Hebrews 6:4-20: My final paper for school!

"Saved? Lost? or What if?"
Hebrews 6:4-20

One evening I was in a local downtown area where a friend and I join together for street evangelism. Other Christian groups frequent the area for the same purpose. This evening a group from a church arrived and a man began preaching. One of his statements stood out to me among others... "I'm not saved until I get to heaven, folks." The idea of whether one can or can't lose their salvation has been a widely debated topic throughout church history. Many passages are considered in this debate. One of these is centered on Hebrews 6:4-6. The debate has even grown further from simply "Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Once Lost, Always Lost," (as Dave Hunt calls it) or even Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It has also become a debate between "Lordship" and "No-Lordship" Salvation.

There are four dominant views on this passage. View #1 says it's referring to people who are in danger of losing their salvation. View #2 explains this speaks of those who have affectionately been called "Almost Christians" who walk away from the experience of truth they had, being impossible for them to return to it. View #3 teaches it's about Christians who in their degree of sin are in danger of losing rewards and status in the Millenium. View #4 concludes the author is simply stating a hypothetical situation that if a Christian were to lose salvation, it would theoretically be impossible for them to come back.

View #1 appeals to all the Bible says in regard to the idea of "falling away." It points to John 15 of the Vine and the Branches. It points to Paul's missionary companion Demas, who in 2 Timothy 4:10 "loved this world" and "deserted" Paul. It speaks of King David who was "a man after God's own heart" who seemed to violate in one way or another all of the Ten Commandments in the situation with Bathsheba. It says those who are saved are in danger of losing that salvation if they do not persevere, "overcome" (Revelation), and show "diligence to the very end... through faith and patience...." (Heb 6:11-12). According to this view with the passage at hand it would be impossible for those who lose salvation to gain it back. This view is generally held by those of a more Pentecostal fervor, The Assemblies of God, John Wesley, Christian Perfection groups, and some Anabaptists.

View #2 appeals to the Bibles' exhortation to the overarching concept of false conversion and the evidence of whether a believer is producing genuine fruit in their walk to be a kind of biblical guage as to their salvation. They will ultimately admit only God knows for sure. They point to the Parable of The Sower and 1 John 2:19 that says "they were not of us" because they didn't "continue with us" among other passages. They make a case that the words mentioned in Heb 6:4-5 are all descriptions of those who are merely given full revelation and have turned it down. According to the text they say this means God has washed His hands of them and they cannot come back to the point of repentance again. This view is held by Matthew Henry, John MacArthur, John Piper, Lewis Sperry Chafer, C. I. Scofield, and supporters of Lordship Salvation.

View #3 is divided into two groups. The first one says that "fall away" in this passage does not mean apostasize, but simply "to stumble" and it's referring to Christians that will lose rewards when they stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. It's also somtetimes brought up that repentance in v.6 does not mean "conversion." This view is held by J. B. Rowell, J. Vernon McGee, and others. Similarly the second reaches the same conclusion, but says this is referring to those who will apostasize and though their works will be "burned up... he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames" (1 Cor. 3:15).

This view reminds us the Greek word for "enlightened" in v.4-5 is also used in Heb 10:32 and is of little dispute it's about Christians. They also say the same word for "taste" is used in Heb 2:9 of Christ "tasting" death. It asserts that View #2 is a "forced" concept. They say the writer is saying this individual cannot come back to the state of repentace. It's referring to a hardening of heart that prevents them from coming back to Chritian commitment, rather than conversion. This view would be held by John Walvoord, Roy Zuck, Charles and Andy Stanley, Dallas Theological Seminary, and supporters of a No-Lordship or Free Grace position.

View #4 believes this passages is clearly referring to Christians based upon v.4-5. This view hinges on Heb 6:6 that is rendered, "if they fall away...." Those here say the author is giving a strong warning that if it were possible that Christians apostasize from the faith and lose their salvation it would be impossible for them return. The reason is given in the emphasis that "they are crucifying the Son of God all over again." This view accepts that God placed this hypothetical passage in Scripture for His own purposes whatever they may be. This is generally a middle ground view that does not stake a claim. They simply wish to submit to the text in front of their eyes. Those in this category would be Marvin Vincent, Herman Hoyt, Homer Kent, and Charles Spurgeon.

It is my assertion and will be my endeavor to show that View #2 seems to be the most legitimate of the above popular views. An introductory reason for this is in light of the principle of "take it literally unless it does not make sense" and The Perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. Why is there so much debate over this passage? Because to the average Christian or first reader of this passage... a few problems arise. As the reader reads along smoothly through v.4-5, they arrive at v.6 and are faced with some apparent theological dilemmas.

One starts asking what do I really believe about salvation? What does "fall away" mean? What did "impossible" mean? Why is it impossible? Does this mean a Christian can lose their salvation and can't get it back? Why can't they get it back? If they can't lose it, are these really Christians? What was I taught throughout my Christian life about these possibilities that may cause me to read this passage in a particular way? There is more here than the supposed "obvious," however God did not give us His Word to confuse us. The Roman Catholic Church used to say that only they could interpret the Bible. Early endeavors of those like William Tyndale to translate it into the common language were met with hostility, confiscation, and being burned at the stake.

These questions must be pursued by personal study and one cannot proof-text this passage to fit their theological presupposition. They can't quote it in a string of other isolated verses that use one phrase or word they believe refers to their doctrinal view. While few can be found on this passage many commentaries from View #1 are merely "Maverick" interpretations of Eisegesis. Lay people post them on the Internet with the agenda of accusing their opponents of heresy rather than humbly seeking out God's truth and simply presenting it faithfully.

We must practice sound Exegesis and "lead out" the meaning, considering other views in their shoes from all angles, and stay aware of our own presuppositional roots. That being said, it should be noted that my own presupposition regarding this passage has since changed due to this personal study. My point here is that it is possible to understand this passage if we are willing to be good Bereans, do our homework, and submit to the text. I will contend in the words following that a clear reading of our passage in the contextual footprints will reveal that the second view seems to be the most logical.

Another reason is that of the Literary Context of the passage. The author's (whom we don't know) unit of thought begins in Hebrews 5:11 and ends in 6:20, while things are also being revealed further in chapter 7. We know this because the author begins to speak about Christs' relation to Melchizedek in 5:10, picks it up again in 6:20, and finally teaches it in Ch.7. MacArthur believes the whole unit of thought is addressing unsaved Jews who were in the midst of saved Jews, however there doesn't appear to be a break in audience before 5:11 and the author is speaking of "learning," saying they should already be "teachers."

The authors' concern then seems to point toward spiritual growth. As through 6:1-3 things like "teaching" and "instruction" are still said. It seems to me Non-believers wouldn't grow spiritually nor be fitting candidates for Bible "teachers." It's not that the believers being spoken to should forget the elementary teachings, but rather move from the milk to the meat. In v.4 the author seems to answer what may have been a common question among the readers. "For those" distinguishes this group of people from the ones being adressed previously.

The author is commenting on a different group of people... those who have experienced v.4-5, fallen away, saying they can't be renewed to repentance. Why? Because they are "crucifying" God's Son all over again. It's conceivable that the Jewish rooted readers would have more clearly understood the severity of what it meant to be the ones who crucified their long-awaited Messiah and Lord. This choice explanation by the author gives a word picture that implies something more serious than simply losing rewards.

V.7-8 are descriptive of a situation where two pieces of land take in water... one bears vegetation/fruit while the other bears worthless thorns. When flowers are watered, only the ones that bloom soaked up the water deeply enough to produce such a beautifully budding "new creation." The author here describes the principle of the tragic group in v.4-6. In v.9 there is a shift back to the readers to encourage them that "we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation." What comes with salvation? Genuine fruit-bearing Christianity... and that will not wither and die like a flower.

The author says they want the readers to show the same diligence in faith and patience (v.11) as those in v.10 to "make your hope sure." What hope is that? It's something "we... fled to" (v.18). It's an "anchor... firm and secure" (v.19). It's because of Christ who fulfilled God's standard (the picture here) dying "on our behalf" (v.20). It's a "better hope" (7:19). Following the trail of context to 7:27, we see that this hope is described again as the salvation through Christs' sacrifice. In 6:12 the readers are told not be lazy in light of this hope, but "imitate" those who inherited what was promised.

In v.13-17 our author presupposes the Jewish audiences' knowledge of the promise given to Abraham proving God's oaths are to be trusted and comparing that promise with our own. We are to imitate the attitude of Abraham not to receive his same promise, but the promise given to us. This "promise" is then linked to the "hope" as the book ends. So here the author says they want to spend their time ministering to those who show evidence of salvation, not those who apostatize and prove they never soaked up the water of life with the full revelation God gave them. The readers are urged to press on to maturity, growing in light of the glorious hope they have in Christ.

The next reason for my lean toward View #2 is of the clues given through Word Study. Looking at a key to the dispute of who is being referenced in v.4-5, we come to the word "enlightened." Some believe this to be baptized and our next word to refer to communion. Justin Martyr referred to baptism as "illumination." This view has been rejected by most modern scholars. The Greek word is fotidzo, meaning to brighten or shine on. The Greek says "once for all enlightened."

While Walvoord has a good point in comparison with Heb 10:32, considering the context above and considering the Grammatical Theory of interpretation these are those who were "once for all" given the full revelation of the gospel. God gave it to them and they rejected it, hence the "impossible" in v.6. The word cannot be diluted into "difficult" as some commentators do (compare Hebrews 6:18, 10:4, and 11:6). The word is also not a reference to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as that is contextually bound. We can't deny the physical signs and wonders of Christ and say they're really from demons if Christ is not bodily before us.

"Tasted" is geuomi, meaning "to try the flavor of." This is the dominant usage in the NT above its' second usage in the semantic range (eat). James T. Draper (of View #3a) says there's a difference between "seeing and tasting." Tim Clifton said "you can taste and not swallow." Again, context is key here. If description is on the subject of salvation, it's likely the author will use the same and similar words. Vincent's Word Studies says this clause, "tasted of the heavenly gift" belongs with the next one as a kind of Synthetic Parallelism to say one describes the previous. While this isn't Hebrew poetry, the clause "partaker's of the Holy Spirit" describes the "heavenly gift." "Partakers" is metochos, literally meaning sharers. it carries the idea of "going along with." This person associates themselves with the Holy Spirit, but is not indwelled by Him.

On "Tasting the good word of God and powers of the coming age" MacArthur says, "The Greek term used here for "word" (rhema, which emphasizes the parts rather than the whole) is not the usual one (logos) for God's Word, but it fits the meaning in this context." Commentators of all perspectives also generally agree that "powers" (dunamis in Greek) refers to the miracles seen in their midst. The word is so used in Luke 1:7, 9:1; Acts 4:7, 6:8, 10:38; and Matthew 9:39. These Jews saw the miracles and still rejected the Messiah. C. I. Scofield makes a simple yet profoundly interesting observation in the study notes of the Scofield Reference Bible about v.4-5 as a whole saying, "it is not said they had faith."

Next we come to the infamous "falling away." This is the muscle behind View #1's argument. We'll first note that the Greek contains no "if." The NASB renders it best in saying, "then have fallen away." The author is speaking of a definite situation. There would be no reason to confuse believers with a hypothetical situation that describes a doctrine the Bible teaches against. The Apostle Paul does make hypothetical arguments in Romans, but they are in answer to objections, clearly taught through, and obvious to identify (Romans 3, 4:9-10, 6:1, 9:19).

Vine's Expository Dictionary gives sixteen different Greek words used in the NT for "fall away or fail." There is only one word that has a clearly denotative meaning of apostasy. It is apostasia. Another word (aphistemi) carries an implied conotative sense of the idea of apostasy. These facts alone stand to drastically limit the support of View #1. However, our word is parapipto meaning "to fall aside, fall in one's own way, fall away." McGee uses this definiton to say it's not referring to apostasy, while Walvoord believes it is. Vine's defines it as falling away "from the realities and facts of the faith." The conotative sense here points toward apostasy.

Some other observations in Word Study are as follows; It's interesting to note at the very least that while most popular translations render Hebrews 6:9 as "things that accompany salvation," the Greek literally reads "better things and having salvation." A grammar study of this word also reveals that it is present tense. This could mean the author was saying that aside from the "better things" they were convinced of the Jewish Christians, it was believed that they were actually saved. This would affirm that salvation was part of the subject matter. The same conclusion can be reached in either rendering however (1. bears fruit to evidence salvation or 2. implicitly bears fruit and is explicitly saved).

Hebrews 6:11 in the NIV says to show diligence "in order to make your hope sure." Some may say this suggests that we are to remain diligent to for all practical purposes maintain our salvation, as "in order" seems to imply. However, any Interlinear Greek New Testament will show that the literal statement is "to realize full assurance" as rendered by the NASB. Many commentators agree that faith produces works and our perseverance, endurance, diligence, ability to overcome, etc. will prove our salvation in the end (Hebrews 3:14). This is why it's important to have handy study references and tools available. There are alternatives for those who don't know the Greek.

Another major reason for my adherance of View #2 is that of The Analogy of The Faith. This is probably the most common defense used in Bible teaching today, whether passages are taken out of context or not. I will prayerfully attempt to accurately support this view using the whole counsel of God. Firstly, we must recognize this passage does not teach that salvation can be lost. "Once saved, always Persevering" is the name of the game. It is not our perseverance however, but God's Holy Spirit in us. The NT speaks of "eternal life" about 43 times. John 6:47 says, "He who believes has everlasting life." Doesn't eternal and everlasting life mean life that lasts forever? If so, how can it be thwarted and so become a contradiction to "eternal?"

Romans 8:1 says, "...there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." John 6:37 says, "...whoever comes to me I will never drive away." John 10:27-29 says, "...they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. ...no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." Ephesians 1:13-14 says, " ...Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession...." Ephesians 4:30 repeats this.

Jude 1:24 says, "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—" Revelation 3:5 says, "...I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and His angels." 1 Peter 1:4-5 says we have "an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time."

The Bible also speaks to the tragic case of false conversion, fake Christianity, or "Almost Christians." A passage already mentioned above parallels our own in a very clear way. 1 John 2:19-25 begins referring to a group who deserted them who "did not really belong to us" because they didn't "continue with us." V.20 parallels Hebrews 6:9 saying, "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth." Notice the talk of the group who proved they weren't saved, then the shift to encourage those who were. John clarifies again who he is speaking of in v.23 and finishes in v.25 reminding them that God will not take away "what He promised us—even eternal life."

A clear parallel also comes later in Hebrews 10:26-27, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." MacArthur adds, "they haven't received the truth, they've received the knowledge of it." V.29 obviously parallels 6:6 in trampling "the Son of God under foot." V.32-34 shifts again to address those who persevered through trial and hardship. In v.39 of Ch.10 the final distinction and encouragement is given, "But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."

Finally, we employ the fact that Scripture Interprets Scripture. The clearest examples of expanded teaching on this whole principle are the parables of The Sower found in Matthew 13, The Vine and Branches in John 15, and many others of our Lord's parables. While there may be overlap, it's worthy to note that our passage in Hebrews is a special case deriving from the same principle (this isn't the only ref. to this case--i.e. Demas, who appears to have actively "deserted" Paul). False converts tend to have a false assurance, continuing in the outward religious hoops thinking they are saved, and drift away gradually. The "those" mentioned here in Hebrews 6 commit an act of purposeful and willful apostasy after being "enlightened" to the truth. This is truly a sad and terrifying case.

In The Vine and Branches this idea is clarified at John 15:8, "This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." John Gill of View #2 comments on this passage to say that such a branch as the negative one mentioned is useful for nothing other than being burned, as he references Ezekiel 15:1-8. In Romans 1:21-24 we also see the concept mentioned in Hebrews 6:6 of it being "impossible to renew them again to repentance." It says, "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts...." God confirmed those who by their persistence in rebellion loved their sin more than their own life. In the case of our passage, the condemnation and justice is even greater due to the fact that they had full light and full revelation. It comes back to the harmony of God's sovereignty and Man's responsibility.

In conclusion, a good case can be made for View #2 in light of the The Perspicuity of Scripture, the Literary Context of the passage, a Word Study, The Analogy of The Faith, and the principle that Scripture Interprets Scripture. God is so much bigger than we are and He certainly is able to keep us. We don't have to try in our flesh to maintain salvation, because that will always "fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Don C. said, "The only way to detect a genuine Christian is to be one yourself." My exhortation is the same as the author of Hebrews for you to "realize full assurance," to "examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith..." (1 Cor 13:5), and "make your calling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:10)