The Doctrine of Eternal Generation In Scripture

The trinity

 The doctrine of eternal generation is today often neglected, however it should not. This doctrine is one of the foundations of classical trinitarian theology, it was affirmed by the Council of Nicaea and it was taught by dispensationalists such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ironside and John Walvoord. For example, Ironside says:

It is Christ as the Uncreated Word, yet the Begotten Son by eternal generation; words admittedly paradoxical, but after all distinctly Scriptural. (Proverbs and Song of Solomon)

The doctrine of eternal generation is defined thus by Charles Hodge:

The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.

Eternal generation thus does not mean that Jesus is created in any way, which would be heretical. On this, John Walvoord comments:

Procession like the eternal generation of Christ is not a matter of creation, commencement of existence, or analogous in any way with physical relationships common in the human realm. It proceeds rather from the very nature of the Godhead, being necessary to its existence. (The Person of the Holy Spirit)

Scriptures

However, the major question is, is it scriptural? This article will attempt to demonstrate this doctrine from scripture.

The most popular scripture used to defend this idea come from the gospel of John, these are:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:26: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

John 3:16 is a very commonly used verse to defend the doctrine of eternal generation, this is due to the word "monogenes", which has been traditionally translated as "only begotten", which implies a kind of generation. However, in the modern day this has been questioned, and many today have attempted to argue that it should better be translated as "only-unique". However, I would myself prefer the King James translation of this verse (although I am not KJV only), which states "only begotten". Now, there are also good evidences for translating it as only begotten as it is evident that the early church fathers who spoke Greek natively, understood it as referring to being begotten. For example, the Nicene creed clearly referenced to John, when calling Jesus " Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". We also see that Jerome understood the term as implying being begotten, as the Latin vulgate reads "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.".

The fact that almost everybody living close to the age of the apostles, understood the term "monogenes" as "only begotten" makes a very strong case for its meaning as thus.

The next verse, John 5:26 is also a very great text that demonstrates this doctrine, as it says that the Son was "granted" to have life in Himself. Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal generation, generally argue that it is referencing only communication of the ability to grant life. However, what must be noticed is the first part of the verse, which states "For just as the Father has life in Himself". Thus, whatever "life in Himself" means at the end of the verse, must mean the same as at the beginning of the verse. If this is granted, this verse alone is sufficient to establish eternal generation.

These three texts are not the only ones to establish this view, next we find Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 5:5, which also reference Jesus being begotten:

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5)

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)

Some may object that the word "today" is used, yet we must remember that this is spoken by God, Who is outside of time. The bible declares that with the Lord "one day is like a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8), thus the word "today" is not referencing a specific time in history, but eternity.  Now, Paul applied the text in Acts 13:33 to the resurrection, yet it must be carefully maintained that Christ did not become the Son of God when He rose from the dead, as Jesus is already called the Son prior (Matthew 14:33), but it was at the resurrection that He manifested being the Son of God.

Yet, there are still more texts to look at for this doctrine! The next strong verse comes from Hebrews 1:3, which states:

who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Some might question, how does this verse relate to eternal generation? Well, that comes from a closer look at the terms, as Sam Shamoun explains:

"There are several points which we can glean from this very crucial text. The first point is that Jesus is the very exact imprint, the very exact copy, the perfect reflection of God’s own substance, nature, essence etc. That is the meaning of the Greek word charakter, that Jesus is the precise and perfect imprint left by the Original or the Source. The author of Hebrews is basically saying that the Father is the underived Source of all Deity with the Son being the perfect duplicate of that Deity. If God’s substance is eternal, then Christ must be eternal also since he is the exact imprint. If God’s substance is infinite, then Christ must also be infinite seeing that he is the exact copy of it."

Christ is similarly called the "image" of God in Colossians 1:15, which aligns with Hebrews 1;3.

The last text to look at is Proverbs 8, although this one is more disputed. Some, such as Ironside see this verse as a description of Jesus, because Christ is called the "wisdom of God" in the New Testament. If this is true, it would necessarily mean eternal generation, as Proverbs 8:23 reads:

"I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."

However, this verse has been very controversial. Although Ironside took this as Jesus and a reference to His eternal generation, there are many who do not. However, it is not necessary that this verse references Jesus, thus I am leaving it open.

Is Calvinism Borrowed From Manichaean Gnosticism?

Mani was a 3rd century self proclaimed prophet
and the founder of the Gnostic religion "Manichaeanism".

 According to the well respected scholar, Ken Wilson, the doctrine of unconditional election along with other points of Calvinism are borrowed from Manichaeanism. But how can this be? What links does Calvinism have with Manichaeanism? Well there are more than one would expect. Calvinism is mostly taken from the doctrines of the early church father Augustine of Hippo, who was a convert out of Manichaeanism to Christianity. Augustine himself testified to his conversion in his book "Confessions".

But did the Manichaeans teach that God unconditionally elects some to salvation and some to damnation? - Yes

Although we do not have many early Manichaean writings, I was able to found late neo-Manichaean writings which distinctly argue against free will, as we can see from these quotes:

"Hence, by this reasoning, vain will be the belief of those who declared that those persons who are to be saved as well as those who never are to be saved have a potency for salvation and can be saved, as was said above."

"And so, we serve God when we fulfill His will with His help, not that we are able through free will to do anything good of which He himself is not the cause and principle. Thus, the Blessed James says in his Epistle, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights." " And in the Gospel of John, Christ says, "No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him."  And of himself, He said: "I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge";  and again, "But the Father, who abideth in me, he doth the works."  And the Apostle says to the Ephesians: "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory." " And the same Apostle says to the Romans, "So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that showeth mercy."

"From this one may know that those angels did not have from God a free will by which they could entirely avoid covetousness, and especially not from a God who knows directly all the future, in whom it is impossible that that which is future, with all the causes which determine it, can fail to be in the future. "

These text look like they could have come from any Calvinistic writing! However, the surprise is that these are taken from the Neo-Manichaean book "The Book of the Two Principles". The Neo-Manichaeans used every Calvinistic prooftext, such as John 6, Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 9 to support their theology. However, we are not limited to later neo-Manichaean references, we actually have church fathers also attack the Gnostics for their doctrine of unconditional election. For example, John Chrysostom protests against Manichaeans using John 6 for their doctrine of predestination, as we read in his commentary:

Ver. 44. "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him." The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, "that nothing lies in our own power"; yet the expression showeth that we are masters of our will. "For if a man cometh to Him," saith some one, "what need is there of drawing?" But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling [1287] comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He showeth also the manner in which He draweth; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God, He addeth,

This thus shows that Augustine's theology is clearly borrowed from Manichaeanism, it is not a coincidence that the first person to introduce this kind of theology, was himself a convert from Manichaeanism. Later, Calvin inherited this Manichaean influence from the doctrines of Augustine.

The Heretical Christology of Pastor Steven Anderson Critiqued

Steven Anderson is the founder of the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, although it is not a large denomination by numbers, it has attracted a large group of young followers due to the internet. However, I wrote this article as a warning of this teaching of Eutychianism, which Steven Anderson teaches. Eutychianism or Monophysitism has its origins in the 5th century, from a man called Eutyches. Eutyches argued that the two natures of Jesus (human and divine), were not only united in the person of Jesus Christ, but also mixed together. Thus, Eutyches argued that Jesus is like God and man put into a blender, where the humanity mixes with the divinity like in a soup, thus Jesus' human nature is not the same as ours.

This teaching largely died out after the Council of Chalcedon, however it has been recently resurrected by the NIFB, through Steven Anderson. He has himself even called the classical view of Jesus "stupidity". According to Steven Anderson, because Jesus had two parents (God the Father and Mary), they must have mixed like any act of procreation would, Steven argued that just as a son has half of their dna from the father and half of their dna from the mother, Jesus would have had half of his essence from God and half of his essence from Mary, which then mixed like a blender. Now, there are obvious problems with this, as Steven clearly is thinking anthropomorphistically, additionally Steven Anderson's doctrine of Christ undermines the humanity of Jesus, and denies Jesus as consubstantiality with us.

A biblical refutation of Eutychianism

Steven Anderson has argued that Jesus is called the "Son" because of the incarnation, where he received half of his dna from God's divine essence. However, biblically the sonship of Christ is eternal, and He was the Son even before the incarnation.

There are many verses which speak of "Son" creating everything (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2), if Christ being the "Son" is only a matter of the incarnation, it would not have been the Son who created the universe before the incarnation. God is also called the Father prior to the incarnation (there can be no Father without a Son), for example Jesus in John 16:28 says that when Jesus came forth from the Father, He was already the Son, however the incarnation is the result of the coming forth. However, bible prophecy already calls Jesus the Son in the Old Testament, for example Proverbs 30.

The heresy of Eutychianism

We must also focus on the full humanity of Christ, Hebrews declares that Christ is like us "in every way" (Hebrews 4:15), if Jesus was a mixture or a blend of God and man into one, Jesus would not have been a normal human. Imagine this, what if Jesus' dna was half crocodile and half man, would such a person atone for our sins? Certainly He would not be able represent humanity in the cross, if He was half crocodile. In the same sense, Christ could not have represented humanity in the cross if we assume Christ being mixed. Monophysitism follows in the spirit of Docetism, which fails to affirm Christs full humanity, Docetism was condemned by John in 1 John 4:3.

Anderson's anthropomorphism must also be avoided, we should not bind God to the ways of the world. Although it is certain that Christ had a full set of chromosomes, they must have been human chromosomes, we are told is that Jesus must have been fully consubstantial with us for the atonement, thus we can rule out the view that half of Jesus' chromosomes are of the divine essence, or "God's dna" (which I would argue doesn't exist, although Steven Anderson believes is real) as heretical.

Secondly, if Eutychianism is true, and the two natures are blend together, then the human limitations of Jesus would also be non-existent, for example God does not get tired (Isa. 40:28), but Jesus got tired and slept? This cannot be explained unless we have two distinct but united natures. 

The Athanasian creed

The Athanasian creed states: "For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person."

Although the Athanasian creed is fallible, it does provide a good biblical summary of the doctrine of Christ. The problem here is, that when the Athanasian creed states " One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person.", Steven Anderson would deny the term "not by confusion of substance". However, as already demonstrated, is blatantly unbiblical and attacks the atonement.

Free Grace Theology in the Plymouth Brethren

A Plymouth Brethren church

 The Plymouth Brethren are a group of Christians that derive from the teachings of John Nelson Darby, thus they have 19th century origins. However, among the Brethren, Free Grace theology was apparently common.

For example, the "change of mind" view of repentance was very common in this group, as we see in the bible translation of John Bowers  (a 19th century Plymouth Brethren):

"And saying, Change your mind, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 3:2)

"From that time Jesus began to proclaim, and say, Change your minds, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 4:17)

"And that a change of mind and remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47)

"And Peter said to them, Change your minds, and be each of you immersed, upon the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," (Acts 2:38)

"Change your mind therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)

"That therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, he now commands all men everywhere to change their minds:" (Acts 17:30)

"But to those in Damascus first, and Jerusalem, and in all the country of Judea, and to the nations, I declared that they should change their minds and turn to God, and perform works worthy of their change of mind." (Acts 26:20)

Bowes was so strong in this view that repentance is a change of mind, that he directly translated "metanoia" as a change of mind, instead of using the word "repentance". We find the same view in Alexander Marshall (1846 – 1928), who could also be seen as a Plymouth Free Grace theologian, he wrote: 

“But does it not say, unless we repent we shall perish?” Yes ; but what do you think is the Scriptural signification of “repentance?” If you say “sorrow for sin,” you are wrong. It does not mean sorrow for sin ; it means a change of mind see Matt. xxi.29" (God's way of salvation)

In the same writing, Marshall also makes comments such as the quality of faith not being the issue in salvation:

 "If you are not already saved, you don’t believe in Jesus in any way. Scripture does not recognize two ways of believing— a “ right ” and a“ wrong ” one. Men may speak about a “ living faith ” and a “ dead faith,” a “saving faith ” and an “intellectual faith,” but Scripture speaks of believing what God says. Faith in man and faith in God are the same exercises of mind ; the difference is not in the faith, but in the person on whom the faith terminates. Those who are lost perish through believing the devil’s lie, and those who are saved are delivered through believing God’s truth. “"

Thus for Marshall, simple trust in Christ is enough. 

Free Grace views were also held by G.H. Lang (1874 – 1958) and G. H Pember (1837–1910), for example Lang argued that the "call to discipleship" is not of salvation:

 Obviously this [Luke 17:33] agrees exactly with the warnings already considered that believers may be cut short by premature death and thus lose their life. It will therefore harmonize with the Lord’s words should our passage [Heb 10:39] be rendered, “we are of them who have faith unto the keeping safe of life.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews)

We also see many Free Grace views from H.A. Ironside (1876-1951) and Charles Henry Mackintosh (1820 - 1896). Although H.A Ironside was involved with the Plymouth Brethren only for a part of his life. 

We see a strong doctrine of assurance in Mackintosh, as he wrote:

They deem it presumptuous to believe that their sins are forgiven until their evil nature is completely sanctified; and, seeing that this end is not reached, they have no settled assurance of pardon, and are therefore miserable. In a word, they are seeking for a “foundation” totally different from that which Jehovah says He has laid, and, therefore, they have no certainty whatever. (Sanctification: What Is It?) 

Isaac Watts (1674 – 1748) and Dispensationalism

 Isaac Watts was mentioned by Charles Ryrie as one who foreshadowed the dispensationalism of Scofield and Darby. Isaac Watts write a book called "The Harmony of All the Religions Which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Towards Them", where he taught many dispensational concepts.
However, he did not develop his every idea to their logical conclusions, as living in a Reformed environment, he had covenantal influences. This may put Isaac Watts somewhat closer to progressive dispensationalism, however considering the environment around Isaac Watts, the influences are understandable.

First thing to note is that Watts noticed a substantial difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant. Watts seems to have taught that the commands which are not re-established in the New Testament writings, are not binding.

“Watts furthermore changed the psalms in order to harmonize them with prevailing economic attitudes of the eighteenth century. Where the psalmist had scored usury, Watts thought it necessary also to leave out the mention of usury, which though politically forbidden by the ,Jews among themselves was never unlawful to the Gentles, nor to any Christians since the ,Jewish polity (Mosaic law) expired." 

(R. M. Stevenson, Patterns of Protestant Church Music)

This quote is not saying that Isaac tried to change the bible, but that when he borrowed from the Psalms, writing his own hymns (he was a famous hymn writer), he did not borrow from the psalms word for word, instead "omitting" mentions of Mosaic commandments which no longer apply. 

Watts is also seen as teaching the doctrine that the dispensation of the church age started in Acts 2, as he says in the book "The Harmony of All the Religions Which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Towards Them":

"the christian dispensation was not properly set up in all its forms, doctrines and duties, till the following day of Pentecost, and the pouring down of the Spirit upon the Apostles" 

Chales Ryrie thus describes Isaac Watt's dispensational scheme (Dispensationalism, page 53):

I. The Dispensation of Innocency, or the Religion of Adam at first

 II. The Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, or the Religion of Adam after his Fall

 III. The Noahical Dispensation, or the Religion of Noah 

 IV The Abrahamical Dispensation, or the Religion of Abraham

 V The Mosaical Dispensation, or the Jewish Religion 

VI. The Christian Dispensation Except for the exclusion of the Millennium (he did not consider it a dispensation), this outline is exactly like that in the Scofield Reference Bible, and it is Watts's outline, not Darby's! Thus, throughout this period there was significant thinking and considerable literature on the subject of God's dealings with mankind throughout the ages. This was a period of developing dispensationalism

Now, despite Isaac not considering the millennium a dispensation, he was clearly still premillennial and believed in a future kingdom. Isaac's song "Jesus Shall Reign" has been generally seen as proof of his premillennial theology, which reads thus:

1 Jesus shall reign where'er the sun does its successive journeys run, his kingdom stretch from shore to shore, till moons shall wax and wane no more. 2 To him shall endless prayer be made, and praises throng to crown his head. His name like sweet perfume shall rise with every morning sacrifice.3 People and realms of every tongue dwell on his love with sweetest song, and infant voices shall proclaim their early blessings on his name. 4 Blessings abound where'er he reigns: the prisoners leap to lose their chains, the weary find eternal rest, and all who suffer want are blest. 5 Let every creature rise and bring the highest honors to our King, angels descend with songs again, and earth repeat the loud amen.

This hymn is borrowed mainly from Psalm 72, now although he does not directly say that this will be fulfilled in the future, we see indications that he did. For example the words "His name like sweet perfume shall rise with every morning sacrifice" are not in the original Psalm, and the inclusion implies this being an additive interpretation of Isaac Watts. This indicates that he believed that a sacrificial system will exist when this Psalm is fulfilled, which would place it in the millennium (Ezekiel's temple), as no such thing exists today. 

He additionally in a hymn about Isaiah 9:6 (Watts, Psalms and Hymns p. 300) attributed the millennial reign to "ages yet unknown". Watts also believed in a future conversion of Israel, as in his comments on Psalm 106 and Psalm 105 he says:

"Though the Jews now seem to be case off, yet the Apostle Paul assures us, that “God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Their unbelief and absence from God is but for a season; for they shall be recalled again, verses 25, 26"

"Then let the world forbear its rage, Nor put the land in fear; Israel must live through every age, And be the’ Almighty’s care."

Now, believing in premillennialism does not make one a dispensationalist alone, but his belief in the divine preservation of the Jewish people and apparent belief in a future temple in Jerusalem seem to connect him closer to dispensationalism, as historic premillennialists take the temple allegorically and applying to the church.

Now, it does have to be noted that Isaac was not a classical dispensationalist. His dispensational theology is still underdeveloped and he was influenced by the mainstream writers of his day. This led Isaac to apply many promises given for Israel to the church "spiritually". It seems that Isaac's theology mirrors progressive dispensationalism, which applies these prophecies "spiritually" to the church and "literally" to Israel at the same time. Although I am not a progressive dispensationalists, Isaac should be given some grace on the matter, as he lived before Darby and during a time where the role of Israel was not majorly discussed, thus his information was more limited, perhaps, if Isaac knew of Darby, he would have taught classical dispensationalism instead. However, Isaac's theology does show that many dispensational beliefs were taught prior to Darby, as Isaac was born over 100 years before him. Despite Isaac's dispensationalism being underdeveloped, we thus see that Darby was not the inventor of this theology, but merely a systematizer of it.

Although this article is not to be meant to be about progressive dispensationalism, I believe it has some problems. I suggest reading from Andy Woods on the issue of progressive dispensationalism, as he makes a detailed biblical examination of the doctrine.

You can find "The Coming Kingdom by Andy Woods" here.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Revelation 3:9 Does not teach "Christian" antisemitism

This text is sometimes used to defend "Christian" antisemitism, however those who aim to do such, are clearly misguided:

i. In this, Jesus did not speak against all Jewish people. It would be entirely wrong to speak of the Jewish people as a whole as the synagogue of Satan or those who say they are Jews and are not. Jesus spoke of this specific group of Jewish people in Philadelphia who persecuted the Christians during that period.

David Guzik's commentary on Revelation

Martin Ralph DeHaan (1891 – 1965) and Free Grace theology

 M. R. DeHaan was a dispensational theologian from the 20th century, and as is common to dispensationalism, Free Grace theology was evident in DeHaan's theology.

DeHaan taught one of the central doctrines of Free Grace theology, that being the view that salvation and discipleship are distinct, and thus discipleship is not a condition of entrance into the kingdom. These statements come from his book "Simon Peter: Sinner and Saint":

One cannot read the Bible very far before coming face to face with the teaching of these two distinct possibilities of the Christian life. All through the Bible we find these two kinds of Christians. Jesus said in John 10:10,

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

     There is a world of difference between having "life" and having life "more abundant." You can have life, eternal life, by simply coming to Jesus Christ, and trusting Him for salvation, but you will never know the "life abundant" until you have learned to come after Him in full surrender and followed Him as a disciple. To be saved, you receive God's free gift of grace; to be a disciple you have to return to Him that which you are. Jesus said:

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28).

     That is the "rest" of salvation. It is the gift of God. It is free. You can do nothing to earn it or obtain it, for it is given by grace. But Jesus did not stop with this verse, but added verse 29.

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matthew 11:29).

     It is quite another experience, even though the verses occur together. First we are invited to come, to come, to come, and I will give you rest. This is salvation—the rest of salvation, for which nothing can be paid. It is received as a free gift. 

 

DeHaan was evidently uncomfortable with arguing that Hebrews 10 deals with loss of salvation, as we see in his commentary on Hebrews 10. According to DeHaan, Hebrews is warning of the loss of reward in the judgement seat of Christ. Although there are many other interpretations today of the passage, for example, Andy Woods has argued that it refers to judgement in 70ad and Zane Hodges that it refers to divine disciple. Whatever view is correct, DeHaan evidently held to Free Grace theology from what he wrote in his "Studies in Hebrews":

Again the all-important question is, Who are these mentioned as treading underfoot the Son of God, and counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing and having done despite to the Spirit of grace? It is an important question, for either they were unsaved or saved. It must be one or the other. They are said to be "sanctified with the blood of Christ." Can it be said by any stretch of the imagination that an unconverted sinner has been sanctified by the blood of Christ? But there is more, for verse thirty continues: 

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. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:30, 31). 

There is no escaping the words, "The Lord shall judge his people." This is a judgment for willful, deliberate, continued disobedience until God must step in, according to His word and purpose that He will judge His people. 

But the final argument is in the closing verse of this chapter. Notice carefully the descriptive words. In warning the believer against this danger of becoming a castaway, the writer gives this wise counsel: 

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used (Heb. 10:32, 33). 

Here we have the evidence of a true work of grace, the fruits of a real salvation. They had been illuminated; they suffered for their testimony, and even became a gazingstock by reproaches. But there is much more. 

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 (Heb. 10:34). 

Is this a description of an unconverted person? Think of it. These folks were not only saved, but were laden with fruit, as the evidence of it. They had compassion on the writer in his bonds, took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and to crown it all, they had the assurance of salvation, for of them it is said: 

Knowing…that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 

But let us go on, and see the evidence mounting. Listen to this admonition: 

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward (Heb. 10:35). 

Two words are of tremendous importance. They are confidence and reward. It does not read, "cast not away therefore your salvation." It is not a matter of losing salvation, but losing the assurance. And the danger is losing the reward. But the evidence mounts still more: 

For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise [reward] (Heb. 10:36). 

The reward will be given at the judgment Seat of Christ, when Jesus comes. There the work of God's children will be judged. There faithfulness will be rewarded. The unrepentant disobedient will be dealt with and the castaways shall be saved so as by fire. One passage alone will determine this. Consider again the words of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15: 

Now if any man build upon this foundation [that determines salvation] gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 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. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 

It is in view of this Judgment Seat of Christ that the admonition in Hebrews ten is given. It is a reminder that a reckoning is coming. 

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry (Heb. 10:37).