By immediate context, the "partakers of the heavenly calling" are never associated with falling away. I don't accept that. They were the ones the author was warning so they do not fall away. The risk is not that they never had faith. The risk is that they stop believing (parable of the sower). Frank, the son of Frances and Edith Schaeffer, may be example of this aspect of Hebrews, absent being a Jew. In the parable of the sower, three of four people received the word and only one of four remained fruitful. In Hebrews there is no possibility of repentance, only certain judgment. If they were unsaved they would, in the common Evangelical view, be able to repent and believe the Gospel to be saved. In the Calvinist Gospel such salvation is impossible because only the elect can be saved. The unelect are forever lost no matter what they believe and do. The author of Hebrews says the audience are holy brethren and partakers, therefore they were saved, if they can be savedm if they will continue to believe.
He comes to King Saul in a ministration of prophecy.
From 1 Samuel: The LORD anointed (and uses word for Messiah) Saul, sent the Holy Spirit to him, and gave him another heart (similar to Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31). Saul was a partaker and saved. After his disobedience God rejected him from being King and punished him with death. Saul went to join the prophet Samuel in Hades. In 1 Kings, another King, Solomon, sinned against the LORD. I think both these kings were saved and hope both they found mercy and will be in heaven. Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?
And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man. And let it be, when these signs are come unto thee, that thou do as occasion serve thee; for God is with thee.
And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day. And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets? And one of the same place answered and said, But who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? And when he had made an end of prophesying, he came to the high place.
Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.
Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.
And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.
SR: By immediate context, the "partakers of the heavenly calling" are never associated with falling away.
AF: I don't accept that. They were the ones the author was warning so they do not fall away. The risk is not that they never had faith. The risk is that they stop believing (parable of the sower). Frank, the son of Frances and Edith Schaeffer, may be example of this aspect of Hebrews, absent being a Jew. In the parable of the sower, three of four people received the word and only one of four remained fruitful. In Hebrews there is no possibility of repentance, only certain judgment. If they were unsaved they would, in the common Evangelical view, be able to repent and believe the Gospel to be saved. In the Calvinist Gospel such salvation is impossible because only the elect can be saved. The unelect are forever lost no matter what they believe and do. The author of Hebrews says the audience are holy brethren and partakers, therefore they were saved, if they can be savedm if they will continue to believe.
I labor to repeat myself, but the author distinguishes between those who fall away in chapter six from the "you" of verse 9, same chapter, of whom he sees "better things," and "things that accompany salvation." You cannot ignore inspired distinctions like that and expect to arrive at a correct analysis.
As for the "common evangelical view," the passage controls our view and it does not describe someone who can be lost and saved multiple times. Evangelicals accept what you say we do not. The Pharisees are a prime example. These are unsaved people, who might have, humanly speaking been savable at some point, but they reach a point of reprobation so severe they really cannot be saved in this life or the next. It's clear from the teaching on the unpardonable sin that this is a possibility, and I am personally unaware of any evangelical perspective that would say the Pharisees who blasphemed the Holy Spirit might have been savable after all. Furthermore, as the passage in Hebrews is very much like what happened to the Pharisees, and to Judas, there is no obvious reason to propose a second category of unpardonable sin. But because the Pharisees demonstrate there is such a thing, I am surprised to hear you say you think we would deny that if also taught here in Hebrews. Unless I have misunderstood your point.
As for Frankie Schaeffer, yes, that was a heartbreak for many of us. Francis Schaeffer was a great man of God, and able by enlightened reason to forecast many of the problems we would have as a culture due to our uncritical acceptance of various godless philosophical ideas. His work was formative to my early thinking on many core issues. I sat in my car and cried when I heard on WMBI news that he had passed away. And so much more the sorrow when Frankie went south. But did Frankie meet all the conditions of Hebrews 6? I can't say. I have an epistemological problem here. Who can know but God to what degree one must have met all those criteria to be categorized as an unsavable reprobate? I don't know. So to any troubled individual who had fear of committing the unpardonable sin, I would still point them back to the single best example, the Pharisees, and suggest they probably should still seek God's mercy despite their fears, because it is not generally in the nature of the reprobate to seek God at all.
But all of this ignores election. If they have been chosen for salvation, they are going to stay chosen because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. The Father will draw them, they will come to Jesus, and Jesus will not cast them out, and as has been earlier well attested, they will be among those whom Jesus said absolutely NEVER (ou me) will be plucked form either His hand or His father's hand. God never fumbles the football. Ever.
So if Frankie Schaeffer is elect, then someday he'll come back to true faith, and it will turn out his spiritual state shall never have slipped as far as Hebrews 6:2-8. If he is not elect, then for all the benefit he has had under the teaching of the word of God and the positive influence of a godly parentage, his condemnation shall be all the more severe. To whom much is given ...
Returning briefly to Saul, the language of his change is not that of New Covenant regeneration, but of the sovereign God acting through him to serve the purposes of God for the people of Israel. Note carefully 1 Samuel 10:9. It does not say he became a new creation, co-inheritor with the blessings of Messiah, born again, washed of his sins or having the law of God written into the very core of his being, as Paul, John, and Jeremiah portray New Covenant regeneration. It says God turned him to another heart, as God did in other instances which were not regeneration as it is understood in the New Testament.
The problem is, in OT literature, the heart, the "lav," is not an exact semantic match to the Greek "pneuma" (spirit) as it is used in the New Testament concept of "born again," but has more to do with the seat of emotion and thought, one could say attitude or mental state. With Saul, God needed him to be ready to act for Israel, and God gave him what he needed to do that, even though later in his life he throws all that away for hubris and paranoia, ultimately ending his own life. If he were here, he is exactly the person to whom I could give no comfort that he was saved. Ultimately, that remains between him and God, though I do not see it ending well, speaking as a fallible human.
For another example, consider Balaam:
Numbers 24:1-2 And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. (2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him.
Yet Balaam was no friend of God or God's people, as you well know, nor was he ever, but God prevented him from cursing His people by
sending His Spirit upon him. There is a whole subtopic here of "common grace," which we will not address for now, but it is quite interesting as a way to understand these kinds of events.
Similar language is used here of Nebuchadnezzer, although in a negative sense, but with a focus on a changed heart:
Daniel 4:16 Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.
This is not described as the Holy Spirit's work, yet it is still using the language of a changed heart. So clearly a changed heart in OT context does NOT automatically imply anything like New Covenant regeneration.
The principle in the OT seems rather to be focused on God's sovereign rulership over the plans men make, no matter how powerful they think they are:
Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
So arguing from the greater to the lesser, if even the king's heart may be turned as God sees fit for His own purposes, anyone's heart might be thus turned, and not necessarily for salvation, but to work out the purposes of God. For example again, the voluntary/involuntary prophecy of Caiaphas the High Priest, that one man should suffer for the nation. And no one I hope is going to argue that wicked man was momentarily regenerate. Such a desperate appeal to a false consistency would end up being a mockery of what we have been given in the New Covenant understanding of the washing of regeneration, the washing away of all of our sin by the blood of Jesus, the new birth that makes us new creations ready to see God's kingdom, the life that is within us which is eternal life, and therefore can never end, either in this life or the next. It is not eternal if it can be lost.
As for whether faith is a gift, I ask you to reconsider your analysis of this passage:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The gender mismatch argument you mentioned does not solve the organization of this passage. There is a gender mismatch between the neuter “that (touto)” in “
that not of yourselves,” and the earlier noun “pistos,” “faith,” which is feminine. However, this does
not unlink "faith" from "gift of God," because “charis (grace)” is also feminine, and “sodzo (save)” is masculine, theoretically leaving the neuter “touto” pointing to ... nothing? How can that be? If faith is not the referent, what is? Based on your theory of gender mismatch, it can’t refer to any of the other preceding components of salvation either.
Most authorities I have found believe it is something Paul does elsewhere, use a neuter pronoun to package an entire concept, the main heading for a bulleted list, as it were. Thus, if this is correct, he is referring to all the constituent parts as a gift or as the components of a gift. As faith is one of those constituents, it is a fair exegesis to understand Paul is saying that grace, the basis, faith, the means, and salvation, the result, are
all the gift of God, so that a saved man has nothing to boast about. Nothing at all. And that, after all, is his point, isn’t it? Why would he mention anything that didn’t buttress his main conclusion?
There are other passages which strongly point to faith as a gift, but I am out of time for now. Perhaps more later.
Peace,
SR