Sometimes it seems in our day that good ole timey biblical exposition has become a thing of the past. So, for those who enjoy good biblical exposition within the community of faith, I propose a question (or two to you).
What is the meaning of Hebrews 5:11-6:8?
Sub questions:
Can or can't you lose your salvation?
If so, how can you get it back?
If not, what about apostasy? What is this verse saying about the "hypothetical" apostate condition?
If man has a free-will to chose God, will God override his free-will if that person decides to apostatize?
Is there any hope for those who have left the faith?
What would you say it takes to really become an apostate?
Is apostasy the same as the unpardonable sin (blaspheming the Holy Spirit-unbelief)?
Do you know of any apostates?
Can't wait to hear your answers (and I am being serious).
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The fate of those apostates
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hello? I know you have an opinion. I promise I won't bite
I read it quickly, I mean, like I would have a newspaper story.
It didn't seem to be about apostacy at all. It seemed to emphasize the human aspects of Jesus -- if not actually insisting that he was totally human, but a special human, specially begotten by God.
Which I know is supposed to be heresy. Which might make me an apostate -- for saying so.
But then, I just realized I brought with me the concept of Christ as High Priest, from previous study of that interpretation of Hebrews.
Can you lose your salvation? I go with what I was taught as a lad in a Southern Baptist church, back when they were still historically Baptist:
If you "lose your salvation," you never hsd it in the first place. If you worry about it, you're not trusting God, who is the author of our salvation, but your own understanding, and you should repent of it and shut up with the worrying.
Heretic!!!
No not at all. =)The Western Church has actually de-emphasized the humanity of Christ. I like our Eastern brethren who have emphasized his humaness.
He's both.
I would define an apostate as one who willfully told God that he no longer wanted to go to heaven. That's definately not you.
If there can be no loss, then what does this passage say? You've said it was about the humaness of Christ. But what about the "falling away of those who were once enlightened"?
I think it is saying that if one can loss it, one can't get it back. But I wanted to make sure.
Maybe if they can't be renewed again, they'll die, "be burned" -- be taken out of this life, out of the way, having gone as far as they can -- but there are "better things relating to salvation ..." which is another matter.
?
Ah yes, better things relating to salvation
It doesn't sound like "Grace" to me.
Where did Jesus say this, infer this?
This kinda contradicts the prodigal son parable does it not?
If Jesus thought this was the case, then would not the parable have gone on to tell how the son fell into his bad habits again, went away, and the father wouldn't let him come back the second time.
What happens then to Christ's seven times seventy?
Now if this is a "higher" knowlege, what is it higher than?
Meat rather than milk?
This doesn't sound like the one who said you must become as a child to enter in.
Is grace conditional? Then is it grace? Is it extend only once?
I just think it may be nothing more than manipulative bullshit by a group who always had trouble with the judaised part of the early church anyway. It was written by a Roman Greek (not Paul)trying to tell the Hebrews, via long distant admonition, not to fall away under pursecution. It is Orthodoxy trying to gain control.
I might even say it is among the earliest of the Roman perversions of the gospel.
I could be wrong.
Sorry for the delay in response. I just got the email.
So many issues so little time.
I will address the grace issue. How gracious is it for God to force the will of anyone? I am not saying (nor the writer of the book of Hebrews) that God does not have grace and give people 2nd 3rd and even 1000th chances. But it seems from the passage (canonical as it may be) that if one can lose his salvation (and I am not saying he can) it is not in a haphazardly manner. It is a concious desicion to willfully tell God to take back his gift. In that situation, that person can't be redeemed again. He has invalidated the sacrifice of Christ in his life.
Now, has that ever really happened? The writer is making a supposition to make a point about the need to mature. He's not necessarily laying down the rules for getting or loosing salvation.
And I doubt the book of Hebrews was written by a Roman Greek. I wil agree it was probably not written by Paul. But there is no good scholarly evidence to support a Roman Greek authorship that I am aware of.
Thanks for the comments though. Always enjoy seeing you around!
pecheur said;
"And I doubt the book of Hebrews was written by a Roman Greek. I wil agree it was probably not written by Paul. But there is no good scholarly evidence to support a Roman Greek authorship that I am aware of."
Do we agree that it was written in greek, and not by Paul? Then the source as Rome/Italy is infered in Hevrews 13:24.
Pecheur said:" Now, has that ever really happened? The writer is making a supposition to make a point about the need to mature. He's not necessarily laying down the rules for getting or loosing salvation."
Maybe so, but Hebrews is used by several denominations to support their stance against "once saved always saved" and their proposition that one can and does fall from grace.
Of course by now you realize that I question most of the canon's legitimatcy.
Hmmm. I question most the church's general adherence to the Canon as "the Word of God," as opposed to it CONVEYING "the Word of God," which itself is questionable, since the phrase in the NT refers to Christ/Sophia.
But I don't think I question its legitamcy as a record of the early -- post-council -- church's take on everything. And, even so, it shouldn't be discarded -- just fully seen for what it is.
I do not question its authority, since it, rightly or wrongly, is what "the Church" -- Western - -has generally adhered to.
But.
I do question it as an accurate record of what the very earliest followers of Jesus thought following Jesus was all about. Because for all Canonization's attempts to "civilize" Jesus and institutionalize the faith, the plain radicalness of Jesus et al., still shines through.
Therefore the writings called "the Bible" are still to be studied, pondered and used in meditation. Just not treated as "history," or inerrant. Or even "God's revelation to man" -- not without a bunch of footnotes and caveats.
ER, are you on your third for the night?
Wait, I've got two more to go to catch up. I'll get to them and come back and re-read what you "said". It may make sense then. I'll be right back.
Post a Comment