Hebrews 6:4-6

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Psr.2

Hello, I see that this thread continued to get a lot of activity last night. Back on page 3 you said

That my brother is a "tent" statement. You have thrown a tent over every thing I said and then said none of it matches. The bible all matches if we will study to show ourselves approved.
You cannot take a verse in 1 John and say that a verse in Hebrews does not mesn what it says.

I agree with you, the bible all matches. What I am saying is this, Your interpretation of Heb 3 and Revelation 22 and most of the other verses you have used in this thread is faulty. You have espoused ideas that come in conflict with other passages and with the Bible as a whole. Either the Bible is false or you are. Which would you like me to believe?

What I am saying very clearly is that your interpretation of Hebrews is false because you have created a contradiction between Hebrews and I John. That contradiction does not exist in scripture if it is understood correctly. I am using scripture to interpret scripture.

I think we are in complete agreement about works as the evidence of salvation, but differ on your idea that salvation can ever be lost. I think your obvious disdain for exploring the Greek of these passages shows that you really don't want to learn what God has to say about this.

Now this is supposed to be a debate. We are going to differ on this. Do you really want to hear a difference of opinion or continue to repeat the same false ideas? I think you have been less than courteous to Matt, Charles, Trotter, and Ed. When each of them tried to bring this up you got very indignant. On page 5 you accused Charles saying

Now Charles you have accused me of wanting to arguebased on the number of my posts in a day, You have accused me of saying something I did not say,

That was not Charles who accused you of wanting to argue, that was me, and I stand by my statement. I don't see you contenting for the faith here but rather gendering strife.

James 3:13-15 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

I Tim 3:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Phillipians 2:2-3 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

I am sorry psr.2, but I have to agree with what Matt, Charles, Trotter, and Ed have written on this thread. They have made their case and supported it with scripture, you have not.

 

[Matt Black]

I have no big guns either way! It's not a massive concern of mine. My question is simply this - is the thread about Hebrews 6 or not? If it is, then why are you referring to other Scriptures? If it is not,your rather terse post to me on p2 was out of order, methinks. If we are debating as adults, let's try to be a little more civil to each other.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[psr.2]

quote from tentmaker;
I agree with you, the bible all matches. What I am saying is this, Your interpretation of Heb 3 and Revelation 22 and most of the other verses you have used in this thread is faulty. You have espoused ideas that come in conflict with other passages and with the Bible as a whole. Either the Bible is false or you are. Which would you like me to believe?

What I am saying very clearly is that your interpretation of Hebrews is false because you have created a contradiction between Hebrews and I John. That contradiction does not exist in scripture if it is understood correctly. I am using scripture to interpret scripture.

My interpretation certainly is not false. I am reading exactly what the bible says. I then asked someone to explain how there is no contradiction yet the verses say two different things. Your reference to Hebrews and 1 John are a perfect example.
The answer is very simple. There are divisions in the scripture that must be rightly divided.
II Tim. 2:15 15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
As for who was unkind to who. You stated that my interpretaion is faulty, I don't read the bible enough, I try to prove a point using one liners etc..
Guess what I'm a big boy I can take it. Sticks and stones man. What upsets people is straight talk. When people cannot prove their point with scripture they get frustrated.
Let's be adults here. Discuss scripture. If you don't agree with me show me from the bible why. I promise I will not lose any sleep over it.

Look in your bible in the book of Leviticus.
Find a place in there where God states what a person must do who has sinned.
Animal sacrifice right?
Now I ask you does that match 1 John 1:9?
No it does not. Is there a contradiction? No
There is a division in the scriptue and it is up to the child of God to study to find it.
You cannot explain away a verse as plain as Hebrews 6 by saying well 1 John says...
You must address each verse and see how it fits with all other scripture.
God told the folks in the Old Test. to keep the Sabbath-Saturday right?
Why don't you keep the Sabbath? You go to church on Sunday?
Is there a contradiction in scripture? No there is a division.
Now shall we proceed?
Is there anyone who wants to dig into this?
I do.

 

[KeithS]

Originally posted by psr.2:
Thanks Kieth but let's stick with the English shall we.

Sorry, I have been out of the discussion for a while. It has taken some turns.

Anyway, Paul (or the writer of Hebrews) did not write in English. Seems to me that the original language is VERY relevant. Especially if grammatical construction enhances our ability to understand a difficult passage. Just as context is important to understanding, so are original grammar constructs.

If your only goal is to debate or argue a topic, why worry about quoting the passage of Scripture or the context of a passage? If you are concerned about context, you should be concerned about original grammar. I understand that not everyone has a background in languages, but most of us have the ability to look up reliable sources with that background.

Just my 2 bits.

 

[psr.2]

quote from Matt;
I have no big guns either way! It's not a massive concern of mine. My question is simply this - is the thread about Hebrews 6 or not? If it is, then why are you referring to other Scriptures? If it is not,your rather terse post to me on p2 was out of order, methinks. If we are debating as adults, let's try to be a little more civil to each other.

Right like not accusing me of smacking you down when all I said was" Matt we are discussing Hebrews."

I am comparing scripture with scripture to determine why Hebrews 6 says what it says.
We are in this thing now and we are going to go all out. Eternal security and all.

 

[psr.2]

quote from charles;
Sounds like the heat in the kitchen is getting to you!

Hardly.

I truly wish we could debate the points here.
I am as much or more in agreement with eternal security as anyone here.
I also am not simple concerning scripture that I think it was doctrine throughout the ages.
That is a church age doctrine. It did not apply to Old Testament saints nor will it apply to Trb. saints.

That is what we are talking about here. Divisions in the scriptures.
As for the heat the only heat is people whining. Now can we discuss the scriptures.

As for going to the Greek. What would be the point?
We all speak English, we live in an English speaking country, our bibles are in English. We are debating in English.
Unless of course you think that the bible was not interpreted correctly in English.
If that is the case your debate is on a nother thread.
Come on now. Do you mean to tell me that you cannot defend your position on the scriptures in English?
I know the Greek game. Been through it. Then we have to decide whose Greek interpretation we will accept and on and on it goes.
Come on now enough chitter chatter can we discuss some scripture now.
I'll make you a deal. If you don't get upset with my posts I will not get upset with yours. Say anything you like it does not bother me.
But if your going to blather have some bible relevant to the discussion.

 

[Artimaeus]

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...If they shall fall away, to renew them again

That is a true statement. If they fall away they can't be renewed. "IF" is the key word. It doesn't say "Those who fall away can't be renewed." It says IF they fall away. The question is, "CAN they fall away?" Scripture says, no. You wanted scripture references, well, here you go.

Matt 7:323 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (He doesn't say, I USED to know you)
John 3:1-7 Ye must be born again
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life (HATH - present tense)
John 4:13-14 shall never thirst...a well of water springing up into everlasting life (The Greek literally says, "In no wise shall thirst forever")
John 6:28-69 ...he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst...He that believeth on me hath everlasting life...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life...thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (HATH...ETERNAL LIFE)
John 10:28-29 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (NEVER)
John 11:25-26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (NEVER)
John 17: 2-3 that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him (ETERNAL)
Acts 10:47 which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (HAVE received)
Acts 13:38-39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses (ARE justified, not going to be)
Rom 3:20, 24, 28 a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (If you lose it then works played a part)
Rom 4:1-8 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (sounds secure to me)
Rom 8:1-39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? (NOTHING)
I Cor 2:14 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (IS spiritual)
Galatians (Whole book, really)
Gal 2:16, 21 for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified...if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (ANY law or works)
Gal 3:1-2 Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (If you answer works then Paul says you are foolish)
Gal 5:4 whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (If you are justified by works then you aren't justified by grace)
Heb 6:18-19 ...impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation...Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast (Inspires my confidence)
Heb 7:25 ...he is able also to save them to the uttermost...seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (He will win all his cases)
Heb 13:5 I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee (the Greek literally says, "In no wise will I leave thee nor in any wise will I forsake thee". It can also be translated, "I will not, I will not cease to sustain thee, I will not, I will not, I will not let you down".)
I Pet 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God (We are kept till we actually experience heaven)
I Per 2L24-25 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree...ye were as sheep going astray; but are now....(we WERE...but NOW...)
I John 1:7 the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (What is left for me to lose my salvation over?)
I John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life (KNOW...HAVE PASSED)
I John 5:1, 10-13 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God... he hath given us of his Spirit. .(IS BORN, and HATH given)
Jude 1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Chris (ARE sanctified and preserved.)
Jude 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless (He is able and who's going to stop him?)
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, (HAVE redemption)
Eph 1:13-14 in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (SEALED untill REDEEMED)
Eph 4:30, 32 the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption...(ARE sealed)...as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. (HATH forgiven)

Salvation, present tense, sealed, guaranteed till we get to heaven. Sounds like it is IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Charles Meadows]

psr.2,

I am inclined to agree with you on the Greek/Englsih matter. The average amateur theologian knows just about enough Greek to be dangerous! I think our bible is sufficient.

 

[psr.2]

quote from Kieth;
Anyway, Paul (or the writer of Hebrews) did not write in English.

Paul didn't live in an English speaking coountry and he did not have an English bible.

Pentecost was a beautiful thing wasn't it?
Everyone heard the message in THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

quote from Kieth;
Especially if grammatical construction enhances our ability to understand a difficult passage

It doesn't. Go to the version thread and read the 1000's of posts for proof.
Which Greek? Whose Greek? What tense? What a bunch of junk!

 

[psr.2]

Amen Charles!

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Wow Artimaeus here I was composing a reply to psr.2 trying to review all of the verses used to refute him already and you come up with that list. Let the word defend itself, it will.

 

[psr.2]

Quote from Artimaeus;
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...If they shall fall away, to renew them again

That is a true statement. If they fall away they can't be renewed. "IF" is the key word. It doesn't say "Those who fall away can't be renewed." It says IF they fall away. The question is, "CAN they fall away?" Scripture says, no. You wanted scripture references, well, here you go.

I don't remember who made the staement but it went something like this.

"If it can't happen then only a moron would write what if it did happen."
Now we know the Author of Hebrews is no moron.
Therefore the must be more to the story.
I commend you for your use of the scriptures. However you failed to point out that the scripture that support eternal security are all doctrinally for the church age saints.

Rev 22:15 is in the bible too. God said he will take away someones part out of the book of life. The must have had a part or he could not have taken it away.
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Matt. 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

You have to reconcile these verses with the entire bible or there is a contradiction.

I know there are no contradictions. There are divisions in the scriptures that must be rightly divided.

If you do much personal work with the lost you have to answer these types of questions. You cannot just simply excuse the verse by pointing to 50 others. You must explain how it fits in scripture.

 

[psr.2]

Not so fast tentmaker.
I know that a church age saint has eternal security. Noone is debating that.
Please do not post any more verses to that affect without facing the plain text of Heb. 6

There is plainly a division here as there is in Rev., Acts, Matt. etc..
You cannot simply explain it away by quoting 50 verses.

God in the Old Test. required animal sacrifices for sins right?
There are many verses to that affect in Leviticus alone.
If someone brought those verses to your attention would you explain them away by quoting 1 John 1:9 or would you tell them that God dealt differently then than he does now.
That is the type of division I am talking about. Everyone is so quick to defend eternal security that they will not face the palin statement made in the verse.

 

[amixedupmom]

Originally posted by psr.2:
Quote from Artimaeus;
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...If they shall fall away, to renew them again

You cannot just simply excuse the verse by pointing to 50 others. You must explain how it fits in scripture.

John 3 :16

God so loved the world thay he gave his only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER shall believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
( I see no If you fall clause you lose it) but let's look further shall we?

John 3: 17

For God sent not his Son in to the world to condemn the world.; but that the world though him might be saved.

(Clear promise still no opinion of losing)

But , there is something i'm not understanding psr maybe you can enlighten me on. I read the whole Chapter 6 to me it seems like a warning. To be honest it looks like it applies to False teachers of today. In verses 2 it's talking about laying on hands , resurrection of the dead.

"What if" the LORD is talking about these once saved men who have fallen from grace and become backslidden because of greed.

Going down to verse 10 it talkes about how God will not forget your work and labor of love.

Could he be possibly talking about people who were true minsiters of HIS word who have fallen because of greed and corruption?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I thought we were addressing the plain truth of Hebrews 6. That plain truth is that you cannot loose your salvation.

No I do not think there is a division of scripture here. If you would like to debate dispensationalism lets do that on a different thread, I thought we were discussing Hebrews 6 here. This thread has gotten a bit long anyway, I will start another one.

I have been asked this question before and we must be very careful when dealing with the Old Testament law. The blood of those sacrifices saved no one. Hebrews shows us that it was not the sacrifices or the law that saved but faith. Every sacrifice in the Old Testament was a picture of the sacrifice to come in Jesus Christ. The gospel has not changed and God has not changed.

When you say

God dealt differently then than he does now.

You must be very careful. God has revealed himself differently at different times and we have a much more complete revelation of him now than the Old Testament saints did, but God has not changed, the gospel has not changed and God's plan for my salvation is the same as Adam's.

 

[MTA]

Tentmaker:

AMEN!

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by psr.2:
I don't remember who made the staement but it went something like this.

"If it can't happen then only a moron would write what if it did happen."

This is not a true statement therefore, any conclusion drawn from it is equally untrue.

you failed to point out that the scripture that support eternal security are all doctrinally for the church age saints.

I thought we were discussing Heb 6:4-6 which is "doctrinally for the church age saints" and supports eternal security.

Rev 22:15 is in the bible too.

I don't see the relevance.

God said he will take away someones part out of the book of life. The must have had a part or he could not have taken it away.

19. book—None of our manuscripts read this. A, B, Aleph, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic read, “(take away his part, that is, portion) from the tree of life,” that is, shall deprive him of participation in the tree of life.
and from the things—so Vulgate. But A, B, Aleph, Syriac, Coptic, and Andreas omit “and”; then “which are written in this book” will refer to “the holy city and the tree of life.” As in the beginning of this book (Rev 1:3) a blessing was promised to the devout, obedient student of it, so now at its close a curse is denounced against those who add to, or take from, it.
Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.

Matt. 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

You have to reconcile these verses with the entire bible or there is a contradiction.

Ro reconciliation is necessary as this verse has nothing to do with the attaining of heaven.

You must explain how it fits in scripture.

Right back atchha. You must explain how a few verses taken out of context negate the plain teaching of the vast majority of scriptures dealing with salvation.

 

[amixedupmom]

I was always taught that we should read what is before and what is after the scirpture in question. That would make the meaning plainer. Which is why my post is like it is. I'm wondering if i'm correct or mistaken and would appriciate some imput thank you

 

[psr.2]

Hebrews 6 is not doctrinally for the church age. Never has been. The context and title is Hebrews.
This has evolved into eternal security in this thread because of the nature of the verse.
I went to tentmakers new thread and displayed through scripture that what he believes does not match scripture.
Here is just one of the verses I posted.
Eph. 33 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Which in other ages was not known. Now you are not calling God a liar are you. God said in other ages this gospel was not known.

Show me one person in the Old Testament who was born again. Show me one instance in the Old Testament where a person was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

Show me one instance of anyone in the Old Testament quoting anything like what you quote for salvation.

Show me one person in New Testament sacrificing a bullock or ram for a sin atonement. Show me one person in the New Testament going to a flesh and blood high priest to have their sins atoned for.

Show me one person in the Old Testament that is "IN Christ"

There are not any.

 

[psr.2]

Artimaeus? You don't see the relevance of the verse in Rev?
Rev 22:15 is in the bible too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see the relevance.

Someone has their name TAKEN OUT of the book of life.