Question #1 [Q1]: Where did you exegete the idea that, “Hebrews, was written to, Jews that PROFESSED Christ…”??? Explain this in Heb. 6.4-6 without being eisegetical [consider PP 2 & 3]. It seems that you’re going to have a hard time “apply[ing] the same conditions, to those spoke[n] in Hebrews,” let alone upholding the apostolic warnings in scripture as meaningful if the elect can’t fall away.

Also, you said, “This is the SAME WARNING the writer of Hebrews is giving, if they leave, they never were of us, if they stay, they are of us.” Hebrew says THAT? Really??? A warning consists of: (1) subjects or audience, (2) the sin that leads to (3) the exhortation or warning which, if not followed, leads to (4) the consequences of that sin. All these four criteria can be found in Hebrews.

Question #2: Carefully tell us: Where in 1 John 2.19 do you see the imperative (“command”) not to fall away, if you think they are dealing with the “SAME WARNING”? [reconcile this with PP1]. After all, in a previous post, you said, that “The writer is trying to keem them from committing that sin.” What sin? You replied: “…were allowing themselves to drift by New Testament truth, were leaning back towards the First Testament, and were in danger of **RETURNING TO THE TEMPLE SACRIFICES**, an act that would constitute the sin known as apostasy, from which there would be no recovery.” But how could they, when the temple was already destroyed? (It seems that you inadvertently put the cart before the horse.)

Question #3: But how could they, when the temple was destroyed by this time? How can this be John’s concern also? Especially when John is writing in a time (late 80s, early 90s, so Fee & Stuart 2002: 411; Yarbrough 2002: 177; Carson & Morris suggest 80-85 A.D., 1992: 451 ) when the temple—the epicenter communal institution, and religious identity, for the Jews, in which sacrifices and ablutions were ceremonially carried out—was already destroyed (70 A.D.)???

Question #4: Explain the logic of the author’s usage of the a fortiori style of argument (“how much more severe,” punishmen) to redeemed believers and the author himself (10.25-29), IF (assuming you’re still following Clarke) the audience of Hebrews were only sanctified, not through the means of Christ’s blood (cf. 10.19; esp. 13.12), but only in an external-non effective sense? [refer to PP 4 above].

I expect your full cooperation, and not to shrink back since I honored your requests.

Johnny, what is your issue!? You insinuate I didn’t stand corrected, when in fact I granted your point (2 Xs). Any denial of this, again, I’ll consider outright lies. And I think you are keen enough to know when I labor a point to drive it home.

[PP1] Speaking of John’s letter, you said “YOU can apply the same conditions, to those spoke of in Hebrews, as well.” Of course(!) I know I can, and you’re very well entitled to that too! But I’ll pass. I won’t deprive you of the pleasure, but if you proceed as such, you do so independently, autonomously, and apart from scripture itself (I thought you said “you *once* believed this” approach). Scripture itself does not execute this cross-referencing. In fact, the dating of the two letters creates a disjunctive chasm to your detriment, which follows that there is no necessary correlate-dependency on these two books. That is, they were written in separate intervallic time and situation, that to assume tight correspondence, is to fly in the face of the historical situation in which these two books are purported to have been originated. (Again, I refer you to Drs. Fanning and Mathison above to reconcile their comments and your Q’uranic-inception view of the Bible.) If you wittingly insist on cross-referencing these two, you must do so but without rationalistic autonomy—the “text” itself must do the cross-referencing or draw textual parallels, not “YOU,” as you suggest, to say nothing that you don’t even argue for this. An autonomous initiating apart from authoritative text-dictation is a departure from the foundation of sola scriptura. Employment of cut & paste method is simply a fallacious hermeneutic since the Bible did not originate like the Quran.

[PP2] Secondly, neither do I believe that everyone that goes to church is saved. But this is true of any Christian with a limited scope of knowledge. Especially when the category is one of “phenomenology” rather than what is necessarily ontological (which, in this case, only God knows for certain). That is why John’s use of the phrase “that it might be MANIFEST” (2.19) refers to what is observable in his case. That is how “we” know that they were never redeemed in the first place. Hence, no spiritual apostasy occurs because they were, and always have been, not saved. They just “left” (Gk. exerchomai, meaning “go out,” “go away,” not parapipto, “commit apostasy” [Heb. 6.6, BDAG]). Hebrews, doesn’t deal with what is necessarily “observable.” The redemptive “designators” (if I can call it that) attribute to Christians are speech-acts from Christ himself (Heb. 2.11; cf. 3.1) and God himself who omnisciently designates them in accordance (contra your allegation, “self-profession”). Certain actions do not need to be actualized in order for an omniscient being to know if they are saved. (Please refer to my comments on 1 Jn. 2.19 above as they haven’t been dealt with point by point. I won’t repeat them here.)

[PP 3]Thirdly, you made the startling claim, “Hebrews, was written to, Jews, that *professed* Christ…” and “had made a profession of Messiah as High priest…” Well, in order for this claim to garner warrant, you need the verbs in the Gk. to be in the middle voice (def: the subject acts “on” himself or herself without external or outside agency. In such cases the reflexive pronoun is employed as the direct object). Some examples: “he hanged himself” (Matt. 27.5), “he will gird himself” (Lk. 12.37), “he deceives himself” (Gal. 6.3), “adorn themselves” (1 Pet. 3.5), and so on. However, the verbs in Heb. 6.4 are not reflexive nor are they in the middle voice. Rather, they are participial phrases in the passive voice. The difference? In the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action. In Gk. the agency can be either an ultimate agency, or an impersonal means. The ultimate agent indicates the person who is ultimately responsible for the action. In the participial cases of Heb. 6.4, the agent responsible for actively acting upon the subject is God himself (not “self-profession” as you toss out), while the recipients are passive en toto. Grammatically, this will be the goaded hurtle you’ll have to either overcome, or submit if you are not wanting to succumb to “theological bent interpretation,” as you put it.

[PP 4]You cite Clarke stating: “…so by refusing to apply that one remedy they must necessarily perish.” A couple of comments are in order: First, the readers (and believers, for that matter) do not “apply” the redemptive acts of grace on themselves. Second, the grammatical evidence [PP 3 above] strongly suggests that the readers were completely passive in their application of the redemptive works. God omnipotently converted them and treats them accordingly. Third, it is BECAUSE of the atoning sacrifice of Christ is applied to the readers (contra Clarke) why Hebrews repeatedly announces judgment in a “how much severer” construction. As in Heb. 9.13-14: if the cleansing rites of the OT accomplished the cleansing of the body, “how much more” does the blood of Christ cleanses the defiled conscious. The impact of the a fortiori (lesser to greater) exhortation in 10.29: “for if we deliberately persist in sin…how much severe punishment do you suppose will he deserve?” suggest the logic that, a repudiation of the already applied-inward work of Christ in the new covenant (v. 29), will involve more terrible retribution (“how much more” v. 29a) than the death penalty attached to violation of the foreshadowing-“outward” cleansing under the OT (v. 28; see also the helpful comment of Schreiner above on this).

Some of your prose is hard to follow and very rough. I suggest you write attentively in a well paced (not hasty) manner and check your prose before you write. I’ll do my best to get-at what you’re saying.

By the alleged “conditionals” it seems (I suspect) you are arguing an evidence to inference relationship (EI), that the protasis is a proposed situation that results from a prior condition (the apodosis), especially when the protasis is a general or customary state. In other words, the writer is assuring the readers that they will hold on to their courage and hold firmly to their confidence and thereby be his house and partake of Christ. True members of the new covenant will prove it by maintaining their hold on faith. EI is falsified when Christ himself omnisciently calls them brethren (2.11; don’t ignore my previous post). [I will comment more on this empirical-evidenced based form of perspective in a later post, and say a word of caution if you continue to fail to interact what I have already written, and responded to heretofore].

Referring to Heb. 6.4-6 you say, “If this was a warning to believers, it would read, “for US who”, “if WE fall away”, “renew US again”, “since WE crucify”, and “for OURSELEVES the”. Ah, but ironically, scripture DOES in fact seem to fulfill your own imposed idiosyncratic and autonomous standard. I already have (sighhhh!) covered this: “This is even more unlikely especially when apostasy is realizable for regenerate believers because the author applies the exhortation to HIMSELF by the first-person plural pronoun “we” (Heb. 10.26a; cf. e.g., 2.1-4; 3.14; 4.1, 14-16; 6.1; 10.19; 12.1-3, 25-29). “Further, it can be inferred from this that the author surely did not see the readers as pretentious fakes or he would have consistently addressed them at a greater distance.” Do not skirt the meaning of the terms themselves. Engage them!

Secondly, even though you engage in counseling what the author should have wrote , you did not comment on what the terms mean in Heb. 6.4-6. If they don’t refer to redeemed folk, then what do they mean? I cannot find any indication whatsoever that the writer is not warning “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift” (6.4 NIV), and some. In fact, in the Greek the list of participles is framed by “it is impossible…to renew them to repentance [Gk “metanoian” repentance, turning about, conversion, BDAG = most authoritative Gk. Lexicon] for emphasis. It could not be more obvious that it is the genuine believers, not the unbelievers in the congregation, who are being warned of the danger of apostasy. Therefore, you are obligated to stop putting your theological motorcar in reverse and explain vv. 4-6 before v. 9 (I’ll comment on v. 9 once you proceed properly).

We know that 6.4-6 is speaking of the redeemed because what is said in Hebrews 6.4-6 is articulated with renewed perspicuity and directness in Hebrews 10.26-31. What is said of “those” in Heb. 6.4: “For in the case of those who have once been ENLIGHTENED…” is said later of the redeemed in Heb. 10.32: “But remember the former days when, after being ENLIGHTENED, YOU endured a great conflict of sufferings.” The upshot to this is that the same exact Gk. word (“photizo”) is used! Therefore, “The writer” does very well “place himself with the ones he is directing this to,” and is contradicted by you. See esp. 10.25-29 (“we”).

Schreiner’s comments are helpful: “In order to understand the warning passages in the letter one must study all of the warning texts together, for they mutually interpret one another.” In other words, each warning internally sheds light on the other, and they all must be taken into account to obtained a coherent and complete picture.

The same applies to Hebrews, it is a letter to compare the old with the new, the superiority of the new over the old. Chapter 1 is about Jesus, being superior, to the prophets and how He is God himself. The letter was written to Jewish believers and those, as in 1 John, that don’t walk in the light. Then 2:1-4 “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?”

“how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation”. The writer and the readers are subject to the same standards. How can we escape God’s judgment, if we don’t receive the salvation that He has established. Now the writer of this letter, makes “holy brethren” conditional, in vs. 6 “but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are IF WE hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.” WE are a holy brother, if you hold or not neglect the hope, the salvation that Christ brought to us. Verses 7-13 are a warning, of what happened to their ancestors in the wilderness. Verse 14-15 “For WE HAVE become partakers of Christ IF WE hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

You are a partaker if you hold on to the end, or you can be like the ancestors. Who all heard the same message, but some hardened their hearts, and could not enter in to the rest. Because of “unbelief” vs. 19.

4:2 “For indeed the gospel was preached to US as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.” A comparison, between those that hear and believe (us) and those that don’t. Verses 11, the fall is according to the example given, of the ancestors, who heard the Word but did not believe. The warning is to all who hear the word or gospel. Those that believe will partake of Christ. Verses 14-16, starts the comparison of High Priests. Our High Priests, Jesus, to the old order of Priests. Chapter 5 continues this, vs. 9 “He became the author of eternal salvation to ALL WHO OBEY Him” Obeying would make you a partaker of Christ. Vs 11, the writer wants to tell them more about this, but “since YOU have become dull of hearing.” The writer is not placing himself with the ones he is directing this to. What’s interesting about the, dull of hearing, is more them likely a reference to Isaiah 6:10, which are mentioned in Matthew 13:15 and Acts 28:27, you can read the context.

Verses 12-14, “For though by this time YOU ought to be teachers, YOU need someone to teach YOU again the first principles of the oracles of God; and YOU have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for HE is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

He can’t go any further with them. 6:1, states with “Therefore” referring back to the previous statement., Verses 2-3, he says what the “elementary principles of Christ” are.

Now vss 4-6, the writer, separates himself for those he is writing to.

“For it is impossible for THOSE who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if THEY fall away, to renew THEM again to repentance, since THEY crucify again for THEMSELVES the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”

If this was a warning to believers, it would read, “for US who”, “if WE fall away”, “renew US again”, “since WE crucify”, and “for OURSELEVES the”. Verses 7-8 is like a parable, referring to the Word of God, it reminds me of the parable of the Sower. The same chapter that Jesus refers to Isaiah 6:10.

Verse 9, “But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.”
He starts the next vs with “But”, then the writer, says, “Beloved” now referring to the redeemed.

So, the exegete of 6:4-6, is the writer is not referring to people that are redeemed, but to people that have heard, but are dull of hearing, they are not getting it.

I presume you’re expecting a reply. In that case, hold off venturing into Hebrews, and hopefully my response (tmrw) can set a common-ground trajectory. In the meantime look carefully over my recent exposition on Hebrews and the extended one posted days ago. Thanks.

WA, why would you do that? How am I to know when you are throwing in something, just stir the pot or take it seriously. The intention here is to edify one another. Now I understand where you are coming from and understand, how you get misinterpret Scripture. You use Scripture to make a point, your point, even if you know it doesn’t make your point, or it’s proven, not to make the point you’re trying to make. Instead of admitting you were wrong, if you previously knew it didn’t prove your point.

You ask us to exegete, when you eisegete. To draw out the meaning of a certain Scripture. You need to read it in the context, what the writer had in mind, when writing the letter. For example 1 John 2:19, we need to go back to the beginning of the letter to get the context of the letter. 1 John 1:5-7 to get who the message is to and who the us in 2:19 is speaking of, here’s 1:5-7

“This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If WE say that WE have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, WE lie and do not practice the truth. But if WE walk in the light as He is in the light, WE have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses US from all sin.”

Notice the conditions of Salvation, this is to establish who is or is not redeemed, if you are He cleanses US from all sin. So we know that the US and WE, used by John, refers to himself and the readers of this letter. John adds himself in the mix, if he walks in darkness, he lies and does not walk in the truth. The same conditions apply to John, as it does all of us. So if the person is walking in darkness, but is playing the role of Christian, they lie. Are those people redeemed? No!

You can apply the same conditions, to those spoke of in Hebrews, as well, but we’ll get to that. The link, between chapter 1 and 2, that the same, us and we, still applies. 1 John 2:5 “But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this WE know that WE are in Him.” Not that we should need a link, because the letter was written as a whole, not in parts. The “US” in 2:19, is the same as the “WE” of vs. 5. The meaning is pretty simple, unless you use a theological bent to interpret, which wouldn’t be exegesis (draw out of), it would be, eisegesis (read into).

I know I said I’d go to Hebrews, but with your statement on stirring the pot, changes things. We need to establish some common ground before we can move on. I believe, we view the process of salvation differently. It is simple, I don’t believe, everyone one that hears the message, or that go to Church, is saved. Do you believe they are?

A couple of other things, I’ve never read the WCF, so if you see it’s, “ideology rearing its ugly head”. It’s not from the WCF, it’s from my study of Scripture. Remember, I menetioned, that I once believed as you do, it’s only been a few months, that I come to the understanding, election and predestination, in the reformed tradition. The only reason, I used Clarke, is because he come from the same view point that you hold.

You have displayed excellent Christian character in dealing with this thread! Wow…kinda crazy, huh?

I appreciate the above links…Spurgeon is one of my favorite people…can’t wait to meet him in heaven!

Hope you will stay around and join in on other threads…God’s grace…

I have benefitted from this interaction in that I’ve searched the scriptures and seen that there are many instances that I use the Reformed lens to interpret and am more aware that this is a natural tendency. I have had to question that, however, the chance that I’ll depart from that is slim to none since I believe that God’s sovereignty is displayed most accurately through that lens. I believe that in His revealed Word, is meant to accurately display the relationship between Him and man in general and between Him and His elect.

I’ve found these links below helpful to my Reformed view: I trust what these men have said and couldn’t think of more sound defense of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. These links have Spurgeon arguing that the Heb. 6 passage is describing true believers who *cannot* fall away, Boettner and Hendryx ague that these Heb. 6 people are not true saints if they fall away. The doctrine is supported either way which puts the warnings in a light that diverges from WA’s proposal.

http://www.the-highway.com/perseverance_Boettner.html

http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols1-3/chs75.pdf

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/biblical_reflections_on_hebrew.php

Thanks for the time

Brad B