Hebrews 6:4-6

Come to think of it, he's pretty "creative" with his theology, too.

 

For good sport, a similar topic is found at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35080&page=4

The title of that thread is "Hebrews 6:4-6?"
(not to be confused with "Hebrews 6:4-6" here)

Again:
Hebrews 6:4-6 is an example of the Greek Logical
argument: Reducto Abserdium. Hebrews 6:4-6 is
a proof test for the doctrine of Absolute Security of
the Believer aka (also known as) OSAS = Once Saved
Always Saved.

Jesus saves.
Jesus saves forever.
Jesus saves to the uttermost.

Go do some good works if you are saved
cause all your good works ain't going to save you at all.
If you are saved, you will do good works.
If you aren't saved, you might do some good works
anyway, but they won't save you.
Jesus saves.
Jesus saves forever.
Jesus saves to the uttermost.

 

Come to think of it thats the nicest thing one of them thar doggone Calvinisnt ever said to me and all about theology too as if they own the sled.

Creative Theology:

All those years of theological training sits in dusty boxes because most people don’t ask the questions that got answered in seminary.

People ask practical everyday questions about life, for which theological answers undergird a wisdom, perspective, and discernment, [the ability to translate] abstract metaphysical ideas into pragmatic realities...

Some people call it common sense; and, where in the world do you learn that?






​

Where indeed?

This is probably the issue that grabs my attention most when I think about the jaw-dropping reality of Christ. It's a great challenge to translate biblical theology into authentic spiritual living - "great" in every sense of the word. I appreciate one's perception in hitting the heart of the matter so directly. So how do you go about "translating abstract metaphysical ideas into pragmatic realities?"

I'd suggest that we take our cues from the Bible, for starters, seeing as the book is 75% narrative and 15% poetry - all conveying the timeless, propositional truths of God. In case you're wondering, that last 10% is thought-organized, or "abstract" theology. But every page of the Bible does the "theological" work. In other words, "sermonizing" and "theologizing" are not only not the only ways to convey truth - they may not even be the best ways. The creativity I see in Jesus' teaching, and even in the writing of Paul, the Bible's great "theologian," is staggering. Gritty nouns and verbs and vivid metaphors should be the tools of every pastor-theologian

 

Sure we keep it, or most of us will. Being that kai can be used in some cases as if in the Greek language. The translators figured this was one of those cases. Some may rather speak about a kia typo though.

 

I think it has been a difficult passage for many folks. I'll share a few comments - hope they are of some value to you:

1 - First, actually the Greek text does not say "if they fall away." There are a series of participial phrases here. It is very difficult to interpret those phrases as referring to other than believers. It goes something like this...
"for impossible,
to those having been enlightened
[and] to those having tasted the heavenly gift
[and] to those having become partakers of the Holy Spirit
[and] to those having tasted the the good Word of God
[and] to those having tasted the powers of the age to come
[and] falling away
again to renew to repentance."

"and falling away" (KAI PARAPESONTAS) There is no hint of conditionality (there is no semantic marker -"if"), yet it is somewhat implicit, which is why most Bibles have added it. Also note that the "falling away" is not a sure thing, but just a possibility.

2 - This is referring to genuine Jewish believers who were considering returning to their OT sacrificial practices due to the tremendous persecution they were facing. The warning does not refer to possibly losing their salvation, but to the steps that God would take if they persisted in the direction they were going. These were immature believers, it should be added.

3 - To "renew to repentance" is not referring to re-gaining eternal life. Unbelievers often need to repent as part of the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives convincing them of their need to deal with sin in their lives. But they are not saved by repenting, but by trusting in Christ. Believers also sometimes need to deal with sin.

4 - The "impossibility" to renew to repentance refers to a hardening of the heart. If we are not careful we can find ourselves in such a state - as believers. (Unbelievers are already in such a state.)

5 - To say that someone who fit the description of these Christians, whose hearts were so hardened, were impossible to renew to repentance is not to say that it is very hard to do this. It is impossible... for men to do so. And God would need to take them through some severe discipline before they might perhaps be ready to respond to the Lord. That fits in with verse 3 quite nicely... "And this we will do (proceed on to maturity), if God permits."

6 - Only God is possibily able to bring the hardened believer back into a vibrant walk with God... other Christians can only pray, for their hardened heart has made them "impossible to renew to repentance." IOW, other believers will not be able to exhort them such that they return to discipleship. Some of these Jewish believers were at a point that the writer of Hebrews (Barnabas?) could do nothing to draw them on to maturity... unless God were to change their heart. Some of these believers were at a point where Barnabas knew that he could do nothing - God would have to do it. And the process of God doing just that is then described. It's not very pretty. When we get to such a state God generally needs to take us through some trials.

7 - God may take them home (physical death) if they do not respond to the work of the Spirit in their life.

8 - In 6:8 it says that they are unfruitful (yielding thorns, etc.), and close to being cursed (note - "close" - but they are not cursed and can never be cursed since Christ was cursed in their behalf, I might add).

9 - In 6:8 still, it also says that their end is to be "burned." Now, this illustration is not referring to hell-fire - never says nor does it imply that. But think about it, what happens when you burn a field (representing the believer)? The crops/thorns on it are destroyed, and the soil is purged. It is then able to be used for useful crops again. In fact, in those days, that was what was done to purify the topsoil. This represents harsh treatment, IOT cause the believer to become useful soil again. The CROPS/THORNS are destroyed... not the soil. That was what was intended in the illustration.

10 - OK... need one more to make it 10... Think about it: if "impossible to renew to repentance" refers to losing your salvation, then we must take this precisely as it states it... "impossible to renew to repentance" would mean that if they lost their salvation, due to continued sin, they would be unable to ever gain it back again... even if they sought it later with tears... even if they prayed fervently, asking God to forgive them... even if they read their Bible every day and begged God to save them... No matter who sincerely the person comes to regret his earlier decision... regardless of the humble spirit... No matter how much God loves that person... Now, does that sound like how God works?

Ezek. 18:21-23 - But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live.

11 - Crud - need one more: These were Jewish Christians, and the writer of Hebrews was trying to remind them of the attitude of those Jews in the wilderness who refused to trust God in Kadesh-barnea and were told they would wander around for 40 years until that generation all died. These were saved individuals, yet because of their lack of trusting God they missed out on the opportunity to inherit the promises... to enter into the promised land. Now such entrance represents rewards for faithfulness - being joint-heirs of Christ. Now eternal life is a gift, but their additional rewards are to be given at the BEMA seat of Christ. (Romans 14:10-12 & 2 Corin. 5:10)

12 - OK, don't know how many this will be. :D Given the Jewish nature of the readers, the words "blessing" and "curse" would have particular significance to them. In Deuteronomy 28-30 thsee words are juxtapositioned in which blessing (rewards) was promised for obedience and cursing (IOW discipline) was promised for disobedience. (See Deut. 28:15, 45; 29:26; 3-:1, 19) The word "curse" should not then be taken as a reference to unbelievers - lost herew. In the OT this same word (in LXX) refers to God's discipline of His own children who were disobedient. I see no reason to treat this text any differently.

13 - "If it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless"... The Greek adjective used here is ADOKIMOS - a word that Paul liked. He did not use it to refer to unbelievers. It means to not "stand the test, to be unqualified, worthless." This is reward language (blessing/cursing). It was used often to refer to the process of testing and examining metals (especially by fire - to purify them - see Prov. 8:10; 17:3; 25:4; Isa. 1:22). The apostle Paul used this term to refer to himself in 1 Corin. 9:27, "lest... I myself should be disqualified." His eternal salvation was obviously not the case (look at the context there) but instead the very real possibility of disqualification or disapproval at the BEMA seat of Christ - in terms of his ministry. The point of the metaphor was that Paul was concerned about possibily jeopardizing his eternal rewards. That was the main point that Paul was making there.

I see the author of Hebrews making essentially the same point.

The situation in view here is a serious one - perhaps even apostasy. The Jewish believers here IMO were considering the possibility of retruning to OT sacrifice (See chap. 2, 7 & 10 as well as 3:12) to including adherring to the law as well as trusting in Christ. They were probably experiencing intense pressure from fellow Jews into giving up believing that the death of Jesus was enough to cover their sins. (Judaizers)

Nuf said.

FA

 

Here we go again!

Whole lot of translators disagree with you. The word "kai" in Greek is connected to other words such as "they were to fall away" can be "if". Agreed in most cases "kai" is used as "and" but the translators, even the KJV 1611 considered it to be "if". You are wrong when you say that the Greek does not use kai as if in all cases. It can be "if" in Greek if used with other words and apparently the translators considered this to be such a case.

How can it be conditional if you remove the "if"?

Strange all these translators all down through time have considered it to be "if" and here in the last days we remove it?

 

Should we not regard the book of Hebrews in the same light in which we regard the other NT books, many of which were written to particular churches or individuals? Just as Paul sent letters to certain churches that Peter called Scripture, should we not view Hebrews likewise?

While God said that if a wicked person turns from his sinning and begins serving Him with a true heart, he will be saved, He also says that if a righteous person falls into deliberate sin & doesn't repent, he shall die in his sin.

I knew a man who went from being a drunk to being an excellent preacher who led many to Christ, but then returned to his drunkenness & womanizing, dying in that state. Now, while I cannot begin to answer the question of whether or not he was saved, I DO know that he CURSED JESUS not long before his death. That really saddened me. We had been friends for years, & when he fell ill for the last time I tried to see him, but he refused to see me, telling his girlfriend to tell me that "he didn't wanna hear that Jesus #@&*!$ again."

While he was a preacher, he was outstanding, preaching with great power, and soon had a church of a hundred or so members, many of whom I know to be fine Christians today. I am still amazed that he could turn his back on Christ as he did.

Paul himself continued many Jewish practices such as Sabbath-keeping, & making & performing vows. And the Christian Jews continued to observe Passover, but God had said the Passover observance was to be kept FOREVER; after all Jesus Himself kept it. That's what His "Last Supper" was. (Yes, He initiated foot-washing & Communion at the time, but He in no way ended Passover!) It woulda been very hard for Jews such as Peter & Paul to have simply chucked ALL their Jewishness out the window.

I believe Hebrews 6:4-6 is a warning to ALL Christians not to allow their hearts to return to their old ways, be those ways OT Judaism, dope &/or alcohol & other sin, or to any false religion they may have left to come to Christ.

 

Faith alone: // "and falling away" (KAI PARAPESONTAS) There is no hint of conditionality (there is no semantic marker -"if"), yet it is somewhat implicit, which is why most Bibles have added it. Also note that the "falling away" is not a sure thing, but just a possibility.//

Uh, you seem to contradict youself in this sentence.
To me 'conditionality' means the same 'is not a sure
thing, but just a possibility'.

 

The new Kregel catalog came in the mail yesterday and I'll be on the lookout for this in March of 2007.

http://shop6.gospelcom.net/epages/Kregel.storefront/455dd4e00435352c271dccfd84190678/Product/View/2132-2

I'll put my cards on the table and identify my views with Randall Gleason, but I'm interested in seeing what the other authors have to say.

I'll not pick the same fight again but the notion that a translator can find something implicit in the text for conditionality based on the content of the words in the clause and sentence instead of the syntax has been my beef with "if" all along. Content should not determine what a translator discovers to be implicit in the text. That's the attitude of "well it shouldn't mean this, so it must imply this." You can try to get inside the head of the author and speak for him on hunches but out goes your objective translation philosophy. Granted, grammar and syntax aren't absolute but it should reasonably rule out certain translations that can't defend themselves from what's actually in the text and not what translators think should be in the text.

I'm not interested in repeating what happened the last time so Bro. Bob: Yes, it could mean "if" and other translations say so (and apparently, Strong's), my concern is what is the evidence in the text itself for "if" not the evidence of misusing (perhaps you're not but I am suspicious that you are) lexicons, Strong's and and then resorting to merely referring to previous translations. Ed, yes there may indeed be some logical argument in the text that supports your case, but let that come through in your exposition of the text not its translation.

Have a happy Thanksgiving all.

 

Thank you Bro. Brandon C. Jones.
I like to read. :wavey:
A person running for the Oklahoma office for the lead
educator (he only got about 4% of the votes
said we aught to line our classrooms with books
to protect the kids in case of a tornado.
This lining the room with books also works good with
fallout.

 

Bob,


For the 1st time on the thread, I agree with you on the line above. With The word "if" we have a condition that MAY happen. Remove the word and it DOES happen.

But after reading the thread again, I think I see what the fight is over. I maybe wrong, for I am wrong often. I think the fear in some is what they see in "parapipto" When we do not use the word "if" and parapipto means lossing salvation, then we all have a problem.

parapipto does not have to mean loss of salvation, but can mean error. Therefore it does not harm the context, and also we have support from the Greek to have the right word "and" placed in there.

parapipto
1) to fall beside a person or thing
2) to slip aside
a) to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander
b) to error


If I may...it reads right to say...

and if they follow error ....to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.


The focus is not on what happened but why they cannot be "renewed".

"seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame."

If we use the word If the reason still holds true, as to why they cannot berenewed.
If there is no "if"...still the reason is the same as to why they cannot be remove.

So "if" does not make the case. The reason why...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Falling in to error does not mean you loss you salvation, but it does mean you can shame the name of Christ. That is the point of the passage friends.


In Christ....James

 

James;
I am sorry but not sure what you are saying. Are you now agreeing with me or not?
There are some Greeks who live in the town close to me. I went to them today and they said as you do the word "kia" in Greek means "and". They also said when using it with "if they shall fall away" is proper ancient Greek also.

Explain to me again for sometimes I am slow are you agreeing with me now?

Also, if you remove all future repentance then they are in trouble, "no chastement" so they become a bastard and not a son. You open up a whole new can of worms.

 

Bob,

I agreed with that one line where you said...

For it is not conditional. That was it.

I have not change in how I look at "kia".

There were 3 dialects under ancient Greek ….one is Hellenistic KoinE or common Greek. KoinE Greek is also called "New Testament Greek".

The other stuff....No need to go over what we have already said. I have already said how this can indeed work, very early in the thread and covered "repentance" when I posted it.



In Christ.....James

 

Well, to differ with one man from the mountains is one thing but to differ with the Greeks themselves, most translators plus other is another thing. You won't even acknowledge that there are instances that kai is used in place of "if" in the Greek but I think it has been proven on here that it is indeed been done and is done. I agree with the translators, strongs own explaination of "kai" when it is used as "if", Geneva Bible, 1611 KJV of NT, and the Greek people themselves. Strange indeed when it takes the Americans to tell the Greeks what their language is.

 

"If" tells us it IS possible, while "when" tells us it WILL or HAS actually happened.

 

1 Corth: 7:28


εανδεκαιγημηςουχημαρτεςκαιεανγημηηπαρθενοςουχημαρτενθλιψινδετησαρκιεξουσινοιτοιουτοιεγωδευμωνφειδομαι

ButandIFthou marrythou hastnotsinnedandifa virginmarryshe hathnotsinnedNeverthelesssuchshall havetroublein the fleshbutIspareyou

Here is another case where kai is used as "if" should we change it too?

 

Bob, that passage will carry no water for you because it happens to be one of those instances where kai USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER PARTICLE "ean" means "if." Notice how both instances of "if" have the combination of kai with ean.

I've got two examples for you closer to the text at hand: Hebrews 6:4b and Hebrews 6:5

if (kai) they have shared in the Holy Spirit, if (kai) they have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away...

Should we change those to conditionals too? What do your Greek friends say?

 

Brandon, I know you would love to talk to my friends but wonder what you would say to all those who first translated the NT. My friends say the modern Greek is different from the ancient Greek. You don't have a quarrel with me you have a quarrel with most of the translators all over the world.

εανδεκαι
ButandIF

You see a "ean" in there. I see "eav" in the first one. It shows the words together in the paste but they really are not in Strongs.

You must not of read my posts I said when it was "if" it was in conjunction with other words, such as "if they shall fall away".

The more I study this Greek the more I know you fellows are swinging on a limb.
There are so many words not even put in the Scriptures, just plain left out! Let me correct that, they were words added that were not in the orginal script. Many words.

They had their hands full translating, at least I can see that but you fellows seem to know all about it. Na,

 

εαν δε και
But and if

according to Srongs

 

I came to a similar conclusion several years ago. I had met some Jewish Rabbi's in an aliance and began to study the OT with them. I thought I know Hebrew but then was givin the advanced course complete with customs and traditions during Bible days. It really brought a whole new outlook to me.

I know you still believe and know the Bible is the inspired word of God but do you believe in the word for word translation? Knowing what man had to deal with translating old or dead languages into english, how well do you believe they did?