Hebrews6:4-6

[Ben johnson]

This is an often misunderstood passage; thought to assert "if someone falls, they can never return". Or perhaps, "those who mock Jesus, were only SUPERFICIALLY believing but not really saved".

The passage begins in 5:11. He rebukes the immature, saying "You should be TEACHERS, but you have need to be TAUGHT the basic things. You have need of MILK rather than solid food."

So 6 begins with an exhortation to "press on to maturity", not remaining forever teaching about repentance.

"FOR in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted of the heavenly gift and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted of the good word of God and of the powers of the age to come, and then FALL-ING away, it is impossible to restore them to repentance...

BECAUSE... (niv)
SEEING-AS... (kjv)
SINCE... (nasv)
WHILE! (nasv, footnote)

...they crucify Christ to themselves anew and hold Him to open shame."

First --- can we deny the subjects WERE "saved"?

If we might try to assert that "taste" is something superficial (they didn't really belong), then for consistency we would have to also assert "Jesus didn't really DIE".

"Jesus ...by the grace of God He might TASTE death for everyone." Heb2:9

Both passages use the same word "geuomai" --- taste. There are no grounds to accept that "Jesus really DIED" in ch2, but then deny that "they really participated" in ch6.

Second, the word "metochos", is better translated "partners"; in Heb3:1 it is "partners in a heavenly calling" --- undeniably "saved". In Heb3:14 it is "partners in Christ" --- also addressing the "saved". So there is no credibility to assert that "partners in the Holy Spirit" in 6:4 does NOT mean "full partners".

Third, "enlightened" (photizo) does carry the meaning of "saving-enlightenment".

Now --- the word "impossible", is "adunatos" --- meaning impossible in the sense of being powerless/unable/impotent. WHAT is the reason for such an impossibility/inability/powerlessness? All the translations point to the cause --- "BECAUSE", and "SINCE", and "SEEING-AS", point to their willful sin.

WHILE they are fall-ING (the word really is participle in Greek), they cannot be restored to repentance (because of their willful sin). It really mirrors Heb10:26ff; continual willful sin absolutely earns us fire and condemnation.

So none of the "osas" understandings work here; we cannot try to assert "it's hypothetical" --- "in the CASE of those WHO..." It doesn't read as "hypothetical-not-real". It's not credible to assert "they were never REALLY saved", the writer labors to convey that they WERE.

Fitting with the theme of all of Hebrews, willful sin separates us from Christ. Clearly, such willful sin equates to UNBELIEF. So says chapter 3: "See that none of you have an evil unbelieving heart that falls away from God. Encourage one another, lest any of you be hardened by deceitful sin. We have become partners (metochos!) in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

So many passages warn us against "deceivers"; who always have as their goal, to deceive us away from Christ.

Thus we are to be diligent about our calling and election. We are to grow in Him, to "press on to maturity not dwelling forever studying repentance and salvation".

What was your sermon last Sunday? "Repentance/salvation"? What about the Sunday before that? Does anyone teach you about "maturity", about growing close to the PERSONS of God?

"Father, eternal life is knowing YOU, and knowing the One You sent (Me-Jesus)!" Jn17:3

We are to mature in Christ; to the "measure and stature of the fullness of Christ, no longer babes tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, ...even Christ." (Eph4:13-15)

 

[Ormly]

Father, eternal life is knowing YOU, and knowing the One You sent (Me-Jesus)!" Jn17:3

And after we do come to know you in intimacy; to partake of the Holy Spirit and taste of Your heavenly gifts, if we should then fall away, we understand there remains no sacrifice left for us seeing as how we would be crucifying Jesus all over again and we know that "striking the Rock twice" can never be thus making it impossible for us to come to repentance. It would require something far greater than "striking the Rock", even twice, for our condition to be reversed.

 

[heymikey80]

It's baffling to me that a theology can be built up around a word in a translation, not present in Greek Heb 6:6.

The term "fallen away" is aorist in tense. It's punctual -- it only happens once.

 

[Ben johnson]

Father, eternal life is knowing YOU, and knowing the One You sent (Me-Jesus)!" Jn17:3

And after we do come to know you in intimacy; to partake of the Holy Spirit and taste of Your heavenly gifts, if we should then fall away, we understand there remains no sacrifice left for us seeing as how we would be crucifying Jesus all over again and we know that "striking the Rock twice" can never be thus making it impossible for us to come to repentance.

No my friend, that's backwards; it is the unrepentance itself that makes it "impossible to be restored". The concept of "crucifying to themselves Christ anew", is unrepentance defined; because for one who WALKS in sin, it is as if Christ must be crucified over-and-over, casting His incredible sacrifice as shame.

All translations say "it is impossible to restore them to repentance BECAUSE they FALL away and crucify Him anew and put Him to shame".

It's their willful sin that makes it impossible/unable/powerless to restore them to repentance. In no way does it conflict Rom11:23, "if they do not continue in unbelief (unrepentance) they will be grafted in again".

It would require something far greater than "striking the Rock", even twice, for our condition to be reversed.

All it requires, is for them to turn from willful sin and repent.

 

[Ben johnson]

It's baffling to me that a theology can be built up around a word in a translation, not present in Greek Heb 6:6.

The term "fallen away" is aorist in tense. It's punctual -- it only happens once.

Sorry, Mike --- that's just wrong.
Look at the Greek at Blueletterbible. "Kai parapipto" means "and fall-ING away". Second aorist active participle --- it is not a "one-time thing", but a continuing thing. The "ing", is there.
tense of "parapipto".

That's why NASV footnotes "since", with "WHILE". While a person is fall-ING away and crucifying to themselves Christ anew (by walking continually in sin), it is impossible/unable/powerless to restore them to repentance.[/b]

WHILE.

And "a theology" (you mean "Responsible Grace") is not built around one word; it's built around hundreds of Scriptures.

But here we're only talking about Heb6:4-6; it doesn't mean "you can't come back".

 

[Van]

If we might try to assert that "taste" is something superficial (they didn't really belong), then for consistency we would have to also assert "Jesus didn't really DIE".

No, the consistent view is that taste does not convey the level of consumption, you can taste something by sampling it, or by swallowing it whole. To try to include in the meaning of taste, that it always means to swallow completely, ignores Matthew 27:34 where Jesus tasted but did not drink the wine.

Next, Hebrews 3:1 does refer to born again believers, because they have been set apart in Christ (holy brothers) after receiving the gospel (partakers or sharers of a Heavenly Calling.) But in Hebrews 6:4, the folks in view have been enlightened, but are not referred to "holy brethren" and they are not partakers or sharers of a Heavenly Calling, for they have not been born again from above. They have tasted the heavenly gift, the gospel of Christ, but have rejected it like bitter wine, even though they have been made partakers or sharers of the Holy Spirit because the gospel is the work product of the Holy Spirit, so to be enlightened by the gospel is to a sharer of the Holy Spirit.

Next to be enlightened with the gospel of Christ is be enlightened with saving knowledge. But such knowledge not united with faith does not result in salvation.

Why is it impossible to renew them again to repentance? Because there is no other gospel message, no other path to the opportunity to repent and turn to Christ alone. By being enlightened, they had been brought to the point of repentance, but they turned aside, rejecting Christ.

But, verse 9, the author is convinced of better things for the Hebrews he is addressing, things that accompany salvation.

 

[Ormly]

No my friend, that's backwards; it is the unrepentance itself that makes it "impossible to be restored". The concept of "crucifying to themselves Christ anew", is unrepentance defined; because for one who WALKS in sin, it is as if Christ must be crucified over-and-over, casting His incredible sacrifice as shame.

All translations say "it is impossible to restore them to repentance BECAUSE they FALL away and crucify Him anew and put Him to shame".

It's their willful sin that makes it impossible/unable/powerless to restore them to repentance. In no way does it conflict Rom11:23, "if they do not continue in unbelief (unrepentance) they will be grafted in again". All it requires, is for them to turn from willful sin and repent.

Not in the least, Ben. You overlook the convicting power; the drawing of the Holy Spirit to enable that one to repent, it wouldn't be there.. If there was ever a case for an example of Christ being received bodily, that passage would be it.

 

[heymikey80]

Sorry, Mike --- that's just wrong.
Look at the Greek at Blueletterbible. "Kai parapipto" means "and fall-ING away".

Which is why it's not "parapipto" in Scripture.

It's parapesontas -- the aorist participle. A nice, succinct, one-time thing. The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar
action. There's no setting the conditions that this will continue to happen. It's an aorist participle.

Look it up. Consult with your Greek prof. He's there to help.

That's why NASV footnotes "since", with "WHILE". While a person is fall-ING away and crucifying to themselves Christ anew (by walking continually in sin), it is impossible/unable/powerless to restore them to repentance.[/b]

It's baffling to me that a theology can be built up around a word in a translation, not present in Greek Heb 6:6.

WHILE.

It's baffling to me that a theology can be built up around a word in a translation, not present in Greek Heb 6:6.

And "a theology" (you mean "Responsible Grace") is not built around one word; it's built around hundreds of Scriptures.

I've made no comment about your view as a whole. There are passing connections there with Sovereign Grace. But you'd recognize my conclusion about this view of Heb 6:6, built on one Scripture.

But here we're only talking about Heb6:4-6; it doesn't mean "you can't come back".

The passage sets the observed conditions as all having already happened without regard to whether they are happening right now.

 

[Stinker]

Acts 8:14-24 (King James Version)


14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
24Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
------------------------------------------------------

Notice how this unconverted, water baptized, person would not repent on his own. Rather, he sought a worldly solution to a spiritual dilemma. To plea for someone high up on the inside, to 'go to bat' for him before the King of Kings.

 

[Ben johnson]

No, the consistent view is that taste does not convey the level of consumption, you can taste something by sampling it, or by swallowing it whole. To try to include in the meaning of taste, that it always means to swallow completely, ignores Matthew 17:34 where Jesus tasted but did not drink the wine.

Matthew 17 ends at verse 27. Ignoring 2:9 (where "taste" absolutely meant "participation"), the context conveys "PARTNERS with the Holy Spirit".

Next, Hebrews 3:1 does refer to born again believers, because they have been set apart in Christ (holy brothers) after receiving the gospel (partakers or sharers of a Heavenly Calling.) But in Hebrews 6:4, the folks in view have been enlightened, but are not referred to "holy brethren" and they are not partakers or sharers of a Heavenly Calling, for they have not been born again from above.

On what grounds can the supposition be made that "Taste doesn't really mean PARTICIPATED, though it DOES in 2:9, and partner doesn't really mean partner, though it DOES in 3:1 and 3:14"? Words mean things --- and we cannot change meanings based on prior perception.

They have tasted the heavenly gift, the gospel of Christ, but have rejected it like bitter wine, even though they have been made partakers or sharers of the Holy Spirit because the gospel is the work product of the Holy Spirit, so to be enlightened by the gospel is to a sharer of the Holy Spirit.

What does "enlightened" mean, if it caused no heart-change?

1. Taste doesn't really MEAN taste
2. Partner doesn't really MEAN partner
3. Enlightened doesn't really MEAN enlightened

Why is this credible?

Next to be enlightened with the gospel of Christ is be enlightened with saving knowledge. But such knowledge not united with faith does not result in salvation.

Depends on what that "saving knowledge" does. Look at those "escapees" in 2Pet2; they are "truly escaped" (ontos-apopheugo, 18) who are enticed again by the false prophets and teachers. They escape defilements through the true knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus, but succumb to the temptations of the false --- are entangled and overcome. Better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness, than having known to have turned away from the holy commandment. Shall we also make this passage "escaped but were never really saved"?

Why is it impossible to renew them again to repentance? Because there is no other gospel message, no other path to the opportunity to repent and turn to Christ alone. By being enlightened, they had been brought to the point of repentance, but they turned aside, rejecting Christ.

So they "never repented"; the writer speaks of them "being restored to where they never WERE.

That doesn't make sense, Van.

But, verse 9, the author is convinced of better things for the Hebrews he is addressing, things that accompany salvation.

Though we speak to YOU like this. First he rebukes the immature to maturity, then he says "those who willfully fall away will not want to repent", finally he says "we're convinced of better things for you though we speak this way".

The "we're convinced of better things", is repetition of the first part of the song; it's parallel to "press on to maturity". Positive affirmation. You're wanting it to say:

"Press on to maturity; for those who NEVER WERE saved, NEVER WERE repented, impossible to restore them to where they never were, but we're convinced of better things for you who NEVER WERE LIKE those unrepentant that we mentioned for no reason."

Huh-uh, doesn't make sense...

 

[Ben johnson]

Not in the least, Ben. You overlook the convicting power; the drawing of the Holy Spirit to enable that one to repent, it wouldn't be there.. If there was ever a case for an example of Christ being received bodily, that passage would be it.

It is the power of the Holy Spirit that enables a man to repent. But clearly in this passage repentance was being resisted --- just like the Spirit can be resisted --- Acts7:51.

 

[Ben johnson]

A person like those of (Heb.6:4-6)

Acts 8:14-24 (King James Version)

14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
24Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
------------------------------------------------------

Notice how this unconverted, water baptized, person would not repent on his own. Rather, he sought a worldly solution to a spiritual dilemma. To plea for someone high up on the inside, to 'go to bat' for him before the King of Kings.

Hi, "Stinker". There is nothing in the text about Simon ever having been truly repentant; he simply didn't understand. In the end, he believed Peter, and asked them to pray for him that he might come to true salvation.

In Heb6:4-6, there is no reason to deny that he was speaking of the "once saved".

The entire letter of Hebrews is about "falling from salvation", warnings to persevere.
2:1-3.
3:6-14.
4:1 & 11.
6:4-6, 7-8.
10:26-29, 35, 36.
12:7-9, 15, 25.

It's all consistent.

 

[Van]

Hi Ben, sorry about the typo, Matthew 17:34 should have read Matthew 27:34. Taste means taste and does not convey the level of consumption. There are no grounds to not accept this fact.

Enlightened means enlightened, to obtain or receive information that illuminates something or someone such that they have understanding. It does not convey whether the knowledge has been united with faith.

All three of these words mean what the lexicons say, and not your redefinition to pour your doctrine into the text.

And yes, 2 Peter 2:18 is referring to folks who were never saved, they too had been enlightened with the truth, and thus had escaped the false teachings, the defilements, but they returned, rather than uniting the truth they held with faith.

Yes, they never repented and the text does not say nor suggest that they did. It says renew them again to repentance, which means to the point where they could have repented and united their knowledge with faith. It makes perfect sense.

Of course I am not saying press on to maturity, those who have not been born again. You know that I say the folks of verses 4-6 are not born again, but the folks of verse 9 are born again, so it is the folks of verse 9 who are born again who are to press on to maturity.

There is absolute no support in Hebrews 6:4-9 for "loss of a saving relationship" doctrine.

 

[A New Dawn]

Knowing who is being spoken to and the situation that is happening to those being spoken to kinda makes all this discussion moot.

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi Ben, sorry about the typo, Matthew 17:34 should have read Matthew 27:34. Taste means taste and does not convey the level of consumption. There are no grounds to not accept this fact.

"They gave Him wine mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink". So Jesus tasted death, but never really died. Heb2:9. Sorry, He tasted the wine; the concept of "taste" simply means "to experience" --- consume is an entire other idea. "Jesus TASTED the wine"; "Jesus TASTED death"; "They TASTED the heavenly gift and the good word of God and the powers of the age to come".

How can someone EXPERIENCE the heavenly gift and God's word and powers, if they were never SAVED? Can someone who is "unbelieving", have any kind of "taste" of the heavenly gift? How does that work?

Your position is asserting "we can define a word ONE way in ONE passage, but a DIFFERENT way in ANOTHER; because we know the doctrine BEHIND those passages." With respect, shouldn't our doctrine be subject to what was written, rather than defining meanings to fit our doctrine?

Enlightened means enlightened, to obtain or receive information that illuminates something or someone such that they have understanding. It does not convey whether the knowledge has been united with faith.

"Photizo" carries "imbue with saving knowledge". Contextually he's describing people who were far more than "spectators".

All three of these words mean what the lexicons say, and not your redefinition to pour your doctrine into the text.

If we take the text at "face value", then we'll have to accept that "taste" conveys the same level of "experience" as it also does in Heb2:9.

And yes, 2 Peter 2:18 is referring to folks who were never saved, they too had been enlightened with the truth, and thus had escaped the false teachings, the defilements, but they returned, rather than uniting the truth they held with faith.

If the "never-saved" can "escape defilements", and through the "epignosis-true-knowledge" of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus --- but never receive Him in the "indwelling-saved-sense" --- then why does anyone need Jesus?

Yes, they never repented and the text does not say nor suggest that they did. It says renew them again to repentance, which means to the point where they could have repented and united their knowledge with faith. It makes perfect sense.

But "anakainizo palin" does not mean "renew-again to a place they never WERE before". There is no way to "renew-again" to repentance, unless they were once there, before.

Of course I am not saying press on to maturity, those who have not been born again.

That's good...

You know that I say the folks of verses 4-6 are not born again, but the folks of verse 9 are born again, so it is the folks of verse 9 who are born again who are to press on to maturity.

See if I understand you right.

"You should be teachers, but you still need MILK rather than solid food.
So let's press on to maturity, not spending forever talking about repentance..
'Cause those who were NEVER saved won't WANT to repent.
If a tilled field produces FRUIT, then it's blessed ('cause it showed it was "saved");
....but if it produces THORNS, then it's cursed/burned (showing it was NEVER saved).
But we're convinced of better things for you-the-saved, though we speak this way about the NEVER-saved."

How does it make sense to keep "hijacking" into a sub-topic of "never-were-saved"? Let's read it without imposing a subject change:

"You should be teachers, but you need milk rather than solid food.
So let us press on to maturity, not spending forever talking about repentance.
'Cause those who WERE once repentant, were partners in the Holy Spirit...
...and were enlightened and EXPERIENCED the heavenly gift and 'saved powers'...
...those people, FALLING away, will not want to repent, BECAUSE they crucify to themselves Christ anew and hold Him to shame.
A tilled field either produces good fruit and is blessed, or thorns and is cursed; I'm telling you to MATURE so that you produce GOOD FRUIT.
Beloved, we're convinced of better things that accompany salvation (like maturity), though we speak to you this way (about the consequence of not-maturing --- which really means 'walking in unrepentance')."

Doesn't the second one, make far more sense than the first one?

There is absolute no support in Hebrews 6:4-9 for "loss of a saving relationship" doctrine.

Only by re-defining "taste", based on the presupposition that "they were never REALLY saved". Our suppositions (understanding), must fit Scripture, Van --- not the other way around. "Taste", means "experience". "Partner", means "partner". "Enlightened", means "imbued with saving knowledge". Instead of changing subjects and throwing in a discussion of the NEVER-SAVFED, he's warning them of the CONSEQUENCE of "not maturing".

Let's look at a summary of the entire letter to Hebrews:

Hebrews on OSAS:
2. Watch ourselves lest we drift away; how shall we escape if we forsake so great a salvation?
3. Holy brethren --- be careful that you not be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God; we have become partners in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. (can you deny the “IF”?)
4. Be wary, while a promise remains of entering His rest, lest any of YOU seem to have come short of it.
4. Let US be diligent TO enter His rest, lest we FALL through following the disobedience and unbelief of Moses' followers.
5. You should be TEACHERS but you still need MILK
6. So let's press on to maturity, not spending all our time talking of "repentance". Because those who were saved, but REJECT Christ will not WANT to repent, "WHILE" (since*/because**/seeing-as***) they are CONTEMPTUOUS.
*NASV (“while” in footnotes).
**NIV.
***King James.
6. Be diligent SO AS to have full assurance of hope until the end, THAT you're not sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises."
10. Since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus... let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us HOLD FAST the confession of our hope WITHOUT WAVERING, for He who promised is faithful; let us consider how to stimulate each other to love and good deeds ...encouraging one another... If we continue sinning willfully after having TRULY RECEIVED Christ, we invalidate His sacrifice and expect only hellfire; severe punishment to one who has trampled underfoot Jesus, and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he WAS SANCTIFIED (know any way to get sanctified by the blood of the covenant APART from salvation?) And has insulted the Spirit. Therefore, do not throw away JESUS! ("confidence" in 10:35 is JESUS: see Heb6:19, 10:19) You have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of
God, you may receive the Promise.
12. Let us lay aside every encumbrance and sin which so easily ENTANGLES us, and run the race, fixing our eyes on Jesus the LEADER ("archegos") and CHIEF EXAMPLE ("teleiotes" --- NOT "the AUTHOR and FINISHER") of our faith. It is for discipline that you endure; but if you are WITHOUT discipline (if you REJECT His discipline), you are illegitimate children and not sons. If we submitted to earthly fathers' discipline, SHALL we not rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND LIVE? Make straight the paths of your feet, so that the limb which is lame may be healed, rather than worsened. See to it no one comes short of (FAILS!) the grace of God, see that no root of bitterness spring up, causing trouble, DEFILING MANY; let there be no immoral person like Esau who SOLD his birthright for a meal and THEN desired to inherit but lost. See that you do not refuse Him who is speaking; for if they did not escape who refused the EARTHLY warning, much less will WE escape WHO TURN AWAY FROM HIM WHO WARNS FROM HEAVEN! (ch12)


The entire letter of Hebrews is "osnas"; in which 6:4-6 fits perfectly. An identical reading can be made of 2Peter --- it's fully "osnas". So too Galatians and Jame.

 

[Ben johnson]

Which is why it's not "parapipto" in Scripture.

It's parapesontas -- the aorist participle. A nice, succinct, one-time thing. The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar
action. There's no setting the conditions that this will continue to happen. It's an aorist participle.

Look it up. Consult with your Greek prof. He's there to help.

Don't have to; it's already there in my NASV, "while". 'Nuff said.

It's baffling to me that a theology can be built up around a word in a translation, not present in Greek Heb 6:6.

See my previous post; all of Hebrews harmonizes. And it ain't "osas"...

It's baffling to me that a theology can be built up around a word in a translation, not present in Greek Heb 6:6.

See my previous post; all of Hebrews harmonizes. And it ain't "osas"...

...wait --- didn't we just DO this???

I've made no comment about your view as a whole. There are passing connections there with Sovereign Grace. But you'd recognize my conclusion about this view of Heb 6:6, built on one Scripture.

Heb 6 harmonizes with the rest of Hebrews, and with the rest of Scripture.

It's about people falling. Clearly, the consequence of not maturing, but spending all our time talking about "repentance", is to be like the field which produces thorns and thistles and is cursed and burned. THAT is why he's "convinced of better things that accompany salvation, though he speaks like this"...

The passage sets the observed conditions as all having already happened without regard to whether they are happening right now.

In the CASE of those who WERE saved, they won't want to repent SINCE/BECAUSE/SEEING-AS/WHILE they crucify Christ to themselves anew (by unrepentance) and hold Him to shame (contempt His sacrifice for our sins).

 

[Ben johnson]

Knowing who is being spoken to and the situation that is happening to those being spoken to kinda makes all this discussion moot.

Hi, "Dawn". You remember the "Five-Ways"? Five understandings that try to explain passages problematic to OSAS?

"Five-Way" #5 asserts "it applies to THEM back THEN but not to US here TODAY". This seems to be what you're proposing.

...but that passage, as the rest of Hebrews, harmonizes with the rest of Scripture.

It's a warning against "not-maturing" (which in context conveys unrepentance).

There are so many warnings in Scripture against us being unrepentant, deceived, led-astray-from-Christ. All of Hebrews (see two posts ago) reflects perfectly with what John said, Peter, James, and Paul in so many places.

The point of this thread is to correctly expose what Heb6:4-6 was asserting; it's not asserting "if you fall you can never come back", nor is it saying "none can REALLY fall".

It's simply saying, "Mature, and don't spend forever speaking 'repentance'; 'cause those who willingly fall WILL NOT repent, because by their continual sin it is as if they crucify Christ over-and-over and disregard the price He paid for sin."

 

[A New Dawn]

Hi, "Dawn". You remember the "Five-Ways"? Five understandings that try to explain passages problematic to OSAS?

"Five-Way" #5 asserts "it applies to THEM back THEN but not to US here TODAY". This seems to be what you're proposing.

...but that passage, as the rest of Hebrews, harmonizes with the rest of Scripture.

It's a warning against "not-maturing" (which in context conveys unrepentance).

There are so many warnings in Scripture against us being unrepentant, deceived, led-astray-from-Christ. All of Hebrews (see two posts ago) reflects perfectly with what John said, Peter, James, and Paul in so many places.

The point of this thread is to correctly expose what Heb6:4-6 was asserting; it's not asserting "if you fall you can never come back", nor is it saying "none can REALLY fall".

It's simply saying, "Mature, and don't spend forever speaking 'repentance'; 'cause those who willingly fall WILL NOT repent, because by their continual sin it is as if they crucify Christ over-and-over and disregard the price He paid for sin."

That given situation is kind of hard to replicate in this day, so I'm kinda wondering how that context applies to us today. If you could let me know an application for it in my life today, I might think differently about it. But until someone does, it strictly speaks to a very unique situation in history.

 

[Van]

Hi Ben, Jesus is not dead and He did not drink the wine, yet He tasted both. The word "taste" does not convey the level of consumption, nor the level of experience. You are trying to redefine the meaning of the word to fit your doctrine. I am defining the word, taste the same way in every passage, you are defining it one way in Matthew 27:34 and another way in Hebrews 6:4.

Ditto for enlightened, to understand saving knowledge does not convey whether the knowledge is united with faith. To be enlightened does not mean to be a spectator.

Again the word "taste" does not convey any level of consumption or experience, the level must be discerned from the context in which the word is used. I can jump off a curb or jump of a cliff, but to say if I use the word jump in one place, the same level of experience is necessarily conveyed in another place is nonsense.

If the "never-saved" can "escape defilements", and through the "epignosis-true-knowledge" of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus --- but never receive Him in the "indwelling-saved-sense" --- then why does anyone need Jesus?

I am sure you had a thought in there someplace, but just where escapes me. Was it, "If a person can understand the gospel, and therefore escape the defilement of false beliefs such as works based salvation, why do they need to trust in Jesus?" Because when God credits our faith in Jesus, not our knowledge of Jesus, He has mercy on us, and spiritually places us "in Christ" where we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation, born again from above.

I said the folks of Hebrews 6:4-6 are different from the folks of Hebrews 6:9. Hebrews 6:1 refers to born again folks who are babes in Christ, they are not mature, so they need to press on to maturity. And so the author of Hebrews stops talking about the milk of the gospel and presents spiritual guidance which is not the milk of the gospel by providing this insight: For in the case of those who have been enlightened..., which does not refer to the babes in Christ, but to folks who understand the gospel but did not unite that knowledge with faith, they put Jesus to open shame. Then in verse 7, the author of Hebrews addresses the difference between followers, some, the born again folks, bring forth useful vegetation, but the never saved folks bring forth weeds. Then the author returns to addressing His audience, "but, beloved" - referring to those in Christ, we are convinced of better things concerning you, clearly a change from the folks who bring forth weeds. And who are these folks, why they are the saved folks for they exhibit things that accompany salvation.

Bottom line, there is no support whatsoever for your "loss of a saving relationship doctrine" in Hebrews 6, or in the entire book. Taste means taste, and does not mean saved, enlightened means enlightened, and does not mean saved. Knowledge must be united with faith for God to save us.

 

[Ben johnson]

That given situation is kind of hard to replicate in this day, so I'm kinda wondering how that context applies to us today. If you could let me know an application for it in my life today, I might think differently about it. But until someone does, it strictly speaks to a very unique situation in history.

Hi, "Dawn". What was the situation then, that does not apply to us today?

The text was written to Christians. That is, those who have received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; who have His indwelling presence, and who have received the indwelling Spirit. The same Gospel of salvation, from the same Lord. Everything in Hebrews, mirrors perfectly everything in James' letter; and Peter's letters. They all said the same things that Paul said. There is no conflict or difference between Hebrews, and any other New Testament Letter --- including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts.

In our Christian walk, we are subject to deceivers. We are at risk of deception; risking what? "Heavenly crowns"? Exactly what is it, that the deceivers are trying to deceive us away from?

It's not always a deceiver; Hebrews speaks of SIN deceiving us --- so does James (1:14-16), and then Peter speaks of BOTH (people and sins) deceiving believers in 2Pet. The false prophets and false teachers entice the truly-escaped back into defilements, in 2:2:18. But whether it's a PERSON, or our own LUSTS, the goal is always the same --- to deceive us away from Christ.

Heb3 says "fall away from the living God".
James1 says "lust births sin, and sin brings death; DO NOT BE DECEIVED beloved brethren."
Peter says "fall from your own steadfastness" in 2:3:17.
Paul says "deceivers try to take us captive with worldly philosophy, away from Christ" Col2:6-8.
And Paul says "as the serpent deceived Eve, YOUR minds can be led away from simple devotion to Christ" 2Cor11:3
John says "watch against deceivers, that we not shrink in shame when He returns" 1:2:26-28
And John says "watch against deceivers; he who LEAVES Christ's teachings has not God 2:1:7-9

No, Hebrews is not "unique" or "special"; it is not "dispensational" --- the letter to Hebrews says the exact same things that all the others do. Hebrews is about belonging to God, through Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord, Jesus-Jehovah-God-with-us. We belong THROUGH faith; as Paul says, "Do not be conceited, but FEAR --- natural branches were broken off that you a wild branch be grafted in. But if God did not spare the natural branches, NEITHER will He spare YOU. Behold then, the kindness and severity of God. To those who FELL, severity; to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness else YOU will ALSO be CUT OFF. And if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again." Rom11:21-23

This aligns with Heb4, "be diligent that you not imitate disobedience and unbelief and FALL, and fail to enter God's rest." And Heb6, "press on to maturity, don't spend forever talking about repentance; for those who WERE saved but now WALK in sin, will not want to repent. A field is tilled and planted; if it bears fruit it is blessed, but if it bears thorns it is cursed. We are convinced of better things for you, though we speak in this way. (So grow up, into Him --- do not walk in unrepentance and produce thorns.)

The letter to the Hebrews, says the same as all the rest; so even if we could discount it, the rest say the same things.