Heb 10:26-29: A True Believer Can
Forfeit their Salvation
If we
deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,
no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and
of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the
law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How
much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has
trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood
of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
(Heb 10:26-29 NIV)
Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist and long-standing critic of
Protestantism, wrote that:
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 Hb 10:29,
they had 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 for them, rather, “a fearful expectation of judgment. (Robert
A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for
the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics
International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 85)
Indeed, the use of "were
sanctified" (ἡγιάσθη) in v. 29 is problematic for Protestant theologies,
esp. that of the Reformed persuasion, since the verse specifies that the
individual has fallen from sanctification. In Reformed theology,
sanctification cannot take place in the ordo salutis unless
justification had already occurred, yet it also maintains that if one falls
from the faith, he was never truly justified, being a false believer.
Commenting on this pericope, and in particular, how v. 29 (KJV: "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?") teaches that a truly justified Christian (not a false believer) can fall from their salvation, B.J. Oropeza wrote:
Regarding the first description (Heb 10:29a), καταπατεω is used of trampling something underfoot (cf. Matt 5:13; Luke 8:5; 12:1). In Matt 7:6 the “pigs” that trample on pearls probably identify apostates and false teaches as unclean persons who reject the gospel message, perhaps violently (cf. 2 Pet 2:22). At its most basic level the notion of trampling in Hebrews refers to the apostate rejecting the Son of God. More specifically the thought may connote breaking an oath (cf. Homer, Iliad 4.157), or it conveys a “cosmic reversal of fortune” when compared with Christ placing his enemies under his feet (Heb 1:13; 10:13). Another alternative relates the trampling to πατεω, which is associated with the profanation of that which is holy, such as Jerusalem or its temple being trampled underfoot. If so, then to trample on the Son of God conveys for our author a profanation similar to the enemies of God defiling God’s holy places. In any case the author’s use of the term “Son of God” implies repudiation of Jesus as the Son of God and eschatological ruler of the cosmos (Heb 1), a reversal of the Christian confession that was considered a brash challenge to Caesar according to Roman opponents and blasphemy according to Jewish opponents.
Regarding the second description (10:29b), the thought of reckoning unclean the blood of the covenant refers to a repudiation of the new covenant work of Christ involving his sacrificial death that provides the forgiveness of sin (cf. Heb 9:12, 13-14, 20; 10:19; Acts 21:28; Rev 21:17). Here the atoning death of Christ related to the new covenant is being denied, Johnson astutely writes, “The apostasy, in effect, reverses the effect of God’s priestly work” (Johnson, Hebrews, 265). Also significant in 10:29b is that the apostate was at one time “sanctified” (εν ω ηγασθη) through Christ’ sacrifice. There is no doubt that the author considers the apostate as being once a genuine Christ-follower thoroughly converted and cleansed from sin before his repudiation of the new covenant.
The third description (10:29c) asserts that the apostate outrages or insults (ενυβριζω) the Spirit of grace, implying insolence of the arrogant sort. Some interpreters associate the thought with blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is certainly possible, but the author probably intends to convey something more than this. The “Spirit of grace” relates to the arrival of the eschatological era and may echo Zech 12:10, a passage that our author would probably interpret as Christ’s death on the cross (cf. John 19:34-37; Rev 1:7). The idea, then, may refer to a repudiation of the baptism and outpouring of the Spirit during the end times, which was considered a gift (i.e., “grace”) associated with miraculous signs, conversion, and the believers’ new life in Christ (cf. Heb 2:4; 6:4; Acts 2:4, 38-39; 11:15-18; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 8:9; John 3:5).
The person in Heb 10:26-29 commits the sign of apostasy: he repudiates the confession of Jesus as Son of God, reverses his atoning death, and arrogantly rejects the gift of God’s Spirit. This apostate seems antagonistic towards his former faith. There is no longer remains a sacrifice that could bring this person back to right standing with God. Since Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice is considered unrepeatable, and this person has rejected this sacrifice, he cannot be renewed, nor can he turn to the old covenant priestly sacrifices that were offered yearly to cover sins, because according to our author such things were rendered obsolete by Christ’s sacrificial death (cf. 10:9, 18). In essence 10:26, similar to 6:4-6, teaches that it is impossible for the apostate to be restored (Lane, Hebrews, 2.291 adds some interesting parallels between 6:4-6 and 10:26-29, including past experiences [6:4-5; 10:26], the apostasy [6:6; 10:29], impossibility of renewal [6:4, 6; 10:26], and covenantal curse due to the apostasy [6:8; 10:27]. The main distinction for Lane is the cultic formulation of the last passage), and in 10:29, similar to 6:4-6, teaches that the apostate was once an authentic believer. (B.J. Oropoeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation [Apostasy in the New Testament Communities 3; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012], 50-52, italics in original, bold added for emphasis)
In a footnote for the above, Oropeza, responding to another commentator on the phrase “ by which they were sanctified,” noted:
Contrast Guthrie, Hebrews, 230, who translates the phrase εν ω ηγασθη as impersonal: “by which one is sanctified.” However, all the other singular verbs in 10:29 refer to the apostate (i.e., αξιωθησται, καταπατησας, ηγησαμενος, ενυβρισας). Also, if the author wanted to express that he was not referring to the apostate, he could have easily used a first or second person plural instead of a third person singular for αγιαζω in order to clarify this, similar to what he does by using οιδαμεν in 10:30 and δοκειτε in 10:29. More on target is Lane, Hebrews, 2.294, who writes: “This phrase [“by means of which he was consecrated”] in v. 29 corroborates that 10:26-31 is descriptive of the Christian who has experienced the action of Christ upon his life. (Ibid., 51 n. 218)
There is absolutely no exegetical “wiggle room”: eternal security/perseverance of the saints is explicitly refuted by this pericope. However, to be intellectually honest and represent the other side fairly
(something Brown does not do for Latter-day Saints), let us examine three
well-known Reformed authors (John Owen; James White; Keith Mathison) and their
attempt to explain Heb 10:26-29 in light of their Reformed soteriology.
The
Identify of the “Sanctified One” in Heb 10:16-29: Jesus?
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) which I myself have critiqued elsewhere on my blog, as well as in a full-length book, Do This in Memory of Me A Biblical and Historical Analysis of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Teachings Concerning the Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass (2021).
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?
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)
Mirroring the apologetic of Owen and White, Keith Mathison wrote the following:
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)
I will admit that when I first read the comments of White et al.,, 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)
John Calvin, the theological mentor of Owen, Wite, and Mathisonal, 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, Protestant apologists like White (whom Brown is a fan of) et al. 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).
Heb
2:17: The then-future sins of a Christian were not forgiven at their
conversion
Another significant text is Heb 2:17:
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrates the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.
Paul Ellingworth, a Protestant, wrote the following about Heb 2:17 and the use of ιλασκεσθαι, further showing that Jesus is a present propitiation (cf. 1 John 2:1-2):
The present verse suggests that he “became” high priest in order that he might continuously deal (ἱλάσκεσθαι present) with the people’s sins . . . Ἱλάσκεσθαι (cf. ἱλαστήριον, 9:5*, “mercy-seat”) is used in the NT only here and in Lk. 18:13**, where ἱλάσθητι means “be merciful” (cf. Est. 4:17h LXX; Dn. Th. 9:19). The present ἱλάσκεσθαι denotes continuous activity by one who remains high priest εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (5:6 = Ps. 110[LXX109]:4) following his exaltation. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 186, 188, emphasis added)
This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17:
εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).” (Marcus Dods, "The Epistle to the Hebrews" in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament, volume 4 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 269-70)
On the topic of the "ground of justification," a common theological concept brought up by Reformed theologians, and the intercessory work of Christ, Robert Sungenis noted the following in response to 19th-century theologian Charles Hodge:
[With respect to Rom 8:34] the main question that arises in this case, is why Christians need an “intercessor” for their sins if indeed, as Protestant theology teaches, that Christ has ‘once-for-all paid for their past, present or future sins’? The whole notion of Christ being an “intercessor” for sin to appease God’s wrath should be superfluous in Protestant theology. We grant, as Protestants teach, that a sinning Christian can be “out of fellowship” with God and thus needs to be restored, but as we have already seen in 2 Corinthians 5-6, 13, the “intercession of Christ “ and the “reconciliation of The Christian” are not limited to “fellowship” but include the very salvation of the Christian. In light of this, there are two important points concerning the “intercession” of Christ. First, as used in Rm 8:33-34, Christ’s intercession is in the context of justification. In Rm 8:33 Paul says, “It is God who justifies” and then says in the next sentence that “Christ Jesus who died…is at the right hand of God interceding for us.” This is why Paul can say in the next verse, “Who can separate us from the love of Christ?” Because Christ is continually interceding for us and justifying us before the Father, nothing can separate us from God, unless, of course, Christ stops interceding and the justification is taken away. This occurs when we sin mortally.
Second, when the Scripture speaks elsewhere of Christ’s intercession it is in the context of final salvation. Hb 7:25 states: “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” According to the grammar, Paul is explaining to us that because of Christ’s continual intercession to God, he is able to complete the salvation of those who come to God.[433] Simply put, the reason they can have their salvation completed is that Christ makes continual intercession for them. For Hodge, this presents a dilemma. On the one hand, he says the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to remit all past, present, and futures sins of the Christian. Yet Hodge admits above that is illogical to remit the punishment for sins that have not yet been committed. We will recall that his solution to this problem was to say that God did “not to deal with the Christian according to his transgressions” rather than to say the sins are forgiven ahead of time.
Thus, we would have to conclude concerning Hodge’s view that the continual intercession of Christ is for the very purpose of maintaining the promise of God not to deal with the sins of the Christian as he normally would have, i.e., with death. But we ask, why must the intercession be performed? Why is the forensic, once-for-all imputation of justification insufficient to maintain that promise of God itself? If the single act of imputation put in place the “irreversible justification,” does this not make the intercession of Christ, in the context of sin, superfluous? Other Protestants cannot help Hodge by saying that the intercession of Christ is only for the purpose of “fellowship with God.” The context of Hb 7:25 and Rm 8:33-34 will not allow such a dimension. These contexts deal with justification and final salvation, not “fellowship,” per se. Once again, Hodges’ dilemma vindicates the Catholic position. Christ’s continual intercession is necessary because we continually need God’s grace to forgive our sin, especially if we fall into mortal sin. Hodge was right in one sense – we do appease an angry God against sin through the intercession of Christ, but it happens every day of our lives. Christ “begins” our salvation at baptism, but he “completes” it in his role as intercessor. As some translations say, “he saves us to the uttermost.” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 348-49)
The note for the above reads as follows:
The word “completely” is from the Greek εἰς τὸ παντελὲς which is used again only in Lk 13:11. There it refers to a woman not being able to lift herself up completely. The lexical definition can vary between “complete, perfect, fully” and “forever, for all time.” The phrase “because he always lives to intercede” is εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν , in which the preposition governs the infinitive with the article to denote purpose. The word “come” is the Greek present participle προσερχομένους which refers to those presently approaching. (Ibid., 348 n. 433)
Mirroring Sungenis, Commenting on the phrase εἰς τὸ παντελὲς (KJV: "to the uttermost") in Heb 7:25, Barnabas Lindars wrote the following concerning the phrase εἰς τὸ παντελὲς (KJV: "to the uttermost") in Heb 7:25:
‘Always’ (eis to pantales) used only here and in Luke 13.11 in the NT, can mean either ‘to the completion of time’, i.e. ‘always’, or ‘to the completion of the purpose’, i.e. ‘absolutely’ (so NEB). ‘Always’ (better ‘for all time’) seems to me preferable because the point is that atonement is available to the readers both now and to the end. (Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews [New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 78 n. 78, emphasis in bold added)
In other words, for Lindars, the phrase is not a statement that, contra many Calvinists, that the believer could never lose their salvation and cease to draw to the Father through Christ (which flies in the fact of sound exegesis of Heb 6:4-6 and, as seen above, Heb 10:26-29) but that the atoning sacrifice of Christ is available to all those who place their faith in Christ, supportive of universal, not particular/limited atonement.
Debate
Challenge to Tony Brown
I previously emailed Tony Brown, after reading his book, Sharing the
Gospel with a Mormon, to debate on (1) Sola Scriptura and (2) Baptismal
Regeneration. I also know for a fact that other LDS and at least one non-LDS (an
Anglican from Ireland) have emailed him requesting that he accept my challenge to
debate. I am reiterating that challenge.
Debate 1 (Tony to affirm; I would deny): "The Bible Teaches
the Protestant Doctrine and Practice of Sola Scriptura.”
Debate 2: (I would affirm; Tony would deny): "The Bible
Teaches the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.”
Structure for both debates:
25 mins opening statements each
10 mins rebuttals each
15 mins cross ex each
7 mins concluding statements
Robert S. Boylan