Bront's Forums

It seems like you're trying to pick a fight with a Calvinist, but I don't recall any on this forum.


So I agree, let us continue with a more educated discourse, what do you really want to say?

I'll steal a line from what Ash wrote in the other tread:

Well, try as we might, we will never fully know the answer to this as none of us are God, or come even close to it.

Having put forth that disclaimer, let's talk and see where it goes.   This is an old topic, people have struggled with it through the ages.

First, there is the context, Paul is talking to the 'Hebrews', he leads into 6:4-6 by talking about people who need to be taught fundamentals, similar to being fed milk.  Then he say's they should be beyond that and moves on to solid food.  So even people who were taught first hand had trouble with this concept.  Also in context is that the Bible is writen in a way that leads us.  So in the first reading we might understand part, and in a second reading more, and so on...  So this verse, IMO, is one that grows on people over time.  Your style is to jump to the conclusion, and perhaps in this case the lesson might be in way we grow in our understanding, rather than having a conclusion.   


Second, who is 'enlightened' , tasted the heavenly gift, etc...   I'm not convinced we worldly humans fully understand that sentence.  I think we need to analyze even that much.  Are we there when we are first 'Saved' or is there a certain amount of sactification that must take place.  I think we will find Dogma that argues both ways.  We will find worldly views that cause Christians to be in strife over these basic foundational concepts.   IMO this strife isn't worth the conclusion we fight to get.  So I would be carefull when applying the words enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, etc...   to a group, or to the modern concept of being 'saved'.

Third, what does it mean to fall away?  We know that even the Great Biblical figures went through cycles of sin and repentance, and that Jesus died once paying the debt for sin past and future.   So put simply, I can still repent not looking away from the victoria secret commercial.  So how far do we have to fall away before it is imposible to be brought back to repentance?   As we talk about it I think this point will be difficult.  Humans have a way of self justification that is hard to honestly talk through. 

As always, I look forward to this conversation.  Hopefully, Ash and the others will join in.

This is my interpretation of this particular scripture.

Paul says, it is impossible for someone once they have been enlightened...who have shared in the Holy Spirit, to come back once they have fallen away...

Ok. To me, the "who have shared in the Holy Spirit" part indicates that Paul is talking about people that have accepted Christ as their Savior. Because you don't share in the HS unless you have accepted the sacrifice of Christ and welcomed Him into your life. Would you 2 agree with that?

So, if we are all on the same page with that interpretation, then I would say that Paul is saying that if you TRULY have been saved - meaning you have understood what God has done for you, and has offered you in the Gift of His Son's Sacrifice on the cross - and have accepted Christ as your Savior, that if, KNOWING AND BELIEVING ALL THAT, you choose to turn away from it, you have lost your chance at Salvation. You have knowingly and willingly turned your back on GOD and the gift of Eternal Life through Jesus Christ.

You have to look at Pharoah as an example of this. He saw with his own eyes, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, the miracles that God performed, and he chose to not accept the God of Moses in spite of all the miracles, and the plagues, etc. He knowingly turned his back on God because he was hard-hearted, and he lost his own son as a result of it.

What I don't think this scripture verse is saying is this....I do not think this applies to people that are truly saved but have stumbled along the way, because if I remember correctly, none of us are without sin. Only Jesus is. God does not expect us to be perfect, and He knows we are not. Only Jesus was, and is, and will be. What God wants and expects from us is to STRIVE to be like Jesus. Many of us will fall away from our faith at times in our lives, either because we have made really stupid mistakes and feel we are not worthly, or because we think we can do a better job with our lives than God can, but God wants nothing more for us to come to our senses and to turn back to him. And as long as you come back seeking forgiveness where needed, from God and others, and again strive to follow the example Jesus has set for us, I belive that you are still saved. I do not feel people can lose their salvation simply by making mistakes and sinning. You have to knowingly and willfully decline the gift that Jesus has offered.

And that is what I think Paul is saying here.

Again, these are just my thoughts. I don't say anything to contradict what has been said, or to say my interpretation is the correct one.

Ashley

Yes.
I agree also.
I don't think the Pharoah was previously "saved" though, or is that incorrect?  My OT knowledge is a lot more rusty than the NT.
I agree.

I don't think that describes falling away.  If you continue to strive with the right heart, you are not falling away in those circumstances.  But if you have fallen away, it clearly says that it is impossible.  No matter if you come back seeking forgiveness, or striving to be like Jesus.  I however completely agree with the last 2 sentences here.
Ok, so does falling away meen something different for a Christian who was once a Jew, than it does for a Christian who was not?  If not, than the context does not change the meaning of the word.  And it is the same for all.  Which is what I assume.  If however it does meen different things to Christians, than I require more information in order to fully comprehend your point.  The difference is that a Calvinist doesn't even believe it possible to fall away.  While, at the time Hebrews was written, The Christians whether previously Jew or gentile, shared common doctrine.  So I'm having difficulty seeing how it meant something different to a former Jew Christian, than it would to us.  Does that make sense?
Apostate.  There is a word I haven't seen before.  What does it mean?  And when talking about God, is there any other kind of grace other than a saving grace?  I use those terms to differentiate faith from a saving faith, I've never heard it applied to grace before.  What is your opinion on that?  Again, for me to understand this point, I need to know what apostate means here.  Sorry to slow things down. 

Um, wow.  I'm nearly speachless.  This is the exact dilema I was pondering when I posted this thread.  I firmly believe that there are no contradictions within the Bible, and that these two things have a way of working together.  I myself don't see it, but I'm sure it is there.  My faith in God may be all but gone, but my faith in the Bible as his perfect word has not diminished any in the last 10 years.  There has to be a way of these two things working together, thats why I wanted outside opinions, to see something that I might not see myself. 
And btw, as always, that was very well stated and put together.  I am contunually impressed by your prose.

I should not have used the word training, I didn't mean to imply I have a degree or anything.  More accurately I should have said one can tell what school of thought I belong to by my words.  A true theologian would be able to lump me into a category, and they'd be right, my arguments and reasoning all fit into arguments and reasoning that have been done before.  As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. 

And yes we can't know with infallibility what these verses mean, but I think we can come pretty close.  One could also google a bunch of stuff, because this is a classic point of contention and much discussed.  There is nothing new under the sun.  I'm glad though that we don't seem to be doing that and that we're having an honest, respectful discussion.

Ash, I agree we serve a God of love/charity/compassion, but we also serve a God of Justice.  So no doubt, God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that who ever should believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 

But...

What if the prodigal son after the father took him back, placed his robes and his ring on him, killed the fatted calf, the son then took the ring, robes and anything else he could grab and sold them so he could go off and party again?   

I think this is a clearer parallel to Hebrews 6.  Yes we serve a loving God, one that did buy us back at great cost.  We only have to accept the gift.  I think Paul is quite clear here, once we accept the gift, once the price is paid, it will not be paid a second time for us.

So this is really where the question lies.  Not that we don't have a loving God, we do, but he is also a God of justice.  At what point can we invalidate Gods saving Grace?  This comes back to free will.  If we are Calvinist we logically have to say we have no free will to step out of grace and so must never have been saved in the first place.  This is the argument T. set aside at the beginning of the thread, and I agree with him.  (So a Theologian would not label me a Calvinist)  I also believe there is no contradiction in the Bible, but my faith is in God not a book, I only have faith in the book because I see it as specific revelation from God. 

So let me pause a moment and explain the terms I like to use.  T. says saving faith and I say saving grace.   I think this is the same but faith comes from the creation (people) and grace comes from the Creator (God).  So I am saved by God's Grace, at the price paid by Jesus, by accepting this free gift.  I believe in prevenient grace, saving grace, and sanctifying grace.  That is to say God's grace calls us to be saved, saves us, and improves us for His purpose.  Apostate is an arguable word.  In its most general sense it simply means to leave your religion.  What that means could be a thread all by itself.  I use the word only in the sense that you've done something unforgivable to God.  Jesus said there is only one unforgivable sin, and that was to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  It's interesting the think about, I can blaspheme Jesus, repent and be forgiven, but not the Holy Spirit. 

This fits Hebrews 6 perfectly (IMO).  In a nut shell, it is impossible to repent blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. 

So the one thing a saved person can do to fall away to where they can no longer repent, to the point that Jesus would have to be crucified all over again, is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.   I put this question forth, Do we have the free will to do it?  I'm sure it is not easy to do when we are full of the Spirit.  It is probably a series of events that desensitizes us to the Spirit until we no longer listen to our conscience and we finally are no longer a temple for It.  But now we are firmly into the I don't really know part.  I think we can safely say it is possible to fall away.  On judgment day there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.  We will be sorted.  We will be judged.  People can be blotted out of the book of life.  We can also say we serve a loving God that while we were yet sinners, died to redeem us.  This isn't a contradiction, it's an example of God's love, that even though He wants us to be with Him, and He paid the price for us to be with Him, He does not force us to be with Him.

Well, than that either makes me a liar, or it makes you wrong.  What I believe about the Bible has not changed in the last 13 years.  My faith in God obviously has.  So your assumption is incorrect.  Or I am being decietful.  I however conclude that I have been as honest as I can be.  If however you presume to know my heart better than I, than by all means whip out the scalpel and go to work, lord knows I need it.  I get where you are coming from.  My point was, because of God's promises, Grace is a given, its a constant and never changes.  There is only one kind of grace that god gives, and it is a grace that saves, so why bother adding another adjective to it, when there is no need to differentiate it from another of God's grace.  Faith however is different.  In order to recieve what is promised, we need to have faith.  But not just any faith.  A "saving" faith.  I can have faith that the sun will rise in the morning or that the cubs will win the World Series, but that will not save us, only a saving faith, which is described throughout the NT, and summed up very well in the second chapter of James. 
Yes, because the Bible says we can be certain of what we believe, in order to be prepared to answer, and defend our faith at any time.    This is called apoligetics.  Some early Christians devoted themselves to this end, and a lot of information from the early centuries is derived from what these Christians wrote.  Defenders of the faith were neccessary than, and they are still neccessary now.  If Drew has a copy of the books "Prepared to Answer" and "Will the real Heretics please stand up" are both great examples of why being certain of ones doctrine is so important, other than the Bible says so.  Of course we do.  What would be the point of existance if we only had free will "sometimes?"  But I agree with the rest of what you said.  I remember there being three different parts in the Bible where it said right out that Jesus is God.  God is the Holy Spirit.  And the Holy spirit is Jesus.  In three different parts these verses are the basis for the concept of the Trinity.  The word Trinity never appears in the Bible, (at least I'm pretty sure it doesn't.  I don't have my concordance handy to be sure) but is derived from what the Bible clearly says.  Kind of like the "age of accountability."  I don't think there is a difference in blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or God, or Jesus.  Its all the same.  IMO. 

Wow!  What a discussion.  This is a very tough question to answer.  I have pondered this question quite a bit myself over the past 20 years or so.  I was not able to read everything but I got most of it.  I am not sure I can add much but I thought I would jump in anyway.

One thing about Hebrews we have to realize is that we do not know who wrote it.  I can see that you guys keep mentioning Paul but it is very unlikely Paul wrote Hebrews.  Mostly because Hebrews was not written in Paul's normal style of writing.

The other thing about Hebrews is that it was written to Jews who were really struggling with remaining Christians.  They were facing a lot of persecution and it would be far easier for them to just go back to being just plain old jewish.  So the writer is trying to get them to hang in there.  He talks about how all of the faithful men and women of the bible hung in there by faith and did not give up.  Even those who "were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.  Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.  They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword."  and he goes on and on with what they went through and then he writes "yet none of them received what had been promised [because Jesus had not died yet].  God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

So the Hebrew writer is saying that they went through all of that by total faith, because they didn't know about Jesus or that he would die on a cross for their sins, they just went by faith that God would save them some how in the end.

We, like these Hebrew christians being written to, know for sure that Jesus was a man who lived on this earth, who did not sin, who took the chance of coming down from Heaven and could have committed one sin and would have gone to Hell for eternity, who took on the sin of all mankind from the begining of time to the end of time, who never having experienced sin before saw and felt all those sins as if He committed them, was torn away from the Father for the first time in his existance since the beginning of time, and did all of this so that all of us could be saved.

So the Hebrew writer is basically saying if those other people didn't know all of that and would not fall away, even to the point of torture and death, how can we possibly fall away knowing what we now know.  It would be impossible to come back.  How can we know all of that and then fall away.

So is the real question of this discussion:  If a person falls away, why try to come back to God or why try to live a righteous life again, because if it is impossible to come back to God any way why even waste the time trying?

Or is the question: At what point does a christian fall away to the extent that it is impossible to come back?  How far do you have to go?  Does someone's heart have to be so hard that they don't want anything to do with God, the Bible, Church, christians, etc.?

What if they still have a little faith and belief in their heart, did they truly fall away?  What if they truly did not understand the cost they were to count when they made Jesus Lord?

Since it is hard to truly know the answers to these questions (even if you ask the person themselves sometimes they can't even recall for sure what they felt at the time or what they were thinking), wouldn't it be better to error on the side of making an effort to come back to God?  If it is impossible then that person is no worse off, but if there was some other factor there and God had mercy, wouldn't eternity in Heaven be worth the effort?  Isn't what Jesus went through for us worth that?  And maybe that is what God is really looking for after all -- a real test of the heart.

<rambling>

Hi All,

It seems like the big hinge point to the discussion is the word “impossible”.

First, let me establish that the older I get, the more I realize what a puny, foolish idiot I am. Having established my credentials…

1st point: What language was Hebrews originally written in? Is it possible that the word “impossible” was one of many words that could have been used? As example…

Luke 14:26 -If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Verne explained to me that much thought went into translating “Hate” here. The Greek word could have also been translated “Forgo” or several other words. I would recommend that if you wish to pursue this in a purely logical way that you find the answer to this question.

2nd point: Let us look where the word “impossible” shows up in other books of the Bible to see if it gives us any insight into the Hebrews passage.

Matthew 17:20 -He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Matthew 19:26 -Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Mark 10:27 -Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Luke 1:37 -For nothing is impossible with God."

Luke 18:27 -Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."


Perhaps the word “impossible” in the Hebrews passage is referring to the works of Man. A study of the word “impossible” seems to show that it is not a word that can apply towards God’s Love or Forgiveness. Just because the writer of Hebrews has claimed that Jesus cannot die again does not mean He could not or would not, if He chose to. Even for one person, whom he loves.

Hebrews 7:25 -Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Is there still breath in your lungs?
Do you still have free will?
Can you choose to repent and pray for forgiveness?
Then Salvation ≠ Impossible

</rambling>

Mark & Reid - glad you guys chimed in. Mark - I think the real question is...

Or is the question: At what point does a christian fall away to the extent that it is impossible to come back?  How far do you have to go?  Does someone's heart have to be so hard that they don't want anything to do with God, the Bible, Church, christians, etc.?

...based on what I can gather from what Tony has told me, and from our discussions here on this post.

I talked with my pastor yesterday at church and explained this discussion that was going on. He is going to email me some of his thoughts on it as well. But in our brief conversation, he did say that we do not know what exactly it takes to blasheme the Holy Spirit (ie: lose the chance at eternal life with God). But, I will share his more indepth thoughts when I get them.

Mark (I think it was you) - I like the point you made that even if we think we have fallen away to the point of God turning his back on us, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to come back. I feel you and Reid did a great job of pointing out some examples of just what God is capable of when it comes to His love for us.

So Tony, back to you. I am going to try one last time to explain what I mean, and if I fail in getting us both on the same page, then we can talk about it over the phone if you would like. Deal?   

On the point of faith in the Bible vs. faith in God. I believe I undertand what you are saying. You have faith in the Word of God. You believe what it says. You believe in the infallibility of it. Am I correct in my understanding of what you are saying?

Now, I understand that you are saying you do not have faith in God himself - or rather you have lost your faith in God (I think it is clear that you are not saying you don't believe in God - you do believe in Him - that is the existence of Him). I interpret that to mean that you have lost faith that God keeps His promises, that He doesn't answer our prayers, or meet the deepest desires of our hearts. Am I correct in that?

If so, then this is where I think we are losing each other. Based on that understanding (if I was correct on both points), then I was saying I do not understand HOW you can believe in one and not the other. I understand that is what you are saying, but I do not understand your logic behind it. Here is why...

The Bible, which you have said you belive in, says that God does keep his promises, that God will answer our prayers, that God will meet the desires of our heart - AS LONG AS THOSE PRAYERS AND DESIRES ARE OF A GODLY NATURE, AND IN LINE WITH WHAT GOD HAS PLANNED FOR OUR LIVES. That is what the Bible says of God. You believe in what the Bible says. So I am unclear as to how you can not believe that God will do those things. Are you with me on that? I am not unclear as to the fact that that is what you believe, just unclear as to how you reconcile what appears to me to be a huge dichotomy (did I use the right word here?).

God does not always answer our prayers in the way or time we want Him to, and therefore a lot of people lose their faith in God, or falter for a while - especially people that lose loved ones in an accident, or lose someone to cancer. They pray for God's healing and God doesn't provide the miracle they are looking for, and they question whether God is really there, or whether He really does love us. They do not remember in those pain-filled times what the Bible says about God and His Character. They do not remember (or believe maybe) that God says he will work all things for good. Or that He says that the plans he has for our lives are good and for our benefit. Also, many of our deepest desires are not of a Godly nature, yet we get so angry when God doesn't meet them.

Now, I will speak specifically to you on this as I feel you have given me permission to do so. I know based on our conversation that your desire that God didn't meet that caused you to "turn your back" on Him 13 years ago (or whenever it was specifically) seemed like a Godly desire to you. You were a part of the lives of people that accepted God and you wanted God to use you in their lives; you desparately wanted to feel used by God. However, you limited that "use" to the lives of those particular people (am I correct in remembering the story?). I feel that because your focus was so narrow, you could not see that maybe God was trying to use you as an example to others - apart from the people you were discipling. Maybe there were other leaders like you who were also dealing with new Christians whose roots didn't go deep, and they were also frustrated with that, and were looking to you as an example of how to reach out to those people better, or as an example of how to handle what was also to them a very sad circumstance. Or maybe God was trying to humble you. Maybe there was some pride issues going on (I am not saying there were - just trying to help you see a bigger picture, ok?) and God was trying to help you see that. I don't know. These are just some thoughts. All I can say is that your desire for God to use you is definitely a godly desire, but expecting Him to use you in a specific manner is limiting what God can do. And it would appear to me that by putting specifics on how and when, and in what way we want to be used by God could be more for our own glory than for His. Again - I don't know your heart at that time in your life, I don't remember exactly what you said your desire was (just the general sense of it), but these are just some thoughts of mine.

One last thing Tony, I want to reiterate that I don't presume to say I know where someone's heart is on these matters. And I would never say that the way someones feels on this topic is wrong. I may not agree with the conclusions you are drawing that cause you to feel a certain way, but please don't think that I would say the way you feel about God, or the way you feel about a part of the Bible is wrong. I am not arrogant enough to ever say that. I go back to a comment I made previously. I will point out how I view things, and my interpretation of things, and if by doing so it causes you to "feel" differently about something, fine. But I will never say you shouldn't "feel" the way you did. Are we clear on that? I hope so. 



Crispen, I like the way you word all this. I was trying to make this point with the story of the Prodigal son, but I think you have worded it well here. 

Ash

Well said.

So on the 'approaching perfection' writing of Hebrews 6:4-6, what are your two cents? 

Ok, I've finally got some time to post, there is a lot to cover, so here goes...
For Reid and Crispen, one of the big stumbling blocks for me is the issue between the character of God and the impossible spoken of here.  Ok, Now we all know that God is God and nothing is impossible for him.  He is sovereign and can do anything.  The notion that "can he make a rock so big that even he cannot move it" is imbisillic and shows a complete lack of spiritual understanding.  So we wont even go there.  Therefor, we know he can do anything.  Now, that being said, could God decide to forego Jesus' death on the cross and forgive everybody and let everyone into heaven?  Sure he could.  But would he.  If he is a God of his word than we must believe what he tells us.  And if he says the only way to him is through Jesus, than that is the only road open to us.  Not because God cannot do it any other way, but because that is what he laid out before we were created.  Now, is it impossible for God to forgive anything?  No.  But the Bible does say that he will not forgive (I guess the operative word here is chooses not to forgive) blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  And in this passage he says it is impossible to come back once you have fallen away.  Does that mean God cannot do it?  Of course not.  But we either accept his words or we don't.  If he says that he is not going to do it that way, than to our understanding (not Gods) it is impossible for all intents and purposes.  For the conflict between the character of God,blasphemy, and this passage, I cannot help but thinking, what if it is the other way around.  What if the only thing unforgivable is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and the only way to do so is to fall away, thus kicking it out of its temple in you?  Thus, there is still only one thing unforgivable, and this passage is not in conflict with it, while still maintaining the rest of the character of God? 
For the first part, I think it would be more accurate to say that I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  that it may have been penned by men, but it was written wholey by God, like it says in 2 Peter 1:19-21 and Gal 1:11-12 and 2 Tim 3:16-17, and that it is complete with everything we need to know for salvation.  Therefor I have no doubt that every word was God's and put there by God. 

The second part is right on, entirely correct.  (especially this part; you have lost faith that God keeps His promises, that He doesn't answer our prayers, or meet the deepest desires of our hearts.)  I hope that clears the logic up.
For more details perhaps a something in person would go better, as text could take a while.
That is entirely possible for anyone.  Yet one can fall away.  I believe in the beginning we all pretty much agreed on what that entailed: (oops, I can't go back far enough to repost it.  oh well.  Its there at the beginning.)
I personally do not believe the Bible was created by man and is therefore imperfect.  Not only do I believe it in its entirety being the inspired words of God, but that he protected his word over the last 2 millennia, so that the future generations could have a hope of salvation.  Otherwise, what good would it be?  The only thing better than to go by one of the more modern translations that went back to the oldest copies of the documents themselves, is to learn ancient greek and look at those documents yourself.  Then you bypass the whole "translated and revised" thing.  Did I mention that I know someone who fits those qualifications?  (if your about to ask why haven't I asked him these things yet, the answer is he is a busy guy, and I haven't had the opportunity yet.  But I will)  And if I remember correctly, he said there was very little difference between the NIV, NSV, and NKJV Bibles.  But my memory isn't what it used to be either. 

Now that is hilarious.  And I thought I had a monopoly on pride.  But I do understand your viewpoint.  Since you believe the Bible to be fallible, this must be just one of the many mistranslated insulting passages of the Bible we don't need to pay attention to.  I gotcha.   
I like that view, it makes my life a whole lot easier. 

Actually I think that sums up what I tried to say.  The difference is that I think it's much harder to blaspheme the Holy Spirit than you seem to be thinking.  We've talked enough for me to say you haven't lost it.  You don't talk like someone who's lost the Spirit, just the fact that it bothers you enough to be in this discussion shows it.  The fact that the passage bothers you shows it.  But the passage isn't isn't about trapping you, it's about putting you on the path.  Can some people actually fall away?  Yes, they can, that's why we have Hebrew's 6 so that God might save a few more souls by it's warning. 

Don't use it as an excuse.  Don't use it as a barrier.  Don't cling to that stumbling block.  Use it as a sign post.  Get back on the path.  You got a problem with God, tell him, he can handle it.  Go to him in prayer, sincerely lay it on the line, see what he says or does.  Just a word of warning from a friend, if you challenge him be prepared...

May God bless you my friend.