Originally posted by Rajk999
So far you have not succeeded in your mission. The statement by the writer from Hebrews stand unaltered by your analysis. In any event what I find amusing is that if/when you people try to support your doctrines you quote several passages all at once to prove your point.
First I will finish
discussing Hebrews 6
. I have not gotten to the misunderstood [by you] verses 4 - 6 yet.
It is well established that the FOUNDATIONAL
matters are listed in verse 4
Therefore leaving the word of the BEGINNING of Christ ... not laying again a FOUNDATION ..." (6:1)
The writer does not want to re-lay the FOUNDATION of the BEGINNING of the rudimentary truths of the Gospel. And what are those rudimentary truths again?
1.) Repentance from dead works
2.) Faith in God
3.) Teaching of baptisms
4.) Laying on of hands
5.) Resurrection of the dead
6.) Eternal judgment
These are the matters from which the writer seeks that his audience would graduate. It is time, high time, for them to leave these original and elementary concepts to be brought on to maturity.
Please notice that the very FIRST item the writer mentions in his list of foundational things is -
" ... a foundation of REPENTANCE from dead works ..." (v.1)
Actually we could couple "repentance from dead works"
together with his next phrase "and of faith in God"
At the very bedrock of the Christian Gospel is "repentance from dead works"
being replaced by "faith in God"
. No longer does the sinner have any confidence that for eternal salvation he can depend upon his works. The works of trying to keep the law in his unregenerated and fallen nature are called "DEAD WORKS"
Because the Gospel message of Christ's saving salvation has come the sinner turns from "dead works"
and turns TO "faith in God"
. That is he turns to be justified by faith. He turns FROM attempting to be justified by "dead works"
as the law keeping teachers of Moses taught.
Before I continue, I would stress that I do agree with Rajk999 that verses 4 through 6 refer to Christian believers. Some may try to argue that they refer to nominal Christians. I will not spend time to refute that.
It is a GIVEN for both Rajk999 and myself that the following words indicate genuine Christian disciples:
... those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and yet have fallen away ..." (vs. 4-6a) [/b]
In short, and to be defended more thoroughly in the future, is the truth here that the FOUNDATION lain ONCE is impossible to re-lay.
ONCE having done "repentance from dead works"
it is impossible to again lay that foundation. "For it is IMPOSSIBLE for those ... to renew themselves again unto repentance ..."
It is unnecessary,
It is not right to do so,
It is impossible to do so.
It is unnecessary, not right, and impossible to do what? It is unnecessary, not right and impossible to lay again the ONCE put down foundation of "repentance from dead works and faith in God"
This is a post not to be too lengthy. The repentance
in verse 6 " ( ... impossible ... to renew ... again unto repentance " )
refers not to a general repentance. It refers to the very first repentance in the laying of the ridumentary foundation of the Gospel in foundation - " ... a foundation of repentance from dead works ..."
The FOUNDATION cannot be put down a second or third or fourth time.
This argues really for Once Saved Always Saved. It is impossible to renew again the foundational rudiments of initial salvation brought about by "repentance from dead works and faith in God"
It is not necessary.
It is not right to do if you tried.
It is impossible to do if you tried.
But lets not go too fast. It is exceedingly evident that NEGATIVE consequences are mentioned in connection to the fallen away Christians. Right?
Yes, negative consequences are mentioned for those fallen away from the tasters of the heavenly gift, and tasters of the powers of the age to come, and tasters of the good word of God. True. Here is what it says are the negative results following their falling away:
" And yet have fallen away, to renew themselves again unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of god and putting Him to open shame.
For the earth, which drinks the rain which often comes upon it and produces vegetation suitable to thoe for whose sake also it is cultvated, partakes of blessing from God.
But if it brings forth thorns and thistles, it is disapproved and near a curse, whose ind is to be burned. " (vs. 6-8)
1.) The vegetation refers to the fruit of the Christian.
2.) The worthless vegetation is burned.
3.) The fallen away Christian is "near a curse"
. It does not say he is cursed. He is only "near a curse"
What is being burned up is not the Christian believer forever.
The "thorns and thistles
of fleshy and backslidden works which are "disapproved"
are what are burned up.
For sure this will not be pleasant for them. But they will be "saved yet so as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:15)
However when dealing with the passages which contradict you, then your approach is different. You take one of the passages in isolation and try to twist it to mean something different.
Rajk999 has done more isolating of passages. I have put them into context with the surrounding words quite related.
Could the writer have meant that the fallen away Christian will perish forever ?
Then why didn't Peter perish forever with his many blunders?
Peter's name is on the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14)
"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. 21:14).
That would of course include the name of Peter
Peter was once enlightened.
Peter tasted of the heavenly gift.
Peter partook of the Holy Spirit.
Peter tasted the good word of God.
Peter tasted the powers of the millennial age to come.
Stop here. Let Rajk999 explain why Peter
did not find it impossible to be saved after his numerous blunders, one of which won for him a public rebuke from the younger Apostle Paul for Peter's hypocrisy.
I am attempting to keep each post to a manageable amount of reading.