Can you read this and give me a simple answer:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV)
The question : Is the writer saying something positive about those who fall away or something negative?
My take is something negative and that is that God would find it difficult to forgive them: Those who fall away would not be in a good position. But Checkbaoter says the following
Now as far as Hebrews where it states it is impossible is because it is impossible. Since one cannot lose their salvation in the first place, that is why it says it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, because they never lost the spirit in them..
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by Rajk999That you seek council from atheists speaks volumes about yourself.
Can you read this and give me a simple answer:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselv ...[text shortened]... impossible to renew them again to repentance, because they never lost the spirit in them..
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Rajk999"The question : Is the writer saying something positive about those who fall away or something negative? "
Can you read this and give me a simple answer:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselv ...[text shortened]... impossible to renew them again to repentance, because they never lost the spirit in them..
I don't think that is the bone of contention. I think it is whether there are or can be any such enlightened people who actually fall away and thus cause God/Jesus such irritation. It is a variation on the OSAS dispute.
I think the writer of the original passage may have been aware of this theological problem and couldn't resolve It, so it remained ambiguous.
Edit, of course under CB's interpretation the passage is an unnecessary warning.
24 Apr 17
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Perhaps you should have asked for the opinions of those with reasonably good reading comprehension who can be objective about the text.
Can you read this and give me a simple answer:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselv ...[text shortened]... impossible to renew them again to repentance, because they never lost the spirit in them..
The following gets to the heart of the matter:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...,If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance..."
It's clear that the writer is saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for "once enlightened" individuals to be renewed to repentance should they fall away. It's also clear the writer believes it possible for such individuals to "fall away".
What CB wrote is nonsensical.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you have a list of names of those you consider to have "reasonably good reading comprehension"?
Perhaps you should have asked for the opinions of those with reasonably good reading comprehension who can be objective about the text.
The following gets to the heart of the matter:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...,If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance..."
It's clear that the writer is saying tha ...[text shortened]... fall away. It's also clear the writer believes it possible for such individuals to "fall away".
Objectively speaking, do you consider who the writer of Hebrews is speaking to when interpreting the meaning of the verses in question?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
24 Apr 17
Originally posted by Rajk999I would draw parallel with 2 Timothy 2:12:
Can you read this and give me a simple answer:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselv ...[text shortened]... impossible to renew them again to repentance, because they never lost the spirit in them..
'If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us.'
I think the meaning is quite clear.
24 Apr 17
I agree with ThinkOfOne with the condition that it is the English translation as stated being discussed. What the original text said or meant or what context it was in may be another matter. I do think that anyone disputing the direct meaning has their work cut out for them and should provide a full explanation for choosing another meaning.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I would draw parallel with 2 Timothy 2:12:
'If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us.'
I think the meaning is quite clear.
I would draw parallel with 2 Timothy 2:12:
'If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us.'
I think the meaning is quite clear.
Consider closely the Second Timothy passage:
" Faithful is the word:
For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him.
If we endure, we will also reign with Him.;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
If we are faitfhless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Tim. 2:11-13)
The passage is about reigning with Christ as He reigns as a King.
Some change it to be about being saved with eternal redemption, justification.
I think Paul is talking about reigning.
Reigning is CONDITIONAL upon being faithful and enduring no doubt through trials and tribulations.
The one who becomes faithless and does not endure may be denied the honor to reigning with Christ as He reigns. Though Christ may deny such a one that honor, that privileged, that reward of reigning with Him (in the millennial kingdom) Christ cannot and will deny Himself.
" ... if we deny Him, He also will deny us. [as to the reward of reigning]
If we are faithless, He REMAINS ... faitfhful, for He CANNOT ... deny HIMSELF." [as pertaining to eternal redemption ]
I propose that we understand this passage to be to Christians.
To be rewarded is to REIGN with Christ.
If we however do not endure and become faithless, Christ cannot deny Himself.
We are saved yet not rewarded.
This is the most consistent with other New Testament teaching elsewhere.
24 Apr 17
Originally posted by josephwDo you have a list of names of those you consider to have "reasonably good reading comprehension"?
Do you have a list of names of those you consider to have "reasonably good reading comprehension"?
Objectively speaking, do you consider [b]who the writer of Hebrews is speaking to when interpreting the meaning of the verses in question?[/b]
No. However, if I did, you'd likely be omitted. As I recall, you kept insisting that in John 8:31-36, Jesus was speaking of His true disciples being freed from "the penalty of sin". This despite the fact that Jesus explicitly stated that they would be freed from "committing sin" and nowhere did He bring "the penalty of sin" into the discussion.
Objectively speaking, do you consider [b]who the writer of Hebrews is speaking to when interpreting the meaning of the verses in question?[/b]
If you have a point to make, simply state it.
24 Apr 17
Originally posted by JS357Thanks for your comments. I somewhat get a different impression from the writer. More later on that.
"The question : Is the writer saying something positive about those who fall away or something negative? "
I don't think that is the bone of contention. I think it is whether there are or can be any such enlightened people who actually fall away and thus cause God/Jesus such irritation. It is a variation on the OSAS dispute.
I think the writer of the ori ...[text shortened]... d ambiguous.
Edit, of course under CB's interpretation the passage is an unnecessary warning.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI agree. Thanks
Perhaps you should have asked for the opinions of those with reasonably good reading comprehension who can be objective about the text.
The following gets to the heart of the matter:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...,If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance..."
It's clear that the writer is saying tha ...[text shortened]... riter believes it possible for such individuals to "fall away".
What CB wrote is nonsensical.
Originally posted by twhiteheadExactly. But CB makes no effort to explain why he interprets the passage that way and appears surprised at any other interpretation
I agree with ThinkOfOne with the condition that it is the English translation as stated being discussed. What the original text said or meant or what context it was in may be another matter. I do think that anyone disputing the direct meaning has their work cut out for them and should provide a full explanation for choosing another meaning.