Therefore, Catholics who are justified, regenerated, born-again at baptism, and leave the OTC
The Book of Hebrews is written to believers. But periodically through the book are warnings to unbelievers. “Harden not your heart” chapter 4, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation” chapter 2, “How much more punishment shall those suffer who have trodden under foot the Son of God and counted the blood an unholy thing” chapter 10. Boom, boom, boom, boom–you have these shots at the unbelievers in the community that he’s writing to among the believers.
Sandusky, with all due respect, I’m a cradle Catholic, reasonably studied in Scripture and the Catholic Faith, and I have no idea what you are saying here.In a Catholic context, the penalty is that, those who leave the One True Church (OTC), and go to what Benedict just recently called, a church that is not “a true church,” or if they leave and go to no church at all, their leaving the OTC renders future repentance AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
Any Catholic, baptized in the RCC, according to RCC theology, has been regenerated, or born-again, of the spirit, and is, what you call above, a "genuine believer;" therefore, in order for you to be consistent with the passage, it must, in the RCC context, apply to reverts.
(Baptismal regeneration gives a false sense of security.)
Greetings Sandusky!
The rest of my answer would involve knowing a person’s heart. Since I do not read the heart and conscience of someone and since I am not in a position to judge them or the working of God’s mercy in them, I am unable to know exactly what may be involved in their personal “reversion.”
The passage says nothing about “knowing a person’s heart.” It says that those who leave cannot be renewed to repentance; I take it as an edict, or a directive, that applied to the argument being presented by mikeledes, means that a revert’s reversion is not genuine; that is, if you want to be consistent in your argument.
Sorry, but he is speaking to believers in every case. The instance you cite is by no means an exception. These are Jewish converts to whom the author speaks. Please note that the criticism of these converts that you cited extends into verse 14 which says: “But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” He then goes on in the very next verse[6:1] to say, “Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching…”
But I don’t think that is mikeledes arugment; I believe that his argument with respect to this passage, is that a justified believer can lose his salvation—forever.
I never indicated that the passage said anything about knowing a person’s heart. I made the remark because of my own inability to do so as a preface to my understanding. The rest of my posting is what you really need to deal with.The passage says nothing about “knowing a person’s heart.” It says that those who leave cannot be renewed to repentance; I take it as an edict, or a directive, that applied to the argument being presented by mikeledes, means that a revert’s reversion is not genuine; that is, if you want to be consistent in your argument.
The difficulty with the revert in this position, is that Catholicism teaches baptismal regeneration/justification thus sealing the fate of reverts within the context of mikeledes’ argument.
I think my explanations dispel your concerns for consistency and I think Mike’s thinking is consistent with my expressed views. He can certainly correct me if I’m mistaken in that belief.But I don’t think that is mikeledes arugment; I believe that his argument with respect to this passage, is that a justified believer can lose his salvation—forever.
In order to be consistent in his argument, he must accept that reverts cannot be renewed to repentance—because the writer of Hebrews says they cannot be renewed.
Here are **mikeledes’**words:
It is clear that he thinks that the people spoken of in the passage are regenerated believers.
I guess I should let Mike speak for himself, but it appears to me you are arguing for what you say Mike must conclude from the verse “in a Catholic context”.I’m not telling anyone what Catholic theology is; rather, I’m putting Mike’s argument concerning Heb 6:4-6 in a Catholic context.
Correct; I’m not refuting his argument; I’m pointing out the implications of it in a Catholic context, both logically, and according to the testimony of the writer of Hebrews.
The RCC says that infants that are baptized are born again…this much is true - I know that.
And yet in some of the examples you used you find the word “we”, meaning that the divinely inspired author is including himself.
I don’t see how Pax’s explanation conflicts witth mine.But I don’t think that is mikeledes arugment; I believe that his argument with respect to this passage, is that a justified believer can lose his salvation—forever.
In order to be consistent in his argument, he must accept that reverts cannot be renewed to repentance—because the writer of Hebrews says they cannot be renewed.
Sorry, I missed your post.
There will be those who will fall away with such finality that they will not return. God will allow them to go their own way, not granting them the gift of final perseverance. These, obviously, were not predestined to glory. However, they were genuinely justified because they were “made partakers of the Holy Spirit,” they were “sanctified by the blood of Christ”, and they had repented.