Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | DocTrinsograce | 207664 | ||
Hi, Tim... Yes, it is tough interpreting some of those old letters when the fellows who wrote them aren't consistent even in the same letter. The Reformed hermeneutic is so ingrained in my thinking that I assume that I must be ignorant of the common presuppositions between the writer and his reader. At any rate, that seems a bit more magnanimous than reproving them for lacking clarity... or simply deeming that they were just "all mixed up." Since you find yourself at odds with Arminius, I'll not draw attention, to the other places in which Arminius makes more formal -- although far less succinct -- assertions on Hebrews 6. Only a handful of decades later, John Wesley was much more Arminian in his interpretation of this passage, than was Arminius. Wesley, contradicts Arminius -- although without explanation or argument. (Hence, whereas you disagree with Arminius, you will find agreement with Wesley.) Curiously, after making that statement, Wesley waxes monothematic -- without distraction from the Reformed hermeneutic on the right, or the implied soteriological synergism on the left -- using the entire chapter to support his doctrine of perfectionism. In the monergistic camp there is such unanimity of diverse sources -- extending from John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo up through Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John MacArthur -- that it pretty much settles the issue for me. But, I naturally figured a similar, although opposite, consensus would exist on the other side of the aisle, given the criticality of this question to Arminian theology. So, now I'm curious. I'll poke around to see -- if possible -- where the likes of Richard Allen, Charles Finney, Albert Outler, and Clark Pinnock line up on the question. Should that research reveal, at least, a meaningful statistical consensus, I'll share it with you. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Morant61 | 207679 | ||
Greetings Doc! For years, I have had a lot of access to Calvinistic commentaries, mostly because my father-in-law was a Baptist preacher. In my reading, there was certainly no standard position on Heb. 6 other than that it could not possibly mean that someone could lose their salvation. I have seen a variety of methods used to approach this text. Including the old Pulpit Commentary series which argued that the whole passage was a dire warning of something that couldn't happen. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | DocTrinsograce | 207714 | ||
Dear Tim, Wow, that must be frustrating. I'd hate it if I only had commentaries I disagreed with to consult. The consistency of the orthodox commentators is the point of Hebrews 6: A dire warning indeed! For the tares don't know they are tares. I've not had any success in tracking down Richard Allen's take on Hebrews 6. :-( However, I did find Adam Clarke's comments on the issue: On Hebrews 6:4 he writes, "I do not consider them as having any reference to any person professing Christianity. They do not belong, nor are they applicable, to backsliders of any kind. They belong to apostates from Christianity; to such as reject the whole Christian system, and its author, the Lord Jesus. And to those of them only who join with the blaspheming Jews, call Christ an impostor, and vindicate His murderers in having crucified Him as a malefactor; and thus they render their salvation impossible." Imagine that! A whole set of folks who are outside of prevenient grace. So, now we have Arminius' take that they are lost, Wesley's take that they are saved, and Clarke's take that they are apostates. So far, I've got three Arminians and three opinions. I'll keep looking to find out what the others had to say. In Him, Doc PS By the way, I did uncover something curious: a Jacob Mann published a Bible translation in 1805. It rendered Hebrews 6:4a as "It is possible..." (omitting the word "not"). Apparently it was known as the "Arminian Testament." I wasn't able to find a machine readable version of this translation. However, I will check with a friend of mine who sells old, out of print, theology books. |
||||||
4 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Morant61 | 207729 | ||
Greetings Doc! I didn't say they were the only ones I had access to, just that I had access to a lot of them. :-) There are a couple of interesting tidbits about this passage. There is a Syriac version which gives the text as 'it is impossible for them to sin again'. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions use the word 'baptized' instead of 'enlightened'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | DocTrinsograce | 207794 | ||
Dear Tim, Continuing in my search, I can't find one single thing that directly relates to Hebrews 6 by Charles Finney. He wasn't much for citing Scripture. I did find two other Arminian commentators: B. W. Johnson agrees with Adam Clarke, calling them "apostates" and "the most hardened of sinners." Edward Fudge, though, identifies the people in Hebrews 6:4 as being Christians, but only minimally instructed in the most basic principles. "Once is an important word," he says, "and means once for all time. This enlightenment can take place only once; it can not be repeated." So, now we have Arminius' take that they are lost; Wesley's and Fudge's take that they are saved; and Clarke's and Johnson's take that they are apostates. In Him, Doc |
||||||