Hebrews 6:4-6

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Brother Lacy,

This passage has everything to do with salvation. Or, to be more precise, it has to do with having it and then loosing it. If it were not for the encroachment of the doctrine of OSAS into parts of the Church, no one would have ever questioned this interpretation. [/QB]

Dear Brother Craig,

I must disagree. Verse 9 clearly teaches that we are dealing with "things that accompany salvation". Verses 10 &15 indicate that the subject is reward. If the warning is, "be careful so as not to lose salvation", then verses 8, 11 &12 would teach that we must maintain our salvation with fruit, diligence, and lack of slothfulness (works).

With all this context, how can you dogmatically interpret "falling away" as losing salvation? Can there not be a "falling away" at the Judgment Seat of Christ? A "falling away" from the inheritance (Chapter 3&4) like Esau who found "no place for repentance(ie. v6), though he sought it carefully with tears"?

"Afterward" (Heb. 12:17) Esau was still a son. He still recieved a son's portion and a son's blessing. But he lost out on the firstborn blessing. (Priesthood, Rule, Double portion) He lost out on the things that accompany "sonship".

Lacy

 

[psr.2]

The verse means just what it says and says just what it means just like the following verse does.
Rev 2218 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
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.

You cannot force scripture to teach tradition. The verse in Hebrews is directed at Hebrews in the tribualtion. The verse is not for a church age saint just as the law and sacrifices are not for a church age saint.

Col.2 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

"Things to come" = Future

 

[MTA]

The Hebrew's writer was asking an absurd question to emphasis the absurdity of the answer. To lose one's salvation would negate the atoning work of Christ and therefore Christ would have to be crucified again for the sinner to be saved.

 

[Pastor Larry]

My interest in this passage is fairly recent since it was the text for yesterday's morning message. My conclusion is several fold. First, it is abundantly and undeniably clear from Scripture that truly saved people cannot lose their salvation. It is simply too plain to believe otherwise. My strenght of belief in that was renewed as I rehearsed the passages in both services yesterday, particularly last night.

Second, the falling away in Hebrews 3-6 results in not having eternal life. Therefore, those who fall away are not saved. They do not enter into his rest. They cannot be renewed to repentance (which is a necessary aspect of salvation).

The terms in vv. 4-5 do not only describe believers. They can also describe unbelievers as many commentators have shown. Since the fifth characteristic of "falling away" is included, we have to conclude that these people can only be unsaved. They are, in teh words of vv. 7-8, worthless and ready to be cut off. Those are terms that describe eternal destruction, which a believer has been saved from.

Thirdly, the contrast of vv. 9-12 clearly show that the author (whoever he is) does not think the Hebrew Christians are that way. They are rather characterized by things that "accompany salvation." The contrast is vv. 4-6 and vv. 9-11--falling away vs. things that accompany salvation. The author assures his readers that he is confident of better things, that God is faithful, and that they have an anchor for the soul. None of that can be said about the people in vv. 4-6.

That, in a nutshell, is the point of the passage. I cannot find any legitimate way to ascribe salvation to these people. People who "fall away" do not have eternal life and Hebrews is clear about that. They will not enter into his rest; they are worthless and will be destroyed.

Here is an article that will give some insight:
http://dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_1/HEB6.PDF

 

[Charles Meadows]

Craig,

I guess I stand corrected on that one. I didn't actually read Tertullian's words - rather another author's commentary on them. I should probably break out my anti-Nicene fathers set before I quote again!

 

[psr.2]

The entire book is doctrinally to Hebrews in the tribulation. The book refers to the time that our fathers walked in the wilderness. That was Jews. This thread has spanned 11 pages now of real good discussion. We now have some Johnny come lately's coming on who are not reading the context but are rather just piching up the verse and givimg a quick comment. You cannot reasonably reconcile these verses in Heb. with any of Paul's epistles to the gentiles. You must rightly divide the scriptures or you have to re-interpret them to mena something they do not say by going to the Greek. I suggest starting a new thread.

 

[HankD]

You must rightly divide the scriptures or you have to re-interpret them to mena something they do not say by going to the Greek.

Greek, the inspired text in which this Scripture was first given. I purposely stayed away from the Greek psr.2 because I knew you would be offended.

I am truly sorry you feel this way brother.

HankD

 

[HankD]

The entire book is doctrinally to Hebrews in the tribulation.

I have followed through this thread but perhaps I have missed where you proved this point with the Scriptures.

Could you redirect me to that/those posts?

Thanks.

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

The entire book is doctrinally to Hebrews in the tribulation.

No it wasn't. It was written to Jewish Christians living in the first century who were being pressured to give up their allegiance to Christ and return to the old ways of Judaism. That has nothing to do with the tribulation.

The book refers to the time that our fathers walked in the wilderness. That was Jews.

This is the prime historical example of people who had the true revelation from God and chose not to believe. As a result, they lost the promise of God. The analogy is to NT believers who have the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ and were being tempted not to believe it. If they reject it, they would fall away from Christ and show themselves to not be true believers.

We now have some Johnny come lately's coming on who are not reading the context but are rather just piching up the verse and givimg a quick comment.

I am not exactly a Johnny come lately, if you are referring to me. I have devoted the last six month to the renewed study of the book of Hebrews for our Sunday morning services. I am well familiar with what it teaches.

You cannot reasonably reconcile these verses in Heb. with any of Paul's epistles to the gentiles.

Not only can you, but you must. The Scripture does not contradict itself. Hebrews was written to NT believers, just as Paul's epistles were. They fit together perfectly.

You must rightly divide the scriptures or you have to re-interpret them to mena something they do not say by going to the Greek.

I agree. Rightly dividing has nothing to do with saying that it doesn't apply to us. It has to do with rightly understanding, or cutting it straight. You cannot simply reinterpret it.

I suggest starting a new thread.

On what?

Hebrews addresses the possibility that some who profess to be saved really aren't saved. They do not have in their lives the "things that accompany salvation." They have "fallen away" even though they had heard the message and seen the work of the Holy Spirit in action. They are unbelievers. They will be cut off in destruction.

Did you get a chance to read the article I linked to yet?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by psr.2:
You cannot force scripture to teach tradition. The verse in Hebrews is directed at Hebrews in the tribualtion. The verse is not for a church age saint just as the law and sacrifices are not for a church age saint.

I agree with your premise but I totally disagree with your conclusion. (I do understand that the interpretation is common, and orthodox. I just don't buy it.)

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

Hebrews are certainly addressed, but they are saved, blood-bought Christians in danger of "departing from the living God" (v12)

1)There is nothing contextually in Hebrews that would imply that we apply any of it to "Jews in the trib".

2) We see the same idea of loss of reward, conditional loss of "sonship", loss of the kingdom, etc. in other books. Rom 8:12-18, 11:17-22; I Cor 6: 9,10, 9:26,27; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5: 3-7; Phil 3:10-14, etc.

3) Can a Jew lose his salvation in the trib? What is the scriptural precedent for this?
Heb 10: 29 says they are sanctified by the blood just like us.

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

First, it is abundantly and undeniably clear from Scripture that truly saved people cannot lose their salvation. It is simply too plain to believe otherwise.

Very amusing! Well, maybe not! Perhaps really sad! Such statements as these necessarily imply that NNE understood what the Bible teaches about salvation for 1500 years. Surely if Pastor Larry is correct, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, would have written SOMETHING that would show us that they believed in OSAS prior to 1500, but that evidence does not exist. And yet there is very abundant evidence that that the Early Church Fathers believed in conditional security rather than OSAS.

Every single doctrine in the Bible that is, in reality, clearly presented, was understood by the Early Church Fathers and we have the documentation to prove it. That is NOT the case with OSAS. Therefore, the ONLY conclusion is that OSAS is not clearly taught in the Bible.

Conditional Security is taught today by the large majority of pastors, teacher, and Bible scholars, and it was very clearly taught by the Early Church Fathers. Therefore, the doctrine of Conditional Security IS a doctrine that is clearly taught in the Bible.

 

[psr.2]

Nothing like scripture to clear up scripture.
Heb.3:3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

vs.:6 "whose house are we IF we hold fast..."
Where does that match anything Paul preachd to gentiles? Nowhere.

vs.8-9 :harden not your hearts as in...when your fathers tempted me..."
Your fathers are not jews this is not doctrinally to you.
To say or teach that this is doctrinal for the church age is to wrongly divide the scripture.
That would be just like saying Leviticus os doctrinal for the church age.

 

[Craigbythesea]

In New Testament times there were two groups of Christians:

1. Converts from Judaism

2. Converts from other religions

Although much of what is said in Hebrews is addressed primarily to converts from Judaism, they were still Christians. Much of what is said in Romans is also addressed to converts from Judaism. The bottom line is that Christian doctrine is Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine is not for any one time period or type of convert. Paul makes this point very emphatically in his Epistle to the Romans.

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> First, it is abundantly and undeniably clear from Scripture that truly saved people cannot lose their salvation. It is simply too plain to believe otherwise.

Very amusing! Well, maybe not! Perhaps really sad! Such statements as these necessarily imply that NNE understood what the Bible teaches about salvation for 1500 years. Surely if Pastor Larry is correct, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, would have written SOMETHING that would show us that they believed in OSAS prior to 1500, but that evidence does not exist. And yet there is very abundant evidence that that the Early Church Fathers believed in conditional security rather than OSAS.

Every single doctrine in the Bible that is, in reality, clearly presented, was understood by the Early Church Fathers and we have the documentation to prove it. That is NOT the case with OSAS. Therefore, the ONLY conclusion is that OSAS is not clearly taught in the Bible.

Conditional Security is taught today by the large majority of pastors, teacher, and Bible scholars, and it was very clearly taught by the Early Church Fathers. Therefore, the doctrine of Conditional Security IS a doctrine that is clearly taught in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Craig

Very amusing! Well, maybe not! Perhaps really sad! Such statements as these necessarily imply that NNE understood what the Bible teaches about salvation for 1500 years.

But wasn't that the point of the Protestant Reformation? The reformers, to an extent, and Baptists, to a greater extent, said the Bible should be the rule of faith and practice, rather than the Church Fathers or tradition. The message in this is that we think they GOT IT WRONG!

Objectively, we may be reading and interpreting the Bible wrong. But I don't think we should be swayed by the argument that we must believe something just because it was believed traditionally.

We need to fuss and fight over what the Bible says. Just like all good Baptists!

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
In New Testament times there were two groups of Christians:

1. Converts from Judaism

2. Converts from other religions

Although much of what is said in Hebrews is addressed primarily to converts from Judaism, they were still Christians. Much of what is said in Romans is also addressed to converts from Judaism. The bottom line is that Christian doctrine is Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine is not for any one time period or type of convert. Paul makes this point very emphatically in his Epistle to the Romans.

Amen!

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by psr.2:
[vs.:6 "whose house are we IF we hold fast..."
Where does that match anything Paul preachd to gentiles? Nowhere.

It's just good Christian/Bible doctrine. It has to do exclusively with reward, not salvation!

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

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Colossians 1:22,23
22. In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

vs.8-9 :harden not your hearts as in...when your fathers tempted me..."

1 Corinthians 10

1. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Very amusing! Well, maybe not! Perhaps really sad! Such statements as these necessarily imply that NNE understood what the Bible teaches about salvation for 1500 years. Surely if Pastor Larry is correct, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, would have written SOMETHING that would show us that they believed in OSAS prior to 1500, but that evidence does not exist. And yet there is very abundant evidence that that the Early Church Fathers believed in conditional security rather than OSAS.

What the early church fathers believed must not be presupposed over the text of Scripture. They are not inspired. The word of God is. To say that because they don't teach it (a questionable conclusion at best) the only conclusionis that OSAS is not clearly taught in the Bible is a huge reach, a jump of mythic proportions.

Therefore, the doctrine of Conditional Security IS a doctrine that is clearly taught in the Bible.

The only thing security is conditioned on is the eternal purposes of God in election and salvation. His promises are clear. If some do not understand that, that does not undermine his promises. There are multitudes of Scripture that teach the preservation and perseverance of all true believers. In that we must drive our stake and refuse to be moved. I don't know of that many Bible teachers, commentators, or scholars that teach otherwise,

 

[Michael52]

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Hebrews 6:4-6 (NASB-U)

psr.2

As you said earlier, this seems to say it is "impossible" for those who "have fallen away" to be "renewed again to repentance" (ie saved). Thus, they are damned (ie lost) because Christ is only crucified once!

The question is, what does it mean for someone to "have fall(en) away"?

If this means to be lost after having previously having been saved (which one may assume from, "partakers of the Holy Spirit") then we could ask what event or events would meet the criteria to cause one to be lost:

Denying Christ? If true, Peter and many others are damned.

Committing a sin? If true, we are all damned.

Committing 812 sins and the cut-off is 811? If true, we are all damned.

Committing 811 sins and we only confessed an repented of 810 before death? If true, we are all damned.

Less than absolute and unwavering faith? I'm damned. "Lord I believe, help my unbelief"

This could go on. The point is, what and how many works must we do or what and how many works must we avoid to retain our salvation. If we did no works to originally merit salvation, then does the Bible say there are works that secure and maintain our salvation? I guess one could argue it does. Though, if it does, then it would seem that grace (unmerited favor) is no longer grace.

Others have argued that "falling away" is the thing that is impossible. If this is not true, then it seems we might, along with His diciples, ask, "Lord, who can be saved?" If we have no assurance, we are bound to a life of striving and hoping. Allways unsure because we know we'll never measure up. Didn't Jesus come to free us from this?

In Christ
Michael

 

[HankD]

psr.2 is not denying the eternal security of born again children of God.

I am wondering where in Hebrews we see the Tribulation , even in a veiled manner.

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

What the early church fathers believed must not be presupposed over the text of Scripture. They are not inspired. The word of God is. To say that because they don't teach it (a questionable conclusion at best) the only conclusionis that OSAS is not clearly taught in the Bible is a huge reach, a jump of mythic proportions.

There is no presuming to it. That the church fathers taught conditional security as opposed to OSAS is a matter of historical record. I have already posted three quotes from Tertullian and I could post many more by other church fathers who very clearly taught conditional security. Can you post even one quote from an Ante-Nicene Church Father who taught eternal security? No, you can not, because none of the Ante-Nicene church fathers ever taught anything like that. They understood the New Testament writings to teach conditional security and they demonstrated that in many of the writings.

If the Bible really teaches eternal security, why didn't anyone realize it for 400 years? Is the Bible really that difficult to understand? Were those who wrote the Nicene Creed and established the canon of the New Testament really that lacking in understanding? Or did a man named John Calvin come on the scene and confuse a whole lot of people?

Can you quote even one Christian writer from before 1500 who taught that Heb. 6:4-6 is anything other than a warning to Christians that it is possible for them to fall from grace and loose their salvation? If the Bible REALLY teaches anything different in Heb. 6:4-6, surely someone would have noticed that fact before 1500.

And if they were wrong about conditional security for 1500 years, maybe everyone is still wrong about other major Bible doctrines, like the trinity and the deity of Christ. How many centuries does it take for at least one person to understand the Bible?