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

[Clare73]

lol. You have people made alive still under the penalty of sin

Falls somewhat short of Biblical demonstration. . .

 

[Clare73]

Paul does not agree with Calvin

You men Calvin does not agree with Paul.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Again we’re not talking about the names that were written in the book of life.

I am, I have no idea who you are talking about

every name was written when Christ died. If they die having not recieved his grace gift. Their name is blotted out

Those names will not be altered because they were written in it before creation according to God’s foreknowledge. But the question is what was it that God foreknew about them that determined whether or not their names were written in the book of life? Is it believing? Jesus told us that some will believe and fall away and only those who abide in Him and endure to the end will be saved. Is it being joined to Christ? Paul and Jesus both said that some who are joined to Christ will also fall away and that they would not receive eternal life. So what is it that God foreknew about these people whose names are written in the book of life? It appears to be those who abide in Christ and endure to the end, unless you have a better answer?

lol.. God chose or predestined to conform them to the image of God. Because of his forknowledge (he knew who would come to him by name )

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Falls somewhat short of Biblical demonstration. . .

Falls short of reality

we are dead because of the penalty of sin
we can not be made until that penalty is removed

hence we must be justified before we are regenerated (by any law)

hence when someone says regeneration comes first. They have serious issues.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You men Calvin does not agree with Paul.

Both would be true

 

[Clare73]

Falls short of reality

we are dead because of the penalty of sin
we can not be made until that penalty is removed

hence we must be justified before we are regenerated (by any law)

hence when someone says regeneration comes first. They have serious issues.

Somewhat lacking in Biblical demonstration. . .

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Somewhat lacking in Biblical demonstration. . .

And we who were dead in tresspasses and sins, he has made alive 0 for by grace we have been saved

for it is by grace we have been saved THROUGH FAITH

 

[Clare73]

And we who were dead in tresspasses and sins, he has made alive 0 for by grace we have been saved

for it is by grace we have been saved THROUGH FAITH

Does not Biblically demonstrate that justification (declaration of "not guilty," sentence of acquittal) precedes new birth, faith or salvation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Does not Biblically demonstrate that justification (declaration of "not guilty," sentence of acquittal) precedes new birth, faith or salvation.

Actually yes it does

John 3 and eph 2 are used togather

John 3 tells us how to be born again. By looking to the cross in faith

Eph 2 tells us the results of that faith. We have been made alive who were dead. By grace, through faith

 

[Clare73]

Actually yes it does

John 3 and eph 2 are used togather

John 3 tells us how to be born again. By looking to the cross in faith

Jn 3 does no such thing.

Rather Jn 3:3-8 makes clear that the new birth is by the sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5), who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Agreed, though I do believe in limited atonement myself.

Who did Jesus not die for? Just asking,,

 

[AveChristusRex]

Who did Jesus not die for? Just asking,,

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28, D-R). More specifically, Christ "suffered for the world of the saved" (Martyrdom of Polycarp). Moreover, John 10:14–15 says: "I lay down my life for the sheep." So, Christ died for the saved, aka for those who he knew would be in His Church.

 

[Jonaitis]

Hebrew 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 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.

This passage seems to put a dagger into the argument that a save person cannot ever be lost for it describes a person who was enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, became partaker of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. To most of us, that sounds like a saved person, but as one reformed saint explained to me, these people were never saved in the first place. When I asked how he knew this, he replied, "Because they fell away."

I did not want to jump into the swirl of that circular argument so I let sleeping dogs lie. But I have thought about what he said for a long time. He was also a proponent of total depravity, often citing 1 Corinthians 2:14 in the King James Version of the Bible, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So we have two conflicting statements. When I combine his two arguments, I have a paradox. Either these people were saved and fell away from it, or they were never saved and yet were able to be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, partake of the Holy Spirit, and taste the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, all of which seem to be denied possible to a lost person according to1 Corinthians 2:14.

Are the lost sinners who were able to understand spiritual things until they fell away, or were they saved saints until they chose to fall away? If they were lost sinners, what did they fall away from?

If John Calvin were here, I'd ask him. (If I had a fire proof suit to wear.)

Yeah, this is one of those passages that has caused a lot of tension in theological discussions. In Reformed theology, the understanding is that people who 'fall away' (like in Hebrews 6) were never truly saved to begin with. The key distinction is that they may have experienced many aspects of salvation—like being enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, and even partaking in the Holy Spirit—but they were never truly regenerated by the Spirit. Their experience might look like salvation on the surface, but it’s not the real deal.

One way to think about it is what Jesus said in Matthew 7:22-23: 'Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."' Jesus makes it clear that not everyone who experiences signs of divine power is actually saved. They can participate in spiritual things, but that doesn't mean they’ve been truly transformed or regenerated.

As for 1 Corinthians 2:14, I think it's important to understand that total depravity means the natural man is totally incapable of understanding or receiving the things of God apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. So the people described in Hebrews 6 might have had some external experiences, but without the inner transformation of the Holy Spirit, they were still spiritually dead. They were never truly part of the elect, even if they seemed to be in some ways. It's like they were close, but not quite there—like the parable of the seeds in Matthew 13, where some fall on rocky ground and sprout quickly, but wither because they don’t have deep roots.

So in short, they didn't fall away from salvation because they were never truly saved in the first place. The falling away is just proof that they weren't truly in Christ, despite appearances. Calvin would say that the elect are preserved by God’s grace, and those who fall away never had that secure saving faith to begin with."

By weaving together the distinction between external experience and true regeneration, I think this would help clarify the paradox.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed, though I do believe in limited atonement myself.

Why, why believe in a limited atonement when the scriptures teach that God so loves the world that he gave his one and only Son? And that God wants all men [and women] to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28, D-R). More specifically, Christ "suffered for the world of the saved" (Martyrdom of Polycarp). Moreover, John 10:14–15 says: "I lay down my life for the sheep." So, Christ died for the saved, aka for those who he knew would be in His Church.

Jesus himself in john 3 says he died for the whole world. That the world though him might be saved.

While yes, he died for the elect. And he died for man

in the end he died for all

Remember, this same jesus said he who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already

Condemnation is caused by unbelief. The sin issue was already pain in full

 

[AveChristusRex]

Why, why believe in a limited atonement when the scriptures teach that God so loves the world that he gave his one and only Son? And that God wants all men [and women] to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?

Jesus himself in john 3 says he died for the whole world. That the world though him might be saved.

While yes, he died for the elect. And he died for man

in the end he died for all

Remember, this same jesus said he who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already

Condemnation is caused by unbelief. The sin issue was already pain in full

In speaking on John 3:16 specifically, John's purpose throughout the chapter seems to be to teach how people enter the kingdom of God, especially through regeneration by the Holy Spirit and by faith in Christ. The section of text in question deals most directly with the idea of salvation through faith in Christ (John 3:13-21), that is, with faith as the means of salvation. It does not deal with the atonement as the basis for justification.

In John’s writings “the world” (ho kosmos) rarely if ever carries the sense of “all mankind” or “every human who ever lived.” It certainly doesn’t mean that in 3:16 because that would make nonsense of the immediately following verse. (Try replacing “the world” with “all mankind” in verse 17 to see the point.) Rather, “the world” typically means either (1) “the created universe” (as in John 17:24), (2) something like “the fallen creation in rebellion against God” (e.g., John 3:19; 13:1; 15:19; 17:13-18; 1 John 2:15-17) or (3) “all nations” as opposed to the Jewish people alone (as in John 4:42). It’s the intent of the atonement that determines the extent of the atonement. What’s more, John 3:16 tells us something quite specific about what God intended in sending his Son. The second half of 3:16 reads in Greek (transliterated):

"...hina pas ho pisteuōn eis auton mē apolētai all echē zōēn aiōnion"

The first word, hina, means “so that” or “in order that”; it typically introduces a purpose clause that gives the reason for something or its intended consequence. The immediately following phrase, pas ho pisteuōn eis auton, is sometimes translated “whosoever believes in him,” but that’s quite misleading because it suggests a note of indefiniteness and conditionality which isn’t in the text. The more literal translation would be “every one believing in him” or “every believer in him.” The word pisteuōn is the substantival participle form of the verb pisteuō (to believe) which elsewhere in the NT is commonly rendered in English as simply ‘believer’ or ‘believers’ (e.g., Acts 5:14; 1 Cor. 14:22).

All this to say, what John 3:16 tells us is that God sent his one and only Son in order that (i.e., with the intent that) every believer in him (i.e., every Christian believer) would not perish but have everlasting life. In other words, God’s plan of atonement was directed specifically at those who believe (a group coextensive with the elect, on both the Calvinist and the Arminian view). There’s nothing hypothetical, conditional, or indefinite here. The Son is sent with the definite purpose of saving a definite group of people. And that’s just what the doctrine of limited (definite) atonement asserts.

The same idea can be seen in the parallel verse in 1 John 4:9: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." Again we’re told that the Father, motivated by love, sent his only Son into the world with a specific purpose: “so that (hina) we might live through him.” To whom does ‘we’ refer here? John is writing to fellow believers, of course. The divine action is specifically directed at believers. That’s the intent behind the incarnation and the atonement.

Moreover, to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:18-31), he wrote that “God chose” the foolish, weak, lowly, and despised things to shame the wise and strong (the context being the laughable people amidst the wise and strong to their shame). The word used for “chose” is ἐξελέξατο (exelexato, 1586 [e]: morphology V-AIM-3S) literally meaning “has chosen”; the specific morphology in exelexato is used 10 other times in the New Testament, one specific and noteworthy example being Mark 13:20 (V-AIM-3S): “ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἐκολόβωσεν τὰς” [whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened]. Another positive example is Acts 13:17 (again V-AIM-3S) which states: “τούτου Ἰσραὴλ ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πατέρας” [people of Israel chose our fathers . . .] showing clear use of ἐξελέξατο as third-person past participle used to show the post-supposed & fulfilled act of choosing. Furthermore, as I said in my first post, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom relays John 3:16 as:

Drink of this, all of you. This is my Blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.

Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ Αἷμά μου, το τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

The specific wording here is “περὶ πολλῶν” (peri pollōn). According to Thayer’s Greek Old & New Testament Lexicon & Lexical Dictionary: STRONGS NT 4183: πολύς, Plural masculine πολλοί, absolutely and without the article, many, a large part of mankind: πολλοί simply, Matthew 7:13, 22; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Mark 2:2; Mark 3:10; Mark 10:45; Mark 14:24; Luke 1:1, 14; Hebrews 9:28.
The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11): “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.” [ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός. ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων·]

This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” [τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν]. It also explains why John 15:13 says for his friends (philōn, φίλων), and Acts 20:28 says for the church (ekklēsian, ἐκκλησίαν), and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride (autēs, αὐτῆς), and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus (hēmas, ἡμᾶς). Consider 1 Timothy 2:3-4: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (Douay-Rheims). The atone is sufficient for all, but it is only efficacious for the elect.

This is relayed in the Sixth Session, Chapter III of the Council of Trent: “though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated.” And relayed by St. Thomas Aquinas: “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect” (Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6). So it’s not limited in sufficiency but it is most certainly limited in efficacy. In such that the atonement God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect. In regards to the idea that “…to those who would choose to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth with their free will”, two points on the matter:

• Anselm of Canterbury wrote On Free Will as a pseudo-dialectic, wherein he explains that the will apart from God is in bondage to sin and not free, only finding freedom inasmuch as it is in close proximity to God’s will. This represents that only the elect have freedom of will, as they are “of close proximity” to God’s will by matter of choice/adoption (ἐξελέξατο).
• The scripture points out that the confession of faith cannot really begin without the Holy Spirit first, so how can an individual assume (i.e. represent the ideal of) the doctrine that “outside the Church [there is] no salvation” [Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] if that individual believes that an individual can come to God without their adoption by the spirit, thus believing that the result of the action of salvific sacrifice on the Cross was performed by man’s choice to uphold such sacrifice, and not by God’s will alone.

The doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter II (quoted above). However not only that, more than twelve centuries before the Council of Trent, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed: “who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered.” And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament.

John Calvin also made a good point on 1 Timothy 2:4: “Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. […] God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation.” This reflects Aquinas [Summa Theologica I:23:5]: “God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others…. Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, ‘Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.’”

Thomistically, Aquinas stated, “Christ’s passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world‘” (Summa Theologica III.48.2). So while the Atonement is unlimited in sufficiency, it’s limited in efficacy: “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect” [Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6].

You can also read Aquinas on his commentary of 1 Timothy 2:4 here and a continued review of it here.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

In speaking on John 3:16 specifically, John's purpose throughout the chapter seems to be to teach how people enter the kingdom of God, especially through regeneration by the Holy Spirit and by faith in Christ. The section of text in question deals most directly with the idea of salvation through faith in Christ (John 3:13-21), that is, with faith as the means of salvation. It does not deal with the atonement as the basis for justification.

John 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

a few things

1. The son of man must be lifted up. This is speaking of the cross. Atonement was made by the shedding of blood. For without the shedding of blood there is no redemtion or forgiveness

2. The wage of sin is death, In order to be made alive, the wage muust be removed. In legal terms, this is called justification. A person who is guilty is condemned of the crime by wiich they are found guilty (be it death, life sentence, community service or whatever) once that debt is paid. The person is freed from his debt, and his condemnation is removed.

3. Jesus says specifically, The son was not sent to condemn the world (collect judgment for what we all deserve, which is death, but that through his death his sacrifice, his atoneing sacrifice on the cross. As the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world on the cross. The world he came to save MIGHT be saved (it is not a guarantee, although atonment was made)

4. He who believes is not condemned, He has been justified, he is no longer dead in sin, his sins were forgiven and he is in right standing with God (we call this being born again or born from above or adopted into Gods family)

5. Whoever does not believe, remains in a condemned state. Their justification was purchased. But in unbelief, they rejected Gods salvation for whatever reason

 

[AveChristusRex]

3. Jesus says specifically, The son was not sent to condemn the world (collect judgment for what we all deserve, which is death, but that through his death his sacrifice, his atoneing sacrifice on the cross. As the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world on the cross. The world he came to save MIGHT be saved (it is not a guarantee, although atonment was made)

This is exactly what I said: So while the Atonement is unlimited in sufficiency, it’s limited in efficacy. You're saying what I said in different terms.

I don't get the point you're trying to make?

 

[AveChristusRex]

Remember, this same jesus said he who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already

So you agree that atonement is limited in regards to those who have already been already condemned by God?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is exactly what I said: So while the Atonement is unlimited in sufficiency, it’s limited in efficacy. You're saying what I said in different terms.

I don't get the point you're trying to make?

Atonement for sin is eternal

atonment from unbelief is impossible. Unless one repent and believe

at the great white throne no one will be judged for sin, they will be judged for their works and found lacking.

they will suffer the second death, because they did not believe, and because they did not believe, their name was blotted out