Heb. 6:4-6

[Mickey]

IOW, you don’t know how you know that what the church teaches is true (you’ve not done any type of investigation in that area), you just know that what it teaches is true—intuitively?

I have done years and years of extensive study and research on the history of the ancient Church. This includes reading Scripture, Church fathers and saints, Church history (including the reformation), Church councils and numerous monastic writings. My library is extensive.

So please do not tell me what I do and do not know; or that I am afraid to answer your questions; or that I do not know what my Church teaches. I could sit here and write a two hundred page dissertation on the Apostolic Church, but unless the mind and heart is open to hear the truth, it would fall on deaf ears.

Spare me your sarcasm and insults. It is not very becoming for a grown adult.

 

[sandusky]

I have done years and years of extensive study and research on the history of the ancient Church. This includes reading Scripture, Church fathers and saints, Church history (including the reformation), Church councils and numerous monastic writings. My library is extensive.

So then, your knowledge is a result of extensive private study, including extensive private interpretation, to arrive at the private understanding that what the church teaches is true; correct?

 

[Mickey]

So then, your knowledge is a result of extensive private study, including extensive private interpretation, to arrive at the private understanding that what the church teaches is true; correct?

My knowledge is based on extensive private study on sources in communion with the Apostolic Church which chose the canon and interpreted the Sacred Scriptures. How do I know it is true?

Apostolic succession.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Can you provide a link to the infallible interpretation of the passage by your 2,000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium?

I’m not asking about whether or not you’re consistent in what you hold to be true; what I’m asking is how do you know that what you hold to be true is true? What method(s) have you employed to arrive at your conclusion?

My first impulse is to respond as sarcastically but I must with charity realize that I’ve hit a tender spot in your ability to rationalize your circular thinking.

Since the early Church, they have in various ways expelled/excommunicated people for various sins and heresies. And, upon an experssion of sincere repentance, have been re-accepted into the Church. Thus, your silly attempt to claim by the Magisterium of Sandusky that this verse and Church teaching regarding the “unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit” is bogus.

I also hold this position because a non-Catholic historian/apologist/theologian has yet to have found a single instance where a teaching of the early Church has been denied by a more recent teaching.

Your dilemma will always be that you assert teachings that are new and novel. Such assertions by definition can never be eternal and timeless. Truth is eternal and timeless. New and novel is just a fad.

 

[mtr01]

So then, your knowledge is a result of extensive private study, including extensive private interpretation, to arrive at the private understanding that what the church teaches is true; correct?

Oh no, “the tactic” makes an appearance.

 

[sandusky]

My knowledge is based on extensive private study on sources in communion with the Apostolic Church which chose the canon and interpreted the Sacred Scriptures. How do I know it is true?

Apostolic succession.

Via your private interpretation.

How is your private interpretation anymore valid than the one who disagrees with yours? Have you been gifted with the charism of infallibility?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Via your private interpretation.

How is your private interpretation anymore valid than the one who disagrees with yours? Have you been gifted with the charism of infallibility?

His Church has!

 

[Mickey]

Via your private interpretation.

How is your private interpretation anymore valid than the one who disagrees with yours? Have you been gifted with the charism of infallibility?

You have ears that will not hear.

I am not trying to convince you of anything my friend. You are on your own path…your own journey. I will leave you with words from Bishop St Theophan the Recluse:

“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.”
St Theophan the Recluse

 

[sandusky]

Orionthehunter:

My first impulse is to respond as sarcastically but I must with charity realize that I’ve hit a tender spot in your ability to rationalize your circular thinking.

Your rationalizing what you think I’m rationalizing is very interesting, however, I take it that you can’t provide an infallible interpretation of the passage by your 2000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium; correct?

Orionthehunter:

Your dilemma will always be that you assert teachings that are new and novel. Such assertions by definition can never be eternal and timeless. Truth is eternal and timeless. New and novel is just a fad.

And yours will always be that you will always be stuck doing nothing more than regurgitating the canned arguments of others that you have memorized because you do not know why you know what you know, you just know that you know it.

 

[sandusky]

His Church has!

How do you know that?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

How do you know that?

See post 118.

 

[Orionthehunter]

My knowledge is based on extensive private study on sources in communion with the Apostolic Church which chose the canon and interpreted the Sacred Scriptures. How do I know it is true?

Apostolic succession.

Sandusky, it is evident by your following post that you do not grasp the distinction of the knowledge and understanding that one gains by study and prayer vs. “interpret”.

Jesus Christ is the Truth. Our interpretation doesn’t change the Truth. It is unchanging.

Now we can make a “private interpretation” based on our own perspective and experience. But our interpretation can be false or consistent with the Truth.

As Catholics, when we have a “private interpretation” that differs from that which has been practiced since the Apostles and early fathers, we have a red flag that goes up to cause us to investigate further as we have evidence that our interpretation could be false or if true we misunderstand what the Church teaches (both impetus for more knowledge and understanding). It seems logical that one’s who knew Christ or His Apostles would have a better understanding of the Truth than little old me (or you) with limited experience and no direct knowledge. It appears that you have no mechanism for such a “red flag.”

Via your private interpretation.

How is your private interpretation anymore valid than the one who disagrees with yours? Have you been gifted with the charism of infallibility?

Like someone says in another post “you have ears that won’t hear.” Now I could take the time to find a specific example where a previous sinner or teacher of heresy was accepted back into the Church to show that this interpretation has been consistent since the early Church. But I do not have the resources or time to do this research.

However, I will if you can find a single example of an early Church teaching that has been denied by the current Church. It should be easier for you to find a general example as broad as this vs. me finding a narrow specific example pertinent to this thread.

Your rationalizing what you think I’m rationalizing is very interesting, however, I take it that you can’t provide an infallible interpretation of the passage by your 2000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium; correct?

And yours will always be that you will always be stuck doing nothing more than regurgitating the canned arguments of others that you have memorized because you do not know why you know what you know, you just know that you know it.

Sandusky, your final paragraph is laughable and not worthy of a response. However, for the benefit of those less caustic and uncharitable who might be reading this exchange, I will respond.

I accept Scripture as the Word of God. I understand and accept that it came to us by the work of the Holy Spirit over time by the use of the Catholic Mass and the Magisterium. I accept the promise that the Holy Spirit would remain with His Church always to guide it.

For you to make your accusation as you did in your final paragraph, opens you up to be even more of a “regurgitator” from a book that you both reject and don’t understand its genesis and how it came to us. To reject the Church is to reject the Bible. To reject the Bible is to reject its Author.

 

[deanarrca]

I’m not asking about whether or not you’re consistent in what you hold to be true; what I’m asking is how do you know that what you hold to be true is true? What method(s) have you employed to arrive at your conclusion?

This question wasn’t asked of me personally in this thread but this was my answer that I posted on another thread. I apologize if some of you guys have run across it before.

After attending different protestant churches over the years that all disagree while calling themselves Bible Believing Churches, I have come to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is wrong and an unworkable premise.

This is my personal assesment
**Everyone has a Biblical authority **- no one I have ever met Protestant or Catholic reads just the Bible. They Learn from their Church, they learn form their Pastor. Most Pastors have gone to a theological school. That school would hold to a certain interprertation. I will bet most everyone who is posting here has, in their home library, Bible commentary books that help them with understanding the Bible. If they don’t, I am sure their Pastor does. Evangelicals look to among others, theologians like Calvin, Moody of the Moody Bible institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, Scoffield (who was not a biblical scholar by the way) The Scoffield Study Bible etc. etc. Catholics have the Magisterium and Catechism.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, but unless you can read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and know a lot of the culture and history when the different parts of the Bible were written, you are relying on translation that can be fallible, interpretations that can be fallible. So in the end it does come down to Authority.

I chose to trust what was handed down by the Apostles. I like to see what the Early Church and ECF’s had to say and how they interprreted scripure. Those who got it from the horses mouth ie: directly from Jesus, the Apostles, those taught by the Apostles. Not Scoffield or Moody. I believe God had a plan for his Church from the beginning and can protect it from doctrinal error. The Gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The doctrines I have studied of the Catholic Church can be traced all the way back to the beginning. A document called the Didache (written around I think about 74 ad, Correct me if I’m wrong guys) really opened my eyes. The Catholic Church is supported by history. If I abandon her who will I trust, myself to interpret scripture, my pastor, my denomination, Scoffield, Moody?

For me, The Bible gives me the answer

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (New American Standard Bible)

14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, (That is from the Aposltes and passed down by Apostolic Succession)

15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(Just a note scripture here is referring to the scripture of Timothy’s youth which would be the Septuagent (sp) Much of the New Testament wasn’t written yet)

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

And
1Timothy 3:14
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky, it is evident by your following post that you do not grasp the distinction of the knowledge and understanding that one gains by study and prayer vs. “interpret”.

Jesus Christ is the Truth. Our interpretation doesn’t change the Truth. It is unchanging.

Now we can make a “private interpretation” based on our own perspective and experience. But our interpretation can be false or consistent with the Truth.

As Catholics, when we have a “private interpretation” that differs from that which has been practiced since the Apostles and early fathers, we have a red flag that goes up to cause us to investigate further as we have evidence that our interpretation could be false or if true we misunderstand what the Church teaches (both impetus for more knowledge and understanding). It seems logical that one’s who knew Christ or His Apostles would have a better understanding of the Truth than little old me (or you) with limited experience and no direct knowledge. It appears that you have no mechanism for such a “red flag.”

Like someone says in another post “you have ears that won’t hear.” Now I could take the time to find a specific example where a previous sinner or teacher of heresy was accepted back into the Church to show that this interpretation has been consistent since the early Church. But I do not have the resources or time to do this research.

However, I will if you can find a single example of an early Church teaching that has been denied by the current Church. It should be easier for you to find a general example as broad as this vs. me finding a narrow specific example pertinent to this thread.
Sandusky, your final paragraph is laughable and not worthy of a response. However, for the benefit of those less caustic and uncharitable who might be reading this exchange, I will respond.

I accept Scripture as the Word of God. I understand and accept that it came to us by the work of the Holy Spirit over time by the use of the Catholic Mass and the Magisterium. I accept the promise that the Holy Spirit would remain with His Church always to guide it.

For you to make your accusation as you did in your final paragraph, opens you up to be even more of a “regurgitator” from a book that you both reject and don’t understand its genesis and how it came to us. To reject the Church is to reject the Bible. To reject the Bible is to reject its Author.

OK; you just accept that what the church teaches is true; thanks.

 

[sandusky]

This question wasn’t asked of me personally in this thread but this was my answer that I posted on another thread. I apologize if some of you guys have run across it before.

After attending different protestant churches over the years that all disagree while calling themselves Bible Believing Churches, I have come to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is wrong and an unworkable premise.

This is my personal assesment
**Everyone has a Biblical authority **- no one I have ever met Protestant or Catholic reads just the Bible. They Learn from their Church, they learn form their Pastor. Most Pastors have gone to a theological school. That school would hold to a certain interprertation. I will bet most everyone who is posting here has, in their home library, Bible commentary books that help them with understanding the Bible. If they don’t, I am sure their Pastor does. Evangelicals look to among others, theologians like Calvin, Moody of the Moody Bible institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, Scoffield (who was not a biblical scholar by the way) The Scoffield Study Bible etc. etc. Catholics have the Magisterium and Catechism.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, but unless you can read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and know a lot of the culture and history when the different parts of the Bible were written, you are relying on translation that can be fallible, interpretations that can be fallible. So in the end it does come down to Authority.

I chose to trust what was handed down by the Apostles. I like to see what the Early Church and ECF’s had to say and how they interprreted scripure. Those who got it from the horses mouth ie: directly from Jesus, the Apostles, those taught by the Apostles. Not Scoffield or Moody. I believe God had a plan for his Church from the beginning and can protect it from doctrinal error. The Gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The doctrines I have studied of the Catholic Church can be traced all the way back to the beginning. A document called the Didache (written around I think about 74 ad, Correct me if I’m wrong guys) really opened my eyes. The Catholic Church is supported by history. If I abandon her who will I trust, myself to interpret scripture, my pastor, my denomination, Scoffield, Moody?

For me, The Bible gives me the answer

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (New American Standard Bible)

14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, (That is from the Aposltes and passed down by Apostolic Succession)

15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(Just a note scripture here is referring to the scripture of Timothy’s youth which would be the Septuagent (sp) Much of the New Testament wasn’t written yet)

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

And
1Timothy 3:14
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

OK; you know what you know because you choose to trust the apostles; thanks.

 

[Pax]

The only true believers are the elect to whom God has promised their safekeeping; therefore, it’s as impossible for the elect to apostatize, as it is to renew the apostate to repentance.

We differ in an important way in this discussion. I do not agree with your assertion that only true believers are the elect. Both the OT and NT speak of faith. Believers are not categorized in the fashion that you present. Calvinism teaches that the gift of faith and the gift of perseverance come all in one package, but there really is no evidence in scripture that suggests that this is the case. A person could be granted the gift of faith and be as you put it a “true believer.” They may not, however, have the grace of final perseverence. Obviously, the elect will persevere.

You do not believe that the warning given to the Jewish converts in Hebrews 6 pertains to “believers.” Your view doesn’t conform to the way Hebrews actually reads. Moreover, the two Protestant commentaries in my library also disagree with your view.

Gray’s Home Bible Commentary says:

“Some think these ‘present the case of a Jewish professed believer who turns back from Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation,’ but who never experienced real faith. But we differ, and hold the opinion that a true believer is meant.”

Henry’s Concise Commentary says:

“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.”

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

The Haydock Catholic Commentary has this to say about Hebrews 6:

“Ver. 4. &c. For it is impossible,[1] &c. This is an obscure place, differently expounded, which shows how rash it is for the ignorant to pretend to understand the holy Scriptures. Many understand these words, it is impossible, &c. of the sacrament of penance, or of returning to God by a profitable repentance, especially after such heinous sins as an apostacy from the true faith. But then we must take the word impossible, to imply no more than a thing that is very hard to be done, or that seldom happens, as when it is said, (Matthew xix. 26.) that it is impossible of rich men to be saved: and (Luke xvii. 1.) it is impossible that scandals should not come. For it is certain that it is never impossible for the greatest sinners to repent by the assistance which God offers them, who has also left the power to his ministers to forgive in his name the greatest sins. But others (whose interpretation seems preferable) expound this of baptism, which can only be given once. The words here in the text very much favour this exposition, when it is said, who were once enlightened. For baptism in the first ages was called the sacrament of illumination. See St. Denis de cælesti Hierar. chap. iv.; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; &c. The following words also agree with baptism, when they are said to have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost; to have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; all which signify the interior graces, the miraculous gifts, and power of working miracles, which they who were baptized frequently received in those days. — They cannot be renewed again unto penance. That is, they cannot be renewed again by baptism, which is also called a renovation. (Titus iii. 5.) Their sins may indeed the forgiven them in the sacrament of penance, but this is not a renovation like that in baptism, in which both the guilt, and all pain due to past sins, in remitted; whereas in the sacrament of penance, though the guilt, and the eternal punishments due to sins be remitted, yet many times, temporal punishments, to be undergone either in this world or the next, still remain due to such as have been great sinners, to them who by relapsing into the same sins, have crucified again to themselves the Son of God, making a mockery of him; i.e. who, insensible of the favours received, have ungratefully renewed sin; to take away which Christ suffered, was mocked, crucified, &c. (Witham) — Macknight observes that Beza, without any authority from ancient manuscripts hath inserted in his version Si, If they shall fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the Calvinistic doctrine of the assurance of salvation. The English translators have followed Beza, The biblical student will be glad to find Dr. Wells, in his elegant edition of the New Testament, frequently restoring and preferring those readings which agree with the Latin Vulgate. The same just tribute is paid to the Vulgate by Walton, Mills, Gerard, Griesbach, Harwood, and others. Indeed the Vulgate has been declared authentic in a general council, and probably expresses more of the true reading of the original or autograph, than any Greek edition that is now to be found, and certainly much more than modern versions, which are stained more or less by the preconceived sentiments of the translators. — For the earth that drinketh in the rain, &c. He bringeth this comparison, to give them a horror of abusing God’s graces and favours, and of making themselves guilty of hell fire. (Witham)”

I find this to be a very interesting take…comments?

 

[mikeledes]

I never denied that, Mike.

It squares with it in that the church doesn’t know what’s in the heart of the one who left; nevertheless, they would always welcome that one back into communion should that one exhibit repentance; time would tell if that repentance were genuine; that’s the teaching of the wheat and the tares in Mt 13, and the perspective the church must take. So I still hold the position that those who act in the manner described by the Spirit through the writer will not be renewed to repentance—it’s God’s call, and He’ll eventually sort that out.

So you admit that the “fallen away” of Hebrews 6 is not a blanket statement on all those who fall away - for there can be people who do fall away and come back, these being the elect - but its talking about a specific group of fallen away. That is what I’ve been trying to argue. There will be those who fall away and die in that state, fallling away with finality. That is the group Hebrews 6 is talking about. Others can fall away temporarily and come back, perhaps many years later, which is what we call the revert. Those who fall away permanently were not predestined to glory.

BTW, I thought you were taking a vacation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

We differ in an important way in this discussion. I do not agree with your assertion that only true believers are the elect. Both the OT and NT speak of faith. Believers are not categorized in the fashion that you present. Calvinism teaches that the gift of faith and the gift of perseverance come all in one package, but there really is no evidence in scripture that suggests that this is the case. A person could be granted the gift of faith and be as you put it a “true believer.” They may not, however, have the grace of final perseverence. Obviously, the elect will persevere.

You do not believe that the warning given to the Jewish converts in Hebrews 6 pertains to “believers.” Your view doesn’t conform to the way Hebrews actually reads. Moreover, the two Protestant commentaries in my library also disagree with your view.

Gray’s Home Bible Commentary says:

“Some think these ‘present the case of a Jewish professed believer who turns back from Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation,’ but who never experienced real faith. But we differ, and hold the opinion that a true believer is meant.”

Henry’s Concise Commentary says:

“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.”

I hope this helps.

This is a very informative post. Thanks.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The church may not teach that officially, but the link I provided earlier clearly states what’s in its heart concerning that:It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.That sentiment contradicts what the writer of Hebrews is saying, if, in fact, those in the passage have been baptized and regenerated through the sacrament (which is your understanding of the passage; namely, those spoken of are genuine believers).

I don’t how this contradicts Hebrews 6. The “sacramental bond” cannot be broken, but sanctifying grace can be lost. There will be those who will fall away with finality. Hypothetically they have access to the sacrament of penance, but they will not enjoy the benefits because they will not repent.

God Bless,
Michael