You have not made an accurate assessment of what is ‘present here’ - there is much more, and had you gone through some of the archived material you would have found that thoughtful people, thoughtful Christian people, thoughtful smart and wise Christian people on this Forum have, over the years, struggled with and either explained or come to terms with the points of your attack.
What you call ‘wishful image’ being “pitted against’” scripture - really, do you think we are not aware of the danger of wishful thinking, or that we are not equally aware of the danger of a ‘systematic theology’ which does not interpret scripture, but instead forces scripture into some man-made mental structure, thereby warping the meaning, intent, and tone of the Word of God?
Look, we are all guests in the House of EU - well, a few of us (not me) are more like the Innkeepers at the House of EU (mods, admin) and as one guest to another I invite you to take the initiative and wander around the House, read what earlier Guests have written about what troubles you, and report back. That way, we who have hung around awhile don’t have to ‘reinvent the wheel’, and you will have the joy of discovery. Or not - but hopefully so.
When you read and interpret Scripture, that isn’t done in a vacuum – you import all your observations of the world into how you wrestle with it and understand it. Observations from archaeology, for example, can better inform how you interpret certain contexts. There is also a difference between using experience to argue against Scripture and using experience to question a particular interpretation of it.
Are you saying that people we can observe today (post-crucifixion), who start out apparently strong in their walk, then go through a season of doubt, despair – even denying they’re a Christian – but then return to their walk, renewed in their faith – these people are all frauds? The experience of observing these people should have zero bearing on how we interpret Hebrews?
I would love to dig further into analyzing these Scriptures – and plan to do so. But there are red flags within me (including other Scriptures) that cause me to be cautious of accepting your use of these to write-off whole swaths of humanity as beyond the reach of God’s grace and Love.
If thoughtful arguments from scripture had been presented, or if I had been referred to such material, I would not have said what I said. When you go back to the postings, which I was referring to, you will see that some people indeed have expressed that they cannot imagine God to be like this or that - no biblical evidence, just personal opinion.
It may well be that these personal opinions result from honestly grappling with the relevant passages in the bible. But in the last postings nobody had indicated that this is the case. I will continue to engage in discussion and will stay critical of my own interpretations and views. And, if I am referred to a specific source, which explicitly contributes to answering the questions asked, then I am open to reading it and honestly considering it. But if what I am presented with in this thread is “I cannot imagine God to be like this or that” or “I cannot refute your exegesis, but it contradicts my personal opinion/experience”, then obviously - from a Christian perspective - there is no reason to change my view of these verses.
Scripture is not interpreted in a vacuum, but in many cases it presents clear arguments and a cogent logic, which can be understood perfectly well without archaelogical or historical material. If, for instance, Paul writes: “I do not want you to drink hot chocolate, because it damages your teeth”, I do not need to be an archaeologian to understand both the prohibition and the reason for it. People tend to read and understand scripture in most cases. The supposedly desperately necessary background knowledge or personal experience tends to be brought in much more often than usually, when people take issue with a pretty clear message in scripture. If we cannot find exegetical arguments, we need somethings else to cling to. I have done this myself, so I am guilty, too.
Look, I have a BA and an MA in theology/bible/history. Not that I think this lends any credibility to my statements, because it does not. Not at all. But there is one thing which I have learned from my studies: “Background knowledge” becomes most important when people bring it up in order to distort the clear message of scripture, because they do not like it. “You gotta look at the Greek”, sometimes that is the case, but more often the Greek is misused to mislead uninformed listeners… In most cases I need background knowledge to refute those people, who do not like what scripture actually says, and therefore try to get around it with their “esoteric knowledge”, which no non-theologian does have access to. This is no accusation against you, just an attempt to advise caution in the area of taking on too many glasses (be it personal experience or historical, biblical, linguistic, etc studies), when we interpret scripture.
It is similar with “personal experience”. Personal experience is valid, no doubt about that. But it must be submitted to scripture. We must understand what God wants to say through his word and after that we can see how we can interpret our experiences in the light of what God has said - not the other way round. If we start to take our thoughts and opinions and distort scripture in order to fit with our beliefs, we might as well throw our bibles out of the window.
The best glasses to have on, when we interpret scripture, is scripture itself, the context of the passage, chapter, book and scripture as a whole.
Now, that being said, if I simply take the context of the whole passage in Hebrews 6 and 10 there is absolutely nothing, which would allow me to think that these passages do not mean, that true apostasy leads to condemnation. This does not change when I look at the Greek - as usual the translators of the standart translations have done a decent job.
If anyone finds anything in the passages, or knows of a good paper/article, where these issues are addressed, I would not mind learning about it.
As to what we should think about apostates, who “become Christians again”, there are at least two options by which we can harmonize this experience with the word of God: (a) their apostasy was not complete, (b) their initial conversion was not complete.
In any case, I would not dare to let my interpretation of returning apostates decide what I understand God to be saying in his word. It simply has to be the other way round, always. My personal experience may cause me to consider, whether the verses could be interpreted differently, but only insofar as it does not distort the argument/commandment made in the passage.
"The best glasses to have on, when we interpret scripture, is scripture itself, the context of the passage, chapter, book and scripture as a whole. "
I disagree with that, but if that is the CHOICE you make, I don’t have a problem with that choice.
But make no mistake, it IS a choice. It is not a given.
“then obviously - from a Christian perspective - there is no reason to change my view of these verses.”
Correction - from YOUR perspective - the rest of us are Christians also, remember??
A Christian has accepted Jesus as his/her Lord. This implies that his will and his opinion is above ours. Therefore it is necessary to take our view from him and not take what he has said and then try to do mental gymnastics with it until it fits what we want to understand. Do that to the words of any boss and you will lose your job pretty fast. If we want to do what our boss wants then we try to listen very carefully and also take into consideration the other things which he has said. If he tells us “send a letter to XY” and we say “well, in my experience letters do not arrive anyway, so why would I send it”, we will get fired sooner then we can say “rebellion”.
Jesus has an even bigger claim to authority than any worldly leader. So…
Actually it is not a non-sequitur, but a no-brainer. When I want to follow a person, then I try to understand his words as well as I can, by listening to what he is saying, not by saying my experience is this or that so what he is saying has to fit with my experience, otherwise it simply cannot mean what he is actually saying.
Actually, you do need more information to understand this hypothetical admonition. Who was Paul’s audience? One person who had particular dental issues? All people, in all time and space? Did he mean all kinds of hot chocolate? Is it the same as hot chocolate we drink today?
To compare to an actual topic, see the debates and discussions people tend to have over the context of wine/alcohol consumption/recommendation/warnings – all manner of external factors considered to try to understand what the full meaning is and how it applies to us here and now.
You do need this information in order to understand these additional questions that you ask, but not to answer the questions which I had asked in this example. But if you want to go down that road… This information (who was meant, does it apply today and similar specifics), which you are referring to, usually can be deduced from the context (either of the passage, the chapter, the book or the bible as a whole). Hence, your questions fit perfectly well with what I am saying, and they give further weight to it. Basically it is an extension of the same principle: Consider the broader context to answer a broader set of questions, but still the biblical context is key, and much less additional information and even less than that personal experience. This is especially true for the application today - most often the biblical context provides information concerning whether or not and how we should apply a passage in our lives.
Obviously this is the case for the Hebrews passages, too. Hebrews provides perfectly clear answers as to who is addressed, does it apply to all Christians, what kind of apostasy is meant, what kind of judgment follows, etc.
The hypothetical was just declared to be a prohibition with clear meaning – I didn’t notice any questions being suggested about it.
Rather than get too far afield, I’ll defer to others here who may have studied Hebrews in depth, which I need to do myself. But again, turning to the wider context of harmonizing with all Scripture, which you and I both elevate as an essential, I must square Hebrews with the passages on all being reconciled, God becoming All in All, the patterns of exile and judgement followed by redemption, restoration, reconciliation that pervade the grand sweep of Creation’s story.
I’ll dive into Hebrews and report back here if I have some particular questions or thoughts.
The hypothetical example was intended to illustrate that some questions can be answered easily by just looking at the text itself. Maybe I should have chosen a better example.
As you have noted, not all questions can be answered by simply looking at one verse. But even complex questions about a passage, and especially those, which pertain to the Christian walk, usually can be answered by looking at the bigger biblical context. That is basically the message of my last postings. I think we agree on that.
To quickly address the thoughts, which you have mentioned in passing:
(1) “All in all” in 1Cor 15 is embedded in a passage about Christ´s and the Father´s victory/dominion over everything, please read 1Cor 15:24-30 for clarification. In 1Cor 15 Paul addresses those, who deny the bodily resurrection (see the first verses of the chapter). In the context of his correcting statements he picks up God´s dominion and victory over everything and applies it to death, too. This is the context, not salvation, but victory and dominion. The phrase “under his feet” is used repeatedly, the focus is on rule, and if necessary this rule is by force and against the will of those, who are ruled (death is depicted as defeated/destroyed). God will exercise total dominion over everyone, but according to Revelation this rule is not particularly comfortable for those, who have not believed in Christ.
(2) God has reconciled everything to him, but reconciliation, from a biblical point of view, only happens, when man responds to God´s reconciliation. Take 2Cor 5:20, here Paul (after mentioning God´s reconciliation with the world in v. 19(!)) says: “be reconciled to God”. God has reconciled with the world, but that does not mean that the process of reconciliation is completed or will be completed just by that. Rather, as Paul states, man must respond and seek reconciliation with God (by faith in Christ).
(3) Restoration and reconciliation are pervasive throughout the bible, but they are always linked with repentance. Nowhere in the bible is reconciliation possible, when it is not combined with repentance. Some passages do not mention repentance explicitly, but many do. And no passage says that it is possible without repentance. In the overall context of scripture the necessity of repentance is either very cleary stated or (based on the clear statements in many other places) implied, but never excplicitly excluded.
May God give you more insight, according to his will, into the message of Hebrews (and I do not mean according to my understanding …).
I think people debate to validate their ideas. I have really come to this belief as of late. Not to say that we shouldn’t help where we think we can help, but if someone is firmly against an idea, then really, is a debate even possible? Many people claim many things, but I don’t think anyone is going to change Badger’s mind. The only one who can is God. Same for all of us. I am coming to the belief that debating such topics is fruitless… Pearls before swine? That isn’t meant as an insult, but clearly I think Christ was teaching us not share our pearls with others who want to trash our pearls (whatever they may be, perhaps individually). Besides there is enough literature out there for anyone to read and make up their own mind. I guess that is the best way to handle it. I leave it in God’s hands. That is all I can do anyway - entrust our future to our creator. I, on the other hand, refuse to believe that God is just a more powerful version of my selfish self. The best I observe in humanity are those going the extra mile for people in need… I refuse to believe that God created me to refuse logic, natural arguments of nature and instead adopt a view that makes me believe a book dropped from heaven. Yet, I still hold the scriptures in high esteem and I believe that is because the Holy Spirit is active and leads us into truth.
As I stated before, the only person other than Jesus I want to meet would be George MacDonald. I have never found such fountains of truth in anything besides the words of Christ. Yes, maybe I am deceived. But I am totally fine with that. The obsession over “this verse” or “that verse” has never brought peace in my life and likely never will. The only thing that brings peace is to trust in the goodness of the one that created me.
I second Dave’s appreciation of your thought that he quoted, Gabe! I also heartily agree on George MacDonald – he and Lewis and Tolkien would be on my short list of folks I would like to meet. His ‘Unspoken Sermons’ really turned my focus on abstract theories on its head and made me focus on the relationship of each of us as a child of the Father, led to Him by the Son, our Master. I’ve learned to not view Him as some Zeus enthroned wielding thunderbolts, obsessed with His own glory, but as the Servant King, the one Who points to the child as the prime example of what we ought to be like, of what He Himself is like, Who stoops to wash the feet of His disciples – even the one who would betray Him – Who says that Love is the thing on which everything else hangs and commands us to love the least, even our enemies. I, too, refuse to believe the ugly caricature of God that is often presented; that tries to take what would be the worst evil in any human and twist it around to call it ‘Good’.
Badger – thanks for the additional thoughts on the points I mentioned in passing. Don’t want to turn the thread into covering a general mishmash of these topics. I do want to just say, though, that there is no such thing as victory over non-Love unless it is restored to Love, through reconciliation, which indeed can only come from both repentance and forgiveness. God bringing a cosmic boot down on a rebel and kicking him into eternal torment is no victory, if non-Love still remains in that person. There is no ultimate overturning of injustice unless marred relationships are healed, and the wrong is annihilated through restoration. Until Love is All in All, God cannot be All in All – for God is Love.
This discusses the idea that the Greek could actually be meaning ‘so long as someone continues crucifying the Son of God, putting Him to open shame, it is impossible to renew them to repentance.’
Also discussed in the thread is the idea of it perhaps saying that it is impossible to fall away once the things listed are really tasted.
- well, a few of us (not me) are more like the Innkeepers at the House of EU (mods, admin) and as one guest to another I invite you to take the initiative and wander around the House, read what earlier Guests have written about what troubles you, and report back. That way, we who have hung around awhile don’t have to ‘reinvent the wheel’, and you will have the joy of discovery. Or not - but hopefully so.
…).