, rather than one, is fully apparent in numerous passages of Scripture. Consider the following: “If any man wills to do His will, he shall know…” (John 7:17).” Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father…” (Matt. 7:21). “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel [boule, purpose] of God for them, being not baptized of John” (Luke 7:30). According to the Scriptures, men may choose to do God’s will, or not to do His will. Since everything that happens is necessarily within the bounds of God’s will, yet (according to the Scriptures) much that happens is contrary to the will of God, it is evident that the will of God has two aspects, rather than one.
Calvin does assert that God has “a double will” (3:24:17). But he means only that God has one will for the elect and another for the reprobate, both of which are simply corresponding manifestations of the one immutable will of God. (But if His will has but a single aspect, God is necessarily insincere; for He is ostensibly angry toward impenitent sinners with whom He secretly must be pleased, since they are but fulfilling His immutable will for them.) Calvin’s assumption that the will of God has but a single aspect involved him in a fundamental error which warped both his theology and his interpretation of the Scriptures.
Much of Calvin’s exposition of the Scriptures is excellent, including his interpretations of the warnings against apostatizing and the exhortations to persevere. He insists that believers must persevere in faith if they are to remain in grace. He frankly acknowledges that the Scriptures declare that some do actually fall from grace (reprobate Christians whose faith and experience of grace, by divine decree, are intended to be only temporary). He rightly asserts that the elect will persevere in faith and continue in grace to ultimate final salvation. But he views the perseverance of specific individual men as the consequence of election, rather than as a condition. Therefore, he is under the necessity of denying that God desires to have all men to be saved. For if God desires to have all men to be saved, then perseverance must necessarily be a condition, rather than a consequence, of election. Hence, his interpretations of the explicit declarations of Scripture that God wills to have all men to be saved, and that Christ died for all men, are ingenious and artificial. The reason is apparent: had he accepted the obvious meaning and import of such simple categorical declarations of Holy Scripture, his definition of election and the whole logic of his theology would have disintegrated. Calvin therefore rejected the face value of numerous passages of Scripture, in the interest of his theology, which he was able to substantiate by appealing to selected proof passages and by assigning ingenious interpretations to some of the most explicit declarations in the Holy Scriptures.

An example of Calvin’s interpretations of passages incompatible with his theology is found in his comments on 1 Tim. 2:4-6. He writes that “[Paul] demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgement of his truth.” (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, p.54). Having made such a concession (in full accord with the obvious meaning of Paul’s words), Calvin immediately begins his retraction by asserting, “This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect.” In other words, since many are not saved, it cannot be true that God really wishes all men to be saved. Conceding that “if ‘the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone that believeth’ (Rom. i. 16), it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life,” Calvin yet insists that only “they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation”—who are, of course, only such as have the good fortune of having been included in God’s “secret election.” We must not believe, therefore, that God really desires that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. Paul’s simple statement must be “interpreted” to bring it into conformity with Calvin’s theology. According to Calvin, God “invites all to the acknowledgement of His truth”; but He makes sure that only the right ones answer His universal invitation. He has taken all necessary steps to ensure that none of the wrong ones shall obey His righteous command to all men everywhere to repent or answer His gracious invitation to “whosoever will.”

In defense of his theology, Calvin asserts that “all” does not mean all, but rather only some men of each of all classes. He declares that in affirming that God wills to have all men to be saved, “…the Apostle simply means that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is to include in this number princes and foreign nations.” (Calvin’s Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, p. 54f.) In other words, when Paul declared that God “wills to have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” he really meant only that God wills to have some men of each of all nations and classes, including a few kings, to be saved and to come to the knowledge of His truth.
Again, Calvin writes, “The universal term all must always be referred to classes of men, and not to persons…” (Calvin’s commentary, p. 57). Such an assumption is necessary for the defense of Calvin’s theology. And it does seem a modest concession for Calvin to ask, in view of the fact that the whole of his elaborate theology is at stake. But we wonder why Paul depended so much on “interpreters” instead of simply saying that God desires to have some men of each of all different classes to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for some men of each of all classes.

Elsewhere Calvin writes, “By this [Paul] assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men; that, on the contrary, he had manifested his mercy in such a way that he would have none debarred from it” (3:24:16). But of course Calvin does not really mean that God actually “had manifested his mercy in such a way that he would have none debarred from it.” Such a statement contradicts his theology. For according to Calvin, most men were created for the specific purpose of being forever barred from the mercy of God. Calvin therefore means only that God has barred the reprobate from His mercy, not on the basis of “class” or “order of men,” but rather as specific individuals whom He created for perdition and for whom His mercy was never intended. Against any who might be reluctant to accept his “interpretation” of such a simple categorical statement of Scripture and his necessary definition of the word all as only some men of all classes. Calvin fumes, “For if they persist in urging the words, ‘God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all’ (Rom. Xi. 32), I will, on the contrary, urge what is elsewhere written, ‘Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased’ (Ps. cxv. 3)” (3:24:16). To Calvin, of course, belongs the exclusive right to define “whatsoever he hath pleased” to do.

“Hence we see the childish folly,” writes Calvin, “Of those who represent this passage [1 Tim. 2:4-6] to be opposed to predestination [i.e., to Calvin’s particular hypothesis of election and reprobation]. ‘If God,’ they say, ‘wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestinated by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition [i.e., unconditionally]. They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, pg. 54).

Thus, all in the same breath, Calvin declares that “God has at heart the salvation of all…yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man”—some of whom He created for salvation, and others for perdition. Again, as so often with Calvin, the left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away. “God has at the heart the salvation of all [and] invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth.” But He also has at heart the everlasting perdition of men whom He created for no other purpose or destiny—men to whom, from before creation, He utterly denied all prospect of arriving at the acknowledgment of His truth and salvation. “God has at heart the salvation of all”—and the damnation of most! Without regard to anything in men, God is pleased to consign to everlasting perdition many whose salvation He “has at heart.” Why? Perhaps to confirm the logic of Calvin’s theology.

Calvin resorts to similar exegetical artifice in his interpretation of passages which affirm that Christ died for all mankind. For example, according to his interpretation of 1 John 2:2, John did not mean that Jesus is actually the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” Instead, he meant only that He is the propitiation for the sins of the elect wherever they may happen to be throughout the whole world, and in whatever generation they may happen to live on earth. “…the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, p. 173).

It must have come as an amazing revelation to John’s readers to learn that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the elect quite as much in one part of the world as in another, and as much in one generation as in another. What nonsense! But of course John’s simple statement must be properly “interpreted.” The logic of Calvin’s theology demands a limited atonement. (In his introduction to Eerdmans’ edition of the Institutes, John Murray writes, “[Calvin’s] exegesis, in a word, is theologically oriented.” That is only too true, in a sense which Murray did not mean. The profound pity is that Calvin’s theology was not exegetically oriented.)
While many Calvinists concede that such a doctrine is manifestly unscriptural, a limited atonement remains an essential tenet of Calvin’s theology. The “Five Pillars of Calvinism” are five in number, not four. But Calvinists who advocate a limited atonement have no moral right to assure any man that Christ died for him, personally. For according to their theology, their statement may, or may not, be true; and in most instances is not.

Calvinists who reject the erroneous doctrine of limited atonement, while more Scriptural, are correspondingly less logical. Quite inconsistent are moderate Calvinists who reject a limited atonement while advocating an unconditional election. Why should Jesus bear the sins of men who have no prospect of forgiveness and whose inevitable destiny, by decree of God, is eternal perdition? Why should God sacrifice His Son for men whom He does not desire to save and whom He does not love? Or, how is it true that God loves men whom he deliberately creates for no other end and purpose than everlasting estrangement from Himself? It is a strange “love” which creates men for naught but wrath. Or, if one insist that reprobation is “not a positive decree,” as some “Calvinists” (a thing impossible to establish, if election be unconditional), how is it true that God loves men whom He simply “passes by” while saving others no more deserving of His mercy? A God who “passes by” the mass of helpless sinners in casual unconcern is not unlike the priest and the Levite in our Saviour’s parable. If it be protested that sinners have offended God and are undeserving of His mercy, let us ask whether our Saviour taught us to love our enemies and to forgive those who have offended us. Let us also ask whether, according to our Saviour’s teaching, to love and forgive and to seek reconciliation would make us like God, or unlike Him (Matt. 5:43-48). The only claim that robbers’ victim had on the good Samaritan was the character of the Samaritan himself—the spirit of love and brotherhood which he had toward his fellow men. The only claim guilty sinners have on the mercy of God is the gracious character of God Himself. That claim was enough to send Jesus to Golgotha and to a shameful death as the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” The guilt of men who persist in disobedience is compounded many-fold by the fact that Jesus “gave himself a ransom for all” and God desires that none perish, but that all come to repentance and to the knowledge of His truth and saving grace.

Chafer, who rejects the doctrine of limited atonement, tacitly admits the inconsistency of contending for both unlimited redemption and unconditional election: “To the unlimited redemptionist, the seeming inequity of a judgment falling upon [the reprobate] after Christ has borne that judgment is but one more mystery which the finite mind cannot understand” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 188). But the “mystery” and the inconsistency are not present for men who recognize that the will of God has more than a single aspect, and that the Scriptures present both an unlimited atonement and a conditional election (with respect to particular individuals). We can be consistent (and Scriptural) only as we recognize that the love which provided an infinite atonement “for the sins of the whole world” finds expression in God’s sincere desire that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance and salvation. Conditional election is the inevitable corollary of unlimited redemption. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them… [therefore] as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (II Cor. 5:19, 20).

It is true, as Calvinists delight to contend, that there is a hard core of logic at the center of Calvin’s theology. But it is a logic which proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the will of God has but a single aspect, and which is totally invalid. It is therefore inevitable that, despite its core of logic, there should be much in Calvin’s theology which is horribly illogical—a fact which Calvinists concede, but which they excuse on the plea that the frightful paradoxes are “mysteries” which our finite minds cannot comprehend. It is odd that men who glory in the “logic” of Calvin’s theology are so ready to accept all that is grossly illogical in it. Even more distressing is the fact that they are quite ready to accept the many ingenious and artificial interpretations of simple, explicit statements of Holy Scripture which the defense of Calvin’s theology requires.
Calvin’s profound intolerance toward all who questioned any of his opinions was not merely the evidence of a vanity easily offended; it was a reflection of his sincere estimate of his Institutes of the Christian Religion: “I dare not bear too strong a testimony in its favour and declare how profitable the reading of it will be, lest I should seem to prize my own work too highly. However, I may promise this much, that it will be a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume. . . . And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work, acknowledging it to be God’s work rather than mine” (Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 22f).
We would not question Calvin’s sincerity in assuming his Institutes to be a comprehensive expression of holy truth quite free from error, and the indispensable key to understanding the Scriptures. But we deny the wisdom of sharing his assumption. It is cause for regret that, in the past four centuries, many have seemed to regard Calvin’s Institutes, not merely as the expression of a system of theology, but actually as a sort of infallible norm by which to judge all exegesis and doctrine. Such an assumption militates against the possibility of any really objective study of the Holy Scriptures and the formulation of a truly Biblical theology. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

But we do well to honor Calvin for his earnest purpose to be ever “prompt and sincere in the work of the Lord,” and for his zeal and labors to lead men into the light of holy truth, as best he saw it. Jealous for the glory of God and indignant against the presumptions of “unholy men in holy office” who trafficked in the souls of men, arrogating to themselves the provinces of God, Calvin labored diligently to expound the Scriptures, and especially to defend the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, according to his conception and definition.

Christ's Sufficiency: Provision for Perseverance

“The bottom line, however, is that Fanning deduces perseverance from Hebrews’s descriptions of Christ’s adequacy. Hebrews does not make that deduction. Thus it is time to look more closely at the deductions Hebrews does derive from Christ’s adequacy. What positive benefit do believers receive from his sufficient saving work? We have given the answer above: PROVISION FOR PERSEVERANCE.
The exhortations in Hebrews 4:14-16 and 10:19-25 make it clear that the writer wants his hearers not only to ‘hold on’ but also to ‘draw near.’ The importance of this ‘drawing near’ is underscored by the fact these two important passages anticipate and conclude the writer’s great presentation of Christ’s high priesthood in Hebrews 7:1-10:18. This process of ‘drawing near’ is a present continuous activity through which believers appropriate the work of Christ for Christian living. See especially Hebrews 4:16, where they are urged to ‘draw near’ in order ‘to find mercy and grace to help in time of need.’ Thus the work of Christ is not just something they ‘have’ but something they regularly appropriate. These assertions make it clear that Christ intercedes for ‘those who are coming to God through Him’ (7:25) as they ‘draw near to find mercy and receive grace to help in time of need’ (4:16). In short, when the writer uses Christ’s high priestly work to encourage his readers, he urges them to appropriate God’s PROVISION.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that within the context of Hebrews Christ’s sufficiency is NOT THE GUARANTEE OF PERSEVERANCE but the PROVISION FOR PERSEVERANCE. Even Fanning ‘falls’ into such a form of expression: ‘They CAN continue, not by human ability or effort, adding their part to God’s, but by the sustaining grace and intercession of their faithful and merciful High Priest and the power of God at work within’…” (Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian Response to Buist M. Fanning’s Classical Reformed View,” from “Four Views On The Warning Passages In Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, pages 240-41).

Cockerill’s words above serve to trump the Classical Reformed argument once more. Remember that Buist M. Fanning argued in his chapter that because Christ is High Priest, and because He lives to intercede for His people, then Christians will automatically persevere!! Cockerill, however, disagrees and does so because of contextual evidence within the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let’s now look at both 4:14-16 and 10:19-25.

First, Hebrews 4:14-16:

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16, New King James Version).

Verse 14 gives us biblical affirmation of Cockerill’s argument. Verse 14 begins with the words, “Seeing then…” This word in the Greek is “oun,” which means “therefore.” It is the conclusion to all that the writer has been stating in chapter 4. First, the writer begins chapter 4 by giving the failure of the wilderness generation to have faith and their subsequent death in the wilderness. They failed to enter the Promised Land (“His rest,” 4:1) because of unbelief. In verse 9, the writer states that a rest remains for God’s people because the wilderness generation failed to enter God’s eternal rest (not a physical rest as some believe it to be). In verse 11, the writer warns the congregation to “be diligent to enter that rest,” so that the congregation will not be punished like the wilderness generation was. And then, verse 14 comes. Because of our “great High Priest” that the writer has discussed much of in chapter 2, verses 9-18, we are to “hold fast our confession.” The word for “confession” here is also “profession.” This is important because most Calvinists, as does Fanning, claim that when the writer arrives at Hebrews 6, that the audience the writer has in mind is an audience of “fake Christians,” those claiming to be believers who really don’t have a relationship with Christ. However, here, we see the writer encouraging the congregation to build on their confession. He in no way, shape or form seems to think that their profession isn’t genuine. All the writer does is encourage the congregation to hold onto their profession and cling to Christ with all they have.

In verse 15, the congregation is told that their High Priest, Christ, has experienced temptation in every way—“yet without sin.” And because He knows EVERY TEMPTATION and has experienced EVERY FORM OF TEMPTATION, He understands—He can “sympathize with our weaknesses.” Because He is there to comfort us and strengthen us as we fight temptation, we can “come boldly to the throne of grace, THAT WE MAY OBTAIN MERCY AND FIND GRACE TO HELP IN TIME OF NEED” (Heb. 4:16, New King James Version).

In other words, Christ is there as our High Priest to hear our cries and strengthen us to face our troubles—not there to assure us that we will AUTOMATICALLY PERSEVERE no matter what—and that we have nothing to be concerned about!!

I will cover Hebrews 10:19-25 at another time. For now, though, let me say that Hebrews 4 shows us all we really need to know—that, as stated, there is no room for unconditional security in the Christian life.

Another Hypothetical Theory

“I believe this is the best approach that can be made from a Calvinist perspective, and it is indeed impressive. Nevertheless, there are several weaknesses. Since Fanning has recognized the fact that the addressees are genuine believers and that Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 warns the addressees against apostasy, it is hard to conclude anything other than that THIS IS ANOTHER FORM OF THE HYPOTHETICAL THEORY, that is, ‘IF THIS OCCURS’ (BUT IT REALLY CANNOT OCCUR)…in the Greek the list of participles is framed by ‘it is impossible…to renew them to repentance’ (adunaton…palin anakainizein eis metanoian) for emphasis. It could not be more obvious that IT IS THE GENUINE BELIEVERS, not the unbelievers in the congregation, who are being warned of the danger of apostasy” (Grant R. Osborne, “Classical Arminian Response” from “Four Views On The Warning Passages In Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, page 225).

What does it mean for something to be “hypothetical”? Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary supplies the following definitions:

Hypothetical: “conjectural.”

Conjectural: “given to conjecture.”

Conjecture:” c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved.”

As you can see, a conjecture gives us a “possibility” without the possibility being tested or examined. In the case of Buist M. Fanning’s chapter on the warning passages in Hebrews, we find that Fanning paints the warning of Hebrews 6:4-8 as “hypothetical,” which means that, while falling away is a possibility, it isn’t a probability—it COULD happen, but it DOESN’T happen. The problem with Fanning’s view (as I’ve examined it here in a few posts at CTS) is that, if apostasy is a possibility, then there is a chance (if only a small one) that someone will commit it. However, if one treats the issue like Fanning, apostasy is only a possibility in the biblical text among the words; it stops being one when we discuss real life and walking with Christ.

Fanning’s argument above is, as Grant Osborne tells us, no different than the so-called “hypothetical” argument proposed by other theologians. The hypothetical argument says that “if” someone fell away, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance (not “when” they fell away). Fanning does the same thing when he says that IF someone falls away, then he or she was “never saved to begin with.” In other words, what Fanning is saying is that “true believers never fall away,” which means that for the genuine believer, apostasy is not a possibility (which makes Fanning’s argument the same as the hypothetical argument regarding the warning passages).

I think the above argument by Grant R. Osborne is probably the number one genius argument the Classical Arminian response could make to Fanning’s chapter and presentation.

Let’s look at the context of Hebrews 6. To see if genuine believers can turn away from the faith or not, let’s read starting at verse 9 of chapter 6:

“Even though we are speaking this way, dear friends, in your case we are confident of the better things connected with salvation” (Heb. 6:9, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

Here in verse 9, the writer makes it clear that he (and another companion of his) are confident or assured of the “better things connected with salvation” (i.e., that the Hebrews wouldn’t do what is mentioned in vv. 4-8). Before we go on, however, I must ask this question: why is it that the writer is concerned with “better things CONNECTED WITH salvation” than “better things OF salvation”? If the Calvinists are right, then the “better things” should be “salvation” itself, for only those who are chosen by God to be saved persevere. However, we find that these “better things” are “connected with” or “added to” salvation. Clearly then, the writer PRESUPPOSES that the audience is saved!!!

Why is the writer assured of a far better situation for the Hebrews?

“For God is not unjust: He will not forget YOUR WORK AND THE LOVE YOU SHOWED FOR HIS NAME WHEN YOU SERVED THE SAINTS—AND YOU CONTINUE TO SERVE THEM” (v.10).

Here the writer is familiar with their service for God, how they have “served the saints,” and seems to believe that they are still doing so (“and you continue to serve them”). The writer, therefore, is quite familiar with the spiritual condition of the Hebrews, although Calvinists will state that the spiritual condition can’t be discerned in the Epistle. Their service for God shows that they haven’t lost their zeal for God’s glory or their love for God Himself.

But in verse 11, the writer and the companion state a serious desire for the final salvation of the entire congregation of believers:

“Now we want each of you to demonstrate THE SAME DILIGENCE for the final realization of your hope, so that you won’t become LAZY, but imitators of those who inherit the promises through FAITH and PERSEVERANCE” (Heb. 6:11-12, HCSB).

The writer and his companion believe that the Hebrews have been diligent in their work for God; now, they want the congregation to make the same effort to receive the goal of their hope—eternal life. Notice that the writer refers to “the final realization of your hope,” which means that the congregation, as do believers today, possessed the “hope of salvation” (Romans 8:24). They had a “present” realization of salvation, for the Spirit testified with their spirit that they were (at the time the letter was written) children of God (Romans 8:16). However, the fact that they had a “present” realization of their hope didn’t necessarily mean they were guaranteed a “final realization”—and this is why the writer and his companion encourage them to continue to work hard at making the final realization happen. In addition, the fact that they mention a “final realization of your hope” shows us the spiritual condition of the congregation as believers.

I think the details show us here that the warning of Hebrews 6:4-8 is more than just an impossibility—it is a real possibility addressed to real believers who are facing persecution. If the Hebrews are “holy brothers and companions in a heavenly calling” (Heb. 3:1), as well as those who “ought to be teachers” but “need milk, not solid food” (Heb. 5:12) and “have become slow to understand” (5:11), then we get the idea that the Hebrews are not those who are deciding upon whether or not to profess Christ, or babes in the faith, but those who have learned much about the faith they have professed and need to be warned about turning from the firm foundation in which they have placed their trust. The results then, surely do not match Fanning’s exegesis…

"A More Difficult Reference"...

“The difficulty for this approach is the specific description in Hebrews 6:4-5 of those who fall away. These verses in their specific wording seem to reflect A TRUE EXPERIENCE OF CHRISTIAN CONVERSION, rather than a description of false profession. Also as noted earlier, the language of ‘renewal to repentance’ implies A GENUINE TURNING TO GOD. The answer to this problem is, I think, that the writer is portraying the PHENOMENA OF THEIR CONVERSION, WHAT THEIR CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE LOOKS LIKE OUTWARDLY. He portrays them in distinctly Christian terms to emphasize HOW CLOSE THEY HAVE BEEN TO THE FAITH AND WHAT THEY ARE REJECTING IF THEY DEPART. I think the same approach makes sense of Hebrews 10:29 (‘profaning the blood…by which he was sanctified’), ALTHOUGH THIS IS A MORE DIFFICULT REFERENCE FOR ME” (Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” from “Four Views On The Warning Passages in Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, page 217).

I have been probing Fanning’s argument for a Classical Calvinist argument that would really trump the Classical Arminian response to Hebrews 6; but, as always, I’ve searched in vain.

Here, Fanning’s dilemma becomes very evident: although he sees that the descriptions of Hebrews 6 look like they refer to genuine believers, he just can’t believe it to be true. We are given no sufficient reason (or any at all) why Hebrews 6 cannot refer to genuine believers. The only thing remotely along the lines of a defense of the Classical Calvinist position is in Fanning’s discussion of Hebrews 3:6 and his “Evidence to Inference conditional” (pg. 214). He uses this to say that when we arrive at Hebrews 6, we must reinterpret the literal meaning of these descriptions and say that those mentioned in Hebrews 6 only “appeared” to be believers, although they were not.

I would like to say two things: first, to say that those described in Hebrews 6 were never believers to begin with requires us to also acknowledge that “God never saved them.” This only makes sense if you’re in a Calvinist system and God “picks” some and not others to be saved, while damning others. Secondly, why would God allow them to have the experiences mentioned in Hebrews 6 if He never intended to save that person, but damn them instead? Calvin argues this in his “Institutes”:

“…there is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, GOD BESTOWS ON BELIEVERS ONLY, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterward, in just punishment for their ingratitude, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Book 3, chap. 24, paragraph 8, page 643).

Here John Calvin says that God “enlightens” some “only for a time.” Once enlightened, and having rejected it, “He abandons and smites with greater blindness” those who reject it. What is more puzzling about Calvin’s view is that he believes that even the special call can fall on some who reject it (“a special call…for the most part…God bestows on believers only”). What’s weird about this is that the Spirit “enlightens” even some who will ultimately reject Him; but this goes against EVERYTHING Fanning and the Classical Reformed position affirms!

In addition, the word preached is allowed to “take deep root” in the hearts of some who will reject it. Sounds like Calvin believed in Luke 8:

11 "This is the meaning of the parable: (L) [b] The seed is the word of God. (M) 12 The seeds along the path are those who have heard. Then the Devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 And the seeds on the rock are those who, when they hear, welcome the word with joy. Having no root, these believe for a while and depart in a time of testing. (N) 14 As for the seed that fell among thorns, these are the ones who, when they have heard, go on their way and are choked with worries, riches, and pleasures of life, (O) and produce no mature fruit. 15 But the seed in the good ground—these are the ones who, [c] having heard the word with an honest and good heart, hold on to it and by enduring, (P) bear fruit.” (Luke 8:11-15, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

But there is a problem with Calvin’s affirmation of this text: it eliminates his view of God’s arbitrary selection completely! Notice that in verse 13, that the seeds that fall on the rock “believe for a while and depart in a time of testing.” And to say that the rocky seed “believes” then, is to look at Hebrews 6 with new lenses. If the rocky seed believes, then the rocky seed is “enlightened,” does experience “the powers of the age to come,” has “tasted the good word of God,” and has “tasted of the heavenly gift” (that being salvation). Last but not least, that person who “believes,” even for a time, becomes a “companion of the Holy Spirit” upon belief and profession. And then, the rocky seed “departs in a time of testing,” which means that the seed does what the writer of Hebrews discusses in Hebrews 6—he “falls away.” And then, the writer of Hebrews 6 says that, for those who fall away, “it is impossible to renew them to repentance.” To “renew” means “to make new again.” In other words, the only persons who can repent for “a second time” are those who have REPENTED ONCE BEFORE!!! The writer of Hebrews says, however, that if they believed on the name of Christ once, and then depart from that, they cannot come back to repentance and faith again. So here the writer is discussing those who are saved and then turn from their salvation (“neglect such a great salvation,” Heb. 2).

I say all this because Fanning gets to Hebrews 6 and attempts to justify Hebrews 6 as referring to the “outward appearance” of those who are really phony Christians. The problem with this is that the presence of the Spirit resides temporarily in some who eventually will go to destruction (as Calvin believes) because they reject Him. If this is so, then Fanning’s analysis even rejects Calvin himself!!

And then, in Fanning’s quote above, he gets to the difficult part: “…Hebrews 10:29…is a MORE DIFFICULT REFERENCE FOR ME” (217). What does Hebrews 10:29 say?

29 How much worse punishment, do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane [a] the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:29, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

According to Fanning, the phrase “regarded as profane the blood of the covenant BY WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED” is a hard reference for him. I’ll be honest—the reference is a “more difficult” one for him because his theological system is based on presupposition instead of the biblical text. Who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant? The person who fell away (Heb. 10:30). And the person who fell away is called “the Lord’s people” in Hebrews 10:30. And indeed, as the verse says, “The Lord will judge His people”!!

Fanning goes on to admit:

“This approach does require an ADJUSTMENT TO THE STRAIGHTFORWARD READING OF HEBREWS 6:4-8 and 10:26-29 (and similar texts; these are the most problematic) based on implications from other texts in Hebrews (3:6, 14; 6:9-20; 7:20-25; 8:10-11; 9:11-14; 10:11-18, 32-34, 39)” (218).

The problem with Fanning’s listing of proof texts such as Heb. 6:9-20, for example, is that it FOLLOWS Hebrews 6:4-8 and has to be interpreted in light of that which is written in the preceding verses. Second, notice that his first proof text above, Heb. 3:6, 14 BYPASSES Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 (especially Hebrews 2 which states, “for if the message spoken through angels was legally binding, and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment, how will we escape if WE NEGLECT SUCH A GREAT SALVATION?”—Heb. 2:2-3, HCSB).

Because Hebrews 2 is the first chapter to reference the issue of Hebrews, we must approach the text from Hebrews 2. The writer was writing a coherent letter to the Hebrew believers; surely, then, he had a message that made sense in the order the material was written!! We cannot just flip Scripture around and rewrite it the way we want to. Fanning seems to be doing that with his lists of proof texts. Notice as well that he is leaving off most of the ones that deal with “neglecting salvation” such as Hebrews 2:2-3 and Hebrews 6:4-8. Letters must be interpreted word for word, phrase for phrase, line for line of the epistle.

Fanning finds himself in doubt with several passages of Hebrews that he cannot explain. No need to be alarmed though—for this is what happens when one holds to a theological system that is not scripturally supported.

From Reason to Hermeneutics

“How can these elements [five elements] of the warning passages be combined in a coherent way? The straightforward results are disparate enough that we have a problem coming to a consistent synthesis. The passages seem to say that GENUINE CHRISTIANS SHOULD PERSEVERE IN FAITHFULNESS BUT MAY INSTEAD REPUDIATE CHRIST AND SO FALL INTO ETERNAL CONDEMNATION, but Christ’s work in and for them WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT FAIL TO BRING THEM THROUGH TO ETERNAL SALVATION! This synthesis is, of course, less than satisfying, and it is not credible that our author’s theology contradicts itself so blatantly within the same passages addressed to the same situation” (Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” from “Four Views on the Warning Passages In Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, page 205).

In his chapter on the Classical Calvinist position, Fanning takes time to assess five important elements or features of the book of Hebrews. Upon doing that, he comes to the crossroads of the quote above.

It does seem contradictory that Christians CAN FALL, but then they CAN’T FALL because Christ preserves them! Fanning’s chapter continues to answer this question in the way Fanning believes it should be answered: Christ’s eternal priesthood guarantees an unconditional eternal security; and the passages discussing a potential “falling away” are for the person who “was never saved to begin with.”

I just finished reading I. Howard Marshall’s book “Kept By the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away,” and as a result of reading this book, I have come to the belief that the two concepts above (man’s perseverance and God’s preservation) will ALWAYS engage in an exegetical “tug-of-war” when studying theology.

But here’s what it comes down to: considering that most believers consider the Bible to be consistent in its message (according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy), God’s preservation and man’s perseverance must work together somehow. As a Classical Arminian, I’m gonna argue that as God supplies strength to persevere, man perseveres because of God’s strength. But what is Fanning gonna say? Well, you see it above—he is gonna argue for the unconditional security of God’s preservation, every time!

But both the Calvinist and Arminian are operating with two different trains of thought. The Calvinist is operating with the view that, since he believes God’s preservation prevails, then man’s perseverance, while important, doesn’t add or take anything away from God’s preservation. And because God WILL persevere us, our perseverance is really “the perseverance of God” (according to Edwin Palmer in his book, “The Five Points of Calvinism”). The Arminian, in contrast, is operating with the view that man’s perseverance is required; as a result, God’s strength doesn’t add or take anything away from man’s perseverance. While God supplies the strength needed for perseverance (without which man cannot persevere), God does not FORCE man to persevere unto salvation or fail to persevere and reap eternal damnation. God’s strength is there, but it is neutral—it doesn’t dictate the eternal security of a believer, either way.

Both of these systems are mutually exclusive, so both of them CANNOT BE RIGHT! Which is the most correct?

This might sound funny, but I don’t recall reading Hebrews and seeing anything about Christ’s eternal priesthood sealing the eternal state of any believer!! What Hebrews 7:25 tells me is that Christ is “ABLE” to save those who come to Him by faith. But the word “able” in and of itself is a neutral term.

The word “able” demonstrates the difference between “can” and “will.” For instance, I “CAN” take out the trash—but this only stresses that I possess the POTENTIAL. I MAY carry out the trash, and I may NOT carry out the trash. The word “can” signals to me that there is a choice to be made—but it doesn’t tell me the EXACT choice I will make.

Christ being “able” to save all those who come to Him shows that Christ CAN do anything (He has the potential, the power)! But this doesn’t mean that Christ WILL save those who come to Him. Some will come to Christ and believe “for a time” (Luke 8:13), but they will not “endure to the end” and will not “be saved” (Matt. 24).
So, if you’re Buist M. Fanning, you have to hold to a presupposition in order to endorse his view—that God’s preservation CANCELS OUT man’s perseverance!!

Think about the consistency issue for a moment. How can a system, labeled as “logical,” actually balance the ideas of Christ’s perseverance and MY perseverance? Both me and Christ cannot persevere for me at the same time. If Christ is going to persevere for me, then there’s nothing I need to do. Telling me to endure to the end when Christ’s endurance will win me eternity in Heaven is like asking me to “play-act”—do it for the sake of having something on earth to do. But if that’s the case, then we’re all just “marking time” until Jesus comes…

No—I think there is a better system. The Classical Arminian (and all Arminians) can balance God and man in relationship. Why? because Arminians understand the nature of relationships. Relationships only work when both parties cooperate (especially marriage relationships). When the wife, for example, allows her husband to excel at the things he is talented in, and the husband allows the wife to excel at her areas of giftedness, then a happy home results. But when the wife spends time trying to tell her husband how to do his duties, and the husband does the same for the wife, nothing but tension prevails.

And I think this explains the created “tension” of the Classical Calvinist system. The tension occurs when two things cannot exist at the same time. And if God is responsible for my endurance, then I need to do nothing.

With the Arminian though, God and man work together in perfect harmony. God supplies the strength, and man serves God based on the divine strength God gives him. Peter tells us this when he writes about using our differing abilities in the body of Christ:

10 Based on the gift they have received, everyone should use it to serve others, (A) as good managers of the varied grace of God. 11 If anyone speaks, [his speech should be] like the oracles of God; if anyone serves, [his service should be] from the strength God provides, (B) so that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To Him belong the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10-12, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Notice that “if anyone serves, [his service should be] FROM THE STRENGTH GOD PROVIDES…” So every believer is called to serve in the body of Christ; but even when we do serve, we are only serving because of God’s strength! Even the strength comes from God! The text doesn’t tell us that God supplies the strength and then GOD SERVES! Instead, God gives the strength needed, and He requires man use His strength responsibly and bring glory to God Himself!

The only way that the Bible will ever make sense on the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is if Calvinists stop trying to place God in control and then make Him responsible for man’s choices. I pray that one day, we will wake up and understand that dodging responsibility, as Cain did, only brings judgment from the Sovereign Lord—the One we believe will judge all things.

Divine Fidelity and Human Infidelity

“Another suggestion [to Hebrews] is that perhaps these verses themselves imply the possibility that the recipients of God’s pledged faithfulness could turn away and so limit the fulfillment of the promises. It is observed that several of these verses use present-tense verbs to describe the beneficiaries: Hebrews 7:25 speaks of ‘those who are coming near to God’ through Jesus and Hebrews 10:14 of ‘those who are being sanctified.’ So, the argument goes, THE PRESENT PARTICIPLES IMPLY THE CLEAR DANGER THAT THE BENEFICIARIES THEMSELVES MAY AT SOME POINT ABORT THE PROCESS, TURN BACK, AND FAIL TO REACH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF FINAL SALVATION. THIS STILL, I THINK, raises questions ABOUT WHY THE AUTHOR WOULD EXPRESS HIMSELF SO STRONGLY ABOUT GOD’S ABSOLUTE FAITHFULNESS IF HUMAN INFIDELITY CAN SHORT-CIRCUIT IT, especially since this is the very thing he fears some of his readers may do” (Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” from “Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, pages 199-200).

Fanning’s biggest question regarding Hebrews is “how can the writer imply that a believer can abandon the current path of salvation IF the Lord remains faithful?”
I have a good answer for this question. To find the answer, turn to Romans 3.
At this place in Romans, Paul has already told the Jews that they, claiming to have God’s written Law, are just as guilty as the Gentile world because “you, the judge, do the same things” (Rom. 2:1, Holman Christian Standard Bible). He then goes into what it means to be a true Jew—“a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter” (Rom. 2:29, HCSB).
In Romans 3, he begins to label the whole world as guilty before God. His argument starts as follows:

“So what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Considerable in every way. First, they were entrusted with the spoken words of God. What then? IF SOME DID NOT BELIEVE, WILL THEIR UNBELIEF CANCEL GOD’S FAITHFULNESS? Absolutely not! God must be true, but everyone is a liar, as it is written:
‘That You may be justified in Your words and triumph when You judge.’
But if our unrighteousness highlights God’s righteousness, what are we to say? I use a human argument: is God unrighteous to inflict wrath? Absolutely not! OTHERWISE, HOW WILL GOD JUDGE THE WORLD?” (Rom. 3:1-6, HCSB)

Verses 5 and 6 are the essential verses I believe that oppose Fanning’s argument. Our unrighteousness does indeed highlight the righteousness of God—for even when we are “faithless, He is faithful—for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13) I have discussed these verses in Norman Geisler’s argument in the book on “Four Views on Eternal Security” by General Editor J. Matthew Pinson. However, I will discuss them with Fanning’s argument here.

Our unrighteousness MAGNIFIES the righteousness of God in that the Lord is still faithful to us, even when we are unfaithful to Him. However, God’s faithfulness doesn’t cancel out man’s unfaithfulness. And neither does man's unfaithfulness cancel out God's faithfulness. This is why Paul asks, “If some did not believe, will their unbelief cancel God’s faithfulness? ABSOLUTELY NOT!” (Rom. 3:3, 4) If God's faithfulness is not cancelled out by man's unfaithfulness, then neither is man's unfaithfulness cancelled out by God's faithfulness.

Then in verse 5, Paul provides a “Q & A” session for the Calvinist: “But if our unrighteousness HIGHLIGHTS God’s righteousness, what are we to say?...IS GOD UNRIGHTEOUS TO INFLICT WRATH?...otherwise, HOW WILL GOD JUDGE THE WORLD?”
The question asked is this: If my unrighteousness, my sin and evil, bring about good, then am I responsible for my sin and evil? Is God wrong for punishing me? Paul said, “ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Otherwise, how will God judge the world?” (Rom. 3:6, HCSB)
So God’s faithfulness, God’s fidelity, does not CANCEL OUT or OVERWEIGH our infidelity; rather, God’s faithfulness is how He will “judge the world.”

If God’s fidelity outweighed our infidelity, then God could judge no one—because our actions would be based on God’s faithfulness; and, since God will always be faithful, we are always assured of nothing but reward. However, God will judge the world; and since His faithfulness will not cancel out the sins of man, mankind will be held responsible for their sins.

Fanning may not wanna believe it, but God is absolutely faithful at all times; however, this does not “blot out” the transgressions of man. Rather, God’s faithfulness MAGNIFIES MY UNFAITHFULNESS!!

What purpose does God’s faithfulness serve, then, if it does not cancel out my unfaithfulness? It does serve as the standard by which I will be judged for my deeds (as Paul tells us in Romans 3); however, God’s faithfulness is there to exhort me to continue to persevere in the faith:

“Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that HE HAS INAUGURATED FOR US, through the curtain (that is, His flesh); and since we have a GREAT HIGH PRIEST OVER THE HOUSE OF GOD, LET US DRAW NEAR WITH A TRUE HEART IN FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH, our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. Let us HOLD ON TO THE CONFESSION OF OUR HOPE WITHOUT WAVERING, FOR HE WHO PROMISED IS FAITHFUL” (Hebrews 10:19-23, HCSB).

As the evidence clearly reveals, because Christ’s death and resurrection allow us to enter the sanctuary, and Christ is now our high priest, we are to “draw near” to God, come to Him. In addition, all of this is to encourage us to “be faithful”—or, as the text says, “hold on to the confession of our hope WITHOUT WAVERING.” We are not to waver in our faith, to drift in our faith, to teeter-totter back and forth with regards to whether or not we believe in Christ’s promises. Why are we to be faithful? “FOR HE WHO PROMISED IS FAITHFUL.” HIS FAITHFULNESS DEMANDS OUR FAITHFULNESS UNTIL THE END!!!

Christ’s provision through His death and resurrection gives us the spiritual strength we need to remain faithful and cling to God, even in times of intense suffering and persecution. And the same God who said, “Be holy, because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16; Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7) is the same God who says, “Be faithful, because I am faithful.”

General Revelation and Hebrews

So this morning I finished the book “Four Views On The Warning Passages In Hebrews.” George Guthrie writes the conclusion to the four views presented by theologians Buist Fanning, Randall Gleason, Grant Osborne and Gareth Cockerill. In his conclusion, Guthrie writes the following:

“…the author [of Hebrews] was NOT OMNISCIENT in dealing with his congregation(s), a fact to which the author hints in the text of Hebrews. The discussants have alluded briefly to this question, but it needs more attention. Too often in debates about apostasy, we treat the text as if the author thinks of those to whom he writes, or of those of whom he speaks, as ‘believers’ or ‘unbelievers.’ Yet, REAL MINISTRY SITUATIONS, of course, ARE NOT SO CUT AND DRIED. Any group of people gathered in the name of Christ will manifest a spectrum of spiritual conditions. That this was the experience of the early church seems to me to have a great deal of New Testament evidence in its favor. The author of Hebrews, others in the early church, you and I, ARE LIMITED IN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF ANY OTHER PERSON and, as pointed out by Jesus, as well as other New Testament authors, ARE DEPENDENT ON OUTWARD MANIFESTATIONS IN DISCERNING THE SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS OF OTHERS (cf. Matt. 7:15-23; James 2:14-26)” (George Guthrie, in his conclusion to “Four Views On The Warning Passages in Hebrews,” by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, pp. 438-39).

Guthrie’s concluding remarks above show us how general revelation and theology meet. Guthrie makes it clear that we cannot know every person’s spiritual condition, whether they are firm in the faith, weak in the faith, or so weak as to think about walking away from Christ. Only the Lord knows where a person stands with Him, and only He can make a decision about their heart condition.

As a result, I’d have to say that although Guthrie is a Classical Calvinist (he agrees with Buist Fanning), his argument above can be used against his (and Fanning’s) view as well. The Classical Calvinist position (also known as the Classical Reformed position) says that if a person does not persevere until final salvation, then that person was not “saved to begin with.” But the problem in this assessment is that this view goes AGAINST Guthrie’s remarks above. When a person goes astray because of sin, we cannot be so quick to say that the person never believed in Christ, or was never saved to begin with.

The Bible itself gives us examples of those who loved the Lord, yet sinned greatly. David is a prime example of one who loved God—he was labeled “a man after God’s own heart.” Yet, David found himself lusting for Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite (one of his soldiers), then sleeping with her, then trying to get Uriah drunk to sleep with her (to cover it up). Finally, after none of this worked, David had his commander put Uriah on the front lines of the battle in order to have him killed. Then, he took Bathsheba as his wife and conceived a child with her. The lust in David’s heart was such that it motivated him to commit adultery, get someone drunk, and then have them killed to cover his sin. As a result, David became an adulterer and a murderer. In short, “the man after God’s own heart” went on to add “adulterer” and “murderer” to his impressive credentials!!

And let’s not forget, David was one who truly loved God; yet and still, look at how sin drove David to sin terribly. For those who say that sin cannot grab ahold of one who truly loves God, I say—LOOK AT DAVID!!!

And Scripture matches general revelation. I’ve seen and read stories of those whose conversion experiences were every bit as real as mine; yet, sin drove them to a point where they could no longer walk after Christ—nor did they want to.

So even genuine believers are not “immune” from sin and its powerful impact. Although David sinned greatly, when confronted with his sin, he immediately acknowledged his sin before God (Psalm 51). He mourned his sin and realized that God was righteous to judge him.

I wanna say one more thing regarding Psalm 51. I heard it in my Theology I class two weeks ago and wanted to discuss the matter here. It concerns David’s statement in Psalm 51:10-11:

“God, create a clean heart for me and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
DO NOT BANISH ME FROM YOUR PRESENCE OR TAKE YOUR HOLY SPIRIT FROM ME” (Holman Christian Standard Bible).

Now my professor (who I will not mention here out of respect to him) actually said that when David prays “do not…take your holy spirit from me,” that David is thinking of the Holy Spirit as being the evidence of the Israelite kingship. He said that we have to interpret this in David’s context, instead of drawing contemporary ideas about David’s statement. David would have been thinking about the removal of his kingship because he saw what happened to Saul when Saul disobeyed the Lord.

I will say that my professor is right—we have to examine statements made in context.
However, within verse 11, we find David saying “do not banish me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.” It’s not just an issue of the Spirit being removed from David; it also involved the Lord removing David from His presence. If David was thinking about the kingship at this point, he didn’t have to request that the Lord not “banish him from His presence.” After all, anyone can be banished from the Lord’s presence and not be a king, like David was.

Secondly, in Psalm 51:6-12, David is talking about the inner condition of his heart, not the kingship. In fact, when David goes to the Lord in Psalm 51, NOT ONCE does he ever mention the kingship. To assume that is to read something into the text that is not there.

In verses 6-12, David is concerned with a “clean heart,” a “steadfast spirit,” “joy of the Lord’s salvation,” a “willing spirit,” and to remain in the Lord’s presence and keep His Spirit. This terminology is indicative of salvation, not the kingship!!

I think that this passage, like Hebrews 6 (among others), is twisted because of presuppositions. We don’t want to believe that sin can separate us from God, but it can. But how then, do we explain passages involving a man sleeping with his stepmother (1 Corinthians 5) and Paul’s charge for the church to put the man out “so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5, HCSB)?

I’ll tell you how we can explain 1 Cor. 5—we can only explain it IF sin can cut us off from God!! And I think it is this idea that caused David great consternation when he went to the Lord in prayer. He wasn’t thinking twice about the kingship in that moment.

Back to George Guthrie…

Although Guthrie uses his statement regarding omniscience and spiritual condition of every person to argue that we can’t say whether or not the Hebrews audience consisted of all believers, I say that, in the same manner, we cannot argue that the crowd consisted of a mixture of believers and unbelievers. We can label the audience as believers of various faith patterns (levels of faith); but to declare a presence of unbelievers would be to do a disgrace to the Hebrews’ “enlightenment” and “companionship” with the Holy Spirit. If General Revelation shows us that we cannot label every person a believer, then it also shows us that we cannot label every person a “nonbeliever.” In the case of Hebrews, however, the audience referred to is called “holy brethren,” “partakers of a heavenly calling,” and is exhorted to assemble together and encourage each other in the Lord. Who ELSE is gonna do that but fellow believers?

A Created Tension

“The straightforward results are disparate enough that we have a problem coming to a consistent synthesis. The passages seem to say that genuine Christians should persevere in faithfulness but may instead repudiate Christ and so fall into eternal condemnation, but Christ’s work in and for them will ABSOLUTELY NOT FAIL to bring them through to eternal salvation! This synthesis is, of course, less than satisfying, and it is not credible that our author’s theology contradicts itself so blatantly within the same passages addressed to the same situation” (Buist M. Fanning, “Classical Reformed View,” from “Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews” by Herbert W. Bateman, IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, page 205).

Amidst studying Calvinism and Arminianism, I delved into the study of the foreknowledge of God this summer. The issue regarding God’s foreknowledge first involves omniscience: does God know ALL, or SOME? And if He knows everything, does He then CAUSE everything to happen, or is His foreknowledge simple in that He knows something will happen but doesn’t PUSH it into motion (allows it to unfold)?

After all my study, I came to the conclusion that the foreknowledge controversy is a “created” controversy over Calvinist doctrine. Guys like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, who are “open theists,” engage in an argument that involves the presupposition of theological fatalism (as William Lane Craig states it in his book, “The Only Wise God”). If one believes that everything happens because GOD CAUSED IT, then choice is an illusion. Open theists like Pinnock and Sanders advocate openness theology simply because they believe that in order for a real choice to occur (meaning, “a choice without God’s knowledge”), then God must be ignorant of their decisions until AFTER they make them. Openness theology itself begs the question that, if my choices are real, then is it possible for my choice to be real AND God know everything? I think it’s very possible for both to work well together. And therefore, using logic, openness theology doesn’t look any more impressive than Calvinist theology does. Calvinism and Open Theism are just two extreme solutions to the question of divine predestination and human responsibility. However, I think there is a third solution that finds middle ground.

Moving to Fanning’s comment above regarding what he takes as the “contradictory” affirmations of the Book of Hebrews, I find that the “contradictory” statements are the same problem as God’s foreknowledge above: for, it two, involves a presupposition—which is, that of unconditional eternal security.

Where does Fanning get his idea of unconditional security from? One of the places would be Hebrews 7:25. He writes in his chapter on the “Classical Reformed View”:

“And so Hebrews 7:25 tells us in a very significant statement, ‘He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them’ (NIV, NET). Jesus’ eternal priesthood is said to provide complete and lasting security for his people. What obstacle could prevent their salvation from coming to complete fulfillment IF HE IS EVER VIGILANT TO INTERCEDE FOR THEM AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND?” (Buist M. Fanning, “Classical Reformed View,” from “Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007, page 198).

Now the text of Hebrews 7:25, as quoted by Fanning, tells us that God is “able to save completely” those who come to God through Christ; however, the text says that God is “able,” not that God “will save completely” those who come to Him!! The idea that God is “able” means that God has the POTENTIALITY within Himself to do something, not that He MUST do it. While it is true that the Lord is able to save someone, He will not save that person UNLESS they “come to God through Him.” There is no salvation without the condition of coming to faith in Christ. Salvation itself, then, is conditional.

Next, look at Fanning’s quote regarding Hebrews 7:25—

“Jesus’ eternal priesthood is said to provide COMPLETE AND LASTING SECURITY FOR HIS PEOPLE.” The problem with this statement is that, while Christ’s eternal priesthood provides assurance of faith, it isn’t assurance of faith ALONE that does justice to Christ’s priesthood; no—Christ’s eternal priesthood is to provide us with an assurance of faith that motivates us to endure despite suffering. Read the words of the writer of Hebrews in Heb. 10:19-23:

“Therefore, brothers, SINCE WE HAVE BOLDNESS TO ENTER THE SANCTUARY THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS (we have boldness because of assurance), by the new and living way that He has inaugurated for us, through the curtain (that is, His flesh); and SINCE WE HAVE A GREAT HIGH PRIEST OVER THE HOUSE OF GOD (Christ’s eternal priesthood), LET US DRAW NEAR WITH A TRUE HEART IN FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH, our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. LET US HOLD ON TO THE CONFESSION OF OUR HOPE WITHOUT WAVERING, FOR HE WHO PROMISED IS FAITHFUL.”

As Christians, we should have “blessed assurance” because, as the writer of Hebrews said, because Christ gave His life for us, and now serves as “high priest over the house of God.” Because Christ is “the apostle and high priest of our confession” (Heb. 3:1), we can go to Him and confess our sins at any time. But Christ’s sacrifice and service as high priest are to drive us to Him, not give us license to live in sin.

Regarding Christ’s eternal priesthood, we have the following words from Hebrews 4:

“Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens—Jesus the Son of God—LET US HOLD FAST TO THE CONFESSION. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but ONE WHO HAS BEEN TESTED IN EVERY WAY AS WE ARE, yet without sin. Therefore, LET US APPROACH THE THRONE OF GRACE WITH BOLDNESS, so that we may receive mercy and find grace TO HELP US at the proper time” (Hebrews 4:14-16, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

The knowledge of Christ as High Priest should drive us to push forward in our walk with Christ, to continue to endure. Christ’s eternal priesthood is good for a few reasons: first, because He understands our weaknesses (Heb. 4:15); secondly because He is the only One who can help us (Heb. 4:16). There are others, but I’ll only mention the ones involved in Hebrews 4.

We are to draw near to Christ, to cling to Him, because He is our High Priest who can be touched with our infirmities (weaknesses). As High Priest, Christ not only makes intercession for us, but also offered the only sacrifice for sin that was needed—Himself (Heb. 7:27). However, in regards to the security of the believer, the Lord promises that “by one offering He has perfected forever those WHO ARE SANCTIFIED” (Heb. 10:14). The word “sanctified” here is a participle in the Greek (“hagiazomenous”). The participle here is a present passive participle; as a “present” participle, the word implies a CONTINUOUS action—which means that those mentioned here are “continually being sanctified.” It is “passive” in that it shows the Lord is the One who “perfects,” not us.

I wanna say another note about these verses. I looked up Hebrews 10:14 and found something interesting in the Greek text. The word for “forever” here in the Greek is “dienekes,” which can mean “forever,” but can also mean “continuous” or “uninterrupted.” Therefore, those who are continually being sanctified, or purified, are the ones who are continually perfected until they reach complete sanctification and glorification. This idea of perfection then, while accomplished by Christ, is a continuous process in the life of the believer until he or she reaches glory. We are daily being “conformed to the image” of God’s Son.

Because sanctification and perfection are involved in a continuous process, one is never guaranteed the promise of eternal life based on their one-time confession. The only guarantee involved is the guarantee that Christ is faithful and is there to aid us whenever we need Him. As far as our perseverance, only time will tell.

So when Fanning gives an “unconditional” speech regarding Christ’s eternal priesthood, he is imposing his view on the text. The fact that Christ has an eternal priesthood guarantees that sin has been covered through one sacrifice of Christ—Himself. However, it doesn’t guarantee anyone final salvation—including those who repented once. For, of those who do not experience final salvation, some only believe for a time (Luke 8:13).