Why we cannot lose our salvation

[Skala]

My thoughts on the Hebrews 6 passage are a few posts above brother

The problem lies in your definition of Paul's perspective.

It's not my "definition" brother. Paul defines it himself. Here are his words.

"Whom he calls, he justifies. whom he justifies, he glorifies".

Whom is a pronoun and the same pronoun that receives the calling also receives justification. The same pronoun who receives justification receives glorification.

There's just no arguing this on the basis of grammar. It's right there. Paul's words, not mine.

"For example, Hebrews 6:4-6 disagrees with your predestination perspective regarding perseverance of the saints "

What you meant to say is that YOUR INTERPRETATION of Hebres 6:4-6 disagrees with my perspective. Just clarifying.

 

[OzSpen]

What you meant to say is that YOUR INTERPRETATION of Hebres 6:4-6 disagrees with my perspective. Just clarifying.

Judging by how quickly you replied to my post, you would not have had time to read and digest my lengthy article on Heb. 6:4-6.

Please count me out of a serious discussion with you re Calvinism as you don't take seriously what I write (the link I gave).

Regards, Spencer

 

[Skala]

Bro, do you expect me to have read that entire thing in such a short amount of time? Calvinists are not supermen!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have already quoted R C H Lenski, who has extensive knowledge of the Greek language, and he does not agree with you.

The editors of Hard Sayings of the Bible (IVP 1996) were not amateurs in their knowledge of Greek. The editors are: Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Peter H Davids, F F Bruce and Manfred T Brauch. Of Matthew 24:13 and "the end" they wrote:

I am not interested in a slinging match about who is quoting the best Greek authorities. The facts are that there are Greek exegetes who agree with your position and my position on Matt. 24:13.

In Christ, Oz

No, Lenski does NOT agree with you; he agrees with me that the meaning of the construction is determined by the context. He, however, argues from the immediate context, and I argue from the larger context. Thus, we come to different conclusions as to the meaning.

I asked,

“Can you quote anyone with an extensive knowledge of the Greek New Testament who believes that the absence of the article “demonstrates that this is not THE end, THE end of the world”?

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch may all have an extensive knowledge of the Greek New Testament, but none of them claims that the absence of the article “demonstrates that this is not THE end, THE end of the world.” The idea that the article demonstrates what you claim it demonstrates is your own personal opinion, and you have yet to back it up.

 

[OzSpen]

Bro, do you expect me to have read that entire thing in such a short amount of time? Calvinists are not supermen!

It was you who wrote to me:

What you meant to say is that YOUR INTERPRETATION of Hebres 6:4-6 disagrees with my perspective. Just clarifying.

So now you are admitting that you did not read my entire article, but you still want to state that you disagree with my interpretation.

I'm not prepared to engage with you when you make statements based on your not reading what I wrote.

Bye, Oz

 

[Skala]

I do not have to read your 10000 page article to know what your interpretation/stance on the passage is my friend

 

[Studious One]

Sorry, didnt realize I needed too but since you brought it up........

Ephesians 1:13-14

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory."

If I can lose the indwelling Holy Spirit then this passage lies for their would be no guarantee of my inheritance which this passage clearly promises to all those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Excellent point. It clearly says we are sealed "until" the day of redemption. Not 'until we mess up," nor "until the Lord decides He no longer wants us as His own."

We cannot break that seal. What God shuts, no man opens. God has sealed us with His Holy Spirit until the end, and we are promised that Christ will raise us up at the last day.

Philippians 1:6

"being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."

Another great promise that God will surely keep.

Matthew 7:23

"Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

This is probably my favorite passage because it most clearly settles the debate. Notice Jesus says "I NEVER KNEW YOU" if you were once saved and then lost your salvation because of some sin or disobedience in your life then Jesus would have to say something else other than the words "I NEVER KNEW YOU".

Many will think they were saved, but will hear these words.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I do not have to read your 10000 page article to know what your interpretation/stance on the passage is my friend

David L Allen, Dean of the school of theology and Professor of preaching and director of the Center of Biblical Preaching at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, writes,

Grudem’s treatment of Heb. 6:4-6 illustrates the tendentious nature of much of the Calvinistic exegesis of this passage.

The sheer force of the descriptive phrases militates against such an interpretation [that unsaved persons are being spoken of]. How can it be conceived that such descriptive phrases as enlightenment, experience of the heavenly gift of salvation, full sharing in the Holy Spirit, sharing in the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, do not have believers as their referent. Each of these statements finds their counterparts scattered throughout the New Testament, and when used in the same context as here, they refer to those who are genuine believers. Grudem’s affirmation that the group’s outward affiliation with the church made it impossible to determine their status until they “fell away” is a fact not in dispute. No matter one’s theological position on this passage, all would affirm such a statement. Unsaved people can and do participate in the church; the wheat and the tares grow together. At issue is whether unsaved people can be so described by an author who thinks or knows them to be unsaved. The issue of determining their status is not the point for the author. By the descriptive language he chooses, he indicates their status as believers. Had the author wanted to convey their status as unbelievers, he could have done so. There is no direct statement that those described in Heb. 6:4-6 were unbelievers. If the author is referring to unsaved people, this is the only place in the New Testament where such language can be said to be used in this fashion.
​

Allen, David L. Hebrews, Volume 35 of the New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010.

 

[Hupomone10]

Oz

Please answer PrincetonGuy's rebuttals. Some of us are reading, and waiting.

Many times the threads allow for one to just wait it out and points made are forgotten, and then you can move on with your original point and just make it yet again. But not if people know what is going on.

He has challenged you and I see no responses.

Thanks ahead of time,
H.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz

Please answer PrincetonGuy's rebuttals. Some of us are reading, and waiting.

Many times the threads allow for one to just wait it out and points made are forgotten, and then you can move on with your original point and just make it yet again. But not if people know what is going on.

He has challenged you and I see no responses.

Thanks ahead of time,
H.

You don't seem to be reading very well. I have provided him with examples of Greek exegesis by William Hendriksen and R C H Lenski, but he doesn't like their rendering that is different from his.

Today I provided evidence on Matt. 24:13 from Hard Sayings in the Bible. Aren't you reading what I write?

I don't plan on responding further as Princeton believes he is the expert, so who am I to defend an alternate point of view - which I have been doing?

Regards,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Princeton,

No, Lenski does NOT agree with you; he agrees with me that the meaning of the construction is determined by the context. He, however, argues from the immediate context, and I argue from the larger context. Thus, we come to different conclusions as to the meaning.

I asked,

“Can you quote anyone with an extensive knowledge of the Greek New Testament who believes that the absence of the article “demonstrates that this is not THE end, THE end of the world”?

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch may all have an extensive knowledge of the Greek New Testament, but none of them claims that the absence of the article “demonstrates that this is not THE end, THE end of the world.” The idea that the article demonstrates what you claim it demonstrates is your own personal opinion, and you have yet to back it up.

You are building a straw man and I don't plan on providing any further exegesis as I have already done that. You don't like the conclusion, but believe yours is better. Hendriksen, Lenski, Kaiser et al disagree with you and I support their position.

Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You don't seem to be reading very well. I have provided him with examples of Greek exegesis by William Hendriksen and R C H Lenski, but he doesn't like their rendering that is different from his.

Today I provided evidence on Matt. 24:13 from Hard Sayings in the Bible. Aren't you reading what I write?

I don't plan on responding further as Princeton believes he is the expert, so who am I to defend an alternate point of view - which I have been doing?

Regards,
Oz

I asked,

“Can you quote anyone with an extensive knowledge of the Greek New Testament who believes that the absence of the article “demonstrates that this is not THE end, THE end of the world”?

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch may all have an extensive knowledge of the Greek New Testament, but none of them claims that the absence of the article “demonstrates that this is not THE end, THE end of the world.” The idea that the article demonstrates what you claim it demonstrates is your own personal opinion, and you have yet to back it up.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Princeton,

You are building a straw man and I don't plan on providing any further exegesis as I have already done that. You don't like the conclusion, but believe yours is better. Hendriksen, Lenski, Kaiser et al disagree with you and I support their position.

Oz

None of the authors that you have cited said anything at all regarding the significance of the absence of the definite article before the word τελος in the verses being discussed. I have read numerous authors on these verses, and NONE of them agree with your statement regarding the absence of the definite article. Simply stated, your statement regarding the absence of the definite article is contrary to fact, and everyone reading this thread can read for themselves and learn for themselves that your statement regarding the absence of the definite article is contrary to fact, and your insulting of my character does nothing to support your position regarding the absence of the definite article.

 

[OzSpen]

Princeton,

None of the authors that you have cited said anything at all regarding the significance of the absence of the definite article before the word τελος in the verses being discussed. I have read numerous authors on these verses, and NONE of them agree with your statement regarding the absence of the definite article. Simply stated, your statement regarding the absence of the definite article is contrary to fact, and everyone reading this thread can read for themselves and learn for themselves that your statement regarding the absence of the definite article is contrary to fact, and your insulting of my character does nothing to support your position regarding the absence of the definite article.

False again! Back in #19 of this thread I wrote:

However, in regard to eis telos (lit. to end), it is not my personal opinion. I consulted a number of commentators on Matt. 24:13 before I posted. These are but two examples:

Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski, stated:

In the phrase eis telos we have but the simple idea of endurance to life's end here on earth, Rev. 2:7. Telos has no article as it has in v. 6 and in v. 14, which means that this is not "the end," namely of the world, although, unfortunately, we must use an article when we translate eis telos into English. The three telos used in this chapter cannot refer to the ed of the world and imply that this end is to come when Jerusalem is destroyed, and that he who hold out so long shall be saved (1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers/Augsburg Publishing House pp. 934-935).

Reformed commentator, William Hendriksen, made these comments about Matt. 24:13:

But he that endures to the end, he shall be saved. As in 10:22 so also here the meaning is: he who, in spite of all these disturbances and persecutions, remains loyal to Christ shall enter into glory. For himself the period of persecution and trial will last until death delivers him from this earthly scene (John 16:33; II Tim. 3:12). For the church in general it will last until Christ's return in glory (II Thess. 1:7; Rev. 11:10-12) [1973. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, p. 854].

Lenski specifically addressed "the end" - eis telos - interpretation and Hendriksen's conclusion agreed with Lenski.

Lenski is an excellent Greek scholar.

I will not be playing your games that the Greek scholars I quote must meet with your expectations of Greek scholars. If you want to play that kind of game, please play it with somebody else. I'm not interested.

Bye, Oz

​

 

[Skala]

Sorry but I'm sola scriptura

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Princeton,

False again! Back in #19 of this thread I wrote:

However, in regard to eis telos (lit. to end), it is not my personal opinion. I consulted a number of commentators on Matt. 24:13 before I posted. These are but two examples:

Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski, stated:

Reformed commentator, William Hendriksen, made these comments about Matt. 24:13:

Lenski specifically addressed "the end" - eis telos - interpretation and Hendriksen's conclusion agreed with Lenski.

Lenski is an excellent Greek scholar.

I will not be playing your games that the Greek scholars I quote must meet with your expectations of Greek scholars. If you want to play that kind of game, please play it with somebody else. I'm not interested.

Bye, Oz

​

I have neither said nor implied that either Lenski or Hendriksen has less knowledge of the Greek language than M’Neile or Allen. I simply stated, “None of the authors that you have cited said anything at all regarding the significance of the absence of the definite article before the word τελος in the verses being discussed.” It is true that “Lenski specifically addressed “the end” - eis telos – interpretation, but he did NOT address the significance of the absence of the definite article before the word τελος. Indeed, he bases his interpretation of the construction not upon the absence of the definite article, but upon the context, writing, “To the end” must refer to death; for ‘bring to death’ immediately precedes. The phrase cannot refer to the Parousia and the Judgment Day.”

I wrote,

I have found, however, several scholars of the Greek text of Matthew’s gospel that believes contrary to your statement. For example, Willoughby C. Allen, in his commentary of Matthew in the early I.C.C. series writes on Matt. 10:22, where the construction is the same,
​

“In Mk. [where the construction is the same] the τελος is the coming of the Son of Man in the period after the great tribulation.”

Alan Hugh M’Neile, in his The Gospel According to St. Matthew, The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices writes,

“The meanings of εις τελος vary in the LXX, and N. T., as in class. Gr.”

He then gives examples from this literature. Having given the examples, he concludes,

“εις τελος is therefore ‘continually,’ i.e. to the utmost extent or intensity of persecutions.”

May God bless you, brother. Thank you for sharing with us.
​

Since then, I have more carefully read M’Neile’s analysis of the Greek constructions εις τελος and εις το τελος. His conclusion of the meaning of εις τελος (without the definite article) is,

“It is less defined than εις το τελος ‘till the end of the age,’ usque ad finim, Vulg. (contrast xxiv. 13 with 14. Many would have no opportunity of shewing endurance till the Last Day, since they would already have suffered martyrdom (v. 21) “εις τελος is therefore ‘continually,’ i.e. to the utmost extent or intensity of persecutions.” This is simpler than to connect it with σωθησεται, with the meaning ‘finally.’ The thought of the whole passage has its best commentary in Apoc. ii. 10….”

Rev. 2:10. ‘Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.’ (NASB, 1995)

Therefore, upon more carefully reading M’Neile’s analysis of the Greek constructions εις τελος and εις το τελος, I have seen that he shares your opinion of the significance of the definite article and the interpretation of the passage. Allen does not. My personal opinion is now that that your interpretation is correct and that mine was wrong. Your adamant assertions caused me to read M’Neile’s analysis more carefully, to reread the relevant passages in the New Testament, and to see that my interpretation was most likely faulty. Thank you for helping me with this.

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

I have neither said nor implied that either Lenski or Hendriksen has less knowledge of the Greek language than M’Neile or Allen. I simply stated, “None of the authors that you have cited said anything at all regarding the significance of the absence of the definite article before the word τελος in the verses being discussed.” It is true that “Lenski specifically addressed “the end” - eis telos – interpretation, but he did NOT address the significance of the absence of the definite article before the word τελος. Indeed, he bases his interpretation of the construction not upon the absence of the definite article, but upon the context, writing, “To the end” must refer to death; for ‘bring to death’ immediately precedes. The phrase cannot refer to the Parousia and the Judgment Day.”

I wrote,

I have found, however, several scholars of the Greek text of Matthew’s gospel that believes contrary to your statement. For example, Willoughby C. Allen, in his commentary of Matthew in the early I.C.C. series writes on Matt. 10:22, where the construction is the same,
​

“In Mk. [where the construction is the same] the τελος is the coming of the Son of Man in the period after the great tribulation.”

Alan Hugh M’Neile, in his The Gospel According to St. Matthew, The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices writes,

“The meanings of εις τελος vary in the LXX, and N. T., as in class. Gr.”

He then gives examples from this literature. Having given the examples, he concludes,

“εις τελος is therefore ‘continually,’ i.e. to the utmost extent or intensity of persecutions.”

May God bless you, brother. Thank you for sharing with us.
​

Since then, I have more carefully read M’Neile’s analysis of the Greek constructions εις τελος and εις το τελος. His conclusion of the meaning of εις τελος (without the definite article) is,

“It is less defined than εις το τελος ‘till the end of the age,’ usque ad finim, Vulg. (contrast xxiv. 13 with 14. Many would have no opportunity of shewing endurance till the Last Day, since they would already have suffered martyrdom (v. 21) “εις τελος is therefore ‘continually,’ i.e. to the utmost extent or intensity of persecutions.” This is simpler than to connect it with σωθησεται, with the meaning ‘finally.’ The thought of the whole passage has its best commentary in Apoc. ii. 10….”

Rev. 2:10. ‘Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.’ (NASB, 1995)

Therefore, upon more carefully reading M’Neile’s analysis of the Greek constructions εις τελος and εις το τελος, I have seen that he shares your opinion of the significance of the definite article and the interpretation of the passage. Allen does not. My personal opinion is now that that your interpretation is correct and that mine was wrong. Your adamant assertions caused me to read M’Neile’s analysis more carefully, to reread the relevant passages in the New Testament, and to see that my interpretation was most likely faulty. Thank you for helping me with this.

I so much appreciate your honesty in this situation in your re-analysis of eis telos to agree that it means to the end of life and not the end of the age.

However, Lenski does deal with the anarthrous (without an article) use of telos when he wrote of Matt. 24:13:

Telos has no article as it has in v. 6 and in v. 14, which means that this is not "the end," namely of the world, although, unfortunately, we must use an article when we translate eis telos into English. The three telos used in this chapter cannot refer to the end of the world and imply that this end is to come when Jerusalem is destroyed, and that he who hold out so long shall be saved (1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers/Augsburg Publishing House pp. 934-935).

I have checked the Greek geeks of NT word studies and their article on telos in Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich's, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1972, vol 8. Eerdmans) and these were the comments:

In prepositional phrases - which never have the article - the reference is not linguistically to the apocalyptic tt. [terminus technicus], though materially the still awaited end is or might be in view. One should think rather in terms of the non-biblical adverbial use also attested in the LXX.... telos with eis (the most common) ... means first ("up") "to the end" or "to the full." The context must decide whether the expressions are to be taken temporally or qualitatively. Thus eis telos means "to the end," "for ever" ... Mk 13:13 and par [parallel]; Mt 10:22)...(pp. 55-56).

The end result seems to be that context determines the meaning and K & F. Mark 13:13 is a parallel verse to Matt. 24:13.

In Christ, Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,

I so much appreciate your honesty in this situation in your re-analysis of eis telos to agree that it means to the end of life and not the end of the age.

However, Lenski does deal with the anarthrous (without an article) use of telos when he wrote of Matt. 24:13:
I have checked the Greek geeks of NT word studies and their article on telos in Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich's, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1972, vol 8. Eerdmans) and these were the comments:
The end result seems to be that context determines the meaning and K & F. Mark 13:13 is a parallel verse to Matt. 24:13.

In Christ, Oz

You are correct in stating that Lenski does deal with the anarthrous (without an article) use of τελος when he wrote of Matt. 24:13,

Τελος has no article as it has in v. 6 and in v. 14, which means that this is not "the end," namely of the world, although, unfortunately, we must use an article when we translate εις τελος into English. The three τελος used in this chapter cannot refer to the end of the world and imply that this end is to come when Jerusalem is destroyed, and that he who hold out so long shall be saved.
​

Had you used that quote in the beginning of this discussion, our debate would not have occurred. I read what he wrote on εις τελος in the first occurrence of it in Matthew’s gospel and did not expect him to mention the absence of the article later in his commentary. However, I should have looked just to make sure.

I read Gerhard Delling’s article in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and my understanding of the article is that he believes that the context (rather than the absence of the article) determines the meaning of εις τελος, which was my belief at the beginning of this discussion. Delling is correct in saying that in the New Testament, prepositional phrases including the word τελος never have the article, including when in the genitive case, i.e., μεχρι τελους in Hebrews 3:14. I also looked for but did not find in the Septuagint any prepositional phrases including the word τελος with the article. M’Neile, however, writes that εις τελος is less defined than εις το τελος. In what literature he found εις το τελος (if he actually found it at all), I do not know. Therefore, it appears that I was correct in the beginning in writing that the meaning of εις τελος is determined by the context in which it is used rather than by the absence of the article. Allen is also correct. Lenski is correct in writing on Matt. 24:13, “Τελος has no article as it has in v. 6 and in v. 14…”, but the absence of the article apparently has nothing at all to do with interpreting Matt. 24:13. The article is absent in v. 13 simply because in this verse τελος is used in a prepositional phrase. Nonetheless, it appears to me that I was wrong, and that you were correct, about what the context tells us about the meaning of εις τελος in Matt. 10:22 and Matt. 24:13. As M’Neile writes,” Many would have no opportunity of shewing endurance till the Last Day, since they would already have suffered martyrdom (v. 21).”

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

You are correct in stating that Lenski does deal with the anarthrous (without an article) use of τελος when he wrote of Matt. 24:13,

Τελος has no article as it has in v. 6 and in v. 14, which means that this is not "the end," namely of the world, although, unfortunately, we must use an article when we translate εις τελος into English. The three τελος used in this chapter cannot refer to the end of the world and imply that this end is to come when Jerusalem is destroyed, and that he who hold out so long shall be saved.
​

Had you used that quote in the beginning of this discussion, our debate would not have occurred. I read what he wrote on εις τελος in the first occurrence of it in Matthew’s gospel and did not expect him to mention the absence of the article later in his commentary. However, I should have looked just to make sure.

I did use Lenski's quote in the beginning of the discussion. Please go back to #19 of this thread to read it.

Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,

I did use Lenski's quote in the beginning of the discussion. Please go back to #19 of this thread to read it.

Oz

I reread our discussion from the beginning and indeed, you did use that quote in post #19. When I read the quote, I dismissed it as being ridiculously incorrect and forgot that you even posted it. I am a subscriber to the B-Greek mailing list (http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek) and the Greek teachers who regularly contribute to the list have very little good to say about Lenski’s knowledge of Greek syntax. This probably contributed to my dismissing Lenski’s comment on the significance of the article and forgetting about it. Other than for the purpose of this discussion, I have not read any of Lenski’s commentaries in years and I do not personally know how proficient Lenski was in Greek syntax or to what extent he allowed his theology to override an objective interpretation of Greek syntax as he interpreted the Greek New Testament. Nonetheless, I did not exercise due diligence in making sure that I carefully read and accurately kept in mind your posts, and for that I apologize.


Have you studied Luke 18:5 where the meaning and use of εις τελος is very different? Another very interesting use of it is found in John 13:1 where its meaning and use are debated giving us such divergent translations as:

John 13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. NASB, 1995)

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. (NIV, 1984)

However,

It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. (NIV, 2011)

May God continue to bless you in your study of the Scriptures.