Does Hebrews 6 teach you can lose your salvation?

Todd Friel, a Reformed apologist has a video that was recently on my "recommended for you" videos on youtube:

Does Hebrews 6 teach you can lose your salvation?

To see that Friel has no exegetical bone in his body, watch this video (22:51 mins) and compare with the following exegesis of Heb 6 and related passages.

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt. Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and on the verse of being cursed; its end is to be burned over. Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation. (Heb 6:4-9 NRSV)

This pericope is one of the most commonly cited texts against various theologies of “eternal security,” which states that no truly justified believer will ever lose their salvation. This text has caused no end of headaches for those who hold to “once saved, always saved” or other theories of eternal security (e.g. Perseverance of the Saints [the “P” of TULIP]), which has led to a lot of scripture-wrenching to defend this false doctrine that is alien to the teachings of the New Testament church and text.

According to v.6, the apostates described, prior to their falling away, are said to:

1. Have once been enlightened.

2. Have tasted the heavenly gift.

3. Have been partakers of the Holy Spirit.

4. Have tasted the good word of God.

5. (Tasted) the powers of the age to come.

Their sin is not merely being a backslider, but the sin against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10), which in Latter-day Saint theology is also a grievous sin (D&C 132:26-27). Clearly, from the description above, we are talking about people who were truly "saved" or justified. For instance, in v.4, the word translated as "partakers” is the Greek μετοχος. This Greek term can be understood in the sense of a partner or a partaker, or even an associate, as can be seen in its other usages in this epistle:

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (μετοχος). (1:9)

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers (μετοχος) of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus . . . For we are made partakers (μετοχος) of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence firm to the end. (3:1, 14)

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers (μετοχος), then are ye bastards, and not sons. (12:8)

In addition to the perspicuity of this phrase, we also see the same people were once enlightened (Greek: φωτιζω) and again, in Hebrews, refers to true Christians:

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated (φωτιζω), ye endured a great fight of afflictions. (10:32)

This of course raises an interesting question one has to answer--when does a person become enlightened or illuminated? According to John 1:4, we read:

In him [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men.

Notice, spiritual  life is the light, which a true believer, not one who has a false confession of faith (cf. 1 John 2:19).

Beyond this examination, we also see that the people described in vv.4-6 had also tasted the good word of God. The Greek word translated as "tasted" is γευομαι. According to various lexicons, it also carries the meaning of "to experience" (e.g. Louw-Nida). Notice how this term is used in Heb 2:9:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory, and honour, that he by the grace of God should taste (γευομαι) death for every man.

From an analysis of the terms used to describe the apostates in view in this pericope, it is obvious from any meaningful exegetically-sound analysis, that they were true believers who were regenerated by the Spirit of God. To claim otherwise necessitates a purely eisegetical approach to the pericope.

Verse 8, which reads, "But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned," is another verse to be considered. The verse, describing the spiritual condition of these apostates, are said to be "near" (εγγυς) unto cursing, which is "to be burned." The Greek underlying the phrase, "to be burned" is καυσις which can mean "to be consumed [by fire]" and "being on fire," clearly showing that they are in danger of damnation at the final judgement.

There have been many attempts to downplay the soteriological significance of this text. The first would be to cite Heb 6:6 as it appears in the KJV (emphasis added):

If they shall fall away, to renew again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame.

Some apologists for some theology of eternal security latch onto the use of the use of "if," claiming that this is clearly hypothetical, not a real-life situation. However, as discussed in this post, this is a KJV mistranslation--the Greek is not conditional; instead, it uses the aorist active participle of the verb παραπιτω (παραπεσοντας), correctly rendered by NIV, "who have fallen away."

What about v. 19, where Jesus is said to be our anchor--doesn't this disprove the thesis that a true believer can lose their salvation? The verse reads as follows:

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain. (NIV)

Firstly, it should be noted that it is the height of eisegesis to ignore the clear teachings of vv.4-6 in light and relegate it, without any exegetical basis, as merely hypothetical in light of this verse (examined below). Such only shows the Evangelical claim to teach and accept the “perspicuity of Scripture” to be a shell game.

Furthermore, the context shows that one's salvation is not "eternally secure," but a believer must persevere:

People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. (Heb 6:16-18 NIV)

The text highlights the fidelity of God to His covenant and His own self (cf. Tit 1:2). This would tie into all the texts in Hebrews that emphasise the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice, one that can completely remit past and then-present sins, unlike the iterative sacrifice of the Old Covenant (cf. Heb 9:9). In Heb 7:24-25, for instance, we read:

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore h is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

However, just because God is faithful does not mean we will not cease being faithful, which is why there are admonitions permeating all of the Bible to true believers to remain faithful, warning of the great sin of true believers falling from their salvation. Note Heb 10:26:

For if we sin wilfully (αμαρτανοντων) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins.

The author of Hebrews (whom I believe to be the author of Luke-Acts), includes himself in this warning, and those who fall under this condemnation are said to have no more sacrifice (θυσια) for their sins, indicating that a sacrifice for sins was, at one time, applied to them (i.e. Christ's sacrifice).

As for v. 19, this is another example of trying to formulate a systematic theology from a metaphor (cf. the use of "dead" in Eph 2:1 and elsewhere to "prove" Total Depravity by some Calvinists). Many lexical sources, when defining αγκυρα admit that it is used metaphorically in Heb 6:19. Note, for instance, Friberg's Lexicon (emphasis added):

ἄγκυρα, ας, ἡ literally anchor for a boat or ship, a heavy weight, usually of stone or metal, attached to a rope or chain and dropped overboard to keep a ship or boat from moving; metaphorically, of what provides security or support (HE 6.19)

Therefore, only sound exegetical reading of this pericope is that the author is describing real people who were truly regenerated, and who, due to committing grievous sins, lost their salvation. Furthermore, one can appreciate why this is often touted as being the definitive “proof” from Scripture of the falsity of many popular theologies of salvation within much of Evangelical Protestantism today, as it soundly refutes eternal security and its various formulations. It also shows the biblical basis for the Prophet Joseph Smith’s words in D&C 20:30-32 (emphasis added):

And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savour Jesus Christ is just and true to all those who love and serve God, with all their mights, minds, and strength. But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God.

What about Heb 6:4 and "for it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened"? As one critic of eternal security writes the following:

In Hb 6:4, the word “impossible” is the Greek αδύνατον, a combination of the prefix “α” and the root “δυναμις,” literally meaning “without power.” It is the normal word for “impossible” in the New Testament (cf. Mt 19:26; Rm 8:3). It is used again in Hebrews 6:18, stating “it is impossible for God to lie,” and it is used for the same degree of “impossibility” in Hebrews 10:4 and 11:6. Hence, the word has a very specific meaning. Moreover, the companion passages of Hb 10:26-27 and 12:17 speak of the same type of “deliberate” sinning, which will soon end in God’s judgment, and thus salvation is “impossible.”

Two key verses in Hebrews 6 show the direction of St. Paul’s thought. The first is Hb 6:3: “And this we will do if indeed God permits.” It is clear that God is in control of the process of teaching and growth. Following this, 6:4 begins with “For it is impossible,” indicating by the word “for” that God must permit the learning and the subsequent repentance if anything is going to occur (compare 1Co 3:6’s use of planting imagery to show that “God gives the increase,” with the planting imagery of Hb 6:7-8 to show the result of what “God permits”). Hence, it is “impossible” for the apostate to repent, especially when it involves willful and deliberate rejection of the truth (cf. Mt 12:45; Jn 6:64-65; Rm 11:8). If the apostate does repent, it is only by a special movement of God’s grace, usually due to the prayers and sacrifices of others on the apostate’s behalf (cf. Mk 9:29; Mt 17:21— Douay-Rheims, KJV). In this sense, “God permits” or does not permit. What limits His permission is the constraint not to “crucify the Son of God all over again and subject him to public disgrace” (Hb 6:6).

The second key passage is Hb 6:8, which states that the individual who rejects the faith is “reprobate and near a curse, of which the end is for burning.” The use of “near” (Greek: εγγυς) shows that the individual is on the verge of death and judgment, if not for God’s grace to spare him. All in all, Hb 6:4 teaches that it is impossible for a willful apostate to repent, unless a special grace of God permits it to be so. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 353-54)

For more, see the relevant sections in the essay by Dan Corner, Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 Commentary (Eternal Sin: Unforgivable Sin: Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit), excerpted from his The Believer's Conditional Security

That the author of Hebrews explicated elsewhere the doctrine that truly saved people can lose their salvation can be seen in Heb 10:26-29. On his Alpha and Omega Ministries Website, James R. White has an article entitled, "Hebrews and the Atonement of Christ." This is, in part, a response to pp. 102-7 of Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis' book, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (1st ed; Queenship, 2000).

Near the end of the article, White attempts to interact with one pericope that is often cited, alongside Heb 6:4-6, as proof that a truly justified believer can lose their salvation, Heb 10:26-29. Before we reproduce White's comments, here is the 1995 NASB translation:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer a punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Sungenis (ibid, pp. 102-3) writes:

This is a significant passage for our present discussion. The use of the word “sacrifice” in this context demands an explanation as to why such a concept is even mentioned, if, as is claimed by non-Catholic opponents, the one-time acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice totally secures and completes one’s justification. How can opponents explain this passage when the ones addressed in the context of Hebrews 10 are practicing Christians? According to Hebrews 10:29, they have already been “sanctified.” Hebrews 10:32-34 adds that they had become noteworthy for having previously “stood their ground in a great contest in the face of suffering;” they had been “publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times stood side by side with those who were so treated;” they “had sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew they had better and lasting possessions.” The warning is clear that if they now decide to sin “deliberately,” then no more sacrifice is left or them, rather, “a fearful expectation of judgement.”

In an attempt to avoid the theological implications of this pericope, White (using some projection along the way), writes:

Sungenis follows up these comments with a reference to Hebrews 10:29.  He asserts this passage teaches one can fall away from sanctification.  He does not show any familiarity with the question of who it is who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant in this passage.  The great Puritan scholar, John Owen, wrote concerning who is the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29:

But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, -- to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office.  (John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, vol. 22, p. 676)

I will admit that when I first read White’s comments, it struck me as rather desperate, but forced upon him due to his a priori assumption that Reformed soteriology must be biblical.

In an article responding to White (no longer accessible online, but a copy is in my possession for those who wish to read it), "James White's 'Feature Article' and the Calvinist Dance Around the Book of Hebrews," Sungenis wrote in response:

Obviously, Owen can’t admit that the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29 is a Christian, for that would mean that the Christian could lose his sanctification, and if he lost his sanctification, he would lose his justification, and if he lost his justification, it means he was never predestined to salvation in the first place, and thus, you see, the whole edifice of Calvinism would topple in one fell swoop. Suffice it to say, the only ones who even dare interpret Hebrews 10:29 in the way White is suggesting are the Calvinists.

But, of course, once they make such a claim, then they create other exegetical problems out of which there is no escape. They are stuck with explaining how Christ can be “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” when the word “sanctified” or its derivatives are never mentioned as occurring with or to Christ. Perhaps White would like to start a new religion based on the fact that he thinks Christ was “sanctified,” but it will be a religion that has no basis in the Bible, for the Bible simply does not teach such a heretical idea.

They also must explain how and why the Hebrew writer, in Hebrews 10:29, suddenly shifts from talking about the Christian (“and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant”) to an abrupt reference to Christ in mid-sentence (“by which he was sanctified”). I have searched all my Greek lexical and grammatical aids, and not one of them says that it is grammatically justifiable to say that the “he” of “by which he was sanctified” is anything but the Christian spoken about in “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.”

In short, this is an outlandish claim of White’s, and it is just as heretical as his suggestion that Christ is the one who is sanctified. But this is what White is reduced to saying of Hebrews 10:29 in order to attempt to save face for Calvinism. It’s obvious why White didn’t cite any Greek grammars to support his claim, since none of them do so. The only thing he could find is some centuries-old Calvinist writer, who didn’t even address the Greek of the passage, as his only authoritative source. That, speaks volumes of the shoddy research and poor exegetical abilities of James White. One fatal flaw leads to another.

While I disagree with Sungenis on the thesis of his book (that the Catholic Mass is both biblical and historical), he is both spot-on in his book in rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as being biblical and this rather desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of Heb 10:26-29 from both White and Owen. While the verb αγιαζω can have the sense of "to consecrate" and is used of Jesus in John 10:35-36; 17:19 and 1 Pet 3:15, the meaning in Heb 10:29 is clearly soteriological, so cannot be used of Jesus but of redeemed/justified Christians. If Owen and White were consistent, they would have to argue, as do many Christadelphians, that Jesus offered up a sacrifice for himself for His own sin(s) (in the CD view, the sin of being human [not that White or Owen would hold to such--they would agree that Christ was sinless, but such is the precarious position one is placed with such eisegetical nonsense]).

Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle, while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:

We should also note that the author speaks of the blood “by which” the readers were “sanctified” (ηγιασθη). Here is powerful evidence that those addressed are truly believers, confirming what was argued in 6:4-5, for Jesus’ blood sanctifies, and sets them apart (cf. 13:12 and 2:11). Jesus by his once-for-all offering “perfected forever those who are sanctified” (10:14). Sanctification here is definitive and positional rather than progressive. It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews (2:11), not the one who is sanctified. Indeed, in chapters 10 and 13 the author clearly states three times that the death of Jesus sanctifies believers (10:10, 14, 12:12). Nor is it persuasive to say that the sanctification is not saving, comparing it to the sanctification under the old covenant (9:13), which only sanctified externally. The argument fails to persuade, for the point in Hebrews is that Jesus’ sacrifice stands in contrast to the sacrifices of the old covenant. His sacrifice is effective and truly brings sanctification. To say that his sacrifice only sanctifies externally, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, misses one of the major themes of the letter. Contrary to OT sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice truly cleanses the conscience. (Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Nashville: Holman Reference, 2015], 327)

James White's theological mentor, John Calvin, also believed that those who are said to be "sanctified" in Heb 10:29 are Christians, not the person of Christ:

The blood of the covenant,  etc. He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification. The apostle at the same time alludes to the ancient rite of sprinkling, which availed not to real sanctification, but was only its shadow or image

As with so many areas, James White fails on (1) biblical-exegetical grounds and (2) presents a marginal interpretation (out of desperation to prop up belief in Calvinism) of Heb 10:29 that is a rejected view even within Reformed circles, both historical and modern.

It should be noted that even White's fellow Reformed apologists who are also fellow anti-Mormons reject White's (and Owen's) eisegesis of Heb 10:29. Robert Bowman, on an LDS/Evangelical facebook page:

I'm not defending White's exegesis. It is a stretch to interpret "in which he was sanctified" to have "the Son of God" as its grammatical antecedent.

As an aside, for a detailed exegetical response to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a work White is rather fond of), see Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (2d ed; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1978).

That other biblical authors rejected the doctrine of eternal security/Perseverance of the Saints can be seen throughout the New Testament. For instance, the apostle Paul (I do not believe Paul wrote Hebrews) explicated such in many passages. For instance, in 1 Cor 10:12, Paul warned the Corinthian congregation that they would fall from salvation:

So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall (NRSV)

In spite of objections from those who advocate a form of eternal security, Paul is teaching that a true believer can lose their salvation. Responding to various attempts to get around the plain meaning of this passage, B.J. Oropeza responded thusly:

There are at least two important considerations which make this interpretation untenable. First, Paul begins 10:1-13 with the metaphors of salvation through the concepts of election and baptism-initiation in the Spirit and water (10:1-4). Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians those whom Paul addresses are considered to be saints, called, saved, cleansed, justified, sanctified, members of the body of Christ, and operating in the Spirit (e.g., 10:1, 6, 11 cf. 1:1-9, 18, 32; 4:15; 6:6, 11, 19f; 12:13). Paul stresses the solidarity of "all" of the Israelites who were called into these divine privileges indicating the genuine nature of these experiences. In Israel's tradition-history which Paul adopts, both Caleb (who made it through the journey) and Korah (who did not make it) participated in the "same" (το αυτο) exodus/wilderness experiences. Paul thus implies a common election that was experienced by all. Moreover, Paul calls the Israelites "our fathers" and transfers the salvific language of this passage to the Corinthians whom he believes are Christians. In his discourse on idol meats, Paul's language assumes the strong are genuine believers: 1) they, along with Paul, find their life through the same God and Lord (8:5-6); 2) they are not to offend the weaker αδελφος who belongs to Christ (8:11f); 3) they became Christians directly through Paul's effort (9:1ff); 4) they participate in spiritual matters and the new era (9:11, 24ff); and 5) they are members of the body of Christ (10:16ff).

Second, Paul's binary usage of the words "stand" (ιστημι) and "fall" (πιπτω) in 10:12 reinforce an interpretation that a genuine standing in grace and a real danger of falling into apostasy is at stake. Paul uses the perfect tense of ιστημι here as in Romans 11:20-22 where he gives another warning in the milieu of apostasy and high-mindedness. He also uses the word elsewhere in relation to apostasy and perseverance (Gal. 5:1ff; cf. 2 Thes. 2:14). Related to this usage is Paul’s understanding of ιστημι as denoting the idea of one’s standing in faith and grace or in the message of the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1f; 16:13; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 5:2; 11:20; Phil. 4:1; cf. 1 Pet. 5:12) . . . The idea of standing in faith might have as its basis the ancient Jewish concept of one establishing or standing on the word of the covenant (cf. Psa. 104:8-10 LXX). In the Deuteronomic tradition, standing in the covenant is set in contrast with departing from it (Deut. 29:13-18). In a broad sense, then, Paul may have understood this nuance of “stand” as pointing to the new eschatological covenant of the Christians. Hence, the converse of standing in a new covenant would be to fall away from it . . . Paul himself associates the terms “stand”/”fall” and “beware” with apostasy in some of his other letters. If the Galatian Christians stand in the liberty of Christ, they could escape falling from grace which occurs by attempting to be justified through the law (Gal. 5:1-4). Paul warns that those among them who are seeking to be justified by the law are “cut off” from Christian and “fallen from grace” (5:4: κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε.). In this letter, Paul is anxious that the Galatians will fall back into confining ritual and social practises; hence, he fears that the original gospel of liberty through the Spirit they received may have been in vain (3:4; 4:11; cf. 2:2; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Cor. 15:2) . .  Particularly significant is that the Corinthian argument of Paul in 10:1-13 is perfectly consistent with what he does in other letters. Similar to the Corinthian situation, the Galatian warning (βλεπετε μη—Gal. 5:15 cf. 1 Cor. 10:12) is set in the situation of falling away from grace (Gal. 5:1, 4 cf. 1 Cor. 10:5, 12), being hindered from running a course (Gal. 5:7 cf. 1 Cor. 9:24ff), ad being severed from Christ (Gal. 5:5; 4:30 cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 10:4-10). Paul also mentions leaven as a negative influence on the believers in both letters (Gal. 5:9; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7) and a condemnation on those who practise vices such as discord, dissensions, and factions. Such works of the flesh prevent one from entering the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7-8 cf. 1 Cor. 5:8f; 6:9-10; 10:7-10; Rom. 8:12-13). In relation to apostasy, the essential difference between the two letters is that the Corinthian warning focuses on the danger of apostatising through the abuse of liberty. In Galatians the congregations were erring in the opposite extreme—they were entangled by the works of the law and needed more liberty in Christ (Gal. 3-5). For Paul, those who taught another Gospel that hindered one’s liberty in Christ were accursed and their message was a perversion and desertion or turning away (μετατιθημι) from the true Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9 c. 1 Cor. 16:22). (B.J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 194-95, 196-97)

One final example we shall discuss is that of King David.

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This is further biblical disproof of the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

In his desperate attempt to salvage Reformed theology in light of one of the strongest passages against it, Friel shows that he went on an exegetical fishing trip, but not only does he lack any fishing poles, he never knew how to fish to begin with.