Hebrews 6:4-6 vs. James 5:19-20

[tqpix]

Hebrews 6:4-6
4  For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

This says that it is impossible for a person who walked away from the faith to come back.

James 5:19-20   
19  Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

This says that if a person roams from the truth, but a brother brings him back, the person that roamed will not face death.

Although it appears like a contradiction, my take on it is this:

Hebrews 6:4-6 addresses a person that walked away from the faith completely, while James 5:19-20 adresses a person that stayed in the faith but have been doing things contrary to what a follower of the faith should do.

I'd like to hear your comments on this.

[Pilgrim]

Eternal Life

Hebrews 6:4 “For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,  5  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  6  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.”

The book of Hebrews is a contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. To properly understand the book of Hebrews this must be kept in mind. One of the main keywords in Hebrews is “better” which is used in reference to the New Covenant. The writer of Hebrew is dealing with converts under the New Covenant who are slipping back to the things of the old covenant. There are about five different explanations for the five warning passages in Hebrews such as the verses above. One explanation teaches that this is speaking about a false professor, one who came close to being saved even partaking of spiritual things, yet never took that final step of salvation. I reject this explanation because the writer uses the strongest possible words to describe one who is truly a Christian. Also in chapter 10 we read:

Hebrews 10:26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  27  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  28  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:  29  Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

Notice that the person mentioned here cannot be a false professor because verse 29 says he was sanctified by the blood of the covenant or in other words he was set apart by the blood of Jesus. This cannot happen to anyone but a child of God. The unsaved are not sanctified by the blood of Jesus.

Another very popular explanation for these passages is that the person was truly a child of God but lost his salvation. I reject this explanation as well. First, there are to many Scripture passages that teach that a child of God is granted eternal life at his conversion in Christ. If a person could lose their salvation then we would be forced to redefine many words. For example “forever” would not mean forever, “eternal” would not mean eternal, “everlasting” would not mean everlasting, “never perish” would not mean never perish. Now if we change the meanings for these words in relation to salvation then we ought to be honest with ourselves and apply the same meaning wherever we see these words. So, when Scripture teaches that those who are thrown into the lake of fire and the smoke of their burning ascendeth forever, then we must conclude that this might not br forever seeing the same word is used in relation to salvation. Look at the problems you would have if you are consistent in applying the same definitions to word concerning other issues as you do concerning salvation. Below is a small sample.  

Rom. 16:26 “But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God.”

If salvation is not everlasting then a honest person would have to ask, is God really everlasting seeing the same word is used to describe both?

2 Cor. 9:9 “(As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.”

If salvation is not forever how can God’s righteousness be forever seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Rev 4:9 “And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10  The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever , and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,”

If salvation is not forever then does the Lord live forever seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Hebrews 9:12 “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].”

Was it eternal redemption or was is temporary in some cases?

Heb. 10:14 “For  by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.  15  [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:  for after that he had said before,  16  This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;  17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.  18  Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin”

Did the Lord perfect forever those that are sanctified or in some cases only temporary?  

Rev. 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever . Amen”

If salvation is not forever then is the Lord’s glory and dominion for ever and ever, seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Matt. 25:41 “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”
Continued

[Pilgrim]

Continued
If salvation is not forever then is the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels forever, seeing the same words are used to describe both?

Matt. 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal”

If salvation is not forever then is the everlasting punishment of unbelievers forever, seeing the same words are used to describe both?

2 Thes. 1:9 “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”

Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Jude 1:13 “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”
 
Mark 3:29 “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal  damnation:”

I hope you can see the danger in redefining words with set meanings in order to accommodate a doctrine. This boils down to letting your doctrine define the Word of God instead of letting the Word of God define your doctrine. Here are the set meaning of some of the words, what right do we have in redefining them?

Forever
165 aion {ahee-ohn'}
from the same as 104; TDNT - 1:197,31; n m
AV - ever 71, world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6, evermore 4,
age 2, eternal 2, misc 5; 128
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age

Eternal life, Everlasting
166 aionios {ahee-o'-nee-os}
from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj
AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2,
since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and
always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
For Synonyms see entry 5801

Dwelleth
3306 meno {men'-o}
a root word; TDNT - 4:574,581; v
AV - abide 61, remain 16, dwell 15, continue 11, tarry 9, endure 3,
misc 5; 120
1) to remain, abide
1a) in reference to place
1a1) to sojourn, tarry
1a2) not to depart
1a2a) to continue to be present
1a2b) to be held, kept, continually
1b) in reference to time
1b1) to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure
1b1a) of persons, to survive, live
1c) in reference to state or condition
1c1) to remain as one, not to become another or different
2) to wait for, await one

Everlasting
126 aidios {ah-id'-ee-os}
from 104; TDNT - 1:168,25; adj
AV - eternal 1, everlasting 1; 2
1) eternal, everlasting
For Synonyms see entry 5801

Perish
622 apollumi {ap-ol'-loo-mee}
from 575 and the base of 3639; TDNT - 1:394,67; v
AV - perish 33, destroy 26, lose 22, be lost 5, lost 4, misc 2; 92
1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose    

that never shall be quenched
BDB/Thayers # 762
762 asbestos as'-bes-tos}
from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 4570;; adj
AV - unquenchable 2, never shall be quenched 2; 4
1) unquenched, unquenchable
1a) of eternal hell fire to punish the damned

Another explanation which I believe is the correct one is that the writer of Hebrews is using a hypothetical situation to make a point. This is the only explanation that I am aware of the does not violate other Scripture. The writer of Hebrews is concerned that some are turning back to the Old Covenant ways so he sets out to prove how foolish this is in light of how much better the New Covenant is. His argument would amount to something like this for Hebrews 6:4-6 (the verses at the top of this article).

If it were possible for someone who is truly saved (verses 4-5) to fall away and abandon the salvation he has already received by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus (verse 6). It would be impossible for him to be renewed to repentance (salvation) because in order for him to be renewed he would have to crucify the Son of God again, and put him to an open shame which will never happen (verse 6). The point being that outside of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus in the New Covenant there is no salvation.

I believe this explains Hebrews 10 as well.

Hebrews 10:26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  27  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  28  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:  29  Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

The argument is something like this. If it were possible for a true Christian to sin willfully after receiving the gospel truth by rejecting it, there would be no hope of him ever getting saved again. The only thing awaiting him is the fiery indignation of God seeing that he has trodden under foot the Lord Jesus Christ and counted His blood by which he was saved an unholy thing. The only way of salvation is through the blood of Jesus and if a Christian COULD reject that there is no hope for him seeing he rejected the only thing that could save his soul.

The hypothetical is the only way I know of that allows these verses to fall in perfect harmony with the rest of Scriptures. I hope this may help some. May God open all of our eyes of understanding.

Pilgrim

[Jemidon2004]

Very good expoundation of this Scripture pilgrim... I enjoyed the post...You are right...it is a hypothetical situation that the writer is displaying here. It is a prime example in the eternal security of the Believer. we see that the author is using this hypothetical situation because of the sentence structure. Throughout Hebrews, i believe, if i remember what my pastor told me, the author uses 6 participles. the first 5 describe actual events that happened, and the sixth describes a hypothetical situation. Now I could be wrong in the counting, but I do know that the sentence structure really comes into play with this section of Scripture. Apparantly the author of Hebrews believed that one would be eternally secure in his/her salvation due to the fact that Christ died once and for all. Let me do some more checking and i'll get you the sentence structure for these verses...i hate i can't remember everything that he said, but i do remember that it is a hypothetical situation due to the sentence structure and grammar of the sentence. Anywho, i'm off to do some studying. God Bless

In His Service,
Joshua

[Allinall]

The problem people face when they attempt to say that this Hebrews passage supports loss of salvation(apart from glaring biblical contradiction) is that they are applying New Testament theology to Old Testament dispensation.  The things in the Old were "written for our ensample" and must be applied as such.  The loss the writer is speaking of in Hebrews is the Israelites failure to trust God and enter the Promised Land.  The loss they suffered was the imminent victory God had promised them in the land.  They refused to believe God, and lost the opportunity to enter the "rest" the land would provide them, and so were forced to wander in the land of unrest.  There was a line crossed by the Israelites at Kadeshbarnea.  God refused to reward them thereafter.

God warns us as New Testament believers via the Old Testament ensample.  If we refuse to believe and trust God, the line can be drawn that we don't see, and we run a real risk of crossing it.  Repentance comes from God, and that can be stopped if He so choses.  Hence, "it is impossible to (paraphrase mine) call to repentance those who have fallen away after tasting..."  The loss is the rest found in a victorious, faith-based daily walk with Christ.  He doesn't leave, but I believe He does put that believer on the shelf, salvation, and God's plan for making him Christlike still in tact.

Just a thought...

[tqpix]

Thank you for your help.