Heb. 6:4-6

[mikeledes]

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.

What if that person had not been regenerated the first time around? In other words, what if his first profession of faith was not a deep commitment, but a “superficial” faith. He was raised in a Calvinist household, went to Sunday School, went to church every sunday, and tried to live the Chrsitian life, but he never really had the kind of faith Calvinists considered a saving faith. He then abandons the church. Do you think it is possible for that person ever to be regenerated and come to genuine faith?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

What if that person had not been regenerated the first time around? In other words, what if his first profession of faith was not a deep commitment, but a “superficial” faith. He was raised in a Calvinist household, went to Sunday School, went to church every sunday, and tried to live the Chrsitian life, but he never really had the kind of faith Calvinists considered a saving faith. He then abandons the church. Do you think it is possible for that person ever to be regenerated and come to genuine faith?

You’re going off on a tangent, Mike.

What I believe with respect to the validity of your argument is not important.

What is important with respect to your argument is that, if you believe the people spoken of in Heb 6 were genuine believers who lost their salvation because of apostasy, then you must accept that, according to the writer of Hebrews, it’s impossible to renew them again to repentance; correct?

 

[mikeledes]

You’re going off on a tangent, Mike.

What I believe with respect to the validity of your argument is not important.

What is important with respect to your argument is that, if you believe the people spoken of in Heb 6 were genuine believers who lost their salvation because of apostasy, then you must accept that, according to the writer of Hebrews, it’s impossible to renew them again to repentance; correct?

I am not going off on a tangent. What I’m asking is directly related to this topic. Do you believe a person who had a superficial faith in Christ, intellectually accepted TULIP, attended church regularly, was baptized, and partook of the Lord’s Supper and then abandons the church can still one day be regenerated and have genuine faith?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[clmowry]

“…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…”

Is this synonymous with “All Christians” or does this describe some sub-set of Christians?

Chuck

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

I am not going off on a tangent.

You want to shine the light somewhere other than your argument.

I tell all Arminians the same thing concerning this passage, Mike. If, as you claim, those spoken of in the passage are regenerate/justified believers, and the passage is teaching that it is possible for them to lose their salvation, then you must also embrace the consequence of that; namely, it is impossible to renew that one, again, to repentance.

You can’t have it both ways. :tiphat:

 

[mikeledes]

You want to shine the light somewhere other than your argument.

I tell all Arminians the same thing concerning this passage, Mike. If, as you claim, those spoken of in the passage are regenerate/justified believers, and the passage is teaching that it is possible for them to lose their salvation, then you must also embrace the consequence of that; namely, it is impossible to renew that one, again, to repentance.

You can’t have it both ways. :tiphat:

I’m not trying to shine the light somewhere other than my argument. I want to see how consistent your are in how you apply this passage. Why are you evading my question? Can a person who had superficial faith and superficially committed to all of the teachings you uphold leave his church and then, perhaps years later, return, this time genuinely regenerated and genuinely having faith? I answered your question and you did not agree with my response. Now please answer my question.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

I’m not trying to shine the light somewhere other than my argument. I want to see how consistent your are in how you apply this passage. Why are you evading my question? Can a person who had superficial faith and superficially committed to all of the teachings you uphold leave his church and then, perhaps years later, return, this time genuinely regenerated and genuinely having faith? I answered your question and you did not agree with my response. Now please answer my question.

I’ve made one statement concerning this passage with respect to your argument; namely, if you believe that these are regenerate/justified believers, and that by apostatizing they lose their salvation, then you must embrace the consequence of the apostasy stated by the writer.

My view of the passage is irrelevant; it’s your consistency within the passage that’s under scrutiny.

 

[mikeledes]

I’ve made one statement concerning this passage with respect to your argument; namely, if you believe that these are regenerate/justified believers, and that by apostatizing they lose their salvation, then you must embrace the consequence of the apostasy stated by the writer.

My view of the passage is irrelevant; it’s your consistency within the passage that’s under scrutiny.

Once again you have evaded my question. Your view of the passage is very relevant because the same standard you are using to scrutinize my interpretation of the passage I am now using to scrutinize your interpretation. According to you, Hebrews 6 cannot be referring to genuine Christians. Fine, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you’re right. Now I ask you again, is it impossible for a person who had made a profession of faith and was once affiliated with your church - but only made a superficial commitment - leave and then, perhaps many years later, return, this time genuinely regenerated and with genuine faith? Why don’t you answer my question? Or will your answer expose an inconsistency.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Once again you have evaded my question.

That won’t work with me, Mike.

The implications of your argument impact Catholic theology.

If you insist that those spoken of in the passage are justified believers, and that by apostatizing they lose their salvation, then you must embrace the consequence of apostasy laid down by the writer.

You can’t have it both ways.

My consistent answer to you will be to restate your position; therefore, you can either change position, qualify your position, or you can drop it, and let the thread the die.

 

[mikeledes]

That won’t work with me, Mike.

The implications of your argument impact Catholic theology.

If you insist that those spoken of in the passage are justified believers, and that by apostatizing they lose their salvation, then you must embrace the consequence of apostasy laid down by the writer.

You can’t have it both ways.

My consistent answer to you will be to restate your position; therefore, you can either change position, qualify your position, or you can drop it, and let the thread the die.

Once again you evade the question. The implications of my argument do not impact Catholic theology. You have “scrutinized” my argument, but have not allowed me to scrutinize yours. You say your consitent answer will be to restate my position. Is that because you are afraid to answer the question directly? Hebrews 6, according to you cannot be about genuine Christians. For argument’s sake, I will drop my position for now but will not let this thread die. Let’s say you’re right. Now I ask you this question. If a person affiliated with your church for many years - made a profession of faith, baptised, attended church regularly, etc. - suddenly abandons it and rejects his faith., is there a possibility that that person can return, this time genuinely regenerated by God and with genuine faith? Can a person who was raised in the faith of your church leave it and then return many years later as a truly regenerated Christian? Or would you dismiss that person as a “lost cause”?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Once again you evade the question.

Again, Mike, that won’t work with me, so you might as well drop it as a tactic.

In post #53 of this thread I stated that I’m not refuting your argument, but merely pointing out its implications to your theology.

mikeledes:

The implications of my argument do not impact Catholic theology.

The implication of your argument does impact your theology with respect to reverts; that’s what I’m pointing out to you.

mikeledes:

You have “scrutinized” my argument, but have not allowed me to scrutinize yours.

My argument is that your argument impacts your theology with respect to reverts; that is the argument upon which you should focus.

mikeledes:

Is that because you are afraid to answer the question directly?

That won’t work with me either, Mike,so you can drop that as a tactic as well.

mikeledes:

Hebrews 6, according to you cannot be about genuine Christians. For argument’s sake, I will drop my position for now but will not let this thread die. Let’s say you’re right.

Again, Mike, the only argument that I’ve made is stated two posts above of this post—bolded, and underlined.

 

[Pax]

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.

I have already told you what you need to do to provide a refutation. I provided a solid alternative interpretation of the passage in Hebrews 6 which you have failed to address. You have not refuted it nor have you provided any reasons, let alone good ones, that would support your interpretation over mine.

I think you are avoiding this.

By the way…I don’t find any good reasons or justification for apostasy either, but that really isn’t the point of the dispute between us.

 

[sandusky]

Here you go, Mike, the Church has taken care of my argument for you in actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica**Point 7 states:

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.**"Roma locuta est, causa finita est"

I have some pressing issues to attend to until after the first of the year. :tiphat:

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Here you go, Mike, the Church has taken care of my argument for you in actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholicaPoint 7 states:

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."Roma locuta est, causa finita est"

I have some pressing issues to attend to until after the first of the year. :tiphat:

Context is everything. Keep searching.

 

[mikeledes]

Again, Mike, that won’t work with me, so you might as well drop it as a tactic.

In post #53 of this thread I stated that I’m not refuting your argument, but merely pointing out its implications to your theology.

The implication of your argument does impact your theology with respect to reverts; that’s what I’m pointing out to you.

My argument is that your argument impacts your theology with respect to reverts; that is the argument upon which you should focus.

That won’t work with me either, Mike,so you can drop that as a tactic as well.

Again, Mike, the only argument that I’ve made is stated two posts above of this post—bolded, and underlined.

There are no “tactics” involved here Sandunsky. You pointed out the alleged implications Heb. 6 has on Catholic theology. Now I am pointing out the implications Heb. 6 has on the alternative view. If Heb. 6 is not about genuine Christians, then it is about superficially committed Christians. Now I ask you again, can a person who was instructed in your church, made a profession of faith, baptised, and attended church regularly leave and perhaps return many years later or is that person a lost cause? If a friend or family member left your church to become a Jew or a Buddhist, would you dismiss that person as a “lost cause.” Would you say, “Well, he superficially experienced Christianity so there is now no hope of him ever returning. He is clearly not of the elect.” Would you not even attempt to evangelize that person because it is impossible that that person can be a member of the elect?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here you go, Mike, the Church has taken care of my argument for you in actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholicaPoint 7 states:

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."Roma locuta est, causa finita est"

I have some pressing issues to attend to until after the first of the year. :tiphat:

Okay… thank you for the interesting quote. How does that help your case? My point is that Heb 6 is not making a blanket statement. Rather, it is referring to a specific group of people under specific circumstances. You rejected that. However, when I attempted to scrutinize the alternative view, you consistently evaded my question.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I have already told you what you need to do to provide a refutation. I provided a solid alternative interpretation of the passage in Hebrews 6 which you have failed to address. You have not refuted it nor have you provided any reasons, let alone good ones, that would support your interpretation over mine.

I think you are avoiding this.

By the way…I don’t find any good reasons or justification for apostasy either, but that really isn’t the point of the dispute between us.

He only “scrutinizes” the Catholic interptretation, but provides no viable alternative. So we’re “wrong.” Now what?

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

There are no “tactics” involved here Sandunsky.

Pointing a finger while making the charge that one is evading your question because they are afraid to answer it is a whiny debate tactic designed to goad.

mikeledes:

You pointed out the alleged implications Heb. 6 has on Catholic theology. Now I am pointing out the implications Heb. 6 has on the alternative view. If Heb. 6 is not about genuine Christians, then it is about superficially committed Christians.

That’s my understanding of the passage. Those who are justified are the elect, and the elect will never apostatize, nor will they ever perish; but, they will continue on to glorification on the basis of the will of God.

mikeledes:

Now I ask you again, can a person who was instructed in your church, made a profession of faith, baptised, and attended church regularly leave and perhaps return many years later or is that person a lost cause? If a friend or family member left your church to become a Jew or a Buddhist, would you dismiss that person as a “lost cause.” Would you say, “Well, he superficially experienced Christianity so there is now no hope of him ever returning. He is clearly not of the elect.” Would you not even attempt to evangelize that person because it is impossible that that person can be a member of the elect?

People come into the church, and people go out from the church; anyone with a repentant attitude is welcomed into, and welcomed back into the church.

As far as evangelizing those who leave, almost all of them cut off all contact with the body, and refuse its overtures of reconciliation; if one says they don’t want to hear what the body has to say, they are left alone.

mikeledes:

Okay… thank you for the interesting quote. How does that help your case?

It doesn’t, but it makes yours.

Rome says that by virtue of baptism, apostasy for you is impossible; if you knew your catechism, you would know that its definition of apostasy is that it is a total repudiation of the Christian faith; therefore, a Catholic leaving into another “Christian” group is not an apostate,
but an heretic.

mikeledes:

However, when I attempted to scrutinize the alternative view, you consistently evaded my question.

You’re whining again.

Now I’ve answered your question, and I must leave for a time. :tiphat:

 

[mikeledes]

Pointing a finger while making the charge that one is evading your question because they are afraid to answer it is a whiny debate tactic designed to goad.

Well that’s what “evading” often indicates.

That’s my understanding of the passage. Those who are justified are the elect, and the elect will never apostatize, nor will they ever perish; but, they will continue on to glorification on the basis of the will of God.

People come into the church, and people go out from the church; anyone with a repentant attitude is welcomed into, and welcomed back into the church.

As far as evangelizing those who leave, almost all of them cut off all contact with the body, and refuse its overtures of reconciliation; if one says they don’t want to hear what the body has to say, they are left alone.

So you are accepting the possibility that someone who has left a church to join another religion or no religion can return, this time as truly regenerated Christians. Finally! Thank you for the response to my question. Now how does that square with the “impossibility” of someone who was once superficially Christian ever repenting ? According to Hebrews 6, if a person leaves your Church to join another religion or no religion at all, then that person no longer has any hope of repentance. Its over for him forever. Once you leave Calvinist Christianity, there is no turning back. So I guess there can be no Calvinist “reverts” either.

It doesn’t, but it makes yours.

Rome says that by virtue of baptism, apostasy for you is impossible; if you knew your catechism, you would know that its definition of apostasy is that it is a total repudiation of the Christian faith; therefore, a Catholic leaving into another “Christian” group is not an apostate,
but an heretic.

Okay… and what does that have to do with what I’ve argued in this thread. I’ve never said that a Catholic who joins another church is an apostate. Nor does the Catholic Church teach that apostasy is impossible for someone who has been baptized.

You’re whining again.

I’m pointing out a fact.

Now I’ve answered your question, and I must leave for a time. :tiphat

Thankfully you answered it before I hit retirement age. Hope to hear from you soon.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

…
…

That’s my understanding of the passage. Those who are justified are the elect, and the elect will never apostatize, nor will they ever perish; but, they will continue on to glorification on the basis of the will of God.
…
…

This belief does not withstand the test of scrutiny. I have already dealt with this earlier in the thread. There is absolutely no question that those that apostatize are indeed believers. To be convincing you need to refute the analysis that I provided on this point earlier in the thread. So far no one has done this.