Impossible to Be Restored Again
Any discussion of whether Christians can fall away and lose their salvation will sooner or later turn to a treatment of Hebrews 6. Because this text is so central to discussions about perseverance, we will take a close look at it. Hebrews 6:1–6 reads as follows:
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
This text not only speaks of those who fall away, but it also gives a vivid description of the state of these people before they fall away. We’re also told in this text that it is impossible for these people to be restored again to repentance. If there’s any passage in the Bible that speaks about an unpardonable offense, then it is in this strong admonition in Hebrews 6.
This is an extremely difficult passage to interpret. Part of the difficulty has to do with the lack of background information, including the identity of the author of the book of Hebrews, that would help us understand this teaching in context. Sometimes knowing the author of a certain work gives us clues to understanding difficult passages that come from their pen.
More important, however, is knowing the occasion that provoked this warning in the first place. We know that the author is concerned about a very serious error that was enticing his readers, but we’re not sure exactly what that error was. There have been several alternatives suggested by biblical interpreters.
One of the most frequent suggestions is that the author is writing to people who are facing radical persecution and who are in danger of denying Christ in the face of such persecution. He says that in their struggle against sin, his readers “have not yet resisted to the point of shedding [their] blood” (12:4).
In the early church, one of the most rigorous disputes was called the Novatianist Controversy, which arose in the wake of a round of persecution under the Emperor Decius in AD 250. After the persecution ended, church leaders faced the question of what to do with the lapsi—those who had renounced the faith under duress, but who now wanted to be readmitted to the church. Many opposed their restoration, including the followers of Novatian, a pretender to the bishopric at Rome. You can understand the passion that people would have in a situation like that. If your father, for example, had kept the faith and was burned at the stake while the next-door neighbor denied the faith and escaped that kind of torment, and then your neighbor wanted to come back into the fellowship of the church after the persecution ended, it is understandable that the martyr’s family would have a hard time dealing with that person. The church at large, however, moved for leniency and forgiveness and opted to restore the lapsi. So, one possibility is that this passage is speaking of those who fall away from the visible church in the face of persecution but then want to associate with the visible church again in a time of tranquility.
Another frequent suggestion regarding these statements in Hebrews pertains to one of the most virulent heresies to attack the first-century church, the Judaizing heresy. Followers of this view taught that the new covenant community had to continue the practice of observing Old Testament practices, especially circumcision. This heresy is dealt with again and again in the New Testament, most emphatically in the book of Galatians. Some imagine that this passage prohibits Christians from returning to Jewish practices and makes the argument that to do so is to reject the value of Christ’s death and resurrection.
Let’s look again at what is said in this passage about those who cannot be restored. They are described in these terms: “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” (vv. 4–5). What kind of person can be described in these terms? On the surface, it certainly sounds as if the author is describing a Christian, a regenerate person, one who has been spiritually reborn. If that’s the case, then the author is saying that it would be impossible for a truly converted person to be restored again to salvation if he has committed the sin that is in view here.
However, this language doesn’t necessarily have to be referring to one who is authentically converted. It could refer to people who have been closely involved in the life of the church but were never converted in the first place. As was Old Testament Israel, the New Testament church is what Augustine called a corpus permixtum, a mixed body, containing within it what Jesus described as the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24–30)—believers and unbelievers. The tares are those who never were converted, even though they are members of the covenant community.
The Bible describes three groups of people with respect to the church, the visible covenant community. Outside the church, there are unbelievers; inside the church, there are believers (those who have been truly converted) and there are also some unbelievers. Can we say of members of this third group—unbelievers inside the church—that they have been enlightened? Yes, to the extent that they have heard the gospel; they have heard the preaching of the Word. They are not in some remote area where special revelation has never penetrated. They’ve had the benefit of light when it comes to hearing the Word of God. To say that someone has been enlightened is not necessarily to say that they have been converted.
What about the next description: they’ve tasted the heavenly gift? It’s possible that the gift here is available not only to the converted, but to the unconverted as well. For instance, the gift may be something akin to the manna that God provided for the people of Israel in the wilderness. The Israelites tasted of a heavenly gift, yet some of them remained unconverted. Likewise, looking at a New Testament practice, unbelievers in the church still come to the Lord’s Table. They literally taste the heavenly gift, yet they are still unconverted. A heavenly gift can be given to both believers and unbelievers.
What about sharing in the Holy Spirit? That sounds a little bit more difficult, because we think of sharing in the Holy Spirit as being an experience that only comes to those who have been regenerated and filled by the Holy Spirit. Such an interpretation would be the prima facie reading of that text. But in a broader sense, anyone who’s in the middle of the life of the church in a loose sense partakes of the benefits of the power and the presence of the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit dwells and works in the church. Such a person has not necessarily received one specific work of the Holy Spirit—namely, regeneration—but has tasted the good Word of God.
Returning to the overall meaning of this passage, some understand it as referring to people inside the church who are truly converted but who apostatize and repudiate the gospel under persecution; these people, then, cannot be restored. Others see it as referring to the Judaizing heresy. An interpretation that understands the passage as referring to the Judaizing heresy is more likely, because there are a couple of problems with the first view. The first problem is that Peter repudiated the gospel in one sense when he sided with the Judaizers—in that his behavior denied the sufficiency of the work of Christ for salvation (Gal. 2:11–14)—but he was restored. He also denied Christ but was restored by Jesus Himself. So, Peter is an example of one who was restored after repudiating the gospel. This seems to illustrate that the passage must mean something else.
Second, the author of Hebrews says “it is impossible … to restore them again to repentance” (vv. 4, 6). The word “again” strongly indicates that there had been at least one previous repentance. If we understand repentance as referring in the New Testament to something that is provoked by the work of the Holy Spirit within us, not just outside of us, and if we are Reformed in our theology and see repentance as a fruit of regeneration and not the cause of regeneration, then we have the tightest difficulty here. Because those who are Reformed in their theology have to say that if a person who genuinely repents is regenerate, a true believer.
Of course, one could argue that there is such a thing as a false repentance—the author of Hebrews mentions Esau as an example (12:16–17). And one who has repented falsely once could do so again. But in that case, the author would not speak of being restored again unto repentance, because the first repentance was false. It must be that the author is referring to true repentance, and he is saying that it is impossible for a truly regenerate person, one who has truly repented, to be restored again to repentance if he falls away, because in his falling away he crucifies again the Son of God and holds Him up to contempt. The author is saying that if you do this, you’re finished. There is no possibility of restoration if you fall away to this degree.
The argument here is a form of argumentation found throughout the New Testament epistles called the argumentum ad absurdum. This means that you take the premises of your opponent and show how, if they are true, they eventually lead to a conclusion that is absurd. Therefore, the premises are to be rejected. Paul uses this argument in 1 Corinthians 15 when speaking of the resurrection of Christ.
When it comes to the Judaizing heresy, the issue turns on the keeping of the law. If the Christian who has embraced the gospel of justification by faith alone now turns back to trying to justify himself through the works of the law—circumcision, keeping the festivals, observing the food laws, etc.—that person cannot be saved, because he has crucified Christ anew.
But what does it mean to crucify Christ anew? Christ obviously has only been crucified once. When He was crucified, Christ took upon Himself the curse of the old covenant. When a person turns back to keeping the law as the primary mode of relating to God, he rejects the work of Christ, who took on the curse on behalf of others. Having repudiated the work of Christ as a vicarious sacrifice, he in fact condemns Christ as been justifiably killed on the cross and makes himself complicit in the death of Christ. Such a person takes the curse upon himself again and cannot be saved.
Thus, we see how the author of Hebrews uses the argumentum ad absurdum to demonstrate the folly of his opponents’ position. Since the Judaizers’ argument that the law should still be observed leads to the repudiation of Christ’s work and the loss of salvation, their argument should be rejected.
The author is likely using this argument hypothetically, to show what would happen. But this could never actually happen in the case of someone who has truly been converted. The author says in v. 9, “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.” When he says, “we speak in this way,” he is saying that he’s writing in a manner of speaking, that is, for the sake of argument. He’s showing how his opponents’ teachings would lead to someone’s having no grounds for salvation. But, in the case of true believers, he is certain that they will stand fast: “we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.” Therefore, rather than taking away our confidence in perseverance, this passage in fact should strengthen it.
The author of Hebrews wraps up this section with an exhortation: “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (vv. 11–12). This is a call to diligence. The author is reminding his readers that even though they have a hope for the future that they can rest in, the hope that God has given them of the certainty of their salvation should not lead them to sluggishness in living out their faith. The doctrine of eternal security should not lead us to take it easy and stop pressing into the kingdom of God; it should, rather, lead us to live out our faith with greater confidence and zeal.
https://biblia.com/books/cnlsmyslvtn/Page.p_41
CRUCIAL QUESTIONS No. | 22 Can I Lose My Salvation? R.C. Sproul
| Reformation Trust | A DIVISION OF LIGONIER MINISTRIES, ORLANDO, FL |
© 2015 by R.C. Sproul
Published by Reformation Trust Publishing
A division of Ligonier Ministries
421 Ligonier Court, Sanford, FL 32771
Blog Page about Alibris Books Blog Page about Faith Gateway Books
For month of May 2024
 MAY'S FREE AUDIOBOOK Keep a Quiet Heart (audio) Ongoing Free item strategy:
Try these Logos Bible Software Discount codes Furnished by Rick Livermore Webmaster220 San Juan Capistrano California –  Publisher InformationThis blog post was furnished by Webmaster220 Bible Study Blog other blogs by the same person: |
No comments:
Post a Comment