Interpretation - Hebrews 6:1-6

In Hebrews 6:1-6 we read "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. 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, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 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."

What does this passage mean?

Verse 1. There is not much debate that in verse one, the author is exhorting believers to go on to spiritual maturity. He is telling his readers to be all they were made to be (Col 2:6-7). He is urging them to go beyond the basics as it were. He is telling them that after they are grounded in the fundamentals, they should go on to a vibrant life in Christ.

Verse 2. Continuing the thought from the previous verse, the author continues to list further doctrines that are basic to the Christian faith. The passage is clearly an admonition to excel in one’s spiritual life. Just as babies are to grow up, so to is a spiritual infant to mature in the Lord. This is also fairly uncontroversial.

Verse 3. The author notes that he and his audience will indeed go on to spiritual maturity in Christ. He then adds the curious side note that this will be done if God permits it. This causes much confusion and indeed much debate. Why would God not permit this? Those of a Reformed (Calvinist) persuasion must do exegetical back-flips to ignore the implications of this statement. The Reformed understanding of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints has severe difficulties in explaining why a God who supposedly unconditionally elects individuals and then irresistibly draws them would have to permit them to go on to spiritual maturity. Why not just ordain that it would be so before the foundation of the world? An Arminian view can explain this by reference to the free will of man. God permits those who are willing to go on to maturity in the Lord. In fact, the assumption of libertarian free will actually makes sense of the passage. It is ridiculous to suppose that the author was encouraging the believers to go on to spiritual maturity if it is not assumed that they had a choice in the matter in the first place. The focus of Reformed theology (as opposed to Arminian theology) is not the Love of God, but rather the sovereignty of God. This verse, and indeed this entire passage, makes God (as understood by those of the Reformed persuasion) look incredibly capricious. Perhaps this alone should tip the savvy Bible reader off that the Calvinist picture of God is fundamentally flawed.

Verse 4-6. These verses are easily some of the most (if not the most) controversial verses in the entire Bible. The key questions are, what does it mean to be enlightened, to have tasted of the heavenly gift, and to be a partaker of the Holy Ghost? All of these seem to be very clear ways of saying that the individuals are saved. If these terms appeared in any other context, Calvinists would admit that the individuals in question are indeed saved. Calvinists try to say that these are only people who have heard the Gospel. This is simply implausible. The words “enlightened,” “tasted,” and “partakers”are never used to mean that people have only been exposed to the gospel. Rather, these terms convey that the people in danger of falling away are actually saved. (See the word “enlightened” in Eph. 1:8; “taste” in Matt. 16:28, and Ps. 34:8; and “partaker” in 1 Cor 9:23, 10:30, 1 Tim 5:22, and 1 Pt. 5:1). In theses verses, no one says that these people only were exposed to death, or to the ministry. Other Calvinists are more honest with the text, and admit that it is indeed speaking of those who are saved. These Calvinists maintain that the reason that it is impossible for those who have fallen away to be renewed is because it is impossible for them to ever fall away. This interpretation is completely ad hoc. It makes no sense for the author of Hebrews to even mention (let alone warn against) falling away if this is not a legitimate possibility. Why would the author not simply say you can never fall away? Why even say it is impossible to be renewed again if no can actually fall away? Calvinists are forced to refer to other verses they believe support the doctrine of eternal security. Besides the fact that the proof-texts used for eternal security have been convincing answered, [See Daniel D. Corner, The Believer's Conditional Security : Eternal Security Refuted, (Evangelical Outreach; 3 edition, 2000) and Daniel D. Corner, The Myth of Eternal Security, (Evangelical Outreach, 2005)] this interpretation completely ignores the passage under consideration. Do Calvinists expect Arminians to simply ignore this passage? Clearly, the best interpretation, intended by the original author, is that it is that if salvation is lost, it cannot be reclaimed. The only reason to reject this straightforward interpretation is if the exegete has a preconceived, theological, bias towards the doctrine of eternal security. Yet, one’s theology ought to be drawn form the scriptures, not imposed upon it. If these verses are properly understood as intended then it seems eternal security should be abandoned. Perhaps it is time for believers to reconsider their starting assumptions and begin reading the Bible for what it says. Reformation theology is outdated and unbiblical. Therefore, it should be rejected as such.

Essentially this passage is encouraging believers to grow in the Lord and become doctrinally solid so that they can go on to maturity in Christ. There is also a reason given, namely that there is a danger of falling away and that this falling away to perdition cannot be undone. Thus, there is both exhortation, and warning present in this passage. The author wanted his readers to become firmly grounded in the truth so that they would not fall away from it.

Notes

Traditionally the author is believed to be Paul. However, most scholars currently reject this position including conservative, evangelical, scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace. See Daniel B. Wallace, “Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” Bible.org, Last modified (n/a), Retrieved from https://bible.org/seriespage/hebrews-introduction-argument-and-outline

Ron Rhodes, The Complete Book of Bible Answers, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1997) pg. 347

See Michael S. Horton, “A Classical Calvinist View,” in Four Views on Eternal Security, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Stanley N. Gundry and J. Matthew Pinson, editors, also Chad Wanger, Problem Texts for Sovereign Grace: Rooting Arminianism Out of Every Verse, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017)

Grant R. Osborne, “Classical Arminian Response,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007) Herbert W. Bateman IV, editor, pg. 221-229

Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I am Not a Calvinist, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pg. 96-98

Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006) pg. 179

Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone: The Heart of What’s Wrong with Calvinism, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016) pg. 55

Grant R. Osborne, “A Classical Arminian View,” in  in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007) Herbert W. Bateman IV, editor, pg. 111

See Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” and Randall C. Gleason, “A Moderate Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007) Herbert W. Bateman IV, editor

For a convincing exegetical argument in favor of this see Grant R. Osborn, “A Classical Arminian View,” in Ibid pg. 111-113

See Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask, (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1992)

James White, “Do the Apostasy Passages Provide an Over-Riding Theological Matrix?,” RBAP.net, Last modified n/a, Retrieved from: http://www.rbap.net/james-white-on-the-apostasy-passages-in-hebrews/

According to Merriam-Webster: “Definition of ad hoc: for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application” Retrieved from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hoc

See James White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free, (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000); R. C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, ( Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997); and John Piper, Five Points: Towards a Deeper Experience of God's Grace, (Christian Focus Publications, 2013)

See Daniel D. Corner, The Believer's Conditional Security : Eternal Security Refuted, (Evangelical Outreach; 3 edition, 2000) and Daniel D. Corner, The Myth of Eternal Security, (Evangelical Outreach, 2005)

As this principle applies to Reformed theology see Grace Unlimited, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998) Clark H. Pinnock, editor. Additionally the companion volume The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995) Clark H. Pinnock, editor.

Christopher Fischer, God is Open: Examining the Open Theism of the Biblical Authors, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017) pg. 63

John C. Lennox, Determined to Believe?: The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018) pg. 92-95