Hebrews 6:4-6 exposed

  • Thread starter Thread starter allischalmers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Eden:
I just wanted to point out that allischalmers is a man. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing that out. It allows me to clarify:

Hello All-

As prone as I am to irrational behavior, I am not so foolish as to continue to mislead and entertain allis’ delusions.
His prescript “forever baptist” really says it all - he is “baptist” first and Truth seeker only if its stumbles into his fixed theology.
I personally recommend ignoring his posts until he demonstrates the capacity to absorb what we are giving him intellectually and proactively acknowledges when our arguments - though contrary to his - are valid.
Until then we’re just killin’ our keyboards…

Don’t believe me? Think Im being inconsiderate?

Pick a thread, any thread, that he has started and follow it to its end and ask yourself is this person looking for Truth or not?

In fact look no further than this one - what is a rational response to the claim that “millions of spirit filled people cant be wrong”? Of course they can - in fact it is requirement given the thousands of various protestant denomination which many have “millions of spirit-filled people” and contradictory theologies - not to mention Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc… Will allis absorb this and acknowledge this reality or is he “forever baptist” come what may? Killing our keyboards I tell you.
Sometimes the loving thing to do is walk away from those you wish to have follow…
 
40.png
allischalmers:
I am just trying to share the gift that the Holy Spirit has given to me to understand the deep, deep mysteries of The Scriptures and a great gift of writing.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
:bounce: :bounce: I needed that one today. Awesome show of humility!!! Beeeyuuutiiiifulllll!!!:bounce: :bounce:
 
40.png
allischalmers:
In support of my position I offer the following
Click to expand...
But Scofield doesn’t provide an argument any more than you do.

I know that your views are common in a particular corner of English-speaking Protestantism. I can cite plenty of authorities on my side too. I’m interested in an argument on the basis of Scripture. I don’t accept the authority of Scofield. I think the entire tradition of dispensationalist theology is wrong. It certainly goes against a far older and more universal tradition.

I repeat–you have made no case so far. You are making nothing but bare assertions.

Edwin
 
Heb 6:4 - For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,… The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it, “baptized”; and the word is thought to be so used in Heb_10:32. And indeed baptism was called very early “illumination” by the ancients, as by Justin Martyr (i), and Clemens Alexandrinus (k), because only enlightened persons were the proper subjects of it; and the word once here used seems to confirm this sense, since baptism, when rightly administered, was not repeated; but then this sense depends upon an use of a word, which it is not certain did as yet obtain; nor does the apostle take notice of baptism in a parallel place, Heb_10:26. This gave rise to, and seems to favour the error of Novatus, that those who fall into sin after baptism are to be cut off from the communion of the church, and never more to be restored unto it; contrary to the promises of God to returning backsliders, and contrary to facts, as well as to the directions of Christ, and his apostles, to receive and restore such persons; and such a notion tends to set aside the intercession of Christ for fallen believers, and to plunge them into despair: it is better therefore to retain the word “enlightened”, in its proper sense, and to understand it of persons enlightened with Gospel knowledge; there are some who are savingly enlightened by the Spirit of God, to see the impurity of their hearts and actions, and their impotency to perform that which is good, the imperfection of their own righteousness to justify them, their lost state and condition by nature, and to see Christ and salvation by him, and their interest in it; and these being “once” enlightened, never become darkness, or ever so fall as to perish; for if God had a mind to destroy them, he would never have shown them these things, and therefore cannot be the persons designed here; unless we render the words, as the Syriac version does, “it is impossible”----Nwjxy bwtd, “that they should sin again”; so as to die spiritually, lose the grace of God, and stand in need of a new work upon them, which would be impossible to be done: but rather such are meant, who are so enlightened as to see the evil effects of sin, but not the evil that is in sin; to see the good things which come by Christ, but not the goodness that is in Christ; so as to reform externally, but not to be sanctified internally; to have knowledge of the Gospel doctrinally, but not experimentally; yea, to have such light into it, as to be able to preach it to others, and yet be destitute of the grace of God:

Forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
40.png
allischalmers:
This gave rise to, and seems to** favour** the error of Novatus
Click to expand...
This is a compilation from pbministries.org. You forgot to edit the British spelling “favour”.

pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_57.htm

The opening lines are from here:

pbministries.org/…/Seminary/Bible_Study_Courses/Hebrews/gills_exposition/heb_expo_chap06.htm
Syriac version does, “it is impossible”----Nwjxy bwtd, “that they should sin again”;
Click to expand...
This exact quote is in here:

http:// www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_50.htm
 
and have tasted of the heavenly gift; either faith, or a justifying righteousness, or the pardon of sin, or eternal life; which are all spiritual and heavenly gifts of grace, and which true believers have real tastes of; and hypocrites please themselves with, having some speculative notions about them, and some desires after them, arising from a natural principle of self-love. Some think the Holy Ghost is intended; but rather Christ himself, the unspeakable gift of God’s love, given from heaven, as the bread of life. Now there are some who have a saving spiritual taste of this gift; for though God’s people, while unregenerate, have no such taste; their taste is vitiated by sin, and it is not changed; sin is the food they live upon, in which they take an imaginary pleasure, and disrelish every thing else; but when regenerated, their taste is changed, sin is rendered loathsome to them; and they have a real gust of spiritual things, and especially of Christ, and find a real delight and pleasure in feeding by faith upon him; whereby they live upon him, and are nourished up unto eternal life, and therefore cannot be the persons here spoken of: but there are others who taste, but dislike what they taste; have no true love to Christ, and faith in him; or have only a carnal taste of him, know him only after the flesh, or externally, not inwardly and experimentally; or they have only a superficial taste, such as is opposed to eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, by faith, which is proper to true believers; the gust they have is but temporary, and arises from selfish principles.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
Eden
You are right but it does prove my point in my orginal post when I started this thread.

Forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
Eden
I would like to thank you for putting that web address in your post.
It took me to a pretty neat Baptist web site. Thank You again

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
40.png
Philthy:
Now you’re startin’ to make sense. Pull the plug…
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that our baptist friend can put limits on God’s mercy. HMMMM. I would be afraid of lightning storms if I was in his shoes. LOL. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top