Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[OMC]

Not true, what you have given me is pure Arminian theology. I don't expect you to admit it, because no Arminian ever does. So your denial doesn't serve to exonerate you, it only affirms the obvious.

You claim that Hebrews 6:4-6 is evidence that Gods elect can fall away, but the Bible does not does not teach that a genuinely saved person can lose their salvation. Instead, the passage is a severe hypothetical warning directed at false professors within the visible church.

The individuals described as "enlightened" and "partakers of the Holy Spirit" have experienced deep exposure to Christian community, truth, and miraculous operations. However, they have only experienced external influences, and not internal regeneration.

If a truly regenerated believer could fall away, it would be "impossible to renew them again to repentance". Because other clear scriptures promise the eternal security of the believer (such as John 10:28–29), this highlights the absolute impossibility of losing true grace, serving as a wake-up call to examine one's genuine fruit.
Those whom God justifies will inevitably persevere in faith because God preserves them. The warning itself is the tool God uses to prompt true believers to persevere and to expose false believers who ultimately commit apostasy.

Hebrews 10:26–29 describes apostasy—a total, willful, and final rejection of Christ and His sacrifice after having experienced the external privileges of the covenant community. When verse 29 mentions the one who profaned the blood of the covenant "by which he was sanctified.

The person was "sanctified" outwardly by being part of the visible church and partaking in the outward benefits of the New Covenant community, much like an unregenerate Israelite was set apart under the Old Covenant, without possessing inner, saving faith.

God uses these severe biblical warnings as the actual instrument to awaken false professors and preserve true believers, keeping them from falling into final apostasy. True believers heed the warning and remain in Christ, proving their faith was genuine all along, while false believers fall away completely.

Calling my reading of Hebrews “pure Arminian theology” is just a way of dodging the actual text, and I’m not going to let you turn Scripture into a system‑badge you slap on people when you don’t want to deal with what the passage actually says.
Hebrews 6 never says these people were “false professors,” never says their enlightenment was merely external, never says their participation in the Holy Spirit was superficial, and never says their sanctification in Hebrews 10 was only outward.
Those are your system’s escape hatches, not the writer’s words.
When the text says they were “enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “shared in the Holy Spirit,” and were “sanctified by the blood,”
I refuse to treat those phrases like theological props that can be redefined whenever they threaten a doctrine.
You keep appealing to John 10:28–29 as if one passage cancels another, but harmonization means letting both passages speak — not forcing one to override the other.
The warnings in Hebrews are not hypothetical; the writer never calls them hypothetical.
They are real warnings addressed to real people about a real danger.
And when you insist that every warning must be reduced to “God’s tool to keep the elect persevering,” you’re not interpreting Hebrews — you’re protecting a system.
I’m not denying eternal security;
I’m denying the right to rewrite the language of Hebrews so it fits a theological grid. The text deserves better than that.

 

[Jrww76]

Many have probably realised i don't think we can exercise free will, even think it's impossible for us to. Won't explain why i think it's an impossiblility for us yet, think it's useful for some to express why they think it exists first.

I have no doubt we have and can make choices throughout life, however, think our options are far more restricted than most realise. What do you think?

Yes Jesus made us free.

 

[rogerg]

You claim that Hebrews 6:4-6 is evidence that Gods elect can fall away, but the Bible does not does not teach that a genuinely saved person can lose their salvation. Instead, the passage is a severe hypothetical warning directed at false professors within the visible church.

Exactly, and, if my understanding of Heb 6:9 is correct, the verse confirms exactly what you posted. I think by the "though we speak thus" (at the end of vs 6:9), the writer of Hebrews is informing them that the prior verses (Heb 6:4 - 6) were used in the spirit of edification - as examples - teaching that it would be wrong for them to partake in or follow-after those examples. And I believe you are also correct in that, by edification and warning, they would have no desire to do so being led by the Holy Spirit and their new heart - those being some of "the things that accompany salvation". By which, his audience- those saved - would be lead away from such. This also is confirmed by Heb 6:9

[Heb 6:9 KJV] 9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

 

[rogerg]

Calling my reading of Hebrews “pure Arminian theology” is just a way of dodging the actual text, and I’m not going to let you turn Scripture into a system‑badge you slap on people when you don’t want to deal with what the passage actually says.
Hebrews 6 never says these people were “false professors,” never says their enlightenment was merely external, never says their participation in the Holy Spirit was superficial, and never says their sanctification in Hebrews 10 was only outward.
Those are your system’s escape hatches, not the writer’s words.
When the text says they were “enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “shared in the Holy Spirit,” and were “sanctified by the blood,”
I refuse to treat those phrases like theological props that can be redefined whenever they threaten a doctrine.
You keep appealing to John 10:28–29 as if one passage cancels another, but harmonization means letting both passages speak — not forcing one to override the other.
The warnings in Hebrews are not hypothetical; the writer never calls them hypothetical.
They are real warnings addressed to real people about a real danger.
And when you insist that every warning must be reduced to “God’s tool to keep the elect persevering,” you’re not interpreting Hebrews — you’re protecting a system.
I’m not denying eternal security;
I’m denying the right to rewrite the language of Hebrews so it fits a theological grid. The text deserves better than that.

Read Heb 6:9. I believe that one verse, if read closely enough, will confirm everything @Journey_man claimed regarding Heb 6:4-6.

 

[Journey_man]

No, we may disagree on every other point, but your "saved by works" accusation is another strawman in the vein of "losing salvation".

The true Gospel per Scripture is clearly that election/eternal security is conditioned on non-meritorious faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord, NOT on tulipism.

God prevents snatching, but not jumping per Hebrews and other passages indicating the need for persevering faith:

There are numerous verses in the NT which indicate that it is possible for a believer intentionally or willfully to repudiate saving faith and separate him/herself from Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1 & Rev. 12:9). The classic passage that teaches the possibility of apostasy is Hebrews 6:4-6: “It is impossible for those who have… shared in the Holy Spirit… if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again.” Another verse in this vein is Gal. 5:4: “You who are trying to be justified by law… have fallen away from grace.” (The reader should also see Rom. 11:22, 1Cor. 15:2, Col. 1:22-23, 2Thes. 1:4-5, 2Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6&14, 10:35-36, Jam. 1:12, 2Pet. 1:10-11, 2:20, 1John 2:24-25 and Rev. 2:10.)

None of that is true, because it's all based on your own private interpretation of the gospel. You don't get to impose your inconsistent, incoherent unbiblical interpretation of the gospel message. The gospel message is not negotiable and it's not subject to correction by self appointed theologians.

None of those verses support your Hybrid Gnostic version of the gospel, where you mix Arminian and Reformed Theology together. You can't cherry pick the two opposing systems of theology, to create a Frankenstein version of the gospel.

 

[GWH]

None of that is true, because it's all based on your own private interpretation of the gospel. You don't get to impose your inconsistent, incoherent unbiblical interpretation of the gospel message. The gospel message is not negotiable and it's not subject to correction by self appointed theologians.

None of those verses support your Hybrid Gnostic version of the gospel, where you mix Arminian and Reformed Theology together. You can't cherry pick the two opposing systems of theology, to create a Frankenstein version of the gospel.

 

[OMC]

Read Heb 6:9. I believe that one verse, if read closely enough, will confirm everything @Journey_man claimed regarding Heb 6:4-6.

When I read Hebrews 6:9, I don’t see anything that “confirms” the system you’re defending; I see the writer shifting his pastoral tone, not redefining the warning he just gave. Verse 9 begins with “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you” — and that phrase only makes sense if the danger he described in verses 4–6 was real, not hypothetical. He doesn’t say, “What I just wrote can’t actually happen.” He doesn’t say, “Those people were never truly enlightened.” He doesn’t say, “They only tasted externally.” He simply says, “I’m confident you will not be among those who fall away.” That’s encouragement, not reinterpretation.

In other words, Hebrews 6:9 is the pastoral contrast, not the theological escape hatch. The writer warns the community about a real danger, then expresses confidence that his readers will persevere. That’s the same pattern we see in Hebrews 10:26–29 followed by 10:39. The warnings are real; the assurance is real; and neither passage ever says the people described were “false professors” or “externally sanctified.” Those categories come from your system, not from the text.

So when someone tells me Hebrews 6:9 “confirms everything” about 6:4–6 being hypothetical or about the people being unregenerate, I simply point out that the verse doesn’t reinterpret anything — it encourages the readers to avoid the very danger the writer just described. The warning stands exactly as written, and I’m not going to rewrite the language of Hebrews to protect a theological grid

 

[Journey_man]

If the Reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwingli were to join your Church after one of their campaigns to exterminate the Anabaptists for their grave sin of Baptizing only believing adults rather than infants and for their unauthorized meetings and unsupervised Bible studies just as the Reformers did in their day.

I never said there are no 'fake Christians" (i.e., false conversions). I just do not think the author of Hebrews is addressing such people. The text indicates that he was speaking to those who had:
1) REPENTED of their sins,
2). exercised FAITH in God,
3). been BAPTIZED,
4). tasted the GIFT of God [see, John 4:10],
5). been sharers in the HOLY SPIRIT and
6). partakers of the WORD of God
I too think it is important that those who attend our Churches not merely learn ABOUT these things but actually experience them. This is much more than going through the motions.


First you say that Hebrews 6:4-6 "lists profound religious experiences" Then, you accuse the writer's Hebrew audience as interested only in outward blessings. Well, who is Hebrews talking to? You cannot have it both ways.

The text says nothing about separating true believers from a hypothetical group of (secret) unbelievers. Show us where these ideas are stated in the text.


The Arminian theology does not accept the idea of salvation by works. You are totally wrong. You are thinking about the Judaizers or Ebionites. You know, before you can debate anyone coherently you have to condescend enough to understand their beliefs


You should try to understand Arminianism before you use the word in a sentence

Ephesians 2:8: "for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;"
You think the demonstrative pronoun THAT [is the gift of God] refers to FAITH?
However, this can be proven false by looking at the grammar of the sentence. For one, in Greek nouns and the words that refer to them (pronouns and adjectives) must agree with respect to gender. In this case THAT cannot refer to FAITH because FAITH is a feminine word while THAT is a neuter word. In Greek, nouns and the adjectives that describe them must agree with respect to gender

Second, remember those times when Jesus rebuked the disciples for their lack of faith. If faith is a gift, God could not rebuke them for not having what only He can give.

The Reformers did not have any campaigns of extermination, you have no historical evidence to make such an outrageous claim.

You tried to use the following as evidence that the reprobate were once saved but have since fallen away.

1) REPENTED of their sins, - (there is nothing to prevent the reprobate from falsely repenting)
2). exercised FAITH in God, - (there is nothing to prevent the reprobate from making a false profession of faith)
3). been BAPTIZED, - (there is nothing preventing a reprobate from being water baptised)
4). tasted the GIFT of God [see, John 4:10], - (there's nothing preventing a reprobate to have a free Church lunch)
5). been sharers in the HOLY SPIRIT and - (there is nothing to prevent the reprobate enjoying the benefits that professing believers enjoy)
6). partakers of the WORD of God- (there's nothing to prevent the reprobate from sitting through a sermon)

The text does not spell it out for you in Kindergarten terms, if you can't connect the dots it could be an indication that you don't have the gift of discernment.

You don't even believe that faith is a gift, so it's no use appealing to Greek meanings while you deny this core bible doctrine.

 

[rogerg]

When I read Hebrews 6:9, I don’t see anything that “confirms” the system you’re defending; I see the writer shifting his pastoral tone, not redefining the warning he just gave. Verse 9 begins with “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you” — and that phrase only makes sense if the danger he described in verses 4–6 was real, not hypothetical. He doesn’t say, “What I just wrote can’t actually happen.” He doesn’t say, “Those people were never truly enlightened.” He doesn’t say, “They only tasted externally.” He simply says, “I’m confident you will not be among those who fall away.” That’s encouragement, not reinterpretation.

In other words, Hebrews 6:9 is the pastoral contrast, not the theological escape hatch. The writer warns the community about a real danger, then expresses confidence that his readers will persevere. That’s the same pattern we see in Hebrews 10:26–29 followed by 10:39. The warnings are real; the assurance is real; and neither passage ever says the people described were “false professors” or “externally sanctified.” Those categories come from your system, not from the text.

So when someone tells me Hebrews 6:9 “confirms everything” about 6:4–6 being hypothetical or about the people being unregenerate, I simply point out that the verse doesn’t reinterpret anything — it encourages the readers to avoid the very danger the writer just described. The warning stands exactly as written, and I’m not going to rewrite the language of Hebrews to protect a theological grid

OMC, you completely left out the phrase "though we speak thus" in verse 9. If your theory was correct, that phrase would not even be in the verse. The writer uses that exact phrase because it provides the direct intent for verses 4 through 6. Verse 8 also explains this by using thorns and briers, which symbolically represent the unsaved. By looking at verse 8 and verse 9 together, we can plainly see that verses 4 through 6 are describing the external experiences of the unsaved, not the saved. This is confirmed by the phrase "things that accompany salvation" in verse 9. Because the "beloved" in verse 9 are beyond question saved, we know that the experiences in verses 4 through 6 do not equal salvation. For the elect, falling away is an impossible hypothetical proposition because they have the better things that actually accompany salvation that will keep them from such. You are the one rewriting the text and ignoring the actual words on to fit your grid.

 

[OMC]

you completely left out the phrase "though we speak thus" in verse 9. If your theory was correct, that phrase would not even be in the verse. The writer uses that exact phrase because it provides the direct intent for verses 4 through 6. Verse 8 also explains this by using thorns and briers, which symbolically represent the unsaved. By looking at verse 8 and verse 9 together, we can plainly see that verses 4 through 6 are describing the external experiences of the unsaved, not the saved. This is confirmed by the phrase "things that accompany salvation" in verse 9. Because the "beloved" in verse 9 are beyond question saved, we know that the experiences in verses 4 through 6 do not equal salvation. For the elect, falling away is an impossible hypothetical proposition because they have the better things that actually accompany salvation that will keep them from such. You are the one rewriting the text and ignoring the actual words on to fit your grid.

You’re accusing me of rewriting the text while you yourself are leaning hard on a system that tells you what Hebrews 6 “must” mean before you let the words speak.
You’re right that “though we speak thus” in verse 9 matters—it shows the writer has just spoken in severe, warning language—but that phrase does not magically convert verses 4–6 into a description of “external experiences of the unsaved.”
That is your grid talking, not the text.
The author says these people were once enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come—and you are forced by your system to call all of that “external” and “unsaved,” even though he never uses that language.
Then you take “things that accompany salvation” in verse 9 and treat it as proof that verses 4–6 cannot describe saved people, when in fact the writer is doing something far simpler: he has issued a terrifying warning, then turns to his readers and says, “But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you”—not because the warning was about “fake believers,” but because he is confident they will not follow that path.
“Though we speak thus” means, “Even though I’ve spoken in such severe terms, I’m confident of you,” not, “By the way, everything I just said only applies to the unsaved.”
Your thorn‑and‑brier reading in verse 8 is also system‑driven: the land that bears thorns is near to cursing, not automatically “never saved”; the imagery is about fruit, not about denying every prior work of God. So I say this kindly: you’re accusing me of ignoring the words, but it is your framework that forces you to strip verses 4–6 of their plain force.
Let Hebrews 6 stand as it is—a real warning to people who have truly tasted God’s work, not a safe description of outsiders that leaves the elect untouched.

 

[GWH]

You’re accusing me of rewriting the text while you yourself are leaning hard on a system that tells you what Hebrews 6 “must” mean before you let the words speak.
You’re right that “though we speak thus” in verse 9 matters—it shows the writer has just spoken in severe, warning language—but that phrase does not magically convert verses 4–6 into a description of “external experiences of the unsaved.”
That is your grid talking, not the text.
The author says these people were once enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come—and you are forced by your system to call all of that “external” and “unsaved,” even though he never uses that language.
Then you take “things that accompany salvation” in verse 9 and treat it as proof that verses 4–6 cannot describe saved people, when in fact the writer is doing something far simpler: he has issued a terrifying warning, then turns to his readers and says, “But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you”—not because the warning was about “fake believers,” but because he is confident they will not follow that path.
“Though we speak thus” means, “Even though I’ve spoken in such severe terms, I’m confident of you,” not, “By the way, everything I just said only applies to the unsaved.”
Your thorn‑and‑brier reading in verse 8 is also system‑driven: the land that bears thorns is near to cursing, not automatically “never saved”; the imagery is about fruit, not about denying every prior work of God. So I say this kindly: you’re accusing me of ignoring the words, but it is your framework that forces you to strip verses 4–6 of their plain force.
Let Hebrews 6 stand as it is—a real warning to people who have truly tasted God’s work, not a safe description of outsiders that leaves the elect untouched.

This is why I view parables and problematic passages as God's inkblots that sift souls into those who understand the mind of Christ and those whose minds tend to wander.

 

[OMC]

This is why I view parables and problematic passages as God's inkblots that sift souls into those who understand the mind of Christ and those whose minds tend to wander.

When you say parables and “problematic passages” are God’s inkblots designed to sift souls into those who understand the mind of Christ and those whose minds wander, you’re describing a psychological test — not the way Scripture itself describes God’s Word. Jesus says parables reveal truth to the humble and conceal it from the hard‑hearted, but He never says the content of Scripture is intentionally ambiguous or “inkblot‑like.” The apostles treat every part of Scripture as God‑breathed, not as a diagnostic tool to separate insightful readers from confused ones. The sifting comes from the heart’s posture, not from the text’s supposed obscurity. When you call certain passages “problematic,” you’re projecting your difficulty onto the text and then turning that difficulty into a theology of divine sorting. Scripture does sift — but it does so by confronting us with truth, not by presenting inkblots.

 

[rogerg]

You’re accusing me of rewriting the text while you yourself are leaning hard on a system that tells you what Hebrews 6 “must” mean before you let the words speak.
You’re right that “though we speak thus” in verse 9 matters—it shows the writer has just spoken in severe, warning language—but that phrase does not magically convert verses 4–6 into a description of “external experiences of the unsaved.”
That is your grid talking, not the text.
The author says these people were once enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come—and you are forced by your system to call all of that “external” and “unsaved,” even though he never uses that language.
Then you take “things that accompany salvation” in verse 9 and treat it as proof that verses 4–6 cannot describe saved people, when in fact the writer is doing something far simpler: he has issued a terrifying warning, then turns to his readers and says, “But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you”—not because the warning was about “fake believers,” but because he is confident they will not follow that path.
“Though we speak thus” means, “Even though I’ve spoken in such severe terms, I’m confident of you,” not, “By the way, everything I just said only applies to the unsaved.”
Your thorn‑and‑brier reading in verse 8 is also system‑driven: the land that bears thorns is near to cursing, not automatically “never saved”; the imagery is about fruit, not about denying every prior work of God. So I say this kindly: you’re accusing me of ignoring the words, but it is your framework that forces you to strip verses 4–6 of their plain force.
Let Hebrews 6 stand as it is—a real warning to people who have truly tasted God’s work, not a safe description of outsiders that leaves the elect untouched.

No, it is Hebrews 6 is saying what Hebrews 6 means, you just don't understand it. The "though we speak thus" means that what had been said prior does NOT pertain to them, not that it does pertain to them. To interpret it your manner flies in the face of basic logic, plus, there would be absolutely no reason to include it, should it have been meant that way.
In verse 6:6, the author refers to they/them, but in vs 9, he refers to "you", designating two different unrelated groups of people, one distinct and separate from the other, with no overlap, and shows that those being addressed are not the ones subject to the dangers of verses 4–6. In vs 9, the writer is clearly saying that his confidence in them is unshakable, which confidence would be impossible to have if the writer had actually thought they would or could fall into the unchangeable spiritual state of vs 4 - 6.
The author states that they possessed better things—things of actual salvation — and directly contrasts them with the "thorns and briers" of verse 8 - those who are to be rejected and burned. It would be impossible for someone saved to become of the thorns and briers because they have been justified by Christ, not themselves.
So, based upon the above explanation, we can see you have misunderstood the verses of Hebrews 6. If you would objectively assess them without injecting your own preconceived notions - that which you have been taught - you would be far better able to discern their true intent and meaning.

 

[OMC]

No, it is Hebrews 6 is saying what Hebrews 6 means, you just don't understand it. The "though we speak thus" means that what had been said prior does NOT pertain to them, not that it does pertain to them. To interpret it your manner flies in the face of basic logic, plus, there would be absolutely no reason to include it, should it have been meant that way.
In verse 6:6, the author refers to they/them, but in vs 9, he refers to "you", designating two different unrelated groups of people, one distinct and separate from the other, with no overlap, and shows that those being addressed are not the ones subject to the dangers of verses 4–6. In vs 9, the writer is clearly saying that his confidence in them is unshakable, which confidence would be impossible to have if the writer had actually thought they would or could fall into the unchangeable spiritual state of vs 4 - 6.
The author states that they possessed better things—things of actual salvation — and directly contrasts them with the "thorns and briers" of verse 8 - those who are to be rejected and burned. It would be impossible for someone saved to become of the thorns and briers because they have been justified by Christ, not themselves.
So, based upon the above explanation, we can see you have misunderstood the verses of Hebrews 6. If you would objectively assess them without injecting your own preconceived notions - that which you have been taught - you would be far better able to discern their true intent and meaning.

you’re right that Hebrews 6:9 shifts tone—but you’re wrong about what that shift actually does. The writer has just warned about a real, terrifying possibility: people who have truly tasted, shared, and experienced the powers of the age to come, yet fall away in a way that makes renewal impossible (vv.4–6). Then he says, “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak”—not, “So everything I just said doesn’t apply to you,” but, “Even though I’ve spoken in this severe way, I’m confident you will not be that case.” The “though we thus speak” only makes sense if the warning does pertain to them as a real danger, while his pastoral confidence is that they will persevere. The switch from “they” to “you” is not two unrelated groups; it’s one audience, with a hypothetical case described (“they”) and a hopeful expectation expressed (“you”). Warnings in Scripture are real; assurance is real; Hebrews 6 holds both together without flattening either.

 

[rogerg]

The “though we thus speak” only makes sense if the warning does pertain to them as a real danger,

No. You seem to not realize that it is possible to edify (teach) people ABOUT something, without them having to be subject to that about which they are being edified

The switch from “they” to “you” is not two unrelated groups; it’s one audience, with a hypothetical case described (“they”) and a hopeful expectation expressed (“you”). Warnings in Scripture are real; assurance is real; Hebrews 6 holds both together without flattening either.

The overriding and primary point is that it was differentiating between the two groups. But the group of vs 6:9 was the only one being addressed because they were the group saved. The saved group was justified and saved by Christ not themselves, so unless Christ's justification is limited, which it isn't, there was no danger of them falling into what was taught in the preceding verses. However, if Christ's justification is limited, then we are all — not just those of 6:4 - 6:6 — in a lot of very serious trouble indeed

 

[OMC]

No. You seem to not realize that it is possible to edify (teach) people ABOUT something, without them having to be subject to that about which they are being edified



The overriding and primary point is that it was differentiating between the two groups. But the group of vs 6:9 was the only one being addressed because they were the group saved. The saved group was justified and saved by Christ not themselves, so unless Christ's justification is limited, which it isn't, there was no danger of them falling into what was taught in the preceding verses. However, if Christ's justification is limited, then we are all — not just those of 6:4 - 6:6 — in a lot of very serious trouble indeed

You say the author is “edifying them about something that does not pertain to them,” but that collapses the force of the warning genre: biblical warnings are addressed to the saved precisely because the danger is real if they abandon the faith (cf. Hebrews 2:1, 3:12, 10:26). The shift from “they” to “you” in 6:6–9 is not two unrelated groups; it is the standard prophetic pattern: describe the catastrophic outcome (“they”), then express pastoral confidence that the hearers will not follow that path (“you”). Your claim that the saved “could not possibly fall into the danger” contradicts the entire exhortation logic of Hebrews, which repeatedly warns believers against unbelief, drifting, hardening, and falling away. The author’s confidence in 6:9 is moral confidence, not metaphysical impossibility; he believes they will persevere, not that perseverance is automatic. And invoking “Christ’s justification” as a shield against the warning misfires, because the warning is not about Christ failing — it is about humans rejecting what Christ has done. Hebrews 6 only makes sense if the danger is real, the audience is the same, and the assurance is pastoral, not a denial of the warning.

 

[rogerg]

You say the author is “edifying them about something that does not pertain to them,” but that collapses the force of the warning genre: biblical warnings are addressed to the saved precisely because the danger is real if they abandon the faith (cf. Hebrews 2:1, 3:12, 10:26). The shift from “they” to “you” in 6:6–9 is not two unrelated groups; it is the standard prophetic pattern: describe the catastrophic outcome (“they”), then express pastoral confidence that the hearers will not follow that path (“you”). Your claim that the saved “could not possibly fall into the danger” contradicts the entire exhortation logic of Hebrews, which repeatedly warns believers against unbelief, drifting, hardening, and falling away. The author’s confidence in 6:9 is moral confidence, not metaphysical impossibility; he believes they will persevere, not that perseverance is automatic. And invoking “Christ’s justification” as a shield against the warning misfires, because the warning is not about Christ failing — it is about humans rejecting what Christ has done. Hebrews 6 only makes sense if the danger is real, the audience is the same, and the assurance is pastoral, not a denial of the warning.

And by that edification and in being saved, there was no possibility for them to fall into it (Phl 2:13).
It is not about rejecting what Christ has done because in being saved, they were already justified (not that those whom Jesus chose to justify requires any approval or participation on their part to bring it to completion)

 

[GWH]

When you say parables and “problematic passages” are God’s inkblots designed to sift souls into those who understand the mind of Christ and those whose minds wander, you’re describing a psychological test — not the way Scripture itself describes God’s Word. Jesus says parables reveal truth to the humble and conceal it from the hard‑hearted, but He never says the content of Scripture is intentionally ambiguous or “inkblot‑like.” The apostles treat every part of Scripture as God‑breathed, not as a diagnostic tool to separate insightful readers from confused ones. The sifting comes from the heart’s posture, not from the text’s supposed obscurity. When you call certain passages “problematic,” you’re projecting your difficulty onto the text and then turning that difficulty into a theology of divine sorting. Scripture does sift — but it does so by confronting us with truth, not by presenting inkblots.

Well, you might want to go to my Systematic Bible Study Thread where I conducted a consideration of the parables in Matthew.
Let me know if/when you want to pursue that topic, and I will repost the beginning of the study.

 

[OMC]

Well, you might want to go to my Systematic Bible Study Thread where I conducted a consideration of the parables in Matthew.
Let me know if/when you want to pursue that topic, and I will repost the beginning of the study.

In Star Trek, the Kobayashi Maru is a no-win scenario — a test designed so that every possible move ends in failure unless you change the rules of the game itself. It’s about revealing when someone is trapped in a framework where winning is structurally impossible. I’ve studied the scripture for over 40 years, without formal studies or theology papers. When I’m asked a biblical question, I show them the scripture, letting it speak for itself. I don’t need a bible study; I have the scripture. From day one, it’s all I’ve stood on — no system of belief, no fantastical charts or interwoven stories to cloud or distort, just scripture.

 

[GWH]

In Star Trek, the Kobayashi Maru is a no-win scenario — a test designed so that every possible move ends in failure unless you change the rules of the game itself. It’s about revealing when someone is trapped in a framework where winning is structurally impossible. I’ve studied the scripture for over 40 years, without formal studies or theology papers. When I’m asked a biblical question, I show them the scripture, letting it speak for itself. I don’t need a bible study; I have the scripture. From day one, it’s all I’ve stood on — no system of belief, no fantastical charts or interwoven stories to cloud or distort, just scripture.

I will take that as a "not now" answer.