This is the sermon when you get when the Gospel of John Calvin is set above the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Webbon makes this entire case to address the obvious contradictions with "P" in "Tulip". "Perseverence of the Saints". I believe Hebrews 6 is CLEARLY about Christians. You can't "fall away" if you weren't following. You can't be "brought BACK to repentance" if you weren't once repentant, you can't "crucify the Son of God all over again" if you had never spriitually died with Christ. Moreover, Webbon's arguements undermine scripture by suggesting that an unsaved person cannot be saved. That flips the Gospel completely on its head, and makes it incoherent. Also, stop saying "this is NOT what the text is saying". It's exactly the straight reading of the text. I would respect more a delivery of "As a CALVINIST, here's what I believe the text is saying, and yes, it is a difficult text to explain". You 100% do not KNOW for a fact that your interpretation is correct. By his logic, every person that was raised in church and "experienced Christianity" as a child, then walked away from the faith during adulthood, cannot return to the faith. We know there are MULTITUDES of people who fit this description, and have returned to the faith. Fact of the matter is the following: Genuine believers lose their faith, apostatize, and walk away from the church and Christ of their own volition EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. It is the heigh of cognitive dissonance to know this fact, and pretend that none of them were ever believers. The fact is that the New Testament is CHOCK FULL of warnings and encouragements not to fall away, and to persist in the faith. If falling away was impossible, their would be no need for these warnings.
I dont think systematic theology itself is the culprit, systematic theology(when paired with a single consistent hermeneutic) is important in interpretation, but when paired with an inconsistent eisegetical approach such as the one in this video, leads to a complete butchering of Biblical text.
TULIP is a stronghold that sets itself above the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5) This is what happens when you impose TULIP on Scripture - you must then twist the clear honest and obvious meaning of a text so that it lines up with a preconceived theology. It also results in some serious cognitive dissonance - they are forever and a day contradicting themselves.
Typical calvinist strategy, redefine terms so that they mean something totally different.. Where in the Bible is enlightenment equated with Baptism? How does Baptism enlighten? And when did the heavenly gift become the Lord's supper? Is there any reference in the Bible that equates the two. Jesus is the heavenly gift. He is the bread that came from heaven. Unless you believe in trans-substantiation, you cannot equate the heavenly gift with the Lord's supper. Lastly, how does a mere visitor to the church become partaker of the Spirit of God? The Greek word used means partner, sharer, fellow etc. It's a direct relationship, not an indirect relationship through the church. Besides, this not the way John Calvin interpreted Hebrews 6. He interpreted it as teaching that it's possible for someone to be enlightened (i.e have Christ the light of the world enlighten them), he understands heavenly gift as referring to the things that Christ confers upon us that is above nature/the world, things that are tasted by faith. He calls participation with the holy Spirit as the work of the Holy spirit in giving knowledge of Christ, opening the eyes of the mind, etc. He further this work as not including regeneration. However, the work of the spirit in these unregenerated is such that no one can see any difference between their experience and that of the truly saved. I guess the speaker doesnt really want to share the calvinist teachings on these verses.He must have read calvin's commentary on Hebrews 6.. yet he never mentions what Calvin really teaches. If he has not read Calvin's commentaries on Hebrews 6, why is he claiming to teach the "calvinist" perspective?
Doesn't your teaching condemn the Apostle Paul? Wouldn't his participation in the Temple system in Acts 21 constitute a violation (under your interpretation) from which a restoration to repentance is impossible?
I think it would also condemn Peter when he denies Jesus 3 times. He has probably been baptized (enlightened), received communion (tasted the heavenly gift), shared in the holy spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God, and then fell away. (Although he was restored to repentance)
@@Jcangel26 I think you have a good point here as well, though I could see a valid counter-argument that the reception of the spirit in view in Hebrews was that which uniquely followed the outpouring at Pentecost subsequent to Christ's ascension.
A person who has repented has been born-again, as this is the very first step in the regeneration process. How can a believer who has repented, apostatize? Hebrews 6 I’ve heard it said, those in Hebrews 6 are unbelievers, but the text says Christ would be crucified “afresh”, this would imply that Christ already died for their sins once. Wouldn’t that mean they would have already been regenerate?
It's more like the person who repents is born again, it's an on going action. You can look at John 3:16 from example "whoever believes" not believed. But on to Hebrews 6 to simplify it to some degree it's basically saying the Gospel can't move someone twice. This is a tie to the wheat and tares passage Christ used. In that the only ones who everyone recognizes are saved are those who produce 30,60 or 100 fold of crops. But the ones that were chocked in the weeds or sown in the stones in the end were no good. So if after being watered with the Gospel message you produce weeds, you show what kind of plant you are. Here's a modern example Steven Dawkins has been told the gospel, likely 1,000s of times and I believe he's quoted on saying if there is a God I hate him. Well he's been watered by the gospel but it produced weeds then its not like the Gospel failed it just showed that God atleast for that point in time hasn't done a work in him. As for the whole sacrificing Him anew thing that could be in response to people wanting to offer sacrifices again which is a theme in Hebrews and how Christ is the perfect sacrifice and we don't need another.
TULIP is a stronghold that sets itself above the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5) This is what happens when you impose TULIP on Scripture - you must then twist the clear honest and obvious meaning of a text so that it lines up with a preconceived theology. It also results in some serious cognitive dissonance - they are forever and a day contradicting themselves.
if you continue reading you find the language of the thorns and thistles this is the language of the parable of the soils so this is talking about christians with head knowledge only they are not born of the spirit they started out in the milk of the word but never became mature born again believers so when the cares of this world and the persecutions came with being a follower of christ they wanted to go back to sacrificing bulls and goats if they had entered into the new covenant promise where god said i will write my laws on their hearts and i will put fear of me in them so they will never leave it would have been impossible for them to leave so this must be those that are in the beginning stages but have never been born of the spirit and since they put their hand to the plow and turned back god has no pleasure in them you must let scripture interpret scripture
Really? So you could receive the mark of the beast and still be saved? A third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out in full strength into the cup of His anger. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. The smoke of their torment will ascend forever and ever. They have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image and whoever receives the mark of his name.” -excerpt Revelation 14
I see.. why would Paul mention a hypothetical that cannot happen? Doesn't it make more sense to understand it as a warning against something that could happen.. afterall, it's meaningless to warn again the impossible. It's like saying, suppose you grew wings and flew, make sure you don't hit any planes. :)
I believe in hebrews 6 he’s talking about an impossibility; hebrews 6 is another way to explain “preservation of the saints”. It is impossible for them to go back to the shadow after seeing the light. Same when Jesus was talking in Mathew 24:24, when He said “ For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect”. He’s simply saying it is actually impossible for this to happen, but they would be so deceiving to a degree where they would deceive absolutely everyone except the elect.
@@jkagnatha4559 I disagree. Regardless of that, this phrase "once saved always saved" will encourage a poor attitude in certain people. That attitude might be disobedience at times, or laziness at times, or whatever. It's sort of like when a person of lesser character has a job where no one checks up on how well he is really doing it. That person has no reason to work hard, since their paycheck is secure. (I believe in salvation by faith, without works, which can be seen quite clearly by one of the two men crucified with Jesus.)
@@8784-l3b That’s because the thief had no time to sanctify himself, he died the same day. You did not support yourself with any Bible verses about justification nor sanctification; you simply stated an example of a real life situation and based salvation on that. When I say “I believe” it’s because the Bible says so, and I cannot believe anything outside of what the Bible teaches. I cannot make sense of things pragmatically just like other systems in the world, and apply them to the Bible. If the Bible says the will of God is our sanctification 1 Thessalonians 4:3, it means this is God’s will, no matter what anyone says. When the Bible says God will preserve the people who He delivered 2Timothy 4:18, then it means so.
@@jkagnatha4559 I won't debate "once saved always saved" due to my belief you won't change your mind. I did write about it encouraging poor attitude/behavior. you wrote: That’s because the thief had no time to sanctify himself, he died the same day. I don't know what that means. sanctify - made free from sin ...nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. -excerpt Galatians 2
@@StonyKalango My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. John 10:29. Well, aren't you someone? So not even you can snatch yourself out of the fathers hand.
@@johns8230 Sorry but I don’t understand how that fits in with English because it doesn’t make any language sense my friend. There is no way you would use that sentence and include yourself in any other scenario but for this you want to make an exclusion. Hebrew says Jesus tasted death for everyone. The Calvinist says differently. They say Jesus only died for the elect. Well the Bible has a different opinion.
Now, a serious question. What if a person was baptised at age 9. Had now catechism. No Christian upbringing. And at age 20, suddenly, when he says to God out of sincerity of his heart, Lord just “take me out, I got nothing to do here, can’t fit in”- and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit happens. But then comes satan, and takes away the word from his heart, not because he can’t ward satan of. But he doesn’t understand what is going on, and if he allowed to confront the satan. So, he falls away. Has been trying to come back to that light back, but no more Baptisms like that happen. And it’s been years. Is that person an apostate? PS True story
So...if a follower of Jesus denies Him 3 times in the same day, that follower could never repent or regret this? If this is what you're saying I'll post about Peter.
Lol I’m glad you said it. Dudes twisting the snot out of Hebrews 6:4-6 and not making any since of it. This passage is talking about those who are apostate and gathering with the church and have seen the miracles and everything God would do and turning away from him and saying Christ was and is guilty…. He cannot explain Matthew 7:21, 1 John 2:19 Jude 24 2 Timothy 1:12 Or Jeremiah 32:40 There are apostates in the church gathering with us and if they fall away “ deny their salvation “ it is impossible to restore them unto repentance 😂😂
I like you Joel, but...how can you get baptism out of enlightenment and the Supper out of tasting the heavenly gift? I mean, I see what your saying, but if Paul, whom I believe wrote Hebrews, meant baptism, it seems he'd say it. 2. It seems that the the blasphemy here stated is one of substance. That this supposed person has trampled under foot the Son of God. He is not a true born again one, but one as you said that has been given much light and gone back. Baptism is had by many who know nothing of Christ, the supper by the same. Its a conflation of your right understanding of these things with the supposed person's. Rather, it is what you allude to later. It is one who has much light. Is seeing and experiencing much of the Holy Spirit. It seems unnecessary to relate the two to the sacraments. But I'll have to consider it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
you wrote: how can you get baptism out of enlightenment Strongs Number: G5461 Transliteration: phōtizō Strongs Definition: to shed rays that is to shine or (transitively) to brighten up (literally or figuratively) Thayers Definition: #1 to give light, to shine
Baptisms I’m the kjv was the Greek word baptismas every time…. Washing was baptismos every time EXCEPT heberews6 He’s it’s literally talking of Jewish washings.
The author of Hebrews uses “tasted” as experiencing what it is they tasted. Christ experienced death. The real focus should be on “partakers”. Hebrews 6:4 (LSB): 4 For in the case of those once having been enlightened and having tasted of the heavenly gift and having become partakers of the Holy Spirit. Compare that usage to the chapter before it: Hebrews 3:14 (LSB): 14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
I agree. I just don't have a church, except for Christian friends and John Macarthur Voddie Baucham RC,, you , personal prayer time and Bible study. I've sat under Methodist, Episcopal, Missouri synod Lutheran, and Anglican Hope God will lead me to a church soon. You know any reformed pastors in the Charleston SC area?
"The age that these Jewish Christians were living in was a unique time period after the inauguration of the new covenant, that is after the work of Christ and pentecost and yet before the final conclusion of the old covenant. There's a brief moment of overlap, that is before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70." -excerpt from video There was no overlap. As Jesus said right before He died: ...He said, “It is finished!” There is also this: And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom...
Yes the old covenant had ended when Christ finished paying for the sins of his people. But the Jewish practices around the old covenant man made temple still continued.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN Yes, that is right. My issue is this from the video: "...that is after the work of Christ and pentecost and yet before the final conclusion of the old covenant. There's a brief moment of overlap..." There might seem to be overlap, because the temple still existed, but there was no overlap.
As a Calvinist myself I rather agree with Spurgeon and others like Schreiner. That speaks of what would happen say to the earth if the sun was moved further or closer. Reinforcing that surely Christ will save His people and bring them home. There is no other option for Christ cannot be sacrificed again
This is the sermon when you get when the Gospel of John Calvin is set above the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Webbon makes this entire case to address the obvious contradictions with "P" in "Tulip". "Perseverence of the Saints". I believe Hebrews 6 is CLEARLY about Christians. You can't "fall away" if you weren't following. You can't be "brought BACK to repentance" if you weren't once repentant, you can't "crucify the Son of God all over again" if you had never spriitually died with Christ.
Moreover, Webbon's arguements undermine scripture by suggesting that an unsaved person cannot be saved. That flips the Gospel completely on its head, and makes it incoherent. Also, stop saying "this is NOT what the text is saying". It's exactly the straight reading of the text. I would respect more a delivery of "As a CALVINIST, here's what I believe the text is saying, and yes, it is a difficult text to explain". You 100% do not KNOW for a fact that your interpretation is correct. By his logic, every person that was raised in church and "experienced Christianity" as a child, then walked away from the faith during adulthood, cannot return to the faith. We know there are MULTITUDES of people who fit this description, and have returned to the faith.
Fact of the matter is the following: Genuine believers lose their faith, apostatize, and walk away from the church and Christ of their own volition EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. It is the heigh of cognitive dissonance to know this fact, and pretend that none of them were ever believers. The fact is that the New Testament is CHOCK FULL of warnings and encouragements not to fall away, and to persist in the faith. If falling away was impossible, their would be no need for these warnings.
Exactly what I was thinking. he’s trying to read a systematic theology into the text here where it is clearly not present.
I dont think systematic theology itself is the culprit, systematic theology(when paired with a single consistent
hermeneutic) is important in interpretation, but when paired with an inconsistent eisegetical approach such as the one in this video, leads to a complete butchering of Biblical text.
TULIP is a stronghold that sets itself above the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5)
This is what happens when you impose TULIP on Scripture - you must then twist the clear honest and obvious meaning of a text so that it lines up with a preconceived theology.
It also results in some serious cognitive dissonance - they are forever and a day contradicting themselves.
Typical calvinist strategy, redefine terms so that they mean something totally different..
Where in the Bible is enlightenment equated with Baptism? How does Baptism enlighten?
And when did the heavenly gift become the Lord's supper? Is there any reference in the Bible that equates the two. Jesus is the heavenly gift. He is the bread that came from heaven. Unless you believe in trans-substantiation, you cannot equate the heavenly gift with the Lord's supper.
Lastly, how does a mere visitor to the church become partaker of the Spirit of God? The Greek word used means partner, sharer, fellow etc. It's a direct relationship, not an indirect relationship through the church.
Besides, this not the way John Calvin interpreted Hebrews 6. He interpreted it as teaching that it's possible for someone to be enlightened (i.e have Christ the light of the world enlighten them), he understands heavenly gift as referring to the things that Christ confers upon us that is above nature/the world, things that are tasted by faith.
He calls participation with the holy Spirit as the work of the Holy spirit in giving knowledge of Christ, opening the eyes of the mind, etc. He further this work as not including regeneration. However, the work of the spirit in these unregenerated is such that no one can see any difference between their experience and that of the truly saved.
I guess the speaker doesnt really want to share the calvinist teachings on these verses.He must have read calvin's commentary on Hebrews 6.. yet he never mentions what Calvin really teaches. If he has not read Calvin's commentaries on Hebrews 6, why is he claiming to teach the "calvinist" perspective?
Doesn't your teaching condemn the Apostle Paul? Wouldn't his participation in the Temple system in Acts 21 constitute a violation (under your interpretation) from which a restoration to repentance is impossible?
I think it would also condemn Peter when he denies Jesus 3 times. He has probably been baptized (enlightened), received communion (tasted the heavenly gift), shared in the holy spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God, and then fell away. (Although he was restored to repentance)
@@Jcangel26 I think you have a good point here as well, though I could see a valid counter-argument that the reception of the spirit in view in Hebrews was that which uniquely followed the outpouring at Pentecost subsequent to Christ's ascension.
@@Jcangel26 never said Peter had the spirit, the heavenly gift could be salvation or Jesus. Peter doesn't fall into that category
This is a very important message and I thank you for sharing this with us, Pastor Joel!!
God bless y'all!!
You totally got it wrong.
A person who has repented has been born-again, as this is the very first step in the regeneration process.
How can a believer who has repented, apostatize? Hebrews 6
I’ve heard it said, those in Hebrews 6 are unbelievers, but the text says Christ would be crucified “afresh”, this would imply that Christ already died for their sins once. Wouldn’t that mean they would have already been regenerate?
It's more like the person who repents is born again, it's an on going action. You can look at John 3:16 from example "whoever believes" not believed.
But on to Hebrews 6 to simplify it to some degree it's basically saying the Gospel can't move someone twice. This is a tie to the wheat and tares passage Christ used. In that the only ones who everyone recognizes are saved are those who produce 30,60 or 100 fold of crops. But the ones that were chocked in the weeds or sown in the stones in the end were no good. So if after being watered with the Gospel message you produce weeds, you show what kind of plant you are. Here's a modern example Steven Dawkins has been told the gospel, likely 1,000s of times and I believe he's quoted on saying if there is a God I hate him. Well he's been watered by the gospel but it produced weeds then its not like the Gospel failed it just showed that God atleast for that point in time hasn't done a work in him. As for the whole sacrificing Him anew thing that could be in response to people wanting to offer sacrifices again which is a theme in Hebrews and how Christ is the perfect sacrifice and we don't need another.
TULIP is a stronghold that sets itself above the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5)
This is what happens when you impose TULIP on Scripture - you must then twist the clear honest and obvious meaning of a text so that it lines up with a preconceived theology.
It also results in some serious cognitive dissonance - they are forever and a day contradicting themselves.
7:14 Eisegesis
if you continue reading you find the language of the thorns and thistles this is the language of the parable of the soils so this is talking about christians with head knowledge only they are not born of the spirit they started out in the milk of the word but never became mature born again believers so when the cares of this world and the persecutions came with being a follower of christ they wanted to go back to sacrificing bulls and goats if they had entered into the new covenant promise where god said i will write my laws on their hearts and i will put fear of me in them so they will never leave it would have been impossible for them to leave so this must be those that are in the beginning stages but have never been born of the spirit and since they put their hand to the plow and turned back god has no pleasure in them you must let scripture interpret scripture
As a Calvinist I explain it as a hypothetical, if you could lose salvation (which you can't) you could never get it back.
Really? So you could receive the mark of the beast and still be saved?
A third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out in full strength into the cup of His anger. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. The smoke of their torment will ascend forever and ever. They have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
-excerpt Revelation 14
It’s not hypothetical though.
Also, where you been?
@@jakeabbatacola5092 main account is disabled
I see.. why would Paul mention a hypothetical that cannot happen?
Doesn't it make more sense to understand it as a warning against something that could happen.. afterall, it's meaningless to warn again the impossible.
It's like saying, suppose you grew wings and flew, make sure you don't hit any planes. :)
@@Ashwin2584 pastors use hypotheticals all the time, keep reading verse 9 indicates it is hypothetical. All about context.
I believe in hebrews 6 he’s talking about an impossibility; hebrews 6 is another way to explain “preservation of the saints”. It is impossible for them to go back to the shadow after seeing the light.
Same when Jesus was talking in Mathew 24:24, when He said “ For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect”.
He’s simply saying it is actually impossible for this to happen, but they would be so deceiving to a degree where they would deceive absolutely everyone except the elect.
Do you believe in, 'once saved always saved'?
@@8784-l3b yep John 6:39
@@jkagnatha4559 I disagree. Regardless of that,
this phrase "once saved always saved" will
encourage a poor attitude in certain people.
That attitude might be disobedience at times,
or laziness at times, or whatever. It's sort of like
when a person of lesser character has a job
where no one checks up on how well he is really
doing it. That person has no reason to work hard,
since their paycheck is secure.
(I believe in salvation by faith, without works, which
can be seen quite clearly by one of the two men
crucified with Jesus.)
@@8784-l3b That’s because the thief had no time to sanctify himself, he died the same day.
You did not support yourself with any Bible verses about justification nor sanctification; you simply stated an example of a real life situation and based salvation on that.
When I say “I believe” it’s because the Bible says so, and I cannot believe anything outside of what the Bible teaches. I cannot make sense of things pragmatically just like other systems in the world, and apply them to the Bible.
If the Bible says the will of God is our sanctification 1 Thessalonians 4:3, it means this is God’s will, no matter what anyone says.
When the Bible says God will preserve the people who He delivered 2Timothy 4:18, then it means so.
@@jkagnatha4559 I won't debate "once saved always saved"
due to my belief you won't change your mind.
I did write about it encouraging poor attitude/behavior.
you wrote:
That’s because the thief had no time to sanctify himself, he died the same day.
I don't know what that means.
sanctify - made free from sin
...nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
-excerpt Galatians 2
A “Calvinist perspective,” ah, yes. Say no more.
What specific details do you disagree with what he is saying?
I clicked because I thought this was Matt Walsh lol.
This made my day
We used to think the same thing lol
wait? this isn't Matt Walsh?
Are old videos being reuploaded? Seems like I've heard some of these before?
This is a clip from a full length sermon that you probably already watched.
It’s simple, if you fall away you have lost your place in salvation…. Period.
If you fall away you never knew Him.
John 10:28-30 please read it
@@christianearle3504 it never says you cannot walk away. It says nothing can take you away. Don't add your presuppositions into the text.
@@StonyKalango My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 10:29. Well, aren't you someone? So not even you can snatch yourself out of the fathers hand.
@@johns8230 Sorry but I don’t understand how that fits in with English because it doesn’t make any language sense my friend. There is no way you would use that sentence and include yourself in any other scenario but for this you want to make an exclusion. Hebrew says Jesus tasted death for everyone. The Calvinist says differently. They say Jesus only died for the elect. Well the Bible has a different opinion.
These Calvinists/OSASer's will go to no end to protect their man made doctrine. Hebrews 6 is not talking to/about believers? SMH
Read the context. The author of Hebrews is talking to the church.
@@afterdarkness-light You didn't get the comment...Hebrews is talking to the Church of course...the gentlemen in the video says otherwise.
If someone does say this passage is not about Christians, I agree they are wrong. But that doesn't mean OSAS is wrong. Because it's not.
Tell me how do you read 1 John 2:19 and Ephesians 1.
What if a baptized church member walks away but then comes back? Would it be in vain?
Should be titled:
"How a Calvinist imposes Calvinism on Scripture to make it line up with Calvinism instead of what it really means"
Now, a serious question.
What if a person was baptised at age 9. Had now catechism. No Christian upbringing.
And at age 20, suddenly, when he says to God out of sincerity of his heart, Lord just “take me out, I got nothing to do here, can’t fit in”- and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit happens.
But then comes satan, and takes away the word from his heart, not because he can’t ward satan of. But he doesn’t understand what is going on, and if he allowed to confront the satan.
So, he falls away. Has been trying to come back to that light back, but no more Baptisms like that happen.
And it’s been years.
Is that person an apostate?
PS True story
Why is he altering the chapter?
So...if a follower of Jesus denies Him 3 times in the same day,
that follower could never repent or regret this?
If this is what you're saying I'll post about Peter.
Lol I’m glad you said it. Dudes twisting the snot out of Hebrews 6:4-6 and not making any since of it. This passage is talking about those who are apostate and gathering with the church and have seen the miracles and everything God would do and turning away from him and saying Christ was and is guilty…. He cannot explain Matthew 7:21, 1 John 2:19
Jude 24
2 Timothy 1:12
Or Jeremiah 32:40
There are apostates in the church gathering with us and if they fall away “ deny their salvation “ it is impossible to restore them unto repentance 😂😂
So irresistible grace just doesn’t apply to a non-believer here? When does irresistible grace kick in?
I like you Joel, but...how can you get baptism out of enlightenment and the Supper out of tasting the heavenly gift? I mean, I see what your saying, but if Paul, whom I believe wrote Hebrews, meant baptism, it seems he'd say it. 2. It seems that the the blasphemy here stated is one of substance. That this supposed person has trampled under foot the Son of God. He is not a true born again one, but one as you said that has been given much light and gone back. Baptism is had by many who know nothing of Christ, the supper by the same. Its a conflation of your right understanding of these things with the supposed person's. Rather, it is what you allude to later. It is one who has much light. Is seeing and experiencing much of the Holy Spirit. It seems unnecessary to relate the two to the sacraments. But I'll have to consider it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
I would also like to know his sources to prove those things. Ill read calvin later and see what calvin thought of the text.
Read Justin Martyr's first apology. It's from around 150ad.
you wrote:
how can you get baptism out of enlightenment
Strongs Number: G5461
Transliteration: phōtizō
Strongs Definition: to shed rays that is to shine or (transitively) to brighten up (literally or figuratively)
Thayers Definition: #1 to give light, to shine
Baptisms I’m the kjv was the Greek word baptismas every time….
Washing was baptismos every time EXCEPT heberews6
He’s it’s literally talking of Jewish washings.
@@cole5773 in common Christian usage, being "illuminated" or "enlightened" occurred at baptism. They were synonymous.
Another question, what are your thoughts regarding "tasted" and that same used to describe Christ tasting death in Hebrews 2? Thank you
The author of Hebrews uses “tasted” as experiencing what it is they tasted. Christ experienced death. The real focus should be on “partakers”.
Hebrews 6:4 (LSB): 4 For in the case of those once having been enlightened and having tasted of the heavenly gift and having become partakers of the Holy Spirit.
Compare that usage to the chapter before it:
Hebrews 3:14 (LSB): 14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
I agree.
I just don't have a church, except for Christian friends and John Macarthur Voddie Baucham RC,, you , personal prayer time and Bible study. I've sat under Methodist, Episcopal, Missouri synod Lutheran, and Anglican
Hope God will lead me to a church soon. You know any reformed pastors in the Charleston SC area?
Amen 🙏🏼 I’ll pray for you to find a church too; I’m suffering from the same problem in Australia Wagga Wagga
"The age that these Jewish Christians were living in was a unique
time period after the inauguration of the new covenant, that is
after the work of Christ and pentecost and yet before the final
conclusion of the old covenant. There's a brief moment of
overlap, that is before the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple in A.D. 70."
-excerpt from video
There was no overlap.
As Jesus said right before He died:
...He said, “It is finished!”
There is also this:
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom...
Yes the old covenant had ended when Christ finished paying for the sins of his people. But the Jewish practices around the old covenant man made temple still continued.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN
Yes, that is right. My issue is this from the video:
"...that is after the work of Christ and pentecost and yet before the final
conclusion of the old covenant. There's a brief moment of
overlap..."
There might seem to be overlap, because the temple
still existed, but there was no overlap.
Ty for your service sir
And thats crazy that it makes since! Because even if one were to ask, "why would God do that?" The answer is still that He may be glorified. Amazing!
As a Calvinist myself I rather agree with Spurgeon and others like Schreiner. That speaks of what would happen say to the earth if the sun was moved further or closer. Reinforcing that surely Christ will save His people and bring them home. There is no other option for Christ cannot be sacrificed again