Hebrews 6:4-6

[Ed Edwards]

[sarcasm] ECF Paul on Conditional Security [/sarcasm]
Romans 8:35-39 (HSCB):

Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Can affliction or anguish or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: Because of You we are being put to death all day long; we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered. 37 No, in all these things we are more than victorious through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will have the power to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord!

[sarcasm] ECF John on Conditional Security [/sarcasm]
John 10:27-29 (HCSB):

My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish--ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Praise Jesus

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by 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.

Amen, Sibling MTA -- Preach it!

Seems like what some said on page one and what
i said on page 2. Only You said it in two
sentences and it took me a few paragraphs.
Good post! Right on!

Pastor Larry: "My interest in this passage
is fairly recent since it wwas the
text for yersterday's mornign messge."

Preach it on, Brother Pastor Larry!

Tuesday, 22 June 2004, my my at-work weekly Bible
Study group discussed the same passaage.
That was back when we are on page 7
A need for the discussion had surfaced a couple
of weeks earlier (before this topic) but the
person who needed it most had to go on
a two week vacation.

The problem that he was ministering two was
someone who was a new Christian struggling
with a sin that had popped up with which they
needed to deal. The evil one wants us to
be defeated; the good one wants to to
live victorious lives. If an oops can cause
the take-away of ETERNAL salvation, then
it isn't very eternal, is it?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sorry, wrong pew.

 

[psr.2]

The problem with that thinking Ed is the passage does not apply to church age saint doctrinally. Just as Rev 22 where a person has their name taken out of the book of life or in Lev. where a person must do a literal sacrifice or his sins are not atoned for.
The fact that your study group or any pastor taught the book of Hebrews wrong does not change the scripture. Now we can do the round robin "he said ,she said, amen so and so or discuss scripture.

 

[psr.2]

The passage is not doctrinal for a church age saint unless you try to twist it to make it an absurd question with no answer. Why then could someone not not take the question "what must I do to be saved?" and say that that was an absurd question and that you cannot be saved unless you are elect. You cannot just answer them by saying that well my study group does not teach it that way or as a pastor I don't teach it that way. We need some scriptual depth fellows.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by psr.2:
The problem with that thinking Ed is the passage does not apply to church age saint doctrinally. Just as Rev 22 where a person has their name taken out of the book of life or in Lev. where a person must do a literal sacrifice or his sins are not atoned for.
The fact that your study group or any pastor taught the book of Hebrews wrong does not change the scripture. Now we can do the round robin "he said ,she said, amen so and so or discuss scripture.

Or we can summarily
ignore you, as you ignore us.

BTW, do you think my Messanic Jew friend
will be here during the Tribulation to
study the book of Hebrews?

 

[MTA]

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

This is pretty plain regarding the inference that sacrifices in the Old Testament took away, or in any way atoned for sins. Any suggestion that particular verses state otherwise must be reconciled with these verses also. If in looking you find contradiction, it simply means you haven't looked long enough, or hard enough. God's word will not contradict itself.

The admonition in Revelation is not targeted to true believers, but to those that only profess to be believers. Christ was saying in Rev: 22:19 that their part, (the part they claim to have), would be taken out of the book of life.

 

[HankD]

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.

This is a debatable issue Craig, I have a data base with 20,000 pages of Early Church Fathers and I know that there is some support for the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, not much but it is there. My search engine is toast after installing Windows XP. When I get a patch for it, I can look into this.

The documentation of orthodox doctrine is mixed with "christianity" on both sides of each issue even within orthodox Christianity (millenial, amillenial, etc).

It took the Orthodox Church around 300 years to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity as an outcome of the Arian controversy. The JW's ask a similar question to your's "why did it take over 300 years for Othodox Christianity to discover the Trinity?"

The plague of the tares has been with the Church early on in her history...

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

HankD

 

[psr.2]

Hey guys help yourself to a debate. I came to discuss this topic with folks who believe the bible says what it means and means what it says. I found a few. Really I am 110% convinced of what the passage means, who it is addressing, and what the time frame is. If you would like to debate feel free. I am done on this thread. I will start some others.

 

[MTA]

The discussion has been good and I appreciate seeing that many of us recognize and share the same truth.

 

[HankD]

Hey guys help yourself to a debate. I came to discuss this topic with folks who believe the bible says what it means and means what it says.

But psr.2 in an earlier post in this thread referring to the Book of Hebrews you said:

The entire book is doctrinally to Hebrews in the tribulation.

To which I responded and will respond again:

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?

I am sincerely requesting an answer.

Before I even consider certain of your propositions I would like an answer to my inquiry to be able to search and consider the Scriptures and see if these things are so!

Are you going to start a thread to answer my inquiry?

Thanks.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I came to discuss this topic with folks who believe the bible says what it means and means what it says.

There are quite a few of us here like this, and we find ourselves 110% convinced that you are wrong. We are buttressed by the fact that there is not one single verse in Hebrews that limits the application of this book to Jews living in the Tribulation. In fact, that position to us, makes very little sense, given the actual words of the text. I challenge your beliefs, not based on my preferences, but based on the word of God which does not seem to say what you say.

I think this text is fairly clear, especially in light of other texts. I think it would be, at the very least, reasonable to acknowledge that those with an absolutel commitment to the truth of God's word and its authority can differ with you on this. The implication that we do not believe the Bible because we disagree with you is an implication that I find inappropriate and ill-advised.

Did you read the article I linked to?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Hank,

Thank you for your participation in this thread and the wisdom and Christian behavior than you have demonstrated in all of your posts. I must, however, take exception with you regarding the following:

This is a debatable issue Craig, I have a data base with 20,000 pages of Early Church Fathers and I know that there is some support for the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, not much but it is there. My search engine is toast after installing Windows XP. When I get a patch for it, I can look into this.

The issue will become debatable when you post the first bit of evidence that an Ante-Nicene Church Father taught eternal security, or that anyone prior to 1500 explicitly interpreted Heb. 6:4-6 in a manner wholly compatible the doctrine of eternal security.

When you do get your search engine up and going, if you find what you are looking for, look me up and we can have a debate. I am certainly interested in knowing ALL the facts pertinent to the issue.

The documentation of orthodox doctrine is mixed with "christianity" on both sides of each issue even within orthodox Christianity (millenial, amillenial, etc).

It took the Orthodox Church around 300 years to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity as an outcome of the Arian controversy. The JW's ask a similar question to your's "why did it take over 300 years for Othodox Christianity to discover the Trinity?"

Yes, that is true of many Baptist beliefs, including baptism by immersion. But the difference with the doctrine of conditional security is that the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers did NOT hold “mixed” opinions on that doctrine. They all agreed that the Scriptures teach conditional security. Although the doctrine of the Trinity was not formalized until 325, we do not find that the entire body of church fathers prior to that time taught a doctrine 180 degrees different from the doctrine of the Trinity. But we do find that prior to 450 the church fathers were unanimous in believing in conditional security. And we do find that prior to 1500 there was no controversy regarding the doctrine of conditional security. And since 1500, unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, the controversy over the doctrine of eternal security has continued with those scholars, teachers, pastors, and believers who hold to the doctrine of conditional security consistently outnumbering by the far those who believe in eternal security.

Your argument from the doctrine of the Trinity is probably the number one argument put forward in defense against the historical evidence for the doctrine of conditional security, but as I have shown above, that argument does not hold a single drop of water. It is a vain and futile attempt to set aside historical facts that are extremely damaging to the arguments for eternal security.

 

[Craigbythesea]

We are buttressed by the fact that there is not one single verse in Hebrews that limits the application of this book to Jews living in the Tribulation. In fact, that position to us, makes very little sense, given the actual words of the text. I challenge your beliefs, not based on my preferences, but based on the word of God which does not seem to say what you say.

Amen!

psr2,

If the Bible really says what you are claiming it says, why hasn't anyone noticed that before? Are you suggesting that every other Christian who has read Hebrews is so lacking in understanding that only YOU are able to see the truth in this portion of Scripture?

 

[HankD]

CBTS, thanks for your response. I'll try to find the historical documentation from other sources.

I really do not want to debate the OSAS issue although OSAS is my belief. It is very divisive and usually ends badly with brethren accusing each other of teaching "doctrines of damnation".

To post historical data from the past will hopefully not lead to emotional flare-ups.

These passages from the early fathers concerning the eternal security of the believer I found while researching other areas. There are a few. Most renown was Augustine (Not ante-Nicene) that I remember reading concerning eternal security (as some of the other earlier "fathers") held that the while the true Christian might fall out of sanctifying grace, God would not allow him to die in that condition. A veiled form of OSAS, no?

HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

These passages from the early fathers concerning the eternal security of the believer I found while researching other areas. There are a few. Most renown was Augustine (Not ante-Nicene) that I remember reading concerning eternal security (as some of the other earlier "fathers") held that the Christian might fall out of sanctifying grace but God would not allow him to die in that condition. A veiled form of OSAS, no?

HankD,

Very late in his life Augustine began to question some of his earlier teachings, including his teaching on conditional security. These late writing are considered by most scholars to be very inferior to Augustine’s earlier writings, and they are very seldom published and almost always omitted from collections of Augustine's writings. The "Retractions" of Augustine have been discussed in another thread in which I participated.

Any way, these writing were all written well after 400. In my previous post when I used the date 450 I was thinking of Augustine and his contemporaries, but I was careless with the date and got it wrong. For that I sincerely apologize. Nonetheless, the writing of Augustine that you are probably thinking of were written 100 years after the council of Nicea (probably in 428).

 

[HankD]

Nonetheless, the writing of Augustine that you are probably thinking of were written 100 years after the council of Nicea (probably in 428).

Yes, I am aware of that and I have tried to find a complete copy of his "Retractions" but as you said it is difficult.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Craig, another point I would like to bring to your attention is that in my research through the ante-Nicene fathers, I was surprised to find universalism (Origen, Clement,I believe).

While this is not technically eternal security IMO it is a form of it.

HankD

 

[Marcia]

I was taught to compare scripture with scripture and to look at similar passages in a book in order to clarify a difficult passage in the same book. It seems that Heb 10.26-29 might be a parallel passage to the Heb. 6 passage under discussion?

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? Heb 10.26-29

To me, this is talking about someone who knows the truth but yet rejects it, because it says "after receiving the knowlege of truth." Could that be a parallel to being "partakers of the Holy Spirit" in Heb. 6?

I am firmly convinced from scripture in eternal security (based on passages some have already posted and others). I also agree with Michael52's points on this in his last post on page 12 of this thread. What exactly causes us to "lose" salvation? Spurning the Son of God? If someone does this, my view is that they were never really saved but maybe had professed Christ.

Ironically, the passage immediately before the Heb 10 passage posted above seems to give assurance of salvation to believers:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. Heb 10.19-23

Although it says to hold fast "without wavering," it also says "he who promised is faithful." He is faithful though we are not always so. If this was stated to Jewish believers at a time of persecution, it makes sense to me that it is talking about standing strong in the face of persecution. Those who recant are not really saved.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Magic false professors.

When the passage gets rough, the warnings too close to home, break out the false professors. They are a handy little utility for wiggling out from under all the warnings to OSAS Christians (ie. Act holy or get a bad whipping!)

The "Jews in the trib" tool is also quite useful.

Of course the tried and true "You can be so bad that you can undo the atoning blood of Christ" AKA "You can lose your salvation" is the more traditional way but it seems to me like overkill if all one is trying to do is squirm out from under true Christian responsibility.

Lacy