# Book of Hebrews negates TULIP?



## Richard King (Feb 22, 2007)

I need help here. 

I know I can research but this has to be old hat for you people who have been reformed for a long time. Perhaps you can help me keep from chasing too many rabbits.

I have a person on a local online discussion group about Reformed Theology who has posted a belief that the book of Hebrews will refute the TULIP doctrines or beliefs.

Initially I need someone to help me explain that you cannot lose your salvation. 
In spite of what this verse seems to be saying:
Hebrews 6 :
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 
6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2007)

and ephesians refutes non-tulip, and on and on we go. He has a point if everyone assumes that we can approach the text without consideration of worldviews and presuppositions. I have a covenantal worldview that depends on, to quote Van Til, a self-contained God who has absolute fullness in himself. That determines how how I interprete "trouble texts." 

And to make it worse, I believe the Arminian conception of God to be quite problematic. I was on infidels.org last night and reading some of their threads on why God can't exist. I began to see that if they are talking about the arminian conception of God, then they are right.


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

Richard King said:


> Initially I need someone to help me explain that you cannot lose your salvation.
> In spite of what this verse seems to be saying:
> Hebrews 6 :
> 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
> ...



That passage actually works in favor of eternal security. If you lost your salvation, there would be no hope of having it restored. As it says, re-salvation is impossible. If they come back, they had never lost their salvation in the first place.


----------



## ADKing (Feb 22, 2007)

I believe that Hebrews 6 is a genuine warning (not hypothetical warning as some would have). It is important though, that we understand that the warning is given to the visible church, the professing covenant community and their children. The author of Hebrews has used this same type of warning already in chapters 3 and 4 with reference to Israel's example of unbelief warning us not to come short of the promised rest. Although the language of chapter 6 is very strong in terms of participation of blessings, I would suggest he is not talking about personal, inward participation in Christ somehow being lost. Rather, as some of the commentaries point out (William Lane??) the language is strikingly similar to OT LXX references to _Israel's_ experiences in the wilderness. The idea is similar to Psalm 95/Hebres 3 and 4 then. Just like Israel of old, the church has participated in all these great blessings of the covenant and yet those who fall away (not embracing the reality and substance of the covenant by faith) have greater condemnation. It is significant that for those who do receive the substance of the covenant by faith the list of experiences in verse 4 _is_ personally and inwardly experienced.

In order to answer the doctrinal question of the perserverance of the saints when it is thrown at us from Hebrews, we need to be sensitive to the particular argument of the author and not artificially impose our doctrinal categories on him in places where he may not be addressing those questions head on.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Richard King said:


> I need help here.
> 
> I know I can research but this has to be old hat for you people who have been reformed for a long time. Perhaps you can help me keep from chasing too many rabbits.
> 
> ...


I know some people might sniff at this as I have recommended it before, Pink has a great commentary on Hebrews......yes I know Pinks held some shaky positions now and then......but this is good.


----------



## Richard King (Feb 22, 2007)

I am not sniffing at any input. I greatly greatly appreciate it.
I need all the ammo I can get.
I am not exactly what you would call "intellectual" and that is fine with me.
I embrace my Forrest Gumpness until I run into these smart people who make me aware of how lazy I am regarding scripture knowledgel.
Keep those tips coming.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Richard King said:


> I am not sniffing at any input. I greatly greatly appreciate it.
> I need all the ammo I can get.
> I am not exactly what you would call "intellectual" and that is fine with me.
> I embrace my Forrest Gumpness until I run into these smart people who make me aware of how lazy I am regarding scripture knowledgel.
> Keep those tips coming.


I'm yer Forrest brother!


----------



## ajrock2000 (Feb 22, 2007)

This is from Matthew Henry's concise commentary.



> Heb 6:1-8 -
> Every part of the truth and will of God should be set before all who profess the gospel, and be urged on their hearts and consciences. We should not be always speaking about outward things; these have their places and use, but often take up too much attention and time, which might be better employed. The humbled sinner who pleads guilty, and cries for mercy, can have no ground from this passage to be discouraged, whatever his conscience may accuse him of. Nor does it prove that any one who is made a new creature in Christ, ever becomes a final apostate from him. The apostle is not speaking of the falling away of mere professors, never convinced or influenced by the gospel. Such have nothing to fall away from, but an empty name, or hypocritical profession. Neither is he speaking of partial declinings or backslidings. Nor are such sins meant, as Christians fall into through the strength of temptations, or the power of some worldly or fleshly lust. But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it. If those who through mistaken views of this passage, as well as of their own case, fear that there is no mercy for them, would attend to the account given of the nature of this sin, that it is a total and a willing renouncing of Christ, and his cause, and joining with his enemies, it would relieve them from wrong fears. We should ourselves beware, and caution others, of every approach near to a gulf so awful as apostacy; yet in doing this we should keep close to the word of God, and be careful not to wound and terrify the weak, or discourage the fallen and penitent. Believers not only taste of the word of God, but they drink it in. And this fruitful field or garden receives the blessing. But the merely nominal Christian, continuing unfruitful under the means of grace, or producing nothing but deceit and selfishness, was near the awful state above described; and everlasting misery was the end reserved for him. Let us watch with humble caution and prayer as to ourselves.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 22, 2007)

Context is King!



> 1Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And this we will do if God permits. 4*For* (BECAUSE, author is making a point here) it is impossible to restore again to repentance *those who* (who are those, they are random people, not his audience, but rather a warning to his audience) have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
> 
> 9Though *we* speak in this way, yet in *your* (WHO? Not the people above, now he is talking directly to his audience and now he says ...) case, *beloved* (NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANS, those who ARE SAVED), we feel sure of better things--things that belong to salvation. 10For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love that you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. 11And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 12so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.





Basically it is a distinction between Non-Christians who appear to be Christians and ACTUAL Christians. I agree with all above.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2007)

ADKing said:


> I believe that Hebrews 6 is a genuine warning (not hypothetical warning as some would have). It is important though, that we understand that the warning is given to the visible church, the professing covenant community and their children. The author of Hebrews has used this same type of warning already in chapters 3 and 4 with reference to Israel's example of unbelief warning us not to come short of the promised rest. Although the language of chapter 6 is very strong in terms of participation of blessings, I would suggest he is not talking about personal, inward participation in Christ somehow being lost. Rather, as some of the commentaries point out (William Lane??) the language is strikingly similar to OT LXX references to _Israel's_ experiences in the wilderness. The idea is similar to Psalm 95/Hebres 3 and 4 then. Just like Israel of old, the church has participated in all these great blessings of the covenant and yet those who fall away (not embracing the reality and substance of the covenant by faith) have greater condemnation. It is significant that for those who do receive the substance of the covenant by faith the list of experiences in verse 4 _is_ personally and inwardly experienced.
> 
> In order to answer the doctrinal question of the perserverance of the saints when it is thrown at us from Hebrews, we need to be sensitive to the particular argument of the author and not artificially impose our doctrinal categories on him in places where he may not be addressing those questions head on.



Which is to say, in short form:
This passage doesn't present a problem for folk who embrace Covenant Theology.  Often, folk approaching Hebrews 6 aren't approaching it from that perspective, but usually from a Dispensational/baptistic standpoint. 

Wayne Grudem exhausts 50 pages on this in 'Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election and Predestination' (edited by Schreiner and Ware). Good book to get.


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Often, folk approaching Hebrews 6 aren't approaching it from that perspective, but usually from a Dispensational/baptistic standpoint.




As do I....and I still see no problem with it as a threat to TULIP....


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2007)

Chris said:


> As do I....and I still see no problem with it as a threat to TULIP....



Ah... but do you see the warnings as real or only hypothetical ?


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Ah... but do you see the warnings as real or only hypothetical ?



Hypothetical.

I'd say real, but to do so would make H6 contradict tons of other passages that absolutely support perseverance of the saints. 

If one can indeed lose salvation, one indeed has no chance of getting it back. So if the arminians are correct, according to H6, then anyone who has ever fell away is headed for Hell, no do-overs allowed. 

I had a friend who was considering writing a book along those lines. Not sure he ever finished it.


----------



## Machaira (Feb 23, 2007)

I can't help but notice a striking similarity between Heb. 6:7,8 and the parable of the sower in Matt. 13. I don't think that Heb. 6 teaches that its possible to loose ones salvation any more than Matt. 13 does. I think that the illustration in Heb. 6:7,8 is key to our understanding. Notice the writers use of the words "enlightened," "tasted" and the picture of rain watering "seed." (Matt. 13 anyone?), that either produces a useful crop or thorns and thistles. If the Hebrews move forward past the rudiments of faith, (Heb. 6:1,2), they will be producing a "useful crop," (Heb. 6:7), but is they attempt to run back to an obsolete covenant relationship they will be producing thorns and thistles which areto be burned, (Heb. 6:8).

I think the answer is this: In Matt. 13 seed is given to four different kinds of heart, but only one produces a sustainable crop. In the same way, if someone were to fall away in Heb. 6, they would have been given seed that never produces a sustainable crop. In other words, those who "fall away" were never truly saved to begin with.


----------



## bob (Feb 23, 2007)

Trevor,

You might google on John Gill. I am certain his commentaries are availabe on-line somewhere.

He remarks concerning the text: 

"


> But here arises a new question, how can it be that he who has once made such a progress should afterwards fall away? For God, it may be said, calls none effectually but the elect, and Paul testifies that they are really his sons who are led by his Spirit, (# Ro 8:14); and he teaches us, that it is a sure pledge of adoption when Christ makes us partakers of his Spirit. The elect are also beyond the danger of finally falling away; for the Father who gave them to be preserved by Christ his Son is greater than all, and Christ promises to watch over them all so that none may perish. To all this I answer, That God indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the temporal faith mentioned by # Mr 4:17? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up. {2}
> 
> And by this bridle the Lord keeps us in fear and humility; and we certainly see how prone human nature is otherwise to security and foolish confidence. At the same time our solicitude ought to be such as not to disturb the peace of conscience. For the Lord strengthens faith in us, while he subdues our flesh: and hence he would have faith to remain and rest tranquilly as in a safe haven; but he exercises the flesh with various conflicts, that it may not grow wanton through idleness.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 23, 2007)

Allistair Begg has an excellent meesage out of Hebrews today called "heed these warnings". Worth the listen:

TRUTH FOR LIFE


----------



## Chris (Feb 23, 2007)

Y'know, for some reason this thread got me to thinking last night (which, I suppose, is the whole point....) so I went and re-read Hebrews 6 a couple of times. 

I read in KJV. I didn't look up Greek meanings, I didn't consult commentaries, etc. I just read it. 

As such.....my opinion is just that, an opinion, not based on years of study or expertise. Just an impression based upon a reading of the text. I'd love to have some direction or correction if I'm off-track on any of the following. 

As such, let's look at that passage again: 



> 1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
> 
> 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
> 
> ...



Ok, first, the passage of concern here is Hebrews 6:4-6. 

However, we can't start in verse 4 and end in verse 6, lest we make a proof-text. 


So the train of thought starts in verse 1. Where does it end? The train of thought is carried through the end of the chapter, but it appears that the thought in vv. 4-6 has been fleshed out by the end of verse 8. 


Ok, now let's examine that immediate passage: 


> Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
> 
> 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
> 
> ...



Alright....let's distill the passage down to that which is directly linked to vv. 4-6:

Main ideas from verses 1-8: 



> Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection
> 
> And this will we do, if God permit
> 
> ...



The end of the chapter ties our 'going on to perfection, if God permits' back to Christ. I'd be remiss to examine the passage without making that obvious. The passage ultimately points us to Christ as our anchor within the veil, our High Priest. 


Ok, now, at this point, we're ready to deal with the apparent dilemma of vv. 4-6: 



The author is driving us to go on to perfection, living out a life of holiness and obedience. He makes the point that we will do this if God permits - a reference to God's sovereignty. 

So, thus far, the thrust is 'let's go on to perfection, if God permits us'.

The we have 'for', which means the author is now going to give us a principle that underlines and supports what he has just said: 

Essentially, what we're left with is 'let's go on to perfection, if God permits - and if God permits, _we will _go on, _and the author believes that we will because of this underlying principle:_

We will go on, if God permits, because if we, as the saints of God, fell away, it would be impossible to come back. Why? Because to be saved again would mean that the faith wasn't truly 'delivered once for all. Christ's sacrifice was delivered 'once for all'. The reference that came to mind as I read this was Jude 1:3, where the faith was 'once delivered'. Delivered with no regard for past, present, or future. It's there, it's eternal. Christ's sacrifice covered the sins of the first of God's children and it will cover the sins of the last of God's children. It *is* that powerful. So if you fell away and lost that, then it won't be coming around a second time. If you truly lost true salvation, you shame the Christ (vv. 6) by showing that His sacrifice wasn't enough for *your* sin. 

The author then goes on to present another principle, underlying and in support of the 'problem passage' of vv. 4-6. 

Verses 7-8 show us that there's a parallel between our response to God's grace and the earth's response to God's rain. The principle is the same. God's grace upon us either manifests itself in good fruit, or in thorns. By now, we're circling back to what's always underlying when discussing salvation: 

_Whether we produce herbs or thorns is always dependant wholly upon God. _

The author then goes on to build upon how the audience has shown forth good fruits, and encourages them to continue. Appropriately, the passage ties this back to the work of Christ, glorifying God. 

To derive the alternate meaning from this passage - to derive that man can indeed be genuinely saved and then lost again - would force us to conclude that those who are genuinely saved yet fall away, have no chance to be saved again. There is no further hope for them. There is no need to preach repentance to a man who has already repented then fell away. _He's doomed._ Preach his doom and make him an example, a scapegoat, a warning of the wrath to come, and do so with no concern for his eternal soul, but only concern that others do not follow his lead. 

That's spooky stuff.

-----------------

Am I on the right track here?


----------

