Hebrews 6:4-6

[rhutchin]

I am going to re-post something I posted a few years ago:

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a passage which often brings more questions than answers. The big question to be explored in this paper is whether or not the people described are saved. Once this is answered, then further issues can be explored, namely what kind of salvation it is and what does this falling away entail, though that goes beyond the bounds of this study.

[greek]adunaton gar[/greek] -> This relates to the previous discussion, namely that this is in the context of moving on into maturity. This impossibility actually relates to the end of the English sentence, but is fronted here for stress since it is the main idea. A form of [greek]eimi[/greek], should be understood.

[greek]touV apac fwtisqentaV[/greek] -> This is the beginning of a string of participles describing those who fall away. Note it is an aorist passive, indicating a perfective event done to them rather than by them. This is not something the people described actively did. Also one should note the parallel usage of this root in 10:32, also dealing with salvation (though that too is disputed).

[greek]geusamenouV te thn dwrean thn epouraniou[/greek] -> This is another aorist participle, this time middle since it is a deponent verb, dealing with what they tasted or experienced (L-N offers both as glosses). Also, one should note that Jesus "tastes death" (same Greek word) in Hebrews 2:9, and I doubt anyone would want to argue that this means He only slightly sampled death but did not really die. The heavenly gift can be seen as a number of different things, but the sacramental understanding is the least supportable and also quite anachronistic. I would argue that this refers to the temporal side of salvation (as opposed to the eternal side, which is the finalization at the judgment).

[greek]kai metocouV genhqentaV pneumatoV agiou[/greek] -> This is an aorist passive participle, thus showing the outside agency of this action, that they are made to be partakers, rather than making the move themselves. The parallel construction to this verse is in 3:14, where the readers are said to be partakers of Christ, something which points to salvation. Therefore, without making too much separation between the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit, these phrases should be treated synonymously.

[greek]kai kalon geusamenouV qeou rema[/greek] -> This is another occurrence of the aorist middle participle, just as earlier, dealing with tasting or experiencing. This time the quality of God’s word is what is being tasted, and it is to be evaluated as good. This would seem to point toward salvation, but this phrase is by no means determinative.

[greek]dunameiV te mellontoV aiwnoV[/greek] -> This is built off of the preceding participle, so the power of the coming age is also being tasted. Here I would point toward an eschatological hope being felt now, looking at the inauguration of the kingdom of God already being experienced by believers.

[greek]kai parapesontaV[/greek] -> This is the point of the entire argument, namely that these people fall away. There is no hint of conditionality (lacking any sort of semantic qualifier), yet it is implicit all the same. The falling away is not a sure thing, it is just a possible thing (this will be dealt with more below).

[greek]palin anakainizein eiV metanoian[/greek] -> The present active infinitive is building off of the assumed form of [greek]eimi[/greek], which is left out of the beginning of this section. It is completing the sense of what is impossible, namely that if one of those described above falls away, then they cannot regain salvation for they cannot repent again.

[greek]anastaurountaV eautouV ton uion tou qeou[/greek] -> The pronoun clearly carries the idea of advantage here, such that those people would be crucifying for themselves the Son of God again. This is something which is not possible, since the author indicates that only one sacrifice is needed, and therefore only one is provided. This clinches the argument about salvation, for Jesus was crucified with the intent to save, and claiming the cross is claiming salvation.

[greek]kai paradeigmatizontaV[/greek] -> This present active participle is directly connected to the concept of Jesus’ crucifixion. It is intentionally dealing with His humiliation during His time of suffering, and the author is saying that He cannot be held up once more to that humiliation since He is now exalted (see especially 1:1-14).

The argument of the passage is then dealing with those who were temporally saved. Based on the assumption that those people have fallen away from Christ, whatever that entails, they are unable to come back for Christ can only be crucified once and the sacrifice cannot be redone. His suffering should not be held in contempt. Thus, if one holds to the concept of salvation being able to be lost, then one must hold to it not being able to be regained. If one holds to salvation not being able to be lost, a difficult conclusion to come to based on this passage without context, then the argument can be seen as a warning to conform to God’s image. In order to fully understand this specific passage, a deeper study of salvation in this epistle would need to be made. I conclude from this that salvation can be lost and, once lost, never regained.

The problem I often have with the Calvinist take on this passage is how quick they are to dismiss this entire section as referring to those who are not really saved. The problem with it, other than the parallels within the book I have clearly shown above, is that the author of the book of Hebrews often places himself among the company of the people he is describing. This is not for rhetorical affect, for he does it throughout the entire book, even at places where it could have no rhetorical affect.

Given that, and also all of the warnings throughout the entire book, it is very difficult from this passage for a Calvinist to be able to talk of OSAS as a truly sound doctrine. In fact, unless one wiggles their way through the numerous parallels I have shown from within the book of Hebrews, there simple is no way to hold to a Calvinistic reading of this text that I know of (with one possible exception).

I think Jaltus does an excellent analysis of the Greek (I assume that he is correct since I have not looked everything up which is a difficult task for someone who does not know Greek and must rely on reference books but I like what he has done).

We can admit the truth of Paul's statement. If a person were to experience the things identified and then reject Christ, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance.

We might look at this as a hypothetical. Paul does not mean to say that this could happen, but if, hypothetically, it could happen, then the result would be as he writes.

Some people allege that the language used by Paul is not as strong as he uses elsewhere to describe salvation (I think Wayne Gruden makes this argument). I think the argument here is that a person can attend a church where the gospel is preached and be said to have been enlightened, of having tasted, and has having become partakers of the Holy Spirit, etc. as a consequence of hearing the gospel preached. It does not mean that the person is saved.

There is a strong logic to the gospel message -- People understand that they have done evil things and understand the need to rectify the situation. People may "come to Christ" as a conseqeunce of logical human reasoning and for very selfish purposes that have nothing to do with the gospel. The offer of forgiveness for sin is a very powerful inducement to "accept Christ" when all a person wants is to be relieved of the burden of their sin. They want to escape their sin (maybe even hell), but don't necessarily want to go to heaven.

Calvin, says that Paul here warns the person (as earlier when he tells people to work out their salvation with fear and trembling). Here he warns against a human response to the gospel (being a seed sown among thorns or in soil that is not deep).

There is also the illustration that follows of the earth. The earth (here perhaps an illustration of people) is watered (by the gospel) and both good herbs and thorns result. Much effort in the gospels seesm directed to distinguishing those who are saved from those who are not when they appear indistiguishable. This illustration would serve to emphasize Paul's telling people to test themselves to see that they are truly saved and will not fall away.

What do others take away from this passage?

[Ormly]

I think Jaltus does an excellent analysis of the Greek (I assume that he is correct since I have not looked everything up which is a difficult task for someone who does not know Greek and must rely on reference books but I like what he has done).

We can admit the truth of Paul's statement. If a person were to experience the things identified and then reject Christ, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance.

We might look at this as a hypothetical. Paul does not mean to say that this could happen, but if, hypothetically, it could happen, then the result would be as he writes.

Some people allege that the language used by Paul is not as strong as he uses elsewhere to describe salvation (I think Wayne Gruden makes this argument). I think the argument here is that a person can attend a church where the gospel is preached and be said to have been enlightened, of having tasted, and has having become partakers of the Holy Spirit, etc. as a consequence of hearing the gospel preached. It does not mean that the person is saved.

There is a strong logic to the gospel message -- People understand that they have done evil things and understand the need to rectify the situation. People may "come to Christ" as a conseqeunce of logical human reasoning and for very selfish purposes that have nothing to do with the gospel. The offer of forgiveness for sin is a very powerful inducement to "accept Christ" when all a person wants is to be relieved of the burden of their sin. They want to escape their sin (maybe even hell), but don't necessarily want to go to heaven.

Calvin, says that Paul here warns the person (as earlier when he tells people to work out their salvation with fear and trembling). Here he warns against a human response to the gospel (being a seed sown among thorns or in soil that is not deep).

There is also the illustration that follows of the earth. The earth (here perhaps an illustration of people) is watered (by the gospel) and both good herbs and thorns result. Much effort in the gospels seesm directed to distinguishing those who are saved from those who are not when they appear indistiguishable. This illustration would serve to emphasize Paul's telling people to test themselves to see that they are truly saved and will not fall away.

What do others take away from this passage?

Its not a hypothetical. Thats just for starters.

[Nang]

I think Jaltus does an excellent analysis of the Greek (I assume that he is correct since I have not looked everything up which is a difficult task for someone who does not know Greek and must rely on reference books but I like what he has done).

One correction to Jaltus' contribution . . .Calvinists do not hold to OSAS. That is an Arminian doctrine.

Calvinists believe that a regenerated soul is permanently justified and sanctified and indwelt with the Holy Spirit of Christ. This Holy Spirit acts as the "earnest" or "guarantee" of salvation. Because of His presence, the Christian will surely, without fail, inherit everlasting life. This is the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints," which entails a faithful walk, active obedience, and evidencing of good works. (Contrasted to OSAS, which is the belief once one "accepts Christ", but one later falls into practice of sin, it does not matter . . .they will see heaven no matter how bad their conduct. Which of course, is blasphemy.)

The doctrine "Perseverance of the Saints" is primarily founded on two promises of Jesus Christ. First, He told His disciples, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:20 because it is the will of the Father "that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." John 6:39

So, if a soul has been resurrected to new spiritual life to abide in Christ, and Christ in him via His Holy Spirit, the soul can be assured the Holy Spirit will never depart from his being. He will stay with that Christian to the end of his life and will raise that Christian to the heavenlies upon physical death. That is the promise of the Truine God, and to say that a born again Christian can lose their salvation, is to call God a liar.

We can admit the truth of Paul's statement. If a person were to experience the things identified and then reject Christ, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance.

There is always possibility that God can intervene and truly save a person who has fallen away from the church. The statement "it would be impossible to renew them to repentance," applies if and when that fallen person started his religious experience by exercise of his will. If that person willfully chose Christ, then later willfully rejected Christ, what is left for him to do? Can he willfully choose Christ crucified, again? Highly unlikely.

IMO, the reason there is difficulty grasping the Hebrews passages, is this teaching of a "free will, decisional" salvation. If a sinner imagines he obtains grace and salvation by his free will, there is nothing to preclude that same sinner from exercising his will again, and rejecting what he first believed. For all of his religion is based and dependent upon his choices and his decisions and his finite powers and abilities to keep himself in belief or not.

However, when one realizes that they have been saved by the sovereign choice of God, through His infinite power, according to His will and purposes, they have great assurance that their salvation will be forever. For the promise of God IS unto everlasting life.

We might look at this as a hypothetical. Paul does not mean to say that this could happen, but if, hypothetically, it could happen, then the result would be as he writes.

I do not believe this is a wise tack to take, for once you establish a hypothetical in one spot, it will lead to questioning the literal warnings and exhortations elsewhere, and pretty soon most of the Bible becomes a hypothetical, and the sound gospel message is lost.

The author of Hebrews really was giving literal warning here, about persons who congregate with believers for a time, but who fall out of fellowship and back into old, unrepentant habits and practices. There is no other answer for this, but to admit the Holy Spirit never anointed and indwelt that person. He was never there, even though the person faked the lifestyle of those genuine Christians who surrounded him.

Some people allege that the language used by Paul is not as strong as he uses elsewhere to describe salvation (I think Wayne Gruden makes this argument). I think the argument here is that a person can attend a church where the gospel is preached and be said to have been enlightened, of having tasted, and has having become partakers of the Holy Spirit, etc. as a consequence of hearing the gospel preached. It does not mean that the person is saved.

Agreed.

There is a strong logic to the gospel message -- People understand that they have done evil things and understand the need to rectify the situation. People may "come to Christ" as a conseqeunce of logical human reasoning and for very selfish purposes that have nothing to do with the gospel. The offer of forgiveness for sin is a very powerful inducement to "accept Christ" when all a person wants is to be relieved of the burden of their sin. They want to escape their sin (maybe even hell), but don't necessarily want to go to heaven.

Yes, this is the danger of the "well-meant offer" of a universal atonement that is urged to be "accepted." The altar call is a very strong (and very wrong) psychological tool used to manipulate persons who are desirous to get relief from sin and guilt. This kind of sanctimonious ploy often results in a false gospel being preached, and a false gospel does not have the power to save. "No one can come to (Christ) unless the Father who sent (Christ) draws them." John 6:44 True conversion must be worked by the power of God, not by the tempting power of an altar call or a friendly group of people, ready to take any and all into worship, without any introspection of soul. These kind of churches are full of people who think they are saved, who might not be saved . . .and this is tragic! And because so many of these do end up falling away into sin, the congregations explains it as the problem of no-assurance of salvation; supposedly salvation can easily be lost. Or, the terrible doctrine is taught, that even though that soul falls away into his old sins, he at one point in time "accepted" the Lord, so it does not matter . . .once saved always saved.

Calvin, says that Paul here warns the person (as earlier when he tells people to work out their salvation with fear and trembling). Here he warns against a human response to the gospel (being a seed sown among thorns or in soil that is not deep).

Exactly.

There is also the illustration that follows of the earth. The earth (here perhaps an illustration of people) is watered (by the gospel) and both good herbs and thorns result. Much effort in the gospels seesm directed to distinguishing those who are saved from those who are not when they appear indistiguishable. This illustration would serve to emphasize Paul's telling people to test themselves to see that they are truly saved and will not fall away.

What do others take away from this passage?

I have posted on this subject several times, but I will repeat that I believe the warnings are to hypocrites within the churches, who deceive themselves and others, by counterfeiting a Christian lifestyle. They profess faith in Christ, but because they fail to bear the fruits of the Holy Spirit, their faith proves to be "dead."
(James 2:14-26) The Holy Spirit does not indwell these; so they are not genuine Christians:

". . Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Romans 8:9b

The Apostle John warned of the same problem within the churches:

"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things . . .Whoever has been born of God does not (practice) sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." I John 2:18-20, 3:9

"Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." II Cor. 1:21&22

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My hand." John 10:29

There should be no fear, because of these passages, that one born again by the Spirit of God, anointed with the Holy Spirit of Christ, and gifted with the faith and righteousness of Jesus, unto belief of the gospel and repentance from sin, can ever fall out of God's grace. Impossible.

Those who appear to fall from grace, were never saved to begin with.


Nang

[George Blaisdell]

I think Jaltus does an excellent analysis of the Greek (I assume that he is correct since I have not looked everything up which is a difficult task for someone who does not know Greek and must rely on reference books but I like what he has done).

You can assume a lot less, and very easily too, by going here:

http://www.studylight.org/isb/

Translations are a click away, and parsing, with explanations...

Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

The Church's understanding of this passage is that you cannot baptize someone twice, just because they have fallen away horribly... They can still repent and find salvation, with some fairly drastic correctives, but they cannot be RENEWED in repentance, which is the baptismal waters of renewal, et Regeneration... The "being born from above"... THAT is a one time event, and the Holy Spirit will remain in someone so baptized until his death...

And indeed it is possible for someone who has entered into eternal life to fall away, which is why Paul tells us that we must persevere to the end, for if we do not, we surely WILL fall away... And this is why ecclesial life is so important to the believer, because it supports and gives sustenance to that very perseverance...

Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

Calvinists do not hold to OSAS.

Nang, are you trying to make national news???

So, if a soul has been resurrected to new spiritual life to abide in Christ, and Christ in him via His Holy Spirit, the soul can be assured the Holy Spirit will never depart from his being. He will stay with that Christian to the end of his life and will raise that Christian to the heavenlies upon physical death. That is the promise of the Truine God, and to say that a born again Christian can lose their salvation, is to call God a liar.

So they are not always saved once they have been saved, it is just that they cannot lose the salvation they received when they were saved???

And it is the Armenians who think that once one is saved that they are always saved, just NOT that they cannot lose their salvation once they have it??

This is VERY confusing...

Arsenios

[Ormly]

Heb 6 is not about redemption, the simple plan of salvation but intimacy, union with the Trinity.

[Forrest]

I think Jaltus does an excellent analysis of the Greek (I assume that he is correct since I have not looked everything up which is a difficult task for someone who does not know Greek and must rely on reference books but I like what he has done).

We can admit the truth of Paul's statement. If a person were to experience the things identified and then reject Christ, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance.

We might look at this as a hypothetical. Paul does not mean to say that this could happen, but if, hypothetically, it could happen, then the result would be as he writes.

Some people allege that the language used by Paul is not as strong as he uses elsewhere to describe salvation (I think Wayne Gruden makes this argument). I think the argument here is that a person can attend a church where the gospel is preached and be said to have been enlightened, of having tasted, and has having become partakers of the Holy Spirit, etc. as a consequence of hearing the gospel preached. It does not mean that the person is saved.

There is a strong logic to the gospel message -- People understand that they have done evil things and understand the need to rectify the situation. People may "come to Christ" as a conseqeunce of logical human reasoning and for very selfish purposes that have nothing to do with the gospel. The offer of forgiveness for sin is a very powerful inducement to "accept Christ" when all a person wants is to be relieved of the burden of their sin. They want to escape their sin (maybe even hell), but don't necessarily want to go to heaven.

Calvin, says that Paul here warns the person (as earlier when he tells people to work out their salvation with fear and trembling). Here he warns against a human response to the gospel (being a seed sown among thorns or in soil that is not deep).

There is also the illustration that follows of the earth. The earth (here perhaps an illustration of people) is watered (by the gospel) and both good herbs and thorns result. Much effort in the gospels seesm directed to distinguishing those who are saved from those who are not when they appear indistiguishable. This illustration would serve to emphasize Paul's telling people to test themselves to see that they are truly saved and will not fall away.

What do others take away from this passage?

I’ve always found it tragic that many who call themselves Christian focus on worthless doctrines and worthless questions. Once Saved Always saved, ie. Can a man lose his salvation by backsliding…I don’t really care. Why? Because I don’t want out of this deal!

Consider what Christ offers? Consider what it takes to receive that offer…or rather what it doesn’t require of us.

Perhaps the best picture I can give mathematically (since everybody here seems to believe it is a requirement to prove your doctrine) is to consider these equations.

Old Covenant…. God will do X if we do Y. Where X is God’s promises, Y is keeping the law.

New Covenant…God will do X because Jesus did Y, all we have to do is accept that.

Putting it that way …why would anybody want out of this deal? Furthermore, I’m convinced the only way you terminate the deal (that you accepted) is to turn around and bow your knee to Satan…

2 Tim 2:11-13 (KJV) It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: {12} If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: {13} If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

This is not like the denial of Peter (an act of faithlessness) but rather as the NIV words it…disown, bow down to another. To do that we must make somebody else our Lord.

This is why to me people spend too much energy on trivial stuff....anybody here want out of this deal? No? Why waste energy on what shouldn't concern you? Instead do what the Lord calls us to....make it your life's work to be converted...to be transformed into His likeness.

The difference between the early church and today is that the early church had their priorities right....to be more Christ like and to do the things Jesus did...like healing the sick, helping the poor, mending the brokenhearted. Today's church is more interested in trivial pursuit.

And when I look here in this 'well educated theological hermeneutical hot bed' where it is more important to study Greek and analyze interpretations than to walk in love…well no wonder the church is screwed up…

On these two commandments hang all the scriptures (the law and the prophets)…love God, love thy neighbor.

that's Satan laughing at yall...get your priorities right...for Christ's sake...

The way of the Spirit, the way of love they have not known for they preferred knowledge to love. They preferred proving themselves right (a hideous form of self righteousness) to the love that comes with right being (walking rightly before God). They preferred to prove themselves before men rather than seek after the Holy one. And so they slip back and stumble and fall. Even so, no matter how far they fall the can never fall below the arms of God.

[Forrest]

Heb 6:7-8 (NIV) Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. {8} But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Those who truly understand this verse in the midst of this passage are those who drink in the rain and produce a good crop...they don't produce worthless stubble. Many who think they are ‘safe’ from the fire are only fooled by their own arrogance and ignorance. For all must pass through as our God is an all consuming fire.

[Nang]

Nang, are you trying to make national news???

No. The OSAS theory is Arminian (mostly Baptist). It is poor doctrine that has less to do with the faithfulness of God to keep His children in the faith, as it is a means of providing license for Christians to sin.

It is bad teaching, which does not compare to the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints."




[

And it is the Armenians who think that once one is saved that they are always saved, just NOT that they cannot lose their salvation once they have it??

This is VERY confusing...

Arsenios

Like I said, not all Arminians hold to OSAS. Those who do not hold to OSAS, believe the opposite error, that salvation can be lost.

I consider both positions and teachings to be wrong and unscriptural.


Nang

[Chytraeus]

The way "Evangelicals" talk about faith is quite interesting. You speak as though faith were some kind of substance that one can have, or a state of being. One can be "in faith" or not, one either has some faith, a lot or a little. The word is so simple that a baby understands it better than we complicated adults. It is nothing more than trust, belief that a person can be trusted completely, the way a baby trusts her mother. She suckles without a second thought because she has faith that her mother will always provide good milk. She sleeps in the mothers arms confident that her mother will never let her be harmed.

Faith in Jesus is much different than believing in Santa Clause, which is why I never worried that my children would grow up to "loose faith in Christ" once they realized that Santa wasn't real. Faith in Jesus is believing that He can be trusted to do what He says He will do, forgive all our sins. You speak of believing in Jesus only to be relieved of the burden of sins as though that were a bad thing. It is precisely this that Jesus wants us to believe about him, that He will relieve us of the burden of all our sins.

I rather like Arsinios' interpretation of this, that the verse refers to baptism, for we certainly do not rebaptize those who have backslidden, no matter how far. However, it is also quite necessary to keep the verses in context. The writer, almost certainly not Paul, has been chiding the recipients of the letter for needing to hear again foundational matters of faith which they have already been taught once and believed. It seems that they have forgotten these things and returned, or at least desired to return to the state they were in before they believed. He is warning them of how serious the matter would be if things were truly as bad as they seemed to be.

It seems to me that we worry much more these days about the so-called hypocrite who sits in the pews than the writers of the epistles did. In fact, they almost always write as though none of the people reading the letter or hearing it read were in fact false believers. The people are called saints and they are treated as though they have believed the doctrine of salvation. The reason for this is plain enough. No man, no matter how much "spiritual discernment" he thinks he has, can tell one from the other. We do not have the eyes of God and cannot read the Lambs book of life, for it is closed to us. If they are in the church, they are treated as saints. We are not to go about pulling weeds, that is the job of the harvesters.

Once Saved, Always Saved is neither a doctrine of the Calvinists nor of the Armenians. The five points of the Remonstrants specifically stated that it was possible for one to loose his salvation, so there is no "Always Saved" in true Armenian doctrine. The so-called 5 points of Calvinism were created to counter the 5 core doctrines of the Armenians, and the Perseverance of the Saints was written to counter this belief that one can be "saved" today and loose his salvation tomorrow. The Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that all true believers have had their names written in the book of life since the foundation of the world, and that those names will never be removed, so all true saints will always be saints. However, the fact that they are saints has absolutely nothing to do with a choice they have made, believing something that they hear, or assenting to the biblical truths about the gospel. All of these are secondary to the fact that God chose them before the world was made to be saved. They were saved long before they were even born, before they ever heard the gospel, before they ever believed in Jesus. The cross of Christ almost becomes a foot note. On the other hand, Once Saved, Always Saved was a doctrine invented by American Baptists in the period after the Civil War when the old distinction between Specific or Calvinists Baptists and General or Armenian Baptists began to fade in the background. Both the Specific and General Baptists found a new enemy in liberalism, and the two put aside their differences to confront this new foe. The ability to choose to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior was maintained from the Armenians, while the assurance of eternal salvation was maintained from the Calvinists. The result was one of the most blasphemous ideas to ever be created. A Baptist can, by making a public profession of his faith, saying a "sinner's prayer", and presenting himself for baptism by immersion, rope God into a contract that God can never get out of, no matter how scandalous the person may behave afterward. The only card God holds is the right to end the person's life prematurely if that person comes close to committing the "unforgivable sin." This is nothing short of witchcraft. But this is a side issue.

The writer of Hebrews is not speaking hypothetically, of this I am quite certain. If something is not possible, there is no reason to warn against it. Nor is there any textual evidence to suggest that he is speaking only to the so-called hypocrites, false believers who might be hearing the letter. Part of what makes this highly unlikely is that one of the most astounding facts of these so-called hypocrites is that they do not know that they are hypocrites, but have fooled even themselves. Since these people do not know who they are, and the writer here does little to help them learn who they are, but simply warns of a "falling away" after tasting of heavenly things, this interpretation is unlikely.

If this were the only warning against losing faith, becoming unfaithful, falling away, then I might be tempted to accept that believing that this verse actually warns that losing one's salvation is a possibility is to "call God a liar." However, every New Testament writer gives such warnings, including Paul, the favorite gospel writer of the Reformed. If the Reformed are right, and the elect can never loose their salvation (and it is likely that they are not completely wrong) then how does one go about knowing whether or not one is one of the elect? It cannot be by good works, for even unbelievers often do better works than most Christians, Ghandi for instance. It cannot be by having something called faith, for it seems that the hypocrites believe they have it as well, but they are fooled. In fact, according to strict Calvinist doctrine, a hypocrite can look and act exactly like a true Christian and completely believe that he is one without ever finding out until the day of his death, when he finds himself surrounded by demons and pixies instead of seraphim and cherubim. When you look at it like that, the doctrine of election is not nearly so comforting.

What is certain is that Jesus did in fact atone for the whole world, exactly like Saints Paul and John said He did. Atonement is universal and certain. However, only those who believe this, only those who have true faith, true trust in God through Christ benefit from this atonement. This trust cannot be conjured up by sound arguments, it is created in the hearts of those who hear the Gospel and are baptized whenever and wherever the Holy Spirit so desires. Not all those who hear and are baptized will believe, but many will, so we preach and baptize, just like Jesus told us to. Not all those who start to believe will continue to believe unto death. Some are like sees that landed on rocks, on shallow soil, and among thorns. The devil, the weakness of the flesh, and the cares of this world steal away their faith and they die in unbelief. It was Jesus who preached that parable, so do not be so quick to say that such teaching calls God a liar, for God cannot call himself a liar. Perhaps you have just misunderstood Him.

Arsinios is absolutely right. The way to ensure that you are not among those who once tasted and saw that the Lord is good and later fall away is to be among the people of God gathered around the things of God. Be in a place where the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached clearly on a regular basis, and not just a bunch of lectures on how to be "better Christians" which any descent psychologist could teach better. Be in a place where people are baptized into the faith, taught the faith that they are baptized into, and fed on the very body and blood of Christ our Lord in the Eucharist. In other words, continue to taste of the good things of God, and do not avoid the assembling of yourselves together as is the practice of some. Those have left themselves defenseless against the whiles of the devil, who would like nothing more than to take away the seed that the good Farmer planted in you.

[RanRan]

What is certain is that Jesus did in fact atone for the whole world, exactly like Saints Paul and John said He did. Atonement is universal and certain. However, only those who believe this, only those who have true faith, true trust in God through Christ benefit from this atonement..

Being resurrected is not a benefit? You must prove that the sheep at the last judgment are the church or those not losing their reward. "Those not against us, are for us.'

[Whipartist]

IMO, Jaltus has it right. Heb. 6 is quite clear on the surface as to what it is saying. The Gk only confirms it.

[Ormly]

The way "Evangelicals" talk about faith is quite interesting. You speak as though faith were some kind of substance that one can have, or a state of being. One can be "in faith" or not, one either has some faith, a lot or a little. The word is so simple that a baby understands it better than we complicated adults. It is nothing more than trust, belief that a person can be trusted completely, the way a baby trusts her mother. She suckles without a second thought because she has faith that her mother will always provide good milk. She sleeps in the mothers arms confident that her mother will never let her be harmed.

Mother's milk has radiation in it. That which is supposed to nurture unto son-ship, is killing us. The infant mortality rate is exceedingly high.

[Forrest]

Nang, are you trying to make national news???



So they are not always saved once they have been saved, it is just that they cannot lose the salvation they received when they were saved???

And it is the Armenians who think that once one is saved that they are always saved, just NOT that they cannot lose their salvation once they have it??

This is VERY confusing...

Arsenios

Confusion is what comes when one is lead by doctrine instead of the Holy Spirit.

Those lead by doctrines find they must reconcile their doctrines...but the Spirit Himself reconciles our lives with the truth....and thus teaching that set you free.