once justified, always justified?

Controversial territory I know, but I came across something this morning which challenged me.But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him. (Heb 10:38 ASV)I am quoting from the ASV because it corrects the KJV sense.The KJV says 'if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him'. The italics signifying that the translators have added these words in the interests of explanation. The 'any man' however makes it sound as though we are dealing with two different 'men'; the one justified by faith, and the one drawing back. In fact, it is the same man, hence the ASV's 'if he draw back'; 'he' being the 'justified one'.This 'drawing back' is the word used of Peter's 'withdrawal' from fellowship with Gentiles; a first step of 'withdrawal' was followed by the second of 'separation'. Gal 2. In some ways the word is similar but opposite to 'hupomeno'; the Greek word for 'patient endurance'. Literally it means to 'remain under' something. The word for withdraw is hupostello; meaning to remove from under.The contrast is seen in this section of Hebrews;Heb 10:36-38 Darby For ye have need of endurance(hupomonE) in order that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise. (37) For yet a very little while he that comes will come, and will not delay. (38) But the just shall live by faith; and, if he draw back (hupostellO), my soul does not take pleasure in him.The writer seems to be referring here to a 'case' of God's 'just' or 'righteous' one, whose 'life' is the product of his faith, and who might 'draw back'. So faith is not a single event but a state of heart, from which 'he' might draw back. What would his status then be; would he still be 'justified by faith' if his faith was no longer functioning?Hence my question; once justified, always justified?

That's a good link, but I wasn't referring specifically about an 'unforgiveable sin' but whether or not a person who has had faith can 'draw back' and consequently lose God's favour, and perhaps later come to faith again... and so on.The question would be what is the state of a person who once had justifying faith but currently has drawn back? At this exact moment in time, is he 'justified by faith' if he is not exercising justifying faith?

What would his status then be; would he still be 'justified by faith' if his faith was no longer functioning?I am curious how we might define "no longer functioning?" More to the point, what is "shrinking back?" If this verse is talking about the loss of justification, then I believe "shrinking back" can only mean the willful retreat from "the faith.", which is all together different from "losing faith". There is a faithlessness that many believers experience caused by immaturity, poor doctrine, or personal crisis, in which they have not rejected Christ, yet feel that God has surely rejected them. Could we say that Hebrews 10:38 is really repeating verse 29? I believe this whole passage is not rebuking those whose faith is weak or failing. On the contray I think the writer is encouraging even the most fearful of us to boldly hang on to Jesus. The warning is aimed at those who have rejected or departed the faith and "insulted the Spirit of Grace." This series of promises from 2 Timothy 2:12 comes to mind.Here is a trustworthy saying: 1 If we died with him, we will also live with him; 2 if we endure, we will also reign with him. 3 If we disown him, he will also disown us; 4 if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself. Line 1, is identical to the promise Paul reveals in Romans 6:8 "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. He explains, in this same chapter of Romans, how we died with Christ a few verses earlier. "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection." This obviously ties into the concept of justification! We have been united with Christ, which, judging by Paul's explicit tone, is no flimsy metaphor but an imputed death, burial, and resurrection reality. Furthermore, this reality existed for these "believers" in Romans before they knew about it. (or don't you know that all of us...)This unity with Christ is a mystery that was, before the writing of this scripture, unknown to these spirit filled Christians. Therefore this reality was begun and upheld by Christ's power inspite of their ignorance. I believe in line 2 Paul is describing the rewards of faithfulness. If we endure we will actually do more then make it to heaven; we will reign with Him. Paul is adding to the promise in line 1. However, line 3 is the reason this verse came to mind regarding Hebrews 10:38. It seems if there is a willful rejection of Jesus, then he will "disown" us. (I know some versions read "deny us" which could mean that Christ would deny us the rewards of line 2.)If this is not talking about those Jews (and gentiles) who have rejected the Gospel in the first place, then it is a very sobering line for true Christians. Taken as such it does seem that there is a penalty for willful rejection of the Lord.(I would be willing to listen to other ideas...)To end up where I started, I think Hebrews 10:38 could be talking about departing from the faith, which is a different issue then failing faith. I think "drawing back" must be referring to a decisive rejection or abandonment of the gospel. It can't be referring to the kind of immature faith that falters under dire circumstances or other personal crisis. In fact, weak or failing faith is addressed explicitly in line 4 of 2 Timothy 2:12. Through Paul, the Holy Spirit is most assuringly explicit: "if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself. Well, that's all this layman has...Blessings,MC

I am curious how we might define "no longer functioning?"Perhaps we can take one idea at a time. The Romans 6 will lead us into other waters that have been and can be discussed elsewhere. Namely what 'baptism' is Paul referring to here?I am always impressed by the fact that John never used the noun for 'faith' in his gospel, but always the verb. This leads me to ask is faith and acquisition or a function? Can 'faith' exist without it being exercised; it is a commodity? or a continuing relationship with Another.Although a believer may not always be conscious of his faith due to other concentrations of work or whatever... when he looks within he discovers that steady reliance upon who God is and what He has done. This would bring us into the area of 'the witness of the Spirit' and reminds me of Wesley's prayer-hymn and the need to 'consciously believe'.Is the immature believer a believer in this sense, or is he 'coming to faith'? I always tread carefully here not wanting to unsettle folks, but in almost 50 years of 'believing' I have never had the feeling that God has rejected me. I know to say so is to put my head above the parrapet and ask to get it shot at, but I can only testify to an abiding 'feeling' of His faithfulness.I return to my original question. Is the 'drawing back' of our text an irreversible movement? The tense used is Aorist which suggests a decisive moment.And while we are at it... what is a layman? do you mean you are not functioning as a priest? shame on you. ;-)

Two questions jump to mind in considering this - where is the quote taken from - that is, what is the context of the quote that the author of Hebrews is quoting (Hab 2 doesn't cover the "shrinks back" section) and secondly verse 39 of Hebrews 10 makes it plain that we are not of those who do fall back to perdition.John said a similar thing in first John - they went out from us because they were not of us.I have always understood this to mean those who do fall back to perdition did not possess "justifying" faith in the first place.Dan/\\/\\/\\

Is the 'drawing back' of our text an irreversible movement? The tense used is Aorist which suggests a decisive moment....whether or not a person who has had faith can 'draw back' and consequently lose God's favour, and perhaps later come to faith again... and so on.These two quotes, at least to me, seem abit at odds with one another. Although I am unqualified to discuss greek tense, I think the first quote is better stated. For my part I believe all of the warning verses in Hebrews are talking about a decisive departure from the gospel. Whether this departure is before or after conversion can be debated although the text could be talking about a final apostasy of both....anyone who rejects the gospel and draws back to their original state of evil unbelief. (Which in the case of Hebrews was Judaism.) As such, could we then say that "drawing back" is defined as deliberately withdrawing from God's justification in Christ without remorse?I don't believe we can say, from Hebrews 10:38, that our justification can oscillate over the course of our lives with the flicker of faith like a light bulb does with unstable current. To "shrink back" from the faith is a different heart issue then the faithlessness of 2 Timothy 2:12. God commands all men to believe the Promise and not believing is mankinds' worst sin!"“He who does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18)"... he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)“The master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.” (Luke 12:46)Can we agree that our faith itself is no merit or virtue? It is the object of our faith that justifies.... Faith is not the justifying work, but ceasing from the work of justification. (Hebrews 6:4-6) Also, (to further support a preference for the first quote,) I don't think the scriptures are pre-occupied with descriptions of the right kind of believing, or degrees of believing. I'm not overlooking James who talked about the worthlessness of a faith that is not lived out. Afterall, if there ain't smoke in the chimney, can there really be fire in the hearth? I am talking about the quality and intensity of the fire itself, which may waver greatly. "A smoldering wick He will not snuff out...") Some are focused on their own strength, even the strength of faith, as opposed to the Person and work of Him who is Lord and Savior. I personally feel it demonstrates the irresistible impulse of self-justification, contrary to mature rest, when people agonize over the right way of believing or repenting their way into justification. Blessings,MC

I have always understood this to mean those who do fall back to perdition did not possess "justifying" faith in the first place.I think most have. Perhaps Darby's translation will make it more clear; Heb 10:38 Darby But the just shall live by faith; and, if he draw back, my soul does not take pleasure in him.This was my point, that this verse seems to be talking about one man whose live is 'by faith', it refers to this man as 'just'. It then goes on to say 'if this one draws back'. The Greek personal pronoun 'he' is built into the verb form and this is what the NASB and other versions are pointing to when they translate 'he' rather than 'any man'.The question I am asking is does one 'spurt' of justifying faith last for ever?

Can we agree that our faith itself is no merit or virtue? It is the object of our faith that justifies.... Faith is not the justifying work, but ceasing from the work of justification. (Hebrews 6:4-6)Can you explain this further?Some are focused on their own strength, even the strength of faith, as opposed to the Person and work of Him who is Lord and Savior. I personally feel it demonstrates the irresistible impulse of self-justification, contrary to mature rest, when people agonize over the right way of believing or repenting their way into justification.I would agree with this but there is fake-faith too otherwise the scripture would never need to refer to 'faith without hypocrisy'; or genuine faith. Justifying faith, of course, is faith in a person not a doctrine. Many were 'justified by faith' centuries before there was a doctrine to go with the experience.I'm not getting into 'faith in faith'. The just, according to our scripture, lives by faith. This is surely an ongoing experience which is what I was referring to when I said that John doesn't speak of 'faith' (the noun in his gospel) but believing (the verb). In fact the famous John 3:16 is not talking about a one-off crisis of faith. Literally it reads as in Young's Literal translation; Joh 3:16 YLT for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. It is a reference to 'the believing one' rather than a point of faith.

philologos wrote:The question I am asking is does one 'spurt' of justifying faith last for ever?Justification - as you are well aware, is a forensic declaration, not that we declare something - but that God declares us justified for Christ's sake.I am convinced that "nothing is able to separate us from the love of God" - not even ourselves.Dan/\\/\\/\\

I am convinced that "nothing is able to separate us from the love of God" - not even ourselves.*Thinking Outloud*I agree with that statement, but isn't it not God's love directly that gives us eternal life but our faith in His Son that died as an atonement for our sin, which God did as a result of His love for us?Rom 5:8 KJV "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."Won't sinners without Christ as their saviour, despite God's love for them still "be cast into outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?Mr Nath.

"Can we agree that our faith itself is no merit or virtue? It is the object of our faith that justifies.... Faith is not the justifying work, but ceasing from the work of justification. (Hebrews 6:4-6)"Can you explain this further?Good question. Upon reading my statement a couple days later I see the need to finish the thought.I was trying to surgically separate apart works for justification and works from justification. Regardless of how many good works I may someday have under my belt, I want to preserve the purity of my hope by remembering that justification is not based on my merit but upon the merit of Christ. I certainly did not mean to imply that the justified is exempt from work! Indeed, the justified may "work" all the harder since the exausting burden of self-righteousness has been lifted and replaced with love. Still, I believe that even my sweetest works are horribly flawed; and require the blood of Jesus to be acceptable to God.This idea reminds me of a quote from Watchman Nee. "If we fight for victory we can never overcome, but if we fight from victory we can never be defeated."For further clarification, I have found Robert W' description of "works" very agreeable. He has, more then once, successfully articulated works from a selfless motive of love. I believe this love motive is impossible for a person working for justification and only possible for a person working from justification.Does this help? (Writing is hard and clumsy work isn't it? When handling the truths of the Bible I'm reminded of my mom's scolding as a little boy..."Put that down before you break it!")You know, I was talking with someone this weekend about this question of justification by faith. I chanced an observation of how relative our understanding of key words are like "works" and "faith" are to our church background. For some who have seen excesses of Calvinism, they might view emphasis on faith as dubious, while others who have seen excesses of Arminianism, look at works like kryptonite to the Gospel. Have you seen this to be the tendency in your experience?Bless you Philo!MC

Mr_Nath wrote: *Thinking Outloud*I agree with that statement, but isn't it not God's love directly that gives us eternal life but our faith in His Son that died as an atonement for our sin, which God did as a result of His love for us?Rom 5:8 KJV "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."Won't sinners without Christ as their saviour, despite God's love for them still "be cast into outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?I see what you are saying. In Romans 8:33-35 Paul precedes his statements regarding the love of God with: "Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? "I think Paul wasn't just talking about God's love - but rather that God's love is the surety of our justification. Not unlike what Paul summarizes in 2 Timothy 2:13, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful;..."I agree, God's love is not the mechanism by which man attains justification before a holy God.Dan/\\/\\/\\

Ron--I'll look into this a bit more, but it looks like you may be reading things into this passage.In verse 34, Paul addresses those who have gone through persecution: "For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one."See that? He speaks of an abiding possession.And then in verse 39 (which you left out):"But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls."Again, those whom he is addressing abide.It is common for those who finish the course, who win the race, to be discouraged en route. So Paul's encouragement to see it through without losing confidence (verses 35 and 36) is quite appropriate.So, what about verse 38? I'm not sure. It depends on how we end up translating it. The Greek kai ean can be taken as "and if," "but if," "even if," or "and should it be the case that." This last may allow us to translate: "for if he were to shrink back." I see nothing in the syntax that would disallow such an interpretation, and the context may indeed tend in that direction. This would make it hypothetical: "If any of you were to shrink back, I would know that you are not amongst the Lord's righteous ones, for He is not pleased with those who turn back."I think you're right that it is not talking about two men, but one. However, that "man" is a generic one (my righteous one)...which may be why the any is added in quite a few translations. Habakkuk is not singling out any specific "righteous one."Justification is by faith alone...not by faith and endurance. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a Protestant can believe in the apostasy of a true believer. If justification is forensic and we are pronounced "not guilty" on account of the righteousness of Christ...at what point would the righteousness of Christ suddenly not be enough? Why and when would the court of heaven proclaim, "Oops, we made a mistake!"We are talking, I believe, about the faithfulness of Christ. 2 Timothy 2:11-13 says:"Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself."This is a tough verse. Surely he didn't permanently disown Peter in spite of Peter's denials. Surely he is not faithful to those who have no saving faith. I therefore believe it means that our perseverance depends on his faithfulness, not on ours. And that He will by no means allow us to apostasize.I have problems with the "once saved, always saved" attitude that allows too much flexibility in the direction of antinomianism. I much prefer the "perseverance of the saints" that acknowledges our need to strive to endure."For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised." (Hebrews 10:36) So, let's all get out there and endure....--Eric

EricYou will tell me if I am wrong, but isn't it a valid concept in 'Calvinism' that justification is by faith without works, but that justifying faith is evidenced by works? And that consequently authentic 'faith' is 'justified' by 'works'? So what would happen if the 'works' that were 'justifying' the 'faith by which we were justified' ceased?I can imagine some of our folk who don't have English as their first language struggling with that last sentence, but I think you will see how I am thinking.

For further clarification, I have found Robert W' description of "works" very agreeable. He has, more then once, successfully articulated works from a selfless motive of love. I believe this love motive is impossible for a person working for justification and only possible for a person working from justification.faith working through love? I do think there is a continual pastoral need to surgically separate the concepts. When this does not happen, particularly in 'holiness' circles there is the almost inevitable tendency to preach 'justification by sanctification'.

The works that justifys the TRUE faith will never cease dear friend, God is the Author AND FINISHER of our faith, He will keep giving works just like he keeps giving faith.Crossman

Once Justified, Always Justified?If I go steal a candy bar, get caught, and the store owner says to me "I'll pay for your candy bar," can I assume that I can go there every day and take candy bars for free because he forgave me in the past?Of course we know that Jesus paid for our sins before any of us were ever born. We also know that if we are entangled in some sin tomorrow that when we are in Him, in the Light, the blood covers. It's hard to find any analogy like the one above to compare with this issue, since Christ has paid for all of our sins before any of us were born and the ones we commited after we were saved.I think the real question is whether we remain "in Him". If we are baptized into Him, we are baptized into his death. He that is dead is free from sin."For he that is dead is freed from sin." [Romans 6:7]I think there is a lot of foundational truth of how we enter into Christ in Rom. 6.RT