Hebrews 6:4-6 exposed

[Mickey]

allischalmers:

It seem to me that Catholic apologist rely more on those early uninspired writers than they do the inspired Word of God.

The reading of Scriptures is a great means of security against sinning. Ignorance of Scripture is a great cliff, a deep abyss. It gives birth to heresies and introduces a corrupt way of life. Even one parable can help the soul to have contrition for a sin, to find a little rest from the concerns of the world. Reading Scripture each day will accomplish some great and noble good in us.
St. John Chrysostom

 

[allischalmers]

Eden
Don"t try to twist things around. I was showing that there were other people that the Holy Spirit had shown the true meaning of the Scriptures and agreed with what I had written. To say that Dr.Scofeild was the Holy spirit was stuped.
Also I do not believe every thing that every Christain writer has written or even every thing my Pastor say, only what I know the Holy Spirit treaches me.
God has given some men like me throught the Holy Spirit the ability to understand God’s Word better that other people.which is why we read the works of others.

Forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[Church_Militant]

Scofield? Nah… His “reference Bible” was responsible for the spread of the “Rapture” errors that he picked up from Darby the Church of Ireland preacher less than 200 years ago. In view of the depth of that error…I wouldn’t hear much of what he said… No thanks.

 

[thistle]

Is allischalmers a relative of Giver by any chance.
Allischalmers says he is right and we are wrong because the Holy Spirit tells him and Giver says he is right and we are wrong because Jesus tells him.
Yet in both cases they cannot back up their “truth” by scripture.

 

[Eden]

allischalmers:

Eden
Don"t try to twist things around. I was showing that there were other people that the Holy Spirit had shown the true meaning of the Scriptures and agreed with what I had written. To say that Dr.Scofeild was the Holy spirit was stuped (sic).

You said you needed only the Bible and the Holy Spirit, not the Bible and Rev. Dr. Scofield D.D.

God has given some men like me throught the Holy Spirit the ability to understand God’s Word better that other people.which is why we read the works of others.

Oh, I see. You believe that through the Holy Spirit, God gave you and Rev. Dr. Scofield D.D. the ability to understand God’s Word better than other people. So, some people understand God’s Word. You just understand it better. Am I restating your quote above accurately?

 

[Nicene]

allischalmers:

Eden
Don"t try to twist things around. I was showing that there were other people that the Holy Spirit had shown the true meaning of the Scriptures and agreed with what I had written. To say that Dr.Scofeild was the Holy spirit was stuped.
Also I do not believe every thing that every Christain writer has written or even every thing my Pastor say, only what I know the Holy Spirit treaches me.
God has given some men like me throught the Holy Spirit the ability to understand God’s Word better that other people.which is why we read the works of others.

Forever Baptist
allischalmers

Scofield was an idiot. (talk to Paul if you think I am being harsh…O foolish Galatians etc.)

Heb 4:4: For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5: and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6: if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Scofield (and apparently you): Heb 6:4-6 presents the caser of a Jewish professed believer who turns his back from Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation, even “going along with” the Holy Spirit in His work of enlightenment and conviction. It is not to be said that he had faith. This supposed person is like the spies at Kadesh-barnea who saw the land and had the very fruit of it in their hands, and yet turned back. It is such a case that our Lord speaks, Mt 13 20-21.]

Lets see if that holds up to scrutiny:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened,

Ok so they have been enlightened (in the first century baptism was called illumination) So it is impossible to rebaptize them. (Scofields first mistake)

who have tasted the heavenly gift

So they tasted the heavenly gift (Scofields second mistake)

and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5: and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,

They have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and taste the goodness of God. (Scofields third mistake)

6: if they then commit apostasy,

By definition you cannot commit apostacy (or fall away) unless you frist believed (had faith). It is impossible to commit apostasy without first believing in it (in this case Christ) and then leaving it: apostacising. The Jews who didn’t believe in Christ in the first place weren’t apostates, they were non believers. Jews who believed and through pressure renounced their belief are apostates. Scofield completely skips this part and instead says It is not to be said that he had faith. Which is quite clearly stated that this person (or persons, sinse it’s a hypothetical) is enlightened in the first sentence as shown above, particularly by the use of the word again, reception of the heavenly gift, and the Holy Spirit.

So those who baptize again (rebaptize) crucify Christ again.

Inherantly to get around the quandry that a persons sin cannot be greater than Gods mercy, Scofield, who didn’t believe (and baptists) reconcilliation (confession) had to come up with a way that this person could be readmitted to the community. There was only one way, he had to say he never believed in the first place, which is blatantly contrary to the text. He further asserts an unbiblical supposition into the passage, that the person is a spy. This means that Scofield has to rebaptize them, crucifying Christ again. The only way to do that is to say the person didn’t believe so one repentance will be recognized.

Can an apostate come back (revert) to the church? Yep, but it is very seldom, i.e. blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. They think their sin is greater than Gods mercy. Catholics believe nothing is greater than Gods mercy. (Apostasy, not schism or heresy) People keep themselves away from God, God doesn’t keep people away from Himself who have a truly contrite heart.

Scofield definately wasn’t led by the Holy Spirit. Only those who truly have the Holy Spirit can understand scripture. This spirit has been tested, and found wanting, grossly.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[allischalmers]

Nicene:

Scofield was an idiot.

My! My! Scofield is now an idiot. Sounds like a classic case of not liking the message so lets kill the messager. Wasn"t that what Jesus said that the Pharisees were doing?

Forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[montanaman]

allischalmers:

Nicene:

Scofield was an idiot.

My! My! Scofield is now an idiot. Sounds like a classic case of not liking the message so lets kill the messager. Wasn"t that what Jesus said that the Pharisees were doing?

Forever Baptist
allischalmers

Weak.

 

[LatinCat]

allischalmers:

Possibly the most crucial-- most misunderstood–verses in all of God’s Word are Hebrews 6:4–6, quoted here:
“It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, torenew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.”
These verses are among the most solemn in all or the Word of God. they furnish a fierce battle ground among students of theology. The hottest fight extant between religious groups rages around these verses. It is a known and established fact that a vast number of religious people believe it is possible for a blood-washed, truly born again believer to sin and backslide to the extent of being lost, beyond forgiveness, and eternally damned. Most of these dear people have their minds made up; it is futile to argue with them-- and they use these verses as proof of their doctrine.
I refuse to argue the Scriptures. I use Bible terms, not the language of the denominations. We are commanded to prove all thing (l Thess 5;21); we are clearly instructed to study, rightly dividing the Word of Truth(ll Tim. 2;15). Ireadily confess that it is not always easy to discover the perfect consistency of one scripture with another: yet we who believe the Word of God must hold fast to the unerring harmony and integrity of his infallible, indestructible, forever-settled truth. We must keep in mind that we are finite and will never fully understand all the word of God until we sit at the feet of Jesus to be taugth of him in the grand and glorious heavenly Bible Class.

Just the start!
forever Baptist
allischalmers

Have you ever heard of hyperbole? I think that is what is happening when st. Paul says “imposible” here. I think he is talking about the difficulty of coming back to Christ in such a situation. So difficult that he hyperbolyzes it into being “impossible” while not literally being impossible.

 

[allischalmers]

I was go to continue with Hebrews 6:4-6 exposed but this thread has gone way off course and have lost the point of it.
but in my morning Bible reading of Matthew was this verse,
Jesus said:
“Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before the swine, last they trample them under foot, and turn again and rend you”.
Good advice, right, so I think I will keep my pearls, thank you

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[LatinCat]

allischalmers:

Nicene:

Scofield was an idiot.

My! My! Scofield is now an idiot. Sounds like a classic case of not liking the message so lets kill the messager. Wasn"t that what Jesus said that the Pharisees were doing?

Forever Baptist
allischalmers

Sounds like he is just making a reasonable conclusion. Scottfield doesn’t understand the scriptures in the context of how and why they were written and thus comes up with falicious conclusions that are contrary to the nature of God’s mercy. I think that qualifies Scottfield as an idiot.

 

[montanaman]

allischalmers:

I was go to continue with Hebrews 6:4-6 exposed but this thread has gone way off course and have lost the point of it.
but in my morning Bible reading of Matthew was this verse,
Jesus said:
“Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before the swine, last they trample them under foot, and turn again and rend you”.
Good advice, right, so I think I will keep my pearls, thank you

forever Baptist
allischalmers

That’s funny. I’ve been thinking the same thing for about a year now.

 

[Nicene]

allischalmers:

Nicene:

Scofield was an idiot.

My! My! Scofield is now an idiot. Sounds like a classic case of not liking the message so lets kill the messager. Wasn"t that what Jesus said that the Pharisees were doing?

Forever Baptist
allischalmers

In other words sinse you can’t refute the obvious in what I posted you decided to shoot the messenger instead by taking a potshot. As far as the Scofield comment, what does scripture tell us about people who teach false doctrine, which Scofield clearly does?

If you think what I said is harsh maybe you should look up what Christ says about calling someone a fool (it does not have the same connotation today as it did it Christs time) and Paul calling the Galatians foolish.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

allischalmers:

I was go to continue with Hebrews 6:4-6 exposed but this thread has gone way off course and have lost the point of it.
but in my morning Bible reading of Matthew was this verse,
Jesus said:
“Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before the swine, last they trample them under foot, and turn again and rend you”.
Good advice, right, so I think I will keep my pearls, thank you

forever Baptist
allischalmers

I would be happy to discuss your misinterpretation of “pearls before swine” if you would like to discuss that in another thread.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[allischalmers]

Nicene:

In other words sinse you can’t refute the obvious in what I posted you decided to shoot the messenger instead by taking a potshot. As far as the Scofield comment, what does scripture tell us about people who teach false doctrine, which Scofield clearly does?

If Scofield taught false doctrine why did millions of people inbrace the “Scofield Study Bible” incluiding lay people, pastors, Bible Scholars, college professors, Sunday School Teachers, missionarys and and a whole lot of people smarter than YOU?

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[montanaman]

allischalmers:

Nicene:

In other words sinse you can’t refute the obvious in what I posted you decided to shoot the messenger instead by taking a potshot. As far as the Scofield comment, what does scripture tell us about people who teach false doctrine, which Scofield clearly does?

If Scofield taught false doctrine why did millions of people inbrace the “Scofield Study Bible” incluiding lay people, pastors, Bible Scholars, college professors, Sunday School Teachers, missionarys and and a whole lot of people smarter than YOU?

forever Baptist
allischalmers

Because they were misled by people they trusted, or by pride, or hatred of the Catholic Church they misunderstood, etc. There are at least as many reasons as there are people. Their intelligence actually has less to do with their “inbracing” of Scofield than you think. Mostly, though, I think it’s because people aren’t rational. Look at you and Giver, for example. The apologists here have swatted down argument after argument you’ve attacked the Church with, and yet you’re not about to change your mind. You simply ignore proof, change the subject, and try a new line of attack.

And as further proof that people aren’t rational, we still keep arguing with antagonistic people who have no intention of giving up their anti-Catholic beliefs, no matter how badly inaccurate they are.

 

[LatinCat]

allischalmers:

Nicene:

In other words sinse you can’t refute the obvious in what I posted you decided to shoot the messenger instead by taking a potshot. As far as the Scofield comment, what does scripture tell us about people who teach false doctrine, which Scofield clearly does?

If Scofield taught false doctrine why did millions of people inbrace the “Scofield Study Bible” incluiding lay people, pastors, Bible Scholars, college professors, Sunday School Teachers, missionarys and and a whole lot of people smarter than YOU?

forever Baptist
allischalmers

St. Thomas Aquinas, author of the Summa Theologica, was smarter than all of them combined and he would disagree with scofield.

 

[Eden]

allischalmers:

Nicene:

In other words sinse you can’t refute the obvious in what I posted you decided to shoot the messenger instead by taking a potshot. As far as the Scofield comment, what does scripture tell us about people who teach false doctrine, which Scofield clearly does?

If Scofield taught false doctrine why did millions of people inbrace the “Scofield Study Bible” incluiding lay people, pastors, Bible Scholars, college professors, Sunday School Teachers, missionarys and and a whole lot of people smarter than YOU?

forever Baptist
allischalmers

By what authority does Scofield interpret the Bible? How do you determine that he is speaking for the Holy Spirit and is not a false prophet? Is your only criteria that the interpreter agree with you?

a whole lot of people smarter than YOU

You realize we are not required to be “smart” to be Christian, right? If that were the case, I would have pointed out your repeated and numerous spelling errors as evidence that you are wrong. For instance, you put “stuped” for “stupid” in a post to me. But I have not once questioned your intelligence.

 

[Palamite]

Some thoughts…

i) The Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed primarily to Hebrew-Christians who were sorely tempted by various pressures to abandon Christianity and back slide into Judaism.

ii) Hebrews 6 is specifically about Jewish Christians who abandon Christianity.

iii) For a moment I will remove some of the statements St.Paul makes between Hebrews 6:4-6:6 so as to make his point clearer. I’m not saying the other information isn’t important - however, it is only illustrative of his main point.

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened …, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” (Hebrews 6:4a, 6b)

Calvinist readings of this passage seem to leave out the “seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” part. It is that part which provides the essential context to the passage. St.Paul is speaking not simply of those who fall away from the Church, but very specifically of Jewish Christians who apostacize and return to Judaism. The nature of their betrayal is much more profound as it is not simply unbelief but a very clear indictment of Christ and the same form of unbelief which those who put Christ to death suffered from.

Also, the word translated “impossible” here, in the Greek, is not as emphatic as the English word perhaps is. Adunatos literally means “without strength” or “without power” - the same word is used in Acts 14:8 to speak of a crippled man’s feet (“impotent”). So while it could be taken to be an “absolute impossibility”, I think the context (specifically St.Paul’s perceived need here to illustrate his point) shows that this wasn’t an attempt at taking a doctrinal stand about the utter impossibility of a defecting Jew returning to the Church, but simply a statement of how incredibly far a fall and how deep a betrayal such an apostasy would be.

And you see, that’s the thing - this passage is very clearly about life in the Church. It mentions illumination/Baptism, heavenly gift/Holy Communion, and participation in the Holy Spirit/Chrismation. How could someone after all of this (especially keeping in mind the rigorous preperation which was normal for receiving these sacraments of initiation in the early Church, which were typically all administered at once hence why St.Paul speaks of them as he does), who turns around and defects back to Judaism, be reasonably expected to return? It’s a very sad situation. But in context (especially the broader context of the New Testament on this topic) it doesn’t add up to what our Calvinist friends are choosing to believe. Indeed, their interpretation is untenable since it involves cases where only sophistry on their part could justify the situation. Ex. say one of their members defects, but then changes their mind and comes back to the congregation and the practice of their Reformed/Baptist/whatever religion. Well if they’re following St.Paul at all literally here, they’d have to refuse to take someone like that back. Yet they likely wouldn’t - instead, they’d say “oh, they didn’t really fall away”. Of course, that’s exegetically nightmarish - they go from being overly literal to being rather loose and creative with context all at once, seemingly wherever it suits their peculiar teachings.

 

[allischalmers]

I"m sorry, millions of Spirit filled people can not all be wrong.

forever baptist allischalmers