diehard03 said:

---

Whats your criteria for determining that they've been "once enlightened"?

How do any of us know we are "enlightened"?

---

Well I can't peer into someone's heart and mind if that's what you're asking. But tell an atheist here that they were not "truly" Christians in their youth and they'll wholeheartedly disagree.

I'd say Peter's denial was brought on by fear. He didn't walk away from the faith or "completely abandon his ministry", but was back with the disciples the next day. We're all human and have experienced the fear of what our peers think of our faith, especially if death is a possibility. It wasn't a chosen path of hardening his heart like Judas.

But you're right, Satan could have easily used the opportunity to start Peter down that path.

Special pleading level: 9000.

Quote:

---

Well I can't peer into someone's heart and mind if that's what you're asking. But tell an atheist here that they were not "truly" Christians in their youth and they'll wholeheartedly disagree.

---

Sure, everyone thinks they are. But no one knows definitively whether you really have done what the author has said you have done.

Everyone is their own unreliable narrator.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well I can't peer into someone's heart and mind if that's what you're asking. But tell an atheist here that they were not "truly" Christians in their youth and they'll wholeheartedly disagree.

---

Sure, everyone thinks they are. But no one knows definitively whether you really have done what the author has said you have done.

Everyone is their own unreliable narrator.

---

So what's the point of the text? Pointing out a hypothetical that no one can know?

I've already stated what I think the point is

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3175288/replies/58500061

Quote:

---

I'd say Peter's denial was brought on by fear. He didn't walk away from the faith or "completely abandon his ministry", but was back with the disciples the next day

---

When Jesus reappeared to Peter after the resurrection he was out fishing. He had returned to the prior vocation he exercised before he ever met Jesus. The subtext is one of complete abandonment of the his ministry and loss of faith after the death of his messiah. Jesus had to appear in front of him resurrected and specifically, poignantly ask him to return to the ministry

diehard03 said:

---

Whats your criteria for determining that they've been "once enlightened"?

How do any of us know we are "enlightened"?

---

This is actually not so confusing. St Paul often co-opts language from mystery cults of the time. Pagan mystery cults were very common, and the idea was that there was some kind of initiation rite which led to a divine experience. The word mystery means initiation. The first couple of chapters of 1 Corinthians are intentionally using this kind of language to talk about coming into Christ (for example "stewards of the mysteries") contrasting the fact that those mystery cults which promise interaction with gods (which St Paul says are demons) offer no knowledge or wisdom.

"Enlightenment" directly and unequivocally means baptism as the means of entry into Spiritual knowledge. The Pe****ta, the Syricac bible, actually just says "baptism" in this verse where the Greek says "enlightenment." The fathers very frequently spoke of baptism as enlightenment or illumination. St Justin in the First Apology

Quote:

---

This baptism is called "illumination" because of the mental enlightenment that is experienced by those who learn these things. The person receiving this enlightenment is also baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything concerning Jesus.

---

This wording is preserved in the baptismal service of the Orthodox church - "you are justified, you are illumined, you are sanctified, you are washed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

We call people who come to the Church to be instructed before baptism (catechumens) those "preparing for Illumination." When we pray over them at that point, they're said to be being made ready for and we pray for them to be called to "Holy Illumination." People who have been recently baptized are "newly-Illumined".

very cool. thanks.

Going to try to spin this in a different direction with some random musings.

Even while I was lapsed from Christianity, there was something that really bothered me about atheism, and that's the entire lack of greater meaning to my life, humanity in general, and the universe at large. With any sort of deity, even a vile and capricious pagan deity, existence still has some purpose and meaning. Good things happen for a reason, suffering exists for a reason, existence exists for a reason. That has been the greatest comfort to me as a believer, and the ultimate comfort is having faith that this deity is Good. This means that all the horrible things that happen that I can't understand are all happening as part of some ultimate greater good.

On a related note, I've also been somewhat put off by the atheistic complete reliance on chance then and even moreso now. Whether it's the chance involved in our universe having parameters to exist, chance molecules forming the first life, or chance driving the evolution of life from that first, the entire worldview seems to hinge on the idea of chance. Chance is referenced as a sort of neutral, undirected mechanism for pretty much everything, but the idea of randomness has a complicated history. After all, the first mentions we have of chance/fortune/randomness/luck are always associated with deities. Makes me wonder if modern atheism hasn't just substituted one ancient divine principle (Chance) for another (Goodness)

Yeah, the first paragraph is not a proof per se, just a consequence of that worldview that is completely incompatible with my disposition.

In response to the other, yes and no. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen. It's possible the abundant silicon in the Earth's crust will spontanously arrange itself into a Ryzen 9, but it is never going to happen. I feel like there's a lot of handwaving from materialists when discussing these kinds of things. If the chance of something happening is 1 x 10^1000 power, then it actually happening could be called miraculous. And we have no idea what the actual probabilities are for things like favorable universal parameters, biogenesis, and (less so) evolution. Saying something will happen eventually given enough opportunities sounds an awful lot to me like a modern version of fate or destiny. Oddly enough, most the the ancient dieties associated with chance, luck and randomness were also associated with fate and destiny. I'm having a hard time articulating it, but I feel like there are at least a few missing terms in the "time + randomness = us" equation

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

In response to the other, yes and no. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen. It's possible the abundant silicon in the Earth's crust will spontanously arrange itself into a Ryzen 9, but it is never going to happen.

---

If human beings are purely material and our actions are deterministic and completely chemical then perhaps you could say that the Earth's crust has already spontaneously created a Ryzen 9. Many Ryzen 9's, in fact.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

In response to the other, yes and no. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen. It's possible the abundant silicon in the Earth's crust will spontanously arrange itself into a Ryzen 9, but it is never going to happen.

---

If human beings are purely material and our actions are deterministic and completely chemical then perhaps you could say that the Earth's crust has already spontaneously created a Ryzen 9. Many Ryzen 9's, in fact.

---

That's why I like Douglas Adams writing. He embraces the fact that the utter enormity of our universe could make the absurdly improbable occur many times over.

Computer parts are evidence of intelligent design!

Reality TV on the other hand...

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Saying something will happen eventually given enough opportunities sounds an awful lot to me like a modern version of fate or destiny.

---

Can't agree with this analysis more.

+++

I'm a creative type. I've often wondered if my dog or cat see the sunrise the same way my wife and I do?

I'm curious at what odds you draw the line between fate and just statistics. If I roll a six sided die enough times I will roll a one eventually. Does that mean I was fated to roll a one? Is it destiny? Or are we just assigning some supernatural agency to a situation that doesn't merit it?

Speaking of Douglas Adams, I think his analogy of the puddle is relevant here...

Quote:

---

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in an interesting hole I find myself in fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

- Douglas Adams

---

I'm not an expert in interpretation of Hebrews by any stretch, but I do have a fair amount of exegesis experience. That being said, Hebrews 6 is one of the most difficult passages to exegete in the entire New Testament. I think it is a bit too easy to say, "Have you considered Hebrews 6:4 is just wrong?" when a definitive understanding of what it means is so difficult to grasp. I will also admit I have a belief that just because I may not understand every verse, it doesn't mean that I reject the truth of the meaning of that verse or belief in the Bible as the source of truth.

I have my own opinion as to what it means, but that is colored by own systematic theology beliefs. I think what can be said with some certainty, which makes it relevant to this discussion, is two things: 1. "Losing" salvation and then returning is not possible in the sense that the sacrifice Christ made cannot be repeated. 2. One would need to have been "enlightened" in their minds to the truth of the Gospel and experienced the gifting of the Holy Spirit before these verses would apply.

To me, both of these points would allow and even endorse people being former atheist or agnostics without violating the truth of these verses. Even if a person believes in the most Reformed versions of predestination, there is still a temporal aspect of enlightenment as a being who exists in space and time.

This gets a little deeper into philosophy and particular beliefs about soteriology, but this would certainly allow for someone to be an atheist or agnostic and then be enlightened by the Holy Spirit as a first step towards belief and acceptance of the Gospel. I personally believe that atheist and agnostic are two "mental positions," if you will, that a person can be in before they accept the truth of the Gospel.


I would ask the person that quoted this verse as a proof that there is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic, what theological background are you coming from? If it is Catholic or Orthodox, I may not understand some of the underlying presuppositions about salvation that led you to that conclusion. Could you help me understand a little more where you are coming from?

I believe the poster was objecting to the concept of someone coming "back to" the faith, not of being an atheist or agnostic who comes to the faith.

Zobel said:

---

I believe the poster was objecting to the concept of someone coming "back to" the faith, not of being an atheist or agnostic who comes to the faith.

---

So this the quote that made me think differently:

Quote:

---

Maybe some atheists on this board were born in China or North Korea, but I'd say most were "once enlightened." In which case it is impossible to restore them again to repentance, or "back to faith" in your words. So to answer your question "How many former atheists/agnostics on this board?" I'd say zero.

---

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I take this to mean if you grew up being aware of Christianity, you have been "enlightened."

Or are they referring to their knowledge of specific folks on this board who they know to have been formerly professing Christians and walked away?

Yeah, one of the issues on forums is we have no idea what framework people are coming from. You have this congruence of once saved always saved, whether or not being baptized as a child saves you, what "enlightened" means, etc.

But, I believe Martin's statement is that you can't come "back to" the faith at all, and that people raised as Christians were enlightened. Hard to say for sure.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah, one of the issues on forums is we have no idea what framework people are coming from. You have this congruence of once saved always saved, whether or not being baptized as a child saves you, what "enlightened" means, etc.

But, I believe Martin's statement is that you can't come "back to" the faith at all, and that people raised as Christians were enlightened. Hard to say for sure.

---

Thanks. I'm a bit new here, but I enjoy the conversation. After reading, I have noticed that there do seem to be quite a few folks from Catholic/Orthodox background. Being a Southern Baptist, I figure I'll ask questions than make assumptions about belief systems I am not as familiar with...But your explanation makes sense.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

---

That doesn't mean what you think it means or rather what you seem to be implying it means. You have to remember Hebrews was written to those early Christians living in and around Jerusalem. They were in a sort of exile state from their old practices of temple worship, sacrifice, etc. They were seeing the sacrifices and there had to be a temptation to return to the old ways. The author of Hebrews was warning them against returning to the sacrificial system which was only a type and a shadow of the reality of Jesus Christ.

The author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to draw the readers to the idea of Christ being the substance of the sacrificial system under the Mosaic Covenant. If you read it with the idea of Christ as the reality that all the other ordinances pointed to things begin to be more clear and it gives context to the rest of the letter. Remember, that both true believers under the Mosaic Covenant weren't justified by the sacrifices but what those sacrifices pointed to ie Christ. So in that way, both those under the Mosaic Covenant and those New Covenant are saved through Christ's work.

Mrs. Lovelight said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

---

That doesn't mean what you think it means or rather what you seem to be implying it means. You have to remember Hebrews was written to those early Christians living in and around Jerusalem. They were in a sort of exile state from their old practices of temple worship, sacrifice, etc. They were seeing the sacrifices and there had to be a temptation to return to the old ways. The author of Hebrews was warning them against returning to the sacrificial system which was only a type and a shadow of the reality of Jesus Christ.

The author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to draw the readers to the idea of Christ being the substance of the sacrificial system under the Mosaic Covenant. If you read it with the idea of Christ as the reality that all the other ordinances pointed to things begin to be more clear and it gives context to the rest of the letter. Remember, that both true believers under the Mosaic Covenant weren't justified by the sacrifices but what those sacrifices pointed to ie Christ. So in that way, both those under the Mosaic Covenant and those New Covenant are saved through Christ's work.

---

That's a bit anachronistic. Many if not most of the Christians living in Jerusalem where fully Jewish followers of the Law and everything associated with that. James the Just was was widely respected for his piety and wisdom when it came to interpreting and implementing the Law. All of his successor bishops followed his lead. They all offered sacrifices in accordance with the Law. We have documentation in Acts that a few members of the Christian church in Jerusalem wanted to go take and Nazarite Vow. This vow explicity includes animal sacrifice. We know James approved of this and encouraged Paul to join them to show his support for the Law.

It wasn't until the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD that Christians (and Jews for that matter) completely broke with the sacrificial system. Most agree that Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple, and probably written to Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who would still be actively participating in sacrifices. So it doesn't make sense to intepret this passage as admonition against turning away from Jesus and back to sacrifices when these people had been both following Jesus and performing sacrifices since the very beginning of the movement.

As an entirely tangential commentary, I don't understand many Christians' attitude toward animal sacrifice. It gets treated like something sinful, evil, or just inherently bad and awful. Or at the very least it is spoken as something completely antithetical to the very concept of Christianity. Yet this was a practice commanded by and sanctioned by God Himself. Jesus offered sacrifices. All the Apostles offered sacrifices. Scores of Christians and Christian clergy offered sacrifices all the way until the destruction of the Temple without any thought that this was against Christ in any way whatsoever. Yet for some reason a lot of Christians act like offering any kind of sacrifice would be an instant renunciantion of Christiany or a complete rejection of all Christ's teaching.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Is ana short for Anabaptist?

---

No, short for the town I'm from. I didn't think about that!