It Is Impossible ?

[Doulos Iesou]

This Scripture has bugged me for a lot of years, and I think i only talked about it once here somewhere around when I first joined just about 10 years ago. I have heard people try to explain it, but they seem to have trouble with it pastors and everybody else, because of the word IMPOSSIBLE in verse 4 of Hebrews 6:4-6. Years ago Hebrews 6:4-6 use to scare me to death. Because as much as I was messing up, those Scriptures would scare me to death every time I would think of them or read them. I really can't even remember some of the things I heard pastors say on this topic. So what say some of you Holy Ghost filled Bible readers here ?

Hebrews 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Peter was enlightened, and yet when he denied Christ 3 times, he was still able to repent and be restored. I think this text has a historical background that needs to be taken into account, as these people are Jewish Christians. They came from the sacrificial system, which I think is the main thrust of the text. That if one were to fall back to the old sacrificial system, they would be in a way, crucifying Jesus all over again because they are saying that his first sacrifice was not enough and more blood was necessary to atone for sins.

For such a person to go back to the sacrificial system after being enlightened about Jesus and the gospel, such a person cannot be restored.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The key words here are impossible and if.
It is impossible, period.
If it was something that we could do, the passage would read "when they shall fall away" rather than "if they shall fall away".

There is no "if" in the actual text, that's a mistake on the part of the KJV. Newer versions don't make that mistake.

"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." Hebrews 6:6 (ESV)

The Greek word that we translate, "have (or having) fallen away," which is παραπεσόντας, is in the accusative case, not the subjunctive so there is no questioning in this case on the question of "if," and the word prior to it καὶ is a simple conjunction that is correctly translated "and then."

Your argument does not fit the text.

 

[reba]

Doulos Iesou Not meaning this question as a point of argument but looking for reason and understanding.....

Peter's denial was before the Cross ... would/could that have any bearing?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

There is no "if" in the actual text, that's a mistake on the part of the KJV. Newer versions don't make that mistake.

"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." Hebrews 6:6 (ESV)

The Greek word that we translate, "have (or having) fallen away," which is παραπεσόντας, is in the accusative case, not the subjunctive so there is no questioning in this case on the question of "if," and the word prior to it καὶ is a simple conjunction that is correctly translated "and then."

Your argument does not fit the text.

Interesting how old translations are always wrong.
And what do you do when an even newer translation comes along and changes the whole thing again?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Interesting how old translations are always wrong.
And what do you do when an even newer translation comes along and changes the whole thing again?

I appealed to the original Greek, to show you why the new translation is correct and the KJV is wrong. You can look over that again to see, I didn't just arbitrarily pronounce one wrong and right.

If you think I am wrong, then please address the actual substance of my argument, rather than present a straw man (i.e. new translations are always right [not my argument]).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos Iesou Not meaning this question as a point of argument but looking for reason and understanding.....

Peter's denial was before the Cross ... would/could that have any bearing?

You mean to say that the Cross made God less forgiving, in that he would not have forgiven Peter after he rejected him after the Cross?

God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we repent and confess.

 

[Deborah13]

Interesting how old translations are always wrong.
And what do you do when an even newer translation comes along and changes the whole thing again?

See the Greek text, transliteration, and the KJV translation side by side. I don't see an 'if'.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

Young's Literal Translation, doesn't have it either and it's not new.
Heb 6:5 and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age,
Heb 6:6 and having fallen away, again to renew them to reformation, having crucified again to themselves the Son of God, and exposed to public shame.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I appealed to the original Greek, to show you why the new translation is correct and the KJV is wrong. You can look over that again to see, I didn't just arbitrarily pronounce one wrong and right.

If you think I am wrong, then please address the actual substance of my argument, rather than present a straw man (i.e. new translations are always right [not my argument]).

I don't know Greek, I don't know your version, and I certainly don't know you.
But after all these years of many scholars putting together the Bible, suddenly you have something new that changes everything and you think I'm suppose to believe it.
Good luck with that!

 

[Deborah13]

Doulos Iesou Not meaning this question as a point of argument but looking for reason and understanding.....

Peter's denial was before the Cross ... would/could that have any bearing?

I think the answer to this question is the same as 'what is willful sin'. Peter, did not reject Jesus as his Savior and Lord. He did not do anything in order to cause the Lord any harm, or blasphemy the Lord, or deny that Jesus was the Messiah. What Peter did was because of fear he denied that he knew Jesus. It's not the same thing because it was not done out of maliciousness towards Jesus. That was not the intent of his heart.

imo..
Even when we look at Judas we see that his intent was not to do any real harm to Jesus because his conscience bothers him about hurting an innocent man. Judas' problem was that he really didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. Judas could have repented but he didn't because of unbelief.

 

[WIP]

I think the answer to this question is the same as 'what is willful sin'. Peter, did not reject Jesus as his Savior and Lord. He did not do anything in order to cause the Lord any harm, or blasphemy the Lord, or deny that Jesus was the Messiah. What Peter did was because of fear he denied that he knew Jesus. It's not the same thing because it was not done out of maliciousness towards Jesus. That was not the intent of his heart.

imo..
Even when we look at Judas we see that his intent was not to do any real harm to Jesus because his conscience bothers him about hurting an innocent man. Judas' problem was that he really didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. Judas could have repented but he didn't because of unbelief.

I was trying to find the words to say what you just did so well.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't know Greek, I don't know your version, and I certainly don't know you.
But after all these years of many scholars putting together the Bible, suddenly you have something new that changes everything and you think I'm suppose to believe it.
Good luck with that!

It's nothing new, the King James Version which is partially based off of the Latin Vulgate, is the only one to my knowledge that makes the mistake of translating it into the word "if."

I do know the Greek, and I even showed you in the Greek text that there is no "if."

You can believe whatever you want on the matter, but I for one will be basing my interpretation off of the Greek text, which is supported by all modern Greek scholars. Not a faulty translation.
Good luck with that!

 

[Doulos Iesou]

See the Greek text, transliteration, and the KJV translation side by side. I don't see an 'if'.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

Young's Literal Translation, doesn't have it either and it's not new.
Heb 6:5 and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age,
Heb 6:6 and having fallen away, again to renew them to reformation, having crucified again to themselves the Son of God, and exposed to public shame.

Don't bother, people will pick and choose their favorite translation to support whatever interpretation they want. Regardless of what the Greek has to say.

 

[Deborah13]

Don't bother, people will pick and choose their favorite translation to support whatever interpretation they want. Regardless of what the Greek has to say.

Well, I'll give it one more try.
Adam Clarke (not a Calvinist) quoting Dr. MacKnight (was a Calvinist)
"If they shall fall away - Και παραπεσοντας And having fallen away. I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: "The participles φωτισθεντας, who were enlightened, γευσαμενους, have tasted, and γενηθεντας, were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, παραπεσοντας, being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, Have fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, If they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated παραπεσοντας in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/hebrews/6.htm

 

[chessman]

For it is impossible …
For __?___is impossible …
What is the “it” that goes in the blank?
Answer = “to renew them again to repentance”
For “to renew them again to repentance” is impossible.
Also, there’s something else that’s impossible here in this passage:
Crucifying Christ again for yourself is impossible.

Is the author telling me Christian people cannot repent again (ever)? No, that’s not what the text says (but that’s what a lot of people think this passage says (for some reason I don’t quite fully understand why they think this). What it actually says is that to renew… (some translations use restore) them again (a second time) is impossible. In other words a second renewal is as impossible as a second crucifixion is.

Hazard a guess as to what the root-word “renew” or “restore” is in the Greek? It will surprise you, if you’ve never looked into it! It did me, anyway. If you’re really interested in what’s impossible (Renewal/Restoration, according to the author of Hebrews) I’d highly recommend that you look up for yourself (convince yourself) how this word is used Biblically in other passages. It will surprise you, I think.

But here’s my take on what I found (right or wrong):
That particular form of the word technically has one (and only one) occurrence in the entire NT here in Heb 6:6. I believe for a specific reason. i.e. this particular form of the word (cognate) is unusual (1 occurrence). In fact, Heb 6:6 has two such unique cognates in it (that only occurs once in the entire NT). But their root words are not unusual and they are related. I believe they take these unique forms because the author is actually presenting a logical argumentation technique called “argumentum absurdum” and linguistically relating “renew again” (anakainizó: to renew) to “crucified again” (anastauroó: to crucify again) within his logical argument (that is the Biblical argument). The author’s argument is obviously comparing these two things, so-to-speak, to each other linguistically and logically. One ‘thing’ is so absurd (and everybody knows that it is) then/therefore, logically speaking, so is this other ‘thing’ impossible/absurd.

Cognate: 340anakainízō (from 303/aná, "up, completing a process" and kainizō, "make new," which is derived from 2537/kainós, "new in quality") – properly, to restore (bring back) by renewing; literally, "make qualitatively new." See 342 (anakainōsis).​

Here’s one example of how the word “renew” is used elsewhere using another cognate:

Acts 2:23 (NASB) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.​

Yes, that’s right. The word translated “renew ” within Heb 6:4-6 is literally translated as “death” elsewhere. Any idea why? See Romans 8:13 as that person’s old-self has been put to death already. You cannot kill a dead person. It’s absurd.

Crucifying Christ again (a second time) is absurd/impossible, is it not? So is it not equally absurd/impossible to completely and qualitatively make new (i.e. save) a saved person again (a second time)? It’s like a pregnant woman more pregnant. Why is it absurd to save someone a second time? Umm, because they ARE already completely renewed by their belief in the death of Jesus on the cross, that’s why. Just as Christ has already been crucified, they have been renewed!

Another example of this type of argument absurdum, Paul says:

Galatians 2:17 (LEB) But if while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also have been found to be sinners, then is Christ an agent of sin? May it never be!​

Is Christ an agent of sin? Umm no, that’s absurd! Therefore, is a “Jesus is Lord” converted Jew who is seeking to be justified by Christ (and thusly abandoning all the Jewish sacrifices, rituals, etc. ) going to be found sinful? Umm, no he’s not going to be found sinful, is Paul’s point. Same type of argument absurdum is going on in the Heb 6:4-6 passage.

Likewise, can someone crucify again for themselves Christ? Umm, no!

Can a saved person be saved again? Umm, no!
Why? Because they are already renewed/saved (just as Christ has already been crucified) when they believed that in their Holy Spirit enlightened hearts, through the Grace of God of course, which saved them the second they believed) seems to be Hebrew’s 6:4-6’s point, to me.

I honestly have no idea why anyone would think this passage teaches anti-OSAS and/or walking away from salvation (unless they were desperately looking to find an anti-OSAS passage). It teaches the complete opposite, in my opinion. (unless you think someone can re-crucify Christ again, I suppose.)

Also, a second point about this passage relative to the anti-OSAS teaching within this passage (or lack thereof):
The next time I run into a Jew that was formerly sacrificing animals for the forgiveness of their sins each week/month/year (which BTW doesn’t happen anymore, so I doubt very seriously I’ll ever actually run into one in this life) yet they become enlightened by the Holy Spirit and RENEWED (qualitatively made a new person by the death of the old-man) by their trusting in Jesus/Messiah for their salvation, I’ll point out this passage to them. My point is that the author is NOT using “fall away” as some sort of a euphemism for fall from salvation in the first place. He’s talking about Jews going back to re-sacrificing animals, which really doesn’t apply to Gentile believers in the first place.

It is as impossible to find a Jew alive today who’s fallen away from the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment of Jesus -Messiah back into their temple/animal sacrifices as it is for someone to re-crucify Christ again. Jews don't sacrifice in the temple anymore. It's been destroyed. (or should I say qualitatively renewed in Jesus!)

 

[reba]

There is no "if" in the actual text, that's a mistake on the part of the KJV. Newer versions don't make that mistake.

"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." Hebrews 6:6 (ESV)

The Greek word that we translate, "have (or having) fallen away," which is παραπεσόντας, is in the accusative case, not the subjunctive so there is no questioning in this case on the question of "if," and the word prior to it καὶ is a simple conjunction that is correctly translated "and then."

Your argument does not fit the text.

Doulos Iesou Not meaning this question as a point of argument but looking for reason and understanding.....

Peter's denial was before the Cross ... would/could that have any bearing?

Dashed my hopes for not being argumentative... I was not making an argument ... not every thing is a challenge

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well, I'll give it one more try.
Adam Clarke (not a Calvinist) quoting Dr. MacKnight (was a Calvinist)
"If they shall fall away - Και παραπεσοντας And having fallen away. I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: "The participles φωτισθεντας, who were enlightened, γευσαμενους, have tasted, and γενηθεντας, were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, παραπεσοντας, being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, Have fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, If they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated παραπεσοντας in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/hebrews/6.htm

Good stuff!

 

[reba]

How often do we adjust the Scriptures to fit our theologies ....
KJV
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.


NIV
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age6 and who have fallen To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God.8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

4
1599 Geneva Bible

For it is mpossible that they which were once lightened, and havetasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come,

6 If they fall away, should be renewed again by repentance: seeing they crucify again to themselves the Son of God, and make a mock of him.

7
For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing of God.

8 But that which beareth thorns and briars, is reproved, and is near unto cursing, whose end is to be burned.



Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

4 for [it is] impossible for those once enlightened, having tasted also of the heavenly gift, and partakers having became of the Holy Spirit,

5 and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age,

6 and having fallen away, again to renew [them] to reformation, having crucified again to themselves the Son of God, and exposed to public shame.

7 For earth, that is drinking in the rain many times coming upon it, and is bringing forth herbs fit for those because of whom also it is dressed, doth partake of blessing from God,

8 and that which is bearing thorns and briers [is] disapproved of, and nigh to cursing, whose end [is] for burning;

 

[Gregg]

For it is impossible …
For __?___is impossible …
What is the “it” that goes in the blank?
Answer = “to renew them again to repentance”
For “to renew them again to repentance” is impossible.
Also, there’s something else that’s impossible here in this passage:
Crucifying Christ again for yourself is impossible.

Is the author telling me Christian people cannot repent again (ever)? No, that’s not what the text says (but that’s what a lot of people think this passage says (for some reason I don’t quite fully understand why they think this). What it actually says is that to renew… (some translations use restore) them again (a second time) is impossible. In other words a second renewal is as impossible as a second crucifixion is.

Hazard a guess as to what the root-word “renew” or “restore” is in the Greek? It will surprise you, if you’ve never looked into it! It did me, anyway. If you’re really interested in what’s impossible (Renewal/Restoration, according to the author of Hebrews) I’d highly recommend that you look up for yourself (convince yourself) how this word is used Biblically in other passages. It will surprise you, I think.

But here’s my take on what I found (right or wrong):
That particular form of the word technically has one (and only one) occurrence in the entire NT here in Heb 6:6. I believe for a specific reason. i.e. this particular form of the word (cognate) is unusual (1 occurrence). In fact, Heb 6:6 has two such unique cognates in it (that only occurs once in the entire NT). But their root words are not unusual and they are related. I believe they take these unique forms because the author is actually presenting a logical argumentation technique called “argumentum absurdum” and linguistically relating “renew again” (anakainizó: to renew) to “crucified again” (anastauroó: to crucify again) within his logical argument (that is the Biblical argument). The author’s argument is obviously comparing these two things, so-to-speak, to each other linguistically and logically. One ‘thing’ is so absurd (and everybody knows that it is) then/therefore, logically speaking, so is this other ‘thing’ impossible/absurd.

Cognate: 340anakainízō (from 303/aná, "up, completing a process" and kainizō, "make new," which is derived from 2537/kainós, "new in quality") – properly, to restore (bring back) by renewing; literally, "make qualitatively new." See 342 (anakainōsis).​

Here’s one example of how the word “renew” is used elsewhere using another cognate:

Acts 2:23 (NASB) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.​

Yes, that’s right. The word translated “renew ” within Heb 6:4-6 is literally translated as “death” elsewhere. Any idea why? See Romans 8:13 as that person’s old-self has been put to death already. You cannot kill a dead person. It’s absurd.

Crucifying Christ again (a second time) is absurd/impossible, is it not? So is it not equally absurd/impossible to completely and qualitatively make new (i.e. save) a saved person again (a second time)? It’s like a pregnant woman more pregnant. Why is it absurd to save someone a second time? Umm, because they ARE already completely renewed by their belief in the death of Jesus on the cross, that’s why. Just as Christ has already been crucified, they have been renewed!

Another example of this type of argument absurdum, Paul says:

Galatians 2:17 (LEB) But if while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also have been found to be sinners, then is Christ an agent of sin? May it never be!​

Is Christ an agent of sin? Umm no, that’s absurd! Therefore, is a “Jesus is Lord” converted Jew who is seeking to be justified by Christ (and thusly abandoning all the Jewish sacrifices, rituals, etc. ) going to be found sinful? Umm, no he’s not going to be found sinful, is Paul’s point. Same type of argument absurdum is going on in the Heb 6:4-6 passage.

Likewise, can someone crucify again for themselves Christ? Umm, no!

Can a saved person be saved again? Umm, no!
Why? Because they are already renewed/saved (just as Christ has already been crucified) when they believed that in their Holy Spirit enlightened hearts, through the Grace of God of course, which saved them the second they believed) seems to be Hebrew’s 6:4-6’s point, to me.

I honestly have no idea why anyone would think this passage teaches anti-OSAS and/or walking away from salvation (unless they were desperately looking to find an anti-OSAS passage). It teaches the complete opposite, in my opinion. (unless you think someone can re-crucify Christ again, I suppose.)

Also, a second point about this passage relative to the anti-OSAS teaching within this passage (or lack thereof):
The next time I run into a Jew that was formerly sacrificing animals for the forgiveness of their sins each week/month/year (which BTW doesn’t happen anymore, so I doubt very seriously I’ll ever actually run into one in this life) yet they become enlightened by the Holy Spirit and RENEWED (qualitatively made a new person by the death of the old-man) by their trusting in Jesus/Messiah for their salvation, I’ll point out this passage to them. My point is that the author is NOT using “fall away” as some sort of a euphemism for fall from salvation in the first place. He’s talking about Jews going back to re-sacrificing animals, which really doesn’t apply to Gentile believers in the first place.

It is as impossible to find a Jew alive today who’s fallen away from the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment of Jesus -Messiah back into their temple/animal sacrifices as it is for someone to re-crucify Christ again. Jews don't sacrifice in the temple anymore. It's been destroyed. (or should I say qualitatively renewed in Jesus!)

Thank you Chessman for taking the time to study and write what you have. I agree that the single use of this word is in keeping with the one crucifixion and the one renewal for believers.

The one crucifixion is all sufficient for the one renewal of a believer. The Eternal Life has given us a life that is eternal; not sporadic, occasional, on-again-off-again, possibly maybe almost kind-of, wait to see what you get when you open it type life - but life eternal.

 

[Gary]

This is the passage of Scripture that says to me we can walk away from our Salvation

 

[gr8grace3]

For it is impossible …
For __?___is impossible …
What is the “it” that goes in the blank?
Answer = “to renew them again to repentance”
For “to renew them again to repentance” is impossible.
Also, there’s something else that’s impossible here in this passage:
Crucifying Christ again for yourself is impossible.

Is the author telling me Christian people cannot repent again (ever)? No, that’s not what the text says (but that’s what a lot of people think this passage says (for some reason I don’t quite fully understand why they think this). What it actually says is that to renew… (some translations use restore) them again (a second time) is impossible. In other words a second renewal is as impossible as a second crucifixion is.

Hazard a guess as to what the root-word “renew” or “restore” is in the Greek? It will surprise you, if you’ve never looked into it! It did me, anyway. If you’re really interested in what’s impossible (Renewal/Restoration, according to the author of Hebrews) I’d highly recommend that you look up for yourself (convince yourself) how this word is used Biblically in other passages. It will surprise you, I think.

But here’s my take on what I found (right or wrong):
That particular form of the word technically has one (and only one) occurrence in the entire NT here in Heb 6:6. I believe for a specific reason. i.e. this particular form of the word (cognate) is unusual (1 occurrence). In fact, Heb 6:6 has two such unique cognates in it (that only occurs once in the entire NT). But their root words are not unusual and they are related. I believe they take these unique forms because the author is actually presenting a logical argumentation technique called “argumentum absurdum” and linguistically relating “renew again” (anakainizó: to renew) to “crucified again” (anastauroó: to crucify again) within his logical argument (that is the Biblical argument). The author’s argument is obviously comparing these two things, so-to-speak, to each other linguistically and logically. One ‘thing’ is so absurd (and everybody knows that it is) then/therefore, logically speaking, so is this other ‘thing’ impossible/absurd.

Cognate: 340anakainízō (from 303/aná, "up, completing a process" and kainizō, "make new," which is derived from 2537/kainós, "new in quality") – properly, to restore (bring back) by renewing; literally, "make qualitatively new." See 342 (anakainōsis).​

Here’s one example of how the word “renew” is used elsewhere using another cognate:

Acts 2:23 (NASB) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.​

Yes, that’s right. The word translated “renew ” within Heb 6:4-6 is literally translated as “death” elsewhere. Any idea why? See Romans 8:13 as that person’s old-self has been put to death already. You cannot kill a dead person. It’s absurd.

Crucifying Christ again (a second time) is absurd/impossible, is it not? So is it not equally absurd/impossible to completely and qualitatively make new (i.e. save) a saved person again (a second time)? It’s like a pregnant woman more pregnant. Why is it absurd to save someone a second time? Umm, because they ARE already completely renewed by their belief in the death of Jesus on the cross, that’s why. Just as Christ has already been crucified, they have been renewed!

Another example of this type of argument absurdum, Paul says:

Galatians 2:17 (LEB) But if while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also have been found to be sinners, then is Christ an agent of sin? May it never be!​

Is Christ an agent of sin? Umm no, that’s absurd! Therefore, is a “Jesus is Lord” converted Jew who is seeking to be justified by Christ (and thusly abandoning all the Jewish sacrifices, rituals, etc. ) going to be found sinful? Umm, no he’s not going to be found sinful, is Paul’s point. Same type of argument absurdum is going on in the Heb 6:4-6 passage.

Likewise, can someone crucify again for themselves Christ? Umm, no!

Can a saved person be saved again? Umm, no!
Why? Because they are already renewed/saved (just as Christ has already been crucified) when they believed that in their Holy Spirit enlightened hearts, through the Grace of God of course, which saved them the second they believed) seems to be Hebrew’s 6:4-6’s point, to me.

I honestly have no idea why anyone would think this passage teaches anti-OSAS and/or walking away from salvation (unless they were desperately looking to find an anti-OSAS passage). It teaches the complete opposite, in my opinion. (unless you think someone can re-crucify Christ again, I suppose.)

Also, a second point about this passage relative to the anti-OSAS teaching within this passage (or lack thereof):
The next time I run into a Jew that was formerly sacrificing animals for the forgiveness of their sins each week/month/year (which BTW doesn’t happen anymore, so I doubt very seriously I’ll ever actually run into one in this life) yet they become enlightened by the Holy Spirit and RENEWED (qualitatively made a new person by the death of the old-man) by their trusting in Jesus/Messiah for their salvation, I’ll point out this passage to them. My point is that the author is NOT using “fall away” as some sort of a euphemism for fall from salvation in the first place. He’s talking about Jews going back to re-sacrificing animals, which really doesn’t apply to Gentile believers in the first place.

It is as impossible to find a Jew alive today who’s fallen away from the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment of Jesus -Messiah back into their temple/animal sacrifices as it is for someone to re-crucify Christ again. Jews don't sacrifice in the temple anymore. It's been destroyed. (or should I say qualitatively renewed in Jesus!)

BINGO!! DING,DING,DING!!!

Thank you Sir!