The external and internal call.

[Arial]

The fact is I never said "You cannot say that Heb 6:4-6 means that Christians can lose their salvation and also believe that they cannot, by saying the terms "enlightened", "tasted of the heavenly gift", "shared in the Holy Spirit", "the goodness of the word". are only ever applied to Christians and are never used in any other way," so the premise is non sequitur.

You say the above. Immediately after that you say:

None of us Calls think anyone can lose their salvation.
I don't think enlightened, etc., etc. can be applied to Christians and never used in any other way, so that too is non sequitur (or a straw man if it was intended to reflect something I posted.

Followed by:

Whether or not the CAN be used in any other way, the fact of scripture is that they are not used in any way applicable to the unsaved. All anyone has to do to prove otherwise is post scripture attributing those qualities to the unsaved.

Given that, and what you have said previously:

All of the attributes in the surrounding text apply to saved people. If they were saved then the falling away cannot be the loss of salvation, but it could be the loss of maturity and/or productivity in Christ. If they were not saved at all, ever, then none of the attributes in the surrounding text apply and we're left with Paul talking about people with various attributes of salvation and then in the middle of it he makes a single comment about unsaved people in a letter to and about the saints. The fact remains the people bout whom the author is writing had once been enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift and made partakers of the Holy Spirit.

Do you not see how you seem to contradict yourself, un-contradict yourself, and the contradict yourself again? How instead of attempting to resolve anything, or pay one bit of attention to what others have said to resolve the issue, yo.u come up with a side issue of contradiction. You have the issue being that the words used in the scriptures all apply to the saved, so it is talking about the saved to the saved. If that is the case, then what you have is saved people falling away from salvation, as it says they cannot be restored.

Since you do not believe that a saved person can lose their salvation, the question becomes what did they fall away from. The only solution you have presented is that they fell away from being productive Christians, and I can only surmise from your focus on the descriptive words used being only applicable to Christians, it is the only thing that will fit into this focus. Even though you have been presented with two other options, and both of them presented by two different people And the option you give is not plausible because the writer clearly states that those who he describes cannot be brought to repentance again. Salvation lost.

So either the use of those words that only apply to Christians is a hypothetical----if a believer does this, this is what would happen---and as a strong warning to persevere in the face of troubles. Or he is speaking of those who have participated in these things, borne witness of them, experienced them, heard them, by close association with believers, have aligned themselves with the community in agreement with belief, professed belief etc. but who had never actually been regenerated, and eventually spurned it with contempt. As well, it has been pointed out the specific meanings of those things that the author of Hebrews may have meant, that were common terms for specific things, in alternate interpretations of these passages exists.

 

[Josheb]

You only addressed that one statement in the post....

I explained why. I am waiting on the first element to be addressed. I am waiting on the first phrase to be addressed relevant to my inquiry and I am waiting on my response to the first sentence to be addressed relevant to my commentary thereof. I am doing so because the matter posted in Post 47 because 1) the discussion as inappropriately turned personal and efforts on my part to keep the posts about the posts have proved ineffective, and 2) most of Post 47's content has already been addressed in prior posts and I'm not interested in unnecessary repetition. I tried something different. If it's not valued, then ignore it. I understand silence well.

The thread has turned to unnecessary bickering and not discussing the external and internal call. Count me out of that conversation. I'll reconsider when I read op-relevant content.

 

[Josheb]

You have the issue being that the words used in the scriptures all apply to the saved, so it is talking about the saved to the saved. If that is the case, then what you have is saved people falling away from salvation, as it says they cannot be restored.

No, I do not.

Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters and some of the perceived conflicts will sort themselves out. I've never said the passage was about the unsaved and nothing in the Hebrews 6 texts states that, either. Both sides are based on inference and there's a lack of parity in this thread regarding how those inferences were made. I've explained how scripture applies the Hebrews 6 attributes to the saints and not unbelievers. I'm not interested in repeating it.


All anyone has to do to prove otherwise is post scripture attributing [the Hebrews 6] qualities to the unsaved.



I'm waiting. Shouldn't have to ask more than once and I've asked several times. If such scripture exists then I'll read them in the next post, and I don't care who posts them. I'll reply accordingly. If no such scripture exists, then it is appropriate to acknowledge that fact. Other op-relevant content furthering the discussion will also be replied to accordingly. Absent either, I've moved on until such content exists.

 

[Arial]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread; but, from what I have read, there seems to be some confusion about that to which Hebrews 6 refers.

Heb. 6:1-9 (Webster)
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
4 For it is impossible for those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh often upon it, and bringeth forth herbs fit for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh to cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

A) The intended audience, and subject matter, of the book of Hebrews is, unsurprisingly, Hebrews (i.e. Jews; and, as the book makes clear, Jews who had heard the gospel, many (but not all) of whom were probably believers).

B) With the above point in mind, let's go through the passage.

Verse 1: The doctrine of Christ is an unfortunate translation here (although not exactly wrong), since it obscures the fact that this is to and about Jews. The reference is to the principles of the doctrine of the Messiah (i.e. the OT teachings about him).

The exhortation to go on to perfection, from the foundational OC teachings about repentance from dead works and faith towards God, is about going on to faith in the Messiah who has now come.

Verse 2: This verse continues in same vein, describing OT doctrines, from which they need to move on to faith in the Messiah.

Verse 3: This verse shows that there is a potential hindrance to going on from OT doctrines to faith in the Messiah; and the following verses describe a pre-salvation condition, from which, if one returns to Judaism, there is no repentance possible.

Verses 4, 5: This is a list of things that an unsaved Jew could have experienced, including knowledge about the Messiah and the powers of the NC, even including a corporate partaking in the Holy Spirit (many unbelievers have experienced this kind of external experience of the Holy Spirit's presence as well) and experience of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (e.g. hearing a prophecy, or being physically healed).

It's important to note that not one of the things in this list is a indicator that the person has been saved (there is nothing about faith in the Messiah, or about being born again, or about justification or forgiveness, or adoption, etc.).

Verse 6: What are these people, potentially, falling away from? They would be falling away from knowledge about the Messiah and personal experience of the powers of the NC. If they then revert to Judaism, they are rejecting the Messiah, the fulfilment of the OC sacrifices, and the only way of salvation.

Verses 7,8: Contrasts between those who are blessed and those who are cursed (a very well known theme in the OC).

Verse 9: The author is convinced of better things than the described reprobation, in his intended audience - and things that accompany salvation. In other words, he confirms here that the people described in preceding verses did not have salvation at all.

I agree with this and the Jewish audience is crucial to understanding the subject matter of the book, and why the priesthood is so carefully examined, not just Heb 6:4-6. Because of persecution and the shame attached to the the author's audience, and other things that were going on at the time, they were being tempted to depart from the faith and return to the old ways. That is why the priesthood is explained, the meat beyond the milk, in such great detail. There is no returning to the shadows, to the old system of worship. To do so, and then try and return to the new covenant of grace through the person and work of Christ, would be tantamount to crucifying Him again, and to return to the sacrificial system would be holding Christ's blood in contempt.

 

[Josheb]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread; but, from what I have read, there seems to be some confusion about that to which Hebrews 6 refers.

The op is about "the internal and external call," but a lengthy digression was prompted by questioning the efficacy of using Hebrews 6:4 to support the opening posts' commentary on the external call.

A) The intended audience, and subject matter, of the book of Hebrews is, unsurprisingly, Hebrews (i.e. Jews; and, as the book makes clear, Jews who had heard the gospel, many (but not all) of whom were probably believers).

Aside from probability, what is it in the text of the epistle that leads you to conclude the intended audience included non-Christian Jews?

B) With the above point in mind, let's go through the passage.

No, let's first establish the validity and veracity of the premise before we use it to parse the passage.

Verse 1: The doctrine of Christ is an unfortunate translation here (although not exactly wrong), since it obscures the fact that this is to and about Jews.

Incorrect. The Jews to whom it was written were Jews who subscribed to aspects cited in the first four chapters. Jewish converts to Christ are called Christians, not Jews. There are no Jews in Christ.

The reference is to the principles of the doctrine of the Messiah (i.e. the OT teachings about him).

Incorrect.

Hebrews 6:1 Greek transliteration
Therefore having left the beginning of the Christ teaching to maturity we should go on not again a foundation laying of repentance from dead works and faith in God.

It's not "teaching about the Messiah; It is teaching of the Messiah. Transliterally, it is the "Messiah teaching." What Christ teaching? The Christ teaching the author of Hebrews has just been expounding upon for the previous five chapters. Follow the "therefores"!!! The part Post 60 gets correct is this is filled with OT references. There's not a chapter in the preceding text that does not contain quotes and references from the OT (the NAS is particularly helpful in identifying them and their OT origin). If the therefores, fors, and buts are followed backwards what's being said in chapter 6's therefore goes all the way back to a punctuating point made in Hebrews 3:12, which is simply a comment punctuating the narrative that began at the opening verse.

The book of Hebrews was written late in the 50s or early 60s - long after the Jews had chased Christians out of the temple and the synagogues of the smaller cities and towns. It is self-apparent the author is firmly and heavily couched in the OT but the fact is the words "Jew," and "Jews" do not appear anywhere in the entire epistle. The simplest inference is that the letter is intended as an exposition of Tanakh for Christians. The enormity of OT content does not necessitate a Jewish-only audience, nor a predominantly Jewish audience. None of us are Jews and we all benefit greatly from the epistle because it is an exposition of OT content. Why think otherwise for the original audience? If the answer to that question is not based on something actually and specifically stated in the epistle, then it's an unsupported inference.

Jews did not think works were dead. James and the author of Hebrews are the only two NT writers that use the phrase "dead works." If that James is the James who was head of the Jerusalem council, then his use of the phrase is understandable. Although there's debate about who authored Hebrews, I'm inclined to believe Barnabas was the author because he was a Levite and the one who first took Saul, a Pharisee, to see the council in Jerusalem (and then accompanied Paul around Asia at least as far as Pamphylia on their second missionary trip). If he is the author, the Levitical status would certainly explain his prowess with Tanakh and Christological insights into the Law. Speculative? Yes.

The point is the teachings mentioned were not Jewish Old Testament teaching about Christ. The author's rendering of everything Old Testament in the entire epistle is Christologically Christian, not Jewish. Just as Jesus constantly explain Tanakh to his audience, so the author of Hebrews did the same. Neither man gave a Jewish or Judaic interpretation to their audience. Jesus taught Tanakh, not Judaism. Big difference.

 

[David1701]

I agree with this and the Jewish audience is crucial to understanding the subject matter of the book, and why the priesthood is so carefully examined, not just Heb 6:4-6. Because of persecution and the shame attached to the the author's audience, and other things that were going on at the time, they were being tempted to depart from the faith and return to the old ways. That is why the priesthood is explained, the meat beyond the milk, in such great detail. There is no returning to the shadows, to the old system of worship. To do so, and then try and return to the new covenant of grace through the person and work of Christ, would be tantamount to crucifying Him again, and to return to the sacrificial system would be holding Christ's blood in contempt.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Arial]

Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters and some of the perceived conflicts will sort themselves out. I've never said the passage was about the unsaved and nothing in the Hebrews 6 texts states that, either. Both sides are based on inference and there's a lack of parity in this thread regarding how those inferences were made. I've explained how scripture applies the Hebrews 6 attributes to the saints and not unbelievers. I'm not interested in repeating it.

As admin I can give advice and make corrections that you may like to designate as being about the poster and not the post. Even though the great majority of your post do nothing but that instead of addressing the topic. What I said was not even a personal you but a conclusion that given considering what you said. YOu simply are unable to accept disagreement or correction--- cannot ever accept that you might be wrong and someone else right, and that is a personal you. It is also a fact. And refrain from retaliating. You are not in that position.

All anyone has to do to prove otherwise is post scripture attributing [the Hebrews 6] qualities to the unsaved.

Why would someone have to prove what no one has said? It is you and you alone who are stressing those qualities as the whole basis of your so called exegesis. The only thing I have heard you say about falling away is that it is falling away from being a mature Christian who ceases to bear fruit. Which I have presented as ludicrous because of the passage itself (3 times) and yet another post you have failed to address. Three times.

I'm waiting. Shouldn't have to ask more than once and I've asked several times. If such scripture exists then I'll read them in the next post, and I don't care who posts them. I'll reply accordingly. If no such scripture exists, then it is appropriate to acknowledge that fact. Other op-relevant content furthering the discussion will also be replied to accordingly. Absent either, I've moved on until such content exists.

First you would have to demonstrate that anyone made the assertion that the Hebrews 6 qualities were attributed to the unsaved.

 

[Arial]

I explained why. I am waiting on the first element to be addressed. I am waiting on the first phrase to be addressed relevant to my inquiry and I am waiting on my response to the first sentence to be addressed relevant to my commentary thereof.

How many times do you want it to be addressed?
Post #61

 

[Arial]

Other op-relevant content furthering the discussion will also be replied to accordingly. Absent either, I've moved on until such content exists.

Heb 6 is brought up in the OP and discussion on it has continued throughout, a great many of them yours. You neither own nor control the OP's of others. Start your own and you can control it.

 

[Carbon]

I believe, concerning this calling there is a distinction between an external and an inward call.
They both come from God, by means of the gospel, they pertain to the same matters and are presented equally to all.
They both are addressed to humans who by nature are the same. However, I believe they both are distinguishable.

The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith. Consider, Hebrews 6:4, For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,...........

I think its safe to say the ones Hebrews 6:4 is teaching about are not elect.

How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29.

The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; Matt 13:20.

 

[Josheb]

Which I have presented as ludicrous because of the passage itself (3 times) and yet another post you have failed to address. Three times.

That is not true. Everything posted has been addressed. Reread the thread.

First you would have to demonstrate that anyone made the assertion that the Hebrews 6 qualities were attributed to the unsaved.

In Post #6 @Carbon disagrees with the premise the Hebrews 6:4 might be saved and states, "I disagree these people in Hebrews 6:4 were ever saved." In Post 25 you state, "n What they fell away from was their professed belief (a great danger of this deciding to believe theory). What they fell away from was association with those things and gatherings and people that they had been associated with and experienced. And it is not as simple as walking away from a particular church or having once attended regularly and no longer do--that can be done even with genuine faith. The scriptures say they treat His blood, His sacrifice, with contempt, after having once been involved in the faith. They weren't saved and if they do that they never will be. They won't repent." Post 41 asks, "But how could it mean they were saved and not matured and productive in Christ if it also says they cannot be brought back to repentance? In Post 60 @David1701 stated, "Verses 4, 5: This is a list of things that an unsaved Jew could have experienced." Post 70 states, "I think its safe to say the ones Hebrews 6:4 is teaching about ar not elect."

First you would have to demonstrate that anyone made the assertion that the Hebrews 6 qualities were attributed to the unsaved.

Done.


I would like to see the case made for the attributes listed in Hebrews 5:12-6:9 applying to the unsaved. So I in

• They ought to be teachers by the time the letter was written.
• They need teaching in the elementary principles.
• They need milk.
• Needing milk, they are unaccustomed to the word of righteousness.
• They are infants.
• They need solid food, but that is for the mature.
• Mature people, because of practice, discern good from evil.
• They need to leave the elementary teachings about Christ and move on to maturity.
• They need to leave the elementary teachings about Christ, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith toward God. (The word again" implying repentance and faith had previously existed) They'd previously repented and had faith toward God.
• They need to leave the elementary teachings about Christ, not laying again the foundation..... of instruction about washings and laying on of hands. (The word "again" again implying that aspect of the foundation had previously existed) They had a foundation of washing and laying on of hands.
• They need to leave the elementary teachings about Christ, not laying again the foundation.... of resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. (The word "again" implying that aspect of the foundation had previously existed) They had learned about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
• It would be done if God permitted.
• Verse 4 sets up a hypothetical, but the implication is they have been once enlightened. They have tasted the heavenly gift.
• They have been partakers of the Holy Spirit.
• They have tasted the good word of God.
• They have tasted the powers of the age to come.
• They have fallen away, and it is impossible to renew them again to repentance because they again crucify themselves and shame Christ. (The two "again" again implying the condition had previously existed.) They'd repented and been crucified with Christ.
• Their soil had been tilled and they'd soaked up the rain and need to grow vegetation useful to those for whose sake they'd been tilled but weren't doing so. As a consequence of that lack, they'd not received God's blessing. If the soil grows thistles, then it is worthless and will be cursed (the "if" implying that had not yet happened).
• They are beloved and the author s convinced better things await them that accompany their salvation, despite the author having spoken as he has.

There is quite a lot contained in that passage. I previously sampled items from the list and provided other scripture from other epistles apply those attributes to the saved. They can and do apply to the saved. Maybe they can apply to the unsaved, or some third category of people, but case has yet to be made.

I am waiting.

How many times do you want it to be addressed?
Post #61

Post 61 does NOT address the attributes listed in the Hebrews 5:12-6:9 text. In Posts 5, 9, 11, 13, 19, 28 and 53 I posted scripture showing how other texts in God's word applies some of those attributes to the saved and I did it without ever mentioning any other poster. I have yet to receive parity. Instead, a lot of claims are made about the Hebrews 6 text but they lack scripture. Look and see. Those posts say things like, " "powerfully illuminating it with wonderous light revealing mysteries to the man," enlightenment refers "to persons who have been a part of the visible church community in close proximity to these things," and "They had the knowledge of God disclosed in the gospel message and publicly confessed in baptism. In early Christian writings conversion and baptism were sometimes termed enlightenment." but no scripture. Post 15 asserts a standard of "sola scriptura, scripture interprets scripture," I have yet to see that applied to the Hebrews text.

I am waiting.

 

[Arial]

In Post #6 @Carbon disagrees with the premise the Hebrews 6:4 might be saved and states, "I disagree these people in Hebrews 6:4 were ever saved." In Post 25 you state, "n What they fell away from was their professed belief (a great danger of this deciding to believe theory). What they fell away from was association with those things and gatherings and people that they had been associated with and experienced. And it is not as simple as walking away from a particular church or having once attended regularly and no longer do--that can be done even with genuine faith. The scriptures say they treat His blood, His sacrifice, with contempt, after having once been involved in the faith. They weren't saved and if they do that they never will be. They won't repent." Post 41 asks, "But how could it mean they were saved and not matured and productive in Christ if it also says they cannot be brought back to repentance? In Post 60 @David1701 stated, "Verses 4, 5: This is a list of things that an unsaved Jew could have experienced." Post 70 states, "I think its safe to say the ones Hebrews 6:4 is teaching about ar not elect."

You simply do not understand what is being said, and perhaps slip right past the word attributed to. Previous to the conclusions you quote, the authors possible use of the words given. "enlightened" etc. were given, that in that use, would not mean salvation in those being spoken of, (the ones who fall away) but their close proximity to it, and their associating themselves with it, even partaking in baptism, and the Lord's Supper. Witnessing the power of the Holy Spirit in gifts and signs and wonders, having full knowledge and witness, professing to believe. So, though "enlightenment" etc. apply to believers, those who fall away are not believers. They were being attributed to what those who fall away had borne witness to and participated in, not to the internal condition of those who fall away.

How many times must it be said before you comprehend what is being said by it?

The truth of the matter is that whether one can lose salvation or not is not even being discussed in those passages, so for a person to use them as proof that one can lose their salvation (as it often is) is to do so without any hermeneutics in place. I have briefly put it in its proper position in the thread @makesends started, and @David1701 did in this thread, and my response to it.

 

[Arial]

Post 61 does NOT address the attributes listed in the Hebrews 5:12-6:9 text. In Posts 5, 9, 11, 13, 19, 28 and 53 I posted scripture showing how other texts in God's word applies some of those attributes to the saved and I did it without ever mentioning any other poster. I have yet to receive parity. Instead, a lot of claims are made about the Hebrews 6 text but they lack scripture.

You are all mixed up. The post that I said you do not address as to its content was post #47 not 61. The only portion of the entire post you addressed was the first paragraph.

You cannot say that Heb 6:4-6 means that Christians can lose their salvation and also believe that they cannot, by saying the terms "enlightened", "tasted of the heavenly gift", "shared in the Holy Spirit", "the goodness of the word". are only ever applied to Christians and are never used in any other way. It is obviously talking about salvation, because it says "it is impossible to restore them to repentance." It is either a hypothetical, or the author is using those terms in a different way other than the salvation of the person who falls away. What has to be ascertained is what the writer meant, how he was using them.

To which you responded with "Did I say that? And @Carbon asked:

Why would you only answer part of what she said?

To which you responded:

Taking it one portion at a time. Why would you interrupt?

The fact is I never said "You cannot say that Heb 6:4-6 means that Christians can lose their salvation and also believe that they cannot, by saying the terms "enlightened", "tasted of the heavenly gift", "shared in the Holy Spirit", "the goodness of the word". are only ever applied to Christians and are never used in any other way," so the premise is non sequitur.

So then you claim that you are still waiting to address the rest of my post til the first has been addressed. Post #61 addressed it. Stay on track with what refers to what and there won't be all these knots.

enlightenment refers "to persons who have been a part of the visible church community in close proximity to these things," and "They had the knowledge of God disclosed in the gospel message and publicly confessed in baptism. In early Christian writings conversion and baptism were sometimes termed enlightenment." but no scripture. Post 15 asserts a standard of "sola scriptura, scripture interprets scripture," I have yet to see that applied to the Hebrews text.

You never addressed this post of mine that had those statements, countered it or asked for clarity. And they do not require scripture because they are alternate interpretations that are sometimes given and were never intended as anything more than that, and they were not presented as anything other than that. They involve things that would pertain to historical content, not biblical content, and I got that information from notes in my Reformed Study Bible ESV. I am certain they did not make it up, and they were not presenting it as fact either, but were giving common alternate interpretations---just as I was, and others have been doing.

 

[David1701]

...
Aside from probability, what is it in the text of the epistle that leads you to conclude the intended audience included non-Christian Jews?

There is a stern warning about what happens to those who, having been enlightened, etc., fall away. This is contrasted, in verse 9, with Paul being persuaded of better things concerning them, things that accompany salvation. In other words, Paul is giving the warning, just in case there are any Hebrews who have been enlightened, but who have not been saved (his persuasion about them not being infallible).

Incorrect. The Jews to whom it was written were Jews who subscribed to aspects cited in the first four chapters. Jewish converts to Christ are called Christians, not Jews. There are no Jews in Christ.

<sigh>

I’m well aware that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the church, spiritually speaking, since true believers are all one in Christ; however, this book was written to and about Hebrews (i.e. those from a Jewish background), which is what I meant. Not only that, but, subscribing to something does not mean that one necessarily has the reality of it (e.g. there are many “Christians” who are unsaved).

In any case, the terms “Jew” and “Gentile” are sometimes used of people who are saved, to emphasise their background.

Gal. 2:14-16 (Webster)
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Hebrews 6:1 Greek transliteration
Therefore having left the beginning of the Christ teaching to maturity we should go on not again a foundation laying of repentance from dead works and faith in God.

It's not "teaching about the Messiah; It is teaching of the Messiah. Transliterally, it is the "Messiah teaching." What Christ teaching? The Christ teaching the author of Hebrews has just been expounding upon for the previous five chapters.

You are wrong here. It’s an “objective genitive”; in other words, “the doctrine of which the Messiah is the object”, or, in better English, “the doctrine about the Messiah”.

Robertson’s Word Pictures

“Of the first principles of Christ (της αρχης του Χριστου). Objective genitive Χριστου (about Christ). "Leaving behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ," another way of saying again τα στοιχεια της αρχης των λογιων του θεου of 5:12.”

The book of Hebrews was written late in the 50s or early 60s - long after the Jews had chased Christians out of the temple and the synagogues of the smaller cities and towns. It is self-apparent the author is firmly and heavily couched in the OT but the fact is the words "Jew," and "Jews" do not appear anywhere in the entire epistle. The simplest inference is that the letter is intended as an exposition of Tanakh for Christians. The enormity of OT content does not necessitate a Jewish-only audience, nor a predominantly Jewish audience. None of us are Jews and we all benefit greatly from the epistle because it is an exposition of OT content. Why think otherwise for the original audience? If the answer to that question is not based on something actually and specifically stated in the epistle, then it's an unsupported inference.

The book of Hebrews is self-evidently written to and about Hebrews. Of course, Christians with a Gentile background can also learn from all of it, and we do; but that is not the issue.

Jews did not think works were dead. James and the author of Hebrews are the only two NT writers that use the phrase "dead works." If that James is the James who was head of the Jerusalem council, then his use of the phrase is understandable. Although there's debate about who authored Hebrews, I'm inclined to believe Barnabas was the author because he was a Levite and the one who first took Saul, a Pharisee, to see the council in Jerusalem (and then accompanied Paul around Asia at least as far as Pamphylia on their second missionary trip). If he is the author, the Levitical status would certainly explain his prowess with Tanakh and Christological insights into the Law. Speculative? Yes.

Believing Jews would all have known that salvation is through faith in God and his coming Messiah (and in the Messiah who has come, after Jesus came) and that works do not save anyone (and that, unless they spring from the grace of God working in you, the works are dead).

Is. 64:6 (Webster) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[Josheb]

There is a stern warning about what happens to those who, having been enlightened, etc., fall away.

Yep. That is not a point in dispute by anyone here as far as I have read.

This is contrasted, in verse 9, with Paul being persuaded of better things concerning them, things that accompany salvation.

Which implies they are saved, nt unsaved. If they were not saved, then there would be no accompanying any salvation. There' be no salvation with which the other things listed could accompany.

In other words.....

No, that's an interpretation based on the assumption "But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way," indicates they were not saved when, logically speaking, nothing could accompany a non-existent salvation. In order to read the verse that way it has to be assumed...

• They are not saved,
• they will be saved,
• being saved other things will accompany that eventual salvation, and
• the author is confident about it all.

All without the text in question actually stating any of that. Do you believe it's okay to make four assumptions to understand a single verse and then use it to deny everything else in the larger passage (the expectation they'd have been teachers by now, their already possessing a foundation of extra-Jewish knowledge, their having been previously enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, and partaking in the Spirit, etc.)?

, Paul is giving the warning, just in case there are any Hebrews who have been enlightened, but who have not been saved (his persuasion about them not being infallible).

I recommend defining "enlightened" as it is used in that text so everyone understands how it's read because, so far, there are three different definitions. I, for one, will appreciate the use of scripture to define the term.

<sigh>

<sigh>

I’m well aware that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the church...

Great. Then, presumably, we both know the Hebrews text cannot be read to conflict with Paul's statement and the truth thereof because scripture never contradicts scripture..

, spiritually speaking, since true believers are all one in Christ; however, this book was written to and about Hebrews (i.e. those from a Jewish background), which is what I meant. Not only that, but, subscribing to something does not mean that one necessarily has the reality of it (e.g. there are many “Christians” who are unsaved).

That's an assumption; one I addressed in @makesends' op. You and I read Hebrews and benefit from it. Why then would it be thought to be written solely to and about Hebrew Christians? Especially since Hebrews and Jews are not the same group of people. The book is filled with quotes and references from Tanakh (or what we call the OT), but that does not mean it was written to Hebrews. All the NT writers quoted and referenced the OT. The book of Hebrews is difference only in its degree of use. Furthermore, all the OT scriptures are treated Christologically, not Judaically. As I have pointed out many times in many threads: Tanakh is always correct; Judaism is not. We're Christians, not Gentiles of Jews. There are not Jews or Gentiles in Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews was written to Christians and it quotes and references the OT everywhere. Notice the opening statement states "the fathers," not "our fathers." Do a quick search of that phrase in the Bible. It is a New Testament phrase. The patriarchs are never referenced as "the fathers" in the OT. All the describing references to the intended audience make them believers in Christ. That makes the Christians, not Jews. Yes, it is likely all the Jewish converts to Christ in that audience understood the author much better than any gentile converts in the letter's recipients but that does not change the fact all those described attributes also apply to Gentile converts. The people to whom the author wrote had been spoken to in the Son in those last days (Heb. 1:2), will inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14), were partakers in the heavenly calling (Heb. 3:1, 14), had entered God's rest found in Christ (Heb. 4:1-3). All of that applies to both Jewish and Gentle converts to Christ.

It also applies to those referenced in Hebrews 5:12-6:9.

Rather than argue back and forth about it all that needs to be done is post scripture stating those attributes apply to the unsaved because scripture never contradicts itself so if there are scriptures applying the many, many, many attributes assigned the audience of the Hebrews epistles then I will reconsider my position.

In any case, the terms “Jew” and “Gentile” are sometimes used of people who are saved, to emphasis their background.

Yep. The salient point being they, as converts to Christ, are saved.

You are wrong here. It’s an “objective genitive”; in other words, “the doctrine of which the Messiah is the object”, or, in better English, “the doctrine about the Messiah”.

Robertson’s Word Pictures

“Of the first principles of Christ (της αρχης του Χριστου). Objective genitive Χριστου (about Christ). "Leaving behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ," another way of saying again τα στοιχεια της αρχης των λογιων του θεου of 5:12.”

Yes, the conjugation is objective genitive, but that does not make the reference to Christ about Christ in the Old Testament sense of old school Judaism. Whether descriptive or possessive, the genitive is still one of "of," not "about" and Robertson was writing about "word pictures," not transliteration. However, let's say your point is correct. That does not change what I posted. The "teachings about Christ" cited in the text are not Jewish or Judaic. Jewish Jews did not believe works were dead. Unless they came specifically from the Pharisaic vein in Judaism Jewish Jews did not believe in a resurrection. Classic Judaism was annihilationist; there was no life after death, there was no resurrection. In order to assume these "teachings about Jesus were Old Testament teaching it would also have to be assumed they were Pharisaical teachings about the Old Testament and the Pharisees' sect did not arise until the intertestamental period. Not only was the no-life-after-death the prevailing view in OT Judaism, but in the first century the Hellenist influence was overwhelming all the all the Judaic sects. An assumption all of that could be ignored must be made to think the "teachings about Jesus" is OT teaching. I reiterate: what the author describes is a New Testament view of Tanakh, and that means he is giving the converts to Christ in his audience a Christian view of the teachings of Christ. The objective genitive conjugation proves irrelevant.

The book of Hebrews is self-evidently written to and about Hebrews.

That has yet to be proven. A lot of claims have been made that on their own appear to make a rational case for that but when measured by the actual text of that epistle it proves the intended audience were converts to Christ so - whether Hebrew, Jewish, or Gentile converts - they were Christians. In point of fact Goggling the history pertaining to why that epistle was called the epistle to the Hebrews readily shows it was always an assumption, not something the text itself ever states. Look it up.

Of course, Christians with a Gentile background can also learn from all of it, and we do; but that is not the issue.

Yep, and that is just as true of the original first century reader of the epistle as it is of the 21st century reader. There are no Jews and Gentiles in Christ and every single Gentile convert to Christ in this thread proves everything in the epistle is relevant and applicable to us, not just Jewish converts.

That is, in fact, one of the obstacles the naysayers must overcome.

Believing Jews would all have known that salvation is through faith in God and his coming Messiah (and in the Messiah who has come, after Jesus came) and that works do not save anyone (and that, unless they spring from the grace of God working in you, the works are dead).

Is. 64:6 (Webster) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

That is true, but that is also true of believing Gentiles, especially those who had also read any of Paul's letters commenting on the necessity of faith.


Post me scriptures applying the attributes of the text only to Jewish converts exclusive of Gentile converts. Then take the attributes of the Hebrews 5:12-6:9 text and show me the scriptures where the listed attributes are applied to the unsaved.


And thank you for keeping the post about the posts .

 

[Carbon]

The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith. Consider, Hebrews 6:4, For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,...........

The dangers of falling away (apostasy) will always be present if men receive the truth in their minds, but do not love it in their hearts and happily submit to it in their wills whether Jew or Greek makes no difference. Unless this enmity is conquered unless the mind is freed from its depravity, and the truth works powerfully upon the heart, unless the corrupt old man that is filled with deceitful lusts is put off and they are renewed in the spirit of their mind and put on the new man in the image of God created in righteousness and holiness, unless they love the truth and value it, they will fall away in time of persecution and forsake the gospel for other things. As @Arial said, thorns among the rocks.

The mind, having fallen from truth and goodness, wanders willingly in crooked paths of its own, determining for itself what is good and evil, what is true and what is false.
Behold, I have found only this, that God made people upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Ecc 7:29.

This is also why the mystery of iniquity was so successful in raising up such a great apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Carbon]

The dangers of falling away (apostasy) will always be present if men receive the truth in their minds, but do not love it in their hearts and happily submit to it in their wills whether Jew or Greek makes no difference. Unless this enmity is conquered unless the mind is freed from its depravity, and the truth works powerfully upon the heart, unless the corrupt old man that is filled with deceitful lusts is put off and they are renewed in the spirit of their mind and put on the new man in the image of God created in righteousness and holiness, unless they love the truth and value it, they will fall away in time of persecution and forsake the gospel for other things. As @Arial said, thorns among the rocks.

The mind, having fallen from truth and goodness, wanders willingly in crooked paths of its own, determining for itself what is good and evil, what is true and what is false.
Behold, I have found only this, that God made people upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Ecc 7:29.

This is also why the mystery of iniquity was so successful in raising up such a great apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It's amazing, error, once received as truth, takes a firmer root in carnal minds (and there are no carnal Christians) than truth does, or ever can while the mind remains in an unrenewed state. The obvious reason is because error is much better suited for the depraved mind. And there is nothing in error which rouses the natural enmity to God and spiritual things.

 

[Carbon]

I think its safe to say the ones Hebrews 6:4 is teaching about are not elect.

How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29.

The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; Matt 13:20.

Also, God has chosen a people in Christ before the creation of the world. These chosen He has given to Christ, who has been entrusted with their full salvation. God's purpose is to preserve the elect and keep them from ever falling away (perseverance of the saints).

Jesus said,
39 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:39-40.

Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His;” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to keep away from wickedness.” 2 Timothy 2:19.

 

[makesends]

Also, God has chosen a people in Christ before the creation of the world. These chosen He has given to Christ, who has been entrusted with their full salvation. God's purpose is to preserve the elect and keep them from ever falling away (perseverance of the saints).

Jesus said,
39 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:39-40.

Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His;” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to keep away from wickedness.” 2 Timothy 2:19.

Maybe a little off-topic, but this demonstrates the "mundane, earthy" —instead of the "automatic, magical"— way that God so surely accomplishes everything he set out to do. If it can be said that he ZAPS people into their Heavenly state, it is through temporal means, yet, His decree is SURE to come to pass. In this can be seen his power, inestimably above what we would have come up with to describe him.

 

[David1701]

Yep. That is not a point in dispute by anyone here as far as I have read.

Which implies they are saved, nt unsaved. If they were not saved, then there would be no accompanying any salvation. There' be no salvation with which the other things listed could accompany.

Yes, it implies that the people addressed in verse 9 (in contrast to the people referred to in the preceding verses) are saved (note the "But...", at the start of verse 9, contrasting what applies to them, with what applies to the people in verses 4-8).

No, that's an interpretation based on the assumption "But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way," indicates they were not saved when, logically speaking, nothing could accompany a non-existent salvation. In order to read the verse that way it has to be assumed...

• They are not saved,
• they will be saved,
• being saved other things will accompany that eventual salvation, and
• the author is confident about it all.

What? I don't see where you get these claims from.

All without the text in question actually stating any of that. Do you believe it's okay to make four assumptions to understand a single verse and then use it to deny everything else in the larger passage (the expectation they'd have been teachers by now, their already possessing a foundation of extra-Jewish knowledge, their having been previously enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, and partaking in the Spirit, etc.)?

Dealing with a set of professing believers often means addressing them in general terms, whilst knowing that the generalities might not apply to all of them. This is addressed, in Heb. 6:4-8, where one type of potential exceptions is noted.

I recommend defining "enlightened" as it is used in that text so everyone understands how it's read because, so far, there are three different definitions. I, for one, will appreciate the use of scripture to define the term.

Having been given light, in the form of the essentials of the New Covenant, including that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

Great. Then, presumably, we both know the Hebrews text cannot be read to conflict with Paul's statement and the truth thereof because scripture never contradicts scripture..

Of course; Scripture never contradicts itself.

That's an assumption; one I addressed in @makesends' op. You and I read Hebrews and benefit from it. Why then would it be thought to be written solely to and about Hebrew Christians?

It's a book to Hebrews, addressing matters specific to them.

Why should the fact that Christians with a Gentile background gain benefit from the book, mean that it's not written to and about Hebrews? Was the law of Moses specific to Israel? (yes) Can Christians from a Gentile background gain benefit from reading it? (yes)

Especially since Hebrews and Jews are not the same group of people. The book is filled with quotes and references from Tanakh (or what we call the OT), but that does not mean it was written to Hebrews. All the NT writers quoted and referenced the OT. The book of Hebrews is difference only in its degree of use. Furthermore, all the OT scriptures are treated Christologically, not Judaically. As I have pointed out many times in many threads: Tanakh is always correct; Judaism is not. We're Christians, not Gentiles of Jews. There are not Jews or Gentiles in Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews was written to Christians and it quotes and references the OT everywhere. Notice the opening statement states "the fathers," not "our fathers." Do a quick search of that phrase in the Bible. It is a New Testament phrase. The patriarchs are never referenced as "the fathers" in the OT. All the describing references to the intended audience make them believers in Christ. That makes the Christians, not Jews. Yes, it is likely all the Jewish converts to Christ in that audience understood the author much better than any gentile converts in the letter's recipients but that does not change the fact all those described attributes also apply to Gentile converts. The people to whom the author wrote had been spoken to in the Son in those last days (Heb. 1:2), will inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14), were partakers in the heavenly calling (Heb. 3:1, 14), had entered God's rest found in Christ (Heb. 4:1-3). All of that applies to both Jewish and Gentle converts to Christ.

The only Gentile converts who could revert to Judaism, would be ones who had already been proselytes to Judaism (and the more or less parallel passage, in Heb. 10, refers to there being no more sacrifice available (i.e. the OC sacrifices have been fulfilled and are no longer valid) for those who reject the Messiah).

It also applies to those referenced in Hebrews 5:12-6:9.

Rather than argue back and forth about it all that needs to be done is post scripture stating those attributes apply to the unsaved because scripture never contradicts itself so if there are scriptures applying the many, many, many attributes assigned the audience of the Hebrews epistles then I will reconsider my position.

No; the point is that none of the attributes listed necessitates that the person is saved; therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate that they do refer to saved people; and that those people cannot be brought back to repentance, if they fall away.

Yep. The salient point being they, as converts to Christ, are saved.

Not all professed converts to Christ are saved; and, not everyone who has been enlightened, etc., is saved, or even a professing convert to Christ.

Yes, the conjugation is objective genitive, but that does not make the reference to Christ about Christ in the Old Testament sense of old school Judaism. Whether descriptive or possessive, the genitive is still one of "of," not "about" and Robertson was writing about "word pictures," not transliteration.

This is nonsensical waffle. An objective genitive is, by definition, about the object in question (Christ, in this case). Also, a transliteration is the conversion of a word in one language, to one spelt to sound the same in another language. It is different from a literal translation; in fact, a transliteration is not really a translation at all, in the normal sense.

However, let's say your point is correct. That does not change what I posted. The "teachings about Christ" cited in the text are not Jewish or Judaic. Jewish Jews did not believe works were dead. Unless they came specifically from the Pharisaic vein in Judaism Jewish Jews did not believe in a resurrection. Classic Judaism was annihilationist; there was no life after death, there was no resurrection. In order to assume these "teachings about Jesus were Old Testament teaching it would also have to be assumed they were Pharisaical teachings about the Old Testament and the Pharisees' sect did not arise until the intertestamental period. Not only was the no-life-after-death the prevailing view in OT Judaism, but in the first century the Hellenist influence was overwhelming all the all the Judaic sects. An assumption all of that could be ignored must be made to think the "teachings about Jesus" is OT teaching. I reiterate: what the author describes is a New Testament view of Tanakh, and that means he is giving the converts to Christ in his audience a Christian view of the teachings of Christ. The objective genitive conjugation proves irrelevant.

I specified that I referred to believing Jews (i.e. one who had faith in God and believed the promise that God would send a Messiah). I was not referring to some school of Jewish thought, but simply to those who believed the Tanakh.

That has yet to be proven. A lot of claims have been made that on their own appear to make a rational case for that but when measured by the actual text of that epistle it proves the intended audience were converts to Christ so - whether Hebrew, Jewish, or Gentile converts - they were Christians. In point of fact Goggling the history pertaining to why that epistle was called the epistle to the Hebrews readily shows it was always an assumption, not something the text itself ever states. Look it up.

I seem to have misplaced my goggles.

The book of Hebrews has been accepted as such, by the believing churches, down through the centuries.

Yep, and that is just as true of the original first century reader of the epistle as it is of the 21st century reader. There are no Jews and Gentiles in Christ and every single Gentile convert to Christ in this thread proves everything in the epistle is relevant and applicable to us, not just Jewish converts.

That is, in fact, one of the obstacles the naysayers must overcome.

Except that not all of it applies to Gentile converts.

That is true, but that is also true of believing Gentiles, especially those who had also read any of Paul's letters commenting on the necessity of faith.


Post me scriptures applying the attributes of the text only to Jewish converts exclusive of Gentile converts. Then take the attributes of the Hebrews 5:12-6:9 text and show me the scriptures where the listed attributes are applied to the unsaved.

Your claim is that the attributes necessarily apply to the saved. I do not claim that they can't, simply that people with them are not necessarily saved (since there is nothing in them that necessitates salvation). It is your claim that requires substantiation, not mine.

And thank you for keeping the post about the posts.

Ditto