Hebrews 6:4-6 - Scariest verse in the Bible Explained - Can you LOSE your SALVATION? Jason Willis

For it is impossible for those who are once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have partaken of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

Today we're looking at Hebrews 6:4-6. And as a reminder of those who have seen part one or who were here last week, please remember that I'm just a messenger here. What I am doing is presenting to you one of the earliest, if not the earliest, documented sermon that was ever given on this particular passage by one of the early church fathers. I'm sure that it was preached many times before this, but this is one of the earliest records that actually was preserved through history.

This is a sermon that was given by John Chrysostom, who was the archbishop in Constantinople back in the 3rd century. And you will see that his take on this passage is quite different than what's taught today. And before we get into it, what I would like to do is just explain the structure of the lesson today so you know how it's going to look. First, we're going to look at Chrysostom's interpretation of this passage. And as you will see this interpretation, it was something that had become common or known in his time. Towards the end, we will look at some other examples of some other church fathers who had the same view that he had.

And maybe they were right, maybe they weren't right, maybe they were wrong. I'm simply going to lay this on the table and give you a little something to think about, and you can decide for yourself which side of the fence you want to fall on. If you remember last week, we talked about how these verses that we're talking about in today's world end up as being one of the cornerstones of the debate of whether or not salvation can be lost or if the once saved, always saved doctrine is a reality.

So first, we're going to look at the interpretation that Chrysostom had, and then we will move on to the second part of the lesson where we look at the historic view of once saved, always saved. We will zoom out and take a quick look at some of the other early church fathers and what they believed on this very popular doctrine of today.

Last week, I left you all with some homework, and that was to read Romans 6:1-10. Let's read it together. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not. How shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. Even so we should walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin, for he who has died has been freed from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, he dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died to sin once for all. But the life that he lives, he lives to God." So notice how these passages are riddled with these four concepts: death, baptism, crucifixion, and resurrection. Let's look at it again.

This is the entire passage. "We who have died to sin, we were both baptized into Christ and were baptized into his death, buried with him through baptism, and raised from the dead to live in newness of life." And then Paul somewhat repeats the cycle. He says, "The old man was crucified. We are united in his death. We are partakers of the resurrection. We died with Christ, and so we shall live with him." And finally, "Christ will never die again, for death no longer has dominion over him. The death that he died, he died once for all."

Just look at all of these statements and how they're connected with death and baptism and crucifixion and resurrection. Now I know it's a little bit redundant, but I want to look at it one more time. Because if you want to understand what Chrysostom is pointing at here in Hebrews 6:4-6, you're going to want to have these fresh in your mind.

This time, though, as we read it, I want us to make one minor change. Let's look at this word, knowing. It has possible renderings, which include to be aware or to perceive or even I know. I would like to add one more option to this list. Not that I believe that I have the authority to define words, but it's the exact same concept, just the way that we say it today. And this phrase is with the understanding. Let me give you an example of this.

When I was 17 years old, I had a suspended driver's license due to getting what was referred to as a super speeder speeding ticket. Back in those days, if you were under 21 years old and you got a speeding ticket going more than 27 miles over the speed limit, automatic suspension of your license. So I had a suspended driver's license. And I knew that if I was driving on that license and I got pulled over, I knew 100% I was going to jail.

Out of stupidity, I decided late one night, driving down the internet to see how fast my Nissan 300DX could actually go. It was a long downhill slope down the interstate. I found out that that sucker could go up to 117 miles an hour. And it could have gone faster if it hadn't been for that cop that had passed by the side of the road.

On came the blue lights. I was pulled over knowing that I was going to jail. That is to say, I pulled over with the understanding that I was on my way to jail. So when we see this word, knowing, let us replace it with the word, with the understanding. Substituting this phrase for me, it helped me grasp the connection that Chrysostom is making a little bit better. And it might do that for some of you as well. If it doesn't, just throw it out. So back to Romans 6:4 or verse 6. "With the understanding that our old man was crucified with him.

Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death." So what was the purpose of this being crucified and buried with him? The purpose was that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. For he who dies has been freed from sin.

Verse 8. "Now if we die with Christ, we believe or if we die with Christ, meaning we were crucified with him and buried with him in baptism, then we believe also that we shall live with him." And what does this mean? Better yet, what does this look like to live with him? Paul just told us. He said that just as Christ was raised from the dead, even also we should walk in newness of life.

So this is what dying with him and raising with him looks like. We are to walk in newness of life. Now notice the intimacy that we share with this experience with our Lord. He was crucified, we were crucified. He died, we died. He was buried, we were buried. He rose, we rose. With the understanding that he would never die again.

And these verses 9 and 10, they spell this out very clearly for us. It says, "With the understanding that Christ, having been raised from the dead, he dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died to sin once for all."

Now this passage as a whole is describing one of the great mysteries of Christianity. That is, what happens in our baptism. And verse 9 and 10 tells us that we are to understand this baptism in the light of knowing or with the understanding that death no longer has dominion over him, that he will never die again, that he has conquered death. And that brings us to the end of our homework recap. Next, let's look at Hebrews 6:1-3, which lead up to 4-6, which is our passage for today.

Last week, we talked about the elementary principles or the ABCs of Christianity. This foundation was referred to in chapter 5 as milk. And we discussed that this was not in any way to diminish these core principles. To call them milk was more so a rebuke on the audience for all those who were forever listening but never learning. Chrysostom had said, "Do not think, however, that the values of the faith are diminished by being called elementary. For when Paul says, 'For everyone that uses milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness,' it is not the elementary principles that he is calling milk. He is saying that to still be doubting these things after so much teaching is a sign of a feeble mind."

Last week, we discussed how to measure or to weigh a man's life in order to determine if that man still needs to be on milk or not. This is measured by whether or not he lives a right life, whether or not he has purged himself from his sin, or if he is persisting in living in evil deeds.

This is not to be mistaken to be living a perfect or a sinless life by any stretch of the imagination. Let me explain this a bit. I wish that Christians at large were better at distinguishing between sins of ignorance and willful blatant sin. I also wish that the idea that all sins are the same was not so deeply embedded into the teachings of today.

I don't think that that is very safe. All sin is the same in the sense that sin is sin, but the idea that all sins are exactly equal can be dangerous in some people's lives. So all sin is not the same.

Let's imagine, for example, that we're at a fellowship meal and we have pizza delivered. An announcement goes out to everyone before everyone fills their plates. We have just enough pizza for everyone to get two slices. If anyone gets three slices, someone's going to go without. So there you are at the first of the line. You get the cream of the crop, the prime pick. And you go to pick up your pizza, and the tip of the cheese at the tip of your pizza doesn't detach from the next one. And you rip off half the cheese off the next slice.

If you were really preferring your brother, if you were really living a sinless life, you would put down that cheesy piece and take the one with half the cheese missing. Why? Because you know that at least 98% of the people behind you would be tickled pink to get that cheesy piece. And you know less than 1%, if not 0%, none of them want the half-naked piece.

Not all sin is the same. There is a difference between keeping the cheesy slice and looking at pornography. There's a difference. It's not the same. If it bothers your spouse that you don't put down the toilet seat and she's told you 100 times, and you don't make it important enough in your life to remember, then that's sin. But there's a difference between not putting down the toilet seat versus having hatred in your heart towards your brother and delighting when you find out that he has fallen. There's a difference. Not all sin is the same.

So when we say that the mark of a man that no longer needs milk is that he lives a right life and does not do evil deeds, this is not to say that the man never keeps the cheesy slice or forgets to put down the toilet seat. This is to say that when the man encounters the sin that he knows will defile him, that the temptation is pounding on him, the man who no longer needs milk believes with such conviction what the Bible says is true that he will resist that temptation all the way to the point where the devil actually flees from him.

This is how we know or this is not to say that they have victory every time, but it is to say that victory is there for the majority of the time. And this is what Chrysostom meant when he said, "But if anyone has faith, yet does evil," this shows that he actually has doubts concerning the faith itself, "that if a man truly believed the foundation Christian doctrines of repentance and baptism and the resurrection and judgment, if he truly believed them without a doubt, he wouldn't succumb to the evil that actually defiles him." And this is the mark of a man that's building on the foundation of Christ and no longer in need of milk.

Very quickly, let's look again at the elementary principles laid out in verses 1-3.

As we saw at the start of this lesson, our homework was saturated with the concept of baptism. Now, as we read these elementary principles again, I want you to notice how many times they pertain to baptism or a connection could be made with baptism. Principle number one, repentance from dead works and a faith towards God. This is to live a pure life, one that is repentant, not perfect, but repentant. Now, how does this tie to baptism?

In Acts 2:38, then Peter says to them, "Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." So repentance and baptism are closely related. The command to repent immediately precedes the command to be baptized.

Principle number two of the doctrines of baptisms. Now, this clearly has to do with baptisms. But I want you to notice something that I never noticed and I probably never would have if I didn't read Chrysostom's sermon. Notice that it does not say the doctrine of baptism, but it says the doctrine of baptisms with an S, to be in plural. Chrysostom says, "Not as if there were many baptisms, but only one." Why did he express it in the plural? This is a good question. We'll circle back to this in just a little bit. Let's look at the next one. Elementary principle number three, the laying on of the hands. Notice that this also has a close tie to baptism.

This is referring to the laying on the hands immediately following the baptism that we see in Acts 19, which says, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid their hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them." So first there's a repentance and then baptism, then immediately after that, the laying on the hands.

Elementary principle number four, the resurrection of the dead. Now, at face value, this has nothing to do with baptism, but look at this. "And of the resurrection of the dead, for this is effected in baptism and is attained in the confession." All right, so now let's take a quick look at a few passages in scripture that clearly point to the fact that there is a connection between baptism and the resurrection of the dead. So first we have Romans 6 here, and I think this is where Chrysostom was getting his ideas from. In verse 4, it says, "Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death." So there's the baptism. "That just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even though we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, then certainly we also should be in the likeness of his resurrection." So there's a clear connection there between being united in his death. If we are united together in the likeness of his death. "Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, then we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection."

The next one is 1 Peter 3:21. It says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism, not the removal of filth from the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." So there we have the resurrection. Here we see baptism giving us a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of our Lord. Then in Colossians 2:12, we see here, "Buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead." Again, we see a connection here between baptism and the resurrection.

Now, this last one here, it's a little bit more difficult to see. To my understanding, Paul in this passage, he is actually rebuking a group of people who they do not believe in the resurrection. But this particular group of people, for some reason or another, they were actually baptizing people on behalf of other people. Say, for example, that maybe you had a relative that passed away before Jesus was born, and then now Jesus has come and died and been resurrected into heaven.

And now you are baptizing, say, your father on behalf of your dead grandfather. So here Paul is addressing them, and he says, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead do not rise at all? Why are they then being baptized from the dead?" So he's saying, "If you do not even believe in the resurrection, what in the world is the point of baptizing someone on behalf of somebody else if you don't even believe in the resurrection?" So clearly, again, we see that there is a connection between baptism and the resurrection. I had always looked at this passage with an internal application.

But as you can see, Chrysostom also saw an earthly application to this connected with baptism, that the resurrection of the dead is effected when we raise from the dead in baptism. And finally, elementary principle number five, eternal judgment. Now, there is no connection with baptism here.

But to this, Chrysostom asked the following question, "But why does he say this? And of eternal judgment?" Because it was likely that having already believed, that they would either be shaken from their faith or they would live evil and slothful lives.

Therefore, Paul brings up eternal judgment to encourage them to remain vigilant. Remain vigilant. Why would they need to remain vigilant? Because it is not open for them to think that after the cleansing of baptism, that they can live a sinful life and then expect to be washed clean of their sins a second time by being baptized again. "You are deceived," Paul said, "in supposing such things."

So where is he going with this? Chrysostom has pointed out that four of the five elementary principles are connected in some way with baptism. He then says the fifth elementary principle of eternal judgment was added in an effort to make the born-again believer to remain vigilant. And then he says that the reason for this vigilant is that if they believe that they can stain themselves again with sin after their baptism, that they can just wash it away with another baptism. So where is he going with this? Let's keep going.

This brings us to verse 4. "For it is impossible for those who are once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have partaken of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame." So let's go back to verse 4 and let's start clawing our way through this. "For it is impossible." Let's start here, Chrysostom says.

Notice he used the word impossible. He did not say, "It is not seemly or it is not expedient or it is not lawful." No, he said, "It is impossible. For it is impossible for those who were enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gifts." So this phrase, "and tasted the heavenly gifts." So often we talk about the gifts of God in the plural, but notice here that it says, "and have tasted the heavenly gift." What is this? According to Chrysostom, this is referring to tasting of the forgiveness of sins, tasting having the remission of sin, that the heavenly gift is the forgiveness of sin. And we'll see this in a quote in just a little bit.

But first, let's look back again at Acts 2:38. "Repent and let every one of you be baptized for the remission of sins." There it is. So having tasted the heavenly gift is referring to the remission of sins. So we see that Chrysostom once again sees a connection in our passage today with baptism. Tasting of heavenly gift is the tasting of the remission of sin, which comes immediately at baptism.

Now, before we look back at our text, let's first look at the end of this verse. "Repent and let every one of you be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts ties these things together: repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now, look at the very next thing that comes in today's text, back to verse 4. "And having tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit." So there's the connection there.

And this is to become indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God.

And as we just read in Acts, this happens in our baptism. And so we see another connection with baptism. Next verse, verse 5. "And have tasted the good word of God." What does this mean?

Paul is speaking here of the teachings or doctrines of God. And finally, the powers of the age to come. And the powers of the world to come. What power is he speaking of? He is speaking either of the works of miracles or the conviction of the Spirit. And to illustrate this connection of being a conviction of the Spirit, he points us to 2 Corinthians, where it says, "Now he who established us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us a Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." So this is where we're at so far. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift or the remissions of sin and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit if they fall away."

Now, this term, "if they fall away," this refers to a man who has chosen to abandon his repentance, which is, if you think about it, that's what started this whole thing, "Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and be baptized." So the term fallen away refers to a man that has chosen to abandon his repentance and return to his sin. This is a man who has returned to his vomit. Tertullian says this about the man who repents unto salvation and then falls away.

He says, "A man commits no small sin against the Lord when he, by repentance, renounces the Lord's rival, the devil, then again raises him by his own return to the devil." He is clearly here speaking of someone who is saved, someone who is born again. This man he speaks of has both repented and he has renounced Satan. "A man commits no small sin against the Lord when, after, by repentance, renounced the Lord's rival, the devil, he again raised him by his own return to the devil. For such a person becomes a basis of exaltation to the devil. For he who has known both God and Satan seems to have made a comparison.

Therefore, he who has begun to make satisfaction to the Lord will, by repenting of his repentance, now make satisfaction to the devil. He will therefore be more hateful to God in proportion as he is more acceptable to God's rival."

So Tertullian did not use these specific words, "You can lose your salvation," but it's not hard to see that it's there. He says that this man has chosen his side. He has chosen his allegiance. He renounced Satan. He turned his back on Satan and he became a Christian. He repented unto salvation.

This man can still, if he chooses, turn away from his repentance. He can repent of his repentance and begin to make satisfaction to the devil. And when he does this, he becomes a basis of exaltation for the devil.

"If they fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame." So what's happening in this passage? What in the world does a man who has fallen away and then who has renewed to repentance, how in the world is that crucifying Jesus again for themselves? And how would this be putting him to an open shame? What does this even mean? Does this mean that a man can no longer repent of his sins or that God will no longer accept this person's repentance? When Paul says "renewed them unto repentance," he meant by repentance. What then? Is repentance done away with? Chrysostom asked the same question.

He's like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you trying to say that repentance is done away with?" God forbid, no. Not repentance. Well, if it's not talking about the end of repentance, then what is it talking about? What is being done away with is the idea of being renewed again by baptism. Once again, Chrysostom brings this idea of talking about a second baptism. "For he did not say impossible to be renewed unto repentance," and then stop there, but added, "Impossible to bring him to repentance by crucifying Christ again." He says, "Listen, it's impossible for one who has fallen away to be renewed again to repentance," but you can't stop reading right there in the middle of the sentence.

Paul's very next words are that they crucified to themselves the Son of God, putting him to an open shame. And this ties us into our homework. You treat it again. "Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that we were buried with him through baptism into death, we have been united together in the likeness of his death. With the understanding that Christ has been raised from the dead, he dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him. The death that he died, he died to sin once for all." Now, notice carefully how Chrysostom is using this passage in Romans to show how this passage in Hebrews in no way means that a man who falls away cannot return to God.

Instead, he argues that the entire purpose of this passage in Hebrews is to make the clear case that the Christian that has fallen away cannot be made right with God again by being rebaptized. He continues by quoting Romans 6 himself.

He says, "You were made conformed to the likeness of his death. You were buried with him in baptism. In baptism, you were crucified with him. And he dies no more. He died to sin once for all. He then that gets baptized a second time crucifies him again and puts him to open shame." This pointing to verse 6. "If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame. For if death shall no longer have dominion over him, if by his resurrection he has become superior to death, if by death he wrestled with death and overcame it, and then he's crucified again, then all these things become a fairy tale and a mockery.

If the scripture teaches that he is superior to death, he wrestled with it, he overcame it, and it no longer has dominion over him, and then if we crucify him again, everything that we just said is just made up. It's a fairy tale. It's a mockery."

Romans 6:6 says that in baptism, "You were crucified with him. Our old man is crucified with him. He then that baptizes a second time crucifies him a second time, making a mockery of him and putting him to open shame."

Back to verse 6. "To renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again." Now, the translators of Chrysostom's sermon, they translated this "crucify afresh." What does this mean, "crucify afresh"? It means crucifying again. "For as Christ died on the cross, so do we in baptism. Not that we died to the flesh, but to sin. Behold, two deaths. He died to the flesh, and in our case, the old man died and was buried in baptism, and the new man rose, made conformable to the likeness of his death. If therefore it is necessary to be baptized a second time, then it is necessary that Christ should die again. For baptism is nothing more than the putting to death of the baptized and him raising again.

Since they crucify again for themselves." What does this term mean? For themselves. And when Paul chose the words "crucify afresh" unto themselves, he chose his words well.

"For he that is rebaptized acts as if he had forgotten the grace bestowed on him in his first baptism. And then after being baptized the first time, he conducted his own life carelessly, staining it again with sin. This person acts in every way as if there was another baptism, but there isn't. Therefore, it behooves us to take heed and to make ourselves safe."

So real quickly, let's regroup. This is where we're at. The sections on the screen that are in white are the ones that we've covered. The sections in yellow are the ones we have not yet. Let's dig into them. "For it is impossible for those who are once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift." We touched on this a little bit ago. What is this?

What is having tasted the heavenly gift? It is to have tasted the remission of sin. "For this is of God alone to give. And the grace is a grace once for all. But if we were always to be saved by grace by baptism after baptism, then we would never be good.

Would we cease from sinning if we knew it was possible again to have our sins washed away?" For my part, I think not. "You were counted worthy," Paul says, "of so great a forgiveness. You were sitting in darkness. You were at enmity with God. You were at open war against him. You were alienated. You were hated of God. You were lost.

Then you have been suddenly enlightened. You have tasted the heavenly gift. You have been counted worthy of the Spirit and of the heavenly gift as adoption of sons and the kingdom of heaven and all other good things and unspeakable mysteries. And yet you choose to not even become a better man. You choose to restrain yourself with sin.

For you indeed are worthy of eternal damnation. Yet you obtain salvation and honor as if you have accomplished some great thing. How could you be rebaptized? There is no second baptism. There is not indeed. And if there is, then there is also a third and a fourth. For the previous one continually disannuls the next, and then that one by another, and so on without end." And finally, let's look at this. "And tasted," he says, "the good word of God and the powers of the world to come. That is to live as angels and to have no need of earthly things.

To know that baptism is the means of our introduction to the enjoyment of the worlds to come." This may we learn through the Spirit and enter into the sacred recesses. He even sees this part of the verse through the lens of baptism, pointing out that baptism is our way or our means by which we are introduced into the heavenly kingdoms or into the world to come.

So now let's look at Chrysostom's position from a bird's eye view. On the screen are all six of the verses. The ones highlighted in blue are the sections where at least he made some sort of connection with baptism. "Repentance from dead works. Repent and be baptized. The doctrine of baptisms. Notice that it's plural. The laying on of hands immediately after baptism. The resurrection of the dead, raised to newness of life after being crucified with him and buried with him in baptism. Tasting of the heavenly gift or the remission of sins received in baptism. Partaking of the Holy Spirit received in baptism. The power of the age to come. Baptism is our entrance into the kingdom of the ages to come.

Since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame, to be baptized again is to crucify him again. And in doing so, you make a mockery and a fable of what the Lord has accomplished."

This being said, I was wondering if Chrysostom was alone in his ideas or if there were other early church followers who may have written about this passage. It turns out that Ambrose, who also lived at the same time as Chrysostom, he wrote about this specific passage as well. If you go any further back and look in all of the Anti-Nicene writings, there's practically nothing on this passage. We just don't have much by the fourth century that this particular teaching was circulating.

Let's see what Ambrose had. The passage quoted by the heretics against repentance is explained in two ways. The first being that Hebrews 4:4 refers to the impossibility of being baptized again. The second explains that what is impossible for man is possible with God. It is evident that the writer is speaking of baptism from the very words he used, for he stated that it is impossible for those who were fallen to be renewed again to repentance in the same way as he was renewed in baptism.

This too is plain, that in him who is baptized, the Son of God is crucified. For our flesh could not be done away with sin unless it were crucified in Jesus Christ. And then it was written that all who were baptized in Jesus Christ were baptized into his death. And further on, if we have been planted in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing that our old man was fastened with him to the cross. And to the Colossians, he said, "Buried with him by baptism, wherein you rose again with him," which was written to intend that we would believe that he was crucified in us, that our sins may be purged through him, that he who alone can forgive sins may nail to the cross the charges which were against us.

So then, that which he says in the epistle to the Hebrews, that it is impossible for those who have fallen to be renewed unto repentance, crucifying again the Son of God and putting him to open shame, must be considered as having reference to baptism. "Wherein we crucify the Son of God in ourselves, that the world may be by him crucified for us. But Christ was crucified once, and he died for sin once. And so there is but one, not several, baptisms. Since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame."

So there's a few reasons why I may have never heard this before. I think it's possible because of two relatively popular beliefs.

One is that baptism is a symbol. In today's culture, baptism is mostly taught as being merely a symbol, an unnecessary symbol of a reality that has already taken place in the believer's life. With this predominant teaching, it makes perfect sense that we don't hear about people lining up to wash their sins away a second time. Many people don't even get in the water the first time.

The second popular belief that plays into this is that salvation cannot be lost, and this is the once saved, always saved doctrine. Another popular way that this is worded is by saying that all of our sins are forgiven, past, present, and future.

In a culture where baptism is a symbol and future sins are already forgiven, there is hardly need to address the idea of people wanting to be rebaptized. It makes a lot of sense.

As of yet, I have not yet seen a single hint in the early church writings of any idea that future sins that are committed after baptism are in any way pre-forgiven by some conversion experience. I see no indication that any early church father believed in the once saved, always saved doctrine. In just a moment, we will see the exact opposite of this. And I know that this is super unpopular to the world, but don't shoot me. I'm just a messenger. I'm just presenting to you what they thought. And you can read these things for yourselves. They are public domain.

With that being said, it makes sense that the concept of rebaptism may have been something or was something that may have been needed to be addressed in Chrysostom's time. Think about it. If it is true that no Christian of those days believed that their future sins were forgiven, I could see how many people would have been lined up to get rebaptized. Who knows? Maybe this was happening in Chrysostom's time. Maybe this is why he interpreted these passages this way. Maybe he was dealing with this, and it caused him to react, seeing this whole passage as being about rebaptism.

Or maybe it's exactly what God meant in this passage. I don't know. I'm not convinced that we can know 100% certain on this one. I can see Chrysostom's argument, and I can say, "Yeah, maybe that makes sense." I can also listen to other explanations, more modern explanations, views of this, and I can also look at those and say, "Yeah, that might make sense too." But just because we maybe can't know exactly what Hebrews 6:4-6 is saying, we can dig much deeper into this idea of whether or not salvation can be lost by looking at a lot of other stuff that we do have and that we do know.

Let's let Chrysostom answer this one last question, and then we will dig into the historic view of once saved, always saved. If future sins are not forgiven and rebaptism is forbidden, then what if a man sins after his baptism? Is he permanently lost? Is there no more repentance? The answer is absolutely not.

What then, you say? Is there no repentance? There is repentance. There is, but there is no second baptism. But repentance, there is, and it has great force. It is able to set a man free from the burden of sin and can establish safety in him who is in danger, even if he has gone to the very depths of wickedness.

And this is evident in many places in Scripture. For it says, "Does not he that falls rise again? Or he that turns away, does he not turn back to God?" It is possible, if we will, that Christ should be formed in us again.

For hear what Paul says, "My little children, of whom I labor and birth again until Christ be formed in you. Only let us lay hold on repentance."

Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to look at a historic view of this doctrine. And we're going to look at some Scriptures, and we're also going to look at some early church quotes. But first, let me frame the conversation. Let me plant an idea in your head. Follow me on this logic. If future sins are not forgiven, then once saved, always saved goes out the window. Once saved, always saved is dependent on the idea or the belief that when you become born again, all of your sins that you will ever commit in the future are paid for. They are forgiven. If sins are not forgiven in the future, then there is no once saved, always saved.

This next set of quotes we're going to be reading are all about repentance. And the majority of them were written by leaders and bishops who lived in the second and third century. Listen to these quotes, and you tell me if it sounds like the church of the first few centuries believed in any way that future sins are forgiven.

Clement of Alexandria. "Those who fall into sin after baptism are those who are subject to discipline. For the deeds done before baptism are remitted in baptism. However, those committed after baptism are purged through discipline." I used to believe that all my future sins were forgiven. I believed that for the majority of my life.

So I know that many people out there, when they hear these quotes, they're going to sound a whole bunch like works-based salvation, like a whole bunch of men trying to be good enough to get into heaven. That's what it's going to sound like. But the early church did believe that salvation is a free gift and that it is not obtained by works. That was clearly their belief. But they also believed that Christ came to save you from your sins, that after your baptism, after you are freely given this gift of the forgiveness of sins, that to abandon your repentance is to then refuse to be saved from your sin.

That's like trying to be saved without trying to be saved or trying to accept a free gift without accepting the free gift. So try to keep these things in mind as we read these. Methodius. "Repentance erases every sin when there is no delay after the fall of the soul. It erases every sin when the disease of sin is not allowed to go on for an extended time, for then evil will not have the power to leave its mark on us." Here, Methodius is describing a situation when a man falls and then quickly repents.

That the sin is quickly erased, he says, because the disease of sin is not allowed to remain on us. So encourage us, when we do fall, quickly repent. But what about this? What about when a Christian enters into a season of sin where he returns to his vomit and he begins to make a practice of sin again? How is this dealt with in God's eyes? Is it the same as when a man falls and repents quickly?

Listen to how Hermas describes a situation like this. "These are the ones who have now heard my commandments and repented with their whole hearts." Now notice three things that are coming up next, three things that God is looking for in this man's repentance. When the Lord saw that his repentance was good and pure and that he was able to remain in it, he ordered their former sins to be blotted out.

Through my life, I was always given the impression that after my conversion, when I sinned, the very moment that I said, "Oh God, forgive me," that I was instantly forgiven, even if I had indulged in that same sin for decade after decade, and even if I already had plans to sin that way tomorrow.

The utterance of my mouth meant that it happened in my mind. Is that the truth? That's what I was led to believe. Go back to the second century, and you see a totally different story. Here we have the Lord watching this man who has turned away from him and has begun to practice sin again. And when he finally turns back to the Lord, the Lord is waiting and watching his repentance, waiting for it to be found good and pure and to see that he's able to actually remain in it. Then he orders his former sins to be blotted out.

Next, let's turn to Clement. Now notice how he expresses the understanding that God might depart from us when we become unrepentant and then return to us once we repent. And listen to what he means repentance is. He says, "True repentance means to no longer be bound in the same sin for which he denounced death against himself.

Rather, it is to eradicate them completely from the soul. For on their extirpation, God takes up his abode in you again." This word exportation, it means to destroy completely, to wipe out, to pull up from the roots, to cut out by surgery. For once the sin has been totally destroyed, God takes up his abode in you again. He goes further. "For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of truth, there remains no sacrifice for sin," here quoting Hebrews 10. "But continual and successive repentance of sin does not differ at all from the case of the man who never believed. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so whoever believes in him will not perish.