Hebrews 6:4-6 OSAS?

[CastingCrown]

I was talking to someone and they brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of Once Saved Always Saved:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

How would you interpret this passage?

 

[NotWorthy]

I was talking to someone and they brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of Once Saved Always Saved:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

How would you interpret this passage?

It sounds like tasting the heavenly gift and falling away are possible, according to this Scripture. The author of Hebrews is simply denying that someone can be brought back into repentance.

St. Peter affirms that someone can fall away, after “being saved”

2nd Peter 2:21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them. 22 What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, “The dog returns to its own vomit,” and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire."

 

[CastingCrown]

I don’t deny all the other Scriptural passages which talk about losing salvation. However, this passage initially does appear to say that salvation once lost can never be regained, which is not Catholic doctrine. Thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t deny all the other Scriptural passages which talk about losing salvation. However, this passage initially does appear to say that salvation once lost can never be regained, which is not Catholic doctrine. Thoughts?

Yes, it does, on the surface make one think that. But, the author is talking about the sin of apostasy, not necessarily all the people who fall away.

 

[CastingCrown]

What leads you to the conclusion that the author is talking about apostasy here? Would you equate apostasy with the sin against the Holy Spirit then?

 

[Metamorphoo]

I was talking to someone and they brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of Once Saved Always Saved:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

How would you interpret this passage?

I would say that, if anything, this passage demonstrates the OPPOSITE of the “once saved, always saved” idea. The phrase “if they fall away” means that falling away is a possibility … and if they do, it is impossible to bring them to repentance.

At what point a person is truly “fallen away” is something only God knows.

 

[CastingCrown]

I agree, I was just interested in how people would interpret the passage.

It basically sounds like “If you’ve really rejected the faith then you won’t be able to get your salvation back”. The trouble is I don’t think we have any real objective way to determine what would constitute “falling away”. Also, Paul talks about people “falling away from Grace” in Galatians 5:4, but there isn’t the suggestion that this is irredeemable.

“You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

Thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

What leads you to the conclusion that the author is talking about apostasy here? Would you equate apostasy with the sin against the Holy Spirit then?

Well, the sin against the Holy Spirit is rejecting the Holy Spirit, all while knowing that it is the Holy Spirit that saves us.

In regards to your OP, I would point someone to the Prodigal Son to show that God is infinitely merciful with us. The son received his inheritance - we receive our inheritance when we are baptized. The son fell away into Apostasy - He rejected his father, he rejected the Promised Land, and he rejected his faith. But the son receives full forgiveness and is restored to the family - he received the ring (which denotes authority) and his father says, "My son was dead, and is now alive again.

 

[CastingCrown]

The son fell away into Apostasy…But the son receives full forgiveness

Hang on, I thought you said Hebrews 6:4-6 was talking about the sin of apostasy? And that passage seems to suggest that it can’t be forgiven.

You didn’t really answer my questions either:

1. What leads you to the conclusion that the author is talking about apostasy here?
   (as opposed to just serious sin)
2. Would you equate apostasy with the sin against the Holy Spirit then?
   (the idea being that neither can be forgiven)

As I said, I accept elsewhere in Scripture it talks about losing salvation, but it also talks about God’s forgiveness. However, I am trying to reconcile this with Hebrews 6:4-6. I don’t believe in OSAS, but I’m having difficulty “placing” this passage theologically.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hang on, I thought you said Hebrews 6:4-6 was talking about the sin of apostasy? And that passage seems to suggest that it can’t be forgiven.

You didn’t really answer my questions either:

1. What leads you to the conclusion that the author is talking about apostasy here?
   (as opposed to just serious sin)

I take it from the Ignatius Study Bible and the Navarre Study Bible. Both of these draw on the Church Fathers, including St. John Christostom.

Sadly, your Protestant friends don’t tend to listen to these sources.

1. Would you equate apostasy with the sin against the Holy Spirit then?
   (the idea being that neither can be forgiven)

Both series of studies draw similar conclusions. Apostasy is rejecting the very sources of Salvation, all while recognizing that they ARE the sources of Salvation. Lucifer, for example, committed apostasy.

As I said, I accept elsewhere in Scripture it talks about losing salvation, but it also talks about God’s forgiveness. However, I am trying to reconcile this with Hebrews 6:4-6. I don’t believe in OSAS, but I’m having difficulty “placing” this passage theologically.

I find it odd that people try to read Christ’s words in the light of others, such as St. Paul and/or the author of Hebrews. I find that I read these writers in the light of Christ.

Christ teaches of one having salvation, losing it, and then re-gaining it. I read St. Paul’s Epistles and the book of Hebrews in the light of Christ’s words.

 

[CastingCrown]

Okay, this is getting clearer (thanks!), but I still would like clarification. You described the prodigal son as committing apostasy, but the Hebrews passage says you can’t come back from that but the Prodigal Son clearly did. Is therefore the statement that prodigal son committed apostasy not really valid?

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

I was talking to someone and they brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of Once Saved Always Saved:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

How would you interpret this passage?

This has always been used to show you can lose salvation, since it says you can fall away, its just saying you cannot be regenerated again, since it is a one time event. The early Christians simply read this is a statement that a person cannot be rebaptized. This verse actually teaches salvation can be lost. As well as Hebrews 10

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay, this is getting clearer (thanks!), but I still would like clarification. You described the prodigal son as committing apostasy, but the Hebrews passage says you can’t come back from that but the Prodigal Son clearly did. Is therefore the statement that prodigal son committed apostasy not really valid?

To you and me, today, it would seem like he didn’t commit Apostasy. But when you consider that he rejected everything about being a Jew. His family, his land, his religion…

The Jewish audience, even though they were made up of prostitutes and tax collectors, would have been horrified by the actions of the son.

 

[Ignatius]

I was talking to someone and they brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of Once Saved Always Saved:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

Actually it proves the falshood of OSAS because it says that those who have been saved and shared in the Holy Spirit can fall away.

 

[MBS1]

To start, the reason someone mentioned the person in Heb 6 fell into apostasy is that it says just that in v. 6 of the RSV version. The Greek word – *parapiptō – ** **is translated variously as “fall away” - KJV/NIV; “commit apostasy” – RSV; “turn away” – NLT – so the person responding probably has the RSV version and someone else some other version. Anyway, *this is what I was taught this passage means. You also have to understand it in the context of the Catholic faith. For example, scripture says:

“While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.” John 17:12.

Non-Catholics will use this to support OSAS because it says that Jesus didn’t lose any of those given to him by God. However, it does not say that we can’t voluntarily reject Jesus and be lost - which I will get back to in the context of Heb 6:4-6. If we voluntarily reject Jesus, He is not losing us, we are leaving Him, which is still possible in the context of John 17.

I am no Greek expert, but let’s break it down a bit. Who is the writer talking to in Hebrews? Back in Heb 3:1 he is addressing the “holy brethren”. Since they are obviously not all blood brothers of the writer, they must be spiritual brothers, and more than that, “holy” - *hagios - *(meaning most holy thing, a saint) spiritual brothers. The Greek for “brethren” here is *adelphos - *which can mean true blood relatives, but also from a spiritual standpoint -
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

(This from a Protestant lexicon). So it seems, to me, that the writer to the Hebrews is addressing “holy” (or saintly) Christians who “share in the heavenly call” - which I think is appropriate to interpret it being written to, as some would say, “saved” Christians - or at least the writer to the Hebrews seems to think he was writing to “saved” Christians. I can’t see how the wording and context could mean otherwise – especially in light of other parts of Hebrews (2:11-12 for example, as well as calling us “partakers” of the heavenly call in 3:1), I only bring this up because I have seen people argue that the passage in Heb 6 was to those who were not truly “saved”, whatever that would mean, though I don’t see how it could mean otherwise. Hebrews is full of warnings to “saved” Christians to hold onto the faith.

So, to Heb 6:4-6. The key phrase, at least from what I was taught, is the words "to restore again, or “renew them again” in the KJV, all v. 6. Different translations are as follows: 1.to renew them again unto repentance - KJV 2. to be brought back to repentance - NIV 3. impossible to restore again to repentance - RSV - (but in v. 4 and not v.6).

Anyway - each translation is talking about bringing someone back to repentance - that is, someone helping them “see the light” so to speak. The word for “renew” or to be “brought back” is a verb - *anakainizō. *Remember a verb is the part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence - or a relation between two things. In this case I think it would be the relation between the “lost” soul and the person trying to bring them back to repentance.

This would then be consistent with Catholic teaching and the rest of scripture - the prodigal son analogy previously mentioned. If a “saved” Christian knowingly rejects the faith - “commit apostasy” in Heb 6 RSV- there is nothing we can do to bring them back to repentance, to renew them unto repentance, to restore them to repentance. However, just as John 17 mentioned above does not indicate we can’t chose to leave Jesus, Heb 6:4-6 does not indicate that a person cannot change their own minds and once again come to repentance and belief in Jesus. We are just not going to be able to help them do it - it has to be a decision within the soul of the person to do. This is why 1 John 5:16 tells us to pray for those whose sins are not mortal, but “There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.” Likewise to Heb 6:4-6 - the person who would now be in a state of mortal sin, who has rejected Jesus, has to ask forgiveness for himself - we can’t do it for them. Now, it may not be easy, and they may never do it once they commit apostasy or fall away, but the grace of God will always be there to do so if they change inwardly - just as the prodigal son did. Anyway, this is what I was taught, and I hope it makes sense and sorry to be so long.

 

[CastingCrown]

Thanks MBS1, that helps a lot and thank you for positioning it within the broader Catholic theology.

So is the essence of this that “to be brought back to repentance” refers to another one of the brothers trying to bring the person back? Is it that the author of the epistle is saying that this return can’t be brought about by any human agency, but cooperation with the grace of God in that person’s heart?

While that makes sense, is there anything in the text that shows this is referring to a human agency, rather than that fact that it’s impossible to return in an absolute sense? Or do we have to rely on other Scriptural passages in order to make that distinction?

 

[PJM]

=CastingCrown;6637296]I was talking to someone and they brought up Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of Once Saved Always Saved:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

How would you interpret this passage?

Theres a string on the Forum about the most outrageous statement???

Well, this lack of understanding ought to be a candidate.

From the factual position that at the time theses words were written before the end of the First Century when:

1. There was [and was to be for another 1,500 years] only One Church; that known today as th CC.
2. Therefore these words were written precisely to and for Catholics by a fellow Catholic [Paul]

Here is what is actaully being said:

Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [SINGULAR] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit"

.Eph. 4: 4 “There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, [One Triune God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma and Tradition] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

**Eph. 3: 9 **“And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that through the church [singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,"

** Heb.6 Verses 4 to 10:** "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, [chosen by God for His CC] who have tasted the heavenly gift, [Eucharist] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [Confirmed in the Catholic Faith] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [By those empowered by God to understand and share His Word; His CC[/COLOR]] ***if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. ***

Please share with us how this even POSSIBLY relates to OSAS, which is contradicted by the same book, author, chapter a verse later: v. 10-11 "[10] **For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work **and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, ", and what about James chapter 2?

One part of the Bible simply cannot contradict others PARTS of the bible?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Nita]

Commentary on these verses from the Haydock Bible footnotes:
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 for 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. …

haydock1859.tripod.com/id250.html

 

[CastingCrown]

Thanks guys - great stuff.

 

[CastingCrown]

For the benefit of anyone else who has to deal with this question, I thought I’d post here what I ended up writing back:

You logic appears to go “well, if it’s impossible to come back after falling away then it must be impossible to fall away”. Well, that’s just bad logic. The author states in very clear terms that it is possible to fall away after tasting the goodness of God outright denying Once Saved Always Saved. The commentators of the first few centuries make several important interpretations of this passage:

(a) They see the sin being described here as the sin apostasy - the stubborn rejection of the faith. If a “saved” Christian knowingly rejects the faith then there is nothing fellow Christians can do to bring them back to repentance. However, there is nothing in this passage which says that the person cannot start to cooperate again with Gods grace and return - its just that we are not going to be able to do it for them. There are obvious parallels with the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

This is why 1 John 5:16 specifically tells us to pray for those whose sins are not “mortal”. If someone has rejected Jesus he has to ask forgiveness for himself - we can’t do it for him. Hopefully, by the grace of God, like the prodigal son, he will return.

(b) When it says “impossible”, it may not literally mean “impossible”. This is a Hebrew idiom used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate that something is extremely hard or unlikely (e.g. a literal translation of Luke 17:1 reads “it is impossible that scandals should not come”).

Fortunately, with God all things are possible (Mt 19:26). Paul talks about people “falling away” in Galatians 5:4 but presents hope that this situation is not irreversible.

(c) This passage was used in the early centuries to defend the idea that baptism should only happen once, since regeneration can only happen once. The context is favourable to this interpretation (“those who were once enlightened”) as “illumination” was a word often used in early Christianity to describe baptism. So, under this exegesis, the passage is saying that they can’t be “renewed (anakainizo) again to repentance” by the renewing effects of baptism (Titus 3:5). Instead, one would imagine this being brought about by the confession of sin.

Whichever interpretation you choose (and they’re not actually mutually exclusive), all of this is perfectly in line with the theology that salvation can be lost. It also fits with what is said later on in the letter:

“…So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.” - Heb 10:35

So if you throw away your confidence, then what? What about if you dont persevere and do the will of God?