True vs False Believers

[EdSutton]

I appreciate the comments above and would like to add (briefly) my own.

The passage in Hebrews 6 (which Dr. Luke penned)

I've already said that it is Apollos! :laugh: :laugh:

Actually, Luke could be considered at a potential author (Paul cannot, IMO) based on the fact that a "second generation Christian", who received some of his confirmation of knowledge from 'those who personally heard the Lord' (Heb. 2:1-4) wrote the book. However, it seems, to me at least, highly unlikely that the only Gentile Christian to write any of the NT books would have been the one writing to the Hebrew Christians, given the subject matter and (apparent) knowledge of the writer with the Jewish terms and wordings used in the book, as well as the knowledge of the Hebrew sacrificial system. It just does not seem to 'fit' what we know, all that well.

And given the 'good company' of Martin Luther, among others, I'm stickin' with Apollos! :thumbs:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Let me repeat some of what I said before about burning, as I feel this is a key reason why people see those in verses 4-6 as unbelievers - merely professing faith. The burning of a field that yields thorns and thistles does not destroy the field. The purpose is to hopefully prepare it to yield a useful crop in the future. The parallels with 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 are so close as to be undeniable and 1 Corinthians 3 clearly refers to lost rewards and a painful experience...

1 Corininthians 3:15 - "but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire."

Now, compare that with:

Hebrews 6:8 - "it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

Burning is often used in the NT to refer to God's discipline and purging:

1 Peter 1:6, 7 - In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
(Compare with James 1 below: )

James 1:2-4 - Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

1 Corinthians 3:13 - each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

Revelation 3:18 - I advise you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire so that you may be rich, and white clothes so that you may be dressed and your shameful nakedness not be exposed, and ointment to spread on your eyes so that you may see.​

You've made some good observations and a common point made in defense of those not being believers is about the apparent pronouns, which you're alluding to. But the issue for it being believers is much more complex than just the pronouns, and seeing a change in the audience at vs. 9, and is difficult to refute.

Since I believe that we are eternally secure, I could deal with it either way that fit the exegesis, of course, those being either believers or unbelievers. The reason I see it the way I do is purely based on the text and its context. My theology does not pressure me to view it either way. (Nor does it pressure Sproul apparently, as well.)

Some refer to the pronouns in verses 4 - 6 as indicating a change in readership from verse 9, but actually, in verses 4 and 6 the pronouns "those," they", and "them" don't really exist... There is a string of participles which are more literally translated as "having..." or "while..." etc. or as "who have..."

Also actually in vs. 4 the phrase translated something like "For in the case of those who have once been enlightened..." is really something like "For [it is] impossible [for] ones once enlightened..." in a more wooden translation.

Similarly, in vs. 6 what is typically translated as "and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance (act. from vs. 4) since they crucify to themselves again the Son of God..." would be translated more woodenly as "and falling away again to renew to repentance crucifying to/for themselves (ἑαυτοῖς - plural reflexive pronoun - 'themselves') again the Son of God..."

The only pronoun is a reflexive one. But translating participles so that it reads somewhat like normal English requires the use of pronouns to make it clear. That's why they were "inserted."

But IMO the author was speaking to some believers who were not going on to maturity (5:11-6:3). He speaks aboutthe serious immatrue condition of some of his readership, then after describing the consequences to them he goes on to say starting in vs. 9 that he has confidence that they will not end up like that.

The warning doesn't make any sense if he is talking to believers, concerned about their lack of growth, then tells them of some unbelievers who were close to being saved, but not quite and the consequences for those people, then to hop right back and say that they are confident that they won't end up like that. Well of course they won't. They're believers. How can they end up with consequences directed towards unbelievers? And IMO the warning serves no purpose if it is directed toward unbelievers. The letter was written to believers. And the 5 warnings IMO were also directed toward those same believers. But there was no threat of a possible loss of salvation. There is the possibility of great loss... but not of their eternal life.

That's how I view it, JD.

Let's take a brief ( ) look at the context:

There are 5 participal phrases in vss. 4-5 which are difficult to interpret any other way. Isn't it clear that only believers can be said...

1. to have been enlightened,
2. to have tasted the heavenly gift,
3. to have become companions with the Holy Spirit,
4. to have tasted the good Word of God, and
5. to have tasted the powers of the age to come.

This is the 3rd of 5 major warning sections in the book. What is the warning regarding? Is it warning believers that if they fall away can lose their salvation, or that they will then be severely disciplined by the Lord? Or is it referring to unbelievers? As I see it the warning is directed to believers - a very severe warning indeed... Now if someone says that these believers can lose their salvation, then logically there's no way out of their saying that once lost, always lost (OLAL). That's a strong argument against the possibility of this referring to a loss of salvation, IMO, regardless of how you view this.

Let me look just briefly at three of those participial phrases:

τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας
TOUS APAX FOTISTHENTAS -> "those having been enlightened"
[snipped]

γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου
GEUSAMENOUS TE TAS DOREAS TAS EPOURANIOU -> "both/and having tasted the heavenly gift"
Te = "and" or"both" This is another aorist participle, dealing with what they tasted or experienced. Also, one should note that Jesus "tastes death" (same Greek word) in Hebrews 2:9, and we would not want to argue that this means He only 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).

καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου
KAI METOCOUS GENATHENTAS PNEUMATOS AGIOU -> "and having become partakers of the Holy Spirit"[snipped] This is again 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. [snipped]

Overall, well said. And Faith alone may have said (I do not remember specifically), that scripture never speaks of "true believers" in some dichotomous contrast to "false believers".

If he or she did not, I will. Scripture does speak of "believe" and "disbelieve", So there are two categories of individuals, in view, in some contexts. But the attempted distinction of "falslly believe" versus "genuinely, really, and truly (and any other adjectives one may wish to add to this list in an attempt to redefine the meaning of) "believe" is a theological construct, and not found in the words of the Bible.

(BTW, I just returned home from a "grace conference", so some of this is fresh on my mind, as I talk, here.) ( The "snips" were necessary to get this to print.)

Thanks, Faith alone.

Ed

 

[fear of the lord]

tasting the heavenly gifts

I thought I would post some scriptures for anyone studying Heb 6

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Num13:23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.
24 The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence.
25 And they returned from searching of the land after forty days.
Their unfavorable report
26 And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.
27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
The children of Israel tasted the good thing of the promised land of rest which is spoken about in Heb 4 but because they wanted to turn back "fall away" if you will they were rejected entrance into God rest.

I had very little doctrinal belief and threw away most of what I had when I started studying in light of "types" 1Cor 10 tells us that the things that happened to them so that they would become types for our admonition so that we wouldn't fall.Does anyone else study scripture with the position that we can form doctrine from these examples?To lay out the types as I interpret them

Egypt=world
Israel=unfaithful belivers
Joshua&caleb=faithful believers
fruit of the land=word of god & powers of the age to come
giants=spiritual host of wickedness seated in heavenly places
promised land =millennial rule of Christ&the faithful or the kingdom which ever you prefer

 

[Faith alone]

Overall, well said. And Faith alone may have said (I do not remember specifically), that scripture never speaks of "true believers" in some dichotomous contrast to "false believers".

If he or she did not, I will. Scripture does speak of "believe" and "disbelieve", So there are two categories of individuals, in view, in some contexts. But the attempted distinction of "falslly believe" versus "genuinely, really, and truly (and any other adjectives one may wish to add to this list in an attempt to redefine the meaning of) "believe" is a theological construct, and not found in the words of the Bible.

(BTW, I just returned home from a "grace conference", so some of this is fresh on my mind, as I talk, here.) ( The "snips" were necessary to get this to print.)

Thanks, Faith alone.

Ed

Ed,

Thx... and it's "he." Which grace conference did you attend, the one in southern Atlanta area?

I too get tired of all the references to James 2 "faith without works is dead" or translating James 2:14 as "can such faith save him?" It's simply "can faith save him?"or as the HCSB has "can his faith save him?"

BTW, I do not see Paul as a possible author as he was plagued by people disreputing his reputation as an apostle. So the first thing that convinces me that whoever wrote Hebrews, it wouldn't likely be Paul, is that he said that he signed all of his letters. And you see him in the greeting of all of his letters stating who he is, just as he said he always does. One reason he did this, IMO, as so that the authority of the letter would be established. Since Paul said that he always signs off on his letters, and that appears to not have happened in Hebrews, though he assumes that the audience knows him (cf. 13:19, 22, 23), I can't see Paul as the author. In all of Paul’s letters there is a greeting formula that is lacking in Hebrews, and which Paul himself said was present in all of his letters. (2 Thessalonians 3:17)

Secondly, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Hebrews is written to Jews only.

Thirdly, Hebrews 2:3 says, "It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, ...." This sounds like someone who got his gospel from men. What did Paul say about that? Paul emphasized that he did not receive his gospel from men (Galatians 1). Also, Hebrews 2:3 seems to indicate the apostle placing himself outside the apostolic circle... which might argue against Barnabas as well.

Now there are some things about how Hebrews is written that seem to remind one of Paul, so that's why many say that it was likely a comrade of Paul's. It is said that the Greek style is more formal than in any of Paul's letters. (How would I know about such a thing?! ) But we do see many expressions similar to Paul's writings. That would hinttoward Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, etc. before Apollos, with whom he had little contact, we think.

Dr. Daniel Wallace says,

The first author to cite this epistle was Clement (c. 96 CE),4 though he does not say who wrote the book. It is omitted from both the Marcionite Canon and the Muratorian Canon. From the earliest times in church history, there has been great dispute as to authorship. A number of different authors were proposed, though Paul headed the list (so Clement of Alexandria, etc.). Yet Pauline authorship was explicitly denied by Origen, the successor to Clement, who uttered his now-famous agnostic confession: “Whoever wrote the epistle, God only knows for sure.” Other names were suggested. Tertullian was the first to suggest Barnabas; Luther, the first to suggest Apollos. All in all, the external evidence counts for very little.

Although it almost certainly is not by Paul, it almost certainly is by an associate of Paul.

I don't think anyone suggested Apollos before Luther... kinda late, which tends to make me hesitate there. I will say that Apollos was known for his powerful and elegant oratory ability, and Hebrews certainly reads like that.

Here are some arguments for Barnabas as author, FWIW:

• He was put forth by Tertullian as the author, as well as by Origen and Augustine. Other than Paul, Barnabas is the only other suggestion which had early ecclesiastical support, FWIW.
• He was a Levite and would therefore have an interest and knowledge in the Jewish sacrificial system. That abounds in Hebrews.
• And as a Levite Barnabas would have been intimately acquainted with the temple ritual, which is prevalent throughout Hebrews. Paul never speaks with such familiarity of these things in any of his letters.
• There might perhaps be a play on his "word of encouragement" (13:22) and the fact that he was called the "son of encouragement," Acts 4:36.
• Barnabas was converted shortly after Pentecost and some say was significantly impacted by Stephen, who was also a hellenistic Jew. (The reason this is perhaps significant is that some see some parallels with Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 seen throughout Hebrews. );

IMO, several strong arguments can be made for Apollos as well, though I would question the basis for his apostolic authority needed in any NT writing. But we know that he spoke with elegance. Personally, I like Barnabas because he's "the son of encouragement." I like his style, so I "prefer" to think that he authored Hebrews. Paul refers to Barnabas as an apostle. He never referred to Titus, Timothy, Luke or Silas as such. But I love that Barnabas brought Paul before the apostles in Jerusalem after his conversion and still believed in John Mark after Paul wanted nothing more to do with him on missionary trips.

Take care,

FA

 

[canadyjd]

I've already said that it is Apollos! :laugh:

Actually, Luke could be considered at a potential author ... However, it seems, to me at least, highly unlikely that the only Gentile Christian to write any of the NT books would have been the one writing to the Hebrew Christians, given the subject matter and (apparent) knowledge of the writer with the Jewish terms and wordings used in the book, as well as the knowledge of the Hebrew sacrificial system. Ed

That is a good observation. :thumbs: I do not remember exactly why everyone believes Luke wasn't Jewish, or if it is stated plainly in scripture that he was gentile. Perhaps his name is a gentile name, but that may not be definitive.

However, even if he was a gentile, Luke could have certainly attained a great knowledge of Jewish customs (and a lot of theological interpretation of Old Testament passages) from his long association with Paul.

I favor Luke as the author of Hebrews for the following reasons. There are 3 places in the New Testament where Classical (some may say near classical) Greek is used.

1. The first four verses of the Gospel of Luke are classical Greek.
2. The first four verses of Acts are classical Greek.
3. The first four verses of Hebrews are classical Greek.

And secondly, Luke had a sponsor for his writings (Theophilus). It was common during that period (according to my Greek professor in Seminary) for sponsors to pay the writer enough for 3 works at a time. That may also explain the use of classical Greek. A Gentile sponsor, well-read in classical Greek literature, may have appreciated the use of classical Greek in a work he was paying for.

Just the same, Apollos is a good guess too.

peace to youraying:

 

[Faith alone]

That is a good observation. :thumbs: I do not remember exactly why everyone believes Luke wasn't Jewish, or if it is stated plainly in scripture that he was gentile. Perhaps his name is a gentile name, but that may not be definitive.

However, even if he was a gentile, Luke could have certainly attained a great knowledge of Jewish customs (and a lot of theological interpretation of Old Testament passages) from his long association with Paul.

I favor Luke as the author of Hebrews for the following reasons. There are 3 places in the New Testament where Classical (some may say near classical) Greek is used.

1. The first four verses of the Gospel of Luke are classical Greek.
2. The first four verses of Acts are classical Greek.
3. The first four verses of Hebrews are classical Greek.

And secondly, Luke had a sponsor for his writings (Theophilus). It was common during that period (according to my Greek professor in Seminary) for sponsors to pay the writer enough for 3 works at a time. That may also explain the use of classical Greek. A Gentile sponsor, well-read in classical Greek literature, may have appreciated the use of classical Greek in a work he was paying for.

Just the same, Apollos is a good guess too.

peace to youraying:

Oh, no - I think that Luke was Jewish. But he wrote the gospel to the Gentiles. He was the man that God used to tell the story of the apostle to the Gentiles (Paul). If Luke also wrote Hebrews, to Theopholis, then why didn't he mention his name as he did in Luke and Acts? Also, it reads in Acts 1 as if Luke is finishing his chronicle which he began in his gospel.

Can you tell us what it is in Acts, Luke and Hebrews which rings as classical Greek? Just curious. But Luke does have the added advantage that he wrote two other NT books, so the issue of his apostolic authority is established.

But we really don't know who wrote Hebrews, and haven't known apparently since about 100AD. I just prefer to refer to the author as Barnabas because he's the "son of Encouragement." We need more Christians like Barnabas.

Hebrews 13:22 Brothers, I urge you to receive this word of encouragement, for I have written to you in few words.

Thx,

FA

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,

Thx... and it's "he." Which grace conference did you attend, the one in southern Atlanta area?

No, one in Chicago. The host pastor of the host church, Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church, (Dr. James A. Scudder) is a long-time college friend for now almost 39 years, from the Univ. of KY, and Florida Bible College, where we both graduated. In fact, he gave the invocation at my wedding when my bride and I were married here in KY, in 1999, with me at the tender age of 50, and she not yet dry behind the ears at 37. (BTW, it is the first and only marriage for both of us, I believe. I know it will be for me, and I also believe it will be for her. She has been 'spoiled' by me, to the fact that she wouldn't want to have to try and 'break in' another!) :laugh: :laugh:

And a main conference speaker (Dr. Ron R. Seecharan) is also a Bible College friend of mine for now almost 38 years, so we took a little four day jaunt north, as we had not had any vacation for over two years with me having had two major surgeries in 13 mos., and we took the chance to just have a bit of relaxation, visiting some old friends, and spiritual renewal. And I met a BB member, there, as well, for the first time in person, and also another long time friend for well over 10 years over the telephone and Internet. So we had a really great time. There were over 500 in attendance, I would guess, blindly, with some 25-30 including a Dean of the College, from my Bible College days, now over 35 years ago, at least half of whom I had not seen in that time. And several of them are good personal friends, as well, and we had not a clue that any of them, except three other couples who are in the ministry in that immediate area, including one current and one formerly at Quentin Road, would be there, before attending.

I just ain't yet quite 'figgered out' how they all suddenly got so much older than me, though. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[canadyjd]

Can you tell us what it is in Acts, Luke and Hebrews which rings as classical Greek?

The first 4 verses of each (Luke, Acts, Hebrews) is written in a classical Greek style.

I have read most of your posts, and appreciate your strong commitment to scripture.

The book of Hebrews is obviously written to believers. However, I believe the author (Barnalukollos) was addressing a specific, hypothetical question from those believers in chp. 6.

He begins by saying he is "leaving the elementary teachings about Christ" in v.1 (he then names some of those elementary teachings) to "press on to maturity" This must certainly mean that what follows is a "mature teaching about Christ". Or a teaching that is for mature believers.

What is the teaching? It begins in v.4 with "For in the case of those who have.....". This phrase sets up a hypothetical situation (I understand you see it as a real situation) about whether someone who has made a profession of faith, and has been considered to be a believer, could lose their salvation and then regain it. He answers the hypothetical in v.6 with an emphatic "NO", because they would have to crucify Jesus all over again.

Considering the question in v.6 to be hypothetical makes sense in context with v.9 "But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation".

It is clear the author places them in a different category than those who "fall away" and "produce thorns and thistles".

As far as the term "fire" being used of God's discipline (which may be true) it is probably more often associated with hell, and also with persecution, though I have to go to work and therefore cannot take the time to look those passages up. Sorry.

peace to youraying:

 

[Faith alone]

canadyjd,

I have no problem with this approach to Hebrews 6. FYI, I have often thought that Barnalukollos may have been speaking hypothetically there. It doesn't change how I view the burning of the crops off the land. Think about it: is the land destroyed when the crops are burned off of it? Of course not. He would have used a different illustration if that was his intent. And this was a common practice in those days for dealing with unproductive land. But Barnalukollos immediately says that he is convinced of better things in his readers' case. But the warning is still very serious in nature.

Once about 20 years ago I was reading Hebrews 6 when it suddenly dawned on me that the author was using very similar language and illustrations as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, which is regarding the BHMA seat. (Now I don't think Barnalukollos's illustration is of the BHMA seat.) Since then, I have been convinced that the fire is not hell fire. His illustration illustrates what he had just spoken about in vss. 1-4.

Now consider a genuine believer who has been cultivated to produce fruit by the Spirit, yet who refuses to submit and hence their field will not produce crops, but weeds. In the not-that-distant past, if a farmer had a field that had become unproductive, he often burned it. This was very common 2000 years ago. The weeds would be burned up, providing fresh new topsoil, and you could start fresh. The result was that the soil was purified of weed seeds, and you had fertile soil left. The farmer wasn't giving up on his field. God never gives up on us. But such burning will be very hard.

I would even say that the burning relates to "impossible to renew to repentance." When a Christian has reached such a state, it is impossible for people to do anything to bring him back to following Christ. Only, it is not impossible for God. But he will bring such a person through "hell on earth" - much tribulations, so that the impurities will rise to the surface and can be skimmed off. We can reach a point where the only option left to our Lord is not going to be... pleasant.

BTW, Joseph Dillow says that the burning is not referring to a cleansing fire, as I've described above, but to the burning of the works of the field - to the BHMA seat of Christ. What's lost are rewards.

BTW, what is it about those first few verses in each book that is classical Greek in nature? Just curious.

Take care,

FA

 

[John Ellwood Taylor]

Just for the record

I know I'm a "Johnny come lately" to this topic but as I began reading I noted some confusing of terms...

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Earlier in Hebrews it says that Jesus "tasted death" for us. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

The original has a different word for tasted in 2:9 (geuomai-to give a taste of) vs. 6:4 (metoxos- sharing in, partaking of)
So be careful in equating them as having the same meaning (different words/different contexts)

The NET note on 2:9 which translated here as experienced - “would taste.” Here the Greek verb does not mean “sample a small amount” (as a typical English reader might infer from the word “taste”), but “experience something cognitively or emotionally; come to know something” (cf. BDAG 195 s.v. γεύομαι 2)

 

[canadyjd]

I would even say that the burning relates to "impossible to renew to repentance." When a Christian has reached such a state, it is impossible for people to do anything to bring him back to following Christ. Only, it is not impossible for God. But he will bring such a person through "hell on earth" - much tribulations, so that the impurities will rise to the surface and can be skimmed off. We can reach a point where the only option left to our Lord is not going to be... pleasant.

The very real problem with this view is that "impossible to renew to repentance" is further clarified by the statement they would have to "crucify" again the Son of God to themselves.

That is a very real impossibility because Jesus has already died that "through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12) For Jesus to suffer crucifixion again would mean His first crucifixion wasn't the perfect sacrifice God's Holy Word claims it to be.

Therefore, when the author says it would be impossible, he really means it would be impossible.

BTW, what is it about those first few verses in each book that is classical Greek in nature? Just curious.

I am not a classical Greek scholar (not even a kone Greek scholar). This is how I understand it, however.

It would be like the difference between reading in English a fourth grade level story (most newspapers are printed with language between 3rd and 5th grade) and a Shakespearian Sonnet. The latter possesses an elegance that is much appreciated by those who love a language and are masters of it.

The rest of the New Testament is mostly written in Kone Greek, which was the common trade language.

Hope that helps

peace to youraying:

 

[Faith alone]

I know I'm a "Johnny come lately" to this topic but as I began reading I noted some confusing of terms...


The original has a different word for tasted in 2:9 (geuomai-to give a taste of) vs. 6:4 (metoxos- sharing in, partaking of)
So be careful in equating them as having the same meaning (different words/different contexts)

The NET note on 2:9 which translated here as experienced - “would taste.” Here the Greek verb does not mean “sample a small amount” (as a typical English reader might infer from the word “taste”), but “experience something cognitively or emotionally; come to know something” (cf. BDAG 195 s.v. γεύομαι 2)

Ellwood,

My brother's name is Elwood - not of the Blues Brothers!

Actually, the word translated as "tasted" in both verses (vss. 4 & 5) is not metaxoi, but geuomai (γευσαμένους - aorist middle participle). METAXOI is a neat noun - referring to companions, sharers in a common endeavor. GEUOMAI is the same word used in Hebrews 2:9 as well (γεύσηται - aorist middle subjunctive). But thx for the gloss info. on the word. It does mean "to experience" - which makes it not so likely that he is talking to unbelievers, IMO. And if Jesus experienced death, but not really, then, well, we all got a big problem!

Keep sharing. New input is fresh and gives us all a new perspective.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

The very real problem with this view is that "impossible to renew to repentance" is further clarified by the statement they would have to "crucify" again the Son of God to themselves.

That is a very real impossibility because Jesus has already died that "through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:12) For Jesus to suffer crucifixion again would mean His first crucifixion wasn't the perfect sacrifice God's Holy Word claims it to be.

Therefore, when the author says it would be impossible, he really means it would be impossible.

Well, I can see that logic - makes sense. I have heard a take on Hebrews 6 (act., used to be my take on it as well) which essentially says that the author is talking about not being able to go back to the cross and trust cross again - be re-born again. It has some merit, but I don't see it fitting into the illustration of the ground so well.

Here's my thinking on this, FWIW:

• The parallel between 1 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 6 is uncanny.
• The statement about crucifying again the Son of God to themselves is very difficult to understand. But some say that when we live such that all we produce are weeds and thorns rather than useful crops it is a real slam on Christ dying for us. In a sense, we are saying His death wasn't enough to cause us to live for Him. It does say also "...and put Him to open shame."
• Vs 7 falls on the heels of vs 6 and shows that the illustration is about producing useful crops. When we don't produce useful crops we are essentially re-crucifying the Son of God and putting Him to open shame. Christ died for him?! Then why is he living like that! That's a slam on Christ and His death.
• No word is translated as "since" in "since they crucify again..." It is simply a participle phrase, which IMO makes more sense to translate as "while they crucify again..." Particples are almost never translated as "since..." I think people are reading their theology a bit into the translation there. It could be simply translated as, "crucifying again to themselves the Son of God."
• If it is translaed as "while they crucify again to themselves..." then the impossibility would be limited to the state of doing such. IOW, while they are producing weeds, putting Christ to shame, it is impossible to renew them to repentance. But if they go through some real tough tribulations, which is often God's means of getting our head on straight, we might come out of it changed.
• It doesn't make sense to say that there is never anything that God can ever do to bring back a child of God from an unrepentant state. You telling me God can't do that? I don't buy it. Instead, I prefer to think that I must be misunderstanding what that phrase means. But to say that as long as our heart is such, God can't do anything does make sense... but fortunately, my God can change us - He never gives up disciplining us and working on us. In an earlier warning passage in Hebrews the author warned against a hardening of the heart. As a parent, if I had a wayward child I'd never give up praying for him and trying to shake him up so that he sees his condition. Would God do any less?

I am not a classical Greek scholar (not even a kone Greek scholar). This is how I understand it, however.

It would be like the difference between reading in English a fourth grade level story (most newspapers are printed with language between 3rd and 5th grade) and a Shakespearian Sonnet. The latter possesses an elegance that is much appreciated by those who love a language and are masters of it.

The rest of the New Testament is mostly written in Kone Greek, which was the common trade language.

Hope that helps

peace to youraying:

Ok, thx. Just wondering. Interesting idea. When I read such things I just have to take the author's word for it - no way I can tell such things! Like I said, the reason I prefer Barnabas is because I really like the dude! So the first 4 verses in those letters are more formal in nature. I was wondering if they used some words which were classical Greek, not koine.

Take care,

FA

 

[canadyjd]

Well, I can see that logic - makes sense. I have heard a take on Hebrews 6 (act., used to be my take on it as well) which essentially says that the author is talking about not being able to go back to the cross and trust cross again - be re-born again. It has some merit, but I don't see it fitting into the illustration of the ground so well.

The parallel between 1 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 6 is uncanny.

Well, there are many passages that speak of the plant not producing fruit and being burned, that deal with unbelievers and eternal damnation. Matt 6 and 7 (parable of the sower, wheat and tares, etc.)

Concerning the I Corinthian 3 passage, there are some similarities especially in the admonishment for needing milk and not being ready for meat (in their understanding of doctrine).

The I Cor. passage, however, is dealing with the unity of the church in contrast with breaking into groups to follow different teachers. Hebrews 6 is specifically answering the question "can a person fall away (lose salvation) and then regain it."

When Paul says (I Cor. 3 v.13)"each man's work will become evident; ....it is revealed by fire.", he is not speaking of the work of individual believers. He is speaking of the work of the Christian teachers who have built a "Temple" (God's building in v.9) of Christian believers.

That building/Temple (their followers) will be tested by fire (persecution). The quality of the teacher's work is made evident by what (how many) remain after the persecution; and his reward will be granted based on the faithfulness of the followers.

If he destroys the church, then God will destroy him.

It doesn't make sense to say that there is never anything that God can ever do to bring back a child of God from an unrepentant state. You telling me God can't do that?

A child of God is a true Christian. I don't believe such a person can lose their salvation in the first place.

I agree with you that God disciplines those He loves, some times with a heavy hand. I just don't believe Hebrews 6 is teaching that.

peace to youraying:

 

[Faith alone]

Well, there are many passages that speak of the plant not producing fruit and being burned, that deal with unbelievers and eternal damnation. Matt 6 and 7 (parable of the sower, wheat and tares, etc.)

FA: I do not see the parable of the sower as dealing with unbelievers, in general. The theme is about the effect of the Word in people's lives. As I see it, only the first soil represents an unbeliever - because the seed never germinates. The context for Hebrews 6 is clearly that of immature believers.

Concerning the I Corinthian 3 passage, there are some similarities especially in the admonishment for needing milk and not being ready for meat (in their understanding of doctrine).

The I Cor. passage, however, is dealing with the unity of the church in contrast with breaking into groups to follow different teachers. Hebrews 6 is specifically answering the question "can a person fall away (lose salvation) and then regain it."

When Paul says (I Cor 3v13)"each man's work will become evident; ....it is revealed by fire.", he is not speaking of the work of individual believers. He is speaking of the work of the Christian teachers who have built a "Temple" (God's building in v.9) of Christian believers.

That building/Temple (their followers) will be tested by fire (persecution). The quality of the teacher's work is made evident by what (how many) remain after the persecution; and his reward will be granted based on the faithfulness of the followers.

Not "how many" remain. The illustration is of the qualitry of work which anyone may do. And the point is simply that God uses the fire to test thequality of work each person has done. People are not being burned here. People's works are being burned - being tested. The work granted is not based on the faithfulness of the followers, but on the the quality of work done - that is specifically what the text says. "each one's work will become obvious, for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire; the fire will test the quality of each one's work.." The "one" is Paul or Apollos or Peter.

Now how are we to view vss 14, 15? If anyone's work that he has built survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, it will be lost, but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire. This is clearly intended to be applied by the Corinthians believers. Earlier Paul used the illustration of planting and then watering the Corinthians believers... Now the one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. Paul is speaking about getting rewards when we stand before Christ based on our labors.

If he destroys the church, then God will destroy him.

A child of God is a true Christian. I don't believe such a person can lose their salvation in the first place.

I agree with you that God disciplines those He loves, some times with a heavy hand. I just don't believe Hebrews 6 is teaching that.

peace to youraying:

Look at the text, in context:

Hebrews 6:7-12 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]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. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case--things that accompany salvation. God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised. [/FONT]


The word translated as "worthless" is ADOKIMOS - it refers to failing a test, not qualifying. It is never used in the NT to refer to unsaved. And burning does not destroy the land - it clears the land of the useless weeds, etc.

Anyway, I think we've gone around on this one a few times. Since it really is extremely hard to say that those in vss. 4-6 are unbelievers, some view such as I've suggested must be in place.


Take care,

FA

 

[canadyjd]

And so we will disagree. I have enjoyed the civil discussion and look forward to more.

peace to youraying: