|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 29, 2006 20:10:38 GMT -5
"For if we sin willfully after we have recieved the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." Heb 10:26 "Willfully" refutes the teaching that man has no Free-Will "After we recieve the knowledge of the truth" refutes the teaching of Irresistable Grace. "no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" refutes the Once Saved Always Saved. "no longer" means that there was a time when it did. Another scripture that teaches that man has a free will and refutes both Personal Predestination and also Irrestable Grace is: Mt 23:37 - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
Lu 13:34 - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"
So here you see that Jesus willed to saved Jerusalem, but Jerusalem could not be saved because THEY were not WILLING!
I see the vital importance of teaching mans free will in evangelism. If a man cannot repent, how can you call him to repent? If the man is not the one who makes the decision to sin or to be saved, why preach at all to men? If man is not the decision maker, you cannot ask him to make any decisions.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 29, 2006 23:13:46 GMT -5
I like you thinking Jesse.
The word Repent itself goes against the TULIP theology. The greek for Repent is Metanoia which is the change ones mind.
Jesus said in Luke 13:3 "Unless YOU repent" that is "Unless you change your mind", so Jesus puts the emphasis on the person exercising free will in changing their mind.
Not predestination.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 30, 2006 1:56:12 GMT -5
I agree on the Free Will thing Jesse...I think that predestination is a very misunderstood and taken out of context doctrine in the Bible. THe Scripture that most use is found in Romans 8:28-30. If you notice Verse 29 says that those "He Foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son." So it says that those whom He knew would repent and put their faith in His Son, those whom He knew would be saved are the ones that He predestined. What did He predestine them for? Did He predestine for them to be saved? NO, that is NOT what it says. It says that He predestined them to be conformed to the likeness of His Son. In other words God began to work in the lives of those whom God knew would be Born Again before they became Born Again. I know that as I look back over my life, that I can see the Hand of God at work even before I got saved. Most people who believe that God picks and chooses who will be saved and who won't just look at verse 30 and take it out ot context. The ones who are "predestined" in verse 30 are the ones who He already "foreknew" as verse 29 says.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 30, 2006 13:16:34 GMT -5
Josh and Jesse, the shorter catechism of the westminster confession of faith (which is very calvinistic) puts repentance as a decision
Q. 87. What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
As revk said, you misunderstand true calvinistic theology. On further study, arminianism just doesn't make sense to me. Consider this for example.
All Christians would say quite readily that it is God that saves men. If you don't then you are saying that man saves himself. But if it is God alone who saves, and if he saves by the Spirit's direct and immediate operation by and with the word of God upon the soul, and if all that he does looking to the salvation of men he does directly to and for all men alike (which is what you would say as you don't believe in the elect), drawing no distinctions between them, it seems logical to conclude that all men will be saved. This obviously is not the case.
But then you say that the reason not ALL are saved is because of the exercising of free will, either to repent or not to repent. But this logically means that at the decisive point it is something that MAN DOES OR BECOMES that determines whether he is saved or lost. So really the work of salvation transfers from God to man. This teaching I cannot accept dear brethren.
If you say that Christ died for everybody, but not everybody will be saved, then really He died for nobody. Grider (arminian) says, "arminians teach that what Christ did, he did for every person; therefore, what he did could not have been to pay the penalty of sin, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the one who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs."
But this is not true. If the death of Christ upon the cross was not intended as a sin offering to pay the penalty for anyones sin but was intended rather, to illustrate to men what their sins penally deserve at the hands of a just God, then not only is no mans sin atoned for yet, but also Christs death is rendered useless, for it is simply not the case that sinful men conclude from His death that "forgiveness is costly" and that they should "strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs."
Written in love, Armen
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 30, 2006 13:37:02 GMT -5
It seems to me to God soverienly moves upon someone ie conviction, and then it is your responsibility to yield.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 30, 2006 13:43:40 GMT -5
It seems to me to God soverienly moves upon someone ie conviction, and then it is your responsibility to yield. Well if God SOVERIGNLY moves upon a soul, then you believe that God seeks man because that man would not look for God unless God came and placed conviction in their heart. That I would say, is election dear brother, and I would say AMEN! Edit: In fact it shows more than election because if it is God that has to seek man, and convict him of his sin, then obviously it must be the corruption of the mans heart that prevents him from seeking God which equals the doctrine of Original sin.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 30, 2006 13:52:27 GMT -5
I will give a short peice of my testimony.
When I was younger I would always go to church with my parents. I would sit in the pew and quite often I would be convicted, sometimes even to tears. Several times I went to the alter. Most everyone thought I was saved. I mean come on I went to the alter often and would even shead tears. I was never converted. I felt deeply that I needed to confess Christ publicly and yield my whole being to Him. I always refused. I remember when I would feel the conviction come upon me I would say loudly (in my mind), "No! I will not do this today." When I would do this the drawing would immediately stop. After several years of this the conviction never would come back or effect me.
I remember in my mid teen years. I knew I was not saved and going to hell. There was no question. I also remember laying in bed at night, from time to time, and praying, "God, I am going to Hell. I know that I am. I just don't care. I want to care, but its just not there." I would even from time get scared. I remember once I was laying in my room and heard some loud noises and I grabbed my pillow and tried to hide my head and I begin to think, "Oh! Jesus is coming." I thought the loud noise was Jesus coming. I felt like I wanted to die, yet no drawing to come to Jesus. All the times when the Holy Ghost tried to draw me I resisted, yet when I was in terror of death and hell, the drawing was not there. YIELD TO GOD WHEN HE CONVICTS YOU! YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE IT TOMORROW!
God finally did draw me and I yeilded. It was a massive wave of conviction. I was shaking uncontrolably. How it happened was that my parents asked me to come to a "gospel singing" (if your from the south you know what I'm talking about) and in the middle of the concert the lead singer just pointed me out of the crowd and said, "God is working on your today." I looked at him like he was crazy and then the conviction came immediately after they started singing. At the time I was selling drugs. After the service I went home and gathed up everything that I had that had to do with my sinful life. I then went and dumped everything in a river. I honestly believe that if I would have not yielded and done away with everything I had, I would not have been saved. I would not have ever been drawn by the Holy Ghost again. I would be on my way to hell, not because of God, but because of my hard-heartedness.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 30, 2006 13:57:48 GMT -5
THAT is salvation! Praise God! Sounds a wee bit like my own experience bro.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 30, 2006 14:14:45 GMT -5
IS SALVATION FREE AND STILL REQUIRE THINGS FROM MAN?
Suppose someone gives you a free gift at Christmas. It's wrapped up all nice, and is completely free! All you have to do is reach out and grab it and unwrap it.
Is it no longer free because there is something you have to do to recieve it? Is it no longer free because you must reach out and grab it and unwrap it? No it's still free. You didn't pay anything for it.
So is Salvation. Salvation is a free gift from God through Jesus Christ. Christ paid the price for it by dying on the cross. We did not pay that price ourselves.
But we must reach out through faith and repentance and recieve it. Does that mean it's no longer free? No. It's still free because it's Christ who paid the price for it. The price was the cross, which only Christ met, but the conditions and requirements is faith and repentance.
Faith and repentance is not the PRICE for Salvation, but it is a REQUIREMENT and CONDITION for salvation. Christ met the price, we must met the requirements and conditions. Though it is free salvation and free grace for all who will take it, it is also conditional salvation.
It's like if I wanted to give you 1 MILLION Dollars for free and said, "come over to my house and pick it up." Is it no longer free because I said "come to my house and pick it up"? No it's still free even with that required condition.
So also is salvation free though God tells man "unless you repent you will perish" Luke 13:3
WHO'S FAULT IS CONDEMNATION?
Not everyone will be saved, because not everyone reaches out. God reaches out to all men, "God so loved the world" and "God is not willing that any should perish" but not all men reach out to God. It is man who fails, not God.
I agree that if man be saved, it's because of God because Christ paid the price for mans Salvation at the cross. But I strongly disagree that if man be condemned, it's because of God.
I see in the scriptures that if man be condemned, it's his own fault. Not because he was predestined by God to be condemned, thus God being responsible for the condemnation, but because he choose to continue in sin and reject God's salvation, thus himself being responsible for his own condemnation.
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR SIN?
If God predestines some to be condemned, would he not have to then also predestine them to commit sin in which to be punished for? Or are they no longer being punished for sin, but simply for God's pleasure?
The way I see it, if God predestines souls to be condemned, He would also have to predestine them to commit sin to be punished for, and that is not the God of the bible.
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but they they turn and live. Ezekiel 18:32
I just can't buy into the teaching that "God is willing that some should perish and some be saved" and "God so loved only a certain few"
------------------------------------------------
Armen, what are you thoughts on the above scriptures? Hebs 10:26, Matt 23:37, Luke 13:34?
Those were the initial topics of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 30, 2006 14:15:40 GMT -5
I'm not really sure what to think. I don't believe that I was "elect" as in the sense that others aren't "elected." I do believe that the presence of God must be there for someone to be saved. I believe strongly that a minister must be annointed and the people in much prayer. What I mean by sovereign is that we can't force God to do anything, but I believe He is very willing, so maybe its a mute point?
I believe we must be in much prayer and living holy and that when we do that the presence of God will be there and convict men, then they can choose to reject or accept.
EDIT: and by accepting means them repenting and rejecting would be them doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 30, 2006 18:40:21 GMT -5
Heb 10:26 - An explanation which I believe is the correct one is that the writer of Hebrews is using a hypothetical situation to make a point. This is the only explanation that I am aware of the does not violate other Scripture.
v26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
The argument is something like this. If it were possible for a true Christian to sin willfully after receiving the gospel truth by rejecting it and therefore losing their salvation, there would be no hope of him ever getting saved again. The only thing awaiting him is the fiery indignation of God seeing that he has trodden under foot the Lord Jesus Christ and counted His blood by which he was saved an unholy thing. The only way of salvation is through the blood of Jesus and if a true Christian COULD reject this then there is no hope for him, seeing he rejected the only thing that could save his soul.
Matt 23:37 & Luke 13:34 - I admit it to be a difficult passage but nevertheless it would seem from such passages that God reveals two wills. The will of divine decree and the will of divine command. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another."
In spite of these criticisms the distinction stands, not because of a logical or theological deduction, but because it is inescapable in the Scriptures.
On your 3 points I agree that salvation is free and that it requires man to repent and accept it. I agree that mans condemnation is a result of his own fault. However the Bible does not say that God predestines man to be condemned. Neither predestined to sin, but predestined some to eternal life. Sounds like a paradox and maybe it is but that is what the bible says.
You say "I just can't buy into the teaching that "God is willing that some should perish and some be saved" and "God so loved only a certain few" but the fact of the matter is brother, that God has created us for His own pleasure. Would God have been unfair to NOT provide a means of reconciliation to him? No! The fact is he did and choose to have 'a people' for himself. We all deserve hell but God showed mercy to 'a people'. I mean God CHOOSE Israel. Why? The only answer is, just because he did. There is no human reasoning behind it, he just did it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 30, 2006 19:35:59 GMT -5
Are you at least admitting that IF a true Christian backslides, he has lost his salvation?
Also, are you saying then that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to sin? Or that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to backslide?
I of course would say that it is possible for a Christian not to sin, as well as to sin. It is possible for a Christian to backslide, as well as not to backslide. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to sin or backslide.
I always thought that Predestination and Sinless Perfection could go together. It seems like those two doctrines could match up. If it's ultimately God who does the repenting on behalf of man, wouldn't He do is completely and not partially?
If then man is held accountable FOR his sin, is it not because he didn't HAVE to sin? Or does God hold man accountable for not doing what he was not capable of doing in the first place? Isn't it true that no man has to sin?
There are different forms of Calvinism. Some forms of Calvinism says that God predestines some to eternal life and others to eternal d**nation. I am glad to hear you are at least not of that kind of Calvinism.
I agree that we were created for God's glory. Certainly hearing preachers say that God predestined sinners for condemnation does not make me glorify God, though He is completely just in sending sinners to hell for their sin.
The reason I cannot believe in Limited Atonement is because I don't see it in scripture at all. I read the scriptures time and time again and never read anything about Limited Atonement. I only hear it from Calvinists and it's because that is the logical conclusion they make because of their belief in personal predestination. Limited Atonement is the conclusion of that logic, not the truth which comes from scripture.
Eze 33:11 - "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
2Pe 3:9 - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
I believe that God is broken hearted over lost and dying sinners. Because He doesn't want them to perish though they rightly deserve to.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 30, 2006 20:43:40 GMT -5
Armen, You wrote that, "Heb 10:26 - An explanation which I believe is the correct one is that the writer of Hebrews is using a hypothetical situation to make a point" How is that different from what the serpent said to Eve in the garden? "'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman." -Genesis 3:4 You also wrote, "On your 3 points I agree that salvation is free and that it requires man to repent and accept it. I agree that mans condemnation is a result of his own fault. However the Bible does not say that God predestines man to be condemned. Neither predestined to sin, but predestined some to eternal life. Sounds like a paradox and maybe it is but that is what the bible says." Here's my problem. If "mans condemnation is his own fault", then you are saying he is responsible for his eternal destiny. Responsibility means they could have chosen otherwise. Yet you don't believe those who will be condemned could have chosen otherwise because they weren't predestined to eternal life. You cannot have responsibility and unconditional election. Also, you shy away from the doctrine of reprobation, but in order to be logically consistent you have to believe that those who are condemened were condemned by the will of God. This must be for the glory of God. If Edwards is right about God's secret will, then we must conclude that the God of the Bible is a God who does not mean what he says. (see 2 Pe 3:9, 1 Tim 2:3-4) Once again how is this different from the serpent in the garden?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 14:11:22 GMT -5
Not to get into limited atonement (being discussed elsewhere) but this is how it is for me. Yes mens condemnation is his own fault and yes he is responsible for his eternal destiny but i ALSO believe in election. WHY do I believe these things which SEEM to contradict? Because its what the bible says. I find that too many are trying to reason the infinite with a finite mind. Just believe what the word teaches brethren.
I like what Spurgeon said when he said something like, election and free will are like the two rails of a train track. They run parrallel through the word of God and never seem to meet, but without a doubt they are there and so somewhere, sometime, possibly at the eternal throne of God in glory, these two doctrines will meet.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 31, 2006 17:11:57 GMT -5
Armen, I want you to know that we thank God for you. I think you're earnest in your convictions. You're doing a good job of challenging are positions and of defending your own. You keep saying that you believe in election. What you need to understand is that it's not a matter of who believes in election and who doesn't. We all believe in election. The difference is in what kind of election. You hold to unconditional election while we view it as conditional. At the heart of this entire debate is the nature of God. Calvinism, in my opinion, subordinates the love of God to the will of God. Arminianism believes God's sovereignty flows out of and is consistent with his love. Fritz Guy wrote, "One of the most serious ways in which the course of Christian theology has been misled by its classical and medieval heritage has been the assumption that the primary fact about God is omnipotent sovereignty and that the evideence of this sovereignty is the exercise of power to control events, including the actions of all of humanity. This assumption has kept a large part of the Christian tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, from hearing the gospel with clarity, because it has misunderstood the character of God."
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 31, 2006 17:37:48 GMT -5
Steve,
Such a post in my opinion displays a true and mature Christian love. I would suspect that most of you have been "on the road" longer than me. I wasn't brought up in church and was saved under 4 years ago. I do not know everything and I try to "search the scriptures" by the grace of God, as humbly as I can. I am not so ignorant as to say that what I believe i will always believe, however, as it stands at the moment I believe what I believe strongly.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 31, 2006 18:44:42 GMT -5
Trust me friend, were not as knowledgeable as we appear. At least I'm not. I'm a novice in these kind of theological debates. I do appreciate the fact that they cause me to question my stance and examine it to see if it's right. I think you'll appreciate the attitude of John Wesley with regard to differences among Christians. He wrote: "But some may say, I have mistaken the way myself, although I take it upon myself to teach others. It is probable many will think this, and it is very possible that I have. But I trust, whereinsoever I have mistaken, my mind is open to conviction. I sincerely desire to be better informed. I say to God and man, "What I know not, teach thou me!"
Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way
Nay, perhaps, if you are angry, so shall I be too; and then there will be small hopes of finding the truth. If once anger arises, [aute kapnos], (as Homer somewhere expresses it,) this smoke will so dim the eyes of my soul, that I shall be able to see nothing clearly. For God’s sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful light, would it not be a loss rather than gain? For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!
The God of love forbid that we should ever make the trial. May he prepare us for the knowledge of all truth, by filling our hearts with all his love, and with all joy and peace in believing!"
|
|
|
Post by Rodgers on Jan 31, 2006 20:50:53 GMT -5
Josh and Jesse, the shorter catechism of the westminster confession of faith (which is very calvinistic) puts repentance as a decision Q. 87. What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience. As revk said, you misunderstand true calvinistic theology. On further study, arminianism just doesn't make sense to me. Consider this for example. All Christians would say quite readily that it is God that saves men. If you don't then you are saying that man saves himself. But if it is God alone who saves, and if he saves by the Spirit's direct and immediate operation by and with the word of God upon the soul, and if all that he does looking to the salvation of men he does directly to and for all men alike (which is what you would say as you don't believe in the elect), drawing no distinctions between them, it seems logical to conclude that all men will be saved. This obviously is not the case. But then you say that the reason not ALL are saved is because of the exercising of free will, either to repent or not to repent. But this logically means that at the decisive point it is something that MAN DOES OR BECOMES that determines whether he is saved or lost. So really the work of salvation transfers from God to man. This teaching I cannot accept dear brethren. If you say that Christ died for everybody, but not everybody will be saved, then really He died for nobody. Grider (arminian) says, "arminians teach that what Christ did, he did for every person; therefore, what he did could not have been to pay the penalty of sin, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the one who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs." But this is not true. If the death of Christ upon the cross was not intended as a sin offering to pay the penalty for anyones sin but was intended rather, to illustrate to men what their sins penally deserve at the hands of a just God, then not only is no mans sin atoned for yet, but also Christs death is rendered useless, for it is simply not the case that sinful men conclude from His death that "forgiveness is costly" and that they should "strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs." Written in love, Armen Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Feb 1, 2006 10:52:15 GMT -5
- Charles Finney
|
|
Samer
New Member
May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!
Posts: 6
|
Post by Samer on Feb 3, 2006 20:44:52 GMT -5
Howdy. First post.
Hebrews 6:4-9 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. (7) For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: (8) But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (9) But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
So the question here is...For those of you who deny eternal security...What must I do to become unsaved? Because the Bible here says that, once I do that, I can never be saved again (if it were possible to lose my salvation, that is). Willful sins of the flesh? Denying Jesus? I have done the former, as a saved man. I would argue that so has Paul. Peter has done the latter. Does not Hebrews 6:4-6 say that if a saved person can become unsaved, it is impossible for that person to become saved again?
I'm asking because I doubt people who deny eternal security are consistent about this point.
-Samer
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 3, 2006 21:01:47 GMT -5
Samer, Welcome! Just to let you know OSAS has been dealt with a little more in depth under the thread Once Saved, Always Saved? In the context of those discussions I posted this concerning Heb 6:4-9: "Regarding Hebrews 6:4-6 There's no question that this is a difficult passage for BOTH sides. As has been stated earlier the difficult passages should be interpreted in light of the clearer. I contend that there are clearer passages that say those who fall away can be restored. Stay tuned, I just don't have time to lay it all out right now. Also, I would again say that the context of this passage and the book as a whole favor the view that believers are in view here.
I will say this though. I believe the meaning here to be the same as that in Hebrews 10:26-27. That is, the reason it's impossible for them to repent is because their sin is present and persistent.
The Amplified Bible brings out the original language a little more clearly. Notice especially verse 6:
"For it is impossible [to restore and bring again to repentance] those who have been once for all enlightened, who have consciously tasted the heavenly gift and have become sharers of the Holy Spirit, And have felt how good the Word of God is and the mighty powers of the age and world to come, If they then deviate from the faith and turn away from their allegiance--[it is impossible] to bring them back to repentance, for (because, while, as long as) they nail upon the cross the Son of God afresh [as far as they are concerned] and are holding [Him] up to contempt and shame and public disgrace. For the soil which has drunk the rain that repeatedly falls upon it and produces vegetation useful to those for whose benefit it is cultivated partakes of a blessing from God. But if [that same soil] persistently bears thorns and thistles, it is considered worthless and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned." (Heb 6:4-8)
If the alternates in verse 6 are correct, then this passage is saying the same as Hebrews 10:26-27. Notice also that verse 8 encourages us to believe that it's not too late (near to being cursed)." and later I posted, "In Hebrews 6 the meaning of fallen away must be established by it's context. If the context is speaking of Christians, then fallen away cannot refer to not real Christians. Again, I ask, how can you fall away from something you never were really in? I would also say that the point you made about not following through on a commitment could just as easily support my position.
Also, concerning Hebrews 6. To expound on what I was saying about v. 6. The scholar Leon Morris (An advocate of OSAS) writes in his commentary on Hebrews that "the tense [in this verse] connotes a continuing attitude". The point would be that the reason they can't be restored is becasue their rebellion is a present attitude and not just a past event. That's why I pointed out the Amplified reading. It brings out the fact that it's a present attitude and not only a past event in mind here.
"If they then deviate from the faith and turn away from their allegiance--[it is impossible] to bring them back to repentance, for (because, while, as long as) they nail upon the cross the Son of God afresh [as far as they are concerned] and are holding [Him] up to contempt and shame and public disgrace." The point would be that the reason it's impossible for them to repent is because of their present attitude of willful sin. Steve
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 3, 2006 21:21:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 6, 2006 13:03:35 GMT -5
Heb 10:26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
After a little more thought I would say that the author is speaking directly of apostasy here. As he is speaking to the Jews who have professed only with there lips the name of Christ, and have therefore fallen back into their Jewish traditions. The Greek term for knowledge here (is apparently epignosis) supposes specific knowledge and not spiritual, if we refer to Heb 6 v4 there seems to be a different look at spiritual knowledge, that in the sense of saving. In light of the knowledge not being a saving one, but specific, i would take this passage to refer to apostasy. Also in the last verse of this chapter we find Paul separating himself from the group in question, it is shown very plainly here that the subject is apostasy in a sense. There can also be seen a different knowledge being represented in ‘we’ and ‘them’, that is a saving knowledge. The ‘we’ in v26 for to make the scriptures true, must be speaking rhetorically and I believe that this sits well in the interpretation and understanding of this passage describing apostasy.
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 8, 2006 3:17:32 GMT -5
Steve we have been the hebrews 6:4-6 road before.
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,
Here is a short read on this.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Feb 28, 2006 9:55:39 GMT -5
I'm wondering, for those who believe in predestination and say that man doesn't make a willfull choice...
How do you explain a false convert?
I was just thinking about this a a horrid thought came to mind... What if they were a "wanta-be" but not chosen? Now we would all agree that is nothing of God's character. But how do you explain false converts and one who is a hypocrite- saying they are a Christian but are not?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 28, 2006 10:11:36 GMT -5
I also wonder why on earth GOD would command believers to try to persuade all men everywhere to believe on the name of Jesus considering that many of those preached to would NOT be of the "elect" (as a Calvinist would suggest)... which means believers would be trying to persuade against GOD's will since His will would be for those NOT to be saved.
Wouldn't this command by GOD be contradicting His own character and will? GOD will never do anything that goes against the greater good, which is Him: His value and His purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 7, 2006 15:51:08 GMT -5
I'm wondering, for those who believe in predestination and say that man doesn't make a willfull choice... How do you explain a false convert? I was just thinking about this a a horrid thought came to mind... What if they were a "wanta-be" but not chosen? Now we would all agree that is nothing of God's character. But how do you explain false converts and one who is a hypocrite- saying they are a Christian but are not? Does anyone that does not believe in complete free will have any input?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Mar 10, 2006 5:18:12 GMT -5
Sorry to get away from your question. I was looking at 1 Cor. 10 today and realised that it is probably one of the best scriptures that shows that one can actually be saved and actually lose it.
1 Corinthians 10 1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7Neither 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.
8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
But then look, here's the hope:
13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Just another good case for conditional security. If it is sin that separates us from God, then for us to be reconciled to God we must separate from sin.
They took part in all the spiritual things that accompanied salvation, even Christ. If a true Christian can't fall, why should he take heed?
I think a Calvinist should be the biggest promoter of sinless perfection, he should never even be able to sin.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 10, 2006 19:52:00 GMT -5
That's a very good passage for conditional eternal security Miles. I think the case is made even stronger when you realize that it's an explanation / illustration of what Paul finished chapter 9 with:
24Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 23, 2006 20:38:16 GMT -5
I also wonder why on earth GOD would command believers to try to persuade all men everywhere to believe on the name of Jesus considering that many of those preached to would NOT be of the "elect" (as a Calvinist would suggest)... which means believers would be trying to persuade against GOD's will since His will would be for those NOT to be saved. Wouldn't this command by GOD be contradicting His own character and will? GOD will never do anything that goes against the greater good, which is Him: His value and His purpose. wow Grant, you're gonna make me dig out a bigger thinkin' cap there brother! Good question...I don't see it so much as going against God's will because he didn't tell us to only preach to the elect, because we don't know who they are. There must be something to the reason he gave us a broad command with a narrow result. But, I don't think I am ever to persuade anyway, that is the job of the Spirit. (and it isn't so much pursuasion but conviction or hardening)
|
|