Heb. 6:4-6

[Orionthehunter]

Sorry, I missed your post.

According to mikeledes the people being addressed in Heb 6:4-6, those who have left the community of believers, are genuine believers; therefore, they cannot be renewed to repentance—it’s over for them; they’ve lost their salvation finally, and forever.

According to mikeledes’ argument then, those justified by baptism in the RCC, if they leave the RCC, cannot be renewed to repetance, as the writer of Hebrews states—a revert’s repentance may appear genuine, but it’s not; they’ve lost their salvation finally, and forever.

I think I have what you are trying to say. If I’m still off-base, let me know.

In Catholic Theology, this verse is not about people who come to Christ, leave, and sincerely come back. The Church teaches that reverts are always welcome to repent and come back into communion with Christ and the Church.

One needs to read this Hebrews passage in context with Mathew 12:31. Together one gets the following teaching of the Church (CC1864): There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Hebrews 6:4-6: For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.

Mathew 12:31: Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

 

[mikeledes]

I hope you all have a wonderful and blessed weekend… yeah that includes you too sandunsky … and linkowski as well . I will not be online for the weekend.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

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.

God bless,
Michael

God Bless,
Michael

The writer says that **it is impossible **to renew to repentance any of those who have left—
he states no qualification, as you do, and no exception either; it’s over for them, fully, finally, and forever.

 

[sandusky]

I hope you all have a wonderful and blessed weekend… yeah that includes you too sandunsky … and linkowski as well . I will not be online for the weekend.

God Bless,
Michael

You too, Mike.

 

[clmowry]

The RCC says that infants that are baptized are born again…this much is true - I know that.

Really could your show me that somewhere. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that terminology applied.

I’ve seen language like this:

CCC 1213:

“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life,
the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.””

If this is what you mean by “Born Again” then I agree, but somehow I don’t think that’s quite what you mean by “Born Again”.

Chuck

 

[Pax]

The writer says that it is impossible to renew to repentance any of those who have left—
he states no qualification, as you do, and no exception either; it’s over for them, fully, finally, and forever.

Mike and I do agree, but perhaps more explanation is necessary. Although I can be weak and obtuse in my presentations, I will try again.

Perhaps a concrete example with explanations as needed will be of some help. The first thing we want to remember is the context of the Book of Hebrews which I explained in an earlier post. This warning in large part pertains to apostasy amidst the historical back drop of Jewish and perhaps Roman persecutions.

Imagine now a Christian believer that is faced with martyrdom unless he/she swears an oath against Christ and and an oath of worship and fealty to Caesar.

The person chooses apostasy and formally rejects their Christian faith. That person loves their own life more than the Lord. Jesus says, that such a person will lose their eternal life[Matt 10:39]. The Book of Hebrews is saying the same thing.

This simply means that unless you “abide” in Christ you will lose your salvation. The word abide means “remain.”

Those that do not remain in Christ cannot receive repentance and thus be restored. A believing and faithful Christian can sin seriously and repent of their sin. They have the opportunity to seek out sacramental confession. This person never stopped believing and never rejected Christ and the Christian faith.

Now look at the apostate once again. Outside of Christianity there is no God given forgiveness and restoration. Outside of the Church their is no ministerial priesthood with sacramental confession. Most importantly Caesar could not provide redemption or forgiveness. The apostate that has turned to Caesar over Jesus cannot be restored by Caesar. This is a total impossibility, and that is essentially what the Book of Hebrews is pointing out. Those that do not remain in Christ have no place to go for their salvation.

The Jewish converts are being told the simple truth that they are saved only by the blood of Jesus. How can you repent and be restored by Caesar or anyone or anything other than Jesus? The passages in Hebrews do not preclude someone who has sinned from repenting and receiving forgiveness. Moreover, the passages do not need to be interpreted as meaning that no one could ever possibly come back to Christ and thus find forgiveness and be restored.

The simplest and clearest meaning is that they cannot find salvation outside of Christianity/the Church. If there is a way that they can be saved without Jesus, please let me know how that will happen. Without Jesus it is impossible to be restored to repentance. Returning to Judaism and adherence to the Mosaic and Levitical Laws would never restore them to repentance

I hope this helps.

 

[sandusky]

Orionthehunter:

In Catholic Theology, this verse is not about people who come to Christ, leave, and sincerely come back. The Church teaches that reverts are always welcome to repent and come back into communion with Christ and the Church.

I understand what the RCC teaches with respect to reverts, but it contradicts what
the writer of Hebrews is teaching; namely, you leave, and it’s impossible to be brought back to repentance.

One needs to read this Hebrews passage in context with Mathew 12:31. Together one gets the following teaching of the Church (CC1864): There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Mt 12:31 is not the context of Hebrews 6; and it would appear from the context of Hebrews 6, that there are limits to God’s mercy—you leave, and it’s impossible to be brought back to repentance.

Therefore, according to mikeledes’ argument that those spoken of Hebrews 6 are genuine believers, the revert cannot be renewed to repentance.

Pax:

Imagine now a Christian believer that is faced with martyrdom unless he/she swears an oath against Christ and and an oath of worship and fealty to Caesar.

The person chooses apostasy and formally rejects their Christian faith. That person loves their own life more than the Lord. Jesus says, that such a person will lose their eternal life[Matt 10:39]. The Book of Hebrews is saying the same thing.

You’re introducing exceptions into the text when the writer states none; he says, ”if you leave, that’s it; no possibility of renewal to repentance.”

There’s no allowance for falling in and out of grace in the passage.

Pax:

This simply means that unless you “abide” in Christ you will lose your salvation. The word abide means “remain.”

I understand the meaning of abiding in Christ, Pax, and, according to the writer of Hebrews, those who leave cannot be renewed again to repentance; therefore, according to mikeledes’ argument, though reverts may appear repentant, their repentance is feigned.

Pax:

The passages in Hebrews do not preclude someone who has sinned from repenting and receiving forgiveness. Moreover, the passages do not need to be interpreted as meaning that no one could ever possibly come back to Christ and thus find forgiveness and be restored.

The writer of Hebrews does preclude repentance in this case when he writes, ”it is impossible to renew them again to repentance;” that is the necessary consequence of apostasy; therefore, the passage must be interpreted as meaning that the one who leaves cannot possibly come back and find forgiveness and be restored.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

I don’t believe that I introduced exceptions. Amplifications and clarifications based on the context and the historical setting along with supplementary scriptures is something different from what you are suggesting.

Please respond to my contention concerning repentance without being within the body of believers. I think that you would agree that no one can be restored to repentance by Caesar or anyone else other than Christ. This is what the author is really saying. Hebrew converts that revert to Judaism and fall into sin cannot be restored to repentance by the Mosaic and Levitical Laws. Neither can anyone else when they are in any other religion. Christianity is the only one that gives us the cleansing by the blood of Christ. It is “impossible” to be restored to repentance in any other way but Christ Jesus.

This passage in Hebrews probably isn’t referring to someone that returns to Christ. Nevertheless, it may indeed be difficult if not impossible for someone that adamantly rejects Christ to ever return to be restored. Peter denied Jesus but was restored. Obviously, Hebrews isn’t speaking of reverts in the sense that you’ve proposed.

 

[Pax]

I understand what the RCC teaches with respect to reverts, but it contradicts what
the writer of Hebrews is teaching; namely, you leave, and it’s impossible to be brought back to repentance.

Mt 12:31 is not the context of Hebrews 6; and it would appear from the context of Hebrews 6, that there are limits to God’s mercy—you leave, and it’s impossible to be brought back to repentance.

Therefore, according to mikeledes’ argument that those spoken of Hebrews 6 are genuine believers, the revert cannot be renewed to repentance.

You’re introducing exceptions into the text when the writer states none; he says, ”if you leave, that’s it; no possibility of renewal to repentance.”

There’s no allowance for falling in and out of grace in the passage.

I understand the meaning of abiding in Christ, Pax, and, according to the writer of Hebrews, those who leave cannot be renewed again to repentance; therefore, according to mikeledes’ argument, though reverts may appear repentant, their repentance is feigned.

The writer of Hebrews does preclude repentance in this case when he writes, ”it is impossible to renew them again to repentance;” that is the necessary consequence of apostasy; therefore, the passage must be interpreted as meaning that the one who leaves cannot possibly come back and find forgiveness and be restored.

I believe that you are inserting something into the text that is not there. Nowhere in the text does it say anything about reverts or returning to the one true faith. Instead, the text is saying that an apostate cannot be restored to repentance because “they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” This a key phrase because it is quite obvious that in this state no one will receive repentance. Moreover, this phrase would not apply to someone that is no longer crucifying the Son of God on their own account if they are then submitting themselves to Christ and begging for forgiveness when returning to the faith.

The point I am making has historical proof within early Christianity. Apostasy did occur with the apostate later seeking to return to the faith. The early Church allowed these people to return but did so very slowly and carefully. Considerations included whether or not the person was secretly a spy for the persecutors and whether or not they were sincere. The process for returning to the Church community was slow and required extraordinary public repentance.

The position that you are espousing is part of the Donatist heretical movement.

 

[Pax]

Here is an example from Eusebius of an early apostate that is reinstated to the Church

I. (In Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist., v. 28.)

I shall, at any rate, remind many of the brethren of an affair that took place in our own time,–an affair which, had it taken place in Sodom, might, I think, have been a warning even to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius,(9) who lived not in distant times, but in our own day. He was deluded once by Asclepiodotus, and another Theodotus, a banker. And these were both disciples of Theodotus the tanner, the first who was cut off from communion on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness, by Victor, as I said, the bishop of the time.(1) Now Natalius was persuaded by them to let himself be chosen(2) bishop of this heresy, on the understanding that he should receive from them a salary of a hundred and fifty denarii a month. Connecting himself, therefore, with them, he was on many occasions admonished by the Lord in visions. For our merciful God and Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of His own sufferings should perish, being without the Church. But as he gave little heed to the visions, being ensnared by the dignity of presiding among them, and by that sordid lust of gain which ruins very many, he was at last scourged by holy angels, and severely beaten through a whole night, so that he rose early in the morning, anti threw himself, clothed with sackcloth and covered with ashes, before Zephyrinus the bishop, with great haste and many tears, rolling beneath the feet not only of the clergy, but even of the laity, and moving the pity of the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ by his weeping. And after trying many a prayer, and showing the weals left by the blows which he had received, he was at length with difficulty admitted to communion.

Please notice that the apostate could not be restored to repentance except through the Church which he had disowned. The meaning of Hebrews 6 is essentially that there is no repentance and forgiveness in the state of apostasy. One cannot get the restoration to repentance from reverting to Judaism and the OT practices or from the emperor or anyone else. Repentance is only gained through the church.

 

[sandusky]

Here is an example from Eusebius of an early apostate that is reinstated to the Church

I. (In Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist., v. 28.)

I shall, at any rate, remind many of the brethren of an affair that took place in our own time,–an affair which, had it taken place in Sodom, might, I think, have been a warning even to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius,(9) who lived not in distant times, but in our own day. He was deluded once by Asclepiodotus, and another Theodotus, a banker. And these were both disciples of Theodotus the tanner, the first who was cut off from communion on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness, by Victor, as I said, the bishop of the time.(1) Now Natalius was persuaded by them to let himself be chosen(2) bishop of this heresy, on the understanding that he should receive from them a salary of a hundred and fifty denarii a month. Connecting himself, therefore, with them, he was on many occasions admonished by the Lord in visions. For our merciful God and Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of His own sufferings should perish, being without the Church. But as he gave little heed to the visions, being ensnared by the dignity of presiding among them, and by that sordid lust of gain which ruins very many, he was at last scourged by holy angels, and severely beaten through a whole night, so that he rose early in the morning, anti threw himself, clothed with sackcloth and covered with ashes, before Zephyrinus the bishop, with great haste and many tears, rolling beneath the feet not only of the clergy, but even of the laity, and moving the pity of the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ by his weeping. And after trying many a prayer, and showing the weals left by the blows which he had received, he was at length with difficulty admitted to communion.

Please notice that the apostate could not be restored to repentance except through the Church which he had disowned. The meaning of Hebrews 6 is essentially that there is no repentance and forgiveness in the state of apostasy. One cannot get the restoration to repentance from reverting to Judaism and the OT practices or from the emperor or anyone else. Repentance is only gained through the church.

Sounds to me like this fellow didn’t leave, but was cut off from communion by the Church, so it doesn’t have any bearing on what we’re discussing.

 

[sandusky]

The position that you are espousing is part of the Donatist heretical movement.

As I recall, the Donatists movement was specifically about the clergy who had defected; something more akin to the sedevacantists.

Even so, the writer of Hebrews is talking of the “impossibility of renewal to repentance.” On that basis, I would consider that the church erred.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky,

I don’t believe that I introduced exceptions. Amplifications and clarifications based on the context and the historical setting along with supplementary scriptures is something different from what you are suggesting.

Please respond to my contention concerning repentance without being within the body of believers. I think that you would agree that no one can be restored to repentance by Caesar or anyone else other than Christ. This is what the author is really saying. Hebrew converts that revert to Judaism and fall into sin cannot be restored to repentance by the Mosaic and Levitical Laws. Neither can anyone else when they are in any other religion. Christianity is the only one that gives us the cleansing by the blood of Christ. It is “impossible” to be restored to repentance in any other way but Christ Jesus.

This passage in Hebrews probably isn’t referring to someone that returns to Christ. Nevertheless, it may indeed be difficult if not impossible for someone that adamantly rejects Christ to ever return to be restored. Peter denied Jesus but was restored. Obviously, Hebrews isn’t speaking of reverts in the sense that you’ve proposed.

The only mention of repentance in the passage is the impossbility of it once one has apostatized.

 

[Pax]

Sounds to me like this fellow didn’t leave, but was cut off from communion by the Church, so it doesn’t have any bearing on what we’re discussing.

So Natilus who let himself become bishop of the heresy didn’t apostacize? I find this hard to believe.

 

[Pax]

As I recall, the Donatists movement was specifically about the clergy who had defected; something more akin to the sedevacantists.

Even so, the writer of Hebrews is talking of the “impossibility of renewal to repentance.” On that basis, I would consider that the church erred.

What I said about the Donatists is true and you can readily verify it by reading up on them.

So now the Church is wrong about this even though they were in the middle of the persecutions at the time. Moreover, a heretical sect held your position, but the Church is wrong based upon your personal understanding of Hebrews 6. I supplied you with an alternative understanding that happens to be the historically accepted one, but alas you believe yours to be superior.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

[sandusky]

What I said about the Donatists is true and you can readily verify it by reading up on them.

So now the Church is wrong about this even though they were in the middle of the persecutions at the time. Moreover, a heretical sect held your position, but the Church is wrong based upon your personal understanding of Hebrews 6. I supplied you with an alternative understanding that happens to be the historically accepted one, but alas you believe yours to be superior.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

This has nothing to do with the Donatists, Pax; if it does, then the writer of Hebrews is also an heretic, as he says one who apostatizes cannot be brought back to a point of repentance.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

You have repeated your interpretation of Hebrews 6 numerous times but have never refuted the alternative understandings. If you can do so, I would be interested in knowing why the alternative isn’t just as reasonable or more so than your interpretation.

When it comes to the Donatists you are simply wrong. Moreover, the truth about the Donatists does not make the author of Hebrews a heretic. Instead, it is strong evidence that your understanding of Hebrews is flawed.

 

[mikeledes]

Hi Sandunksy. I have a question. If a person was raised in a Calvinist church - or at least in the version you believe is closest to the true Gospel - was baptized, professed faith in Christ and upheld Tulip, but then abandons that church and lives the life of a heathen, is there a possibility that he is still of the elect? This is assuming that he does not died in that state.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Sandusky,

You have repeated your interpretation of Hebrews 6 numerous times but have never refuted the alternative understandings. If you can do so, I would be interested in knowing why the alternative isn’t just as reasonable or more so than your interpretation.

What’s to refute, Pax—that those apostatizing had a good reason to do so?

I don’t find the author of Hebrews offering any valid reasons for apostasy; do you?**Revelation 12:11

“And they overcame him [the accuser of our brethren] because of the blood of the Lamb AND because of the word of their testimony, AND they did not love their life EVEN WHEN faced with death.**

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Hi Sandunksy. I have a question. If a person was raised in a Calvinist church - or at least in the version you believe is closest to the true Gospel - was baptized, professed faith in Christ and upheld Tulip, but then abandons that church and lives the life of a heathen, is there a possibility that he is still of the elect? This is assuming that he does not died in that state.

Understanding the radical nature of regeneration as I do, I can’t imagine one of the elect doing anything like that; it’s certainly possible, but, I think, it’s rather improbable.