Can A Christian Lose Their Salvation?

[El Hombre viejo]

What's love got to do with it, Crazy Red made the statement; I have been part of this thread for sometime now. If he made his comment in the community thread, which I have participated, why can't I ask him to clarify such a bold statement without being falsely accused.

With all due love and respect, brother, I don't see where asking someone to clarify their "Theology and Doctrine" when, especially, it often opposes what my Bible says about the doctrines of Christ. Many a Man's self imposed doctrines have cause more harm that good, that I am sure of and, anyone who has their OWN personal theology and doctrine that is often opposite of the God I know, I think asking them if they are God is not inappropriate...What does it say before you judge others...less you be judged. Now, who has ridiculed?

I said what I said because I sense a lot of heat in this conversation. Love has to do with every single thing a Christian does or says.

 

[Bluebird]

Thanks, guys

Thank you Brighthouse and You Must Be Born Again for replying to my frustration. What has helped the most was reading over what I had typed, and then discussing it with my hubby. He often sees a bigger picture by observing rather than participating (lol). You are right; she is a 'christian by convenience". And she is playing me. Didn't quite see that before, but hubby did. I realized that for someone claiming she is a Christian, there was not one, not ONE representation of Jesus in her house. Plenty of Buddhas, fairies, moon and stars, India goddesses, etc. Not one cross, picture, nothing. Not that you need a symbol of Christ to prove anything, but you get the picture. She has heard and knows the Truth, it has been told to her many times. Her salvation is not something I can or want to manipulate; it must be between her and God. I can pray for her and the situation she is in and give her a listening ear within reason; and I need to set boundaries. Thanks for the advice. Sometimes you are just too close to a situation and can't see the whole picture. I see the light!!! And it ain't the train! :shade: Be blessed.

 

[rojoloco]

Excuse me, your theology and doctrine! Are you a God?

Can you say Drama Queen? You knew exactly what I meant yet, in your apparent mission to belittle me, you chose to leap with claws exposed. By "my theology and doctrine" I mean my theological and doctrinal stance. Anybody reading my post without premeditated intent would have taken it that way.

The sad part is that you know your statement was uncalled for, out of line, and inappropriate yet you will probably justify it by accusing me of not even being a Christian...again.

With all due love and respect, brother, I don't see where asking someone to clarify their "Theology and Doctrine" when, especially, it often opposes what my Bible says about the doctrines of Christ. Many a Man's self imposed doctrines have cause more harm that good, that I am sure of and, anyone who has their OWN personal theology and doctrine that is often opposite of the God I know, I think asking them if they are God is not inappropriate

I do find it semi-humorous that you seem to think Calvinism is stepping on the Gospel whereas it was Calvinism (of course, not called this as of yet) that really showed the Gospel for what it was during the Reformation when Protestantism began. Protestants were all "Calvinists" by their very religion. You were either a "Calvinist" or a Roman Catholic more or less. It wasn't until many years later that your belief system entered the scene and, even then, it was declared as heretical. Only in this current age is it being embraced. Now, who is stepping on toes and introducing a new age gospel here? Just sayin'...

 

[rojoloco]

My my!! People are getting really feisty on this thread. Now might be a good time to practice walking in love?
A persons individual beliefs should NEVER be put to ridicule or put down in any way. Show him a better product than what he has, and he will change his beliefs.

I do appreciate this post believe it or not. While I am perfectly fine (and rather enjoy) a good debate, I really do not like arguing with people. It only closes eyes/ears and causes strife. Proverbs has a lot to say about strife and the harm it causes. On the flip side, I am not afraid to stand up to accusations.

Most people get offended by what I have to say because I stand firm on what I believe. I did not come to my conclusions overnight nor are they fly by night doctrinal stances. My beliefs are very in line with those of the Reformers. I am not wishy washy being tossed about with every blow of the wind nor am I afraid to stand firm in my beliefs. I rarely back down and I can hold my own from a purely Scriptural perspective. Most of my posts are laced with more Scripture than my own writing and I am not ashamed of this. I do have quite a great deal of knowledge on Scripture and doctrine but this is because it is what I have devoted years of study to. My intent is to share it with as many people as possible and teach others so they too can understand the greatness of God's grace and our undeserving and incapable depravity. It is highly doubtful my beliefs will change because I once held many of the same beliefs as most people on here. This forum is comprised primarily of Arminian beliefs (even if not comprised of professing Arminians) whereas most other forums I frequent are comprised of primarily Calvinists. I like to stay sharp in both study as well as teaching. If it takes a few black eyes along the way from bullies, so be it. At least the doctrines of grace are being heard. Again, thanks for the reply. I do agree that love should be central to all things and, oftentimes, that is not the case.

 

[The Robster]

Can you say Drama Queen? You knew exactly what I meant yet, in your apparent mission to belittle me, you chose to leap with claws exposed. By "my theology and doctrine" I mean my theological and doctrinal stance. Anybody reading my post without premeditated intent would have taken it that way.

The sad part is that you know your statement was uncalled for, out of line, and inappropriate yet you will probably justify it by accusing me of not even being a Christian...again.



I do find it semi-humorous that you seem to think Calvinism is stepping on the Gospel whereas it was Calvinism (of course, not called this as of yet) that really showed the Gospel for what it was during the Reformation when Protestantism began. Protestants were all "Calvinists" by their very religion. You were either a "Calvinist" or a Roman Catholic more or less. It wasn't until many years later that your belief system entered the scene and, even then, it was declared as heretical. Only in this current age is it being embraced. Now, who is stepping on toes and introducing a new age gospel here? Just sayin'...

You may just want to grow some thick skin like me brother because on all these Christian sites, you're going to always find remarks that would seem "inappropriate" coming out of the mouth of Christians. You just need to get into the habit of letting things roll off your back and have people think you're dumb for not splitting hairs with them. I do however long for the days where people just call themselves plain ole Christians.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

I do appreciate this post believe it or not. While I am perfectly fine (and rather enjoy) a good debate, I really do not like arguing with people. It only closes eyes/ears and causes strife. Proverbs has a lot to say about strife and the harm it causes. On the flip side, I am not afraid to stand up to accusations.

Most people get offended by what I have to say because I stand firm on what I believe. I did not come to my conclusions overnight nor are they fly by night doctrinal stances. My beliefs are very in line with those of the Reformers. I am not wishy washy being tossed about with every blow of the wind nor am I afraid to stand firm in my beliefs. I rarely back down and I can hold my own from a purely Scriptural perspective. Most of my posts are laced with more Scripture than my own writing and I am not ashamed of this. I do have quite a great deal of knowledge on Scripture and doctrine but this is because it is what I have devoted years of study to. My intent is to share it with as many people as possible and teach others so they too can understand the greatness of God's grace and our undeserving and incapable depravity. It is highly doubtful my beliefs will change because I once held many of the same beliefs as most people on here. This forum is comprised primarily of Arminian beliefs (even if not comprised of professing Arminians) whereas most other forums I frequent are comprised of primarily Calvinists. I like to stay sharp in both study as well as teaching. If it takes a few black eyes along the way from bullies, so be it. At least the doctrines of grace are being heard. Again, thanks for the reply. I do agree that love should be central to all things and, oftentimes, that is not the case.

Its true There is a vast difference between debate and belittling one another. Getting mean in a debate is not love at all. Personally I don't like debate. It smacks of vanity. I believe one can discuss their beliefs without strife.
I know little of Calvinism but I have read at least the five points and can agree with three of them. The others whether believed or not will send nobody to hell, and will make little difference to anybody's salvation. Thus they are not worth arguing about. This person whether a Calvinist or not is your family. Respect!!

 

[SpiritLedEd]

I can still listen to her but must distance myself so I am not emotionally and spiritually pulled down into this quagmire. Every day is a new crisis with her. I love her dearly, but am very frustrated.

You answered your own question; you must distance yourself. Also, who's to say you're the one God has appointed to reach her? I suspect that if she's to be reached it will be by someone outside the family, someone who does not carry emotional baggage from her family history.

SLE

 

[rojoloco]

I don't know any other way to say this and I apologize if it offends you or any other reader: My dissertation reply was not meant as a compliment! I have had many discussions with you in the past and still come out with the same gut feeling, as much as you are in love with your supposed knowledge, I am convinced that you have no clue about the Gospel that Paul taught!

Perhaps it was the way you worded your reply such as "I agree with much that you have here" or "In fact, you and I only have a taste of the Spirit." Next time you should be clearer...such as with your 2nd attempt where you pretty much went against your quotes above.

To all your replies against Apostasy, I appeal to your vast knowledge and please explain, WHAT YOU THINK, what is Paul saying in Hebrews 6:6 then! Anyone who has done their "Due Diligence" will know that Chapter 6 is a warning against Apostasy, which was rampant in the Jerusalem Church at this time. Paul's "Falling Away" was total rejection of Christ (Apostasy) that's why he said that their recovery was impossible!!!! The RSV even says the word apostasy in verse 6.

And do you believe an apostate was one who had saving faith and fell away or do you believe it was one who never had saving faith to begin with but had infiltrated the Church and was teaching heresy? I believe the latter. It sounds like you possibly believe the former. I do not believe an apostate was ever a true believer.

First of all, Christ died once for all (1 Peter 3:8). There would be no re-crucifying him over and over again to be saved, not saved, saved again, not saved again, etc. You are either saved or you are not.

Furthermore, if you believe the former, where would you place one who once believed yet had since fallen away and taught heresy if he, at one time in the future, renounced his heresy and chose to believe again? According to your teaching, this man would be condemned and would not be given another chance because Christ has cut him off. This does not mesh with Scripture nor does it jive with God's promises. It only jives with a misinterpretation of Hebrews 6 and an erroneous view of justification, the atonement, and overall, the Gospel message.

Verse 6 simply is not referring to someone who has lost their salvation because salvation simply cannot be lost!

I just thought I would give you another point to ponder: Augustinian/Calvinistic theological system.

Though in the King James Version it is called, In the title, The Epistle of Paul, the style alone is clearly Paul's, It was a matter of record that Paul struggled with Jewish Apostates and the letter is a clear discussion of the Relationship of Christ to the Levitical Priesthood and Temple Sacrifices.

There is indeed a lot of Paul's writing style in Hebrews. However, there is a lot of Peter's writing style and quotes in Jude as well as some citations from the Book of Enoch but this does not mean anything. People have been influenced by writing styles since the beginning of literature. While there are many Pauline styles throughout Hebrews (and even some direct phrases he uses elsewhere), there are also many things which are not normal in his writings as if it might possibly be another author who was heavily influenced by him. There is also the point I previously made about, by Paul's own declaration, he was not a minister to the Jews. This was Peter's job. Paul was a minister to the Gentiles. A letter from Paul to the Jews is almost (but not quite equal to) as out of place as Catholics believing a minister to the Jews created a church of Gentiles. I don't think we will ever know for sure who wrote it. All we can do is speculate.

I see no mention of Eternal Security from God in my Bibles... Sounds like Augustinian/Calvinistic theological system.

Or perhaps it is a failure to properly interpret Scripture with Scripture and is instead a habit of interpreting Scripture with human justification. My power is not greater than God's so if He says He is keeping me, what else can one say to that? 1 Peter 1:3-5 says God caused our salvation, reserved a spot in Heaven for us, and is keeping us in Him until the day it is revealed to us.

You keep saying that it is clear to you that non-believers get to taste the Spirit, please show some scriptural support.

I showed quite a bit of support for it in a previous post. You will find it there. On the flip side, you have not shown any Scriptural support for your stance except for a misapplied usage of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

 

[rojoloco]

Its true There is a vast difference between debate and belittling one another. Getting mean in a debate is not love at all. Personally I don't like debate. It smacks of vanity. I believe one can discuss their beliefs without strife.
I know little of Calvinism but I have read at least the five points and can agree with three of them. The others whether believed or not will send nobody to hell, and will make little difference to anybody's salvation. Thus they are not worth arguing about. This person whether a Calvinist or not is your family. Respect!!

I agree that knowledge can definitely lead to arrogance when love is not present. However, I do not find it to be arrogant to try to show someone the truth. People are hard headed. There is lavished love within the Word of God but it is also a book filled with Spiritual truth. Since truth is not relative, there is only one proper interpretation. We are called to be ready to give a defense at all times. This is why, although it must be in love, knowledge is very important to have. Without it, we can't possibly know what we believe or why we believe it. I much prefer a casual discussion but I am not afraid to jump feet first into a debate (even if it gets a tad heated) so long as we can all keep our cool and make our points be known.

Some have said there is no benefit in trying to prove that we are right and another view is wrong. I disagree with this. It happened during the Reformation and look how that wound up. It set countless people free from the bondage of Catholicism into the truth of the Gospel. Sometimes trying to convince another person is exactly what is needed. Other times, they will figure it out on their own just by hearing the truth. It really all depends on the current circumstances. However, there is such a thing as needed to take a step back and give some room to breathe before it becomes counterproductive. I think most of us, myself included, have been guilty of this one.

 

[Brighthouse]

Stumbling blocks, in the world are quite enough,I do not feel we need them in here as well. I respect all views on this,I hold to what I believe is true,as many of you do the same. What to me is inporatant here,is how we all can encourge and build oneanother up here in the Body of Christ. Love is commanded, not requested. ( john 15:12-17) So let us do this,and show that all of us truly abide in the Word.

 

[The Robster]

Stumbling blocks, in the world are quite enough,I do not feel we need them in here as well. I respect all views on this,I hold to what I believe is true,as many of you do the same. What to me is inporatant here,is how we all can encourge and build oneanother up here in the Body of Christ. Love is commanded, not requested. ( john 15:12-17) So let us do this,and show that all of us truly abide in the Word.

Everyone of these Christian sites has the same thing going on. It doesn't change anywhere you go.

 

[RJ]

Perhaps it was the way you worded your reply such as "I agree with much that you have here" or "In fact, you and I only have a taste of the Spirit." Next time you should be clearer...such as with your 2nd attempt where you pretty much went against your quotes above. I have never changed my stance about about one loosing their salvation and I have always said that Paul said as much in Hebrews 6: 4-6; that he was talking about the unsaved and not the saved, Levitical Temple Spies in fact!



And do you believe an apostate was one who had saving faith and fell away or do you believe it was one who never had saving faith to begin with but had infiltrated the Church and was teaching heresy? I believe the latter. It sounds like you possibly believe the former. I do not believe an apostate was ever a true believer. Again, read my statement above, I have, in all my threads, ALWAYS supported the latter!!

First of all, Christ died once for all (1 Peter 3:8). There would be no re-crucifying him over and over again to be saved, not saved, saved again, not saved again, etc. You are either saved or you are not. If you have read my threads on this subject, you would know that I HAVE ALWAYS supported this truth!!!

Furthermore, if you believe the former, where would you place one who once believed yet had since fallen away and taught heresy if he, at one time in the future, renounced his heresy and chose to believe again? According to your teaching, this man would be condemned and would not be given another chance because Christ has cut him off. This does not mesh with Scripture nor does it jive with God's promises. It only jives with a misinterpretation of Hebrews 6 and an erroneous view of justification, the atonement, and overall, the Gospel message.

Verse 6 simply is not referring to someone who has lost their salvation because salvation simply cannot be lost!
Again, over and over, time and time again, I do not know who you are talking to!! This has been my stance from the start, please go back and find a thread of mine that says anything different!!!



There is indeed a lot of Paul's writing style in Hebrews. However, there is a lot of Peter's writing style and quotes in Jude as well as some citations from the Book of Enoch but this does not mean anything. People have been influenced by writing styles since the beginning of literature. While there are many Pauline styles throughout Hebrews (and even some direct phrases he uses elsewhere), there are also many things which are not normal in his writings as if it might possibly be another author who was heavily influenced by him. There is also the point I previously made about, by Paul's own declaration, he was not a minister to the Jews. This was Peter's job. Paul was a minister to the Gentiles. A letter from Paul to the Jews is almost (but not quite equal to) as out of place as Catholics believing a minister to the Jews created a church of Gentiles. I don't think we will ever know for sure who wrote it. All we can do is speculate.
This is a matter of choice. In my heart and studies I also have found this conflict and I have found this on the subject:
1. KIng James version calls it The Epistle of Paul in the titles.
2. The Eastern Church accepted it from the begining.
3. Not Until the 4th century did the Western Church accept Paul's authorship.
4.Clement of Alexandria thought it to be Paul who wrote it and Luke who translated it from Hebrew to Greek.
5. Origen thought it was Paul.
6. Ferrar Fenton supported Paul.
7. Dr. " Henry H. Halley quote:" On the whole, the traditional view, held through the centuries, and still widely held, is that Paul was the Author"
8. Paul was not well liked in Jerusalem, the Epistle would have more weight if it were read in the Churches without Paul's name on it.
9. And no, Paul did not preach to just the Gentiles exclusively!!!



[/COLOR]Or perhaps it is a failure to properly interpret Scripture with Scripture and is instead a habit of interpreting Scripture with human justification. My power is not greater than God's so if He says He is keeping me, what else can one say to that? 1 Peter 1:3-5 says God caused our salvation, reserved a spot in Heaven for us, and is keeping us in Him until the day it is revealed to us.

I dont know what you think your point is here.

I showed quite a bit of support for it in a previous post. You will find it there. On the flip side, you have not shown any Scriptural support for your stance except for a misapplied usage of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Again, I have no clue to what or whom you are referring to. 1 COR 2:14, clearly means what it says and essentially is: to understand Spiritual matters, i.e., the word of of God, one has to be spiritually guided by the Holy Spirit and that is only for "Born Again" saved Christians.. any one else. the word of God is folly...or foolishness and I have seen a lot of that here at TJ!

 

[SpiritLedEd]

Its been said, and I believe its true, that anger is fear turned inside out. When I came on this site five years ago, it frightened me when anyone challenged something I said in a post and I reacted angrily. Since then, I've learned its good to follow the Holy Spirit's lead and be open-minded regarding choices of spiritual reading material. In doing so, I found that in some areas the theology and practices I was absolutely certain were correct were actually shaky and propped up by scriptural interpretations that are by no means universally agreed upon.

SLE

 

[RJ]

Its been said, and I believe its true, that anger is fear turned inside out. When I came on this site five years ago, it frightened me when anyone challenged something I said in a post and I reacted angrily. Since then, I've learned its good to follow the Holy Spirit's lead and be open-minded regarding choices of spiritual reading material. In doing so, I found that in some areas the theology and practices I was absolutely certain were correct were actually shaky and propped up by scriptural interpretations that are by no means universally agreed upon.

SLE

SLE, I have read many of your posts and threads and don't know of you being incorrect about any particular issue. But saying that, I am not too sure I understand your " universally agreed upon" statement; I didn't know that was a prerequisite to being in the "Spirit" and allowing him to show you truth and have discernment.

I have always used a standard, other than a feeling, to know that I was at least on the right tack:
1. To my knowledge, was my belief contrary to the written word, the Bible and not something else and certainly not my Theology and Doctrine as some others espouse.
2. And, could the interpretation, that I understood, have any negative outcome. I believe this is essentially, because the God and Jesus I am learning to know have no negative in there being, in fact, I think it is one of man's most, unseen in himself, sins there is, it is so subtle.
3. And here is the biggie, Satin can not make any foothold in this belief or thinking.

Now, I don't say anything about the Bible that is not supported by scripture but my above standard for myself is not, thought there may or may not be some. As long as the outcome is positive, I will go in that direction. Here are a couple of examples and you know that there are those at TJ that believe in these:

1. If I don't ask for forgiveness and repent daily, I will loose my salvation or I am not saved.
Negative: Satin holds people into bondage to this and they feel unworthy, not loved and otherwise in jeopardy with their salvation.

For me, asking for forgiveness and repenting is not the same thing. Repenting is part of the renewing of the mind that Paul talks about in Romans 12:2. A person "Born Again" will have a repentant heart and constantly want to work on the sin in there life. A Non-repentant heart could care less or, are totally unaware. Repenting is a process of where one changes their mind to turn away from sin.

In my opinion of what God is telling me about sin, it is that Jesus did it once and did it for all and for all sin; God said he would not look at my sin again. It is not that I don't look at my sin, I do but God said he doesn't! As a Christian, I am urged to go to the ones that I have wrong about something and ask for forgiveness but I am not called to go to God for forgiveness, I am already forgiven. And if I don't see the wrong I have just done for a variety of reasons, I am still forgiven and saved.

Positive: now that's part of the peace and truth that Jesus said "would set you free" and Satin has no foothold!

one more:

2. If you are not water Baptize you are not saved.

Negative: No water, not saved. Also, was water baptized but I don't feel the difference that people talk about therefore it must have not worked because I am not worthy or God does not love me. Either way Satin has a foothold.

Water Baptism is and can be a wonderful experience and people have been brought to Christ during the act but, it absolutely has nothing to do with a persons salvation. If it was a requirement, that would be man required to do something for their salvation and that is Law, works and not Grace.

Positive: You are save by your faith in Grace and it is a gift and not of your works or you could boast. Satin has no foothold.

No doubt, I will get some contrary comments about my stance of forgiveness and water Baptism.
So, what should I do about there rebuttal, not say anything because that may be the universal view in their world?

 

[rojoloco]

I have never changed my stance about about one loosing their salvation and I have always said that Paul said as much in Hebrews 6: 4-6; that he was talking about the unsaved and not the saved, Levitical Temple Spies in fact!

I was not referring to your doctrinal stance. I was referring to your stance on me. Your initial reply sounded like you agreed with most of what I was saying and considered me a fellow believer. Your second post (and every post thereafter) changed into attacks, slander, and the accusation of not being a Christian at all.

Again, read my statement above, I have, in all my threads, ALWAYS supported the latter!!

Then we agree on that.

If you have read my threads on this subject, you would know that I HAVE ALWAYS supported this truth!!!

...and we also agree on this.

Again, over and over, time and time again, I do not know who you are talking to!! This has been my stance from the start, please go back and find a thread of mine that says anything different!!!

Yet this appears to be the part where things got hazy between us. Reading your replies to other people, I can see where you say things such as how a believer cannot be unborn. On the flip side, this is somehow where we ran into a theological wall. I believe this is because you say things such as an unbeliever cannot taste the things of the Spirit. If this were so, the people who are spoken of as falling away never to be brought back to repentance would have to refer to believers since the person in question had undoubtedly been partakers of the Spirit, had tasted the Spirit, and had been enlightened. Again, if an unbeliever cannot accomplish these things (as you say) then how can the author of Hebrews be referring to one? The only two types of people left would be one who used to be a believer but has lost their salvation or one who is still a believer. Well, we both seem to agree you can't lose your salvation so that only leaves one type. However, if you can't lose it, why is it speaking of one who has fallen away never again to return. Now we appear to be speaking of an unbeliever again. This is my major reason for saying it is referring to an unbeliever to begin with as well as my doctrinal stance behind why an unbeliever can taste the things of the Spirit (without ever feasting on it), be enlightened (with head knowledge while lacking heart knowledge), and partake of the things of the Spirit (such as those in Matthew 5 who still rejected in the end).

Again, I have no clue to what or whom you are referring to. 1 COR 2:14, clearly means what it says and essentially is: to understand Spiritual matters, i.e., the word of of God, one has to be spiritually guided by the Holy Spirit and that is only for "Born Again" saved Christians.. any one else. the word of God is folly...or foolishness and I have seen a lot of that here at TJ!

Faith is not merely head knowledge. It stems from a regeneration of the nature and a committal in the heart. Head knowledge is very different, however. Anybody can study the Bible. In fact, I know many unbelievers who know the Bible better than your average believer. They may not have the faith or be enlightened to the Spiritual side of it but they are most certainly enlightened of the promises of God from an intellectual standpoint. Again, the word photizo refers to that intellectual knowledge and is the word used in Hebrews.

This is a matter of choice. In my heart and studies I also have found this conflict and I have found this on the subject:
1. KIng James version calls it The Epistle of Paul in the titles.
2. The Eastern Church accepted it from the begining.
3. Not Until the 4th century did the Western Church accept Paul's authorship.
4.Clement of Alexandria thought it to be Paul who wrote it and Luke who translated it from Hebrew to Greek.
5. Origen thought it was Paul.
6. Ferrar Fenton supported Paul.
7. Dr. " Henry H. Halley quote:" On the whole, the traditional view, held through the centuries, and still widely held, is that Paul was the Author"
8. Paul was not well liked in Jerusalem, the Epistle would have more weight if it were read in the Churches without Paul's name on it.
9. And no, Paul did not preach to just the Gentiles exclusively!!!

I definitely was not implying that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles. However, we don't see any instance of him ministering exclusively to the Jews either. What we do see is that he calls himself a minister to the Gentiles and calls Peter a minister to the Jews. I do believe there was intermingling going on as the goal was to preach Christ crucified but this is still something that makes me wonder if the author of Hebrews was someone other than Paul.

As mentioned earlier, the writing style is not consistent with Paul's other writings. Not to mention, there is a MAJOR difference in the author's statement of where he heard the Gospel. Hebrews 2:3 says he heard it from others who had seen Christ personally. However, in Galatians 1:12, Paul says he did not receive it from another man but from Christ himself. This alone implies the author of Hebrews was probably not Paul.

 

[RJ]

I was not referring to your doctrinal stance. I was referring to your stance on me. Your initial reply sounded like you agreed with most of what I was saying and considered me a fellow believer. Your second post (and every post thereafter) changed into attacks, slander, and the accusation of not being a Christian at all.



Then we agree on that.



...and we also agree on this.



Yet this appears to be the part where things got hazy between us. Reading your replies to other people, I can see where you say things such as how a believer cannot be unborn. On the flip side, this is somehow where we ran into a theological wall. I believe this is because you say things such as an unbeliever cannot taste the things of the Spirit. If this were so, the people who are spoken of as falling away never to be brought back to repentance would have to refer to believers since the person in question had undoubtedly been partakers of the Spirit, had tasted the Spirit, and had been enlightened. Again, if an unbeliever cannot accomplish these things (as you say) then how can the author of Hebrews be referring to one? The only two types of people left would be one who used to be a believer but has lost their salvation or one who is still a believer. Well, we both seem to agree you can't lose your salvation so that only leaves one type. However, if you can't lose it, why is it speaking of one who has fallen away never again to return. Now we appear to be speaking of an unbeliever again. This is my major reason for saying it is referring to an unbeliever to begin with as well as my doctrinal stance behind why an unbeliever can taste the things of the Spirit (without ever feasting on it), be enlightened (with head knowledge while lacking heart knowledge), and partake of the things of the Spirit (such as those in Matthew 5 who still rejected in the end).



Faith is not merely head knowledge. It stems from a regeneration of the nature and a committal in the heart. Head knowledge is very different, however. Anybody can study the Bible. In fact, I know many unbelievers who know the Bible better than your average believer. They may not have the faith or be enlightened to the Spiritual side of it but they are most certainly enlightened of the promises of God from an intellectual standpoint. Again, the word photizo refers to that intellectual knowledge and is the word used in Hebrews.



I definitely was not implying that Paul ministered exclusively to the Gentiles. However, we don't see any instance of him ministering exclusively to the Jews either. What we do see is that he calls himself a minister to the Gentiles and calls Peter a minister to the Jews. I do believe there was intermingling going on as the goal was to preach Christ crucified but this is still something that makes me wonder if the author of Hebrews was someone other than Paul.

As mentioned earlier, the writing style is not consistent with Paul's other writings. Not to mention, there is a MAJOR difference in the author's statement of where he heard the Gospel. Hebrews 2:3 says he heard it from others who had seen Christ personally. However, in Galatians 1:12, Paul says he did not receive it from another man but from Christ himself. This alone implies the author of Hebrews was probably not Paul.

On the flip side, this is somehow where we ran into a theological wall. I believe this is because you say things such as an unbeliever cannot taste the things of the Spirit. If this were so, the people who are spoken of as falling away never to be brought back to repentance would have to refer to believers since the person in question had undoubtedly been partakers of the Spirit, had tasted the Spirit, and had been enlightened. Again, if an unbeliever cannot accomplish these things (as you say) then how can the author of Hebrews be referring to one?


Yes Rojoloco, we have had a history of disagreements on what the Bible says; your above comment is no different.

Now, what I am about to say is not meant to hurt your feelings but to yet point out again, where we differ:

In Hebrews 6: 4-6, I think you, as many others do, take things out of context and have it wrong. Here in these passages Paul appears to make an ambiguous statement but in actuality is using a type of "Sarcasm" to prove a point with his fellow true believers.

He is telling these true believers that it is , in fact, impossible for THEM to fall away to Apostasy once they have tasted the fruits of the Spirit. He is NOT saying that unbelievers, once they tasted the Spirit, can fall away, that is a NEGATIVE can lead to bondage and give Satin a foothold....God would never do that! If you don't believe that once you are "Born Again", you can not be unborn, then you will have difficulty seeing this! Satin is totally defeated by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ because God said when he comes in , that he will never leave us! No unbeliever gets a chance to have a taste of God in them.

Please Rojoloco, there is NO such thing as " not being able to be brought back into repentance"....as long as we live and breath the air of this physical world, you can still be saved and allowed to "Taste The Spirit"! Think about it, if what you say is true, that would be a NEGATIVE, which is not of God and would give Satin a foothold!

Faith is not merely head knowledge. It stems from a regeneration of the nature and a committal in the heart. Head knowledge is very different, however. Anybody can study the Bible. In fact, I know many unbelievers who know the Bible better than your average believer. They may not have the faith or be enlightened to the Spiritual side of it but they are most certainly enlightened of the promises of God from an intellectual standpoint. Again, the word photizo refers to that intellectual knowledge and is the word used in Hebrews.
Exactly, you ironically prove my point! Head Knowledge does not and can not connote "Tasting The Spirit"!




Aside for these above verses, please show me and others, scriptures that support for your belief that unbelievers taste the Spirit of God

 

[rojoloco]

In Hebrews 6: 4-6, I think you, as many others do, take things out of context and have it wrong. Here in these passages Paul appears to make an ambiguous statement but in actuality is using a type of "Sarcasm" to prove a point with his fellow true believers.

He is telling these true believers that it is , in fact, impossible for THEM to fall away to Apostasy once they have tasted the fruits of the Spirit. He is NOT saying that unbelievers, once they tasted the Spirit, can fall away, that is a NEGATIVE can lead to bondage and give Satin a foothold....God would never do that! If you don't believe that once you are "Born Again", you can not be unborn, then you will have difficulty seeing this! Satin is totally defeated by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ because God said when he comes in , that he will never leave us! No unbeliever gets a chance to have a taste of God in them.

This is definitely an area where we disagree. I do not see sarcasm in this passage at all. I see a very literal warning. While I do not see it as a warning for believers to not fall away, I do believe the author is using a negative point to reinforce his positive point of following Christ. Because I believe the author was speaking to unbelievers who were on the fence, it was still a very real possibility that they would go to Hell as they had not placed their trust in Christ. If, after having all the intellectual knowledge that they had at that point, they still rejected Christ, there would be no hope of repentance.

Please Rojoloco, there is NO such thing as " not being able to be brought back into repentance"....as long as we live and breath the air of this physical world, you can still be saved and allowed to "Taste The Spirit"! Think about it, if what you say is true, that would be a NEGATIVE, which is not of God and would give Satin a foothold!

I agree that there is no way to be brought back. You are either saved or you are not. There is no flip flopping. I have been saying this the whole time.

Aside for these above verses, please show me and others, scriptures that support for your belief that unbelievers taste the Spirit of God

I gave an example of people who had been moved by the things of God in Matthew 5. I also gave the example of the unbelieving spouse being blessed by the Spirit due to the faith of the believing spouse. I also gave Scriptural examples of God blessing both the righteous and the unrighteous. There is also the example of Jesus feeding the 5,000 of which certainly not all were believers.

John MacArthur actually has a really great commentary on this subject. I will post some of what he says:

A proper interpretation of this epistle requires the recognition that it addresses three distinct groups of Jews: 1) believers; 2) unbelievers who were intellectually convinced of the gospel; and 3) unbelievers who were attracted by the gospel and the person of Christ but who had reached no final conviction about him. Failure to acknowledge these groups leads to interpretations inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

The primary group addressed were Hebrew Christians who suffered rejection and persecution by fellow Jews (10:32-34), although none as yet had been martyred (12:4). The letter was written to give them encouragement and confidence in Christ, their Messiah and high priest. They were an immature group of believers who were also tempted to hold on to the symbolic and spiritually powerless rituals and traditions of Judaism.

The second group addressed were Jewish unbelievers who were convinced of the basic truths of the gospel but who had not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their own Savior and Lord. They were intellectually persuaded but spiritually uncommitted. These unbelievers are addressed in such passages as 2:1-3; 6:4-6; 10:26-29; and 12:15-17.

The third group addressed were Jewish unbelievers who were not convinced of the gospel's truth but had had some exposure to it. Chapter 9 is largely devoted to them (see especially 9:11, 14-15, 27-28).

By far, the most serious interpretive challenge is found in 6:4-6. The phrase "once been enlightened" is often taken to refer to Christians, and the accompanying warning taken to indicate the danger of losing their salvation if they "have fallen away" and "are crucifying once again the Son of God." But there is no mention of their being saved and they are not described with any terms that apply only to believers (such as holy, born again, righteous, or saints). This problem arises from inaccurately identifying the spiritual condition of the ones being addressed. In this case, they were unbelievers who had been exposed to God's redemptive truth, and perhaps made a profession of faith, but had not exercised genuine saving faith. In 10:26, the reference once again is to apostate Christians, not to genuine believers who are often incorrectly thought to lose their salvation because of their sins.

and...

6:4 enlightened. They had received instruction in biblical truth, which was accompanied by intellectual perception. Understanding the gospel is not the equivalent of regeneration (cf. 10:26, 32). In John 1:9 it is clear that enlightening is not the equivalent of salvation. Cf. Heb 10:29. tasted the heavenly gift. Tasting in the figurative sense in the NT refers to consciously experiencing something (cf. 2:9). The experience might be momentary or continuing. Christ's "tasting" of death (2:9) was obviously momentary and not continuing or permanent. All men experience the goodness of God, but that does not mean they are all saved (cf. Matt 5:45; Acts 17:25). Many Jews, during the Lord's earthly ministry, experienced the blessings from heaven he brought -- in healings and deliverance from demons, as well as eating the food he created miraculously (John 6). Whether the gift refers to Christ (cf. John 6:51; 2 Cor 9:15) or to the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 1:12), experiencing either one was not the equivalent of salvation (cf. John 16:8, Acts 7:51). shared in the Holy Spirit. Even though the concept of partaking is used in 3:1, 3:14, and 12:8 of a relationship that believers have, the context must be the final determining factor. This context in 6:4-6 seems to preclude a reference to true believers. It could be a reference to their participation, as noted above, in the miraculous ministry of Jesus, who was empowered by the Holy Spirit, or in the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), which obviously can be resisted wihtout experiencing salvation (cf. Acts 7:51).

6:5 tasted. This has an amazing correspondence to what was described in 2:1-4. Like Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), these Hebrews had not yet been regenerated in spite of all they had heard and seen (cf. Matt 13:3-9; John 6:60-66). They were repeating the sins of those who died in the wilderness after seeing the miracles performed through Moses and Aaron and hearing the voice of God at Sinai.

6:6 fallen away. This Greek term occurs only here in the NT. In the LXX, it was used to translate terms for sever unfaithfulness and apostasy (cf. Ezek 14:13; 18:24; 20:27). It is equivalent to the apostasy in Heb 3:12. The seriousness of this unfaithfulness is seen in the severe description of rejection within this verse: they re-crucify Christ and treat him contemptuously (see also the strong descriptions in 10:29). Those who sinned against Christ in such a way had no hope of restoration or forgiveness (cf. 2:2-3, 10:26-27, 12:25). The reason is that they had rejected him with full knowledge and conscious experience (as described in the features of 6:5-6). With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of being saved. They can never have more knowledge that they had when they rejected it. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with his enemies. There is no possibility of these verses referring to losing salvation. Many Scripture passages make unmistakably clear that salvation is eternal (cf. John 10:27-29; Rom 8:35, 38, 39; Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:4-5). Those who want to make this verse mean that believers can lose salvation will have to admit that it would also say that one could never get it back again.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

On the flip side, this is somehow where we ran into a theological wall. I believe this is because you say things such as an unbeliever cannot taste the things of the Spirit. If this were so, the people who are spoken of as falling away never to be brought back to repentance would have to refer to believers since the person in question had undoubtedly been partakers of the Spirit, had tasted the Spirit, and had been enlightened. Again, if an unbeliever cannot accomplish these things (as you say) then how can the author of Hebrews be referring to one?


Yes Rojoloco, we have had a history of disagreements on what the Bible says; your above comment is no different.

Now, what I am about to say is not meant to hurt your feelings but to yet point out again, where we differ:

In Hebrews 6: 4-6, I think you, as many others do, take things out of context and have it wrong. Here in these passages Paul appears to make an ambiguous statement but in actuality is using a type of "Sarcasm" to prove a point with his fellow true believers.

He is telling these true believers that it is , in fact, impossible for THEM to fall away to Apostasy once they have tasted the fruits of the Spirit. He is NOT saying that unbelievers, once they tasted the Spirit, can fall away, that is a NEGATIVE can lead to bondage and give Satin a foothold....God would never do that! If you don't believe that once you are "Born Again", you can not be unborn, then you will have difficulty seeing this! Satin is totally defeated by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ because God said when he comes in , that he will never leave us! No unbeliever gets a chance to have a taste of God in them.

Please Rojoloco, there is NO such thing as " not being able to be brought back into repentance"....as long as we live and breath the air of this physical world, you can still be saved and allowed to "Taste The Spirit"! Think about it, if what you say is true, that would be a NEGATIVE, which is not of God and would give Satin a foothold!

Faith is not merely head knowledge. It stems from a regeneration of the nature and a committal in the heart. Head knowledge is very different, however. Anybody can study the Bible. In fact, I know many unbelievers who know the Bible better than your average believer. They may not have the faith or be enlightened to the Spiritual side of it but they are most certainly enlightened of the promises of God from an intellectual standpoint. Again, the word photizo refers to that intellectual knowledge and is the word used in Hebrews.
Exactly, you ironically prove my point! Head Knowledge does not and can not connote "Tasting The Spirit"!




Aside for these above verses, please show me and others, scriptures that support for your belief that unbelievers taste the Spirit of God

RJ. That is not correct that Paul is saying its impossible to fall away once you have experience the Spirit moving in your life. Read it...
Hebrews 6:4-6 (King James Version)


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-30049">4</sup>For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-30050">5</sup>And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-30051">6</sup>If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


Hebrews 6:4-6 (Amplified Bible)

<sup class="versenum" id="en-AMP-30047">4</sup>For it is impossible [to restore and bring again to repentance] those who have been once for all enlightened, who have consciously tasted the heavenly gift and have become sharers of the Holy Spirit,
<sup class="versenum" id="en-AMP-30048">5</sup>And have felt how good the Word of God is and the mighty powers of the age and world to come,
<sup class="versenum" id="en-AMP-30049">6</sup>If they then deviate from the faith and turn away from their allegiance--[it is impossible] to bring them back to repentance, for (because, while, as long as) they nail upon the cross the Son of God afresh [as far as they are concerned] and are holding [Him] up to contempt and shame and public disgrace.
Hebrews 6:4-6 (Young's Literal Translation)

<sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-30049">4</sup>for [it is] impossible for those once enlightened, having tasted also of the heavenly gift, and partakers having became of the Holy Spirit,
<sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-30050">5</sup>and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age,
<sup class="versenum" id="en-YLT-30051">6</sup>and having fallen away, again to renew [them] to reformation, having crucified again to themselves the Son of God, and exposed to public shame.



Hebrews 6:4-6 (Contemporary English Version)

<sup class="versenum" id="en-CEV-26467">4-6</sup>But what about people who turn away after they have already seen the light and have received the gift from heaven and have shared in the Holy Spirit? What about those who turn away after they have received the good message of God and the powers of the future world? There is no way to bring them back. What they are doing is the same as nailing the Son of God to a cross and insulting him in public!

 

[El Hombre viejo]

Sorry. My previous post was for rojolco not RJ

Hebrews 6:4-6 (The Message)

<sup class="versenum" id="en-MSG-12719">4-8</sup>Once people have seen the light, gotten a taste of heaven and been part of the work of the Holy Spirit, once they've personally experienced the sheer goodness of God's Word and the powers breaking in on us—if then they turn their backs on it, washing their hands of the whole thing, well, they can't start over as if nothing happened. That's impossible. Why, they've re-crucified Jesus! They've repudiated him in public! Parched ground that soaks up the rain and then produces an abundance of carrots and corn for its gardener gets God's "Well done!" But if it produces weeds and thistles, it's more likely to get cussed out. Fields like that are burned, not harvested.



You have to see what the Word says. Not what your head says my friend. You have to let the Holy Spirit teach. Not your amazing mind.
You may be the smartest person on the planet but your mind will not give you a clear picture of the things of the spirit.

 

[RJ]

This is definitely an area where we disagree. I do not see sarcasm in this passage at all. I see a very literal warning. While I do not see it as a warning for believers to not fall away, I do believe the author is using a negative point to reinforce his positive point of following Christ. Because I believe the author was speaking to unbelievers who were on the fence, it was still a very real possibility that they would go to Hell as they had not placed their trust in Christ. If, after having all the intellectual knowledge that they had at that point, they still rejected Christ, there would be no hope of repentance.



I agree that there is no way to be brought back. You are either saved or you are not. There is no flip flopping. I have been saying this the whole time.



I gave an example of people who had been moved by the things of God in Matthew 5. I also gave the example of the unbelieving spouse being blessed by the Spirit due to the faith of the believing spouse. I also gave Scriptural examples of God blessing both the righteous and the unrighteous. There is also the example of Jesus feeding the 5,000 of which certainly not all were believers.

John MacArthur actually has a really great commentary on this subject. I will post some of what he says:



and...

I agree that there is no way to be brought back. You are either saved or you are not. There is no flip flopping. I have been saying this the whole time.

Since you say that we agree above, then would you agree that the writer of Hebrews 6, whether it be Paul or someone one else, is writing to the true believers of the Jerusalem Churches and telling THEM, about the false, Apostate non-believers that were among them and trying to get these true believers to participate in Levitical Temple sacrifices?