Suzy B Software 2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Suzy B Software 2 / Suzy B Software CD-ROM 2 (1994).iso / christin / calvin / election.doc < prev

Wrap

Text File | 1995-05-02 | 70KB | 1,542 lines

An exploratory file. Investigates the possible relationship between election and falling away. Defines election as being marked out for heaven by virtue of one's union with the church. The author views election the same way he views someone being accepted into a school that prepares students to become officers. Those accepted into the school are all equally "chosen" to be officers, they are all equally elect. However, not all of the "elect" will stay and graduate, some will drop out. Seventeen passages are referred to for sup port. Keywords: Election,Arminianism,Calvinism,Eternal Security,,Baptists,Falling Away,Free will --------------------------------- THE FALL OF THE ELECT "...make your....election sure....if you do this you will never fall. In this way entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you." 2 Pet 1:10 The title, The Fall of the Elect, challenges the very definition of election. If there is a single clear fact on the doctrine of election, it is that the Bible does not say enough about it. There is plenty of room for investigation and experimentation therefore. In this file a view of election will be put forth that is different than most. It is experimental in nature. Therefore, you should feel free to question it as you see fit. A Preview of How Election is Defined In This File There are approximately 80 passages in the New testament alone that suggest a person who is marked for heaven can fall away permanently. This file asks what relationship this could have to the doctrine of election. Seventeen key pas- sages will be discussed which suggest to this writer that election can be lost by a withdrawal from faith. Of course, the natural question is how could a person be elected before the foundation of the world and then lose it. Did not God know what He was doing when He elected them back then? In this file, it is the body of Christ, the church, those in Christ corporately, which God chose before the foundation of the world, to stand holy and blameless before Him at the last day (Eph 1:4). We as individuals are all like branches that have been grafted into that body, we are but branches grafted onto a predestined tree by means of our faith. Our election is derived from our union with the body of Christ, the tree of which we are the branches. As we were grafted on by faith, so also can we become broken off, if we É36É3 èwithdraw from faith. The tree would continue on, and other branches would be grafted in. The next logical question seems to be, "What then are we elected to?" In this file, to be elect means to be marked out NOW for a FUTURE salvation in heaven, i.e., marked by the sealing of the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption which is yet future (cf. Eph 1:13,14 with 4:30). You might compare your election to your being appointed an heir NOW of a large inheritance that will be given to you in the FUTURE, and in the meantime you must undergo training and preparation to receive it. Or, you might compare your election to being accepted into a school that prepares students to become officers. Those accepted into the school are all equally "chosen" to be officers, they are all equally elect. Howev er, not all of the "elect" will stay and graduate, some will drop out. As our header verse indicated, one must make their election sure [steadfast] lest they should fall away from their future entry into the kingdom. Again, in this file, Election is defined as being marked out now for a salvation in heaven that is yet future. A person becomes elect, or marked for future salvation, by virtue of their union with the body of Christ through their faith. If a person withdraws from faith, however, they withdraw from that union. The future salvation is then lost. Election is according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Pet 1:2) in that the church comprises God's foreknown people (see corollary discussion on Rom 11:2 at end of this file). The question you must ask yourself is whether the next seventeen passages support this definition of election. Other Implications If the position in this file proves to be the best interpre tation of the passages, then, logically, the entire Calvin ist structure would have collapsed. The Calvinists realize this also, as this quote from L. Boettner demonstrates: [the five points of Calvinism] are so inter-related that they form a simple, harmonious, self consistent system and...they fit together as component parts of a whole..Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the sys- tem. Prove anyone of them false and the whole system must be abandoned. 1 In other words, if those who are truly marked for heaven can permanently fall away from salvation, then the whole Calvin- istic system must be abandoned. The logic is inescapable. If persons reserved for heaven are able to become lost, then the autonomy which God had placed on man's freewill would be self-evident. In turn, there would be no room for a doctrine of irresistible grace, no room for unconditional election, and no room for Calvinism whatsoever. Answering a Misconception What the doctrine of falling away (defectability) actually denotes, is probably quite different than what some have heard from the pulpits of Calvinists and others who oppose it. 2 It is not a case where a person sins a little sin or a big sin and then loses salvation, and then becomes resaved, and then sins, and becomes lost again, and then resaved etc. etc. No, that is not the doctrine at all. The doctrine is this, if a saved person withdraws from faith he will stop being saved, and he will not likely be able to be resaved. Withdrawing from faith doesn't necessarily mean one stops believing the gospel either. For, withdrawing from faith also includes those who believe the gospel who cease to live by the faith of the gospel. Their faith has become dead, like that salt which has lost all its flavor and has become worthless. In practice they equal unbelievers. All of the above is by way of introduction. We will now take a quick glance at what early Christians historically believed about falling away, and then at what Arminians believe, and then what Calvinists believe. This is to show that the Arminians have continued in the tradition of the earliest Christians. From there we will proceed to the study of the scriptures. EARLY CHURCH TEACHING The Didache: Be watchful for your life...and ye shall gather yourselves together frequently, seeking what is fitting for your souls; for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you, if ye be not perfected at the last season. 3 Irenaeus : "in order that we may not lose life by losing that spirit which possesses us...." 4 "...in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God but preserved by themselves..." 5 "...and from those to who He had given the most shall He demand most. We ought...therefore ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after we have come to the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom" 6 Justin Martyr : "...such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back...and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved..." 7 "...He...would save those who do not depart from His faith..." 8 ARMINIANISM James Arminius: "He (God) embraces no one in Christ, unless he is in Christ. But no one is in Christ, except by faith in Christ, which is the necessary means of our union with Christ. If any one falls from faith, he falls from that union, and, consequently, from the favor of God by which he was previously embraced in Christ." 9 CALVINISM The Westminster Confession : "They whom God hath accepted in his beloved,... can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved...This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election..." 10 Observation On Quotations Above: As can be seen from the early church quotations, the early Fathers who lived closest in time to the apostles believed it was possible for a man to depart from the faith. Irenaeus said that the Spirit of life which possesses us could be lost and that the gift of salvation was indeed a gift but we had to preserve it ourselves and he tied that to the doctrine of freewill. Justin Martyr told of people who confessed Christ that would ultimately be lost and said that God would save those who do not depart from His faith which obviously means they could. Then we came to a comparison of Arminianism and Calvinism to what the early Fathers believed. Arminius seems to agree in principle with the early Fathers and bases continuing salvation upon a continuing faith. The Westminster Confession, however, which is the image of Calvinism itself, denies the concept that free will plays a role in continued salvation, and asserts it is impossible to fall totally and finally away because of the immutability of the decree of election. Historically, then, Calvinism is a departure in principle from the faith held by the early church whereas Arminianism has kept faith with early Christianity. What remains to be seen is whether the scripture agrees with those early Christians who lived closest to the apos tles, and with Arminianism, or whether it agrees with Cal vinism. THE MAIN STUDY A study of 17 Scriptures which argue against an unconditional security, and which imply the elect can fall away É3█É3 è I. 2 Pet. 2:18-22 "...they allure through the...flesh those that were clean escaped from them who live in error...for if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world...through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. At his juncture I wish to remove a common objection right away. There is a tendency for Calvinists and others to say this passage refers to the false teachers mentioned in verse one who had never been saved. Notice how that interpretation is ruled out immediately by verse 18 though, "...they [the false teachers] seek to allure through the lusts of the flesh...those that were..escaped." There are two groups. There are the false teachers AND those they seek to allure, who had escaped. Hence the persons who escaped are not the false teachers but distinct from them. Discussion of 2 Pet 2:20 The most common approach used by Calvinists to reconcile 2 Pet 2:20 with their view of an unconditional security is to say those who "escaped the pollutions of the world" were not born again persons but only those who reformed their outward lives. The Calvinist John Gill wrote: Nothing is said of them which discovers them to have been true believers. They might have externally escaped the pollutions of the world...professed the way of righteousness and for awhile visibly walked in it...and yet not have been partakers of the grace of God...11 Gill's book was written back in the 1700's, but the Calvinists of today still use the same argument. In his new book, R.C. Sproul writes: Peter... speaks of washed sows wallowing again and dogs who return to their vomit comparing them to people who have turned away after being instructed in the way of righteousness. These are false converts whose natures have never been changed. 12 You see then that their entire defense rests on the claim that these persons who fell away had never been truly converted. Let us see whether that claim can be successfully challenged. WHO ARE THE ESCAPED? Note the word "escaped" in 2 Pet 1:3,4. There, where Peter first uses the term, we find he uses it in conjunction with the called, the partakers of the divine nature. As follows: "....through the KNOWLEDGE (epignosis) of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence..partakers of [the] divine nature having ESCAPED (apophugo) the corruption that is in the world through lust." (NASB emphasis and parentheses added) So there, in chapter 1, where Peter was saying hello to the church in a friendly way, he identified his fellow brethren as being called of God, as partakers of the divine nature, as having escaped the corruption of the world, and as having escaped by means of the epignosis of Christ. In your opinion does all THAT in 1:3,4 describe false teachers and hypocrites or does it refer to those who have truly become Christians? I presume you will agree it refers to true believers for it is inconceivable that unbelievers or false brethren should be referred to as those who had been called, escaped, and partook of the divine nature. Let us now re-examine 2:20 where Peter again describes those who "escaped (apophugo) by the knowledge (epignosis) of Him." "For if after they have ESCAPED (apophugo) the defile- ments of the world by the KNOWLEDGE (epignosis) of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN entangled in them and are overcome...it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered unto them.." (NASB emphasis added) Peter is using the SAME phraseology to describe those who fall away as he used to describe the called in 1:3,4. Who are the partakers of the divine nature? The answer is they who have escaped through the knowledge of him (1:3,4). Who are they that can fall away? The answer is the same, they who have escaped through the knowledge of Christ. Compare the two side by side and see for yourself. THE CALLED THOSE WHO FALL AWAY (2 Pet 1:3,4 ) (2 Pet 2:20) ...through the knowledge through the knowledge of him of...Christ _____________________ _______________________ escaped the corruption escaped the pollutions that is in the world of the world... Do you see the connection? Peter was still taking about the same persons in 2:20 that he mentioned in 1:3,4, i.e., the called. The Formula Premise: Partakers of the divine nature have escaped (1:3,4) Premise: Those who escaped can fall away (2 Pet 2:18,20) ___________________________________________________________ Conclusion: Partakers of the divine nature can fall away. We know Peter wrote to warn believers to not fall prey to the false teachers ("...beloved...be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness. 3:17) Why, then, should we buy the argument that he isn't doing that in 2:20? Or, did he suddenly change his purpose in 2:20 and decide to start warning hypocrites instead? Hardly likely. And, since he regards the called as those who ESCAPED in 1:3,4, why would he all of a sudden change the term to mean hypocrites in 2:20? Again, it is not a very likely option. That is the Calvinist response though. They need to presume a sudden and unannounced and a very unlikely reversal on Peter's part, in order to survive 2:20. When Gill wrote that nothing was said of them to indicate they were true believers, he was wrong. When Sproul said they were false converts whose natures had never been changed, he was wrong. In addition, the following evidence is offered: 1. The Greek word for `KNOWLEDGE' (epignosis) is the same in both passages. 2. The Greek word for `ESCAPED' (apophugo) is the same in both passages. 3. Those who escaped are said to be AGAIN entangled and overcome. (They had once been the overcomers.) 4. The persons here spoken of fell totally and finally away. In fact it would have been better for them to never have heard the Gospel. What shall we say then? The answer which Calvinists have relied on for the past few hundred years never was able to bear the weight trusted to it. Yet, they still accept it as the response to the passage, and then many others believe it simply because they are told. Let us now move on to other verses which challenge unconditional security.. II. 2 Peter 1:8-11 "...Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall. For so an entrance shall be administered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Peter is speaking postively here instead of negatively. Instead of speaking negatively and saying this, "Make your election sure or you will fall away, and no abundant en trance into the kingdom will be adminstered to you." he says it positively, "Make your election sure and you will never fall, and so an abundant entrance into the kingdom will be provided to you." When encouraging someone it is important that we speak positively so as to create an image of success with our words. Our job, however, when reading such positive exhorta- tions, is to see if they imply the negative possibility of falling away, but to do so in such a way that we ourselves keep the positive image of victory before our mind's eye. It is granted, then, that Peter does not directly say a person can fall away from entering the kingdom if they do not make their election sure. However, neither do we say it is absolutely implied that Peter meant a person could fall away permanently. Instead, we speak only of probability. Was it probable, not merely possible but probable, that, Peter spoke positively here, so as to encourage, but that he believed it was possible for the elect to fall away from the kingdom permanently? As you consider that question, don't forget that this discussion of making election sure occurs between 1 :3,4 and 2:20 which we just described above, suggesting that this passage indeed implies what we just saw in 2:20. By the way, also note that the Calvinist response to this passage does not harmonize well with the context. They say making your election sure is nothing more than assuring oneself of his or her election. The context is clear, howev- er, that making your election sure is something you must do TO PREVENT FROM FALLING so as to obtain that entry in the kingdom that is to be richly provided. Making election sure, then, is not about making sure you were elected, but it is about doing those things that keep election steadfast which in turn will prevent one's falling. Election is something we now hold toward a future en- trance in the kingdom. Let us do those things which maintain our election steadfast. In this way we make sure we will never fall, and in turn, we make sure that an abundant entrance into the kingdom is waiting for us. III. Colossians 1:22,23 ...to present you holy and unblameable... in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel..... If you continue in the faith you shall be presented holy and unblameable to the Father. That implies a negative truth that a person marked for heaven can fall away if they do not continue in the faith. But, being presented holy and unblameable to the Father is what we are elected unto (Eph. 1:4). So, although the word election is not used here, the concept is. What we are look ing at here in Colossians 1:22, 23 is the implied possibili ty of falling from election, and the relationship which a continuing faith has to election. The Formula Premise: In Christ we are elected to stand holy and blameless before God (Eph1:4) Premise: One must continue in the faith to appear before God holy and blameless in Christ. (Col 1:22,23) _____________________________________________________________ Implication: If one does not continue in faith they will not obtain that which they were elected unto. Also note this comparison between Col. 1:22,23 and 2 Pet.1:10,11 (our previous verse): COL.1:22,23 * 2 PET.1:10,11 The ..to present you holy * ..an entrance shall be Future * ministered unto you Hope * abundantly ____________________________________________________________ The if ye continue * ..give diligence to Condition in the faith * make...your..election * sure..if ye do..ye shall * never fall In Peter we are to make our election sure in order to enter the kingdom abundantly, in Colossians we are to continue in the faith in order to be presented holy. Both convey the same concept, and the difference between them is only mini- mally significant. But someone might say, "Well maybe I won't enter the kingdom abundantly but I will enter it without any fanfare." That is a possiblility, but if our comparison with Col. 1:22,23 is accurate, it would also be like saying, "Maybe I won't be presented holy in Christ but I will enter anyway." And that sounds more like no entrance at all, for we are told in Hebrews 12:14, "Pursue...holiness without which no one will see the Lord." It would seem then that we either enter abundantly and holy, or we do not enter at all. Someone will undoubtedly reply with 1 Cor 3:15. There- fore, see the note on that passage at the end of this docu- ment. IV. 1 Peter 1:4,5 To an inheritance incorruptible...reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the power of God through faith, ready to be revealed in the last time According to 1 Pet 1:3-9, a person who has a reservation for heaven is being kept by the power of God unto future salvation "through faith." This implies that we hold an election towards a future salvation yet to take place in heaven. But, does 1:5 mean God makes the person believe so that they will be kept unto salvation? It seems more likely that it means a person is kept by God's power unto salvation through THEIR faith, that is they are kept provided they maintain their faith, as we just saw in Col. 1:22,23 above. Again, the issue is not whether this point can be forced or proven absolutely. It is a question of probability. That is, are we correct to view Peter's passive-positive description, "God's power keeps you through faith" as an active negative statement, "God's power won't keep you un- less *YOU* continue in faith." But first an example. Here, John Doe, the sports enthusiast, uses a passive positive description of the best swimmers, A PASSIVE-POSITIVE STATEMENT "the best swimmers have managers who keep them in good condition through exercise;" Here, John Doe would be speaking in a passive-positive voice like we see in 1 Pet 1:5. Notice, it is "passive" because it is not the swimmers themselves, but the manager (some one other than themselves) who keeps them in good condition through exercise. And, it is "positive" because the result is a good result. Hence, the statement is passive-positive. Now, how do you think John Doe would react if we converted his statement from a passive-positive into an active-negative? That is, how would he respond if we interpreted him to mean, AN ACTIVE-NEGATIVE STATEMENT "Even the Best swimmers lose their conditioning if they don't perform daily exercise according to their managers." It is "active" because the swimmers are the ones who must perform. And, it is "negative" because the result would not be a good one. The question however, is whether you think John Doe would disagree with our active-negative rewording of his passive-positive statement. Would he agree with the rewording, or would he complain that we took the role of the manager away and placed it in the hands of the swimmers themselves?! Can you imagine him saying this? "Either the manager is the cause of their exercise or the swimmers are. It can't be both!" And, how about this? "If the swimmers can exercise on their own then the manager is not the one keeping them in condition through exercise, but the swimmers are." Or, do you think he would say this? "Of course the swimmers will lose their conditioning if they don't excercise according to their managers! Did you think I meant the swimmers were robots or something?" In other words, is the probability greater that John Doe would agree or disagree with our active-negative restatement of his words? By the same token is the probability greater that Peter would agree or disagree with an active-negative restatement of his words. Although he said this, "kept by the power of God through faith" Would he agree with this: "If you don't maintain faith you won't be kept" As you consider this, please examine the passages below where Peter's passive-positive verse is compared side by side with some active-negative statements from other verses: Peter 1:5: ...kept by the power of God through faith..." (passive-positive) Romans 11:20-22: ...thou standest by faith...take heed...otherwise you will be cut off..." (active-negative) Hebrews 4:11: ...labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief... (active-negative) Now, let us compare this verse (1 Pet.1:5) with some that we know talk about election and let us note the similari- ties: THE NATURE OF OUR ELECTION Col.1:22,23 1Pet.1:4,5,13 2 Pet. 1:10,11 the to present you to an inheritance an entrance shall HOPE holy....etc reserved for you be unto you abundantly _________________________________________________ the if ye continue kept through faith give diligence to IF: in the faith unto salvation make your election sure if..you do... ye shall never fall V. Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a Son over his own house; whose house we are, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. We are Christ's now, and we will stay that way provided we hold fast onto faith to the end. Calvinists often try to make the verse to say: ` if we are Christ's we will hold fast unto the end' However, that is a reversal of the author's intention as will be demonstrated in the next passage. VI. Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end: Calvinists, arguing from the Greek perfect tense, usually try to reverse the force of this verse as if it said, "if we have become partakers of Christ we will continue in the faith." However, the Greek perfect tense not only implies that a thing has been in existance, but that it has continued since then. In this case the author of Hebrew could be saying then, "We have become and continued to be partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence stead- fast to the end." The surrounding context makes it all too clear that the continuing as a partaker is dependent upon continuing in the faith. It is also possible that the author of Hebrews used the perfect tense (have become partakers) because he reckoned the present possession of the promise as if it were as good as the future the fulfillment. This can easily be seen by comparing Heb. 3:14 with 4:1: The Promise Is Counted For The Possession Heb. 3:14 Heb. 4:1 For we are made [have Therefore let us fear, become] partakers of lest a PROMISE being left Christ, if we hold the us of entering into his beginning of our confi- rest, any of you should dence stedfast unto the seem to come short of it end If you read 3:14 up to 4:1 you will see that 4:1 is actually the conclusion to what he had been saying in 3:14! That is, 4:1 interprets 3:14. The author of Hebrews is clearly saying that the promise we now possess could be lost unless we continue stedfast unto the end. This is confirmed over and over, passage after passage, in the book of Hebrews: Heb. 3:14 Heb. 4:11 For we are made [have Let us labour therefore to become] partakers of enter into that rest, lest Christ, if we hold the any man fall after the beginning of our confi- same example of unbelief dence stedfast unto the end Here again we see that the only possible synthesis of these two verses is one that makes continuing in the faith to be the cause of our receiving a fulfilled promise. Heb. 3:14 Heb. 10:35,36 For we are made [have Cast not away therefore become] partakers of your confidence...for ye Christ, if we hold the have need of patience that beginning of our confi- ......ye might receive the dence stedfast unto the promise end Here the comparison is sharp, in Heb 3:14 the phrase `if we hold our confidence unto the end' equates to the phrase in 10:35,36 `don't cast away your confidence ...that `ye might receive the promise' Suppose a Father has two sons that are going to inherit his business on their 35th birthday, provided they continue to stay with the business until then. But, one of them is contemplating getting out and so the other brother says to him, "The business has already been made ours if we stay with it." It seems strange that anyone would think this means "If the business has been made ours we will stay with it" Yet that seems to be exactly the kind of twist Calvinists place on Heb 3:14. While we are here let us notice also the different ways the author of Hebrews emphasizes that the promise (and not the fulfillment) is what we possess: ...be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises Heb 6:12 And so after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. Heb 6:15 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise... Heb 6:17 ...him that had the promises Heb.7:6 ...a better covenant which was established upon better promises Heb 8:6 ...that..they might receive the promise Heb. 9:15 For you have need of patience [endurance] that...you might receive the promise Heb 10:36 Hence, to the author of Hebrews participating in the promise is what we `already have' and we can lose the fulfillment of that if we do not endure in the faith to the end. This implies the concept of election stated at the start of this file, i.e., that election is like being an heir waiting for a future inheritance, or like an officer candidate waiting to become an officer, while in the meantime one must undergo preparation. VII 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 ...God hath...chosen you to salvation ..to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught... This clearly speaks of being chosen to a future salvation where the person will receive glory with Jesus Christ. It certainly belongs with those verses which describe election as something we have now that looks forward to a future salvation in heaven. It also teaches though that there is an interim process being used to bring us to that goal. The words, "therefore stand fast" are strongly parallel to Col.1:22, 23. THE NATURE OF ELECTION Col. 1:22,23 * 2 Thess. 2:13-15 * Heb. 3:14 THE to present you *God hath chosen you * we are made HOPE holy..etc *to (future)salvation * partakers of * ...to glory * Christ ___________________________________________________ THE if ye continue *Therefore..stand fast*if we hold IF: in the faith * *stedfast..unto * *the end The meaning of the phrase `God has chosen you for salvation therefore standfast' seems to mean they are already elected to inherit heaven, but they must continue in faith and sanctification lest they will fall from it. Calvinists are big on pointing out the phrase `from the beginning' (see text). It may refer to what Paul calls "the beginning of the gospel" (cf. Phil 4:15,16). Or, it may refer to God's election of Christ's church corporately, from the beginning of time, to obtain salvation through a process of belief and sanctification. As a person unites with the body of Christ they become part of God's foreknown people who were chosen to obtain future salvation in heaven through a process of belief and sanctification. Again, you must consider for yourself whether this is the best synthesis of 2 Thes 2:13 with our previous passages. Especially consider how well the idea of a foreknown people works with Rom: 11:2 compared to 11:20-22. There, Israel is "foreknown" as a people, but individual branches can be broken off if they do not continue in faith. VIII 1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. The sequence is not to be reversed. It is not continuing in the Son which leads to a perseverance in the faith, but it is a perseverance in faith which leads to continuing in the Son and in the Father. The sequence is not what you would predict for an uncon- ditional system such as found in Calvinism, but you would predict this sequence for a conditional system like that taught by Arminianism. IX 1 John 5:12 He that has the Son has life and he who has not the Son has not life. These words agree quite well with the quotation we gave from Jacob Arminius earlier, "He (God) embraces no one in Christ, unless he is in Christ. But no one is in Christ, except by faith in Christ, which is the necessary means of our union with Christ. If any one falls from faith, he falls from that union, and, consequently, from the favor of God by which he was previously embraced in Christ." We are not given to have life in ourselves, but rather life is in us because Christ is in us, and we in him. Eternal life is ours only if we are in the Son. Yet, no one abides in the Son unless he also abides in faith. X Hebrews 3:1,12 Wherefore holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling...take heed brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. They are brethren and called. Called to inherit the heavenly rest (3:18;4:1). It means they are in a condition of election for future salvation, but face the possibility of losing their future inheritance through unbelief. There is a strong parallel between this passage and 2 Pet 1:10,11: Heb. 3:1,12 2 Pet. 1:10,11 ..brethren, partakers of ..brethren give of the heavenly calling diligence to make your .. take heed ...of unbelief calling and election in departing from the sure..for if ye do these living God. things ..ye shall..never fall.. One says `take heed' the other says `give diligence'. One warns against departing from God through unbelief the other warns of falling. It seems our verse (Heb. 3:1,12) is taking about falling from election. The Calvinist John Gill admits that Heb. 3:12 is addressed to true Christians, but he tries to escape by saying their fall would not be a total or a final fall. Yet, when he comes to the same teaching in Heb. 10:26-29 he reverses positions! We will show this in the next passage. Where it becomes clear that the person being addressed in Hebrews can fall away permanently, Gill claims they are not true believers, as if the letter was all of a sudden addressed to different persons in chapter 10 than in chapter 3! Let us examine it. XI Heb. 10:19,23,26,27,31. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest...Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering...For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries...It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Those addressed here are referred to as brethren. We must conclude they are the same brethren who were mentioned in 3:1 who are partakers of the heavenly calling. They are told to hold fast the profession of their faith which implies they hold an election to heaven which might be lost. The fall spoken of here is a final and total one, where there is nothing to look forward to except a judgement which shall destroy adversaries. Yes, adversaries. The only logical conclusion is that these true brethren can experience a total and final fall from salvation. The weakness of the Calvinist position comes out in the open because their position cannot withstand having the verses in Hebrews compared with each other. They jump from one local loophole to another, even to the point of creating contradictory loopholes from one chapter of Hebrews to the next, as they go along. Its a case where a loophole they use in one chapter of Hebrews won't work in another so they have a different one for that chapter. Compare how Gill does this with Heb. 10:26-29 and 3:12: Gill on 3:12 "When the author of...Hebrews cautions the believers...to take heed..of unbelief ...his design is to expose the sin of unbelief...it..being a partial though not a total departure from God..." pg 41 ibid Gill on 10:26-29 "...these persons fell finally and totally but inasmuch as they cannot be proved to be true believers, it will not be evident ...that those who have truly believed may totally and finally fall away." pg 58 ibid On 3:12 he has the warning being written to true believers who experience a temporary fall only, but in 10:26-29, where it is clear that a permanent fall is being spoken of, he makes it refer to false believers. The loophole situation in 3:12 would not allow him to escape by saying it was about unbelievers; so there he escapes through a loophole that allows him to suggest the fall a temporary one. In 10:26-29 the loophole situation would no longer allow him to say the fall was a temporary one; so there he uses a loophole that allows him to say it was about unbelievers. Calvinism often likes to play at, "Heads I win tails you lose!" But, if they who fell are true believers in the one passage (3:12) then they are true believers in the other (10:26-29) for they are still the same brethren he was writing to all along. And, if the fall is total and final in the one (10:26-29) then it is the same in the other also (3:12) for it is still the same fall he has been writing of all along! XII Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost ...if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame When partakers of the Holy Ghost fall away it is impos- sible to renew them again unto repentance. That is why we said at the start of this chapter that it was not likely a person could become resaved. The doctrine does not seem to be saved and lost and saved and lost etc. It appears to be saved and if then lost..then lost forever. The Calvinists have two `solutions' for this text, none of which is any good. The first one is to say these persons are not true believers. That of course would destroy their position on total depravity for then they end up with non believers who are enlightened! However, these persons were in fact true believers. This is seen, in that the repentance cannot AGAIN be renewed. On this point the Calvinist R.C. Sproul agrees. He writes: The most important phrase for me is `renew again to repentance.'...The new repentance, if it is renewed, must be like the old repentance. The renewed repentance ...is certainly the genuine kind. I assume therefore that the old was likewise genuine..13 His argument is not the only proof that they were true believers. Remember, all the other passages in Hebrews which speak of falling away must also come to bear on the text. Since it is believers who are spoken of throughout then it is the same here also. Therefore, those who fall away in this passage are considered to have been true believers. The other `solution' which the Calvinists use is the ad hominem theory. This is the approach R.C. Sproul prefers. He writes representative of most Calvinists: I think the author is arguing ad hominem style ...taking your opponents position and carrying it to its logical conclusion ...The logic goes like this. If a person embraced Christ..what would that person have if he went back to the covenant of Moses? In effect he would be repudiating the finished work of Christ. He would once again be a debtor to the law. If that were the case, where would he turn for salvation? He has repudiated the cross; he couldn't turn to that. He would have no hope of salvation, because he would have no savior. His theology does not allow a finished work of Christ. The key...is found in verse 9...`But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner...The author does not say that any believer actually does fall away. In fact he says the opposite, that he is confident they will not fall away...14 First of all this response interprets the text to fit a presumption of Eternal Security which the author of Hebrews probably did not write from. Secondly, the `ad hominem solution' is unrealistic in view of the numerous repetitions of the same warning through out the epistle. The Voice of Urgency in the warnings through out disallows it. The danger was real and why keep repeating it if it wasn't? Examine these verses and determine for yourself whether the `ad hominem' style suits their tone (Heb 3:12-19;4:1,11;10:23,26,27,35-39;12:15-17,25). Besides, if I were to say to you `those having fallen away can not return', all doubt as to my meaning would be entirely removed right after I said this: Therefore let us fear ..lest we too come short...let us labor ...lest we too fall after the same example of unbelief... cast not away your confidence so that you might receive the promise etc.etc. Once we add the other verses in Hebrews, the Calvinist "ad hominen" response melts to nothing. Thirdly, there is no `if' in the Greek text. In his book "Life In The Son," Robert Shank writes: Contrary to the opinions of some, Hebrews 6:4-6 is no mere hypothesis, but a reference to actual cases of apostasy...no conditional particle is present in the Greek text....This fact is accurately reflected in ...the American Standard Version (1901) : "For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away.... " The instances of apostasy cited by the writer are real, rather than imaginary and hypothetical.15 Adam Clarke also makes the same observation in his commentary on the passage. In fact he quotes from a Calvinist as proof of it. He writes: If they shall fall away] kai parapesontas And having fallen away. I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: The participles photisthentas, who were en- lightened, geusamenous, have tasted and gene- thentas, were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore parapesontas, being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, HAVE fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, IF they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add or to alter the scriptures, for the sake of any favorite doctrine, I have translated parapesontas in the past time, have fallen away according to the true import of the word as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses' Dr.Macknight was a Calvinist, and a thorough scholar and an honest man; but professing to give a translation of the epistle, he consulted not his creed but his candor..16 However, there is an implied "if" in the passage, but it is of such a nature that it refutes the ad hominem argument entirely! The implied "if" is to be traced back to Heb. 6:3. The author is saying he shall continue to address the more advanced stages of Christian truth "if" God permits, and then he goes on to show why God might not permit it. In effect what the author was saying was this, "We will proceed if God will permit for God won't permit it in those cases where a person has fallen away." The author of Hebrews accepted it as a given fact that some might have already fallen. Fourthly, based upon ver. 9 Sproul thinks the author of Hebrews was telling his readers they could not fall away. Again, the voice of urgency and the numerous repetitions to labor and endure lest they lose the fulfillment of the promise are too concrete to doubt. Another more reasonable explanation exists for verse 9. The reason he is convinced better things of them is because of what they had been doing so far (v.10). He knows of their good works, i.e. they not only had ministered to God's saints but still were ministering (6:9-12). He was not persuaded that they couldn't fall because he believed in a doctrine of unconditional security. Rather, he was persuaded by THEIR present testimony as being an indication of they would do in the future! It also appears the author of Hebrews may be speaking to them pastorally, telling them that he is not thinking negatively of them even though he warns them. There may be a desire on his part to not so warn them that he creates a self fulling prophecy. Hence, his concern is to warn them of the real danger but at the same time prevent them from thinking, "Well if THAT is what you think of us we might as well give up anyway". Notice, though, no sooner does he finish expressing his confidence (v.9,10), he turns right around and immediately warns them again (v.11, 12)! XIII John 15:6 If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. The image of the vine and the branches is the pattern you should follow when thinking about your participation in the life which is in Christ. The Christian philosophy of eternal life is that of a branch which continually partakes of the root (Jhn. 15:2-6) Continually (but not in the sense of repeatedly) the branch must partake of the root in order to live, and continually we must abide in Christ for the same reason. It is not proper for the branches to think of themselves as being alive apart from the root. We are dependent on our union to Christ for eternal life. The life continues in us as long as we continue in Christ. The commonly heard objection below fails to understand our dependency: If eternal life is ever lost how could it ever have been eternal life to start with? That is, we receive Christ directly and then eternal life is ours by virtue of our union with Him. Let not that union become broken. For he that has the Son has life, and he who has not the Son has not life. But, let us examine the Calvinist `solution' to this passage, whether it can extract them from the obvious difficulties. Their first attempt is to explain the withered branches as not being persons but only the works done in the flesh. This is said to be the reason for the change from the singular (branch) to the plural (them). This is not a plausible solution. It is the branch which is cast into the fire because it has no fruit and not the fruit. The reason for the plural comes from the example of what happens to such branches. To paraphrase: If a man abides not...he is cast forth as a branch and is withered: and his end can be compared to what men do with such branches, they gather THEM for the fire and they are burned. So you see the subject does not change because of the plural word THEM. The branch is the believer who does not continue in Christ's commandments. (see note 17) Their other solution is one we have already encountered in previous verses. They say these who are cast off were not true believers. Well, in verse 2 they were said to be in Christ which should have prevented this argument altogether. Also, the word `abide' presumes a true union WHICH NEEDS ONLY TO BE CONTINUED (v.4,5,6,7,10). This is seen from v.10 which was spoken to the apostles themselves: If ye keep my commandments ye SHALL abide.. The passage in 1 John 2:24 bears such a strong resemblance to John 15:6 that we cannot help but believe they both refer to the same thing, i.e., a need to continue in faith and obedience in order to continue in the Son: John 15:6,9,10 1 John 2:24 If a man abide not in me, he Let that therefore abide is cast forth as a branch and in you which ye have heard whithered; and men gather them from the beginning. If and cast them into the fire, that which ye have heard and they are burned...continue from the beginning shall ye in my love..If ye keep my remain in you, ye also commandments ye shall abide shall continue in the Son, in my love... and in the Father 1 John 2:24 John 8:51 (NASB) Let that therefore abide in Truly, truly I say to you, you which ye have heard from if anyone keeps my word he the beginning. If that which shall never see death ye have from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. It is left up to us then whether we continue in Christ, and we are to remain believing and obedient in order to do this. The Calvinist `solutions' at this point are but sound and fury signifying nothing. XIV Rom. 11:20-22 "....thou standest by faith. Be not high minded but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell severity; but toward thee goodness IF THOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." We just saw this same teaching in John 15:2-10 above. The tree is what is blessed. The branches are blessed only because they are united with the tree by faith. They are to take heed however. For, if they withdraw from faith they become broken off, and cease to partake in the blessing of the tree. From the standpoint of election, the tree is the church. the body of Christ, which was chosen from the foundation of the world to one day stand holy and blameless before God. The separate branches can be grafted on or broken off. Those grafted on are therefore elect because they partake in the election of the tree. Those who become broken off lose their election, but the tree continues on without them. XV. 2 Tim. 2:10 "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in CHrist Jesus with eternal glory." Some would argue that this passage is about persons who have not yet accepted the gospel. In this discourse, however, we view it as Paul's concern for those who are already believ ers, i.e., the elect, that they should obtain future salva tion. A supporting passage for this interpetation seems to be 2 Cor. 1:6 where Pauls says much the same thing, but this time there can be no question that he is talking about those who already believe, "And whether we be afflicted, it is for your...salvation." Compare that to, "I endure all thing's for the elect's sake, that they may obtain salvation..." The elect, then, are those who are already believers for whom Paul feels he must endure hardships so that they too will learn to endure (cf. 2 Cor. 1:6,7), and in this way the elect will obtain salvation. There seems to be no difference of view between Peter's words, "...make your...election sure" and Pauls' words, "..that the elect may obtain salvation." Both writer's imply that election is towards a future salvation and that something along the lines of perseverance is needed, lest that future salvation become lost. XVI. Rev 3:5 with 17:8 "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of the life...." "...they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world." Here is a great puzzle. Names can be blotted out of the book of life. However, names have been written there before the foundation of the world. So why put the names there in the first place if God knew they would become blotted out later? There are a few possible ways to solve this puzzle. First, we might speculate that some names are written there from the foundation of the world and that some are added later temporarily which become erased. This does not seem to be a likely explanation. Second, it may be that the "book" is what is from the foundation of the world, and not the names that are in it. In which case, names are added as a person becomes saved and removed if they do not overcome. Third, it could be that the Book of Life originally contained the name of every person who was ever to be created and that names can become removed as they finally reject salvation. This seems to go well with the warning at the end of Revelation also, for it implies that ANYONE who takes away from the word of the prophecy has a part in the future kingdom that can be lost, if they take away from the prophecy! In other words, can it be that everyone's name was written in the book of life from the foundation of the world and that 17:8 means that only those whose names have remained in the book will be saved? Fourth, according to those who believe salvation can not be lost, all the pages in the Book of Life are blot free and no names are ever really removed from it. The warning in Rev 3:5 is of no real concern. This view seems rather risky to this writer. Would you, for example, be willing to take re- sponsibility on judgement day for encouraging others to bank their eternal destiny on that view? XVII. Eph 4:30 "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." This writer feels that being elect for future salvation is one and the same thing as being marked (sealed) by the Holy Spirit for the future day of redemption. In other words, 4:30 describes what makes you elect, and what it is you are elected toward. Those who believe in unconditional security say this verse means a person remains sealed for the day of redemption even if they grieve the Holy Spirit. However, to this writer it seem to be a warning to not grieve the Holy Spirit lest the Holy Spirit should depart, and they cease to be sealed. There is a kind of parallel between this verse and the old saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Does that mean the hand will feed you even if you bite it, or does it mean the hand will stop feeding you if you bite it? Likewise, does "grieve not the Holy Spirit whereby you are sealed for the day of redemption" mean you will remain sealed even if you grieve the Holy Spirit? or, does it mean the Holy Spirit will depart? You decide. However, if you decide the Holy Spirit would depart then it is case where those marked for future salvation can become lost, i.e., those who were elected for future salvation could fall from their election. A Corollary Discussion of Rom 11:2 As indicated at the start of this file, it is the church that is foreknown and elect, and individuals are foreknown and elect by virtue of their union with the church. Consider how this definition of election and foreknowledge is used of the entire nation of Israel in Rom 11:1,28 "I say then has God cast away His people? ..God has not cast away His people which He foreknew...as concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sake..." The intercontinental Bible scholar F.L. Godet has this to say on the passage: Is it not of the entire people that the apostle speaks when, in vv. 28 and 29, he says, "As touching the election, they are loved for the Father's sake [i.e. because of their connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;]...These words are the authentic explanation of the expression in ver. 2: HIS PEOPLE WHOM HE FORE- KNEW." pg 392 Commentary on Romans. by. F.L. Godet, Eerdmans. Hear also The International Critical Commentary on Romans, by Sanday and Headlam: The addition of these words [whom He foreknew;] gives a reason for the emphatic denial [that God has not cast away His people] of which they form apart. Israel was the race which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen, and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense ..., nor again can they refer to the spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to "laos" [people] different from that in ver. 1. pg 310, ICC on Romans Sanday and Headlam, T&T Clark. In 11:28 we find Israelites described as being the enemy of God from the standpoint of the gospel but as being beloved from the standpoint of election. Hence, even those Jews who rejected the gospel were "elect" and "beloved" in some sense. And if 11:28 explains 11:2, as the commentators above suggest, then, all Israelites were elect and foreknown by virtue of their relationship to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even though they were enemies of the gospel v.28. Can we not then apply 11:2,28 to the church as well? Namely, can it be that the CHURCH is what we must primarily regard as being elect and foreknown due to its relationship with Christ and that scripture graciously refers to ALL members of the church as being elect and foreknown just as 11:2,28 seems to do for the Israelites? If this is allowable, then one cannot argue a doctrine of eternal security from the word "foreknowledge" for beinmg elect and foreknown are terms that can be applied outwardly to all members of the church while they are members of it. IN REVIEW This file is an experiment. What seems like good arguments now may later seem completley wrong. The last thing I want is to find out, when I get to heaven, that I taught a false doctrine which someone else believed. Please give yourself plenty of latitude and time to consider what has been said here. We have asked whether election is about being chosen unto a future salvation, and if that election can be lost by withdrawing from faith. We saw that the early church taught salvation could be lost and that the Arminian position agrees in principle with early Christianity, while Calvinism does not. We saw the answers of the Calvinists for the various passages. This writer feels their answers were unconvincing. You must decide for yourself whether you agree or not. We saw that if a person who is marked for future salvation could become lost it would prove that man has freewill in salvation, and in turn, all five points of Calvinism would collapse. Whether or not this file successfully proved the point is something only you can decide. We saw that a truth is best understood when we try to see it in both its positive and negative perspective. And, we examined why a passive-positive statement, which suggests a man has no role in salvation, was best viewed from its active-negative side to restore the balance. We saw that foreknowledge and election seem to be corporate terms which extend to the individual members of the church, rather than being individualistic terms exclusively. The End Some Recommended Books that oppose Calvinism "God's Strategy In Human History" by Forster and Marston, Bethany House "Elect In The Son" by Robert Shank, Bethany House "Life In The Son" by Robert Shank. Bethany House "Divine Sovereignty And Human Freedom" By Samuel Fisk, Loizeaux Bros. "Grace Unlimited" editor Clark Pinnock, Bethany House "The Grace of God, The Will of Man." Clark Pinnock editor, Zondervan "A Discourse Concerning The true Import of Election and Reprobation" Daniel Whitby (rare) "The Only Wise God" by William Lane Craig Baker Books "The Works of James Arminius" (reprint) Baker Books "Commentary on Romans" F.L. Godet, (reprint) Kregel "Systematic Theology" by John Miley (reprint) Hendrickson NOTES 1. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia, Pa. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1977) pg. 59 2. Believing in Eternal Security does not make one a Calvinist by the way. As a general rule those who tend to use the term `Eternal Security' are usually 4 point Arminians. That is, they oppose the first four points of Calvinism and hold to only the last point. I believe the original systematic theology of H.C. Thiessen could be classified in this category (take heed, though, for the new "revised" version is really a reversed version, rewritten by "4 point" Calvinists). I would also classify John R.Rice, Jack Hyles and the Sword of the Lord magazine in general as being in agreement with Thiessen and what I call 4 point Arminianism. By the way, Calvinists do not usually refer to the doctrine of unconditional security as `Eternal Security', but as `the Perseverance of the Saints.' In my opinion there is a real difference between the Calvinist version of security and that of the 4 point Arminians. The Calvinist version bases security on a denial of freewill while the 4 point Arminians base it on a covenant agreement between man and God that presumes man has freewill. 3. The Didache is a book of Christian instruction written close to the Apostolic era. The translation comes from J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker Books, 1978). The quote is located in the last paragraph. 4. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5,9:4 as translated in The Ante Nicene Fathers Volume 1. (Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans 1979) 5. Ibid., 4:37:1 6. Ibid., 4:27:2 7. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho Chap. 47 as translated in The Ante Nicene Fathers Volume 1. (Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans 1979) 8. Ibid., Chap 111 9. James Arminius, The Writings of James Arminius translated by James Nichols and W.R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker Book House, 1977) Vol. 3 pg. 498 10. The Westminster Confession Sec: 3; 1,2 11. John Gill, Cause of God and Truth (Streamwood,Ill Primitive Baptist Library reprint 1978) pg. 62 12. R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, Ill. Tyndale Publishers, 1986) pg. 182 13. R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, Ill. Tyndale Publishers, 1986) pg.185 14. Ibid pg. 185,186 15. Robert Shank, Life In the Son (Springfield, Mo. Westcott Publishers 1961) pg 176,177 (now by Bethany House) 16. Adam Clarke, Clarkes' Commentary (Nashville, Tn. Abingdon) Commentary on Heb. 6:6. 17. I probably ought to explain why I don't view 1 Cor 3:11-15 as teaching Eternal Security. I see different categories of people being addressed in Heb 10:26-39 as compared to 1 Cor 3:11-15. In Hebrews it seems to be about those who draw back from faith unto perdition. In Corinthian it seems to be about those who are trying to stay oin the faith who do things out of a self motive which things will not obtain a reward. That is, Paul was not addressing the question of people who draw back from faith in 1 Cor 3:11-15 but he was addressing the question of people in the faith who do good things without a spiritual motive. I think it would be rather difficult to say that Heb 10:26- 39 only teaches the same thing as 1 Cor 3:11-15. The Hebrews passage is much more intense, and the loss spoken of there seems to be a loss of their entire inheritance in Christ, to include heaven itself. That is not to say I am necessarily correct on this. I am merely trying to show how a possibility of falling away could be viewed consistently with 1 Cor 3:11-15.