Debate: What does Hebrews 6:4–6 mean

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 4 through 6 provide a very sobering message:

This debate is to discuss the deeper meaning of the excerpt from the New Testament. To start a new topic subsection for a particular point not already discussed, click here.

In the debate over eternal security, aka the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" which states that it's impossible for a saved repentant Christian to fall away, there's differing opinions on what side of the argument is actually substantiated by Hebrews 6:4–6.

I think the message of the three consecutive verses make it clear in its self-evident premise that salvation most certainly can be lost. If a person can choose to accept Christ as their Savior, they have the same conscious ability to fall away. Who is instantly perfect upon repenting? Salvation is a process of regeneration, not an instantaneous moment where a saved person subconsciously abandons all sinful tendencies. The wording in Hebrews 6:4–6 clearly refers to once-saved individuals using the term "shared in the Holy Spirit." It says that such individuals who have "fallen away" cannot be restored back to salvation. If it's using the premise that such individuals can even fall away in the first place, it refutes the notion of "once saved, always saved."

Now, this argument of mine presented here rests on the premise that the verse refers to saved people. After all, in order to receive the Holy Spirit ("...and have shared in the Holy Spirit") into our lives, we must repent and be saved. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Friday, 12:03, December 23, 2022 (EST)

The Calvinist, evangelical organization Got Questions Ministries has posted their own explanation of the three verses in Hebrews. Since their theology affirms the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," they present their two possible interpretations of the verses (I'm summarizing their arguments):

1. Hebrews 6:4–6 is not referring to actually saved individuals, instead describing those who had access to biblical knowledge though chose not to repent.
2. It is merely talking in a tone of supposition, since the King James Version uses the word "if." Therefore, it's talking an assumed hypothetical situation which is actually impossible in reality.

Here's how I shall respond to the GotQuestions article (please note that I respect their pages that apply biblical truth properly on certain issues, though I strongly disagree with plenty of their theological interpretations of Scripture). Let's start with the first point presented by them, assuming that the verse is not referring to once-saved individuals. Although they argue that the terms "once enlightened" and "tasted the heavenly gift" may not necessarily refer to salvation, they ignore a key phrase: "have shared in the Holy Spirit." As explained in my initial post in the above section, receiving the Holy Spirit means repenting and being saved. Therefore, the verse must be referring to individuals who were once saved.

Their second point seems to be, to put it bluntly, a desperate deflection if they can't further substantiate their arguments in the first point. The second interpretation presented by Got Questions is that the verse talks about a "hypothetical" situation that would be impossible. However, this would be contrary to the honest nature of God. Why would there be idle words wasted talking about impossible scenarios? I notice that every single argument attempting to affirm "once saved, always saved" rely on flimsy, arbitrary interpretations of Scripture which cherry-picks vaguely translated verses.

Also, the second point by Got Questions relies on the KJV translation. They argue that the original Greek translation contain no corresponding word matching the English word "if" in arguing that it should be used in the translated text. However, it seems that only the KJV and NKJV versions use "if" in front of Hebrews 6:6 (if the original Greek text was supposed to mean "if" in the beginning of that verse, why do no other translations follow the example of the KJV in including it?). Furthermore, the work of the KJV translators are not inspired by the Word of God. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Friday, 12:21, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Hebrews 6:4 is speaking about Christians who received the Holy Spirit.

All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

So that is the class of Christians who it is impossible to renew unto repentance. What is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? It is usually defined as attributing to Satan the works of the Holy Spirit.

In that sense, you are correct. There is no "eternal security" for blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, either before they became Christians, or after. Esau was a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. Peter, David, and Solomon (I know I'm going to get some arguments on Solomon, as Dataclarifier did. If that's the case, then three books of the bible were written by a bona fide Satanist) were forgiven and saved, despite their useless repentance from dead works (in the case of Solomen, I don't think he ever did repent from his dead works). RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 03:09, December 24, 2022 (EST)

Let's delve into the case of Solomon a bit farther:

(1 Kings 11:6) And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

What was David's sin? Murder of a loyal friend to cover up adultery. Pretty disgusting stuff, yet his name is still honored. What did Solomon do? Had too many wives and concubines and "multiplied horses" (i.e. built a military-industrial complex). Now let's suppose someone says Solomon did not ask for forgiveness, as David did in Ps. 51 ("take not thine Holy Spirit from me") and died in sin, unrepentant, and defiant of God. Okay, fine. That means they are attributing to Satan, and not the Holy Spirit, the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Good luck with that one. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 03:50, December 24, 2022 (EST)

If it's impossible to renew unto repentance, that pretty much shoots the Roman Catholic doctrine of absolution in the foot. Peter evidently wasn't saved after he denied Christ and put him to an open shame, just as Esau found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 19:22, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Well, the individuals who cannot be renewed into repentance are the ones who reject God's word to the point that no amount of biblical guidance by others can change their hardened hearts. I'm reminded of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where Jesus made an abundantly clear message directed at the Pharisees and scribes:

—LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 19:34, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Peter rejected God's word. That's the point. How was he renewed to repentance and Esau not? RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 20:05, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Esau was not renewed to repentance? In Genesis, he ultimately reconciled with Jacob; as for whether he died as a saved believer, I don't recall reading any sound indication of that. I don't think the comparison between Esau and Peter is a good one; Esau, after caving into worldliness and selling his birthright, became enraged at Jacob for a long time before eventually reaching a forgiving state. OTOH, Peter's grave errors were not out of spite, rather attributable to a sincere lack of moral courage which he quickly came to regret. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 20:42, December 23, 2022 (EST)

As to Esau, you have it right there in Hebrew 12:17. As to Peter, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." Peter denied the word of God. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 20:47, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Peter ultimately did not "fall away" because, in spite of his errors in life due to instants of lacking moral courage, he had a repentant spirit. Especially given that his brutal death fulfilled Jesus's prophecy and that his apparent upside-down crucifixion was due to respect for Christ, his mistakes represented the natural sinful natures of men which are difficult to overcome, though his faith to the bitter end ensures that he will be covered by the grace of God. Man, how exciting it would be to meet him one day in Heaven, along with the other apostles and Christ Himself... —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 20:55, December 23, 2022 (EST)

in spite of his errors in life due to instants of lacking moral courage, he had a repentant spirit.

Thank you. You just provided justification for the doctrine of eternal security (without even commenting on the hard and fast rule that it was impossible for Esau to be renewed unto repentance).

I think we cleared up this debate, without even getting into the cases of David and Solomen, particularly Solomen, which is where it usually revolves around. RobS^{Give Peace a chance}

Not so fast... Peter being saved does not affirm the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," which asserts that it's impossible for a saved person to consciously fall away. The fact is that Peter, just like any other saved Christian, needed to maintain his saving grace by diligently retaining faith. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 22:30, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Oh, so Peter had to perform a task to be restored. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. It is finished. And Hebrews 1:3, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down, Hebrews 4:10, For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

So it's the condition of the heart, which only God can know. The believer does not have to do anything, other than have a change of heart and change of mind (i.e. metanoia or "repent"). The believer has ceased from his own works, and has entered into God's rest. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:04, December 23, 2022 (EST)

The problem with Esau and Cain was, they were never saved in the first place, and their repentance was selfish and insincere. They didn't want to join God's team, they just wanted their consciences relieved from the guilt of their sin. Contrast that with David and Solomen, both who fell away and were renewed, although the case of Solomen is much more controversial. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:11, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Hmm, so will Cain and Esau ultimately be certainly condemned to Hell? —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Sunday, 00:12, December 25, 2022 (EST)

I think the record is pretty clear they both died in sin. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 03:39, December 25, 2022 (EST)

<Side note>Throughout the scripture you have these repeated contrasts between the natural man and the spiritual man, the man of sin and the man of God. Cain and Abel, Issaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharoah, David and Saul, Ruth and Orpah, etc etc etc. Jesus said, "Two will be in field and one shall be taken."RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 03:46, December 25, 2022 (EST)

Let me give you a key verse that is important to understand: Romans 5:14 Death reigned from Adam to Moses.

Now wait a minute, Moses brought life and salvation? I thought Jesus did. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:19, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Any questions? Let's talk about God's justice for a moment: Esau's sin was because he was tired and hungry after a day's hunting; whereas Peter, who quite literally "tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come", threw it all in the trash when the chips were down. Yet Esau is condemned to hell, and Peter "had a repentant spirit", to use LT's phrase. The word says Esau found no place for repentance, though he diligently sought it. Again we turn to Hebrews for an answer (4:12). "The Word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Basically, sin is between God and the individual, and not for us to judge "the thoughts and intents of the heart" of another's relationship with God. Esau's sin, having rejected his spiritual birthright, was like Cain complaining, "my punishment is more than I can bear," although Cain was never held to account for murder. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 21:45, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Esau was condemned to Hell? Was that before or after reconciling with Jacob? And where's the direct Scriptural evidence? If I understand correctly, Esau not being able to find repentance was likely because he was too stubborn in unforgiving hatred towards Jacob at the time; after all, Jesus said that forgiveness is required for one's own sins to be forgiven:

—LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 22:35, December 23, 2022 (EST)

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Heb. 12:17. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:04, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Peter "wept bitterly." Big deal. It didn't do him no good. Esau cried tears of repentance, too. It was the "thoughts and intents of the heart" that renewed Peter, and failed Esau. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 02:02, December 24, 2022 (EST)

I could go on and on, but Jesus gives us a clue about what's going on here in the parable of the landholder and two farm workers. The farmer asked them both to go work in his field, the one says "yes" and never shows up, the other said "no" but later had a change of mind. Which one did the will of the father? Peter, who repented of his error, whereas Esau was a lazy liar (see Pr. 12:27, The lazy man roasteth not that which he taketh in hunting. IOWs, had Esau secured some venison for his father, he would have flung it a Jacob and said, "Here, cook this." He figured he did his job.) RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 02:14, December 24, 2022 (EST)

It's made very clear numerous times in the Bible that fallen angels have no chance of redemption, and are completely doomed to the lake of fire:

Although I don't find any other analyses of Hebrews 6:4–6 mentioning anything about fallen angels, I think there's a paralleled meaning that somehow too many Christians have glossed over. Think about it... the fallen angels at one point were in Heaven, once being enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, serving alongside the Holy Spirit, and tasting the goodness of God's word... then they joined Satan's rebellion, fell away (hence "fallen angels"), and have no chance of being restored to repentance. Thus, it almost gives the impression that the fallen angels represent the very epitome of once-enlightened individuals who tasted the miraculous extent of God's goodness yet have fallen, with absolutely no redemption left. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 19:43, December 23, 2022 (EST)

My first reaction to Hebrews 6:4–6 is that it is about fallen angels, namely Lucifer.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:16, December 23, 2022 (EST)

The rebellion against God began with Lucifer, and he was cast down to earth. ("Satan is the god of this world"). God created man to retake the earth from evil. That is/was God's "plan and purpose". Adam, however, soon changed sides and joined Team Lucifer. The first Adam was a living soul, the second a life-giving spirit. Christ has restored God's original plan, and God's original purpose for man - to retake the earth from evil. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 20:27, December 23, 2022 (EST)

To reply to Andy, I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who instinctively connects the verse to the nature of fallen angels. In response to RobSmith's point quoting New Testament verses such as John 12:31 or 2 Corinthians 4:4, I'm reminded of an interesting possible connection to Genesis 3:14, which I'll start a separate debate page for. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 20:49, December 23, 2022 (EST)

In addition, the Epistle to the Hebrews talks a great deal about angels, about as much as all of Paul's letters combined.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:15, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Hmm, interesting. The Book of Hebrews isn't an easy read in terms of adequate comprehension in comparison to the other Epistles, though I'm fascinated to fully understand all of it through and through. There's evidently so much in Scripture that, rather than being obliviously obvious at face-value, truly takes time and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to fully comprehend the beauty of. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 22:39, December 23, 2022 (EST)

The book of Hebrews is phenomenal. I recommend reading it through in one sitting, perhaps several times, and not piecemeal, to get and feel the full impact. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:48, December 23, 2022 (EST)

Yes, the Epistle to the Hebrews evidently has such marvelous flow. I really like the part that comes immediately after verses 4–6:

When reading verses 1–9 in Chapter 6, the message gives a feeling that's... difficult to describe. All that can be soundly stated is how well the true message is ultimately conveyed with its choice of wording and analogies. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Saturday, 00:18, December 24, 2022 (EST)

I love that saying, Onward, to perfection. Some commentators say the meaning of "perfection" is "maturity", as Abraham was "perfect". But part of the question you ask in this debate is prefaced in that first verse, as well: "NOT laying again the doctrine of repentance from dead works...". Onward, to perfection. "We are persuaded of better things" (pay attention to how many times the word "better" is used in Hebrews.) This section is written for the mature Christian. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 01:23, December 24, 2022 (EST)

FYI: There is spiritual imagery in the verse you cited. Rain, or water, is the spirit. The greenery of earth is a kippurim or "atonement" (covering), watered by the spirit. Contrast that with a cursed land like Sodom and Gomorrah, where there is no covering. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 01:47, December 24, 2022 (EST)

Here again, you can factor in the parable of wheat and tares. "An enemy hath done this. Let them both grow together until harvest." RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 02:26, December 24, 2022 (EST)

Excellent connection to point out, since Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed by fire. —LT ^{(Exodus 23:2)} Sunday, 00:02, December 25, 2022 (EST)