I found this article on-line and thought it may be good for discussion:

Hebrews 6:4-8: New Life and Apostasy
by Rich Lusk


>Heb. 6:4-8 is a highly controversial passage in Calvinistic circles [1]. This paper will not attempt an exhaustive interpretation [2], but rather debunk some flawed readings of the passage that have become quite commonplace. Basically, the problem is in reconciling the notion of 'falling away' with the TULIP. If God is sovereign in salvation, his elect cannot fail to persevere to the end. So what is going on in this troubling passage? What kind of people are being described and what happens to them?

Some Reformed commentators claim the warnings found here and elsewhere are hypothetical. This reading is hardly worthy of refutation. Why would an inspired writer use such terrifying language to scare his readers into avoiding something that could never come to pass anyway? Moreover, there are enough recorded cases of actual apostasy in the pages of Scripture that we can put the hypothetical theory to bed (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:19, 20).

Other Reformed commentators claim the package of blessings in 6:4-5 is less than full regeneration. After all, if these persons were regenerate they would not fall away. The fact that they do (or may) fall away proves whatever grace they experienced was something less than full saving grace. This is true enough. But there are still several problems with this way of reading our text.

Let us imagine for the sake of the argument that there is some qualitative difference between what the truly regenerate experience and what future apostates experience and that this distinction is in view in Heb. 6:4-6. The question every believer has to ask himself, then is, 'How do I know I won't apostatize? How do I know I won't fall away?' John Owen, to take one example, says we must distinguish between merely 'tasting' the heavenly gift (which future apostates may do) and really 'feeding' upon it (which the genuinely regenerate do). But subtle psychological distinctions of this sort are bound to make one hopelessly introspective, always digging deeper into the inner recesses of one's heart to find some irrefutably genuine mark of grace. We are always left asking, 'How do I know I am feeding on the heavenly gift, and not merely tasting of it? How do I know I've experienced real regeneration, and not its evil apostate twin?' One's assurance is swallowed up in the black hole of self-examination. But, as Scripture continually testifies, no man can know the depths of his own heart. Frankly, our tools of self-analysis are not nearly as refined as the subtle linguistic analysis Owen applies to Heb. 6. Therefore, on this model, assurance becomes virtually impossible.

But there is a more serious problem with this way of reading Heb. 6. Nothing in the text calls those warned to engage in a process of self-examination. Rather, Hebrews as a whole functions as an extended exhortation to perseverance. In fact, the writer never calls into question whether or not he and his readers have experienced the grace of God. That is taken for granted. What is called into question, again and again, is whether or not they will continue in that grace. In terms of the theology of the book of Hebrews, the difference between the truly regenerate and the one who will fail to persevere is not clear on the front end; rather it only becomes clear as the one continues on in the faith and the other apostatizes. Hebrews does not call us to construct two differing psychologies of conversion (or regeneration), one for those will persevere and one for those who will not. Instead it calls us to look away from ourselves, to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith. We are assured, not by figuring out if we've received 'real' regeneration, but by keeping our eyes fixed on Christ, the one who persevered to the end.

Heb. 6:7-8 are often ignored in the interpretation of 6:4-6, but in reality they are critical for getting at the meaning of the passage. The writer turns to a familiar Scriptural metaphor: His readers are like the earth (cf. Gen 2:7) that has been watered (an obvious allusion to baptism or perhaps the means of grace more generally). New life has sprung up from the ground. We might call this new life 'regeneration' in a generic, unspecified sense. There is no question the person has been made alive [3]. The question is, 'What will this new life produce? Will it bring forth a useful crop, and receive God's blessing? Or will it produce thorns and thistles, that are only fit to be burned in the fires of God's wrath?' The writer clearly does not know which category each of his readers will fall into. He expects them to produce 'better things...things that accompany salvation' (6:9). But the conclusion of the story has yet to be seen.

Clearly, then, Heb. 6:4-8 teach the possibility of a real apostasy [4]. Some people do indeed fall away, and it is a real fall from grace. So how can this be reconciled with the TULIP? All that is needed to satisfy the doctrinal requirements of Calvinism is that we insist that those God elected to eternal salvation will receive the gift of perseverance and will not fall away. Meanwhile, non-elect covenant members sooner or later will turn away from Christ and will perish because God withholds from them the gift of perseverance. The TULIP remains important because it reminds us that all of our salvation, including our perseverance, is a gift of God's grace. Those who fall away have no one to blame but themselves; those who persevere have no one to thank but God.

Four significant lessons follow from this reading of Heb. 6:4-8:

The biblical warnings almost never call into question whether or not the church members they address have received God's grace. Nor do they call church members to examine themselves to determine if they've received real saving grace, or just partial, non-saving grace. They simply do not make the fine distinctions that Owen and others attempt to read into them. It is critical for our spiritual health that we recognize this because it reminds us that the antidote to the danger of apostasy is not ever deepening self-examination, but looking away from ourselves to Christ.

This is not to deny that there is no actual difference between the grace that the truly regenerate receive and the grace that future apostates receive. No doubt, there is a difference, since God has decreed and made provision for the perseverance of the one and not for the other. Systematic theologians certainly have a stake in making such differences a part of their theology, so the TULIP must stand unchallenged. Thus, Augustine rightly distinguished 'predestination unto grace,' which was only temporary, and did not lead to final salvation, from 'predestination unto perseverance,' which did issue forth in eternal life. The point here is that this qualitative difference is not in view in warning passages such as Heb. 6, and it is an illegitimate move to make it a part of one's exegesis. These passages simply speak of the undifferentiated grace of God [5]. Moreover, such a distinction is of no pastoral significance. It is simply impossible to determine who has persevering grace apart from the unfolding of time [6].

None of this undermines a properly grounded assurance. The necessity of perseverance is a promise, not a threat, so long as we keep our eyes focused on Christ. It is only when we mix in some degree of self-reliance that we begin to doubt if we'll persevere. Those who look to Christ have every reason to believe that the promises of Jn. 10:28-29 and Rom. 8:31ff are for them. Just as we trust Christ to save us from past sins, so we trust him for the future grace of perseverance. Assurance is a function of faith in Christ, not our own ability to gut it out to the end. But on the other hand, this full assurance does not make us immune to the warnings of Scripture. The paradox of assurance is that we can only be assured of our salvation against the backdrop of our possible damnation. It is the ever-present danger of apostasy that drives us to continually cling to Christ as the one in whom saving grace and full assurance are found [7].

The warnings force us to come to grips with the strong covenantal language of the Scriptures. Calvinists are used to speaking in terms of God's decree. When we speak of the elect, the regenerate, the sanctified, and so forth, we always have reference only to those who enter into final salvation. This decretal perspective is biblical and is important to maintain. But it is not the Bible's primary way of speaking. More often than not, the Bible speaks covenantally and does not draw distinctions between those in the covenant who are eternally saved and those who will someday apostatize. A simple glance at Romans will show this. Paul can assuringly call his readers elect (8:31ff) and then warn them about being cut off a few chapters later (11:20ff). This explodes ordinary Calvinistic logic. In modern Calvinistic parlance, if someone is elect, they cannot fall away. But Paul is viewing election through the lens of the covenant, so he can give, in very direct language, both promises and threats. Biblically, there is no problem addressing the entire covenant community as elect, regenerate, sanctified, etc., even though (sadly) some of these covenant members will apostatize [8].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Thanks to Kris Lundgaard, whose thoughtful, probing questions provoked me to dig deeper into this passage.

3. Cf. Mt. 13:20ff.

4. One final argument for this is discovered if we turn the warning of apostasy inside out. Remember, the threat of Heb. 6:4-6 does not ensure that those who have received these blessings will fall short of salvation. It only says such falling away is a possibility. But if the author intended the blessings in verses 4-5 to be understood as less than full regeneration, then shouldn't he have said 'when they fall away' rather than 'if they fall away'? How could a partially regenerate person avoid falling away? We simply must assume the writer did not intend for us to distinguish the blessings described in these verse from 'real' regeneration. It is an open question for the writer, and we must beware of making finer theological distinctions than he has intended to give us. What is at stake is not what these potential apostates have experienced in the past, but whether or not they'll persevere into the future.

5. In some warnings, this is inescapably obvious. There is no way the writer of Hebrews intends for his readers to distinguish between the kind of objective sanctification received by the genuinely regenerate and those who will apostatize (10:29).

6. The systematic perspective is fine so long as we are dealing with a timeless system. But when we start to deal to deal with actual persons and lived history, it becomes inadequate.

7. Note that WCF 14.2 teaches that one function of saving faith is to '[tremble] at the threatenings' of Scripture. Many modern Calvinists assume glibly the warnings do not apply to them, but this is an unconfessional attitude.

8. This point is obviously of immense significance for pastoral ministry. We should not hesitate to speak to our fellow covenant members the way Paul addressed his churches. We can say to our fellow churchman, 'You're elect! God loves you and Christ died for you! You're forgiven and regenerated!' Covenantally, these things are true of them. Until and unless they apostatize, their covenant membership must be taken as a sign of their eternal election. This point is also critical for liturgics, for in the liturgy we speak the direct, personal language of the covenant, not the abstract language of the decree. When we say 'We are gathered in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit' we are speaking covenantally. Without this covenantal perspective, a consistent Calvinist would have to say 'Those of us here who are elect are gathered...' Not exactly the stuff of beautiful worship! Another example is the pastor's declaration of absolution. A pronouncement to the congregation, 'Your sins are forgiven!' is very powerful, much more so than, 'Whoever here is elect and regenerated is forgiven!' Given the Puritan obsession with predestinarian theology, it is not surprising most Puritans rejected liturgical worship forms. A decretal theology, abstracted from the covenant, cannot support liturgical language. In Calvinistic churches, a good many pastoral problems related to assurance are due to a failure to properly relate covenant and election. We need to learn to use terms such as 'elect,' 'regenerate,' etc., not just in a narrow decretal sense, but also in a broader covenantal sense.

Reformed and Always Reforming,