What to expect from God and Apostasy

[Leonhard]

So, what happens if he has an epiphany and repents? According to Hebrews, he would be unable to return to Christ if he were an apostate. I don't think apostasy is the proper term to use here.

Its fairly simple, if he later repents, then he didn't cross the line and did the unforgivable sin.

[Bill the Cat]

Its fairly simple, if he later repents, then he didn't cross the line and did the unforgivable sin.

Then it wouldn't be apostasy.

[Leonhard]

Then it wouldn't be apostasy.

Precisely. At least not of a final form. I used to be a Christian, then I was an atheist (yet I never gave up the question), then I became a Christian again (and later Catholic).

[Leonhard]

,
". . . But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." -- Hebrews 10:39.

You'd still have to explain Hebrews 6:4. You can either claim that those it describes never tasted the graces to begin with, or you can say that it describes an impossible scenario. Yet how would you do that in the context of the rest of the epistle.

It seems to me you'd be forced to say that whoever wrote Hebrews got it wrong.

[KingsGambit]

You'd still have to explain Hebrews 6:4. You can either claim that those it describes never tasted the graces to begin with, or you can say that it describes an impossible scenario. Yet how would you do that in the context of the rest of the epistle.

It seems to me you'd be forced to say that whoever wrote Hebrews got it wrong.

The church has struggled with this passage throughout history. "Enlightenment" as used in Hebrews 6:4 later took on the objective meaning of "baptism", so by the 3rd or 4th century, the church read this definition back into it and took it to mean that you could not be baptized a second time. The problem is this is clearly not what the author of Hebrews meant, as the word wasn't used in that way when it was written, and it has nothing to do with the context of the book.

However we end up interpreting it (and I have my view), I think the conclusion that anybody who repents is not described here is correct, else John 6:37 would be wrong.

[Jedidiah]

Then it wouldn't be apostasy.

I understand apostasy to be abandonment of a particular system of belief, not abandoning faith in Christ.

[One Bad Pig]

The church has struggled with this passage throughout history. "Enlightenment" as used in Hebrews 6:4 later took on the objective meaning of "baptism", so by the 3rd or 4th century, the church read this definition back into it and took it to mean that you could not be baptized a second time. The problem is this is clearly not what the author of Hebrews meant, as the word wasn't used in that way when it was written, and it has nothing to do with the context of the book.

Do you have some sort of proof for your last sentence here? Because I think you're over-simplifying how the church read this passage. And I'll note that, while the church does not allow rebaptism, it does allow for people to fall away and subsequently repent.

However we end up interpreting it (and I have my view), I think the conclusion that anybody who repents is not described here is correct, else John 6:37 would be wrong.

I'm not seeing that.

[Bill the Cat]

I understand apostasy to be abandonment of a particular system of belief, not abandoning faith in Christ.

According to Paul and the early church, it was abandoning Christ to follow the Man of Sin.

[KingsGambit]

Do you have some sort of proof for your last sentence here? Because I think you're over-simplifying how the church read this passage. And I'll note that, while the church does not allow rebaptism, it does allow for people to fall away and subsequently repent.

I'm not seeing that.

I actually went through my seminary's library a couple weeks ago and looked at how most all scholarly commentaries approached Hebrews and the near-unanimous consensus was that it was a five-part warning series (the five warnings are clearly interrelated) against allowing any repentance at all. The reference to Esau in Hebrews 12 is a descriptor of one who wants to repent but is actively not allowed to. (The church has tried to find ways out of this for the last 2000 years; I think the only intellectually honest way not to turn it into a prooftext for Novatianism is to allow for rhetoric/hyperbole.) Clearly the issue of rebaptism is acontextual to this; at least, I don't see how it fits in chapter 6 in particular. The agricultural metaphor following 6:4-6 especially does not fit a mere prohibition of rebaptism. (My source for the claim about the church understanding it as baptism acontextually is Ben Witherington's commentary on Hebrews.)

I don't see how John 6:37 is inapplicable, as it suggests that Jesus would never turn away a would-be disciple this side of the eschaton, even if they were a prior apostate.

[KingsGambit]

Addendum: There are all kinds of convoluted explanations to argue why Paul's prayer to reclaim Hymenaeus was not an example of apostasy or why the last two verses of James don't describe apostasy, to preserve a clean theology of "you can't recover from apostasy but if they recover, it's not really apostasy." That doesn't seem to do justice to the biblical authors.

[Leonhard]

I actually went through my seminary's library a couple weeks ago and looked at how most all scholarly commentaries approached Hebrews and the near-unanimous consensus was that it was a five-part warning series (the five warnings are clearly interrelated) against allowing any repentance at all. The reference to Esau in Hebrews 12 is a descriptor of one who wants to repent but is actively not allowed to. (The church has tried to find ways out of this for the last 2000 years; I think the only intellectually honest way not to turn it into a prooftext for Novatianism is to allow for rhetoric/hyperbole.)

Or you could do as the Church Fathers, and argue that Esau was no more contrite than Cain. Esau was griefed over the loss of an inheritance, he sold it away to his brother already, he was lashing out in envy and anger. Cain didn't really regret killing his brother, only the suffering that he would endure. For this reason The Church teaches that in order for contrition to lead to forgiveness, its required that it be supernatural. You have to be contrite because you fear God's punishments, the loss of the heavenly good or simple out of love for God.

I don't see how John 6:37 is inapplicable, as it suggests that Jesus would never turn away a would-be disciple this side of the eschaton, even if they were a prior apostate.

We all seem to agree at least that if a person is rependant, he will not be turned away if he does so prior to his death.

Though I'd still add the addendum that the person would have to have supernatural contrition. (I'm not sure unrependant sinners would ever get that if they died in that state)

[Obsidian]

I think it's referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, and they couldn't repent because they were dead.

[37818]

We can play scripture wars all day long -- "backsliding" is actually mentioned in the Bible a number of times.

I am of the the persuasion that "backsliding" does not Biblically apply to Christians. Yes, I am well aware that most Christians think otherwise. Based on the majority usage I would be in the wrong. First, my understanding, of the Biblical usage, was to the nation of Israel. And when applied to individuals, it was because they were not yet saved. Can you give me one example from the Bible where this assessment is not true.

Are you comfortable judging when a Christian has gone past "backsliding" and is an "apostate"?

It is my view genuine Christians do neither. Religious and lost professing to be Christians do. Show me one example from the word of God where I am wrong about this. This does not mean everyone is going to agree. But we need to make the case, none the less.

[KingsGambit]

I am of the the persuasion that "backsliding" does not Biblically apply to Christians. Yes, I am well aware that most Christians think otherwise. Based on the majority usage I would be in the wrong. First, my understanding, of the Biblical usage, was to the nation of Israel. And when applied to individuals, it was because they were not yet saved. Can you give me one example from the Bible where this assessment is not true.

It is my view genuine Christians do neither. Religious and lost professing to be Christians do. Show me one example from the word of God where I am wrong about this. This does not mean everyone is going to agree. But we need to make the case, none the less.

That's the problem here; the definitions used are just going to shift around to fit the theological suppositions. If somebody professing Christianity leaves after a number of years, we just say they were not a "true" believer to begin with, no matter what it previously seemed.

[37818]

You'd still have to explain Hebrews 6:4. You can either claim that those it describes never tasted the graces to begin with, or you can say that it describes an impossible scenario. Yet how would you do that in the context of the rest of the epistle.

It seems to me you'd be forced to say that whoever wrote Hebrews got it wrong.

Well it does say, ". . . and have tasted of the heavenly gift, . . ." But does that mean what you think it means? What do you think it means?

Consider the following ". . . They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted [thereof], he would not drink. . . ." -- Matthew 27:34.

While there is a difference in grammar, it is the same word, accusative in the plural in Hebrews 6:4 and nominative in the singular in Matthew 27:34. (Hebrew 6:4 is not talking about any one individual. ". . . those . . .")

But the writer goes on to say, ". . . But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." (v.9) What was spoken of was of "those" who do not obtain salvation. Christ died for all (John 15:2, 6).