Thread: Hebrews 6:4-6

I thought about this just now.

Phil 3:4 If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.

We know what Saul was like before he converted, he was zealous Pharisee, a super-Hebrew. Then he did something completely different while claiming that he was still simply serving the God of Abraham, this time the right way. What would it take for his former peers to accept him back into their fold ? For them to trust him as one of them ? They would have to be absolutely sure that he wasn't simply going back and forth and that he wasn't going to convert back again to Christianity later on after having gained some insights from within their camp along the way. He would have to prove himself by cutting himself off completely from Christianity. Betrayal or murder would probably help but it seems much easier to come up with a ritual that anyone could perform without the Roman authorities bothering about interfering. But the ritual would have to be severe enough to make the potential re-convert utterly believable.

Originally Posted by Colonel

So you agree that both passages are describing or referring to an irreversible condition then ? In that case it should take more than simply returning to Judaism again from Christianity.

When you say "...SIMPLY returning to Judaism again from Christianity" I take it as you don't see this as severe as I do. It's apostasy. You're going from your religion which recognizes Jesus as the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, to denying that truth. Of course there isn't any more sacrifice for sin in that case because you just rejected the one who sacrificed for your sin, and you did it after being a very knowledgeable Christian according to Hebrews 6. You've gone from being a Christian who is knowledgeable about what constitutes salvation, have been saved, and now saying Jesus is not the Christ. That's no small matter or small 'transformation'. Think about what it probably took for a person to go from Jesus back to that old way.

Verse 20 which you quoted above, "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?" is absolutely referring back to Chapter 6 the way I see it.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

It's definitely apostasy so the real question is if that always constitutes an unpardonable sin as Mat 12:31-32 and Hebrews 6 describe. Is every Messianic Jew who then returns to Judaism irrevocably lost ?

Originally Posted by Colonel

It's definitely apostasy so the real question is if that always constitutes an unpardonable sin as Mat 12:31-32 and Hebrews 6 describe. Is every Messianic Jew who then returns to Judaism irrevocably lost ?

He answers that clearly in 6. It's about the ones that fit that criteria.

Originally Posted by fuego

He answers that clearly in 6. It's about the ones that fit that criteria.

They have to be mature, to have tasted the powers of the coming age etc. If we take Hebrews 6 and 10 as a sum, with Christians returning to Hebrew Judaism as an example of what he's talking about then "insulting the Spirit of grace" is still a criterium for the irrevocably lost condition. Which is what I believe is the most basic theme involved.

Which is in line with how Hagin viewed Spirit blasphemy, that it was only possible for a mature Christian to commit that sin, others wouldn't be capable of it. He uses a woman he knew as an example but it had nothing to do with Judaism.

The ones Jesus accused of coming close to committing Spirit blasphemy were Pharisees and they weren't even born again. But they were watching the most anointed minister of all time operate limitlessly in the Holy Spirit so I guess that was a special case.

Originally Posted by Smitty

What is your definition of the unpardonable sin? Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And can the unsaved as well as the saved person commit this unforgivable sin?

In Matthew 12:31-32 it was unbelieving Pharisees. In Heb 10:29 it's mature Jewish Christians while in the process of becoming apostates.

I believe that speaking against the Holy Spirit in anger doesn't qualify. It would have to be a cold blooded act of wanting nothing to do with him, probably done in his presence, possibly while being convicted by him in his presence. That's what the Pharisees were in the process of doing when Jesus warned them, the mature Christians probably qualified because they had spent time in his presence and knew him.
Former Pentecostal/Charismatics have done this and have become evil adversaries, I know of one in my own country. He's stone cold in his atheism and I think that his condition has become fundamental and irrevocable at the heart level. It's quite possible that anti-Charismatic Christians and also unbelievers have done this while in a state of conviction so it doesn't necessarily require apostasy. Meaning that the anti-Charismatic still claims to be a Christian whereas the unbeliever never did.

I'm thinking that some of the Hebrews enticing Hebrew Christians to return to Judaism may have been of the latter category. They could have been among the Pharisees that didn't heed Jesus' warning and blasphemed the Holy Spirit or they could have done so while being convicted of the truth later on. The Norwegian I referred to above wrote a book about Pentecostalism in Norway that lead many Pentecostals here to become apostates, he seems to derive a strange power from the deep coldness in his heart. Not all of them remained apostates though.

Let the Word speak for itself.