Hebrews 6:4-6

Craig, I posted a whole post of data, using just of the major passages from God. I think you agree in principle that God's word is the authority. But I think in reality, you are unwittingly compromising your own position on this one. That is the only perspective I can come up with. I have tried to understand your position. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Found this page with interesting reading. Deals with the views of the Church Fathers on repentence compared to how that view was transformed by the reformers.

The Fathers developed views on repentance which ultimately led to unsavory views on baptism, confession, etc. This developed into many of the Roman Catholic practices we are familiar with. Of course their view on eternal security would have been affected by their view of repentance as well.

Something to consider.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1988ii/wilkin.html

 

Hi Keith,

Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (KJV, 1769 edition)

Welcome to the Baptist Message Board! The Web Site that you linked to belongs to the Grace Evangelical Society. The most well known member of that sect is Zane Hodges. He teaches that Matt. 25:30, and the other similar passages in Matthews Gospel, refer to God's punishment of Christian in HEAVEN. Do you believe that to be a Scriptural teaching? Zane Hodges does. A basic tenet of the Grace Evangelical Society is that repentance from ones’ sins is NOT necessary for salvation. Another basic tenet of the Grace Evangelical Society is that it is not necessary to accept Jesus as both Lord and savior to be saved, but only as savior. Some of their most extreme teachings can NOT be found in any literature that I am aware of that was published before 1950. However, I am in the process of researching the history of the origin of these doctrines. Of course they claim that these doctrines are all very clearly taught in the Bible.

For reasons that are not difficult to understand, the Grace Evangelical Society finds the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers on repentance to be very repugnant. They see the same problems with most OSAS doctrines as do those who teach conditional security, but they seek to explain away those problems by teaching that Christians who are not faithful to God will be very severely punished in heaven. Another similar group that also sees the same problems with most OSAS doctrines teaches that Christians who are not faithful to God will spend the millennium in a place of severe punishment (rather than in “the kingdom of God,”) but that after the 1000 years they will spend eternity with Christ on the earth rather than in heaven. These people are commonly called “Millennial Exclusionists.” The most well known member of this sect is Joey Faust, a man only a high school education who wrote the book, Will God Spare the Rod?

Keith, so far I have found two or three members of this board who hold to the teachings of Joey Faust, but none who hold to the teachings of Zane Hodges. Where do you stand on these issues?

 

I don't care much for systematic theologies because, from my point of view, they try to fit God into a man-made box so small that it could not hold a thimble. Nonetheless, some people find them to be helpful for understanding various theological points of view and the arguments for these points of view. Therefore I am going to suggest that you read the following systematic theologies:

• Carter, Charles W., General Editor. A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1983.

• Wiley, Orton. Christian Theology . Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1940.

If these don’t help you, may I refer you to Princeton Theological Seminary? Most of the professors there are of the reformed persuasion, but they are not ignorant regarding the important role of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers in Biblical hermeneutics. And they have a 450,000 volume library, one of the better theological libraries in the U.S. You can find additional information at http://www.ptsem.edu/.

 

Dear Brother Craig,

Along with the doctrine of the "Real Presence" comes with it the idea of a "sacerdotal priesthood" which was believed by the early Church Fathers.

While many of them spoke of the "sacrifices" (prayer, thanksgiving) of the Christian, they early on spoke of the priest and the so-called "sacrifice of the mass" or the "eucharistic" sacrifice which is the ongoing sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ extended into the present time and celebrated by both the clergy and laity of which the greater mass of professing Christianity holds to this day.

If we went soley by the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches and their claims of the infallibility of Church Tradition (of course they tell us which Traditions are apostolic) then we would all find it necessary to have both a sacerdotal priesthood and accept the idea of the Real Presence as defined by the Church of Rome/Eastern Orthodox Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

Their Scripture:
John 6
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

So then they have both compelling Scripture and the writings and Tradition of the Church unchallenged for several centuries.

This ongoing "sacrifce" is to us as Baptist, boderline blasphemy (if not the real thing).

I say this Craig to show that for several (as much as a dozen) centuries the Church Fathers were quite wrong about several things and would agree with Pastor Larry that something as important as the Conditional Salvation, the Real Presence and the Sacerdotal (ministerial) Priesthood should be determined in the final analysis upon the Scriptures.

It would seem that a case could be made against each of the Baptists Distinctives were we to give the early church fathers the decisive edge.

Based soley upon the Scriptures you still have a strong case.

On the other hand OSAS folks make an equally strong Scripture case for their side.

This is not a rebuttal just some further imformation. Hopefully this thread will not take the usual down-hill course.

HankD

 

A systematic theology is valuable because God's truth is single. It does not have contradictions. All a systematic theology does it take the revelation from God about a particular topic and categorize it together. It is a necessary discipline of theological studies. I have read some of the weslayan arminian theologies in the past and have found them unconvincing. I have not come to this discussion unarmed with the knowledge of those views. I simply find them deficient.

 

"I don't care much for systematic theologies because, from my point of view, they try to fit God into a man-made box so small that it could not hold a thimble."

YES! YES!

I could not agree more! I have come up with the same analogy myself!

 

That is the reason why biblical theology is so much better.

 

Without systematic theology, you end up with a bunch of brush piles of theology that don't fit together. Lack of systematic is what leads to false doctrine. Biblical theology is a necessary step on teh road to systematic, but you cannot stop that short. You end up out in the wilderness without direction.

 

Dear Brother Hank,

I am not arguing for Roman Catholicism or the views on any one church father, and especially not those who lived and wrote after 400 when the Church began a rapid decline into error. However, these men where not fools, and if the doctrine of eternal security is taught in the Scriptures, at least some of them would have noticed that fact. But there if no solid evidence that they did, and no evidence at all of any kind that any of them did prior to 325. The fact that the church fathers were aware of many theological traditions only lends weight to the argument that they were aware of theological data and concepts. But they were not aware of the concept of eternal security because that concept had not yet been developed. It is NOT a Biblical concept or doctrine; it is an erroneous concept and false doctrine that resulted from a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about the sovereignty of God. These misunderstandings of what the Bible teaches about the sovereignty of God did not occur until the 5th century.

There are dozens or more of different kinds of churches that teach that all of their doctrines are Biblical doctrines, and they honest and firmly believe that to be a fact, just like Larry honestly and firmly believes his doctrines are Biblical doctrines. BUT, these doctrines, in many cases, severely clash with each other and some of these people, if not all of them, are necessarily WRONG. They argue as Larry does that they can not be wrong, because they are teaching what the Bible clearly teaches. However, since their doctrines are highly incompatible with each other, at LEAST SOME of them are necessarily mistaken, regardless of the firmness of their “Biblical” convictions.

 

Absolute nonsense! Of the 475 (plus or minus) systematic theologies that have been published, I do not know of even two of them that agree with each other . Without systematic theology, you end up with the Bible itself , as distasteful as they may be to some foolish but arrogant men that think that God is a rag doll that they can play with.

What does the Bible really teach, and what evidence is there that it REALLY teaches that? These are the questions that a few people in this thread need to more carefully answer for themselves.

 

It sounds like everything you don't like is nonsense. People who see the value of systematic theoology don't view God as a ragdoll. That is ridiculous. If anyone has ever correlated two verses, then they have practiced systematic theology. It has been abundnat here as people have said what Hebrews 6:4-6 means based on what other passages teach. That is systematic theology. It is inescapable.

Systematic does not undermine the Bible. It instead exalts it. It, like the writings of every other man is prone to error and misunderstanding. But it is not only invaluable, it is inescapable.

 

Perhaps we should start a new thread on what is and what is not NORMALLY meant by “systematic theology.”

 

Could be a good thread. Might help to dispel some of the rumors floating around ...

 

Larry,

I think that one of the problems with systematic theology is it tends, by logical reasoning, to make absolutes which may not really be so absolute when we look at what the biblical authors intended. Like John I much prefer biblical theology.

In this debate I tend to feel that based on Jesus words salvation is a pretty big thing - a gift. As such it is something that is not lost and gained and lost and gained etc. I do not think that that means in an exceptional case that one could not lose salvation. The Acts of Peter gives us the example of Simon Magus - by description he certainly initially was a partaker in the Christian life. Then he was enticed by Satan.

Regarding Hebrews 6:4 - it says that it is impossible to renew him again. If someone could lose salvation could he not conceivably ask for forgiveness. Asking for this would not be putting Christ to shame. I think this hints that the passage is likely speaking about those who never really were truly fertile ground to begin with - especially since the following verses give this very analogy.

 

I have never understood why people like to juxtapose Biblical theology and systematic theology. It seems to me that Systematic theologies tend to list Biblical theologies in a thematic way, and Biblical theologies list systematic truths as they are found in the Biblical order.

 

I can't agree with this. The pursuit of systematic theology is the pursuit of theology period. When Genesis says something about God and Isaiah says something about God, systematic theology "systematizes" those statements. It correlates them and combines the "piles" into one theology of God.

I think Simon Magus is a great example of false faith. He was not saved. But in your paragraph, you seem to have contradictions. You say it needs to be based on Jesus' words and that on that basis it cannot be gained and lost and gained and lost, etc. But then you say that it can be lost in some circumstnaces. And I would ask, in what circumstances is "eternal life" not eternal? In what circumstances is "They shall never perish" not really "they shall never perish"? In what circumstances is "I came to do my Father's will and I will raise him (the one that the Father gives to me) up at the last day" not really that?

You see, that is what I don't understand. Those verses do not contradict each other. If so, then God is a liar. The passage that follows Heb 6:4-6 is a passage about the faithfulness of God and the fact that he cannot lie. If someone can lose their salvation, then I do not see how you avoid the conclusion that God lied. He is the one who said it was eternal life. He is the one who said they shall never perish. He is the one who said we cannot be separated from his love by anything. If God said that, and God cannot lie, then how does any saved person perish or become separated from God?

I don't see any way.

This would be one reason why this passage cannot refer to truly saved people.

That is exactly my point. These people were not truly saved. They are in fact contrasted with truly saved people.

 

I agree with you, Tom. Good to see you back around a bit.

 

Larry,

Please note that I essentially am adherent to "OSAS". The passage in Acts of Peter doesn't give us a lesson about salvation - rather about Simon Magus reflects the VIEWPOINT of the early church. It would seem that at least some thought of him as a believer. Likely he really was not a believer to begin with.

Consider also the verse in Shepherd of Hermas, "it is impossible for him who will now deny his lord to be saved". Certainly Hermas postdates Hebrews and likely this verse reflects Hebrews 6:4.

I agree with most all of your points in this thread except the systematic theology. Now don't get me wrong - I own multiple systematic theologies. I simply think they do to a certain extent put God in a box. You mentioned the example of taking a verse from Genesis and Isaiah and putting them together to more fully describe God. The two books are written from different viewpoints - trying to amalgamate different different portraits of God for the sake of "neatness" may result in a portrait that is perhaps a little to "defined".

 

I'll "nutshellize" my views on this verse since we're nearing the 20 page limit.

I think that based on what Jesus said (Jn ch 3,6,10 among others) that salvation is an essentially permanent thing.

In any event I do not think Heb 6:4 is even attempting to answer this question. Heb 6:7-9 make this clear.

My only reservation with "OSAS" lies in it's derivation from systematic theology. We are taught to assume OSAS - and then any related verses are simply interpreted against this backdrop!