A little while back, I found a post on this blog that I decided to answer. He quoted this passage in Hebrews (as I have done below) and asked if anyone had thoughts on what it meant. Of course, I did, and I felt like they were pretty well reasoned. No one ever responded to my comment, so I thought I would repost it here, to see if any of you would like to.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away,[a] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. – Hebrews 6:4-6
This is definitely a difficult passage. Hebrews 10:26-30 is a little clearer in my opinion.
But basically, does this passage sound like Christians can fall away from God? From salvation? And if they do, does it further mean that they can never get that relationship back??
Well, I do absolutely believe that Christians can fall away and lose their salvation. Again, the passage in Hebrews 10 teaches that plainly – it talks about one who “was sanctified” looking forward to a “fearful expectation of judgment.”
But I don’t think that means we can never be forgiven. Romans 11:19-24 talks about this subject by comparing Christians to the branches of an olive tree. Those who were Jews and had rejected Christ, were cut off from God. But Paul tells the Gentiles not to be haughty, because if the Jews could have been cut off, the Gentiles could be as well, if they turned away. And then, if they repented, they could be “grafted” back in.
So even if we can fall from God’s grace, he will accept us back with loving arms when we see the error of our way. The parable of the Prodigal Son shows us exactly that.
I think Hebrews 6 is making the same point, and when it says “it is impossible to renew them to repentance,” I think it’s saying that as long as those Christians continue in sin, there’s no sacrifice for them… in other words, they can’t be saved while hanging on to that sin. Like Paul says in Romans 6:1-2, if we’ve died to sin, how can we continue in it? That’s the life that we are to put off, when we become Christians.
So as long as we refuse to give up sinful things, we can’t be “renewed again to repentance” because we mock the sacrifice that Christ made for us. As Hebrews 10 says, we “trample the Son of God under foot and count the blood of the covenant by which we were sanctified a common thing.”
Finding Truth 
Jim,
The reason that Isaiah, or any other prophet for that matter, prophesied against Israel was completely due to their lack of faith. Just because they were God’s chosen people (i.e. nation) did not make them God’s chosen (i.e. individuals). Paul says this in Romans 9. Those who were disobeying God were faithless and therefore went to hell.
On baptism, the reason I stated what I did about the necessity for rebaptism is strictly toward your view. I do not believe in rebaptism at all, nor do I believe that baptism regenerates us in any way. My purpose in that statement was to show you how your two views don’t line up. You and Nate have both presented the view that eternal security is a wrong view of the gospel. That we can loose our salvation… my point is if you can loose your salvation through sinning/disobedience then every time this happens and you need to be resaved… you would also have to be rebaptized. Furthermore, where is the line drawn? Each little sin, or only the big ones? And for that matter who decides what sins constitute loss of salvation? I mean on a human level individual sins have varying consequences, but to God sin is sin; they are all an affront to God and carry the same consequence: “the wages of sin is death” one sin = eternal damnation. My point in the rebaptism statement was to show you that your two views don’t align well together.
When it comes to salvation, I agree that everything works together. I am not denying that. I am saying faith, repentance, and confession are all part of the process which I am labeling faith. What I am also saying though is that baptism is NOT part of the salvation process. I am not ignoring the Biblical data at all. I am interpreting it differently, that is all. My interpretation comes from a clear reading of the text and weighing the various statements in light of their context. For instance, Romans 4-8 is one big topic where Paul focuses on Grace verses Law; or on how righteousness is obtained. Romans 6 is found directly in the center of that topic, it is not a new topic only an aspect of the greater whole. So when Paul mentions Baptism we have to understand why he brought it up and its significance to the argument at hand. Only when you understand that, can one then go deeper and dissect and individual statement. This is why I interpret Romans 6 an expression of an internal truth. Paul is focused on righteousness and obtaining it. He never states that baptism makes you righteous. He says that since you have been baptized why are you acting this way! In other words: you obeyed Christ in one aspect of your life, why aren’t you obeying Christ in ALL aspects of your life? Now, Paul goes on to answer that in greater detail, but my point stands that the focus of that passage is not what baptism has done for us (for Paul uses that rite to express a greater truth), but you have been made righteous though Christ.
Nate,
With 1 Peter, I agree with your statement that the “filth of the flesh” is not referring to dirt. If I made that unclear my apologies. What Peter is saying is that Baptism doesn’t remove sin. Throughout the NT, the flesh, or fleshly desires, is a reference to sin. Peter is saying that baptism does not remove sin, it does not make you righteous. Instead it answers a good conscience toward God; this is obedience.
Also, I don’t separate conversion from salvation… they are synonymous. If you thought that I have, I didn’t mean to. Don’t remember saying that either…
As for the thief on the cross, I would say that he’s a vital point to the argument. Because God does not change. So regardless as to which dispensation we are in at that point (under Law or under Grace) the fact of the matter is how one is accredited righteousness. Ephesians 2:8 tells us that salvation comes through God’s grace. I would strongly argue that this statement transcends all time. OT Salvation came through grace in the form of the Law and looking forward to the coming messiah; and NT salvation comes through grace in the form of our savior. Which leads me to your thoughts on predestination. It is so hard to wrap my head around that I normally don’t try, I mean seriously the Bible does not tell us everything on it. All I do know is that, yes god desires all to be saved. But due to our choices (which he has foreknowledge of) certain individuals are predestined to heaven and the others aren’t. So while I know it is not a moot point, I just don’t have any further information given to me. God has chosen only so much to tell. It’s like a blind person trying to understand the difference between the color blue and the color green. He can’t see so he can only understand so much; I would say the same to true of us, we as humans can never understand predestination to the level of God. It is not possible.
Good question on faith verses us not doing anything. Think about it this way, we are sinners. A fallen race which has no redeeming qualities (I am not being pessimistic, this is a realistic statement which the Bible affirms). Therefore, there is nothing I can do to gain entrance into heaven. If my good deeds were to out weigh my sins that would not matter. I have sinned, am eternally damned. Nothing, absolutely nothing I can to will provide salvation from Hell. But you see faith, is not something I do. Faith is not a work. Faith is a belief. Faith is placing my complete trust in another. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). This distinction is a biblical distinction, there is a huge difference between a work and faith. Paul states in his letter to the Galatians: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Galatians 2:16).
Good point on the heavily Calvinistic, but I’m a Fundamental Dispensationalist not a Calvinist (there are major differences, but as you’ve assertained there are many similarities as well). Also, I do question my beliefs. If a passage contradicts a belief I must study it out and discover whether-or-not it actually does. In some cases I have changed my standing on a point, on others I have discovered that there is an underlying harmony that at first glance I missed.
I believe the hermeneutics we each use are where our differences are found. That is why you claim the scriptures say one thing and I claim the scriptures say another.
LikeLike
Stewart,
I too believe that God’s displeasure with Israel is a result of a lack of faith. My point, however, was to point out that they still had faith in God–they believed He existed, and that He had done great things for them and that they were His people, but their faith was not suffivient enough to cause them to obey Him as He commanded. This is in answer to your statement that there are no differences in degrees of faith, and that if you have faith at all, then you are saved by that alone. As you say, God’s character hasn’t changed, which actually proves my point that God expects us to have enough faith to obey Him, and less than that is not sufficient. As for your statement that repentance and confession are a part of the salvation process and that you are referring to that as faith, I don’t understand. If repentance and confession are necessary, then faith alone is not sufficient. Also, if God requires me to have faith, then that is something I must do. Whether it is a physical work or as mental work, it is still work. Seems like common sense to me. Also, Romans compares the law of grace with the old law. But the law of grace, meaning the New Testament, the law of Christ, is still a law and must still be obeyed. Yes, after complying with God’s requirements (faith, repentance, confession, and baptism) we must continue to serve Him. We will sin, and we are told that sin separates us from God. Does this mean we have to repeat those first requirements? No, we are given a way to receive forgiveness through repentance and prayer. Look carefully at the examples of conversion in Acts. Look also at what Simon the sorcerer is told to do after he has become a christian and commits a sin. He is told to pray and ask God to forgive him. Other epistles, written to those who were already christians, are told the same thing. Romans 6 is plainly telling us how baptism works. It is through God’s grace that He has provided the means whereby we must be saved, but that tells us we must comply with what God, through His grace, has told us to do. It is only through this that we can have the hope of entering heaven.
There have been numerous examples of how people were converted after the death of Christ. The thing about the thief on the cross is that the example occured before the death of Christ, so he was not under the same law that we are under (according to Hebrews, it takes the death of a testator before the testament goes into effect). I think I will rest my salvation on what is plainly stated in the NT verses what Jesus told an individual before His death. He could chose to save someone any way He wants to, but His word tells me what I must do, and unless He were to stand in front of me I don’t think I should assume He will save me in some other fasion than what He has proscribed in His word.
How can you say that 1 peter 3:21 is telling us baptism has nothing to do with salvation? The passage plainly says “baptism doth also now save us”. How can this be interpreted to say anything other than what it says? You are right about one thing here, it is an act of obedience to God’s commands. Where do you find the suggestion that disobedience results in salvation? If your “interpretation” results in making something mean the opposite of what it says, then I would suggest that something is wrong with the interpretation. 1Peter 1:20 tells us that the scriptures are not of any private interprtation. In other words, they mean what they say. Yes, they must be harmonized, for they all have to fit together, but your view twists things that are plainly stated, so I don’t see how it can be the correct view.
LikeLike
Stewart, I don’t think you got my point on 1 Pet 3. When it says “not the removal of the filth of the flesh” I do think this is talking about physical dirt. In other words, Peter is explaining that even though you are being baptized in water, the purpose is not to wash your physical body. The purpose is to wash you spiritually. Peter is basically saying that there’s nothing special about the physical water that you’re being submerged in; instead, this process saves you because of your faith (ie, your “answer of a good conscience toward God”). Really, that fits in perfectly with James 2, which tells us our faith must produce action, and Hebrews, which shows so many examples of that very thing: faith producing action.
My point about separating baptism and conversion came from my understanding of a few of your points. You’re right, I don’t think you ever said that exact thing, but the end result seems about the same to me. You’ve said that baptism is a public recognition of your salvation, and coupled with some of these other things you’ve said (which are below), it caused me to think you saw a separation between salvation and conversion:
“Baptism is something you do, it is a rite you go through. Yes, I will agree that it is precipitated by faith and that baptism shows your obedience to the one who has saved you.”
“Baptism is the next step, it is a public confession of faith to follow the ways of the Lord. It illustrates not only what Christ went through on the cross, but what we have literally gone through in becoming a new creation.”
I want to point out something about this last quote. According to Romans 6 we only become that “new creation” when we’ve risen from baptism. It’s repeated in these next verses:
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. – Col 2:11-14
1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. – Col 3:1-3
9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. – Col 3:9-11
I only pasted excerpts from that entire passage, but I recommend that you read the whole thing. As you can see, it starts off in Colossians 2 by comparing the Jewish rite of circumcision with the Christian one of baptism, and it’s through that that we “put off the body of the sins of the flesh.” Then he tells us that we’ve now been made alive with Christ through that same act, and our trespasses have been forgiven.
In Col 3, he refers back to baptism again when he says “if then you were raised with Christ…” Colossians 2 and Romans 6 both show us how we are “raised with Christ;” it’s through baptism!
Why is baptism so important? Well from the passages we just looked at, the symbolism is pretty evident. But I think I can also answer this question by commenting on another of your recent points:
“Why did God choose faith? Because it is the only human quality that displays selflessness. Anything less is not saving faith.”
Well said. Faith is letting go of the reins in our life and handing them over to God. But in order to do that, we have to submit to God in the way he has told us to. If my wife tells me that she trusts me with the checkbook, but refuses to actually let me hold it, then how much does she really trust me?
As you said, anything less than than a full committment to God is not saving faith. So if someone refuses to do the things God has asked them to do, how much faith do they really have? That’s the idea of saving, Biblical faith. And that’s why true faith requires repentance, confession, baptism, and sincere effort to be pleasing to God and receive his grace.
LikeLike
Jim,
Do you recognize a difference between faith: “I believe in God” and faith: “I believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ”? There are no degrees to faith. But there is a difference in having faith and claiming faith… the Jews claimed faith, they did not have faith.
Also I am not twisting scripture to fit my view. Its the hermeneutic I use. You see I hold to a literal translation of Scripture (just as I believe that you do). However there is a difference, I interpret scripture based on the literary devices found contextually around the passage. So if the author is using an an illustration or an analogy, I have to understand that is what he is using and why. In the case of Peter, he is clearly using the flood waters to express a greater truth concerning baptism.
Nate,
Never in the Bible do you find dirt or filth when coupled with flesh to mean a dirty body. Peter is most definitely referring to removal of sin. That is what filth of the flesh means, its a reference to fleshly desires. Peter states baptism does not remove that.
I believe to are interpreting Colossians 2:12 wrong. “Buried with Him in baptism” is obviously not literal. Its a symbolic representation of a truth. I mean when we undergo baptism we go under the water to symbolize the death of Christ. We are symbolically buried under water as he was literally buried in the earth. The act is a representation of a truth to symbolize the new life we now live in Him.
Also baptism has not replaced circumcision… Romans 2 and 4 tells us that circumcision was always supposed to be a matter of the heart and it was symbolically represented though the physical act.
While I like your statement about handing our reins over to God and the whole checkbook illustration. Can’t your actions prior to baptism show just as much ‘faith’ as afterwards? Why do we always think there is some action that we must do to be accredited salvation? Honestly isn’t that arrogant on our part? By the grace of God you are saved through faith in Christ Jesus… simple and direct, no works lest any man should boast. Salvation at the point of baptism, is boasting in the baptism and not the grace of God.
LikeLike
Stewart
Saying baptism is required for salvation in no way says or boasts that I have worked my way to heaven. As has been stated over and over in this discussion, baptism is fullfilling the requirement God has set forth. It is plainly stated in scripture that baptism saves. No one in this discussion has claimed that baptism only saves, or that by coming up with some meritorius wok on my own that I can earn my salvation. Yhe point all along has been that faith only doesn’t save, but it requires fulfilling all the requirements God has set forth. Even having done all I can in service to God, I still don’t deserve salvation, but God through His grace has promised to save me anyway if I am obedient to Him.
Yes, there is a difference in claiming to have faith and having faith. If I have faith that saves, then it is sufficient to cause me to OBEY all God has told me to do. Keep in mind also that james 2 tells us the devils also believe and tremble. He doesn’t say they claim to believe, but that they believe. What other conclusion can we come to but that there are different “degree” of faith? Didn’t Jesus comment about those who had “little faith” and those who had “great faith”? Have you ever wondered why Abraham’s faith was counted for righteousness? Wasn’t it because it was strong enough to cause him to trust in God and obey Him?
Of course baptism is symbolic. We aren’t actually physically buried with Christ. It is emblematic, but if it isn’t done, we haven’t complied with God’s requirement.
You claim to look at the bible literally, and to look at the context of a passage to understand it. I would suggest that you are instead reading one passage and trying to make everything else fit within the premise you have decided on from one passage. As proof I would say that you have teken a passage that says faith saves, and concluded that faith ONLY must save, so other passages that mention something else can’t mean what they say. I also don’t understand why you can claim faith only includes repentance and confession. Faith only is faith only. Repentance and confession are not the same as faith only, but are in additon to faith. How can 1+1+1=1? if this is your “hermenuetics”, then I don’t think it makes much sense.
As far as your point about filth of the flest only referring to sin in the new testament, where does this assumption come from? Even if you are right, look carefully at what peter is saying. It is not the water that is doing anything. It is the obedience to what God has commanded that saves. If God told us that standing on our heads and stacking greasy BB’s would save us, then we would have to do it. We wouldn’t be earning our way to heaven by doing it anymore than we are earning our way to heaven by having faith repenting, and confessing Christ. It is all complying with what God has told us to do. If you take a step back and look at the whole bible story, you see that it is about doing what God has told us to do in the way He has told us to do it as much as it is about faith.
LikeLike
I certainly can’t say it any better than that…
LikeLike