Which statement is true?

[RickyZ]

Corret DC.

oh, the irony. There both eternal security verses.

Oh the irony, they are not. And only one with OSAS blinders would think so, no offense intended.

 

[psychomom]

That last sentence really tells the whole story. Unless one is considering walking away from their salvation, the issue is really moot.

But, I will be happy and find peace in my heart when I see my brothers and sisters stop debating this issue with contention and division. Which will cease when those in error see and accept the truth.

This may take a while

with you determining who constitutes those who are in error?

i expect morale to improve any moment.

(couldn't you just let this go?)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Which statement is a lie?


John 10:27-29

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Both are true.

John 10: No one (which would include ourselves. unless we think we are more powerful than God) can pluck us out of Gods hands, we can not lose salvation.

Heb 6 - Written to jews, who were trying to decide what to do. continue in grace, return to the law.

The law said if you sin, you fall away, and another sacrifice must be given.

Grace says we are saved forever.

The argument, If one could fall away, they could never be renewed (no sacrifice would be able to cause sin to be forgiven) and to say one can fall away (return to law) puts Christ to open shame, because it says he did not die for ALL SIN, there were some sins which he left out, which is why a person can fall away.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

'a lie'?
My goodness, op
is it a matter of translation?
it is not uncommon, that many, most? have no idea what 6:4-6 is talking about.

But were those that Hebrews is talking to saved already, When they were told Hebrews 6:4-6.

what if they had of went back to doing those things Hebrews was talking about?Would they be OSAS?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh the irony, they are not. And only one with OSAS blinders would think so, no offense intended.

sadly, only a legalist would claim they are not (through their blinded eyes)

taken in context. the author explains what he means

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; [SUP]8 [/SUP]but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.


It says here, the fruit can be rejected, but it is still not cursed, if is only near to being cursed, Much like being inside a burning building, and running through the fire, with nothing on but the clothes on your back, you lost everything. You almost died. but you were still saved.

This is eternal security my friend, (see also 1 cor 3. which also talks about near to being cursed, but still being saved, even though as through fire )

 

[eternally-gratefull]

But were those that Hebrews is talking to saved already, When they were told Hebrews 6:4-6.

what if they had of went back to doing those things Hebrews was talking about?Would they be OSAS?

No, Because as John said, they would never depart.

don;t assume everyone they were talking to is saved, that would be a bad assumption.

 

[valiant]

But were those that Hebrews is talking to saved already, When they were told Hebrews 6:4-6.

what if they had of went back to doing those things Hebrews was talking about?Would they be OSAS?

If Christ was shepherding them they would not go back. He wouldn't let them. He's not a careless shepherd.

 

[notuptome]

Hebrews 6 is teaching by hyperbole. The statement if I could un-ring the bell does not mean that a bell can be un-rung. It only implies that if I un-ring the bell I never rang it in the first place.

That is a classic difference between meat and milk.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Gr8grace]

sadly, only a legalist would claim they are not (through their blinded eyes)

taken in context. the author explains what he means

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; [SUP]8 [/SUP]but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.


It says here, the fruit can be rejected, but it is still not cursed, if is only near to being cursed, Much like being inside a burning building, and running through the fire, with nothing on but the clothes on your back, you lost everything. You almost died. but you were still saved.

This is eternal security my friend, (see also 1 cor 3. which also talks about near to being cursed, but still being saved, even though as through fire )

Couldn't of said it better myself EG.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

No, Because as John said, they would never depart.

don;t assume everyone they were talking to is saved, that would be a bad assumption.

okay i was assuming they were all in the same boat but hebrews was not saying this to all of them just the ones that might think that way and those that would have done it were never saved.Did i say it right?
i think i understand a little better.

 

[valiant]

Hebrews 6, in context

1Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[SUP]a[/SUP] and of faith in God, 2instruction about cleansing rites,[SUP]b[/SUP] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


John is talking to new converts, encouraging them to grow and mature in Christ.

No he is talking to Jews who are being instructed in the fundamentals of Christianity. They are learning the basic elements,

4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6and who have fallen[SUP]c[/SUP] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.


John is warning the new converts that if they turn away they cannot return, and that their fruits will show where they stand in the truth.

what has John got to do with it? he is talking to those who have experienced a revival atmosphere, and have been convicted by the Holy Spirit, and have seen great miracles (2.1-3) but it is nowhere said that thy had 'believed'.

9Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.

he is saying that if they have been saved he knows that they will overcome.

 

[MarcR]

In the Greek text, there is NO conditional (if) included in Heb 6 verses 4-6!

Verses 4-6 set forth a hypothetical scenario which is labeled with a blanket statement of impossibility!

 

[Gr8grace]

Hebrews 6 is teaching by hyperbole. The statement if I could un-ring the bell does not mean that a bell can be un-rung. It only implies that if I un-ring the bell I never rang it in the first place.

That is a classic difference between meat and milk.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

How do you get Hyperbole out of it? Serious question, because I agree with about 99% of your posts. I don't see it if I missed it.

I see it as a literal account. We see the exact same thing here day in and day out with the believers here that think we can lose salvation.

They are living proof of these Hebrews in Chapter 6. Everyday they are laying again a foundation of repentance in dead works if they think their works and deeds maintain their salvation.

And while they are doing this it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to go on into maturity. They are stuck in the elementary principles.

 

[Gr8grace]

In the Greek text, there is NO conditional (if) included in Heb 6 verses 4-6!

Verses 4-6 set forth a hypothetical scenario which is labeled with a blanket statement of impossibility!

I don't see it Marc.

These believers were being reprimanded. Chapter 6 starts with "therefore" So we have to go back a bit.

The author said they had become dull of hearing. they should of been teachers by now. they needed to be taught AGAIN.

They were immature and needed to see the difference between good(Divine good) and evil(Human good/their good works in the flesh/dead works/going back to their rituals/namely animal sacrifice)

 

[Gr8grace]

And Guys from my studies on this. The big no no for these Hebrew Christians was not the animal sacrifice in and of itself. It was they were going back to the temple and putting themselves under the authority of the Levitical priest.

We are our own priest. And Jesus alone is our great High Priest. Which is dealt with at the end of chapter 4 and beginning of 5.

 

[RickyZ]

sadly, only a legalist would claim they are not (through their blinded eyes)

taken in context. the author explains what he means

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; [SUP]8 [/SUP]but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.


It says here, the fruit can be rejected, but it is still not cursed, if is only near to being cursed, Much like being inside a burning building, and running through the fire, with nothing on but the clothes on your back, you lost everything. You almost died. but you were still saved.

This is eternal security my friend, (see also 1 cor 3. which also talks about near to being cursed, but still being saved, even though as through fire )

But there are also verses of unfruitful trees being cut down entirely. Again a conundrum... do the verses that say near being cursed cancel out the ones that say cut it down? That's what I'm trying to get across here. So much of this debate centers around either/or conditions. I'm saying the answer lies in the middle ground between the two. You can't use one to negate and cancel out the other. That would be too easy. The hard part is figuring out how seemingly contradictory verses compliment each other. And no, just writing one off as unreal conjecture doesn't work.

 

[RickyZ]

And Guys from my studies on this. The big no no for these Hebrew Christians was not the animal sacrifice in and of itself. It was they were going back to the temple and putting themselves under the authority of the Levitical priest.

We are our own priest. And Jesus alone is our great High Priest. Which is dealt with at the end of chapter 4 and beginning of 5.

Exactly. These Hebrews were new Christians (yes it's pretty clear that they were saved) being advised against turning away from that new faith to return to their old ways... just like a lot of us do. Paul says he doesn't think they will, but admonishes them not to on the chance that they will. He wouldn't advise against doing something like that unless they actually could.

 

[RickyZ]

Hebrews 6 is teaching by hyperbole. The statement if I could un-ring the bell does not mean that a bell can be un-rung. It only implies that if I un-ring the bell I never rang it in the first place.

That is a classic difference between meat and milk.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yeah... and Paul was advising these milk drinkers to move on to the meat he was presenting them.

That's a pretty handy excuse tho, to say any verse you don't agree with is hyperbole.

 

[RickyZ]

But were those that Hebrews is talking to saved already, When they were told Hebrews 6:4-6.

what if they had of went back to doing those things Hebrews was talking about?Would they be OSAS?

Bingo. Bonus points for this one!

 

[Utah]

it is not uncommon, that many, most? have no idea what 6:4-6 is talking about.

Why do you feel most peeps lack wisdom regarding this Scripture?