32

IntroductionOne of the most difficult issues in read-ing the scriptures is explaining the tensionbetween warning passages and texts thatpromise assurance.1 On the one hand, thewarning passages, such as are found inHebrews, James, or Revelation 2-3, areincredibly severe, even frightening. Theyseem to warn believers that if they aban-don the faith, continue to do what is evil,and fail to persevere until the end, the onlyprospect is eternal judgment and hell. Onthe other hand, the texts on assurance,such as John 10:28-30, Romans 8:28-39,and Philippians 1:6, seem to guaranteethat God will continue the good work thathe has started in believers, and he will seeto it that those whom he has elected to sal-vation will make it to the end. Believerswill persevere to the end, not by virtue oftheir own strength, but due to the powerof God.

The tension between these two kinds oftexts is immediately evident, though theresolution is not. Nor can we say that theissue is of little importance and avoid thewhole discussion. One’s understanding ofthese texts has tremendous pastoral impli-cations. For instance, should we warnpeople that if they fall away they wouldgo to hell? Or, should we assure them thatGod will keep them until the end and thatnothing (including their own choices) willprevent them from enjoying their eternaldestiny? If we focus upon the warnings inpreaching and counseling, we can be con-fident that we have taken seriously the

threats contained in the scriptures. But thenwe wonder if we have robbed people ofthe assurance needed to live the Christianlife. Conversely, if we focus upon God’spromises to sustain his people, then ourhearers will likely have a robust confidencein the God who called them to himself andwill sustain them to the end. And yet if weconcentrate on God’s promises, have wedone justice to the severe warnings foundin the scriptures? Have we given ourpeople a false assurance, one that does nottake seriously the warnings found in thescriptures?

I am not, of course, the first person toraise such questions. Scholars and pastorshave wrestled with the relationship be-tween the warnings and promises in thescriptures for a long time. Therefore, be-fore proposing my own view, I will inves-tigate how others have tried to resolve thetension between God’s threats and prom-ises. First, I will explain the major viewsrelative to warnings and assurance. Sec-ond, after setting forth the various inter-pretive positions, I will critique each onein turn. The critique will give readers apreview of my own understanding. Third,I will explain my own understanding ofhow the tension between God’s threatsand promises is resolved.

Major Views onWarnings and Assurance

Loss of Salvation View

A number of scholars argue that the

Perseverance and Assurance:A Survey and a Proposal

Thomas R. Schreiner

Thomas R. Schreiner is Professor of

New Testament Interpretation at The

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,

a position he accepted after a decade of

teaching at Bethel Theological Seminary.

He is the author of Interpreting the Pauline

Epistles, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A

Pauline Theology of Law, Romans (Baker

Exegetical Commentary, for thcoming),

and several other scholarly publications.

This article was adapted from invited lec-

tures given at Midwestern Baptist Theo-

logical Seminary in 1997.

33

warnings are addressed to believers, andthat believers can and do abandon theirsalvation. John Wesley’s comments onRomans 8:30 illustrate the typicalWesleyan use of warnings as the baselinefor understanding election and predesti-nation. Wesley contends that Paul’s wordsin Romans 8:28-39 must be understood inthe light of Romans 11:22. “He does notdeny that a believer may fall away and becut off between his special calling and hisglorification (Rom. ix. 22).”2 Wesley insiststhat election and predestination are notultimate, for both election and predesti-nation are conditional and can be over-turned by lack of perseverance.

In Southern Baptist circles the loss of sal-vation view has been extensively and pas-sionately defended by Dale Moody.3 Heargues, for instance, that the parable of thesower teaches the possibility of apostasyand says, “It is amazing how preconceiveddogmas blind so many to the realism of thisparable.”4 Paul warns those who think theystand to beware lest they fall (1 Co 10:12)and cautions his readers against failing thetest on the last day (2 Co 13:5). Moody be-lieves it is obvious that such texts teach thatbelievers can turn from the faith forever andsays, “Yet cheap preaching and compromisewith sin have made such texts forbidden forserious study.”5 Indeed, says Moody, Paul’ssevere warnings against the Galatians (e.g.4:8-11) are beside the point if apostasy is im-possible.6 Moreover, apostasy cannot be rel-egated to the hypothetical sphere, forMoody observes that Paul specifically men-tions those who made shipwreck of theirfaith, including Hymenaeus, Alexander, andDemas (1 Ti 1:19, 2 Ti 4:10).7 The warningsin Hebrews also obviously teach that believ-ers can apostatize.8 Moody describesHerschel Hobbs’ attempt to explain He-brews so that it fits with eternal security as

“exegetical hop-scotch” and “special plead-ing,” and with regard to the warning inHebrews 10:26-31 Moody remarks, “Thereseems to be no language that Hobbs is un-able to tone down.” 9

Moody takes the language of warningvery literally. Thus one may wonder howhe explains the texts which promise thatGod will keep his own until the end.Moody follows Wesley’s lead and qualifiesthe texts that refer to God’s keeping andsustaining by those which emphasize theconditions believers must fulfill. The free-dom of the human will, not divine sover-eignty, is ultimate.10 As long as we remainin Christ we are predestined for glory, butwe may choose to repudiate our salvation.Nor can people flee to John 6:37 to defendeternal security by citing Jesus’ words thatthose who come to him will never be castout. Moody remarks that these words donot rule out apostasy, for Judas Iscariot whowas given by the Father to the Son aban-doned Jesus and was cursed.11 Calvinistsoften appeal to 1 John 2:19 to say that thosewho leave the Christian community werenever part of it in the first place. Moody,however, says that the verse should betranslated they “went out from us becausethey were no longer of us.”12 Moody’s so-lution to the tension is straightforward. Inhis mind there is no tension. The scripturesclearly teach believers can apostatize andall those texts which appear to promiseassurance of final salvation have been mis-understood. In every case, the passageswhich assure believers of salvation mustbe qualified by a condition which may ormay not be fulfilled. Believers will obtaintheir heavenly inheritance if they persevere

to the end, and we cannot know that they will

persevere until the end.Scot McKnight has also analyzed He-

brews’ warning passages recently.13

34

McKnight’s essay is probably the best ex-egesis of the warning passages in He-brews from those who support the loss ofsalvation view. McKnight’s aim is to dem-onstrate that the warnings in Hebrewsare addressed to believers, and thatthe author threatens believers witheschatological judgment if they forsakethe faith. Salvation in Hebrews is mainlyconceived of in future terms, and the au-thor is concerned that readers who havebegun the journey of faith may wanderfrom the path before experiencingeschatological salvation. The apostasyenvisioned in Hebrews is a deliberate andwillful rejection of the Christian faith. Theunique contribution of McKnight’s articleis that he uses all the warning texts inHebrews (2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39, 12:1-29) to discern the nature of thethreat and to determine whether thoseaddressed are believers. So often scholarshave restricted themselves to the famoustext in Hebrews 6 to explain the warningin Hebrews. McKnight insists, however,that such an approach is inadequate. He-brews is a homily addressed to a commu-nity that desperately needs to hear theauthor’s admonition. In order to under-stand the warning passages in the letterone must study all of the warning textstogether, for they mutually interpret oneanother. When one takes all the warningpassages into account, it is clear that thethreats are addressed to believers and thatthese believers are warned that they willperish if they forsake their salvation.

I. Howard Marshall has written a sig-nificant exegetical work on the believer’sresponsibility to persevere until the endand God’s promise of sustaining grace.14

Marshall’s work is characterized by care-ful exegesis and a humble attempt to sub-mit to the wording of the text. He

concludes from his exegetical labors thatapostasy is indeed possible for believers.15

The warning passages seem to be evacu-ated of meaning if believers cannot for-sake salvation. On the other hand,Marshall takes seriously the passageswhich promise God’s persevering power.Believers should derive tremendous com-fort from such texts, for they indicate thatapostasy is the exception rather than therule. Marshall even says that logic breaksdown in trying to reconcile the twothemes and understands the relationshipbetween God’s promises and threats asparadoxical.16 Nonetheless, his ultimateconclusion is that believers may choose toabandon salvation. Not all of those whoare foreknown and predestined (per Ro8:28-29) will necessarily be glorified. Thechain which extends from foreknowledgeto glorification can be broken by the be-liever.17 Similarly, he agrees that nothingcan separate believers from Christ’s love(Ro 8:35-39). Yet believers, because theyhave a free will, may choose to separatethemselves from the love of Christ.18 Inthe final analysis, therefore, Marshall is inthe Arminian camp.

Loss of Reward View

The second view is quite different fromthe first, for the fundamental texts whichdominate its exegesis are the assurancetexts. No believer, it is argued on the ba-sis of John 6:37-44, 10:28-30, Romans 8:28-39, Philippians 1:6, etc., will fail to haveeternal life, for all those who believe aresaved and will certainly enter into heaven.To say that one must do good works toenter into heaven, or one must persevereuntil the end to obtain eternal life, is con-trary to the message of grace which per-meates the whole New Testament. Ifsalvation is truly by grace through faith,

35

then works can play no role in the out-come (Eph 2:8-10). Those who introduceworks at the back-door are subtly reintro-ducing legalism into the churches. Theemphasis of those who support such aview is found in the title of their books:Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? byCharles Stanley,19 Once Saved, Always

Saved by R. T. Kendall,20 The Gospel Under

Siege: A Study on Faith and Works and Ab-

solutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship

Salvation by Zane C. Hodges,21 and No

Condemnation: A New Theology of Assurance

by Michael Eaton.22 These authors insistthat those who teach that believers mustdo good works to be saved are actuallyproclaiming a different gospel, for the bib-lical gospel only requires faith for salva-tion, and good works play no rolewhatsoever in salvation. If works of anykind are necessary, then the gospel is nolonger free and salvation is no longer agift. Nor can anyone have genuine assur-ance, for their salvation is conditionedupon their works and thus they shouldalways be worried about whether theywere “really” Christians.

How do these scholars and pastorshandle the warning passages? Like theprevious view, they agree that the warn-ing texts are addressed to Christians. Butif texts like Hebrews 6 are directed to be-lievers, then is it not possible that believ-ers will apostatize and forsake theirsalvation? Those who espouse this secondview firmly reject such a conclusion. Theyunderstand every warning text to speakeither against the loss of rewards or thefailure to enjoy a fruitful and happy Chris-tian life here and now. Believers are neverwarned that they will lose their salvationif they do not persevere, for it is absolutelyimpossible to ever lose one’s salvation.Any text which demands works or perse-

verance in the life of believers relates tofruitful service in this life or to rewardsabove and beyond eternal life in the worldto come.

R. T. Kendall explicates this viewclearly. According to Kendall, the personwho has become a Christian “will go to

heaven when he dies no matter what work (or

lack of work) may accompany such faith” (ital-ics his).23 Kendall asks, “‘What if a per-son who is saved falls into sin, stays insin, and is found in that very conditionwhen he dies? Will he still go to heaven?’The answer is yes.”24 He concludes, “Itherefore state categorically that the per-son who is saved—who confesses thatJesus is Lord and believes in his heart thatGod raised Him from the dead—will go to

heaven when he dies no matter what work (or

lack of work) may accompany such faith.”25

Charles Stanley articulates a similarview, for he writes, “The Bible clearlyteaches that God’s love for His people is ofsuch magnitude that even those who walkaway from the faith have not the slightestchance of slipping from His hand.” Headds, “Even if a believer for all practicalpurposes becomes an unbeliever, his sal-vation is not in jeopardy.” Furthermore, heargues that “believers who lose or aban-don their faith will retain their salvation,for God remains faithful.”26

How should we understand, then, thetexts that say (cf. Gal 5:21, 1 Co 6:9-11) thatwe must do good works to enter the king-dom of God? Kendall argues that the king-dom of God in such texts does not refer toheaven at all. It refers to the extent towhich God dwells in our hearts here onearth, the manifestation of God’s lifethrough us in the present world. We willreceive rewards based on our works, butsuch rewards must be distinguished frometernal life, for the latter is given regard-

36

less of good works.27 Kendall understandsthe warnings in Hebrews 6 similarly.Those described in that passage had al-ready fallen away.28 But the author wasnot saying that they were thereby un-saved. Those who had fallen away hadlost their rewards and were not fruitful intheir Christian lives, but they were believ-ers and would experience eternal life.29

Zane Hodges may be the most wellknown advocate of such a view in theUnited States. His comments on Galatians6:7-8 illustrate his understanding of thewarnings in the scriptures:

‘Everlasting life,’ Paul asserts is thedirect consequence of sowing to theSpirit, of doing good. Corruption iswhat you reap if you do evil.... Noth-ing is plainer than that the ‘everlast-ing life’ of which Paul speaks is notfree, but based on the moral meritsof those who reap it. To deny this isto deny the most obvious aspect ofthe text.... Naturally Paul knew thateternal life was freely given.... ButPaul is not speaking about what theGalatians already have, but aboutwhat they may yet receive. Herein liesthe key to the text.... Here it shouldbe clearly stated that in the New Tes-tament eternal life is presented bothas a free gift and as a reward mer-ited by those who acquire it. But oneimportant distinction always holdstrue. Wherever eternal life is viewedas a reward, its acquisition is as-signed to a time in the future. Butwherever eternal life is presented asa gift, its acquisition is assigned tothe present.... If Galatians 6:8 is con-strued as speaking only of a man’sfinal salvation from hell, then itteaches clearly that this final salva-tion is by works!30

Hodges maintains his view by regu-larly distinguishing between salvationand discipleship.31 All believers are saved,but not all are disciples, nor is there anycertainty that those who are disciples willcontinue to be such. Indeed, if persever-

ance is necessary for salvation (whichHodges contests), then the Arminianswould be correct, for Hodges is sure thatmany believers do not continue in thefaith. This is clear by his response to thosewho insist that perseverance is necessaryfor salvation. He states,

God, they say, guarantees thebeliever’s perseverance in the faith.Unfortunately, this dogmatic claimdoes not have the support of theBible. On the contrary, the New Tes-tament is altogether clear that main-taining our faith in God involves astruggle whose outcome is not guar-anteed simply by the fact that we aresaved.32

The way out of this dilemma is to rec-ognize that fruitfulness or discipleship isnot a condition of salvation. Thus, James2:14-26 does not teach that we must dogood works to be saved from hell.33 WhenJames says that faith without works isdead, he means that we experience thedeadly consequences of sin in our every-day lives if we do not follow God. Jamesis not teaching that one must do goodworks to enter heaven, for that would con-tradict the message of grace in the NewTestament.34

Tests of Genuineness View

The third view agrees with the previ-ous one that the promises of scripture aresuch that no one who is elected, called,and justified will fail to be glorified. Allof God’s chosen will be saved, and hispromises are inviolable so that no one whois genuinely part of the people of God willever be lost. This view differs from theabove in that perseverance in faith andgood works are considered necessary forsalvation. Such good works do not meritsalvation but are the necessary evidencethat salvation is genuine. Thus, when

37

James says that faith without works isdead, the good works demanded neces-sarily accompany saving faith. Scholars ofthis persuasion would repudiate the viewof Hodges et al. that the good works re-quired in James relate only to rewards orto a fruitful life on this earth. Instead, theywould maintain that good works are in-evitably connected with genuine faith.Nor would they believe that their viewwas some kind of works-righteousness,for the good works in the lives of believ-ers are the fruit of faith. Good works arenot separated from faith as if believers arejustified by good works and faith. Rather,genuine faith is the root and good worksare the fruit. Perseverance (Mt 24:13) isrequisite for salvation, but perseverancesimply reflects the genuineness of the faithwhich was exercised at the inception ofthe believer’s life. In this sense, view num-ber three is quite similar to view numberone, for both believe that good works arecrucial for eternal life. The difference be-tween the two interpretations, however,relates to the possibility of forsaking orlosing salvation. View number one saysthat good works are necessary for eternallife and maintains that true believers canforsake their salvation. View numberthree insists that good works are neces-sary for eternal life, but goes on to arguethat all true believers will necessarily dosuch good works. Those who fail to do therequired good works reveal thereby thatthey were never believers at all. As Johnasserts, “They went out from us, but theywere not of us, for if they were of us, theywould have remained with us. But theywent out in order that it might be mademanifest that they were not all of us” (1Jn 2:19). Some people who appear to bebelievers and who have even made a de-cision of faith are not genuinely believers,

and we know that they are not genuinebelievers because they do not persist infaith until the end.

At this juncture one of the distinctivesof this view should be observed. Thewarnings in the scriptures are understoodas tests by which one can discern whetherone is a genuine believer. S. LewisJohnson, Jr. illustrates this viewpoint in hisexposition of Colossians 1:21-23, whichsays that believers will be presented asholy and blameless before God on the lastday “if you remain in the faith.”

But what about the “if”? we hearsomeone say. Is not the whole pro-gram in jeopardy? Does it not alldepend upon us ultimately? Sup-pose our faith fails? Now, we mustnot dodge the “ifs”’ of the Word.They are tests for professors. If faithfails, that is the evidence that thefaith was not valid saving faith (cf.1 Jn. 2:19). On the other hand, thegenuine believer will persevere infaith, not by human strength, but bydivine strengthening. . . . The ei (AV,“if”), it may be noted, introduces afirst-class condition, determined asfulfilled. The apostle assumes theColossians will abide in their faith.35

In Johnson’s understanding, thewarnings are really retrospective. Thefunction of warning passages is to helpus discern whether we are genuine be-lievers. They serve as tests of the valid-ity of our profession.

Another distinctive of the tests of genu-ineness view emerges with the interpre-tation of a passage such as Hebrews 6. Wehave already seen that views number oneand two understand the warning to beaddressed to Christians. View number onedraws the conclusion from this that be-lievers can and do apostatize, while viewnumber two relates this text only to re-wards. Those who promote the tests of

38

genuineness view, on the other hand, ex-plain this text in a different way. Threeprimary representatives of this view areJohn Owen, Roger Nicole, and WayneGrudem.36 All three argue that in the lastanalysis the experiences described in He-brews 6:4-5 are not those of the regener-ate. One may be enlightened, taste of theheavenly gift, become a sharer of the HolySpirit, taste the goodness of the word ofGod and the powers of the coming ageand still not be a believer. For instance,Nicole says that the experiences “mayhave been chosen by design to describethose who have received the greatest pos-sible external exposure to the truth, in-cluding a temporary profession ofallegiance to it.”37 Such people are “al-most” Christians, for they have had ex-periences which have ushered them intothe very vestibule of the temple as itwere—without actually being made partof God’s household.

The influence of Owen’s exegesis isapparent in reading Nicole and Grudem.38

Owen argues that though the readers wereenlightened, they had not been savinglytransformed by the light.39 The tasting ofthe heavenly gift does not refer to a fullingestion of the things of God.40 We tasteand then determine whether or not to ac-cept or reject what we have tasted. Thus,tasting refers to an outward experience ofthe things of God and not their innerpower. Partaking of the Holy Spirit relatesto an experience with the gifts of the Spirit,and not the actual reception of the Spirit.41

Those who tasted the good word of Godwere affected by the truth but have neveractually obeyed it.42 And the powers ofthe coming age are again the gifts of theHoly Spirit but not a saving experience ofthe Spirit.43

A summary of Grudem’s view will be

instructive since he has written an exten-sive and recent defense of the view advo-cated by Owen and Nicole. Grudemremarks that the better things which ac-company salvation in Hebrews 6:9 are el-ements that are superior to what isdescribed in verses 4-5, and they are su-perior because the list of experiences inverses 4-5 do not constitute salvation.44

These better things are comprised of quali-ties like faith, hope, love, and service inverses 9-12. Thus, being enlightened, tast-ing of the heavenly gift, sharing of theHoly Spirit, etc. in verses 4-5 are not thedefinitive marks of salvation. There arebetter things than these, things whichclearly indicate that one is saved—con-trary to the uncertain things mentionedin verses 4-5. Furthermore, Grudem notesthat the list in verses 4-5 contains no ele-ment which would definitively prove thatthose addressed in Hebrews were saved.45

Grudem lists eighteen marks of genuinesalvation in Hebrews and argues that theexperiences noted in Hebrews 6:4-5 do notclearly match genuine salvation. Some ofthe eighteen qualities listed by Grudeminclude forgiveness of sins, cleansing ofthe conscience, the law written on theheart, a holy life, being pleasing to God,being enlightened, having faith, hope, andlove, obeying God, persevering, enteringGod’s rest, knowing God, sharing inChrist, etc. However, Grudem does notunderstand all the items in this list neces-sarily to involve salvation. For instance,one must be enlightened to be a believer,and yet one can still be enlightened andbe an unbeliever, for all the word enlight-ened means is that one has heard andunderstood the gospel.46 One certainlymust hear and understand the gospel tobe saved, and yet there are unbelieverswho have heard and understood the gos-

39

pel (they are therefore enlightened), butthey are not saved. Those described inHebrews 6:4-6 could possibly refer toChristians, says Grudem, but the lan-guage is ambiguous enough to also referto unbelievers. If the author had said thatthose described had faith, hope, or loveor if he had said their consciences werecleansed or their sins were forgiven, thenwe would know that those described arebelievers. In Hebrews 6:7-8 unbelieversare clearly in view, for these are peoplewho experienced the blessings of God butnever produced any fruit.47 And sincethere was no fruit, they were clearly badground, i.e. people who were never partof the people of God.

One might think that those describedin Hebrews 10:26-31 must be Christianssince they are said to have received knowl-edge of the truth and are described assanctified. Grudem replies that receivingthe knowledge of the truth is equivalentto being enlightened in Hebrews 6:4.48 Itmeans that someone has heard and un-derstood the gospel, and it even involvesagreement with the teaching of the gos-pel. Yet, says Grudem, it does not followfrom this that such people have actuallytrusted Christ personally. Neither does theword “sanctify” indicate a reference tobelievers according to Grudem.49 After all,the word “sanctify” is often used of out-ward and ceremonial cleansing in thescriptures (Heb 9:13, 1 Co 7:14, Mt 23:17,19). Grudem concludes that a ceremonialsense is probable here since the authorcompares the work of Christ with Leviti-cal sacrifices. In other words, the sanctifi-cation in view in Hebrews 10:29 is not asaving sanctification, but an outward typeof cleansing, which seems to be experi-enced in hearing the proclaimed gospel.

According to this third view, the warn-

ing relates to eternal punishment as inview number one. Grudem and othersreject the idea that the readers wouldmerely lose rewards or would be less fruit-ful in their everyday lives. But view num-ber three differs from view number onein seeing the people addressed as thosewho have experienced many of the bless-ings of the Christian faith without beingChristians themselves. Grudem arguesthat those who have fallen away werenever believers in the first place.50 Thus,the doctrine of the perseverance of thesaints is maintained. True believers willcertainly persevere to the end. The warn-ings function as a test by which one de-termines if one genuinely belongs to thepeople of God. Those who commit the sinof apostasy, which the warnings admon-ish us to avoid, reveal that they were nevergenuinely Christians. Thus, the warningsregarding apostasy are not addressed togenuine believers, for if that were the case,then genuine believers could lose theirsalvation. The warning against apostasyfunctions retrospectively. If one aposta-tizes, then it serves as evidence that onewas never part of the people of God. Howcan one assess whether one is part of thepeople of God? By how one responds tothe threats contained in the scriptures.Those who respond in obedience to suchadmonitions demonstrate that they aretruly part of the people of God.

Hypothetical View

A fourth view could be described as the“Hypothetical Loss of Salvation” view.According to this interpretation believerswho fail to persevere will not be saved.Still it is impossible for believers to com-mit apostasy, and therefore the punish-ment which is threatened will neverbecome a reality in the life of any believer.

40

The hypothetical view has been under-stood in various ways. Some scholars haveidentified B. F. Westcott as espousing thehypothetical view in the sense describedabove.51 Concerning Hebrews 6:4-6,Westcott states, “The case is hypothetical.There is nothing to show that the condi-tions of fatal apostasy had been fulfilled,still less that they had been fulfilled in thecase of any of those addressed. Indeed thecontrary is assumed: vv. 9ff.”52 A carefulreading of Westcott reveals, however, thathe did not think apostasy was impos-sible.53 He was merely pointing out thatthe warning was hypothetical in the senseof being prospective. The text was a warn-ing, which does not assume that the read-ers had already committed the sin inquestion. Westcott did not deny, though,that the sin may have been committed.

The sense in which I am using the word“hypothetical” here is well conveyed byHewitt. He says,

The writer is dealing with supposi-tion and not with fact, so that he maycorrect wrong ideas. If such a fall-ing away could happen, he is say-ing, it would be impossible to renewthem again unto repentance unlessChrist died a second time, which isunthinkable.54

Hewitt maintains that the text is hypo-thetical because otherwise the admonitionwould contradict God’s electing and pre-serving grace.

Irresolvable Tension View

The final view can be explained verybriefly. This interpretation is presented ina dynamic way by Gerald Borchert.55

Borchert maintains that there is a tensionbetween the assurance passages and thewarning passages which must be main-tained. In fact, he claims that all attempts

to resolve the dilemma posed by these twodifferent kinds of passages ends up negat-ing either the assurance or the warningtexts. To be biblical, therefore, we mustadmit that we cannot explain how the ten-sion between God’s promises and histhreats is worked out. When we try to re-solve the ambiguity, we either compro-mise the statements of assurance or weomit what the text says by way of warn-ing. God’s intention is not to help us settlethe relationship between God’s sover-eignty and human responsibility. Instead,both warning and assurance texts must begiven their proper role and place. As thepeople of God we need both admonish-ing and comforting. To neglect either is toshunt aside part of God’s word, and allparts of the scriptures are vital for our faithand growth in godliness. A genuine bibli-cal theology, therefore, lets both of thesemessages stand together, proclaims bothtruths, and does not attempt to resolvehow they fit together. Such resolutions areinadequate, for they inevitably compro-mise either God’s promises or histhreats.56

Critique of the Viewpoints

Critique of Loss of Salvation View

The strength in this position is that thewarnings are taken seriously as warnings.This view is also correct in saying that eter-nal life and eternal judgment are at stake(for a defense of this see the critique ofthe next view). Dale Moody’s language isvery colorful and strong, but he is right insaying that some people who latch ontoeternal security do not take at all seriouslythe warnings and threats in scripture. Heis also correct in saying that some of theexegesis set forth by those who upholdeternal security is rather outlandish. I also

41

believe (contra view #3—see below) thatthis view is correct in saying that the warn-ings are addressed to those who are be-lievers. The strengths in this view,therefore, are truly remarkable. Thethreats are grasped as genuine threats. Thedanger is rightly apprized to be eternaljudgment, and the warnings are rightlydiscerned to be directed to believers. It isno surprise that many believers haveadopted this view in the history of thechurch. Though this view has much tocommend it, a satisfactory solution of thepassages on assurance is not provided.Scot McKnight, for instance, does not evenventure to explain other texts, and this isexcusable since his intention is to providean exegesis of the texts in Hebrews. WayneGrudem rightly complains that a fullorbed solution has to explain all the textsin a satisfactory manner.

Dale Moody’s arguments are more one-sided. He takes the warning passages se-riously, but his treatment of the passageson assurance and God’s promises is inad-equate. He injects into any text whichteaches assurance the notion that our sal-vation is secure if we persevere. His methodis no different from the Calvinist whowashes away all the warning passages byinsisting in advance that no one couldpossibly lose their salvation. Of course, weall need to account for texts which call intoquestion our synthesis, but Moody makesit sound as if the task is remarkably easy.I cannot examine Moody’s view on pre-destination here, so I appeal to the vol-umes I co-edited with Bruce Ware for athorough response to his objections.57 Hisexplanation of foreknowledge is rejectedby most commentators, and a much moresatisfactory treatment is given in the es-say by Stephen Baugh.58 The bias inMoody’s view becomes apparent when he

examines 1 John 2:19. He opines that thesense of the verse is that those who leftthe community were “no longer” with us.Such an interpretation is hardly persua-sive, for the word “no longer” (ouketi) isnot found in the Greek text. What Johnsays is that “they were not (ouk) of us.”No indication is given that John consid-ered those who left the community to begenuine believers. Instead, he says, “Theywent out from us, but they were not ofus, for if they were of us, they would haveremained with us. But they went out inorder that it might be manifest that theyall are not of us.” Clearly, John teacheshere that those who have left the commu-nity were never part of the church ofChrist. By leaving the church, they re-vealed that they were bogus from the be-ginning. We can conclude that Moodyseriously reckons with the warning pas-sages, but he does not have a satisfactoryexplanation of God’s promises relative toperseverance.

Marshall’s is a much more nuancedArminian interpretation, yet his notion thatgenuine believers can apostatize is also un-convincing.59 Peter says that believers arebeing guarded by the power of God throughfaith for a salvation which is ready to “berevealed in the last time” (1 Pe 1:5). The sal-vation envisioned here is eschatologicalsince it will “be revealed in the last time.”The terms “being kept” (teteremenos, 1 Pe1:4) and “being guarded” ( phroureomenos, 1Pe 1:5) are simply alternate ways of com-municating the idea that God preserves theinheritance for believers.60 Of course, thetext says that we are protected by God’spower “through faith.” We can conclude,then, that no believer will finally be savedwho does not continue to exercise faith.61

Peter does not restrict himself to the initialact of faith but conceives of a faith that lasts

42

to the end. Is the verse saying, then, that Godand human beings play coordinate roles?God guards people by his power, and hu-man beings exercise faith. Can we conclude,then—as some do—that there is no guar-antee that our faith will persist until the end,for faith is our contribution to the processof salvation? We must be very careful here,for faith is certainly something we exerciseas human beings. The text also teaches thatfaith is a condition for obtaining theeschatological inheritance. It is a mistake,however, to conclude that we can ultimatelyseparate God’s power in keeping us fromour responsibility to believe. Surely, we mustbelieve, but the question is, “Does God’spower play any role in our continuing tobelieve?” If it does not, it is difficult to deci-pher what his power actually accomplishessince 1 Peter informs us that believers arenot spared from persecution, suffering, anddeath. The very point of 1 Peter 1:5 is thatGod’s power is the means by which we con-tinue to believe. Otherwise, his power is re-duced to a cipher that accomplishes nothing.Ernest Best rightly says that God must bethe one sustaining our faith, for otherwisethe reference to God’s power “is unneces-sary and provides no assurance to thebeliever since what he doubts is his ownpower to cling to God in trial.”62 Arminiansare right in insisting that we must continueto exercise faith to be saved, but they fail tosee that God promises to sustain our faithuntil the end.

John 6:37-40 is another crucial text onthe preservation of believers. There Jesusdeclares that all who are given by the Fa-ther to the Son “will come” to the Son. Thiscoming to the Son is equivalent to believ-

ing in the Son, for John 6:35 says, “I amthe bread of life. He who comes to me willnever go hungry, and he who believes inme will never be thirsty.” The parallelism

establishes that comes and believes are syn-onyms. Thus, to say that those given bythe Father “will come” to the Son alsomeans that they “will believe” in the Son.Since all do not believe in or come to theSon, it follows that only some are given bythe Father to the Son. And it is preciselythose who are given who will believe andbe raised on the last day (Jn 6:39). The res-urrection on the last day in this contextrefers to the age to come, heaven itself.This same theme is stated from anotherperspective in John 6:44, “No one cancome to me unless the Father who sentme draws him, and I will raise him up atthe last day.” In John 6:37-40 it is empha-sized that those who do come and believedo so because of God’s grace. Here Jesusremarks that those who do not come havenot experienced the drawing power ofGod’s grace. Only those who received thelatter come and believe and experience thesaving resurrection of the last day.

Is it genuinely the case that all thosegiven by the Father continue to believeuntil the day of the resurrection? Does notthe case of Judas prove that some who arechosen apostatize? After all, Jesus himselfsays that Judas was chosen and that hewas a devil (Jn 6:70-71). A closer look atthe case of Judas reveals that he is not re-ally a genuine exception. After the breadof life discourse, John provides an edito-rial comment to explain Jesus’ perspectiveupon those who had ceased followinghim. He remarks that Jesus knew all alongwho would forsake him and who wouldbetray him (Jn 6:64). Such a remark seemsto indicate simple foreknowledge, andwould at first glance support theArminian view. But John 6:65 clarifies why

Jesus knew some would abandon him.The close connection between verses 64and 65 is forged by the words “for this

43

reason” (dia touto). The reason Jesus knewin advance who would defect is becausehe knew from the beginning to whom Godhad granted the ability to come to Jesus.Verse 65 verifies this interpretation, “Andhe was saying, ‘For this reason (dia touto)I said to you that no one is able to come tome unless it has been given to him by theFather.’” In other words, the power to be-lieve in and come to Jesus had never beendispensed to Judas and the others whodeserted Jesus.

The foot washing incident in John 13provides additional support for the notionthat Judas was never genuinely part of thepeople of God. When Jesus washes thedisciples’ feet, it symbolizes the cleansingof their sins. Peter’s refusal to be washedis no trivial matter, for Jesus says to him,“Unless I wash you, you have no part withme” (Jn 13:8). That is, Peter’s saving in-heritance (meros) is conditioned upon be-ing washed. The symbolic character of theactivity is revealed by the words after thewashing, “‘And you are clean, but not allof you.’ For he knew the one who wouldbetray him. For this reason he said, ‘Notall of you are clean’” (Jn 13:10).63 Obvi-ously, Jesus did not mean that he did apoor job in washing some of the disciples’feet! Even though Judas was washed byJesus, he was not really clean, for Jesusknew from the beginning who was nottruly part of the people of God. John em-phasizes that Judas’ betrayal fulfillsscripture and what God predicted wouldoccur (Jn 6:64, 13:1-3, 18-19, 17:12, 18:1-4,9-11). Judas was pre-ordained to betrayJesus. John does not conclude from thisthat Judas is exempt from responsibilityfor his actions. The biblical writers neverdraw the conclusion that if human choicesare pre-ordained, then we are not respon-sible for what happens (see Ac 2:23, 4:27-

28). To sum up, Judas is not a genuine ex-ception to the promise that God will sus-tain in the faith all those that are given bythe Father to the Son. Instead, Judas re-flects the truth of 1 John 2:19. By leavingthe band of Jesus’ disciples he reveals thathe was never part of the true people ofGod.64

A number of texts could be cited fromPaul regarding our preservation. The onewho began a good work will continue ituntil the final day (Php 1:6). The one whocalled us initially into fellowship with theSon is faithful to preserve his work untilthe end (1 Co 1:8-9; cf. 1 Th 5:24). All ofthose who are foreknown, predestined,called, and justified will be glorified (Ro8:28-30). Nothing intervenes to break thelinks of “the golden chain.” Those who arejustified will certainly be spared fromGod’s wrath on the last day (Ro 5:9). Thosewho are sealed by the Spirit will surelyobtain eschatological redemption (Eph1:14; 4:30). Of course, Arminian interpret-ers inject qualifications into all thesepromises, but such qualifications areunpersuasive.

Perhaps this fact can be best illustratedby a closer look at one of the texts in whichPaul teaches the preservation of believersuntil the end. In Romans 8:35-39 Paul cel-ebrates the inviolability of the believer’srelationship to Christ.

Who shall separate us from the loveof Christ? Shall affliction or distressor persecution or famine or naked-ness or danger or sword? As it iswritten: ‘For your sake we face deathall day long; we are considered assheep to be slaughtered.’ But in allthese things we are more than con-querors through him who loved us.For I am convinced that neitherdeath nor life, neither angels norrulers, neither the present nor thefuture, nor any powers, neitherheight nor depth, nor any other crea-

44

ture, will be able to separate us fromthe love of God that is in Christ Jesusour Lord.

Paul deliberates upon what could pos-sibly sever us from Christ’s love, and thosethings which are most likely to remove usfrom his saving grasp are introduced: thepressures of life, persecution, lack of foodand clothing, the prospect of death, an-gelic powers, etc. The worst that life canthrow at us is contemplated, for it is pre-cisely these things which would be mostlikely to detach us from Christ’s love. Paulaffirms with confidence, however, thatnone of these things will prevail over thelove of God and Christ. He is convincedthat there is nothing in the created worldthat can uncouple us from Christ. Indeed,we are “more than conquerors” throughChrist. We are “more than conquerors”because God turns our enemies into hisservants and uses them for our benefit. AGod who uses even the most terriblethings for our good will see to it than noneof these things remove us from his love.Indeed, he will use them to make us feelhis love more profoundly and deeply.

Some object to the interpretation pro-posed by saying that none of these exter-nal things can separate us from the loveof Christ, but we ourselves with the powerof our free choice can detach ourselvesfrom his love.65 Such an interpretation isflawed because Paul reflects upon the verythings which would propel believers todeny Christ. Paul introduces persecution,famine, the possibility of martyrdom, andpresent and future troubles because theseare the elements of life which conspire tosnuff out the faith of believers. These arethe things that taunt believers with thehorrible thought that God does not care,that Christ does not love them. A depar-ture from faith does not occur in a

vacuum. The sufferings of everyday lifeand its pressures are the things that couldcause believers to renounce Christ. Paul’spoint here, however, is that the most ter-rible things which one can conceive of willnot have that effect in the lives of believ-ers. They will never deny Christ norshrink back from him. They will “hangon” not because of the strength of theirwill and their indomitable courage in themidst of difficulties and sufferings. Theywill persist because the love of God willnever let them go. They will persevere inthe faith because God’s love has graspedthem and will hold them securely in themidst of the vicissitudes of life. If this pas-sage merely says that God loves believersno matter what happens, but we may stilldepart from his love, then it is cold com-fort indeed. Our prime concern is not thatGod will cease loving us. We know he willbe faithful to the end. What worries us isthat we will deny him, that we will turnour backs on the faith, and renounce ourfirst confession. This text assures us thatwe will not do so. We will remain true toGod, not because we are so noble—butbecause Christ is so loving. Nothing, noteven ourselves, can ever cause us to re-nounce the love of God which has invadedour lives.66

In conclusion, the loss of salvation viewis unpersuasive because the scripturesplainly teach that those who are chosenwill never apostatize. What God hasstarted he will complete. Those who leavethe community of faith were never partof the people of God.

Critique of Loss of Rewards View

The loss of rewards view is correct inmaintaining that assurance is of the es-sence of faith, and they rightly argue thatthe gift of salvation is inviolable. They

45

make a very serious mistake, however, inseparating persistence in faith and goodworks from salvation. The loss of rewardsview teaches that repentance is unneces-sary for salvation, but the early Christiankerygma argues otherwise. When Peterproclaims the gospel in Acts he calls forrepentance “for the forgiveness of sins”(Ac 2:38) and “so that your sins might bewiped away” (Ac 3:19). Paul summons theAthenians to repentance (Ac 17:30) and in-cludes repentance in the message he pro-claims to the other Gentiles (Ac 26:20). Themost plausible and common sense way tounderstand these texts is to take them atface value. Repentance is necessary foreternal life (cf. 2 Ti 2:25).

The loss of rewards view also suffersfrom an inability to grasp the already-but-not-yet character of New Testamenteschatology, in which the gifts of the endtime have penetrated the present evil age.Thus, they are forced to argue that thesame term “eternal life” has differentsenses, so that sometimes it refers toheaven and sometimes to a fruitful life onearth or reward in heaven. Of course,words may vary in meaning according tocontext. Yet, it seems that the definitionsoffered by those supporting the loss ofsalvation view do not spring from a care-ful evaluation of the context in whichterms are used. What drives them in pos-iting the different definitions is a prefab-ricated theology. Thus, “eternal life”cannot refer to heaven in any passagewhich links eternal life with works, for intheir view that would compromise thegracious character of salvation. Theythereby they blunt the force of the warn-ing in Galatians 6:8-9, which threatensdestruction upon those who sow to theflesh, while promising eternal life to thosewho sow to the Spirit. No convincing con-

textual reason is adduced why “eternallife” does not bear its usual meaning inthis text. Hodges, as we have seen, merelyobjects that such a reading involves merit.The objection reveals that his definitionof eternal life is not contextually groundedhere. The most natural way to read the textis to see the contrast between “destruc-tion” and “eternal life” as indicating thatheaven itself is at stake in this warning,not merely rewards or fruitful Christianliving. Clearly, the need to sow to theSpirit for eternal life is not any more“meritorious” than the need to believe tobe saved.

The lengths to which advocates of thisview will go to preserve their theology areremarkable. Thus, the insistence of James(2:14-26) that faith without works is deadand idle (vv. 17, 20, 26), that faith withoutworks will not save (sosai, v. 14) and thatfaith without works does not justify

(dikaioo, vv. 21, 24, 25 and dikaiosyne, v. 23)are understood to refer to the death-deal-ing consequences of sin in this life. This isan astonishing move since salvation andjustification are typically associated in theNew Testament with entering heaven.And one suspects that a hermeneutical apriori dictates the exclusion of such inJames. Eaton even argues that the descrip-tion of Abraham’s faith in Romans 4:17-22 relates to rewards and not eternal lifesince the text emphasizes the persistenceand unwavering quality of his faith. Ro-mans 4:17-22, the very text in whichAbraham’s faith serves as a model of thekind of faith which is saving, is now rel-egated to a text on rewards. Such an ex-egesis violates the character of chapterfour, for even in Eaton’s scheme the firstpart of the chapter describes Abraham’ssaving faith and the last section the faithwhich gave him a reward. A simpler read-

46

ing is to be preferred. In the first part ofRomans 4 Paul explains that Abrahamwas saved by faith and not meritoriousworks, and in the latter part of the chap-ter the nature of Abraham’s saving faith isexplained.

Similarly, the loss of salvation viewshears discipleship off from salvation, sothat discipleship relates to rewards and afruitful Christian life. Good works arenecessary to enter the kingdom of God(Gal 5:21; 1 Co 6:9-11), but the kingdomof God is understood to refer to rewardsand significant progress in the Christianfaith in this life. Examining each textwhich is used to defend such distinctionswould require at least a book. At this junc-ture the text about the rich ruler in Mark10:17-27 can function as a brief test case(Mt 19:16-30, Lk 18:18-30). The ruler askswhat he can do to “inherit eternal life”(10:17). Jesus summons him to obey thecommandments and cites some com-mands from the second table. When theman replies that he has kept such com-mands, Jesus says that for him to havetreasure in heaven he must sell all, givehis possessions to the poor, and followJesus. Some have understood treasure inheaven (v. 21) to refer to rewards, but thesubsequent narrative rules out such an in-terpretation. Jesus, reflecting on the ruler’srefusal to give up all, comments that it isvery difficult for the rich to “enter thekingdom of God” (vv. 24-25). The disciplesare stunned by Jesus’ words and ask,“who is able to be saved?” (v. 26). If Jesusheld the loss of salvation view, we wouldexpect him to say, “Don’t confuse the is-sue. We are not talking about salvationhere, but rewards. Certainly this man issaved. But he will not live a very fruitfullife and experience the rewards of otherChristians.” Of course, Jesus says none of

these things. He replies to the question ofhis disciples by saying, “With men this isimpossible, but not with God, for allthings are possible with God” (v. 27). Inother words, salvation is a miracle of Godwhich causes people to love God so muchthat they are willing to put him first intheir lives. Notice that the terms “eternallife” (v. 17), “kingdom of God” (vv. 24-25),and “save” (v. 26) are all synonyms in thistext. There is no evidence whatsoever fordistinguishing between them. Indeed, inthis passage “treasure in heaven” is alsoa term for eternal life (v. 21). It is interest-ing that Hodges interprets the passage interms of rewards, and says that Jesus isbeing subtle here, sending the man awayto reflect on what is necessary to gain re-wards above and beyond eternal life.67 Inreply, I cannot imagine why Jesus wouldbe so confusing if he held Hodges’ view.He had a golden opportunity to distin-guish clearly between rewards and get-ting to heaven, and he sent the man awaywithout clearly drawing the necessary dis-tinctions. Indeed, he gives the impressionthat the rich man must give up his pos-sessions for eternal life, entrance into thekingdom, and salvation! Contra Hodges Isuggest that such an impression is givenbecause Jesus meant exactly what he said,and in the mind of Jesus (and Mark) suchstatements did not compromise the gra-cious character of salvation.

Another test case for the loss of salva-tion view are the warning passages inHebrews. They rightly argue that thewarnings are addressed to believers, butalso maintain that the punishments de-scribed relate to loss of rewards ratherthan the loss of eternal life. It is preciselyhere that McKnight’s study is so valuable,for he correlates the warning passages sothat they function in a mutually interpre-

47

tive fashion. That is, one should not studythe warnings in isolation. One should readthem together to discern what the authormeans. McKnight is also correct in sayingthat the warnings relate to hell, to eternaldestruction. Doubtless not all will be con-vinced when such controversial texts arein view. For my part, I find it impossibleto believe that the punishment is anythingshort of hell if one “tramples under footthe Son of God, considers defiled theblood of the covenant by which he wassanctified, and insults the Spirit of grace”(Heb 10:29). If one tramples the Son ofGod in disgust, considers Jesus’ blood tobe defiled, and mocks and scorns theSpirit of grace, then the penalty is eternaljudgment. The fierce vengeance of God(Heb 10:30) and his consuming fire (Heb12:29) are descriptions of eternal punish-ment. If one crucifies the Son of God andputs him to open shame, then he or shedoes not belong to God (Heb 6:6). To be“unapproved” (adokimos—Heb 6:8) is tobe destined for the curse. And note that itis not merely the fruit which is burnt (Heb6:8), but the land (hes) which produces thecrop. The destiny for the righteous is noth-ing less than God’s rest (Heb 3:11), whichGod’s people now enjoy and will inheritin full at the day of salvation (Heb. 4:3, 9).

The loss of rewards view is attractivebecause it gives great security to the be-liever, but it destroys the inseparable con-nection between faith and works, itintroduces improbable and strained ex-egesis into text after text, and minimizesthe awesomeness of the warnings in theNew Testament. It is also the case that thisview does not rightly interpret the retro-spective texts in the New Testament, andso false assurance may be given to thosewho are heading for eternal destruction.We are dealing here with the very heart

of the gospel, the relation between faithand works, and by saying that there is noneed at all for works they deny what thescriptures insist is necessary.

Critique of Tests of Genuineness View

Although I am offering a critique of thisview, it is in some ways the closest to myown, and so I believe it is in some waysthe strongest of the alternative positions.Those supporting this interpretationrightly teach that the promises of God areunbreakable. Those whom he has elected,predestined, called, and justified will cer-tainly be glorified. No genuine believerwill ever apostatize, not because of hisown strength, but because of God’s sus-taining grace. The relationship betweenfaith and works is also helpfully ex-plained. Faith and works are ultimatelyinseparable, for works are the fruit ofwhich faith is the root. Thus, James de-mands works in order to be justified, butthese are works which flow from faith. Nocompromise of or contradiction with sola

fide or sola gratia is involved in insistingthat works are an evidence of genuine sal-vation. Finally, the retrospective charac-ter of the some of the texts in the NewTestament is incontrovertible. When Johnconsiders those who have left the savedcommunity, he clarifies that they werenever truly part of the people of God (1 Jn2:19). Similarly, Paul observes thatHymenaeus and Philetus have “upset thefaith of some” (2 Ti 2:18). But ultimately,the faith of those who have left is superfi-cial and not genuine, for “the Lord knowswho are his” (2 Ti 2:19). Perseverance isthe means by which we discern whethera profession of faith is authentic. John’sgospel supports the same thesis. Some“believe” in Jesus (Jn 2:23-25, 6:60-71, 8:31-59), but that the faith is not genuine sav-

48

ing faith is manifested by their failure toabide in Jesus. The tests of genuinenessview rightly discerns that persistence infaith is the evidence that one truly belongsto the people of God. When one aposta-tizes, it is because they were never genu-inely Christians. These texts grant us aretrospective perspective so that we canlook back and discern the true state of af-fairs in the lives of those who have aban-doned the faith.

This perspective helps us understandwhat the scriptures mean when theyspeak of Hymenaeus and Alexander ashaving shipwrecked their faith (1 Ti 1:19-20), of Demas as forsaking Paul and lov-ing the present world (2 Ti 4:10), and ofHymenaeus and Philetus as forsakingthe truth of the gospel (2 Ti 2:17-18). Suchverses should not be understood to saythat these people have apostatized, thatthey were truly Christians who have re-nounced the faith. The language Paulemploys is phenomenological, for thosein question gave every indication of be-ing part of the redeemed community.Their failure to continue in the truth, how-ever, reveals that their “profession” offaith was invalid. Retrospectively we per-ceive that they were never part of thepeople of God. Nonetheless, Paul speaksof a shipwreck of faith and forsaking thetruth because they gave some indicationsof genuine conversion. The tests of genu-ineness view rightly perceives that thereare some in the church who have experi-enced a number of blessings and hadsome experience of spiritual things—without ever having been saved. Jesus’explanation of the parable of the sower(Mt 13:18-23) bears out this understand-ing. Some initially respond to the wordwith joy and receive it as truth, but theyfall away when persecution and the cares

of the world impinge upon them. Suchpeople, though giving initial evidence ofconversion, were never part of the peopleof God. Only those who persist in the faithand bring forth good fruit are truly partof the redeemed community. The tests ofgenuineness view rightly says that perse-verance is the sign of genuineness, andthat such a test should be applied retro-spectively. When we gaze back upon thosewho have ceased to run the race, we per-ceive that they were wolves in the midstof the sheep.

In terms of its overall coherence andpersuasiveness the tests of genuinenessview surpasses all the others. Nonetheless,a serious weakness emerges in this view,which renders it unpersuasive in terms ofits understanding of the warning passages.This weakness can best be detected by re-sponding to S. Lewis Johnson’s interpreta-tion of Colossians 1:21-23 and theinterpretation proposed for the warningpassages in Hebrews. Colossians 1:21-23says that one will be presented beforeGod’s presence on the last day if one re-mains in the faith. Johnson understandsthis word as a test for those who professfaith. Those who do not fulfill the warningreveal that they were never believers. Inother words, the warning functions retro-

spectively to determine whether one’s ini-tial profession of faith was genuine. I havealready indicated that such retrospectivetexts are indeed in the scriptures. The er-ror Johnson makes here, however, is theassumption that Colossians 1:21-23 is to beunderstood retrospectively. Colossians1:21-23 is a prospective text. It does not say,“Your perseverance reveals that you arereally part of the people of God.” It merelysays, “If you remain in the faith, you willbe presented before God’s presence blame-less.”68 By inverting the text, Johnson fails

49

to communicate the function of the warn-ing, for Paul does not summon us to lookback and see if we are genuinely Christians.He calls us to remain faithful to Christ inthe future and threatens us with eternal de-struction if we apostatize.69 The tests ofgenuineness view subverts the function ofthe warning texts in the scriptures by rob-bing them of their prospective role. Paulin Colossians 1:21-23, and many other texts,warns believers that if they do not persistin the faith, they will be damned. Contraryto the tests of genuineness view, I believePaul means exactly what he says: “If wefall away from Christ, we will face eternaldestruction.” That message should bepreached from our pulpits, taught in ourseminaries and colleges, and reflectedupon in private devotions.

The warning passages in Hebrews alsofunction as a point of divergence betweenme and those who espouse the tests ofgenuineness view. Investigating thesetexts is useful, for how we handle thewarnings in Hebrews is paradigmatic forother warning texts in the scriptures. Wesaw that Wayne Grudem is a particularlyeloquent defender of the view that thosewarned against apostasy are “almostChristians.” He shows that such a read-ing is a possible reading of the warnings.In the short space granted here I canhardly respond in detail to Grudem’s finedefense of that view. I can only indicatewhy Grudem’s interpretation, though pos-

sible, does not seem to be the most plau-

sible reading of the passage. A number ofinterpretations, after all, may be possible,but our task as interpreters is to select theinterpretation which is most probably in-tended by the author. The heart and soulof Grudem’s view is located in his expla-nation of the terms used to describe thereaders in the warnings in Hebrews 6:4-6

and 10:26-29. The readers have been sanc-tified, have come to know the truth, areenlightened, have become partakers of theHoly Spirit, have tasted the heavenly gift,the word of God, and the powers of thecoming age. Despite all these advantages,they are not, according to Grudem, genu-ine Christians. If the author had intendedto say clearly that they are Christians, hewould have said their sins are forgiven,their consciences are cleansed, etc.

In response, I cannot help but think thatGrudem has rigged the categories so thatthose described in Hebrews 6:4-6 and10:26-29 are excluded as genuine Chris-tians. He erects two different categories inwhich one set of terms certainly refers tobelievers and the other set of terms doesnot necessarily describe true Christians.Methodologically, the basis upon whichGrudem places items in the certain or un-certain categories is unclear andunpersuasive.70 On what methodologicalbasis can we say that those who have re-ceived forgiveness of sins, exercised faith,hope, and love, and have been cleansed inconscience are certainly Christians, butthose who are sharers of the Holy Spiritand sanctified are not? Could not the testbe turned around to say that some of theHebrews have exercised a little faith, hope,and love, but their “faith, hope, and love”are not saving since they did not persist inthe faith?71 For example, Grudem suggeststhat the sanctification described in He-brews 10:29 is outward and ceremonialsince it occurs in a context where it is com-pared with Levitical sacrifices.72 But a simi-lar argument could be made regarding thecleansing of the conscience (Heb 10:22), forthe author contrasts the cleansing of theconscience with that provided by the Lev-itical system. Thus, on Grudem’s ownterms it is methodologically possible that

50

the cleansing of conscience is also external

and not saving. In my view, however,Grudem misinterprets the reference to thebeliever’s sanctification in Hebrews 10:29.The contrast with Levitical sanctificationis intended to emphasize the superiorityof Christ’s work. The contrast and compari-son with the Levitical system does not in-dicate that the sanctification provided byChrist is merely external, for throughoutHebrews the old covenant outwardly sym-bolizes what is now an inward realitythrough Christ. Grudem, by relegating thesanctification in Hebrews 10:29 to ceremo-nial sanctification, actually contravenes oneof the major themes of Hebrews, namely,what was anticipated in shadowy form inthe Old Testament has now become a real-ity in and through the sacrifice of Christ.The main point being made is that there isno firm basis upon which we can say thatthe descriptions of the audience in He-brews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 are distinct fromthe terms used to describe the readers asChristians in Hebrews. It is likely thatGrudem introduces such a distinction topreserve the idea that believers cannot losetheir salvation. Unfortunately, the text ofHebrews itself does not support the ideathat those addressed in the warning pas-sages are “almost Christians.” When thetext says that the readers have been enlight-ened, been made partakers (sharers) of theHoly Spirit, have come to the knowledgeof the truth, and have been sanctified, theintention is to say that they are Christians.73

Whether the text is addressed to Chris-tians is very important for how one inter-prets and applies the warnings. In the testsof genuineness view the warning is not re-ally for genuine believers at all, for thoseaddressed are not really believers. Accord-ing to this view, if the warnings were in-deed addressed to believers, then believers

could apostatize. But since they are con-vinced that those who are elect never apos-tatize, they conclude that the warnings arefor those who almost became believers, who

have had many powerful spiritual experiences

without being saved. Thus, the function ofthe warnings is twofold for those who holdthis view. First, the readers are called uponto discern whether their conversion isgenuine. Second, the warnings again func-tion retrospectively. If you do apostatize,you reveal that you were never a genuineChristian. I believe that both of thesethemes are found in the New Testament.Second Corinthians 13:5 says to examinewhether we are genuinely believers, and Iargued above that retrospective texts arepresent in the scriptures. The warnings inHebrews have neither of these functions,so we are robbed of the contribution of thewarnings to the canon if we swallow themup in the previous two themes. The threatsin Hebrews are not designed to force us toconsider whether our conversion experi-ence was real, nor are they designed as ret-

rospective tests of our salvation. Thewarnings are prospective. Hebrews warnsbelievers that if they apostatize, then theywill be damned. It is interesting to seethat some writers, such as Nicole andGrudem,74 argue that some of the readershave already committed the sin of apos-tasy warned against in Hebrews. Such aconclusion is a serious error. The text no-where says that any of the readers have com-

mitted apostasy. It warns them against doing

so. To read the “if’s” as if they meant“since” violates the basic rules of grammar.The conditional “if” is the language of sup-position and hypothesis. The author warnsthe redeemed that if they commit apostasy,they will be damned. He never says that

they have committed apostasy.In summary, the tests of genuineness

51

view perceives many elements of the bib-lical teaching correctly. Their understand-ing of the warning texts, however, isunconvincing. They apply retrospectiveglasses to prospective texts, and they failto see that the warning passages are ad-dressed to Christians.

Critique of the Hypothetical View

The hypothetical view under consid-eration is that presented by ThomasHewitt. Marshall, though saluting thework of G. C. Berkouwer, places him inthe same category as Hewitt.75

Berkouwer ultimately sees the warningsand admonitions as hypothetical, but thefunction of the warnings is understoodin a manner radically different fromHewitt, and thus Berkouwer should beplaced in a different category fromHewitt. Berkouwer fits better in the“means of salvation view.” Hewitt’s ownunderstanding is completely inadequate,for the warning functions only to correct“wrong ideas.” If the author desired tocorrect the readers’ ideas, he had vehiclesother than admonition and warning toaccomplish his purpose. A simple expla-nation that apostasy was impossiblewould have been sufficient.76 The onlyfunction of the warnings in Hewitt’s viewis an intellectual one, and thus the reasonfor their presence is difficult to discern. Ithink it can be safely said that Hewitt’sunderstanding of the warnings will nevergain many adherents. No compellingfunction is assigned to the admonitions,and thus their presence remains some-thing of a mystery.

Critique of the Irresolvable Tension View

This view, proposed by GeraldBorchert, is one of the most attractive. Theadvantage of the view is that neither the

warnings or the promises are toned down.Both are allowed their function, and thelogical relationship between them is ac-knowledged to be mysterious. Believerstake both the threats and promises of thescriptures as God’s word to them, andthey do not cancel one side of the biblicalwitness in order to sustain the view whichis most attractive. It must also be said thatwe are prone to construct a system wherethe scriptures do not. Thus, we must beopen to the possibility that no resolutionto the tension between warning and as-surance is available. To say this is not toembrace irrationalism. We simply ac-knowledge that the scriptures teach sometruths which go beyond our present ra-tional capacities, realizing that God neverintended to explain everything to us fullyin this world. Other biblical doctrines,such as the Trinity and the two natures ofChrist, are mysteries. Such doctrines arenot irrational but suprarational. Similarly,it is possible that the relationship betweenGod’s promises and threats is beyond ourrational comprehension. Of course, weshould not opt for mystery the momentbiblical doctrines become difficult tograsp, for it is important to locate a mys-tery at the place where the biblical testi-mony does so. Otherwise, we may findourselves appealing to mystery beforecompleting the hard work of thinkingthrough the biblical teaching, and we maybe guilty of positing a mystery where onedoes not exist. It should also be noted thatBorchert in a private conversation has toldme that he is convinced that genuine be-lievers will never apostatize. He pointsout, however, that the Johannine literatureindicates that it is often difficult to pindown when someone is truly a believer.77

For the purposes of my critique, I am go-ing to address the issue of whether the

52

tension between the promises and threatscannot be reconciled.

The notion that an intractable tensionexists between God’s warnings and prom-ises cannot be dismissed, for certainlythere is a tension between the threats andpromises in the scriptures. It is unlikely,however, that the polarity is such that nological resolution is currently available.Indeed, in this instance it is difficult to seehow one can maintain both ideas withoutembracing a logical contradiction. For ifboth the warnings and promises are takenin such a way, it seems that one wouldhave to say: 1) “Believers will never losetheir salvation” and 2) “Believers can anddo apostatize.” If one were to inquire howboth propositions are true, the replywould be, “It is a mystery or paradox be-yond our understanding.” In this instance,the appeal to mystery simply does notwork. If genuine believers can truly apos-tatize and lose their salvation, then it issimply untrue that believers can neverlose their salvation. Alternatively, if genu-ine believers can never lose their salva-tion, then apostasy is impossible. Thesituation would be different if one wereto say that those who apostatized onlyappeared to be believers. But this is not themystery position, for it argues that both

apostasy and security are true. How can anindividual, though, at the same time beassured that he will never apostatize, andalso believe that he may commit apostasy?Inevitably, one side of the tension willemerge in the dominant position. I sus-pect that in most instances the teachingthat apostasy is possible but rare will bewhat is taught. In other words, in practice

the position will likely be quite close towhat has been argued by I. HowardMarshall. To conclude, the irresolvabletension view is not credible because it

ends up embracing a contradiction.

The Means of Salvation View:A Proposal

The interpretation I support is what Icall the means of salvation view. A num-ber of elements in my view are apparentfrom my evaluation of other positions andwill not be defended in detail here. Tosummarize, I believe that those who areelected, called, and justified will certainlybe glorified. No genuine believer will everapostatize. Nonetheless, the warning pas-sages in the scriptures are addressed tobelievers, and they are threatened witheternal destruction (not loss of rewards)if they commit apostasy. One might con-clude from this that I espouse some formof mystery in relating God’s promises andthreats, but an appeal to mystery does notwork in this instance since the notions thatbelievers will never fall away and alsomay possibly fall away cannot both betrue! Contrary to the hypothetical view asexplained by Hewitt, the warnings in thetext are real and serious. We must payheed to the warnings in order to be savedon the day of the Lord.

The last point needs further elabora-tion. How do we as believers receive thewarning passages? In our journey in theChristian life we receive them just forwhat they say. When we read the warn-ings in Hebrews, 1 John, Revelation 2-3,etc., we take seriously the threat that if wecommit apostasy, we will be eternallydamned. The warnings remind us thatfalling away from the living God has eter-nal consequences. They shout out to us“Danger!” They are akin to a sign on theroad which says, “Go no further. Steep cliffahead.” Any driver who wants to preservehis life takes heed to the warning and

53

turns around. Similarly, the warnings andadmonitions in scripture call out to us,“Danger! Do not fall away from the liv-ing God. If you deny him, he will denyyou.” It is precisely by taking the warn-ings seriously that we avoid eternal de-struction.78 The label “Poison!” on a bottleseizes our attention and awakens us to theperil which awaits us if we swallow itscontents. Thereby we take special carewhen handling such a container and donot put it in the same cupboard with softdrinks. The warnings in the scriptures arealso intended to arouse us from lethargyand propel us onward in the pathwayof faith. They provoke a healthy fear(Heb 4:1!), so that we are not casual andrelaxed about entering the heavenly rest.Of course, this fear is not the same thingas the paralyzing fear which suppressesall activity (1 Jn 4:18). It is the same kindof fear which causes us to put on our seatbelts when we drive and which causes usto place railings where a fall would bedeadly. Fear in these instances does notparalyze us but actually contributes to ourconfidence when driving or climbing.Similarly, hearing and obeying the warn-ings in scriptures does not sap us of con-fidence and assurance. It is the pathwayfor full assurance in the faith.79

What I am arguing, in other words, isthat adhering to the warnings is the meansby which salvation is obtained on the fi-nal day. Some protest that this is worksrighteousness, but such an objection failsto see that such perseverance is the fruitof faith and grounded in God’s sustain-ing and electing grace. Yes, works are nec-essary to be saved. No, this is not worksrighteousness, for the works are hardlymeritorious. The grace of God is so pow-erful that it not only grants us salvationapart from our merits, but also transforms

us. Christians are not only declared righ-teous but also experience observable andsignificant change in their lives. Thosewho propound the view that grace leavesus in the same state in which we are calledhave not really understood Paul (Gal 5:21;1 Co 6:9-11), not to speak of James (Jas2:14-26) and the message of the sermonon the mount (Mt 5:1-7:29). The life whichbegins in faith also continues in faith, forChristian existence is characterized by“the obedience of faith” (Ro 1:5, 16:26).Such faith is not confined to initial con-version but permeates the lives of thosecalled by God’s grace. Those who cry out“works righteousness” fail to see the dy-namic and ongoing character of faith, forjust as the faith which commences theChristian life is not meritorious, so toofaith which continues on the pathway tothe heavenly city is not legalistic.80 Ad-monitions and grace are not foes butfriends. Berkouwer rightly says, “Forwhat is striking about the Scriptures is thatthe passages concerning the steadfastnessof God’s faithfulness and the passageswith admonitions are inseparable. We donot encounter a single passage that wouldallow anyone to take the immutability ofthe grace of God in Christ for granted.”81

Jude calls on believers to “keep them-selves in the love of God” (Jude 21). Theimperative here reveals that this is ourresponsibility. To be spared from God’swrath on the last day we must keep our-selves in God’s love, and yet such self-keeping is ultimately not our work butGod’s, for it is God who guards us fromfalling so that we stand before his pres-ence with exceeding joy (Jude 24-25). Onceagain, Berkouwer explains clearly the re-lationship between these two differentverses in Jude.

54

We will never be able to understandthese words if we see the divine pres-ervation and our preservation of our-selves as mutually exclusive or as ina synthetic cooperation. Preservingourselves is not an independent thingthat is added paradoxically to thedivine preservation. God’s preserva-tion and our self-preservation do notstand in mere coordination, but in amarvellous way they are in correla-tion. One can formulate it best in thisway: our preservation of ourselves isentirely oriented to God’s preserva-tion of us.82

God’s preserving grace is certainly ulti-mate, and yet we cannot conclude from thisthat the exhortations and admonitions aresuperfluous. Nor is it legitimate to mini-mize the sense of urgency which pervadesthe warnings. Though God undergirds allour effort, it is still the case that we mustdo what the scriptures command.

Others may worry that the call to per-severance involves perfectionism. Perse-verance and perfection, however, arescarcely the same thing. We all fall shortin many ways (Jas 3:2). While we walk inthe light, the blood of Jesus cleanses usfrom sin (1 Jn 1:7), so walking in the lightcan hardly involve perfection. Otherwise,there would be no need for cleansing ofsin! Paul was keenly aware that he hadnot yet attained to the perfection thatwould be his in the eschaton (Php 3:12-14).It would also be a mistake, however, toadopt an all or nothing stance. Eventhough believers are not perfect, there aresignificant changes in our lives. The path-way of faith is described by Paul as “theobedience of faith” (Ro 1:5; 16:26). Ourelection and calling are confirmed whenwe live in a godly way (2 Pe 1:10-11). I amnot advocating perfection but there isgodly direction. Those who are called andelected continue in the journey of faith andmanifest in substantial and significant

ways the character of their heavenly Fa-ther and elder brother, Jesus (Ro 8:29).

The most common objection is that thewarnings can hardly be taken seriously ifno one, in fact, can actually lose their sal-vation. My thesis is that the elect always,without exception, pay heed to the warn-ings and thereby obtain eternal life. Mostrespond by saying that the warnings aremeaningless and beside the point if onecannot commit apostasy. We do not warnpeople about dangers that can never berealized. The words of Roger Nicole sum-marize this objection beautifully.

But, without wanting to minimizethe significance of scriptural admo-nitions and their effectiveness inGod’s plan, it would appear odd thatthis one, and it alone, should be en-tirely efficacious, when other divineexhortations and warnings are infact occasionally disregarded byman. This would be a very strangephenomenon. If, in fact, the sin con-templated in Heb. 6 simply cannotbe committed, it would seem absurdfor the author to dwell on it preciselyat the time when he avows that hewill ‘press on.’ When there is an in-superable barrier there is no need togive warning concerning dangers onthe other side! This type of interpre-tation shows a wholesome regardfor the strength of the scriptural doc-trine of perseverance, but it tends toartificiality.83

Contra Nicole, I contend that the under-standing proposed here is not artificial atall, for heeding the warnings is the meansby which the promise is obtained. It israther surprising that a Calvinist, such asNicole, would raise this objection, since onewould expect it from an Arminian.Arminians, after all, are convinced that thesummons to belief in the scriptures indi-cate that believing is ultimately due to thehuman will. Calvinists, on the other hand,while not minimizing the human respon-

55

sibility to believe, insist that faith is ulti-mately the gift of God.84 I am suggestingthat the warnings work in the same wayas initial saving faith. Human faith is thenecessary means or instrument of salva-tion, but for the Calvinist such faith is cer-tain in the lives of the elect, for God haschosen whom will have such faith beforethe foundation of the world.85 Nonetheless,God’s unconditional election does not by-pass human means but employs them.That is, God’s decision to elect some un-conditionally becomes a reality in historythrough human faith. Moreover, when thegospel is proclaimed, the message that isproclaimed is not, “See if God has givenyou faith.” On the contrary, the listenersare urged to “repent and believe.” We aresummoned to believe in Christ and to turnfrom sin. If saving faith is exercised, it isultimately a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9), andthere is not a single instance in which God’selecting grace is frustrated. Those who areelect always exercise the faith needed forsalvation. We do not deduce from this thatthe summons to saving faith is superflu-ous. Quite the contrary. God’s electinggrace always uses the means of humanfaith to secure salvation. So, too, the perse-verance of the saints is sure because ofGod’s preserving grace. It will not fail in asingle instance. And the warnings and ad-monitions of the scriptures are one of themeans by which this preserving grace be-comes a reality in the lives of believers. Tosay that the warnings are besides the pointand artificial if no one can commit apos-tasy is like saying the call to belief is a cha-rade if all the elect will certainly believe. Ican see why an Arminian would find thisargument persuasive, but it should not winover any Calvinist.

Are there any scriptural examples inwhich God’s promise is unbreakable and

yet the warning is to be taken seriously?Of course, I would maintain that scriptureis suffused with such examples. But per-haps it will help if we illustrate such atheme from a text which is notsoteriological in nature.86 The shipwreckstory in Acts 27 is one of the most colorfulin the scriptures. The storm struck withsuch fury that all aboard despaired of liv-ing (Ac 27:13-19). Paul, however, receiveda word from the Lord that every singleperson on the ship would be saved, i.e.,every single person’s life would be pre-served (27:20-26). The word that all aboardthe ship would live was a divine prom-ise, pledging safety for all. Some of usmight be inclined to relax and “take iteasy” after receiving such a promise. Paul,on the other hand, did not think that sucha promise ruled out the need for admoni-tions and warnings. This is clear as weread on in the narrative. The sailorsfeigned that they were merely loweringanchors, when actually they intended tolower the lifeboat and escape the ship (Ac27:29-32). Paul responded by warning thecenturion that if the sailors left the shipthe lives of those on board would not bepreserved. Why would Paul even botherto admonish the centurion about thescheme of the sailors? After all, he alreadyhad received a promise from an angel thateveryone on the boat would escape withtheir lives. Paul did not reason the waymany of us do today, “God has promisedthat the lives of all will be saved, there-fore, any warning is superfluous.” No, theurgent warning was the very means bywhich the promise was secured. Thepromise did not come to pass apart fromthe warning but through it.87 This sameapproach should be applied to the prom-ises and threats in the scriptures regard-ing our salvation. It is by means of taking

56

the warnings seriously that the promiseof our salvation is secured.

A second example, from the escha-tological discourse in Mark 13, may be use-ful. In this chapter Jesus emphasizes theintense affliction which will occur in thefuture. Indeed, the trouble will be so greatthat no previous affliction can comparewith it (13:19). The disciples are urgentlywarned to beware (blepete) of being de-ceived since messianic pretenders will arise(Mk 13:5-6). In the light of the coming per-secution Jesus again summons his disciplesto be on guard (blepete—Mk 13:9). Surely,Jesus is warning his disciples against apos-tasy, for they will be tempted to align them-selves with false Christs when sufferingescalates. That salvation is at stake is con-firmed by Mark 13:13 with the words, “Butthe one who endures to the end will besaved.” Eschatological salvation belongsonly to those who persevere in faith untilthe end. Nonetheless, the Lord will makespecial provision for his elect, shorteningthe days so that they will be saved (Mk13:20). The salvation described in verse 20may be restricted to physical preservation;at least this is the view of many commen-tators. It seems, however, that their physi-cal preservation is an emblem of thespiritual preservation of the elect. The Lordshortens the time of affliction so that thechosen will not apostatize.

Whether or not such a reading fits verse20, it is certainly apropos in verses 21-23.“And then if someone should say to you,‘Look, here is the Christ, look there he is,do not believe him. For false Christs andfalse prophets will arise and they will dosigns and wonders, so as to deceive, ifpossible, the elect. But you be on yourguard. I have told you all things in ad-vance’” (Mk 13:22-23). Believers will beenticed to succumb to the claims of such

false Christs and prophets because signsand wonders are adduced to support theirclaims. If believers were deceived, thiswould hardly be a trivial matter, for ad-herence to false Christs and false proph-ets is nothing less than apostasy. Nobeliever worships any Christ besides Jesusthe Messiah! Still, Mark clarifies that theelect will not be deceived. If it were pos-sible for God’s elect to be deceived, thenthey would be captivated by such falseChrists. Such deception of the elect is im-

possible, however, and God’s chosen willcertainly discern false prophets and mes-sianic pretenders. Even though the electwill never be deceived and though it isimpossible for them to be deceived, theyare summoned to “beware” (blepete—Mk13:23). The exhortation to “look out” isfound in this text four times (13:5, 9,23, 33), and we have already seen thatonly those who endure to the endare promised salvation (13:13). Mark’seschatological discourse contains the ur-gent warnings, “look out, stay awake”(blepete, agrupneite—Mk 13:33). In verse 33Mark uses another verb which means“watch” (gregoreite), and the text con-cludes with the same verb, demandingconstant vigilance, “That which I say toyou I say to all, ‘watch’” (gregoreite—Mk13:37). Believers are exhorted to stay alertand be vigilant lest they commit apostasyand embrace messianic pretenders andfalse prophets in the future day of trouble.

We might be thinking, “But why aresuch warnings needed, since Jesus has al-ready said that the elect will never be de-ceived by such false Christs? We do notneed to be warned about something thatcan never happen!” Such musings arealien to the teaching of the scriptures, forJesus himself says that the elect will neverbe deceived by false Christs, and he admon-

57

ishes his followers in the strongest terms not

to be deceived by messianic pretenders. I con-clude that the warnings are the means bywhich the future preservation of the electis accomplished. Taking the warningswith the utmost seriousness is the path-way to eternal life. No philosophical a

priori should cast away the warnings onthe basis that the future salvation of theelect is certain. Those who say that thewarnings are superfluous if believers can-not apostatize will have a hard time squar-ing this text with such a theory, for Jesushimself teaches that deceiving the elect isimpossible, and he urgently warns believ-ers to be on guard against falling away.

The scriptures are full of warnings andthreats regarding entering the heavenlycity. We need to remember that these ad-monitions are prospective. “If” you fallaway, then you will be damned. We neednot deny the strength of the apodosis insuch sentences. If you or I apostatize, wewill be damned. So too, if we do not be-lieve in Jesus, we will not be saved. Weneed to beware of reading conditionalstatements as if they are a reality. The pro-spective statements of the scriptureshould be allowed to speak to people ontheir own terms. Thus, we should preachand teach the warnings for what they say.We should say what the scriptures sayagain and again, “If you apostatize, if youdeny Christ, if you turn your back on thegospel, you will perish.” Many will im-mediately think that we are denying thereality of perseverance. Unfortunately,they are turning the “ifs” of scripture into“thats.” Turning hypothetical statementsinto indicatives is a serious grammaticaland exegetical error. John 21:21-23 revealsthat such an error has ancient roots.88 Jesusspeaks to Peter about John and says, “If Iwant him to remain until I come, what is

that to you?” (Jn 21:22). Some respondedto such a saying by concluding that Johnwould never die! (Jn 21:23). They readJesus’ “if” as though it were a “that.” SoJohn clarifies that Jesus did not say Johnwould live until Jesus’ return, but only “if

I want him to remain until I come, what isthat to you?” (Jn 21:23). I am not suggest-ing that no “ifs” ever become “thens.” Insome circumstances the condition is ful-filled, and the “then” becomes a reality. Iam maintaining, however, that the gram-mar of an “if-then” statement in itself tellsus nothing about whether the “then” is apossibility.89 The function of an “if” state-ment is prospective, and it is a grammati-cal error to read it in other terms. Lestwhat I have just said is misunderstood, Iam arguing that in the texts which speakof apostasy, the “if” never becomes a re-ality. The God who unconditionally electspreserves believers until the end, yet be-lievers do not sail safely into the divineharbor without availing themselves of themeans which God has supplied to do so.They heed the warnings so that they donot make shipwreck of their faith.

The position argued here has been de-fended by G. C. Berkouwer. He says that,

Anyone who would take away anyof this tension, this completely ear-nest admonition, this many-sidedwarning, from the doctrine of theperseverance of the saints would dothe Scriptures a great injury, andwould cast the Church into the er-ror of carelessness and sloth.

The doctrine of the perseverance ofthe saints can never become an apriori guarantee in the life of believ-ers which would enable them to getalong without admonitions andwarnings. Because of the nature ofthe relation between faith and per-severance, the whole gospel mustabound with admonition. It has tospeak thus, because perseverance is

58

not something that is merely handeddown to us, but it is something thatcomes to realization only in the pathof faith. Therefore the most earnestand alarming admonitions cannot inthemselves be taken as evidenceagainst the doctrine of perseverance.To think of admonition and perse-verance as opposites, as contra-dictories, is possible only if wemisunderstand the nature of perse-verance and treat it in isolation fromits correlation with faith. For the cor-rect understanding of the correlationbetween faith and perseverance, itis precisely these admonitions thatare significant, and they enable usto understand better the nature ofperseverance.90

The admonitions, as we have seen, areprospective. Of course, the retrospectivepassages are in the scriptures as well.Those who do not persevere were nevertruly part of the people of God. But wemust not allow such retrospective texts toswallow up the prospective texts. Both arepart of the biblical witness and both mustbe preached. I have emphasized the roleof the warnings simply because their func-tion is often given short shrift in the Cal-vinist scheme, whereas Calvinists oftenand rightly apply the retrospective per-spective. We must allow the retrospectivetexts their proper function: those whoapostatize were never Christians. At thesame time, we also need the prospectivetexts. Our Father is so loving that he hasadmonished us about many false path-ways on our journey to the heavenly city.We will be saved on the day of the Lord,not by ignoring these threats but by tak-ing them with the utmost seriousness.

Let me make one personal commentabout my theology at the conclusion. If Iwere not convinced of unconditional elec-tion, I would surely be an Arminian. Thewarning passages are so strong that I canunderstand why many think that believ-

ers can lose their salvation. What is inter-esting to me is that there are so manybelievers who reject unconditional elec-tion and yet they hold on to eternal secu-rity. Such a position, I would suggest, isthe most inconsistent of all. I think it ismaintained not by virtue of detailed ex-egesis but as a theological a priori. May Ibe pardoned for thinking that such a po-sition flows more from the heart than thehead. Such people want to believe sobadly in eternal security that they leapover the warning passages and sustaintheir belief in eternal security. Personally,I find the Arminian view that believerscan and do lose their salvation much morebiblically coherent than such a position.Of course, I am convinced that both of theabove positions are wrong, for I am per-suaded that the scriptures do teach un-conditional election, and that God’selecting and sustaining grace is such thathis sheep will never perish. They neverperish precisely because they listen to theGood Shepherd’s voice which effectivelyadmonishes and warns them lest they failto follow him and perish.

ENDNOTES1I must acknowledge the tremendousassistance I have received from ArdelCaneday on this whole subject. We areco-authoring a book titled Run to Win the

Prize: Perseverance and Assurance which isdue to be published by InterVarsity.Caneday has influenced my thinking sig-nificantly on this issue, and I am alsograteful to him for some of the citationswhich appear in this essay.

2John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the

New Testament (London: The EpworthPress, 1952) 551.

3Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Sum-

59

mary of Christian Doctrine Based on

Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1981). See especially 337-365.

4Ibid., 349.5Ibid., 350.6Ibid.7Ibid., 352.8Ibid., 353-355.9Ibid, 353 and 355 respectively. For amore recent and spirited defense ofDale Moody’s views see his Apos-

tasy (Greenville, SC: Smyth &Helwys, 1991).

10Word of Truth, 338-339, 341, 343-343.11Ibid., 356.12Ibid., 357.13Scot McKnight, “The Warning Pas-

sages of Hebrews: A Formal Analy-sis and Theological Conclusions,”Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59.

14I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the

Power of God: A Study of Perseverance

and Falling Away (Minneapolis:Bethany Fellowship, 1969).

15Marshall’s conclusions are found on191-216.

16Ibid., 210-211.17Ibid., 103.18Ibid.19Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can

You Be Sure? (Nashville: ThomasNelson, 1990).

20R. T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always

Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).21Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under

Siege: A Study on Faith and Works

(Dallas: Redención Viva, 1981); andAbsolutely Free: A Biblical Reply

to Lordship Salvation (Dallas:Redención Viva, 1989 and GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1989).

22Michael Eaton, No Condemnation: A

New Theology of Assurance (Downers

Grove: InterVarsity, 1995).23Kendall, 49.24Ibid., 50-51.25Ibid., 52-53. Cf. the comment of John

F. Walvoord, “Having once acceptedJesus Christ as Savior, the believeris assured a complete salvation andeternal bliss in heaven on a graciousprinciple quite independent of at-taining a degree of faithfulness orobedience during this life. The origi-nal condition having been met, thepromise continues without furtherconditions” (The Millennial Kingdom,[Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959] 149).

26Stanley, 74, 93, and 94 respectively.27For the exposition of these views by

Kendall see 125-130, 159-184. For arecent and similar defense of theseviews see Eaton 112-113.

28Kendall, 177-178.29Eaton (216-217) proposes a similar

understanding of Hebrews 6. Healso suggests that inheritance lan-guage should not be equated withgoing to heaven, 178-179.

30Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 80-82.

31Hodges, Absolutely Free, 67-88.32Ibid., 104.33Ibid., 124-126.34It is instructive that Eaton (180-185)

argues that Abraham’s persistenceof faith in Romans 4 does not relateto salvation but only to rewards. Itappears that a new way of under-standing the tension between Pauland James is emerging in this view.

35S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "Studies in theEpistle to the Colossians: IV. FromEnmity to Amity,” Bibliotheca Sacra

119 (1962) 147.36John Owen, Hebrews: The Epistle of

Warning (Grand Rapids: Kregel,

1953) 96-98. This work is an abridge-ment by M. J. Tyron of John Owen’sExposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

originally published in eight vol-umes. Roger Nicole, “Some Com-ments on Hebrews 6:4-6 and theDoctrine of the Perseverance of Godwith the Saints,” in Current Issues in

Biblical and Patristic Interpretation:

Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney

Presented by His Former Students, ed.Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rap-ids: Eerdmans, 1975) 355-364;Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance ofthe Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews6:4-6 and the Other Warning Pas-sages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of

God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical

and Practical Perspectives on Calvin-

ism, Volume One, ed. Thomas R.Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (GrandRapids: Baker, 1995) 133-182.

37Nicole, 362.38Interestingly, Nicole maintains that

those addressed have already fallen(355), “What is the sin that they havecommitted and which places thembeyond recovery?” See also his com-ments on p. 359. Contra Nicole thereis no evidence that the sin had al-ready been committed. The text con-tains an admonition and a warning,and one should not read an “if-then” statement with the view thatthe “if” is already realized. Thestatement is grammatically hypo-thetical.

39Owen, Hebrews, 96.40Ibid., 97.41Ibid.42Ibid.43Ibid., 98.44Grudem, 157-159.45Ibid., 162-168.

60

46Ibid., 163-164.47Ibid., 172.48Ibid., 176-177.49Ibid., 177-178.50Ibid., 172-173, 179.51So Thomas Hewitt, The Epistle to the

Hebrews: An Introduction and Com-

mentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1960) 111; Nicole, 356.

52B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the He-

brews: The Greek Text with Notes and

Essays (London: Macmillan; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 165.

53Cf. Westcott, 151. Rightly suggestedby Marshall, 146.

54Hewitt, 110-111; cf. also Homer A.Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews:

A Commentary (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1972) 113-114. Actually, Kentexplains his view in a way that issuperior to Hewitt’s. Unfortunately,he does not distinguish his viewsufficiently from Hewitt’s.

55Gerald L. Borchert, Assurance and

Warning (Nashville: Broadman,1987).

56Borchert has indicated in a privateconversation that it was not his in-tention to resolve the tension be-tween assurance and warnings inhis book, and that ultimately truebelievers cannot lose their salvation.

57See especially, The Grace of God, the

Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Prac-

tical Perspectives on Calvinism, Vol-

ume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreinerand Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1995).

58S. M. Baugh, “The Meaning of Fore-knowledge,” in The Grace of God, the

Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Prac-

tical Perspectives on Calvinism, Vol-

ume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreinerand Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1995) 183-200.59For a more extensive discussion see

chapter 5 in the forthcoming bookRun to Win the Prize (cf. n. 1 above).

60J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC(Waco, TX: Word, 1988) 22.

61Michaels rightly observes ( 1 Peter,23) that since faith is linked to ourfinal inheritance, it is clear that faithis “understood as continuing trustor faithfulness.”

62Ernest Best, 1 Peter, NCB (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 77.

63There is a textual problem in thisverse which makes it quite difficultto interpret, but the point we derivefrom the text stands regardless ofhow one resolves the textual prob-lem or interprets the difficulty at-tending to it.

64John 17 could also be adduced toteach the same truth. For reasons ofspace it will omitted here. The textis examined in the forthcomingbook Run to Win the Prize. See n. 1.

65Marshall, 94, 114.66In support of the interpretation sug-

gested here see Judith M. GundryVolf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying

in and Falling Away (Louisville:Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 57-58; Eaton, 194. Gundry Volf’s workis an excellent defense of the notionthat God will preserve believers.Her explanation of the warningtexts, in my opinion, is not as per-suasive.

67Hodges, Absolutely Free, 186.68The citation marks represent my

paraphrase of the text. I am not in-tending an exact quotation.

69Nor is Johnson correct in saying thatthe “if” assumes that the conditionis already fulfilled. Conditional

clauses have been the subject of in-tensive study since Johnson wrote,and the notion that first class con-ditions always denote a conditionfulfilled has been decisively refuted(see especially the series of articlesby James L. Boyer in the Grace Theo-

logical Journal, “First Class Condi-tions: What Do They Mean?” 2[1981] 75-114; “Second Class Con-ditions in New Testament Greek,”3 [1982] 81-88; “Third (and Fourth)Class Conditions,” 3 [1982]163-175;“Other Conditional Elements inNew Testament Greek,” 4 [1983]173-188; cf. also Daniel B. Wallace,Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An

Exegetical Syntax of the New Testa-

ment [Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1996] 679-712). Indeed, it is likelythat rendering “since” for the word“if” is never fitting. For a defense ofthis view see the paper by ArdelCaneday presented at the annual1997 Evangelical Theological Soci-ety meetings in San Francisco.

70Grudem also argues, as we sawabove, that “the better things whichaccompany salvation” in Hebrews6:9 are to be distinguished from theambiguous experiences recountedin Hebrews 6:4-5. Contra Grudem Iunderstand the writer to be sayingthat “the better things which accom-pany salvation” are to be contrastedwith the curse threatened in the pre-vious context.

71Lest the reader should misunder-stand, this is a hypothetical state-ment, not my view of the text.

72Grudem, 177.73I am not denying that there were

some wolves among the sheep. Mypoint is that the author did not in-

61

tend in the warning to raise such asubject. He wants to warn the en-tire community, and thus he ad-dresses the whole church asbelievers in Christ.

74Grudem (173) says that “the peoplein this passage who experiencedmany blessings and then fell awayhad never truly been saved in thefirst place.”

75Marshall, 204-205.76Hewitt (106-108) does not commit

himself as to whether the warningswere addressed to genuine believ-ers. On the other hand, his exposi-tion of Hebrews 10:26-31 indicateshis acceptance of the view of Owenet al. that those addressed were notreally believers.

77The question of when belief is genu-ine is certainly one of the issueswhich must be taken into accountin constructing one’s view of perse-verance. I do not have space to in-teract with that issue here. John’sgospel does inform us that there aresome who “believe,” and their faithis not saving (Jn 2:23-25, 8:31-59). Onthe other hand, John wants thosewho believe to know that they haveeternal life (1 Jn 5:13).

78William Cunningham (Historical

Theology: A Review of the Principal

Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian

Church Since the Apostolic Age, Vol-

ume Two [Carlisle, PA: Banner ofTruth Trust, 1994 ] 500-501) arguesa similar position regarding warn-ings, saying that “their proper pri-

mary effect evidently being just tobring out, in the most impressiveway, the great principle of theinvariableness of the connectionwhich God has established between

perseverance, as opposed to apos-tasy, as a means, and salvation as anend; and thus to operate as a meansof effecting the end which God hasdetermined to accomplish, of en-abling believers to persevere, or pre-serving them from apostasy; and toeffect this in entire accordance withthe principles of their moral consti-tution, by producing constant hu-mility, watchfulness, and diligence.”

79The position maintained here issimilar in a number of ways to thatargued by Richard Baxter. See Timo-thy K. Beougher, “Conversion: TheTeaching and Practice of the Puri-tan Pastor Richard Baxter withRegard to Becoming a ‘True Chris-tian,’” Ph.D. dissertation TrinityEvangelical Divinity School, 1990,77-104. Beougher (80), commentingon Baxter ’s view, says, “Works,then, the prescribed expression offaith, are absolutely necessary forjustification at the last judgment.”He also says (85) that Baxter empha-sized “the necessity of continuedacts of faith to bring us safely to theultimate justification at the finaljudgment.” Baxter also says, “Godby commanding faith and repen-tance, and making them necessaryconditions of Justification, and bycommanding perseverance, andthreatening the Justified and Sanc-tified with damnation if they fellaway; and making perseverance acondition of Salvation, doth therebyprovide a convenient means for theperformance of his own Decree, ofgiving Faith and Repentance andperseverance to his Elect; For heeffecteth his ends by suitable moralmeans; and such is this Law and

Covenant, to provoke man to duefear, and care and obedience, that hemay be wrought on as a man.” Thecitation is taken from Beougher, 94.

80G. C. Berkouwer adds, “From theforegoing it would appear that any-one who sees a contradiction be-tween the doctrine of perseveranceand the numberless admonitions ofthe Holy Scriptures has abstractedperseverance from faith. Faith itselfcan do nothing else than listen tothose admonitions and so travel theroad of abiding in Him.” (Faith and

Perseverance, trans. R. D. Knudsen[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958]116-117).

81Ibid., 97. He goes on to say, “For inthe Scriptures, then, there is appar-ently no unbearable tension or op-position between the graciousfaithfulness of God and the dy-namic of life, because it is in thethick of the dynamic of the actualstruggle of life that Scripture speaksof perseverance in grace” (99).

82Ibid., 104. He also claims, “Preserv-ing ourselves does not imply that wecontribute our part and that Godcontributes His. Our preserving isoriented to His, and it is included init. Faith can never say, and will neversay, ‘This is our part’” (105). He con-tinues, “A rationalistic approach willnever be able to understand this har-mony. It will always end up with aview that places salvation ultimatelyin man’s hands” (106).

83Nicole, 356.84I realize the argument given below

would not convince any Arminian.My argument here is directed tothose, like Nicole, who are Calvin-ists but find the theory proposed

62

here to be artificial.85Berkouwer (90-91) rightly remarks,

“If anything is certain, it is this, thataccording to the Scriptures God’sgrace does not stop short at the lim-its of human freedom of choice.Whoever claims this is bound to seefaith and grace as two mutually ex-clusive and mutually limiting ele-ments in salvation, and he is boundto emerge with a doctrine of gracethat is synergistic in principle.”

86This example was suggested to meby Ardel Caneday.

87I realize that those who believe thatGod does not know most of the fu-ture free decisions of human beingswould explain this text in radicallydifferent terms. I do not have thespace here to respond to such a po-sition, one which is plagued withbiblical and theological difficulties.

88This example was suggested to meby Ardel Caneday, and is a promi-nent part of his paper presented atthe 1997 Evangelical Theological So-ciety meeting.

89One could protest that second classconditions contradict my point. Tobe precise, I am only referring to sec-ond and third class conditions here.Second class conditions do not per-tain to the controversy regardingwarnings in any case.

90Berkouwer, 110-111. He also says,“These admonitions, too, have astheir end the preservation of theChurch, which precisely in this wayis established in that single direc-tion, which is and which must re-main irreversible—the directionfrom death to life!” (121)