Hebrews 6:4-9 [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Sheepdog

October 28th 2003, 02:54 AM

hiya Brett,

Yesterday @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259809#post259809)
brett:

Let’s examine these terms closely.

ENLIGHTENED—compare to John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, ENLIGHTENS EVERY man.

hold on. if we are going to understand a term as used by a Bible writer, i think we should seek to understand how that undividual writer uses the word:

But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,
partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. Hebrews 10:32,33. I'd like to wait until someone familiar with the Greek jumps in (*nudge nudge, Jaltus*), but suffice it to say, "after being enlightened" is synonymous with "after becoming a Christian." Why accept suffering for something you haven't staked your faith in yet? The primary motive behind persecuting another was to discourage them from a belief the already adhere to. Thus i think it was unlikely (though not impossible) that one would be persecuted for simply "being enlightened," if it merely meant being exposed to the gospel.

TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT—compare to Matt. 26:26 ....Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, EAT; this is My body.” & John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone EATS of this bread, he shall live forever; .....”

Also not a salvation term (IMHO). If the author wanted to communicate these were saved individuals, why didn’t He use the term “....EATEN of ...” instead of “tasted of ....?

To the contrary, here is an exerpt from my background commentary:1
The concept of "tasting" here has at times been misinterpreted to mean "partially ingested," but this understanding cannot hold up to scrutiny. Rather, as in Jesus' tasting death in 2:9, to taste something means to experience it. To "taste the goodness of the word of God" perhaps follows from the "spiritual food" imagery of 5:11-14, and recalls the exhortation of Psalm 34:8, "Taste and see that the LORD is good," and the exultation of 119:103, "How sweet are your words to my taste!"

the evidence is strongly in favor of tasting being roughly equivalent to "eating" in Jesus' discourse.

PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT—compare to Eph. 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit of promise, & Titus 3:5 He saved us, ....by the ....RENEWING by the Holy Spirit, & 2Tim. 1:14 ...the Holy Spirit who DWELLS in us.... & Mark 1:8 “...but He will BAPTIZE you with the Holy Spirit.”.

Why didn’t he use terms such as “sealed with...“ or “baptized in.....” or “indwelt with....”? And surely if an unsaved person can be enlightened by the H.S., he can also be a partaker in Him.

without a great deal of data handy ATM regarding "to partake" in the Greek, I am at a loss to understand what the difference is. In the English at least, it gives a strong connotation of "sharing" or "to be a participant in." Again, it seems to be roughly equivalent to the alternatives (e.g. "sealed with"). The idea the writer is seeking to give is that these people had as much of the Holy Spirit as any of the Christians the writer was addressing. So, there is no reason to presume they weren't Spirit filled as the Christians are that the writer is addressing. (otherwise, why not specifically address "those weak in faith" or something?).

Again, this interpretation relies on the English, although i looked up the Greek in Strong's.

TASTED THE GOOD WORD OF GOD—compare to 1John 2:14 ...Because you are strong, and the word of God ABIDES in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.

Why didn’t he use the term “abided in....”?

See above regarding "to taste."

Plus you have the categorical statement in verse 9

But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation.

Actually, according to Zondervan, "Expressing confidence in an audience or recipients of a letter was a rhetorical device used to create a sense of obligation or to persuade those addressed to take a course of action."2 Hence, it was more of a challenge to persevere. It would be like sending an email to all the resident in a college dorm, saying, "Now, we know none of you download mp3's illegally..."

Thus, we are somewhat obliged to take it as a "do not fall away" text, implicitely stating that a true Christian believer can fall away.

Citations:

1. Clinton E. Arnold, ed. "A Harsh Warning Against Falling Away." Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. vol. 4. pp. 37,38. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.

2. ibid. "Further Encouragement." p. 39.

Reasonable

October 28th 2003, 09:26 AM

And of course, if you look at the next verse (Hebrews 6:6) the writer goes on by saying these ones have 'fallen away' and that it was impossible for them to 'revive' them 'again' to repentance.

Fallen away means they were once upheld
Revive means they were once there
Again means they were, at one time, repentant.

And if you look at the chapter before this one, Paul says Jesus is responsible for salvation for all those 'obeying' him. (Heb 5:9)

OSAS have some unique ways of interpreting this scripture but the problem with their doctrine is that in nearly every book of the NT (if not every book) we are warned about maintaining our faith and losing our salvation. It's not one twisted interpretation that they have to do. There's scores of scriptures that have to be cut and chopped to uphold the OSAS belief.

And their pro-OSAS scriptures are strained at best. Although, if it were OSAS, we could have a lot smaller Bible and end a lot of debates and splintering of the churches.

themuzicman

October 28th 2003, 01:05 PM

Yesterday @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259809#post259809)
brett:

This thread is a splinter from Vladimir's “Can I lose salvation?” I thought it would be good to start a thread that focuses on Hebrews 6:4-9. This is a verse often quoted to refute eternal security or once saved always saved (OSAS). I’m persuaded this passage supports OSAS, but looking forward to hearing other arguments. Please chime in if you have anything to say.

First I’ll respond to mandolin.

Let’s examine these terms closely.

ENLIGHTENED—compare to John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, ENLIGHTENS EVERY man.

Definitely not a salvation term. If EVERY man is enlightened this also includes the unsaved.

TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT—compare to Matt. 26:26 ....Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, EAT; this is My body.” & John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone EATS of this bread, he shall live forever; .....”

Also not a salvation term (IMHO). If the author wanted to communicate these were saved individuals, why didn’t He use the term “....EATEN of ...” instead of “tasted of ....?

PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT—compare to Eph. 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit of promise, & Titus 3:5 He saved us, ....by the ....RENEWING by the Holy Spirit, & 2Tim. 1:14 ...the Holy Spirit who DWELLS in us.... & Mark 1:8 “...but He will BAPTIZE you with the Holy Spirit.”.

Why didn’t he use terms such as “sealed with...“ or “baptized in.....” or “indwelt with....”? And surely if an unsaved person can be enlightened by the H.S., he can also be a partaker in Him.

TASTED THE GOOD WORD OF GOD—compare to 1John 2:14 ...Because you are strong, and the word of God ABIDES in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.

Why didn’t he use the term “abided in....”?

The terms used Hebrews 6 are never use to describe salvation anywhere in scripture. Plus you have the categorical statement in verse 9

But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation.

I don't see any support here for the doctrine of losing salvation. Looking forward to some feedback.

Can you split that hair any finer?

The "partakers of the Holy Spirit" can't be any clearer. Can you show where those who are unsaved have "partaken of the Holy Spirit"?

No, these aren't salvation terms. They refer to those who have already been saved. Your argument seems to imply that because they didn't use terms that describe the salvation process that it cannot refer to those who are or were saved!

Remember that Hebrews is written to a different audience than Paul's epistles, so a different wording is going to be used.

Michael

Twinsfan1

October 28th 2003, 02:37 PM

Hey Gang,

I remember when I was looking into this a few years ago. I came across the explanation from Weist's Word Studies (not sure of the spelling here) that partaker does not necessarily mean "possesser."

Meaning (and again, I am trying to remember this from 15 odd years ago) that in this case of Scripture, the passage is not dealing with believers, but with those who have "tasted" what God has to offer in salvation, but have not actually taken possession of it by trusting in Christ.

I may be way off here, but it wouldn't be the first time! My questions regarding eternal security focus more on Heb. 10 anyway...

I appreciate you guys (even my Calvinist brethren and sistren!)

Twinsfan1

Jaltus

October 28th 2003, 03:06 PM

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a passage which often brings more questions than answers. The big question to be explored in this paper is whether or not the people described are saved. Once this is answered, then further issues can be explored, namely what kind of salvation it is and what does this falling away entail, though that goes beyond the bounds of this study.

Adunaton gar -> This relates to the previous discussion, namely that this is in the context of moving on into maturity. This impossibility actually relates to the end of the English sentence, but is fronted here for stress since it is the main idea. A form of eimi, should be understood.

touV apax fwtisqentaV -> This is the beginning of a string of participles describing those who fall away. Note it is an aorist passive, indicating a perfective event done to them rather than by them. This is not something the people described actively did. Also one should note the parallel usage of this root in 10:32, also dealing with salvation (though that too is disputed).

geusamenouV te thV dwreaV thV epouraniou -> This is another aorist participle, this time middle since it is a deponent verb, dealing with what they tasted or experienced (L-N offers both as glosses). Also, one should note that Jesus "tastes death" (same Greek word) in Hebrews 2:9, and I doubt anyone would want to argue that this means He only slightly sampled death but did not really die. The heavenly gift can be seen as a number of different things, but the sacramental understanding is the least supportable and also quite anachronistic. I would argue that this refers to the temporal side of salvation (as opposed to the eternal side, which is the finalization at the judgment).

kai metocouV genhqentaV pneumatoV agiou -> This is an aorist passive participle, thus showing the outside agency of this action, that they are made to be partakers, rather than making the move themselves. The parallel construction to this verse is in 3:14, where the readers are said to be partakers of Christ, something which points to salvation. Therefore, without making too much separation between the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit, these phrases should be treated synonymously.

kai kalon geusamenouV qeou rhma -> This is another occurrence of the aorist middle participle, just as earlier, dealing with tasting or experiencing. This time the quality of God’s word is what is being tasted, and it is to be evaluated as good. This would seem to point toward salvation, but this phrase is by no means determinative.

dunameiV te mellontoV aiwnoV -> This is built off of the preceding participle, so the power of the coming age is also being tasted. Here I would point toward an eschatological hope being felt now, looking at the inauguration of the kingdom of God already being experienced by believers.

kai parapesontaV -> This is the point of the entire argument, namely that these people fall away. There is no hint of conditionality (lacking any sort of semantic qualifier), yet it is implicit all the same. The falling away is not a sure thing, it is just a possible thing (this will be dealt with more below).

palin anakainizein eiV metanoian -> The present active infinitive is building off of the assumed form of eivmi, which is left out of the beginning of this section. It is completing the sense of what is impossible, namely that if one of those described above falls away, then they cannot regain salvation for they cannot repent again.

anastaurountaV eautoiV ton uion tou qeou -> The pronoun clearly carries the idea of advantage here, such that those people would be crucifying for themselves the Son of God again. This is something which is not possible, since the author indicates that only one sacrifice is needed, and therefore only one is provided. This clinches the argument about salvation, for Jesus was crucified with the intent to save, and claiming the cross is claiming salvation.

kai paradeigmatizontaV -> This present active participle is directly connected to the concept of Jesus’ crucifixion. It is intentionally dealing with His humiliation during His time of suffering, and the author is saying that He cannot be held up once more to that humiliation since He is now exalted (see especially 1:1-14).

The argument of the passage is then dealing with those who were temporally saved. Based on the assumption that those people have fallen away from Christ, whatever that entails, they are unable to come back for Christ can only be crucified once and the sacrifice cannot be redone. His suffering should not be held in contempt. Thus, if one holds to the concept of salvation being able to be lost, then one must hold to it not being able to be regained. If one holds to salvation not being able to be lost, a difficult conclusion to come to based on this passage without context, then the argument can be seen as a warning to conform to God’s image. In order to fully understand this specific passage, a deeper study of salvation in this epistle would need to be made. I conclude from this that salvation can be lost and, once lost, never regained.

The problem I often have with the Calvinist take on this passage is how quick they are to dismiss this entire section as referring to those who are really saved. The problem with it, other than the parallels within the book I have clearly shown above, is that the author of the book of Hebrews often places himself among the company of the people he is describing. This is not for rhetorical affect, for he does it throughout the entire book, even at places where it has no rhetorical affect.

Given that, and also all of the warnings throughout the entire book, it is very difficult from this passage for a Calvinist to be able to talk of OSAS or perserverance of the saints as a truly sound doctrine. However, there is one way around the Arminian reading, one which I as of yet do not have a response to, and we shall see if anyone is able to ask the question which correctly points in the direction of a Calvinist-Arminian rapproachment.

Sheepdog

October 28th 2003, 11:25 PM

excellent stuff, Jaltus :popcorn:

brett

October 29th 2003, 02:15 AM

Gee, I came home wondering if i’d get a response. Looks like you’ve all come out swinging. Alright, here we go. :fight:

A couple of thoughts before directly responding. I see a recurring theme throughout this epistle—a warning about falling away and missing out on salvation. Heb. 3:8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. 10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ 11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ” 12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

The Israelites in the wilderness are always the example. Do not fall away as they did, is the recurring theme. But notice verse 10 ...‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’. So it appears one can fall away from God, without EVER KNOWING His ways. And then notice verse 12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; . He’s not warning those with believing hearts to be carful about apostasy. Rather, He's warning those with unbelieving hearts to hurry up and believe—to not make the mistake of their ancestors, who always go astray in their heart, And ... have not known (His) ways.

Heb. 3:15 while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” Again, not a warning for believers, but for hearers to hurry up and believe. Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

I think chapters 6 and 10 echo the same warnings.

Sheepdog:
[i] But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,
partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. Hebrews 10:32,33. I'd like to wait until someone familiar with the Greek jumps in (*nudge nudge, Jaltus*), but suffice it to say, "after being enlightened" is synonymous with "after becoming a Christian."

This implies that prevenient grace that does NOT enlighten.

Sheepdog:
Why accept suffering for something you haven't staked your faith in yet? The primary motive behind persecuting another was to discourage them from a belief the already adhere to. Thus i think it was unlikely (though not impossible) that one would be persecuted for simply "being enlightened," if it merely meant being exposed to the gospel.

I’m not doubting the author is describing true believers here being persecuted for their faith. But this doesn’t prove that enlightenment and faith occur at the same time. It does not prove that enlightenment and conversion are synonymous. The passage clearly states that the faithful acts occurred AFTER being enlightened. I think enlightened is synonymous with receiving “full knowledge of the truth” in verse 26. The author is simply showing a contrast in responses to prevenient grace.

I do think Hebrews 10 & 6 are parallel passages, however. 10:39 echoes 6:9. 10:39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Cross reference this with 6:9 But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation... Both qualify the author's prior remarks. Both make clear that salvation and faith are not compatible with falling away or drawing back.

[i]Sheepdog:
To the contrary, here is an exerpt from my background commentary:1
The concept of "tasting" here has at times been misinterpreted to mean "partially ingested," but this understanding cannot hold up to scrutiny. Rather, as in Jesus' tasting death in 2:9, to taste something means to experience it. To "taste the goodness of the word of God" perhaps follows from the "spiritual food" imagery of 5:11-14, and recalls the exhortation of Psalm 34:8, "Taste and see that the LORD is good," and the exultation of 119:103, "How sweet are your words to my taste!"

the evidence is strongly in favor of tasting being roughly equivalent to "eating" in Jesus' discourse.

Nope, I think you’re missing the point as is muzicman. I’ll address his comments shortly. Those who consume also taste, but those who taste do not necessarily consume. Matt. 27:34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink. If Christ would have actually drank the wine, He still would have tasted it. Tasting is a decisional tool we use before consuming as this passage illustrates. The fact that the author points out that Christ tasted death can mean that he experienced it fully (consumed it). Tasting can be decisional but doesn't have to be. But in the case of the work of the H.S., “tasted” is in stark contrast with the other metaphors used throughout the N.T. Therefore it’s reasonable to ask, why?.

[i]Sheepdog:
without a great deal of data handy ATM regarding "to partake" in the Greek, I am at a loss to understand what the difference is. In the English at least, it gives a strong connotation of "sharing" or "to be a participant in." Again, it seems to be roughly equivalent to the alternatives (e.g. "sealed with"). The idea the writer is seeking to give is that these people had as much of the Holy Spirit as any of the Christians the writer was addressing. So, there is no reason to presume they weren't Spirit filled as the Christians are that the writer is addressing. (otherwise, why not specifically address "those weak in faith" or something?).

Again, this interpretation relies on the English, although i looked up the Greek in Strong's.

I agree, it’s dangerous go by the english words alone. I’m also being very careful to check my lexicons as well as other translations. So far I think I'm ok. I firmly believe the contrast between “partaking” and “immersion or indwelling” is significant, especially when interpreted in the context of verse 9.

Sheepdog:
Actually, according to Zondervan, "Expressing confidence in an audience or recipients of a letter was a rhetorical device used to create a sense of obligation or to persuade those addressed to take a course of action."2 Hence, it was more of a challenge to persevere.

I agree! It was a rhetorical statement serving as a warning. But this doesn’t make your case. Your analogy is faulty.

Sheepdog:
It would be like sending an email to all the resident in a college dorm, saying, "Now, we know none of you download mp3's illegally..."

No no no! To be analogous you would need to say, "Now, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany obedience to dorm rules" Conclusion: "illegal downloading" and "obedience to dorm rules" are mutually exclusive. Thus, falling away and salvation are mutually exclusive.

Sheepdog:
Thus, we are somewhat obliged to take it as a "do not fall away" text, implicitely stating that a true Christian believer can fall away.

But you’re completely ignoring what is explicitly stated—that falling away doesn’t accompany salvation. Yes, “do not fall away” is the implied warning. But more precisely, “trust in the Lord before you fall away.” Heb. 3:12 Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.

The Israelites had every reason to trust God after He delievered them from their old master (Egypt). But they remained unbelieving. They tasted the grace and power of God, but refused to eat of it.

themuzicman:
Can you split that hair any finer?

The "partakers of the Holy Spirit" can't be any clearer. Can you show where those who are unsaved have "partaken of the Holy Spirit"?

No ..... but you see, it’s not necessary. Scripture uses very consistent metaphors to describe the Spirits work in believers. The idea of immersion, baptism and indwelling recur throughout the N.T. So when the author merely uses a term like “partakers” it requires a closer look at the context. And sure enough, verse 9 explicitly states that falling away does not accompany salvation. You see, I think the burden is on you. I have the explicit verse on my side.

themuzicman:
No, these aren't salvation terms. They refer to those who have already been saved. Your argument seems to imply that because they didn't use terms that describe the salvation process that it cannot refer to those who are or were saved!

I didn’t say “cannot.” I’m merely saying that in light of verse 9, it’s a fair to point out that the author stops far short of the usual metaphors. And by salvation terms I mean terms that are descriptive of the saved.

themuzicman:
Remember that Hebrews is written to a different audience than Paul's epistles, so a different wording is going to be used.

I am keeping that in mind. But the gap between indwelling, immersion, baptism, renewing and then PARTAKING is just too conspicuous. It reminds me of that Sesame Street game—which one of these things just doesn’t belong?

Twinsfan1:
I remember when I was looking into this a few years ago. I came across the explanation from Weist's Word Studies (not sure of the spelling here) that partaker does not necessarily mean "possesser."

Meaning (and again, I am trying to remember this from 15 odd years ago) that in this case of Scripture, the passage is not dealing with believers, but with those who have "tasted" what God has to offer in salvation, but have not actually taken possession of it by trusting in Christ.

I appreciate you guys (even my Calvinist brethren and sistren!)

I think you and I think a lot alike. BTW, I’m not a calvinsts. Just a strong believer in a prevenient enlightening grace.

I’ll try to get to you other guys asap. I gotta take a break.

brett

October 29th 2003, 04:33 AM

Jaltus:
The argument of the passage is then dealing with those who were temporally saved.

hmmm. Was this temporal salvation the result of faith or just the result of prevenient grace?? If not, I’m curious where you think prevenient grace fits into this equation.

Jaltus:
Based on the assumption that those people have fallen away from Christ, whatever that entails, they are unable to come back for Christ can only be crucified once and the sacrifice cannot be redone. His suffering should not be held in contempt. Thus, if one holds to the concept of salvation being able to be lost, then one must hold to it not being able to be regained. If one holds to salvation not being able to be lost, a difficult conclusion to come to based on this passage without context, then the argument can be seen as a warning to conform to God’s image.

No, I think a third view is also possible. Once God’s grace (prevenient) has been received and not responded to in faith, there is no other possible means of salvation.

Jaltus:
In order to fully understand this specific passage, a deeper study of salvation in this epistle would need to be made. I conclude from this that salvation can be lost and, once lost, never regained.

I would conclude that once prevenient grace has run it’s course and the recipient remains resistant, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit occurs (Heb 10:29). Prevenient grace is then taken away and total depravity (or inability) reestablished—this time permanently.

Jaltus:
The problem I often have with the Calvinist take on this passage is how quick they are to dismiss this entire section as referring to those who are really saved. The problem with it, other than the parallels within the book I have clearly shown above, is that the author of the book of Hebrews often places himself among the company of the people he is describing. This is not for rhetorical affect, for he does it throughout the entire book, even at places where it has no rhetorical affect.

I also think these passages pose difficulties for the calvinist. For they not only believe these individuals are unsaved, but totally depraved. The terms in Hebrews 6 are definitely not descriptive of the natural man. But “prevenient grace” eliminates this difficulty. I think you need to drop the temporal salvation concept and replace with something like “temporal regeneration” or at least “temporal enlightenment.”

[QUOTE]Jaltus:
Given that, and also all of the warnings throughout the entire book, it is very difficult from this passage for a Calvinist to be able to talk of OSAS or perserverance of the saints as a truly sound doctrine.

Also, I think attributing the descriptions in verses 4-6 to the natural man is a lost cause. But they could be descriptive a temporally enlightened man!

Jaltus:
However, there is one way around the Arminian reading, one which I as of yet do not have a response to, and we shall see if anyone is able to ask the question which correctly points in the direction of a Calvinist-Arminian rapproachment.

hmmm. Did get it?

Come on Jaltus, you have to admit this makes sense.

themuzicman

October 29th 2003, 09:26 AM

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=262084#post262084)
brett:
No ..... but you see, it’s not necessary. Scripture uses very consistent metaphors to describe the Spirits work in believers. The idea of immersion, baptism and indwelling recur throughout the N.T. So when the author merely uses a term like “partakers” it requires a closer look at the context. And sure enough, verse 9 explicitly states that falling away does not accompany salvation. You see, I think the burden is on you. I have the explicit verse on my side.

Ah, but baptism, indwelling and immersion are signs of one's INITIAL salvation, not one who has been saved for some time.

I think you're also glossing over the verb phrase "been made" NOT partaking. It's not as though they actively decided to check it out. They were made into partakers by an outside entity, presumably God. Are you saying that when God performs a work of "partaking of the Spirit" in a man, that He could fail to complete it?

This is where I think your theory falls apart. There is no evidence that after someone accepts salvation in faith that they have to follow that up with some action or decision for God to be able to seal them. Even here we see that the "partaking" is actually "being made".

I didn’t say “cannot.” I’m merely saying that in light of verse 9, it’s a fair to point out that the author stops far short of the usual metaphors. And by salvation terms I mean terms that are descriptive of the saved.

I am keeping that in mind. But the gap between indwelling, immersion, baptism, renewing and then PARTAKING is just too conspicuous. It reminds me of that Sesame Street game—which one of these things just doesn’t belong?

Seeing as this is the only epistle written to the Hebrews, I would expect such differences.

And I would argue that verse 9 places 4-8 in a salvation context, since the writer is describing the worst that could happen to on who is already saved, and then saying we don't think you've gone there, but that better things have happened for you, and better things come with salvation.

Michael

Jaltus

October 29th 2003, 12:28 PM

Note I said temporally and not temporarily. That should clear up some of Brett's seeming confusion over what I said. I was referring to actual salvation in time as opposed to an eschatological (atemporal) justification.

brett

October 29th 2003, 12:45 PM

themuzicman:
Ah, but baptism, indwelling and immersion are signs of one's INITIAL salvation, not one who has been saved for some time.

This is not my understanding.

themuzicman:
I think you're also glossing over the verb phrase "been made" NOT partaking. It's not as though they actively decided to check it out. They were made into partakers by an outside entity, presumably God. Are you saying that when God performs a work of "partaking of the Spirit" in a man, that He could fail to complete it?

No. I think you’re misunderstanding my position.

themuzicman:
This is where I think your theory falls apart. There is no evidence that after someone accepts salvation in faith that they have to follow that up with some action or decision for God to be able to seal them. Even here we see that the "partaking" is actually "being made".

I don’t believe Heb 6:4-6 is describing someone who accepted salvation through faith. I believe these passages describe the enlightening effects of prevenient grace. The effects of prevenient grace are irresistible in a sense. The grace of God is not initially asked for, it just appears (Tit. 2:11-12). It enlightens and enables but it must be responded to faith in order for salvation and the sealing of the Spirit to occur.

themuzicman:
Seeing as this is the only epistle written to the Hebrews, I would expect such differences.

And I would argue that verse 9 places 4-8 in a salvation context, since the writer is describing the worst that could happen to on who is already saved, and then saying we don't think you've gone there, but that better things have happened for you, and better things come with salvation.

That’s pretty similar to what Sheepdog’s been saying. But don’t forget, it’s also saying that falling away does not accompany salvation. You all seem to be avoiding that.

I think you’ve misunderstood my position in a few places. Prevenient grace is central to my understanding of Hebrews 6 & 10 as well as the rest of the book. I’m not a calvinist.

themuzicman

October 29th 2003, 12:56 PM

Titus 2:11-12? You're kidding...

9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in R78 the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people R84 for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Verses 11 and 12 are at the very least explaining why slaves should be subject to their masters and living in intergrity. If you take the context of the chapter, you could say it applies to older men, older women and young men, too.

Let's summarize:

Grace is available to all men, but instructs "us" (those who believe) to deny ungodliness, etc.

Obviously, Calvinists have to explain this away as your "previent grace" because of limited atonement, but the context just doesn't allow it. It speaks of grace as our motivation to integrity.

Michael

brett

October 29th 2003, 01:27 PM

themuzicman:
Titus 2:11-12? You're kidding...

The fact that Paul uses this to instruct slaves, doesn't negate what it says. You’re the first arminian I’ve come across that doesn’t believe this passage implies God’s initial prevenient grace. Interesting. :huh:

themuzicman

October 29th 2003, 01:27 PM

I ain't Arminian. :hrm:

However, the context doesn't imply that all men receive grace, but that grace is available to all men.

Michael

brett

October 29th 2003, 01:36 PM

themuzicman:

I ain't Arminian. :hrm:

However, the context doesn't imply that all men receive grace, but that grace is available to all men.

Michael

Oh, sorry! :teeth: Didn’t mean to label you. What the heck are you?

snip - never mind

themuzicman

October 29th 2003, 02:15 PM

It's called "Open View"... Some have called it the logical extension of Arminianism.

To me, it brings a practical view to theology (Studying the literal nature of God) in solving many of the problems that come with foreknowledge by saying that the future is unknowable, even to God. (No, this doesn't deny omnicience. It just alters what is knowable.)

In this view, Christ can come to die for all men, but only those that choose (in real free will) to accept the gift God draws them to will be saved.

That's a really shallow description, but it's a decent overview.

Michael

brett

October 29th 2003, 03:18 PM

I'm not too familiar with the view. I think I read through one of sheepdog's debates with an OV guy. Very hard stuff to swallow. But I'm interested in hearing whatever insights it might bring to this particular passage.

Sheepdog

October 29th 2003, 08:26 PM

brett:

A couple of thoughts before directly responding. I see a recurring theme throughout this epistle—a warning about falling away and missing out on salvation. Heb. 3:8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. 10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ 11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ” 12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

The Israelites in the wilderness are always the example. Do not fall away as they did, is the recurring theme. But notice verse 10 ...‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’. So it appears one can fall away from God, without EVER KNOWING His ways.

But, this is after Siani, so they DID know what God expected of them. but, you must interpret 10 in light of 8,9. God did sooooo much for them in the desert, yet they continued to test Him. thus, it wasn't that they didn't know how to respond to God, but the didn't know His ways, i.e. they ignored the providence He gave them.

And then notice verse 12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; . He’s not warning those with believing hearts to be carful about apostasy. Rather, He's warning those with unbelieving hearts to hurry up and believe—to not make the mistake of their ancestors, who always go astray in their heart, And ... have not known (His) ways.

first off, the fact that he addresses them as brethern implies that he accepted them as believers. second, faith doesn't always exist in lack of doubt. these were probably weak in faith, who were prone to doubt and disbelief.

This implies that prevenient grace that does NOT enlighten.

indeed. it is in the Gospel that one finds enlightening.

I’m not doubting the author is describing true believers here being persecuted for their faith. But this doesn’t prove that enlightenment and faith occur at the same time. It does not prove that enlightenment and conversion are synonymous. The passage clearly states that the faithful acts occurred AFTER being enlightened.

well faithful acts do come after faith. it stands as your burden to show that there are people who have been "enlightened" who haven't come to faith. good luck.

I think enlightened is synonymous with receiving “full knowledge of the truth” in verse 26. The author is simply showing a contrast in responses to prevenient grace.

actually, if anything, v. 26. refers to believers. It doesn't say we who the gospel was preached to, but those who [received] the knowledge of the truth.... There seems to be more of an active connotation here, i.e. "receiving in faith." If the writer meant something more passive, you'd expect him so say, "hearing the full knowledge of truth," or something equivalent.

I do think Hebrews 10 & 6 are parallel passages, however. 10:39 echoes 6:9. 10:39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Cross reference this with 6:9 But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation... Both qualify the author's prior remarks. Both make clear that salvation and faith are not compatible with falling away or drawing back.

and this falls under the challenge rhetoric attached to 6:9. we need to read the Bible with a historically biblical perspective, not a modernistic perspective.

Nope, I think you’re missing the point as is muzicman. I’ll address his comments shortly. Those who consume also taste, but those who taste do not necessarily consume.

and you missed the point entirely. Did Jesus just taste death in 2:9? no, he actually died. We should not equivocate on the author's own terminology. hence...

Matt. 27:34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink. If Christ would have actually drank the wine, He still would have tasted it. Tasting is a decisional tool we use before consuming as this passage illustrates. The fact that the author points out that Christ tasted death can mean that he experienced it fully (consumed it). Tasting can be decisional but doesn't have to be. But in the case of the work of the H.S., “tasted” is in stark contrast with the other metaphors used throughout the N.T. Therefore it’s reasonable to ask, why?.

perhaps the writer's terminology is somewhat different than that of other Bible writers? Matt. 27:34 is not comparable because it explicitely says he didn't drink it. We see no such explicit qualifier in 6:4. Why not?

I agree, it’s dangerous go by the english words alone. I’m also being very careful to check my lexicons as well as other translations. So far I think I'm ok. I firmly believe the contrast between “partaking” and “immersion or indwelling” is significant, especially when interpreted in the context of verse 9.

but why not address what we do have? if anything, "partaking" makes more sense if the writer intended to argue that they and his audience has had the same extent of the gift of the Spirit.

I agree! It was a rhetorical statement serving as a warning. But this doesn’t make your case. Your analogy is faulty.

on the contrary, it establishes my case. it is a challange to the whole community to persevere and not fall away.

come to think of it, at one point does the writer stop addressing those who could still fall away, and start adressing those he is "confident" of? you can't make a ard line, because there is none.

No no no! To be analogous you would need to say, "Now, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany obedience to dorm rules" Conclusion: "illegal downloading" and "obedience to dorm rules" are mutually exclusive. Thus, falling away and salvation are mutually exclusive.

good point! because those who had real faith but now fall away are no longer saved. next!

you aparently don't understand what was meant. the analogy was adequate, because it was in line with what Zondervan says about these kind of challenges. the statement of confidence was never meant to be interpreted as a statement that those who have saving faith will not fall away: it was a challenge to those in the faith to persevere in the faith!

But you’re completely ignoring what is explicitly stated—that falling away doesn’t accompany salvation.

no. i seek to understand it in light of the argument tactics (aka rhetoric) of the day. what is explicitely stated there is moot, because the writer meant for them to read between the lines.

Yes, “do not fall away” is the implied warning.

i rest my case.

But more precisely, “trust in the Lord before you fall away.” Heb. 3:12 Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.

you are reading more into the text than what is there.

Let's try this from another approach. if we are going understand this in context, then let's focus on the local context. brett, i want you to look at some sections of Heb., and then answer my question(s?):

Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
Hebrews 5:11-14

Q: Who is the writer addressing in this section?

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits.
Hebrews 6:1-3

Q: Who is the writer addressing in this section?

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
Hebrews 6:4-8

Q: Who is the writer addressing in this section?

But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
Hebrwes 6:9

Q: Who is the writer addressing in this section?

You see, in order to justify your reasoning of the passage, there has to be a stark change in the audience, where the writer is addressing the whole church in 5-6:3, just those who in your theology are at risk of falling away in 6:4-8, and then just those who in your theology are secured in their salvation in 9. but, the author doesn't draw any such hard lines anywhere!

and furthermore, after rereading your initial post, it is evident you missed one key aspect of this: ...since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God... 6:6c. Compare, For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. 10:26. The people the author of Hebrews refers to have been covered by the sacrifice of Christ... i.e. they were indeed in the right standing that would have led to salvation. otherwise, why would there be talk of Christ being crucified again? if they weren't covered by the sacrifice the first time, there is no need of mentioning the inability to obtain a second sacrifice. the wouldn't have had the first one in the first place.

ergo, your interpretation only holds if being covered by Christ's didn't necessarily mean being saved. the witness of the Bible testifies against your interpretation!

brett

October 30th 2003, 02:52 AM

Sheepdog:
But, this is after Siani, so they DID know what God expected of them. but, you must interpret 10 in light of 8,9. God did sooooo much for them in the desert, yet they continued to test Him. thus, it wasn't that they didn't know how to respond to God, but the didn't know His ways, i.e. they ignored the providence He gave them.

No way. The author makes it clear these were never believers. 10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They ALWAYS GO ASTRAY in their heart, And they HAVE NOT KNOWN My ways.’ This reminds me of what Jesus said to the false believers in Matt. 7. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, ...22 “Many will say to Me...have we not prophesied...cast out demons...and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I NEVER KNEW YOU... The author of Heb. didn’t say, they once knew my ways but have since gone astray. The wilderness Israelites continually harbored unbelieving hearts from the time they crossed the Red Sea until the time they were told to go up against the Cannonites. They never trusted God. Thus the warning (from Young’s Literal Translation): See, brethren, lest there shall be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in the falling away from the living God,.

And in case there’s any doubt still, the author summed up their problem nicely with this statement. Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. The wilderness Israelites never brought faith into the equation. Case closed, Sheepdog. You can argue that believers can fall away, but you can’t argue that that that generation of Israelites went from belief to unbelief. And once you concede that, the rest of your case is going to become very difficult.

Sheepdog:
first off, the fact that he addresses them as brethern implies that he accepted them as believers. second, faith doesn't always exist in lack of doubt. these were probably weak in faith, who were prone to doubt and disbelief.

Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my BRETHREN, my countrymen according to the flesh

Sheepdog:
indeed. it is in the Gospel that one finds enlightening.

John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens EVERY man. It is enlightenment that enables us to understand the “good news.”

Sheepdog:
well faithful acts do come after faith. it stands as your burden to show that there are people who have been "enlightened" who haven't come to faith. good luck.

John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens EVERY man. Unless you believe universal salvation, this passage meets your challenge.

Sheepdog:
.... Did Jesus just taste death in 2:9? no, he actually died. We should not equivocate on the author's own terminology. hence...

No equivocation here. Jesus did taste death. If I eat a piece of candy, does that then mean I didn’t taste it?

Sheepdog:
perhaps the writer's terminology is somewhat different than that of other Bible writers? Matt. 27:34 is not comparable because it explicitely says he didn't drink it. We see no such explicit qualifier in 6:4. Why not?

I see verse 9 as an unambiguous qualifier that the individuals in question did not eat.

Sheepdog:
no. i seek to understand it in light of the argument tactics (aka rhetoric) of the day. what is explicitely stated there is moot, because the writer meant for them to read between the lines.

So when he says that falling away does not accompany salvation, he really means, falling away can accompany salvation? The warning is the same here as elsewhere—to not imitate their ancestors who NEVER trusted God.

I think chapter 5 gives us insight as to the author’s target audience. He is addressing weak believers (5:12-13) as well as unbelievers—hold outs who still had not yet known God’s ways, repeating the mistake of their ancestors. The problem is, they are very hard to distinguish between. He wanted to believe they were baby christians, but knew that unbelief was a possibility. Thus he warned: Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief I think this answers all your questions.

Sheepdog:
and furthermore, after rereading your initial post, it is evident you missed one key aspect of this: ...since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God... 6:6c. Compare, For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. 10:26. The people the author of Hebrews refers to have been covered by the sacrifice of Christ... i.e. they were indeed in the right standing that would have led to salvation. otherwise, why would there be talk of Christ being crucified again? if they weren't covered by the sacrifice the first time, there is no need of mentioning the inability to obtain a second sacrifice. the wouldn't have had the first one in the first place.

I believe prevenient grace has to be paid for. I think it’s fair to say that all arminians believe that PG FREES US from our old master, enabling us to choose a new Master. How can this freedom be achieved without a purchase? Even for those who freely reject the new Master. I believe all are bought and sanctified by the blood of Christ. The only way one can be condemned is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31, Heb. 10:29). If you want a more detailed explanation, go to the thread “Blasphemy of the Spirit vs. Irresistible Grace”. Constructive critique is always appreciated.

mickiel

October 30th 2003, 03:14 PM

but the desire of men have complicated it. When Paul said it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, he meant HE couldnot. Men cannot renew others to repentance. But what is impossible for men to do, IS posibble with God, God can renew anything he wishes. Luke 18:27 shows this very clearly. It is God who leads to repentance, Rom. 2:4. If it were the power of men that is needed to lead others to repent, the world is effectively doomed. There is a way of life in every puzzle in the bible that seems to show someone being lost. But you must search the bible for life. People are more interested in finding death, condemnation, little salvation, others being lost, this is the attraction of the devil. It is satans desire that none be renewed to repentance, NOT Gods. Gods desires are clear in 1 Tim. 2:4. There is no impossible to renew with God. Men just do not desire what God does.

themuzicman

October 30th 2003, 03:21 PM

But we wouldn't expect a universalist to handle scripture well, now, would we... :ahem:

Jaltus

October 30th 2003, 05:33 PM

Nowhere in Hebrews 6:4-6 does Paul say who it is impossible for, he just says it is impossible. His point is that Christ cannot die again for somone who has already claimed His death once.

Unless God goes against His own character and against scripture in general (that there is only one sacrifice, and that being the cross), then those who fall away cannot come back.

Christ cannot be crucified again. It does not matter if it be God or man who is trying to "resave" someone, Christ can only die once.

mickiel

October 30th 2003, 06:07 PM

Today @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=265833#post265833)
Jaltus:

Nowhere in Hebrews 6:4-6 does Paul say who it is impossible for, he just says it is impossible. His point is that Christ cannot die again for somone who has already claimed His death once.

Unless God goes against His own character and against scripture in general (that there is only one sacrifice, and that being the cross), then those who fall away cannot come back.

Christ cannot be crucified again. It does not matter if it be God or man who is trying to "resave" someone, Christ can only die once.

Christ death covers a multitude of sins, INCLUDING backsliding. In Mark 3:28, ALL sins are forgiven except one, backsliding or turning from God is not that one. Blasphemey agasinst the Holy Spirit is literally impossible to do. Once a person is truly converted, they are sealed in heaven where nothing can courpt that seal. This teaching of a spirit filled person being lost is rediculus, just as is hundreds of christian doctrine. In Matt. 24:24 Christ gives the mentality of his elect, those within whom his Spirit rweels. They are living in the end times where much deception is prophecised, false gospel is everywhere. This false gospel is so strong, it could mislead his elect IF POSSIBLE. It is not possible, those being mislead, those falling away were never called in the first place. Jesus said he would not loose ONE sheep, this doctrine of him loosing people is a satan breathed desire. You just simply have bought into it.

AVmetro

November 2nd 2003, 07:31 PM

One interpretation of Hebrews 6 I've heard, is that it refers to rededication. That is, it's pointless to rededicate yourself over and over again as many these days do. It's "laying again the foundations" of baptism, laying on of hands, etc. Am I correct that some Arminians believe that a person CAN lose their salvation and then gain it back?

-AV

mickiel

November 3rd 2003, 02:05 PM

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269261#post269261)
AVMetro:

One interpretation of Hebrews 6 I've heard, is that it refers to rededication. That is, it's pointless to rededicate yourself over and over again as many these days do. It's "laying again the foundations" of baptism, laying on of hands, etc. Am I correct that some Arminians believe that a person CAN lose their salvation and then gain it back?

-AV

He gave his opinon many times, usually in prases like" this is me speaking, NOT God". He kept his opinons seperate. His views on women were his own. His views on dicipline of the church , were his own. His statement in Hebrews 6, was his own. Offer raw meat to a lion, it is an offer it cannot refuse. Anything that limits salvation-- is dangling raw meat to lionhearted christians who open the gates of hell for all who are sinners in need of salvation. Christianity has lost its firts love, forgiveness. The spirit of forgiveness has been replaced by a spirit of selfrighteous spiritual preservation. Which means "i am saved", what you are is condemned, and i cannot help you. They are therefore attracted to the condemnation of sinners, and any biblical verse that seems to support that desire. The fate of humanity was sealed BEFORE the foundation of the world was made. We were predestined to be represented in heaven by Christ. All of us. The enemy of salvation is any who do not desire men to repent, or pray for it. Now christians are feeding on each other, beginning not only to condemn sinner, but their own sinful kind. This is the mentality of a parasite, it is a virus that will feed on and destroy others, then turn on its own kind.

brett

November 4th 2003, 05:29 PM

AVmetro:
One interpretation of Hebrews 6 I've heard, is that it refers to rededication. That is, it's pointless to rededicate yourself over and over again as many these days do. It's "laying again the foundations" of baptism, laying on of hands, etc. Am I correct that some Arminians believe that a person CAN lose their salvation and then gain it back?

-AV

Thanks for the input AV. I’ve also heard similar constructions. They say verse 8 can be cross referenced with 1Cor. 3:15 where the works are burned up, but the sinner saved “as through fire.” It’s an interesting take. I think is a stretch to be honest. If you want to develop it more, I’m listening.

Mickiel,
I really wish you’d start a new thread. The original intent was to contrast arminianism and calvinism as well as OSAS and apostasy. Both sides agree that some are lost. Universal salvation (if that's indeed what you're arguing. I get confused from your posts) is a completely different topic. If we’re wrong on universalism, please humor us and let us revel in blissful ignorance.

Back to you AV:
Your theory is interesting because it allows for the individuals in verses 4-6 to be saved as sheepdog and others are arguing. I think this is the key, though. I think the context of the book of Hebrews strongly argues against this, not only in the immediate context of verse 9, but everywhere else. I’m speaking of the recurring warning of falling away that is always exemplified by the Israelites in the wilderness. The recurring warning is basically this: “Don’t make the same mistake as these.” And this is my main point: The author makes it clear that these particular Israelites were NEVER believers.

Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

The greek word used here for mixed is Sugkerannumi.
1. to mix together, commingle
2. to unite
a. caused the several parts to combine into an organic structure, which is the body
b. to unite one thing to another.

They NEVER commingled their knowledge with faith. They heard, but NEVER believed. ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ Therefore I have to conclude that God is NOT warning about believers falling into unbelief, but rather, unbelievers CONTINUING in unbelief and becoming hardened. That’s the example of the wilderness Israelites. That’s how we’re to understand the warning in Hebrews 6.

Therefore, I think using Hebrews to prove that salvation can be lost is a lost cause. I’d appreciate your comments, particularly on Heb. 4:2?

mickiel

November 4th 2003, 08:06 PM

[Mickiel,
I really wish you’d start a new thread. The original intent was to contrast arminianism and calvinism as well as OSAS and apostasy. Both sides agree that some are lost. Universal salvation (if that's indeed what you're arguing. I get confused from your posts) is a completely different topic. If we’re wrong on universalism, please humor us and let us revel in blissful ignorance.

Most of your consituants ask me to leave, which is a common response i find in christianity. Either you join them, or leave them alone. I will not start a new thread here, i do that on the websites that see this way. I hold no intrest in teaching here, that would be foolish, i speak in a different lanquage than those here. I am here to debate, and for that reason only. Only as a witness, nothing else. Arminianism, calvinism and apostacy is all an illousion, they do not really exist, only in the mind of mankind, NOT GOD.

I hold no desire in humoring the christian mind, it is just as unpenertrateable as mine. The discussions that take place here often humor me, i only take issue with this place because there are those who frequent here that are not of the christian fold. They are my concern. The e-mails i receive from them is my comfort, but i must admit to a certain joy i get out of banging on the head of a pharisee, or a self righteous religous person doing more hard than good. My time here is short, the christians will not always tolerate me because i am in conflict with them, something their egos cannot stand. When the human mind thinks God is with them, it can horribly mistreat others and then pacify self into thinking its alright. Notice your brotherens way of handeling me. If i am all the things they say i am, satan spawn, doomed and headed for hell, NONE of them have tried to help me, only condemn me. None has shown any Godly love, no understanding, only a desire for me to leave. This is the COMMON approach of christianity.

Humor me with a response.

Evangel

November 4th 2003, 10:28 PM

i made a thread in which you can discuss your univeralistic ideas, mickiel. please do so there. its entitled non-discriminatory salvation.

i have shown a desire to discuss with you in a calm cool collected manner, but you do not wish to do so. until then my thread sits waiting.

we dont want you to leave. we just want you to stay on topic.

as for the real topic here is an interesting verse from the NIV

Romans 6:
10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.
11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.

this shows that it in order to make ones hope sure you should continue to work for God and do His work. that may not mean much by itself but it does allege that in order for your hope sure you should keep working for God.

Hebrews 6:
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
this i think makes it pretty clear. those who were once believers and had faith in Jesus Christ. because sharing in the Holy Spirit would mean those have shared with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (unless we are to now debate the trinity). sharing i think would most certainly include opening yourself up to and with God

5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
i would add who have heard the gospel, which is probably part of what he means by tasting the goodness of the word of God.

6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
they know well what they are doing and the consequences of that when they deny Christ. No man will ever be able to say to the Father i wasn't given enough chances or i was deceived.

lets look at the same scipture from the NASB, i think i can maybe get more from it.

well i did find something quite interesting on Enlightenment
2 Corinthians 4:
4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
6 For God, who said, " Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
the important part of this passage being "who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Christ". i think Paul makes it fairly clear that the our is believers.

Hebrews 10:
32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,

unless enlightment and suffering came to all when Christ died on the cross i think the logical thing to assume would be that he was talking about when they accepted Christ as Lord and Savior and He Enlightened them.

Remember now Hebrews is addressed to merely religious people in the first century, people looking for evidence for Christianity. and saying that they all felt a great conflict of sufferings when Christ died (or just knowing that he died) seems illogical. why would they suffer from the death of a heretic? unless the suffering from enlightenment was having a relationship with Christ and having to change lifestyles drastically and face ridicule, etc.

my bible also has a very shortened commentary on the books of the bible. heres part of what it has to say about Hebrews:

This letter has much to say about the importance of faith. The writer points out that what Jesus offers comes only by fauth. And this faith makes his followers sure of what they hope for and give them proof of things that connot be seen. The writer praises God's faithful people of the past (11.1-40) and encourages those who follow Jesus now to keep their eyes on him as they run the race (12.1-3).

One of the author's intent was clearly the importance of faith. Hes also trying to advance their understanding of Christianity (6:1-3)

Hebrews 6:
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
the "have tasted of the good word of God" is referenced to:
Ephesians 2
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

well that was fun. cant wait till i get my study NASB bible. and hopefully a commentators book(s).

AVmetro

November 5th 2003, 12:33 AM

Brett-

Therefore, I think using Hebrews to prove that salvation can be lost is a lost cause.

I'm still on the fence about it. I can also see the Arminian view as possible. The view you gave is rather convincing as well. I think the OSAS passages elsewhere add weight. Click here (http://tear.sinfree.net/Salvation/Hebrews6.html) to view the article I alluded to earlier in case you were curious. Of course, I would like to see any inconsistences with it if anyone can point them out. Being this isn't a "debate" per se (and the fact that I'm undecided on the issue!) I hope it's okay that I post the link. If not, I'll remove it.

I’d appreciate your comments, particularly on Heb. 4:2?

Not much I can comment on at this point. It makes sense, though. I think the "again" and "REnew"s of ch6 might interfere with that interprtation though.

Probably a little off-topic but I'd relate the above [Heb4:2] to John6:29-45. Mainly vss 36-37 and 44 as far as those who hear and don't believe and those who do.

God bless--AV

AVmetro

November 5th 2003, 01:03 AM

{Hebrews} 6:
10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.
11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.

this shows that it in order to make ones hope sure you should continue to work for God and do His work. that may not mean much by itself but it does allege that in order for your hope sure you should keep working for God.

Hi, Evangel-

I believe that works are a fruit OF true faith, not a factor in obtaining one's salvation. In fact, I wouldn't think one could work effectively at all unless they were IN Christ BY faith (Jn15).

How do you reconcile your view with Paul's view of justification in Romans and elsewhere? {Unless I"ve mistaken your view!}

God bless--AV

Jaltus

November 5th 2003, 01:40 AM

10-29-2003 @ 02:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=262137#post262137)
brett:
hmmm. Was this temporal salvation the result of faith or just the result of prevenient grace?? If not, I’m curious where you think prevenient grace fits into this equation.

Prevenient grace is what counteracts total depravity. Grace is nowhere mentioned in this passage, nor does it logically connect here.

No, I think a third view is also possible. Once God’s grace (prevenient) has been received and not responded to in faith, there is no other possible means of salvation.

That is an idea, but it is exegetically unfounded. Just because something is logical does not make it scriptural. I think Calvinism can be logical, I just do not find it scriptural.

I would conclude that once prevenient grace has run it’s course and the recipient remains resistant, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit occurs (Heb 10:29). Prevenient grace is then taken away and total depravity (or inability) reestablished—this time permanently.

I find this unconvincing.

Also, I think attributing the descriptions in verses 4-6 to the natural man is a lost cause. But they could be descriptive a temporally enlightened man!

I believe I showed how time and again the language used in Hebrews 6:4-6 is used in the book of Hebrews only of the saved. The biggest problem I see for your view is that prevenient grace is non-salvific, so how does this qualify as crucifying the Son of God the first time? Remember, the argument is that one cannot crucify Him again, and therefore Jesus' death which IS the atonement has already been applied to these believers. I really do not see how this can be limited to prevenient grace.

hmmm. Did get it?

Come on Jaltus, you have to admit this makes sense.

No, I think it makes logical sense, but I do not think it fits exegetically. Read back through my original post and note all of the parallel passages I bring in. Again, how can one "taste" the gift of the Spirit and not be saved? The Holy Spirit si a sign of salvation ONLY in the NT. Nobody can have the Holy Spirit in the NT unless they are saved. Remember that taste means to fully participate in, just as Jesus "tasted" death (same word in both places).

To be honest, the only escape from this passage is redefining salvation. I will not get into how or why, since I think it is not legitimate within the context of Hebrews.

brett

November 5th 2003, 02:45 AM

AVmetro:
Brett-

I'm still on the fence about it. I can also see the Arminian view as possible. The view you gave is rather convincing as well. I think the OSAS passages elsewhere add weight. Click here (http://tear.sinfree.net/Salvation/Hebrews6.html) to view the article I alluded to earlier in case you were curious. Of course, I would like to see any inconsistences with it if anyone can point them out. Being this isn't a "debate" per se (and the fact that I'm undecided on the issue!) I hope it's okay that I post the link. If not, I'll remove it.

Not much I can comment on at this point. It makes sense, though. I think the "again" and "REnew"s of ch6 might interfere with that interprtation though.

Probably a little off-topic but I'd relate the above [Heb4:2] to John6:29-45. Mainly vss 36-37 and 44 as far as those who hear and don't believe and those who do.

God bless--AV

I think I know where you’re coming from. I’ll be getting into the “again” and “renew” further when I respond to Jaltus. Perhaps I’ll have time to read through your post later.

I think it’s important to point out that I’m not coming at this from a calvinistic perspective. I’m much closer to an arminian, though I seem to be in conflict with traditional arminian views as you’ll see when I address the "again" part of Heb. 6.

But I’m curious, would you at least agree with me that according to the author of Hebrews, the Israelites who perished in the wilderness NEVER placed their faith in God? This is truly the key to the entire book. If that generation NEVER believed then the recurring warnings must apply to those who have also NEVER believed.

Heb. 3:10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’

Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

I think these passages are pretty unequivocal. What do you think??

brett

November 5th 2003, 04:07 AM

Jaltus:
Prevenient grace is what counteracts total depravity. Grace is nowhere mentioned in this passage, nor does it logically connect here.

Well perhaps then you agree with sheepdog that prevenient grace does NOT enlighten. I think this will ultimately have to go back to our previous discussion about the nature of prevenient grace. My view was that it actually extricates one out of his condition of total depravity without actually saving him. I’ll get into this more, shortly. But how in the world does God counteract TD (ie spiritual darkness) without enlightening? It seems almost axiomatic. I actually thought I was in line with the traditional arminian/wesleyan view on this one. I guess I’m still not grasping the traditional view. :huh:

Jaltus:
That is an idea, but it is exegetically unfounded. Just because something is logical does not make it scriptural. I think Calvinism can be logical, I just do not find it scriptural.

I’m glad you at least feel I’m being somewhat logical. Let’s see if I can't support it scripturally.

Jaltus:
I believe I showed how time and again the language used in Hebrews 6:4-6 is used in the book of Hebrews only of the saved.

Sorry Jaltus, I’ve read through your posts and I’m not convinced. But let me ask you this: Do you believe that the Israelites who perished in the wilderness were former believers? If “yes,” please reconcile that with Heb. 3:10 & 4:2-3. If “no,” I think I can build a convincing case from there.

Jaltus:
The biggest problem I see for your view is that prevenient grace is non-salvific, so how does this qualify as crucifying the Son of God the first time? Remember, the argument is that one cannot crucify Him again, and therefore Jesus' death which IS the atonement has already been applied to these believers. I really do not see how this can be limited to prevenient grace.

This is an important point. It’s a huge problem for calvinists, but not for me. I believe prevenient grace had to be purchased by Christ. Total depravity (or inability) is the result of our inherited bondage (enslavement) to sin. How can PG counteract this without first freeing us from our bondage? And how can it free us without first paying off the debt that caused our bondage? Therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion that ALL are bought, not just believers. Peter said this, 2Pet. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who BOUGHT them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. I don't even think arminians would go so far as to believe that ALL are BOUGHT. But in my view, our freedom to chose had to have been purchased. Salvation is then the result of mixing that new freedom (which included enlightenment) with faith. And on the flip side, the blasphemy of the H.S. is the result of mixing enlightenment with resistance.

My views on the blasphemy of the Spirit come into heavy play here. In Theology 201 I posted a thread called “Blasphemy of the Spirit vs. Irresistible Grace.” It’s not longer in view and I don’t know how to bring it back up but you probably do. My views on Matt. 12:31 heavily influence me in this area. If you want to fully understand where I’m coming from on this issue, please check it out. It's not a very long post, but I think it's fairly concise.

Jaltus:
No, I think it makes logical sense, but I do not think it fits exegetically. Read back through my original post and note all of the parallel passages I bring in. Again, how can one "taste" the gift of the Spirit and not be saved? The Holy Spirit si a sign of salvation ONLY in the NT. Nobody can have the Holy Spirit in the NT unless they are saved. Remember that taste means to fully participate in, just as Jesus "tasted" death (same word in both places).

I think taste CAN mean that. But it can also mean “tried”. Matt. 27:34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink. The context ultimately will decide. In the case of Hebrews chapter 6, verse 9 qualifies all previous remarks. These things did not accompany salvation.

Ultimately I think the key to this whole discussion is the spiritual condition of the wilderness Israelites. I'm really curious about your take on these passages:

Heb. 3:10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’

Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Is it not clear that this generation NEVER believed?

Jaltus

November 5th 2003, 01:51 PM

I do not think there is a link between 4 and 6 (the chapters, mind you) that many Calvinists would like to make. Nearly every major commentator mentions this as being an aside in the progression of thought.

Added to this, my point (which you are clearly missing) is that the language of the author matters more than the languasge of the canon. Just as Paul and James use justify in different ways, so do John and Hebrews use enlighten differently, so do Matthew and Hebrews use taste differently. By limiting the parallels to the book of Hebrews, clearly the author is using the exact same words that refer to the saved in other passages in this passage. Linguistically, I do not see how one can say they are not saved unless one redifines salvation (which could be legitimate).

brett

November 6th 2003, 04:40 AM

Jaltus:
Added to this, my point (which you are clearly missing) is that the language of the author matters more than the languasge of the canon. Just as Paul and James use justify in different ways, so do John and Hebrews use enlighten differently, so do Matthew and Hebrews use taste differently.

So I guess what you’re asserting here is that N.T. authors will NEVER use the same exact word differently. Let’s look as Paul’s epistle to the Romans taking one of the words you mentioned—justified. Rom. 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be JUSTIFIED in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” Compare this with Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be JUSTIFIED in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The latter is speaking of a declaration of forgiveness. The former cannot be, for it is directed toward God. It holds more to the idea of vindication from accusations. Paul’s usage in the former example is very similar James’ (vindication before men). If Paul can do this within the same chapter, why can’t the author of Hebrews??

Jaltus:
I do not think there is a link between 4 and 6 (the chapters, mind you) that many Calvinists would like to make. Nearly every major commentator mentions this as being an aside in the progression of thought.

No link? I don’t understand. Warnings occur in both chapters. The wandering Israelites are alluded to in both chapters. Is the “heavenly gift” in chapter 6 not a direct reference to manna? Please explain where you think the link ends.

Sorry Jaltus, but if you agree with me that the wandering Israelites NEVER placed their faith in God, then you’ll have to at least agree with me that the warnings in the early chapters were directed toward those who also NEVER placed their faith in God. At that point it would be necessary for you to establish that the author switched gears and was actually addressing a completely different audience with a completely different warning in chapter 6. If this is indeed what you believe, please make your case.

Jaltus

November 12th 2003, 04:31 PM

Try number two. The board ate my post while I was typing it, so this is going to be a less coherent post than my first one. Ah, well, life on TWeb moves on.

11-06-2003 @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272803#post272803)
brett:
So I guess what you’re asserting here is that N.T. authors will NEVER use the same exact word differently. Let’s look as Paul’s epistle to the Romans taking one of the words you mentioned—justified. Rom. 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be JUSTIFIED in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” Compare this with Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be JUSTIFIED in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The latter is speaking of a declaration of forgiveness. The former cannot be, for it is directed toward God. It holds more to the idea of vindication from accusations. Paul’s usage in the former example is very similar James’ (vindication before men). If Paul can do this within the same chapter, why can’t the author of Hebrews??

You are completely misreading me. My point was that one should look at how a specific author uses a word before bringing in canonical parallels. You justified yourself by jumping to the canon whereas my argument stems from within the book itself. Methodologically, my way makes more sense.

I do think language can vary within a book. However, one needs to give evidence for such an assertion. You have not. I have shown that every single phrase has a parallel within the book of Hebrews, and every single parallel (with one possible exception) points toward salvation in the case of these people.

Do you really think someone who is not saved could ever be said to have crucified Christ or be able to crucify Him again? I honestly see no justification for such language being used of the unsaved.

No link? I don’t understand. Warnings occur in both chapters. The wandering Israelites are alluded to in both chapters. Is the “heavenly gift” in chapter 6 not a direct reference to manna? Please explain where you think the link ends.

Warnings occurs 5 times in the book, beginning in 2:1 and ending in chapter 13. Do you really expect me to believe each one of those refers to the wandering years? Be serious! In order to make a link between 4 and 6, you need to argue from some sort of solid evidence, especially since the structure of the book disallows a strong connection (the section containing 6:4-6 begins at 5:12, not in chapter 4). I see a lot of assertion and very little evidence from you on this point.

Oh, the heavenly gift is by no means manna. It is more likely to refer to either Jesus Himself or else the powers mention in 2:1-4 which are a sign of the eschaton being now (see 1:2).

Sorry Jaltus, but if you agree with me that the wandering Israelites NEVER placed their faith in God, then you’ll have to at least agree with me that the warnings in the early chapters were directed toward those who also NEVER placed their faith in God. At that point it would be necessary for you to establish that the author switched gears and was actually addressing a completely different audience with a completely different warning in chapter 6. If this is indeed what you believe, please make your case.

No, I do not have to say that at all. The wandering tribes were brought up during the discussion on REST, not on faith or apostasy. THERE IS NO EXEGETICAL LINK. The author of Hebrews is never addressing the unsaved, but he does show from the wandering Jews that they had yet to enter real rest (which is the point of the quotation in 4:7ff.). You are mixing themes here. The theme of rest is what Psalm 95 is all about, and thus it is the basis for talking about the wanderers. Note that the key exhortation in the chapter is 4:11, where Hebrews says we need to enter that rest. The point of the passage is not the rebellion and wandering, it is that the rest has not yet been reached, otherwise talking about Joshua (4:8) would be ridiculous, since he did not become an important person until after the wandering.

You are making an exegetical mountain out of a textual molehill.

Capt Mercury

November 12th 2003, 08:01 PM

Hebrews 6:4-8 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. 7For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

We see that Chap. 6 starts with "therefore." What's it there for? Looking back to the end of chap. 5 we see that we are dealing w/ immature believers, who have not gone on past the basics of the Christian life. Immature believers who are not growing in Christ, who are not digging into God's Word, are more susceptible to what we are warned about in vss. 4 - 8.

What did the author mean when he wrote of the impossibility of renewing apostates to repentance in vs. 6?

The interpretation is rather straightforward & easy to explain if our understanding of God's Word allows the possibility of genuine believers falling away from the Lord - yet still being saved. (Otherwise this passage poses a major problem - it requires some stretching of the text out of where it naturally falls, IMO. I would even say that those who believe that you can lose your salvation are treating this passage more fairly than those who say that this is not referring to believers!) I am certainly well aware that I could be like those described here as having fallen away. But His love is unconditional and His grace never fails.

The context:
Believers are being considered (vss. 4-5). There should not be any reasonable doubt that believers are in view, IMO. There are 5 participal phrases in vss. 4-5 which are difficult to interpret any other way. Only believers can be said...
1 - to have been enlightened,
2 - to have tasted the heavenly gift,
3 - to have become partakes of the Holy Spirit,
4 - to have tasted the good Word of God, &
5 - to have tasted the powers of the age to come.

The whole book is addressed to Jewish Christians - let's keep that firmly in our mind. This is one of 5 major warning sections in the book. The question then is what is the warning regarding? It warning believers that if they fall away they can never be restored to repentance. IMO, the warning is directed to believers - a very severe warning...

So then, just what are we looking at here? Well, I believe that apostasy is what we see in vs. 6. Some who agree w/ my overall position (OSAS) do not.

The 1st part of verse 6 is dealing with falling away from the faith. The Jewish Christians being addressed were considering a return to sacrificing animals (See Heb. ch. 2, 7 & 10 as well as Heb. 3:12) - to including adherring to the law as well as believing in Jesus. They were being pressured into giving up believing that the death of Jesus was enough to pay the penalty for their sins & provide eternal life to those who believe - that faith alone would save them.

Their Jewish brethren - many who were also believers in Christ, were telling them that they had to remain faithful to the OT law - to attending the festivals, to sacrifices... these are called "judaizers" in the NT.

Now the 2nd half of vs. 6 says that "renewing to repentance is impossible" - in this case. And what does that mean? If it means a loss of our salvation, then it also means that once you have lost your salvation you can never ever get it back! IF it says that once we commit apostacy that we lose our salvation, then it MUST also mean that we can never be saved again, if we ever turn back from following Him! We can't just claim that it says that we can lose our salvation - it must also say it's gone forever! If that's your belief, then you must go all the way here. IF this is referring to believers losing their salvation, then the logical conclusion is that the warning declares that they can never gain it back!

Oops... Hmmm, so then if this is not reasonable, then just what does it mean - that is consistent w/ the rest of the NT?

1st of all, the person who has reached a hardness of their heart such that they no longer hold to the doctrine taught them when they came to faith in Christ - which is apostasy - cannot be reasoned with. Surely we've all seen or talked w/ some in such a position. You just knew that they would not really consider your counsel, to listening to your arguments or encouraging words. Let's be honest - how many of us have also been in such a position in the past? It's not a common regular Chistian experience, but it happens to many of us at some time in our lives - perhaps for a season. We're not talking about the need to simply confess our sins - which we all need to do daily - hourly. (Me: every few minutes!)

I think that this passage tells us that once a person apostatizes it becomes humanly impossible to renew him to "repentance." But please do not equate "renewing to repentance" to "(eternal life) salvation." The gospel of John states its purpose clearly in 20:30, 31. Notice that it clearly states that it was written to be evangelistic. No other book in the NT has such a claim:

"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

However, do you know how many times that the Greek noun translated "repentance" (Gk - μετάνοια - METANOIA) or the Greek verb translated "to repent" (Gk - μετανοέω - METANOEW) is used in John? ... Drum roll, please - Zip, nada, zero, none. That's right - not a single time. So then how can repentance be part of the gospel if it's not even mentioned in the single most evanagelistic book in the Bible? Simple - it's not. And not only is there no direct mention of repentance in the John, but nowhere is even the concept of turning from sins given as a condition for obtaining eternal life. It's just not there.

There are not many instances of Jesus evangelizing in the gospels... most if not all of them are in John. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he had to "turn from his sins" in order to be saved in John 3, he said "You must be born from above." Nor did He tell the woman at the well that she had to turn from her sins to gain eternal life in John 4. She surmised that when the Messiah came that he would tell them everything, & Jesus told her that He was the Messiah. She believed it, left her water jug and ran into town to tell people. How about the man born blind in John 9? Jesus asked him if believed in the Son of Man. He didn't tell him to stop sinning. And with Martha He told her that her brother would rise again. Then He told her that He was the resurrection & the life, and he who believes in Him, though he dies shall live... "Do you believe this?" He asked her in John 11. He didn't ask her about her sins... He never did.

This should lead us to ask just why, & also to delve into the actual meaning of METANOIA.

But how about other NT books that focus on the gospel? Actually, there are two... both written by Paul: Romans & Galatians. These two books were written to instruct and clarify the gospel. So then, how often is repentance mentioned in these books, or the "concept" at least?

Let's take a look at Romans. The verb form (METANOEO) does not occur at all - not even once. Daja vu. The noun form (METANOIA) is found only once (2:4) in the 16 chapters of Romans. Certainly if repentance is a condition for eternal life along with "faith," then Paul would have stressed this fact in Romans--just as he repeatedly stressed faith there. But what is the actual count? Paul used PISTIS ("faith") in its many forms 56 times in Romans. He used the verb form of PISTIS - PISTEUO ("believe") 14 times for a total of 70 times in Romans. Now, let me see... how many times did Paul use METANOIA or METANOEO (verb & noun forms of "repentance") in Romans? Uh, once... that's it?

There is one solitary reference to repentance in Romans (2:4), which merely says that God's kindness is designed to lead men to repentance. That is hardly a powerful statement that we need to turn from our sins in order to gain eternal life, is it? If Paul was trying to say that you must turn from your sins to gain eternal salvation, wouldn't he have made it more clear? In fact, a proper understanding of the biblical meaning of METANOIA will quickly clear up that one, solitary occurrence.

How about Galatians? Guess what. METANOEO and METANOIA ("repent" and "repentance") are not used in that letter at all... not even once are they found in Galatians. Deja vu all over again... But PISTIS ("faith" - noun) is used 19 times & PISTEUO ("believe" - verb) is used 3 times in Galatians. Hmmm. What can we conclude? How can repentance be an essential part of the gospel? Personally, FYI, I see it as having a pre-evangelistic purpose. It is also used numerous times regarding believers. But we aren't saved by repenting... we're saved by faith & faith alone. It's a gift. Christ did ALL of the work. Let's keep it that way. & I need to make another thing clear... about the actual meaning of METANOIA/METANOEO...

You see, METANOIA does NOT mean to "turn from your sins," in general. How did this idea come about?

The NT word for repentance is METANOIA (& its verb form METANOEO). The Latin Vulgate translated METANOIA as POENITENTIA ("penance"), which is very unfortunate, because that helped to promote a works-salvation theology. The King James translators rendered METANOIA as "repentance," a word which at the time in English could refer either to changing one's mind about someone or something or to turning from one's sins. This translation choice has become so fixed in people's minds that modern translations have not changed the rendering, even though a better alternative is often available.

The meaning of METANOIA is similar in origin to our English idea of "after thought" or "second thoughts." Classical, attic and koine (NT Greek) all have the root idea of METANOIA as "to change the mind/attitude." META is a preposition meaning "after" and NOIA means "mind/thinking." That IS what it means. If we understand the English term "repentance" properly as one of its valid meanings of "to change your mind," then this translation into English would work. Now certainly if we look in our lexicons (BAGD or L-S) we will see this, but we will also see a reference to "turning from sin." Why is that? Let's face it, if someone changes their mind/attitude about something that the Spirit has convicted them of it is natural that there would be a resultant change in actions... to turning from that sin or practice. Dr. Bob Wilkin did his doctorate thesis on METANOIA concluding that in its NT usage it should be generally considered to mean "to change the mind."

I realize that some of you will not agree with this conclusion regarding the NT words translated "to repent" & "repentance." That's why I earlier referred to the 3 NT books that speak of the gospel. Why is there such a lack of reference to repentance in these 3 gospel-oriented books? Because saving faith is not dependent on repentance.

In summary, John is the single book in the NT which states its purpose clearly as that of evangelism - to make the gospel clear in order that "you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and ... have life in His name." It never uses METANOIA ("repentance") even once.

Romans and Galatians are the two other books which just about anyone, whether educated at a seminary or Bible school or not, would pick as having purpose regarding clarifying the gospel. Read them - it's obvious. The English word "gospel" (Greek - EUANGELION) is used in Romans 10 times, and in the 6 chapters of Galatians it's found 11 times. Both letters show that the sole condition of eternal life is trusting in Christ alone. Both letters show that eternal life is a free gift. Nowhere in either epistle is turning from sins mentioned as a condition for eternal life. So where does that leave us?

When searching out a topic for study in the Bible, I try to follow one principle... find the place in the Bible where God clearly teaches on that topic. Start there... figure out what God is saying about that subject there, & THEN move on to other locations. When people have failed to do this, many heresies & misunderstandings have occurred. It's just common sense, but how many people have come up with strange doctrines by focusing on some obscure scripture that clearly is not teaching on that particular subject?

The Bible is clear that eternal salvation is completely separate from human works (Eph 2:8, 9). Yet if the "turn from sins for salvation" view were true, salvation would be by faith PLUS at least a commitment to do some sort of works. If a person must reform his life or stop sinning in order to be eternally saved, then salvation is at least partially a payment for work done. It would NOT be the receiving of a completely FREE gift. It's free... let's keep it that way. (SOLA GRATIA) Yes, God does want people to stop sinning. But He enables them to do this AFTER they are regenerated... by faith ALONE. Beforet hat they're slaves to sin. Don't put the cart before the horse. We have to be saved... be changed from within, FIRST - then we can turn from those sins. It is something that Christians do. It is NOT how we become a Christian.

Now, there are a few places in the NT in which repentance is mentioned or used as a description of the gospel. More than once in Luke. Is this some sort of inconsistency in the Bible? No, the explanation is simple - you've got to get the MEANING of the word right 1st. METANOIA/METANOEO in Greek have a variety of ways they are used, just as words do in English.

For some places in the NT the "change of mind" definition is the preferred translation. Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, Acts 11:18, Heb 6:1, 12:17, 2 Pet 3:9 & perhaps Rom. 2:4 (not sure about this one yet) are places in which I would translate METANOIA as simply "to change your mind." But change your mind regarding what? Ahhh, that is a good question.

Let's just look at one example of those I listed above in which it should be clear that the meaning should be simply to change your mind - Heb. 12:17 ->
"...Esau found no opportunity to change his father's mind (METANOIA) after he sold his birthright, though he sought for such a "change of mind" with tears." This is often translated as "...found no place for repentance." But that is quite unclear what is meant. Translating it as "change your mind" is suddenly much more clear. The author of Hebrews was NOT saying that Esau had made a mistake & was trying to show how sorry he was, but wasn't given that opportunity. If we read the OT account it is clear that in this instance he had been tricked out of his rightful blessing by Jacob and his mother. He wasn't trying to "turn around." He was trying to get his dad to "change his mind" about blessing him... with tears. Too late. Isaac had already blessed Jacob & saw it as God's sovereignty.

IOT be saved, we must change our mind about the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to come to see Him as He who takes away all of our sins & gives us eternal life as a gift. There is clearly a "change of mind" involved there.

Let's consider 3 verses -> Luke 24:47 - "...and METANOIA for the forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all nations...", Acts 2:38 - "Peter said to them, "METANOEO, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...", and Acts 11:18 - "..."So then, God has granted the METANOIA that leads to life even to the Gentiles."

In the last one, Acts 11:18, METANOIA works very well as a synonym for "faith." Peter was asking how he could refuse to baptize people who had clearly come to faith in Christ. In Acts 2:38, METANOEO works well as a synonym for "believe." IMO all 3 of the above cases make sense in seeing METANOIA as a change of mind about the person of Christ - just Who he is.

But IMO there are also many passages in the NT where METANOIA clearly has sinful behavior as its object. That is, there are texts in which a change of thinking about one's sinful behavior is the focus. & in those instances an appeal to change one's mind about sinful behavior is for all practical purposes a call to turn from it. But, such appeals always have to do with certain problems here-and-now and regarding obeying God & growing in Him - not about escaping eternal damnation. If they did, then the Bible would be in apparent contradiction. So then, we come to Christ by faith, but we grow by faith AND by works. (Eph. 2:8-10)

So then, "renewal to repentance" is NOT a bringing back to eternal life salvation in this passage - period. It is never used that way in the NT - IMO. So then this is not talking about eternal life salvation here.

& this text tells us that no human being can change the thinking of a believer who has fallen away from the faith, according to vs. 6. (Only God could possibly do that, & this is key - God CAN do that. He did it to Pharaoh - in a negative sense; He did it to Saul of Taurus... He can do it. But humanly speaking, we cannot do it - the apostate's heart is just too hardened.)

Many interpreters miss the point here, because they assume that the author is saying that such a person is eternally condemned - going to hell. Actually the text doesn't say anything even approaching that. All it is really saying is that it is humanly impossible to change the thinking of a believer who falls away from the faith. In no way does it question eternal security. Once a person is saved he forever remains saved. However, a saved person may have a fiery experience here & now! Whoa! I've been burned a few times - how about you?

I am also convinced that temporal (here-and-now) judgment of some sort is what's being considered here in vss. 7 & 8.

The author of the Book of Hebrews is using a practical illustration to clarify his point. Thorns & thistles are a common OT image going back to the Garden of Eden. God cursed the ground as a result of Adam's sin & said that it would yield thorns & thistles in Gen 3:18. I think that this is an obvious allusion to that passage. The ground was cursed then, & in this passage we read that such a person is NEAR to being cursed. Do you see the parallel? The ground - that is, the believer, & this is crucial - that yields thorns & thistles is near to being cursed & in fact it will soon be burned.

Hmmm. Now, is this burning here referring to hell/gehenna? No. It's easy perhaps to jump to such a conclusion, but that was not what the author intended. Fire in the Bible more often pictures temporal judgment of some sort. (See Gen 19:24, Lev 10:2, Joshua 7:15ff, 2 Sam 22:9 & Dan 3:22ff in the OT. Luke 9:54, John 15:6, 1 Cor 3:13ff, Heb 11:34 & Jude 23 in the NT. And there are many other examples of fire used in the Bible which does not refer to eternal damnation.) I believe that such an approach works well here.

So then, the ground represents the believer. The thorns & thistles represent the worthless works of his life the same as the wood, hay, & stubble of 1 Cor 3:12-15. When the ground is burned, the thorns & thistles are destroyed, not the ground. The ground remains. Just as in 1 Corin. 3 the foundation is preserved, but the wood hay & stubble are burned. Yet the text there states that the believer is saved, yet as through fire! In fact, the symbolism & what those two passages are saying is quite similar. Yet, those who believe OSAS use 1 Corin. 3 as a strong argument, while those opposed ironically often go to Hebrews 6, which says much the same - go figure!

But it was a common practice for farmers in those days to burn off the worthless overgrowth of a field so that it might be restored to productivity. So then, the author of Hebrews apparently holds out some hope that God might restore the apostate, through chastisement - severe discipline, without taking him home. (The impossibility of renewing apostates to repentance concerns a human impossibility prior to God's chastising/disciplining work, remember. And fiery chastisement will certainly fall on the apostate believer. However, once this fire has done its work, it is possible that the apostate might come back to following Christ closely. But only God can do that.)

Remember, regarding the believer, that John 5:24 says, "He who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me ... will not come into judgment but has passed (past tense - it's already happened the moment the believer believes. Actually it's a perfect tense, making it even more powerful - but no time to explain that now.) from death to life." So then, we are guaranteed that we will not come into judgment. But we know also that the "judgment seat of Christ" is in store for all believers - to determine how many rewards we will receive for a job well done or rebuke instead. Now, the Greek word in 1 Corin. 5 for "judgment seat" is BEMA - it does NOT mean judgment, but evaluation for the purpose of giving out the prize won. So then, the believer will NEVER be judged to determine if he goes to heaven or hell, he will never come into condemnation, & God's Word cannot contradict itself. (See also Romans 8:1.)

But we must all take care. Any one of us can fall. "So then, let him who thinks he stands, take heed lest he falls."

Let's look more closely at just what the author of Hebrews is warning us about :

It is not enough to be saved by faith. We must continue to live by faith. If I live w/o trusting in God, I will not be blessed in that living, of course, but instead I will experience God's discipline. Not a good place to be. He may have to take me out to the woodshed.

A whole generation perished in the wilderness because of such failure to trust Him. They were saved out of Egypt & from slavery, yet they perished in the wilderness. But we will see them in heaven.

There is more to the Christian life than just being saved from eternal damnation. There is a Sabbath rest for us. Let's cross that Jordan River (live the Christian life by faith in Christ) as well as having already crossed the Red Sea (representative of eternal life salvation IMO). Many believers die in the wilderness never having entered in by faith into the blessings God has for them, just as those Israelites who died in the desert. Their graves warn us to be careful of the same sort of unbelief, perhaps because of bitterness towards God because of how we may think He has dealt with us.

This exhortation is for all of us to let His Spirit complete His work in our lives & to not become callused.

Now let me add that some of those who believe in OSAS think that the expression "renewal to repentance" is referring to the act of coming to Christ for eternal life salvation. Obviously I do not. Those who think this, basically say that this passage is saying that it is impossible to continually go back again & again to the cross - to be saved again & again. We must go on in Christ. I used to think that way.

I could be wrong & they could be right. But either way, this passage in no way tells us that we can lose our salvation! If it does, then IMO the Bible contradicts itself. PTL, His death did it all!

Sorry for the lengthy post.

Sealed forever in Him by the Holy Spirit,

Cap

Jaltus

November 12th 2003, 09:03 PM

I will, eventually, come back and refute this post. However, I will say this: Why can't Calvinists stick with the passage?

I have at least 6 texts that deal with falling away from salvation (apostasy) and yet I do not bring them up when discussing Romans or the Gospel of John, so why is it that Calvinsts and OSAS people cannot stick to the text at hand?

Canonically, it is just not true that the entire canon teaches OSAS. The Bible teaches that nobody can have their salvation taken from them, but that one can in fact give it up by their own free will. Seriously, every passage a Calvinist brings up for eternal security is a passage about how other people cannot in fact take it away from you.

I appreciate your work, Capt Mercury. I am just frustrated that people tend to not deal with the warning passages in Hebrews from a perseverance aspect without appealing to some other passage. It shows that they are using one part of the canon to rule the interpretation of another instead of placing equal emphasis on each part of the canon. In other words, it looks very much like a canon within the canon.

Capt Mercury

November 12th 2003, 09:16 PM

Today @ 01:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282830#post282830)
Jaltus:

I will, eventually, come back and refute this post. However, I will say this: Why can't Calvinists stick with the passage?

I have at least 6 texts that deal with falling away from salvation (apostasy) and yet I do not bring them up when discussing Romans or the Gospel of John, so why is it that Calvinsts and OSAS people cannot stick to the text at hand?

Canonically, it is just not true that the entire canon teaches OSAS. The Bible teaches that nobody can have their salvation taken from them, but that one can in fact give it up by their own free will. Seriously, every passage a Calvinist brings up for eternal security is a passage about how other people cannot in fact take it away from you.

I appreciate your work, Capt Mercury. I am just frustrated that people tend to not deal with the warning passages in Hebrews from a perseverance aspect without appealing to some other passage. It shows that they are using one part of the canon to rule the interpretation of another instead of placing equal emphasis on each part of the canon. In other words, it looks very much like a canon within the canon. Jaltus,

I will say this: I'm not a calvinist... not even one point. One does not need to be a calvinist IOT believe in OSAS. Calvinism does tend to lead one to have a view that this passage is not speaking to Christians - which I do not agree with. Also I do not believe in the perseverance of the saints as it is taught in reformed theology.

But we are limited in the lengths of posts & cautioned against breaking them up into portions. So I had to explain my view of repentance & show the parallel of 1 Corin. 3 to this passage before I could make my position understood. Notice how many "and"s were written as "&"?

And let's face it, would anyone have accepted or understood where I was coming from regarding METANOIA if I hadn't explained how it's used (or not used) in Galatians, John & Romans? Actually, how much other scripture did I refer to? 1 Corin. 3 is very parallel to this passage. Otherwise I just defended my points on my other CRefs.

I also had to show how my view fit into Hebrews in general. I've got to take off & get my kids to a youth meeting now. But I will exegete the text when I have time. That may not happen until next Monday, FYI, because of some pretty intense projects this week, but I have thought it through carefully. Who knows... perhaps I'll be able to defend my position, if God is gracious to me. If not, I'll have an opportunity to learn.

Cap

Sheepdog

November 12th 2003, 09:44 PM

what, repentance is not necessary for salvation? antimonialist pagan! :tongue: kidding.

seriously, though, it is quite evident from the whole of canon that one must repent as a part of coming to faith. you cite John (even though i could argue conclusively that his Gospel was for the edification of the Church, not nonbelievers) as though one writer's silence on the issue is authoritative. i can cite several passages that show that repentance is at least correlated with salvation, if not essential to it (Mark 1:15, Luke 5:32, 13:1-9 [while you are at it, see parallel in John 15:1-8], 24:47, Acts 2:38, 13:19, 17:30-31, 2Pe. 3:9).

how can a person be saved if they are unable to repent and be forgiven of their sins?

Capt Mercury

November 13th 2003, 12:04 PM

Today @ 01:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282927#post282927)
Sheepdog:

what, repentance is not necessary for salvation? antimonialist pagan! :tongue: kidding.

seriously, though, it is quite evident from the whole of canon that one must repent as a part of coming to faith. you cite John (even though i could argue conclusively that his Gospel was for the edification of the Church, not nonbelievers) as though one writer's silence on the issue is authoritative. i can cite several passages that show that repentance is at least correlated with salvation, if not essential to it (Mark 1:15, Luke 5:32, 13:1-9 [while you are at it, see parallel in John 15:1-8], 24:47, Acts 2:38, 13:19, 17:30-31, 2Pe. 3:9).

how can a person be saved if they are unable to repent and be forgiven of their sins? Sheepdog,

Two quick comments... sorry, but this week is bad:

You've gotta define repentance first. Now in John 20:30, 31 John clearly states his theme... "but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name."

έχητε ("might have...") is present active subjunctive 3P/plural. The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility. John specifically listed the signs and miracles that he did SO THAT (ίνα - conjunction of purpose or result, "in order that" or "so that") the readers might come to faith in Christ. No other book in the NT states its theme so clearly. John clearly states his purpose for writing this gospel.

And he was not "silent" in the sense that he merely forgot to mention it. He wrote this gospel to bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ. How could he forget a crucial part of that gospel, if it is part of the gospel message? To say absolutely nothing under those stated terms... why the silence is absolutely deafening!

Perhaps you read through my post quckly as it was so long. I did notsay that repentance is not even correlated with salvation, I said that we are not saved by repenting, but by faith alone. Repentance is what causes us to see just who Jesus Christ is - to face Him. The Holy Spirit convicts men of "sin, righteousness & judgment" which is absolutely necessary. If I do not see my need for a Savior, that I havea sin problem, how or why would I respond to the gospel message? (Which is "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.")

Repentance & forgiveness of sins are at times quite cloesly tied in Acts - not surprising due to Luke 24:47 - one expression of our Lord's commission.

It is interetsing that John's gospel is not only completely silent about repentance, but it is almost equally silent about forgiveness. The lone reference there (John 20:23) is not speaking of the forgiveness of sins on the basis of faith alone.

That is a key point: in John eternal life is clearly offered several times on the basis of faith alone. Forgiveness of sins is not. John was apparently not very interested when writing his gospel in forgiveness of sins & repentance... at least he didn't speak of them at all. He's interested in bringing people to faith in Christ & eternal life.

You see, in terms of man's eternal destiny, the real question is not about forgiveness but eternal life. In the final judgment in Rev. 20:11-14 sin is not even mentioned... but it says there that men are judged according to their works. Why are people cast into that lake of fire? Obviously because their names are not written in the book of life. Because they do not have life.

So how can it be that sin is not the issue for determining who gains entrance into the kingdom? Because Jesus is "the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world." Jesus paid the penalty for sin already. In his first letter John adds that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the entire world." Jesus already paid the price for my sin. They do not need to be forgiven. (Now I'm not talking about the daily confession of sin needed IOT maintain a close walk with the Lord.)

I realize that this is a different view of atonement than many hold, but I'm convinced it's correct. My sins as well as the sins of the world have been atoned for. But I do not automatically gain eternal life... I still need to accept the free gift of eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone.

So then, why the accounting at the great white throne judgment? Because so many assume that they can gain heaven (eternal life) by their works. Wrong - we're not saved by works, as Eph. 2 makes clear, but by faith based on the work of Christ in our place - it's by grace - a gift.

Now here is one place where we probably view forgiveness differently:

"Forgiveness is not a judicial issue between man and God, but a personal issue."

OK, how about a practical example? Suppose I go to court (OK, I know the example I'm using could never really happen. :tongue:, but bear with me a moment.) on trial for stealing a valuable diamond ring. The judge is not concerned whether or not I am forgiven. He is only concerned in assertaining whether or not I am guilty or innocent. But suppose someone paid the penalty for my clear guilt. Than that's not an issue. But suppose again that the ring stolen belonged to the judge himself... Do I automatically have forgiveness in his eyes because I've been decalred to be not guilty? No. Of course that is a personal issue.

Regarding the effect our sin has on God, forgiveness repairs the damage done by my sin. If I have been born from above (born again) I have gained eternal life. But my fellowship might become estranged by my sins... by my refusal to confess them, acknowledge them & deal with them. But if my sin is persistent, I need to do more than just confess them, I need to repent. That restores my relationship with God, as in the parable of the prodigal son. The son was always his father's son. But their relationship had been damaged.

So then the cross does not automatically regenerate men... but it make such regeneration a possibility for all men... received only by faith alone.

I am not actually ignoring "repentance," Sheepdog, but it is not relevant to gaining eternal life. So repentance brings us to harmony with God. It does not save us.

Jesus put it very simply in John 6:47, "I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life." Did Jesus say something that was the truth but not the whole truth? Of course not. Repentance is part of the message we are to bring to the world. For through repentance they can gain forgiveness of their sins & experience a fellowship with us and our Savior. But we are saved by faith alone.

BTW, I've spent sometime evaluating John 15:1-8 and brought a message on that a few monents ago. But that is another thread, so let's forego that for now. I can guarantee this: it will besomething different than you've probably heard before. It's based on a doctoral thesis I read that was in DTS' BibSac by a man with a degree in horticulture who was raised on a vineyard, so it's not really mine. But later.

But I haven't heard anyone comment on the parallels between 1 Corin. 3:10-14 & Heb. 6. That one is relevant.

Well, gotta go. Later I'll give my exegesis of the Hebrews 6 passage... be interested in your comments.

BTW, isn't it great that people from a variety of theological persuasions can come here and share with one another. It's envigorating, like iron sharpens iron...

Thx for your comments,

Cap

AVmetro

November 13th 2003, 12:28 PM

Jaltus:
Canonically, it is just not true that the entire canon teaches OSAS. The Bible teaches that nobody can have their salvation taken from them, but that one can in fact give it up by their own free will. Seriously, every passage a Calvinist brings up for eternal security is a passage about how other people cannot in fact take it away from you.

Who would the disciples believe would have the ability to take away their salvation that Christ would say what He did in John6? How do you think someone, like say the devil, would attempt to 'take away' our salvation? 'He's a roaring lion looking to devour'...Temptation, etc,.? Acts5:3 "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to do this...?" Elsewhere, "Satan entered Judas.." etc. The parable of the sower "Satan comes and takes it away.." Now I could take this to mean (and it probably does) that Satan tempts us whereas we "give in" and then apostasize. But I don't see the comfort meant to be given in John 6 if it doesn't refer to OSAS as I don't see a threat other than ourselves (and satan). Hence my first question.
"Satan has asked to sift you as wheat... but when you return.." Not if you return. I think the "All that the Father give me will come to me and *I* will lose none of them but raise them up..." (<-- loose paraphrase) to indicate that it is Christ's work of keeping us, not ourselves. It seems to go beyond our free will to an extent.

Still a fencesitter,
AV

themuzicman

November 13th 2003, 12:36 PM

Just to clear up the paraphrase, it says that no one will take them out of my hand.

Also, if you study the sower and the seed, you find that it is the individuals who choose to walk away in the case of the rocky and thorny soil. On the path, the word never takes hold, so the devil removes it before they get saved.

I don't see where Ananias and Saphira lost their salvation. They were simply punished.

Judas wasn't saved.

Michael

AVmetro

November 13th 2003, 12:43 PM

My last post was really incoherent. :hrm:

AVmetro

November 13th 2003, 12:47 PM

themuzicman:

Just to clear up the paraphrase, it says that no one will take them out of my hand.

Also, if you study the sower and the seed, you find that it is the individuals who choose to walk away in the case of the rocky and thorny soil. On the path, the word never takes hold, so the devil removes it before they get saved.

I don't see where Ananias and Saphira lost their salvation. They were simply punished.

Judas wasn't saved.

Michael

My emphasis wasn't on their being saved or not but the act of satan. He was a potential "threat" of one who could take away a person's salvation that Christ was referring to in John6 as in reality not being possible.

-AV

Capt Mercury

November 13th 2003, 12:56 PM

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283772#post283772)
themuzicman:

<snip>
Also, if you study the sower and the seed, you find that it is the individuals who choose to walk away in the case of the rocky and thorny soil. (Cap - don't agree - FYI. Actually it speaks of the person stumbling or being choked, but nothing about "walking away." That too is a bit of a paraphrase.)

On the path, the word never takes hold, so the devil removes it before they get saved. (Cap - agreed)

I don't see where Ananias and Saphira lost their salvation. They were simply punished. (Cap - agreed.)

Judas wasn't saved. (Cap - agreed.)

Michael

Thx,

Cap

themuzicman

November 13th 2003, 12:59 PM

Also, if you study the sower and the seed, you find that it is the individuals who choose to walk away in the case of the rocky and thorny soil. (Cap - don't agree - FYI. Actually it speaks of the person stumbling or being choked, but nothing about "walking away." That too is a bit of a paraphrase.)

To be clearer, they were choked out by the cares of life, which by extension reveals that they allowed other priorities to choke out their faith. We all have these pressures, but these folks chose to focus on their troubles and ignore their salvation. It was still their choice. While they may have been encouraged along by the thorns, they still chose to move away.

Michael

themuzicman

November 13th 2003, 01:01 PM

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283800#post283800)
AVmetro:
My emphasis wasn't on their being saved or not but the act of satan. He was a potential "threat" of one who could take away a person's salvation that Christ was referring to in John6 as in reality not being possible.

-AV

I thought that's what I addressed. Satan obviously works to keep people from hearing the word and believing, and tries to get people far enough away from God to walk away, but none of these examples shows Satan removing someone from salvation without that person making the actual choice.

Michael

AVmetro

November 13th 2003, 01:37 PM

themuzicman:

I thought that's what I addressed. Satan obviously works to keep people from hearing the word and believing, and tries to get people far enough away from God to walk away, but none of these examples shows Satan removing someone from salvation without that person making the actual choice.

Michael

I'm having a hard time focusing on my own point (!) whatever it was. Sorry for the incoherence. It's my fault - I need CARBS!

I'll take if from here. Re: the quote above - yes, but how do you reconcile this with Jn 6:37, 39, 44, 65; 10:26-28, 29. I.e. one cannot come to the Father unless he is drawn. Furthermore, Christ says that ALL that the Father has *given* Him WILL come to Him.

Now compare this with the parable of the sower where Satan takes away the word of God from the heart of those who hear it. Say Peter preaching from the housetops is the sower. The seed lands on good ground (Acts13:48) which harmonizes with John 6:44 etc,.

Semi-tangent (sincere, not debate per se) question:

IF God has infinite foreknowledge, why would He call, justify and sanctify those who He foreknew would fall away? Again, that counts as a "loss". Christ states that "*I* [Jesus] shall lose none of them.." 6:39, which seems to put the onus on Christ. He is afterall doing the will of the Father and He does the will of the Father perfectly. ..After the rich man walks away, Peter asks "who then can be saved" Christ responds "with men this is impossible but with God all things are possible".

[*MM - I think I've read where you are OV so the above question may not apply to you (?)]

-AV

brett

November 13th 2003, 02:09 PM

Jaltus:
You are completely misreading me. My point was that one should look at how a specific author uses a word before bringing in canonical parallels. You justified yourself by jumping to the canon whereas my argument stems from within the book itself. Methodologically, my way makes more sense.
.....

I do think language can vary within a book. However, one needs to give evidence for such an assertion. You have not. I have shown that every single phrase has a parallel within the book of Hebrews, and every single parallel (with one possible exception) points toward salvation in the case of these people.

Do you really think someone who is not saved could ever be said to have crucified Christ or be able to crucify Him again? I honestly see no justification for such language being used of the unsaved.

Actually, my understanding of PG demands exactly that. I look at PG as a pre-faith extrication from TD. In the slavery metaphor it is this the seventh year in which freedom is required. In the marriage metaphor it is the death of a spouse. This freeing grace can not possibly free. Therefore Christ died for all in order to free all from their bondage. Choices require freedom. It seems most arminians view PG as a cheap act of grace. I can’t buy into that. Freedom must be purchased. This explanation fits well with 2Pet. 2:1 and Heb. 10:29 which clearly depict unbelievers as being bought or covered with Christ’s blood. Also it’s important to note that the wandering Israelites WHO NEVER BELIEVED ( which I intend to prove) were sprinkled with blood at Sinai BEFORE ENTERING REST. I will expand on this below.

Jaltus:
Warnings occurs 5 times in the book, beginning in 2:1 and ending in chapter 13. Do you really expect me to believe each one of those refers to the wandering years? Be serious! In order to make a link between 4 and 6, you need to argue from some sort of solid evidence, especially since the structure of the book disallows a strong connection (the section containing 6:4-6 begins at 5:12, not in chapter 4). I see a lot of assertion and very little evidence from you on this point.

Yes I actually do see a uniformity and commonality of warnings throughout the book. I don’t see the shifting of audiences that you seem to. Remember this is still a single letter which is relatively short.

Jaltus:
Oh, the heavenly gift is by no means manna. It is more likely to refer to either Jesus Himself or else the powers mention in 2:1-4 which are a sign of the eschaton being now (see 1:2).

These were Jews (the reading audience that is) and the wandering Israelites served the author’s primary example of disobedience. The link to manna seems warranted. I cross reference this with: John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. I’ve always thought of this as a manna metaphor. I’ll concede though, this is challengeable, and I intend research it further.

But this next part is where you go off the deep end in my opinion. You’re just plain working against a straight forward reading of the text.

Jaltus:
No, I do not have to say that at all. The wandering tribes were brought up during the discussion on REST, not on faith or apostasy. THERE IS NO EXEGETICAL LINK.

Really!? Let’s look at these texts closely.

Heb. 3:11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ”
Heb. 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.

Seems clear so far. The wandering Israelites did not enter “rest” and we are urged NOT to follow their example. All we have to do is find out now what “rest” actually symbolizes.

Heb. 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”...

“We who have believed DO enter...” We can then infer that those who HAVE NOT believed DO NOT enter. To NOT enter rest is to NOT believe (I think I just found your link). THEREFORE, a warning to enter rest is a warning to believe.

Heb. 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

In other words, “Let us therefore be diligent to BELIEVE!” If they already “had believed (Heb. 4:3)” then they’ve already entered His rest. The warning is clearly to those who have not yet to entered, that is, NOT YET BELIEVED.

Jaltus:
The author of Hebrews is never addressing the unsaved, but he does show from the wandering Jews that they had yet to enter real rest (which is the point of the quotation in 4:7ff.). You are mixing themes here.

No my friend, you are completely missing the parallel established between belief and rest in verse 3.

Jaltus:
The theme of rest is what Psalm 95 is all about, and thus it is the basis for talking about the wanderers. Note that the key exhortation in the chapter is 4:11, where Hebrews says we need to enter that rest. The point of the passage is not the rebellion and wandering, it is that the rest has not yet been reached, otherwise talking about Joshua (4:8) would be ridiculous, since he did not become an important person until after the wandering.

You are making an exegetical mountain out of a textual molehill.

Trying to make the wandering Israelites into believers (whether eventually apostate or actually in heaven as Capt. M asserts) is stretching the text beyond it’s breaking point. I will concede the possibility of a change in audience and warnings (possibly starting in chapter 5), but the first 4 chapters are filled with warnings to unbelievers. Case closed! (unless of course someone can change my mind :teeth: )!

themuzicman

November 13th 2003, 02:29 PM

Today @ 12:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283864#post283864)
AVmetro:
I'm having a hard time focusing on my own point (!) whatever it was. Sorry for the incoherence. It's my fault - I need CARBS!

Ramen soup is $.20/bowl.

I'll take if from here. Re: the quote above - yes, but how do you reconcile this with Jn 6:37, 39, 44, 65; 10:26-28, 29. I.e. one cannot come to the Father unless he is drawn. Furthermore, Christ says that ALL that the Father has *given* Him WILL come to Him.

Now compare this with the parable of the sower where Satan takes away the word of God from the heart of those who hear it. Say Peter preaching from the housetops is the sower. The seed lands on good ground (Acts13:48) which harmonizes with John 6:44 etc,.

Well, the seed that fell on the path were never drawn. Those in the rocks could be debated either way. One might ask whether all that are drawn are saved, as well (No, I'm not Calvinist!). The thorns appear to have been drawn and given to Christ, but walk away because they go back to their lives, and God is choked out of their lives, and they walk away.

Semi-tangent (sincere, not debate per se) question:

IF God has infinite foreknowledge, why would He call, justify and sanctify those who He foreknew would fall away? Again, that counts as a "loss". Christ states that "*I* [Jesus] shall lose none of them.." 6:39, which seems to put the onus on Christ. He is afterall doing the will of the Father and He does the will of the Father perfectly. ..After the rich man walks away, Peter asks "who then can be saved" Christ responds "with men this is impossible but with God all things are possible".

[*MM - I think I've read where you are OV so the above question may not apply to you (?)]

-AV

:yes: :whistle: (You make a pretty good case, here!) :highfive: :doh:

Michael

brett

November 14th 2003, 06:33 AM

Capt Mercury:
You see, METANOIA does NOT mean to "turn from your sins," in general. How did this idea come about?

CM I’m detecting a logical fallacy in the belief that one can repent toward God, without repenting from sin. How exactly is this done? Your right in saying that repentance merely means to change ones mind. But how does one change his mind about God without changing his mind about sin? And on the flip side, how does one change his mind about sin, without changing his mind about God?? Seems impossible to do one without the other. Faith is turning toward God, and repentance (as it’s normally used in christian jargon) is turning from sin. You see God and sin are mutually exclusive. You can’t go to one without leaving the other. You cannot serve two masters.

Matt. 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.....

Logically, a decision to trust God must be accompanied by a decision to distrust sin. They're different sides of the same coin. It would be like trying to have tails in your pocket without heads. You can't turn to God without turning from sin. :ponder: This is a very confusing position you’re holding.

Capt Mercury

November 14th 2003, 12:52 PM

A little church history:

From the church fathers until the Reformers, essentially only 1 view of "saving" repentance prevailed. Unfortunately this view knew little of grace. A system of works salvation emerged fairly early in the church. Amazingly, the first generation after the apostles began to see a distortion of the the good news which the apostles had entrusted to their care. Not all, but some of those apostolic fathers began to see repentance in a different manner that would eventually lead to the RCC soteriology. Here's what Dr. Thomas E. Torrance said about this in The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers:

Salvation is wrought, they thought, certainly by divine pardon but on the ground of repentance [self-amendment before God],not apparently on the ground of the death of Christ alone. There is no doubt about the fact that the early Church felt it was willing to go all the way to martyrdom, but it felt that it was in that way the Christian made saving appropriation of the Cross, rather than by faith…It was not seen that the whole of salvation is centred in the person and the death of Christ…Failure to apprehend the meaning of the Cross and to make it a saving article of faith is surely the clearest indication that a genuine doctrine of grace is absent. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959).

Here are 3 basic aspects of the pre-reformation view of repentance.
1-Initial forgiveness of pre-baptismal sins only:
Essentially they believed that salvation began at one’s baptism, assuming faith, of course. When someone was baptized the sins which he had committed until that point in life [plus his share of original sin through Adam] were forgiven. You then began the Christian life with a "clean slate." Of course, that slate would not remain clean for long! So the Church had to come up with a plan to account for post-baptismal sins. Now to be fair to them we must remember that there was tremendous persecution for much of the 1st 300 years after the church began - until Constantine. They had to be very careful about just who was permitted to "join" a local church body. They often would wait 6 months or longer before feeling that this new convert was not a "spy." They then initiated them into the local church body throiugh baptism. They also had to deal with those believers who recanted and denied their faith under severe persecution & torture. Should you allow them to return as part of the body?

2-Post-baptismal sins were forgiven by repentance/penance:
With such a view of baptism and the forgiveness of sins it's no big surprise that people began putting off baptism until they were near death, so they could be assured of total forgiveness. They proposed a different view of repentance (really, penance) as a cure for post-baptismal sins. You could repent and be forgiven several times.

3-Repentance was redefined as contrition, confession, and then performing specified acts of penance:
It was soon taught that had to feel sorry for & confess your post-baptismal sins to a priest and then do whatever acts of penance were prescribed.The church fathers andthose who followed them translated, or IMO mistranslated, the NT words METANOEO and METANOIA to reflect their theological bias which worked their way into Jerome's Latin Vulgate. They translated those terms as POENITENTIAM AGITE and POENITENTIA, "to do acts of penance" and "acts of penance." Those mistranslations unfortunately became part of the Old Latin and then the Latin Vulgate versions of the Bible. It was really not until the reformation that such translations were given a serious and widespread challenge by Luther, Erasmus and others.

The reformation introduced a new view of "saving" repentance. Calvin taught that
1) all sins were forgiven at the point of conversion,
2) that "penance" was not necessary for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, and
3) that the NT term METANOIA referred to a "change of mind" whereby one recognizes his sinfulness and need of forgiveness in Christ.

Luther agreed completely with the last of those points and somewhat with the first one. Luther did hold to a view that you could forfeit your salvation by departing from the faith.

But this was great news! The reformers established a precendence of looking back to Christ and the apostles writings - to God's Word (SOLA SCRIPTURA) - rather than to those who followed them and other church leaders for their view of repentance and the gospel. Would their followers retain this high view of grace? Or would they, like those who followed the apostles, lose a proper understanding of grace and return to a man-made, "legalistic" gospel? Well, IMO, much of the latter has occured. IMO we need a new reformation to return to the theology of the reformation and a pure works-free gospel. It has happened much as it did to those Israelites who first entered the promised land. As long as elders lived who remembered Joshua and Moses and the tremendous manner in which God worked in their midst, the people continued to wholeheartedly follow the Lord. But just one generation after them they began to "apostacize."

In reality, then, there are now at least 6 Protestant views of "saving repentance," according to Bob Wilkin:
1) turn from sins and keep on doing so to obtain and keep a salvation which can be lost,
2) turn from sins to obtain an eternally secure salvation,
3) be willing to turn from sins and then, after conversion, actually turn from sins as a manner of life to gain and keep one’s salvation,
4) be willing to turn from sins to obtain an eternally secure salvation,
5) change your mind about yourself and Christ to gain initial salvation and then turn from your sins as a manner of life thereafter to keep that salvation, and
6) change your mind about yourself and Christ to gain an inviolable salvation.

I think there are actually a couple of others, but it is interesting to see what has happened.

Which are you?

Brett, actually I must not be making myself very clear. I agree that essentially METANOIA means to change your mind. Sometimes it is used as almost a synonym for faith - though that's not that common in the NT IMO. At other times it clearly means to just change your mind about something. Most often in the NT that something IS sin - and the resultant change of mind/attitude would naturally beexpected to bringabout some sort of change in the person's life. But I must distinguish in theact of faith which saves and adding on that we must also stop doing something or other (or commit to d oso) as part of the gospel message. Often the Spirit convicts us of sin - virtually always - and this results in a change of mind about Christ, and also our need for salvation - without such, how can we genuinely trust in Him?

Gotta go - I hope my brief synopsis of church history & repentance makes my position more clear. Get back to you all on Monday.

Cap

themuzicman

November 14th 2003, 12:57 PM

Sounds like this guy has a pretty low view of Protestantism as an intellectual or gnostic form of Christianity.

Most protestants I know would say that they responded to God's drawing them and convicting them of their sin and offering His love to them, offering to accept them. It is an act of the heart, not the mind.

The forgiving comes as a result of grace through faith.

Michael

Capt Mercury

November 14th 2003, 01:00 PM

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285136#post285136)
themuzicman:

Sounds like this guy has a pretty low view of Protestantism as an intellectual or gnostic form of Christianity.

Most protestants I know would say that they responded to God's drawing them and convicting them of their sin and offering His love to them, offering to accept them. It is an act of the heart, not the mind.

The forgiving comes as a result of grace through faith.

Michael
Actually, you couldn't be much more wrong... How about just analyzing what I've said, though? One thought: where in the Bible is there ever any hint of a "head" faith and a "heart" faith? Faith is faith. period.

Edited - added: When I have time next Monday I'll try to explain why viewpoint of the slavation process, which I didn't do a very good job of - rushing too fast. But I would like to share. It is of a personal nature, and one of the mods may move it to where it belongs I suppose, but it does apply here, IMO, so I'll post it here 1st:

Now, I hate to share this, but it certianly helps to put things in perspective, & I would appreciate prayer for this:

I have a neighbor - at the end of our short block. She's divorced & been living with her boyfriend for several years. She & her son don't know the Lord. We know each other, but I haven't gotten to know her very well, I must admit. She got a visit at midnight by the police on Wednesday night... just found out about it last night. Her 19 yr-old son ran a red light and was killed in an accident. Kinda puts things in perspective. I'd appreciate prayer that I will be able to in some way encourage her, be a friend & be able to share Christ with her. God has our family there I'm convinced for a reason.

Right now that's what's burdening me, and I really don't care too much about how to interpret Heb. 6 right now.

So let's be real w/ one another. It is easy to come across like we know it all and I'm sorry when I come across that way. But none of us does know it all, and we can learn from each other and encourage one another.

Let me illustrate why I have such a passion for eternal security: Personally I have 3 children. I just do not know what I'd do if something happened to one of them. I'm struggling with knowing how to properly discipline my youngest son right now. But I guarantee you one thing - absolutely nothing could make me stop loving my son and consider him to not be a part of my family - nothing! He could change his name and refuse to acknowledge me - but I'd always consider him to be part of my family - always! And I do not think that our heavenly Father loves us any less. When we become part of His family - it's permanent. He can discipline us big time - He has me. And sin always has consequences - always. But one of them is absolutely NOT taking our eternal lie away from us. We can't even give it away - go figure. What a great God we have...

Appreciate your prayers - that I'll be considerate and bold.

Thx,

Cap

themuzicman

November 14th 2003, 01:10 PM

In reality, then, there are now at least 6 Protestant views of "saving repentance," according to Bob Wilkin:
1) turn from sins and keep on doing so to obtain and keep a salvation which can be lost,
2) turn from sins to obtain an eternally secure salvation,
3) be willing to turn from sins and then, after conversion, actually turn from sins as a manner of life to gain and keep one’s salvation,
4) be willing to turn from sins to obtain an eternally secure salvation,
5) change your mind about yourself and Christ to gain initial salvation and then turn from your sins as a manner of life thereafter to keep that salvation, and
6) change your mind about yourself and Christ to gain an inviolable salvation.

I think there are actually a couple of others, but it is interesting to see what has happened.

Which are you?

None of the above.

Jaltus

November 14th 2003, 01:20 PM

Yesterday @ 12:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283898#post283898)
brett:
Actually, my understanding of PG demands exactly that. I look at PG as a pre-faith extrication from TD. In the slavery metaphor it is this the seventh year in which freedom is required. In the marriage metaphor it is the death of a spouse. This freeing grace can not possibly free. Therefore Christ died for all in order to free all from their bondage. Choices require freedom. It seems most arminians view PG as a cheap act of grace. I can’t buy into that. Freedom must be purchased. This explanation fits well with 2Pet. 2:1 and Heb. 10:29 which clearly depict unbelievers as being bought or covered with Christ’s blood. Also it’s important to note that the wandering Israelites WHO NEVER BELIEVED ( which I intend to prove) were sprinkled with blood at Sinai BEFORE ENTERING REST. I will expand on this below.

They never entered rest, so there is no time when they were under rest, thus your "before entering rest" is misleading. I see PG as a gift from God through Christ's death and resurrection by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing cheap about it.

Yes I actually do see a uniformity and commonality of warnings throughout the book. I don’t see the shifting of audiences that you seem to. Remember this is still a single letter which is relatively short.

Are you sure you are reading my posts? From the beginning I have argued that there is a single group addressed here, believers. The entire letter is written to believers, otherwise it is a joke that Jesus calls them brothers or that the author calls them brothers. How can you read 2:11 to 3:1 and not see that these are Christians he is addressing? That seriously astounds me. I know of anot a single person who has ever argued in the history of Christianity that the entire letter was written to unbelievers, for this means it was written BY an unbeliever.

After all, the warning in 2:1-4 uses "we" about 5 times (all contained within the verbs) and it is not because he is being nice to them, for that would actually be lying in this case.

So, either this sermon is written to unbelievers, of which the author is one, or else it is written to believers. I see no other option allowed by scripture.

These were Jews (the reading audience that is) and the wandering Israelites served the author’s primary example of disobedience. The link to manna seems warranted. I cross reference this with: John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. I’ve always thought of this as a manna metaphor. I’ll concede though, this is challengeable, and I intend research it further.

The concept in John 6:32 is indeed manna, it just does not find a parallel in Hebrews 6. Also, I disagree that the audience was primarily Jews, and at this point in time a majority of commentators would agree with me. The symbols are laid out to carefully and the scriptures are explained quite exactingly, something one would NOT expect when writing to Jews. There are many other arguments as well, but I will elave it at that for the moment (the use of the LXX also screams for a nonJewish audience).

But this next part is where you go off the deep end in my opinion. You’re just plain working against a straight forward reading of the text.

Really!? Let’s look at these texts closely.

Heb. 3:11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ”
Heb. 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.

My point was that THIS DOES NOT CONNECT TO HEBREWS 6! It still does not! You have not a single shred of evidence in any way shape or form. Assertion gets you nowhere.

Seems clear so far. The wandering Israelites did not enter “rest” and we are urged NOT to follow their example. All we have to do is find out now what “rest” actually symbolizes.

Heb. 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”...

“We who have believed DO enter...” We can then infer that those who HAVE NOT believed DO NOT enter. To NOT enter rest is to NOT believe (I think I just found your link). THEREFORE, a warning to enter rest is a warning to believe.

Actually, to not enter into rest is to not be in the eschatological kingdom. The key to getting into the kingdom asnd therefore inheriting the rest is belief. You skipped a few steps. For that matter, I am certain you were not reading this section carefully at all. Over and over again the author says "WE". "We who have believed" in 4:3 is linked to "we who have heard the good news preached to us" in 4:2.

We means the author and those he is writing to. You cannot arbitrarily decide that this means the people he is writing to are not saved, for that goes against "a plain reading of the text."

Your assumptions are outstanding.

Heb. 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

In other words, “Let us therefore be diligent to BELIEVE!” If they already “had believed (Heb. 4:3)” then they’ve already entered His rest. The warning is clearly to those who have not yet to entered, that is, NOT YET BELIEVED.

Again, you have yet to make the link between the wanderers and the people being addressed. Over and over again the author says WE who have believed, meaning himself and his audience since that is what he means by we throughout the entire sermon.

No my friend, you are completely missing the parallel established between belief and rest in verse 3.

No, I see the parallel (linked through the eschaton), but you miss the language of the entire epistle.

Trying to make the wandering Israelites into believers (whether eventually apostate or actually in heaven as Capt. M asserts) is stretching the text beyond it’s breaking point. I will concede the possibility of a change in audience and warnings (possibly starting in chapter 5), but the first 4 chapters are filled with warnings to unbelievers. Case closed! (unless of course someone can change my mind :teeth: )!

Someone needs to reread 2-4 in order to see what they missed. All of the language is communally oriented such that the author is either speaking to Christians or else he along with the audience is not saved.

Make your choice.

Capt Mercury

November 14th 2003, 08:13 PM

Hebrews 6

OK, let me say up front that I'm going to post two similar but slightly different views. I believe the1st one fits the Greek text better, but the 2nd one sure makes sense and seems to fit the context so well. I'd be very interested in what you guys think of the two possibilities. And please, let's not get too frustrated over our differences. I believe that I can develop my view logically and according to the text. If you don't agree with all of it, or perhaps with very little of it, that's too bad, but let's build one another up, not tear one another down.

I will also refer to 1 Corin. 3 because it is so obviously a parallel passage and they say very similar things. We cannot just ignore this. I discovered this parallel imagery about 10 years ago and have never seen anyone develop a lesson on it yet. I'm surprised,though people often cross-reference it.

1st View:
IMO, as I said before common sense shows that Hebrews was written to believers. Except for the warnings, we find the readers addressed as "brothers" (10:19; 13:22) and "holy brothers" (3:1). Sometimes he includes himself with them. Things are said to them that could apply only to Christians and these all appear shortly before or after the warning sections. So IMO each of the warning sections applies to believers. The 5 things that Jaltus and others listed are all in the Greek aorist tense, which means they aren't referring to things done repititiously - though we do have to be careful about overdoing that take - the ole "aorist fallacy."

I imagine that most will agree that the theme of Hebrews has in some way to do with the "supremacy of Christ." Throughout the letter, however, the writer dramatically interrupts his arguments with warnings - 5 of them. And in the entire letter, these warning passages are never introduced with any transition that might indicate the author (My guess - Barnabas, FWIW) is shifting his attention to a different group among the readers. Nuff said about believers being addressed. I won't belabor this point because it's obvious to me and others have done a thorough job of making the point, IMO.

But these warnings do not need to be about the possibility of losing or forsaking their salvation IOT be deadly serious.

The 1st warning is concerning the danger of "drifting away from the truth" spoken by the Son, of which they were taught. They are reminded of those in Israel that were "redeemed by the blood of the passover lamb" (who left Egypt) and saw the power of God, when they drifted away from the law given by angels... died. 3000 died because of the golden calf rebellion.

And we have so much more knowledge than was given to them, and so a correspondingly greater responsibility to live in light of that truth. We cannot just ignore its message.

The 2nd warning is the danger of "not entering into His rest because of unbelief." It's not enough to be justified by faith. They must continue to live by faith. If they live in unbelief they will experience serious discipline from the Lord.

A whole generation perished in the wilderness because of like failure to trust God. They were saved out of Egypt, true, and from slavery which illustrates our own slavery to sin before believing in Christ - they experienced God's salvation. But... they all died in the wilderness. But this is NOT spiritual death.

There is more to the Christian life than just being saved. There is a rest... a crossing of the Jordan River as well as a crossing of the Reed Sea, as I briefly referred to in an earlier post. Can believers today die in the wilderness never having entered in by faith into the blessings and rest God has for them? Yes, and many do just that! What happened to that generation was to be a warning to these Jewish believers as it should also be a warning to us to not fall through the same manner of unbelief caused by a bitterness against God because of His dealings with us, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Hebrews 5:11-14 exhorts us to allow God's Word to work in our lives so that we too are not hardened, grieving the Spirit of God. I guess that's enough of an explanation of my overview of Hebrews to set the stage for this 3rd warning section. In 5:11 we read that the problem in these hearers is that they have "become" dull of hearing. They didn’t used to be that way - they are now.

This, the 3rd warning (5:11--6:20) exhorts the believers to move forward in their spiritual growth from milk to solid food. They are in danger of perhaps "falling away." The 3rd warning Involves the danger of not going on to maturity. What is the danger? The danger is that if we do not, we could "fall back" into apostasy.

Barnabas (allow me a little liberty) had carefully argued for the preeminence of Christ’s person and also His work. Now he warns them not to revert back to their Judaism roots because of persecution but instead to cling fast to their Christ/Messiah so that they can enter into both the present and future blessings that accompany salvation.

So much for context.

Heb 6:1,2 Therefore (For this reason - διό - DIO) leaving the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to maturity; not laying again...

Barnabas is concerned that if the readers do not make progress in the Christian life, they could regress to a state from which there is such a hardness of heart that there will be no chance for their repentance. If this happens they will suffer the loss of rewards at the bema seat of Christ. This is not a threat to be damned for eternity. These people knew that Christ was the fulfillment of the OT sacrifices and that the temple sacrifices are all fulfilled in His once-for-all sacrifice... yet they cannot seem to understand why it would be wrong for then to go back to the temple and to the sacrifices. In 6:1 we read that these immature believers needed to leave the ABCs of doctrine and go on into maturity. We cannot ignore this context. Heb. 6:2 continues to list the specific examples of those ABCs of teaching.

In Heb. 6:3 we read that this "going on to maturity" we will do "if only God permits." (εάνπερ επιτρέπη ο θεός - EANPER EPITREPN hO THEOS - "if only permits God") This is very important. We cannot force maturity. The Father wants the child to mature, and so this Greek 3rd class condition shows that the fault is with us, not God, if we do not go on to maturity. (The 3rd class is introduced with EAN and has subjunctive mood in what's called the protasis clause - the "if" clause. It refers to a "probable future." So Barnabas anticipated that they would indeed go on to maturity - it's a positive statement.) Now we get to the heart of the quandary.

Heb 6:4ff For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, AND have tasted... AND... (IOW, Christians) ...AND falling away, to renew them again unto repentance

The Greek does not have EI or EAV indicating "if" or a conditional clause. It has simply a conjunction continuing the string (KAI) of participles. It is not subjunctive or future, so instead of translating it as "IF they SHALL/MIGHT fall away (as some translations have it) I kept it simply as "AND falling away... to renew again to repentance, crucifying to themselves (or to their own hurt) the Son of God again and exposing [Him] to public ridicule..." I don't know that it made much difference, but that's how I see it. Interestingly, there is a similar string of participles in the well-known Hebrews 10 problem passage.

Heb. 6:7, 8 For the earth which drinks in (another participle, articular) the rain that comes upon it often, and producing (yeah, another participle) vegetation useful to those fo which it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God: But producing (another participle) thorns and thistles is disqualified (αδόκιμος - ADOKIMOS - failure to meet a test), and close to a curse, whose end is to be burned (infinitive).

So we see a contrast of land which produces vegetation/crops useful to the farmer and receiving a blessing from God is contrasted with that land which instead produces throrns & thistles and instead is CLOSE to a curse and whose end will be to be burned. But think about it... what is burned when the yset fire to the field? The vegetation, thorns, etc.... NOT the ground.

Blessing and cursing are in view, not heaven and hell, not eternal life or eternal judgment. Compare this passage with the parallel one in 1 Corin. 3 as I suggested before... the same contrast is made. A foundation is referred to in both passages. Both refer to almost not being saved. In 1 Cor. 3 there is gold, silver, precious jewels vs. wood, hay, stubble while here there is useful crops vs. thorns and thistles. In both ADOKIMOS is the possibility - to be disapproved or to fail the test.

Again in 1 Corin. 3 says "If anyone's work is burned up, it will be lost, but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire. " Both refer to the "judgment" of fire...

Let's consider his exhortation in vss. 9-12. Notice that Barnabas is confident that this will not be the case with these readers - of being ADOKIMOS, and he exhorts them to be diligent in their faith and to follow the example of the OT saints. He will expand on this for encouragement later in chapter 11. And to further drive his point home he reminds them of the faith of Abraham, who received the promises of God.

Remember, he urges them to press on to maturity (and is confident that they will) through holding fast to the certain hope of salvation through Jesus Christ as they look toward their reward from God who IS faithful to His promise.

Which brings us to thecrux of the matter... what does it mean to refer to the Impossibility of repentance for those who have fallen away? Severe judgment was on that field. Barnabas explains (GAR - for - a key grammatical signpost) his warning about the impossibility of repentance through the imagery of ground which receives God's blessing of rain and then receives either blessing from God for bringing forth useful vegetation or a burning that is close to being cursed for yielding thorns and thistles.

Now I must admit that I am as puzzled as all of us about this particular expression "impossible... to renew to repentance." But one thing that was made clear here as in 1 Corin. 3... the ground was NOt cursed... it says that it is NEAR to being cursed. The grammar is very clear - it's talking about ground that DOES produce thorns and thistles - which results in a state of "near to being cursed."

Even if I'm interpreting this "repentance" or someother part of this passage incorrectly, one thing is clear - such ground is not representative of those believers who could possibly lose their salvation.

Remember, Barnabas was convinced of better things for those believers he's writing to, and warns of a possible very severe judgment/punishment/discipline for apostasy.

In the warning Barnabas says that God will not forget their diligent labor and exhorts them to show the same diligence so as to realize their future hope... not being sluggish, but imitators of those who "through faith and patience (endurence) inherit the promises. (6:12) κληρονομέω KLARONOMOUNTON - present active genitive active plural participle of κληρονομέω KLARONOMEO.

Did you get that last? This is inheritance truth, not eternal life truth. We all will be heirs of God, but if we want to be joint-heirs with Christ, we need to "suffer with Him..." This passage is literally saying the same thing as 1 Corin. 3... but with a little different imagery. Since Paul and Barnabas ministered together for some time, that's not too surprising. We inherit the promises through faith and endurance.

But consider again verses 6:4-6... it begins with Αδύνατον γὰρ (ADUNATON GAR) GAR is postpositive, so you can just consider it to be the 1st word here. "For (it is) impossible..." (έστι[ν] ESTIN - "it is" assumed). It was placed at the front to make it emphatic. Ever wonder why he spoke of some of the things he did as elementary teachings in vs. 1? The assertion that "it is impossible to restore them to repentance" is parallel to the notion of laying again the foundation concerning repentance in vs. 1.
But you'll notice that there the primary word concerning Christ was the foundation, which had to be left standing and which could not be laid again! This thought is reiterated in vs. 6: it is impossible to seek to lay another foundation than the one that has been laid and is
sustaining the people of God... Now consider 1 Corin. 3:11... because no any other foundation can anyone lay than that which has been laid -- which is, Christ Jesus. The parallel of these two passages is amazing.

In the perspective of Hebrews, there is no other repentance than that provided by God through Jesus Christ. There is no salvation apart from the redemption for our sins accomplished by His Son, who is better than Moses, Aaron, angels, etc.. ADUNATON as used in vs. 4 expresses an impossibility because the apostate rejects the only basis upon which repentance can be extended .... to repudiate Christ's sacrifice - His provision - is not really "possible" for the Christian.

So I may not be exactly sure how all of this imagery applies, but one thing is quite clear... the crops are burned, not the ground... this is not warning of taking away or losing a salvation - the foundation. IMO this is not just referring to casual or common, everyday type sin which we all experience, but apostasy - but I do not agree that this results in eternal damnation.

Let me repeat something I said earlier: this 3rd warning exhorts the believers to move forward in their spiritual growth from milk to solid food. They are in danger of perhaps "falling away." The 3rd warning Involves the danger of not going on to maturity. What is the danger? The danger is that if we do not, we could "fall back" into apostasy. Many of you will agree with me there, but we may not agree on the consequences of apostacy. You see, I veiw apostacy as something that CAn happen to genuine born-again ("from above") Christians. But I do not see a consequence of eternal damnation. NEAR to cursing... or "he will be saved, yet as through fire." (1 Corin. 3).

Now let me give a 2nd view that may very well be the correct one. I used to believe it, and as i think about it now, it still sounds like something very possible, thoguh it relys on viewing "repentance" a littledifferently, perhaps. But here it is:

A 2nd view:

What this passage DOES teach is simply that something is impossible. It is impossible for those who are saved to fall away and then be saved all over again and so remove all the wasted years of failure and childhood since this would require Christ to die again and put him to open shame because His first death was not sufficient. Since all of this is impossible, and we cannot remove the record of wasted years as a believer, there is only one thing for us to do - let us go on to maturity.

So then, my past record stands. I can't change it. I cannot do anything about yesterday. ButI can go on to maturity and change today and tomorrow.

How can we know if this is what Barnabas is talking about? Look again at vs. 4 and the GAR (“for”) it begins with... that gives an explanation of why we must go on. And it fits the context... about spiritual childhood and wasted years. The only thing they can do is "go on." The context following it also gives an illustration of wasted years of the land bringing forth thorns and briers (6:7-8). We cannot go back and do anything about those crops. The only thing that can be done is burn away those thorns and go on... produce a good crop this year.

The use of the word "again" (Greek πάλιν - PALIN) is significant. It is impossible to renew a saved person "again to initial repentance"... to salvation, simply because he is already saved. The "again" shows a prior experience. In this case a prior experience of salvation.

To paraphrase this we might say: "leaving childhood, let us go on to maturity for it is impossible by means of a falling away to renew - that is make the whole record new - by means of an initial repentance to salvation because this would necessitate Christ dying again and make His first death of no avail, and therefore a mockery to those looking on." The argument goes that when we come forward again and again to "receive Christ" it makes a mockery of His death. How many of you have felt that way when you've seen the same people coming forward at a revival or evangelical outreach? Doesn't it bug you? That's the argument. It does sound better than the one I proposed above, I admit, but I don't know that it fits the Greek quite as well, and we can't make our exegesis fit our theology. We don't want to do "isogesis", but "exegesis."

I do like this view because it gives the same confident view that Barnabas expressed... As in my earlier interpretation, the land is not burned, but the fruit of the land is if it is thorns and briers. So all will be brought out at the judgment seat of Christ (Same parallel passage of 1 Cor. 3:11-15). It is not the believer who is burned, but his works that are rejected. (ADOKIMOS)

We cannot erase the record of last year's thorns. So let us go on and by the grace of God this year produce a good crop that will glorify the Lord.

My concern for this 2nd view is that it perhaps makes too light of apostacy. And the biggest problem with any approach that sees eternal life at stakehere is that you must conclude, as Jaltus, that if you lose it, you "cain't never get it back!" That sure doesn't make sense, nor is it consistent with God's character.

Thx,

Cap

Sheepdog

November 14th 2003, 08:35 PM

Yesterday @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283668#post283668)
Capt Mercury:

Sheepdog,

Two quick comments... sorry, but this week is bad:

if this is two quick comments, i hate to see what you would consider an extended discourse :eek: :tongue:

You've gotta define repentance first. Now in John 20:30, 31 John clearly states his theme... "but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name."

and from this you infer that John's Gospel was evangelical in nature. i can see why you went awry...

regarding repentance, in the context of coming to faith it is a recognition that you are dead in your sins, and thus you recognize that (1) you need to be saved from your fate, and (2) you need Christ in order to please God.

&#949;&#769;&#967;&#951;&#964;&#949; ("might have...") is present active subjunctive 3P/plural. The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility. John specifically listed the signs and miracles that he did SO THAT (&#953;&#769;&#957;&#945; - conjunction of purpose or result, "in order that" or "so that") the readers might come to faith in Christ. No other book in the NT states its theme so clearly. John clearly states his purpose for writing this gospel.

might come to faith, or might continue in their belief? without question begging the million dollar question (can one fall away-- that is the issue here), why pick the former over the latter?

the problem is, (1) the majority of people at the time were illiterate, so the Gospel would have to be spread orally-- the written Gospels were likely made to cement the oral tradition, and to teach the congregation as a whole (cf. the Sermon on the Mount); (2) assuming a late date for John, the synoptics were already in circulation, meaning material was already available, not to mention Paul's works; (3) John presupposes you already have knowledge of the story of Jesus (e.g. mentioning the Baptist's imprisonment before it happened, John 3:24) (some take this as evidence that John assumes you have Matt. or Mark available to you as well); (4) John's work is advanced in terms of theology, and thus most nonbelievers would not be ready for it.

And he was not "silent" in the sense that he merely forgot to mention it. He wrote this gospel to bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ. How could he forget a crucial part of that gospel, if it is part of the gospel message? To say absolutely nothing under those stated terms... why the silence is absolutely deafening!

it is no more thunderous a silence than the silence that John opposes the notion that repentance is crucial. if you can't deal with the rest of Scripture that shows that repentance is necessary for salvation, then i rest my case.

Perhaps you read through my post quckly as it was so long. I did notsay that repentance is not even correlated with salvation, I said that we are not saved by repenting, but by faith alone.

we are saved by faith alone, and repentance is necessary for faith.

Repentance is what causes us to see just who Jesus Christ is - to face Him. ...

and you cannot come ot faith without that, right? i rest my case.

It is interetsing that John's gospel is not only completely silent about repentance, but it is almost equally silent about forgiveness. The lone reference there (John 20:23) is not speaking of the forgiveness of sins on the basis of faith alone.

so then, we don't need forgiveness to be saved!? oh the thunderous silence! :lol:

You see, in terms of man's eternal destiny, the real question is not about forgiveness but eternal life.

and you cannot have eternal life without God's forgiveness.

So how can it be that sin is not the issue for determining who gains entrance into the kingdom? Because Jesus is "the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world." Jesus paid the penalty for sin already.

wow... mkay. Jesus paid the penalty so that we can be forgiven. Do you know what forgiveness is? seriously.

In his first letter John adds that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the entire world." Jesus already paid the price for my sin. They do not need to be forgiven. (Now I'm not talking about the daily confession of sin needed IOT maintain a close walk with the Lord.)

do you believe all are saved? that is the only logical conclusion from you hayseed interpretation of 1Jn. 2:2. we know that is unbiblical, so it clear that your reasoning is flawed.

I realize that this is a different view of atonement than many hold, but I'm convinced it's correct. My sins as well as the sins of the world have been atoned for. But I do not automatically gain eternal life... I still need to accept the free gift of eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone.

unfortunately for you, the Bible continuously affirms that the unbeliever is condemned precisely because of his sin-- read Romans 1, for instance. also, John 15:1-8

So then, why the accounting at the great white throne judgment? Because so many assume that they can gain heaven (eternal life) by their works. Wrong - we're not saved by works, as Eph. 2 makes clear, but by faith based on the work of Christ in our place - it's by grace - a gift.

and i am sure many will be there who incorrectly think that vain belief is all that is needed to be saved-- James 2 pretty much destroys that notion. (though don't divorce James from the rest of the Bible, as some do. i.e. he is really saying the same thing as John 15:1-8, Romans 6-8.)

"Forgiveness is not a judicial issue between man and God, but a personal issue."

OK, how about a practical example? Suppose I go to court (OK, I know the example I'm using could never really happen. :tongue:, but bear with me a moment.) on trial for stealing a valuable diamond ring. The judge is not concerned whether or not I am forgiven. He is only concerned in assertaining whether or not I am guilty or innocent. But suppose someone paid the penalty for my clear guilt. Than that's not an issue. But suppose again that the ring stolen belonged to the judge himself... Do I automatically have forgiveness in his eyes because I've been decalred to be not guilty? No. Of course that is a personal issue.

nice anachornism! in the courts, a pardon would be analogous to fogriveness. and besides, without forgiveness, we have no fellowship with God. without His fellowship how can we bear fruit pleasing to Him? and without fruit, you will be cut off and thrown in the fire (John 15:5-6).

Regarding the effect our sin has on God, forgiveness repairs the damage done by my sin. If I have been born from above (born again) I have gained eternal life. But my fellowship might become estranged by my sins... by my refusal to confess them, acknowledge them & deal with them. But if my sin is persistent, I need to do more than just confess them, I need to repent. That restores my relationship with God, as in the parable of the prodigal son. The son was always his father's son. But their relationship had been damaged.

ironically, the prodigal son makes my case, as without forgiveness for rejecting his father (as we all have, prior to being saved), the son would have never returned as part of the father's household. besides, the prodical son was analogous to Isreal in general (which was deep in sin and pretty much wasn't saved), while the older son was the self-righteous pharasees Jesus was responding to. a little bit of context goes a long way.

So then the cross does not automatically regenerate men... but it make such regeneration a possibility for all men... received only by faith alone.

i would say incorrect, though close. the sacrifice regenerates us when we come to faith.

I am not actually ignoring "repentance," Sheepdog, but it is not relevant to gaining eternal life. So repentance brings us to harmony with God. It does not save us.

then you don't understand that your conversion was very much a reprentance of sorts. didn't you turn away from your sin of disbelief?

Jesus put it very simply in John 6:47, "I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life." Did Jesus say something that was the truth but not the whole truth? Of course not. Repentance is part of the message we are to bring to the world. For through repentance they can gain forgiveness of their sins & experience a fellowship with us and our Savior. But we are saved by faith alone.

first off and to clear up any misconceptions, the word we translate "to believe" is of the same root word for "faith." we just don't have a verb form of "having faith." to have faith in Christ precludes your recognition that to not have faith in him (as you used to) is wrong, and thus must be repented of. so even in the language of John, the implication is clear.

BTW, I've spent sometime evaluating John 15:1-8 and brought a message on that a few monents ago. But that is another thread, so let's forego that for now. I can guarantee this: it will besomething different than you've probably heard before. It's based on a doctoral thesis I read that was in DTS' BibSac by a man with a degree in horticulture who was raised on a vineyard, so it's not really mine. But later.

well, if you do, be ready with some socio-historical data from 1st century Judea/Galilee regarding vineyards. if your friend used modern day methods and such, the risk of anachronizing what Jesus had to say is high. but if you are interested, see my material on the parable, and why it contradicts your notions about salvation and belief. (http://www.tektonics.org/john1518.html)

But I haven't heard anyone comment on the parallels between 1 Corin. 3:10-14 & Heb. 6. That one is relevant.

it is not parallel enough, because it doesn't explicitely describe a state of apostacy, which is what you really need for a parallel.

Well, gotta go. Later I'll give my exegesis of the Hebrews 6 passage... be interested in your comments.

if it was already given, i may dig it up and have a look-see.

BTW, isn't it great that people from a variety of theological persuasions can come here and share with one another. It's envigorating, like iron sharpens iron...

i agree. likewise, sometimes being sharpened hurts, so i hope you don't take my harsh tone personally.

Capt Mercury

November 14th 2003, 11:04 PM

Today @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286106#post286106)
Sheepdog:
if this is two quick comments, i hate to see what you would consider an extended discourse :eek: :tongue:
Cap -> :tongue: You got that right!

John 20:30, 31 NASB
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

and from this you infer that John's Gospel was evangelical in nature. i can see why you went awry...

Cap ->It states it as point blank as you can make it. You'll have to be specific.

regarding repentance, in the context of coming to faith it is a recognition that you are dead in your sins, and thus you recognize that (1) you need to be saved from your fate, and (2) you need Christ in order to please God.

might come to faith, or might continue in their belief? without question begging the million dollar question (can one fall away-- that is the issue here), why pick the former over the latter?

Cap -> Simply based on a proper understanding of some basic Greek grammar, SheepDog. It is not possible for a continuing - linearity to apply here. It can apply in some cases when speaking of a present tense, though that is not common and used too often IMO. But this is aorist, SheepDog. Ask Jaltus - Aorist is a punctiliar sense - past tense - point-in-time. Impossible for it to mean a continuing:
πιστεύσητε - aorist active subjunctive, 2P/plural. The subjunctive mood indicates possibility - actually probability. Now this says that "these have been written (perfect passive - indicates a point in time occurence with a state continuing into the present) so that you might believe (a point in time occurence in the past)...

SD->
the problem is, (1) the majority of people at the time were illiterate, so the Gospel would have to be spread orally-- the written Gospels were likely made to cement the oral tradition, and to teach the congregation as a whole (cf. the Sermon on the Mount); (2) assuming a late date for John, the synoptics were already in circulation, meaning material was already available, not to mention Paul's works; (3) John presupposes you already have knowledge of the story of Jesus (e.g. mentioning the Baptist's imprisonment before it happened, John 3:24) (some take this as evidence that John assumes you have Matt. or Mark available to you as well); (4) John's work is advanced in terms of theology, and thus most nonbelievers would not be ready for it.

Cap -> Interesting & well thought out, SD, but we've got to take internal evidence 1st. Incidentally, no parables in John. John’s Gospel places an emphasis on the deity of Christ more than any other gospel - I imagine we all agree with that - starting with the his declaration of the Word's deity in 1:1-4. Clearly this gospel presents Jesus as the Son of God, but it does more than that. It tries to stir up a response of believing (πιστεύω - PISTEUO occurs 98 times in it). Furthermore, John lacks many features found in the synoptic gospels—such as the Olivet discourse, the sermon on the mount, the transfiguration and the afore-mentioned parables. John clearly presents Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, Who must to be believed in order to pass right now from death to life. (John 5:24)

How can it not be evangelical in nature? I do not deny that it also was written to build-up and strengthen the disciples, but you have not shown that we should restrict it to that.

And since over 90% of the material in John’s Gospel is not found in the other gospels, the question of sources and how John is using them cannot be assumed. Dr. Wallace contends that John’s Gospel was written at about the same time as Matthew and Luke, because he shows virtually no awareness of the material found in the other gospels.

SD->
<snip>
we are saved by faith alone, and repentance is necessary for faith.

Cap -> I don't exactly disagree with this, SD... as long as you give only one condition for eternal life - a gift received by faith.

SD ->
and you cannot come to faith without that, right? i rest my case.

Cap ->
I do not agree with it if you define repentance as turning from sin. John doesn't either. :tongue:

SD ->
so then, we don't need forgiveness to be saved!? oh the thunderous silence! :lol:

Cap ->
Our sins need to be paid for - forgiveness has nothing to do with that. Please go back & read my illustration more carefully.

SD ->
and you cannot have eternal life without God's forgiveness.

wow... mkay. Jesus paid the penalty so that we can be forgiven. Do you know what forgiveness is? seriously.

Cap ->
αφίημι - "forgive" - "cancel; forgive, remit (of sin or debts); allow, let be, tolerate (άφες ίδωμεν Wait! Let us see! or simply Let us see! Mt 27:49; Mk 15:36); leave; leave behind, forsake, neglect; let go, dismiss, divorce; ) - According top L-S, "to send forth, discharge ... of missiles ... hence to let loose..." It basically means to" throw away."

SD ->
do you believe all are saved? that is the only logical conclusion from you hayseed interpretation of 1Jn. 2:2. we know that is unbiblical, so it clear that your reasoning is flawed.

Cap -> I'm getting tired of this board really fast. It's easy to blast someone - where's your exegetical support? Is everyone this rude!? It's easy to say it's unbiblical - Please tell me how it's unbiblical. Where is my reasoning flawed?

SD ->
unfortunately for you, the Bible continuously affirms that the unbeliever is condemned precisely because of his sin-- read Romans 1, for instance. also, John 15:1-8

Cap -> OK, SD, please go back & read my posts more carefully. Of course we are condemned by sin. But if I say that someone who has killed my brother is forgiven that doesn't keep him from getting the gas chamber, does it? My forgiveness allows a possible relationship - friendship. He needs to have his sin PAID FOR, not forgiven, to go free.

SD ->
and i am sure many will be there who incorrectly think that vain belief is all that is needed to be saved-- James 2 pretty much destroys that notion. (though don't divorce James from the rest of the Bible, as some do. i.e. he is really saying the same thing as John 15:1-8, Romans 6-8.)

Cap -> Uh, would you care to elaborate? here you go again, making crass comments without defending them. Nowhere does the Bible speak of "vain" faith... James 2 talks about a faith that is DEAD... it's not effective. Now if you want to start a thread on James 2, I'd be glad to address that issue. I've done a fairly thorough personal study of it... so there'll be no short posts there.

Sd ->
nice anachornism! in the courts, a pardon would be analogous to fogriveness. and besides, without forgiveness, we have no fellowship with God. without His fellowship how can we bear fruit pleasing to Him? and without fruit, you will be cut off and thrown in the fire (John 15:5-6).

Cap -> Again, start a thread on John 15... I've taught on that before, meaning that I've already thought through it exegetically. But let's stay on topic here.

But I will say that I completely agree that we cdannot bear fruit pleasing to God without fellowship with Him. Where have I indicated anything remotely different? You're apparently confusing discipleship truth with soteriology. This thread is about soteriology, right?

SD ->
<snip>
then you don't understand that your conversion was very much a reprentance of sorts. didn't you turn away from your sin of disbelief?

SD ->
first off and to clear up any misconceptions, the word we translate "to believe" is of the same root word for "faith." we just don't have a verb form of "having faith." to have faith in Christ precludes your recognition that to not have faith in him (as you used to) is wrong, and thus must be repented of. so even in the language of John, the implication is clear.

Cap -> Huh? say what? I'm sorry, SD, and I do not mean to ridicule you, as you clearly DO of me, but I really do not understand what you're saying here.

Sd ->
well, if you do, be ready with some socio-historical data from 1st century Judea/Galilee regarding vineyards. if your friend used modern day methods and such, the risk of anachronizing what Jesus had to say is high. but if you are interested, http://www.tektonics.org/john1518.html" ("see my material on the parable, and why it contradicts your notions about salvation and belief.

Cap -> Just start the thread...

<snip>(stuff about iron sharpening iron) - i agree. likewise, sometimes being sharpened hurts, so i hope you don't take my harsh tone personally.

Cap -> No, SD, I do NOT like your harsh tone and how can I take it any other way than personally - that's how it sure appears to be intended. You can't just go around blasting people & then say, "I hope you don't take my harsh tone personally."

In fact, I'm not very impressed with the spiritual tone of almost everyone in the threads I've looked into. The board I was active in before (and still am) may not have as many fairly-well taught people, but they sure are consdierate and respectful. It's fun. What I see is a lot of pride, and little sensitivity or consideration or respect being shown. I really like the topics available. But I get tired of people trying to show that they know more theology than others, or taking their 1 or 2 years of Greek and acting like a top dog. Greek is meant to be a tool... it should be used to build up, not tear down.

I suppose I need to apologize for my own use of it hear... kinda grows on you here! :bonk:

I PMed two people who didn't even have the decency to reply. One moderator was considerate. Thanks much - you know who you are.

Do you realize that not one single person has made a positive comment on my posts?! And that IS ridiculous, because let's face it - I showed a significant knowledge of the issues, whether you agreed with my conclusions or not.

And I can't believe that not a single person made a comment about my neighbor whose son was killed recently. This could be a good forum... but several people have got to change their attitudes big-time, IMO.

Since I'm not going to hang around here, I don't think, unless some peopel show a desire to build friendships, I'm going to post this blast, hoping that those who've been posting on this thread will take it to heart.

Also, is there even a single grace person here? Doesn't appear to be. I imagine that many of you want me to move along. Because I hold a different theology, and I can defend it. Big deal. I was impressed with the theological base of many of you, but I've got to say, knowledge doesn't make for maturity alone.

Doesn't anyone want to develop a give-n-take friendship? I know... just be quiet and maybe the new guy will go away...

I'm sorry for being so critical... that is truly not my nature, but I figured that something needed to be said, so I said it.

In Christ,

Cap

Dee Dee Warren

November 15th 2003, 01:20 PM

Hey Cap I just emailed you, and you know from my prior emails to you that I have been trying to build just that kind of friendship with you. I hope that gesture on my part entices you to stay.

brett

November 15th 2003, 03:23 PM

Capt Mercury:
Cap -> No, SD, I do NOT like your harsh tone and how can I take it any other way than personally - that's how it sure appears to be intended. You can't just go around blasting people & then say, "I hope you don't take my harsh tone personally."

In fact, I'm not very impressed with the spiritual tone of almost everyone in the threads I've looked into. The board I was active in before (and still am) may not have as many fairly-well taught people, but they sure are consdierate and respectful. It's fun. What I see is a lot of pride, and little sensitivity or consideration or respect being shown. I really like the topics available. But I get tired of people trying to show that they know more theology than others, or taking their 1 or 2 years of Greek and acting like a top dog. Greek is meant to be a tool... it should be used to build up, not tear down.

I suppose I need to apologize for my own use of it hear... kinda grows on you here! :bonk:

I PMed two people who didn't even have the decency to reply. One moderator was considerate. Thanks much - you know who you are.

Do you realize that not one single person has made a positive comment on my posts?! And that IS ridiculous, because let's face it - I showed a significant knowledge of the issues, whether you agreed with my conclusions or not.

And I can't believe that not a single person made a comment about my neighbor whose son was killed recently. This could be a good forum... but several people have got to change their attitudes big-time, IMO.

Since I'm not going to hang around here, I don't think, unless some peopel show a desire to build friendships, I'm going to post this blast, hoping that those who've been posting on this thread will take it to heart.

Also, is there even a single grace person here? Doesn't appear to be. I imagine that many of you want me to move along. Because I hold a different theology, and I can defend it. Big deal. I was impressed with the theological base of many of you, but I've got to say, knowledge doesn't make for maturity alone.

Doesn't anyone want to develop a give-n-take friendship? I know... just be quiet and maybe the new guy will go away...

I'm sorry for being so critical... that is truly not my nature, but I figured that something needed to be said, so I said it.

In Christ,

Cap

Wow, CM, I’ve had just the opposite experience. The board I was on before (for a very limited time) was quite the brash bunch. These guys were a breath of fresh air. Sure things get heated up at times, but that’s to be expected. I guess it all depends on expectations. Regarding your PM’s, I think you also need to keep in mind the people don’t always have the opportunity to respond in a timely manner. After starting these two threads I suddenly got slammed at work (I’m self employed). I barely had time to do anything. I remember your PM came at that time along with a jillion replies. I tried to respond to them one by one including yours. I never did get to your PM, but figured responding to your reply was the same difference. I actually thought I was quite friendly. In fact, I thought I gave you a pretty good challenge on why it is logically impossible to separate faith and repentance. I’ve still not received your reply? I think that’s where we should pick up things.

P.S. I think you should try to compartmentalize your thoughts a bit. It makes for better dialog in most cases. BTW, I was already very familiar with your view (J. Vernon McGee held it amongst others). The wandering Israelites in Heaven???....well that one I hadn’t heard yet. To tell you the truth I haven’t really seen anything positive yet, so I guess I’m just going to tell you what’s on my mind.

My reply is up there somewhere. Looking forward to your response. No hard feelings! :cheers:

Sheepdog

November 15th 2003, 07:31 PM

Capt, i don't have the free time now for a full response but one point...

Cap -> No, SD, I do NOT like your harsh tone and how can I take it any other way than personally - that's how it sure appears to be intended. You can't just go around blasting people & then say, "I hope you don't take my harsh tone personally."

if you think it was intended that way, then you are simply incorrect. as a matter of fact, i tend to be harsh by nature in these forums, and i didn't think it was that bad for you at all. the fact of the matter is, we are called to love our neighbor. i don't believe soft-spokenness is quite so important as shear truthfulness and honesty. truth can be hard, and being sensitive sometimes only serves to water down the effectiveness of speaking honestly.

i believe that common courtesy and politeness is important, but it is by no means more important than earnest truth.

AVmetro

November 15th 2003, 08:13 PM

Hi, Cap

I have a neighbor - at the end of our short block. She's divorced & been living with her boyfriend for several years. She & her son don't know the Lord. We know each other, but I haven't gotten to know her very well, I must admit. She got a visit at midnight by the police on Wednesday night... just found out about it last night. Her 19 yr-old son ran a red light and was killed in an accident. Kinda puts things in perspective. I'd appreciate prayer that I will be able to in some way encourage her, be a friend & be able to share Christ with her. God has our family there I'm convinced for a reason.

You definitely have my prayer. This kind of situation calls for it.

God bless--AV

AVmetro

November 15th 2003, 08:29 PM

MM-

Ramen soup is $.20/bowl.

:duh:...But I've lost 20-30 pounds so far. If I eat that, I'll be packin' it back on! :nc:

1.] Well, the seed that fell on the path were never drawn. 2.] Those in the rocks could be debated either way. 3.] One might ask whether all that are drawn are saved, as well (No, I'm not Calvinist!). 4.] The thorns appear to have been drawn and given to Christ, but walk away because they go back to their lives, and God is choked out of their lives, and they walk away.

[Numbers mine]

One question might be whether all are called at one point in their life or another. Otherwise I'd have to assume "L" by necessity.

'1' and '2' I think I can agree with you there. Number '4' I would liken to those which fell on stony soil (failure to endure - due to a lack of the Spirit {Rom8:14}?). Number '3' I would think so. Christ makes it patently clear, IMHO, that one cannot, by his own will, come to Christ unless drawn. I would then parallel this to Rom 8:29-30. The coupling of "foreknowledge" with "justify" (not an attempt to but the assured act) seems to necessitate that those drawn will be saved. I suppose that would bring us back to the question of whether or not one who is 'saved' can fall away.

God bless--AV

themuzicman

November 15th 2003, 08:52 PM

I don't see a chronological order or a progressive nature to Rom 8:29-30.

However, we DO need to be drawn by God before being saved, and in the story of the sower and the seed, the preaching of the Word is that drawing.

Michael

Jaltus

November 15th 2003, 09:37 PM

One subtle hint on the seeds passage, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE KIND OF SOIL IN GENERAL!

The point of the parable is this:

What will YOU do with the word of God?

Read Luke 13:1-9 for a parallel with respect to the point.

brett

November 17th 2003, 04:20 AM

Jaltus:
They never entered rest, so there is no time when they were under rest, thus your "before entering rest" is misleading.

Rest for the nation of Israel is a metaphorical picture of spiritual salvation for an individual. According the Hebrews, rest is accomplished through belief. Heb. 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest.... I was simply pointing out that there was an intermediate period of time between Israel’s sprinkling and coming to faith (entering Cannon). As far as that particular generation, yes, they never believed and therefore, never entered rest.

Jaltus:
Are you sure you are reading my posts? From the beginning I have argued that there is a single group addressed here, believers. The entire letter is written to believers, otherwise it is a joke that Jesus calls them brothers or that the author calls them brothers. How can you read 2:11 to 3:1 and not see that these are Christians he is addressing? That seriously astounds me. I know of anot a single person who has ever argued in the history of Christianity that the entire letter was written to unbelievers, for this means it was written BY an unbeliever.

Excuse me, were have I ever stated the "entire letter" was written to unbelievers? And you accuse me of not reading your posts? I’m very confused by your comment.

As far as these particular warnings, with very few exceptions, almost every calvinist and OSAS commentator (I’ve read) interprets these particular warnings as being directed to those “not yet believing.”

I think I need to clarify further who I believe the author is addressing so you can better see the contrast. You believe he is addressing believers. In contrast, I believe he is addressing professing believers. Professing believers is a group comprised of both genuing believers as well as false believers. Genuine believers is a group comprised of both mature believers and immature believers. Many times immature believers are indistinguishable from false believers. Both profess and both lack works. Chapter 5 makes it clear that immature believers did exist in this church probably in large numbers. Therefore it seems quite natural that the author would makes statements like this one:

Heb. 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

Notice the language here. He doesn’t say: Heb. 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest any of you DEVELOP an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; Instead he says lest there be in any of you (present tense) an evil heart of unbelief. An unbeliever is being addressed here. The question is, has he ever believed?

Earlier in the thread, you said:

Jaltus:
......Thus, if one holds to the concept of salvation being able to be lost, then one must hold to it not being able to be regained. .....I conclude from this that salvation can be lost and, once lost, never regained.

Obviously then, this warning cannot apply to a fallen believer. It would be a pointless. Once fallen, always fallen (OFAF). I’ve also ruled out that it can apply to the believer since he’s warning those who already might have an evil heart of unbelief. There is no other alternative but to conclude the warning was directed to unbelievers who have never believed-to those merely professing.

Jaltus:
After all, the warning in 2:1-4 uses "we" about 5 times (all contained within the verbs) and it is not because he is being nice to them, for that would actually be lying in this case.

So, either this sermon is written to unbelievers, of which the author is one, or else it is written to believers. I see no other option allowed by scripture.

This is just outright illogical. You’re getting way too carried away with the “we” statements. The “we” 2:1-4 is the same as the “we” in 4:2

Heb. 4:2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

“We” who have "heard" the gospel. He heard the gospel just as they. He professed Christ, just as they. Therefore he says, if “we” neglect salvation we will not be “we” will not escape judgement. We do this in english all the time, especially when instructing our kids. The apostle John said, 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Does this mean John was admitting he was deceived?? By your strictness in this area, he could only have meant that.

And regarding Heb. 2,

2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,

I just looked up the greek word for “neglect” here and from what I can see, it doesn’t hold the idea of having something for a while and then letting it go. “Ameleo” can be translated “paid no attention to.” If the
author was really warning believers about falling away a better word perhaps would have been “Epilanthanomai” which means “no longer caring for,” or “Kataleipo” meaning “to leave behind” or “to depart from.” There are other words that would have worked well also. Intrestingly, “ameleo” is used in the parable of the wedding feast invitation.

Matt. 22:....2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king, who gave a wedding feast for his son. 3 “And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, ...4...come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 “But they PAID NO ATTENTION (Ameleo) and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,

They didn’t first accept the invite and later change their minds. The didn’t come to the feast and then abruptly leave. Rather they ingored it from the get go. Incidently, the NIV uses the word “ignor” instead of neglect. So again I think this passage works in my favor. Obviously Greek is your expertise. Let me know if I’m way off base here.

Jaltus:
...Also, I disagree that the audience was primarily Jews, and at this point in time a majority of commentators would agree with me. The symbols are laid out to carefully and the scriptures are explained quite exactingly, something one would NOT expect when writing to Jews. There are many other arguments as well, but I will elave it at that for the moment (the use of the LXX also screams for a nonJewish audience).

Hmmm. Interesting. This may well be the case.

Jaltus:
My point was that THIS DOES NOT CONNECT TO HEBREWS 6! It still does not! You have not a single shred of evidence in any way shape or form. Assertion gets you nowhere.

Well, suffice it to say that if I’m right about the audience (professing believers), and if I’m right about the warnings in the early chapters being directed to false professing believers who have not yet believed, there’s no need to show a link. The burden is on you to show a change in audience (I know that’s a big IF).

Jaltus:
Actually, to not enter into rest is to not be in the eschatological kingdom. The key to getting into the kingdom asnd therefore inheriting the rest is belief. You skipped a few steps. For that matter, I am certain you were not reading this section carefully at all. Over and over again the author says "WE". "We who have believed" in 4:3 is linked to "we who have heard the good news preached to us" in 4:2.

I may well be misunderstanding what your saying here, so keep that in mind. But if I do, I basically I dissagree. Rest for Israel in Cannon is symbollic of salvation. Rest is the result of belief according to 4:3. Heb. 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest.... Salvation naturally follows belief.

Jaltus:
We means the author and those he is writing to. You cannot arbitrarily decide that this means the people he is writing to are not saved, for that goes against "a plain reading of the text."

Your assumptions are outstanding.

Here’s the plain text:

Heb. 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

How can you say a believer is being addressed here?

Jaltus:
Again, you have yet to make the link between the wanderers and the people being addressed. Over and over again the author says WE who have believed, meaning himself and his audience since that is what he means by we throughout the entire sermon.

The “who have believed” part is a qualification. Not just “we” but “we who have believed” enter rest. This isn’t a warning. Where’s the part where he says, “we who have believed better be careful lest we devolop an evil unbelieving heart.”?

Furthermore, the fact that you’re demanding a “link” implies that you agree with me that the wanderers were NEVER believers. Please tell me if I’m incorrect. And if the wanderers were described by the author as having “never believed,” and he puts forth a warning not to be like them, then you have to conclude the targets of this warning, were similar to the example.

Jaltus:
Someone needs to reread 2-4 in order to see what they missed.

I agree. WE need to reread this now don’t WE? :poke:

Jaltus

November 17th 2003, 05:10 PM

I will address this in about two weeks, as I will be out of town the majority of this coming time.

AVmetro

November 19th 2003, 11:12 PM

Hi, MM-

themuzicman:

I don't see a chronological order or a progressive nature to Rom 8:29-30.

However, we DO need to be drawn by God before being saved, and in the story of the sower and the seed, the preaching of the Word is that drawing.

Michael

I don't see a chronological order or a progressive nature to Rom 8:29-30.

Here's how I see the necessary connection, IMO:

Those He ________ , He also ________ .

"...and whom He did fore-appoint, these also [kai] He did call; and whom He did call, these also [kai] He declared righteous; and whom He declared righteous, these also [kai] He did glorify." [YLT]

However, we DO need to be drawn by God before being saved, and in the story of the sower and the seed, the preaching of the Word is that drawing.

I agree to an extent. But I don't think it is just the Word in and of itself. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. But isn't "faith" also a gift from God? Or is there a different sense in which the word faith is being used between the two? Why do some react to the Word as they do (responsive) and others in an entirely opposite way? The following is what I'm taking into consideration; "..you have seen me and yet do not believe." (Jn6:36 )..cf.. "All that the Father gives to me will come to me.." (vs37). "..you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.."(Jn10:26) ..cf.. "..my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.." (vs27). "..flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in heaven.." (Matt16:16-17). "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts13:48) ..cf.. "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us...who worshipped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul." (Acts16:14). Etc.

God bless you--AV

Evangel

November 20th 2003, 12:47 AM

hebrews 3:12 is not specific enough to prove OSAS. it could but it does not have to.

12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.

that verse definetly doesnt have to support OSAS

also looking 2 verses later may help

14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

i think Paul is talking to a group non-believers and those who have lost faith. telling them "19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief."

Capt Mercury

November 20th 2003, 01:55 AM

Today @ 04:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299791#post299791)
Evangel:

hebrews 3:12 is not specific enough to prove OSAS. it could but it does not have to.

12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.

that verse definetly doesnt have to support OSAS

also looking 2 verses later may help

14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

i think Paul is talking to a group non-believers and those who have lost faith. telling them "19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief."

The Greek translated "share" here is a pred. nominative plural of a very interesting word - μέτοχοι (METACHOI) - which means to be partners or sharers. It is similar to KOINONIA, but a word Barnabas uses throughout Hebrews. Also the verb is γεγόναμεν (GEGINONAMEN - perfect tense of GINOMAI). The perfect tense indicates something that happened at a point in time in the past with a state continuing into the present. It's unique & in a sense has 2 tenses - present & past tense, according to Dr. Carl Conrad.

Anyway it's cool that it indicates that a sharing in Christ's inheritance is available if we only hold firmly to our hope to the end. This warning about holding firmly appears more than once in Hebrews. This sharing in Christ does not at all refer to gaining eternal life, but in sharing in the inheritance with Christ - Who as the "firstborn" has a double share. Only those faithful can share with Him in it.

Also, the Greek word trans. "unbelief" in some translations & unfaithfulness in others is απιστία (APISTIA) in vs. 19. It's probably "unbelief," but in the sentence before it - verse (18) απειθέω is used which means disobey, so perhaps it means "unfaithfulness" here.

Regardless, vs. 14 IMO isn't talking about entering the kingdom, but sharing in Christ's inheritance, which is consistent throughout Hebrews.

FWIW

Arminian

November 20th 2003, 02:55 AM

Regardless, vs. 14 IMO isn't talking about entering the kingdom, but sharing in Christ's inheritance, which is consistent throughout Hebrews.

I guess the objection regards the a false choice. The kingdom is inherited.

AVmetro

November 20th 2003, 03:16 AM

:eeek: Arminian, make a post quick! (check your count :teeth:)

AVmetro

November 20th 2003, 03:36 AM

Re: Heb3:14 - I tend to think at times (but I'm open to other interpretations) that these conditional statements can be taken as means of determining 'who's who' among the saints. They are meant to expose false professors of the faith for what they are - false. Taking a Reformed perspective, I would say that from the author of Hebrews (Paul?) view, he would be ignorant of who the elect are. Therefore a blanket observation and standard of judgment would be appropriate for making these determinations. I could be wrong, but I tend to see this as viable in light of other pro-reformed passages.

"If we hold fast (ean per kataschōmen). The same condition as in Heb_3:6 with per (indeed, forsooth) added to ean. Jonathan Edwards once said that the sure proof of election is that one holds out to the end." - A.T. Robertson

God bless--AV

FYI - Capt. Mercury,

ICYDK, you can use the [/greek ] (sans spaces) tags around transliterated Greek rather than using unicode or other.

For example [greek ]monogenhV[/greek ] becomes [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]monogenhV. logoV = logoV etc,.

I didn't know if you knew that or not. Some people prefer it. Others the way you have been.

Arminian

November 20th 2003, 03:57 AM

LOL!!

AVmetro

November 20th 2003, 04:03 AM

Arminian:

LOL!!

*whew!*

Arminian

November 20th 2003, 04:55 AM

brett

As far as that particular generation, yes, they never believed and therefore, never entered rest.

Exodus 1
17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.

Exodus 4
30 and Aaron told them everything the LORD had said to Moses. He also performed the signs before the people, 31 and they believed. And when they heard that the LORD was concerned about them and had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped.

Exodus 14
31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.

Exodus 18
21 But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied."
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said.

Capt Mercury

November 20th 2003, 10:29 AM

Today @ 06:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=300433#post300433)
Arminian:

I guess the objection regards the a false choice. The kingdom is inherited.

Arminian, nice moniker... no guessing about where you're coming from, huh?! :wink:

Actually, I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'll guess. Sure part of our inheritance is entering the kingdom, but if we want to be "partners," "joint-heirs" with Christ, we must endure... suffer with Him. A key theme of Hebrews is related to this term METACHOI - those who "share" with Christ. But it does not include ALL believers. All believers are heirs of God, but not joint-heirs with Christ, which is reserved for those who are faithful. So if we don't understand how this term, METACHOI, is used in Hebrews, we're going to misunderstand much of what Hebrews tells us.

Much of what the warnings entail are possible loss of inheritance opportunities, IMO.

FWIW,

Cap

themuzicman

November 20th 2003, 11:00 AM

Yesterday @ 10:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299419#post299419)
AVmetro:
I don't see a chronological order or a progressive nature to Rom 8:29-30.

Here's how I see the necessary connection, IMO:

Those He ________ , He also ________ .

"...and whom He did fore-appoint, these also [kai] He did call; and whom He did call, these also [kai] He declared righteous; and whom He declared righteous, these also [kai] He did glorify." [YLT]

I could say something like "Those who play baseball, these will also throw, these will also catch, these will also run, these will also swing the bat,these also will be made out."

This doesn't suggest a particular order, but a simple grouping of things that will happen.

However, we DO need to be drawn by God before being saved, and in the story of the sower and the seed, the preaching of the Word is that drawing.

I agree to an extent. But I don't think it is just the Word in and of itself. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. But isn't "faith" also a gift from God?

NO! This is the biggest exegetical error that I see from Calvinists. In Eph 2:8, "that" and "it" in the second part of the verse CANNOT refer to faith, at least not alone. The neuter form of "that" (from which it is inferred) demands that the entire idea be considered the gift, and since faith is in a verbal prepositional phrase, it is probably not a part of the idea.

If memory serves the literal translation is "For by grace those being saved [are] through faith." This is a bit too much Yoda speak, so to put it in more normal english (Subject-verb) form, "For those being saved [are] by grace through faith." ([are] is implied.)

Salvation is the idea of this verse, and is what "that" is referring to! Faith is simply how of salvation by grace comes!

Or is there a different sense in which the word faith is being used between the two? Why do some react to the Word as they do (responsive) and others in an entirely opposite way?

Good question. The conditional nature of salvation combined with the relevant scripture that indicates that a response is necessary to receive salvation would seem to indicate what you say.

The following is what I'm taking into consideration; "..you have seen me and yet do not believe." (Jn6:36 )..cf.. "All that the Father gives to me will come to me..

There is a space here that Calvinists don't want you to see. The father draws, and gives to the son. But does it say that all who are drawn are given? No. It doesn't.

" (vs37). "..you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.."(Jn10:26) ..cf.. "..my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.." (vs27). "..flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in heaven.." (Matt16:16-17). "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts13:48) ..cf.. "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us...who worshipped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul." (Acts16:14). Etc.

God bless you--AV

The only potential issue I seeis Acts 13:48, and I see that this is another doozie in the greek:

the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

ton logon tou qeou kai episteusan osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiV zwhn aiwnion

OK, now episteusan is aorist active 3rd plural, which would be "they believed" as a one time action.

osoi is as many as or whomever.

hsan is Imperfect Active Indicative 3rd Plural of "to be", so it's they were.

tetagmenoi is a Perfect Passive Participle Masculine Plural Nominative, meaning "appoint, ordain, set, determine, addict", so we translate those having been appointed.

eiV zwhn aiwnion is into eternal life.

So, (keeping some word order) we have "the word of the Lord; as many as believed those having been appointed were to eternal life. (Excuse the Yoda speak, but I think it makes it clearer, and shows where the translators are coming from in making the version you see.)

Now, believed is a one time event, whereas those being appointed is an ongoing action. So, belief preceeds appointment.

Michael

Capt Mercury

November 20th 2003, 12:11 PM

Today @ 07:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=300479#post300479)
AVmetro:

Re: Heb3:14 - I tend to think at times (but I'm open to other interpretations) that these conditional statements can be taken as means of determining 'who's who' among the saints. They are meant to expose false professors of the faith for what they are - false. Taking a Reformed perspective, I would say that from the author of Hebrews (Paul?) view, he would be ignorant of who the elect are. Therefore a blanket observation and standard of judgment would be appropriate for making these determinations. I could be wrong, but I tend to see this as viable in light of other pro-reformed passages.

"If we hold fast (ean per katascho&#772;men). The same condition as in Heb_3:6 with per (indeed, forsooth) added to ean. Jonathan Edwards once said that the sure proof of election is that one holds out to the end." - A.T. Robertson

God bless--AV

FYI - Capt. Mercury,

ICYDK, you can use the [/greek ] (sans spaces) tags around transliterated Greek rather than using unicode or other.

For example [greek ]monogenhV[/greek ] becomes [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]monogenhV. logoV = logoV etc,.

I didn't know if you knew that or not. Some people prefer it. Others the way you have been.
AV,

Thx - I hadn't realized about that transliteration before. It cuts down on the text when someone else is quoting you also, I suppose.

BTW, we all need to be careful about the Greek conditional stmts. in Hebrews, esp. in the warning passages, as often they're a string of particples without any (here, let me try that transliteration scheme...) ei, ean or eanpers. Well, eventually I'll get the hang of it.

But in 3:14, as I'm sure you were aware, there is εάνπερ. (Now I'll need to learn how to use this transliteration scheme to show rough & smooth breathing marks. Is there a section where they describe such things so that I don't have to guess?)

Just as a FYI, the free-grace approach to this section does view it as seeing who's who, I suppose, but not in the reformed manner - seeing whether we're talking about believers or not. I see this as referring to whether or not we will be "companions" of Christ. (That's how the HCSB puts metacoi - I like it.) When Hebrews is viewed in this manner it really opens it up. FYI, Zane Hodges in the Bible Knowledge Commentary does the commentary for Hebrews & covers this quite thoroughly - for those interested.

Thx,

Cap

AVmetro

November 21st 2003, 12:57 AM

Hi, MM-

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see you know your Greek! I could probably use your help one of these days when debating ATs. How long have you been studying? I could use some recommendations for grammars etc,. ;-)

I could say something like "Those who play baseball, these will also throw, these will also catch, these will also run, these will also swing the bat,these also will be made out."

This doesn't suggest a particular order, but a simple grouping of things that will happen.

I'm not certain that this analogy is a parallel. The "those" who play baseball will not necessarily "throw" be it even in their entire career. However, in the Romans verse the "Those" are the "these" who "will also". In the real world, not all baseball players will necessarily play all positions. Yet, in the type of sentence in which you placed your analogy, I think it would be demanded that they do. There is a continuous chain of 'subject/God's action upon them'. Paul obviously has a particular group in mind as opposed to merely listing various acts God could perform upon them. See my point? Tied in with the factor of "foreknowledge" (see also vs28) in the verse, this would seem to necessitate a reformed view, IMHO. I just don't see the opposition on this point convincing.

NO! This is the biggest exegetical error that I see from Calvinists. In Eph 2:8, "that" and "it" in the second part of the verse CANNOT refer to faith, at least not alone. The neuter form of "that" (from which it is inferred) demands that the entire idea be considered the gift, and since faith is in a verbal prepositional phrase, it is probably not a part of the idea.

If memory serves the literal translation is "For by grace those being saved [are] through faith." This is a bit too much Yoda speak, so to put it in more normal english (Subject-verb) form, "For those being saved [are] by grace through faith." ([are] is implied.)

Salvation is the idea of this verse, and is what "that" is referring to! Faith is simply how of salvation by grace comes!

I didn't realize I was making a reference to Eph2:8 as I couldn't remember the actual scripture cite. Thanks for providing it! I was also thinking along the lines of Rom10:17; 1Cor3:6-7 etc,. if that helps clarify things.

As I pointed out in my last post, coupled with Matt16:17; Jn6:44,65; Acts16:14 etc, I see a view of 'faith being given by God' necessitated. See also Ez 36:26. Otherwise, how else did these come to belief (in the context of each verse mentioned) other than by the revelation of God while others did not? But I think I can agree with your argument on Eph2:8 as far as "what" the gift is, even while I don't deny the possibility that faith can be a part of that gift.

There is a space here that Calvinists don't want you to see. The father draws, and gives to the son. But does it say that all who are drawn are given? No. It doesn't.

I'm not sure I see the point but I'll answer from what I believe you're getting at. The "giving" precedes the "drawing". Secondly, the statement isn't conditional. All that the Father gives to the Son WILL come to Him as opposed to "..will come to me IF..". As I mentioned earlier, the Jews in the context of Jn 10 didn't believe *on account of* not being His "sheep". Hence they could not "hear {His} voice" because they were not His 'sheep', given to Him by the Father to begin. If one must first be one of Christ's flock in order to believe, then what does this necessarily entail?

ton logon tou qeou kai episteusan osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiV zwhn aiwnion

OK, now episteusan is aorist active 3rd plural, which would be "they believed" as a one time action.
osoi is as many as or whomever.

hsan is Imperfect Active Indicative 3rd Plural of "to be", so it's they were.

tetagmenoi is a Perfect Passive Participle Masculine Plural Nominative, meaning "appoint, ordain, set, determine, addict", so we translate those having been appointed.

eiV zwhn aiwnion is into eternal life.

So, (keeping some word order) we have "the word of the Lord; as many as believed those having been appointed were to eternal life. (Excuse the Yoda speak, but I think it makes it clearer, and shows where the translators are coming from in making the version you see.)

Now, believed is a one time event, whereas those being appointed is an ongoing action. So, belief preceeds appointment.

If the "belief" proceeded the "appointment" then I could see your point. I don't believe your argument demands it though as I don't see why one cannot believe during the ongoing process of appointment. In fact, some commentators I have checked come to the opposite conclusion. For instance:Next, a study needs to made of the specific grammatical form of tasso in Acts 13:48. In the various versions cited in Part One, two basic forms of translation were seen "were appointed" and "had been appointed." The reason for this difference is due to a somewhat awkward wording of the text. In this verse, tasso is a perfect tense, passive voice, participle. But it is preceded by "to be" in the imperfect tense. So a literal rendering of the phrase would be "were, having been appointed."13 To simply this, some versions simply use the "were" and then the meaning of tasso. Others try to retain the perfect tense sense of tasso by using "had been" and ignoring the verb "to be" altogether. However, all versions retain the passive voice of tasso by using a form of "to be" ("were" or "been") with the past tense "appointed." Since all translations retain the passive voice from tasso this writer believes it is most appropriate to retain the perfect tense from it also. So "had been appointed" is the most grammatical correct translation. But however it is translated, there are important implications both to tasso being in the perfect tense and the passive voice. First, the perfect tense in Greek indicates an action that occurred in the past that has continuing results to, at least, the "present" (the "present" being the time of the events that are being recorded). However, the word "believed" in this verse is in the aorist (simple past) tense. The aorist is used simply because Luke was writing at a later date. But if the "appointment" also occurred at the same time, then Luke would have also used the aorist for it. But he did not. He use the perfect. The implications are this, the "appointment" to believe came BEFORE the hearers actually believed. So one cannot say this verse means, "those who believed were appointed to eternal life" making the "appointment" coming after "believing." Luke meant what he said, those who previously had been appointed were the ones who then believed.http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/study/acts-13-48/pt-2.htm

Any errors with the above?

However, if the "appointment" proceeds the "belief" then this needs to be accounted for and I think that is best explained by the other verses cited thus far.

Let me make some inquiries before responding further to this point. It may even be more appropriate to start a new thread. Could you tell me where you obtained this argument?

God bless--AV

AVmetro

November 21st 2003, 01:00 AM

Capt Mercury:

AV,

Thx - I hadn't realized about that transliteration before. It cuts down on the text when someone else is quoting you also, I suppose.

BTW, we all need to be careful about the Greek conditional stmts. in Hebrews, esp. in the warning passages, as often they're a string of particples without any (here, let me try that transliteration scheme...) ei, ean or eanpers. Well, eventually I'll get the hang of it.

But in 3:14, as I'm sure you were aware, there is εάνπερ. (Now I'll need to learn how to use this transliteration scheme to show rough & smooth breathing marks. Is there a section where they describe such things so that I don't have to guess?)

You're welcome ;-). Follow the links in Jaltus' sig for more info.

-AV

Arminian

November 21st 2003, 05:52 AM

Capt,

Arminian, nice moniker... no guessing about where you're coming from, huh?!

I'm actually not Arminian, but that's a long story.

Actually, I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'll guess. Sure part of our inheritance is entering the kingdom, but if we want to be "partners," "joint-heirs" with Christ, we must endure... suffer with Him. A key theme of Hebrews is related to this term METACHOI - those who "share" with Christ. But it does not include ALL believers. All believers are heirs of God, but not joint-heirs with Christ, which is reserved for those who are faithful. So if we don't understand how this term, METACHOI, is used in Hebrews, we're going to misunderstand much of what Hebrews tells us.

Much of what the warnings entail are possible loss of inheritance opportunities, IMO.

The way you phrased your explanation seems too familiar. You don't happen to know who I am and teach at a school near me, do you?

Since you appear to allude to Romans as well as Hebrews, I will give a more comprehensive (more comprehensive of the Canon) explanation, and we can return to Hebrews at a later time.

1) Look at how "inheriting eternal life," "entering the kingdom of God" and "being saved" are associated. These are the same thing.

And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him
and knelt before Him, and began asking Him, "Good Teacher,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" ...

And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things
from my youth up." And looking at him, Jesus felt love for
him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you
possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in
heaven; and come, follow Me." But at these words his face fell,
and he went away grieved, for he was one who owned much
property.

And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it
will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God."

... "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And they were even
more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?"

2) Take a look at Paul's argument regarding the "old" or Sinactic covenant and the "new" or Abrahamic covenant brought in Messiah (Ro. 4:13-17).

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against
him... It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring
received the promise that he would be heir of the world,
but through the righteousness that comes by faith (Abrahamic covenant).

... For if those who live by law (Sinactic covenant) are heirs,
faith (Abrahamic covenant in Messiah) has no value and the
promise (to Abraham and his "Seed" = Messiah) is worthless...

...Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may
be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not
only to those who are of the law (Jews) but also to those who are
of the faith of Abraham ("all nations"). He is the father of us all.

Paul's argument is that the promised inheritance (promised to Abraham and his "Seed") is for "all nations" and not exclusive to Jews, i.e., earthly Israel. In fact, Paul continues, citing the promise in Gen. 17:5 ...

As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He
is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God
who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though
they were.

God "calls things that are not as though they were." What an interesting concept. God calls "other nations" which are not Abraham's descendants, God calls these Abraham's descendants. It is as though they are, i.e., through faith ... through faith Gentiles participate in the Abrahamic inheritance.

3) Paul argues in Ro. 8:16f that those who are of the faith of Abraham are "children," thus "heirs." This new covenant work is through His Spirit, who bears witness with believers that they are indeed children, thus heirs.

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's
children. Now if we are children, we are heirs -- heirs
of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his
sufferings in order that we may share in his glory.

Also in Galatians:

So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since
you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

The promise of an inheritance was made to Abraham and his "Seed." Those who are "in Messiah," that Seed of Abraham, are "co-heirs" with Him. The messianic community inherits the promise of God. This is not "two inheritances" here.

4) Paul's gospel is the good news of the inheritance of the kingdom of God. Those who enter this kingdom are those who are washed, sanctified, and justified. The "unjustified" will not inherit.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral
nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed,
you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

5) Paul argues that the inheritance was promised to Abraham and his "Seed" and not exclusively to "Jews." ALL those who are "in Messiah" (this "Seed") are participants in this Abrahamic promise of an inheritance, not just the physical descendants of Abraham, i.e., the national Israel of the Sinaitic covenant.

Those "in Messiah" ("those who believe") are given this inheritance. These are "justified by faith," "sons of God," "baptized into Christ," "clothed with Christ," "one in Christ," "Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise."

For if the inheritance depends on the law (Sinactic covenant,
physical descent from Abraham, Jewishness), then it no longer
depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham
through a promise.

...so that what was promised, being given through faith in
Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe ... You are all
sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who
were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then
you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

6) This inheritance theme is important to Paul's theology. For Paul, the Gentiles are fellow-heirs with Jews; the two are now one in Messiah, and thus are co-heirs with Him. Those who are in Messiah, the true Seed of Abraham, are thereby also with Him descendants of Abraham. There are those who participate in the Abrahamic covenant.

Those under Sinai (the physical descendants of Abraham who do not receive Messiah) do NOT inherit the "true" descendants of Abraham (those who DO receive Messiah, Jew AND Gentile). These are "cast out" with their mother, the Sinaitic covenant and do not participate in the inheritance.

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware
of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two
sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman...
the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from
Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother...
...Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that
time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by
the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the
Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the
slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the
free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the
slave woman, but of the free woman.

7) Paul explains the "mystery" which was revealed to him.

For this reason, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake
of you Gentile -- if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of
God's grace which was given to you; that by revelation
was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in
brief.

Above we have already seen the "mystery" proclaimed in Paul's ministry and writing. Here he explicitly identifies this "mystery," whereas above he has been proclaiming it without referencing it as the "mystery." Is the mystery the fact that Messiah would come? No. That he would suffer? No. That He would bring a "new" covenant? No.

So, what is the "mystery"? He has already stated what it is above, now he does so explicitly:

And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my
insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations
was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been
revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;...

This "mystery" was not exclusively revealed to Paul, as if Paul has a special ministry with no other minister has. It has been revealed to God's holy apostles and prophets. What has been revealed?

... to be specific, the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow
members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in
Christ Jesus through the gospel ...
(Eph. 3:1-7)

The mystery is the fact that in Messiah those who are not Abraham's descendants are Abraham's descendants. this inheritance was NOT exclusive to the Jews, i.e., the physical descendants of Abraham. All who are in Messiah are Abraham's descendants, with Messiah, Abraham's "Seed."

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed. and heirs
according to the promise.

Now if we are children, then we are heirs -- hers of God and
co-heirs with Christ ...

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by
grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring -- not
only to those who are of the law (Jews) but also to those who
are of the faith of Abraham ("all nations"). He is the father
of us all. As it is written: "I have made you the father of many
nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he
believed -- the God who gives life to the dead and calls things
that are not as though they were.

Therein lies the "mystery" of the inheritance. God calls things that were not as thought they were. They "mystery is that through the gospel the Gentles are heirs together with Israel, members of one body, and sharers together in the promise on Christ Jesus."

8) In Messiah God had "qualified" all nations to "share in the inheritance." We can enter the kingdom because He has made a way for us.

...giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to
share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and
brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom
we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col. 1:12-14)

9) Hebrews associates "salvation" and the "inheritance."

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, in
order that since a death has taken place for the redemption
of the transgressions that were committed under the first
covenant (Sinatic covenant), those who have been called may
receive the promise of the internal inheritance (Abrahamic covenant).
(Heb. 9:15)

10) Hebrews characterized the faith of Abraham, the nature ("location") of the inheritance and the "new" covenant:

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he
would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and
went, even though he did not know where he was
going. By faith he made his home in the promised
land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in
tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with
him of the same promise.

For he was looking forward to the city with foundations,
whose architect and builder is God.

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and
Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a
father because he considered him faithful who had
made the promise. And so from this one man, and he
as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as
the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand
on the seashore.

If they had been thinking of the country they had left,
they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they
were longing for a better country--a heavenly one.
Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God,
for he has prepared a city for them. (Heb. 11:8-16)

There are not "two inheritances," or combinations of "inheritances." "Entering" and "inheriting" are the same thing.

themuzicman

November 21st 2003, 10:04 AM

Yesterday @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=303358#post303358)
AVmetro:

Hi, MM-

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see you know your Greek! I could probably use your help one of these days when debating ATs. How long have you been studying? I could use some recommendations for grammars etc,. ;-)

Well, I studied for about 2 years back around '92. I'm having to take it again, because I can't pass the proficiency test (I don't know the vocab.)

I actually have found a website to be VERY useful. http://unbound.bioila.edu has a greek parser and a lexicon online, both of which are great for translation. We are using Mounce's book for grammar, right now. It seems to be OK, except that he doesn't emphasize memorizing paradigms, which seems weird.

I'm not certain that this analogy is a parallel. The "those" who play baseball will not necessarily "throw" be it even in their entire career. However, in the Romans verse the "Those" are the "these" who "will also". In the real world, not all baseball players will necessarily play all positions. Yet, in the type of sentence in which you placed your analogy, I think it would be demanded that they do. There is a continuous chain of 'subject/God's action upon them'. Paul obviously has a particular group in mind as opposed to merely listing various acts God could perform upon them. See my point? Tied in with the factor of "foreknowledge" (see also vs28) in the verse, this would seem to necessitate a reformed view, IMHO. I just don't see the opposition on this point convincing.

Again, timing is the issue. When are we foreknown? Since these are all past tense, and order doesn't indicate time, we could be saved and then predestined and then foreknown about our salvation.

I didn't realize I was making a reference to Eph2:8 as I couldn't remember the actual scripture cite. Thanks for providing it! I was also thinking along the lines of Rom10:17; 1Cor3:6-7 etc,. if that helps clarify things.

Romans 10:17 doesn't say anything about faith being a gift. In fact, it seems to imply that it is something that requires a response on our part, namely hearing. This does reflect back to the Sower and the Seed, because we have to prepare our hearts to receive the word (yes, God does create external circumstances to help us prepare, but ultimately it is us that receives or rejects it), so that God can make it grow. (1 Cor 3:6-7)

As I pointed out in my last post, coupled with Matt16:17; Jn6:44,65; Acts16:14 etc, I see a view of 'faith being given by God' necessitated.

In Matt 16:17, God revealed something to Peter, but Peter still had to believe it. It wasn't forced on him.

John 6:44 and 65, there is no direct and automatic connection between God drawing and giving to Jesus. Seems to me that if God is going to grant salvation, we have to ask for it.

The story of Lydia is interesting, but isn't specific enough to say that she didn't have a part in accepting the Word. In fact, it says that God opened her heart. It DOESN'T say that he gave her faith.

See also Ez 36:26. Otherwise, how else did these come to belief (in the context of each verse mentioned) other than by the revelation of God while others did not? But I think I can agree with your argument on Eph2:8 as far as "what" the gift is, even while I don't deny the possibility that faith can be a part of that gift.

I think the key is understanding what faith IS.

James does a nice exposition of this when he says that even the demons believe that God exists. His point there is that there is a difference in believing the existance and belieing in or HOPING in someone, which is what Heb 11:1 tells us. Faith is a condition of OUR SOUL, which we control.

We use faith in other ways (not to salvation), too. People believe in their sports team. (Cubs fans are a good example.) They put their hope in their team winning it all this year! That's faith. It's not given by God or by the team, but it is chosen by the person who wishes to believe.

Thus, God creates the extenal conditions, the Word is preached and sown, and when a person chooses to believe the Word (faith comes by hearing), then they believe IN (hope in) God.

But there is still a choice to be made in believing! Once we believe we are able to call upon the name of the Lord, and be saved, but that is STILL a choice we have to make!

I'm not sure I see the point but I'll answer from what I believe you're getting at. The "giving" precedes the "drawing". Secondly, the statement isn't conditional. All that the Father gives to the Son WILL come to Him as opposed to "..will come to me IF..". As I mentioned earlier, the Jews in the context of Jn 10 didn't believe *on account of* not being His "sheep". Hence they could not "hear {His} voice" because they were not His 'sheep', given to Him by the Father to begin. If one must first be one of Christ's flock in order to believe, then what does this necessarily entail?

The point was, I believe, that just because God draws someone doesn't automatically mean they are given to Christ.

If the "belief" proceeded the "appointment" then I could see your point. I don't believe your argument demands it though as I don't see why one cannot believe during the ongoing process of appointment.

Belief, here, is a one time, point in time act. Appointment is an ongoing action. Since they don't have any time separators (saying that one was before the other), it would appear that they began at the same time, but belief happened, where as appointment was ongoing.

In fact, some commentators I have checked come to the opposite conclusion. For instance:Next, a study needs to made of the specific grammatical form of tasso in Acts 13:48. In the various versions cited in Part One, two basic forms of translation were seen "were appointed" and "had been appointed." The reason for this difference is due to a somewhat awkward wording of the text. In this verse, tasso is a perfect tense, passive voice, participle. But it is preceded by "to be" in the imperfect tense. So a literal rendering of the phrase would be "were, having been appointed."13 To simply this, some versions simply use the "were" and then the meaning of tasso. Others try to retain the perfect tense sense of tasso by using "had been" and ignoring the verb "to be" altogether. However, all versions retain the passive voice of tasso by using a form of "to be" ("were" or "been") with the past tense "appointed." Since all translations retain the passive voice from tasso this writer believes it is most appropriate to retain the perfect tense from it also. So "had been appointed" is the most grammatical correct translation. But however it is translated, there are important implications both to tasso being in the perfect tense and the passive voice. First, the perfect tense in Greek indicates an action that occurred in the past that has continuing results to, at least, the "present" (the "present" being the time of the events that are being recorded). However, the word "believed" in this verse is in the aorist (simple past) tense. The aorist is used simply because Luke was writing at a later date. But if the "appointment" also occurred at the same time, then Luke would have also used the aorist for it. But he did not. He use the perfect. The implications are this, the "appointment" to believe came BEFORE the hearers actually believed. So one cannot say this verse means, "those who believed were appointed to eternal life" making the "appointment" coming after "believing." Luke meant what he said, those who previously had been appointed were the ones who then believed.http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/study/acts-13-48/pt-2.htm

Any errors with the above?

It is definately thorny. I would translate it as they both began at the same time. Unforunately, greek isn't very good with time, so it's clearly a judgement call. I understand WHY Calvinists translate it this way. I just don't agree. I think Luke's use of "to eternal life" indicates a result of their belief, rather than the cause of it.

(Sorry to add this later...)

Word order is not always important in greek for grammar, which means that it can imply meaning. In the greek, "believed" is first, and that is followed by "appointed to eternal life." If we give any credence to this word order in the absence of orhter time ordering, I would conclude that belief comes first.

However, if the "appointment" proceeds the "belief" then this needs to be accounted for and I think that is best explained by the other verses cited thus far.

Let me make some inquiries before responding further to this point. It may even be more appropriate to start a new thread. Could you tell me where you obtained this argument?

God bless--AV

Uh... :hi:

Michael

Sheepdog

November 21st 2003, 11:56 AM

nice to see you decided to stay, Capt :cheers: :cool:

Capt Mercury

November 21st 2003, 12:48 PM

Today @ 09:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=304179#post304179)
Arminian:

Capt,

I'm actually not Arminian, but that's a long story.

The way you phrased your explanation seems too familiar. You don't happen to know who I am and teach at a school near me, do you?

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/signs/0047.gif

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/friendship/0018.gif

You never know... http://luvjc.net/emoticons/laughing/0007.gif

I can see that I'm going to need to post something more comprehensive on "inheritance" truth as well. My interpretation of Hebrews is founded on that. But for now, let me just consider the Mark telling of the rich young ruler story and one of the passages in Romans...

Arminian:
Since you appear to allude to Romans as well as Hebrews, I will give a more comprehensive (more comprehensive of the Canon) explanation, and we can return to Hebrews at a later time.

1) Look at how "inheriting eternal life," "entering the kingdom of God" and "being saved" are associated. These are the same thing.

And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him
and knelt before Him, and began asking Him, "Good Teacher,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" ...

And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things
from my youth up." And looking at him, Jesus felt love for
him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you
possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in
heaven; and come, follow Me." But at these words his face fell, and he went away grieved, for he was one who owned much
property.

And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it
will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God."

... "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And they were even more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?"

This story is in all 3 of the synoptic gospels. In Matt 19 it has the man asking what he must do to have eternal life, not inherit it. Is this a contradiction? No. Because for the rich young ruler, the terms are equivalent. And Jesus answered the question He perceived the ruler to be asking: How do I gain eternal life... enter the kingdom? Which was not exactly what he asked, but Jesus knew that this was what he was really saying. He was rich, inheritance & lots of stuff was what he was thinking about. In fact, he left sad because he'd have to give up the stuff he had now IOT gain real inheritance.

To be consistent with the concept in both the OT & NT kleronomeo implies obtaining a possession by merit. So then it cannot mean to obtain heaven by faith.

Next, this rich ruler is reflecting 1st century Jewish theology and not the gospel of the NT. We wouldn't necessarily expect him to understand that gospel, based on his reaction. The Rabbis taught that works were necessary IOT earn eternal life. (See William Brown The NT Concept of the Believer's Inheritance, dissertaiton - ThD - DTS, 1984.)

Eternal life can be earned when we view it as an enriched experience of our regenerated life - our "abundant life." But the ruler did not understand this - that he could enter into this new life now and not have to wait until a final judgment at which an enriched dimension - an additional earned aspect - could be rewarded to us at that time (at the bema seat of Christ) - to those who are faithful. It is to this possibility that the Lord directs His attention. It was what the rich young ruler needed to hear.

Lastly, Jesus did understand, of course, what the ruler was really asking. He's asking how he can enter into the kingdom of God... into heaven. In this man's mind entering the kingdom and inheriting the kingdom were the same thing. But Jesus addressed the real issue - the heart of the young man's problem - his wealth that he clung to.

That's why He 1st says that a person has to keep all of the commandments. His response is sad & reveals his error in thinking "All these I have done from my youth." Say what?!

Let's give a modern-day example of perhaps a similar situation we might face & how we would handle it. Suppose a muslim came to us after hearing an evangelistic sermon. He says something like, "What do I have to do to gain my heavenly reward?" Now we understand what he is really asking, and also what he really needs to hear. We might tell him that he has to be perfect... that would dash the man's hopes, but perhaps open him up to realize that he can't do it himself. That was the purpose of the OT law - to cause us to see our need for a Savior. So until this hypothetical seeker realizes that he's a sinner and can't get there on his own, he'll never trust in Christ's work to save him.

Why did Jesus gently tell the man to go, sell all that he has? Not because that would gain him entrance, but to point out that he did not in fact keep all of those commandments. This is similar to what Jesus did with the woman at the well when He asked her to bring her husband. She wanted that living water... but she had to acknowledge that she was a sinner 1st.

In Mark 10:24 Jesus comments, "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!" That was the young man's problem.

Arminian:
2) Take a look at Paul's argument regarding the "old" or Sinactic covenant and the "new" or Abrahamic covenant brought in Messiah (Ro. 4:13-17).

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against
him... It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring
received the promise that he would be heir of the world,
but through the righteousness that comes by faith (Abrahamic covenant).

... For if those who live by law (Sinactic covenant) are heirs,
faith (Abrahamic covenant in Messiah) has no value and the
promise (to Abraham and his "Seed" = Messiah) is worthless...

<snip>
There are not "two inheritances," or combinations of "inheritances." "Entering" and "inheriting" are the same thing.

Thx again - well expressed, Arminian. http://luvjc.net/emoticons/excited/0004.gif

We do gain an inheritance as part of our salvation experience - all of us - not just the faithful ones. For example, one thing that would be obvious is that we will all will have a resurrection body.

Now you say here that there are not two inheritances... I disagree here. There is a distinction with how God deals with our faithfulness. He is just. Those who are faithful will receive crowns & other rewards. They will hear "well done, thou good and faithful servant..."

All believers (born-from-above) have God as their inheritance. They are "heirs of God." This is based on one thing: their faith in the work of Christ in their behalf.

But the Bible talks about another inheritance in the NT, which is merited - is earned. It is an opportunity to be heirs of the kingdom of God and "joint-heirs" of Christ. (2 Tim. 212)

2 Tim. 2:12, 13 HCSB ...if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Rom. 8:17 HCSB and if children, also heirs--heirs of God[,] and co-heirs with Christ--seeing that we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

We are all heirs of God (who have received the free gift), but only those who "suffer with Him" will be joint-heirs with Christ (The inheritance of the 1st born - the double share).

I wish I had time to say more, but I do have to go. Nice post, Arminian. I hope I've made my position & why I think that way more clear, whether or not you agree with it. (Can you tell that I recently found a site that has lots of smilies? I hope I didn't go overboard.)

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/signs/0147.gif

Cap

AVmetro

November 21st 2003, 01:33 PM

Sheepdog:

nice to see you decided to stay, Capt :cheers: :cool:

Is that a CWS "cool" smilie? :pochocco:

Capt Mercury

November 21st 2003, 02:37 PM

Today @ 05:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=305050#post305050)
AVmetro:

Is that a CWS "cool" smilie? :pochocco:

It's from here:

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/sm.html

Thx

AVmetro

November 21st 2003, 03:32 PM

Capt Mercury:

It's from here:

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/sm.html

Thx

I needed some more smilies, thanks!

-AV

Capt Mercury

November 21st 2003, 04:22 PM

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=304780#post304780)
Sheepdog:

nice to see you decided to stay, Capt :cheers: :cool:

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/signs/0147.gif

I'm trying not to post much and do more reading instead, but sometimes just one little post & you find yourself explaining.

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/signs/0123.gif

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/armed/0035.gif

AVmetro

November 21st 2003, 06:16 PM

Hi, MM-

Well, I studied for about 2 years back around '92. I'm having to take it again, because I can't pass the proficiency test (I don't know the vocab.)

I actually have found a website to be VERY useful. <http://unbound.bioila.edu> has a greek parser and a lexicon online, both of which are great for translation. We are using Mounce's book for grammar, right now. It seems to be OK, except that he doesn't emphasize memorizing paradigms, which seems weird.

Thanks for the link. I started with Machen about a year ago but I can't seem to find any study time. Hence, I'm stuck around lesson five (!). Lots of memory work in that one...(headache)

Again, timing is the issue. When are we foreknown? Since these are all past tense, and order doesn't indicate time, we could be saved and then predestined and then foreknown about our salvation.

You hold to an open view of YHWH, correct? I'm naturally wanting to respond from that angle every now and then but I keep forgetting the view you hold.

As for the above, I'm not sure I see your point. Scripture, which although speaking of Christians past, would naturally apply to Christians of today. Eph1:4 and 5, for example, states that we were predestined as Christians before the foundation of the world. Secondly, I would think order would indicate time in this context. Individuals certainly aren't 'sanctified' prior to being 'called'.

Romans 10:17 doesn't say anything about faith being a gift. In fact, it seems to imply that it is something that requires a response on our part, namely hearing. This does reflect back to the Sower and the Seed, because we have to prepare our hearts to receive the word (yes, God does create external circumstances to help us prepare, but ultimately it is us that receives or rejects it), so that God can make it grow. (1 Cor 3:6-7)

I meant Rom10:17 to be taken with 1 Cor 3:6-7 but I didn't note that. Faith comes BY hearing the word of God. 1Cor is the example. "I {Paul} planted, Apollos watered BUT God gave the increase." This demonstrates God's significant role in Christian growth. However, as you noted, it may not be entirely relevant to "faith" per se.

In Matt 16:17, God revealed something to Peter, but Peter still had to believe it. It wasn't forced on him.

Correct. It's a given that Peter would believe it. But would Peter have believed had it not been revealed to him? I wouldn't think so. Again, he only came to this conclusion as a result of God's planting it in his heart. It's not simply a matter of "information" or else 'flesh and blood' could reveal this to him.

John 6:44 and 65, there is no direct and automatic connection between God drawing and giving to Jesus. Seems to me that if God is going to grant salvation, we have to ask for it.

"All that the Father 1.] gives to me 2.] will come to me."

It's a patent two-step process.

But again, I see no conditional qualities to the passage(s). We would naturally ask for it, but we would ask for it due to, as reformers call it, "irresistable grace."

The story of Lydia is interesting, but isn't specific enough to say that she didn't have a part in accepting the Word. In fact, it says that God opened her heart. It DOESN'T say that he gave her faith.

"The Lord opened her heart TO heed the things spoken by Paul."

In the very next verse we have:

"And when she and her household were baptized,.."

So the subsequent result of the Lord's work was her salvation. Again, as the above is an example of such, faith comes by hearing the word of God. The interesting observation from this verse would be a reference to the parable of the sower. You stated earlier that one must "prepare their heart" to recieve the word. In the above instance, it is the Lord who prepared her heart.

I think the key is understanding what faith IS.

James does a nice exposition of this when he says that even the demons believe that God exists. His point there is that there is a difference in believing the existance and belieing in or HOPING in someone, which is what Heb 11:1 tells us. Faith is a condition of OUR SOUL, which we control.

I think James is differentiating between empty faith and saving faith. The difference between Christians and demons, of course, being their disposition toward God, His mission and His Word. That faith is a condition of our 'soul', I don't see any reason to dispute. But it's assuming what one has to prove to say that we have total control over our destiny.

...8<...

The point was, I believe, that just because God draws someone doesn't automatically mean they are given to Christ.

Yet that is the unavoidable conclusion, IMO. Again, the "giving" precedes the "drawing" and the "coming" isn't conditional. This is demonstrated in Jn10 where one must be one of the flock prior in order to even hear the call of His voice.

Belief, here, is a one time, point in time act. Appointment is an ongoing action. Since they don't have any time separators (saying that one was before the other), it would appear that they began at the same time, but belief happened, where as appointment was ongoing.

>

It is definately thorny. I would translate it as they both began at the same time. Unforunately, greek isn't very good with time, so it's clearly a judgement call. I understand WHY Calvinists translate it this way. I just don't agree. I think Luke's use of "to eternal life" indicates a result of their belief, rather than the cause of it.

(Sorry to add this later...)

Word order is not always important in greek for grammar, which means that it can imply meaning. In the greek, "believed" is first, and that is followed by "appointed to eternal life." If we give any credence to this word order in the absence of orhter time ordering, I would conclude that belief comes first.

Okay, due to my ignorance of Greek, I had to make a few inquiries. I'll quote the following reply I recieved on a discussion list:

Comments below.

> Here is his initial argument [links provided for any needed
context]:

> ton logon tou qeou kai episteusan osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiV zwhn
aiwnion
>
> OK, now episteusan is aorist active 3rd plural, which would
be "they believed" as a one time action.
> osoi is as many as or whomever.

So far, so good, with the proviso that the aorist tense does not
necessarily have to refer to a "one time action" (this is a
misunderstanding of the "punctiliar" nature of the aorist). The
aorist simply states that the action took place in the past without
any reference to the aspect. Context must fill in the rest.

> hsan is Imperfect Active Indicative 3rd Plural of "to be", so it's
they were.
>
> tetagmenoi is a Perfect Passive Participle Masculine Plural
Nominative, meaning "appoint, ordain, set, determine, addict", so we translate those having been appointed.<<

Here is where he begins to show a less than perfect understanding of the Greek. The two words, HSAN TETAGMENOI, must be taken together as a pluperfect passive. This indicates that the action is antecedant, prior to, the action of the main verbs before the relative pronoun hOSOI.

> eiV zwhn aiwnion is into eternal life.
>
> So, (keeping some word order) we have "the word of the Lord; as many as believed those having been appointed were to eternal life. (Excuse the Yoda speak, but I think it makes it clearer, and shows where the translators are coming from in making the version you see.)

Since he does not understand the grammar of the text, his translation is simply in error.

> Now, believed is a one time event, whereas those being appointed is an ongoing action. So, belief preceeds appointment.

His conclusion, therefore, is unsupported by either grammar or
context.

> It is definately thorny. I would translate it as they both began at the same time. Unforunately, greek isn't very good with time, so it's clearly a judgement call. I understand WHY Calvinists translate it this way. I just don't agree. I think Luke's use of "to eternal life" indicates a result of their belief, rather than the cause of it.<<

So, every translation is wrong (see the appended list).

> Word order is not always important in greek for grammar, which means that it can imply meaning. In the greek, "believed" is first, and that is followed by "appointed to eternal life." If we give any credence to this word order in the absence of orhter time ordering, I could conclude that belief comes first.<<

No. The relative clause could [be] anywhere in the sentence, and it would not alter the meaning in the least.

XXXXX

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to
eternal life believed. KJV

Ac 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. NIV

Ac 13:48 And [those of] the nations, hearing it, rejoiced, and
glorified the word of the Lord, and believed, as many as were
ordained to eternal life. Darby

Ac 13:48 And the Gentiles, hearing this, were glad and gave glory to the word of God: and those marked out by God for eternal life had faith. BBE

Ac 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. ASV

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to
eternal life, believed. Webster

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and
praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. NRSV

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and
glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. RSV

Acts 13:48 The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord's word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed. GWT

Acts 13:48 audientes autem gentes gavisae sunt et glorificabant
verbum Domini et crediderunt quotquot erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam Vulgate

If I'd get myself in gear with my own studies I wouldn't have to make inquires....*sigh* It's becoming an all too frequent thing in any discussion I'm in :shifty:

God bless--AV

themuzicman

November 21st 2003, 09:11 PM

Today @ 05:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=305977#post305977)
AVmetro:

As for the above, I'm not sure I see your point. Scripture, which although speaking of Christians past, would naturally apply to Christians of today. Eph1:4 and 5, for example, states that we were predestined as Christians before the foundation of the world. Secondly, I would think order would indicate time in this context. Individuals certainly aren't 'sanctified' prior to being 'called'.

[verse]4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...[/quote]

I guess the question here is whether this necessitates specific foreknowledge of each one, or whether 'us' just refers to the people God knew He would have as a result of creation.

I meant Rom10:17 to be taken with 1 Cor 3:6-7 but I didn't note that. Faith comes BY hearing the word of God. 1Cor is the example. "I {Paul} planted, Apollos watered BUT God gave the increase." This demonstrates God's significant role in Christian growth. However, as you noted, it may not be entirely relevant to "faith" per se.

I actually did take these together.

Correct. It's a given that Peter would believe it. But would Peter have believed had it not been revealed to him? I wouldn't think so. Again, he only came to this conclusion as a result of God's planting it in his heart. It's not simply a matter of "information" or else 'flesh and blood' could reveal this to him.

However, the question (which isn't answered in the text) is whether Peter had a choice to believe it or not.

"All that the Father 1.] gives to me 2.] will come to me."

It's a patent two-step process.

But again, I see no conditional qualities to the passage(s). We would naturally ask for it, but we would ask for it due to, as reformers call it, "irresistable grace."

It's not really a conditional, but simply a spot where there is no automatic transferrance, between drawing and granting, before giving.

"The Lord opened her heart TO heed the things spoken by Paul."

In the very next verse we have:

"And when she and her household were baptized,.."

So the subsequent result of the Lord's work was her salvation. Again, as the above is an example of such, faith comes by hearing the word of God. The interesting observation from this verse would be a reference to the parable of the sower. You stated earlier that one must "prepare their heart" to recieve the word. In the above instance, it is the Lord who prepared her heart.

We have to be careful basing doctrine on narrative genre. I would put this in the 'not exactly clear' category.

Yet that is the unavoidable conclusion, IMO. Again, the "giving" precedes the "drawing" and the "coming" isn't conditional. This is demonstrated in Jn10 where one must be one of the flock prior in order to even hear the call of His voice.

It's not conditional, but it's not automatic, either. I should have said three step, not two, but I didn't read verse 65 closely enough.

1) God Draws. There is no guarentee in the text that when God draws that we respond to his drawing. This is where grace would not be irresistible.

2) God Grants.

3) Come to Christ.

Once we respond, the rest happens.

Okay, due to my ignorance of Greek, I had to make a few inquiries. I'll quote the following reply I recieved on a discussion list:

[quote]Comments below.

> Here is his initial argument [links provided for any needed
context]:

> ton logon tou qeou kai episteusan osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiV zwhn
aiwnion
>
> OK, now episteusan is aorist active 3rd plural, which would
be "they believed" as a one time action.
> osoi is as many as or whomever.

So far, so good, with the proviso that the aorist tense does not
necessarily have to refer to a "one time action" (this is a
misunderstanding of the "punctiliar" nature of the aorist). The
aorist simply states that the action took place in the past without
any reference to the aspect. Context must fill in the rest.

Note that context fills, here.

> hsan is Imperfect Active Indicative 3rd Plural of "to be", so it's
they were.
>
> tetagmenoi is a Perfect Passive Participle Masculine Plural
Nominative, meaning "appoint, ordain, set, determine, addict", so we translate those having been appointed.<<

Here is where he begins to show a less than perfect understanding of the Greek. The two words, HSAN TETAGMENOI, must be taken together as a pluperfect passive. This indicates that the action is antecedant, prior to, the action of the main verbs before the relative pronoun hOSOI.

Well, since tetagmenoi is a participle, I don't know that it's as clear as he wants it to be.

> eiV zwhn aiwnion is into eternal life.
>
> So, (keeping some word order) we have "the word of the Lord; as many as believed those having been appointed were to eternal life. (Excuse the Yoda speak, but I think it makes it clearer, and shows where the translators are coming from in making the version you see.)

Since he does not understand the grammar of the text, his translation is simply in error.

> Now, believed is a one time event, whereas those being appointed is an ongoing action. So, belief preceeds appointment.

His conclusion, therefore, is unsupported by either grammar or
context.

> It is definately thorny. I would translate it as they both began at the same time. Unforunately, greek isn't very good with time, so it's clearly a judgement call. I understand WHY Calvinists translate it this way. I just don't agree. I think Luke's use of "to eternal life" indicates a result of their belief, rather than the cause of it.<<

So, every translation is wrong (see the appended list).

> Word order is not always important in greek for grammar, which means that it can imply meaning. In the greek, "believed" is first, and that is followed by "appointed to eternal life." If we give any credence to this word order in the absence of orhter time ordering, I could conclude that belief comes first.<<

No. The relative clause could anywhere in the sentence, and it would not alter the meaning in the least.

I meant emphasis, but didnt' say it well.

XXXXX

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to
eternal life believed. KJV

Ac 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. NIV

[b]Ac 13:48 And [those of] the nations, hearing it, rejoiced, and
glorified the word of the Lord, and believed, as many as were
ordained to eternal life. Darby

Ac 13:48 And the Gentiles, hearing this, were glad and gave glory to the word of God: and those marked out by God for eternal life had faith. BBE

Ac 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. ASV

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to
eternal life, believed. Webster

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and
praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. NRSV

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and
glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. RSV

Acts 13:48 The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord's word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed. GWT

Acts 13:48 audientes autem gentes gavisae sunt et glorificabant
verbum Domini et crediderunt quotquot erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam Vulgate[/box]

If I'd get myself in gear with my own studies I wouldn't have to make inquires....*sigh* It's becoming an all too frequent thing in any discussion I'm in :shifty:

God bless--AV

The two that I bolded seem to agree more with my position. Some lean definately the other way.

Like I said before, this is a thorny one.

I won't claim to be an expert in greek just yet, however.

Michael

Arminian

November 21st 2003, 11:32 PM

Capt,

I read you post and will respond later today or tomorrow. However, I'd like you to read my post again, since I get the impression that you didn't really understand it.

Also, I was serious when I asked if I know you or you know me. In other words, do you live within 50 -100 miles of Chicago? I ask this for a reason.

brett

November 22nd 2003, 04:09 AM

Arminian,

If you notice, when speaking of the spiritual condition of the wandering generation, I always (or nearly always) preface it with something like according to the author of Hebrews. He’s the one who speaks of them as always going astray and having not known His ways. So the question is how do we reconcile these passages?? I think the key is understanding some specifics about “saving faith.” Whatever it is, it’s clear this generation didn’t have it according to Hebrews. It’s also key to understand the symbolism and example of the evil generation and the rest they failed to enter.

Arminian:
Exodus 1
17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.

I think it’s fair to say this is a different generation, although I guess you could argue that some of these women crossed the Red Sea in their old age. But this doesn’t doesn’t take away from my position. There was definitely a remnant of true persevering believers even in this generation—Moses for instance.

Arminian:
Exodus 4
30 and Aaron told them everything the LORD had said to Moses. He also performed the signs before the people, 31 and they believed. And when they heard that the LORD was concerned about them and had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped.

Exodus 14
31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.

Yes they believed and yes they worshiped. The question is, specifically, what did they believe? More on this below.

Arminian:
Exodus 18
21 But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied."
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said.

Again, of course there was a remnant: Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, etc. But there are merely exceptions.

Here’s the main point. Salvation does not merely come through belief in God. The fact is, we need to specifically believe in the Son of God, Jesus Christ (the true Jesus Christ I might add) in order to be saved. This is "saving faith." Religious orthodox jews believe many accurate things about God. Our beliefs overlap with their’s in many areas. They fear God and worship Him with great zeal. But is this enough? So then, would it not be fair to say, from the christian perspective, that they are not “true believers?” James says, James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble! The true test of true faith is ultimately what you do with Jesus Christ. Similarly, the true test for that generation was believing God could defeat the Canaanites. This was their defining moment. They believed many things about God to be sure, and even worshiped Him and feared Him. They were much like many of the religious non-believers of our day. But did they believe enough? Was it enough to call them true believers who lost their salvation? I think the Hebrews passages I’ve sited in this thread as well as logic and reason make this conclusion impossible.

P.S. Just curious. I notice in another post you said you weren’t actually arminian, and that it was a long story. No need to explain the name, I’m just wonder what you are...calvinist...OV?? :huh:

whoknew

November 22nd 2003, 05:13 AM

I would like to thank you for pointing out the most disheartening bible passage for me personally. Hebrews 6:8 only has two feasible interpretations. Either
1) once you are enlightened, but do not come to accept Jesus, then you have forever lost the chance for heaven
2)once you are saved, but then fall away, you have effectively been unsaved forever.
Option number one needs to prove that the concept of enlightenment is different from the concept of salvation, and comes before salvation.
Option number two needs to prove that a saved person can fall away, and I for one would like to know what it means to have truely fallen away, unless only god is able to decide when a person has truely fallen away.
If having questioned whether Jesus even existed, or if he existed if he was really God, if that means to have fallen away, I just want a seat in the coolest part of hell, if I can possibly reserve that.
It's ironic: because as a christian, I asked to be the most on-fire- for-God christian ever, and he seems to have taken me literally and sent me to hell. Ask and ye shall receive.

Arminian

November 22nd 2003, 05:41 AM

Brett,

If you notice, when speaking of the spiritual condition of the wandering generation, I always (or nearly always) preface it with something like according to the author of Hebrews. He’s the one who speaks of them as always going astray and having not known His ways.

Right.

So the question is how do we reconcile these passages??

The meaning seems obvious to me. What needs to be reconciled?

I think the key is understanding some specifics about “saving faith.” Whatever it is, it’s clear this generation didn’t have it according to Hebrews. It’s also key to understand the symbolism and example of the evil generation and the rest they failed to enter.

The author of the text provides the focus. We are to learn from the mistakes of the wilderness generation and not go astray as they did in their disobedience and distrust of God. I don't see how this needs any inductive reasoning to explain it.

Furthermore, "knowing thy ways" is not a reference to conversion. It's exactly what Moses requested of God in Ex. 33:13:

"If you are pleased with me, teach me your
ways so I may know you and continue to
find favor with you. Remember that this nation
is your people."

The exodus generation saw God's works, yet time and again they turned away in disobedience and distrust after a period of trusting God. This NT audience is to learn from the error of the OT counterparts and continue to trust God.

I think it’s fair to say this is a different generation, although I guess you could argue that some of these women crossed the Red Sea in their old age. But this doesn’t doesn’t take away from my position. There was definitely a remnant of true persevering believers even in this generation—Moses for instance.

The account in numbers says "all the people" and the "whole assembly." Those who trusted God did enter the land. All who rebelled died in the wilderness, and few listed who did not rebel entered the land. There is nothing in the text that suggests that those who disobeyed God in that one instance never trusted God. In fact, the Bible says otherwise, yet we are asked to look at that one instance, rather than to question their past.

As for the midwives, does the text ask you to question their faith? Rather, the example is there not only as part of the story, but also for us to emulate. God rewarded them for their reverence of him. Such a demonstration of God's blessing was the ultimate sign of favor in Jewish culture.

Again, of course there was a remnant: Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, etc. But there are merely exceptions.

And why were Caleb and Joshua allowed to enter the land? We are not asked to look at their past experience. Rather, we are told that they obeyed God and did not turn away, which is something we should do.

Here’s the main point. Salvation does not merely come through belief in God. The fact is, we need to specifically believe in the Son of God, Jesus Christ (the true Jesus Christ I might add) in order to be saved. This is "saving faith." Religious orthodox jews believe many accurate things about God. Our beliefs overlap with their’s in many areas. They fear God and worship Him with great zeal. But is this enough? So then, would it not be fair to say, from the christian perspective, that they are not “true believers?” James says, James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble! The true test of true faith is ultimately what you do with Jesus Christ.

Most of what you say is not objectionable. However, the audience is not asked for a true test, but continue in their confidence, which will be richly rewarded.

Similarly, the true test for that generation was believing God could defeat the Canaanites. This was their defining moment. They believed many things about God to be sure, and even worshiped Him and feared Him.

Let's be clear that the verses I quoted said that they "trusted Him" and "believed." The verses are there as examples for us to learn from. There's nothing in the text that invites speculation or doubt.

But did they believe enough?

Clearly they did. The fact is that they did not continue.

Was it enough to call them true believers who lost their salvation?

They were true believers.

I think the Hebrews passages I’ve sited in this thread as well as logic and reason make this conclusion impossible.

Not at all, as I have demonstrated.

P.S. Just curious. I notice in another post you said you weren’t actually arminian, and that it was a long story.

Right.

No need to explain the name, I’m just wonder what you are...calvinist...

No.

OV??

No.

:huh:

Yes.

Arminian

November 22nd 2003, 05:45 AM

:wink:

brett

November 22nd 2003, 02:18 PM

Arminian:
The exodus generation saw God's works, yet time and again they turned away in disobedience and distrust after a period of trusting God. This NT audience is to learn from the error of the OT counterparts and continue to trust God.

The same was true of the pharisees. They also trusted time and again until they met Jesus. The fact that they had their sporadic moments of belief, did not make them true believers. Only belief in Christ can do that.

Arminian:
The account in numbers says "all the people" and the "whole assembly." Those who trusted God did enter the land. All who rebelled died in the wilderness, and few listed who did not rebel entered the land. There is nothing in the text that suggests that those who disobeyed God in that one instance never trusted God. In fact, the Bible says otherwise, yet we are asked to look at that one instance, rather than to question their past.

I’m agreeing with you. Yes, they trusted and worshiped God. So do orthodox jews. But saving faith is a matter of specifics.

Arminian:
As for the midwives, does the text ask you to question their faith? Rather, the example is there not only as part of the story, but also for us to emulate. God rewarded them for their reverence of him. Such a demonstration of God's blessing was the ultimate sign of favor in Jewish culture.

I’m not disagreeing. In fact I would argue that the midwives were probably true believers whom we’ll see in heaven.

Arminian:
And why were Caleb and Joshua allowed to enter the land? We are not asked to look at their past experience. Rather, we are told that they obeyed God and did not turn away, which is something we should do.

No disagreement. They did not turn away even when confronted with the true test of faith.

Arminian:
Most of what you say is not objectionable. However, the audience is not asked for a true test, but continue in their confidence, which will be richly rewarded.

Lydia is an example of one who continued to trust after hearing about Christ. The gospel of Christ was her true test of faith.

Arminian:
Let's be clear that the verses I quoted said that they "trusted Him" and "believed." The verses are there as examples for us to learn from. There's nothing in the text that invites speculation or doubt.
.....
Clearly they did. The fact is that they did not continue.
......
They were true believers.

Ok, so here’s the hundred million dollar question. Is the same true of orthodox jews today? Do they also believe enough?? Are they merely guilty of NOT continuing???

Arminian

November 22nd 2003, 10:28 PM

Brett,

Ok, so here’s the hundred million dollar question. Is the same true of orthodox jews today? Do they also believe enough?? Are they merely guilty of NOT continuing???

I think your question involves a false choice, since to reject God's revelation of Himself in Christ is to reject God. In other words, those who were part of God's people and rejected Christ were cut off from God's people (Acts 3:23). So, no, those who worship contrary to God's revelation to them are not worshiping God. They are, in fact, disobedient and have gone astray.

It appears to me that the impetus for the questioning of the Israelites' faith comes not from the text, but from the induced means to an end.

whoknew

November 23rd 2003, 06:35 AM

No i have not ended my quest not to go to hell. I will continue on in search of a loophole, that is if tektonics.org continues turning me in favor of the truth of the scriptures; I figure if tektonics.org can't do it, nobody can. Maybe mr.holding could get me out of punishment on a technicality. I will hold to the belief that I either was never enlightened, or that I never fell away. What led to my downfall from christianity was seeking the truth, which Jesus says he is, and which I did not believe the bible to be after encountering asimov's guide to the bible, and sites like skepdic.com at age 15. I first realized the ignorance of skeptics who deny the existence of the paranormal. I recently started realizing that their "bible is bull" arguments are also very shallow. Robyn Banks is the most knowledgable skeptic on the bible I have seen, and very fair in debate. I am still afraid to accept the bible because it might be a trick, and anyone who could feel good about a God torturing people for eternity may actually be the ones who have to get punished in the afterlife, but in fairness it would not be for eternity. If hell is no worse than earth, where there is also weeping and knashing of teeth, or if it is annihilation, then I might be less fearful of such a trick.

I'm probably mangling captains argument in my attempt to understand it, but here goes. If "bring to repentance" in this passage refers to one acknowledging their sinful nature once again, then this is clearly not impossible. I was a believer; I then questioned the authority of the bible and lost faith in its absolute truth; then tektonics made me believe it is absolutely true again; now I can easily acknowledge I am a sinner once again. Thus repentance either does not mean that, or I never fell away for real; perhaps if one truely falls away, then God would never again call one or present one the opportunity to recognize they are sinners again, and since I do have this opportunity, I must have never fallen away. Another option to keep this interpretation sound, which I believe you espouse, is that it is impossible for this person to repent again unless God makes this repentance possible. Crucifying again the son of god, I guess is not equivalent to blaspheming the holy spirit, which is the only unforgivable sin, so repentance probably doesn't mean being forgiven of one's sins again.

In questioning whether I was enlightened, if that simply means to have been shown the gospel and asked for its gift to be given, then I was definitely enlightened. It is hard to believe that the gift is not eternal life, but some here think it is just the opportunity to earn eternal life with continual faith. I have a specific question. Does Paul ever point out anyone who actually fell away, who would then illustrate this passage, so we can see if Paul thinks these people are damned? James 5:19-20 seems to say that salvation can be lost, but can then be regained, but that is just my first-guess interpretation. "If any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

dylan.

Reader

November 23rd 2003, 02:24 PM

whoknew:

Either
1) once you are enlightened, but do not come to accept Jesus, then you have forever lost the chance for heaven
2)once you are saved, but then fall away, you have effectively been unsaved forever.

Both of these are incorrect.

Hebrews 6:4-8 (and Hebrew 10:26-31) is speaking to hypocrites within the visible churches. Those who sit under Gospel instruction, and who profess to believe in Christ, but who are not truly saved. These are "enlightened" by the hearing of the Holy Scriptures, and the witness of genuine Christians around them, and some are sanctified by belonging to believing spouses. But they are not truly saved by God.

If having questioned whether Jesus even existed, or if he existed if he was really God, if that means to have fallen away, I just want a seat in the coolest part of hell, if I can possibly reserve that.

Doubting and questioning has nothing to do with salvation. All believers question and doubt at times. That is no determination of whether one is saved or not.

The most important thing to learn, is that when God saves a soul and forgives them their sins, and converts them to new spiritual life, it is permanent. The Holy Spirit comes to indwell that particular soul to guarantee salvation. When that saved individual doubts or is unfaithful, the presence of Christ through the Spirit remains faithful. A Christian cannot lose his salvation.

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself."
II Timothy 2:13

it is impossible for this person to repent again unless God makes this repentance possible. Crucifying again the son of god, I guess is not equivalent to blaspheming the holy spirit, which is the only unforgivable sin, so repentance probably doesn't mean being forgiven of one's sins again.

Being forgiven of one's sins is justification. That is a once and for all act by Jesus Christ, which was performed on the cross. The gift of faith and the Spirit reveal that this event has occurred on the behalf of the individual, and when applied to that sinner, he will believe and repent because of the power of God's grace.

Repentance is an ongoing process, because even the saved sinner, lives with the old sin nature in his body. Repentance is granted by God through the presence of the Holy Spirit, and repentance is evidence of true salvation because it is evidence of the Holy Spirit's abiding. (see Acts 5:31, 11:18, and II Timothy 2:25)

I have a specific question. Does Paul ever point out anyone who actually fell away, who would then illustrate this passage, so we can see if Paul thinks these people are damned?

It is impossible for a regenerated believer to fall away from the gift of saving faith. A regenerated believer can doubt, and can sin, and can act unrepentent, but it will only be occasional. Continual sin will not be practiced, when the "seed of Christ" indwells his soul. (I John 3:19)

When a Christian does sin (and he will while still in his earthly body), there is the remedy for sin. Confession can be made, and Christ "is faithful and just to forgive" those sins and keep the believer constantly cleansed "from all unrighteousness." I John 1:9

James 5:19-20 seems to say that salvation can be lost, but can then be regained, but that is just my first-guess interpretation. "If any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

No, this is not teaching a loss of salvation. Christians will sin, and Christians help each other with the matter of sin. But when saved and abiding as one with the Father, through the work of Christ, and the power of the Spirit, sin is conquered by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The Christian will experience the victory of Christ in his own life.

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world . . our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" I John 5:4&5

Unfortunately, your worries and questions are due to a mistaken dependance upon yourself to prove your salvation according to your behavior. This can bring fear and insecurity when reading passages such as are found in Hebrews 6:8.

But when one depends upon the work and faithfulness of Jesus Christ alone, and look towards him for assurance and guarantee of salvation, one can relax and find peace. For Jesus has promised the Father that NONE of His people, for whom He died on the cross, will be lost. (John 6:39, 17:12)

It is His power and His will that will keep you, if He has shown you grace and gifted you with faith to believe and repent.

Those who "fall away" and leave behind their profession of faith in Christ, or those who continue to practice sin without exhibiting any repentance, prove themselves to be fakes and hypocrites within the sanctified churches and these are to whom these warnings are directed. They were never saved to begin with. They were never really changed by God. Their profession of faith is a "dead" faith. (James 2:18.22,26)

John says these hypocrites will eventually manifest their true colors:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." I John 2:19

The opposite is said of a genuinely regenerated believer:

". . He who does the will of God abides forever . . .You have an anointing from the Holy One. . .Let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us . . eternal life . . the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." I John 2:17b, 20, 24, 25, 27

So how do any of us know that we are anointed by the Holy Spirit, and truly abide with the Son and the Father?

By whether we rest in Christ or not.

True, saving faith, from Jesus Christ, brings peace and rest. When gifted with this faith, we enter the "rest" of God. We cease from human attempts and works to assure ourselves of salvation. We truly trust in Christ for that assurance and find peace.

Prior to the teaching found in Hebrews 6 and 10 concerning the hypocrites and false professors of faith within the church body, we are taught about the rest of God:

"There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. . .Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God; let us hold fast our confession, for we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:9-11, 14-16

Saving faith will prove itself by causing you to rest in the Lord Jesus Christ for all things; your faith, your continual repentance, and full guarantee and assurance of salvation.

"Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise . . .we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul . . .we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. . .that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us; even Jesus, having become High Priest forever . . ." Hebrews 10:55, 56, 59, 6:9-12, 18-20

"If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory." Colossians 3:1-4

brett

November 23rd 2003, 07:51 PM

whoknew:
I would like to thank you for pointing out the most disheartening bible passage for me personally. Hebrews 6:8 only has two feasible interpretations. Either
1) once you are enlightened, but do not come to accept Jesus, then you have forever lost the chance for heaven
2)once you are saved, but then fall away, you have effectively been unsaved forever.
Option number one needs to prove that the concept of enlightenment is different from the concept of salvation, and comes before salvation.
Option number two needs to prove that a saved person can fall away, and I for one would like to know what it means to have truly fallen away, unless only god is able to decide when a person has truly fallen away.

Just a quick comment on this. John said,

John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

Enlightenment is universal and salvation is not. They are definitely different concepts.

whoknew:
If having questioned whether Jesus even existed, or if he existed if he was really God, if that means to have fallen away, I just want a seat in the coolest part of hell, if I can possibly reserve that.
It's ironic: because as a christian, I asked to be the most on-fire- for-God christian ever, and he seems to have taken me literally and sent me to hell. Ask and ye shall receive.

I’m really glad you’ve come aboard to share your comments and personal testimony. This is actually a great opportunity for the participants of the thread to analyze your situation and show how their theology applies.

But before I get started, it’s important to keep in mind that no one here thinks it will be necessary for you to merely shoot for the coolest part of hell. In other words, there’s not a theology here that will deny you salvation if that’s what you so desire. Welcome to the family of God! There’s still plenty of time to be on-fire.

Your testimony is similar to mine so I’m eager give my you my angle on this.

whoknew:
I am still afraid to accept the bible because it might be a trick, and anyone who could feel good about a God torturing people for eternity may actually be the ones who have to get punished in the afterlife, but in fairness it would not be for eternity. If hell is no worse than earth, where there is also weeping and knashing of teeth, or if it is annihilation, then I might be less fearful of such a trick.

This is a digression, but just a quick response. (For further debate it would be best to start a different thread.) No christians feel good about hell. You seem to be hung up on the concept of eternal punishments for temporal sins. At first glance it seems that the punishments and sins should have corresponding time frames. But when you think about, we don’t even believe this in our current system of law and justice. Some people are doing life in prison for crimes that only took a few minutes to perform. Can you imagine a thief doing only 30 minutes of time for the 30 minutes he took to rob your house? This particular argument has completely put to rest my concerns about the fairness of eternal punishment. But this is way off topic!...so let’s move on to how Heb. 6 applies to you.

whoknew:
...I was a believer; I then questioned the authority of the bible and lost faith in its absolute truth; then tektonics made me believe it is absolutely true again; now I can easily acknowledge I am a sinner once again. Thus repentance either does not mean that, or I never fell away for real; perhaps if one truly falls away, then God would never again call one or present one the opportunity to recognize they are sinners again, and since I do have this opportunity, I must have never fallen away. Another option to keep this interpretation sound, which I believe you espouse, is that it is impossible for this person to repent again unless God makes this repentance possible. Crucifying again the son of god, I guess is not equivalent to blaspheming the holy spirit, which is the only unforgivable sin, so repentance probably doesn't mean being forgiven of one's sins again.

In questioning whether I was enlightened, if that simply means to have been shown the gospel and asked for its gift to be given, then I was definitely enlightened. It is hard to believe that the gift is not eternal life, but some here think it is just the opportunity to earn eternal life with continual faith. I have a specific question. Does Paul ever point out anyone who actually fell away, who would then illustrate this passage, so we can see if Paul thinks these people are damned? James 5:19-20 seems to say that salvation can be lost, but can then be regained, but that is just my first-guess interpretation. "If any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

dylan.

Clarification on enlightenment
I define enlightenment as the ability to understand things in the spiritual realm. Straying from enlightenment and straying from the truth are the same thing. Straying and falling away are two different things, however. One who has strayed can be brought back, as James points out. One who has fallen cannot (Heb. 6:4-6). Spiritual blindness is was stops us from finding God’s salvation. Enlightenment is the extrication of one’s spiritual blindness. In essence, enlightenment brings freedom to those who were once spiritual slaves. Enlightenment is not merely light. If a blind man is in a dark room and you turn on the lights, he will still not see anything. Lack of light is not the natural man’s problem.....blindness is. Enlightenment is the process in which man is enabled to see light (spiritual truth). It’s the supernatural healing of spiritual eyes. Men are born spiritually blind (and deaf, etc., etc.). They are not merely shortsighted. God then supernaturally opens these eyes, much like Christ opened physical eyes. But this, in and of itself, is not salvation. God then will point out the way of salvation to one who is now able to see. He can either go in the direction God points or stay where he is. The former will lead to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and eternal security. The latter will eventually lead to the blasphemy of the spirit and certain judgement. The key word there is eventually. Using the metaphor of the exodus generation, they had quite an extended period of enlightenment before they finally blew it for the last time (at the border of Canaan). You see, enlightenment is not just over in a moment. Perhaps it can go on for years. 2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But it’s not forever. Many passages speak of this limited window of opportunity in which a man must seek God.

Is. 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near.

Jer. 13:16 Give glory to the LORD your God Before He causes darkness, And before your feet stumble On the dark mountains, And while you are looking for light, He turns it into the shadow of death And makes it dense darkness.

John 12:35 Then Jesus said to them, “A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. 36 “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.

Heb. 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years.

Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.

I think it’s also important to understand the relationship between faith and repentance. You see, you cannot change your mind about God, without changing your mind about sin. To put it differently, you cannot choose to serve God without also choosing NOT to serve sin, because God is the opposite of sin. You cannot serve two masters. Keep in mind that I’m only speaking of the decision part. Carrying out these decisions is an issue of sanctification. We are saved when we decide to make Christ our Master. This is equivalent to asking Christ into your heart. The heart in scripture is a metaphor for the will. To say something in your heart is to decide to do something. We don’t merely ask God to come on board while we are still devoted to our old master. You cannot change your mind about God without changing your mind about sin. And just to ensure this is not confused this with works: the fact that we’ve decided to trust God, does not mean we’ll always be successful. And the fact the we’ve decided not to trust sin, also doesn’t mean we’ll always be successful. But thank God salvation is not by works!

So with this in mind, here are two (2) possible explanations for your past experience.

Option #1) You really DID enter rest (salvation) many years ago in your youth and have been saved ever since. You went right past Heb. 6:8 straight into verse 9, but you were then confused by some seemingly good arguments against bible inherency. God then, in his faithfulness, brought individuals into your life who could effectively counter those of arguments, ending your season of doubt (which every christian has). As I said before, no christian successfully trusts God 100% of the time. The fact that you were open to the counter arguments inclines me to believe you already belonged to God. I’m still not sure though.

Option #2) Early in your youth, your faith was not genuine yet. Perhaps you believed in God on some level, but in your heart, you were not yet willing to let him take over. In other words, you still hadn’t changed your mind about sin. So perhaps you were enlightened many years ago and just recently have mix that enlightenment with true faith. Perhaps you believed certain things about him, but never truly asked him to take over your life. This is why you so quickly went astray after being exposed to anti bible arguments.

I’ve been a believer for 10 years and was a professing believer 10 years prior to that. I believed a whole bunch of accurate things about Christ, but never wanted him to be my “Lord and Master” and I especially didn’t want to become His “slave” until just 10 years ago. A lot of people have trouble with the concept of a “slave Master” relationship, but it truly is biblical.

Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.......22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

Here’s a story I like from Ex. 21 about a slave and his master. Since slave master metaphors are used so often in the New Testament, I think is crucial to understand how biblical slavery worked.

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. ....5 “But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 “then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

This last part about loving his master and choosing to be his slave is a beautiful picture of salvation. The servant went from bondage to freedom to bondage again, but to a loving and kind master. He willingly gave up his freedom. This is also the main reason I don’t think one can loose his salvation. ......and he shall serve him forever. Once you truly give God dominion over your will, you can rest assured it’s forever. Slaves don’t have the freedom to leave.

I’m inclined to believe you probably fit into option #1 but your insight on this matter is superior to mine.

Regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I do think this is what Hebrews 6 is referring to. Heb. 10 is a parallel to 6 and puts it like this.

Heb. 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

IMHO, this was also a possibility for you. Had you continued to distrust the bible and God (assuming your were not yet saved), I think you eventually would have committed this sin and all desires to commit yourself to Christ would have vanished. What a terrifying thought.

2Pet. 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

In Christ,
Brett

Arminian

November 23rd 2003, 09:10 PM

All "regenerated believers" who fall away will go to hell (Heb. 6:4-9). All "regenerated believers" who were sanctified by the blood of the covenant (not by "believing spouses") and fall away should have a fearful expectation of hell.

Let the reader understand.....

This has been a public announcement. Thank you.

Reader

November 23rd 2003, 09:29 PM

Arminian:

All "regenerated believers" who fall away will go to hell (Heb. 6:4-9). All "regenerated believers" who were sanctified by the blood of the covenant (not by "believing spouses") and fall away should have a fearful expectation of hell.

Let the reader understand.....

This has been a public announcement. Thank you.

A false and unbiblical public announcement.

(About as moral as screaming "fire" in a crowded auditorium.)

Christians saved by the power and grace of God will never fall away, based upon the promises of Jesus Christ (John 10:28&29, 6:39, 17:12) and the guarantee of salvation from the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14, II Cor. 1:21, II Cor. 5:5)

Arminian

November 23rd 2003, 09:53 PM

Christians saved by the power and grace of God will never fall away, based upon the promises of Jesus Christ (John 10:28&29, 6:39, 17:12) and the guarantee of salvation from the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14, II Cor. 1:21, II Cor. 5:5)

Sure they will. All they have to do is spurn the blood of the covenant that sanctified them. They don't even have to be married for this to happen. (hehe)

This has been a public announcement.

Reader

November 23rd 2003, 11:24 PM

Arminian:

All they have to do is spurn the blood of the covenant that sanctified them.

I see that you do not understand the difference between being sanctified and being saved.

Arminian

November 24th 2003, 12:18 AM

Reader,

I see that you do not understand the difference between being sanctified and being saved.

I see you beg the question. All described as sanctified in Hebrews are believers. There are no unbelievers mentioned that are sanctified by Christ's blood.

Your theory that the "Hebrews" were are group of unbelieving spouses of believers speaks for itself with regard to your "understaning." It isn't text. Rather, the "blood of the covenant that sanctified you" is. And only believers are sanctified by the blood of the covenant through faith in Christ.

Let the reader understand....

Reader

November 24th 2003, 01:14 AM

Arminian:

Reader,

I see you beg the question. All described as sanctified in Hebrews are believers.

Where does Scripture say so? Which verse?

There are no unbelievers mentioned that are sanctified by Christ's blood.

It is sanctified ~unbelievers~ that are spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31.

only believers are sanctified through faith in Christ.

Only believers are ~saved~ through faith in Christ. Many unbelievers are sanctified via the name of Christ in the visible churches, but the visible assemblies are made up of tares as well as wheat. Goats amongst the sheep. Hypocrites and false Christians among the true sons of God.

These are all sanctified by the fact they are identified with the name of God and under the hearing of the Word of God, and witnessing the influence of the Spirit of God; and called the "covenant people" by God.

Just like the nation of Israel, which is our O.T. example of this truth.

The entire nation was delivered from bondage in Egypt by God, led by the Spirit of God in the cloud. All were sanctified under covenant promises by God.

". . All our fathers were under the cloud; all passed through the sea, all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well please, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness." I Corinthians 10:1-5

All worshiped, set apart from other nations (sanctified), according to God's providence and instructions, and annually received temporal atonement for their sins through the blood sacrifices and priestly system covenanted by God.

But almost all perished in the desert.

Only a remnant, saved by the grace of God through the gift of faith to understand the Covenant of Redemption through Messiah were actually, effectually, and eternally saved.

Same in the visible churches today.

Multitudes profess and worship God in Christ's name. They are sanctified by being under the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. They are called apart from the world, but many will perish in their sins, for they are ~not saved~ by the regenerating power of God's grace and Holy Spirit. These deceive themselves and others as being servants of God, but in judgment, God will say "I never knew you." (See Matthew 7:21-23)

Arminian

November 24th 2003, 01:24 AM

Reader,

It is sanctified ~unbelievers~ that are spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31.

Yes, you said that already.

These are all sanctified by the fact they are identified with the name of God and under the hearing of the Word of God, and witnessing the influence of the Spirit of God; and called the "covenant people" by God.

That's creative, yet evey reference to "sanctified" in Hebrews concerns believers only. There is no reference to being sactified by mere proximity. There isn't one exception. Furthermore, the effect of sactification by the blood of Christ is in assoctiation with the covenent. There are no unbelievers that are sactified by Chrit's blood apart from the covenant. This is the author's very point!

You're very creative, but not convincing. At least you got away from the "spouses of believers" theory.

Arminian

November 24th 2003, 01:28 AM

Multitudes profess and worship God in Christ's name. They are sanctified by being under the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

This is "special pleading." Unbelievers are not affected by the blood of Jesus. They are not affected by the covenant they reject. They are, therefore, not sanctified. This is the very argument the author of Hebrews is making to his audience.

brett

November 24th 2003, 02:12 AM

Arminian:
I think your question involves a false choice, since to reject God's revelation of Himself in Christ is to reject God. In other words, those who were part of God's people and rejected Christ were cut off from God's people (Acts 3:23). So, no, those who worship contrary to God's revelation to them are not worshiping God. They are, in fact, disobedient and have gone astray.

And how is worshiping a golden calf not contrary to God’s revelation?

Arminian:
It appears to me that the impetus for the questioning of the Israelites' faith comes not from the text, but from the induced means to an end.

The impetus for believing the exodus generation did not mix their knowledge with faith is composed of the following passages.

Heb. 3:10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ 11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ” 12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God....

Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”.....

Reader

November 24th 2003, 02:13 AM

Arminian:

That's creative, yet evey reference to "sanctified" in Hebrews concerns believers only. There is no reference to being sactified by mere proximity. There isn't one exception.

No? What about the sanctified (unsaved) spouses and children of believers? I Cor. 7:14

Furthermore, the effect of sactification by the blood of Christ is in assoctiation with the covenent.

That's right. The O.T. nation of Israel was sanctified by God through covenant and the practice of blood sacrifice and the N.T. visible churches are sanctified by the same blood and covenant promises. But not all sanctified under covenant and with knowledge of the blood are saved.

There are no unbelievers that are sactified by Chrit's blood apart from the covenant. This is the author's very point!

You're very creative, but not convincing. At least you got away from the "spouses of believers" theory.

Not the point at all. The point of the Hebrews warnings is directed toward church hypocrites who treat the blood of the covenant a common thing. That is the attitude of unbelievers and fakes; not true Christians.

I am not being "creative." I am teaching historical Covenant Theology according to the whole of Scripture.

Reader

November 24th 2003, 02:22 AM

Arminian:

This is "special pleading."

Huh?

Unbelievers are not affected by the blood of Jesus. They are not affected by the covenant they reject.

Unbelievers in the visible churches, functioning under profession of faith in the blood and covenant, most certainly are affected. They will be judged for their hypocrisy most severely.

They are, therefore, not sanctified.

Sure they are. They are set apart through identification with the name of Jesus Christ, even though they are not saved. What do you think "sanctification" means, anyway? Sanctification is not equivalent to salvation.

All persons saved are sanctified.

Not all persons sanctified are saved.

The Bible is replete with illustrations of this spiritual truth.

Arminian

November 24th 2003, 03:01 AM

Reader,

Sure they are. They are set apart through identification with the name of Jesus Christ, even though they are not saved. What do you think "sanctification" means, anyway? Sanctification is not equivalent to salvation.

All persons saved are sanctified.

Yes, I understand your argument, and I can see your attempt to recontextualize by avoiding the text and looking elsewhere. Your argument hinges on the idea that the author makes a muddled argument by using the terminology in a way contrary to everything else he wrote. After arguing for salvation and sanctification through the new covenant by faith in Christ, you say that he uses the same terms to apply to UNBELIVERS. Yes, I understand your argument.

However, you fail to address the text itself, as a whole, and plead that a special meaning be given to the terminology which contradicts what the author has already said.

The words in question in chapter 10 are a synopsis of what the author has argued applies ONLY to BELIEVERS:

Hebrews 9

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

In this section, the author argues that the blood of Christ is associated with the new covenant which is able to sanctify inwardly so that we may serve the living God. This the same terminology ("blood," "covenant," "sanctify") is used only a few verses later in the warning in chapter 10, yet you claim that the author undermines his own argument by claiming that unbelievers are sanctified by the blood of the same covenant in such a way that is obviously contrary to the description he previously gave concerning the blood, the sanctification, and the covenant? The only thing needed to refute your argument is to return to the text.

Unbelievers are not sanctified by the covenant. In fact the Spirit is grieved in chapter 10 because it is by the Spirit that we, like Christ and through Christ, are made unblemished and able to serve (SANCTIFIED) before God by Christ's blood (9:14). So says the author.

whoknew

November 24th 2003, 09:42 AM

Hello Brett, and thankyou for this most enlightening teaching on enlightenment. I think you have come up with a more sound biblical framework than I have yet seen, at least for this questionable passage, although your proposed scenario sounds kind of novel to me, and I wonder how widely taught it is. Based on what went on in my life after I thought I had been saved, I'll suggest that your option number two is the right one, mainly because I still felt a slave to sin, and therefore I was just enlightened, although this does amount to a subjective evaluation of salvation. I wonder if I should have called myself an enlightened one instead of a christian; this could have helped me realize the error that was still in my ways.

I think that it is unlikely that I fell away, based on how there has been an incessant tugging to go back to God in many areas of my life along with spiritual growth, ever since I no longer professed Christianity. Still, I'm not sure whether this is evidence of salvation or of a suspended state of enlightenment. You say the test of falling away from enlightenment is if the person never submits himself to Christ's mastership after having heard the word and having been touched by the spirt, etc. This makes falling away only knowable in hindsight--the view isn't able to tell someone they cannot ever be saved because they have trampled their enlightment, because trampling their enlightenment is only evidenced if the enlightened person dies and wasn't saved. Not that this makes your interpretation illogical or untrue, i'm just pointing out an attribute of it, that really only God knows if you have trampled the enlightenment, and then he will never draw you to him again. Actually, he could draw someone back to him, without bringing them into his rest; what if he just wanted me to preach his word for whatever reason, even though I had sinned against the spirit, he still wanted some use out of me. I guess there's always that possibility, until I actually am saved and show the fruits of being saved.

Your prison system analogy actually did help me understand the temporal disparities between crime and punishment, although I see a lot more justification to be done.

Reader

November 24th 2003, 03:24 PM

Arminian:

Unbelievers are not sanctified by the covenant. In fact the Spirit is grieved in chapter 10 because it is by the Spirit that we, like Christ and through Christ, are made unblemished and able to serve (SANCTIFIED) before God by Christ's blood (9:14). So says the author.

You are confusing covenants. There is the one eternal Covenant of Redemption and Grace promised to all the Elect of God. This brings salvation and adoption of the sons of God in Christ Jesus. This builds the invisible church of God; the heavenly city. All souls sanctified by this Covenant are saved.

The eternal Covenant is manifested in the world through various external and temporal covenants. Such as the sanctification of the entire nation of Israel by covenant of Law. This covenant was extended to all the people identified with the name of God, and the blood sacrificial system was established to physically point to the promised Messiah to come. Spiritual realities were revealed in the physical realm. All of this people were "baptized" in water to set them apart from the other nations of the world. They were sanctified on earth, but only a remnant were truly sanctified and saved by the grace of God through faith.

The same kind of sanctification occurs in the visible churches today. How many souls do you know that have been baptized in water and identified with the name of Jesus Christ (sanctified), that have proven to not be saved at all? Unbelievers in the midst of God's people; mixing within the visible churches, but lacking in saving faith. Temporarily sanctified but not saved, who in their hypocrisy "insult the Spirit of Grace" by their deceptions.

They are ~so~ sanctified and appear like genuine believers, that it is impossible for us to discern who they are. Only God knows. But God ~does~ know as evidenced in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

Capt Mercury

November 24th 2003, 06:03 PM

11-22-2003 @ 03:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=307336#post307336)
Arminian:

Capt,

I read you post and will respond later today or tomorrow. However, I'd like you to read my post again, since I get the impression that you didn't really understand it.

Also, I was serious when I asked if I know you or you know me. In other words, do you live within 50 -100 miles of Chicago? I ask this for a reason.

Arminean,

I'm a west-coast guy... http://luvjc.net/emoticons/signs/0050.gif (Go SC.)

I understood it, but didn't have time for the work needed to respond to it all. Here's an explanation of why IMO there are two types of inheritances in theNT... one one unconditionally given to all believers, and the other conditional:

Romans 8:16, 17 NASB
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God[,] and fellow heirs with Christ if indeed eiper we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

This is similar to what Paul wrote in Gal. 4:7. But there are also some significant differences that cannot be ignored. You mentioned that we are heirs to the promises of Abraham though Christ. Then you said that this makes us joint-heirs with our brothers with Christ.

I would differ here, FYI. (I know, people are saying "say what"!") If we read Eph. 2:11-end Paul speaks in depth of the mystery that we (as Gentiles) were at one time without Christ, excluded from the citizenzy of Israel. But now in Christ Jesus, we who were once far off have been brought near through the blood of Christ. He created one man where there had been two. We are now both reconciled in one body through the cross to God. We are heirs of God along with our Jewish brothers - in Christ. But Romans 8:17 is quite clear that though we are all heirs together with God, we are joint-heirs with Christ eiper ("if indeed" is the regular meaning, as in the NIV and NASB) we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorifed with Him." This is referring to the right of the1st-born to a double portion of the inheritance.

IOW, we are God'sheirs - all of us, and also Christ's fellow-heirs if we share His suffering now IOT share His glory and splendor later. Being an heir-of-God is unconditional... being a fellow-heir with Christ is not. Let's look at the Greek in this verse and it becomes apparent:

But 1st let's look at the context, 8:12-14, where a contrast is being made:

Romans 8:12-14
So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

and

Romans 8:18
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

Suffering is emphasized, and we are being challenged to share in Christ's sufferings. Not all believers do share in Christ's sufferings. Only those who resist the flesh and suffer can overcome. These conditions continue to be displayed in the following verses. Paul also refers to our adoption - gaining our new bodies - which we will all receive, of course. But then in 8:28 we again see theconditional promise that in all things God works for good "to those who love God..."

Now certainly receiving an inheritance ofdeliverance from hell is not based on sharing in His suffering! If so, that would make this works salvation, and we've comeclose to going back into RCC theology. Salvation is earned if we interpret 8:17 as referring to just one heirship. But two kinds of Christians are in view. just as Paul referred to the carnal man and the spiritual man as well as the natural man (unbeliever).

Jesus Himself referred to eternal life which was received as a gift, by faith alone several times in John's gospel. But He also referred to an abundant life - that comes from abiding in Him - which all believers do not do. If we view one heriship then we must labor under the contrast that earlier Paul made quite clear in Romans that we are justified by faith alone. Now he must be saying that eternal life is conditional - we must suffer with Christ. If that isn't works, what is it?

BTW, 2 Tim. 2:11 shows a similar conditional reigning with Christ.

OK, let's look at the Greek behind this verse. Two contrasting heirships are at leats suggested by the men - de particles which typically are described as meaning "on the one hand ... but on the other hand." Contrast is clearly being emphasized. "on the one hand (men)... heirs of God, but on the other hand (de) joint heirs with Christ." These particles strongly imply a contrast and not an equality. In fact, every time they are used in Romans they are alwayscontrastive andnever just conjunctive: (See 2:7-8, 2:25, 5:16, 6:11, 7:25, 8:10, 8:17, 9:21, 11:22, 11:28, 14:2 and 14:5) I know this makes for a long post, but I've listed each of those below:

men-de pairs in Romans:
[b]2:7, 8(men)to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but (de) to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

2:25For (men) indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but (de) if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

5:16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (men) the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand (de) the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

6:11Even so consider yourselves (men) to be dead to sin, but (de)alive to God in Christ Jesus.

7:25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand (men) I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other (de), with my flesh the law of sin.

8:10If Christ is in you, though (men) the body is dead because of sin, yet (de) the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

8:17Our text.

9:21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump (men) one vessel for honorable use and (de) another for common use?

11:22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; (men) to those who fell, severity, but (de) to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

11:28(men) From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but (de) from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

14:2 (men) One person has faith that he may eat all things, but (de) he who is weak eats vegetables only.

14:5 (men) One person regards one day above another, (de) another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Again, to repeat, not only does the context and use of eiper support two heirships - men (on the one hand) one free, but de (but on the other hand) one earned, but the general context of the NT supports such, IMO.

Consider 2 Tim. 2:11-13 again: It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Anyway, that's why I see it as necessarily two heirships.

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/bouncing/0024.gif

Thx,

Reader

November 24th 2003, 07:13 PM

Capt Mercury:

Again, to repeat, not only does the context and use of eiper support two heirships - men (on the one hand) one free, but de (but on the other hand) one earned, but the general context of the NT supports such, IMO.

Nah . . .this is a recent and popular movement afoot intent on adding works to grace.

Just another version of semi-Pelagianism.

We must remember Paul's warning:

"Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? . . .Therefore know that only those who are of faith, are sons of Abraham." Galatians 3:3,7

Yes, the true heirs of everlasting life will endure to the end, but it will be because God works in them through His Holy Spirit.

Christians must rest in Christ.

Christians might suffer, and their suffering is redeemed in Christ, but suffering is not necessary for Christ has already fully suffered on their behalf on the Cross.

Do not rob Christ of His glory, by trying to take some upon yourselves!

Arminian

November 24th 2003, 07:27 PM

Brett,

Sorry, I didn't see your post from yesterday. I'll respond as soon as I get a chance.

Capt,

I'll also respond to you ASAP. Reader has already made a point that I would somewhat agree with. The Reformed and the Arminian interpretation of the verse is pretty much the same. There is a dispie perspective, however, that sees anything related to identification with Christ as being a work and likes to throw "RCC!!" around because of a false choice they offer. I'll address that later.

Thanks,

brett

November 24th 2003, 08:04 PM

whoknew:
I think that it is unlikely that I fell away, based on how there has been an incessant tugging to go back to God in many areas of my life along with spiritual growth, ever since I no longer professed Christianity. Still, I'm not sure whether this is evidence of salvation or of a suspended state of enlightenment. You say the test of falling away from enlightenment is if the person never submits himself to Christ's mastership after having heard the word and having been touched by the spirt, etc. This makes falling away only knowable in hindsight--the view isn't able to tell someone they cannot ever be saved because they have trampled their enlightment, because trampling their enlightenment is only evidenced if the enlightened person dies and wasn't saved. Not that this makes your interpretation illogical or untrue, i'm just pointing out an attribute of it, that really only God knows if you have trampled the enlightenment, and then he will never draw you to him again.

Whoknew,

Just a quick follow up. Notice the exact words used in this passage.

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 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 an open shame.

Whatever the right interpretations of the passage is, it really doesn't effect your primary concern. Repentance, essentially, means to change one’s mind. The author is saying that there is a point in an individuals life, when it will be utterly impossible for his mind to be changed. The fact that you’ve changed your mind is proof positive (in and of itself), that this has NOT happened to you. The symptom is unmistakable. So rest assured.

Capt Mercury

November 25th 2003, 03:50 PM

Yesterday @ 11:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312555#post312555)
Reader:

Nah . . .this is a recent and popular movement afoot intent on adding works to grace.

Just another version of semi-Pelagianism.

We must remember Paul's warning:

"Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? . . .Therefore know that only those who are of faith, are sons of Abraham." Galatians 3:3,7

Yes, the true heirs of everlasting life will endure to the end, but it will be because God works in them through His Holy Spirit.

Christians must rest in Christ.

Christians might suffer, and their suffering is redeemed in Christ, but suffering is not necessary for Christ has already fully suffered on their behalf on the Cross.

Do not rob Christ of His glory, by trying to take some upon yourselves!
Uhh, adding works to grace??!! It's exactly that which I'm fighting against! Either someone will say that if you don't perform certain works you're not saved or that if you don't display certain works you must not have been saved in the 1st place. (What you believe) Both of those add works to the gospel. I am keeping it pure - SOLA GRATIA... SOLA FIDE.

I certainly realize that any works I may perform in serving Christ is ONLY by the grace of God. But to say that God will not reward those works is a clear contradiction of what is clearly taught in several places in the NT.

Now I'd have to say that your comment about semi-Pelagianism is pure and simply name-calling. If you think I am in error, just explain your stance and where you believe my exegesis is faulty. It's OK if we do not agree. I won't be offended. But to call names does not honor Christ and not really addressing the issues, IMO.

Now, semi-pelagianism is typically something thrown in the faces of arminians... I am not arminian. And if you're going to say such things, then you need to be sure that what you've said accurately represents what the person is teaching.

{Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, Oxford Univ. Press, rev. 1983, p.1258}
[Semi-Pelagianism], while not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.

{The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 ed., vol. 10, p.625) states:}
The result of Semi-Pelagianism, however, was the denial of the necessity of God's unmerited, supernatural, gracious empowering of man's will for saving action . . . From [529] . . . Semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a heresy in the Roman Catholic Church.

(Our Legacy, the History of Christian Doctrine, Dr. John Hannah):
Semi-Pelagianism (or Cassianism) is a teaching that sought to explain the relationship between the work of God in salvation and the activity of the sinner. This view argues that God's action may at times follow the sinner's repentance and at other times may precede it.

Cap -> It was condemned in the 6th century, but had become wide-spread again before the reformation.

Semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a heresy by the RCC even. Now where have I even hinted at what is in bold above? You insist that God actually gives the seeker the faith he needs. I merely state that the seeker can respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in his life. Call it what you want... I call it biblical. But calling my views Semi-Pelagianism does not at all represent the issue that they had with John Cassian in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Augustine taught that mankind shared in Adam's sin and therefore had become in such a state that no one can be saved except by a special gift of divine grace that cannot be earned. He taught that God in his chooses some to be saved and leads them to salvation. The number of the "elect" is set and can not be changed. But, Vitalis of Carthage and a community of monks at Hadrumetum, Africa (about 427AD), contested Augustine's principles, asserting that they destroyed freedom of the will and all moral responsibility. So they, in turn, insisted that the unaided will performed the initial act of faith. In response Augustine produced Grace and Free Will and Rebuke and Grace, which stressed the necessary preparation of the will by prevenient grace. Sound familiar?

The problem was that Cassian taught that God did not even need to draw the sinner to Himself - that man was able to respond completely on his own. I have taught no such thing. What I have taught is regarding works ofthe believer AFTER he has cometo faith in Christ and is regenerate!

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/flamed/0007.gif

Reader

November 25th 2003, 05:32 PM

Capt Mercury:

I am keeping it pure - SOLA GRATIA... SOLA FIDE.

I certainly realize that any works I may perform in serving Christ is ONLY by the grace of God.

That is not a pure teaching of Sola Gratia or Sola Fide. Scripture says the works we perform are works that God has prepared for us to "walk" in. (Eph. 2:10)

These works produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Galatians 2:22-25)

These works are what prove our faith is from God. (James 2:17)

"For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:13

" . . His (the Christian's) deeds may be clearly seen that they have been done in God." John 3:21b

"Lord, You will establish peace for us, for You have also done all our works in us." Isaiah 26:12

". . According to You own heart, You have done all this greatness, in making known all these great things." I Chronicles 17:19

It is the belief that men do the works, only enabled by grace, that is similar to the semi-Pelagian beliefs of the RCC. Instead, in order to be faithful to the principle of Sola Gratia, one must teach that one does the good works of God because of grace. Good works are not our fruits; good works are the fruits of God and His grace. I believe this is an important distinction.

But to say that God will not reward those works is a clear contradiction of what is clearly taught in several places in the NT.

There is reward for the Christian who does the good works of God, and that reward is everlasting life. The rewards have nothing to do with earning more merit with God. Grace is full reward in itself. Being in Christ Jesus is everlasting life. Reward begins in this life and culminates in glory.

have to say that your comment about semi-Pelagianism is pure and simply name-calling. If you think I am in error, just explain your stance and where you believe my exegesis is faulty. It's OK if we do not agree. I won't be offended. But to call names does not honor Christ and not really addressing the issues, IMO.

I apologize. I did not mean to call you a name. I meant to identify what it is you appear to be teaching. I was identifying the heretical theology of semi-Pelaganianism that adds works to justification from original sin in order to maintain and progress in sanctification.

Here are your specific comments that caused my critique:

an explanation of why IMO there are two types of inheritances in theNT... one one unconditionally given to all believers, and the other conditional:

Scripture does not teach two types of inheritance. We are heirs with Christ of the Kingdom of God because of His life and cross work. Christ performed all Covenant that promises this inheritance. He died the death of testator to make the testament effectual. He converts the Elect by His Spirit and gifts them with His faithfulness and imputes His righteousness to their account. He leads and teaches them of His Word so that they understand the things of God through His Holy Spirit, who guides them into all obedience and the good works of God.

There is nothing "conditional" upon the Christian for any of the above.

Sola Gratia!

IOW, we are God'sheirs - all of us, and also Christ's fellow-heirs if we share His suffering now IOT share His glory and splendor later. Being an heir-of-God is unconditional... being a fellow-heir with Christ is not.

If there is any kind of condition added, even one as noble as "suffering," you have moved away from Sola Fide.

Suffering is emphasized, and we are being challenged to share in Christ's sufferings. Not all believers do share in Christ's sufferings.

That's right, because "suffering" is not a condition to earning inheritance. Some Christians suffer, some do not. These things are part of God's plan to conform us to the image of the Son. Different circumstances in different Christian lives achieve the same thing. "Suffering" is often a temporal fact in life, but it is not a ~means~ to overcome.

FAITH is the means to overcome adversity in the world. (I John 5:4&5), and that faith is the faithfulness of Christ gifted to us, lest any of us should boast about our "suffering" or "overcoming."

Sola Fide and Soli Deo Gloria!

Now certainly receiving an inheritance ofdeliverance from hell is not based on sharing in His suffering! If so, that would make this works salvation, and we've comeclose to going back into RCC theology.

That's right. And sanctification and overcoming and anticipating eternal rewards is not conditional on our sharing is His suffering, either. We may suffer inthe flesh, and find comfort and strength by knowing that it comforms us to Christ's image, and share this part of humanity with Him by Spirit, but it is not a means to sanctification, enduring, or receiving the inheritance of everlasting life. Those things are already the Christians' when they are adopted as sons of God by the grace of God. All Christians already stand in full status and favor (grace) with God, regardless of life's circumstances or hardships. There are no conditions made to add grace to grace, which I fear you suggest.

Salvation is earned if we interpret 8:17 as referring to just one heirship. But two kinds of Christians are in view. just as Paul referred to the carnal man and the spiritual man as well as the natural man (unbeliever).

How can there be "two kinds of Christians," when there is only one Christ, one faith, one body, etc.?

Are you suggesting there are some Christians better than others? Some who will receive more reward than others? Some who are more special or superior over others?

Nonsense. ". . You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:26&27

There is only one Christ and only one kind of child of God. The child of faith in Christ.

Jesus Himself referred to eternal life which was received as a gift, by faith alone several times in John's gospel. But He also referred to an abundant life - that comes from abiding in Him - which all believers do not do. If we view one heriship then we must labor under the contrast that earlier Paul made quite clear in Romans that we are justified by faith alone. Now he must be saying that eternal life is conditional - we must suffer with Christ. If that isn't works, what is it?

Exactly. So what are ~you~ saying?

Contrast is clearly being emphasized. "on the one hand (men)... heirs of God, but on the other hand (de) joint heirs with Christ." These particles strongly imply a contrast and not an equality.

Are you saying that some Christians live by faith alone, and other Christians add works to faith, but both are heirs?

Again, to repeat, not only does the context and use of eiper support two heirships - men (on the one hand) one free, but de (but on the other hand) one earned,

What does the "earned" inheritance consist of?

Is it everlasting life? Is it the Kingdom of Heaven? Glory and perfect righteousness?

Or is it something else?

If the supposed "conditional heirship" does not inherit something different than the other kind of Christian, but manages to receive the same inheritance, by the merits gained through suffering and endurance, then you are teaching the thing you say you oppose . . . a form of works righteousness (which is semi-Pelagianism).

Now, I plowed through all this again, to try to come to a different conclusion than I did the first time, but my questions and worries remain.

If you can clarify what the fate of each of these supposed two kinds of Christians will be, I would be most appreciative.

Arminian

November 25th 2003, 05:52 PM

Hi guys,

I won't be able to post until Thursday or Friday, but I will continue reading. (Capt, I know you said in your PM that you would be gone for a long time, so there's no need to rush to respond my posts.)

However, these issues of history and philosophy are irrelevant here. Our concern is exegesis. At some primitive ("immature"? -- I'm at a loss for a word here) level these labels appeal to some and are useful to control people who are impressed by an appeal to authority (one they already identify with) and are prone to read paperback books with fewer than 250 pages. That would probably be an effective tactic within a denomination, but not here. Let it go.

The topic here is still Hebrew 6, and related to that is the topic of "inheritace." We've started looking at verses outside of Hebrews, and that seems appropriate, if we don't get too distracted.

Capt Mercury

November 25th 2003, 08:02 PM

Thx Arminian. I don't have time to say much 'til next week. But appreciate your encouragement to continue to focus on the issues here in Heb 6. And you're right that "inheritance" is at the core of interpreting Hebrews 6, so we do need to consider what the whoile counsel of God says, of course.

Reader, when I have time I'll address the questions/points you made re. inheriting. FYI, the issue I had with calling me a "semi-Pelagianist" is that you are calling it heresy. That was how you specifically referred to it in the previous post. IOW, it's not just that you disagree with my theology, but I'm a heretic... see the point?

OK, gotta go. Arminian, I thought that I had explained my position on rewards, but I can be more thorough if need be. Where is the issue?

You guys have a great Thanksgiving season! Soli Deo Gloria indeed, and may God use us to sharpen one another!

PTL,

Cap

Arminian

November 25th 2003, 10:21 PM

Capt,

That was how you specifically referred to it in the previous post. IOW, it's not just that you disagree with my theology, but I'm a heretic... see the point?

Yes, from her (I think Reader is the same person I know from AOL, so I say "her.") perspective you are a heretic. In her circle, you must share her pesepctive concerning metaphysics (i.e., "sovereign grace"). Anyhow, it's not worth debating at that level. I think discussing Scripture is more useful. (I know of no other "Calvinists" on TW that would share her perspective.)

I've got a couple of papers to read and write, and some books to review. Then I'll have time to respond to your post. Thanks for the detailed explanation in your post.

Later,
Jake

Arminian

November 29th 2003, 06:37 AM

Brett,

And how is worshiping a golden calf not contrary to God’s revelation?

It is contrary to His revelation. Thanks for making my point.

The impetus for believing the exodus generation did not mix their knowledge with faith is composed of the following passages.

Heb. 3:10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ 11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ” 12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God....

I already commented on this, but you had no response.

These Christian "brothers" (vv.12) are being warned that they must remember God's works as they continue in faith. This remembering of God's works is "knowing His ways." The author reminds them that although the wilderness generation did not inherit the promise because they turned away from God to unbelief and disobedience, a way is still open because of Christ. The "rest" spoken of was not Joshua's rest, or another rest would not have been spoken of. So the Christian audience must not "depart" from the living God through disobedience or unbelief.

This theme of the "rest," "inheritance" and "promise" is repeated over and over throughout the book. For example:

Do not throw away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of patience, that having done the will of God you may obtain the promise.

It appears to me that the impetus for the questioning of the Israelites' faith comes not from the text, but from the induced means to an end. The Bible clearly describes them has believing, yet says they did not continue. This is exactly the point the author of Hebrews is making to his audience.

Heb. 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”.....

The "good news" of the promised rest/ inheritance was preached to the Israelites. Yet when the moment came they turned back.The present tense of "enter" indicates that the hearers are in the process of entering (unless one takes the word as future tense). These NT hearers are, therefore, in the same situation as the wilderness generation and must continue to mix faith with the news of the promise or they will suffer the same consequences as the previous generation.

Arminian

November 29th 2003, 06:37 AM

Reader,

You are confusing covenants. There is the one eternal Covenant of Redemption and Grace promised to all the Elect of God. This brings salvation and adoption of the sons of God in Christ Jesus. This builds the invisible church of God; the heavenly city. All souls sanctified by this Covenant are saved.

The eternal Covenant is manifested in the world through various external and temporal covenants. Such as the sanctification of the entire nation of Israel by covenant of Law. This covenant was extended to all the people identified with the name of God, and the blood sacrificial system was established to physically point to the promised Messiah to come. Spiritual realities were revealed in the physical realm. All of this people were "baptized" in water to set them apart from the other nations of the world. They were sanctified on earth, but only a remnant were truly sanctified and saved by the grace of God through faith.

The same kind of sanctification occurs in the visible churches today. How many souls do you know that have been baptized in water and identified with the name of Jesus Christ (sanctified), that have proven to not be saved at all? Unbelievers in the midst of God's people; mixing within the visible churches, but lacking in saving faith. Temporarily sanctified but not saved, who in their hypocrisy "insult the Spirit of Grace" by their deceptions.

You are simply repeating what you've already said. I'm sorry, but I don't find it convincing. You're still in the position of showing me what's under every other rock and leaf without addressing the only thing of importance: the text. Again, I see no way of avoiding the fact that the author is describing Christians, considering the fact that he/she uses words from the previous chapter that were used of Christians to show that Christians are in a superior position because they are sanctified by the blood of the covenant because of the Spirit of Grace. So I repeat myself....:

Yes, I understand your argument, and I can see your attempt to recontextualize by avoiding the text and looking elsewhere. Your argument hinges on the idea that the author makes a muddled argument by using the terminology in a way contrary to everything else he wrote. After arguing for salvation and sanctification through the new covenant by faith in Christ, you say that he uses the same terms to apply to UNBELIVERS. Yes, I understand your argument.

However, you fail to address the text itself, as a whole, and plead that a special meaning be given to the terminology which contradicts what the author has already said.

The words in question in chapter 10 are a synopsis of what the author has argued applies ONLY to BELIEVERS:

Hebrews 9

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

In this section, the author argues that the blood of Christ is associated with the new covenant which is able to sanctify inwardly so that we may serve the living God. This the same terminology ("blood," "covenant," "sanctify") is used only a few verses later in the warning in chapter 10, yet you claim that the author undermines his own argument by claiming that unbelievers are sanctified by the blood of the same covenant in such a way that is obviously contrary to the description he previously gave concerning the blood, the sanctification, and the covenant? The only thing needed to refute your argument is to return to the text.

Unbelievers are not sanctified by the covenant. In fact the Spirit is grieved in chapter 10 because it is by the Spirit that we, like Christ and through Christ, are made unblemished and able to serve (SANCTIFIED) before God by Christ's blood (9:14). So says the author.

Arminian

November 29th 2003, 06:38 AM

Capt,

This is similar to what Paul wrote in Gal. 4:7. But there are also some significant differences that cannot be ignored. You mentioned that we are heirs to the promises of Abraham though Christ. Then you said that this makes us joint-heirs with our brothers with Christ.

I want to be clear here. I said that the promise of the inheritance was made to one person, that being Abraham's Seed (Gal. 3:16-17). So if Christ is heir, we are joint heirs with him. According to Paul, the promise was made to "one Person," so we must be joined with that Person to inherit. Both Jews and Gentiles are joint heirs with oneanother, in Christ, because Christ is the heir. We then are "seeds" (joint-heirs to the promise, Gal 3:29) in the "Seed" to whom the promise was made.

But 1st let's look at the context, 8:12-14, where a contrast is being made:

Romans 8:12-14
So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Yes, but the part of the text you underlined indicates that those who are led by the Spirit of God ARE sons of God. This makes the same point as verse 9 which says that those without the Spirit do not belong to Christ. There is no idea of another level of inheritance here.

Romans 8:18
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ”

Suffering is emphasized, and we are being challenged to share in Christ's sufferings. Not all believers do share in Christ's sufferings. Only those who resist the flesh and suffer can overcome. These conditions continue to be displayed in the following verses. Paul also refers to our adoption - gaining our new bodies - which we will all receive, of course. But then in 8:28 we again see theconditional promise that in all things God works for good "to those who love God..."

I think a closer look at the verses that follow suggests that the "suffering" is common to all Christians. There's no indication that some Christians will suffer and others will not. In fact, the description of suffering is in the context of "hoping for what we have not yet received" while waiting to be delivered from creation which God subjected to futility in the hope of freeing it from slavery.

Certainly the "glorify" mentioned in verse 18 is the same "glory" mentioned in verse 21:

that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God;

I think that it's more likely that Paul has in mind that the Spirit has delivered us from the flesh and its slavery, and some day God will deliver us from this fallen creation (within which we are new creations) and its slavery (8:21) and we will no longer suffer because of it.

Now certainly receiving an inheritance ofdeliverance from hell is not based on sharing in His suffering! If so, that would make this works salvation, and we've comeclose to going back into RCC theology. Salvation is earned if we interpret 8:17 as referring to just one heirship. But two kinds of Christians are in view. just as Paul referred to the carnal man and the spiritual man as well as the natural man (unbeliever).

This is only the case if suffering with Christ is something other than faith in Christ. But it's my position that faith in Christ is our response to suffering in this world while we waiting to be delivered from our bodies. In Paul's words, we "groan" while waiting for what we have not yet received.

OK, let's look at the Greek behind this verse. Two contrasting heirships are at leats suggested by the men - de particles which typically are described as meaning "on the one hand ... but on the other hand." Contrast is clearly being emphasized. "on the one hand (men)... heirs of God, but on the other hand (de) joint heirs with Christ." These particles strongly imply a contrast and not an equality. In fact, every time they are used in Romans they are alwayscontrastive andnever just conjunctive: (See 2:7-8, 2:25, 5:16, 6:11, 7:25, 8:10, 8:17, 9:21, 11:22, 11:28, 14:2 and 14:5) I know this makes for a long post, but I've listed each of those below:

Be that as it may, the men ... de receives its meaning from the context, which, as I've argued and will argue, has nothing to do with second inheritance. In all Paul's writings, there is only one inheritance. The context gives no indication that there are any Christians that are not sons or will not suffer or be glorified. The context suggests that all Christians have this in common, and that's why all the major commentaries translate the verse as they do. The comment concerning Christ is meant to further describe the comment concerning God.

Jaltus

November 30th 2003, 09:08 PM

I'd love to see a Calvinist respond to my points below:

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a passage which often brings more questions than answers. The big question to be explored in this paper is whether or not the people described are saved. Once this is answered, then further issues can be explored, namely what kind of salvation it is and what does this falling away entail, though that goes beyond the bounds of this study.

Adunaton gar -> This relates to the previous discussion, namely that this is in the context of moving on into maturity. This impossibility actually relates to the end of the English sentence, but is fronted here for stress since it is the main idea. A form of eimi, should be understood.

touV apax fwtisqentaV -> This is the beginning of a string of participles describing those who fall away. Note it is an aorist passive, indicating a perfective event done to them rather than by them. This is not something the people described actively did. Also one should note the parallel usage of this root in 10:32, also dealing with salvation (though that too is disputed).

geusamenouV te thV dwreaV thV epouraniou -> This is another aorist participle, this time middle since it is a deponent verb, dealing with what they tasted or experienced (L-N offers both as glosses). Also, one should note that Jesus "tastes death" (same Greek word) in Hebrews 2:9, and I doubt anyone would want to argue that this means He only slightly sampled death but did not really die. The heavenly gift can be seen as a number of different things, but the sacramental understanding is the least supportable and also quite anachronistic. I would argue that this refers to the temporal side of salvation (as opposed to the eternal side, which is the finalization at the judgment).

kai metocouV genhqentaV pneumatoV agiou -> This is an aorist passive participle, thus showing the outside agency of this action, that they are made to be partakers, rather than making the move themselves. The parallel construction to this verse is in 3:14, where the readers are said to be partakers of Christ, something which points to salvation. Therefore, without making too much separation between the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit, these phrases should be treated synonymously.

kai kalon geusamenouV qeou rhma -> This is another occurrence of the aorist middle participle, just as earlier, dealing with tasting or experiencing. This time the quality of God’s word is what is being tasted, and it is to be evaluated as good. This would seem to point toward salvation, but this phrase is by no means determinative.

dunameiV te mellontoV aiwnoV -> This is built off of the preceding participle, so the power of the coming age is also being tasted. Here I would point toward an eschatological hope being felt now, looking at the inauguration of the kingdom of God already being experienced by believers.

kai parapesontaV -> This is the point of the entire argument, namely that these people fall away. There is no hint of conditionality (lacking any sort of semantic qualifier), yet it is implicit all the same. The falling away is not a sure thing, it is just a possible thing (this will be dealt with more below).

palin anakainizein eiV metanoian -> The present active infinitive is building off of the assumed form of eimi, which is left out of the beginning of this section. It is completing the sense of what is impossible, namely that if one of those described above falls away, then they cannot regain salvation for they cannot repent again.

anastaurountaV eautoiV ton uion tou qeou -> The pronoun clearly carries the idea of advantage here, such that those people would be crucifying for themselves the Son of God again. This is something which is not possible, since the author indicates that only one sacrifice is needed, and therefore only one is provided. This clinches the argument about salvation, for Jesus was crucified with the intent to save, and claiming the cross is claiming salvation.

kai paradeigmatizontaV -> This present active participle is directly connected to the concept of Jesus’ crucifixion. It is intentionally dealing with His humiliation during His time of suffering, and the author is saying that He cannot be held up once more to that humiliation since He is now exalted (see especially 1:1-14).

The argument of the passage is then dealing with those who were temporally saved. Based on the assumption that those people have fallen away from Christ, whatever that entails, they are unable to come back for Christ can only be crucified once and the sacrifice cannot be redone. His suffering should not be held in contempt. Thus, if one holds to the concept of salvation being able to be lost, then one must hold to it not being able to be regained. If one holds to salvation not being able to be lost, a difficult conclusion to come to based on this passage without context, then the argument can be seen as a warning to conform to God’s image. In order to fully understand this specific passage, a deeper study of salvation in this epistle would need to be made. I conclude from this that salvation can be lost and, once lost, never regained.

The problem I often have with the Calvinist take on this passage is how quick they are to dismiss this entire section as referring to those who are really saved. The problem with it, other than the parallels within the book I have clearly shown above, is that the author of the book of Hebrews often places himself among the company of the people he is describing. This is not for rhetorical affect, for he does it throughout the entire book, even at places where it has no rhetorical affect.

Given that, and also all of the warnings throughout the entire book, it is very difficult from this passage for a Calvinist to be able to talk of OSAS or perserverance of the saints as a truly sound doctrine. In fact, unless one wiggles their way through the numerous parallels I have shown from within the book of Hebrews, there simple is no way to hold to a Calvinistic reading of this text.

Capt Mercury

December 1st 2003, 02:26 PM

Today @ 01:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321337#post321337)
Jaltus:

I'd love to see a Calvinist respond to my points below:

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a passage which often brings more questions than answers. The big question to be explored in this paper is whether or not the people described are saved. Once this is answered, then further issues can be explored, namely what kind of salvation it is and what does this falling away entail, though that goes beyond the bounds of this study.

<snip>

Jaltus,

I'm not a Calvinist, and I agreed with the earlier portion, except for some minor details - that the people in view are genuine believers - saved by their faith in Christ. You've done a good job of exegetically arguing for this.

I'd be interested in considering further the falling away here and the consequences as outlined later in the passage.

Given that, and also all of the warnings throughout the entire book, it is very difficult from this passage for a Calvinist to be able to talk of OSAS or perserverance of the saints as a truly sound doctrine. In fact, unless one wiggles their way through the numerous parallels I have shown from within the book of Hebrews, there simply is no way to hold to a Calvinistic reading of this text.

Jaltus,

Difficult for a Calvinist, I agree. But OSAS can be argued, as I'm sure you're aware, from a perspective that sees these people as believers, but what was lost not being eternal life. Just wanted to clarify this as so many consider that if one believes in OSAS that he then must accept the perserverance of the saints, which many Christians do not (say Charles Ryrie and Earl Radmacher, to name a couple well-known examples).

Thx,

Cap

Arminian

December 1st 2003, 07:47 PM

Hi Capt,

Just wanted to clarify this as so many consider that if one believes in OSAS that he then must accept the perserverance of the saints, which many Christians do not (say Charles Ryrie and Earl Radmacher, to name a couple well-known examples).

Not to mention Zane Hodges and Charles Stanley....

Reader

December 1st 2003, 09:37 PM

Jaltus:

[QUOTE]touV apax fwtisqentaV -> This is the beginning of a string of participles describing those who fall away. Note it is an aorist passive, indicating a perfective event done to them rather than by them. This is not something the people described actively did. Also one should note the parallel usage of this root in 10:32, also dealing with salvation (though that too is disputed).

Yes, these fell away, not by their own doing, but to manifest they were not counted with the children of God. (I John 2:19) For salvation does not originate by mens' doing; thus maintaining or falling away is not achieved by mens' doing.

geusamenouV te thV dwreaV thV epouraniou -> This is another aorist participle, this time middle since it is a deponent verb, dealing with what they tasted or experienced (L-N offers both as glosses). Also, one should note that Jesus "tastes death" (same Greek word) in Hebrews 2:9, and I doubt anyone would want to argue that this means He only slightly sampled death but did not really die. The heavenly gift can be seen as a number of different things,

Scripture interprets the "heavenly gift" to be the "living waters" promised by Christ in John 4:10; which symbolize the Word of God. Those unsaved in the churches certainly experience and "taste" the word of God when they sit under preaching and attend Bible studies. That does not mean that the "heavenly gift" is efficaciously applied to their hearts by the Spirit of God unto salvation, though, and they certainly can not make the "living waters" apply on their own.

kai metocouV genhqentaV pneumatoV agiou -> This is an aorist passive participle, thus showing the outside agency of this action, that they are made to be partakers, rather than making the move themselves. The parallel construction to this verse is in 3:14, where the readers are said to be partakers of Christ, something which points to salvation. Therefore, without making too much separation between the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit, these phrases should be treated synonymously.

Only the outside action of the Holy Spirit can reconcile the sinner to God through Christ. The sinner cannot achieve this through his own agency. The 3:14 verse is conditional. True saving faith, will evidence the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit by bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit (James 2:14, 26, Gal. 5:22-25), which is not possible by simply being exposed (partaking) of the Spirit while amongst those in whom He dwells. Kinda like second-hand smoke. A one exposed to smoke (partaking) without actually inhaling, kinda thing. (pardon the crude analogy!)

kai parapesontaV -> This is the point of the entire argument, namely that these people fall away.

Indeed.

There is no hint of conditionality (lacking any sort of semantic qualifier), yet it is implicit all the same. The falling away is not a sure thing, it is just a possible thing (this will be dealt with more below).

Yes, this is so. This portion of Scripture is not prophecy. It is warning. Those within the assembly, who have only tasted the things of God are warned of the dangers of the deceit of hypocrisy and false confessions of faith. It is the principle that produced like warnings given by James in Chapter Two.

palin anakainizein eiV metanoian -> The present active infinitive is building off of the assumed form of eimi, which is left out of the beginning of this section. It is completing the sense of what is impossible, namely that if one of those described above falls away, then they cannot regain salvation for they cannot repent again.

Yes. If a person claims to be a Christian, according to the Gospel with which he identifies, what other sacrifice is there he can believe for remission of his sins? If he abuses the one Gospel he professes, what else is there to save him? It is only the one Gospel truth, amongst which he has experienced the things of God, that can save his soul, and if he ultimately rejects the surroundings and fellowship of this one Gospel, there is no salvation left for him when he falls away.

This hypocrite rejected the Gospel, even while he falsely confessed it. One cannot continually repent of sins without truly repenting. There is no salvation for that. (I John 3:19)

anastaurountaV eautoiV ton uion tou qeou -> The pronoun clearly carries the idea of advantage here, such that those people would be crucifying for themselves the Son of God again. This is something which is not possible, since the author indicates that only one sacrifice is needed, and therefore only one is provided. This clinches the argument about salvation, for Jesus was crucified with the intent to save, and claiming the cross is claiming salvation.

This does not "clinch" salvation for those who fall away. It condemns them. Claiming the cross is easily done and often done, without regeneration. I can think of multitudes of people who are active in false religions, who claim salvation because of the cross of Jesus Christ, who do not have a clue about what they speak. For they do not worship with genuine faith from God, nor according to His Scriptures. They have no appreciation of the blood of the covenant, but count it to be a "common thing" in their hard hearts.

The argument of the passage is then dealing with those who were temporally saved.

There is no such thing as temporary salvation. This passage is dealing with those who religiously assembe with Christians, in appearance emulating Christians, but whose hearts are not changed. These were never saved to begin with.

I call them hypocrites, but Scripture language goes much further, and is much stronger, for it calls these who fall away, anti-christs:

". . Many anti-christs have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." I John 2:18b&19

Based on the assumption that those people have fallen away from Christ, whatever that entails, they are unable to come back for Christ can only be crucified once and the sacrifice cannot be redone. His suffering should not be held in contempt.

Indeed. And what kind would be most likely to hold Christ's sufferings in contempt and show no reverance, but Anti-Christ?! :flaming:

I conclude from this that salvation can be lost and, once lost, never regained.

I conclude you are confusing tares with wheat and attempting to cover up the reality and warning that within organized churches, there is a likelihood of the presence of unbelievers, false teachers, and hypocrites, which are in actuality, anti-christs planted by the devil. (Matthew 13:38)

Arminian

December 1st 2003, 11:45 PM

eckejezes 101

Hrz how we knoe wut john 3:16 meanz. We look at matt 4:3 and then jude 1:8 and then revelatan 6:3, and then we top et off with a creed or a filosophikal premise. Then we knoe wut the verz means. pleaze do not bring up any of ur "read the surrounding text" clap-trap.

This concludes our class.

Sheepdog

December 2nd 2003, 12:00 AM

lol, my thoughts exactly, Arminian.

off topic, i decided i was not yet worthy such an wicked cool avatar, so i "borrowed" Jaltus' instead :bow: :tongue:

Arminian

December 2nd 2003, 03:37 AM

off topic, i decided i was not yet worthy such an wicked cool avatar, so i "borrowed" Jaltus' instead

Although hand-drawn, that really is what I look like.

Capt Mercury

December 2nd 2003, 04:11 PM

Yesterday @ 11:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322426#post322426)
Arminian:

Hi Capt,

Not to mention Zane Hodges and Charles Stanley....

And not too surprisingly, I have books by both of them. Though not too many know about Zane, though IMHO he is one of the foremost exegetes today. You've got me pegged.

But I've got a question for you... if Arminian is just a "moniker,' where do you stand?

BD

Jaltus

December 2nd 2003, 05:24 PM

Yesterday @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322618#post322618)
Reader:
Yes, these fell away, not by their own doing, but to manifest they were not counted with the children of God. (I John 2:19) For salvation does not originate by mens' doing; thus maintaining or falling away is not achieved by mens' doing.

That is a false argument. Your first premise is good, but there is no logical connection to your conclusion. My parents brought me into this world, but that does not disallow some other force taking me out of it. Thus, this argument clearly fails.

Scripture interprets the "heavenly gift" to be the "living waters" promised by Christ in John 4:10; which symbolize the Word of God. Those unsaved in the churches certainly experience and "taste" the word of God when they sit under preaching and attend Bible studies. That does not mean that the "heavenly gift" is efficaciously applied to their hearts by the Spirit of God unto salvation, though, and they certainly can not make the "living waters" apply on their own.

This is actually false. There is a completely different phrase used in John than in Hebrews, so even if one could define the words of Hebrews according to another's work, this would not fit anyway. Again, taste means more than "get a taste of," it means to fully consume. Unless you heretically believe that Jesus only briefly brushed into death, you will have to admit that tasting is more than just a mere surface experience (notice I am not calling you a heretic, just saying that denial of Jesus' death as being real is heretical).

For that matter, you have exegeted John incorrectly. The passage refers to the Holy Spirit and Jesus Himself. The waters do NOT symbolize the Word of God, they symbolize the Holy Spirit (see John 7:39 which states this EXPLCITLY). Your argument here fails on multiple grounds.

Only the outside action of the Holy Spirit can reconcile the sinner to God through Christ. The sinner cannot achieve this through his own agency. The 3:14 verse is conditional. True saving faith, will evidence the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit by bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit (James 2:14, 26, Gal. 5:22-25), which is not possible by simply being exposed (partaking) of the Spirit while amongst those in whom He dwells. Kinda like second-hand smoke. A one exposed to smoke (partaking) without actually inhaling, kinda thing. (pardon the crude analogy!)

Yup, 3:14 is conditional, which again seems to point toward an Arminian understanding instead of a Calvinistic one: thanks for pointing that out.

However, your analogy of pataking through second-hand issues is false, for the word CANNOT mean that. It means a deep involvment, partnering, being a full part of something. It does not allow for the type of participation you are calling for, the Greek just does not allow it.

I recommend you begin arguing from something other than just a straight English translation, it is leading you astray. Perhaps you should get a few good commentaries (such as William Lane's). There is a list of recommended commentaries in the Biblical Languages forum.

Yes, this is so. This portion of Scripture is not prophecy. It is warning. Those within the assembly, who have only tasted the things of God are warned of the dangers of the deceit of hypocrisy and false confessions of faith. It is the principle that produced like warnings given by James in Chapter Two.

What? There is nothing talking about false confessions of faith, it is talking about membership within the community. The Holy Spirit is the seal of membership within the community, which is why He appears in 4 of the 5 warning passages (2:4, 3:7, 6:4, 10:29).

Yes. If a person claims to be a Christian, according to the Gospel with which he identifies, what other sacrifice is there he can believe for remission of his sins? If he abuses the one Gospel he professes, what else is there to save him? It is only the one Gospel truth, amongst which he has experienced the things of God, that can save his soul, and if he ultimately rejects the surroundings and fellowship of this one Gospel, there is no salvation left for him when he falls away.

One can reject the church and still be a Christian. After all, many people do not have churches at all and yet are still Christians. This argument seems to be stunted a bit. Perhaps a bit more explanation would help me see the thrust a bit more clearly.

This hypocrite rejected the Gospel, even while he falsely confessed it. One cannot continually repent of sins without truly repenting. There is no salvation for that. (I John 3:19)

There is no evidence for this within this passage in Hebrews. You are importing the entire concept of a false confession, it seems to me. If you plan on continuing this line of argumentation, please show from this text in Hebrews where the idea of false confession comes from.

This does not "clinch" salvation for those who fall away. It condemns them. Claiming the cross is easily done and often done, without regeneration. I can think of multitudes of people who are active in false religions, who claim salvation because of the cross of Jesus Christ, who do not have a clue about what they speak. For they do not worship with genuine faith from God, nor according to His Scriptures. They have no appreciation of the blood of the covenant, but count it to be a "common thing" in their hard hearts.

This is irrelevent with respect to the passage at hand.

There is no such thing as temporary salvation. This passage is dealing with those who religiously assembe with Christians, in appearance emulating Christians, but whose hearts are not changed. These were never saved to begin with.

You have offered not a single shred of evidence for this interpretation from the text of Hebrews.

I call them hypocrites, but Scripture language goes much further, and is much stronger, for it calls these who fall away, anti-christs:

". . Many anti-christs have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." I John 2:18b&19

Great and all, but irrelevent to our passage.

Indeed. And what kind would be most likely to hold Christ's sufferings in contempt and show no reverance, but Anti-Christ?! :flaming:

You are definitely missing the point of the text here. It is not an intentional disrespect, which is why the author of Hebrews is pointing it out. It is an intentional walking away from salvation. By walking away from salvation they are in fact disrespecting the cross of Christ.

I conclude you are confusing tares with wheat and attempting to cover up the reality and warning that within organized churches, there is a likelihood of the presence of unbelievers, false teachers, and hypocrites, which are in actuality, anti-christs planted by the devil. (Matthew 13:38)

I conclude that you are reading the wheat and tares into the passage since you have not shown from the context of Hebrews why the people addressed are not in fact saved. I have shown how nearly every single piece of language used in Hebrews 6:4-6 has a parallel within Hebrews referring to the saved. You have quoted from everything EXCEPT HEBREWS (with one exception, though it was a point brought up in my original post).

In addition, I must wonder how it is possible for you, Reader, to say that these people will never be able to be saved. It seems to me that your argument is that if someone was in the Christian community at one point but rejected the faith then, they can never be saved. However, this would mean that people only get ONE CHANCE to be saved, and that after an initial rejection of the gospel message, they are done for. This does not seem to fit real life at all, nor scripture, for Jesus tries to get people to repent again and again.

Reader

December 2nd 2003, 06:00 PM

Jaltus:

I conclude that you are reading the wheat and tares into the passage since you have not shown from the context of Hebrews why the people addressed are not in fact saved.

There is only one explanation when any soul is not saved, and that is that God has not shown them grace.

I have shown how nearly every single piece of language used in Hebrews 6:4-6 has a parallel within Hebrews referring to the saved.

Of course there is a parallel between the tares and the wheat. That is the point of the passage. It is a warning to those assembling together under the name of Christ, that many are not genuinely of Christ, except in habits and appearances. Outward actions or professions of faith are dead, unless the good fruit of God's Spirit are manifested. (James 2:14-26)

Falling away manifests no presence or fruit of the Spirit. (Eph. 2:10, Gal. 5:22-25) Falling away is evidence of no salvation or faith to begin with.

And we know this is true, because Jesus promised the Father that none of His would be lost. All the children of God will be saved and guaranteed of everlasting life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Eph. 1:14, II Cor. 1:21, 5:5)

To believe that the "sons of God" can lose their position and salvation is Jesus Christ is to call Him a liar.

In addition, I must wonder how it is possible for you, Reader, to say that these people will never be able to be saved.

I don't say it. The Scripture says it:

"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth (note: "knowledge of the truth," not salvation), there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:26&27

For what do these "adversaries" fall away from? The truth of the Gospel. If souls oppose the Gospel, it is because God shows them no grace, and there are no other Gospels but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that can save their souls. They oppose the only way of salvation.

It seems to me that your argument is that if someone was in the Christian community at one point but rejected the faith then, they can never be saved. However, this would mean that people only get ONE CHANCE to be saved, and that after an initial rejection of the gospel message, they are done for. This does not seem to fit real life at all, nor scripture, for Jesus tries to get people to repent again and again.

"Falling away" is much more and far worse, than bodily or circumstantially leaving a church organization. "Falling away" is spiritual apostasy. (cp. II Thess. 2:3)

The teaching of this kind of "falling away", or "apostasy," is evident because of the contextual references to "burning," "certain fearful expectation of judgment," "fiery indignation," Godly "vengeance," and "perdition."

Very often people will leave a church and later be saved by the grace of God.

Apostasy is deliberate and demonic opposition to knowledge gained of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Holy Scripture, and the things of God as taught by the Holy Spirit in faithful churches.

God's adversaries are very familiar, you know, with the things of God. They are so familiar with the Gospel and the children of God, that they are extremely successful counterfeits. But their hearts are wicked, and they were never gifted with saving faith to truly believe and love the Lord, or repent from their evil ways.

These are reprobate souls; called "anti-christs" in Scripture, due to their opposition to the Gospel truths and Person of Jesus Christ.

The church must be warned that these are in the midst, and there are many warnings elsewhere from the N.T. writers regarding these tares planted by the devil in the house of God.

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. . .These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves . . .for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. . .

But you beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit." Jude vss 4, 12a, 13b, 17-19

"Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Romans 8:9b

Arminian

December 2nd 2003, 06:19 PM

Capt,

And not too surprisingly, I have books by both of them. Though not too many know about Zane, though IMHO he is one of the foremost exegetes today. You've got me pegged.

This is why I had asked if you knew me. You either came from a school near me or were an author I knew, or you read some literature I was thinking of.

But I've got a question for you... if Arminian is just a "moniker,' where do you stand?

I used to be a flaming Calvinist, however I now agree with all 5 points of Arminainism, by default (insofar as I understand them). My whole approach is different, so I don't have the same concerns or presuppostions going into these discussions. My background is heavily BT (Biblical theology).

Capt Mercury

December 3rd 2003, 12:18 PM

Yesterday @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323645#post323645)
Arminian:

Capt,

This is why I had asked if you knew me. You either came from a school near me or were an author I knew, or you read some literature I was thinking of.

I used to be a flaming Calvinist, however I now agree with all 5 points of Arminainism, by default (insofar as I understand them). My whole approach is different, so I don't have the same concerns or presuppostions going into these discussions. My background is heavily BT (Biblical theology). Thx,

I do know that I can't agree with any of the TULIP pts. I can certainly agree with portions of some, but in general, I find them hard to defend from scripture & too extreme.

FYI, I attended a seminary which is free-grace, but not DTS (which really isn't free-grace any more, in general), though I have a lot of respect for many of the profs there, even ones with whom I disagree theologically, such as Dr. Daniel Wallace and Dr. Darrell Bock.

Cap

John Reece

December 3rd 2003, 12:48 PM

Yesterday @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323645#post323645)
Arminian:

. . . . I used to be a flaming Calvinist, however I now agree with all 5 points of Arminainism, by default (insofar as I understand them). . . . .

What are the "5 points of Arminainism"?

Toolman

December 3rd 2003, 01:30 PM

Today @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324740#post324740)
John Reece:

What are the "5 points of Arminainism"?

Here is a link with all 5:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

Here is a link with the arminian opinions on the 5 points:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianOpinions.htm

Jaltus

December 3rd 2003, 01:46 PM

Hmmm, makes one wonder if those at Puritan Mind ever read anything by Richard Baxter.

John Reece

December 3rd 2003, 01:49 PM

Today @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324797#post324797)
Toolman:

Here is a link with all 5:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

Here is a link with the arminian opinions on the 5 points:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianOpinions.htm

Thanks, Toolman.

whoknew

December 3rd 2003, 07:37 PM

Well, I think since the debate has died down and there is no winner, it's clear that the scriptures aren't entirely definitive on the issue of falling away. I wonder if Judas ever repented; perhaps the repentance spoken of in Hebrews 6 is not the person himself repenting, but God granting repentance; so you could repent a second time, it would just be worthless. Hanging himself would seem to be a contrite act, but maybe he had another reason for suicide. Perhaps even, he was assured of his eventual eternal damnation, because of falling away, and so lost reason to live.

Falling way is equivalent to blaspheming the spirit, which is what Jesus accused the pharisees of, although they hadn't fallen away; this argues that blashpeming the spirit comes in at least two forms. I've heard that if you are worried you have committed the unforgivable sin, then you haven't done it... but that just sounds like a cop out, because some of those pharisees probably came to believe Jesus was the messiah, too late alas.

Believing that one can fall away could be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, for if you believe you have, then what point is there in a further relationship with Jesus, and so then you truely would quit and fall away; maybe falling away is only for God to decide, so that the bible really couldn't put anything clear there: if you do this, or this, then contract is void with no chance for renewal. I think the bible would be clear like this if falling way could be evidenced in anything but the heart.

Since renouncing christianity, everywhere I've been I have come into contact with Christians who again involve my mind with Christian matters. This could be god trying to keep the lost sheep near the herd, or it could be god wishing to glorify himself in my self-aware demise. You could hear me in ten years in the pulpit: "I have a list of shallow atheist arguments you should see for what they really are,, and the better arguments you must question if they are more powerful than the bible's testimony; for if your faith is so weak as to give when you hear an intellectual ad hominem, Jesus will certainly deny you, and you will be standing outside the gates of heaven with me on judgement day, weeping" Caring for others would be the only thing making life still worth living; unselfishness is very satisfying, possibly even selfish.

I still feel some shame with so-called sins as when I was a christian, and had convinced myself of either secular reasons for the shame, or kind of spiritual but not christian reasons. The main reason i renounced was that I was convinced by people I thought were authorities that the bible was utterly ridiculous(renounced age 16); I couldn't imagine intellectuals laughing at the bible so outrageously if it wasn't really stupid, but more and more that seems entirely possible.. My falling away would be somewhat different than the people Paul was preaching to, for I hadn't known Jesus, or his disciples, and I hadn't certainty of miracles or resurrection; it was all just intellectual formulations to me, and they were built on very poor understanding. Here I am making excuses. At least god can see that I care more about finding him than about the philosophy paper I am supposed to be writing.

Reader

December 4th 2003, 07:41 PM

whoknew:

Well, I think since the debate has died down and there is no winner, it's clear that the scriptures aren't entirely definitive on the issue of falling away.

I believe the Scriptures are quite clear.

I wonder if Judas ever repented;

No. Jesus said he would be lost (John 17:12), and he is referred to as the "son of perdition." The Lord would not have called him that, if Judas was not reprobate.

perhaps the repentance spoken of in Hebrews 6 is not the person himself repenting, but God granting repentance;

No man repents on his own. He is not equipped to turn away from sin, for he is enslaved to the devil. The ~only~ repentance, is the repentance granted by God.

" . . If God perhaps will grant them repentance so that they may know the truth." II Timothy 2:25b

Throughout your post, I read a misconception. You approach this matter presupposing that sinners determine their relationship (or non-relationship) with God, depending upon whether they profess Christianity or renounce it.

The truth is, all men, in their natural state, renounce the things of God.

I have interacted a lot with atheists, and they are very honest to admit that they cannot believe. It is just not in their intellect, or emotions to believe, and they make no attempts to pretend otherwise.

If God left men to exist solely according to their human nature, all of us . . .every single one . . .would renounce God or the concept of God.

The only reason any persons have faith and believe in God, and admit sinfulness, is because the Holy Spirit of God has convicted them of judgment and of Godly righteousness. (John 16:8)

The great problem is, faith can be faked. The false profession of faith produces hypocrisy. And hypocrisy runs rampant in the organized churches. Which is the intent of the enemy, who would have unsaved persons focus on the fakery, rather than the Spirit and truth that the genuine Christian testifies to.

The Christians are warned of the fakery within their midst; and all who profess Christianity are exhorted to make sure their election and calling are sure. Self-deceit is easy and is practiced by multitudes.

But the elect of God cannot be deceived. Not by the enemy, for they know only the voice of their Shepherd, and follow only Him. And they cannot deceive themselves when they make the Word of God their final authority.

The genuine Christian evaluates all things against and according to the Holy Scriptures.

Never trust a soul who demeans the Bible. For that is the spirit of anti-christ who ridicules or distracts from God's Holy Word.

For the Word of God, ~is~ God. (John 1:1) And the Word has come in the flesh in the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ:

"He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called, 'The Word of God.'" Revelation 19:13

Satan will do all in his power to keep souls from scrutinizing and benefiting from the Bible, for he knows that therein lies the power of salvation. The preaching of the Gospel (all the Scriptures) is God's chosen ~means~ to call out people, draw them to Christ, and gift their souls with faith.

It is because of the Word of God, proclaiming the grace of God, that some men are spared their natural and deserved destiny of eternal destruction and Hell. Salvation is realized by exposure to the Scriptures (through the Holy Spirit's leading), not by the intellectual or emotional acquiesence of lost souls to a philosophical concept.

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes . . ." Romans 1:16a

whoknew

December 5th 2003, 04:51 AM

Hi reader. I get confused when you say that repentance is imposible on man's own. Do you mean that man can only feel repentant if God makes him feel that way, or do you mean that man can feel repentant on his own, but God won't grant him that repentance. Maybe you mean that feeling repentant, and then feeling true godly repentance, are different experiences, and one may mistake his repentance for a true godly one.
And about intellectual acquiescence, I am also confused. Do you mean that a person won't intellectually acquiesce unless God calls them, or do you mean that intellectual acquiescence is not the saving principle. It certainly seems to be at least a necessary corollary in becoming saved.

I have determined that Christianity fits with my worldview better than the other religions, and I have no objection to following Jesus' list of commandments. I do have faith, just a small amount, and I'll work with what I've got; and about loving god with all my heart, I can do that in the proportion that I have faith in this perfect caring being, for I love that being to the degree that I think it is real. If apostasy has warped my mind and I can't truely believe again, so be it, yet praying could actually prevent this from coming true theoretically, so I pray. I figure I have no problem letting a perfectly just being make the judgement on my amount of faith, or on how far I turned from God.

Your post brought up some other issues I would like to ask you about, but off this subject, so maybe i'll start another thread.

Dylan.

Reader

December 5th 2003, 03:46 PM

whoknew:

Hi reader.

Hi, Dylan.

I get confused when you say that repentance is imposible on man's own. Do you mean that man can only feel repentant if God makes him feel that way, or do you mean that man can feel repentant on his own, but God won't grant him that repentance. Maybe you mean that feeling repentant, and then feeling true godly repentance, are different experiences, and one may mistake his repentance for a true godly one.

All men can and often do ~feel~ remorse for their sinful ways, but repentance is different from remorse. Repentance is the action of reversing course. An actual turning away from sinful ways.

It is the action of repentance that is impossible for the unsaved, for they are held as slaves to serve their lusts under the devil's mastery. They are locked into their patterns and ways. Unsaved men are not free agents (as so many Arminians and others falsely teach). An unsaved person is imprisoned and trapped in his corrupted human nature and only inclined to do evil and unable to do good. They may be sorry for their ways, but they cannot change themselves.

Repentance only comes when granted by God, when the soul is redeemed and converted from bondage, unto spiritual freedom in Jesus Christ. (II Timothy 2:25, Acts 5:31, 11:18)

Do you mean that a person won't intellectually acquiesce unless God calls them, or do you mean that intellectual acquiescence is not the saving principle. It certainly seems to be at least a necessary corollary in becoming saved.

Intellectual acquiescence is not a saving principle. Souls are not changed by mental decision. The heart (inner affections) must be changed first, then the mind of man follows the heart, the will follows the mind, and then right actions (obedience, repentance) manifest.

Man cannot change his corrupt and wicked affections, because of God's curses against sin (Genesis 3:15-19). The curse must first be removed (which Jesus Christ did by being cursed Himself on behalf of His children*), before the heart can be restored to love God, and do His will.

*"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . ." Galatians 3:13a

I do have faith, just a small amount, and I'll work with what I've got; and about loving god with all my heart, I can do that in the proportion that I have faith in this perfect caring being, for I love that being to the degree that I think it is real.

If you have faith, and are willing to do the commandments of Jesus Christ, the amount of faith He has given you does not matter. Even the smallest amount of faith will build more faith.

". . The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just (forgiven) shall live by faith.'" Romans 1:17

If apostasy has warped my mind and I can't truely believe again, so be it, yet praying could actually prevent this from coming true theoretically, so I pray.

If you have faith and are praying, you have not fallen into apostasy.

Apostasy is a state of hypocrisy and lawlessness (total disregard for the Scripture, commands, and truths of God) within the professing community of Christendom.

I figure I have no problem letting a perfectly just being make the judgement on my amount of faith, or on how far I turned from God.

Amen. Such a declaration evidences a saving faith from the Lord, for you reveal a submission of will to the sovereign will and goodness of God. This is the kind of faith God gives to save sinners; it is the same faithfulness exhibited by Jesus Christ.

That is what salvation consists of; resting in God's forgiveness of sins and trusting His will be done rather than our own human wills. Turning away (repentance) from our own ways to live by God's ways.

This is exactly the righteous example Jesus demonstrated while in His earthly body. He submitted His will to the Father even unto death; revealing faithfulness and trust in the justice and goodness of His Father.

Such submission and trust is manifesting love for God from a living and restored heart!

". . I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jeremiah 31:33

May God richly bless you, and increase your faith!

Capt Mercury

December 16th 2003, 05:40 PM

Arminian,

Thx again for your thorough explanation of your position on a singular heirship view of Romans 8:17. I hold to a dual-heirship usage in scripture, though my soteriological position is not affected by it. (IOW, a free grace position can be defended with a singular-heirship view)

But I apologize for taking so long, but I hopefully have some more info. to share now regarding the dual-heirship concept. BTW, though some free grace people do NOT believe in dual-heirship, and it's not absolutely necessary to my argument in Hebrews, but it sure opens things up for me in understanding the letter overall, I must say.

IMO the fullness of the Abrahamic covenant is not unconditional. As we look at the covenant that was made with Abraham, we do see that initially the covenant that God made with him was unconditional, similar to our unconditional inheritance through Christ. Covenant theology requires a singular heirship. But IMO there may very well be moderating alternative between the covenantal/dispensational controversy that opens up the possibility of misthological inheritance. If we develop this approach, Brown’s argument in Rom 4:13 is turned against itself.

Let's consider the misthological sections of Romans and consider their relationship within the context of Rom 8:17. One might also look at the syntax and prefixes employed. Syntax is pretty good argument. Prefixes give way to context. And we don’t want to ignore misthological glory in this context. Then you've got the dualism of eternal life in Romans: free and not free, etc. Can a believer be severed from his misthological (reward-based) inheritance?

First-of-all, there is a dualism of eternal life in Romans: free and not free. In Rom 8:14 we need to consider misthological sonship. "All those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." This agrees with what the author of Hebrews said about the metacoi and sonship.

The God described in the 11th chapter of Romans is a God characterized both by both grace and severity. Chapters 9 - 11 is the portion of Romans focusing on inheritance. “Behold then the kindness and severity of God …” (Romans 11:22a). Specifically in context that kindness and severity of God has to do with regard to Israel and the Gentiles. At the present time, God is displaying His grace to the Gentiles, while He seems to be displaying His severity to the Jews. "Why?" Why is it that the vast majority of Jews fail to experience God’s promised blessings while many Gentiles are coming to faith in Israel’s Messiah and abounding in His grace and kindness? Apparently God has temporarily hardened the Jews so that salvation may come to the Gentiles. Israel’s failure is neither total (there's a faithful remnant we're told) nor permanent. In God’s timing, Israel will be restored to a place of national prominence and blessing.

But we need to distinguish between national and individual considerations here. An individual Gentile can be "cut off" just as national Israel was. But what was Israel cut off from? Well, certainly not heaven, because eternal life is offered not on national grounds, of course, but individually. Even now some Jews have individually trusted in Jesus as their Messiah and gained eternal life. The purpose of the argument is to show through the nation of Israel what could happen to us as individuals. You see, Israel was temporarily cut off from their rights to the covenants and promises made to her conditionally. Instead of fulfilling her destiny, she is under the discipline of God until the "fulness of the Gentiles" comes to pass. A covenant theology will not accept such reasoning, of course, seeing the church as modern Israel in the promises of God.

Yet all Israel as a nation will be "saved," that is, she will be "restored" to her place of rulership and recognition and sharing in the Messiah's glory and rulership during the millennium.

So what is the danger that Paul is referring to here in Rom. 11:22, 23? There is a very real danger for us that individually we, like the nation Israel, may forfeit our opportunity to share in the future full "salvation"... in the kingdom of God. This is what in context Paul was referring to by the joint-heirship of Christ, IMO. That wild olive tree that Paul used as an illustration onto which the Gentiles have been grafted, and from which we might be cut off is NOT heaven. That is NOT what Paul is arguing.

In general, in Romans when Paul is talking about eternal life salvation, he does not use the word translated "salvation" (swthria) but instead dikaiosunh / dikaiow ("justification" / "justify"). Paul is not worried about these Roman believers losing their eternal life, but rather the possibility of losing their reward.

But God's kindness/goodness is dependent on our continuing in His kindness... or as Calvinist would put it, upon our perseverance onto the end. Paul warned the Roman believers of the possibility of failure in that endurance. We must distinguish between gaining and losing eternal life and gaining or losing "salvation"... joint heirship with the Messiah - sharing with Him in His rulership in His coming kingdom here on earth.

Let's look at chapter 11 more closely. Israel has a bright future because God foreordained Israel as a nation to certain privileges and blessings which cannot be revoked (vs. 2 - “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.”) And in this foreknowledge God freely chose in eternity past to create a nation on which He would bestow these special privileges completely by grace. he did not choose Israel because she was larger, more righteous or more powerful or deserving among the nations. In context God’s foreknowledge here refers to a prior ‘choice’ of her as a nation. Israel can be assured of future blessing because of God’s calling, and His calling and election are ‘irrevocable’ according to verse 29. People like to apply that verse to themselves as individuals, but its context is the nation of Israel.

So according to such an argument for "severance" in Romans 11, can a believer be severed from his misthological inheritance – his rewards? Well, that does seem to depend. Because as you pointed out Abraham’s 1st calling was unconditional - and there was certainly inheritance involved. But later in Genesis God did make some conditional promises. In Genesis 17 God told Abram that he would make him to be "exceedingly fruitful..." and referred to the land inheritance also. But we read in 17:9-11, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised..." This is a conditional promise for inheritance. Yet earlier in Genesis 15 God promises toi make Abraham the Father of many nations and that his descendants would be innumerable. In Gen. 15:6 it says the well-known, "Then he (Abraham) believed God and He reckoned itto him as righteousness." ("justification").

So IMO we must distinguish that part of the inheritance which is a result of simple faith - having righteousness credited to our account freely - justification, and that of "sanctification" - of obedience as we see required in Gen. 17. And we see such distinctions in 1 Corin. 3:10-17 - where IMO the bhma seat of Christ is described as we see in Romans 8:17.

Along this line, let's consider Esau in Heb 11. Could you say that Esau illustrate potential versus realized heirship? Esau had the "potential" to the 1stborn heirship - which is symbolic of Christ's double-share in Rom. 8:17. In vs. 20 it says that "by faith" Jacob blessed Jacob and Esau. But as we read the OT text we see that Esau and Jacob were tricked. Yet God sovereignly used that. What ramification might this have on Gal 4:5? There it says that He sent His Son to redeem those under the law so that they might receive adoption as sons. That ties in well with Romans 8:15, 16 ("Abba Father" in both texts). In Gal. 4 Paul is focusing on distinguishing between those who would seek to be justified by works (slave son) and he who would seek that through faith (son of promise). While in Romans 8-11 Paul had a somewhat different, though related focus. So it's difficult to draw conclusions IMO in those two texts that would not allow for a dual heirship.

Likewise, in Col 1:12 does initial qualification guarantee ultimate qualification? And the qualification here is not for eternal life, but for rewards. We are heirs with God regardless. All of the "saints in light" share in that inheritance - agreed. But this does not preclude an inheritance in which those who are faithful - who endure to the end - share.

I don't know that I dealt with all of your points, but I hope that at least I've made my position on rewards more clear. I would add again that there are a variety of views on inheritance even within the free grace camp. But IMO the dual-heirship is defensible and makes more sense in general. It also helps us to see what Barnabas was saying in Hebrews. If we ignore inheritance in Hebrews we miss a large portion of what he is saying.

FWIW,

Cap

George Blaisdell

December 17th 2003, 06:30 PM

Jaltus writes:

>>>kai paradeigmatizontaV -> This present active participle is directly connected to the concept of Jesus’ crucifixion. It is intentionally dealing with His humiliation during His time of suffering, and the author is saying that He cannot be held up once more to that humiliation since He is now exalted (see especially 1:1-14).<<<

I thought the shame was due to what would then be the failure of His death and resurrection... I never saw Christ as shamed upon the cross... But instead by His death there He sanctified and exalted the Cross...

Have you read Chrysostom's commentary on this passage?:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-102.htm#TopOfPage

It lends the Church's understanding of the 4th century, written by a man who wrote and thought in koine Greek... Who was martyred... The "Golden Tongued Chrysostom"...

I would be interested in your take on this page...

[geo] Arsenios

AVmetro

December 27th 2003, 05:31 PM

*Somewhat Off-topic* Why is it that sometimes I don't receive email notifications? :hrm:

centuri0n

December 27th 2003, 06:10 PM

As I am not qualified to fault your Greek, I think the only question is this: where in the passage you cite does the writer of Hebrews does it say that those in question were ever saved? Certainly it says they have been "enlightened", they have "tasted the heavenly gift", they have been "partakers of the Holy Spirit". It does not say they were saved.

I suggest to you that by failing to read forward from 6:4-6 to 7-9, you miss something important which any reasonable advocate of Calvinism would point out to you. The parallel between 4-6 and 7-9 is a mirror of the parable of the sower.

If you find this very brief response interesting, I'll be glad to expand on it for your further consideration.

Grace to you, and Peace.

~centuri0n

kofh2u

December 28th 2003, 03:13 PM

10-28-2003 @ 04:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=259809#post259809)
brett:

This thread is a splinter from Vladimir's “Can I lose salvation?” I thought it would be good to start a thread that focuses on Hebrews 6:4-9. This is a verse often quoted to refute eternal security or once saved always saved (OSAS). I’m persuaded this passage supports OSAS, but looking forward to hearing other arguments. Please chime in if you have anything to say.

First I’ll respond to mandolin.

Let’s examine these terms closely.

ENLIGHTENED—compare to John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, ENLIGHTENS EVERY man.

Definitely not a salvation term. If EVERY man is enlightened this also includes the unsaved.

TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT—compare to Matt. 26:26 ....Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, EAT; this is My body.” & John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone EATS of this bread, he shall live forever; .....”

Also not a salvation term (IMHO). If the author wanted to communicate these were saved individuals, why didn’t He use the term “....EATEN of ...” instead of “tasted of ....?

PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT—compare to Eph. 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit of promise, & Titus 3:5 He saved us, ....by the ....RENEWING by the Holy Spirit, & 2Tim. 1:14 ...the Holy Spirit who DWELLS in us.... & Mark 1:8 “...but He will BAPTIZE you with the Holy Spirit.”.

Why didn’t he use terms such as “sealed with...“ or “baptized in.....” or “indwelt with....”? And surely if an unsaved person can be enlightened by the H.S., he can also be a partaker in Him.

TASTED THE GOOD WORD OF GOD—compare to 1John 2:14 ...Because you are strong, and the word of God ABIDES in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.

Why didn’t he use the term “abided in....”?

The terms used Hebrews 6 are never use to describe salvation anywhere in scripture. Plus you have the categorical statement in verse 9

But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation.

I don't see any support here for the doctrine of losing salvation. Looking forward to some feedback.

It is very difficult to respond intelligently to the question poised here. What IS salvation seems a prerequisite. There have always been those who believed in life after death and those who have not. Is one a requirement for the christian?

Before one can answer, we must separate those who think salvation means eternal life,...
.... in the sense of a personal, conscious physical life, one similar in many ways, particularly to include a conscious rememberance of these days,...
... from those who do not.

Are we saved here and now, in the sense of saved from the consequences of our sins, and do we eliminate the cost of such evil from being dealt out upon following generations, upon our children?

Is Life Eternal a personal promise of our own psychic resurrection?

Or, does it refer generally to Modern Homo Sapien, who is promised, unlike those former "men" in the days of Noah (Neanderthal?), those creatures who perished in the flood?

Does the axe stand at the tree... to cut off the genetic vine... of "those" kind of people who live without a conscience?

Are we to become new, merely the seed of the new race of mankind, perhaps like Modern Homoiousians? (see dictionary)

Are we saved in the sense of sanity? Our own personal self worth, aS unfettered conscience... etc. saved in this way, here and now?

Can we be saved Christians who do NOT believe in, nor do we perform our "good works" in regard of, a hope to live forever? Is belief in a hereafter that is angelic, one not a continuation of this earthly experience, acceptable in Christianity?

What are we talking about?

Clear and simple, if we are caught up in an Egptian life after death mentality, if we search the scriptures for in them we seek eternal life, do we expect to find a "passport"(OSAS) that can not be revoked?

Like the parable of the forgiven son, can we return once we have fallen away?

If on the other hand, if we seek the kingdom of heaven here and now, in this life experience, and we let the dead worry about the dead,... if we are focused upon the God of the Living, then are we saved when our conscience is our guide, and punished consequental to when it is not?

George Blaisdell

December 28th 2003, 04:12 PM

> kofh2u asks:

> "What IS salvation?"

> "What are we talking about?"

The following is from the Orthodox Tradition of the last 2000 years:

______________________________

Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov [Russian]:

From a letter to a certain monk monk overtaken by sorrowful circumstances [no date - mid-1800s]

[Taken from "The Orthodox Word" vol's 38 #3-4 2002 pp.167-173 St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press]

Be borne upon the wings of faith across the dark, deep abyss of sorrows that has suddenly opened up before us! Do not test the waves with the mistrustful steps of human deliberation, but go forth across them boldly with the manly steps of faith - and the soft, watery waves will turn under your feet into firm marble or granite slabs. Timidity and doubt at the sight of the sea of woes, at the sight of the powerful wind, do not become you. This is especially true since He Who has summoned you to walk across the sea of woes, Who has set you apart from the rest of your brothers for such a passage, is the Lord Himself. This call is, at the same time, a blessed election! Christ seals "His own" with the seal of sufferings! He has found your soul to be suitable for Himself, and has therefore stamped it with His seal"! The small flock, Christ's portion, stands apart from the multitude of the rest of the people. Those who are Christ's bear in their hands the sign of their election by Christ - the cup of Christ - and upon their shoulders the banner - the Cross of Christ. The sons of the world have turned far, far away from them! In a numberless throng, with clamor, with a strange thrill, they chase after temporal cares and delights. Time, in their eyes, has been transformed into eternity! They lead a sorrowless life, prosper in that which is corruptible, are forgotten by God, and do not incite the devil against themselves: they are pleasing to the devil - they are his portion. The cup of Christ opens access to the realm of spiritual understanding, to a spiritual state. He who has entered and partaken of the table of spiritual consolation is dead to the world, insensible to temporal sorrows and deprivations, and begins to accomplish his earthly pilgrimage as if borne through the air above it all - upon the wings of faith.

The fetters of reason draw us to the earth - the land of torment. Being on earth, we involuntarily subject ourselves to torments: "He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow" [Eccles. 1:18] says the scripture. Faith lifts one off the earth, frees him from fetters, delivers him from the midst of torments, lifts him up to heaven, and leads him into spiritual rest. They who have entered into that rest repose in coolness, in delight, on the magnificently arrayed, precious couches of Divine vision.

Receive these lines as being uttered out of heartfelt concern. This concern was instilled in me at our first meeting by your soul, which bears in its depths a kind of special pledge, a mysterious, God-loving pledge - a pledge of pleasing God. Receive these lines from the land of sufferings, where I took up my residence so long ago. It was not pleasing to god that I should tread the common, ordinary path! Rarely do I meet with a fellow traveler moving along this path, who has visited this realm, with whom I might be able to exchange a word in the language of that land, which has become somewhat familiar to me - it has a consoling sound to the ears of my soul. In its sounds I hear something close and familiar.

What, incidentally, takes place in this marvelous land? There is an irreconcilable war there, an unceasing fight, bloody battles between the Israelites and foreign peoples. Among the aliens that rise up against the Israelites are giants, the sons of Anak - sorrows that lead us to fear, to debility, to despair. The spy of Israel - the mind - informs the soul and its powers about them: "We saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." [Num. 13:33] "We were not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we." [Num. 13:32] Exactly! Reflections based on the usual course of events, and thoughts strictly and solely human, bring forth "an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel." [Num. 13:32] But a true Israelite, faithful to God, is led by faith in God; he is fully armed. "I shall pursue mine enemies and I shall overtake them, and I shall not turn back until they fail. I shall greatly afflict them, and they shall not be able to stand; they shall fall under my feet." [Ps. 17:38-39] "and I will grind them fine as the dust before the face of the wind; I will trample them down as mud in the streetss." [Ps. 17:43] In this war, the mind - hoping in itself, in its own power, in the amount and loftiness of its own knowledge - endeavors to set many and subtle thoughts in opposition to the gathered swarm of aliens. These thoughts are unacceptable. "The sons of Ephraim," proclaims the prophet, "bend and shoot with bows turned back in the day of battle." [Ps. 77:12] Human thoughts will not hold out against the thick horde of aliens! They [the aliens] will wear them down and defeat them in argument; they will produce sedition in the mind and confusion in the thoughts. Then the victory will be on their side!

To guarantee success in unseen warfare against the princes of the air, against the spirits of wickedness, against the dark ruler of the world, one must take up arms which are given through faith, by the foolishness of the preaching of Christ [cf. ICor1:21] "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" [ICor1:25]. Faith's paths and teachings seem strange and terrible to the carnal mind. But no sooner does a man see in experience, with the inner sense of the soul, the might of faith, than he immediately and joyfully gives himself over to its guidance, as to an unexpectedly found, priceless instructor. Then, with disdain, he pushes aside human wisdom, which is rejected by God.

Here are the weapons that the holy foolishness of the preaching of Christ entrusts to Christ's servant for the fight against the sons of Anak - against the dark thoughts and feelings of sorrow that appear to the soul in the form of frightful giants, ready to eradicate and devour it:

1. "Glory be to God for all things."
2. "O Lord! I give myself over unto thy holy will! Let Thy will be done in me."
3. "O Lord! I thank Thee for all that Thou art pleased to send unto me."
4. "I am receiving the due reward for my deeds. Remember me, O Lord, in Thy kingdom."

These short sayings, borrowed, as you can see, from scripture, were used by the monastic saints with outstanding success against thoughts of sorrow. The Fathers would in no way enter into debate with thoughts that appeared. As soon as an alien presented itself to them, they would wield these marvelous weapons - right in his face, right in the alien's jaw! It was because of this that they were so powerful and trampled all their enemies, being made breastplates of faith - and, by means of faith, breastplates of Grace, mighty hands of Grace - And they performed supernatural feats.

At the appearance of a sorrowful thought or of sadness in the heart, begin with all your soul, with all your strength, to utter one of the aforementioned suggestions. Pronounce it quietly to yourself only, unhurriedly, not becoming excited, with attention. Utter it until the alien has completely withdrawn, until your heart has revealed to you the presence of God's Grace-filled aid. This appears to the soul as a taste of consoling, sweet peace - peace in the Lord - and is not from any other cause. After a while the alien will again begin to approach you, but take up your weapon again and, as the brilliant military leader Caesar commanded his troops, aim right at the enemy's face. To no other part of the body are blows so heavy, so unbearable, as to the face.

Do not be surprised at the strangeness, the seeming insignificance of the weapons of David! Use them in battle and you will see a sign! These weapons - a staff and a stone - do the job better than all the profound opinions and research of the theologian-theorists, speakers of the letter of the law, of Germany, Spain, England, and America together! The use of these weapons in battle will gradually lead you from the path of reason to the path of faith. By this path they will lead you to the unbounded, wondrous land of the spiritual. There, the food is hidden manna [cf. Apoc.2:17]. According to the testimony of Scripture, Christ allows only victors therein. You have been brought into the unseen war in order to have the opportunity to be made a victor, and, in virtue of being a victor, to inherit spiritual treasure. All this is given to you by Christ, Who has loved you, and Who has clearly set you apart among "His own".

And so, as you now gaze from the shore at the dark, deep sea of sorrows - into the distance, where the blue of the water merges with the blue of the sky, into that boundless distance which intimidates faith, listening to the angry murmer of the waves and their monotonous and unfeeling crashing - do not give yourself over to despair; do not allow the sea of sad thoughts into your soul. There are far greater perils here! It is far easier to drown in this sea than in the sea of outward sorrows. "Rejoice!" And again say, "Rejoice!" You are on the shore of the sea of sorrows in order to sail across it to the land of joy. The expanse of the sea has an opposite shore, although it is invisible to the eyes of human reason. This shore is the noetic paradise, filled with spiritual delights. Those who have reached this blessed shore forget, in transports of delight, all the sorrows endured by them on the sea. Step with untrembling foot into the light boat of faith and be born, as if on wings, across the watery swells! Sooner than you suppose, sooner than you can imagine, you will be born across the sea, borne into Paradise.

But between the spiritual paradise and the carnal, natural, ordinary life that all people in general live, there is set a demarcation - a broad sea, as it were - the Cross and Crucifixion. There is no other path to Paradise! He whom God wishes to lead into Paradise, He first directs to the path that leads there - to the Cross. "A sign of being chosen by God," said one holy ascetical writer, "is when unceasing sorrows are sent upon a man." Let us endure mortification to the world through sorrows, so as to be capable of receiving within ourselves an essential quickening unto God through the clear, fully tangible action of the Spirit! Give yourself over completely to God! Cast yourself into the salvific abyss of faith, as if into the sea - from a cliff!

Do not worry about people - they are instruments of Providence! These instruments are blind, and of themselves have no power, no movement whatsoever. "Thou couldest have no power at all against Me", said the Lord to Pilate, "except it were given thee from above" [John 19:11] - although Pilate, led by human judgement, declared and affirmed [and, without any doubt, all who were led by such judgement were in agreement with him!] that he had power to crucify the Prisoner standing before him, and power to release Him. Do not take pains over any dealings with people, over any justifications before them! Such dealings and justifications only destroy peace of heart - they bring no benefit at all.

Feeble people - flowers that appear for a short time on the surface of the earth! You imagine much about yourselves; you attribute much to yourselves - but you are feeble people! You are respected, with absolute power, but at the same time you do not cease to be instruments - blind instruments, nothing but instruments! And you do not even see, do not even know that you are instruments. You are despotic. but you cannot help but receive the reward for your deeds! But in the endlessly wise judgements of God these despots are agents without the slightest authority, with no independence at all. "Jesus of Nazareth," says the holy Apostle Peter to the Jews, "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." [Acts2:23] "I know that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled." [Acts3:17-18]

In the works of God's providence, people are blind instruments. It was for this reason that the Lord did not vouchsafe an answer to people who were, to all appearances, invested with total power! It was for this reason that He called the cup - prepared by malefactors, by demons both fleshless and bodily - the cup given Him by the Father.

Receive these lines as the echo of a soul in sympathy with you, who co-suffers with you in your sorrows and earnestly wishes you consolation from God.
__________________________

[geo] Arsenios