Free Grace Theology In The Reformation Period

Some early Anabaptists taught eternal security.

The Reformation period (16th–17th centuries) was a major era of change within the history of Christianity, marked by debates on salvation, grace, and human responsibility. During this era which was caused by figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the concept of grace was a major issue of debate. While the mainstream Reformation movements emphasized that salvation required fruit to prove or maintain its authencity, there were also movements and theologians who advocated what can be termed "Free Grace Theology."

Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not by any human effort, and that eternal life is granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from any subsequent good works or perseverance. This theological framework can be contrasted with both Calvinist and Arminian views, which often emphasize the necessity of works as evidence of saving faith or human cooperation in maintaining salvation.

Free Grace views of salvation seem to have appeared within the Anabaptist movement, as we see in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:

 "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."

Other evidence of eternal security comes from Lutheran polemical writings, which although hostile, may indicate a form of eternal security which is not tied to perseverance:

Source: Process, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Widertäuffern, p.6-8

Other incorrect articles which do not concern secular government... the born again can not fall into God’s wrath and when they commit adultery, they say they are driven by the Spirit.

(This is a Lutheran polemical work against anabaptists written by eight theologians in 1558. In it, the Lutherans argued the anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. This section conveys an anabaptist belief in eternal security which the Lutherans are condemning as incorrect. The second portion about adultery is probably a Lutheran interpolation critiquing the supposed ramifications of the anabaptist view. The Augsburg Confession in 1530 critiques anabaptists who believed that those who had been justified by God cannot lose the Holy Spirit in Article XII. This could lead the Lutheran theologians to falsely conclude that the ramifications of this theology are that when someone sins gravely they’re doing it in and being driven by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot be lost to one who has been justified; and the Holy Spirit would therefore accompany the believer in whatever sins they commit.) 

However, Anabaptism was not an unified movement. The Anabaptists held a wide range of beliefs on many issues, including salvation. However, even those Anabaptists who opposed eternal security seem to have been aware of its existence, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:

Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it? (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIII: Hebrews, James. Edited by Ronald K. Rittgers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017, p. 233)

However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold. 

However, an intriguing note is that Luther may have initially believed something close to Free Grace, as he in his early writings says:

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. (The Babylonian Captivity) 

However, some have posited that this is merely Luther being hyperbolic. Nevertheless, it is an intriguing possibility that maybe he started out closer to Free Grace theology, and later may have changed his mind? It is very clear that Luther was opposed to Free Grace ideas within his later writings, however his early stance seems more unclear. Nevertheless, later Lutheran confessions are explicitly hostile to Free Grace theology, and condemn those who taught it, giving the pejorative label "Antinomian":

It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more extensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents of the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement,”Good works are necessary.” Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily implying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion, they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word “must” is here not in place, they protested.Agricola, as well as the later Antinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions “necessarium, necessary” and “duty, debitum

One of these individuals named by the book of Concord as denying that good works are necessary for the Christian was Johannes Agricola (1494 – 1566) who was initially a companion of Luther but became separated from his teaching.

However, Free Grace-like views were also later on advocated in the "Antinomian controversy" within the 1600s American Colonies. Cotton, the leading figure in the Antinomian controversy taught the doctrine of assurance, denying that good works are necessary for our assurance. Cotton and other "Antinomians" (also called "opinionists") protested to the idea that our assurance should be placed in any way (even subordinately) in our good works.

    "Trulie it is hard to perceive [between a temporary believer and a true believer] when men differ, and therefore it is not an easie matter to make such use of sanctification, as by it to beare witnesse unto justification"

Thus, while Free Grace theology was not the majority view in the Reformation, there certainly were advocates of such a view during this era.

 

 

A Critique Of "Eternal Faith" - Can Christians Apostasize?

King Solomon apostasized in 1 Kings 11

The belief that true Christians cannot apostasize is a hallmark of Reformed Theology. However, even among those who do not teach Lordship salvation, such as the NIFB (New Independent Fundamental Baptists), there are still proponents of the idea that apostasy is impossible for the Christian, and that all true Christians will persevere in the faith.

This article aims to demonstrate that true Christians, while capable of being deceived, can still remain saved. Although this perspective is unpopular today, it is biblically supported when we allow the Scripture to speak for itself.

The clearest example of a saved people apostasizing is the book of Galatians. We see this in the book of Galatians, which was written to the Galatians to try to correct their apostasy. We see this in many verses, where Paul calls them "bewitched":

Galatians 3:1-2

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Notice how despite being bewitched, they had still received the Holy Spirit? Now, some Arminian could argue that they lost the Holy Spirit, however Paul later on still calls them "brethren" in the present tense:

Galatians 6:1

6 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 

 This shows that despite their apostasy, Paul did not doubt the salvation of the Galatians. This same sentiment is moreover re-affirmed in the Second Epistle To Timothy, where Paul writes:

2 Timothy 2:13

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

The "we" is referring to Christians, since Paul includes himself in the statement.  Thus, Paul is saying that it is possible for Christian to "believe not", which is a reference to apostasy. But even in such a radical case, God abides faithful. 

Additionally, the Bible is full of examples of apostasy. Paul talks about "departing" from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), and we see it in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13), which shows that some depart from the gospel after a accepting it. A major example in King Solomon, who also departed from God in the book of Kings. However, we know he was saved as God promised to discipline him (2 Samuel 7:14), which he does not do for unbelievers (Hebrews 12:8). 

Advocates of the claim that those who fall away were never true Christians often use 1 John 2:19, which reads:

1 John 2:19

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

This may sound persuasive at first sight, however one must look at this verse more carefully. The verse does not say they were never of us, but uses a simple past tense "were not of us". The "us" is referring to the believing community. This verse merely states that prior to them leaving the community of believers externally and visibly, they had already apostasized in their inner being, and if they hadn't they wouldn't have left the Christian community. However, nowhere does this verse imply that they were "never" of us, the simple past tense just requires that at some point prior to their apostasy they had already apostasized in their heart, being "not of us".

Did Jesus Take His Blood To Heaven? (Hebrews 9:12)

Paul the Apostle

While it has been a common doctrine that Jesus took his blood to heaven, this has been today critiqued especially by those who come from the line of Robert Thieme, who believed that the literal blood of Christ had nothing to do with the atonement, but was purely symbolic. As a corollary doctrine, he also denied that Jesus' blood was taken to heaven.

The debate centers around Hebrews 9:12, which reads:

Hebrews 9:12

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

This verse has often been understood as Jesus taking his blood to heaven to sprinkle it in the holy place, thus fulfilling the Old Testament type layed out in Leviticus 16:

Leviticus 16:14

14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.

Evangelists of the past generally shared this view, as the Bible teacher M.R. DeHaan (1891 – December 13, 1965) wrote in his book "The Tabernacle":

M.R. DeHaan

The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute.  He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this:

"But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

The Bible also makes plain when He accomplished this. On the morning of the resurrection He meets Mary at the tomb. As soon as Mary recognized Him, she prostrated herself upon Him, and would have kissed His feet, but with shocking suddenness, Jesus emphatically says to her: "Touch me not"; and then He proceeds immediately to give the reason why Mary is not permitted to touch Him at all.

"For I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

Literally the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Touch me not; for I now am about to ascend unto my Father."  We can understand this action when we remember the the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done. And here in the record of the meeting with Mary we have the fulfillment of this type. Here Mary meets her great High Priest, just arisen from the tomb, but before He had entered the holy of holies with the reconciling blood. And so He says to her, "TOUCH ME NOT."

The TABERNACLE, by M.R. DeHaan, M.D., ISBN 0-310-23491-3, page 129.

The objection raised by those who deny that Jesus took his blood to heaven is based on their interpretation of the Greek word dia (which they argue should be translated as "through" in this context). They contend that it does not imply Jesus taking his blood to heaven but rather that the "holy place" mentioned refers to the cross itself. However, the usage of dia (often translated as "by" or "through") in this context is instrumental, indicating the means of Jesus' enterance into holy place, not excluding the act of Jesus taking his blood into heaven. It is essential to understand the verse as referring to Jesus taking his blood to heaven to fulfill the Old Testament typology. If Jesus had not taken his blood into the heavenly sanctuary, this typology would remain incomplete, leaving a significant aspect of Scripture’s redemptive narrative unfulfilled.

Further support for the historicity of this event (as already noted by DeHaan) is from John 20:17, where Jesus does not let Mary touch him because he is not yet ascended. If this were the same ascension as in the book of Acts, it would not make sense why Jesus would then allow Thomas to touch him (John 20:24-27). This contradiction is easily solved by the fact that before the ascension in Acts 2, Jesus had already prior gone to heaven to apply his blood to the mercy seat. Those who deny this event, often argue that John 20:17 should instead be translated as "hold" (NIV) or "cling" (NKJV) instead of the KJV rendering "touch", however this is a forced meaning of the word "ἅπτομαι", where it is very consistently translated instead as "touch" (such as in Matthew 8:3 Matthew 8:15 Matthew 9:20 Matthew 9:21 Matthew 9:29 Matthew 14:36 1 John 5:18 Luke 22:51). The translation "touch" is also supported by the ancient editions of the Bible such as the Latin Vulgate and the Peshitta. This lack of consistency is a strong mark of eisegesis (the forcing of one's views unto the Bible) rather than exegesis (taking your doctrine from the Bible), and it is sad that such eisegesis is being included in the translations themselves. 

In conclusion, it is Biblical to say that Jesus' actual blood was taken into heaven.

Why the "Repent of sins" Gospel is Unbiblical

 The "repent of sins" gospel is popular in modern Christianity, and it has been taught by very major figures within Evangelicalism like John McArthur, Wyane Grudem, Billy Graham, R.C Sproul alongside many other Evangelicals. It refers to the view that to be saved, one must make the decision to turn from their sins and submit to Jesus Christ. The advocates of this view however still pay lip service to faith alone by saying that "turning from sins is not a work". However, this article will demonstrate how this view abuses the meaning of the word "repentance" and that turning from sins is not necessary for salvation.

Firstly, it is evident that turning from sins is a work, as the book of Jonah clearly says:

Jonah 3:10

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

However, the Bible often repeats that loving God and your neighbour fulfils the law (Matthew 5:17-20, Romans 13:8-10) and it is undeniable that submitting to God is an act of love. Thus, for one to make the claim that turning from sins in submission to God is a prerequisite of being saved, one is saying that one must keep the law to be saved. This is obviously in contradiction to Galatians 2:16, which reads:

Galatians 2:16

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It is biblically impossible to maintain thus that turning from sin is necessary for salvation. However, then the question arises, what is repentance? The Bible clearly makes repentance a condition of salvation (Acts 3:19), thus what does it mean?

Well, looking at the very basic definition, repentance (metanoia) comes from two Greek words which literally mean a "change of mind". The context determining what one is changing their mind about, and in a salvific context it is a change of mind about the gospel, going from unbelief to belief. This is supported by many Bible passages such as:

2 Timothy 2:25

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Luke 16:30-31

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. 

This is also supported by the usage of the term "metanoia" (repentance) within other Greek writings:

Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.): "And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance, to see whether they would change their minds…" (The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 3, transl. William Whiston)

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140 A.D.): "These are they that heard the word, and would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds [metanoeō], and go back again after their evil desires." (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, chapter 7, transl. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers)

Polycarp (69-155 A.D.): "The Proconsul said unto him, 'I have wild beasts ready; to those I will cast thee, unless thou repent.' He answered, 'Call for them, then: for we Christians are fixed in our minds, not to change [i.e. not to repent] from good to evil." (A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, transl. Temple Chevallier)

Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220 A.D.): "Now in Greek the word for repentance is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of varying circumstances." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of The Writings of The Fathers Down to A.D. 325., vol. 7, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, transl. Peter Holmes, Against Marcion)

Thus, repentance is merely a synonym for believing, and not an additional requirement of turning from sins for salvation, as Charles Ryrie writes:

"This is what Peter meant by repentance when he was asked by the people what they should do in the light of his message (Acts 2:38). The word repent means, of course, to change one's mind about something. But what that something is is all-important to the meaning of repentance in any given context. . . . The content of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Jesus as a mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation." (Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], pp. 175-176.)

 

So we should reject the "repent of sins" gospel, whic his a disguised form of works salvation. 

If you want more information on the same topic, I recommend these videos:

• What is Repentance for Salvation? (Turning From Sins v. Faith Alone)
• The "Repent of Your Sins" False Gospel EXPOSED
• Repentance and Salvation | Soteriology 1
• What does REPENT mean in the Bible?
• What is Repentance 01 | Calvary of Tampa with Trent Dudley

A Critique of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The oldest painting of Mary

The perpetual virginity of Mary is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus remained a virgin for her whole life even after Jesus was born. This teaching is emphasized in the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church and the Assyrian church of the East, however it is also taught by some Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed individuals, with however less emphasis on it. 

However, this doctrine is explicitly contradictary to the bible itself, and has lead into the doctrine of a "Josephite marriage", which is a practice in direct violation to God's purpose in marriage. This doctrine has also been used to justify endless ascetism and to devalue marriage.

Scripturally, it is clearly said that Jesus had brothers and sisters:

Matthew 13:55-57

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

However, those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary often have a sneaky way around this by arguing that the Greek word translated brother "adelphos" can refer to some other relatives, like cousins. However, although they may cite some Greek places where this usage did exist, it was an exceptionally rare usage of the word. In fact, the word "adelphos" literally means 'from the same womb'.

Additionally, there are extra details which suggest that Mary did indeed have children after Jesus, such as Matthew 1:25:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

The word "till" means that a change happened after this time, aka, after Jesus was born she and Joseph had a totally normal marriage. Additionally, the usage of the term "firstborn" may imply that Mary had children later on, as with a "first" it is often implied that a "second" also exist. Though admitedly the usage of the term "firstborn" is a more implicit argument.

Nevertheless, they will object that the Greek word "heos" does not necessarily mean "till" in the same way as in English, however again, this view relies on a non-normative use of the term. The most basic and normal usage of the word is to be used to refer to a change in a point of time, such as in the following verses:

Matthew 2:9

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Matthew 2:13

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Matthew 2:15

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

One could provide many more examples, but these three verses all use the same Greek word "heos", where it is used clearly to denote a change in time. One must read a very unusual usage of the word to support the claim that Jesus never had genetic brothers and sisters.

But as a third point, and the most dangerous point is the doctrine of a "Josephite marriage" which this doctrine has created. The claim is that since Joseph and Mary abstained within their own marriage, it serves as an example people can follow. However, this is in the most explicit terms condemned by the Bible, where Paul says:

1 Corinthians 7:5

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The Bible in the most direct terms says that abstinence in marriage cannot be done except for a time with prayer and fasting, because that opens doors for Satan to tempt you and destroy that marriage, and as Paul previously wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:3 "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.", there is no room for permanent and absolute abstinence. The "Josephite marriage" is not a virtue, but it is directly condemned by Paul the apostle as something that cannot be done. This also serves as a strong reason why the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, as it would be condemned by Paul's writings.

The perpetual virginity of Mary also directly attacks Jesus' full humanity, due to the doctrine of "virginitas in partu", which is the claim that Jesus did not exit the womb of Mary in the same manner humans do, but instead existed the womb miraculously so that Mary's hymen was not broken and so she did not experience labour. This however distances Jesus from the ordinary human experience of human birth, and thus seems to diminish Jesus' human experience, which seems to conflict with the emphasis on Jesus' full human experience in the Bible:

Philippians 2:7

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Hebrews 2:17-18

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually first found in Gnostic and heretical pseudo-gospels such as the gospel of James. Among early heretical writings to mention the doctrine are:

1. The Gospel of James (Made by the Encratites, who believed that marriage is sin)
2. The Gospel of Peter (Made by an unknown sect, but is known to be heretical)
3. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Made by an unknown Gnostic sect)

In fact, the earliest non-Gnostic person to explicitly mention this doctrine (Tertullian) rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary in his writings:

Tertullian (155 AD – c. 220 AD)

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. (On the Flesh of Christ)

 However, due to the influence of these pseudographical gospels, ascetic philosophy and the growth of the monastic tradition, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary became mainstream.

A Free Grace Understanding of Hebrews 10

Hebrews 10 is likely the passage I have studied the most extensively. While it is often interpreted to suggest the possibility of losing one's salvation, in this article, I will aim to explain the passage thoroughly without supporting that implication.

The passage reads thus:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries 

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Advocates of conditional security present multiple arguments from this text of scripture, and admitedly many of the points can be highly confusing. First, they often assert that "sinning willfully" refers to a persistent habit of sin. Second, they interpret the punishment mentioned as eternal separation in hell. Third, they argue that the "reward" references eternal salvation. However, a closer examination of the context in Hebrews reveals that these interpretations are not the necessary understanding of the passage.

To begin with, the "willful sin" mentioned in the text does not contextually refer to habitual sin. Instead, it pertains to the deliberate act of returning to the system of animal sacrifices, as indicated by the surrounding context in verses 22–25. The entire book of Hebrews was written to Jewish believers who were struggling with the temptation to revert to the practices of Judaism and go back to the animal sacrifices of Judaism, which were only a type of Christ.

Secondly, it is under no necessity that references to "judgement" and "punishment" need to be understood of as eternal hell, instead they can be understood as God's temporary discipline upon the apostate Christian:

Revelation 3:19 - As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

God's temporary judgements can in severe cases be much sorer than immediate death (as was the penalty under the Mosaic law), we can see this for example in the case of Jonah, where Jonah pleads that he would rather die than live:

Therefore now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live. (Jonah 4:3)

"Timorias" used to refer to corrective discipline

Thus, the punishment being referred to as being worse than immediate death does not under any circumstance necessate that hell is being talked about (otherwise one would have to consistently argue that Jonah was in hell in Jonah 4:3, which is obviously not the case).

Some object to the interpretation of "punishment" in Hebrews 10 by saying out that the Greek word used, timōria, is not the typical term for punishment found elsewhere in Scripture. They often cite Aristotle, who argued that timōria always refers to a form of punishment devoid of any corrective or disciplinary intent. However, this definition reflects Aristotle's philosophical framework rather than the usage of the term in Jewish contexts, which alings with the English term "punishment".

For example, in 2 Maccabees 6:12, although an apocryphal text, it provides insight into how Greek was used by Jewish writers. In this writing, timōria is employed to describe temporal discipline rather than purely retributive punishment in hell. While 2 Maccabees is not scripture, it demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of timōria could encompass corrective discipline, contradicting Aristotle's philosophical distinction. 

Thus, the meaning of timōria in Hebrews 10 should be understood in its Jewish context rather than through the lens of Greek philosophy. 

Others also object that discipline cannot be called punishment, however this is again a later manmade concept not found within the scripture.  To the contrary, we see in Jeremiah that discipline is called "punishment":

11 For I am with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet I will not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. (Jeremiah 30:11)

Most of these philosophical arguments on the meaning of timōria and the concept of punishment are made by Reformed/Calvinistic commentators, yet these are manmade distinctions being imposed into the scriptures. And contrary to the arguments of Calvinists who believe that those who fall away were "never saved to begin with" and the Arminians who argue that this passage refers to a loss of salvation, the immediate context itself suggests that temporary discipline is the theme of the passage, as only two chapters later, the author (probably Paul) writes about discipline (Hebrews 12:6-10):

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

Lastly, the "reward" mentioned in Hebrews 10 should not be interpreted as referring to salvation. The Bible consistently describes salvation as a gift (Ephesians 2:8), and by definition, a gift cannot be a reward, as rewards are earned, while gifts are given freely. Instead, Scripture makes a clear distinction between salvation and eternal rewards. A clear example of this distinction is found in 1 Corinthians 3:10–15, where Paul explains that believers whose works are fruitful and profitable will receive a reward. In contrast, those whose works are unprofitable will suffer the loss of their reward but will still be saved and enter heaven. This shows that rewards are based on faithful service, while salvation is solely by grace through faith:

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Thus, Hebrews 10 gives the audience a clear explanation of the consequences of apostasy and the benefits of persevering. The person who chooses to go back to the animal sacrifices will experience severe divine discipline, but the person who perseveres will receive an eternal reward. Hence, loss of salvation is not the topic of Hebrews 10, but instead discipline and reward.

I hope this article has blessed you.

Is Scripture Alone Biblical?

Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture Alone," is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice. It thus means that no church, tradition, magisterium, or papal decree can stand as an infallible authority beside the Word of God. While some groups who profess to believe in Scripture alone, like the Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans, may lean more heavily on the writings of historical theologians, us Free Gracers often take a stronger view of Scripture alone. However, the question we must ask is this: does the Bible itself teach Sola Scriptura?

It is often claimed that the Bible provides no basis for this doctrine, rendering it self-refuting. However, numerous passages explicitly affirm the Bible as the sole infallible authority on Christian doctrine and theology. A prime example is found in Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees, as recorded in Mark 7. Here, Jesus unmistakably elevates the authority of Scripture above that of tradition, showing its unique authority:

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 But among the most classical verses to teach sola scriptura are in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which reads:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Special emphasis is to be put on the words "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished". These verses most clearly attest to the fact that scripture is sufficient for Christian living and doctrine. A common objection to this claim is however that the scriptures Paul is talking about is the Old Testament, thus it can't mean that the scripture is sufficient (since we clearly need the New Testament to live the Christian life). However, this claim is easily deconstructed by the fact that Paul 1 Timothy actually quotes the book of Luke as scripture, showing that Paul had both the New and Old Testaments in mind. Compare 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7

1 Timothy 5:18

18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις καί Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ

Luke 10:7

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 

ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν• ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστι. μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν.

Scripture is said to have all the necessary contents for us to gain eternal life (John 20:31), which we are not supposed to add to anything (Proverbs 30:5-6) and we are called to avoid being deceived by human traditions (Colossians 2:8). Even in the Old Testament did God warn his people of adding traditions outside the scripture "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20). But even more strongly, Paul places Scripture above the apostles and even the angels, commanding his audience to test even his own words by previous revelation, as we read in Galatians 1:8-9:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

This same sentiment is echoed also in the example of the Bereans, who searched the scriptures to test claims told unto them:

Acts 17:11-12

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

 Assuming an infallible office of teaching, it becomes impossible to practice what the Bereans were commended for, since such infallible statements would not need to be tested by scripture. 

In light of these passages, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura finds strong biblical support.