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.
Thanks for posting the article. This piece is a good representation of Wilkins' contribution to the Auburn controversy. There is a lot of time spent on what is not being said without saying what is being said. Furthermore, there are promises to resolve pastoral problems upon which they never deliver in my estimation. For instance, he says things like:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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?'
And then claims the solution to be free from these problems is:
In reply to:[color:"blue"] The necessity of perseverance is a promise, not a threat, so long as we keep our eyes focused on Christ
It doesn't take very long to realize one can merely ask, "How do I know that I am focusing on Christ?" Whatever pastoral problems he creates for the views of which he is critical he never solves himself.
I also have problems with his talk about predestination unto grace and predestination unto perseverance. Again, as has been my frustration with Wilkins in this issue, after the traditional meaning and understanding of certain terms and concepts are criticized, there is no careful stipulation of these terms identifying what exactly they are talking about? Are they saying someone can be regenerated (born again) and NOT receive the grace of perseverance, which is some different grace given to a subset of regenerate people? If you were to say that he would probably say, "No, I never said that." and then fail to make his point any clearer. I think Wilkins and his church leaders have a half-baked paradigm here and need to do a better job explaining just what they do mean.
I also believe the fundamental failure here is to commit the same mistakes that he is criticizing. For instance, he writes:
In reply to:[color:"blue"] This explodes ordinary Calvinistic logic. In modern Calvinistic parlance, if someone is elect, they cannot fall away.
So his solution to the introspective Calvinist who will never talk about someone as elect because he always thinks decretally, is to tell us to always think covnenatally! The fact is Scripture employs the term in both decretal and covenantal contexts, so to force an either/or distinction will solve a "problem" in one area and create another somewhere else. For instance, if I were to take Romans 8:30 as my starting point, I could say:
"The fact that God says every elect person will persevere explodes Auburnite logic. In modern Auburnite parlance, if someone is elect, they can still fall away. "
I believe that when either paradigm fails to acknowledge an objectively inward and outward reality to the covenant that there will be problems. I agree with the Auburnites that many Presbyterians have viewed it exclusively in its inward perspective and forgotten the objectivity of the covenant. However, I believe they have erred in swinging to the other direction of exclusively speaking in external terms, and in so doing they create other problems with texts such as Genesis 17:21 and Romans 9:6-8.
There are errors in interpretation here that are used to "explain away" Heb 6 to their satisfaction in addressing perseverance/apostasy. Not only does it appear to be "double talk" (as you pointed out), but I think is is an unfair representation of Hebrews 6.
IMHO the text in question (6:4-6) speaks of those that are lost that have merely observed, tasted, and experienced some of the blessings of God, but no re-birth has taken place. When re-birth takes place the author of Hebrews reveals, in Heb 6:7-12, that the blessings are received with thanksgiving and that spiritual life develops and brings forth real fruit... compare with Matt 7:20.
What I particularly like about this selection of verses is the use of pronouns. In verses 5:11-6:3 and 6:9-12 the author uses the first and second person pronouns--"we" and "you" (saved). But, in verses 6:4-6 the third person plural pronouns "those" and "they" are used (unsaved). Clearly, he is speaking of two different groups (there are several other textual clues to this as well). Clearly, the author was definite on perseverance of the elect as he states, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak (Heb 6:9). God will NEVER fail His elect, as the author goes on to say,...we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus...(Heb 6:18-20).
The reward of good works is a crown, not salvation. And therefore, a lack of good works would not lead to damnation, but to no crown to lay at Christ's feet. All other efforts, however well-intentioned, would be necessarily burned up--- counted as chaff.
Many of the elect, in my view, will stand empty-handed before God because they failed to keep such of His decrees, but they will still be saved because He will not fail to keep His covenant. On the flip side, there are many who perform good works (in effect, keep a decree), but they have not been covered by the covenantal blood of Christ, so they shall not be saved- they produced unworthy crowns that will be burnt away, and they with them. And only God can distinguish these things at Judgment.
That's is how I reconcile this issue for now, limited as I am in understanding election in the first place......... I hope there are many more responses to the Lusk article.
I wanted to add a couple of thoughts since I did not have time yesterday to address them. The first is the idea that people receiving the warnings are supposedly not to engage in self-examination:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Nothing in the text calls those warned to engage in a process of self-examination...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.
The author does indeed write earlier, "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God (Hebrews 3:12). I suppose Pastor Lusk may claim that the recipients were not actually to examine themselves for such an evil heart of unbelief, only to beware of it, but that would seem rather silly.
At the same time, the author does exhort and treat the recipients as fellow Christians, and for this observation by Lusk and the others I am in agreement and appreciative of that. But the fact that the author regards them this way does not mean he is going to tell them to assume he is absolutely correct in that! This is one of the problems with the Auburn theology that I find. Namely, that since the covenant is objective, and since it provides a basis by which I am to comprehend other people as Christians, it means that I am to apply these same rules to myself without any "self-examination." I simply find it to be a false dillema. Just because I am not to try and figure out all the really converted people in my church and only treat them as fellow church members does not mean I am supposed to cease and desist all such examination of my own heart.
Finally, I just wanted to share a few thoughts about this passage in terms of what the writer is doing. I think it is important to remember that Hebrews 6:4 and following are an explanation as to why he has chosen not to go over the elementary principles again, but has decided to go on "to perfection." The reason for this is that they fully know the Gospel. They ought to be teachers by this time. The writer knows that their behavior is a reflection of one of two possibilities then. Either they have understood the Gospel and consciously rejected it or they are still immature in their thinking. The remainder of the book weaves in warnings about being in the first category, but proceeds upon the optimisim that they are in the second. Hence, after explaining that there is nothing more to say to someone who has been fully acquainted with the Gospel but rejected it, and that he is optimistic this is not the case for them, he "moves on to perfection" in chapter 7.
I think Hebrews 6:4-8 is not talking about getting unsaved or saved. But it is talking about saved and unsaved people. Look at the verse from a Hebrew perspective. When Peter told the crowd how to get from where they were to God he said; 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Repentance then was like an altar call. When a Jew needed to get right with God [OT] what did he do? He repented AND he offered a sacrifice. How many times? As many times as needed, yearly for sure during the feast of the Atonement, but daily the priests offered sacrifices for the people's sins.
The idea in Hebrews is the superiority of Jesus and the new way over the old way. But as we see with Paul's wranglings with those of the 'circumcision', many Jews and understandly so were steeped in OT practices and insisted on continuing in them and getting others [Gentile believers] to do so as well.
So we see from a Jewish perspective that repentance and sacrifice after one sinned was the way to get right with God again. Along comes Jesus. These Jews know Jesus, they have been enlightened, they have tasted the heavenly gift, they have shared in the Holy Spirit, and they have tasted in the goodness of God and the powers of the coming age. They are saved. But like you and me, they stumble, they are not yet perfect, they sin.
How does a good Jew get right with God? Repentance and sacrifice. But what about a 1st century believer-in-Jesus Jew? No problem, they just get saved again! Since Jesus is their sacrifice they attempt to renew themselves to repentance [get right with God] by getting resaved and in a sense resacrificing Jesus. Which is impossible to do. It puts Christ to open shame seeing how His one death didn't 'save' them 'enough' the first time.
Sin which is works done not in faith bear no fruit. Those works get burnt. The warning of 7-8 is that continous sinning shows you are not of the Lord. But the writer is confident that these are not like that, that they have the foreordained works of faith that does produce fruit.
It is impossible for saved people to resacrifice Christ just because they have sinned. But those who produce only thorns and thistles show that they were never of Christ.
In the one sense he affirms grace, that Jesus indeed has paid for all of our sins [so there is no need to get resaved] but on the other hand he is telling them that if they think that is a license to sin, they better think again.
He continues to expound the point of the greatness of the New Covenant and the sacrifice of Jesus. Hebrews 7 23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[3] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Once for all he tells them. One sacrifice for all their sins. He gives them more, Hebrews 8:
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said : "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. ... 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. .... 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Their old way depended on their faithfulness which like us falls short. But the new way does not depend on our faithfulness but God will forgive us our wickedness and remember not our sins anymore. There is no need to keep getting 'saved' or repenting to get right with God salvationally.
In chapter 9 he tells them more of the superiority of Christ and...
24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Not content with those proofs of the greatness of Jesus, he hammers it home again in chapter 10 ... 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy
He then reiterates the New Covenant and tells us... 17Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."[3] 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
But to reiterate the warning in 6:8 he tells them: 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
But before the end of the chapter, he is again reassuring them that "we are not of them who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."
He hits the Old C everyway he can to show the superiority of the new way. He then goes on [in chap 11] to show the continuity of faith then and now. He showed them the depth of salvation in Christ, the utter completeness of it. 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[1] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so. And i think God did permit it.
There are those people, maybe even whole denominations, who think a aperson has to be 'resaved' after every sin. On elady told me she had been saved 8 times in the last 15 years! I told her she sure didn't sin much! I also asked her to describe what sin was. She took a very narrow view of it. But the point is that these people are living very legalistically, as if they were under the law [maybe they are?]. But i think a proper reading of hebrews 6 would help some of them understand the fallacy of their position. Even some Arminian readings of it would stop that practice. Some Arminians read it to say that once you lose your salvation, you can't get it back.
But what Hebrews is teaching us is that Jesus paid for our sins once for all. That we are in a new covenant with God that overcomes our faithlessness, NOT that our faithlessness could cause us to be estranged from God and burnt in hell. But Hebrews also wants to stike a blow against lawlessness: that simply thinking our faithlessness doesn't keep us from heaven so lets go and sin without impunity.
You ask if Arminians are under the law. In the sense that all people everywhere owe all that they are to God, the maker and creator of all things, then all are obligated to live completely and fully for Him. That then is the requirement of God. But only Jesus fulfilled the requirement. Therefore all the rest of us are condemned for our sin against God. But through Jesus, we who trust in Him have been set free from the Law. That freedom is not a license to sin but a freedom to live and love God apart from condemnation. Arminians who fail to accept that freedom [and that would be not all of them, some Arminians believe in eternal security] put themselves back under the law.
Now if they are saved, it doesn't mean they lose their salvation, but what it means is that they are arguing against salvation by grace and for salvation by works. If they persist in that anti-gospel position, i would begin to doubt if they were ever saved to begin with.
