Right. You're hung up on "renewal". You cannot be "renewed again, after being renewed for the first time". My point still stands.
This immediately follows "..since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."
Both things: crucifying for themselves and shaming the Son of God are impossible.
Instead of condemnation, you'll face correction, punishment, even excommunication... all at the hands of a loving Father. The intent is to create, within the son of God, godly sorrow for repentance.
You seem sincere. Help me understand why this still trips you up.
Before I respond to your last post, I want to name something you keep circling back to, "you can't be born again after being born again" as if it's a correction to my position. It isn't. I already said, verbatim, in an earlier post:
"If you were saved and fell away, that's it. You cannot become 'saved' again." That's the same claim. You're not rebutting me, you're repeating me back to myself. I need you to actually register that agreement exists there before we go further, because otherwise we're just going to keep looping.
Now, to your points:
On "renewal"
I'm not hung up on the word. I think you're collapsing it into a word that it isn't. "Renewed again to repentance" uses
anakainizo, which isn't the NT's vocabulary for new birth or regeneration (that's John 3:3, or Titus 3:5's "washing of regeneration"). Where "renewal" language shows up elsewhere, it describes ongoing transformation, not a one-time rebirth. Romans 12:2's "renewal of your mind," for example. So, "there's no need to renew that which has been renewed" assumes an equation the text doesn't make. Repentance isn't a one-time event either. Revelation 2:5 tells a church to "repent, or I will remove your lampstand." Hebrews 12:17 says Esau sought a place of repentance and couldn't find it, even with tears. That's the author describing repentance becoming unavailable to someone, and nobody reads that as "Esau needed to be born again again." Hebrews 6 is doing the same thing... not describing a second regeneration, but a closed door to repentance. That's the part I think you keep translating into "born again again", a claim I've never made and don't agree with.
On the different salvations framework
Same question I've been asking about Hebrews 12: where does Hebrews 6 or 10 itself draw this distinction? You're describing two tiers, faith alone securing heaven, works/Spirit-led living saving from "the corruption of the world" but look at what's actually listed in Hebrews 6:4-5: enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift,
partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. By your own framework, "partaker of the Holy Spirit" is exactly the language of being placed into Christ by the Spirit, the thing you say secures someone from the second death and can't be lost. So even granting your own framework, Hebrews 6 is describing people falling away from the very category you say is unlosable.
And 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't transfer cleanly either. That passage is about physical sickness and premature death tied to abusing the Lord's Supper and not a general "second salvation" that gets forfeited and restored through discipline. Hebrews 10:26-31 reads nothing like that context: "no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," "a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the
adversaries," "a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." That's judgment language aimed at an enemy, not correction aimed at a son which is precisely the contrast Hebrews 12 draws when it says discipline "yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness." Those aren't the same outcome described two ways. They're opposites. I mean, unless you discipline your children with fiery judgement...
This is why it's so important to stick within the book we're debating and not go outside of it, because it adds other issues and problems before we even agree on the context of Hebrews 6. It just makes it convoluted when you're implying an interpretation from another book and attributing it to this one. We have to have a foundation to build from, and not run all around the houses. So, can we stick with Hebrews 6 and you can try and show me how I'm wrong within the context of itself? Unless we can actually agree on something I've written here and build from there.