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

[Strong in Him]

I wonder why Jesus didn't see it that way in Mt 26:24.

Mt 26:24: "But woe to the man who betrays the Son of Man It would be better for him if he had not been born."

I've already agreed that it could have been better if Judas had not been born.
He saw Jesus' miracles, and did a few himself. Then - for whatever reason - he decided to betray Jesus, realised afterwards that he had betrayed an innocent man, gave the money back to the priests, who couldn't have cared less, then went and took his own life.
Maybe he betrayed Jesus because he wanted him to lead an army against the Romans and he thought that being arrested would force his hand. I didn't say that had happened - I didn't even say that's what I believed. But it could have happened that way.

Jn 12:4-6: "He (Judas) did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief."

That is John's comment, not Jesus' statement - and being a thief doesn't make someone a devil.
Just as stating that you will never deny someone - and later calling down curses upon yourself as you deny them - makes someone a devil.

So what is your authority for God's truth, your personal opinion or the word of God written (2 Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed.")?

I wasn't giving an opinion; I was speculating.
I've read posts on these forums which say that Judas IS in hell - that is an opinion.

Is your thinking based in Scripture, or in your personal opinion?

What do you think?

If your personal opinion is your authority,

Which it isn't.

you will not understand the Bible

Which I do.

And this still has nothing to do with Hebrews 6.

 

[Clare73]

I've already agreed that it could have been better if Judas had not been born.
He saw Jesus' miracles, and did a few himself. Then - for whatever reason - he decided to betray Jesus, realised afterwards that he had betrayed an innocent man, gave the money back to the priests, who couldn't have cared less, then went and took his own life.
Maybe he betrayed Jesus because he wanted him to lead an army against the Romans and he thought that being arrested would force his hand. I didn't say that had happened - I didn't even say that's what I believed. But it could have happened that way.
That is John's comment, not Jesus' statement - and being a thief doesn't make someone a devil.

Jesus said Judas was a devil (Jn 6:70-71).
Jesus said that to hear the apostles (Jn 12:4-6: Judas "was a thief") is to hear him (Lk 10:16).

Just as stating that you will never deny someone - and later calling down curses upon yourself as you deny them - makes someone a devil.
I wasn't giving an opinion; I was speculating.
And this still has nothing to do with Hebrews 6.
"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."

Their tasting did not result in eating (saving faith).

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus said Judas was a devil (Jn 6:70-71).

Yes, I know.
He also said that it was not possible for Satan to drive out Satan - yet later sent Judas out with the 12 to drive out demons.

Was Jesus forgetful, or confused?

Jesus said that to hear the apostles (Jn 12:4-6: Judas "was a thief") is to hear him (Lk 10:16).

No, he said that if anyone rejected the Apostles they were rejecting him.

The Apostle Peter denied Jesus. Were those who heard him deny his Lord - with curses - hearing Jesus denying himself?
The Apostle Thomas doubted Jesus. Were the other Apostles hearing Jesus doubting himself?
The Apostle Paul called Peter a hypocrite. Was that Jesus calling his disciple a hypocrite?

"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."

I have no idea why you have added these words under my name - though I have made the same mistake myself, so it's easily done.
I don't know what you mean by them, nor do I understand your comment about tasting, which seems to follow up on something I never said.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I know.
He also said that it was not possible for Satan to drive out Satan - yet later sent Judas out with the 12 to drive out demons.

Surely you don't think the apostles, including Judas, drove out demons by their own power.

 

[Strong in Him]

Surely you don't think the apostles, including Judas, drove out demons by their own power.

No, of course they didn't - I have already said this.

Which would mean that Jesus deliberately gave a devil authority to drive out demons - having already said that it is impossible for Satan to drive out Satan.

 

[Clare73]

No, of course they didn't - I have already said this.

Which would mean that Jesus deliberately gave a devil authority to drive out demons - having already said that it is impossible for Satan to drive out Satan.

You're contradicting your first statement above.
It wasn't Judas who drove out the demons. The apostles had no power of their own to do that.

 

[Strong in Him]

It wasn't Judas who drove out the demons. The apostles had no power of their own to do that.

I never said it was.

Judas did not drive them out in his own power, Jesus gave him the power to do so.
And if Judas was a devil, that means that Jesus gave a devil the power to drive out demons - having previously said that Satan cannot drive out Satan.

 

[Clare73]

I never said it was.

Judas did not drive them out in his own power, Jesus gave him the power to do so.
And if Judas was a devil, that means that Jesus gave a devil the power to drive out demons - having previously said that Satan cannot drive out Satan.

Judas had no power of his own, it was Jesus' power that drove out Satan.

 

[Strong in Him]

Judas had no power of his own, it was Jesus' power that drove out Satan.

Yes, but the Scripture said that Jesus gave THEM (the Apostles) authority to drive out demons.
Jesus' power, but it was Judas who would have said, "depart in the name of Jesus", or whatever. Why allow a devil to do that? In fact, why deliberately choose a devil in the first place?

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but the Scripture said that Jesus gave THEM (the Apostles) authority to drive out demons.
Jesus' power, but it was Judas who would have said, "depart in the name of Jesus", or whatever. Why allow a devil to do that?
In fact, why deliberately choose a devil in the first place?

And in fact, why did Jesus come to earth in the first place (Mt 20:28)?

 

[Strong in Him]

And in fact, why did Jesus come to earth in the first place (Mt 20:28)?

He came to die for us.

What's that got to do with it?

 

[Clare73]

He came to die for us.

What's that got to do with it?

You don't see the connection between that and Judas?

 

[Strong in Him]

You don't see the connection between that and Judas?

Are you saying that Jesus needed Judas - a devil - so that he could die for the sins of the world?

You said yourself that Jesus came to die. He did, and he knew it.
His death was prophesied in the OT - Isaiah said that he was pierced for our transgressions.
The angel told Joseph that Jesus would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21.
John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world, John 1:29.
Jesus spoke of his death long before he spoke of Judas' betrayal, e.g. Mark 8:31.
Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, appeared at the transfiguration to speak of Jesus' death, Luke 9:31.
Jesus predicted his death 3 times. The third time he said that he would be handed over to the chief priests, Mark 10:33, but it was not until the Last Supper that he said that one of the 12 would betray him, Mark 14:18.

If Jesus had needed Judas to betray him before he could die for the sin of the world, then Judas - a devil - was doing God's will. If this is what you are saying then Judas was a hero and should be praised for enabling Jesus to die for us.
Do you really believe God needed the devil to accomplish his will?

 

[Mercy Shown]

Simply tasting the heavenly gift is not salvation.

Can you support this or are you just expressing your opinion?

 

[Clare73]

Can you support this or are you just expressing your opinion?

Well, for starters the tasters fell away.

Seconly, tasting is just a superficial encounter, and does not necessarily lead to genuine embibement, embracement of the object.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Well, for starters the tasters fell away.

Seconly, tasting is just a superficial encounter, and does not necessarily lead to genuine embibement, embracement of the object.

You are using circular reasoning.

You made the points:

1. The tasters fell away.
2. Tasting is only superficial, not real embracement.
3. Therefore, the people described in Hebrews 6:4–6 were never truly saved.

Here’s why that reasoning is circular:

• The text of Hebrews 6 itself says these people were “once enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “partakers of the Holy Spirit,” and “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Those are strong terms that, at face value, sound like genuine spiritual experience.
• To avoid the conclusion that real believers can fall away, you redefines “tasting” as “only superficial.”
• But their only reason for redefining it is because you already assume true believers can’t fall away.

In other words:

• Premise: True believers can’t fall away.
• Evidence: These tasters fell away.
• Solution: Then they must not have been true believers.
• Why not? Because tasting was only superficial.
• How do we know tasting was superficial? Because they fell away.

That’s the circle. The conclusion (“they weren’t true believers”) is smuggled into the premise (“true believers can’t fall away”), rather than being shown from the text itself.

In short, That’s circular reasoning because you’re defining ‘tasting’ as superficial only because they fell away, and then using their falling away to prove it was superficial — the argument assumes its own conclusion instead of proving it.

 

[ARBITER01]

You are using circular reasoning.

You made the points:

1. The tasters fell away.
2. Tasting is only superficial, not real embracement.
3. Therefore, the people described in Hebrews 6:4–6 were never truly saved.

Here’s why that reasoning is circular:

• The text of Hebrews 6 itself says these people were “once enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “partakers of the Holy Spirit,” and “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Those are strong terms that, at face value, sound like genuine spiritual experience.
• To avoid the conclusion that real believers can fall away, you redefines “tasting” as “only superficial.”
• But their only reason for redefining it is because you already assume true believers can’t fall away.

In other words:

• Premise: True believers can’t fall away.
• Evidence: These tasters fell away.
• Solution: Then they must not have been true believers.
• Why not? Because tasting was only superficial.
• How do we know tasting was superficial? Because they fell away.

That’s the circle. The conclusion (“they weren’t true believers”) is smuggled into the premise (“true believers can’t fall away”), rather than being shown from the text itself.

In short, That’s circular reasoning because you’re defining ‘tasting’ as superficial only because they fell away, and then using their falling away to prove it was superficial — the argument assumes its own conclusion instead of proving it.

That was very good.