Friday, August 16, 2019

Keith Mathison's (Reformed) Attempt to Answer Hebrews 10:26-29


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: