Hebrews6:4-6

[Ben johnson]

Hi Ben, Jesus is not dead and He did not drink the wine, yet He tasted both.

Hi, Van. He was dead --- very much...

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.

No, the context supports "they were saved"; including "partnered with the Holy Spirit", and "enlightened". Think about the context; in the middle of an admonishment towards MATURITY, why would he throw in a discussion about the "never-saved"? The only concept that makes sense, is "grow up, don't spend all your time discussing repentance; for those who WERE saved but now WILL not repent, it is as if they crucify Christ to themselves all over again."

Somehow the idea of "those who were enlightened/tasted/partnered", has to fit in with "grow up and don't spend forever teaching repentance".

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.

But it has to fit into a kind of point; "you should be mature, but you need MILK". He's speaking to the saved, about maturity; talling them "What's the point of forever teaching REPENTANCE, to those who won't want to repent again?"

We can't say "some were NEVER repentant", because the text clearly says "restore to repentance AGAIN".

There's no way the "never-saved", ever WERE repentant...

I am sure you had a thought in there someplace, but just where escapes me. Was it, "If a person can understand the gospel...

Not just "understand the Gospel"; they can escape sin and defilements but without being saved --- so why do they need Jesus?

... 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.

Clearly a sinless person goes to Heaven; so can we escape defilements WITHOUT a saving-relationship with Christ?

No.

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.

He's warning them to "repent and mature". And THAT is "the better things we're convinced of"...

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.

Go back and look at Post 15 --- that's the entire book. Have I misunderstood the whole book of Hebrews? 6:4-6 fits in perfectly with the whole; and the whole is speaking against "osas"...

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

They were Christians who had been Jews offering sacrifices under the law. They became Christians and were shunned by their families, friends, communities and were finding it difficult to live so they went back to the law with it's sacrifices.

This specific portion is written directly to them. They knew the truth, they believed in the sacrifice of Christ, realized that the sacrifices they offered in the temple under the law could not save, but went back to it anyway because of the hardships they were living under as believers.

That is the situation. None of us here ever practiced temple sacrifices. None of us can reject Jesus' sacrifice and return to a law that we never practiced that was a type for the real sacrifice. There really is no application for that scripture in this day.

 

[Van]

In a discussion about maturity, why would the author of Hebrews throw in a discussion about those who cannot mature because they were never saved. How about to compare and contrast? Wow that makes perfect sense.

The transition to the contrasting example is this, verse 4, "for in the case of..." So the author is explaining a contrasting case to the babes in Christ. They who did not unite knowledge with faith cannot press on to maturity, because they were never saved. Then in verse 9, he compares the condition of those never saved with his audience of babes in Christ, for he writes - "But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation.

And to repeat, to be brought again to the point of repentance does not suggest they repented and united their saving knowledge with faith. I will type this again. They did not repent and fully trust in the Lord. The text does not say it is impossible for them to repent again. Renew to repentance means to bring to the point of repentance.

And I see again you are rewriting the text (2 Peter 2:20), for it does not say "escaped sin" nor equate "defilements" with sin. Defilements in this context refers to false information. It is something that leads a person off the path of righteousness. For example bitterness can defile folks.

Bottom line, Ben, it appears you have misunderstood much of Hebrews which strongly supports OSAS.