An Examination of Eternal Security

Matthew 10:22; 24:13

The phrase which appears in both of these verses, “but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved” is often quoted against eternal security. However, this phrase, by itself, admits of either a proscriptive or a descriptive reading. The Catholic, reading it proscriptively, will interpret it as “out of the set of justified Christians, those who persevere to the end will enter heaven, whereas those who do not will lose their salvation and go to hell.” The Calvinist, on the other hand, will read it descriptively and hear the following: “out of the set of professing Christians, those who endure to the end (the truly regenerate) will go to heaven, whereas those who apostatize (those who were never born again in the first place) will be damned.” Like I said, based on the grammar alone, it is impossible to determine which reading is correct. Hence, the exegete must find some contextual indicator to determine which side is correct. Fortunately for the Catholic Church, such indicators exist in both cases.

In the case of Matthew 24:13, the contextual indicator is in the immediately preceding verse: “And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity [love] of many will grow cold.” First, since this phrase is set off from the following verse with the conjunction δὲ [de = but], Christ here gives us to understand that these people are the opposite of those who “persevere unto the end” i.e. that these people will apostatize. Hence, given that this verse is dealing with apostasy, the object of the love which Christ speaks of must be God. Moreover, if the love of these people is said to “grow cold” this implies, of course, that once their love was “hot.” Finally, the “love” mentioned in this verse is ἀγάπη [agape], the highest form of love, a virtue even greater than the virtue of faith, according to St. Paul (1 Cor 13:13). Hence, those who Christ here indicates will apostatize were at one point “hot” with the highest form of love for God! How is this possible for the unregenerate heart, in the Reformed tradition? After all, “For to be carnally minded is death… the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Rom 8:7). [1] The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the total depravity of unregenerate man in very strong terms: “From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” [2] Not exactly burning with love for God, is he? Such a man cannot even posses the theological virtue of faith, much less love. Indeed Reformed Baptist Arthur Pink explicitly states that the unregenerate cannot love God: “Fallen man has cast off all allegiance to God and set himself in open, undisguised opposition to Him. Not only has he no love for God, but his very nature is wholly averse to Him. Sin has worked in all of his being a radical antipathy to God and to His will and ways, for divine things are holy and heavenly and therefore bitter to his corrupt taste. He is alienated from God, inveterately opposed to Him.” [3] These words of Christ are simply incompatible with Reformed theology. As usual, it is only within the paradigm of Catholic theology that we can exegete this verse without doing violence to the text. Those whose love “grows cold” were at one point the adopted sons of God, but because their love has grown cold they will rejected. Those who abide in God’s love will be saved.

In the case of Matthew 10:22, there are actually two contextual indicators in the surrounding text. This chapter records Jesus’ great missionary commission to his twelve apostles. He warns them that many will hate them, scourge them in their synagogues, and deliver them up to civil authority. But, He tells them, they are not to “fear them that kill the body, and cannot kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matt 10:28) Obviously, the reason Christ tells describes God as “him who can destroy both body and soul in hell” is because this is precisely why they ought to fear Him. The apostles are to fear God because He is able to damn them eternally. This should be read as a corollary to v. 22. If you persevere to the end you will be saved; God is able to destroy you, body and soul, in hell if you do not. And remember that this admonition is addressed to the apostles, eleven of whom the Reformed acknowledge to be justified at this point. The warning about God being able to damn them in hell makes no sense if they are eternally secure. In their view, God would be a liar if He did such a thing.

The Catholic reading of v. 22 is further buttressed by v. 33: “But whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father, who is in heaven.” When the apostles are led off to be scourged, executed, or otherwise in danger of being violently persecuted for Christ’s name’s sake, they will be tempted to let themselves off the hook, as it were, by denying Him. Indeed, St. Peter did this very thing (cf. Matt 26:24, 69-75). Yet, Christ informs them, He will deny those who do so before His Father in heaven. That goes for Ss. Peter, Andrew, James, John, et al, all of whom had been justified before Christ uttered these words.

Matthew 18:23-35

It is obvious from the first and last verses of the parable of the unforgiving servant that this parable represents the relationship of man to God: “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a king… So also shall my heavenly Father do to you” (Matt 18:23,35). The king in this parable represents God, and the servant represents us. The monstrous debt, ten thousand talants in all, which the servant owes the king (v. 24) represents the debt of sin. Like the servant in the parable, we fallen humans are so far in debt to our Lord that we could never begin to repay Him. We deserve to be sold along with everything we have (v. 25), and it is only the gratuitous mercy of God which can prevent this from happening. But God is very free with His mercy. Like the servant, if we fall humbly on our knees and beg our Lord for forgiveness (v. 26), He will be moved to pity and forgive our entire debt (v. 27). Thus, v 27's statement that the lord forgave the servant his entire debt must be a reference to justification, the point at which God forgives the penitent’s entire debt of sin.

But what happens immediately afterward? This “justified” servant then goes out and commits an atrocious sin: he fails to be merciful, as his earthly lord is merciful, and refuses to forgive a fellow servant who owes him a much smaller amount (v. 28). This verse is illustrative of those who, after God has wholly forgiven their monstrous debt of sin in Baptism, continue to hold grudges and refuse to forgive their brethren. In vv. 32-34 Christ elucidates what will happen to such persons: the king of the parable revokes his grace and mercy, and throws the unforgiving servant to the torturers until he repays every last penny. The lesson, of course, is that if we do not forgive our brethren, this is what God will do to us.

There are two possible interpretations as to what exactly Jesus is referring to when he says that the king “delivered [the servant] to the torturers until he paid all the debt” (v. 34). If the “until” condition is never reached, i.e., the servant is never able to repay the debt, then he will be with the torturers indefinitely, and thus this verse refers to hell. If the “until” condition is reached, on the other hand (which is unlikely given what a tremendous sum ten thousand talants is), then it could possibly refer to Purgatory. But in either case the conclusion is unacceptable to the Protestant believer in eternal security; a justified Christian could no more go to that mythical place called Purgatory in Roman theology than he could lose his salvation. Once his debt of sin has been imputed to Christ (the only way the Reformed believe one may obtain remission of sins) there can never be any danger of this debt being “reinstated” or of him falling back into unpayable debt, or any such thing. Once again, their doctrine has been contradicted by Sacred Scripture.

John 13:8

“Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.” The Greek word translated as “part” in this verse is μέρος [meros], which in this context signifies one's allotted portion, as of an inheritance. When used with reference to Christ or heaven (e.g., Peter's “part” with Christ) or hell (e.g., the “portion” of the wicked in the lake of fire) it denotes one's eternal destiny. Compare how St. John uses this word in the Apocalypse: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part [μέρος] in the first resurrection… they shall be priests of God and of Christ: and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Apoc 20:6). “But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable… shall have their portion [μέρος] in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Apoc 21:8; cf. Apoc 22:19).

As should be obvious by now, to have a meros with Christ, in the book of life, etc., means to go to heaven, whereas to have a meros in the lake of fire means to go to hell. And, pertinently, Christ tells St. Peter that if a certain contingency is not met (that is, if Christ does not continue to sanctify him), he will have no meros with Him. That is, St. Peter will not enter heaven.

Yet advocates of eternal security believe, based on their interpretation of such Scriptures as Ephesians 1:13-14, that once Christ first justifies a soul, He is obliged by His promise to bring that soul to heaven. Therefore Christ was obliged to save St. Peter; there was no possibility that St. Peter might not have been saved. Hence advocates of eternal security would have Christ proposing a contingency which could not even hypothetically have been met; they would have Him delivering a warning with no teeth. It is as if Christ were to tell St. Peter, "If I did not sanctify you, you would not be able to enter heaven; but since you must enter heaven, I must sanctify you."

Catholics, on the other hand, can give this passage a much stronger and more natural interpretation. Christ is proposing to St. Peter a contingency which, in his case, hypothetically could have been met. St. Peter could have fallen into sins and died in them, and God would have been within His rights to damn him. It simply happens to be the case that, since God had elected St. Peter, He did not allow this to happen in fact.

Furthermore, Christ is proposing the same contingency to all who read the Gospel, a contingency which may be and tragically is fulfilled in many cases. That is, if Christ's servants do not allow Him to continually wash, sanctify, and justify them, they may lose their inheritance with Him and earn an inheritance in the lake of fire.

1 Corinthians 9:27

1 Corinthians 9:27 is without doubt the most explicit testimony we have from the pen of St. Paul that he did not consider himself eternally secure. The apostle develops a metaphor, in which he compares the Christian life to a race with an incorruptible crown at the end, and concludes with the following: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become reprobate.” The word rendered “reprobate” in the Douay-Rheims, and “disqualified” in most modern Bibles is ἀδόκιμος [adokimos], which signifies that which fails the test, and is not approved. Clearly, this word refers to damnation, or the conduct characteristic of the damned, every other time it is used in the New Testament (cf. Rom 1:28; 2 Cor 13:5-7; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:16; Heb 6:8). Hence, since St. Paul was well aware of the meaning of this word, we must conclude that he used it purposefully, in order to communicate that to be disqualified from the race, in his metaphor, means to be excluded from the beatific vision.

The common rejoinder from those who believe in eternal security is that St. Paul is only dealing with the loss of the rewards connected with apostleship, and not the loss of salvation itself. However, numerous statements both preceding and following v. 27 “disqualify” this interpretation. First, v. 23 states: “for I do all things for the gospel’s sake: that I may be made a partaker thereof.” Obviously, anyone who is not a partaker in the gospel is hell-bound.[4] Hence, if St. Paul is preaching in order that he may be made a partaker in the gospel, it is not just a special reward he is after, but salvation itself.[5] He uses very similar language in Philippians 3, where he makes it plain that he is not dealing solely with rewards by explicitly mentioning “the resurrection from the dead” (v. 11). Thus, given that 1 Corinthians 9:23 states that St. Paul labors for the gospel in order to obtain eternal life, it is nonsensical to claim that when he describes laboring for the gospel under an athletic metaphor in vv. 24-25 he suddenly switches and refers solely to special rewards. No, receiving an incorruptible crown must be synonymous with being made a partaker in the gospel: they both mean heaven itself. And if heaven is the prize, being disqualified from the prize means loss of salvation and hell.

The Catholic view is reinforced as the only possible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:27 by numerous statements in chapter 10. St. Paul draws our attention to the Israelites, who received Baptism (v. 2) and the Eucharist (vv. 3-4) and drank of Christ (v. 4, cf. John 4:13) in figure, yet “were overthrown in the desert” (v. 5) and died by the wrath of God. St. Paul informs us in v. 6: “Now these things were done in a figure of us, that we should not covet evil things, as they coveted.” The implication here is that Christians, who have received the true Baptism, the true Eucharist, and have truly drank of Christ (John 4:13), are likewise in danger dying under the wrath of God, if we do not persevere in holiness and faith. The apostle continues with a litany of admonishments not to repeat the sins of the Israelites (idolatry, fornication, tempting God, and murmuring), three out of the four times reminding us exactly how God punished those sins (with death each time). Again, the implication is that if Christians do as the Israelites did, God will punish us in the exact same way. These verses further expose the exegetical arbitrariness of those who believe in eternal security, when they claim that, in 1 Corinthians 9:27, being “disqualified” means simply the loss of the cherry on top of the believer’s sundae. They must claim that it means something entirely different from the total destruction and death described in vv. 10:8-10, yet there is no indication of this disjunction between the end of chapter 9 and the beginning of chapter 10. Quite the contrary, 1 Corinthians 10:1 and 9:27 are directly connected in the Greek with the postpositive conjunction γὰρ [gar = for]. They are, for all intents and purposes, part of the same line of thought.

The Catholic exegesis, as always, is far more consistent. We maintain that being “disqualified” refers to spiritual death, [6] and hence we see a fundamental unity between v. 9:27 and the warnings about spiritual death in vv. 10:8-10. In v. 9:27 St. Paul states that he chastises his body in order to avoid some contingencies wherein he would be deprived of eternal life; in vv. 7-10 he explicitly names these contingencies, viz., him committing idolatry or fornication, tempting God, or murmuring [it is clear that the apostle includes himself in these warnings since he uses the first person plural in two of them (vv. 8-9)]. Moreover, the Catholic exegesis reinforces the essential unity of this entire passage and its context by reading v. 10:12 as a direct parallel to v. 9:27: “Wherefore let him that thinketh himself to stand, take heed lest he fall [be cut off from God’s grace].” “Lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become reprobate [be cut off from God’s grace].” Here again, the Calvinist exegete must posit a disjunction, and claim that the first passage only refers to the loss of rewards whereas the second refers to apostasy and spiritual death. They have no contextual justification for this separation; it is their theology which is determining their exegesis, and not the text itself.

Hebrews 10:26-29

This passage is likewise extraordinarily explicit in its testimony that salvation can be lost. The apostle states: “For if we sin wilfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, with which he was sanctified, and hath offered an outrage to the Spirit of grace?” Again, this passage is very explicit. It is entirely possible for one who has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant (i.e., saved by Christ) to sin willfully and thus be subject to “the rage of fire which shall consume the adversaries” and “die without mercy” in hell.

Puritan commentator John Owen offers an alternative interpretation: “Some have thought that this refers unto the person guilty of the sin here insisted on; but the design of the Apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ Himself who is spoken of, who was sanctified [cf. John 17:19] and dedicated unto God to be an eternal High Priest by the blood of the covenant which He offered unto God.”[7] Actually, the design of the Apostle in the context leads to no such thing, and if Calvinist exegetes did not approach this passage with the prior conviction that the Bible cannot contradict their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, no one would interpret this passage thus. St. Paul’s purpose is to warn that apostate Christians, because they have received from God so many graces and benefits, are especially deserving of His wrath. Compare his words in chapter 6 of this epistle: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, have tasted also of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and are fallen away, to be renewed again unto penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making a mockery of him” (Hebrews 6:4-6). This text is very similar to Hebrews 10:26-29. The two passages condemn apostates from the Christian faith in much the same words: “trodden under foot the son of God” (v. 10:29), “crucifying again to themselves the Son of God” (v. 6:6), “offered an outrage to the Spirit of grace” (v. 10:29), “making a mockery of him [Jesus]” (v. 6:6). Hebrews 6:4-6, as seen above, enumerates the benefits such persons have received at great length: “enlightened”, “made partakers of the Holy Ghost”, etc. Hence, Hebrews 10:29’s statement should be read as a parallel to these, as teaching that the one who has “received the knowledge of the truth” (v. 26) and has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant (a tremendous gift of God), deserves to be especially harshly punished if he despises said Blood.

Benjamin M. Douglass
May 31, Anno Domini MMV

[1] Reformed theologians apply this passage to all the unregenerate. Charles Hodge represents the consensus of Calvinist exegesis of this passage: “It is precisely because of this utter powerlessness of the sinful mind, or unrenewed heart, to change its own nature that it experiences the hopelessness which the word death implies… [T]he evangelical Philippi says: ‘This verse is a strong argument against the doctrine of the so-called ‘free judgment’ of the natural man. For this carnal state of mind… constitutes, according to the apostle’s teaching, the original nature of man in its present fallen state’” (Charles Hodge, Romans (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993) p. 235).

[2] Chapter VI:IV

[3] Arthur Pink, The Total Depravity of Man, Chapter 8: Enormity. Available online at http://www.pbministries.org

[4] Cf. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1&2 Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1983) p. 167: “To be a partaker of the gospel, means, of course, to be a partaker of its benefits; the subject of the redemption which it announces.” Incidentally, Hodge follows this with a statement I find very inconsistent with his sola fide soteriology: “It is necessary to live for the gospel, in order to be a partaker in the gospel.” It is being made a partaker in the gospel, by grace alone, which causes one to live for the gospel in Hodge’s view.

[5] The word rendered “that” in the Douay-Rheims is ίυα [hina] which in this context means “in order that” or “for the purpose that” as in “I study that I may pass the test” (cf. Matt 1:22; 7:1; 18:16; 19:16; John 1:7; 3:15-17; 6:5; 1 Cor 9:27; 1 Tim 4:15; 5:20; 2 Tim 3:17). So, St. Paul is preaching the gospel because he believes this will bring about the effect of being “made a partaker thereof” i.e. going to heaven.

[6] Reformed commentator Charles Hodge actually agrees with Catholics here, against modern day Reformed apologetics. “What an argument and what a reproof this is! The reckless and listless Corinthians thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very verge of sin, while this devoted apostle considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for his salvation” (Hodge, op. cit., p. 169). He then asserts St. Paul’s assurance of his salvation, and attempts to hold the two opposites in tension, stating “The one state of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is only those who are conscious of this constant and deadly struggle with sin, to whom this assurance is given” (Ibid.). Hodge is quite obviously being inconsistent. His theology may leave room for a struggle against sin, but it does not leave room for this struggle to jeopardize one’s salvation. There can be no “life struggle for [one’s] salvation” if one is basing one’s assurance on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

[7] John Owen, Hebrews: The Epistle of Warning (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1985) p. 206.