Hebrews 6:4-6

[Craigbythesea]

Do you think we recognize the tares or is this God's task?

Michael52,

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Please notice that in verse 27 the servants recognized tares when they saw them.

 

[Michael52]

Craig,

Are WE the servants or wheat?
I may be wrong, but I always thought the servants represented angels.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Questions for those who believe in temporary security. Be specific, no generalities.

1. How many sins does it take to get lost again?
2. Which sins in particular will do the trick?

Give me a concrete example, make up details, if you want, to illustrate your scenerio. Such as, if I do this or I behave this way, or whatever but give a real life clear example of how it is done.

If Christians knew for sure just how far they could go in sin before they fell from grace, perhaps many more would live on the edge. Perhaps that is why the Bible does not answer your questions, but simply and very clearly warns all of us of the possibility. Those who deny the reality of this warning are doing a most horrible disservice to Christ and His kingdom and placing many in jeopardy.

1Tim. 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1Tim. 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Tim. 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Michael52:
Craig,

Are WE the servants or wheat?
I may be wrong, but I always thought the servants represented angels.

You are correct.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Post-Biblical Progressive Revelation IS A FALSE DOCTRINE and NO Less DANGEROUS than any other FALSE DOCTRINE!

I agree ... but that is not typically what is meant by progressive revelation, and I contend we should reserve "progressive revelation" for what it actually means theologically.

God gave us His inspired Word AND the means to understand it from day one.

I agree, but not all men understand properly.

Yes, some doctrines were formalized over a period of time, but that was not due to progressive revelation, it was do to the Church Fathers coming to agreement as to the best way to express in ecclesiastical terms what they ALREADY KNEW TO BE TRUE from the Bible, including the doctrine of conditional security.

No, not really ... The early church councils were about disputes and doctrine was systematized.

But the bigger issue is still your insistance that the church fathers should be read on par with Scripture. The orthodox doctrine of Scripture will accept no such assertion. Regardless of what the preserved writings of the church fathers say, eternal security is the true doctrine of Scripture. It is possible that they missed it; it is possible that there are many who got it right and their writings were not preserved; it is possible that you are wrong in your reading of the church fathers. In any case, Scripture says what it does. It places the security of the elect in the hands of God, not the hands of the person.

 

[Craigbythesea]

But the bigger issue is still your insistance that the church fathers should be read on par with Scripture.

If you honestly believe that I am arguing for such heretical nonsense, you have not understood my posts or the issue being discussed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

YOu are saying that early church father's interpretation supercedes teh clear text of Scripture and demands that we accept no interpretation other than theirs. If that is not placing them on a par with Scripture, then I don't know what is. I understand the issue and I understand the role of historical theology and doctrinal development. I understand exactly what you are saying and I reject it since the church fathers are not authoritative. The word of God is and when it speaks clearly, I think we accept that as truth.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I cannot see any legitimate way to say that people for whom repentance is impossible are saved. Impossible is a very strong and clear word. Why would God prevent a true child of his from repenting? That is the purpose of chastening in Heb 12 ... to bring repentance.

The chastisement-chapter you mentioned has an excellent example of a chastisement of real sons for which repentance was impossible.

Hebrews 12:7-8
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Here is chastisement. Paternal chastisement for saved folks, sons of God.

Hebrews 12:15-17
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Here is a warning for the same saved folks (BTW, the same saved folks addressed in Ch 6) to not be as Esau. He retained his sonship and all the regular priveleges of sonship but he suffered great loss and what he lost stayed lost. NO REPENTANCE.

If a father promises reward and chastening for works worthy of reward and chastening, (upon his return) then now is the time to repent. At the judgment seat of Christ it will be too late to repent.

Sometimes the promise of future chastening is meant to bring us to repentance now.

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

YOu are saying that early church father's interpretation supercedes teh clear text of Scripture and demands that we accept no interpretation other than theirs.

I am not saying anything remotely like that, nor do I believe anything like that. What I have been saying, over and over and over again is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Ante-Nicene Church fathers saw so much as a hint of eternal security in even one passage of Scripture. Since we know that they intently studied the Scriptures and found in them all of the doctrines of orthodox (note the small "o") Christianity, the fact that there is no evidence

 

[Craigbythesea]

Please excuse my last post; I hit a wrong computer button.

YOu are saying that early church father's interpretation supercedes teh clear text of Scripture and demands that we accept no interpretation other than theirs.

I am not saying anything remotely like that, nor do I believe anything remotely like that! What I have been saying, over and over and over again is that there is absolutely no EVIDENCE that the Ante-Nicene Church fathers saw so much as a hint of eternal security in even one passage of Scripture. Since we know that they intently studied the Scriptures and found in them all of the doctrines of orthodox (note the small "o") Christianity, the fact that there is no evidence that they found the doctrine of eternal security in the Scriptures, but rather very substantial and irrefutable evidence that they found the doctrine of conditional security in the Scriptures, is undeniable proof that the doctrine of eternal security is not clearly taught in the Scriptures. It does not prove it is a false doctrine, but it DOES PROVE that the doctrine is NOT CLEARLY TAUGHT in the Scriptures, and it also lends very much support for the argument that eternal security is a false doctrine. Whether or not eternal security is a false doctrine, the facts that I have presented here in this post are not suppositions or theories; they are historically documented facts.

Furthermore, in addition to the argument set forth in the above paragraph, I have made the argument that during the 1100 years immediately following the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, there are is still VIRTUALLY NO EVIDENCE that ANYONE found the doctrine of eternal security in the Scriptures, but rather very substantial and irrefutable evidence that very many scholars found the doctrine of conditional security in the Scriptures during this latter period. These facts further prove that the doctrine of eternal security is NOT CLEARLY TAUGHT in the Scriptures, and they also lend very much support for the argument that eternal security is a false doctrine.

Thus far you have posted NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, nor any other kind of evidence, that the doctrine of eternal security is clearly taught in the Scriptures; you have merely stated and restated that to be a fact. Empty statements carry no weight.

I am not saying anything remotely like that, nor do I believe anything remotely like that! What I have been saying, over and over and over again is that there is absolutely no EVIDENCE that the Ante-Nicene Church fathers saw so much as a hint of eternal security in even one passage of Scripture. Since we know that they intently studied the Scriptures and found in them all of the doctrines of orthodox (note the small "o") Christianity, the fact that there is no evidence that they found the doctrine of eternal security in the Scriptures, but rather very substantial and irrefutable evidence that they found the doctrine of conditional security in the Scriptures, is undeniable proof that the doctrine of eternal security is not clearly taught in the Scriptures. It does not prove it is a false doctrine, but it DOES PROVE that the doctrine is NOT CLEARLY TAUGHT in the Scriptures, and it also lends very much support for the argument that eternal security is a false doctrine. Whether or not eternal security is a false doctrine, the facts that I have presented here in this post are not suppositions or theories; they are historically documented facts.

Furthermore, in addition to the argument set forth in the above paragraph, I have made the argument that during the 1100 years immediately following the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, there are is still VIRTUALLY NO EVIDENCE that ANYONE found the doctrine of eternal security in the Scriptures, but rather very substantial and irrefutable evidence that very many scholars found the doctrine of conditional security in the Scriptures during this latter period. These facts further prove that the doctrine of eternal security is NOT CLEARLY TAUGHT in the Scriptures, and they also lend very much support for the argument that eternal security is a false doctrine.

Thus far you have posted NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, nor any other kind of evidence, that the doctrine of eternal security is clearly taught in the Scriptures; you have merely stated and restated that to be a fact. Empty statements carry no weight.

 

[Marcia]

Hebrews 12:7-8
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

This passage does not say that one loses their salvation. God disciplines, not punishes, believers. If we are not chastised by God it is because we are not believers -- that is what this is saying. He disciplines us as a Father reproves His children. Verses 10 and 11 show that this is done in love and to bring about fruit. And verse 6 says:

For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives

I don't see how verses 15-17 are teaching that one can lose their salvation. It seems that these verses are using Esau to show the consequences of bitterness, not losing salvation.

Craig, I looked up several of the passages you posted (thanks for posting them) but did not see where they indicated the person being discussed had been saved. 2 Peter talks about false teachers -- there is nothing to indicate in the ones I looked at that they are saved and then lost.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Marcia.
I don't see how verses 15-17 are teaching that one can lose their salvation.

Marcia,

I am a 100% right-wing, radical, once-saved-always-saved, eternal security, easy-belivism, call-it what-you-want, preacher. I posted the verses in Heb.12 to prove OSAS.

My point is that the falling away in ch 6 is Chastisement at the Judgment Seat of Christ. The believer who finds no place for repentance is still just as saved as he ever was.

2 Corinthians 5:8-11
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Please re-read my post with these thoughts in mind.

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

Craig, I looked up several of the passages you posted (thanks for posting them) but did not see where they indicated the person being discussed had been saved. 2 Peter talks about false teachers -- there is nothing to indicate in the ones I looked at that they are saved and then lost.

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

According to verse 20, these persons were not only saved from the consequences of sin, they were saved from sin itself (escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ). I realize that this is the historical interpretation rather than one of the modern interpretations taught by OSAS preachers, but it is by far the most commonly accepted interpretation. This does not, of course, mean that it is necessarily the correct interpretation, and I can not strongly enough encourage you to pray every day for God to teach you the truths in His Word, and to protect you from all error of all kinds. You would be foolish to take my word for it, or any other man’s word for it. Pray diligently, everyday, for God to teach you and protect you.

 

[HankD]

To argue that the Bible clearly teaches a doctrine that was not, in fact, seen by anyone to be in the Bible for 1500 years is against all reason.

Craig, do you apply this theorem to the pre-trib pre-mill rapture position?

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
The chastisement-chapter you mentioned has an excellent example of a chastisement of real sons for which repentance was impossible.

No it doesn't. For sons, repentance is possible. Those who fail of the grace of God are not believers. Esae was not a believer. He was a "fornicator," and the Bible clearly says that not fornicator will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:8-10; etc.). Esau "repentance" was a part of trying to get the birthright back. It was not spiritual. He went to his father and begged but it was done.

The contrast in the passage is "those who will see the Lord because they are holy" and "those who come short of the grace of God ... fornicators or profane people ... who are like Esau." Here again, the context makes a contrast that you are overlooking, just as in Hebrews 6. Those like Esau will not see the Lord.

Sometimes the promise of future chastening is meant to bring us to repentance now.

I agree with that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I am not saying anything remotely like that, nor do I believe anything remotely like that!

I don't see how you can say this. You are saying that it is not clearly taught because the church fathers that you know of contain no record of it. That doesn't mean it is not clearly taught. It simply means that the church fathers you have knowledge of show no record of it. That is far different. You seem to be rejecting it because you hold the church fathers in such high esteem. Not sharing your esteem for the church fathers, I can rely on the statements of God in Scripture. That is why I say what I do.

Thus far you have posted NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, nor any other kind of evidence, that the doctrine of eternal security is clearly taught in the Scriptures; you have merely stated and restated that to be a fact. Empty statements carry no weight.

There have been many statements of God posted, including John 10; 1 Peter 1; John 6; etc. These statements are weight, in and of themselves. Historical evidence is not inspired. It has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[HankD]

According to verse 20, these persons were not only saved from the consequences of sin, they were saved from sin itself (escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ).

Dear Craig, where in 2 Peter 2 does it say that these were "saved"? "escaped the pollutions of the world" does not necessarily mean salvation but indeed may mean a supernatural work of God, namely the reproval of sin.

John 16:7-8
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

IMO, These are at best one-time religionists perhaps Hebrew pharisaical types who had a fair witness coming perhaps to the door of salvation having been convicted of sin and showing promise but ultimately turning away. They "escaped" in that they did have this supernatural enlightenment also being of the Nation of promise, Israel, the door was opened to them yet they turned.

The wrath of God will be all the intense for these having heard, perhaps understood but turned.
Being pharisaical judaizers (perhaps) they would then "re-crucify" Christ by putting their stamp of approval on His death (as a breaker of the Law) and secondly by persecuting His followers and/or seducing them into legalism.

I realize this can be turned into a Calvin/Arminius debate but I offer this apart from that.

I disagree with you concerning this but I certainly respect your position and the obvious thought and research in the Word of God you have put into it.

HankD

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
For sons, repentance is possible. Those who fail of the grace of God are not believers. Esae was not a believer. He was a "fornicator," and the Bible clearly says that not fornicator will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:8-10; etc.).

Esau was still a son. Repentance was not possible. A believer can be a fornicator if he wants to. A believer can be a profane person if he wants to. That is why we are warned over and over of the consequences we believers face if we are disobedient. If we couldn't (continue in) sin then why warn us not to? This is the message of ch. 6, ch. 10, etc.

The verses you mentioned in Gal. and 1Cor. plainly tell us the consequences. A saved believer can fail to inherit the Kingdom if he continues in fornication. And if he falls at the Judgment seat he will find no place of repentance. The Kingdom is not "being saved". The Kingdom is the Kingdom. It lasts 1000 years. Like all chastisement this exclusion is limited in duration.

Plain as day.

Lacy

 

[Pastor Larry]

Esau was still a son.

But a son of who? He was a son of Esau, not a son of God.

A believer can be a fornicator if he wants to. A believer can be a profane person if he wants to. That is why we are warned over and over of the consequences we believers face if we are disobedient. If we couldn't (continue in) sin then why warn us not to? This is the message of ch. 6, ch. 10, etc.

The Scripture is plain that people who live that lifestyle are not believers. We are warned of consequences to be sure. We are also told that people who claim to know God but do not do what he says are lying.

A saved believer can fail to inherit the Kingdom if he continues in fornication. And if he falls at the Judgment seat he will find no place of repentance. The Kingdom is not "being saved". The Kingdom is the Kingdom. It lasts 1000 years. Like all chastisement this exclusion is limited in duration.

All saved believers from this age will inherit the kingdom. It is impossible not to. The point is plainly eternal life, not simply the Kingdom itself. It is impossible for a believer from the church age to not inherit the kingdom.

In 1 Cor 6, Paul says "Such were some of you, but now ..." In other words, as in Heb 6 and 12, the contrast is with the saved and the unsaved, not good believers and sinning believers. The same case can be made from Gal 5, though not as directly.

Plain as day.

I agree ... ... How do you keep missing it?? Seriously, I think there are some huge holes in your theology at this point that require some drastic measures to escape the message of the text. But that is fine ... I am sure you think the same of me.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Craig, do you apply this theorem to the pre-trib pre-mill rapture position?

Yes, of course, but I did not come to the conclusion that the pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine based on the teaching of the church fathers. I came to that conclusion studying my Scofield Reference Bible before I knew anything about the church fathers. The same is true regarding the false doctrine of OSAS. But of course I knew that there were many who tenaciously held to these two obviously false doctrines, and I wondered why. Therefore I studied their roots, and, of course, the roots of the opposing doctrines. I suppose, however, that praying everyday for many years for God to teach me the truth and protect me from error had something to do with what I learned.