Well, once again, it is a great privilege to be with you here today. Thank you again for the opportunity that you have afforded me. And we do have a special guest today, someone who is very special to me, Ms. Riley, seated right back here, is a member of First Baptist Church right here in town. And her daughter Connie and her daughter's husband and their family, their four children, were members of my first church that I pastored in Dallas for many years. I was there, in fact, for 16 years. And her daughter Connie and her husband Steve joined that church during my first year of pastoring there. And so they were there for a total of 16 years and dear friends of my wife and me. I'm so glad Ms. Riley could be here today as well as to see all of you here today. Appreciate so much for being here. Now, today we talk about Hebrews chapter 6. And I know that after this session, you will have questions. I have no doubt about it. So we'll try to allow some time to ask those questions. We're going to try to cover as much material as we can. And I want to give you an opportunity to ask some questions. Now, I want to repeat what I said, especially on this session. Really, this is probably the only session I need to say this. But let me just say it up front now, okay? I am an equal opportunity offender. Alright? And so some of you may not be too happy, depending on your own theological persuasion, with the direction that I go in Hebrews 6. But now I want to ask you to do me a favor, okay? I want to ask you to hear me out to the end. Would you do that? Alright? Hear me out, alright? You don't have to agree, and that's fine, but just hear me out. Give me a hearing, and then you spend time thinking about it down the road, alright? So, first thing we need to do is make sure we understand the passage that we are addressing, and so let me read it. Even though this is not a sermon, it is a lecture, but let me read. And I want to begin reading in Hebrews 5, verse 11, because the semantic paragraph or the section actually begins in 5.11. Now, the section actually continues through 6.12, but I will not read through 6.12, but we will read from 5.11 through 6.6, so we can see what we're talking about. Concerning him, that is Melchizedek. We have much to say and it's hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, mark that word. who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Now the thought continues into chapter 6. Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to and mark the next word. Let us press on to maturity. Not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and to faith toward God, and instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits, mark those three words, if God permits. For in the case of those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then having fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. Now, before we can talk about the meaning of this passage of scripture, we need to locate this passage within the entire context of the book of Hebrews. You need to be reminded that there are five warning passages in the book of Hebrews. All Hebrew scholars will point this out to you. This passage we are considering is the central warning passage. It is warning number 3. The first occurs in chapter 2, verses 1 through 4. The second warning passage occurs in chapter 3, beginning in verse 7, and running at least to the end of that chapter, and some would carry it into chapter 4. The third warning passage begins right here, 511 through 6A. The fourth warning passage is chapter 10, verses 26-31, and the final warning passage is found in chapter 12, verses 25-29. Some would begin that earlier, but certainly including 25-29. All of these warning passages are addressing the same thing, whatever they mean. Whatever interpretation we give to Hebrews 6, that same interpretation applies to the other four. Whether scholars are on either side of the theological divide, whether they are Arminian or whether they are Calvinist or anywhere in between, Virtually everyone agrees that all five of the warning passages hang together, that they all are addressing the same kind of thing. Of course, the big debate is what they are addressing, and that's the issue. So we need to make sure we're aware of the context. You need to look with me in order to prepare for Hebrews 6, you need to look with me carefully at what the author says in Hebrews chapter 3 beginning in verse 7. The second warning passage begins with a quotation of Psalm 95, a section out of Psalm 95, and Psalm 95 is the Psalm that refers to the event at Kadesh Barnea in Numbers 14. And you need to be aware of that. So let's look quickly at Psalm 95, or at Hebrews 4 beginning in 7, verse 7, and at this quotation. Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, now comes the quotation, Today, if you hear God's voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked me, as in the day of trial in the wilderness where your fathers tried me and tested me and saw my works for 40 years. Therefore, I was angry with this generation and said, they always go astray in their heart. They did not know my ways. As I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest. Now the author introduces the second warning passage, which continues on, verses 12 and following, with that quote. Now why would he do that? Because the illustration that he is going to draw from the events of Kadesh Barnea become the foundation of what he's going to say in chapter 6. Now, briefly, what happened at Kadesh Barnea? The account is found in Numbers 14, and for the sake of time, I'll not walk you through that. I wish I had time to do that. But let me just give you the gist of Numbers 14. Here is the account, alright? This is a summation. The spies are sent out into the land, into the promised land from Kadesh Barnea, just across the river. They go into the land, they spend 40 days, they come back, they have a Baptist business meeting on Wednesday night, and there is a divided committee report. Ten say, we cannot go in, there are giants over there, we'll be slaughtered. Caleb and Joshua gave the minority report and said, yes, it's going to be tough, but we can do it. God said, we can do it. And the people, of course, vote, and they vote with the negative majority, and in fact, not only that, but they turn on Moses. And they say, why have you let us here to die? Would to God we'd stayed in Egypt. And there was an uprising saying, let's kill Moses and go back to Egypt. Now, about that time, and this is all in Numbers 14, you're just going to take my word for it and read it later, alright? In Numbers 14, the next passage says, God showed up. And he was some kind of tit. And the Bible says that he came to Moses and he said, I've had it. I've had it with these people, I've had it with my people, their rebellion, their disobedience. And he said, I'm going to annihilate them all, I'm going to wipe them out, I'm going to start over with you. Now Moses begged God not to do that. He prayed that God would forgive the sin of his people. Now, this is crucial to an understanding, a right understanding, in my opinion, of Hebrews 6. And what does Numbers chapter 14 verse 20 say that God did in response to Moses' prayer? In case you hadn't read it in a while, God forgave their sin. and maintained them as his covenant people. Numbers 14, 20, it's right there in your Bible. Read it. It doesn't matter whether you read it in Hebrew, Septuagint, or English. It says the same thing. God forgave their rebellion. Now, but then God says something. God swears. in his anger because of their disobedience, that everybody who is 20 years of age and older will not enter the promised land. And he swears they won't do that, and he says you will wander in this wilderness for a total of 40 years, since you were in the land 40 days, a year per day, 40 years, you will wander in this wilderness until everybody 20 years of age and older dies off. And then I will let the younger generation, the new generation, after all of you people who rebelled, then I'll let them go into the promised land, and that's exactly what God did. Now Joshua and Caleb went into the promised land, you remember that, but all the others died. They didn't go into the promised land, they died in the wilderness over the next 38 years. Does everybody remember that? Now, keep in mind how Numbers 14 ends. The last paragraph says this, on the next day, the next morning, the people of Israel showed up at Moses and they said, okay, we're ready to go into the promised land. And Moses said, no, you can't go in. God has said you're not going in. He's already said, your carcasses, literally in the Hebrew text, your carcasses will fall in this wilderness. You're not going in. Oh, we're sorry, we messed up, we sinned, but we're ready to go in. And God said, no, he would not. permit them to go in. And so they say, well we're going in. And so they go up and what happens? They go up, they're defeated, some are killed, they retreat, and for the next 38 years they wander the wilderness until the whole generation dies off. And there's Numbers 14. Are you with me so far? Alright, now that's going to be crucial to an understanding of Hebrews 6. Now, read now, we'll be following that, we just read 7 through 11 of chapter 3. Now read verse 12. Take care, brethren. Now, in an epistle like this, the author is writing to saved people. He does not, Paul and the writer of Hebrews and other New Testament writers, don't call people brethren who aren't brethren. He believes they're saved people, are you with me? Take care, brethren. that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. Now mark that phrase, falls away. Now there are tons of words, I say tons, that's an exaggeration, but there are words in verse 12 that occur in the Septuagint of Numbers 14. This is clearly in the mind of the author. For example, three times in Numbers 14, God calls the congregation of Israel an evil congregation. Now they're his people. They're his covenant people. He's already brought them across the Red Sea. He already brought them to Passover in Egypt. They've come out of Egypt. They're His covenant people, but God calls them an evil generation. Three times, in fact. He also calls them unbelieving, like verse 12 says, though they're His covenant people. And furthermore, He speaks of them as falling away, in Numbers 14, in the sense of direct, willful disobedience to God. Falling away, and furthermore, God there is called the living God. You see all these parallels? Verse 13, the antidote, the opposite is, but encourage one another day after day as long as it is calm today, so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Now take note, the author doesn't say, a bunch of you in my congregation are unsaved, you need to get saved. What he says is, encourage one another so you will not be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. All right, now just look at chapter 4. Chapter 4 covers the concept of rest, which in the Old Testament was a literal place, not heaven. By the way, we don't have time to develop this. The land of promise, the land of Canaan, is not a typology of heaven in the Bible. It is in our hymnology, but it is not in Scripture. And you need to make sure you don't get confused there. The land of rest was a literal place where they were going on earth. It's not heaven. Now, notice verse 11. Let us be diligent to enter that rest so that no one, watch it, watch it, will fall, there's our word again, will fall through following the same example of disobedience. What example? Well, in verse 7, he quoted a section of Psalm 95 again, the Kadesh Barnea, Numbers 14, God's covenant people rebellion example. Are you with me? Are you tracking with me? Alright. Now, now let's go to Hebrews 6. Notice first the context then of Hebrews 6. 5.11 through 6.8 is the full context. Notice that 5.11 through 14 is paragraph 1. 6.1 through 3, I know you haven't had Greek, many of you haven't had Greek, some of you have, but these are the sub-paragraphs within the entire section. I don't have time to show you this linguistically. I recognize I'm asking you to trust me, okay? 11-14 goes together, 6-1-3 is paragraph number 2, 6-4-6 is paragraph number 3, which by the way is one sentence in the Greek New Testament, one entire sentence. And chapter 6 verses 7 and 8 is paragraph number 4. So there is your paragraph structure of the passage. Notice that paragraph 1, verses 11 through 14, the subject is not salvation, it is sanctification, it is spiritual maturity. Please note the context. Note the use of the word mature. Notice, secondly, in 6.1-3, again, the context remains not salvation, but sanctification, or more specifically, maturity. Look carefully at Hebrews 6.1. Therefore, leaving the ABCs, literally the word elementary teaching there, means the ABCs about Christ. Leaving those behind, let us press on, watch it, does he say press on to salvation? Now that was pretty weak, let me try that again. Does he say let us press on to salvation? No! What does he say? Let us press on to maturity. He is assuming they are saved and he's telling them they're immature and they need to press on to maturity. Now look at verse 3. This we will do. Alright, stop right there. What is the antecedent in the text of this we will do? Pressing on to maturity is the antecedent in the Greek New Testament. And in the English Bible, by the way. What is it we will do? Press on to maturity. The main verb in 6.1 is let us press on to maturity. It's that hortatory subjunctive there in Greek. That's your main verb. He is addressing believers. He is telling them they need to press on to maturity. Now, verse 3 of Hebrews 6 is the most neglected verse in the whole book of Hebrews. I'm amazed at commentaries. I've read dozens and dozens and dozens of them on Hebrews. The vast majority of them ignore verse 3. That is a huge mistake. Verse 3 is critical to a correct interpretation of verses 4, 5, and 6. Look carefully at verse 3. This we will do. What? Press on to maturity. What is stated next? If God permits. Now wait a minute. Hold the phone here. Doesn't God want His people to press on to maturity? Well, of course he does. But notice the author says that we will do this if God permits, meaning God may not permit us to do it. Now, stay with me contextually, okay? We're people of the book. And remember what I taught you on Tuesday, which comes first, exegesis or your theological system? Thank you very much. That was pretty weak, but I'll take it. Do you bring your theological grid and superimpose it on the text, or do you bring your Greek New Testament and your exegetical tools, and you do the spadework of exegesis, and then form your theology from your exegesis? It is the latter. It should be. Now, this we will do if God permits. Now wait a minute, hold on, hold on. Where did I read, back yonder in chapter 3, that God didn't permit his people to do something? What did he not permit the Exodus generation, ages 20 and up, to do? He did not permit them to enter the promised land. Are you with me? But for the next 40 years, while they wandered in the wilderness, were they God's covenant people? Okay, now that was pretty weak too. Let's try that again. Did they remain, according to the scripture, were they God's covenant people? Yes, they were. Had God forgiven them, yes or no? Yes, He had. Did their shoes not wear out? Did He provide them manna? Did He give them water from the rock? Did He take care of them for 40 years? Yes, He did. But they died in the wilderness and never made it to the promised land because God had had it and He disciplined them in this life and they suffered because of their sins. Are you tracking with me? This we will do if God permits. Now comes Hebrews 6, 4 through 6. Notice that those of you looking at it in the Greek New Testament, it's introduced by the subordinating conjunction, gar, for. So now the author is explaining what he means by verses 1, 2, and 3. And he's really illustrating it, but he says, In the case of those who were once enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, made protectors of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God, powers of the age to come, and have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance." Now, the actual structure, the grammatical, syntactical structure of that sentence, it's one sentence in Greek. It's three verses in English, but it's one sentence. And it literally reads like this. Let's repackage it in the actual structure so it is clearer. Are you ready? Here's how it reads if you restructure it and package it grammatically. It is impossible to renew again, to repent us those who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, etc., etc., and who have fallen away, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to an open shame. Now there's the structure in the Greek text of the passage. What is impossible? To renew again to repentance is impossible. Who is it impossible to do that for? Those who, and then you have five participles, those who have been once enlightened, those who have tasted the heavenly gift, etc., etc., down to number five, and those who have fallen away. It's a fifth participle, falling away. Are you with me so far? Now, the first major exegetical question that we have to ask is the nature of the five participles in verses 4 through 6. Now, my apologies to those of you who have not had Greek yet, but I think you can follow this in English because the participial structure in English is very similar to Greek. The question here is, are these participles to be construed agitatively or adverbially? In other words, are they functioning like a noun or modifying a noun element, or are they functioning adverbially and are they more modifying a verb? The first four participles are easily identified as agitival, actually technically as substantival participles, because they are governed by one article. There is an article that appears, it's the article twos in your Greek New Testament, and it governs clearly the first four of those participles, and nobody debates that. Grammatically, when a participle has an article in front of it, Okay? That immediately rules out the adverbial use of the participle. That's a Greek grammar rule. So the key question has to do with the fifth participle in the text, which in Greek is the word parapesontos, and in English it's translated falling away. The question is, is that participle also a substantival participle or is it adverbial? Some construe it as adverbially because of its distance from the article. at the very beginning of the packaged group of five, and because of its negative connotation contrasted with the positive connotation of the previous four. So for those two reasons, some people will treat it adverbially. It is sometimes given a conditional translation, as in the King James Version and in the NIV, if they fall away. It's sometimes given a temporal translation like in the New American Standard Bible, then have fallen away. There's that temporal idea. Now, on grammatical grounds and on semantic grounds, to interpret paripesimtos, the final participle, as a substantival participle parallel to the first four participles is the correct way to go. It's parallel. There are three clues, three reasons for that. The first is the use of the article in verse 4, and it governs all of the participles. Consistency would seem to indicate it governs the final participle. All five participles are in the accusative case, they're masculine and gender, they're plural and number, they're all identical in that structure. All five function as the direct object of the infinitive, to renew again. To renew again whom? Those who are once enlightened, those who this, that, that, and those who fall away. These factors would tend to indicate that the fifth participle should function grammatically exactly as the first four. Second, you have the use of conjunctions in here in your Greek text and in the English Bible, chi, chi, chi, linking these participles. This is often overlooked by those who want to translate adverbially that fifth participle falling away. It's linked by chi to the other four. So take note of that. You do not find, grammatically speaking, you do not find an agitival and an adverbial participle joined in the same grouping in the New Testament. You find a group of adverbials or a group of substantival or agitival, but you don't find them mixed by an author in the New Testament and you don't find them mixed by the author of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews never pairs an agitival participle with an adverbial participle, never. And therefore he's not doing it here. The third semantic clue is that these participles are to be viewed as substantival in nature because of their bracketing within one infinitive clause, one long infinitive clause. Thus the author is packaging, he's putting these five participles together in the same package and tying them up with that one article to show that he means all five of them to be interpreted in the same way. So, here's the thing to know. The five participles identify and describe one group of people. That's what the author is saying. Second, the participle is not adverbial. Grammatically, it's not adverbial. Therefore, it cannot be given a conditional translation. You can't translate it if, if it's not adverbial. If it's truly substantival, as I'm arguing, then the if translation goes out the window. You cannot, it's a grammatical impossibility to translate a substantival participle with an adverbial translation because it's not adverbial. It's grammatically wrong to do that. Okay? So now, having argued that, Now the question is, the question you've been waiting for is, okay, well then what is the spiritual condition of people described in verses 4 and 5? Those who've been once enlightened and tasted of heaven again. What's their spiritual condition? Are they saved or are they unsaved? Alright? Appeal is often made to the fact that the author shifts from the first person in Hebrews 6, 1 through 3, we, to the third person in 4 through 6 to support the idea that the group described here are not true believers, they're merely professors or false believers. This is taken to indicate that the author is no longer thinking of his readers, but is now referring to a group who, in the final analysis, are not true believers. This linguistic observation, coupled with the negative statement in verse 6 that they have fallen away, leads numerous interpreters to view the group in reference as those who are not true believers. However, Gramacchi, in his commentary, points out correctly that there are no third-person pronouns in the Greek text of the passage. but rather they are used in the English translation to translate the articular participles, which literally read, the first one, the having been enlightened ones, the ones who have been enlightened, those who have been enlightened. It's just a matter of you have to translate it that way. It's not a case of the author making changes there and not referring to a potential issue with his readers. This kind of switch, indicates that the author wanted to present the warning in an impersonal objective fashion rather than a direct appeal as he had used in previous warnings in 2, 3, and in 3, 8, and 12. Now, those who argue that the passage refers to people who aren't true believers, Wayne Grudem is one who does that. He's probably the single best proponent of that. Listen to what Grudem says about it. Look at the description of the people. They were once enlightened, they were tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God, tasted the powers of the age to come. Now I just want to ask you on first bless, try to put away your theological systems for a minute. On first reading, does that description sound like saved people to you or does it sound like lost people to you? It sounds a whole lot like saved people and nowhere is that terminology used in scripture to describe lost people. If the passage refers to people who are professors who are not true believers, this is the only place in the entire New Testament where such language is used to describe those kind of people. Okay? So you just need to note that. Now, listen to what Grudem says. I'm astounded at a man of his ability that would make this statement I'm about to tell you about. But this is what happens when you're pushing a theological system and you come across a passage that doesn't fit your system. And you have to start playing monkey games. Grudem says that these people, he argues they're not saved. Are you with me? He argues they're in the church, they're professors, but they're unsaved. And he says of them that they have had answers to their prayers in their lives, that they have felt the power of the Holy Spirit at work in their lives, and that some of them have used spiritual gifts, have been given spiritual gifts. Now people, I know I'm from North Georgia and some people may say I fell off the turnip truck, Where in the Bible do you know of saved people, first of all, who have the Holy Spirit, and number two, who are given gifts? Where in the Bible do you have unsaved people who have the Holy Spirit and who can use some of the gifts of the Spirit? Would you please show me that in the New Testament? I'm just astounded at what Grudem does. By the way, Grudem is a Baptist. You are aware of that. Wayne Grudem is a Baptist, systematic theologian. By the descriptive language the author of Hebrews uses here, he clearly indicates the status of these people as believers. Had he wanted to convey their status as unbelievers, he could have clearly done so. There's no direct statement that those described in Hebrews 6 were unbelievers. If the author is indeed referring to unsaved people, then this is the only place in the New Testament where he uses that language. Now, there is a growing consensus crossing the Calvinist-Armenian divide that the language of Hebrews 6 actually describes genuine believers. David Armistead, Calvinist, stated, one follows the standard exegetical methodology of looking first at the pericope itself. Honesty demands that Hebrews 6, 4-6 speaks of a true Christian, unquote. The general approach of those who suggest the reference in 6.436 is to apparent believers, is to point out these terms, these descriptive terms, quote, normally refer to Christians, might refer, could mean something other than their clear and obvious meaning. What is it that drives them to that conclusion? From a Calvinistic perspective, it is the interpretation of the fifth participle falling away as apostasy. since by definition Calvin is correctly a farm. that the New Testament doctrine of the eternal, correctly affirmed the New Testament doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. Whatever falling away means in Hebrews 6.6, it can't mean apostasy that results in loss of salvation. Since Calvinists usually argue that apostasy is what is in view in Hebrews 6.6, they are forced theologically into a corner as to the spiritual condition of those described in 6.4-5 and they argue they must be unsaved. This is what Calvin does, this is what John Owen does, and in modern day this is what Wayne Grudem does, this is what John Piper does, it's what John MacArthur does. All Calvinists are forced to do it. You don't have a choice. Unless you do what I'm going to suggest you do in a minute, and then I can save your bacon. Okay? Even if you're a Calvinist. Okay? So if Hebrew 6.4-6 refers to people who are only professors who do not genuinely share in salvation, then there are some questions that we have to answer. Question number one, why would people who are mere professors and not saved in the first place be warned of apostasy? You cannot apostatize from something never possessed in the first place. Have you ever thought of that? Another problem, why would the author exhort non-Christians to press on to maturity in 6.1? The obvious thing to do would be for the author to exhort those whom he considered unconverted to be converted, get saved. But he doesn't do that. Why does he not do that? Because he doesn't consider the people to whom he's writing as unsaved. That's why he doesn't do that. Now, got to get a little more specific. The key to the issue is the translation and meaning of the participle in verse 6 translated, falling away. It's parapesantas in Greek. What does it mean? Unfortunately, this is the only occurrence of that word, parapipto, in the entire New Testament. Fortunately, it's not the only occurrence, though, in the Septuagint and in other writings in the centuries before and after the first century. It occurs six times in the Septuagint, once in the book of Esther, five times in the book of Ezekiel. From the 5th century to the 3rd century B.C., it occurs 106 times in extra-biblical Greek sources. And from the Koine period, roughly through the 2nd century B.C., I'm sorry, roughly the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century A.D., there are 57 more occurrences of the word, and one-third of those with the meaning of to fall beside or to fall or to fall upon. The word parafipto is used in the general sense of to sin five times in Ezekiel. With the exception of Ezekiel 22 verse 4, the word is the equivalent for the Hebrew word ma'al, which means to sin by acting unfaithfully. In fact, parafipto is used in Ezekiel 14.13 and 18.24 in conjunction with even the most common Hebrew word for sin. In none of these examples does parapipto ever mean apostasy as defined by complete turning away and rejection of God. From this evidence it seems clear that linguistically there is little, if any, support for the meaning of apostasy. If parapipto means to apostatize in the conventional theological meaning of that word, it is the singular exception of the known uses of the word over six centuries. Did you hear what I said? Now, I put this in print, so I'm prepared to back this up linguistically. I've looked at the linguistic usages of this word over that 6th century period. 300 B.C., 300 A.D., the word does not, I repeat, not, I repeat a third time, the word does not mean apostasy. Furthermore, pull your Greek lexicons out, you won't find that there either in the actual meaning of the word, but then when some lexicons, most won't even do this, but a few, will start giving their interpretation, then you'll get the word apostasy. but not in the actual meaning of the word. The meaning of parapipto must be considered against the background of the use earlier in the book of its cognate form, pipto, to fall, which we saw in Hebrews 4.11. The author warned of the necessity about being diligent to enter the rest, lest anyone fall. You see, he's already talking about falling before he gets to chapter 6. Semantically, there is a connection between Hebrews 6.6, Hebrews 4.11, and Hebrews 3.12. In 3.12, the verb there, to fall away, is the verb apostatai, from which we get the English word apostasy, but the usage indicates that that verb there is translated, it's interesting to note that the same Hebrew word ma'al in the Hebrew Old Testament is often translated in the Septuagint by parapepto, but it is also translated by this word apostani in 2 Corinthians, I'm sorry, 2 Chronicles 26.18 where the sin of apostasy is not imbued. The word apostani itself does not mean what theologically apostasy means today in theological discussion. The upside of all this is the conclusion that parapetto, in Hebrews 6, is not the most appropriate word to express a complete renunciation of Christ, and its use in Hebrews 6 does not describe a fall that is a denial of Jesus. You say, okay, smarty-pants. If that's not what it means, then what does it mean? What is he talking about? Well, we're in a position now to draw some conclusions concerning the meaning of the word, and then look at the major interpreted views, and then take some questions. We have seen the word does not mean apostasy in any technical theological sense. The reference to falling away in Hebrews 6.6 does not mean apostasy in the sense of willful rejection of Christ by those who are believers or by those who are unbelievers. Given the usage of the word in the Septuagint combined with the author's dependence upon the Kadesh-Bernia incident, The word means to transgress against the Lord in a way that parallels what happened in Numbers 14 when Israel rebelled against God. Israel and the wilderness had become hardened in their hearts against the Lord, and this hardness culminated in their disobedience recorded in Numbers 14. the present readers of Hebrews were in danger of something similar. If they don't hold fast their confession of faith in Christ, if they disobey and rebel against the Lord and remain in that kind of unrepentant state, if they don't press on to maturity, God himself will not permit them to repent because of the high-handed and blatant sin they have committed. Contextually, the key to the warning is actually Hebrews 6.3. Verse 4 begins with Gaara subordinating conjunction. God may make the decision that it is not possible for them to press on to maturity because of their disobedience, just as God made the decision not to permit Israel to enter the Promised Land for the same reason. Contextually, the meaning of fall away in verse 6 should be understood as the opposite of pressing on to maturity in verse 1. Hence, the sin of falling away is more than merely sluggishness of hearing, as the author said in 511 and following, but it is coming to a decisive point when one has refused to press on to maturity. The sin of falling away in Hebrews echoes the experience of the Israelites who fell, and that's the same word in the Septuagint, who fell in bewilderment. So now, there's what it means. Now we look at the views. The major views. The loss of salvation view. This is the Armenian view. Hebrews 6, 4, 3, 6 is the castle from which the Armenian flag of loss of salvation flies. Alright? The view of the loss of salvation view is that para ficto means apostasy and therefore these were true believers who fell away, who sinned against God and thus lost their salvation. That view is incorrect. It's incorrect for two reasons. Number one, it misunderstands apostasy. Number two, it fails to see in the rest of the New Testament the hundreds of verses that clearly teach the eternal security of a believer. Once you're truly saved, now hear me carefully, once you're genuinely saved, in other words, God knows you're saved, from God's knowledge you're truly saved, then you can never lose that salvation. I'm sorry to my Armenian brothers here today, and there are probably some who may be with us, some who may be guests, or some who may attend the seminary here, but the Bible does not teach you can be saved and then lose your salvation. That is, in my opinion, false doctrine. The Bible does not teach that. So the loss of salvation view errs because it misunderstands the meaning of the word to fall away, interprets it as apostasy when that's not what's being talked about. Another view is called the hypothetical view. This is a view that says that the author is speaking hypothetically. He knows that you can't lose your salvation. But he is choosing to make a hypothetical case and show an illustration hypothetically that if it were possible to sin so much that you lost your salvation, then it would be impossible to ever get it back again. By the way, notice that the text does say it's impossible to renew them again to repentance. Therefore, if, watch this, if the text is talking about losing your salvation, the text, if it's talking about that, it's not, but if it were, then the text is also teaching once you lose your salvation for reasons of apostasy, you can never be saved again. And I do not know a single Armenian today, there are some who do believe this I've read, but I don't know one, I don't know anybody in the Assembly of God, Wesleyan Methodist Church, Pentecostal Charismatic Movement, I don't know a one who doesn't believe you can lose your salvation but yet gain it back. They all believe you can be saved again. Huh? I mean, is that right or wrong? That's what they all believe. I've got dozens and dozens of friends who are Armenians. And they all tell me that. Yeah, you can be saved again. But yet this text would seem to contradict that view. Now, here's the problem with a hypothetical view. It's a problem of grammar. If that participle is a substantival participle, then the conditional translation, if they fall away, is impossible. You can't translate a substantival participle conditionally. It's not grammatical. Grammar rules prohibit it. You can't do it, okay? You just can't do it. You say, but I want to do it. Well, I'm sorry, you can't. I mean, that's my view. Well, I'm sorry, you can't translate it that way. Okay? So that view goes out the window. The third view is called the tests of genuineness view. This is the reforms view. In summation, because time is heading away, The test of genuineness view is the view that essentially says, these are people who are in the church and they were protesting to be Christians, but they weren't truly saved. And then something happened and they decided to apostatize. They rebelled from God and left the church. And thus, by apostatizing, they leave the church and therefore they give evidence they weren't truly saved in the first place. Now, time out. I'm going to be very careful what I'm about to say. That does happen. I was a pastor for our first church for 16 years and I pastored the second church for 6 years. I had 22 years of senior pastor experience. I was a youth minister 5 years prior to that. I've been interim pastor of many churches since then. So I've been around a lot pastoring God's people, and I guarantee you in everybody's church, in the best of churches, there are unsaved people sitting in those pews who are members of those churches. Okay? I guarantee you that's true. That's not debatable. That's not the issue, though. The issue is not, are there unsaved people in the church? There are. But that's not the point. What that is, the problem with this view, the test of genuineness view as it's called, that they appear to be alike and they appear to be this, they had all the appearance of true believers but they really weren't. The problem with that view is that the author is addressing his people as believers. He believes they're believers. He's addressing them as believers. He's not addressing a group thinking they're unbelievers. If he were doing that, he would tell them, I think, sort of, you're unsafe, get safe. He doesn't tell them that. That's the problem there with that. The test of genuineness view also errs because it assumes that the word falling away means apostasy. And I hope I've already made a case, you may not agree with it, but I've tried to make a case linguistically that the word does not mean apostasy. So the Reformed view errs, it misinterprets the word. The Armenian view errs as well. My point is, and this is why I told you I'm an equal opportunity offender, I'm arguing the case that generally speaking both the Armenian view and the Calvinistic view on this passage are wrong. Both are wrong. So, well, if it's not any of that, then what is it? Well, the fourth view is called the, I don't like the title of it, it's a name that's given to it, but it's the loss of rewards view. And that isn't the view that I believe is the correct view. It is the only one of all of the views that says the word apostasy here, or the word that is said to mean apostasy, falling away, but it doesn't mean apostasy. It's the only one of the four views that correctly interprets the word. And it's been held through for a number of years by a number of people and a number of people. But I believe this is the correct view. It's the view that I'm arguing in my commentary. Basically, this is the view based on the context of the passage. Instead of coming to this thing with an Arminian grid or a Calvinistic grid, you recognize that the passage is not talking about salvation at all. It's talking about sanctification. It's talking about maturity. And he's talking about what will happen to people who don't press on to maturity, that they are in danger of loss of rewards, both in this life and at the judgment seat of Christ. Now, if you think there aren't any loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, you may want to go back and read 1 Corinthians forever. Because when you do, you're going to hear Paul state this. He says in 2 Corinthians 5.10, we will all stand toward the judgment seat of Christ as believers. And in 1 Corinthians 3 it says some people are standing there and the fire will test their works. And some will be shown to have gold, silver, and precious stones. Their works will be refined and it will be shown their works are genuine. But, there's another group whose works will be what there at the Judgment Seat of Christ? What is it? Wood, hay, and stubble. And those are burned up. And now watch it. Yep, that's right. They had no evidence of salvation. They're burned up so they went to hell. Now, is that what the text says? Remember, we believe in text-driven preaching, and we're people of the book, we're Baptists, we're people of the book. What does the text say? The next verse says that they enter heaven, yes, so as by fire. Does it or does it not say that? It does say that. So there are people going to heaven with little evidence that they're Christians. according to the Bible. Many a man, many a woman, stand at the judgment seat of Christ, and they will see a life, essentially a life of wood, hay, and stubble gone, and they will press into the nail-scarred hands of Jesus the charred embers of a wasted life. Don't let that happen to you. So then, see, what happens there is loss of rewards. But it's not only loss of rewards then, it's loss of effectiveness now. It's loss of being able to be fully used by God the Holy Spirit in this life. See, all that is involved. It's the matter of discipline. You say, well, God doesn't ever, the Bible doesn't speak harshly like this, like the author of Hebrews does in the New Testament. No. Jesus called the disciples fools. He called them, he refers to, God refers to the Exodus generation as evil generation. You see, when the covenant people of God, now watch it, when the covenant people of God in Exodus, in the Exodus generation, when they sinned against God and then God forgave them, as they died in the wilderness, when they died did they go to heaven or hell? See? They didn't go to hell, they were still God's covenant people. What they lost was not salvation, what they lost was the right to enter the promised land. Do you see the difference? Now, unless you say, well, you know, I'm just going to believe that, or I'll try this, you know, I'm precise. Guess who else didn't go into the promised land? Now, I want to try something that I've done for 30 years. If you believe that because Moses was denied the right to enter the promised land just like the others because of his sin, same word by the way used to describe his as theirs. How many of you believe that when Moses died he went to hell? Raise your hand. In 30 years, I've never had anybody be able to raise their hand. Everybody knows Moses went to hell. So you see, if that's not talking about salvation there, and the author is using that as an illustration, why do you want to force Hebrews 6 to be talking about loss of salvation? It's not talking about that. It's talking about loss of rewards. What did Moses lose out on? The opportunity to get into the promised land. And the opportunity to get God's best. That's what we as believers lose out on when we disobey God, don't deal with our disobedience, and finally God says, I've had it. You're confirmed and you're in maturity, you'll live and die an immature Christian. Your heart's hardened, you'll never press on to maturity. Remember verse 3 of Hebrews 6, this we will do, press on to maturity, if God permits. There you have it. Matt, we're running a little long here today, so questions, fire away, let's go. What do you want to talk about? Would you refer to 10, 26, and 27 along with 6? Absolutely. It refers to the same thing, even though it's harsh language, it's talking to believers and warning them. And notice, by the way, at the end of the 10 passage, notice how the author says that, not only does he say, "...then this is mine, I will repay," but notice that he says something along the lines of, "...that judgment begins at the house of God." Notice that reference in there. We're talking about God's disciplining of His people, not God's final judgment of unsaved people. Both are true, God will judge the unsaved. But we're talking about God's discipline of His people. Okay? But I've been preaching almost 60 years, and in my early days I started preaching that a man or woman period can sin till God will remove his hand from him. They'll live, they'll die, they'll go to heaven. There's evidence of that clearly in the New Testament, and now since Sapphira is example number one, The sin unto death in James and John is example number two. At 1 Corinthians 11, at the Lord's table, because they were dishonoring the body of Christ, they were believers, carnal believers. And what happened? Premature death for some of them. That's harsh, but God may come to the place where he judges his own people with premature death. See, that's part of what's going on here. Questions? Yes, sir? In the modern church today, do you have a feel for Christianity's last numbers of people in the church? I would say, in American Christianity, I'd say there's a big wad of them. I don't know how many, I mean I'm not sure I could quantify that. I can tell you this, that's a Greek word by the way, wad. I can tell you this, Billy Graham said that in his opinion, now he wasn't just speaking of Baptist churches or just evangelicals, he's talking about all churches in America. Billy Graham said he believes 50% of all people in churches are unsaved. That's a pretty high number. Those are the ones that are unsaved. Now you've got the rest that are saved, but how many of them are carnal? You've got a bunch of them say that they're calm. I don't know what he bases it on, but right or wrong, that's what he said, I've heard him say it. Right over here, I want to catch somebody back here too. Yes, sir. Right, the land, the land analogy. Okay, look at it, all right, look at it carefully. The land which receives the rain, notice how many lands are there, one or two? How many pieces of property in 7 and 8, Hebrews 6 verses 7 and 8? There's one. NIV gives you the impression there's two, but the Greek text is clear. There's one piece of property that has to produce two results. It can either produce fruit or it can be barren and then it's burned over, which is what happened in the first century. They would burn over a piece of land that didn't produce fruit in order to prepare it later to produce fruit. In hopes that it would down the road. And that's what's being talked about. That's the agricultural metaphor from the first century. When it says his end is to be burned, it's talking about the land. That's not talking about going to hell. So stay with the context. So his picture is the land being burned. And he's talking about one land that can either produce good fruit or no fruit. And that's what he's talking about. Christians can produce fruit or very little fruit. But the point is, it's one land, there's still Christians. So it actually doesn't contradict 4 through 6 when you read it carefully in context. That's a great question. I just didn't have time to deal with 7a. I ran short of time. Let's see, we have one over here first and then back here. Yes, sir. My reward is with me, where Jesus says my reward is with me. Revelation 20. It could be that the New Testament on many occasions speaks of rewards that are not only our salvation, but they are rewards that are related to our work for Christ on this earth. 1 Corinthians 3 is one example. So I would say that could be, I would need to go back and look at it in context. But it is clear there are contexts, there are passages in the New Testament that clearly speak of rewards for the believer. There's no doubt the New Testament teaches that. Yes, sir? Q. Just to follow that up, when you get over there where the Lord is talking about, where the Bible speaker is talking about chasing sons, and all the talks about those people that are not assimilating together, and then He starts giving them, and they sin willfully, and more and more sacrifice. If you trace that line out, it makes a lot more sense, at least to me. that you do not have loss and salvation when you're dealing with people who tread under the breath of the Lord. That text, it does suggest that you look closely at the Word. The loss of rewards view does not mean only rewards eternally, it's talking about both, in this life and then. You lose out on both ends. You wind up on this end getting God's discipline if you're His child, which, by the way, is why the author says what he does in Hebrews 12 through 11. That's an issue of discipling believers. That's the whole point of the book of Hebrews. It's addressed to believers. It's not addressed to unbelievers. That is correct. You're right. All right, we'll try to get everybody back row first, and then we'll come back up here. Yes, sir? It could not enter into the promised land. Right. And you chose that the promised land is not heaven. Correct. What is the promised land? The promised land in the Old Testament is just that. It's a piece of property, a place where God's people were promised that God gave them the land, and that's all that it is in the Old Testament. Now, in the New Testament, the concept of God's rest does get expanded beyond land. The author of Hebrews talks about that. And by the way, it is true that heaven is a place of rest. It's just not the case that the Promised Land, literally the Old Testament, is a symbol of heavenly rest. That's what I'm arguing against. Our hymnology says that, but the Bible doesn't. But it is true, heaven is a place of final and eternal rest, that's true. But rest is not only related to the land, it's not only related to eternity, but it's also related to, I would appeal to the book of Ephesians as we're in the heavenlies with Christ now. We're not in heaven yet, but we are seated with it there. And when we walk in victory in the sanctified life, not in carnality, but in spirituality, we are in that rest. We are experiencing that rest now. And I think that's what the author is saying in Hebrews 4, and that's what he said. He said, enjoy that, live out that rest now. Don't live in disobedience where you miss it now. That's the point of the passage. Yes, sir, it is. Exactly. I would say you're exactly right. Yes, sir. I would say that, yeah, I would say that, now we don't have time for this, but in my opinion, this is going to shock some of you, the whole lordship salvation debate that raged 15 years ago was a misplaced debate in my opinion. It was people talking past each other and missing what the scripture is saying. Yes, yes, we are Jesus' Lord, period. MacArthur's correct about that. But Hodge was right also to point out that Christians cannot live up to their calling and they can sin against God and they can be carnal, at least for a period of time. The New Testament teaches that too. See, they're both true. This is what happens. When you start getting into any theological system that says, always this, never that, you better look at it. you'll be in trouble. Because the scriptures are going to say this, but this too. For example, the scripture says sovereignty of God, but it also says free will of man. The scripture is going to say election, but it's also going to say whosoever believes. You're going to have to keep those two together. If you don't, you're going to slide off this side of that narrow road, or you're going to slide off that side, and it's about a 585,000 mile drop when you slide off. On either side, you're going to be in trouble, theologically. Yeah, now there you do have the conditional particle, and you know, there he's talking about this so-and-so, if we do this. Right, we hold fast to our God. And of course, what he's saying there is not, if you don't, you'll wind up losing your salvation, but he's saying you give evidence of the fact. that you are where you should be when you do this. It's the reversal. He's just reusing the if-clause there in a reversal kind of a way to make the same point. But that's the key there. Now, the if-clause in Greek does occur in Hebrews 3.14. I mean, the if-clause, the if-particle, the particle there in Greek. It does not occur in Hebrews 6. Yes, sir? I know part of the learning is going back to Kenneth's learning of bringing the commentaries of the people of Israel who were under the covenant that fell, those who died and fell, and taking the people for shepherd and then going into heaven. I would, of course, respond back to what Paul says in Romans 9 when he says all Israel is not in the context of what he's saying is that there's someone who may be yet a physical descendant. I won't have time to answer that because we're already, I know, way over time and I apologize. I'm impinging on the faculty's time here, so my apology for this. But see, how many does it take to fail in the wilderness, depending on whose numbers you take or how many there were in the Exodus generation, the numbers go as high as 1.6 million. So depending on who you take, if just one falls into wilderness, he's truly saved. See, the point is to reverse it. Think about it the reverse. Do you want to say they're all unsaved? No. Now, do you want to say, okay, well, every single one are saved by God's knowledge of their heart? Well, no, probably some of them were not fulfilling the sacrificial system from the heart like they should have been. So you don't have to say all of them were saved. But you see, as soon as you just admit one was, then you eliminate the Romans 9 issue. That's the first thing. And the second thing is clearly not all of them were unsaved. It would be pretty hard to say they're all unsaved because Moses didn't go in and it's clear he was saved. Are you with me? So you can't say they're all unsaved. I can prove at least one was. So now that eliminates using Romans 9 to argue against it. Now, however, your point is correct. They're not all Israel. Paul is making the point there, but he is speaking in Romans 9, 10, and 11 about national election. The problem that, in my opinion, that my Reformed brothers, and I have many of them, by the way, it's probably obvious now, you are looking at someone who is not a Calvinist and someone who is not an Armenian. You're looking at someone who is a Baptist. Most Baptists throughout their history have not been High Calvinist, nor have they been Arminian. They have been what James Leo Garrett, our greatest leading Southern Baptist living theologian, calls the Calminians. We have aspects of both. If you trace Baptist history from start to finish, you will find most Baptists are in the middle. They're not all reformed in their soteriology. Some are, but most haven't been, and there are not many in either because they don't believe you can lose your salvation. Baptists have never believed that. You can't be a Baptist and believe you can lose your salvation. moment you do that you cease being a Baptist. So Romans 9 is talking about corporate election, God's corporate dealing with the nation of Israel and that's the context of 9-10. And I think it's important to keep that in mind. But it is true, that's right, that Paul says that the Gentiles who are grafted in, in Romans 11, who are grafted into the vine, you see, our father is Abraham, so we are a part of the family of the people of God. So that part of the point is a valid point, no doubt. Now, let me make sure I let anybody, I'm going to come back to you, but let me make sure I let anybody who hasn't asked a question ask one, and then we'll let people repeat. Yes, sir? If you could rephrase the box with three words, what would you call it? Yeah, I don't know. I thought about that. We need to come up with a better name for that view. I mean, it does entail loss of rewards, but I just don't like... there's more to it. It's a matter of discipline for willful sin. It's kind of a... It's kind of the God whipping up on the Christian who willfully sins view. You know, I don't really know how to come up, I've got to come up with something. You know, if anybody can help me, if y'all come up with a good phrase, if you come up with a good enough one that I get the galley praise, I'll use it in my commentary. If you come up with a good one. I haven't been able to come up with one. Say what? The loss of favor? Okay. Alright. Could be. In the sense of you are disappointing God, but His salvation favor, though, is still there. So, again, you've got to think. It's hard to nuance all this, but... Okay. That's a cut. Yeah, I wish I knew that answer. I wish I had a good option there. Yes, sir? In the context of the passage, the reward is maturity, right? I mean, beyond that, what should we be concerned about? Because we're pressing on to maturity. Yeah, we shouldn't be concerned about rewards. In the context of the passage, the reward is not maturity. Maturity is what God asks of us, and then at the end of it all, you know, you hear Jesus say, well done, good and faithful servant, and whatever the rewards are, There, they are whatever they are. And of course in this life, what they are is the fruit of maturity. Those who press on to maturity, they're going to bear that fruit. That will be the, to them, you know, people being saved because of their witness, their life, their influence, all of that, that will be a part of the reward, yes. But it's not, maturity's not the reward. Maturity is what causes you to be able to have some rewards and fruit. Does it say that he permits us to pass on to maturity? results of what maturity would bring, which would be fruit, or loss of maturity, lack of maturity brings loss of rewards down the road. In that sense, I would agree with you, yes, that's part of it, what he's talking about, in the context. That's what they can lose in this life, is the opportunity to go on to maturity. That's the whole point of the context of the passage. Yes, sir. Well, you just stated it. What you do is you say, look, what you focus on is the maturity. The text says, press on the maturity. That's what you drive. When you preach on this, that's what you push. Because that's what the text pushes. So don't push the reward. You know, we shouldn't be living for rewards. We should be living for Jesus. And then the rewards just come. Anytime you start trying to seek the rewards, that's the carrot on the stick. You never get there. The carrot on the stick is always moving and you never get it. That's a good question practically about how to preach this passage. This is one of the toughest in the New Testament to deal with. It could be interpreted that way. Again, though, you face all the problems exegetically. If you're going to take that in nine, you still have all the problems exegetically in six, four through six to deal with. But notice carefully what he says in verse nine. He says, I'm persuaded of better things. In other words, I'm persuaded that you will press on to maturity, but there's the danger. You're lagging behind. There's the danger. My warning is serious. It is a sincere warning. You might not do it, but I am persuaded that you will. And then notice what he says, not that that is salvation, but things that accompany salvation. See the difference? That's how I respond. That's how I've addressed it in the commentary. Again, all of this may not be satisfactory to a brother or sister who holds a different, one of these other views, but at least my goal today is not necessarily to convert you to my view. My goal today is to expose you to the text and you decide what you believe the text is saying. You see, I'm not trying to convert you to my way. and coming up with this literal heaven salvation. Yes, yes, I do, but again, contextually it's not talking about, there is an interpretive aspect to what he means by that phrase, things that go along with people who have it. And that's really, I think, what he's talking about. But that is, you can make the case for the people who are, well, let me put it this way, let me be clear. It is true that the people, those who argue that this passage teaches that they were professors but they didn't possess salvation, that's not what this passage is teaching in my opinion, but that concept is true in churches, you see. It's a case of the right doctrine from the wrong text. So I do believe that people can be members of churches and profess salvation, but not possess it. So I agree with my test of genuineness, brothers, that that's clearly the case. In fact, I think all people, whether you're Arminian or Calvinist or anywhere in between, I think you'd be going against common sense and reality to argue against that. That does happen. The issue though is, is that what the author is referring to, and I don't think it is, for the reasons that I've given. So I'm sympathetic to that concept, just not that concept from this passage, is my point. I would say 1 John 2.19 is a good one. They went out from us because they were never of us in the first place. I would say that's probably one of the key passages that would affirm that. They exited the church, they were part, but then they left. Why? And what does John say? Were they truly saved and lost their salvation? That's not what John says. John says they were never truly a part of us in the first place. That's John's way of saying semantically they were never saved. Yes, sir. So, my conflict is with believers who are predicting what they're going to do in God's eyes, but should no longer repent, and who aren't a believer, that if a believer were to repent again, they would report contempt on Christ. How is that? Well, what I'm arguing the text says is that you can come to a place as a believer where you will just disobey God enough that you won't want to repent, and thus it winds up being impossible for you to do so in the sense that God will just confirm you in that state of carnality, and thus you won't repent, and you won't have the desire to do so, and you won't do it. Notice that the text says, notice carefully what it says in verse 6, what is it impossible to do? To renew them to repentance. Notice, again, you have to look at all that carefully. I try to go into this a little more in detail in the commentary, but the question, of course, what does that mean? Well, can a person get to a point where they cannot, as a believer, they get to a point where on this issue of karma, they get so carnal, their heart gets hardened enough that they're not going to come back from that state. I'm arguing that that can happen. I'm arguing that that is possible to happen. Right, absolutely. Right. Let me ask it this way. The people in Numbers 14 came back the next day and said, we repent, we're sorry. We're ready to go in. We repent of our sin. And God had already forgiven them. But did God let them go in? No, He didn't. That's the point. That's the point of the passage. You see, it's not an issue. You can come and say, look, I'm sorry I repent in that sense, but God has already said, in fact, God says in Numbers 14, I swear in my wrath. God swears they're not going in. Now, friend, it's one thing for God to say you ain't going to do it, but if God swears you ain't going to do it, trust me, you ain't going to do it, okay? I mean, it's not going to happen. So, again, think about it in those terms. Yeah, how do they know they've crossed that deadline? Yeah, now that's a six million dollar question that I frankly don't have a good answer for. I think the way I would respond to that is this, that if a person has a desire to come back to the Lord as a believer, deal with their carnality, that that is probably evidence they haven't crossed that deadline, wherever that deadline is. It's the people that just don't have a desire. Those are the people, I think, who are in that boat of Hebrews 6, 4-6. They're just never going to do it. They're going to live and die. Now, they're truly converted. They're going to live and die in that state. Okay? Yes, sir. Back here. For my brother, they ask him to be a believer of Jesus. And I believe that there is a discipline from God even to death. Yes. There is a very strong discipline. I, there is a believer who is living with his father and mother. Yes, sir. He is going through a huge experience with his father. Yes, sir. Some are afraid of those believers. But who are they to come? God comes. That's right. Our God is a consuming fire is the passage the author quotes in Tien to refer to his attitude toward disciplining his own children. It's not just our gods are consuming fire for lost people. Fire is used both for hell for lost people, but it's also used for God's dispensate people. Both in the Old and the New Testament. Check it out. You'll find it. Now, notice that even in the 1 Corinthians 5 passage, does Paul treat the guy in that gross sin as an unbeliever? The whole point of church discipline is he's a believer. Paul's interpreting he's a believer, but he's involved in gross sin. You see, we've somehow gotten the idea that we've confused the idea that Christians, we're not supposed to sin, but we can. And so we've lost the concept that it's possible for a Christian to dishonor Christ and to, as it were, trample underfoot the blood shed for them. And what Hebrews is saying, he's warning his people, you better not do that because if you do, there's a price to pay. And the price is not loss of salvation. The price is discipline in this life and loss of rewards in the next. That's the price. And by the way, that is a high price. Yes, sir? That's the same thing that Christ teaches. He teaches discipleship. He said, if you need to do this, your life will be wasted. And then when you come to Peter, he talks about believers who have forgotten that they've been saved because they didn't add to their faith. You're exactly right. You're exactly right. There is a trajectory throughout the New Testament that begins in the gospel of discipleship and pressing on to maturity in obedience to Jesus and to his word. That's exactly correct. One of the things that happens to me, though, is when I look at the people of Numbers 14. It seems, I don't know what happened over those 40 years besides the long funerals, but it seems that they did, you know, we get the idea, I think of Jerry Ellis Smith's five deadlines. Yeah, crossing God's deadline. God's three deadlines was the famous sermon he preached. It's in that space, but there's a lot of people who think that. But those people lived, a lot of them lived 40 years. They did serve some good, even though they were in a punishment state. The believers that came back, or the incumbent people that came back to Jericho were ready to go to war. So even though a person might find themselves a person that can't, That sin willfully gives God, and not the church, but encourage and all those things you missed over there. It's really scary, but they can still do good for God. That's right. It's not like they don't do anything right or anything good. It's just they can't go to the greater things because they are shackled into a lifestyle of basic spiritual immaturity. See, the point is you can't be immature unless you're saved. You see, the author's talking about a condition of saved people. He's not talking about lost people. Lost people aren't immature. Lost people are lost. You see the difference? All right. Yes, sir. He was assuming that these people had not crossed that line yet. He's warning them. Correct. That's right. He's warning them that if they persist in the direction they're headed, they could get to that point. And he's warning them, don't do it. That's the whole point of the warning passages. That is correct. Yes, sir. Now, from a theological standpoint, It's possible for a person to get to that point, as we're talking about, like E.J. Barber and others. But from a pastoral viewpoint, in dealing with the people in a congregation, we don't know their heart. You don't know their heart. So you continue to minister to them. Correct. Our brother said that here. Yes. Yes, sir. Indeed. That's exactly right. What did Jesus teach us, by the way, on the wheat and the tares? You can't know. You can't know. You don't know who's saved and who's not saved in your church. That's a judgment only God can ultimately make. You might misjudge that. You might say, that old boy has nowhere. He's lost. And yet he may be actually saved. And somebody who's a good worker in your church may just have a churchianity and not a genuine Christianity. See, that's the point, that you don't know, so you have to let God be the one to do that. Yes, sir? Are we under the new covenant today? Do you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and from now until the day you die, you're not going to sin? Then that blows the passage. There is coming a day, and there is coming a day in my view because I am a pre-millennialist, there is coming a day when there is going to be when all of God's people are going to function in relationship to Jesus as they should during the millennium. But that day is not going to come until the millennium, and it's evident because God's children today are capable of sin and do sin, even the best of God's children. So that's what God is ultimately going to do. That's what He's ultimately going to do. But the reality is we can be today in the new covenant, but we don't have the full fear of God like we ought to. We can still sin against Him, and Christians do all the time. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not saying, by the way, that therefore the verse in Jeremiah is untrue. You would know I'm not. The verse is true. The Bible's in Aaron. So the verse is true. It's just, I think you're trying to, you're taking one verse there, you're trying to make a, and you've got to be real careful about hermeneutically trying to do that. Because you wind up, you're going to get into, I think you'll create unnecessary problems for yourself if you do. I know, I will take one more and then we'll go and I will extend, this may not be enough, but please, our faculty, my profound apologies. I got carried away here. We kind of got going and so I do apologize for that. find a way to repent and make it out. Right. Right. Yeah, and I think their fall is talking, by the way, about unsaved people. But principally, from a principal standpoint, the same thing can happen to a believer. You wind up, you're a believer, but if you just disobey God enough, you know, you're getting further and further away from Him to where you almost, you don't hear Him calling anymore. Too far away from home. Can't hear the Father calling. You wind up being confirmed in a state of disobedience as a believer. Your salvation is intact, but your sanctification is in trouble in this life. Thank you so very much. My apologies again.