From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Date: Fri Aug 11 1995 - 02:55:57 EDT
A Calvinistic interpretation, of course, sees Heb 6, Heb 10, 2
Peter 2 and Matt 12 as examples of the unforgiveable sin, and so that the
individuals spoken of as never really saved to start with. It is
interesting to note that Heb 6 says nothing about the individual's faith
or salvation.
If so, the passage is a strong warning against those who might
think themselves to be saved, who continue in sins once convicted of, and
are in imminent danger of certain irreversible doom. For such there "no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation
of judgment" (Heb 10:26-27). Such was the case with the Pharisees when
they committed the unpardonable sin.
P. Dixon
On Fri, 11 Aug 1995 DBWILLIS@aol.com wrote:
> David Willis here,
>
> Many of us, whether we have or have not accepted the Calvinistic concept of
> "impossibility of apostacy" have had some difficulty understanding what is
> meant by "it is impossible to renew them to repentance" in Heb. 6:6. Some
> may say that Heb. 6:6 is properly understood to say that a person who is
> saved and falls away can never be saved again, but I think that most would
> reject that implication. But I think that our common "explanation" of this
> passage might also be a bit off the mark. The "impossiblity" of a person's
> being renewed unto repentance after falling away, usually is explained by the
> distinction between one's "repenting himself" and someone _else_ renewing him
> to repentance. That is, it sort of implies that while the apostate may
> "pull himself up by the bootstraps" and "renew himself", no one can help
> bring this about.
>
> While reading these verses Sunday, I noticed something that might indicate a
> different understanding of them which at least for me, was one I hadn't
> considered before. The tense of the aorist participles "were enlightened",
> "tasted", "made partakers" and "fell away" changes to a present participle
> for "crucify afresh" and "put to an open shame". There is also the use of
> the adverb "once" along with the aorists which accentuates the purposeful
> time distinction being made. In Greek, the tense of the participle indicates
> the time of action of the participle in relation to the leading verb.
> Present participle means at the same time as, aorist means previous to the
> time of the leading verb, which here is ~adunaton~ "it is impossible." The
> impenitent HAD tasted... and fallen away etc. prior to this "becoming
> impossible", but their actions of crucifying afresh and shaming were still in
> an ongoing state. It was this continuing ongoing offense against Christ that
> is the cause of this impossibility. So long as that state continues, no one,
> not the impenitent himself nor anyone else can bring about a renewal. But
> this would not mean that either the impenitent or another could not help
> bring a cessation to the offense, so that the obstacle to "renewing" would be
> removed.
>
> The English "seeing" of the ASV and KJV and especially the "since" of the
> NASB suggests some explanitory or causal preposition here. But there is (as
> far as I could find in checking for variants) no preposition at all, just the
> juxtoposition of the time relationships of the aorist and present participles
> to serve as the basis for translating the word "since" here. The words
> "since" and "seeing" do imply some sense of causation rather than a temporal
> meaning. (The word "since" in English DOES have a time significance too,
> like "ever since", but we usually think of it as indicating a reason or
> cause.) This suggests to me that a better translation might be "SO LONG AS
> they crucify afresh..." which would imply that there is no permanence to the
> condition of "impossibility" but it remains only so long as they continue to
> "crucify and shame" Christ. Interestingly, the footnote for the ASV here
> confirms this "time rather than cause" indication. It suggests that instead
> of "seeing..." the translation could be "the while...", which is a little
> awkward, but conveys the time significance less ambiguously.
>
> I would suggest that with this meaning, we should be more resolute in never
> giving up on an effort to bring about the return to faithfulness of a fallen
> brother. It DOESN'T have to be all left up to them, because (as some have
> said) Heb. 6:6 tells us they can't be outwardly influenced. Instead, Heb.
> 6:6 teaches that this impossibility is ongoing "the while" there is this
> ongoing hindering state, and we may rightfully hope that our efforts can help
> to convince the impenitent to stop continuing in that state, so that their
> repentance and renewal is no longer "impossible."
>
>
> David Willis
> DBWILLIS@aol.com
> 6728 Silver Tree Dr.
> Indianapolis, IN 46236
> (317) 823-4858
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT