"again crucify to themselves the Son of God" ?

I don't know. This was always a confusing passage. You might be tempted to think of it as atoning for sin a second time, but that contradicts the instructions given for the eucharist elsewhere. There is no limitation to how many times you may partake, only in what manner you should partake, and that is what I think this is inevitably getting at: those who partake in an unworthy manner eat & drink judgment to themselves, being guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. Similarly, a person who is fallen away, crucifying the Lord afresh is also guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. It could refer to a state of being in unrepentant sin, or of being against the body, literally, having fallen away and persecuting the body of Christ.

First thought that came to mind is the part of “put Him to open shame”
I’m wondering if it has something to do with our fruit?
Our actions in the world?
We see it so much these days, where alleged Christians, do horrible things.
When the world witnesses all the abuse done by alleged Christians, they have no desire to be led to Jesus. They figure if this is how people who claim to follow Jesus behave, then we don’t want any part of it.

zoidar said:

What do you make of this?

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
— Hebrews 6:4-6

My thinking goes this way: Since they have received Christ and been resurrected with him in baptism, by now denying him again, it's like they put Christ back on the cross.

I like to hear your views and other possible options.

Christ love!

Click to expand...

Never really understood the logic of this passage since dying on a piece of wood was the most shameful death available, and Jesus isn't hurting for humility.

.Jeremiah. said:

First thought that came to mind is the part of “put Him to open shame”
I’m wondering if it has something to do with our fruit?
Our actions in the world?
We see it so much these days, where alleged Christians, do horrible things.
When the world witnesses all the abuse done by alleged Christians, they have no desire to be led to Jesus. They figure if this is how people who claim to follow Jesus behave, then we don’t want any part of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know. Of course then you have persons like spurgeon...



And I happen to agree with him here, especially given the host of teachings on liberty vs legalism. Does the force of the language make sense for such trivial matters? I don't believe so, but either way the logic is elusive. In any case, this being written by a Jewish christian in the first century, amid persecutions, executions, Jews falling away and again persecuting the church, the body of Christ, simply makes more sense but that is my opinion.

For the body of Christ to die in a coliseum for the crowd's amusement is certainly to put Him to an open shame, if you ask me.

Edit: and therein we can really start to get a sense of why, if any of the crowd enjoying such an evil sport, were formerly christian, that it may be impossible to restore them to repentance.

zoidar said:

What do you make of this?

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
— Hebrews 6:4-6

My thinking goes this way: Since they have received Christ and been resurrected with him in baptism, by now denying him again, it's like they put Christ back on the cross.

I like to hear your views and other possible options.

Christ love!

Click to expand...

Dear ziodar,
"Falling away" is a return to man's works for salvation. It is usually a mixture of faith and works and not just solely works. But in either case, believers who commit this sin will lose their salvation.

The "repentance" which Paul mentions is a repentance from one's own works for salvation. The Old Covenant of Law was given to prove that man's "works" can never save us. Our "works" can only make us appear righteous on the outside. But to truly be made righteous, we must be cleansed from "within". In other words, man's spiritual condition we have from birth must be destroyed and replaced with God's Spirit. This is called conversion and it is 100% the work of Christ. Mankind cannot contribute to it. We must repent from our own efforts and approach Christ soley by faith, knowing that He will do all the spiritual work necessary to save us. For that reason, Christ earns the title "Savior of the World". But when a believer returns to "works" in any form, they commit the one and only sin that leads to death. Because it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, they lose their salvation.

Because "falling away" happens to every believer after they receive the Early Rain of the Spirit, Christ must come to us a second time if we are going to be saved in this age. However, Christ will not come to us a second time if we are not one of His chosen Elect, one of His First-Fruits. But if the believer has been chosen from the foundation of the world, Christ will come to them again and give them the Latter Rain of the Spirit. The Latter Rain is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and is what the Apostles received in the upper room. It is also the baptism Paul received after being blind for three days in Damascus. What Paul received on the Damascus Road three days earlier was the Early Rain.

I can explain what I presented above in greater detail and with many scriptures if you have an interest. It is part of the Great Mystery of Christ and His church (Eph 5:32).

Joe

zoidar said:

What do you make of this?

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
— Hebrews 6:4-6

My thinking goes this way: Since they have received Christ and been resurrected with him in baptism, by now denying him again, it's like they put Christ back on the cross.

I like to hear your views and other possible options.

Christ love!

Click to expand...

It's a warning against apostasy. For someone to accept the sacrifice of Christ and have their previous sins forgiven, and then to turn away from it, attempting to then return is the same as crucifying Christ all over again. So your view on it is correct.

To me it sounds like so many other passages of Paul's that I have always sort of considered it as another of Paul's rhetorical discussions. He ends with verse 9: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case--things that accompany salvation."

HTacianas said:

It's a warning against apostasy. For someone to accept the sacrifice of Christ and have their previous sins forgiven, and then to turn away from it, attempting to then return is the same as crucifying Christ all over again. So your view on it is correct.

Click to expand...

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't allow wayward parishioners to return to the church?

Edit: I'm sure you must. That would be strict even by Catholic standards.

TheWhat? said:

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't allow wayward parishioners to return to the church?

Edit: I'm sure you must. That would be strict even by Catholic standards.

Click to expand...

After the last Roman persecutions the Church decided to allow those who fell away under persecution to return to the Church. It has been a tradition of the Church since that time. See the lapsi:

Lapsi (Christianity) - Wikipedia

HTacianas said:

After the last Roman persecutions the Church decided to allow those who fell away under persecution to return to the Church. It has been a tradition of the Church since that time. See the lapsi:

Lapsi (Christianity) - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Fair enough, though I am having a hard time seeing a distinction between apostasy and early conceptions of mortal sin. Being a traditor/traitor to the church might be a different matter -- that is what I was getting at with my earlier post, but I mean, effectively, mortal sin could be considered a kind of apostasy in and of itself, or so I would think. If the forgiveness of mortal sin was only a more recent development, that would be news to me.

Anyways, I understand that this scripture has historical interpretations, but this is an epistle to the Hebrews, and distinctively Hebrew apostolic traditions have not been around for a very long time, as far as I know.

TheWhat? said:

Fair enough, though I am having a hard time seeing a distinction between apostasy and early conceptions of mortal sin. Being a traditor/traitor to the church might be a different matter -- that is what I was getting at with my earlier post, but I mean, effectively, mortal sin could be considered a kind of apostasy in and of itself, or so I would think. If the forgiveness of mortal sin was only a more recent development, that would be news to me.

Anyways, I understand that this scripture has historical interpretations, but this is an epistle to the Hebrews, and distinctively Hebrew apostolic traditions have not been around for a very long time, as far as I know.

Click to expand...

The forgiveness of mortal sin committed after baptism began around 200 AD. At that time the "big three" sins were murder, idolatry, and adultery. Those wilfull sins were spoken of in Hebrews 10 and 1 John 5:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Calixtus I of Rome absolved people of mortal sin and it led to a schism in the Church. Hippolytus of Rome opposed him and became an "antipope". It has been the tradition of the Church since that time to absolve even mortal sins.

HTacianas said:

The forgiveness of mortal sin committed after baptism began around 200 AD. At that time the "big three" sins were murder, idolatry, and adultery. Those wilfull sins were spoken of in Hebrews 10 and 1 John 5:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Calixtus I of Rome absolved people of mortal sin and it led to a schism in the Church. Hippolytus of Rome opposed him and became an "antipope". It has been the tradition of the Church since that time to absolve even mortal sins.

Click to expand...

Well, I think my point stands. We have a recorded story of a man having an adulterous affair with his father's wife -- clearly, a mortal sin. That man was put out of the church, but there's good reason to suspect that he is the same who the church was instructed to receive back into the fold in 2nd Corinthians.

The original leadership instructed "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3). It does not say "except for mortal sin". If the Gentile churches required 150 or so years to implement the original teaching of the Church it is beside the point, although possibly understandable, given that the church at Jerusalem had been gone and the others were left without the original leadership who are only appealed to by the later fathers as a source of authority.

If it were possible for a soul being guarded and kept by God to fall away than yes, a salvation could be lost and Christ would have to die again for them. If it were even possible for God to die twice, I personally dont think so but yes that soul would be lost forever.

I think thats what the writer of Hebrews was trying to say. Because a chapter previously they declared that God's salvation was a one time gift once for all time. How can a loss of salvation be true and a permanent salvation be true at the same time? Words from the same writer i might add.

zoidar said:

You think Hebrews was written by Paul? Most scholars don't believe it was by Paul.

Click to expand...

No. I'm saying I tend to think in terms of Paul saying those things, just by default, I guess, bc they sound so much like his way of explaining, the way he lays out his logic, to me. I don't know who wrote it, but I think it could have been Paul, yet there are ways he talked in the other books that are missing, too, so I don't know.

zoidar said:

In Hebrews 2:3 he says that our salvation “was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,” so he’s saying I did not hear this directly from Jesus.

Click to expand...

To my thinking that doesn't mean it wasn't Paul. It could be he is only speaking as one of those Hebrews he is writing to. Also, as to the rest of what you were saying, the fact he was writing to the Hebrews and not to Gentiles could account for much of it. But yeah, I don't know who wrote it.