# Hebrews 6:4-6



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 6, 2004)

Hebrews 6:4-6


> It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, *if they fall away*, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.


What is this saying? It appears to say that a regenerate Christian can fall away and if they do they may never come back. Have I read this wrong? Am I missing something in the Greek etc...?

Fraser


----------



## blhowes (Nov 6, 2004)

Frazer,

You might find these threads helpful. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1079
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3946
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3947


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2004)

Fraser,
Keep the idea that the church is visible and invisible. The visible is made up of true believers and the deceived. The invisible church is made up of believers only. The warning passages are referring to the visible. The visible body is always called to:

Acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to *continue in the faith*, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

1Co 16:13 Watch! *Stand fast in the faith!* Be men! Be strong!

2 Cor 13:5 *Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;* prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

We are called to apply these principles for our own benefit. One would not want to be found to be possibly self deceived.

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2004)

I agree with Scott. Hebrews was probably the book that convinced me of Covenant Theology. Since I used to hold to once saved always saved, I really couldn't make sense of this chapter. Now using the visisble/invisible distinction, one can see how a preacher can preach an evangelistic "warning" sermon while at the same time affirming the promises of God to his people.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 6, 2004)

Fraser,

I am trying to attach the relevant commentary from John Owen, the best resource on this text:

http://home.earthlink.net/~fredtgreco/Files/Owen on Hebrews 6.pdf

[Edited on 11/6/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## blhowes (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Fraser,
> I am trying to attach the relevant commentary from John Owen, the best resource on this text:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~fredtgreco/Files/Owen on Hebrews 6.pdf



Wow! That was excellent. Thanks for posting the Owen exerpt.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 6, 2004)

You're welcome. I love it myself.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 6, 2004)

John Owens writing is good and I will have to show it to my cousin who sometimes came along with questions such as I just asked. He is new to Calvinism also.

Scott Bushey, thanks for explaining the visible - invisible church. I had the concept already in my head but I didn't have words to describe it. I remember trying to explain it to someone, maybe even on this board, but managed to trip over my tongue in every sentence. It is a very hard concept to describe in my view (well at least at 1am). It must be one of the first things on this board that doesn't have a dozen syllable name or term (or does it?)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2004)

Fraser,
It's simply one of the biblical components of covenant theology. Without the rationale, how can one explain the warning passages of scripture coherently? One can't. This was one of the theory's that flew in the face of the theologies that were not covenantal.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> John Owens writing is good and I will have to show it to my cousin who sometimes came along with questions such as I just asked. He is new to Calvinism also.
> 
> Scott Bushey, thanks for explaining the visible - invisible church. I had the concept already in my head but I didn't have words to describe it. I remember trying to explain it to someone, maybe even on this board, but managed to trip over my tongue in every sentence. It is a very hard concept to describe in my view (well at least at 1am). It must be one of the first things on this board that doesn't have a dozen syllable name or term (or does it?)



Fraser,

It can be made simple. Let me see if I can do it for you:

*Visible Church*: the people of God on earth, including all persons who profess that they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, and their children. This is _temporal _(only includes people living today). Also, since only God knows the heart, it includes both real _believers_ (whose profession is true) and real _unbelievers _(whose profession is false, whether they know it, or are deluded).

*Invisible Church*: the people of God that are elect and true believers. This includes those who are actually regenerated and saved (known only by God), and in non-temporal; it includes all the saints from all time. That includes all believers from the past, the present and the future.

This distinction is crucial. For if we conflate these two concepts, we either end up with a people of God with no security, or with presumption. Either the visible church is exalted, and then we think believers can lose their salvation and their salvation is dependent on their works, or the invisible church is exalted and we cannot account for false professions.

Make sense?


----------



## blhowes (Nov 6, 2004)

In Hebrews 6:9, it seems clear that there's a distinction made between those who are saved and those who might fall away in the previous verses.


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



That much makes sense to me. Now I'm trying to figure out if there's a distinction made between the people who fall away in Heb 6 and those spoken to at the end of Heb 5. 



> Heb 5:10-14 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



It sounds like he's talking to these people as if they were the elect. Anybody agree? If so, do you see any transition in the text that shifts the focus from the elect to those who fall away? Maybe the word "those" (instead of you) in Heb 4?

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for *those* who were once enlightened...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2004)

Bob,
He's talking to them like they are professing believers; members of the congregation.
It cannot be the elect as we all know that the elect _cannot_ fall away. It has to be those whom are in the visible church whom are professing believers. This reconciles the conundrum that I spoke of earlier. 


[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## blhowes (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bob,
> He's talking to them like they are professing believers; members of the congregation.
> It cannot be the elect as we all know that the elect _cannot_ fall away. It has to be those whom are in the visible church whom are professing believers. This reconciles the conundrum that I spoke of earlier.



Scott,
Thanks for your response. I'll go back and reread/study the passage and see if I can agree. The spirit is willing, but the brain is weak.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 6, 2004)

Here's a simplified (and circular) argument which never made sense to me. Those who are apostate and can never be brought to repentance again were never really saved. How do you explain those who never came to faith when first exposed to the Gospel, then left, then came to faith? So those who weren't saved in the first place can't be, or what?

BTW; I do believe in Perseverance of the Saints, just can't explain it too well, obviously!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> How do you explain those who never came to faith when first exposed to the Gospel, then left, then came to faith?



I was exposed to the gospel many times in my younger days and it was not effectual until God made it so......


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 8, 2004)

1st John 2:18-20 seems to indicate some clearly that those who "went out from us..." were never really among us. 1st John 2:19 says that if "If they had been among us they would [no doubt] continue with us..." I think it is safe to say that it is indeed true that those who leave the faith were never really the elect, and that the elect (by God's Grace) continue to go on. Really I am just reiterating the distinction between the church invisible and visible, so I think I will stop talking about that now.

I did have a question though. Do you guys think that Hebrews 6 might be implicative of limited atonement, because it says that they cannot come back because they "crucify Christ to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame." (KJV) they crucify Christ not for the penalty of sin in general, but to themselves. Furthermore those who claim that you can lose your salvation, wouldn't they be forced to say you can not retrieve it again (which most people I have talked to say that you can get it back). Furthermore in light of John 17:12 and John 10 (pretty much the whole thing) and countless other verses; would some one not be flying in the face of those verses to translate Hebrews 6 as we can lose our salvation, because then Christ would seem to be unable to keep those "the Father has given...." I liked that part in the article that said "And so usually doth it fall out, very unhappily, with men who think they see some peculiar opinion or persuasion in some singular text of Scripture, and will not bring their interpretations of it unto the analogy of faith, whereby they might see how contrary it is to the whole design, and current of the word in other places." That reminds me of every person I have ever talked to about the doctrines of grace, because they come to me and pull out "...God desires all men to be saved." and refuse to take that into context or into consideration consdering clear text where all men are not willed to be saved (Mark 11:47, Isaiah 6:11). Ahhh! it is frustrating!! 

(gentleness, humility... okay okay...phhew, I am straight now)

Sorry about getting sidetracked. My real question was: what do you guys think about Hebrews 6 as far as being a good argument for limited atonement?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2004)

I think the reason they would not be able to come back to the faith is: given they are judaizers perhaps in Israel; they would have died fighting for the temple in 70 AD and such, would not be able to come back to the faith.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 8, 2004)

Didnt someone earlier say that the "impossible" used is more extremely difficult or something like that? I cant find it but I am sure someone said it 

I believe one of the reasons it is so difficult is because someone who has gone through all that must have _really_ hardened their hearts to then fall away.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 8, 2004)

One of the problems I have with our interpretation of this verse is the way it talks of these people HAVING tasted the heavenly gift and SHARED in the Holy Spirit... etc... Now the sharing in the Holy Spirit does sound alot like these are regenerate Christians.

Hebrews 6:4-6


> It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who *have tasted * the heavenly gift, who *have shared * in the Holy Spirit, who _have tasted_ the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 8, 2004)

Exo 7:2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. 
Exo 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, 
Exo 7:4 Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. 

Exo 7:13 Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said. 
Exo 7:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go. 
Exo 7:15 Go to Pharaoh in the morning, as he is going out to the water. Stand on the bank of the Nile to meet him, and take in your hand the staff that turned into a serpent. 
Exo 7:16 And you shall say to him, 'The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness. But so far, you have not obeyed." 
Exo 7:17 Thus says the LORD, "By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, with the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water that is in the Nile, and it shall turn into blood.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said. 

Exo 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 8, 2004)

I have been going through the greek of this passage on e-sword and it does seem rather certain that these people were Christians in the first place. Is it possible for the elect to deny God? But these people seem regenerate... I am confused!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 8, 2004)

Fraser,
no one knows who is rgenerate; not even the apostle Paul. This is an example of the church visible and the church invisible. The church visible is made up of elect and non elect. Those whom have fallen away can even be accused rightly of stomping upon the blood of Christ as well as partaking of the benefit that comes with being part of the visible body of believers (even though they were not actually believers themselves) and partaking of the grace of God.

I add: discipleship does not imply regeneracy. Christian does not necessarily imply regeneracy either.

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------

