Hebrews 6:4-6

[chbrooking]

Hebrews 6:4-6

Not that it makes a real difference -- impossible is impossible --, but I'm curious about the nature of the impossibility in view. Is it a legal impossibility or a psychological impossibility; an objective one or a subjective one? On the one hand it's said that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. On the other it says they are crucifying again the Son of God. I guess I'm asking whether they are in some state of irreparable breach of contract or something like that, or whether it's a statement about our own nature, that it cannot be enlightened twice.

So, which is it . . . or is there a third option I'm not seeing?

 

[Matthew1034]

It is impossible to be born-again again.

 

[chbrooking]

Wouldn't that imply that one can lose their salvation. That is, if the text is talking about someone who is regenerate, or in the words of the WSC, effectually called, then they must be elect, and they must, in the words of Rom. 8, be "glorified."

I don't think I can understand Heb. 6 that way. I think I have to understand Heb. 6 in light of 1 John 2:19.

In other words, if they are born again, then they have not been brought back to the garden, but beyond it, to the eschatological destiny of the imagebearer.

Your two cents is worth every bit as much as mine. I don't have a better answer. I just don't think I can buy an understanding with the particular two pennies you gave me.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

An excellent exegesis of this verse is found here

 

[DonP]

For me, to taste Christ is not to eat Him.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. NKJV

One who has been in the visible covenant or external covenant membership and has not been converted can be said to be cut off or leave, the visible membership. We can be warned not to be content to be only in the visible membership but to be sure of our election, work out our salvation that we can be assured of being in a state of grace.

Covenant breakers were put to death. So that may be a type of covenant breaker today.

It does seem to go against some of our experience in seeing some leave the church and come back later. But we do not know the spiritual realities.

I see it as a strong warning to covenant members, as this verse:

Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off
NKJV

 

[Peairtach]

It is impossible because the Spirit has stopped striving with one who was not truly regenerate. Ultimately only God knows infallibly who have fallen away to this extent. This passage must have reference to the unforgiveable sin mentioned by Jesus, since he said there was only one such sin.

We must be careful not to make judgements in regard to who has done this, especially verbally to someone who has fallen away.

Would that be correct? We shouldn't make judgements regarding whether someone has sinned unforgiveably? Where there's physical life there's hope of salvation?

 

[chbrooking]

Thanks Sterling,
He does an excellent job working with the text. In fact, he's persuaded me. But he doesn't really answer the question I asked. And he only worked through one of the verses (as far as I could tell -- did he follow up with another post? I couldn't find it.)

Whether we take a hypothetical, but really saved, or a apparently, but not really saved view, I'm still wondering what is the nature of the impossibility. WHY is it impossible?

Thanks for link.

-----Added 4/21/2009 at 08:03:59 EST-----

Covenant breakers were put to death. So that may be a type of covenant breaker today.

It does seem to go against some of our experience in seeing some leave the church and come back later. But we do not know the spiritual realities.

That's an interesting take, Don. But the PCA BCO has a very nice treatment on restoration of one previously excommunicated. I know, because we just went through the process with a PCA church when a previous excommunicant among us sought restoration. The OP BCO doesn't even treat it!!!

So are you suggesting that we not restore a repentant excommunicant?

-----Added 4/21/2009 at 08:11:37 EST-----

Thanks Richard, for understanding my question.
That's a reasonable suggestion, if we take the "appeared to be saved" view. I wonder if, however, we ought to speak as though the Spirit might unsuccessfully strive with someone. Does the Spirit strive with us, or convict us/enlighten us/give us new birth?

Good thought. Any others?

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Thanks Sterling,
He does an excellent job working with the text. In fact, he's persuaded me. But he doesn't really answer the question I asked. And he only worked through one of the verses (as far as I could tell -- did he follow up with another post? I couldn't find it.)

Whether we take a hypothetical, but really saved, or a apparently, but not really saved view, I'm still wondering what is the nature of the impossibility. WHY is it impossible?

Thanks for link.

Clark:

That post is one in a thread of several posts in which he exegetes Hebrews 5:7-6:6.

His first substantial post in the thread is on page 2 HERE

The whole thread is 5 pages long. His exegesis of Heb 6:5 is HERE

Exegesis of Heb 6:6 is Here

He does answer the question in the final post on HEB 6:6

Also He gives a summary of possible conclusions in this post

 

[MW]

I've found the "experiences" of the passage best understood in terms of what the Confession calls "common operations of the Spirit" and "outward calling," while "repentance" is more properly linked to the kind of transformation associated with "effectual calling." Hence the falling away is real with respect to the outward calling, but only an hypothetical possibility for those who are effectually called. It is impossible to renew effectual calling, but it is also impossible for the effectually called to fall away in the first place.

 

[Prufrock]

I think Dickson expresses the context of the opening parts of Rev. Winzer's comments well in loc.

Thirdlie, from this comparison, it is clear, 1. That there are some converts, externall, from the worlde, to the Church, who yet sticke in the naturallys; and are not, in the sense of sinne, fledde unto Christ, for Refuges, nor converted, from nature, to Saving Grace; to whom the Apostle will not denye rowme in the Church, if they will studie to make progess. And, 2. That illumination, and tasting of Spirituall thinges, may bee given as well to such, who are not renewed in their heart, as unto sound convertes.

This last part he explains:

Hee may bee made part-taker of the holie Ghost, and haue his share of Church giftes, distrubted by the holie Ghost; so as hee can, from the light which the holie Ghost giveth him, answere other mens doubtes, comfort the feeble mynded, and edifie others in their fayth, by his speaches; yea, have the gift of expressing his brayne lgith, both in conference to men, and in formall prayer to GOD, if hee bee a private man onlie; and if hee bee in publicke office, may have the gift of formall preaching, and praying in publicke; yea, in those dayes of the Apostle, might have had the extraordinary gifts of Tongues, Prophesying, and Miracles working. &c.

 

[chbrooking]

So the impossible only applies to the hypothetical falling away. I get that. However, and I suppose it doesn't really matter, since it's only a hypothetical, but I was really wondering WHY this would be the case. The author goes on to say that he is re-crucifying the Lord to his shame. And he goes on to talk about the land richly drinking the rain but producing no crop being burned. Is there something in these words that would explain the nature of the impossibility. Is it just that God has decided he WON'T renew them to repentance, or is there some other reason why he CAN'T--however uncomfortable even using such a word with reference to God makes us? Is this just a secret thing that I should drop?

 

[moral necessity]

in my opinion, the verse is saying that they should not run from Christ back to Judaism for their righteousness, and, if they do, that there is no hope for them to be saved in that manner. They were in very much danger of doing so, and hence the letter. If one has tasted of what Judaism pointed to, namely Christ, and then has returned back to the former for justification, it is very much impossible for them to be saved by that method. For, when the leave Christ, they return to works for righteousness. And so, by doing so, they crucify again Christ in the manner that the unregenerate Jews did, namely as a criminal. They disregard him as their substitute, and are content to stand on their own. Therefore, verse 2 is very applicable to them, "let us not lay again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God."

 

[MW]

So the impossible only applies to the hypothetical falling away. I get that. However, and I suppose it doesn't really matter, since it's only a hypothetical, but I was really wondering WHY this would be the case. The author goes on to say that he is re-crucifying the Lord to his shame. And he goes on to talk about the land richly drinking the rain but producing no crop being burned. Is there something in these words that would explain the nature of the impossibility. Is it just that God has decided he WON'T renew them to repentance, or is there some other reason why he CAN'T--however uncomfortable even using such a word with reference to God makes us? Is this just a secret thing that I should drop?

The author of Hebrews is dealing with a live situation where "calling" is something the readers must "make sure," but which is being cast in doubt by their preference for the old testament ritual; and so the reality of the warning can't be presented in the hypothetical terms we would expect if he were dealing with it in the abstract. These professing believers must be confronted with the dire consequences of turning back from their previous commitments, and so from a "temporal" persepective both the benefits received and the warning issued are presented as "real" conditions. Speaking conditionally, given their participation in the blessings of Christ, apostasy would involve them in such a rejection of Christ as leaves them without any possibility of salvation. Hence the impossibility is conditioned on three facts: (1.) Christ is the only way of salvation; (2.) they have once been partakers of Christ; and (3.) they have fallen away from Christ, which would mean they have tried and rejected the only way by which they could possibly be saved. In the abstract we qualify point 2, so that those who actually fall away are regarded as only outwardly participating in Christ, while those who truly and inwardly participate in Christ give heed to the warning and persevere to the end. Hebrews 6 itself reflects this distinction when it goes on to encourage the Hebrews by saying in verse 9, "we are persuaded better things of you;" but so far as the concrete situation is concerned all the covenant community is confronted with the warnings as real possibilities for the very reason that their behaviour did not make clear that they were in point of fact inwardly and effectually partakers of the blessings of Christ.

 

[cih1355]

So the impossible only applies to the hypothetical falling away. I get that. However, and I suppose it doesn't really matter, since it's only a hypothetical, but I was really wondering WHY this would be the case. The author goes on to say that he is re-crucifying the Lord to his shame. And he goes on to talk about the land richly drinking the rain but producing no crop being burned. Is there something in these words that would explain the nature of the impossibility. Is it just that God has decided he WON'T renew them to repentance, or is there some other reason why he CAN'T--however uncomfortable even using such a word with reference to God makes us? Is this just a secret thing that I should drop?

Wouldn't the nature of the impossibility be due to the fact that God does not guarantee that they will come to Christ? Men, by nature, reject God and if God does not effectually call them, they cannot come to Christ.

 

[chbrooking]

Thanks everyone for your excellent input. Perhaps you'd permit me to ask one followup question that might clarify things a bit for me. Who is the subject of the ACTIVE infinitive ἀνακαινίζειν in v. 6?

 

[DTK]

Who is the subject of the ACTIVE infinitive ἀνακαινίζειν in v. 6?

Clark,

I'll beat you over the head and straighten you out the next time I see you at Presbytery.

Until then, you can lose sleep over something else.

DTK

 

[reformedminister]

I believe the idea here is related to Christ's finished work and the doctrine of Definite Redemption. Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross was not merely to make salvation possible for everyone but to secure the redemption of His elect. The whole idea of being born again twice would put Christ to an open shame in the sense that His atonement did not accomplish it's purpose. The idea is similar to the absurdity and shame the Catholic Mass brings to the cross of Christ, as if the sacrifice had to be repeated. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:12-14)

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Thanks everyone for your excellent input. Perhaps you'd permit me to ask one followup question that might clarify things a bit for me. Who is the subject of the ACTIVE infinitive ἀνακαινίζειν in v. 6?

It is unexpressed but hypothetically the Holy Spirit.

 

[akennethjr]

Brooking let's remember that in Hebrews six that "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God and to put Him to an open shame." this is in the present tense. It is impossible to come to Christ if you presently "crucify to themselves" present tense. The passage warns of apostasy. Apostasy can be remedial, final apostasy is irremediable.
Do you think it is talking about apostasy or final apostasy?

 

[chbrooking]

Brooking let's remember that in Hebrews six that "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God and to put Him to an open shame." this is in the present tense. It is impossible to come to Christ if you presently "crucify to themselves" present tense. The passage warns of apostasy. Apostasy can be remedial, final apostasy is irremediable.
Do you think it is talking about apostasy or final apostasy?

In light of the other warning passages, and v. 7, I have always taken this as final apostasy. I take it that you are saying the re-crucifying and openly shaming, inasmuch as they are given as the grounds for the impossibility, also limit the impossibility. So that, were they to no longer re-crucify and openly shame Christ, then the impossibility would disappear. Am I misunderstanding you?

If that is so, a) wouldn't that be tautologous? and b) wouldn't that dramatically reduce the rhetorical effect -- the sting -- of the warning?

----

By the way DTK, I'm not overly concerned here. I'm just trying to understand the passage as far as I'm able. I'm just curious -- a godly curiosity, I hope -- about the nature of the impossibility. Some of the responses given so far have been very helpful. Some of them missed the nature of my question -- assuming I was asking the standard questions about the passage. I'm just interested in what makes it impossible for (presumably) the Spirit (-- since calling and repentance are his work) to renew their repentance. Feel free to beat me over the head at presbytery though -- although you'll have to be there to do it ... just kidding ... truly.

 

[Whitefield]

Owen discusses Hebrews 6:4-6 in chapter one of The Nature of Apostasy found on my website.

 

[chbrooking]

Owen discusses Hebrews 6:4-6 in chapter one of The Nature of Apostasy found on my website.

It seems, then, that Owen would agree with Paul:

VAdu,naton ga,r. "Impossibile enim," that is, "est;" — "It is impossible." Syr., !yxik.v.m, al' aL'a,, — "But they cannot." This respects the power of the persons themselves, and not the event of things; it may be not improperly as to the sense. Beza and Erasmus, "Fieri non potest," — "It cannot be;" the same with "impossible." But the use of the word avdu,naton in in the New Testament, which signifies sometimes only what is very difficult, not what is absolutely denied, makes it useful to retain the same word, as in our translation, "For it is impossible."

I haven't read this thoroughly (who can read Owen thoroughly on anything with less than 3 or 4 readings???), from this, it seems that Owen might make people the subject of the active infinitive: "this respects the power of persons themselves".

Am I misreading him?

 

[Iconoclast]

2. The Third Warning: Do not Degenerate...! (5:11–6:20).
The author interrupts his doctrinal argument concerning the priesthood of Melchizedek because his readers have degenerated in their spiritual progress to the point that, when they should be able to teach others, they have need of being taught all over again! The author then states that this teaching concerning the priesthood of Melchizedek is “the strong meat of the Word”.
This very stern warning reveals the utter hopelessness that necessarily attends spiritual apostasy from the truth of the Gospel. Cf. 6:4–6, “For it is impossible....If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance...” (VAdu,naton ga..r…kai. parapeso,ntaj(pa,lin avnakaini,zein eivj meta,noian, 2. aor. ptc.), “having fallen away.”
He states, however, that he is persuaded that his readers are truly saved, although he further exhorts them to diligence and then gives them some consolation in the faithfulness of God (6:7–20).

I could not cut and paste the quote accurately;

 

[Quickened]

Thanks Sterling,
He does an excellent job working with the text. In fact, he's persuaded me. But he doesn't really answer the question I asked. And he only worked through one of the verses (as far as I could tell -- did he follow up with another post? I couldn't find it.)

Whether we take a hypothetical, but really saved, or a apparently, but not really saved view, I'm still wondering what is the nature of the impossibility. WHY is it impossible?

Thanks for link.

Clark:

That post is one in a thread of several posts in which he exegetes Hebrews 5:7-6:6.

His first substantial post in the thread is on page 2 HERE

The whole thread is 5 pages long. His exegesis of Heb 6:5 is HERE

Exegesis of Heb 6:6 is Here

He does answer the question in the final post on HEB 6:6

Also He gives a summary of possible conclusions in this post

Thank you for linking to this discussion. Sadly hebrews is a book that I have neglected for whatever reason even though i have been perplexed by these verses in the past with no real solid understanding of the text.

I feel motivated to really dive into the book and i appreciate the insight offered in these posts both here and in that other discussion thread that you linked.

 

[akennethjr]

Yes, there are places in the Bible where it does seem to teach final apostasy and Hebrews six is possibly one of these. Sounds like damnable heresy.