If it is correct, then it is not impossible. If it is impossible, then it is not correct. Truth resides within the grammatical structure of the language. We must allow the language of the text to drive our soteriology rather than forcing our soteriology onto the text which typically calls for grammatical manipulation of the grammar.
“IF” they shall fall away, not “WHEN” they shall fall away
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I think both words work together as if it was all one word.
Parapipto means to turn aside or deviate i.e. to adopt a false teaching.
Aspostasia means those who do cease or discontinue the true teaching they went out from us because they were not of the us that receive eternal life (OSAS)
The question is how much eternal life do those have that say OSAS is not a doctrine of God. Will the other remnant be made perfect in Purgatory ?
Parapipto means to turn aside or deviate i.e. to adopt a false teaching.
Aspostasia means those who do cease or discontinue the true teaching they went out from us because they were not of the us that receive eternal life (OSAS)
The question is how much eternal life do those have that say OSAS is not a doctrine of God. Will the other remnant be made perfect in Purgatory ?
Last edited:
By oldhermit
A. The prior state of those under discussion is that theyhad:
1. They had been enlightened.
2.
3.
4. They had tasted the good word of God. Again the same word as in verse 4, γευσαμένους.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away."From what then had they fallen?
1. An enlightened state.
2. The experience of the heavenly gift.
3. The partaking or sharing of the Holy Spirit.
4. The good word of God.
5. They had crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these had "trampledunder-foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant bywhich he WAS sanctified" (past tense). In other words, thesehas come to regard the blood that had once sanctified them as nothing more thanthe proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.
C. The impossible dilemma - It is now impossible to renew them again torepentance. Why? Because they have fallen away from the very thing that broughtthem to repentance in the first place which was the word of God. It is nowimpossible to restore them to repentance. One cannot be RE-newed AGAIN to astate they have never occupied. Thus, having once been saved and then havingfallen away, they cannot be brought back because they will no longer repent.This is of course representing the extreme case.
D. Their fate.
Like the ground that yields thistles and thorns, they are cursed and they endup being burned. Just like those of 10:26-31, whose fate is to fall into thehands of a vengeful God who says, "I will repay."The parabolic illustration come out of Matthew 13:20-21, Mark 4:16-17, and Luke8:13. They had become worthless to the purposes of God and God discarded them.
1. The writer is not saying that these claimed to have tasted but presents asimple statement of fact - "They had tasted."Having once shared in the fellowship of Christ these had later abandoned Christand returned to the law. These had previously left the law in response to thegospel. Now, they are rejecting the cross and going back to the law. This isthe foundation they were "laying again."
2. This is not a question. There is no "if" in the Greek. It simplysays, παραπεσόντας (parapesontas) - literally "havingfallen away". This is a statement of fact basedon actual cases, not a what if scenario. This is an aorist, passive, accusativeverb. They had fallen away at some time in the past and that conditioncontinues. They are still fallen away. This is the force of the aoristaccusative case. At some point in the past they had fallen away - punctiliaraction irrespecrtive of the amount of time involved, and they remain fallenaway. Their condition has not changed.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based ofwhat those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 showus that sin was indeed forgiven under the law but, it was not by the law. EvenDavid understood this. "How blessed is the man whose transgressionis forgiven, whose sins are covered...to whom the Lord does not imputeiniquity," Psalms 32:1-2. He also knew thosesacrifices were not the avenue through which forgiveness came. "Thou dostnot delight in sacrifice or I would bring it."Psalms 51:1-2.
4. The inability to renew again is not linked to a supposition of"IF" they were to fall away. The impossibility is linked to the factthat after having been saved they had rejected the cross, not the oldsacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly and defiantly.
5. The writer does not say they could not be saved again. He says that cannotbe brought back to repentance again. This certainly renders them unable to remainsaved since there is no longer repentance. These had once been in a savedrelationship. Now that relationship has been severed; not by Christ but bythem.
6. He is not comparing the crucifying of Christ again to the repetitiousoffering of O.T. sacrifice. Those who had rejected and fallen away wereconsidering Christ worthy of the crucifixion. They were rejecting him and hissacrifice. Like those of 10:29, they were considering the blood of Christ "BYWHICH THEY HAD BEEN SANCTIFIED" an uncleanthing, and had insulted the Spirit of grace.
7. The writer's point is that these had been sanctified - made holy - A stategiven only to the saved, something that all of the sacrifices of the O.Tcombined could never do. In verse 29, he even draws a contrast between theone's of whom he is speaking and those who died under the law for rejectingMoses. They rejected the blood after having been cleansed by it and are nowworthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 showstheir fate. The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states ofthose who had fallen away.
A. The prior state of those under discussion is that theyhad:
1. They had been enlightened.
2.
They had
tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους(geusamenous) which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in2:9 where it speaks of Jesus having "tasted" death for everyone. Thisis not a mere limited sampling, this is an embracing of the full experience.3.
They had been
made partakers of the Holy Spirit. These had received the indwelling ofthe Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.4. They had tasted the good word of God. Again the same word as in verse 4, γευσαμένους.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away."From what then had they fallen?
1. An enlightened state.
2. The experience of the heavenly gift.
3. The partaking or sharing of the Holy Spirit.
4. The good word of God.
5. They had crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these had "trampledunder-foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant bywhich he WAS sanctified" (past tense). In other words, thesehas come to regard the blood that had once sanctified them as nothing more thanthe proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.
C. The impossible dilemma - It is now impossible to renew them again torepentance. Why? Because they have fallen away from the very thing that broughtthem to repentance in the first place which was the word of God. It is nowimpossible to restore them to repentance. One cannot be RE-newed AGAIN to astate they have never occupied. Thus, having once been saved and then havingfallen away, they cannot be brought back because they will no longer repent.This is of course representing the extreme case.
D. Their fate.
Like the ground that yields thistles and thorns, they are cursed and they endup being burned. Just like those of 10:26-31, whose fate is to fall into thehands of a vengeful God who says, "I will repay."The parabolic illustration come out of Matthew 13:20-21, Mark 4:16-17, and Luke8:13. They had become worthless to the purposes of God and God discarded them.
1. The writer is not saying that these claimed to have tasted but presents asimple statement of fact - "They had tasted."Having once shared in the fellowship of Christ these had later abandoned Christand returned to the law. These had previously left the law in response to thegospel. Now, they are rejecting the cross and going back to the law. This isthe foundation they were "laying again."
2. This is not a question. There is no "if" in the Greek. It simplysays, παραπεσόντας (parapesontas) - literally "havingfallen away". This is a statement of fact basedon actual cases, not a what if scenario. This is an aorist, passive, accusativeverb. They had fallen away at some time in the past and that conditioncontinues. They are still fallen away. This is the force of the aoristaccusative case. At some point in the past they had fallen away - punctiliaraction irrespecrtive of the amount of time involved, and they remain fallenaway. Their condition has not changed.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based ofwhat those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 showus that sin was indeed forgiven under the law but, it was not by the law. EvenDavid understood this. "How blessed is the man whose transgressionis forgiven, whose sins are covered...to whom the Lord does not imputeiniquity," Psalms 32:1-2. He also knew thosesacrifices were not the avenue through which forgiveness came. "Thou dostnot delight in sacrifice or I would bring it."Psalms 51:1-2.
4. The inability to renew again is not linked to a supposition of"IF" they were to fall away. The impossibility is linked to the factthat after having been saved they had rejected the cross, not the oldsacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly and defiantly.
5. The writer does not say they could not be saved again. He says that cannotbe brought back to repentance again. This certainly renders them unable to remainsaved since there is no longer repentance. These had once been in a savedrelationship. Now that relationship has been severed; not by Christ but bythem.
6. He is not comparing the crucifying of Christ again to the repetitiousoffering of O.T. sacrifice. Those who had rejected and fallen away wereconsidering Christ worthy of the crucifixion. They were rejecting him and hissacrifice. Like those of 10:29, they were considering the blood of Christ "BYWHICH THEY HAD BEEN SANCTIFIED" an uncleanthing, and had insulted the Spirit of grace.
7. The writer's point is that these had been sanctified - made holy - A stategiven only to the saved, something that all of the sacrifices of the O.Tcombined could never do. In verse 29, he even draws a contrast between theone's of whom he is speaking and those who died under the law for rejectingMoses. They rejected the blood after having been cleansed by it and are nowworthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 showstheir fate. The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states ofthose who had fallen away.
I apologize that so many of the words ran together on that last post. I posted that from some old teaching outlines of mine. Perhaps the font was incompatible. Here is a better copy.
A. The prior state of those under discussion is that theyhad:
1. Been enlightened.
2. Had tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους(geusamenous) which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in2:9 where it speaks of Jesus having "tasted" death for everyone. Thisis not a mere limited sampling, this is an embracing of the full experience.
3. Been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. These had received the indwelling ofthe Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.
4. Tasted the good word of God. Again the same word as in verse 4, γευσαμένους.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away."From what then had they fallen?
1. An enlightened state.
2. The experience of the heavenly gift.
3. The partaking or sharing of the Holy Spirit.
4. The good word of God.
5. They had crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these had "trampledunder-foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant bywhich he WAS sanctified" (past tense). In other words, thesehas come to regard the blood that had once sanctified them as nothing more thanthe proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.
C. The impossible dilemma - It is now impossible to renew them again torepentance. Why? Because they have fallen away from the very thing that broughtthem to repentance in the first place which was the word of God. It is nowimpossible to restore them to repentance. One cannot be RE-newed AGAIN to astate they have never occupied. Thus, having once been saved and then havingfallen away, they cannot be brought back because they will no longer repent.This is of course representing the extreme case.
D. Their fate.
Like the ground that yields thistles and thorns, they are cursed and they endup being burned. Just like those of 10:26-31, whose fate is to fall into thehands of a vengeful God who says, "I will repay."The parabolic illustration come out of Matthew 13:20-21, Mark 4:16-17, and Luke8:13. They had become worthless to the purposes of God and God discarded them.
1. The writer is not saying that these claimed to have tasted but presents asimple statement of fact - "They had tasted."Having once shared in the fellowship of Christ these had later abandoned Christand returned to the law. These had previously left the law in response to thegospel. Now, they are rejecting the cross and going back to the law. This isthe foundation they were "laying again."
2. This is not a question. There is no "if" in the Greek. It simplysays, παραπεσόντας (parapesontas) - literally "havingfallen away". This is a statement of fact basedon actual cases, not a what if scenario. This is an aorist, passive, accusativeverb. They had fallen away at some time in the past and that conditioncontinues. They are still fallen away. This is the force of the aoristaccusative case. At some point in the past they had fallen away - punctiliaraction irrespecrtive of the amount of time involved, and they remain fallenaway. Their condition has not changed.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based ofwhat those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 showus that sin was indeed forgiven under the law but, it was not by the law. EvenDavid understood this. "How blessed is the man whose transgressionis forgiven, whose sins are covered...to whom the Lord does not imputeiniquity," Psalms 32:1-2. He also knew thosesacrifices were not the avenue through which forgiveness came. "Thou dostnot delight in sacrifice or I would bring it."Psalms 51:1-2.
4. The inability to renew again is not linked to a supposition of"IF" they were to fall away. The impossibility is linked to the factthat after having been saved they had rejected the cross, not the oldsacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly and defiantly.
5. The writer does not say they could not be saved again. He says that cannotbe brought back to repentance again. This certainly renders them unable to remainsaved since there is no longer repentance. These had once been in a savedrelationship. Now that relationship has been severed; not by Christ but bythem.
6. He is not comparing the crucifying of Christ again to the repetitiousoffering of O.T. sacrifice. Those who had rejected and fallen away wereconsidering Christ worthy of the crucifixion. They were rejecting him and hissacrifice. Like those of 10:29, they were considering the blood of Christ "BYWHICH THEY HAD BEEN SANCTIFIED" an uncleanthing, and had insulted the Spirit of grace.
7. The writer's point is that these had been sanctified - made holy - A stategiven only to the saved, something that all of the sacrifices of the O.Tcombined could never do. In verse 29, he even draws a contrast between theone's of whom he is speaking and those who died under the law for rejectingMoses. They rejected the blood after having been cleansed by it and are nowworthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 showstheir fate. The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states ofthose who had fallen away.
A. The prior state of those under discussion is that theyhad:
1. Been enlightened.
2. Had tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους(geusamenous) which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in2:9 where it speaks of Jesus having "tasted" death for everyone. Thisis not a mere limited sampling, this is an embracing of the full experience.
3. Been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. These had received the indwelling ofthe Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.
4. Tasted the good word of God. Again the same word as in verse 4, γευσαμένους.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away."From what then had they fallen?
1. An enlightened state.
2. The experience of the heavenly gift.
3. The partaking or sharing of the Holy Spirit.
4. The good word of God.
5. They had crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these had "trampledunder-foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant bywhich he WAS sanctified" (past tense). In other words, thesehas come to regard the blood that had once sanctified them as nothing more thanthe proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.
C. The impossible dilemma - It is now impossible to renew them again torepentance. Why? Because they have fallen away from the very thing that broughtthem to repentance in the first place which was the word of God. It is nowimpossible to restore them to repentance. One cannot be RE-newed AGAIN to astate they have never occupied. Thus, having once been saved and then havingfallen away, they cannot be brought back because they will no longer repent.This is of course representing the extreme case.
D. Their fate.
Like the ground that yields thistles and thorns, they are cursed and they endup being burned. Just like those of 10:26-31, whose fate is to fall into thehands of a vengeful God who says, "I will repay."The parabolic illustration come out of Matthew 13:20-21, Mark 4:16-17, and Luke8:13. They had become worthless to the purposes of God and God discarded them.
1. The writer is not saying that these claimed to have tasted but presents asimple statement of fact - "They had tasted."Having once shared in the fellowship of Christ these had later abandoned Christand returned to the law. These had previously left the law in response to thegospel. Now, they are rejecting the cross and going back to the law. This isthe foundation they were "laying again."
2. This is not a question. There is no "if" in the Greek. It simplysays, παραπεσόντας (parapesontas) - literally "havingfallen away". This is a statement of fact basedon actual cases, not a what if scenario. This is an aorist, passive, accusativeverb. They had fallen away at some time in the past and that conditioncontinues. They are still fallen away. This is the force of the aoristaccusative case. At some point in the past they had fallen away - punctiliaraction irrespecrtive of the amount of time involved, and they remain fallenaway. Their condition has not changed.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based ofwhat those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 showus that sin was indeed forgiven under the law but, it was not by the law. EvenDavid understood this. "How blessed is the man whose transgressionis forgiven, whose sins are covered...to whom the Lord does not imputeiniquity," Psalms 32:1-2. He also knew thosesacrifices were not the avenue through which forgiveness came. "Thou dostnot delight in sacrifice or I would bring it."Psalms 51:1-2.
4. The inability to renew again is not linked to a supposition of"IF" they were to fall away. The impossibility is linked to the factthat after having been saved they had rejected the cross, not the oldsacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly and defiantly.
5. The writer does not say they could not be saved again. He says that cannotbe brought back to repentance again. This certainly renders them unable to remainsaved since there is no longer repentance. These had once been in a savedrelationship. Now that relationship has been severed; not by Christ but bythem.
6. He is not comparing the crucifying of Christ again to the repetitiousoffering of O.T. sacrifice. Those who had rejected and fallen away wereconsidering Christ worthy of the crucifixion. They were rejecting him and hissacrifice. Like those of 10:29, they were considering the blood of Christ "BYWHICH THEY HAD BEEN SANCTIFIED" an uncleanthing, and had insulted the Spirit of grace.
7. The writer's point is that these had been sanctified - made holy - A stategiven only to the saved, something that all of the sacrifices of the O.Tcombined could never do. In verse 29, he even draws a contrast between theone's of whom he is speaking and those who died under the law for rejectingMoses. They rejected the blood after having been cleansed by it and are nowworthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 showstheir fate. The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states ofthose who had fallen away.
I am sorry, it did it again. I'll try one more time.
A. The prior state of those under discussion is that they had:
1. Been enlightened.
2. Had tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους (geusamenous) which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in 2:9 where it speaks of Jesus having "tasted" death for everyone. This is not a mere limited sampling, this is an embracing of the full experience.
3. Been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. These had received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.
4. Tasted the good word of God. Again the same word as in verse 4, γευσαμένους.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away." From what then had they fallen?
1. An enlightened state.
2. The experience of the heavenly gift.
3. The partaking or sharing of the Holy Spirit.
4. The good word of God.
5. They had crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these had "trampled under-foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he WAS sanctified" (past tense). In other words, these had come to regard the blood that had once sanctified them as nothing more than the proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.
C. The impossible dilemma - It is now impossible to renew them again to repentance. Why? Because they have fallen away from the very thing that brought them to repentance in the first place which was the word of God. It is now impossible to restore them to repentance. One cannot be RE-newed AGAIN to a state they have never occupied. Thus, having once been saved and then having fallen away, they cannot be brought back because they will no longer repent. This is of course representing the extreme case.
D. Their fate.
Like the ground that yields thistles and thorns, they are cursed and they end up being burned. Just like those of 10:26-31, whose fate is to fall into the hands of a vengeful God who says, "I will repay." The parabolic illustration come out of Matthew 13:20-21, Mark 4:16-17, and Luke8:13. They had become worthless to the purposes of God and God discarded them.
1. The writer is not saying that these claimed to have tasted but presents a simple statement of fact - "They had tasted."Having once shared in the fellowship of Christ these had later abandoned Christ and returned to the law. These had previously left the law in response to the gospel. Now, they are rejecting the cross and going back to the law. This is the foundation they were "laying again."
2. This is not a question. There is no "if" in the Greek. It simply says, παραπεσόντας (parapesontas) - literally "having fallen away". This is a statement of fact based on actual cases, not a what if scenario. This is an aorist, passive, accusative verb. They had fallen away at some time in the past and that condition continues. They are still fallen away. This is the force of the aorist accusative case. At some point in the past they had fallen away - punctiliar action irrespecrtive of the amount of time involved, and they remain fallen away. Their condition has not changed.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based of what those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 show us that sin was indeed forgiven under the law but, it was not by the law. Even David understood this. "How blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sins are covered...to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity," Psalms 32:1-2. He also knew those sacrifices were not the avenue through which forgiveness came. "Thou dost not delight in sacrifice or I would bring it." Psalms 51:1-2.
4. The inability to renew again is not linked to a supposition of "IF" they were to fall away. The impossibility is linked to the fact that after having been saved they had rejected the cross, not the old sacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly and defiantly.
5. The writer does not say they could not be saved again. He says that cannot be brought back to repentance again. This certainly renders them unable to remain saved since there is no longer repentance. These had once been in a saved relationship. Now that relationship has been severed; not by Christ but by them.
6. He is not comparing the crucifying of Christ again to the repetitious offering of O.T. sacrifice. Those who had rejected and fallen away were considering Christ worthy of the crucifixion. They were rejecting him and his sacrifice. Like those of 10:29, they were considering the blood of Christ "BYWHICH THEY HAD BEEN SANCTIFIED" an unclean thing, and had insulted the Spirit of grace.
7. The writer's point is that these had been sanctified - made holy - A state given only to the saved, something that all of the sacrifices of the O.T combined could never do. In verse 29, he even draws a contrast between the one's of whom he is speaking and those who died under the law for rejecting Moses. They rejected the blood after having been cleansed by it and are now worthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 shows their fate. The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states of those who had fallen away.
A. The prior state of those under discussion is that they had:
1. Been enlightened.
2. Had tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους (geusamenous) which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in 2:9 where it speaks of Jesus having "tasted" death for everyone. This is not a mere limited sampling, this is an embracing of the full experience.
3. Been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. These had received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.
4. Tasted the good word of God. Again the same word as in verse 4, γευσαμένους.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away." From what then had they fallen?
1. An enlightened state.
2. The experience of the heavenly gift.
3. The partaking or sharing of the Holy Spirit.
4. The good word of God.
5. They had crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these had "trampled under-foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he WAS sanctified" (past tense). In other words, these had come to regard the blood that had once sanctified them as nothing more than the proverbial hog slaughtered on the altar.
C. The impossible dilemma - It is now impossible to renew them again to repentance. Why? Because they have fallen away from the very thing that brought them to repentance in the first place which was the word of God. It is now impossible to restore them to repentance. One cannot be RE-newed AGAIN to a state they have never occupied. Thus, having once been saved and then having fallen away, they cannot be brought back because they will no longer repent. This is of course representing the extreme case.
D. Their fate.
Like the ground that yields thistles and thorns, they are cursed and they end up being burned. Just like those of 10:26-31, whose fate is to fall into the hands of a vengeful God who says, "I will repay." The parabolic illustration come out of Matthew 13:20-21, Mark 4:16-17, and Luke8:13. They had become worthless to the purposes of God and God discarded them.
1. The writer is not saying that these claimed to have tasted but presents a simple statement of fact - "They had tasted."Having once shared in the fellowship of Christ these had later abandoned Christ and returned to the law. These had previously left the law in response to the gospel. Now, they are rejecting the cross and going back to the law. This is the foundation they were "laying again."
2. This is not a question. There is no "if" in the Greek. It simply says, παραπεσόντας (parapesontas) - literally "having fallen away". This is a statement of fact based on actual cases, not a what if scenario. This is an aorist, passive, accusative verb. They had fallen away at some time in the past and that condition continues. They are still fallen away. This is the force of the aorist accusative case. At some point in the past they had fallen away - punctiliar action irrespecrtive of the amount of time involved, and they remain fallen away. Their condition has not changed.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based of what those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 show us that sin was indeed forgiven under the law but, it was not by the law. Even David understood this. "How blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sins are covered...to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity," Psalms 32:1-2. He also knew those sacrifices were not the avenue through which forgiveness came. "Thou dost not delight in sacrifice or I would bring it." Psalms 51:1-2.
4. The inability to renew again is not linked to a supposition of "IF" they were to fall away. The impossibility is linked to the fact that after having been saved they had rejected the cross, not the old sacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly and defiantly.
5. The writer does not say they could not be saved again. He says that cannot be brought back to repentance again. This certainly renders them unable to remain saved since there is no longer repentance. These had once been in a saved relationship. Now that relationship has been severed; not by Christ but by them.
6. He is not comparing the crucifying of Christ again to the repetitious offering of O.T. sacrifice. Those who had rejected and fallen away were considering Christ worthy of the crucifixion. They were rejecting him and his sacrifice. Like those of 10:29, they were considering the blood of Christ "BYWHICH THEY HAD BEEN SANCTIFIED" an unclean thing, and had insulted the Spirit of grace.
7. The writer's point is that these had been sanctified - made holy - A state given only to the saved, something that all of the sacrifices of the O.T combined could never do. In verse 29, he even draws a contrast between the one's of whom he is speaking and those who died under the law for rejecting Moses. They rejected the blood after having been cleansed by it and are now worthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 shows their fate. The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states of those who had fallen away.
Wish I had more time to analyze and respond to your post here, but I have very limited time -- I think most of what you say I agree with, but I think maybe you are missing a key piece . . . -- I wonder if you saw this before - someone else pointed it out to me.
In verse 6 the two verbs "crucify again" and "put him to shame" are both present participles. Greek present participles used as adverbs describe action happening at the same time as the main verb. Hence: it is impossible to renew them again to repentance while at the same time they are crucifying the Son of God and while at the same time they are putting him to an open shame.
The "crucifying" and the "putting to an open shame" are current events in this person's life.
So what the text says here is that it is impossible to renew them to repentance as long as they are at the same time doing the action of the two verbs.
The text does not answer the following question: What if the person stops the actions of these two verbs (crucifying again and putting to an open shame)? Can he/she then be renewed to repentance?
In verse 6 the two verbs "crucify again" and "put him to shame" are both present participles. Greek present participles used as adverbs describe action happening at the same time as the main verb. Hence: it is impossible to renew them again to repentance while at the same time they are crucifying the Son of God and while at the same time they are putting him to an open shame.
The "crucifying" and the "putting to an open shame" are current events in this person's life.
So what the text says here is that it is impossible to renew them to repentance as long as they are at the same time doing the action of the two verbs.
The text does not answer the following question: What if the person stops the actions of these two verbs (crucifying again and putting to an open shame)? Can he/she then be renewed to repentance?
I think the point the writer is making is that those who reach this point have lost all interest in Christ. The reason they cannot be brought back to repentance is because the very thing that brought them to repentance in the first place is now meaningless to them. In fact, the crucifixion means no more to them now than a hog slaughtered on the altar.
I checked the interlinear translation on Bible Hub. It says kai parapesontas = and then having fallen away. So linguistically and grammatically that is correct. So we can't argue with that.
At the same time the men who translated the KJV and the Geneva Bible also had great theological insight and perception while they were outstanding Greek scholars. And for the KJV there were several companies of scholars who reviewed each others' work. And they all must have agreed that in spite of what is in the Greek text, they should have "if" in that verse. So both these translations have "IF", although the modern versions do not. And since I have no qualms about this translation, I will accept what is there as perfectly valid theologically.
At the same time the men who translated the KJV and the Geneva Bible also had great theological insight and perception while they were outstanding Greek scholars. And for the KJV there were several companies of scholars who reviewed each others' work. And they all must have agreed that in spite of what is in the Greek text, they should have "if" in that verse. So both these translations have "IF", although the modern versions do not. And since I have no qualms about this translation, I will accept what is there as perfectly valid theologically.
Not only that, but let me offer another scripture in parallel to the one being examined that I believe clarifies why these people wont repent:
2 Thessalonians 2:
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
No matter who you are, if God is the one that gives you a strong delusion, you will never repent.
2 Thessalonians 2:
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
No matter who you are, if God is the one that gives you a strong delusion, you will never repent.
Theological insight is not a substitute for the integrity of the grammar. I am well aware of the history of he origins of the Erasmus text and the KJV. I have great respect for the KJV but, this is one time where the translators simply missed it. The reasons are irrelevant. You are appealing to their skills in the language but the truth is, you have no idea who these translators were beyond the names of only a few that have been survived through history. Nothing has been preserved that would tell us anything of their qualifications. We have no idea of their qualifications nor can we speculate what was going on in the minds of these men when they translated the Erasmus text. All of the rest of the body of scholarship is decidedly in opposition to this blatant misrepresentation of verse six. Every other translator or company of translators retain the integrity of the language. This is the fist duty of a translator. It is not the right of any translator to manipulate the text to fit his soteriology, theology, or eschatology. The KJV is simply wrong here and no appeal to a theological argument can justify the blatant manipulation of this verse.
What I called correct was your statement that the conditional was absent.
That caused me to wonder why the translators [who had reasonably good command of Greek or better] believed it appropriate to put it there. If adenaton is understood as distributive over verses 4-6; there is an implied condition. If a condition contrary to fact were intended a subjunctive would be called for but since the condition contrary to fact is denied a simple conditional is implied.
That caused me to wonder why the translators [who had reasonably good command of Greek or better] believed it appropriate to put it there. If adenaton is understood as distributive over verses 4-6; there is an implied condition. If a condition contrary to fact were intended a subjunctive would be called for but since the condition contrary to fact is denied a simple conditional is implied.
R
No. Even if they want to repent, God will not receive them. He will not change his mind. The author of Hebrews himself uses Esau to illustrate the danger of forfeiting the inheritance and not being ALLOWED to get it back.
"15See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God...16that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears."-Hebrews 12:15-17
This is a good example of using the Bible to interpret the Bible. There's no question here that the danger is being shut out from the inheritance and not being allowed by God to get it back even if you want it. Goes along perfectly with Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-31.
"15See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God...16that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears."-Hebrews 12:15-17
This is a good example of using the Bible to interpret the Bible. There's no question here that the danger is being shut out from the inheritance and not being allowed by God to get it back even if you want it. Goes along perfectly with Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-31.
Very important - worth repeating!
The criteria alone is Christ and Him Crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). We have access to God only through Christ, and access to Christ only through the Cross, and access to the Cross only through a denial of self (Lk.9:23); any other Message is judged by God as "iniquity," and cannot be a part of Christ (1 Cor. 1:17).
It must only be Faith placed and maintained exclusively in Christ and the Cross of Calvary where the victory was won, i.e., The Finished Work, i.e., The Blood of Jesus, or you cannot be His Disciple (this refers to a denial of dependence on self, and total trust being placed in Christ and what He has done for us at the Cross).
The criteria alone is Christ and Him Crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). We have access to God only through Christ, and access to Christ only through the Cross, and access to the Cross only through a denial of self (Lk.9:23); any other Message is judged by God as "iniquity," and cannot be a part of Christ (1 Cor. 1:17).
Last edited: