Can Christians Lose Their Salvation? - Part 2

Falling Away

A Commentary on Hebrews 6:4-6

Following on from my last letter about the security of “Salvation”, I want to confront the validity of using Hebrews 6 in defence of Christians losing their salvation.

This passage is arguably the most difficult to interpret, let alone understand.  Worse still the language of modern translations sounds persuasive and compelling, and while salvation is not mentioned we associate words such as, "falling away" and "repentance" with losing salvation. Why, because we’ve been taught that way, and ignore the grammar. The matter of “restoration” goes largely unnoticed as we become victims of preconceived presumptions. We fail to connect the context referred to by the writer. This presumption causes us to question eternal security, or at least question whether the recipients of the letter were indeed saved. Theologian Wayne Grudem suggests that the recipients were not born-again believers and makes a positive case for the eternal security of salvation. The entire book of Hebrews was a history lesson about Judaizers who were trying to move the Christian faith back into the law, therefore, it might be speaking to a form of pre-salvation immaturity not dissimilar to the Jews in Acts 19:3-6. Hebrews 6:4-6 could be explained away far easier if this were the case! However, the grammar and context of the writer suggest they were born-again believers, by making the case for repentance leading to inheritance (Numbers 13-14). However, whether the recipients of the letter were born-again believers is irrelevant insomuch as Hebrews 6 refers to the restoration of the inheritance, which only applies to born-again believers, and has nothing to do with losing salvation or eternal security. The narrative is about losing the inheritance at the judgment seat of Christ.

4 “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame”.

The Greek grammar is challenging because the narrative consists of a string of participles, that indicate God was prepared to offer the restoration of repentance (not salvation) if certain conditions were met. If these conditions were met the phrase “for it is impossible” is altered. The concession revolves around the fact they had “fallen away,” and therefore, “it's impossible to renew them again to repentance”. However, this impossibility can be taken away by two continuous action participles. The verb “to renew” indicates an ongoing or continuous action, and the word used for “repentance” (metanoian) indicates “a change of mind”, which conveys the type of change (repentance) that will bring about the possibility. In verses 4-5, we have three verbs used to describe someone who’s had an encounter with Jesus Christ, “enlightened”, “have been made”, and “tasted”.  Each of these verbs is also an aorist participle (Aorist defines the situation tone or tense of the verb). Further, “Enlightened” and “have been made” are aorist passive participles (passive: can be used as a verb, noun, or Adj), and “tasted” is an aorist active participle (such as taste to tasting, an ongoing action of the verb taste). The passive voice in the two former participles (“enlightened” and “have been made”) indicates that someone or something else is producing the action (God) that is now affected by the person falling away.

The construction suggests a deeper meaning than the superficial meaning we gain by simply reading the text, because the main verb “fallen away”, and the descriptive aorist participles, that modify it in verses 4-5, are all limited, and defined, by the present tense of the participles in verse 6. Therefore, when a person stops “falling away”, the behaviours become past-tense activities. The impossibility of restoration is removed and no longer applies since they are no longer present-tense activities. Finally, the impossibility of repentance and restoration is removed.

The impossibility does not refer to restoring salvation. It’s about the restoration of repentance insomuch as once these two present actions cease, the impossibility of repentance is removed, therefore, there is no permanent loss of repentance. Even though the narrative is about repentance, the sin that instigates the need for repentance is not without consequence. The OT is the same as the NT on this point. Believers can be saved, but they can still lose their inheritance, this is the whole point of the Judgement seat of Christ. Moses was saved, but he lost his inheritance (promised land). The Prodigal Son remained in his Father’s house but he lost his inheritance. The believer’s salvation is secure (in God through Christ) but our actions and works will be judged at Christ's judgment seat. We can escape the wrath of God through the cross, but we cannot escape Christ!

An ill-conceived but prevailing view in some circles is that the judgement seat of Christ is about rewards alone, and not about losing something (which will be the condemnation of unworthy works). It conveys a sense of merit alone, which is not the case (1 Cor 3:11-15), and it fails to acknowledge that if there are no unrighteous acts the Judgment seat is without point or purpose. The Bema or Judgement seat in the Greco/Roman world was a raised platform generally found in the central market area (Agora) Use of the word Bema is not without meaning or significance. It’s where the presiding magistrate adjudicated disputes or legal matters that resulted in commendation or condemnation. It was not just a place of rewards as some would like to imagine. Paul chose his words well because some believers will gain more than others and those who lose will experience pain, loss and regret.    

Throughout the book of Hebrews, the writer draws on Numbers 13-14, where Israel’s lack of faith was exposed by the report of the spies, who went out to survey the promised land. These chapters are a “type”, and underpin the writer’s theology in Hebrews 6:4-6 so any exegesis should consider both.  What’s generally overlooked is that the Jews were forgiven, and remained God’s chosen, why, because of a sworn oath. And that’s the key point in several issues addressed in the narrative. The writer applies the same argument in the case between Isaac and Esau (Gen 27:34-40), where Esau found no place of repentance and lost his inheritance. The word for “repentance” (metanoia), refers to a change of mind, and here it was Isaac who could not change his mind and give Esau his blessing (Heb12:17). Even though forgiveness might be granted, it seems very likely it was God who doesn't change his mind regarding the inheritance?

The critical issue from the entire narrative was their sanctification unto inheritance, NOT their salvation. They were to press on to spiritual maturity and many statements in Hebrews emphasize this theme. Baptist theologian Wayne Gruden puts it this way “In all of the passages, where, continuing to believe in Christ to the end of our lives is mentioned, as one indication of genuine faith, the purpose is never to make those who are presently trusting in Christ worry that sometime in the future, they might fall away, and we should never use this passage in this way”. 

Unfortunately, our theological presuppositions often determine our views on this issue, in many cases these presuppositions are not based on personal examination or knowledge but on the denominational teaching of those around us. Those who hold an Armenian view of salvation might suggest that only those who endure to the end will be saved. Calvinists say the salvation of born-again believers is secure because God will finish the work he began when he justifies us based on faith. This is the only tenet of Calvinist doctrine I can agree with. The Armenian view of perseverance is a little short of blasphemy because it undermines the statements of Jesus and the words of God. Armenian doctrine places the burden of responsibility on believers instead of God and contradicts their other tenets on foreknowledge, election and sovereignty. The implication of Armenian doctrine places all the core tenets of the Christian faith under scrutiny, and if it were true, no professing Christian can ever say they’re saved, and the sanctification process is fraught with uncertainty! I suspect a day will come when we all might become painfully aware of this fact, along with the lost opportunities, and time we wasted in this life. We might see the futility in our actions and wish we had focused on more important issues of mentoring each other unto sanctification and inheritance.