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

[Mercy Shown]

Red herring. . .

Do you get much exercise jumping to conclusions?

Your response falls somewhat short of addressing the Scriptures presented.

It is the point and my point. This theology accuses God of decreeing every atrocity ever commited. Red herring? This is terrible. Hiding behind all the supposed scriptural truth lies this truth. Reformed theology says God decreed sin and not just sin but every sin ever committed. He commanded men not to sin and then decreed that they should commit the sins he forbid them to do.

This is what people need to know before they become entangled in this theology.

 

[Clare73]

This theology accuses God of decreeing every atrocity ever commited.

Your issue is with Dt 20:16-18, 1 Sa 15:3, not with me.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Your issue is with Dt 20:16-18, 1 Sa 15:3, not with me.

It is not with you at all. It is with Reformed theology. This theology takes isolated incidents from the OT and generalizes them across all time to paint a picture of God that attributes to Him the works of Satan. Why? The OT also says God repented in several places. Are we to generalize those all the time and have a God who regrets what he did?

Jesus came to show us who God was and what He was like, and Jesus said love your enemies; treat those who persecute you well. That is who God is and not some monster that decrees that children, or anyone else for that matter, be raped, murdered, or abused. There is something very off about this theology, indeed.

 

[Clare73]

It is not with you at all. It is with Reformed theology. This theology takes isolated incidents from the OT and generalizes them

The "generalization" is yours.

The Bible reveals God's justice as well as his mercy.

 

[Mercy Shown]

The "generalization" is yours.

The Bible reveals God's justice as well as his mercy.

Reformed theology actually does it and does it openly. It has other inconsistencies as well. But even you used 3 passages about specific incidents in the ot to generalize in to a doctrine that includes God ordaining sin.

 

[Clare73]

Reformed theology actually does it and does it openly. It has other inconsistencies as well. But even you used 3 passages about specific incidents in the ot to generalize in to a doctrine that includes God ordaining sin.

The generalization is yours. I simply provided Scripture (Dt 20:16-18, 1 Sa 15:3). How you treat them is up to you.

 

[simplefaith]

A young person is forced to go to church by their parents. They make some friends there who are all committed christians. They don't want to be the odd one out, so they make a commitment too on that basis, but it is obviously a shallow one. They believe for a while but in the time of testing fall away due to that shallow commitment. Second example of the parable of the sower. What did they fall away from?

Many, maybe most who make a commitment to Christ but spend their lives constantly getting side tracked from the path they should be on by worldly things. They do not walk away, but they do not mature, you mature by evermore practising right from wrong. The third example of the parable of the sower

 

[Mercy Shown]

The generalization is yours. I simply provided Scripture (Dt 20:16-18, 1 Sa 15:3). How you treat them is up to you.

Yes, you provided two passages upon which Reformed theology generalizes as a universal attribute of God. Now, if you were not also generalizing it as a universal attribute of God, why did you quote those two passages? When I was learning what open theists believe, they also generalized bits of the OT to support their belief that God does not know the future. They pointed out all the places in the OT that say he repented of doing something and generalized them as a universal attribute of God.

Now, a good Calvinist would object and have a handy way ready to disabuse them of that notion and correct their "misinterpretation" and "poor exegesis." But if one steps back and looks at them both, it is pot and kettle. Just like a good Calvinist will look at Romans 5:18 (18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." They will then declare that the first "All Men" meant just that, all men but the second "All Men" doesn't mean all men, oh no, it means only the elect. That is because the bible is always downstream from human theology.

Then the Calvanist's wonder why the rest of us don't get it.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, you provided two passages upon which Reformed theology generalizes as a universal attribute of God.

I am not responsible for Reformed theology.
My theology comes only from the Scriptures.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I am not responsible for Reformed theology.
My theology comes only from the Scriptures.

So many Calvinists say the same thing and yet are point by point in line with John Calvin.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is the point and my point. This theology accuses God of decreeing every atrocity ever commited. Red herring? This is terrible. Hiding behind all the supposed scriptural truth lies this truth. Reformed theology says God decreed sin and not just sin but every sin ever committed. He commanded men not to sin and then decreed that they should commit the sins he forbid them to do.

This is what people need to know before they become entangled in this theology.

Well to be fair not all forms of Reformed theology have God responsible for predestining the sins of people, rather, it has to do with a foreknowledge of who will follow him and who will not. However, there are some ugly forms of Reformed theology which do indeed have the problems you refer to. We see this extreme fundamentalist theology as part of the undercurrent of the Westboro Baptist Church.

However, in my experience, most Calvinists I have met, with the exception of a relative of mine, do not actually interpret the Reformed theology in such a way, even those who profess a belief in “TULIP”, which was a concept which emerged after the Synod of Dort rather than being directly Calvinist.

Now I want to be clear, I am not apologizing for Calvinism, and I have chosen to reject it because I came to the realization that while John Calvin did make an effort to adhere to the “consensus patrum”, he erred on what the Church Fathers actually taught, on the basis of certain preconceived ideas regarding practices of the Roman Catholic Church he erroneously rejected, for example, his embrace of iconoclasm. And subsequently, many Reformed theologians wound up recreating, from the ground up as it were, Nestorianism.

 

[Clare73]

So many Calvinists say the same thing and yet are point by point in line with John Calvin.

Well, if Calvin is point by point in line with me, then he is point by point in line with what I am in line; i.e., the NT.

Not a bad thing.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Well to be fair not all forms of Reformed theology have God responsible for predestining the sins of people, rather, it has to do with a foreknowledge of who will follow him and who will not. However, there are some ugly forms of Reformed theology which do indeed have the problems you refer to. We see this extreme fundamentalist theology as part of the undercurrent of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I can agree wholeheartedly with that theology. I think it is exactly what the bible means by foreknowledge.

However, in my experience, most Calvinists I have met, with the exception of a relative of mine, do not actually interpret the Reformed theology in such a way, even those who profess a belief in “TULIP”, which was a concept which emerged after the Synod of Dort rather than being directly Calvinist.

Have you been on the Carm forum?

Now I want to be clear, I am not apologizing for Calvinism, and I have chosen to reject it because I came to the realization that while John Calvin did make an effort to adhere to the “consensus patrum”, he erred on what the Church Fathers actually taught, on the basis of certain preconceived ideas regarding practices of the Roman Catholic Church he erroneously rejected, for example, his embrace of iconoclasm. And subsequently, many Reformed theologians wound up recreating, from the ground up as it were, Nestorianism.

Yes, Calvin had some very extreme views concerning God's role in sin. I am glad to hear that not all Calvinists are as radical as the ones who believe God decrees every single sin ever committed.

 

[The Liturgist]

Have you been on the Carm forum?

No, I’ve only been active on this forum.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not responsible for Reformed theology.
My theology comes only from the Scriptures.

Of course the problem is that the Scriptures are subject to multiple interpretations. For example, using systematic theology, Karl Barth managed to produce “Neo-Orthodoxy” which differs from what Calvin taught, also using systematic theology (and while Calvinists prior to Karl Barth tended to have an interest in and a respect for the tradition of the early church, and are even responsible for coining the phrase “consensus patrum”, it is safe to say Calvin was working primarily from the Scriptures). And likewise others working diligently from the scriptures have worked out their own logically consistent interpretations.

This is why I regard it as being of great importance that we refer to the Early Church and the Ecumenical Councils, to provide a source of authority, and what is more, I would note there is nothing in the ecumenical councils except for the Seventh that Reformed Christians might have a problem with (since it was the Seventh Ecumenical Council that rejected iconoclasm; that said most Reformed churches are no longer iconoclastic, but they are also not really iconodulistic, that is to say, they have icons but they do not actively venerate them in the manner prescribed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and they do not keep or venerate relics, which the Seventh Ecumenical Council also requires).

 

[Clare73]

Of course the problem is that the Scriptures are subject to multiple interpretations. For example, using systematic theology, Karl Barth managed to produce “Neo-Orthodoxy”

My problem there is "using systematic theology."
Had he used the Scriptures, he would not have failed.

which differs from what Calvin taught, also using systematic theology (and while Calvinists prior to Karl Barth tended to have an interest in and a respect for the tradition of the early church, and are even responsible for coining the phrase “consensus patrum”, it is safe to say Calvin was working primarily from the Scriptures). And likewise others working diligently from the scriptures have worked out their own logically consistent interpretations.

This is why I regard it as being of great importance that we refer to the Early Church and the Ecumenical Councils, to provide a source of authority, and what is more, I would note there is nothing in the ecumenical councils except for the Seventh that Reformed Christians might have a problem with (since it was the Seventh Ecumenical Council that rejected iconoclasm; that said most Reformed churches are no longer iconoclastic, but they are also not really iconodulistic, that is to say, they have icons but they do not actively venerate them in the manner prescribed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and they do not keep or venerate relics, which the Seventh Ecumenical Council also requires).

 

[BBAS 64]

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.)

Good day,

The commentary on Hebrews produced by Calvin is online.

You may find some more recent NT Greek scholars more useful DA Carson and Thomas Schreiner.

Jesus Is Better: Don't Apostatize - Don Carson - Hebrews 5:11-6:20

Listen or read the following transcript as D. A. Carson speaks on the topic of the person of Christ from Hebrews 5:11-6:20.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Or Hebrew Scholar Madison Pierce

​

Of course Owens work on Hebrews is the historical standard that is used.

Edit to add - really need to understand the use of ythe OT in the NT book of Hebrews.

Search Youtube for DA Carson's series:

Intro: Dr. D.A. Carson continues his 2022 Fall Lecture series on "The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews." The two New Testament books that are most challenging, from the perspective of how they quote the Old Testament, are Matthew and Hebrews. In these lectures, Dr. Carson engages the latter, seeking to understand the warrants for citing the Old Testament passages this way. The general aim is to deepen our understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures aright, thereby improving our exegetical faithfulness and our grasp of how the Bible is put together.

The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews​

Stuff like this is the main reason that Hebrew had such a difficult time historically being included in the NT Canon.

In Him,

Bill

 

[LoveofTruth]

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?

They were believers who fell away. they had once been enlightened. Only believers are enlightened. Believers are in the light not in darkness.

"Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; " (Ephesians 1:15-18 KJV)

We also read in the same book of Hebrews

“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;” (Hebrews 3:1 KJV)

Notice first that he is talking to believers here and includes himself in all words.

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;" (Hebrews 3:12-14 KJV)

So it is not works that saves or causes us to lose it, but unbelief. To try and say a believer can never have an evil heart of "unbelief" is contrary to scripturre.

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

Seek the revelation of God by the Spirit and the anointing teaches all things. And we put on Christ and make no provisions for the flesh, we do not fear men.

 

[concretecamper]

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.)

The passage refers to the fact that it is impossible to be baptized a second time.

Rom 6:4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

 

[Mercy Shown]

The passage refers to the fact that it is impossible to be baptized a second time.

Rom 6:4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

This is an interesting interpretation of it. My main concern would be that it doesn't mention baptism and it uses the term "Fall Away." I also wonder how this interpretation would fit with Acts 19:1-5.