OSAS Question

[mailmandan]

I think you're right. Yet --- in rebuking those who WOULD not believe (see Matt11:21-24, and Jn5:39-47 where Jesus accuses them of not WANTING to believe BECAUSE they sought their own glory and didn't love God) --- if one can be persuaded to move from "unsaved" to "saved", is it not equally possible that one can be persuaded to move from "saved" to "unsaved"? That's what I see in the entire letter of Hebrews; deceived by sin to an unbelieving heart that falls away from God in chapter 3. Turning away from God and not escaping in 12:25, ceasing to be in submission to God's discipline and not (no longer!) being saved born-again/begotten sons. How can any position of "OSAS" (any view asserting "a truly saved person cannot become unsaved"), fit with the whole letter of Hebrews?

Hi Gadgeteer,

Here is what I see in the letter of Hebrews. The Lord delivered His people (the Israelites) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. God had revealed Himself to these Israelites and chosen them as His people, but I don't believe that means they ALL must have been saved. The author of Hebrews is addressing brethren here in verse 12 of chapter 3, but does this mean that everyone in this large group of Hebrews must be saved? As we read in verse 14, For we have become [past tense Gk. verb, gegonamen, meaning we have become already] partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." Notice that this is essentially a repeat of verse 6, where we read: but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house - whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. The only ones in the end who will be identified as those who have become partakers of Christ, will have been those who hold fast the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end." These faltering Hebrews who depart from God begin with loud confidence and profession of loyalty. But later? The wording of the above verse in Hebrews is not - "and you will become partakers of Christ (future indicative) if you (future indicative) hold fast." It is rather - "you have been, and now are, partakers of Christ, if in the future you hold fast to Christ." I see holding fast to Christ as a manifestation of genuine belief and having become partakers of Christ and I see departing from God as a manifestation of unbelief and failure to have become partakers of Christ. Just as we see in 1 John 2:19, if they had been of us, then they would have continued with us.

Just like in Hebrews 4:1-2, For indeed the gospel was preached to US as well as to THEM; but the word which they heard did not profit THEM, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest," although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Obviously, not all of these Hebrews were believers. Notice that verses 2-3 makes a distinction between US who have BELIEVED and do enter that rest and THEM who heard the word but did not mix faith with what they heard and will not enter that rest because of UNBELIEF. If the words "believed and were saved, but then stopped believing and lost salvation" were used in Hebrews then I certainly wouldn't argue your point.

In Hebrews 6:9, the author says that even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in YOUR case--things that accompany salvation." In other words, the things the author is warning about in vss 4-8 are not things that accompany salvation. Replace the word enlightened in verse 4 with "saved" or "born again" and we would know for sure this falling away was a loss of salvation. Again, in Hebrews 6:9, the author says that even though he speaks like this concerning THOSE types of people, He is convinced of better things concerning YOU. Things that ACCOMPANY SALVATION. In other words, the people he was talking about in vss 4-8 didn’t have salvation (and their thorns and thistles and falling away testifies to this as well). I believe there is a quickening short of regeneration. In other words, this passage speaks of the work of the Holy Spirit within the lives of these people that occurs before and leading up to salvation. But these people do not receive salvation, instead they openly reject it. Just like in Hebrews 10:26. They received the knowledge of the truth, but there is no spiritual value unless there is a heart submission to that knowledge. Those who continue to willfully sin have deliberately rejected the truth. They draw back to perdition and do not believe to the saving of the soul (vs. 39).

The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in vs. 29 seems to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is a term often applied to Christians; it is the verb form of the adjective "holy") really just means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation. In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it several times to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "made holy" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" and from other non-Christians and sinful things without experiencing salvation as Paul clearly explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that just do not line up with Scripture. 1 Corinthians 7:14 does speak about the unbelieving husband being sanctified by the believing wife. I certainly see that as outward and not inward. If he is unbelieving then he is not saved even though he is said to be "sanctified" by outward connection with his believing wife just like that of these unbelieving Hebrews were by outward connection with God's people. Hebrews 9:13 says - The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. They were said to have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant yet they counted the blood of the covenant as a common thing, insulted the Spirit of grace and drew back to perdition and did not believe to the saving of the soul.

In regards to Hebrews 12:8-9, I just don't see the words "were disciplined but are now without" or "were sons but are no longer sons" in any translation. Here are some various translations.

New American Standard
But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

New Century Version
If you are never disciplined (and every child must be disciplined), you are not true children.

New International Version
If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

New King James Version
But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

The Amplified Bible explains it clearly. Now if you are exempt from correction {and} left without discipline in which all [of God's children] share, then you are illegitimate offspring {and} not true sons [at all]. I just don't see how anyone can get "now without discipline" out of "not disciplined or never disciplined" and "were true sons but no longer are" out of "illigitimate children and not true sons at all". Illegitimate children are not in submission to the discipline of the Father, but God's children are.

That's how I see OSAS fitting with the letter of Hebrews.

[Gadgeteer]

Hi Gadgeteer,

Hi, Dan!

Here is what I see in the letter of Hebrews. The Lord delivered His people (the Israelites) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. God had revealed Himself to these Israelites and chosen them as His people, but I don't believe that means they ALL must have been saved. The author of Hebrews is addressing brethren here in verse 12 of chapter 3, but does this mean that everyone in this large group of Hebrews must be saved?

Start with chapter 2:

"We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it; ...how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?"

Is this talking about drifting away from salvation, or not? How can this be written to those who "have never TRULY been saved"? (Or addressed to those who cannot drift away from salvation?)

As we read in verse 14, For we have become [past tense Gk. verb, gegonamen, meaning we have become already] partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." Notice that this is essentially a repeat of verse 6, where we read: but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house - whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. The only ones in the end who will be identified as those who have become partakers of Christ, will have been those who hold fast the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end."

The question is --- does "partakers" found on if-we-endure? Or does "endure" found on partakers? I perceive the former.

These faltering Hebrews who depart from God begin with loud confidence and profession of loyalty. But later? The wording of the above verse in Hebrews is not - "and you will become partakers of Christ (future indicative) if you (future indicative) hold fast." It is rather - "you have been, and now are, partakers of Christ, if in the future you hold fast to Christ."

Actually, it's both future AND present.

I see holding fast to Christ as a manifestation of genuine belief and having become partakers of Christ and I see departing from God as a manifestation of unbelief and failure to have become partakers of Christ.

Part-n-parcel of most views of OSAS, is the "catch-22": "If they are not saved NOW, then they were never TRULY saved in the FIRST place". Zero "movement" from saved to unsaved, in other words. And I clearly see movement.

Just as we see in 1 John 2:19, if they had been of us, then they would have continued with us.

Look again at 1Jn2:19 --- is there anything in the wording that would prevent those who "left", from having BEEN saved, once? No! They could have been! The answer to 1Jn2:19 is 2Jn1:7-9; a warning against deceivers, that we not lose what has been wrought (within us); because "anyone who goes-too-far (goes out from us!) and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God; but he who abides has the Father and the Son."

Clearly speaking of those AMONG us, who can be DECEIVED and go out and forsake Christ. Contrast 2Jn1:7-9 ("...goes too far ...and has not God [or Jesus]"), with 1Jn5:11-13:
"He who has the Son has eternal life."

See the pattern? He who has the Son has eternal life; he who is not diligent against deceivers can leave the Son!

Just like in Hebrews 4:1-2, For indeed the gospel was preached to US as well as to THEM; but the word which they heard did not profit THEM, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest," although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Obviously, not all of these Hebrews were believers. Notice that verses 2-3 makes a distinction between US who have BELIEVED and do enter that rest and THEM who heard the word but did not mix faith with what they heard and will not enter that rest because of UNBELIEF. If the words "believed and were saved, but then stopped believing and lost salvation" were used in Hebrews then I certainly wouldn't argue your point.

Continue on; Heb4:11 relates directly to Heb3:18-19; just as the Hebrews did not enter their rest, WE are warned not to FALL and fail to enter God's rest by imitating their disobedience and unbelief! Is there any way we can paint that into "Those who fall were never SAVED in the first place"? I don't see how.

In Hebrews 6:9, the author says that even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in YOUR case--things that accompany salvation." In other words, the things the author is warning about in vss 4-8 are not things that accompany salvation. Replace the word enlightened in verse 4 with "saved" or "born again" and we would know for sure this falling away was a loss of salvation.

I don't see how we can take "enlightened/tasted/partners" (especially since the same word "taste" really means participated in Heb2:9!), and make it into "were-never-really-saved". Also, verse 6 says "And FALLING away..." --- can anyone fall away from where he never was?

Again, in Hebrews 6:9, the author says that even though he speaks like this concerning THOSE types of people, He is convinced of better things concerning YOU. Things that ACCOMPANY SALVATION. In other words, the people he was talking about in vss 4-8 didn’t have salvation (and their thorns and thistles and falling away testifies to this as well).

I don't see this at all; he's encouraging them --- same encouragement as in 10:39 (yet another "fall-from-salvation" chapter). Please note Heb6:11-12 warns us to be DILIGENT so that we're not sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. How can that be made into anything but "diligence to inherit eternal life"?

I believe there is a quickening short of regeneration.

Huh? "Quickening" is born of the SPIRIT (and it works), or it doesn't exist; if it's not born of the Spirit, where is it from?

In other words, this passage speaks of the work of the Holy Spirit within the lives of these people that occurs before and leading up to salvation.

So they're only PARTLY alive? Like in the movie "Princess Bride", he was only MOSTLY-dead???

But these people do not receive salvation, instead they openly reject it. Just like in Hebrews 10:26. They received the knowledge of the truth, but there is no spiritual value unless there is a heart submission to that knowledge.

Do you think someone can be sanctified-by-Jesus'-BLOOD, without being "saved"?

Those who continue to willfully sin have deliberately rejected the truth. They draw back to perdition and do not believe to the saving of the soul (vs. 39).

They did not continue. The entire letter of Hebrews is warning against "falling-from-salvation". How about 12:25? Reminds you of 2:1-3, doesn't it? "Much less shall WE escape who turn away from (God)."

The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in vs. 29 seems to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is a term often applied to Christians; it is the verb form of the adjective "holy") really just means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

It's a warning to US, the writer including himself. Has to be believers. Why would he warn UNBELIEVERS not to continue in sin? What's the point?

In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it several times to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "made holy" by their believing spouse.

Do those get eternal life through their believing spouse? No.
If one is "sanctified-by-Jesus'-blood", does that indicate SAVED? Yes!

(And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved).

There is a Universe of difference between a "familial-unsaved-sanctification", and "sanctified-by-Jesus'-blood". I don't know of ANY way to be sanctified by Jesus' blood without saving belief. Do you?

A non-Christian can be "set apart" and from other non-Christians and sinful things without experiencing salvation as Paul clearly explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that just do not line up with Scripture. 1 Corinthians 7:14 does speak about the unbelieving husband being sanctified by the believing wife. I certainly see that as outward and not inward. If he is unbelieving then he is not saved even though he is said to be "sanctified" by outward connection with his believing wife just like that of these unbelieving Hebrews were by outward connection with God's people. Hebrews 9:13 says - The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. They were said to have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant yet they counted the blood of the covenant as a common thing, insulted the Spirit of grace and drew back to perdition and did not believe to the saving of the soul.

Context --- if WE continue sinning willfully after having received FULL KNOWLEDGE (saved!) of the truth... Verse 29 is the consequence for US, if WE continue sinning willfully after being saved.

In regards to Hebrews 12:8-9, I just don't see the words "were disciplined but are now without" or "were sons but are no longer sons" in any translation. Here are some various translations.

Go to the Greek; it's saying "all HAVE BECOME partakers", speaking to US/WE. He's not speaking to UNSAVED people. But if we CEASE being in submission to His discipline, then we are NOT (no longer!) sons but illegitimate.

"SHALL we not much rather BE in submission to the (discipline of the) Father of spirits AND LIVE?"

Can that be made into anything but a "choice to continue in salvation"? What else?

And as we just discussed, verse 25 (and even verse 15) are "don't-fall-from-salvation" warnings.

I just don't see how anyone can get "now without discipline" out of "not disciplined or never disciplined" and "were true sons but no longer are" out of "illigitimate children and not true sons at all". Illegitimate children are not in submission to the discipline of the Father, but God's children are.

How can verse 9 not present a choice to "stay saved"?

That's how I see OSAS fitting with the letter of Hebrews.

Take the letter as a whole:

2:1-3.
3:6-14.
4:1, 11.
6:4-6.
6:11-12.
10:26-29.
10:35 (read with 10:19 and 6:19, "Don't throw away JESUS!")
12:7-9
12:15
12:25
13:9

And "warning-against-falling-from-salvation" is the theme of the whole.

[Diggindeeper]

There's nothing in IPeter 3:17 that says you can lose your salvation. Of course it's good to stay on the straight and narrow path of God's highest will for you but just because somebody slips and falls and makes mistakes and gets off the stedfastness of the Lords will for them doesn't mean they lose their salvation. They might lose some of the blessings of God in their life, and some of their rewards in heaven. but not their salvation.

Pilgram, I hear people say that all the time...that they would lose some of their rewards in heaven.

Tell me, please, what rewards would one lose in heaven??? (Please offer scripture proof so I can check it out.)

[Gadgeteer]

Pilgram, I hear people say that all the time...that they would lose some of their rewards in heaven.

Tell me, please, what rewards would one lose in heaven??? (Please offer scripture proof so I can check it out.)

And exactly what is it that one can DO to "lose rewards", but not compromise salvation?

What action(s) would damage rewards? Specifically?

(Thanx in advance!)

:-)

[mailmandan]

Start with chapter 2:

"We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it; ...how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?"

Is this talking about drifting away from salvation, or not? How can this be written to those who "have never TRULY been saved"? (Or addressed to those who cannot drift away from salvation?)

If the words "falling from salvation" or "lost salvation" were used in Hebrews then I certainly wouldn't argue your point. If a boat is not firmly anchored in the first place then it will drift away. Those who drift away here were not earnest to heed the things they heard (Hebrews 2:1). Our hope, our confidence, our anchor must be firmly fixed in Jesus to begin with. A faith that is not firmly anchored in Christ falls short and will not result in diligence. In regards to "neglect so great a salvation," the word "neglect" (ameleo) means literally without care and thus showing no concern. To be careless. To be unconcerned about or to care nothing for something or someone. That does not sound descriptive of a genuine believer.

The question is --- does "partakers" found on if-we-endure? Or does "endure" found on partakers? I perceive the former. Actually, it's both future AND present. Part-n-parcel of most views of OSAS, is the "catch-22": "If they are not saved NOW, then they were never TRULY saved in the FIRST place". Zero "movement" from saved to unsaved, in other words. And I clearly see movement.

Since, For we have become partakers of Christ, is [past tense Gk. verb, gegonamen, meaning we have become already] I don't perceive the former. If Hebrews 3:14 said, "you will become partakers of Christ (future indicative) if you (future indicative) hold fast, then I would perceive the former.

Look again at 1Jn2:19 --- is there anything in the wording that would prevent those who "left", from having BEEN saved, once? No! They could have been!

I don't see anything in the wording that could possibly mean those who left were previously saved. "if they had been of us, (past tense) then they would have continued with us." None of them were of us. If they HAD BEEN, then they WOULD HAVE continued.

The answer to 1Jn2:19 is 2Jn1:7-9; a warning against deceivers, that we not lose what has been wrought (within us); because "anyone who goes-too-far (goes out from us!) and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God; but he who abides has the Father and the Son."

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (descriptive of unbelievers). He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son (descriptive of believers). I don't see a conflict. 2 John 1:8 says "Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, (do we work for salvation?) but that we may receive a full reward. I see a connection here with 1 Corinthians 3:14-15. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; (of reward) but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (as one escaping through the flames). Loss of rewards but still saved. That doesn't sound like a full reward.

Clearly speaking of those AMONG us, who can be DECEIVED and go out and forsake Christ. Contrast 2Jn1:7-9 ("...goes too far ...and has not God [or Jesus]"), with 1Jn5:11-13: "He who has the Son has eternal life."

I don't see the words "go too far...and no longer has God [or Jesus"]. He who has the Son certainly has eternal life. I see two camps in verse 9. Whoever transgresses and does not abide (not no longer abides) in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (unbelievers). He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son (believers). There are weeds AMONG the wheat.

See the pattern? He who has the Son has eternal life; he who is not diligent against deceivers can leave the Son!

I didn't see the words "has the Son but then left the Son." I see the words - He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:12) Two camps.

Continue on; Heb4:11 relates directly to Heb3:18-19; just as the Hebrews did not enter their rest, WE are warned not to FALL and fail to enter God's rest by imitating their disobedience and unbelief! Is there any way we can paint that into "Those who fall were never SAVED in the first place"? I don't see how.

Hebrews 4:2-3 makes a distinction between US who have BELIEVED and do enter that rest and THEM who heard the word but did not mix faith with what they heard and will not enter that rest because of UNBELIEF. Hebrews 4:11 - Those who did not mix faith with what they heard failed to enter God's rest because of UNBELIEF. To fall according to the same example of disobedience is the opposite of being diligent to enter that rest. Disobedience and a lack of diligence is a manifestation of UNBELIEF. It's the same with Hebrews 3:18,19 - they will not enter His rest, did not obey, unbelief. The author of Hebrews does not know the hearts of everyone in this large group of Hebrews, but he does know the only ones in the end who will be identified as truly born again Hebrews who have become partakers of Christ will have been those who have held onto their original boldness, confidence, and boasting in Messiah as their salvation firm until the end.

I don't see how we can take "enlightened/tasted/partners" (especially since the same word "taste" really means participated in Heb2:9!), and make it into "were-never-really-saved".

They were enlightened to the truth, but chose to reject the truth. There must be a heart submission to the truth once we receive it in order to be saved. They fell short of this. Thorns and thistles and falling away does not accompany salvation. In regards to tasting of the heavenly gift, one might or might not decide to accept the thing that is tasted. Jesus tasted death and actually died, yet the same Greek word (geuomai) is used in Matthew 27:34 to say that those crucifying Jesus "offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, He would not drink it." These Hebrews tasted of the heavenly gift, but chose to fall away and reject it. I guess you could say, just like Jesus, they tasted, but they would not drink. As we read in Hebrews 10:39, these Hebrews drew back to perdition and did not believe to the saving of the soul. Drawing back to perdition and not believing to the saving of the soul falls short of fully partnering with the Holy Spirit. An individual can become a sharer in or partaker of the Spirit (His pre-salvation ministry - convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come) by responding for a time to His drawing power intended to lead sinners to Christ. The writer does not state that these individuals were indwelt by the Holy Spirit or sealed by the Holy Spirit or possessors of the Spirit's pledge (guarantee) of future inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Also, verse 6 says "And FALLING away..." --- can anyone fall away from where he never was? I don't see this at all; he's encouraging them --- same encouragement as in 10:39 (yet another "fall-from-salvation" chapter).

I'm still looking for the words "fall from salvation." These Hebrews were enlightened, tasted, and were sharers in or partakers of the Spirit (His pre-salvation ministry - convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come) but then fell away before coming all the way to saving faith. The author says in verse 9, that even though he speaks like this concerning THOSE types of people (fall away, bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected) He is convinced of better things concerning YOU. Things that ACCOMPANY SALVATION (produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God). I see two camps in Hebrews 10:39. Those who draw back to perdition and those who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

Please note Heb6:11-12 warns us to be DILIGENT so that we're not sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. How can that be made into anything but "diligence to inherit eternal life"? Huh?

Only as we apply faith and patience can we have an assurance that we will one day "inherit the promises". Without them, we become sluggish, and as such expose ourselves to the danger of apostasy. The choice is ours. Draw back to perdition (apostasy) or believe to the saving of the soul (salvation). Those who remain in unbelief are not diligent.

"Quickening" is born of the SPIRIT (and it works), or it doesn't exist; if it's not born of the Spirit, where is it from? So they're only PARTLY alive? Like in the movie "Princess Bride", he was only MOSTLY-dead???

If we draw back to perdition and do not believe to the saving of the soul, then how can we be said to have been "quickened" or born of the Spirit? Those who draw back fall short of being quickened. The Holy Spirit in His pre-salvation ministry - convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come may have been in the process of bringing the sinner to this quickening and this person may have responded for a time to His drawing power that is intended to lead sinners to Christ, but this person fell short of coming all the way to saving faith.

Do you think someone can be sanctified-by-Jesus'-BLOOD, without being "saved"? They did not continue.

In vs. 39, the author sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as an active participant in the Christian community of believers, but who has subsequently committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and by repudiating the work and the person of Christ himself. Such a person’s apostasy is thus evidence that his identification with the Christian community was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer. I see these unbelieving Hebrews who were "sanctified" or set apart by the blood of the covenant by outward connection with believing Hebrews just like I see the unbelieving hushand who was "sanctified" or set apart in 1 Corinthians 7:14 by outward connection with his believing wife. How could they be saved if they did not believe to the saving of the soul?

The entire letter of Hebrews is warning against "falling-from-salvation".

Then why didn't the author simply say "fall from salvation," "lose salvation," "fall away after becoming saved or born again," "willfully sin after becoming saved or born again?"

How about 12:25? Reminds you of 2:1-3, doesn't it? "Much less shall WE escape who turn away from (God)."

I see a connect with those verses. Those who turn away or drift away from God were not earnest to heed the things they heard (Hebrews 2:1). Drawing back to perdition is turning away from God, even though they did not believe to the saving of the soul. If someone is still in the process of becoming a partaker of Christ and are among genuine believers, then they have not fallen away yet. They are still considering what they heard. Once they fall away by deliberately rejecting Christ after receiving the knowledge of the truth, then their decision has become final. You can't fall away from something that you have not yet heard or had the chance to consider, but this does not mean that you believed to the saving of the soul.

It's a warning to US, the writer including himself. Has to be believers. Why would he warn UNBELIEVERS not to continue in sin? What's the point?

The author of Hebrews does not infallibly know who God's elect are. The author is addressing a large group of Hebrews and does not have infallible knowledge of each person's status. He is warning them if they willfully sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and accidently fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21 not the righteous, who have been born of God - 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9.

Do those get eternal life through their believing spouse? No.

Absolutely not.

If one is "sanctified-by-Jesus'-blood", does that indicate SAVED? Yes! There is a Universe of difference between a "familial-unsaved-sanctification", and "sanctified-by-Jesus'-blood". I don't know of ANY way to be sanctified by Jesus' blood without saving belief. Do you?

I still see the unbelieving hushand who was "sanctified" or set apart in 1 Corinthians 7:14 by outward connection with his believing wife the same as these unbelieving Hebrews who were "sanctified" or set apart by the blood of the covenant by outward connection with believing Hebrews. Since they did not believe to the saving of the soul, then how could they be saved?

Context --- if WE continue sinning willfully after having received FULL KNOWLEDGE (saved!) of the truth...

Yet verse 26 does not say "saved." Receiving the "knowledge" of the truth does not save a person if there is no "heart submission to that knowledge." The person must believe to the saving of the soul and not just receive the knowledge and then reject it by drawing back to perdition.

Verse 29 is the consequence for US, if WE continue sinning willfully after being saved.

Neither verse says, "after being saved." If these verses said that, then I would be in complete agreement with you.

Go to the Greek; it's saying "all HAVE BECOME partakers", speaking to US/WE. He's not speaking to UNSAVED people. But if we CEASE being in submission to His discipline, then we are NOT (no longer!) sons but illegitimate.

All of God's children have become - Amplified Bible - if you are exempt from correction {and} left without discipline in which all [of God's children] share, (not illegitimate offspring) then you are illegitimate offspring {and} not true sons [at all]. I still can't find the words "no longer" sons.

"SHALL we not much rather BE in submission to the (discipline of the) Father of spirits AND LIVE?" Can that be made into anything but a "choice to continue in salvation"? What else?

The emphasis is here - Moreover, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we yielded [to them] and respected [them for training us]. Shall we not much more cheerfully submit to the Father of spirits and so [truly] live? Not choose to be disciplined and remains sons or refuse discipline and no longer be sons. Those who are exempt from correction do not submit to the Father and do not live and are not true sons at all.

And as we just discussed, verse 25 (and even verse 15) are "don't-fall-from-salvation" warnings.

I don't see the words, "fall from salvation." The danger lies in refusing to hear the warning of Him who speaks from heaven. If those at Mt. Sinai who refused to hear Him did not escape, then neither will we (addressing any Hebrews in the group who refuse to hear Him). Refusing to hear Him is not descriptive of a believer. Hebrews 12:15 says - "fail of the grace of God" (KJV). The NKJV says "fall short of the grace of God" and the ESV says "fails to obtain the grace of God." That does not sound like a loss of salvation but failure to receive it.

How can verse 9 not present a choice to "stay saved"?

I see the comparison between "we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we yielded [to them] and respected [them for training us]. Shall we not much more cheerfully submit to the Father of spirits and so [truly] live? Not choose to stay saved.

Take the letter as a whole:

2:1-3. - Did not give earnest heed to the things they heard, drifted away, did not escape, neglected and did not receive salvation.
3:6-14. - Whose house we are [past tense] if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end, always go astray in their heart, did not know His ways, have become [past tense] partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."
4:1, 11. - The gospel was preached to US as well as to THEM; but the word which THEY heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. Did not enter His rest, lack of faith and diligence, disobedience, unbelief.
6:4-6. - Enlightened (truth revealed, truth rejected, tasted (but rejected what was tasted), partakers of Holy Spirit (pre-salvation ministry, fell short of full partnership, repentance that brought a "change our mind" that resulted in being convicted of and knowing the truth, but rejected it, fell away and fell short of repentance unto life). No mentioned of indwelt by or sealed by the Holy Spirit.
6:11-12. - Diligence, full assurance, faith, patience, sluggish, remained in unbelief.
10:26-29. - Received the knowledge of the truth, but rejected the truth, deliberately rejected Christ, continued to willfully sin, "sanctified" or set apart by the blood of the covenant by outward connection with believing Hebrews, yet drew back to perdition and *did not believe to the saving of the soul* (vs. 39).
10:35 (read with 10:19 and 6:19, "Don't throw away JESUS!") - Cast away confidence, lack of boldness, lack of sure and steadfast hope, drew back to perdition, did not believe to the saving of the soul.
12:7-9 - Only God's children receive and endure chastening, not illegitimate children who are not true sons at all.
12:15 - Fell short of the grace of God, failed to obtain the grace of God.
12:25 - Refused Him who speaks, turned away in unbelief.
13:9 - With so many various and strange doctrines, only those in Christ have hearts and minds that remain stable, the Mosaic law had regulations for food, but for Christians, those laws have been abrogated.

And "warning-against-falling-from-salvation" is the theme of the whole.

I don't see the words "falling from salvation" in Hebrews, but I see the words "failed to obtain the grace of God," and "drew back to perdition and did not believe to the saving of the soul."

[Gadgeteer]

If the words "falling from salvation" or "lost salvation" were used in Hebrews then I certainly wouldn't argue your point. If a boat is not firmly anchored in the first place then it will drift away.

But it's speaking to US, warning to be sure that WE don't drift away.

Those who drift away here were not earnest to heed the things they heard (Hebrews 2:1). Our hope, our confidence, our anchor must be firmly fixed in Jesus to begin with. A faith that is not firmly anchored in Christ falls short and will not result in diligence.

Dan, can you please help me to understand how you do not see movement in the admonitions of Hebrews? Take Hebrews6:11-12:

And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises."

How can "inherit-the-promises" not mean "be-saved", and how can "diligence ...(to) imitate those WHO through faith and patience inherit" not be an admonishment to "stay saved"?

In regards to "neglect so great a salvation," the word "neglect" (ameleo) means literally without care and thus showing no concern. To be careless. To be unconcerned about or to care nothing for something or someone. That does not sound descriptive of a genuine believer.

It does not; but how is it not an admonishment TO the saved, not to BE careless? Is it really credible to warn an unsaved never-believer not to be the only thing they COULD be (careless)?

Since, For we have become partakers of Christ, is [past tense Gk. verb, gegonamen, meaning we have become already] I don't perceive the former. If Hebrews 3:14 said, "you will become partakers of Christ (future indicative) if you (future indicative) hold fast, then I would perceive the former.

It conveys that we are partners if we continue. It's the same conditional as expressed in places like 1Cor15:2 and Col1:21-23.

I don't see anything in the wording that could possibly mean those who left were previously saved. "if they had been of us, (past tense) then they would have continued with us." None of them were of us. If they HAD BEEN, then they WOULD HAVE continued.

But what about a year ago? Could they have BEEN saved? Nothing in the wording to forbid that.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (descriptive of unbelievers). He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son (descriptive of believers). I don't see a conflict. 2 John 1:8 says "Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, (do we work for salvation?) but that we may receive a full reward. I see a connection here with 1 Corinthians 3:14-15. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; (of reward) but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (as one escaping through the flames).

In the definitions of "ergazomai" are concepts like "cause-to-exist" and "produce". King James uses "wrought".

Loss of rewards but still saved. That doesn't sound like a full reward.

This is an important question --- exactly what does one DO to "lose a heavenly reward"? What action(s) will remove one of our crowns but not compromise eternal life?

Specifically --- what is it one DOES? Is there some sort of a sin that doesn't need repentance (causing the penalty of CROWNLESSNESS)? Because clearly if one REPENTS then we are completely forgiven and cleansed; so there must be some kind of sin that is ACCEPTABLE to God, if we can actually do something to "lose crowns".

What?

[Gadgeteer]

I don't see the words "go too far...and no longer has God [or Jesus"].

It is in the context of deceivers, who can cause someone to "go on ahead" (go too far!) and not abide in the teachings of Christ.

He who has the Son certainly has eternal life. I see two camps in verse 9. Whoever transgresses and does not abide (not no longer abides) in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (unbelievers). He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son (believers). There are weeds AMONG the wheat.

Okay, so you embrace the "butcher-knife" understanding of verse 9; an abrupt subject change FROM "saved" in verse 8, to "never-saved" in the first half of verse 9, to "saved again" in the second half of verse 9.

Why does he change subjects twice? How does that make sense?

"Watch yourselves (against DECEIVERS) that you don't lose what was wrought but you receive full reward.
Anyone who was NEVER-SAVED and goes too far (not really, he always WAS too far) and does not abide, has not God.
But he WHO IS SAVED and abides (of course he abides! A truly saved person cannot become unsaved!) has the Father and the Son."

What sense does the "never-saved" subject-change make in the presence of a warning-against-deceivers? What is the danger of a deceiver, Dan? For instance --- 1Pet5:8 --- WHO is he warning against the devil, and WHAT does "devour" mean? What is the danger?

I didn't see the words "has the Son but then left the Son." I see the words - He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:12) Two camps.

Only if verse 9A changes subjects between verses 8 and 9b. Do you perceive a "subject-sandwich"? Saved/unsaved/saved? How does that make sense? Why does he tell the SAVED, about the NEVER-SAVED? Why would the saved care?

Hebrews 4:2-3 makes a distinction between US who have BELIEVED and do enter that rest and THEM who heard the word but did not mix faith with what they heard and will not enter that rest because of UNBELIEF. Hebrews 4:11 - Those who did not mix faith with what they heard failed to enter God's rest because of UNBELIEF. To fall according to the same example of disobedience is the opposite of being diligent to enter that rest. Disobedience and a lack of diligence is a manifestation of UNBELIEF. It's the same with Hebrews 3:18,19 - they will not enter His rest, did not obey, unbelief.

Okay, who is he warning? He's warning the NEVER-SAVED (who never mix faith)? Or is he warning the SAVED (who always mix faith)?

Why would either group, CARE?

The author of Hebrews does not know the hearts of everyone in this large group of Hebrews, but he does know the only ones in the end who will be identified as truly born again Hebrews who have become partakers of Christ will have been those who have held onto their original boldness, confidence, and boasting in Messiah as their salvation firm until the end.

So he's warning a COMPOSITE of both "saved" (who don't care about the warning, 'cause they ALWAYS mix faith), and "unsaved" (who don't care about the warning, they NEVER mix faith)? You find that credible?

Don't forget that chapter 3 is warning believers not to harden their hearts to ...unbelieving hearts that fall away from the living God!!! How can that be made into "you-can't-fall-from-real-salvation"?

[Gadgeteer]

They were enlightened to the truth, but chose to reject the truth. There must be a heart submission to the truth once we receive it in order to be saved. They fell short of this. Thorns and thistles and falling away does not accompany salvation.

Question: where does a person who "falls away", fall away from? Can a person who was never saved, fall from somewhere that he never was?

In regards to tasting of the heavenly gift, one might or might not decide to accept the thing that is tasted. Jesus tasted death and actually died, yet the same Greek word (geuomai) is used in Matthew 27:34 to say that those crucifying Jesus "offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, He would not drink it."

Neither does Hebrews2:9 say He DRANK death; it says "he tasted", meaning participated. Yes He participated in the wine, but STOPPED.

The question is "how can taste-death really MEAN die, but taste-salvation not really MEAN saved in nearly adjacent chapters of the same letter?"

These Hebrews tasted of the heavenly gift, but chose to fall away and reject it.

Fall away from where? How can someone who was never anywhere to fall FROM, fall?

Suppose you're walking down a sidewalk. You see a child standing under a tree. You say:
"Did you fall out of the tree?"
The child says, "Yes."
You say, "How far up in the tree were you?"
The child says, "Oh, I wasn't actually in the tree."
You say, "Then you didn't fall out of the tree."
The child says, "Oh yes, I fell out of the tree!"
"From where? You weren't in the tree, you didn't have anywhere to fall from!"
"I fell from the tree."
"No, you weren't IN the tree...
"Well, I was THINKING about climbing the tree, but changed my mind."
"Were you actually climbing the tree or not?"
"I had decided to climb, I'd lifted one foot and was reaching for the branches; but I stopped."
"You were never actually CLIMBING the tree, so you couldn't have fallen out of the tree!"
"I fell out of the tree!"

How could the child have fallen at all, if he was never IN the tree? He was ALWAYS standing there on the ground; he was always fallen and treeless, and it makes no sense to say he FELL and BECAME treeless. See the silliness of talking about "falling" for those who were never in the tree?

I guess you could say, just like Jesus, they tasted, but they would not drink. As we read in Hebrews 10:39, these Hebrews drew back to perdition and did not believe to the saving of the soul. Drawing back to perdition and not believing to the saving of the soul falls short of fully partnering with the Holy Spirit. An individual can become a sharer in or partaker of the Spirit (His pre-salvation ministry - convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come) by responding for a time to His drawing power intended to lead sinners to Christ. The writer does not state that these individuals were indwelt by the Holy Spirit or sealed by the Holy Spirit or possessors of the Spirit's pledge (guarantee) of future inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

An opinion --- realize that I truly respect you and love you, and mean no offense (please don't grit your teeth for the next statement!!!) --- this kinda sounds more like a doctrine that is already established, trying to fit Scripture to the doctrine, rather than Scriptures being read and THEN doctrines bent to fit. Doesn't it to you?

I'm still looking for the words "fall from salvation." These Hebrews were enlightened, tasted, and were sharers in or partakers of the Spirit (His pre-salvation ministry - convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come) but then fell away before coming all the way to saving faith. The author says in verse 9, that even though he speaks like this concerning THOSE types of people (fall away, bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected) He is convinced of better things concerning YOU. Things that ACCOMPANY SALVATION (produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God). I see two camps in Hebrews 10:39. Those who draw back to perdition and those who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

We have, "fall-away-from-the-living-God" (in literally the same breath as "do not harden your hearts") in chapter 3. We have, "do not FALL and fail to enter God's rest by imitating their disobedience and unbelief" in chapter 4. We have, "we desire DILIGENCE in you that you imitate those WHO by faith and perseverance inherit the promises" in chapter 6. We have, "don't throw away (Jesus) your hope" in chapter 10. We have "SHALL we not BE in submission to God's discipline AND LIVE", and "much less shall WE escape who turn away from God" in chapter 12.

How can we read statements like these and still think "salvation cannot be forfeited"?

[Gadgeteer]

Only as we apply faith and patience can we have an assurance that we will one day "inherit the promises". Without them, we become sluggish, and as such expose ourselves to the danger of apostasy.

Which is not a real danger if OSAS is true --- is it?

The choice is ours. Draw back to perdition (apostasy) or believe to the saving of the soul (salvation). Those who remain in unbelief are not diligent.

Those who remain in unbelief --- they were "never-saved". Then how can the wording be: "Do not HARDEN your hearts ...to unbelieving ....that falls away from the living God"?

If we draw back to perdition and do not believe to the saving of the soul, then how can we be said to have been "quickened" or born of the Spirit? Those who draw back fall short of being quickened.

Is this Scriptural dictate, or opinion? Respectfully asked; but if "born-again" was BY faith, then what happens if one becomes faithless? Isn't that what 2Tim2:11-13 is asserting? Two positions -- if we DIED and ENDURE, then we shall live and reign with Christ; but if we DENY Him and are faithless, we will not live and reign with Him, will we?

The Holy Spirit in His pre-salvation ministry - convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come may have been in the process of bringing the sinner to this quickening and this person may have responded for a time to His drawing power that is intended to lead sinners to Christ, but this person fell short of coming all the way to saving faith.

You see that every doctrine of "OSAS" (actually there are three) founds on "you can't move from SAVED, to UNSAVED". I look forward to your thoughts on what we just read especially from chapter 3; who is he warning not to harden their hearts to falling away from God? Those who never WERE close to God? Or those who cannot FALL?

It can't be a warning to either, can it? Neither would make sense!

[Gadgeteer]

In vs. 39, the author sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as an active participant in the Christian community of believers, but who has subsequently committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and by repudiating the work and the person of Christ himself. Such a person’s apostasy is thus evidence that his identification with the Christian community was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer. I see these unbelieving Hebrews who were "sanctified" or set apart by the blood of the covenant by outward connection with believing Hebrews just like I see the unbelieving husband who was "sanctified" or set apart in 1 Corinthians 7:14 by outward connection with his believing wife. How could they be saved if they did not believe to the saving of the soul?

10:39 is the same encouragement as 6:9; "though we speak in this way". Speak in what way? It can only mean "speak-of-falling-from-salvation".

You are perceiving: "We speak of falling-from-salvation, but don't sweat it we're sure you CAN'T."

Why would the writer waste his time warning against something that can't happen?

Then why didn't the author simply say "fall from salvation," "lose salvation," "fall away after becoming saved or born again," "willfully sin after becoming saved or born again?"

He really does. Look again at 3:8-13. Clearly sin is deceitful enough to present a DANGER of our hearts becoming hardened --- and the consequence is "to falling away from God"! What else could it mean?

It's certainly not a warning to those who have always BEEN hardened, nor is it a warning to those who cannot BECOME hardened.

Is it?

[Gadgeteer]

I see a connect with those verses. Those who turn away or drift away from God were not earnest to heed the things they heard (Hebrews 2:1). Drawing back to perdition is turning away from God, even though they did not believe to the saving of the soul.

That makes no sense; how does "Much less shall WE escape who turn away from (God)", become "they were ALWAYS turned away"? How does "movement" become "non-movement"?

If someone is still in the process of becoming a partaker of Christ and are among genuine believers, then they have not fallen away yet. They are still considering what they heard. Once they fall away by deliberately rejecting Christ after receiving the knowledge of the truth, then their decision has become final. You can't fall away from something that you have not yet heard or had the chance to consider, but this does not mean that you believed to the saving of the soul.

There are degrees of believing??? So you take "are-entering" in Matt23:13-15, and perceive they were NOT REALLY saved?

Equally --- how can we DESTROY a brother for whom Christ died (Rm14:15)? Is such a "brother" never-saved? Or does "destroy" not really mean "destroy"?

The author of Hebrews does not infallibly know who God's elect are.

I just don't buy that. We're right back to trying to make the author addressing a MIXED audience, warning the NEVER-saved to not fall from where they never were, or warning the SAVED to not fall from where they CAN'T fall. Neither makes sense, and (if OSAS was true) neither group would care.

What is the point of writing these words down? What was he trying to accomplish?[quote]

Absolutely not.

I still see the unbelieving husband who was "sanctified" or set apart in 1 Corinthians 7:14 by outward connection with his believing wife the same as these unbelieving Hebrews who were "sanctified" or set apart by the blood of the covenant by outward connection with believing Hebrews. Since they did not believe to the saving of the soul, then how could they be saved?

The unbelieving husband is not sanctified-by-Jesus'-BLOOD, which the person in 10:29 was. How can the guy in 10:29 have "never been saved"?

Yet verse 26 does not say "saved." Receiving the "knowledge" of the truth does not save a person if there is no "heart submission to that knowledge." The person must believe to the saving of the soul and not just receive the knowledge and then reject it by drawing back to perdition.

"Lambano epignosis" really does mean fully receiving true saving knowledge. Robertson says:

"After the receiving" (accusative case of the articular infinitive second aorist active of lambanw after meta). Knowledge (epignwsin). "Full knowledge," as in Romans 6:4 . There remaineth no more (ouketi apoleipetai). "No longer is there left behind" (present passive indicative as in Romans 4:9 ), for one has renounced the one and only sacrifice for sin that does or can remove sin ( Romans 10:1-18 ).

In no sense can this be made to fit "were-never-saved"; it is a person renouncing the salvation he had.

Neither verse says, "after being saved." If these verses said that, then I would be in complete agreement with you.

What do you think of Robertson's commentary?

[Gadgeteer]

All of God's children have become - Amplified Bible - if you are exempt from correction {and} left without discipline in which all [of God's children] share, (not illegitimate offspring) then you are illegitimate offspring {and} not true sons [at all]. I still can't find the words "no longer" sons.

How is it not a continued choice? Shall we not CONTINUE in His discipline, AND LIVE? Tell me how that's not a warning against "discontinuing from His discipline and NOT being (any longer!) sons"?

The emphasis is here - Moreover, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we yielded [to them] and respected [them for training us]. Shall we not much more cheerfully submit to the Father of spirits and so [truly] live? Not choose to be disciplined and remain sons or refuse discipline and no longer be sons. Those who are exempt from correction do not submit to the Father and do not live and are not true sons at all.

This is the same problem as before; why warn the UNSUBMITTED against something they've already done (and they no longer care), or warn the SUBMITTED against something they cannot do (and thus they also don't care)?

Why did he write that, if what you say is true?

I don't see the words, "fall from salvation." The danger lies in refusing to hear the warning of Him who speaks from heaven. If those at Mt. Sinai who refused to hear Him did not escape, then neither will we (addressing any Hebrews in the group who refuse to hear Him). Refusing to hear Him is not descriptive of a believer. Hebrews 12:15 says - "fail of the grace of God" (KJV). The NKJV says "fall short of the grace of God" and the ESV says "fails to obtain the grace of God." That does not sound like a loss of salvation but failure to receive it.

He said WE shall not escape who turn away from God; and you want to believe that "we can't turn away from God". How does it fit?

I see the comparison between "we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we yielded [to them] and respected [them for training us]. Shall we not much more cheerfully submit to the Father of spirits and so [truly] live? Not choose to stay saved.

So the disciplined live more truly, and the undisciplined live LESS truly but still saved? Do I perceive that right?

2:1-3. - Did not give earnest heed to the things they heard, drifted away, did not escape, neglected and did not receive salvation.
3:6-14. - Whose house we are [past tense] if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end, always go astray in their heart, did not know His ways, have become [past tense] partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Completely dismisses the idea of "don't HARDEN your hearts ...by deceitful sin ...to FALLING away from God"!

4:1, 11. - The gospel was preached to US as well as to THEM; but the word which THEY heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. Did not enter His rest, lack of faith and diligence, disobedience, unbelief.

You change "do not FALL and fail to enter", to what? "THEY were always fallen and never entered"? See the change?

6:4-6. - Enlightened (truth revealed, truth rejected, tasted (but rejected what was tasted), partakers of Holy Spirit (pre-salvation ministry, fell short of full partnership, repentance that brought a "change our mind" that resulted in being convicted of and knowing the truth, but rejected it, fell away and fell short of repentance unto life). No mentioned of indwelt by or sealed by the Holy Spirit.
6:11-12. - Diligence, full assurance, faith, patience, sluggish, remained in unbelief.

You (who, the saved?) need diligence SO THAT not imitate sluggish BUT imitate ...faith and patience ....to inherit!

Why did he write that? What was he teaching?

10:26-29. - Received the knowledge of the truth, but rejected the truth, deliberately rejected Christ, continued to willfully sin, "sanctified" or set apart by the blood of the covenant by outward connection with believing Hebrews, yet drew back to perdition and *did not believe to the saving of the soul* (vs. 39).
10:35 (read with 10:19 and 6:19, "Don't throw away JESUS!") - Cast away confidence, lack of boldness, lack of sure and steadfast hope, drew back to perdition, did not believe to the saving of the soul.
12:7-9 - Only God's children receive and endure chastening, not illegitimate children who are not true sons at all.
12:15 - Fell short of the grace of God, failed to obtain the grace of God.
12:25 - Refused Him who speaks, turned away in unbelief.

It's all speaking of turning away from God, the same as chapter 3 was, because of "hearts hardened by sin". Do not FALL and fail to enter His rest by ....unbelief and disobedience. Shall we not BE in submission AND LIVE!

13:9 - With so many various and strange doctrines, only those in Christ have hearts and minds that remain stable, the Mosaic law had regulations for food, but for Christians, those laws have been abrogated.

It says "do not be carried away"! See 2Pet3:17, and Col2:8! Who can be carried away? Certainly not those who WERE ALWAYS carried away. And where are they "carried away" to? What was his intent in writing these words?

I don't see the words "falling from salvation" in Hebrews, but I see the words "failed to obtain the grace of God," and "drew back to perdition and did not believe to the saving of the soul."

I've spent a lot of time time (as you have!), and made many direct considerations; I look forward to your further thoughts, and am grateful for the time you have spent. May it yield great interest to His glory for our investment!

:-)

[mailmandan]

Hi Gadgeteer,

This discussion could go on forever. Have you checked out the thread "Is sanctification an event, a process, or both" started by glad4mercy? It's an excellent thread that has generated some very good discussion. He and I were discussing faith that has no root and produces no fruit. Check out posts #123, #128, #193, and #198 and let me know what you think. Like I said to him, are these people who depart truly regenerate or was their faith not firmly rooted or established in Christ from the start? If the Bible clearly stated, "saved person lost salvation" or "regenerated person became UN-regenerated" or "born again person became UN-born again" or someone who was "sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit became UN-sealed with the Holy Spirit" then I would no doubt agree that a truly regenerate person could lose their salvation. I'm not afraid of that being the truth. If it is the truth and I'm mistaken, I don't believe that it would be a very large percentage of people who would choose to throw their salvation in the trash. I also believe that this would be no accident. This person would have to blatantly reject Christ with full understanding of what they are doing. Do you agree with that? This sounds unfathomable to me.

[Gadgeteer]

Hi Gadgeteer,

This discussion could go on forever.

Awwww. I'm disappointed. I worked so hard towards resolution, wading through what seems to me clear Scripture. Was hoping you (or anyone else!) would at least address this:

This is an important question --- exactly what does one DO to "lose a heavenly reward"? What action(s) will remove one of our crowns but not compromise eternal life?

Specifically --- what is it one DOES? Is there some sort of a sin that doesn't need repentance (causing the penalty of CROWNLESSNESS)? Because clearly if one REPENTS then we are completely forgiven and cleansed; so there must be some kind of sin that is ACCEPTABLE to God, if we can actually do something to "lose crowns".

What?

Are there kinds of sin that God overlooks? Certain denominations believe there are "venial sins" (that don't compromise eternity), and "mortal sins" (that do). I perceive any sin which is not confessed/repented becomes mortal. Which is not to say God is a "game show host", but rather repentance is a walk...

Have you checked out the thread "Is sanctification an event, a process, or both" started by glad4mercy? It's an excellent thread that has generated some very good discussion. He and I were discussing faith that has no root and produces no fruit. Check out posts #123, #128, #193, and #198 and let me know what you think. Like I said to him, are these people who depart truly regenerate or was their faith not firmly rooted or established in Christ from the start? If the Bible clearly stated, "saved person lost salvation" or "regenerated person became UN-regenerated" or "born again person became UN-born again" or someone who was "sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit became UN-sealed with the Holy Spirit" then I would no doubt agree that a truly regenerate person could lose their salvation. I'm not afraid of that being the truth. If it is the truth and I'm mistaken, I don't believe that it would be a very large percentage of people who would choose to throw their salvation in the trash.

There are quite a few who claim "deconversion". What did you think of what I said about Heb10:35, which (read with 6:19 and 10:19) is warning "don't throw away JESUS"?

I also believe that this would be no accident. This person would have to blatantly reject Christ with full understanding of what they are doing. Do you agree with that? This sounds unfathomable to me.

The idea of "full understanding" has an inherent meaning which may not be true; it implies one believes in God and turns away in the FACE of that belief. Men are deceived by sin to unbelief, which means they no longer believe in God.

The devil is not after "fell swoops", but leading us astray only a little at a time. It doesn't seem like we're getting off the path, why --- it's only a little sidetrack, it's right on the path and not really astray at all. But little by little our "side-path" deviates from the main, until to our shock we can find ourselves in the wilderness.

Scripture says we can be deceived by philosophy and empty deceptions of men, by our own sin, and by evil spirits; so in 2Cor11 Paul says we have the same risk of deception as Even had.

And no, I haven't seen the other thread, thanx for mentioning it; perhaps I'll look tomorrow.

Good night, God bless!!!

[mailmandan]

Awwww. I'm disappointed. I worked so hard towards resolution, wading through what seems to me clear Scripture. Was hoping you (or anyone else!) would at least address this:

Sorry to disappoint you. I know that you worked hard towards resolution, but I have already addressed these Scriptures and if not all of them in this same thread, in another discussion with you in a different thread.

This is an important question --- exactly what does one DO to "lose a heavenly reward"? What action(s) will remove one of our crowns but not compromise eternal life?

Specifically --- what is it one DOES? Is there some sort of a sin that doesn't need repentance (causing the penalty of CROWNLESSNESS)? Because clearly if one REPENTS then we are completely forgiven and cleansed; so there must be some kind of sin that is ACCEPTABLE to God, if we can actually do something to "lose crowns".

What?

1 Corinthians 3:13-15 says, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Receiving and losing rewards is determined by the quality of our work. It doesn't specifically say exactly what one did or failed to do. That's up to the Lord to test the quality of our work. But as you can see, eternal life is not compromised, "suffer loss, but still saved." I don't see any sins being acceptable to God. If it were not for the blood of Jesus, then we would all still be in our sins. When we repent and believe in Christ for salvation, we are cleansed and forgiven. Now if repentance means we will never sin again at all, then we are all in big trouble!

Are there kinds of sin that God overlooks? Certain denominations believe there are "venial sins" (that don't compromise eternity), and "mortal sins" (that do).

I was taught this in the Roman Catholic church.

I perceive any sin which is not confessed/repented becomes mortal. Which is not to say God is a "game show host", but rather repentance is a walk... There are quite a few who claim "deconversion".

In 1 John 1:9, is John teaching that we must confess every single sin that we commit as we commit them as an additional requirement to remain saved? What if we forget one? Or does John have in mind here a settled recognition and acknowledgment that one is a sinner in need of cleansing and forgiveness? Notice that verse 8 says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Verse 10 says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." I don't believe that we lose our salvation everytime we commit a sin and then don't get it back until we confess that specific sin. There would be a lot of losing and regaining salvation going on if that were the case.

What did you think of what I said about Heb10:35, which (read with 6:19 and 10:19) is warning "don't throw away JESUS"?

I had addressed this in post #125. Cast away confidence, lack of boldness, lack of sure and steadfast hope, faith not firmly planted and established from the start, drew back to perdition, did not believe to the saving of the soul. Now if these Hebrews were truly saved and I'm mistaken, then due to their current persecutions, they chose to cast away their confidence altogether, which would result in rejecting Christ.

The idea of "full understanding" has an inherent meaning which may not be true; it implies one believes in God and turns away in the FACE of that belief. Men are deceived by sin to unbelief, which means they no longer believe in God.

My question is, "what kind of belief did they have in God from the start?" Not all belief is saving belief. The demons believe that their is one God (James 2:19) yet they are not saved. John has portrayed people as "believing" who are clearly not born again. There is a stage in the progress of belief in Jesus that "falls short of genuine or consummated belief resulting in salvation." See John 2:23-25 (where their "belief" is clearly superficial in nature); Also read John 8:31,40,45-46 (where the Jews who were said to have "believed on him" turn out to be slaves to sin [v. 34], indifferent to Jesus’ word [v. 37], children of the devil [v. 44], liars [v. 55], and guilty of mob tactics and attempted murder of the one they have professed to believe (v. 59). After Jesus’ teaching we read in 6:60 that “many of his disciples . . . said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’” These are the very so called "disciples" who Jesus says “do not believe” (vs. 64).

The devil is not after "fell swoops", but leading us astray only a little at a time. It doesn't seem like we're getting off the path, why --- it's only a little sidetrack, it's right on the path and not really astray at all. But little by little our "side-path" deviates from the main, until to our shock we can find ourselves in the wilderness.

I agree that the devil is not after fell swoops but leads us astray a little at a time, yet ending up in the wilderness is no accident without fair warning or chastisement from the Lord.

Scripture says we can be deceived by philosophy and empty deceptions of men, by our own sin, and by evil spirits; so in 2Cor11 Paul says we have the same risk of deception as Even had.

The following verse says, For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it! What kind of faith rejects Christ for a "different Jesus" (the faith of Mormons, JW's) or rejects the gospel of Christ for a different gospel? Was that faith firmly rooted in Christ from the start?

And no, I haven't seen the other thread, thanx for mentioning it; perhaps I'll look tomorrow.

You are very welcome. I think that you will enjoy it!

God bless you