The fascinating reformed theology paradox of Hebrew 6:4-6

[LoveofTruth]

Holy Scripture tells us Baptism saves:

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

No, it doesn't. the saving baptism is not an outward washing with water, but an inward work where our conscience bears witness and we are risen with Christ to the newness of life. It is a baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ where we are baptized into Christ No diverse washings and carnal ordinances can clean or make perfect the conscience. Hebrews 9, read. look for the words "conscience" and diverse washings, and look up in Greek the meaning of diverse washings..

the gospel saves read 1 Cor 15:1-4, and see that no water baptism or Sabbaths or the Mosaic law or circumcision save. To add anything to the saving gospel is to make another gospel.

Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1). Showing that water baptism is not part of the saving gospel.

 

[Valletta]

No, it doesn't. the saving baptism is not an outward washing with water, but an inward work where our conscience bears witness and we are risen with Christ to the newness of life. It is a baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ where we are baptized into Christ No diverse washings and carnal ordinances can clean or make perfect the conscience. Hebrews 9, read. look for the words "conscience" and diverse washings, and look up in Greek the meaning of diverse washings..

the gospel saves read 1 Cor 15:1-4, and see that no water baptism or Sabbaths or the Mosaic law or circumcision save. To add anything to the saving gospel is to make another gospel.

Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1). Showing that water baptism is not part of the saving gospel.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." I'm sticking with the Bible.

 

[LoveofTruth]

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." I'm sticking with the Bible.

Peter explains what he is talking about, I stick with the Spirit of God and the holy scriptures and the body of Christ.

there are many baptisms in scripture but only one saving one and the saving one is not water baptism. Read 1 Cor 12;13

 

[LoveofTruth]

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." I'm sticking with the Bible.

you may be preaching another gospel then. Read Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 15:1-4 and 1 Cor 1

and ask how does a person have the answer (inquiry) of a good (clean or perfect) conscience, which is an inward work? Read Hebrews 9 for this. Conscience implying with knowledge.

 

[LoveofTruth]

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." I'm sticking with the Bible.

Your not actually sticking with the bible, your omitting the rest of the verse and the entire bible on this topic. We read the believers that were jewish still sacrificing animals many years after Christ death (Acts 21) and keeping the Mosaic law, but if we just say , "well, they did it in Acts so we should to" then all believers should keep the law sacrifice animals circumcise believers and do all the customs of the Jews, if they are a Jewish believer. Which they should not do. But some could say, well Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16, so we can do this also and should, or the believers in jesus were still keeping the law and sacrificing animals so we should to. But this would be wrong.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I agree with most of what you said I would only clarify that it was one church in particular that became corrupted and that church was excommunicated in 1054AD. The eastern churches didn’t participate in the corruption and they had nothing to do with the Reformation. Other than that I completely agree.

???! The Great Schism (the Schism of 1054 between the Roman church based in Rome and the Byzantine church based in Constantinople) had absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of conditional security. Both churches invariably taught the doctrine of conditional security and continue to teach that doctrine down to the present day along with the large majority of Protestant churches.

 

[AlexB23]

???! The Great Schism (the Schism of 1054 between the Roman church based in Rome and the Byzantine church based in Constantinople) had absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of conditional security. Both churches invariably taught the doctrine of conditional security and continue to teach that doctrine down to the present day along with the large majority of Protestant churches.

The Great Schism happened when the Crab Nebula supernova was visible in 1054, but were most probably unrelated.

1054 Supernova: Crab Nebula exploded in 1054 | Astronomy.com

 

[PrincetonGuy]

No, it doesn't. the saving baptism is not an outward washing with water, but an inward work where our conscience bears witness and we are risen with Christ to the newness of life. It is a baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ where we are baptized into Christ No diverse washings and carnal ordinances can clean or make perfect the conscience. Hebrews 9, read. look for the words "conscience" and diverse washings, and look up in Greek the meaning of diverse washings..

the gospel saves read 1 Cor 15:1-4, and see that no water baptism or Sabbaths or the Mosaic law or circumcision save. To add anything to the saving gospel is to make another gospel.

Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1). Showing that water baptism is not part of the saving gospel.

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Peter finds here a correspondence between the water of the flood and the water of baptism. The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed. Corresponding to that, water baptism, when it is not merely the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, now saves us. Compare Colossians 1:9-14,

Col. 1:9. For this reason also, since the day we heard of it we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
10. so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11. strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously
12. giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
13. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed; Christ “rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”

Peter sees salvation being accomplished through water baptism. Paul apparently did also,

Titus 3:4. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6. whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7. so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Paul clearly states here that God our Savior “saved us… by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Paul and Peter were both Jews, and to a Jew washing with water for spiritual cleaning and water baptism were very closely related to each other. The very large majority of New Testament scholars believe that both Paul and Peter taught that water baptism is effectual for the salvation, and the Early Church Fathers taught that God’s Grace for salvation was conferred upon believers through water baptism. This appears to me to have been the case in the Early Church, not as the exclusive means of conferring grace, but as the typical means. In Acts 10:44, we find a definite exception, and in my experience, the exception has become the norm.

(All quotations from the Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

Commentaries on the Greek text of 1 Peter that I own and consulted:

Bigg, Charles - I.C.C. (1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude) exe., xv, 353 (198 on 1 Peter) pages, 1902, Second Edition
Davids, Peter H. - N.I.C. exe., xxii, 266 pages, 1990
Donelson, Lewis R. N.T.L. (1 and 2 Peter) exe., xxiii, 301 (157 on 1 Peter) pages, 2010
Elliott, John - H. A.B. exe., xxiii, 956 pages, 2000
Kelly, J. N. D. - H.N.T.C. (1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude) exe., x, 387 (221 on 1 Peter) pages, 1969
Michaels, J. Ramsey - W.B.C. exe., lxxv, 337 pages, 1988
Reicke, Bo Ivar - A.B. (James, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude) exe., xxxviii, 221 (73 on 1 Peter) pages, 1964
Selwyn, Edward Gordon exe., xvi, 517 pages, 1947, Second Edition

Scholars of the Greek text of 1 Peter are virtually unanimous in teaching that 1 Peter teaches that salvation is conferred upon the believer through water baptism.

 

[BNR32FAN]

???! The Great Schism (the Schism of 1054 between the Roman church based in Rome and the Byzantine church based in Constantinople) had absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of conditional security. Both churches invariably taught the doctrine of conditional security and continue to teach that doctrine down to the present day along with the large majority of Protestant churches.

Yes I agree that conditional salvation wasn’t the cause but I thought it was important to mention that it wasn’t all of the apostolic churches that became corrupted. I would also point out that the schism was not only between Constantinople and Rome since all of the other patriarchs of sided against Rome and excommunicated Rome as well. The churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem also excommunicated Rome. So four of the five patriarchs of the pentarchy sided against Rome, not just Constantinople. All of the churches were governed by these 5 churches.

 

[concretecamper]

Ok so you’re going to just run from the question now because I’ve proven you wrong? You’re just going to pretend that unbelievers can’t be baptized because that would prove that baptism doesn’t save someone. I gave you several viable reasons why an unbeliever might get baptized.

The way it works is you ask legitimate questions and I will give you legitimate answers. All you've proven is that you're incapable in having a rational discussion on this topic.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The way it works is you ask legitimate questions and I will give you legitimate answers. All you've proven is that you're incapable in having a rational discussion on this topic.

I asked a legitimate question and provided legitimate scenarios and you refuse to answer the question because you know that any answer you give will be wrong. You can’t say that unbelievers who are baptized are saved because you know it doesn’t make any sense and you refuse to admit that unbelievers who are baptized aren’t saved because that would be admitting that your wrong. And so that’s why your avoiding this legitimate question.

 

[concretecamper]

I asked a legitimate question and provided legitimate scenarios and you refuse to answer the question because you know that any answer you give will be wrong. You can’t say that unbelievers who are baptized are saved because you know it doesn’t make any sense and you refuse to admit that unbelievers who are baptized aren’t saved because that would be admitting that your wrong. And so that’s why your avoiding this legitimate question.

I see you're as good as interpreting my response as you are scripture.

Ask me a legit question, I'll give you a legit answer.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes, he speaks to believers in particular in the warning of having an evil heart in departing from the living God

as we read,

“Wherefore, holy brethren, [talking to holy brethren in Christ] partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;...“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, [the writer includes himself in this "we"] if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end...“Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God...[you can't depart from God unless your once with him] For we [the writer talks of himself and them again] are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;” (Hebrews 3:1, 6, 12, 14 KJV)

He is talking to Hebrews, God's chosen people, warning them they will miss out on salvation if they don't put all their trust in Christ and rest from their works. We are a couple thousand years removed from the kingdom being taken away from them, but they were in the midst of it at the time. So, projecting our current circumstances onto them yields a particularly bad point of view.

It does appear, however, that the message of Hebrews is still appropriate. We apparently have many among us today who say they are Christians but are not steadfastly trusting Christ for the safekeeping of their souls. They are still working hard to secure or maintain their own salvation. They should take seriously the warnings of Hebrews that only those who those who steadfastly maintain full confidence in Christ "have become partakers of Christ".

12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end” [The New King James Version (Heb 3:12–14). (1982). Thomas Nelson.]​

Note that "we have become" in verse 14 is a Greek perfect tense verb, indicating completed action in past time that results in a state of being, with the emphasis placed on the resulting state of being. People who "have become partakers of Christ" steadfastly continue in their confidence in Christ. We can therefore dogmatically say that people who depart from the living God with "an evil heart of unbelief" have not "become partakers of Christ".

 

[BNR32FAN]

I see you're as good as interpreting my response as you are scripture.

Ask me a legit question, I'll give you a legit answer.

Apparently not since I’ve already asked you twice if an unbelievers gets baptized is he saved and you keep refusing to answer the question. What makes this question illegitimate?

 

[BNR32FAN]

He is talking to Hebrews, God's chosen people, warning them they will miss out on salvation if they don't put all their trust in Christ and rest from their works. We are a couple thousand years removed from the kingdom being taken away from them, but they were in the midst of it at the time. So, projecting our current circumstances onto them yields a particularly bad point of view.

It does appear, however, that the message of Hebrews is still appropriate. We apparently have many among us today who say they are Christians but are not steadfastly trusting Christ for the safekeeping of their souls. They are still working hard to secure or maintain their own salvation. They should take seriously the warnings of Hebrews that only those who those who steadfastly maintain full confidence in Christ "have become partakers of Christ".

12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end” [The New King James Version (Heb 3:12–14). (1982). Thomas Nelson.]​

Note that "we have become" in verse 14 is a Greek perfect tense verb, indicating completed action in past time that results in a state of being, with the emphasis placed on the resulting state of being. People who "have become partakers of Christ" steadfastly continue in their confidence in Christ. We can therefore dogmatically say that people who depart from the living God with "an evil heart of unbelief" have not "become partakers of Christ".

How does someone partake of the Holy Spirit and taste or experience the heavenly gift if they were never partakers of Christ?

 

[concretecamper]

Apparently not since I’ve already asked you twice if an unbelievers gets baptized is he saved and you keep refusing to answer the question. What makes this question illegitimate?

Because by definition a non believer would not want to get Baptized.

Sort of like asking me would an extremely racist white supremacist man want to marry a woman of color.

Again, ask a legit question, I'll give you a legit answer

 

[Clare73]

God specifically said why He was going to harden Pharaoh’s heart in chapter 3.

Doesn't alter Ex 4:21. . .God kept Pharaoh from doing what he commanded him to do.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

How does someone partake of the Holy Spirit and taste or experience the heavenly gift if they were never partakers of Christ?

That's a good question. You're talking about Hebrews 6:4-6, right?

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (Heb 6:4–6)​

I'm sure if I studied it and submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit that I could give you a solid answer. But in the meantime, I am one hundred percent confident that it is not talking about the possibility that what I have with Christ may be perishable.

If you see eternal life as perishable, please answer a question I have asked several times on this forum but have not received any answers.

Hypothetically, if a person gains eternal life then loses it, is there any way he can he get it back again?

The answer in the two passages from Hebrews that are favord by those who believe salvation is perihable seems to be "no". Here, it says, "it is impossible... to renew them again to repentance", and in Hebrews 10:26 it says of them, "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins".

I'd like an answer from anyone who does not believe in eternal security.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

That's a good question. You're talking about Hebrews 6:4-6, right?

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (Heb 6:4–6)​

I'm sure if I studied it and submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit that I could give you a solid answer. But in the meantime, I am one hundred percent confident that it is not talking about the possibility that what I have with Christ may be perishable.

If you see eternal life as perishable, please answer a question I have asked several times on this forum but have not received any answers.

Hypothetically, if a person gains eternal life then loses it, is there any way he can he get it back again?

The answer in the two passages from Hebrews that are favord by those who believe salvation is perihable seems to be "no". Here, it says, "it is impossible... to renew them again to repentance", and in Hebrews 10:26 it says of them, "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins".

I'd like an answer from anyone who does not believe in eternal security.

Paul is talking about how unworkable this teaching method is. That being: reinstituting the "dead works" teaching of the daily sacrifice back into Christianity. Jesus is our sacrifice, and He is not going to be sacrificed again and again, so "there remains no more sacrifice" for your sin. He was refuting their false and immature teaching.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because by definition a non believer would not want to get Baptized.

Sort of like asking me would an extremely racist white supremacist man want to marry a woman of color.

Again, ask a legit question, I'll give you a legit answer

Ahh so why do Mafia members attend church? Because they want to have the appearance that they are of good moral character. Many Catholic Churches won’t marry a Catholic and an atheist. So the atheist has to pretend to believe in the Catholic faith to get married which would include baptism if the person had never been baptized before. Politicians love to parade around pretending to be Christians, it’s good for business. These are all viable situations that happen in the real world which brings about the legitimate question are they saved when they are baptized?