Hebrews 6

[GrayPilgrim]

Lets get things started, with what will probably be a very lively debate--

What does Hebrews 6 say? Please limit discussion to exegetical (i.e. textual) arguments only, and not theological arguments. For a theological discussion of this passage please go to theology 101 or 102 depending on which ever it belongs to.

I will presume that Jaltus will probably be an early poster on this one.

[Jaltus]

Let us first look at the phrases used to describe the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-5 that you agree can (or did) fall away (I'll even use the KJV).

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Once enlightened: The only parallel within the book of Hebrews is 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Nobody denies that this refers to saved people. Outside of Hebrews, the Greek root can refer to both saved and unsaved, but these are the only two uses in Hebrews and the only two uses of the passive participle in the entire canon, the passive showing that they were illuminated by someone other than themselves, namely God.

Have tasted the heavenly gift: Hebrews 2:9 refers to Christ "tasting" death, showing how He actually died. Tasting often means more than just barely touching, rather it means imbibing a small portion. In our context, that would mean being a Christian though only for a little while.

Made partakers of the Holy Ghost: This one is by far my strongest claim, for the ONLY parallel in the entire Bible that fits the structure and word usage happen to be Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Notice how this too seems to stress the evils of turning from belief, not just the evils of unbelief. Again, nobody denies that "partakers of Christ" refers to Christians. If we are truly Trinitarian, then how can we deny that being a partaker of the Spirit is being a Christian? You cannot, and remain a Trinitarian.

Have tasted the good word of God: This is another example of "tasted," though word here does not refer to Christ (the Greek is rhema not logos). This would mean the actual words of God, then, refering to doctrine or a paragraph of scripture. In other words, this phrase is really hard to nail down, and thus kind of a wash for both sides.

Having tasted...the powers of the world to come: This is one that OBVIUSLY refers to the coming of the Kingdom and to our eschatological hope. How can someone doubt that this refers to people who were saved? Who else but the saved could ever taste the coming kingdom?

In conclusion to this section, I would say that all of the above references (with the one exception) unambiguously point toward people who are saved. Every parallel within the book of Hebrews points that way, and a majority of the parallels from outside Hebrews would point that way as well. Who else could partake of the Holy Spirit but the saved? Who else could taste the future kingdom (not past, so there is no way this could refer to a past time such as Numbers 14)?

Therefore, Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that salvation can be lost. However, if it is lost, it can never be regained.

I am sure you are saying to yourself (or your computer, if you talk to yours like I do mine) that this is a hard teaching. But look at how this section is introduced:
Hebrews 5:13ff.


13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

KJV Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.



This section, Hebrews 6:4-6, is introduced by the author telling us that this will be harder teaching, not milk but solid meat! Of course it is a hard saying, it is meant to be.

God bless.

(this is pasted from another post somewhere else, hence the KJV)

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Originally posted by Jaltus

In conclusion to this section, I would say that all of the above references (with the one exception) unambiguously point toward people who are saved. Every parallel within the book of Hebrews points that way, and a majroity of the parallels from outside Hebrews would point that way as well. Who else could partake of the Holy Spirit but the saved? Who else could taste the future kingdom (not past, so there is no way this could refer to a past time such as Numbers 14)?

Therefore, Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that salvation can be lost. However, if it is lost, it can never be regained.

The thing about Hebrews 6 that grabs my attention is that "salvation" itself is not even mentioned until verse nine. And when it is mentioned, it seems to be set up as a kind of antithesis to all that has gone before---specifically all the things Jaltus so eloquently explored above, which we have been accustomed to equate with salvation.

But what if we don't assume that "tasting" is enough? What if we define "salvation" a bit differently? I must say emphatically that I am not making the common Calvinistic rejoinder to Arminianism here. Jaltus is right in affirming that everything in these verses remains integral to salvation, IMHO. But perhaps he assumes too readily that the conglomeration of "tasting" experiences here ennumerated actually equal salvation. To me, the whole passage including verse 9 strongly implies that salvation involves more than the "tasting" experiences themselves; salvation involves their continuance. Salvation involves the entire ordo salutis which culminates in glorification, as seen from the divine vantage point rather than the human.

I've always thought it very significant that both Calvinists and Arminians are functionally in the same boat with respect to how salvation is perceived from the timebound human point of view. Though doctrinally they are worlds apart, doesn't experimenatal predestinarianism look very similar to "loss" of salvation, humanly speaking? However, if we define salvation holistically with respect to time, as a whole from start to finish (whether one believes in general or particualar redemption), then such a move better accomodates verse 9, IMHO.

Sorry GP; I did get theological. But I didn't see any way around it. I suspect the whole matter turns upon verse 9 and how "salvation" is defined theologically with respect to time, distinguishing the human from the divine perspective....



[I fixed a tag--GP]

[GrayPilgrim]

Per--

It is okay to get into theological takes and ideas, I just want to make sure that we stay on subject of dealing with the text. Part of that will invariably lead to theological concepts, but I want to avoid theological discussions of OSAS or the like.

GP

[smilax]

Jaltus, what did you say to Solly's structural outline? In any case, let's try another approach.

Hebrews vi, 1-3: "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit."

Repentance from dead works: this is the foundation on which "the doctrine of Christ" stands.

Faith toward God: the means of salvation since the beginning, as shown from Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham...

Baptisms: this word baptismos (rather than the Christian baptisma) refers to ritual purity in the Mosaic law. The other uses are found in Mark vii, 4, 8, and Hebrews ix, 10, in each case appearing to refer to purification by actual water.

Hebrews ix, 8-10: "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; for it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

Laying on of hands: as described in Leviticus iv, 15: "And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD." This, of course, foreshadowed Christ, who bore our sins on Himself.

Resurrection of the dead: seen by Abraham, (Hebrews xi, 19,) in Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, and even in Job xix, 25-27. The Pharisees had this one down, which was the source of their dispute with the Sadducees in the first place.

Eternal judgment: typologically seen in verses like II Kings xxii, 17, Isaiah xxxiv, 10, and lxvi, 24.

Contextually, this appears to be speaking about those who rely on the law for merit-based salvation, which would fit the context of Hebrews as describing the law as merely a shadow of the better things to come.

In light of this, Hebrews vi, 4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened [by the law,] and have tasted of the heavenly gift [of God's word,] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost [who moved Moses to write,] and have tasted the good word of God [in the old testament,] and the powers of the world to come [in the promises of the law,] if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance [after they have repented from dead works;] seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh [by repeating the sacrifices in contrast to Christ the high priest whose single sacrifice ended them all,] and put him to an open shame, [and will likewise be denied by God.]"

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines parapipto as follows:

1) to fall beside a person or thing
2) to slip aside
a) to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander
b) to error
c) to fall away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah

Contextually, to deviate from the course the law points to (namely Christ) and to continue to rely on oneself for salvation is what this falling away seems to indicate.

[GrayPilgrim]

Where can one find Solly's structural outline? Solly would you mind putting it here and explaining your take on it?

[Dark Knight]

Jaltus,

You are obviously a man of great insight in the things of God!

God will indeed send those to hell who fall away; And until they get there, I will execute justice on this planet!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[smilax]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Where can one find Solly's structural outline? Solly would you mind putting it here and explaining your take on it?Found it... Stolen from the distant past of another forum:
Originally posted by Solly
Remember what this thread was about?

A few thoughts for Gavin.

5.12-14 Better things expected
6.1-3 Let us go on, God permitting
6.4-8 Let us be careful.
6.9-12 Let us go on, God remembering
6.13-20 There is a better expectation.

My take on all this is that Hebrews is obviously known as the epistle of warning, and seeks the right balance in our Christian life based on God's work and promises, and the avoidance either of antinomian complacancy and sloth, or a fearful drawing back under pressure.

The writer harks back to Israel's history, in a similar way to Paul in 1 Cor 10 for instance. The way is before us, let us have confidence in God and his provisions for us.

The writer castigates the readers for their sluggishness in 5.12-14; they are not growing, not feeding on the word and becoming teachers of it. This is a bad state to be in, for whatever reason they have got there. He urges them to move on, and points to God as the one who will lead them, in 6.1-3. Then he warns them. I am with Schreiner in "Race" that to ask whether this is primarily referring to loss of salvation, and who the people written to are, is to miss the point; it seems to me that the writer is positing the fact of falling away in the context of the aforementioned Israel's history. He quite distinctly does not say "For if you should fall away." He seems to be making a general point, and hoping they will get it, because their sluggishness is a serious cause for concern with him, and he wants them to recognise the fact. In 6.9-12 he shows that he does not think it of them, because they have brought forth fruit as evidence of the being God's people, and that God is watching over them to keep them, and this should be a spur to diligence, not sluggishness. He points them to a better hope in 6.13-20, one that is outside of themselves, lest they faint in the way, the LJC in heaven and God's promises - the foundation of our salvation is sure and certain, and in heaven; there is no need to lose heart, and get sluggish, or presumptuous; there is every reason to press on, Php 1.12,13. The important point being, that though we seek to lay hold on the anchor, and maintain our hold, it is his hold on us that keeps us.

As one wrote, which I found in looking into this, "The antidote to spiritual apathy and apostasy is the renewal of hope". That is what the Hebrews needed - that connection again - and what the writer provides, not a doctrine of apostasy.

We have had this argument elsewhere: the preservation of the saints should not lead to antinomianism or presumption, because, as Schreiner points out, and Arminian reiterated, quoting McKnight, there is a future aspect to our salvation as well as the present aspet, and the past aspect (and I concede that Calvinists have too often dwelt on the past aspect to the exclusion of the other two in seeking to formulate the doctrine). Here the past is the promise of God and the work of Christ, the future is our entering into the blessing of the promised land. The present is our pilgrimage here and now, opposing sin, seeking love and righteousness. The moment one says, Soul, thou hast much goods [grace] laid up for many years, that moment he is in trouble.

Anyway, you might not like this, but I'm preaching it this Lord's Day.Comments:
It's funny how those chiastic structures suddenly appear, and then it all makes sense. Let Arminian and Jerry argue about greek tenses as much as they like, for me the idea of the writer drawing on Israel's recorded history as his background seems to make more sense, esp as the readers were probably converted Jews. I do not think he was making a case for apostasy as such, but just drawing on the warnings of such events as the spies, which they would certainly know. In the face of persecution, etc, let them not draw back, but go on, God willing. I find it significant that he does not say "If you should fall away."

I see 6.1-3 as a combination of what they already knew as Jews, and how it had been revised for them as Christians, but very much the ABC of their faith, from which they should have moved on; eating strong meat, they would be fit enough to overcome the obstacles before them - of persecution by the Gentile community, and the rejecting Jewish community.Solly, hope you don't mind that I posted those.

[Jaltus]

I will not have time for this thread until Wednessday or Thursday at the earliest.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I would be very interested to see this thread continue beyond the preliminaries. Though I'm not really looking for a polemical exchange, I'd love to hear everyone's take on the matter as I think it could become productive. Anybody have any further thoughts or comments?

[Jaltus]

Yeah, I'll be back to this when I finish my paper.

[smilax]

Oh, Jaltus, you tease. And here I was, thinking that you had actually formulated a monstrously brilliant reply.

[Jaltus]

Per,

The problem with your take, that salvation is not mentioned until 6:9, misses the context of the passage. salvation is in fact mentioned in 5:9, which is the precursor to the text in question!


Hebrews 5:8-14
8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered
9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.
12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Please note that each of these verse is clearly related, and that 6 is tied to this section by "therefore" (OUN). 6 is logically connected to salvation. Just because the word does not appear does not mean the concept is not present. The word for salvation only occurs (I believe) 8 times in Hebrews AT ALL, but most would argue that this is exactly what much of the book is about.

In terms of vantage point, I tend to agree with you. I think from a human standpoint we can lose salvation, from a divine one we cannot.

Smilax,

With respect to Solly's argument, he is making a few errors.

First, BAPTISMOS does not refer to just ceremonial washings, as Paul makes clear in Col 2:2. That is just a lexical fallacy.

Second, his concept of laying on of hands completely misses the NT usage of the phrase, which is much more diverse than he allows for (such as healing, praying, commissioning, etc).

Third, your argument for the meaning of PARAPIPTW is faulty, as definition 6 would fit. Also, you neglect what is specifically mention that they are falling away from and what the consequences are of the falling away.

The problem with the chiasm that Solly draws is that he lumps 4-6 with 7-8, but there is a break between 6 and 7! That means Solly's structure does not work (especially since it is based on the notion that this cannot be falling away, and it also neglects the connection between 5:11 and 12).

Of course, the response to this is to put 7-8 parallel to 4-5, with 6 as the swing verse, but then you have to make more decisions about what 6 means in light of the rest.

In what way, then, can they not return?

[smilax]

Jaltus:
In terms of vantage point, I tend to agree with you. I think from a human standpoint we can lose salvation, from a divine one we cannot.Cool.
First, BAPTISMOS does not refer to just ceremonial washings, as Paul makes clear in Col 2:2. That is just a lexical fallacy.That's mine, not his. And am I missing something? I don't see "baptismos" in Colossians ii, 2. As stated, it only shows up in Mark vii, 4, 8, and Hebrews ix, 10, and those are all ceremonial.
Second, his concept of laying on of hands completely misses the NT usage of the phrase, which is much more diverse than he allows for (such as healing, praying, commissioning, etc).Mine again... I concede it is possible for it to refer to those, but when surrounded by those other things, it seems highly doubtful.
Third, your argument for the meaning of PARAPIPTW is faulty, as definition 6 would fit. Also, you neglect what is specifically mention that they are falling away from and what the consequences are of the falling away.Definition six? "Would fit" does not mean "best fit." It does not say what it is that they fall away from, which is why deviation makes more sense. The consequence of falling away, of course, is the impossibility "to renew them again unto repentance." So in any case, these people will not be saved. No problem here.
The problem with the chiasm that Solly draws is that he lumps 4-6 with 7-8, but there is a break between 6 and 7! That means Solly's structure does not work (especially since it is based on the notion that this cannot be falling away, and it also neglects the connection between 5:11 and 12).

Of course, the response to this is to put 7-8 parallel to 4-5, with 6 as the swing verse, but then you have to make more decisions about what 6 means in light of the rest.Let me just throw this out and see what you think? Asterisks denote my additions.

* 5.6-11 Melchy and the fulfillment in Christ
5.12-14 Better things expected
6.1-3 Let us go on, God permitting
6.4-6 Let us be careful
* 6.7-8 Why we must be careful
6.9-12 Let us go on, God remembering
* 6.13-15 There is a better expectation
* 6.16-20 Melchy and the promise in Christ

I don't see any reason to make verse six the fulcrum, but even if it is, I don't see how it affects anything.
In what way, then, can they not return?If we're using the deviation definition, "return" would simply mean staying on the right path to salvation. Unless you can show that verses one through three most definitely do not refer to the law, then what reason is there to suppose these people are saved to begin with? Context takes priority over diction.

[Jaltus]

Misprint, try Col. 2:12.

11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

As for the chaistic structure, if there is not a fulcrum in the middle, it means that the outside is what is important. However, 6:1-8 ARE swing verses (which can be told structurally from the Greek), so if the chiasm does not have a center in 6, then it is an illegitimate chiasm or else not important (or possibly not there).

[smilax]

Jaltus:
Misprint, try Col. 2:12.Baptisma...
As for the chaistic structure, if there is not a fulcrum in the middle, it means that the outside is what is important. However, 6:1-8 ARE swing verses (which can be told structurally from the Greek), so if the chiasm does not have a center in 6, then it is an illegitimate chiasm or else not important (or possibly not there).Good point.

* 5.6-11 Melchy and the fulfillment in Christ
5.12-14 Better things expected
6.1-3 Let us go on, God permitting
6.4-5 Let us be careful
** 6.6 Consequences of falling away
* 6.7-8 Why we must be careful
6.9-12 Let us go on, God remembering
* 6.13-15 There is a better expectation
* 6.16-20 Melchy and the promise in Christ

Can you give me listing of where parapipto is used in the Septuagint?

[Jaltus]

No, Col 2:12 is BAPTISMW, the dative masculine.

There is a text critical problem here, with some manuscripts having BAPTISMATI, but the evidence is strongly against it. NA 27 does not even make it questionable.

It is not even questionable enough to show up in Metzger's commentary on the text.

[Jaltus]

Oh, PARAPIPTW does not occur in the LXX.

[smilax]

Jaltus:
No, Col 2:12 is BAPTISMW, the dative masculine.

There is a text critical problem here, with some manuscripts having BAPTISMATI, but the evidence is strongly against it. NA 27 does not even make it questionable.Hmm... Care to summarize the textual data?
Oh, PARAPIPTW does not occur in the LXX.Yuck. How are we supposed to know its meaning, then?

[Jaltus]

In favor of BAPTISMATI:

Aleph uncorrected, A, C, D second corrector, Psi, 33, MT, Tertullian

In favor of BAPTISMW:

P 46, Aleph second corrector, B, D uncorrected, F, G, 075, 0278, 6, 365, 1739, 1881, various others, and some Latin

In other words, the Western favors the first, as does the Majority Text, but there are strong representations of every texttype in the second. P 46 is a major witness, as is B. The second is also a little earlier than the first, but not by enough to matter. Finally, it is unlikely that a scribe would change the first to the second, but likely that he would change the second to the first. Thus, the second is more likely to be original.

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus:
Oh, PARAPIPTW does not occur in the LXX.

Wrong Answer! (Woohoo mark this down as a day when I get to correct Jaltus on something Greek!!!! :) I'll show you to cross swords with GP and BibleWorks! :yipee:


Est. 6:10
Wis. 6:9; 12:2
Ezek. 14:13; 15:8; 18:24; 20:27; 22:4;

[Jaltus]

Mine doesn't show that.

I wonder how I searched incorrectly?

[Jaltus]

Ah, alternate aorist form! Gah!

[GrayPilgrim]

Use BGM not BGT when you're looking up a root, indiscrimainate of how it is usefd and then narrow it down if you are looking for a particular Grammatical Construction.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I just had the pure joy of typing a reply to Jaltus which utterly disappeared when I tied to post it!

Think I'll try again tomorrow. Jaltus, if you're out there, thanks for your remarks; I'll re-type something later....
:argh: :angel: :hrm: :bawl: :yipee:
(a succession of incongruous emotions)

[GrayPilgrim]

I had that happen to me yesterday! I posted even saw it was there, came back and it along with a few of my previous posts were missing!

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

GP,
I feel your pain! Perhaps not pain, but something akin to it. Anyway, thanks for the sympathy. :cheers:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Jaltus,
Unbelievably, while I sat typing for an hour with my Novum Testamentum Graece and Lenski's Hebrews open before me, trying yet again to reply to you, my computer crashed, scattering all my fine efforts into the void! I exclaimed, "Oh No," and my wife stirred gently in her sleep, giving me a compassionate look before she lapsed back into her contented repose. Normally, I'm a man of my word when I say I'll reply, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not running aground of some metaphysical barrier....

:hrm:

[Jaltus]

Write it in word and save it as you go.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Jaltus:
Per,

The problem with your take, that salvation is not mentioned until 6:9, misses the context of the passage. salvation is in fact mentioned in 5:9, which is the precursor to the text in question!

Jaltus,
Here is the short version, because I fear deletion again(!).

Contextually, I see 5:9-10 as part of the general Christological discussion, which also of course deals with soteriology, as you say. But 5:11-5:14 suggests a slight shift towards a pastoral address---a bit of a parenthetical, really. The end of chapter 5 is a rebuke, leading into chapter 6, verses 1-8, which comprise a pastoral warning. 6:9-12 concludes the pastoral digression with hopefulness that the readers will not fall prey to apostacy. Verse 9 posits the antithesis between salvation and apostacy I spoke of earlier. And the rest of chapter 6 resumes the Christological discussion proper, with Melchizedek & c.

So, neither the mention of "salvation" in 5:9 nor your exegetical points concerning context definitively negates my point of view. As I see it, 6:9 remains at a sufficient degree of contextual remove from the verses you cited to bear the stress of my interpretation. However, this is not to say that my opinions are thereby established....




In terms of vantage point, I tend to agree with you. I think from a human standpoint we can lose salvation, from a divine one we cannot.

Again, the short version: Your formulation here perhaps indicates a logical contradiction in that it seems to assert that salvation (taken as an objectified "thing") can both be lost and impossible to lose, depending upon the vantage point. As I see it, it would be better to define "salvation" theologically, from God's perspective, and to refer to apostacy as something distinct from salvation. Apostacy could perhaps be viewed as something like "incomplete salvation," but an incomplete salvation isn't really worthy of the name; such a formulation pays undue homage to the human perspective at the expense of the divine. Such a formulation breeds confusion, IMHO.

(I can hardly believe that I was able to type the above unscathed....):yipee:

[Rdr. Arsenios]

This is my first post, and I have discovered to my dismay that I am apparently incapable of spelling my own name in the header, javascript:smilie(':o') shocked and it is not editable, although the password is... grrr... There are three 'L's in my last name, two on the end... Shoot me if I wake up javascript:smilie(':bonk:') bonk

Anyhows... I have not seen anyone quoting the early Church on this thread, hence the following: [Chrysostom is from some 1500 years ago, so holds excellent promise of being up to date! His commentary is written in the koine Greek of the Bible...]

Jaltus writes:

"Therefore, Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that salvation can be lost. However, if it is lost, it can never be regained."

Heb. 6:
4] For it is impossible for those who have been enlightened once for all, and who tasted of the gift, the heavenly one, and became partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5] and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6] and who fell away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify anew to themselves the Son of God and make a public example of Him.

Chrysostom comments:
4 "He said 'impossible' [adunaton]...He said not, 'It is not fitting,' or, 'It is not expedient,' or, 'It is not lawful,' but 'impossible,' so as to cast them into despair, if ye have once been altogether enlightened.
5 Then he adds, 'If ye have tasted of the heavenly gift,' that is to say, forgiveness. 'And if ye became partakers of the Holy
Spirit, and tasted the good word of God.' Here he is speaking of the teaching, 'And the powers of the age to come.' What powers is he speaking of? Either the working of miracles, or 'the earnest of the Spirit [cf. 2Cor.1:22]."
"And what are 'the powers of the age to come' [dunameis mellontos aiwnos]? Life eternal, angelic conduct of life. Of these we have already received the earnest by means of the faith from the Spirit."
6 "What then, is repentance excluded? May it not be! But the renewing again by laver... 'To renew' [anakainizein], that is, to be made new, for to make men new is of the laver only....But it is the *work* of repentance when those who have been made new, have afterwards become old through sins, to set them free from this old age, and to produce them afresh. To bring them to that former splendor however, is not possible; for there the whole was grace."
But what is 'crucifying anew' [anastaurountas]? It is crucifying over again. For as Christ died on the cross, so do we in the Baptism, not the flesh, but we to sin. On account of our baptism the old man was buried, and the new man arose, made conformable to the likeness of His death. If therefore it is necessary to be baptized [again], it is necessary that He should die again. For Baptism is nothing else than the putting to death of the baptized, and his rising again."

Hope I got those faces right...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear George:

Welcome to TWeb!! I will edit your registered name and add the second "L" on the end of your name for you. Do not hesitate to ask if there is anything else I can do for you.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Dee Dee writes:

>Welcome to TWeb!!

Thank-you

>I will edit your registered name and add the second "L" on the end of your name for you.

A great kindness, thank-you - Although the humiliation and shame of my senior moment of miscreance in its omission is not without value...

>Do not hesitate to ask if there is anything else I can do for you.

Thanks again, and for your warm welcome...

__________________
>Dee Dee, Ms Warren if you're nasty....

MADAME!!!

[+8-)>>>

[Act9_12Out]

Just thought I might add another unmentioned point...

I am surprised Jaltus hasn't picked up on this before...
The New King James Version

Hebrews 6
6:4
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
6:5
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,Now, the above in bold are aorist participles. The "parapipto" is also an aorist participle in verse 6.

6:6
having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. These people "were enlightened, have tasted, have become partakers and have tasted." Again, all aorist participles. The time in aorist participles indicates completed action before the main verb. These are all completed actions. Verse 6 also contains an aorist participle. "Having fallen away..." If they had been enlightened, had tasted, had become partakers, have tasted and have fallen away, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance..."

I know this is by no means comprehensive. I am at work and am unable to access any study materials to elaborate further. Maybe Jaltus could elaborate a bit more where the aorist participle is concerned?

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Just thought I might add another unmentioned point...

>I am surprised Jaltus hasn't picked up on this before...
quote:The New King James Version<

Hebrews 6
6:4
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
6:5
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,Now, the above in bold are aorist participles. The "parapipto" is also an aorist participle in verse 6.
quote:
6:6
having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

>These people "were enlightened, have tasted, have become partakers and have tasted." Again, all aorist participles. The time in aorist participles indicates completed action before the main verb. These are all completed actions. Verse 6 also contains an aorist participle. "Having fallen away..." If they had been enlightened, had tasted, had become partakers, have tasted and have fallen away, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance..."<

Well, he is clearly describing the case where the 'saved' have 'unsaved' themselves through "having fallen away"... And indeed the main verb at the beginning is an implied present tense 'estin', "it is", which is confirmed by the present tense infinitive of 4:6, anakainizein [to be renewing]...

But clearly he is not saying they are beyond hope - He is just saying that once started [by the enlightenment of baptism, etc], and having stumbled [by whatever miscreances], they are not to start over again with a new baptism [recrucifying Christ unto themselves], yet they must bear fruit, or be pruned away to be burned...

Yet he has great hope of a far better outcome for the fallen away hearers of this epistle... [4:9]

geo

[Chappie]

01-27-2003 @ 11:54 PM
Jaltus:
Therefore, Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that salvation can be lost. However, if it is lost, it can never be regained.

I am sure you are saying to yourself (or your computer, if you talk to yours like I do mine) that this is a hard teaching. But look at how this section is introduced:
Hebrews 5:13ff.

[/b]

What is this sin/sins that can be committed that can result in loss of salvation for which there is no forgiveness.

What purpose does the indwelling HolySpirit play in the life of one that is in the process of losing their salvation...

Ephesians 4:30
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

What does this passage mean???

[Chappie]

02-17-2003 @ 05:30 PM
George Blaisdell:

Just thought I might add another unmentioned point...

&gt;I am surprised Jaltus hasn't picked up on this before...
quote:The New King James Version&lt;

Hebrews 6
6:4
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
6:5
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,Now, the above in bold are aorist participles. The &quot;parapipto&quot; is also an aorist participle in verse 6.
quote:
6:6
having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

What version of the bible are you using? I ask because I use the KJV mostly, and it says, "Heb 6:6
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

There is quite difference between what can be concluded betwee the two.

If they shall fall away establishes a hypothetical situation that the folowing scriptures render impossible, because to renew them would require Christ to be recrucified. Bind that together with the evidence and nature of the unprdonable sin, and that there is only one unprdonable sin, atleast to my understanding. All other sin's are forgivable if confessed and repented of....


Well, he is clearly describing the case where the 'saved' have 'unsaved' themselves through &quot;having fallen away&quot;... And indeed the main verb at the beginning is an implied present tense 'estin', &quot;it is&quot;, which is confirmed by the present tense infinitive of 4:6, anakainizein [to be renewing]...

How does one that did not save themselves in the first place, unsave themselves????



But clearly he is not saying they are beyond hope - He is just saying that once started [by the enlightenment of baptism, etc], and having stumbled [by whatever miscreances], they are not to start over again with a new baptism [recrucifying Christ unto themselves], yet they must bear fruit, or be pruned away to be burned...

So they in effect never lost their salvation....

[Jaltus]

The "if" is not in the Greek, it was added by translators.

It is not a hypothetical situation, but a real possibility. A hypothetical situation would be in a conditional sentence in the Greek, but it is not a conditional sentence.

[GrayPilgrim]

Chappie,

George translates from the Greek or uses the Thirm Millenium, if I recall from another thread.

Jaltus, could you explain the different classes of conditional sentances for those who don't have Greek?

[Jaltus]

LOL, you both missed the fact that it says NEW KING JAMES VERSION right in the header of the quote.

I'll explain conditionals Thursday or Friday.

[Chappie]

Ephesians 4:30
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

What does this passage mean???

[Jaltus]

Um, it means to try not to sin against the Spirit, since He is in us until the eschaton.

However, it does not mean that salvation cannot be lost.

It is like saying, see ya next Tuesday. It does not mean you cannot be killed between now and then (ok, not the best analogy, but hopefully you get the point).

Besides, this thread is not to argue OSAS, it is to argue about Hebrews 6 specifically.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

[QUOTE]02-25-2003 @ 05:55 PM
Chappie:


> I ask because I use the KJV mostly, and it says, &quot;Heb 6:6
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Let's look at the Greek: [hyper literal] [brackets are implicit words not actually spelled out in the Greek]

Adunaton gar tous apax fwtisqentas, geusamenous te ths dwreas ths epouraniou kai metocous genhqentas pneumatos agiou

For [it is] impossible [that] those once enlightened, having tasted especially of the gift of the heavenly and partakers having been birthed of the Holy Spirit

kai kalon geusamenous qeou rhma dunameis te mellontos aiwnos,

and good having tasted, God's word [and] especially powers of the coming age

kai parapesontas, palin anakainizein eis metanoian, anastaurountas eautois ton uion tou qeou kai paradeigmatizontas.

and having fallen away, again to be renewing unto repentance, recrucifying to themselves the Son of God and disgracing [Him].

> There is quite difference between what can be concluded betwee the two.

> If they shall fall away establishes a hypothetical situation that the folowing scriptures render impossible, because to renew them would require Christ to be recrucified. Bind that together with the evidence and nature of the unprdonable sin, and that there is only one unprdonable sin, atleast to my understanding. All other sin's are forgivable if confessed and repented of....


The IF of the KJV, while not in the Greek, is exegetically permissible, if not translationally, in that it can mean "when..." For it is not speaking here of remote possibility, but of actual and regular occurrence. You see, this is a pastoral letter, addressing in this part an actual pastoral problem, and that problem is what to do when believers fall away. Should they be re-baptized? It was such a pervasive problem, and so hotly at issue, that it was included in the Nicene Creed, where we confess "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin." And Paul's answer to the Hebrews is NO. They are not to be rebaptized unto repentance., but instead are instructed in 6:1 to instead "upon perfection be carried" - Which means to acknowledge one's shortcomings [the need for milk] and to keep on going foreward toward the goal, which is becoming perfected in one's soul in Christ, for those who do not, who do not bear fruit, will be pruned away and burned [6:8]

> How does one that did not save themselves in the first place, unsave themselves????

They fall away by returning to sins, by failing to obey Christ, by not doing their labors as disciples - Prayer, fasting... By back sliding and failing to keep to Christ, but find themselves instead with Peter, warming their hands at the fires of their enemies, the demons...

> So they in effect never lost their salvation....

Well, when a Christian in the early Church fell away in sins, neglecting prayers, over-eating, ignoring vigils, falling into the lusts of the flesh, becoming hateful and judgemental of his brother, turning away from longsuffering - When these things occur in a Christian's life, they fall away, and like Peter lose what they had gained. This is why we are enjoined to become perfect, as even your Father in heaven is perfect, for the commission of a sin is deadly to one's salvation, and when one falls away, what is that one to do? Are they to re-baptize? Paul says no. That this would re-crucify Christ unto themselves who do so...

It is not saying that they cannot repent, but that they are not to re-baptize... This is the meaning of renewing unto repentance [anakainizein eis metanoian], as the next word, [recrucifying] confirms. They must move foreward and bear fruit, or end up being burned.

geo

[Chappie]

02-26-2003 @ 02:47 AM
Jaltus:

Um, it means to try not to sin against the Spirit, since He is in us until the eschaton.

However, it does not mean that salvation cannot be lost.

It is like saying, see ya next Tuesday. It does not mean you cannot be killed between now and then (ok, not the best analogy, but hopefully you get the point).

Besides, this thread is not to argue OSAS, it is to argue about Hebrews 6 specifically.

Did not realize that I had changed the topic, thought that i was in Hebrews.

My apologies. guess i'll just keep quite untill i figure out how things work here...

May God bless..

[GrayPilgrim]

Chappie,

As the thread originator I will give you the lee way to continue because I thought your point was to bring in co-textual argumetns on the text in question.

Gp

[Jaltus]

Ah, my bad, disregard me.

[Blake Reas]

Hey guys! I found this article it is like 33 pages long on this passage http://www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_1/HEB6.PDF I am not sure of how good it is but I figured I would post it here for you guys. This is a section of passage that has always intrigued me!

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake