As you asked me to make this separate thread Jac I did, I want you to explain to me what seems to be some of your discrepencies in your interpretations of the following verses;

Here is the link;

Source: http://acts172.wordpress.com/2010/07/24 ... ebrews-64/

First off, lets look at the verses in hand;

Hebrews6:4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt. 7 Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and on the verge of being cursed; it's end is to be burned over.

We will take the verses section by section as Jac interprets them, and examine his other scriptural references that he uses in support of his interpretations(s).

Jac writes;



Now the verses clearly state those who, 'shared(past tense) in the Holy Spirit,' but yet have fallen away. Paul mentions in Ephesian4:30 that the gift of the Holy Spirit is an indicator of those who will be redeemed on the day of redemption.

Ephesians4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked for the day of redemption.

The same sentiment is echoed in Ephesians1:13;

Ephesians1:13 In him you also when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14 this is the pledge of our inheritence towards redemption as God's own people, to the praise of his glory.

So clearly the giving of the Holy Spirit is a pledge by God towards our redempton as God's own people. Therefore the passages in Hebrews6:4-8 clearly do allude to the issue of salvation.

Jac then goes on to write;



Surely Jac you are familiar with one of the most common verses cited by protestants;

John3:14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. 15 That whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

(Emphasis added)

Where does that leave those who don't believe in him? Well strangley enough the bible answers that one for us too.

Mark16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

John3:36 Whover believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God's wrath.

Hebrew11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

And possibly the most damning verse of those without faith;

Revelation21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Well Jac I've just demonstrated to you from scripture how the loss of ones faith can result in the loss of one's salvation, do you wish to interpret these verses for us any differently?

Jac goes onto write;



Here Jac loses me slightly, Christ clearly gave the disciples the power to forgive sins;

John20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any they are retained."

If you mean by losing one's fellowship with the Church that they no longer belong to the Church, then they are no longer part of the Body of Christ. There is no salvation without Christ;

Acts4:12 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved."

And how are we incorporated into Christ, through his Church;

Ephesians1:22 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

To suggest that you can be saved while losing your fellowship with the church, and therfore not belonging to the Body of Christ is completely contradicted in scripture.

Jac goes on;



Jac's quote here is in relation to Hebrews6:6-8.

Why does Paul write then, "it is worthless and on the verge of being cursed; it's end is to be burned over."

Paul does write in other parts of a purifying fire that saves(1Corinthians3:15), which Catholic's usually interpret to mean purgatory. But Paul doesn't suggest this fire is, 'the end,' but a purifying fire. He also doesn't decribe those who will be saved as being worthless or on the verge of being cursed?

Jac goes onto write in his final paragraph;



No they don't, for a start many interpreted 1Corinthians5:1-5 to mean excommunication, and this is supported by 1Peter5:8. You are more susceptible from attacks from by the devil when you are outside the confines of the safety of the Church. Hence Peter's analogy, lions hunt by seeking out weaker prey who have been separated from the pack. Although I am open to suggestions that 1Corinthians5 could mean something else. Secondly 1Corinthains5:1-5 is primarily dealing with sexual immorality, the verses proceeding the one you mentioned in Hebrews deals with wilfull apostates, and their destruction if they remain wilfully apostate to the end Hebrews10:26.

Over to you Jac.

Not a problem, Jerome, but I'm a bit confused by something. The thread title asks for my interpretation of Heb 6:4-8, and yet you quote or refer to no less than thirteen other passages.

So which one would you like me to deal with, because appears that Heb 6:4ff isn't really what you're after in the first place. Just let me know which one you'd like to discuss, and we can proceed in an orderly manner.

Back to you.

Well Jac you yourself give references to several other passages to support your premises, and you yourself ask for ones which contradict those premises, to which I have given many, so take your pick.



You are the one who has set out the challenge, you have also made a number of statements which I believe are not supported by scripture.

Like I said, you made the assertions, you set out the challenges. I believe I have contradicted those assertions and addressed your questions, showing that your premises are wrong.

Take which ever one you feel like, and we'll go from there.

Might I suggest addressing losing one's faith resulting in losing their salvation first, and the passages I gave to contradict this assertion.

The choice is up to you though.

Fine, I accept the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself. But you are begging the question because you have the order of interpretation wrong.

Imagine you were the first recipient of Hebrews--the original audience, right? Suppose you didn't have access to the letters to the Ephesians and Corinthians, etc. All you have is the LXX (and since you are Jewish, the proto-Masoretic text and possibly the proto-Hebrew-LXX). You come to Heb 6:4ff. Can you understand what the author was saying to you?

I contend you can, lest the text becomes unintelligible. It is not a cipher that requires other verses to make it intelligible. The proper method is to interpret Heb 6:4ff in its own context (theological, historical, textual, etc.) and then compare our interpretation to other theological doctrines we have learned elsewhere. That comparison will yield one of two results: either 1) they will prove contradictory, in which case I assume that my interpretation of one or both of the passages is mistaken, or 2) they are complementary.

Furthermore, to use other books as a lens to interpret Hebrews, you are assuming that your interpretation of those books is correct. But how do you know THAT? I'll give you a practical example. I was once debating a Calvinist who constantly told me that I was wrong in my interpretations of various passages because they contradicted Rom 9. After a long time of this, I finally opened a thread on Rom 9 and demonstrated what I think to be the proper interpretation. And guess what he did to prove his interpretation of the passage? He said I was wrong because I was contradicting those other passages! That, my friend, is a circular argument.

So we ought to interpret one passage at a time. If that raises concerns about the relationship with other passages, we first complete the interpretation of our current passage and go to the others and find out the source of the discrepancy. In this case, I say the source is that you have misunderstood all of those other passages. The practical effect is that we cannot have a proper discussion on Heb 6:4ff, because we end up talking about literally fourteen verses at the same time.

Lastly, as to my reference to other Scriptures, notice I didn't say we use them to understand Hebrews. I said that if it is true that we can lose our salvation, we have to get that from another passage, because that concept is not in Heb 6:4ff itself. All Heb. 6:4ff actually says is that if the Christian falls away, he cannot be renewed to repentance. You are taking that last passage to mean "loses his salvation," but that is not what the text says. It is your interpretation of the words. You've developed the notion that to fall way and/or to be unrepentant is to lose your salvation (or never gain it). But hear me: that may be true, but its a theology imported from other texts!. Thus, Heb 6:4ff cannot prove you lose your salvation for the simple reason that it does not even speak to the issue. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), it assumes the possibility of losing your salvation, which would mean that doctrine is necessarily picked up from elsewhere.

Bottom line: pick a passage. Do you want to talk about Heb. 6:4ff as per the thread title, or are you more interested in talking about any of the other dozen passages that you think more clearly teach the doctrine and therefore serve as a check against Heb. 6:4ff?

Pretty much yes,

Hebrews 1 - Paul claims Christ is the Son of God(Hebrews1:1-14).

Hebrew 2- He exhort's them to pay more attention to what has been taught(1-4). He teaches that Christ shared in our flesh to destroy sin(Hebrews2:14-16). Many believe the Epistle was written to prevent apostacy, namely against the Judaizers.

Hebrews 3- The author reaffirms that Christ was a prophet, the Son of God, greater than Moses(Hebrews3:1-6). Chapter three also warns against disbelief(Hebrews7-19).

Hebrew 4- God will hold you to account for what you believe(Hebrews4:12-13).

Hebrews 5- Christ was not chosen as the high priest according to the levitical law, but according to God's promise to David(2Samuel7-16-17). He is a priest according to Melchizedek, who they would have understood as being a priest and a king.

Hebrews 6- The author warns on the perils of falling away, and what the consequences will be(Hebrews6:8), also according to you;



Hebrews6:9 Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation.

(Emphasis added)

You seem to employ your buddies tactics over at the other site, and stop short of the verse, or verses that become problematic against your argument(s). There is a word for that, it's called intellectual dishonesty.

Hebrews 7- The author again emphasises the difference between the levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. Again, many believe the Epistle to the Hebrews was primarily to win over the Judaizers, this is why the author spends so much time on the Jewish law.

Hebrews 8- The old law foreshadowed the law to come, Christ is the mediator of a better covenant. Paul reaffirms this promise by quoting from Jeremiah31:31-34, again, supporting his arguments with other versus from scripture which his audience would have been familiar with.

Hebrews 9- Again the author, who was most likely Paul, athough there is some dispute over this. Re-emphasize's how the old law foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice. Note, he is appealing to what his audience already knew to support his argument.

Hebrews 10- Again this is repeated in Hebrews10:1, and he repeats scripture that they would have been familiar with to support his arguments. Compares Psalm40:6-7 with Hebrews10:6-7, and compare Hebrews10:16 with Jeremiah31:33. Herbrews 10 also reinforces the punishment of those who willfully persist in sin(Hebrews10:26-31).

Hebrews 11- The author gives several examples of how this faith should be manifest through actions, Hebrews11:4, Hebrews11-8-9, Hebrews11:17-18, Hebrews11:23, Hebrews11:31, etc etc.

Hebrews 12- The author again exhorts them against sin, and tells them that trials may come as a result of God's discipline(Hebrews12:7).

Hebrews 13- Again the author explains how Christ's sacrifice foreshadowed the former sacrifice(Hebrews11-12), he again seemingly quotes from Psalm118:6, compare to Hebrews13:6. He exhorts them to follow their leaders(Hebrews13:7,13:17). He warns them not be carried away by strange teachings(Hebrews13:9). He asks them to pray for them to keep a clear conscience, important because it helps them discern better the things of God(Hebrews13:18).

I think given the wealth of information Paul provides them with, including many passages from the Old Testament. His audience would have understood perfectly the message he was relaying to them. Especially also since it already seems they had leaders in place to further instruct them.

Let's get back on topic now shall we, you havn't answered a single one of my questions, that you asked me to make this separate thread about?

You have asked me to be more specific, fine if you want a specific question here is one.



Make this following statement, 'complementary,' with these two passages from scripture, and still show me how this means that one cannot lose their salvation? Afterall you say here that a genuine Christian, "can lose their faith." But yet you assert that, "Scripture cannot contradict itself." You have also asked someone to, "demonstrate that from other Scripture," which I have done, so could you kindly oblige me by answering the question? Then we can move onto the rest.



Mark16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Revelation21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Pick an argument, Jerome. You're all over the map. Either Heb 6:4ff explicitly teaches we can lose our salvation (you site the word's appearance in verse nine) and we don't need other passages, or it does not explicitly teach we can lose our salvation, but presumes the doctrine, which we get from other passages (e.g., Mark 16).

I'd like to get on with this eventually. Are you going to tell me what you'd like to talk about or not?

I just did Jac, you are the one who asks your readers to provide other passages of scripture that contradict your assertions, I have. So explain to me how they don't contradict your assertions?

That seems like a pretty simple question to me for a man of your intelligence, if you can't or don't want to answer it just say so.

I've even limited it down to two verses for you, I mean how much simpler do you want me to make the question?

You can't say, show me other verses that contradict me because scripture cannot contradict itself, then refuse to engage when someone shows you verses that do contradict your assertions?

You have to at least interpret those verses in a way that is, "complamentary," to your previous interpretation(s), those are your words Jac not mine? The only other option according to you is that your, "interpretation of one or both of the passages is mistaken."

This all seems like a pretty basic request to me? Which is it Jac, are you mistaken, or can you compliment your interpretation with the verses given, yes or no?

So . . . we have three verses on the table. I don't mind discussing all three, but each needs to be discussed on its own and in its own context.

So which would you like to start with? You talk about asking simple questions . . . there's usually nothing simple about proper exegesis. On the other hand, there is something very simple about you telling me which passage you would like to start with. We could have been halfway through our discussion of one of those verses by now if you would quit stalling and tell me which you would like to discuss.

Whenever you get around to figuring out which one you'd like to deal with, let me know. I'll be around all weekend. I have a rather severe case of the flu and all. High fever. It's a terrible feeling. Body aches, freezing but sweating. Very sore throat. Definitely no work for Jac this weekend. I don't have much else to do beyond tap on this keyboard (and try to think clearly and keep my eyes from crossing! )

I just did Jac, several times, you take your pick of the two, and we'll start from there.

Then I'll pick the passage in the thread title. So can we discuss Heb 6:4ff in its own context now?

Jac, what was the point in your little article if you were not interpreting Hebrews6:4-8?

Excuse me if I'm wrong but havn't you already interpreted those passages, if you think I have misinterpreted your interpretation, then by all means, tell us what you really meant.

But when you write things like this when interpreting Hebrews6:4-8;



Which clearly seems to contradict verses like, Mark16:16, John3:36, Hebrews11:6 and Revelation21:8 etc. Then I would like you to explain how these compliment your previous interpretation(s), seeing as that is what you asked for in your article!

If you want to go over Hebrews again feel free, but remember not to contradict your previous interpretation. I feel like a lot of backtracking is about to occur.



I had a feeling that the whole, "he must demonstrate that from Scripture," quote, and the whole, "Fine, I accept the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself." Set out the basis for the discussion. If you want to reinterpret Hebrews again feel free, I'm all ears.

But then I want you to tell me how your interpretation doesn't only not contradict the verses given, but also compliments them. Use other verses if you may to explain, as you have already done in your article.

And you accuse me of needing to go into politics.

Let's say I went along (which I won't) and started talking about the relationship between all those verses and Heb 6:4-8. The problem, of course, is that each of those passages will require interpretation, and since I don't think any of them teach you can lose your salvation, that can become quite a slog. Further, it's completely unnecessary, for let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right and those passages DO teach that you can lose your salvation. Clearly, then, one of three things must be the case with regard to Heb. 6:4ff - 1) The passage is not addressing the doctrine at all, 2) the passage is teaching a related doctrine that presupposes that you can lose your salvation, or 3)the passage actively teaches the same doctrine.

If 1), then there's no reason to discuss the passage at all. We can move on to other verses. But you don't believe that. So if either 2) or 3), then my interpretation is wrong. But if my interpretation is wrong--and note this very carefully--then you need to show why it is wrong within the text itself. It may be true that it must be wrong, since it contradicts other Scriptures. Fine. But now you have to go on and show where it is wrong, which requires and examination of the passage.

So far, pretty much all you've given me is a litany of verses that you assert teach that you can lose your salvation, an assertion I disagree with, that has nothing to do with the actual text of Heb 6:4ff.

So . . . AGAIN: would you like to discuss Heb 6:4ff or some other passage? It's a rather simple question. All you have to do is say, "Heb 6:4ff." Or, alternatively, you can say, "No, I think Mark 16:16 is the one we really need to be talking about" (or whatever verse you choose.

You're turn.

Jac I seriously cannot believe you don't get the connotations of your own interpretation.

You say, true Chrisitans can lose their faith, but yet this does not mean they lose their salvation. The passages that I provided show that without faith there is no salvation.

So, which is it, can they temporarily lose their salvation, in which case you don't believe osas, and believe more along the lines of what the Catholic Church teaches, from your own words! Or do you believe that someone can be saved without faith?

If someone loses their faith, and one cannot be saved without faith, then surely for that moment(when the person has lost their faith), they have also lost their salvation?

I can't believe you cannot understand so basic a point. The only way your argument holds is if you are correct about THOSE OTHER PASSAGES. So, I've asked you umpteen times which you would rather discuss: Heb 6:4ff or those other passages.

Since I think He 6:4ff actually teaches eternal security, I can use that to prove your interpretation wrong on all of those other passages. See how easy that is? You'll disagree, because you think I've misunderstood Heb 6:4ff.

Now . . . I've made my case as clearly as possible. I'm leaving the door wide open for your or anyone else who wants to discuss Heb 6:4ff or any other passage they think contradicts OSAS. When you decide you want to do that, let me know. Pick you passage, and then let's talk about it. Until then, I can't be any clearer than I have.

Choice is your, buddy. If you want to persist in your circularity, you can have the last word, and I'm content letting the thread go.

You also think the passages teach you can be saved without faith, that is a new one to me, a protestant claiming you can keep your salvation without faith. Who'd a thunk it.

Jac the problem I am calling you out on is not to prove my assertion wrong, but to prove your assertion right. You have been asked umpteen times to compliment this opinion with the verses I have provided, and you have been unable to do so.

If it is so easy then do it buddy, don't pretend to get offended and storm out of a debate because you don't like the questions. At least have the decency to answer the challenges you provide in your own article.

Hurry up please, I wanna start my popcorn.

Coming from the guy who has openly admitted he doesn't bother researching opposing positions, I'm hardly surprised. I could give you a fairly long list of such exegetes if you like.

(In another thread, of course, on the topic of the history of the Free Grace view of salvation. I've not had a chance to talking about the Morrow Controversy in quite some time)


And I've told you umpteen times I'm willing to answer any objections you have about whichever verses you want. My only stipulation is that you pick a passage. We discuss one at a time, in its own context. If you can't show my exegesis of any given passage is wrong within the text itself, then your objections are rather weak. Worse, if you can't show why my exegesis is wrong within the passage itself, then you actually are implicitly conceding that your interpretation of all those other passages is wrong. After all:

1. Hebrews 6:4ff teaches eternal security
2. The Bible cannot contradict itself
3. Therefore, any passage that teaches conditional security contradicts eternal security.

You can change "Hebrews 6:4ff" for any passage you'd like to talk about. I've been asking you all day to pick one. I'm not surprised that you won't (hint: that's an open display of reverse psychology, precisely what you just did to me. I don't that that's true). I guess you're terrified I'll prove your faith wrong (hint: that's assuming motives, precisely what you just did to me. I don't think that's true).

Last chance, Jerome. I should have stuck to my guns and ignored this, but you are a rather likable fellow. And it turns out my fever is much higher than I thought (103, now). I'm starting to get rather concerned I'll end up in the ER tonight. If you would pray for me, I would be much obliged. As it stands, I really have nothing better to do. But mark my words . . . I've made my case for the methodology clearly enough. You can pick a passage and we can continue; you can press your argument and ignore my stipulation and I'll just ignore this thread from here on out until somebody decides they actually want to talk about any given passage; you can drop this thread and start another one on the proper methodology for interpreting seemingly contradictory passages. You have plenty of options. Doesn't matter in the least which you choose to me.

Actually, I do have some assignments in my counseling class. I could go ahead and do those with the rest of the night. That would probably prove far more productive that this, given the nature of the exchange thus far . . . hmm . . .

Jac I see you are being deliberitely obtuse, not to my surprise ofcourse because everyone knows your form on here.

It's simple really you interpret those passages to mean that true Christians can lose their faith but not their salvation. Those are your own words, I've quoted them for you.

Square that with Mark16:16;

You say that a true christian can lose his/her faith and yet remained saved, reconcile that with Mark16:16?

Mark16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

(Emphasis added)

I research very much opposing positions, the last biblical commentary I read was Matthew Henry's. I see so many holes in his arguments though that I'm not too likely to read up on the intricacies of what he believes. Although he does have some insightful things to say about the conscience, and agrees on the perpetual virginity of Mary etc.

I seriously cannot do that with the Catholic Church, I have scrutinized it's doctrines as much as I can and I cannot find fault with any them, thus why I am Catholic. I have read a whole host of other things and opinions about other religions though. The problem is, when you scrtinize them there is always glaring faults with their theology imo, it's also very obvious that quite a few of them, and your included in that bunch, engage in intellectual dishonesty.

They'd rather be

Than;



imo

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not much of a Henry fan myself. His was the first set of commentaries I got probably fifteen years ago. I read them and decided it was a bunch of bullocks. But then again I'm neither a Presbyterian nor an amillennialist, so that's hardly surprising.

Anyway, so just to clarify, you want to discuss Mark 16:16, yes?