-
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.
By oldhermit
The Hebrew writer describes both the prior and latter states of those who had fallen away.
A.Their prior state - These had:
1. Been enlightened.
2. Had tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in 2:9 saying, Jesus "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 has received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.
4. Tasted the good word of God.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away." From what then have 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 have crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these have "trampled under foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he WAS sanctified" (passed tense). In other words these now 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 Luke 8:13. They are worthless to the purposes of God and God discards them.
1. The writer is not saying they claimed to have tasted, but presents a statement of fact - "They had tasted." They had 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 - 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.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based on what those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 show us that they were 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 have rejected the cross, not the old sacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly.
5. The writer does not say they cannot 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 "BY WHICH 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 - 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 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.Their prior state - These had:
1. Been enlightened.
2. Had tasted the heavenly gift. (The word for tasted is γευσαμένους which means to experience. This is the same word that is used in 2:9 saying, Jesus "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 has received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who serves as the Christian's seal of divine ownership.
4. Tasted the good word of God.
B. Present state - They have "fallen away." From what then have 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 have crucified Christ all over again. Like those of 10:26-31, these have "trampled under foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he WAS sanctified" (passed tense). In other words these now 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 Luke 8:13. They are worthless to the purposes of God and God discards them.
1. The writer is not saying they claimed to have tasted, but presents a statement of fact - "They had tasted." They had 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 - 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.
3. Under the law, sin was not forgiven based on those sacrifices, but based on what those sacrifices represented - the cross. Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 show us that they were 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 have rejected the cross, not the old sacrifices, and in so doing had shamed Christ openly.
5. The writer does not say they cannot 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 "BY WHICH 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 - 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 are now worthy of greater punishment than those who were under the Law. Verse 30 shows their fate.
D
I never took the time to wade through Ken's quotes from all the church Fathers because I feel the words of Jesus and the Apostles are good enough to clarify this issue. It just takes accepting the word for what it says instead of trying to twist it to make it conform to our own particular belief system. One thing I will say though, it looks like some of the quotes were from people who lived a few hundred years after Christ at a time when the early church was evolving into the Holy Roman empire. And if that's the case then it's kind of hilarious. The Roman Catholic church became so entrenched in works that they started making up rules and regulations to control the people and make them afraid to disobey. For example, telling people they have to climb up 100 staircase to the chapel on their hands and knees saying an our Father and a hail Mary on each step. Or extorting money from the poor by telling them that every time they throw a penny into the coffers a lost will spring out of purgatory.
I don't know if any of the writers that Ken quoted lived that late into the Catholic church era, but it shows that the later church Fathers eventually got away from the plan of Salvation by Grace that the first Apostles preached. So, I'd rather stick to the Foundation of the bible that the Lord left us through the writings of the original prophets and Apostles and Jesus Himself.
I don't know if any of the writers that Ken quoted lived that late into the Catholic church era, but it shows that the later church Fathers eventually got away from the plan of Salvation by Grace that the first Apostles preached. So, I'd rather stick to the Foundation of the bible that the Lord left us through the writings of the original prophets and Apostles and Jesus Himself.
D
[SUP]6[/SUP] For if we sin willfully (rejecting God's grace and Salvation by faith through Jesus, rejecting God's forgivness for our sins is to wilfully sin) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (there is no more sacrifice for your sins cause Jesus already made the ultimate and final sacrifice. Therefore, you cannot be re-saved if you were to "wilfully sin" and fall away.)
[SUP]27[/SUP] But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
[SUP]28[/SUP] He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (He that disobeyed the law of Moses died without mercy)
[SUP]29[/SUP] 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? (Those who willfully sin by rejecting Jesus are rejecting God's mercy love and forgiveness for their sins and disobediences to the law. Disobeying the New Holy covenant of Grace and mercy and Truth is worse than disobeying the laws of Moses. God is offering you Grace, love and mercy and forgiveness for disobeying the laws and in rejecting Jesus they are rejecting God's grace love and mercy. That's why it's even worse than disobeying the old testament laws.)
[SUP]30[/SUP] For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
[SUP]31[/SUP] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
4. If they reject the cross they are not saved. Anybody who is truly saved won't reject the cross, because he's already accepted it.
5. It takes somebody who doesn't believe in OSAS to continue to contradict themselves. You say that it does not say they cannot be saved again. It says they cannot be brought back to repentance. But this is a contradiction in itself since, in order to get saved, you have to repent of your sins. If you can't be brought back to repentance then you can't get re-saved. Nobody can sever your relationship with Christ, including yourself.
6.You're right, they were rejecting Jesus and His Sacrifice that's why their going to go to hell and can't get saved. They insulted the Spirit of Grace. What is the Spirit of Grace? Gift recieved at Christ's expense. They were rejecting God's free gift of Salvatiion, so, of course they're not going to get saved.
7. Exactly. but the discrepency is, did they hear the word of the Gospel and recieve it, got saved, then decided they didn't want to believe it then got unsaved, or did they hear the message of Salvation and the Good news of the Gospel of the Kingdom, but then rejected it without getting saved in the first place? At any rate, the message of the OP is still true and accurate, that is, if you were to lose your Salvation it would be impossible to get re-saved or be brought back to a place of repentance where your sins would need to be forgiven again, because in order for that to happen Jesus would have to come back and suffer and die for your sins again. Thus crucifying Him again and putting Him to an open shame. SHAME ON YOU!
[SUP]27[/SUP] But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
[SUP]28[/SUP] He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (He that disobeyed the law of Moses died without mercy)
[SUP]29[/SUP] 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? (Those who willfully sin by rejecting Jesus are rejecting God's mercy love and forgiveness for their sins and disobediences to the law. Disobeying the New Holy covenant of Grace and mercy and Truth is worse than disobeying the laws of Moses. God is offering you Grace, love and mercy and forgiveness for disobeying the laws and in rejecting Jesus they are rejecting God's grace love and mercy. That's why it's even worse than disobeying the old testament laws.)
[SUP]30[/SUP] For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
[SUP]31[/SUP] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
4. If they reject the cross they are not saved. Anybody who is truly saved won't reject the cross, because he's already accepted it.
5. It takes somebody who doesn't believe in OSAS to continue to contradict themselves. You say that it does not say they cannot be saved again. It says they cannot be brought back to repentance. But this is a contradiction in itself since, in order to get saved, you have to repent of your sins. If you can't be brought back to repentance then you can't get re-saved. Nobody can sever your relationship with Christ, including yourself.
6.You're right, they were rejecting Jesus and His Sacrifice that's why their going to go to hell and can't get saved. They insulted the Spirit of Grace. What is the Spirit of Grace? Gift recieved at Christ's expense. They were rejecting God's free gift of Salvatiion, so, of course they're not going to get saved.
7. Exactly. but the discrepency is, did they hear the word of the Gospel and recieve it, got saved, then decided they didn't want to believe it then got unsaved, or did they hear the message of Salvation and the Good news of the Gospel of the Kingdom, but then rejected it without getting saved in the first place? At any rate, the message of the OP is still true and accurate, that is, if you were to lose your Salvation it would be impossible to get re-saved or be brought back to a place of repentance where your sins would need to be forgiven again, because in order for that to happen Jesus would have to come back and suffer and die for your sins again. Thus crucifying Him again and putting Him to an open shame. SHAME ON YOU!
So one under grace is a law breaker? This has to be one of the stupidest things I have heard. Grace is the free, undeserved, unearned forgiveness for breaking the Law. If there is no Law in one's life, they cannot break it and breaking the Law is sin. So with no Law, there is no sin. With no sin, there is no grace.
Grace and Law are mutually inclusive.
Another completely ignorant statement...
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
One must be circumcised, just as God says in Deuteronomy...
Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
EXACTLY and that is why we need grace. If we are not condemned, we don't need a sacrifice in our stead.
Grace and Law are mutually inclusive.
Another completely ignorant statement...
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
One must be circumcised, just as God says in Deuteronomy...
Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
EXACTLY and that is why we need grace. If we are not condemned, we don't need a sacrifice in our stead.
B
Great post. I would like to say one thing about that passage. There are many souls that God calls to the gospel. They were enlightened when they heard it preached, they tasted of the heavenly gift of eternal life provided through the gospel. They were made partakers of the Holy Spirit through the conviction of sin and God's righteousness offered through His Son. They tasted the good word of God, it's power to cleanse and bring light into the darkness of their soul. They got a taste of it but never received the grace of and incorruptible seed of it. It was never digested in their belly. They liked what they heard but they did not respond by faith to the conviction of the word and Spirit. They fell away from the conviction of the good word and gift of the Holy Spirit and were not saved. They did not receive the love of the truth of that calling that they might be saved. Once they fell from that calling that was turning them from dead works unto the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified, it would be impossible to renew them again unto that place of repentance that the word and Spirit had brought them. That was applicable to the Jews of that era and is also applicable to the Jews and Gentiles of this era.
When the Hebrew writer says "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ" does not mean to abandon them or forget them but to move on to other "meatier" issues of the word of God and not dwell on the first principles alone never progressing to other things. Go back and read Heb 5:12-14 into Heb 6:1, those Hebrew Jews had not grown spiritually as they should they were still on the milk, first principles of the word and not moved beyond those first principles to stronger meat.
The context plainly speaks of Christians falling away. A main theme of the book of Hebrews was one of encouragement to Jews that had become Christians but also warnings and admonishments if they leave Christianity returning back to the OT law and Judaism they will fall away becoming lost. They needed to move a way from the milk of the word to stronger meat to help them from falling away.
The context plainly speaks of Christians falling away. A main theme of the book of Hebrews was one of encouragement to Jews that had become Christians but also warnings and admonishments if they leave Christianity returning back to the OT law and Judaism they will fall away becoming lost. They needed to move a way from the milk of the word to stronger meat to help them from falling away.
K
You are thinking of the Catholics who came in the 3rd and 4th century, not Barnabas and Polycarp who were directly associated with the original 11 Apostles. If you want to deny what these two said as truth then you have to deny what the original 11 said as truth, because they were Holy Spirit lead into all truth. I know it has been bread into our minds now days to discount these writings just because they are not in the bible, but the writings of Barnabas and Polycarp are just as valid as the original 11 or else you would be saying Paul and John were false teachers.
People forget it was the Romans who interjected false teachings into the church and defiled the word, not the original 11 and those directly taught by them.
K
Once again this old debate to try and discredit somebody as an apostle even though the bible clearly lists them as one.
People have been so stuck on this false teaching that there was only the original 11, then Matthias and Paul were added later and thats it. The bible lists a number of others as apostles, and Barnabas is one of them. The Lord said the Holy Spirit will guide them and us in all truth, so if they lied then you say the Holy Spirit lied. That is a dangerous thing to get into you cancel out the writings of Holy Spirit lead people clearly identified as an apostle in the bible...
Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out
We must get over this teaching of there being only 11 until Matthias and Paul were added to make a total of 13 because the bible gives and names more than this as apostles. Here is another passage from Paul that shows there was more than that;
[h=1]1 Corinthians 15:4-8[/h]4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
E
The greek word for perfection actually means maturity. No one can be perfect.
The author is saying. lets stop it with the elementary principles of the gospel. and move towards the principles which make us mature in Christ.
I have been to church where every sunday it is the gospel. No growth, and no life in that church.
