Reformed apologists
struggle with passages such as Heb 10:26-29 which clearly present individuals
who have been sanctified (in the ordo
salutis of Reformed theology, only those who have been justified and
regenerated are [salvifically] sanctified [both positional and progressive]):
For if we go on
sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no
longer remains a sacrifice of 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 on the testimony of
two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will
deserve who has trampled under 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? (NASB)
An example of the desperate attempts to get around this passage (and
similar ones, such as Heb 6:4-6) is exemplified by Keith A. Mathison.
A more difficult
passage, Hebrews 10:26-29 has at least three possible interpretations.
1. Those who “trample
under foot the Son of God” (v. 29) after “receiving a knowledge of the truth”
(v. 26) and being “sanctified” (v. 29) are like those in the parable of the
sower who spring up temporarily but later fall away or prove unfruitful (Matt.
13:20-22). They are in the covenant community externally and profess faith for
a time, but their apostasy proves that their faith was false.
2. Some suggest that the
word “he” in the phrase “by which he was sanctified” refers to Christ Himself,
and not an apostate man (cf. John 17:19). In that case, the person renouncing
the Son and the Spirit never was “sanctified” and never was the object of
Christ’s death.
3. Some suggest that this
apostasy is merely a hypothetical situation, not a real possibility. The
passage does not say that any for whom Jesus died will actually fall away. (Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Righty Dividing the
People of God? [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995], 66-67)
To see why
Mathison’s arguments are, to be blunt, pathetic and desperate, see:
For perhaps the best refutation of the false claim no true believer
would ever commission a sin so heinous as to lose their salvation, see:
To understand why Mathison
will not allow for the plain meaning of passages, and instead, has to engage in
such desperate contortions thereof, he is defending a dogma, namely, Calvinism.
For instance, he dogmatically claims the following, showing his unquestioning
loyalty, not to sound exegesis, but Calvinism and “Limited Atonement”:
No, Jesus died to
effectually purchase the salvation of God’s elect. He died to secure the salvation
of Moses and David and Elijah. He did not die for Jezebel and Pharaoh. That is
true of those who lived before the death of Christ, as well as those who live
after the Crucifixion. Jesus died to redeem His elect, not to make possible the
redemption of everyone. (Ibid., 62)
For a
thorough refutation of Limited Atonement, as well as many of the
presuppositions underlying Reformed theology, see:
If the name “Keith
Mathison” sounds familiar, he is the author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura. On the topic of Sola Scriptura, see my
lengthy work:
