By Will Hess

I have served in church leadership and pastorship for over a decade now and I have noticed a continual theme: pastors are quitting. I am not talking about those who have been involved in some form of infidelity (because I’ve seen that as well) but I am referring to good, honest, God-fearing pastoral families who are leaving ministry in droves. As someone who has also stepped down from full-time pastoral ministry – I have regularly found myself wondering why this was the case. Many people I knew who had stepped down from ministry were people of whom I had great respect for, personable, loved God, loved people, and were over all fantastic people that would be the benefit of any Christian fellowship. After talking to many of these individuals, I can honestly say, the reason we are losing good pastors is because of bad environments. We have a deeply sick disease at the root of our Western churches and the problem is only getting worse – not better.

Let me explain, for years all I wanted to be was a minister of the Word of God. Serving others, teaching others, and lifting up the Body of Christ. However, once I joined ministry, I experienced so many problems that it is hard to even know where to begin. I had to be a whistle blower on sexual abuse allegations while the lead pastor attempted to cover it up, I also experienced the nastiest forms of church politics, manipulation amongst the people, and saw people striving for power grabs and authority. While this was happening, most people were quick to critique, make accusations, and complain, but even fewer were willing to serve, assist, and build up. I experienced nasty division while my wife’s mother was passing away, and again when we lost two of our pregnancies. Yet, we pressed on. My wife and I continued to serve, but once she got pregnant for the third time, I knew it was time for a change. For the health of my wife and the health of my child.

This was one of the hardest decisions I had ever made because, truthfully, ministry was my life and dream. It is what I always wanted to do, but I also knew that this environment was not healthy for a family. I remember being puzzled, as it was nothing like what I thought ministry would be, and to this day, I do not believe it is what ministry should be. We sell ministry as a job that is focused on the Word of God and serving others for the sake of Christ. The reality is vastly different than the pitch and I think this causes pastors to reconsider their careers. Over the years I have contemplated the issues that ministry families face and thought I would document them here. This will be a different article than what we typically promote here. This one will not be biblically exegetical, nor will it attempt to be academic. This post I am hoping will help non-ministry families realize what their pastors are truly facing, help ministers articulate some of their own thoughts, and perhaps be something that can help steer our churches in the right direction.

NUMBERS DON’T LIE

All someone has to do is take a cursory view of statistics regarding pastors and it’s easy to see that our pastors are not okay. Currently 38% of pastors have considered leaving ministry this past year alone. I also know the vast majority of those who enter pastoral ministry, will not retire as ministers – meaning most of them quit along the way. The statistics are alarming and prove the mental health of our ministers are not in a good place. Frequently stating they are stressed, have no close friends, they were under-prepared at seminary, work absurd hours, and so much more – it’s no wonder 1,500 pastors leave the ministry every month. So why is that? In no particular order I will give various reasons I think ministry is not a viable field for many ministers.

ABSURD EXPECTATIONS

Pastors are often faced with expectations that are impossible for any one man to perform. My personal experience of this still has me laughing from time to time. In my second pastorate I was expected to be the lead pastor, preach three or more times a week, lead the youth group, lead praise and worship, lead a few bible studies, handle upkeep of over 5 acres of land, council people’s marriages, assist with financials, disciple various individuals, put together various curriculum, keep track of all church supplies, help in two remodeling projects at the church at a moment’s notice (and if I was unable to help whenever this gentleman chose to work on his project – I would be accused of being a lazy millennial), and many more. All this while placed in a tiny one-bedroom apartment making poverty level income. Eventually, once the old pastor moved, I moved into the parsonage which we found to be infested with hundreds of bats and falling apart. Apparently, the old administration knew of the infestation, they just didn’t do anything about it. Things spiraled even more out of control as we had to handle 3AM phone calls to help a hurting family, had to deal with sexual abuse within the youth group, substance abuse, and so much more.

Remember, this is just scraping the surface of my particular story and I have actually heard far worse stories than my own. No singular person can be expected to spearhead all these issues at once. Plus, each of these issues typically involves wildly different skill sets. Pastors shouldn’t be expected to be project managers, accountants, counselors, theologians, orators, and anything else you need him to be. A pastor is a man same as you and he has a particular skill set. Typically, that skill set involves counseling, preaching, teaching, and theology. Even amongst pastors, those categories range in strength. Some are better at preaching than they are systematically teaching. Some pastors are horrible speakers but wonderful counselors. A church should never expect their pastor to be the “one man with all the hats”. If a pastor is able to fill other roles and he wants to, that’s awesome! But it should hardly be the expectation.

In fact, I am aware of many churches who won’t hire a pastor unless he is able to play an instrument, sing, or lead worship. Which is frankly unacceptable, we are pastors, not entertainers. If you want a concert, go buy a ticket. If you want builders and architects, go hire one. If you want a CEO, get a job, and go work for a multi-billion-dollar corporation. These are not the roles of a pastor and many people have it entirely backwards. If your pastor is willing and able to do those tasks – great! But that’s not his job. According to Scripture, if a pastor meets the qualifications, he is to be a minister of the Word of God to the flock. That’s it. It’s not an easy job either, but it is what pastors are called to be. 

All this to say, pastors often are buried under unrealistic expectations. They clock in 55-75 hours a week and often don’t get a full day off to be with their family. In fact, those unrealistic expectations often are extended to the family as well. The pastor’s family isn’t to just be present within the ministry, but to be at the beck and call of everyone in the church. This often means pastor’s wives aren’t even able to plan their day with their families without the potential of it being entirely ruined or interrupted. After all, if you don’t live up to the expectations of people, the people will get upset, which will lead to more meetings, angry phone calls, and people leaving the church. One thing ministry taught me was how incredibly immature and fickle people can truly be. Wal-Mart Karens got nothing on Christian Karens and when the customers get upset – it will be hell to pay. (Pun intended)

THE KARENS STRIKE BACK

What most people end up saying here is, “well, if they don’t like the pastor, they can leave!” Which is true, but for pastors this isn’t so simple. If someone leaves the church, it is rarely peaceful. The person who leaves a fellowship often feels they have to validate their decision to leave, so they gossip behind the pastor’s back for months, find anything they can to twist and distort to make the pastor/church appear inadequate, defame his ministry tactics or capabilities, and once all the seeds of dissension have been properly planted and nourished – they will leave. Upon leaving, they will attempt to take as many with them as possible, this is often what is at the root of a church split. Typically, this means when someone leaves, it causes the pastor even more havoc as he is continually inculcated with demands for an explanation as to these people’s exodus and is forced into correcting the record of falsehoods, lies, gossip, and slander. I cannot tell you the number of backwards stories I have heard go through the rumor mill and come out the other side nearly unrecognizable.

Honestly, this is why whenever negative press comes out on any pastor, I am always apprehensive. I know many pastors who have been horrible and abuse their positions, but I also know even more great pastors whose names have been dragged through the mud over disgruntled members. This can get even more difficult for a pastor as sometimes they are privy to information that could save them from the persecution, but often it would mean exposing someone else’s grave sin in order to do so. Thus, many pastors will just take the beating, convinced they’re being a good martyr.  On the flip side, many abusive pastors know this, and will continually claim, “there’s more to it than that, but I am not at liberty to discuss this.” They use this tactic to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. Due to the complexity of perception, pastors often feel stuck between a rock and a hard place when disgruntled members go on the offensive. Either tell everyone the issue and risk gossiping yourself or come off like a potential abuser who withholds information. It’s a nasty spot to be in.

It’s also worth noting that when this occurs, pastors are forced to spend hours of their weeks stomping out unnecessary fires, all because some random member in the church chose to cause division in their disagreement and instead of leaving peacefully or striving for unity, they attempt one more political stunt to bring havoc onto the church and the pastor.

When those aforementioned unrealistic expectations are not met, busybodies get to work, and cause a pastor a lot of grief. If he’s lucky, the busybody will leave, along with their ilk. If he’s not lucky he could lose his job, livelihood, and home. Remember, for the congregation the church is just the building in which they fellowship. For the pastor, it is often his lifeblood. I have known pastors who have lost their jobs and home due to someone successfully turning a congregation on a pastor. In the end, these people are often too willing to sacrifice the pastor and his family on the altar of their own petty agenda.

This also means that every disgruntled member can become a serious financial threat to the church and the pastor’s family. Consider that if people leave so does their tithe. This means pastors are often faced with a choice of bending the knee to the demands of a mob or standing on their own principles and risk losing funding. Personally, I took a stand for what was biblical, consistent, and true, and this forced me to get a job to sustain myself as a minister – that way I could focus on ministry without financial pressure (one of the best decisions I ever made). However, this isn’t true for all pastors. Some pastors choose to either comply with the increasing demands of the people, or just shape the church’s culture to be as seeker friendly and milquetoast as possible. It’s no wonder so many pastors step down or lose all backbone. They’re people after all, just like you and me, and to continually fight can be exhausting.

Obviously, I do not think this is good. Pastors should have strong backbones and biblical principles and churches should support that. Congregants would do well to not making mountains out of mole hills. Your pastor isn’t perfect, and neither are you – there will be disagreements. This is why God calls us to humility. One of the marks of a truly healthy church is when people can disagree with each other without splitting the place asunder. Pastors, I’d also encourage you to be loving, gracious, and kind at all times, but if someone is causing division – follow Matthew 18:15-20 as fast as possible. Protect your flock and mark those that cause division.

Christian Karens aside, the primary reason pastors don’t want people to leave is because they want to see lives changed for God. Every person that leaves can often feel like a personal failure (and maybe it is) and thus pastors will usually fight to keep people rather than cast them out. Remember, pastors are shepherds, and they want to lead sheep and protect the church from wolves. It can be difficult for a pastor to come to terms that someone within his flock has been a wolf this whole time and it is better they depart than for them to stay.  Thus, he will often work hard to meet with the person, attempt to flesh out any obstacles between them, and try to bring reconciliation. This is because pastors want to see lives changed by Christ and unity to thrive amongst the brethren, it’s typically the driving force behind their call to ministry. (Because it certainly isn’t the money).

In short: church politics suck.

THE POVERTY GOSPEL

All this can leave great pastors emotionally and mentally strained. However, this merely brings us to discuss the financial issues pastors are faced with. Most pastors make precious little money. Most pastors (myself included) make poverty level salaries. Which gets increasingly absurd since churches often expect their pastors to have lofty seminary degrees while paying pennies to the metaphorical dollar. This creates a major imbalance for pastors as they are usually trying to pay off school debt while making barely any money. In all actuality, many pastors I know have had to go on government assistance just to make ends meet.

This gets even worse when it comes to dealing with upset people in the church. Every single person that leaves is also dollars leaving. Should pastors necessarily think this way? Probably not, but it doesn’t change the reality that people leaving the church means funding leaving the church. In other words, every single person that leaves could very well impact a pastor’s ability to put food on their table for their family. Most pastors I know will always choose to do the right thing, despite the financial pressures, but then we wonder why good pastors eventually quit? Probably because they don’t want their income and family’s well-being dependent or controlled by a fickle group of people who aren’t afraid to turn on you in a moment if they don’t get their way. Which is asinine since a church ought to be the hands and feet of Christ, meanwhile pastors often feel alone despite being surrounded by people (but more on that later).  It gets even worse when people actually threaten to leave and take their tithe with them (yes, this has happened to me. No, I did not acquiesce to the man’s request after that stunt).

Even more egregious is pastors are told, “this is the way it’s supposed to be. You shouldn’t be in it for the money! Was Jesus wealthy? Was Paul rich?” Yes, people will shame you just for desiring a living wage. Ironically, I was told this sort of thing continually from a person who was on the hiring committee at my second pastorate who made well over six figures a year.  Meanwhile this same individual would regularly be upset my wife and I didn’t continually host people at our house for dinner – despite them paying their last pastor twice as much. However, we could barely afford our own food, let alone paying multiple families. He chocked up my pay shortage to “a lack of experience” (I was fresh out of seminary but notice the corporate mindset already. Experience = more pay). I was young and naïve at the time, I shouldn’t have agreed to the salary in the first place, but I was sold on the poverty gospel. That I was to be a willing servant of the Lord no matter how little I made or how much it cost. After all, you can’t put a dollar amount on a soul! I still cringe at my naivety at the time.

Now, not all churches can afford to pay their pastor a living wage and keep the lights on. Most pastors understand that and are willing to endure for a while. That’s fine and even admirable. However, I would suggest that if a church is going to have multiple paid staff, their first goal ought always to be to get their pastor a full-time living wage. Take care of your Jerusalem before you worry about the uttermost. So often churches get financially bogged down by trying to get a better production, fancier programs, or perhaps they desire the noble goal of getting involved in missions. Although missions is great work, if the church can’t yet support their pastor on a full-time living wage, then they really shouldn’t be spending hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on missions where pastors are trying to get a full-time living wage. It’s putting the chariot before the horse. Consider, if your pastor is financially stable, he will be in a healthier state of mind and thereby become more effective in his position. Likely this will help create a healthy church which will grow and allow more financial latitude in order to support even more missions, non-profits, other pastoral staff etc.

This is of course only if a church truly desires to have a full-time pastor. However, I highly recommend having a bi-vocational pastor where he is asked to minister the Word of God, have the other logistics covered by the congregation, and have the expectations of availability adjusted accordingly. Paul was a tent maker, Jesus was a carpenter, have our pastors have their own trade as well. This will relieve tons of pressure on the pastors. If a church finds this untenable then they should seek to provide a living wage for their pastors while not making other unnecessarily large financial commitments.

It has been demonstrated that financial pressures can be the top thing that destroys marriages and drives people to depression – then we wonder why so many pastoral families fall apart? Why so many leave the ministry? Well, despite all the pressures in ministry, financial pressure is easily one of the top issues. This is why I, and many others, opted to enter the secular workforce and operate our own personal ministries independently. Think about that for a moment. Good pastors have chosen not to receive a salary at a church and continue to minister independently just to avoid the absolute trainwreck that is church-based financial pressure. Want healthy pastors? Have realistic expectations, don’t let small things get in the way, give your pastor space, and compensate them fairly. If you choose not to pay a pastor at all (as many pastors/churches choose to do), then adjust your expectations accordingly and understand his time will be far more limited.

LIVING IN A FISHBOWL

Pastors and their families are continually living under the microscope of other people’s perceptions. Often this leaves pastors and their families feeling like they are walking on eggshells – even in their own home. Remember those absurd expectations I rambled on about? This is where those expectations become invasive as everyone becomes the critic of you and your family. Your child having a bad day? People will think their pastor is a poor parent. Dealing with a personal family problem? People will think you’re distant and disinterested in the church. Like sci-fi movies? Well, someone at church might find those horrendously evil. Like to watch sports at your favorite bar and grill? Sounds good, unless Miss. Shirley at church doesn’t like the idea of her pastor going to a sports bar. Like to play video games online with your friends from seminary? Well, if brother Ken finds out, he’s going to be upset. Did you go shopping at Target? Well, someone’s going to get mad that you’re supporting a place with a backwards bathroom policy (while they order another package on Amazon). On and on I could go, but you get the picture. Everything you do is often scrutinized. You’re not allowed a personal life. Whatever you enjoy doing privately better stay private, or else you might be in for more church drama.

Consider what message this sends to pastors and their families. “Don’t tell anyone at church we watched Lord of the Rings, went to the movies, went to the beach, went to that restaurant, had a glass of wine, have an Amazon membership etc.” Due to constant scrutiny pastors often live secluded lives at home and have even fewer close friends. What this essentially communicates to pastors is they should live double lives. They should not be open and vulnerable but closed off from the very people they are to be shepherding. Where’s the sense in that? No one wants their job to be that invasive in their personal life. Well, neither do pastors, and this is one of the top complaints I have heard from ex-pastors. They were tired of their personal life always being under scrutiny because of the fickle nitpicking of cantankerous church members.

THE LONESOME ROAD

Now, if you consider everything I’ve discussed up to this point, it should be no surprise to you that many pastors don’t have close friends. In fact, in my first seminary, I was told not to have any close friends within the church I pastored. Why? Because I was to be their shepherd, not their friend. I deeply disagreed with this (and still do), so when I began pastoring, I befriended everyone. I was open and honest at all times – and this backfired hard. When decisions were made these people didn’t like, they were quick to take all our joking, confiding, general conversations, and twist them as weapons for their cause. I remember I was shocked when this happened. I couldn’t imagine Christians being so malicious toward one another (told you I was naïve). The first time this happened I remember thinking to myself, “screw it, I’m not befriending anyone. At this point, pastoring is my job. Nothing more.” I quickly realized how foolish and childish such a thought was and chose to press on. This happened a few more times and I grew increasingly apprehensive of developing any friendships within the church as I really didn’t want to deal with that sort of betrayal again. Originally, I thought my story was unique and I just happened to get the short straw.  That was until I began to talk to other pastors, and they echoed similar sentiments.

This didn’t make ministry any easier though. I didn’t have many close friends. Most my close friends were states away. Honestly, I accepted that I’d likely be mostly alone. I’d call friends and family whenever I really needed to talk to someone, and just continue pastoring my flock. I would bear the burdens of the flock, and my distant relationships would serve to bear my own burdens. Needless to say, this wasn’t healthy, but it was certainly better than dealing with potential drama. As I’ve spoken with and counseled other ministers, I have grown to realize many pastors operate the same way since being open and vulnerable with a group of people can result in people using that against you. Many pastors have no one to confide in if they’re struggling. After all, pastors are supposed to “have it all together” and thus are not allowed mistakes, human error, or struggles. It’s no wonder why so many pastors leave the ministry or fall into living double lives.

In all actuality, churches should strive to have an open and honest relationship with everyone within its walls, the pastor included. The church is instructed to operate in unity and bear one another’s burdens. Unity isn’t possible if people are continually striving to nitpick. Bearing burdens isn’t possible if no one is able to share their burdens. We will never succeed as a church if we continue to ostracize our ministers in hopes that in their isolation, they will remain strong. Pastors are often surrounded by people, but the loneliest person in the room. Everyone comes to him for their problems, but he has no one to confide in about his own burdens. After all, last time he did, someone condemned him for it, ran around, and used it as political leverage. I am not referring to grave immoral sin here either, I’m talking about standard struggles or even how he operates his own home on a day-to-day basis. Yes, even the daily operations of his home could come under fire because someone thinks he’s “too strict” while another person will accuse him of being “too loose”. It’s an impossible tightrope for many pastors to walk, so they just choose to distance themselves from the flock. Keeping their personal lives practically a secret.

CORPORATE CHURCH

A lot of these issues stem from the culture by which we have cultivated the church. Many of us go “church shopping” and enter churches wondering what the church can do for us and not what we can do for the church. This is because the Western world is extremely consumer and individualistically minded, and not communal. What can often happen is a new family comes into the church and begins to attend for a few months. The pastor has gotten to know them, maybe had them over for dinner, and invested into them. However, a while later these people leave because they feel the church doesn’t meet their needs.

I remember this happened with one family. We had gotten to know them over the course of a year, had dinner with them, went to movies with them, and even connected with their kids. Eventually this family left the church, why? Because they didn’t feel “connected” in the church. This same family would show up to service notoriously late and leave as soon as service was over. It was no wonder they weren’t connected to anyone in the church – they were never there. Want to get connected in the church? Get to know people within the church. Show up early and fellowship. Find ways you can serve in the church. To expect to barely show up, warm a pew, leave, and somehow have a rich connection is just unrealistic.

Situations like this can cause pastors or churches to stop viewing church members as Christian brothers/sisters but instead to begin viewing them as customers. After all, these people seem to only want to consume, not serve. They seem only interested in the self, and not others. Plus, if they leave, the church will lose funding, the pastor might lose his salary, a missionary might have to be dropped, and on and on the list could go. Thus, churches start aiming everything on Sunday morning to be a performance of sorts where they do everything they can to be as seeker friendly as possible. Does it tend to create shallow followers? Yes. But does it ensure the business model operates well and the customers stay happy? Absolutely.

This places undue pressure on pastors as they attempt to lead the church in the ways of God. Either they can gear things to be seeker friendly and compromise their principles, or they can stick to their principles, but many might protest that it’s not “inclusive” enough. This is the problem with corporate church -we’ve made pastorship a career and the congregation his customers. These customers will spend money there or take it on down the road where they can get a product that better suits them. It’s a relentless and unnecessary pressure all because we treat church like a business. The church should be a fellowship, the office of the pastor something to be respected, and the service should be used to encourage and equip the brethren. In short, the church ought to be a living and breathing organism. The goal should be to grow people spiritually, not necessarily numerically. It ought to be community minded, not individualistically focused. The church isn’t a business, it is the Body of Christ. A fellowship of believers.

In fact, I would personally encourage pastors to become bi-vocational if they can or in the very least have a skill that can effectively be used in the secular work force (after all, even Paul was a tent maker). This removes a lot of the aforementioned financial pressures, allowing the pastor financial freedom and it also pushes the church a little further away from a corporate model. However, if your pastor does serve in the workforce, then a church must adjust their expectations for a pastor. If he is juggling two jobs – then it will mean he’s going to have less time to do miscellaneous duties and will have to focus on the main parts of being a pastor. If you do choose to pay your pastor full-time then still be sure to curb expectations and not to create a corporate atmosphere where you’re the paying customer, he’s the CEO, and the church is the business. That is about as toxic as it is stupid and just creates numerous problems in a church.

BURNOUT

Needless to say, this can cause pastors and their families to experience exhaustion in the pastorate where they feel they are perpetually navigating a mine field. When I talk to pastors/missionaries I have repeatedly heard that they feel they are continually pouring out and very few people pour back. This isn’t because these people are weak or desire pity, it’s just spiritual physics. If you live to only serve others and never receive any form of appreciation, only demands, you will continually drain yourself. In short, ministers need to be ministered to as well. Sometimes this could involve a card, a gift, or just being willing to serve in the ministry. Sadly, most people prefer to attend than to serve, and this can be a serious discouragement to a pastor. If not discouraging, it can certainly be exhausting.

Think about it for a moment. A pastor is preaching multiple times a week, leads worship, has discipleship meetings, counsels people, hosts activities, studies, visits people in need, is filling in for three different ministries, and for weeks he has been announcing that they need someone willing to help in nursery. Weeks turn into months as he continues to announce that their nursery workers need help – all he ever receives is an awkward silence. For months he has been serving everyone beyond his expected duties, and he can’t even get someone to volunteer to go on a nursery rotation. This sort of thing is disheartening to a pastor because as he, and a select few people, continue to serve the congregation…the congregation never wants to serve in return. This can cause a number of problems: resentment toward the congregation, cliques amongst the leadership, the same people running things for years and eventually never wanting to give up their seat, and even complacency as people fall into routine. This list could be endless, but you get the point.

This pastor would obviously be struggling to keep his head above water. Let’s take the same pastor and say that on Sunday morning, right before he preaches, some lady in the church complains about a lack of family activities being done at the church. He acknowledges that he would like to create more opportunities for fellowship activities across all age groups and asks if she would be willing to organize such a thing. She responds with, “well, I’m super busy. I’m not looking to lead this thing, just thought it would be a good idea.” In a moment of transparency, the pastor responds, “well, if you’re not willing to lead it, I don’t think anyone’s going to. Most everyone else is stretched thin as it is.” Now, this Christian Karen gets upset and starts gossiping to everyone that pastor doesn’t care about fellowship, because if he did, he would do what she suggested.

The pastor goes up to the pulpit and preaches on Romans 9, ends service in a song, lifts up a final prayer, steps down from the platform and suddenly a man walks up to him and says, “I disagree with your take on that passage.” The man proceeds to tell him how theologically wrong the pastor is on this topic and others. The pastor asks if the man has read on the topic and studied it deeply. The man scoffs and says, “I don’t read them theology books. I just read the Bible for what it says!”. The pastor finds the statement amusing yet annoying as the pastor understands they both read the word but doesn’t mean you’re interpreting it properly. However, the pastor chooses to just graciously hear the man out and finally is cut loose from the awkward conversation. Suddenly he’s grabbed by someone else who informs him that Jane, an elderly woman in the church, lost her temper on Amanda again in the kitchen. The pastor begins to hurry over to see what the matter was, but not before he is grabbed by Richard who tells him “your sermons are good, but I really wish you’d slow down from time to time it’s hard to keep up with you!” Pastor acknowledges he could slow down and continues to walk quickly, trying to find Jane or Amanda. The words, “Hey Pastor!” ring across the hall, “These are my parents in from out of town! They were so excited to be here today.” He exchanges pleasantries with them and wishes them the best. He continues his search just to find out both women had left.

He goes home and attempts to call both of them. He gets in touch with Amanda, and she explains the situation. He knew that Jane could be territorial about the church kitchen and that it has been her baby for 36 years. With a deep breath he calls Jane. No answer. He gets a text from a church member telling him that Jane is calling people telling them her “new rules” for the kitchen. He tries to call her again. She picks up and lets her explain herself. After an hour conversation with her he gets her to calm down and things return to normal. He looks at the time and realizes he has to lead youth group in an hour. He rushes out and the night continues as normal. (As normal as youth group can possibly be that is)

As insane as this picture I’ve painted seems, this is a pretty normal occurrence for pastors. They are continually running to the next thing and stomping out fires all while people critique, engage in small talk, and complain about varying subjects. This can be exhausting mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. I know personally, the burnout was the #1 thing that was wearing me down. Honestly, I can handle complainers, entitled Karens, and people’s subjective judgment. What I couldn’t handle was running around so much I’d rarely see my family. I chose to make a change. I got a career, built my own ministry from home, got involved in a friend’s church, became an Elder there, and I have found I am far more effective in ministry now than I ever have been. Why? Because all the aforementioned baggage I no longer have to endure. I have freedom I’ve never had and can personally invest into people’s lives directly. I can teach that which I believe to be biblical without having to question whether or not my job will be sustainable. Oddly enough, the removal of my pastoral salary was the thing that gave me the most ministerial freedom.

HOW TO KEEP GOOD PASTORS

I’m not saying that pastors would be better off quitting nor am I saying this describes every church. To make such a claim would be foolish. There are many healthy churches out there and many pastors in great positions. I am blessed to be in such a church. My goal here is to shine some light on the issues pastors are facing on a day-to-day basis and why so many leave. If this did describe your church, be part of the change.

However, I would be remiss if I didn’t follow through with some solutions to the problems. After all, I am known in my house to say, “don’t raise a complaint if you can’t raise a solution.” Honestly, as monumental as these problems are, they’re really more of a snowball effect with only a few issues at their core and it would really help absolve these issues completely.

1. Become a community: This is a nearly foreign concept in our Western world because we are so individually focused. If each individual shifted their focus on others within the community this would create less selfishness and thereby less self-centered ideals being pushed in the church. This would ideally result in less hurt people in the church in general (congregants and pastors alike). When one reads Acts, we see the early followers fellowshipping and breaking bread with one another, sharing their property etc. Why? Not because they were socialists (sorry progressives) but because they were a community who loved and cared for one another. This means putting others ahead of our egos.
2. Unity in Diversity: Remember that not everyone is going to agree on everything. If unity were conformity, then we wouldn’t see disagreements amongst apostles in the early church. But we do. Thus, it cannot be true. Rather, remembering unity in one Lord, one Spirit, one God, and one mission ought to be enough for believers to not despise one another, but rather to love one another. Allow for diverse opinions and even for leadership to make decisions that you might disagree with. Do not make mountains out of mole hills.
3. Remove Animosity: if you’re angry at someone in your church, go talk with them or learn to let it go. Animosity only breeds bitterness and resentment, things that hurt churches and yourself. You’re going to have to live with each other in heaven, so you may as well start practicing here on earth. A mark of a mature Christian is someone who can address each situation as it comes without constantly living in the past. There have been plenty of people in churches I have disagreed with, some that even frustrate or annoy me, but in the end they’re my brother or sister in Christ – show them love and respect.
4. Promote Mental Toughness: If you’re going to disagree with people in the church (and trust me you will) you better be able to have the mental fortitude to deal with that. The church gets nowhere with weak minded and strongly opinionated people. In Paul’s day he’s walking around a place like Corinth and dealing with a believer who is sleeping with his mother-in-law. Yet, nowadays, Christians can barely handle a mild disagreement or someone dropping a four-letter word. In short: toughen up. We are the Kingdom of God and sometimes we allow ourselves to be far too mentally fragile.
5. Serve in your church: Rather than criticizing everything in the church, how about you help in the church? Want change? Help foster it by carrying the burden of service. No one wants to work with someone who does nothing but has the nerve to complain about everything.
6. Don’t sweat the small stuff: At some point in your life, you need to figure out your “non-negotiables” in a church and then stick to those. If your non-negotiables are shallow surface level items – you should deeply reconsider your thoughts. Try keeping them simple: Do they preach the good news of Christ? Do they believe in the divinity of Christ? What’s their position on Scripture? How do they promote a Spirit of Christ within the church? It’s okay to attend a church where you don’t agree on everything. Just be sure that you know what you will not negotiate on – and honestly that list should be pretty short and kept to the essentials of the Christian faith.
7. Be humble: The biggest issue in all of these things is pride. If you’re attacking the church or its people, you really need to slow down and consider if it’s truly worth it? I’ve known people who will never walk into a church again because of the division some Christians were sowing. Put your pride and ego aside and learn to work together and never attack another believer or his family over a trivial disagreement.
8. Think of your church as an extension of Christ: Do not view it as an extension of yourself, your preferences, your agenda, or your own passions. If you cause division, ask yourself if it’s worth taking a hammer to the Body of Christ? One must seriously consider the repercussions. If Christ died for the church, then consider that every move you make could cause damage to the church for which Christ died.
9. Mind your business: Let’s be honest – sometimes we need to keep our thoughts and opinions to ourselves. As someone who is highly opinionated and speaks regularly in his public ministry, I try to speak less about every single waking opinion I might have at church regarding matters that don’t concern me. It saves me a lot of headache and also is a way to promote unity. If you get involved do so in a way that is seeking to build up, exhort, and bear one another’s burdens. Not in a way to drive your own agenda forward. And speaking of business – stop thinking of it like a business where it’s a product and you are the customer. No. This is Christ’s church, and you are a member of it. Don’t get it twisted.
10. Take care of your Jerusalem: Whether you like it or not, the church you’re at is your church. These are your people. This is your Jerusalem. Take care of it. Support your church’s ministry, including your pastor. You won’t always agree and that is just fine. In fact, your maturity will shine through when you support him even when you disagree. Financially prioritize your Jerusalem and you might just see enough growth to care for the uttermost parts of the world. If a church cannot (or chooses not to) financially support their pastor – then adjust expectations accordingly. Don’t expect full time work if he is not a full-time employee. If he is full time and your church has prioritized that, then be sure to still keep healthy expectations. After all, he’s a pastor, not your hireling. You do not own him. Often times Israel failed because they became divided amongst each other, became entitled, stirred up division, and did not properly prioritize. Do not follow their pattern – prioritize Jerusalem.

by Chris Stockman

I was sitting in church this past Sunday as we were saying the Lord’s Prayer, and began thinking about forgiveness and God’s relationship to time, as one does. Suddenly a thought popped into my head that I couldn’t shake. This article is the expansion of that thought. I propose the following for your consideration, as I believe that this is a question very much worth thinking about. This is intended to get the average person in the pew thinking. As a layperson myself, I want to see lay people putting some careful thought into what they are saying about God. The concepts talked about here have been at the forefront of theologians’ navel gazing for millennia, but I think I’ve done what I can to bring out the most significant aspects of them and avoid getting too far into the weeds.

I’ve heard someone say that God is timeless many, many times. From the pulpit, in casual conversation as an item that is taken for granted, etc. It’s one of those things that people think is the pious thing to say, and it’s a staple of what’s called classical theism. If you believe in classical theism, you are in good company, since nearly all of the most influential thinkers in the history of Christianity (Augustine, John of Damascus, Anselm, Aquinas, etc.) have been classical theists. But I would bet a lot that nearly all people today who share their beliefs about God and time (let’s call them atemporalists) have no idea what they actually entail. They certainly do not share some of the philosophical assumptions undergirding classical theism.

First let’s define timelessness. This is not as easy as one may think, since atemporalists are not always forthcoming with what they mean by their claims. Dr. R.T. Mullins (of The Reluctant Theologian Podcast fame) is a great one-stop shop for all things time. He defines timelessness as such:

“God is timeless if and only if God necessarily exists without beginning, without end, without succession, without temporal location, and without temporal extension.”^[1]

Every theist believes God has no beginning or end. The point of being “without succession” is what I am most interested in at the moment. In order to get very far beyond this point, we need to know what time is, otherwise to say that God is timeless (or not) isn’t saying anything. This is also very difficult, as, while many philosophers are quick to define their view of the ontology of time (what times are real) and of the flow of time, they have an unfortunate aversion to telling anyone what time actually is. So you believe only the present moment is real; that’s nice, but what is that? St. Augustine famously wrote in Confessions that he knows what time is until someone asks him about it.^[2] Thanks for nothing, Augustine.

Few have a coherent notion of what time is. There are broadly two views: a relational theory in which time exists only if change exists, and an absolute theory in which time is a definite thing that has a particular nature; it exists with or without change. I favor the latter for reasons beyond the scope of this article. Time is, basically, something that makes change possible.^[3] (There is a more full definition, but this will suffice for present purposes.) The doctrine of timelessness then, regardless of absolutism or relationalism, has some rather disturbing implications.

Here’s one: God cannot forgive you.

Now, before you classical theists go running to Thomas Aquinas or John of Damascus to save you, hear me out. (Then you can go running to Thomas Aquinas or John of Damascus.) Think about it. What is forgiveness? Someone wrongs you, and then, assuming they feel remorse (or if they don’t, but for present purposes assume they do), they apologize and ask for your forgiveness. You are feeling indignation or at least have some negative evaluation of the other person. But in response to someone asking for your forgiveness, or due to some consideration of what the ethical thing to do is, you forgive them. Your forgiveness involves you changing your evaluation of the person, and you no longer hold their offensive action towards you against them. A relationship that was broken or nonexistent is now restored or being built. I do not mean to suggest that this is all forgiveness involves. But I think I am on safe ground in asserting that this is part of the picture.

Now consider what shakes out from rejecting that God is temporal. By the offered definition of time, God is then unable to change. This is the doctrine of immutability, the belief that God cannot undergo any changes. This is frequently misunderstood even by advocates of timelessness, so it is worth stating more emphatically: God is not able to change in any way, no matter what change is being talked about. William Lane Craig writes of immutability: “God cannot change in any respect. He never thinks successive thoughts, He never performs successive actions, He never undergoes even the most trivial alteration…He cannot even change extrinsically by being related to changing things.”^[4] This is a big one, since many classical theists (on the internet, not scholars as far as I am aware) think that their view of God is compatible with a particular type of change. (More on that later.) If one admits change into the life of God, that is introducing time into his life. Mullins again notes that “Any kind of change that a being undergoes will be sufficient for that being to be temporal as it will create a before and after in the life of that being.”^[5]

So can a timeless, changeless God forgive you? Well, forgiveness involves changing your evaluation of another person in response to their apology. Your disposition towards another person is different. There is a difference in the forgiver. There has been a change in their mental state and emotional life. Applied to God, there was a state of affairs in which God had a negative evaluation of you due to your sin against him, and upon forgiving you there is now a state of affairs in which he has a positive evaluation of you (due to being placed in Christ).^[6] If it is metaphysically impossible for God to change, then it is metaphysically impossible for him to change his evaluation of you. Thus, from the perspective of a timeless God, you are unforgivable.

But it gets worse. There is another core claim that classical theists hold dear: impassibility. As with time, saying God is impassible isn’t saying anything unless we know what a passion is. This one is more controversial to define (with some characterizing it as God not experiencing any emotions), but it is held by some to be the claim that God cannot be acted upon and that there cannot be a disturbance in the For-I mean God’s eternal bliss, and that God cannot be affected by any considerations outside of himself. St. John of Damascus (675-749) called a passion “…a sensible activity of the appetitive faculty, depending on the presentation to the mind of something good or bad…But passion considered as a class, that is, passion in general, is defined as a movement in one thing caused by another.”^[7] Elsewhere in his work, Damascene states over and over and over that God is impassible, that deity is passion-less, or some variation of that. Thus for Damascene, the impassible God cannot admit a passion (movement) in his emotional or mental life by something outside of himself. Now, I disagree with Damascene, but he is illustrative of The Tradition™️. So how does this make things worse?

Remember how I said forgiveness involves changing your evaluation of someone in response to their apology? That is impossible per the doctrine of impassibility, as that would mean God has been moved to do something in response to something outside of himself. Your confession and repentance to God quite literally can have no effect. (How prayer in general even works on classical theism is another issue as well.) The idea that God can be moved to do anything is utterly anathema to the classical theist. One of the underlying reasons why this is so is that classical theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was not unclear: “But in God relation to the creature is not a real relation, but only a relation of reason; whereas the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, as was said above (I:13:7) in treating of the divine names.”^[8] This answer was given in response to the objection that if creation is applied to God in the active sense, then he would be temporal. There is much more that could be said on this point, but that is far beyond the present scope.

There is another way in which this somehow gets even worse^[9], but that should suffice for now: the classical God cannot forgive you since he cannot be moved to do so and is unable to change.

So, does the classical theist have a way forward? It turns out, yes, they do. They can keep their classical theism and their belief in God’s forgiveness, as I’m sure Barack Obama said in some possible world. Here are some options (I doubt this is exhaustive but it’s what I can think of):

1. They could deny that forgiveness involves a change in one’s evaluation of another person, or a change in one’s mental life.
2. They could deny that forgiveness needs to be given in response to something external to the agent.
3. They could deny that God’s forgiveness is anything like our forgiveness of each other.
4. They could deny that God had previously had a negative evaluation of us. 
5. They could deny that God currently has a positive evaluation of us.
6. They could affirm that God does forgive you and that any change this involves is a Cambridge change.

Option 1 is unsuccessful since I fail to see how one can be said to have forgiven someone when they have the same evaluation of someone as before the forgiveness. If I still think my brother is a pest that I want nothing to do with after I forgave him for being a pest, I have not really forgiven him.

Option 2 is perhaps more promising, but notice that it no longer would apply to our scenario with God. Scripture is clear that God forgives those who repent. God’s forgiveness is not unconditional. Taking this option would effectively deny salvation through faith.

Option 3 is directly contradicted by the Lord’s Prayer: “and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Paul as well in Ephesians 4:32 writes “ Become kind toward one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also God in Christ has forgiven you. (LEB)” If God’s forgiveness is utterly unlike ours, these statements from Jesus and Paul are unintelligible. I know this will be quite the hot take, but I do not believe Jesus and Paul were unintelligible.

Option 4 is a direct assault on any coherent understanding of sin. If God never assessed us negatively, then talk of salvation is meaningless; we aren’t being saved from anything, since we were never lost and were never at risk of God’s judgment. I don’t expect any classical theist to take this route.

If someone takes Option 5, I don’t know why they would want the Christian life.

Option 6 is interesting. A Cambridge change is one in which there is a change, but only on one end of the relationship. The example is given of being south of Cambridge. You then walk to the north of Cambridge. The change is that you were south of Cambridge and now you are north of it. Cambridge has not changed, you have. So, as defenders of classical theism are renowned for their charitable interactions with their opponents, they will kindly remind you that they are perfectly happy to accept Cambridge changes all day long with God. There is a change in God’s relationship to us, but it’s on our end, not God’s. We repented and asked for forgiveness. The change involved in God’s forgiveness is really a change in us. God is still (to use a temporal idea) in his perfect state of timeless and impassible bliss with his evaluations of all creatures great and small being known by him from eternity in his one, single instant.

While interesting, this is perhaps the most sinister option. We depend for our salvation upon God’s forgiveness. We would not be indwelled by the Holy Spirit without it. The idea that it is strictly a change in me that I am depending on for my salvation is truly terrifying. I still sin (change for the worse) and sometimes I may not look all that different from a nonbeliever; how then can I know that I really am forgiven? This idea would utterly destroy any assurance of salvation. Furthermore, it seems to fly in the face of the many passages that assert our utter dependence on God, even for our next breath (Job 12:10, Psalm 84, Psalm 104:29, Psalm 119:81-82).

Now, this by itself may not be a reason to reject that God’s forgiveness is a Cambridge change; maybe reality is just that dark. But there is another problem with the appeal to a Cambridge change: the relationship. The Cambridge change is only such if I really am in the relations “south of” and “north of” to Cambridge. But recall that a fundamental assumption to classical theism is that God is not really related to the world! The classical theist may try to wiggle out by saying that these Cambridge relations are not real relations. In that case, I don’t think I know what “real” means anymore. I give up. 

In the form of premises, the argument is:

1. If God is timeless, he is not capable of undergoing change in any form.
2. A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject initially have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
3. A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject no longer have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
4. Therefore, if God forgives someone, he goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them.
5. If God goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them, then there has been a change in his mental and emotional life.
6. God is timeless.
7. Therefore, God cannot have a change in his mental and emotional life.
8. Therefore, God cannot go from having a negative evaluation of someone to no longer having a negative evaluation of someone.
9. Therefore, God cannot forgive anyone.

As a bonus, here is the argument from impassibility against forgiveness being because of repentance:

1. If God is impassible, he is not capable of being moved to do an action by anything external to himself.
2. If God forgives someone because they have repented, then he has been moved to act by something outside of himself.
3. God is impassible.
4. Therefore, God cannot be moved to act because of something outside of himself.
5. Therefore, God cannot forgive someone because they have repented.
6. Therefore, repentance is not a condition for God’s forgiveness.

Conclusion

I want to be clear about what exactly I have and have not argued for here. I have not argued that classical theism is false. I believe it is false, but that is not my argument here. My argument is that the doctrines of classical theism logically entail that God cannot forgive you.

This is in contrast to teachings derived from a sound reading of Scripture. Scripture reveals God as being highly interactive. The doctrines of classical theism are directly contradicted on every page of Scripture and would render crucial claims of the Gospel itself literally false. I do not believe that classical theism should be on the table for a Christian to believe. Of course, classical theists can still be Christians, but that is in spite of their model of God, not because of it. Christian, take solace in that God really has forgiven you, that he really does no longer hold your sin against you, that he really has transferred us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of his Son (Col. 1:13), that you are really no longer under condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and that he really does currently have a positive evaluation of you (Eph. 1:3-14).

I am sure that classical theists will have their rebuttals, and I look forward to seeing what they may be.

---

^[1] Mullins, The Divine Timemaker, in Philosophia Christi Vol. 22, No.2, (2020), 213.

^[2] Yes, I’m aware that he had a little more to say on the subject than this. But that’s not the point.

^[3] Mullins, The End of The Timeless God (2016), 18. See also Mullins’ chapter in Ontology of Divinity (forthcoming), edited by Miroslaw Szatkowski, 99-111.

^[4] Craig, Time and Eternity (2001), 30-31.

^[5] Mullins, The End of The Timeless God (2016), 157.

^[6] After I had written this bit, I came across an article by Mullins in which he actually says as much. “When God forgives a repentant sinner, God changes both intrinsically and extrinsically. God changes extrinsically in that God comes to stand in a new relation to a creature. Namely, being the one to whom a sinner is repenting of her sins. Yet, God also changes intrinsically in that God’s knowledge will perfectly track the changes in reality. God now knows that He is being prayed to, and God now knows that He is forgiving the sinner.” (Mullins, Ryan T. “Open Theism and Perfect Rationality: An Examination of Dean Zimmerman’s views on God, Time, and Creation.” TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology 8.2 (2024), pg. 2-3)

^[7] Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.22

^[8] Summa Theologica 1 q.45 a.3

^[9] I refer here to the doctrine of simplicity, rounding out the quartet of classical distinctives. This one is a bit more complicated to define clearly, and this post is already long enough, so I will save a consideration of it for a part 2.

By David Pallmann

Introduction

The debate among Christians over whether or not a believer may forfeit his faith and, consequently, lose his salvation has been raging since the Reformation. There are a plethora of relevant biblical passages on both sides of this debate and I cannot possibly examine them all in this article. Instead, I shall restrict myself to examining two relevant passages from the book of Hebrews. As will become clear, these passages are two of the most controversial in the New Testament because they appear to give clear testimony that believers can indeed fall away from the faith. Defenders of the doctrine of eternal security (the idea that a genuine believer will never lose his salvation) have a number of ingenious readings of these passages. This article will examine these readings in detail and argue that they are not defensible. The conclusion will be that Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29 do indeed support the Arminian doctrine that genuine Christians may abandon the faith and lose their salvation.

Setting the Stage

The book of Hebrews is written to Jewish Christians. The recipients of the letter appear to be facing severe persecution because of their Christian faith and, as a result, they are facing pressure to return to Judaism.[1] One of the author’s[2] major themes is the superiority of Christ as a priest and sacrifice over and against the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices conducted under it. This theme of Christ’s superiority functions as an argument for why these Jewish Christians ought to retain their Christian faith and should not return to Judaism. The author is concerned that that the persecution his readers face will cause them to leave Christ, and this is the very reason he is writing. As such, apostasy is literally a theme of the book Hebrews. Affirmation of eternal security, then, does not merely constitute a denial of a few texts found scattered throughout Hebrews. It actually constitutes a denial of the very thesis of the book.

A defining feature of the book of Hebrews is the presence of numerous warnings throughout. These warnings vary in terms of their severity. Some of the less severe warnings can be found in 2:1-3, 3:6, 3:12-14, and 4:1. But in this article, we will concern ourselves with the two strongest warnings found in 6:4-6 and 10:26-29.

Hebrews 6:4-6 in Context

Chapter 6 begins with the author proposing a solution to a problem which he has been detailing since 5:11. The author has just finished explaining that Jesus is a high priest “after the order of Melchisedec.” Suddenly he changes his tone, and says that the things he wishes to impart to his readers about Jesus are difficult for him to say because his audience is not yet mature enough to receive them. He gently rebukes his audience for their spiritual immaturity throughout the remainder of chapter 5. He tells them that by now they should be matured beyond the point at which they are currently at spiritually. They should have a deeper understanding of the things of God even to the point that they should be able to teach others. Chapter 6 is continuing in this line of thought. The author says, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.” This is an exhortation for them to move on to maturity. This follows from the immediate context and is not controversial. He continues by saying, “Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of

---

[1] William Lane, Hebrews: A Call to Commitment, Pg. 25

[2] I use the vague term “the author” because the author of the book of Hebrews is unknown.

hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” Here the author is listing specific doctrines that his audience should understand by now. In 6:3 the author goes on to say “And this will we do, if God permit.” The question arises at this point as to why God would not allow someone to move beyond these rudimentary doctrines. Why would God not permit a believer to go on to maturity? The author answers this question in the next three verses. These verses are the most controversial in the book of Hebrews (if not the entire New Testament) and they are verses with which we will will be concerned.

The author writes, “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”

The Case Against Eternal Security

In order for Hebrews 6:4-6 to give evidence against eternal security, we must establish two things:

1. That the passage is indeed describing believers.
2. That the “falling away” refers to loss of salvation.

Let us first turn the question of whether or not believers are in view. As already noted, Hebrews 6:4-6 appears within the middle of a discussion exhorting the readers to go on to maturity. This is important because it forms the context for the warning. Since obviously unbelievers are not being exhorted to go on to maturity, it is evident that the warning appears within a section which is addressed to genuine Christians. Defenders of eternal security acknowledge this, but they point out that there must have been some unbelievers within the community. James White argues, “The book of Hebrews is written to all who are a part of that fellowship — including non-believers, some of whom were simply not completely convinced of the superiority of Christ over the old law, others who were quite simply hypocrites. The warnings that are provided are needed since we, as human beings, cannot see into the hearts of all men.”[1]

Leaving aside the issue that it makes no sense to warn people who, as James White believes, have been unconditionally predestined for either heaven or hell, White’s argument falls short. While it is quite true that there were probably some false converts within the church, this does not touch the argument against eternal security. The argument is that the specific descriptive terms used in 6:4-6 can only be properly applied to genuine believers. A general reference to the fact that there may have unbelievers within the congregation does not explain how unbelievers can properly be said to have been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, become partakers with the Holy Spirit, and so on. Any serious interpretation of this passage which wishes to maintain that unbelievers are being warned needs to seriously grapple with these descriptions. So let us take a closer look at these descriptions, and see if they can be reasonably applied to unbelievers.

Enlightened First, they are said to have been “enlightened.” If the meaning of a word in Scripture is ever unclear, it is always advisable to see how the word is used elsewhere by the same author. Fortunately, the author uses the word again in 10:32-33. Here he writes, “But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly

---

[1] James R. White, God’s Sovereign Grace, Pg. 156

by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.” The enlightenment described here seems to be a reference to conversion. Remember that the author is addressing persecuted Christians (he addresses the recipients of this specific statement as brethren in 10:19). In this passage he directly connects their suffering to this enlightenment. Since the persecution was taking place as a direct result of their faith in Christ, it seems that “enlightened” is a synonym for salvation here.

It has been suggested that “enlightened” could simply refer to being made aware of the gospel. John Lennox argues for such a reading saying, “John speaks of the Word as the true light which enlightens everyone (see John 1:9). Nowhere does Scripture teach that everyone will be saved – indeed, the contrary is the case. Hence it turns out that to be enlightened is not the same as to be saved.”[1] Now it should first be noted that Lennox’s interpretation is not available to the Calvinist. Calvinists hold that people are unable to understand the gospel prior to regeneration based on their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:14. But is this even a possible interpretation for the non-Calvinist? Well, we have two possible meanings for the word “enlightened.” Based on John 1:9 it could refer to a mere intellectual understanding, or based on Hebrews 10:32 it could refer to salvation. In their excellent introduction to biblical interpretation, Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard remind us that “Word-uses closer to the passage under study have greater weight than word-uses at the periphery. So how the author uses the word in the same book has more relevance than how the author uses the same words in other books. From there, we would consider how other authors in the same testament use the words.”[2] So why is Lennox giving priority to how the word is used in the Gospel of John over how the author of Hebrews himself uses the word? The only reason for this would be that he has already presupposed that the truth of eternal security. But speaking exegetically, the Arminian reading is the more likely.

Tasted the Heavenly Gift

Second, these people are said to have “tasted the heavenly gift.” First, we should ask what the heavenly gift refers to? It would seem reasonable to see the heavenly gift as equivalent to the gift of God which is repeatedly identified as salvation in Scripture (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 6:23, 2 Cor 9:15, John 4:10). It is difficult to see what else could rightly be called the gift of God.

Sometimes believers in eternal security will try to suggest that the word “tasted” means to have merely nibbled or sampled. But this seems unlikely in view of how the same word is used in Hebrews 2:9 where the author says that Christ “might taste death for everyone.” Obviously Jesus did not merely sample or nibble at death. Christ fully experienced death. F. Leroy Forlines says, “It is my position that the word taste is one of the strongest words that could have been used. In tasting, there is always a consciousness of the presence of that which has been tasted.”[3] Thus, we should understand the phrase “tasted of the heavenly gift” as saying “fully experienced the salvation of God.”

Partakers With the Holy Spirit Third, these people are described as having been made partakers with the Holy Spirit. This is, perhaps, the most difficult description for defenders of eternal security to get around. Some have tried to say that this merely means that the apostates have been influenced by the Holy Spirit. But this is not a possible meaning for the word used here. The Greek word translated as “partakers” is metochos and it means to be a participant, an associate, or a

---

[1] John C. Lennox, Determined to Believe?, Pg. 342

[2] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Pg. 196

[3] F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism, Pg. 316

partner. All of these terms require a real connection with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is further strengthened by an examination of how the word “partaker” is used throughout Hebrews. Not only does the term always denote a full participation, but it is also used exclusively of believers.

Consider these passages:

“Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.” (3:1) Since the term “brethren” is used here, it is clear that the partakers are believers.

“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” (3:14) This verse is interesting. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equally God. It would be extremely implausible for the defender of eternal security to suggest that one can be a partaker with the Holy Spirit without being saved while at the same time not being a partaker with Christ.

“It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.” (12:7-8) This last example is striking. Being a partaker of discipline is actually said to be the distinguishing characteristic of God’s children.

And if all of that were not enough, the fact that unbelievers actually cannot be partakers of the Holy Spirit is the final nail in the coffin of anyone seeking to believe that this phrase describes unbelievers. Romans 8:9 says, “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” John 14:17 is even more explicit saying, “That is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.” These verses make it impossible to regard a partaker with the Holy Spirit as an unsaved person. Unbelievers cannot receive the Holy Spirit nor can He dwell in them. Indeed, these passages indicate that the unbeliever is totally alien from the Holy Spirit. BJ Oropeza hits the nail on the head. “They also ‘shared in the holy Spirit’ … a thought that comes close to the mystical union of sharing in relationship with Christ (cf. 3:1, 14). Here the focus may be on the Spirit’s relationship, communion, and solidarity with believers, an early Christian hallmark for determining conversion-initiation, new life, and sanctification … There is in fact no passage in the New Testament that affirms unbelievers or fake Christians having a share in the Holy Spirit.”[1]

Tasted the Good Word of God

Although less conclusive than the first three descriptions, the statement, “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” seems to also describe genuine believers. As we have seen, “tasted” refers to a full experience. The good word of God is likely a reference to the gospel, though it could also refer to Christ (John 1:1). The powers of the age to come is plausibly a reference to the spiritual gifts. If so, then this strengthens the conclusion that believers are being described since the spiritual gifts were bestowed upon believers. Aside from the evidence we have already considered, all of the descriptive terms are in the aorist tense and denote completed actions. The fact that the author chose to describe these apostates with aorists suggests that he intended to describe a full experience rather than coming close to one. Even more significant is the fact that the author gives absolutely no indication whatsoever that he intends for these people to be understood as being unsaved. At some point we have to ask the question, why doesn’t the author just say that these apostates

---

[1] BJ Oropeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation, Pg. 35-36

were really close to being saved if that’s what he had meant to convey? It seems much more likely that the real reason eternal security theorists try so hard to prove that these terms don’t conclusively describe salvation is because their theology demands it. The author of Hebrews himself most assuredly offers no such qualifier. Oropeza reminds us, “There is little reason for the author to bother compiling an entire list of salvific blessings described in 6:1-4 if he were intending to communicate to his audience that these people were inauthentic believers. … Perhaps the author wants to affirm by the compilation of these participles in 6:4-6 that he is not referring to this type of half-hearted churchgoer, but to those who had unmistakably been converted. … Our author presents this passage, then, as part of his effort to shake the audience free from their spiritual dullness.[1]

And Have Fallen Away

It is my considered opinion that the evidence against viewing these apostates as being “almost saved” is decisive. So, we turn to the question, what does the falling away refer to? There are several reasons to believe this falling away refers to losing one’s salvation. In the first place, the falling away seems to parallel the drifting away in 2:1. I am convinced that a careful examination of the language in 2:1 will show that this is a reference to drifting away from salvation. If the passages are parallel, then it would be reasonable to infer that the falling away here is also from salvation. Second, it is said that the apostate cannot be brought back again to repentance. This is significant. Repentance is a condition for salvation (Luke 13:3). Since, repentance is what they cannot be brought back to, it would seem that this is also what they fell from. Moreover, the author says that they can’t be brought to repentance again. The presence of the word “again” means that they had already repented previously. After all, you can’t be brought back to something if you haven’t already done it!

Wayne Grudem tries to argue that this repentance was not salvific. He argues that repentance can merely refer to sorrow over sins. But in the first place, merely suggesting that “repentance” can mean “sorrow” as a possibility does not prove that this is, in fact, what is meant here. More importantly, the context refutes this idea. In verse 1, the author described the type of repentance he had in mind saying, “Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.” There is a to-from relationship between faith and repentance in Scripture. As Forlines says, “While repentance includes a ‘from’ and a ‘to,’ the stress of repentance is on the to instead of the from. Repentance is a forward moving word. … To exercise faith implies a change from unbelief, whatever the from of unbelief may be. Repentance terminates in faith. If we tell a person to repent, or if we tell him to believe, we are telling him to do the same thing. Repent stresses that change is involved. Faith stresses the end to which change is directed.”[2] Thus contextually, the repentance that these apostates have fallen from is the reverse side of faith. It is not mere sorrow as some would like to suppose. Further evidence that this falling was from salvation is seen in the reason the author gives for the impossibility of their restoration. He writes, “It is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” What is meant by crucifying the Son of God to oneself? It seems that to crucify something to yourself, in the New Testament, refers to a total rejection of something. Consider Paul’s words in Galatians 6:14. “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Here, Paul’s reference to crucifying the world to himself obviously means total alienation. Thus, it would be entirely reasonable to see the reference to crucifying Christ to

---

[1] BJ Oropeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation, Pg. 37

[2] F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth, Pg. 254-255

oneself in 6:6 as a reference to alienating oneself from God. Moreover, notice that the author says that they are crucifying Christ to themselves again. The word “again” suggests that this had already happened once. This further supports my thesis that these people had already been saved since, if they were never saved to begin with, then they would have always been alienated from Christ and thus the presence of the word “again” would be misleading. As Forlines says, “Let us note that this is a crucifixion in relationship, that is, to themselves. … The relationship of Christ to the unsaved is that of a dead Christ; but to the saved, He is a living Christ. A person could not crucify to himself the Son of God afresh unless he were in a living relationship to Him. Therefore, such could only be committed by a saved person.”[1]

Lastly, the final end of the apostates is to be burned according to Hebrews 6:8. This seems to be an obvious reference to hell. Since I have already established that these apostates were saved at one time, for their final end to be hell would require that the falling away is a reference to losing salvation.

Why Doesn’t It Say “Saved”?

Having, therefore, set forth a detailed case for the Arminian position, let us proceed to answer some objections from believers in eternal security. There is a common humbug among defenders of eternal security that the author of Hebrews doesn’t actually use the word “saved” to describe these individuals. While, of course, this is true, the objection carries little weight. The book of Hebrews, and indeed, the entire New Testament, uses a wide variety of terms to describe the believer besides “saved.” It is simply not reasonable to demand that this exact word be used each and every time believers are being described. The descriptions we do have are sufficient to establish that genuine believers are in view.

Robert Shank puts this rather colorfully, “We must … concede that it is not here said of them that they ever asked, “What must I do to be saved?” or that they ever prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Nor is it said of them that they had called upon the name of the Lord, or that that they had believed in their hearts, or that they had confessed with their mouths. … We must concede that many, many things “are not said of them” in the passage before us. But then, one cannot say everything in such brief compass. What the writer did say of them can be said only of men who have experienced the saving grace of God in Christ.”[2]

A Hypothetical Warning? Given the force of the arguments in favor of viewing these apostates as once being saved individuals, many believers in eternal security have tried to argue that this passage is merely hypothetical. Unfortunately, some translations such as the KJV do give the misleading impression that this could be hypothetical by rendering the verse as saying, “if they be fallen away.” But there is no “if” in the Greek. This word is supplied by the translators. We may concede that is possible that this passage is not describing actual people and merely warning what will happen if one falls away. But if this is the case, we must make a distinction between an actual hypothetical and a mere hypothetical. Remember, hypotheticals often describe what may truly come to pass. And since this passage is offered as a warning, it presupposes that this hypothetical is a real possibility. Anyone who wants to say that these verses describe a mere hypothetical, that is, a hypothetical which could never become a reality, clearly bears the burden of proof. But we might justifiably ask, is this even a hypothetical at all? Given the presence of the aorists, which denote completed actions, it seems more likely that the author is describing actual apostates and using them as an example. As Shank notes, “Instead of assuming that the apostasy which engulfed ‘them’ cannot overtake ‘you’, the writer holds them up before ‘you’ as a tragic example for their solemn

---

[1] F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism, Pg. 318

[2] Robert Shank, Life in the Son, Pg. 228-229

warning and proceeds earnestly to exhort his readers, ‘And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end; that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.’”[1]

Moreover, there is a theological problem with this hypothetical interpretation. As Stanley Outlaw notes, “Of all the views listed, this approach (hypothetical) may be the worst with regard to the integrity of Scripture. It suggests that we cannot always take seriously God’s warnings, that He may actually be playing games with us. It appears to make God operate on the premise: ‘What they don’t know won’t hurt them.’ … This view is worthy of nothing more than to be tagged as a cop-out, a trumped-up explanation contrived to avoid the obvious truth of this passage of Scripture.”[2]

But eternal security theorists will still protest that in verse 9, the author expresses confidence that his readers will persevere. They reason that verses 4-6 cannot be describing genuine believers losing their salvation since the writer does not include his readers among them. However, this argument seems to overlook the fact that the author doesn’t count his readers among the apostates only after they have fallen away. To say that this description could not be true of the readers makes one wonder why the author included it as a warning. Robert Shank responds by saying, “Some appeal to verse 9…to contend that such apostasy cannot actually occur. But they fail to reckon with the transition from the third person (‘those, they, them’) in verses 4-6 to the second person (‘you’) in verse 9. The writer is ‘persuaded of better things of you,’ but not of ‘them.’ While he is persuaded that ‘you’ have not as yet apostatized, he declares that ‘they’ indeed have done so.”[3]

Loss of Rewards?

Realizing the futility of denying that the apostates were saved, some have tried to argue that the passage merely describes a loss of rewards. David Allen defends this view saying, “These are genuine believers who are in danger of forfeiting some new covenant blessings in this life as well as rewards at the Judgment seat of Christ.”[4]Allen focuses on the fact that a reward is in view in 6:7. However, as Frederick Claybrook points out, “He does not speak of blessings (plural) … but blessing (singular), that is, the eternal blessing of everlasting life. In contract, land that produces thorns and thistles is in danger of being cursed” (v. 8). Those who are cursed will not inherit eternal life (cf. II Peter 2:14).”[5]

Allen’s view that this loss refers exclusively to rewards simply cannot account for two factors. First, as we have seen, the falling away is from salvific repentance. While this most assuredly will result in a loss of any rewards one may have received, it also results in loss of salvation since repentance is a condition for salvation. Second, Allen’s view simply does not take the descriptions of judgement seriously. In verse 8, the author describes the end of these apostates as being burned – a term which would most naturally be taken as a reference to hell. As Grant Osborne notes, “To think this represents merely loss of rewards is virtually impossible because the language is much too strong.”[6] It is inconsistent to take the clear descriptions of believers in verses 4-6 literally while ignoring the clear language of damnation in verse 8. It is interesting to note that Allen does not reject the view that this passage is teaching apostasy for any strictly textual reason. He says, “The key weakness from the standpoint of the New Testament is the difficulty of explaining the plethora of passages that affirm the eternal security of the believer.”[7] It seems,

---

[1] Robert Shank, Life in the Son, Pg. 177-178

[2] Stanley Outlaw, The Randall House Bible Commentary: Hebrews, Pg. 122

[3] Robert Shank, Life in the Son, Pg. 177-178

[4] David L. Allen, New American Commentary: Hebrews, Pg. 377

[5] Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Once Saved, Always Saved?, Pg. 36

[6] Grant R. Osborne, “A Classical Arminian View” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, Pg. 127

[7] David L. Allen, New American Commentary: Hebrews, Pg. 371

then, that Allen’s interpretation is determined by his prior commitment to eternal security than by sound exegesis. As Outlaw says, “Repentance is a condition of salvation, not a condition for rewards. If a person cannot repent, then he cannot meet one of the essential requirements for salvation. … The inability to repent surely means more than loss of rewards; it must be no less than eternal forfeiture of salvation.”[1]

Support For Eternal Security?

Some have tried to argue that the passage is merely saying that there is no need to repent again because it’s impossible to lose your salvation in the first place. In other words, the passage is interpreted as teaching that a backslidden Christian doesn’t need to repent again. Norman Geisler explains, “The very fact that it is ‘impossible’ for them to repent again indicates the once-for-all nature of repentance. In other words, they don’t need to repent again since they did it once and that is all that is needed for ‘eternal redemption.’”[2] Geisler’s interpretation is impossible on numerous levels.

In the first place the reason he gives for the impossibility of repenting again does not match the reason the author of Hebrews gives. According to Geisler, there is no need to repent again because one can’t lose their salvation. But according to verse 6, the reason for the impossibility is that the apostates are once again crucifying the Son of God and shaming Him. As we have seen, to crucify something to yourself means to totally repudiate it. So unlike Geisler’s very comforting interpretation, the author of Hebrews connects their inability to repent to their total rejection of Christ. This is not a mere description of backsliding.

Second, Geisler ignores the prior context of the warning. Remember, verses 4-6 are answering the question raised in verse 3, namely why wouldn’t a believer go on to maturity? Saying apostates can’t repent again because there is no need to repent again would hardly explain why God might not permit maturity.

Third, Geisler ignores the following context of the warning. In verse 9, the author says that he is persuaded of better things for his readers. In other words, the author does not consider this falling away to have happened of his audience. Does Geisler really think that none of the readers of Hebrews had ever backslidden? His interpretation would seem to require this absurd conclusion.

Fourth, and most damaging of all, Geisler ignores the fact that these people are said to be burned in the end. This is almost likely a reference to hell and therefore does not comport with his thesis that the passage merely teaches that a second repentance is unnecessary.

Proves Too Much?

Almost all defenders of eternal security argue that if this passage proves that salvation can be lost, then it proves too much for it seems to preclude an apostate ever being saved again. Charles Stanley says, “Unfortunately for those who do not believe in eternal security, these verses seem to go a step beyond what they believe. If the subject of these verses is salvation, believers who “fall away” can never be saved again! There is no second chance. In the author’s words, “It is impossible to renew them again to repentance.”[3] This argument appears with disturbing frequency. I shall not pursue the question of whether or not apostasy is permanent in this article. There are qualified scholars who argue for both positions.[4] My own study of the issue leads me to conclude that apostasy is indeed final and that apostates cannot be saved again. But this is entirely beside the point. Shouldn’t

---

[1] Stanley Outlaw, The Randall House Bible Commentary: Hebrews, Pg. 123

[2] Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, Pg. 130-131

[3] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security, Pg. 163

[4] Final: Forlines, Picirilli, Claybrook, Oropeza, Marshall, Outlaw; Not final: Shank, Abasciano, Cockerill, Wheadon, Dongell, Carter

we be trying to develop a theology that aligns with Scripture rather than saying a particular Scripture proves more than some Arminians believe? If the text is teaching that apostasy is final, then as Christians, that is what we should believe – popular opinion not withstanding.

A Counterexample?

Before moving on, we must examine the field illustration which immediately follows verses 4-6. Here, the author writes, “For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.” (6:7-8) Eternal security theorists will often use this illustration to support the idea that the apostates described in the preceding verses were never saved. They contend that because the field yielded thorns and thistles, the apostates must not have ever been believers. This is problematic for multiple reasons.

First, we should never interpret the clear through the unclear. Our interpretation of the clear language in 6:4-6 should govern our interpretation of the illustration of the field. To try to interpret the clear descriptive terms in 4-6 through an illustration is not wise.

Second, this argument seems to assume that there are two fields described in this illustration: one that bears fruit and another that bears thorns. But this is nowhere stated in the text. It more naturally reads as describing a single field which, at one time was fruitful, but eventually became hardened and thorny. This interpretation doesn’t make the arbitrary assumption that there are two fields, and more importantly, it coheres with the description of believers apostatizing in the earlier verses. It also coheres well with the warnings against hardening your heart found throughout the book (3:7, 8, 13, 15; 4:7).

Lastly, the illustration of the “righteous one” described in 10:35-38 parallels the field illustration. The passage reads, “Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay. But My righteous one shall live by faith; And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” It is clear that the one who shrinks back is the same as the righteous one. Thus, we have every reason to believe that the fruitful field is the same as the one that ultimately grows thorns.

Hebrews 10:26-29

While Hebrews 6:4-6 is probably the most controversial warning in debates over eternal security, it is my opinion that Hebrews 10:26-29 is far more conclusive. The passage reads. “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 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?” We should ask 1) Who is addressed? and 2) What happens to them? The text seems to clearly describe saved individuals. First, the author includes himself among those he is addressing by saying “if we go on sinning.” This suggests that he considered himself capable of committing this willful sin. The willful sin here is generally understood to be the same concern addressed throughout the book. So it can be seen as the same as the drifting or falling away in chapters 2 and 6. This sinning is said to happen after one receives the knowledge of the truth. Wayne Grudem tries to argue that this is merely a reference to hearing the gospel saying, “To “receive knowledge of the truth” simply means to hear and understand the gospel, and probably to give mental agreement or approval to it.”[1] However, the word here translated “knowledge” is epignosis and it means to have a full or complete knowledge of something. This is significant both because the New Testament uses it as a synonym for salvation (1 Tim 2:4) as well as because the author could have easily used the weaker Greek word gnōsis if he had wanted to convey merely intellectual knowledge. Grudem’s thesis is, therefore, unlikely in view of the author’s word choice here.

Sanctified by the Blood of Christ

The major problem for defenders of eternal security is that the apostate is said to have actually been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. While some try to say that this is a reference to the old covenant sacrifices, the context will not permit this. The author is comparing the judgment these apostates deserve with the judgment that violators under the old covenant deserved. As Oropeza says, “There is no other sacrifice for sin apart from Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, and hence the apostate who rejects Christ cannot be brought back to restoration again even though such an individual was once sanctified. Apostasy is viewed as violating a greater covenant than that of Moses, and the defector can only expect a fearful retribution from God.”[2]

Most proponents of eternal security see this as being a covenantal or a ceremonial sanctification but not a salvific sanctification. But it is difficult to get a precise definition of what that really means let alone what role the blood of Christ plays in this sanctification. Grudem says, “The word sanctification need not refer to the internal moral purification that comes with salvation for the word hagiazō [sanctified] has a broader range than that both in Hebrews and in the New Testament generally.”[3] What Grudem says is true. Sanctification can refer to something other than salvation (1 Cor. 7:14 for example). However, this is just an appeal to the semantic range of the word. While it doesn’t have to refer to salvific sanctification, it normally does. Grudem must do better than merely appeal to another possible meaning. He needs to demonstrate that this is what is being communicated here. The fact that the author says that this sanctification was by the blood of Christ makes Grudem’s suggestion difficult to take seriously.

Grudem goes on to say, “The author is speaking of the fact that the congregation in general has a “new and living way” (10:20) available by the blood of Christ, and therefore can “enter the sanctuary” (10:19) and “draw near” (10:22) into God’s presence.”[4] Once the flowery language is cut away, Grudem’s suggestion would seem to be that this ceremonial sanctification means little more than going to Church and maybe vaguely experiencing the presence of God. The only role that the blood of Christ seems to play in this sanctification is that it makes such an experience possible. This thesis is incredibly weak just on the face of it. It fails to account both for how the author uses the term “sanctification” as well as for the severity of the offense. First, while Grudem is correct that the verses he is quoting are about assembling at church to enter God’s presence, he ignores the preceding context. Here it says, “This is the covenant that I will make with them… . “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, … let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith.” (10:16-22) Notice that the ability to

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from the Warning Passages in Hebrews” in Still Sovereign, Pg. 176

[2] BJ Oropeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation, Pg. 69

[3] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from the Warning Passages in Hebrews” in Still Sovereign, Pg. 177

[4] Ibid, Pg. 177-178

enter into God’s presence is directly tied to the fact that their sins have been forgiven. Since Grudem regards the apostates as having never been saved, he cannot say that they have been sanctified in such a way as to enable them to enter God’s presence but not in such a way that their sins have been forgiven. The author’s whole point in these verses is that because their sins have been forgiven, they can enter God’s presence. It seems, then that the author has salvific sanctification in mind.

This conclusion is strengthened by looking at verses 4 and 10. In 10:4, we read, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” But then speaking of the work of Christ, “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (10:10) The whole point of this section is that even though the blood of animals cannot take away sins, the blood of Christ can. And the author uses the word “sanctified” to describe this event. This gives us every reason to see the sanctification in verse 29 as being salvific. The author recognizes only two types of sanctification. Old covenant sanctification which could not take away sins and new covenant sanctification which does. There is no reason to conjure up a third type of sanctification as Grudem wants to. Forlines reminds us, “The other references in the epistle in which the word sanctify is used are: 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14; 13:12. If the reader will examine these verses, he will find that each of these except 9:13 has reference to sanctification that accompanies salvation in the New Testament. If the writer of the epistle were going to use sanctification in an entirely different sense here, does it not seem reasonable that he would have made it clear when using it in connection with such a drastic warning?”[1]

Second, Grudem’s thesis fails to do justice to the severity of the language used here. How can simply going to church, and being outwardly considered a Christian, and then deciding to leave, be considered treading under foot the Son of God? And why should that be considered an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is this not exactly what a Calvinist like Grudem expects a false convert to do? Why is merely going to church, and then leaving, worthy of worse punishment than violating the law of Moses? Grudem’s hypothesis makes no sense and exists only because his prior commitment to eternal security demands it. There will always be a catch-22 here for anyone who maintains eternal security. If it is admitted that these people were saved, then we have clear evidence that someone can lose their salvation due to the clear language of fiery judgment. If it is denied that they were saved, then the gravity of their sin and the severity of their judgement will remain inexplicable.

Was Jesus Sanctified?

Realizing the futility of denying that the sanctification is salvific, some Calvinists posit that Jesus Christ Himself is the One who was sanctified by His own blood. Stanley Outlaw refers to this theory as “unworthy of consideration.”[2] Calvinists Robert Peterson and Michael Williams say that it is “contrived.”[3] Nonetheless, a few prominent Calvinist apologists actually put this view forward as a serious alternative to the view that this passage is simply describing the destruction of genuine apostates. James White takes this view, saying, “The error that is often made in regards to this passage is to understand “by which he was sanctified” to refer to the person who goes on sinning willfully against the blood of Christ… But remembering yet again the argument of the writer we see that the writer is referring to Christ as the one who is sanctified, set apart, shown to be holy, by his own sacrifice.”[4]

---

[1] F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism, Pg. 320

[2] “A few commentators have tried to make “he was sanctified” refer to Christ … but this view is unworthy of consideration.” Stanley Outlaw, The Randall House Bible Commentary: Hebrews, Pg. 257

[3] “We reject as contrived John Owen’s idea that [this sanctification] refers to Christ.” Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I am not an Arminian , Pg. 86

[4] James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, Pg. 244-245

Let us first observe that Scripture in general, and Hebrews in particular, almost invariably presents sinners as being sanctified by Christ’s blood (Heb 10:14, 19, 22; 13:2; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 John 1:7; 1 Peter 1:1-2). But is there any merit in the idea that Christ Himself was sanctified by His own blood? There are only two verses that could be used to support this idea.

The first is Hebrews 9:11-12. “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” The phrase “through his own blood” is where evidence is seen that Christ was sanctified by His own blood. But clearly the text doesn’t say this. It only says that His own blood was the means by which entered the holy place and thereby purchased redemption. To say that Jesus was somehow sanctified by this purchase reads more into the text than it says. Moreover, this interpretation becomes impossible when one considers the context. Verse 7 makes it clear that the author is contrasting Jesus’ work as a priest with the work of the Levitical high priest. The priests under old covenant had to offer a sacrifice to cleanse both themselves and the people. But Christ had no need of a personal cleansing. Rather than entering the Holy of Holies with the blood of animals, He enters through His own blood. 9:14 is clear that the blood is for the purpose of cleansing sinners. Moreover, it says Christ was “without blemish” before the crucifixion indicating that He, Himself, needed no cleansing. Hebrews 7:26-27 is especially difficult for anyone wanting to suggest that Christ had to be sanctified. “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” To suggest that Jesus needed a personal sanctification prior to His atonement for sins would violate the all-important message of this text, namely that Jesus was a better high priest because he needed no sanctification.

The other verse that could potentially be used to support this idea is John 17:19. The verse reads “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.” This is the only reference to Jesus being sanctified in the New Testament. But it doesn’t support White’s thesis because Jesus is not said to have been sanctified by His own blood. Indeed, this sanctification has little to do with the sort of sanctification discussed in Hebrews. The context of the passage makes clear that this sanctification or setting apart, was for the purpose of being witnesses of the Gospel. It is about being set apart from the world, and consecrated for a mission. It has nothing to do with the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. Indeed, the very idea that one can be sanctified by their own blood seems to undermine the very logic behind sanctification. The whole reason one needs to be sanctified by the blood of another is because one is sinful and therefore unacceptable. For someone to be sanctified by their own blood would imply that the person was already impure and that their own blood was therefore incapable of cleansing anyone. Since Christ was always holy, what need is there for Him to be sanctified? Ben Henshaw rightly observes, “We may find it disturbing to accept the possibility that one truly cleansed by Christ’s blood can yet apostatize and perish eternally, but we should be far more disturbed by any interpretation that seeks to make the holy and blameless Lamb of God in need of purification by His own blood.”[1]

Conclusion

---

[1] Ben Henshaw, “Perseverance of the Saints Part 7: Who is Sanctified in Hebrews 10:29?” https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-7-who-is-sanctified-in-hebrews-1029/

In conclusion, the warnings in Hebrews are strong and powerful. Attempts to say that they are not directed towards believers in danger of losing their salvation cannot be sustained by sound exegesis. Based on Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29, it seems reasonable to conclude that the author believed that the apostasy of a genuine believer was a real and ever present danger. Therefore, it should remain a danger for those who desire to take Scripture seriously. As believers we would do well to apply such warnings to ourselves, using them as a motivation to hold fast our conviction and move ever onwards in our spiritual maturity.